Should we allow gay marriage.

[Crazy Liz]

As for the rest of Scripture condemning same sex practice, the Bible was written by and for people who lacked modern scientific knowledge of homosexuality. The original cultural context of the Scriptures was different than our own. I thin that it is wise, in the light of modern understanding, to question whether the ancient condemnations, based as they were in ancient understandings, still apply.

I think we'd do well to note also in this context that treating same-sex practices of males and same-sex practices of females equally is itself a modern innovation.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To RegularGuy,

The exact nature of that vice cannot be concluded from the context. To say that the word refers to homosexuals living in a committed, mutual, exclusive and equal relationship is not justified.

But my remarks demonstrated that we can know the context with a great deal of certainty.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the offenses begin with fornication, idolatry, adultery, so male sex bed fits. As adultery and fornication already exclude sex outside marriage, arsenokoites isn’t difficult to translate as homosexual offenders with reference to its compound words in the Septuaguint Lev 18 and 20.
All you have done is propose we don’t know on the basis of an illogical assumption. If a man lying with a woman is ok (Genesis 2) and a man lying with a man isn’t (Lev 18 & 22), a man that should lie only with one woman (Matthew 19) doesn’t make a man lying with a man suddenly right when it isn’t (Romans 1)
Your assumption was baseless and is not only disproven. You need to show some Biblical evidence for same sex union before you show some evidence that a monogamous same sex union is somehow relevant. Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Ephesians 5 tells us God’s purpose was as is man and woman not man and man.

You impugn the motives of those who disagree with you. I submit that you are not in a position to know those motives.

They don’t disagree with me they disagree with the Bible, it’s the Bible I am referring them to.

As for the rest of Scripture condemning same sex practice, the Bible was written by and for people who lacked modern scientific knowledge of homosexuality.

Christians don’t believe that, Christians believe the Bible is the record of God’s testimony through directly from God or by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

If by disbelief, you mean "belief unlike mine" then I agree. I happen to disagree with your understanding of the Bible.

How can you disagree with my understanding of the Bible when I haven’t given it? All I have referred you to is the Bible. The Bible has the recorded testimony of Jesus Christ, if one doesn’t believe the Bible one cant know the right Jesus Christ.

You and Brennin agree with a particular interpretation of the Bible. The 'many hundreds' of writers of the Bible did not even happen to agree with one another in every instance.

Brennin and I believe the Bible and it is the Bible we have been quoting to you. For all you know our interpretation of the Bible could be that is says RegularGuy is going to China on mission, the Bible doesn’t say that, like it does say what you claim it does, but it would be our interpretation if that’s what we interpreted it as, Which of course like your interpretation is all nonsense, which is why we cite what the Bible actually says.

Well, translators sometimes promote their own theological agenda. The translations disagree on the best way to render aresenokoitai.

Well translators don’t but theologians like the gay theologians do have their own agenda as I pointed out they somehow think the many Bible translations and experts over the centuries and today are totally wrong. Whereas we see them as having been totally right and the current doubts baseless.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I think we'd do well to note also in this context that treating same-sex practices of males and same-sex practices of females equally is itself a modern innovation.

Interesting and relevant point

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Just so I can feel like I'm achieving something worthwhile...

RegularGuy, I only just noticd you telling Brenin that you have recently had surgery. Get well soon, and I hope that whatever was wrong is well fixed and you get a new lease on life. God bless.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Just so I can feel like I'm achieving something worthwhile...

RegularGuy, I only just noticd you telling Brenin that you have recently had surgery. Get well soon, and I hope that whatever was wrong is well fixed and you get a new lease on life. God bless.

Thanks, EnemyPartyII. I'm going to the doctor in about an hour for my one week check up. I think he'll clear me to resume normal activity, go back to work, lift something heavier than a gallon of milk, post on the internet, etc.

