ASIDE from apparent Biblical injunctions...

[david_x]

I guess you looked to the Bible when you learned to drive a car, learned to use the internet, and all that other stuff, huh?

Good, clearly no argument from you. (Very funny though)

SO IS SLAVERY AND MISTREATMENT OF WOMEN SOCIALLY AND MORALLY ACCEPTABLE?

no, both are unacceptible according to the bible.

 

[UberLutheran]

SO IS SLAVERY AND MISTREATMENT OF WOMEN SOCIALLY AND MORALLY ACCEPTABLE?

Well, the value of a woman IS three-fifths that of a man. (Leviticus 27:1-7).

And if you ask St. Paul, who wrote the Epistle to Philemon (owner of the slave Onesimus), he'll probably say, "Yes".

 

[david_x]

And if you ask St. Paul, who wrote the Epistle to Philemon (owner of the slave Onesimus), he'll probably say, "Yes".

were is that at?

Well, the value of a woman IS three-fifths that of a man. (Leviticus 27:1-7).

That is not true anymore, not after the second adam.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Quote:
SO IS SLAVERY AND MISTREATMENT OF WOMEN SOCIALLY AND MORALLY ACCEPTABLE?
no, both are unacceptible according to the bible.

Have you actually READ the Bible? Paul specifically talks about how women are subservient and may not lead men, AND discusses the correct way to own slaves...

That is not true anymore, not after the second adam.

Sorry, but weren't you the guy a few days ago saying that "God's word is unchangeing and eternal"?

 

[Der Alte]

Have you actually READ the Bible? Paul specifically talks about how women are subservient and may not lead men, AND discusses the correct way to own slaves...

Chapter and verse please? And be very careful about the context.

Sorry, but weren't you the guy a few days ago saying that "God's word is unchangeing and eternal"?

It is but you might want to read exegesis of the original languages, in context.

 

[BigBadWlf]

As I said in another thread that you simply ignored after awhile, granted the thread is closed now, sex not condowned by God is hurtful to relationships.

can you provide real world examples of "hurt" in
a same sex marriage?
a Hindu marriage?
an atheist marriage?
I look forward to your many examples….

 

[BigBadWlf]

The Bible is the definitive statement on moral right and wrong. It is God's Word on what is and is not moral behavior.

I have already spoken to this question, and shown it to be irrelevant. Please read earlier in the thread.

G

so what are we to make of the many biblical passages that accept, endorse and even glorify activities and situations we currently find immoral? Rape, slavery, murder, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, racism, genocide? Are we to accept these as moral just because there are bible passages that say they are?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Chapter and verse please? And be very careful about the context.

context-schmontext... Paul approves of slavery as a concept. No amount of semantic wordplay will get you out of the fact that the Bible supports slavery and the degredation of women... IF you insist it be taken literally and insist that every book is relevent now as it was when it was written.

It is but you might want to read exegesis of the original languages, in context.

MORE semantics???

Either God's word is unchangeing and ineerant for all ages, or it isn't. Pick one, and then we will discuss.

 

[ContentInHim]

Why would a Christian not consider the Bible the highest authority of right and wrong? If one is committed to God, one must consider what God says on the subject.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Why would a Christian not consider the Bible the highest authority of right and wrong? If one is committed to God, one must consider what God says on the subject.

Because the Bible is, demonstrably, NOT the word of God.

Besides, I'll go out on a limb here and state categorically that I do not believe that you follow chapter and verse of the Bible the way it is written.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And anyway... this thread is about NON BIBLICAL reasons why homosexuality is wrong. Are there any?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Chapter and verse please? And be very careful about the context.

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

 

[BigBadWlf]

And anyway... this thread is about NON BIBLICAL reasons why homosexuality is wrong. Are there any?

...no

 

[BigBadWlf]

Why would a Christian not consider the Bible the highest authority of right and wrong? If one is committed to God, one must consider what God says on the subject.

Because any reading of the bible is open to interpretation.

The bible has been used to justify all sorts of societal ills because that is how passages were interpreted. Racism is a prime example as is discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The issues is ignoring the message of Jesus in favor of inflicting the law unto others.

 

[WalkingforHim]

No, there isn't any extra-Biblical reason as to why homosexuality is wrong because it isn't wrong, except in the mind of people who put dogma before reason.

 

[Gusoceros]

And anyway... this thread is about NON BIBLICAL reasons why homosexuality is wrong. Are there any?

As already noted- by what standard are we to judge something right or wrong, if the absolute truth is set aside? If it is set aside, and we go on personal evaluation- by what standard are we going to judge the answers? If it all comes down to personal wants and desires- what basis are the results to your question going to have?

In short- the question just doesnt really matter outside of Truth.

G

 

[EnemyPartyII]

As already noted- by what standard are we to judge something right or wrong, if the absolute truth is set aside?

In the broadest, most general terms... universal ethicality is to do with providing guidlines by which a healthy and happy society may be run... guidlines which allow for people to get on with their lives with the bare minimal of intervention by anyone else.

So my question is... if it weren't for those Bible passages that have been discussed ad infinitum et ad nauseum elsewhere... is there any reason to imagine that homosexuality is contrary to any perceivable ethical model?

 

[Gusoceros]

In the broadest, most general terms... universal ethicality is to do with providing guidlines by which a healthy and happy society may be run... guidlines which allow for people to get on with their lives with the bare minimal of intervention by anyone else.

So my question is... if it weren't for those Bible passages that have been discussed ad infinitum et ad nauseum elsewhere... is there any reason to imagine that homosexuality is contrary to any perceivable ethical model?

So the standard now for right and wrong is- whatever makes you happy? At least in this example?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So the standard now for right and wrong is- whatever makes you happy? At least in this example?

provided it is done with the mutual, informed consent of anyone else involved, yes.

Do you have a problem with that?

 

[Gusoceros]

provided it is done with the mutual, informed consent of anyone else involved, yes.

Do you have a problem with that?

What is the benefit of changing right and wrong to be relatively defined by a standard of whatever makes you happy? To make such a radical, Objectivist type move, one must ask themselves why such Randian moves are taken?