I seem to be doing OK. The surgery was outpatient and minor, correcting a complication from an earlier procedure. I'm regaining strength and stamina daily.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

I think we'd do well to note also in this context that treating same-sex practices of males and same-sex practices of females equally is itself a modern innovation.

That the Old Testament says nothing about lesbian sex says something, I think, about how women were regarded (or more properly disregarded) in that culture.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

To RegularGuy,

But my remarks demonstrated that we can know the context with a great deal of certainty.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the offenses begin with fornication, idolatry, adultery, so male sex bed fits. As adultery and fornication already exclude sex outside marriage, arsenokoites isn’t difficult to translate as homosexual offenders with reference to its compound words in the Septuaguint Lev 18 and 20.
All you have done is propose we don’t know on the basis of an illogical assumption. If a man lying with a woman is ok (Genesis 2) and a man lying with a man isn’t (Lev 18 & 22), a man that should lie only with one woman (Matthew 19) doesn’t make a man lying with a man suddenly right when it isn’t (Romans 1)
Your assumption was baseless and is not only disproven. You need to show some Biblical evidence for same sex union before you show some evidence that a monogamous same sex union is somehow relevant. Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Ephesians 5 tells us God’s purpose was as is man and woman not man and man.

Hi Brightmorningstar.

We can go around and around repeating the same points and getting nowhere. So I'll just repeat that the precise meaning of the word arsenolkoitai cannot be determined from its etymology, its context in 1 Cor 6:9, or its known usage in the NT and the papyrii. I concede completely that it refers to some sort of taboo same sex activity. To use it as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, or of committed, covenanted, mutual and exclusive same-sex relationship is not warranted.

They don’t disagree with me they disagree with the Bible, it’s the Bible I am referring them to.

Disagreeing with your interpretation of the Bible is not equivalent to disagreeing with the Bible. What's more you have ignored the point of my remark, which is that you are not able to know the unstated motives of those with whom you disagree.

Christians don’t believe that, Christians believe the Bible is the record of God’s testimony through directly from God or by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Brightmorningstar, you do not speak for all Christians. Sweeping generalizations like the ones you have made here are patently false.

How can you disagree with my understanding of the Bible when I haven’t given it? All I have referred you to is the Bible. The Bible has the recorded testimony of Jesus Christ, if one doesn’t believe the Bible one cant know the right Jesus Christ.

Brennin and I believe the Bible and it is the Bible we have been quoting to you. For all you know our interpretation of the Bible could be that is says RegularGuy is going to China on mission, the Bible doesn’t say that, like it does say what you claim it does, but it would be our interpretation if that’s what we interpreted it as, Which of course like your interpretation is all nonsense, which is why we cite what the Bible actually says.

Everyone who reads the Bible interprets it. Everyone. Your literalistic understanding of Scripture is a form of interpretation.

May I assume that you believe in a geocentric cosmology? Or that there is a dome over the sky with waters above it? May I assume that the women in the church you attend are silent? Or that they keep their heads covered? May I assume that you refrain from eating cheeseburgers, pork and shellfish?

Or may I assume that you interpret the Bible?

Well translators don’t but theologians like the gay theologians do have their own agenda as I pointed out they somehow think the many Bible translations and experts over the centuries and today are totally wrong. Whereas we see them as having been totally right and the current doubts baseless.

In fact, translators do sometimes impose their theological biases on their translations. One of the most egregious examples of this is the NIV's translation of 1 Cor 6:9 which you seem to favor. The NIV renders arsenokoitai as "homosexual offenders." The word "homosexual" itself is open to dispute, but the word "offenders" is completely unwarranted by the underlying Greek text. It simply is not there.

And, gay theologians may bring a particular bias to their reading fo the Bible, but so do Fundamentalist theolgians bring a bias to their reading.

 

[Polycarp1]

Um. Some examples of "your interpretation",BMS: The Bible nowhere says "No gay marriage" or even "marriages are one man and one woman" -- that's easy to infer from the Genesis account and the discussion on divorce where Jesus quotes it. But it doesn't *say* it. Likewise nowhere does it say a bishop cannot be a woman or a gay man. You infer it from the "husband of one wife" comment in Timothy -- a reasonable conclusion. But again it is an INFERENCE.

All I'd ask, of you and others who found your views on "what the Bible clearly says" is that you note the difference between the exact words of Scripture and what you infer from them, and that you allow the idea that others may (mistakenly, in your opinion, if that is true) draw other inferences from the context. (E.g., that Jesus was not defining marriage but prohibiting easy unilateral divorce, and quoting an apposite Scripture to support his point.)

 

[Armistead]

How is what my lover and I do in the privacy of our own bedroom "disregard for other people", but your determination to deny us recognition is not?

I would contend, in all seriousness, that if your emotional wellbeing is THAT threatened by what strangers do in the privacy of their own homes, that you require some sort of therapy. This is not a flame, this is a sincere suggestion. Such emotional vulnerability based on the private lives of others is not healthy.


Sure you could... if there was anything THAT disturbing about it. I suspect, strongly, that your reason for failing to explain just what is so disturbing about it is based more on the fact that you CAN'T, rather than decorum issues.
Pyromaniacs cause harm to the property and lives of others, potentially killing people. How is this remotely comparable to the acts of consenting homosexuals?

Um.. I never said pyromania was mundane... I'm comparing examples where the outward effects are the same.

Eating cows tongue, I think its disgusting, but it doesn't harm me, therefore, I have no right to interfere in anyone's dietry habbits. If thats what they want, then let them.

God made us sexual (Genesis 1-2). We are to follow the law of love in sexu@l matters, as in all else. Romans 13:8-10: "Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; you shall not covet'; and any other
commandment, are summed up in this word, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Loves does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law."

James also tells us what love is..doing no harm and state it fulfills the law.
That is how we now judge sin, will this behavior harm others. Certainly, the act of homosexuality isn't harmful in itself. The bigger question is does it harm soceity, which can be argued in many ways, such as marriage. Overall, I think it only harms when people allow it or agendas are taught.
This can be true of all sex, gay of not.

It can be reasonably concluded that the sexual ethic of traditional Christianity is an artificial, repressive and legalistic ethic which ignores both our God-given natures and the law of love. Thus, this ethic is an abusive ethic in its basic nature which hurts rather than heals people.

Even with all tradition had done, it is an ineffective ethic which does not even accomplish its intended purpose of sexual repression, but rather drives sexual expression underground and into the shadows of ignorance, guilt and mass confusion. It is an ethic which is based on misinterpretation and false application of the biblical text and on cultural and philosophical biases imported into Christian teaching from other sources not biblical.

Here is where I can accept gay marriage. Gayness...is not going away.
To only drive it underground would result in perverted behavior. Most of
the wild immoral behavior by gays is due to hiding in the closet. However, with more people accepting gays, many now live open normal lives.








Homosexuality is the same. It doesn't harm you in any way what consenting adults do, so just butt out and mind your own business.

Even if I was against homosexuality, that's the point. What two people do is not my business as long as they don't break laws. We are not a theocracy.

And heres the kicker... both cows tongues and homosexuality and the disgustingness or otherwise of them is a purely subjective VALUE JUDGMENT, and NOT an empirical objective fact.

Agreed, I have never had cow tongues or used them sexually...there
are much better options that you can buy from the privacy of your home.
But who knows...cow tongue might be a big seller.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Agreed, I have never had cow tongues or used them sexually...there
are much better options that you can buy from the privacy of your home.
But who knows...cow tongue might be a big seller.

It wouldn't matter if there were only one person on the planet who eats cows tongue. As long as he isn't forcing other people to eat cows tongue, explicitly against their will, then what harms is there? (aside from, you know, to the cow...)

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Regularguy

We can go around and around repeating the same points and getting nowhere.

Well we can do, or we can note that I and many do know the meaning of arsenokoites with a good deal of certainly and you and others don’t. We can also note we know same sex unions are error with a good deal of certainty form other passages, and you and others don’t.
We can also note that I have laid out scripturally with specific references why I am certain the Bible translations are correct condemnations and exclusions and note that you are uncertain.

Disagreeing with your interpretation of the Bible is not equivalent to disagreeing with the Bible.

But how do know you disgree with my interpretation of it when all I have done is quote it?

Brightmorningstar, you do not speak for all Christians. Sweeping generalizations like the ones you have made here are patently false.

I believe I speak for all Christians when I say Christians believe the Bible is the record of God’s testimony through directly from God or by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and I am entitled to my opinion. One of the reasons I believe so is the Bible says all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking etc. 2 Tim 3. Please don’t tell me what I can and cant believe.

Everyone who reads the Bible interprets it. Everyone. Your literalistic understanding of Scripture is a form of interpretation.

No, I believe the particular scriptures quoted mean what they say. As you don’t I think you disbelieve them as the context is clear.

And, gay theologians may bring a particular bias to their reading fo the Bible, but so do Fundamentalist theolgians bring a bias to their reading.

Well fundamental theologians are fundamental in what? Christianity? Gay theologians are what? Gay? And I think this is the essence of it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Polycarp1

Um. Some examples of "your interpretation",BMS:

Firstly the examples you have given are not examples I have given from the Bible, but examples of what you have given not in the Bible.

The Bible nowhere says "No gay marriage"

But what do you mean by ‘gay’ The Bible mentions marriage but not ‘gay’. The Bible mentions marriage as man and woman, of course it does, it addresses men as to their wives as female concerning marriage. So ‘gay’ looks at odds with the Bible as gay is same sex attraction rather than man and woman in union.
So the Bible doesn’t mention something that is contrary to what the Bible has defined. Your argument is a straw man.

All I'd ask, of you and others who found your views on "what the Bible clearly says" is that you note the difference between the exact words of Scripture and what you infer from them, and that you allow the idea that others may (mistakenly, in your opinion, if that is true) draw other inferences from the context.

Actually as seen from above its evident I and others are doing that and you aren’t. The Bible mentions marriage as man and woman, Matthew 22:23-28,
1 Cor 7 "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. "

 

[Polycarp1]

To Polycarp1
Firstly the examples you have given are not examples I have given from the Bible, but examples of what you have given not in the Bible.

First, Brightmorningstar, I owe you an apology, not for what I meant by that statement, but for the truly horrible way in which I phrased it, which made it sound like I was accusing you falsely of something. What I had intended was something like, "Here are some examples of things which you and others with similar views to yours have claimed that "the Bible says" when in actuality they are inferences you or they have drawn from the words of Scripture, sometimes extremely reasonably but still inferences."

But what do you mean by ‘gay’ The Bible mentions marriage but not ‘gay’. The Bible mentions marriage as man and woman, of course it does, it addresses men as to their wives as female concerning marriage. So ‘gay’ looks at odds with the Bible as gay is same sex attraction rather than man and woman in union.

Again a rephrasing may be useful. Nowhere in Scripture does a passage like "Say to the sons of Israel, thus saith the Lord, thou shalt not take unto yourself another man in marriage, nor shall thou permit thy daughters to take a woman in marriage" or anything similar, nor does Paul write, "Nor, among the saints, is it allowed that one man enter into marriage with another, and the women likewise." To be sure every example of marriage in scripture is either one man and one wife or one man and several wives. So it becomes a plausible conclusion that God intends marriage to be between one man and one or more women -- and it's a very good question to what extent He condones even Biblical-times polygamy, much less what masquerades as it today. The point I am making there is that Jesus was focused on the truly execrable custom whereby men, with the legalistic reading of the Law by the Pharisees backing them, would put away their aging wives to take younger ones, with the presumed blessing of God. His counsel did not address wives leaving abusive husbands, two men seeking to marry, or anything else -- it was a teaching that a man should not set aside his vow of marriage to his wife before God. Playing "this is how Jesus defined marriage" from it is like concluding that every priest or pastor must be a Galilean, because Jesus only picked Galileans as disciples, except for Judas, who was a Judean. It was not what he was saying. It's something read into it.

As from the passage from Corinthians, it's fascinating that you select the single passage in all of Scripture that explicitly says that it's the opinion of a man and not of God.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Hello, again, Brightmorningstar.

Once more, you have ignored some of the weightier points of my last post to you including direct questions.

Well we can do, or we can note that I and many do know the meaning of arsenokoites with a good deal of certainly and you and others don’t. We can also note we know same sex unions are error with a good deal of certainty form other passages, and you and others don’t.

Stating a point dogmatically, even repeatedly, does not make it true. You base your certainty about the meaning of aresenokotes on insufficient evidence.

We can also note that I have laid out scripturally with specific references why I am certain the Bible translations are correct condemnations and exclusions and note that you are uncertain.

I am just as certain of what I believe as you are certain of what you believe.

But how do know you disgree with my interpretation of it when all I have done is quote it?

You keep asserting that all you do is quote Scripture. Nevertheless you interpret those Scriptures in a particular way. Literalism is interpretation.

And if I may, I'd like to remind you, that even the devil can quote Scripture.

I believe I speak for all Christians when I say Christians believe the Bible is the record of God’s testimony through directly from God or by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and I am entitled to my opinion. One of the reasons I believe so is the Bible says all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking etc. 2 Tim 3. Please don’t tell me what I can and cant believe.

I am not telling what you can and cannot believe. I would not take it upon myself to do so. I am, however, telling you categorically that you do not speak for all Christians. I offer this syllogism: I am a Christian. You do not speak for me. Therefore you do not speak for all Christians.

Well fundamental theologians are fundamental in what? Christianity? Gay theologians are what? Gay? And I think this is the essence of it.

Fundamentalist is not equivalent to Christian. Fundamentalist Christians are a subset of all Christianity. Fundamentalism is a peculiarly modern form of Christianity.

Gay is not the opposite of Christian. Gay is a sexual orientation. Christianity is a religion. The two are not logically exclusive.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Polycarp1,

First, Brightmorningstar, I owe you an apology, not for what I meant by that statement, but for the truly horrible way in which I phrased it, which made it sound like I was accusing you falsely of something. What I had intended was something like, "Here are some examples of things which you and others with similar views to yours have claimed that "the Bible says" when in actuality they are inferences you or they have drawn from the words of Scripture, sometimes extremely reasonably but still inferences."

I am not sure what you mean, the quotes from the Bible are from the Bible, perhaps we all need to state the version. But my point was I gave examples form the Bible, your examples are not found in the Bible so they are your own ideas.

Nowhere in Scripture

let me stop you there aa you have misunderstood my question. My question referred to what the Bible does say, not what it doesn’t say.

To be sure every example of marriage in scripture is either one man and one wife or one man and several wives. So it becomes a plausible conclusion that God intends marriage to be between one man and one or more women -- and it's a very good question to what extent He condones even Biblical-times polygamy, much less what masquerades as it today.

But that’s ignorant of the Bible as a whole as Jesus Christ in the NT teaching makes it clear that what Moses allowed in the OT covenant was because their hearts were hard, but God’s purpose was faithful man woman marriage.

The point I am making there is that Jesus was focused on the truly execrable custom whereby men, with the legalistic reading of the Law by the Pharisees backing them, would put away their aging wives to take younger ones, with the presumed blessing of God. His counsel did not address wives leaving abusive husbands, two men seeking to marry, or anything else -- it was a teaching that a man should not set aside his vow of marriage to his wife before God.

On the contrary Jesus explains that God’s purpose in creation was for a faithful man and woman union which excludes any other, especially man and man, which is of course against God’s creation purpose. In addition when the Pharisees grumbled about faithful man woman marriage and it being better not to marry, Jesus offers that very alternative in celibacy (Matt 19, Eph 5, 1 Cor 7)

Now you haven’t answered my question. What do you mean by ‘gay’ The Bible mentions marriage but not ‘gay’. The Bible mentions marriage as man and woman,, so ‘gay’ looks at odds with the Bible as gay is same sex attraction rather than man and woman in union. So where did you get the unbiblical idea of gay from?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To regularguy,

Stating a point dogmatically, even repeatedly, does not make it true. You base your certainty about the meaning of aresenokotes on insufficient evidence.

But it is true, we have said we are certain of the meaning and explained why, you have said you are not certain.

I am just as certain of what I believe as you are certain of what you believe.

But you are certain you are uncertain of the meaning, I am certain of the meaning

You keep asserting that all you do is quote Scripture. Nevertheless you interpret those Scriptures in a particular way. Literalism is interpretation.

Not so, literalism is always believing the Bible means exactly what it says, I am not a literalist as I have also explained the context. What you have done is merely disbelieve what the scriptures quoted literally say. That’s disbelief.

And if I may, I'd like to remind you, that even the devil can quote Scripture.

Indeed but I’d remind you even the demons didn’t deny what Jesus said was true.

I am not telling what you can and cannot believe. I would not take it upon myself to do so. I am, however, telling you categorically that you do not speak for all Christians.

And I am telling you that I do, for the reason given, my definition of Christian is that Christians believe the Bible is the record of God’s testimony through directly from God or by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Now if you are saying Christians don’t believe the Bible you have a different definition of Christian to me. One of the reasons I believe so is the Bible says all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking etc. 2 Tim 3.

Fundamentalist is not equivalent to Christian. Fundamentalist Christians are a subset of all Christianity.

That makes no sense either. If something is a subset of something it is at least partly equivalent. But at least you acknowledged the Christian aspect of fundamental bias, whereas….

Gay is not the opposite of Christian. Gay is a sexual orientation.

Which I thinks shows gay is not Christian and as a concept is especially un-Christian as it is sexual attraction opposite to what God has created and ordained. You have proved my point for me.

 

[Crazy Liz]

To regularguy,
But it is true, we have said we are certain of the meaning and explained why, you have said you are not certain.
But you are certain you are uncertain of the meaning, I am certain of the meaning

BMS, I have one word for you: Epistemology.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

To regularguy,
But it is true, we have said we are certain of the meaning and explained why, you have said you are not certain....

But you are certain you are uncertain of the meaning, I am certain of the meaning

I am certain that you do not have suffiecient evidence for the meaning of arsenokoites to base a blanket condemnation of homosexuality upon it.

Certainty does not rule out the possibility of being mistaken. Your confidence is not warranted.

Not so, literalism is always believing the Bible means exactly what it says, I am not a literalist as I have also explained the context. What you have done is merely disbelieve what the scriptures quoted literally say. That’s disbelief.

Nonsense. You are in no place to judge my belief.

Indeed but I’d remind you even the demons didn’t deny what Jesus said was true.

This in no way refutes the point that merely quoting Scripture does not make one right.

And, for what it may be worth, Jesus said not one word about gay marriage.

And I am telling you that I do, for the reason given, my definition of Christian is that Christians believe the Bible is the record of God’s testimony through directly from God or by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Now if you are saying Christians don’t believe the Bible you have a different definition of Christian to me. One of the reasons I believe so is the Bible says all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking etc. 2 Tim 3.

Your definition is wrong.

By the way, I believe the Bible. I just don't believe it in the way that you do.

And, a separate point, do you know what a tautology is?

That makes no sense either. If something is a subset of something it is at least partly equivalent. But at least you acknowledged the Christian aspect of fundamental bias, whereas….

A subset does not define the whole. Fundamentalists may be Christians, but not all Christians are Fundamentalists.

I acknowledge the Fundamentalism is a kind of Christianity. It's a fairly recent development in the history of the faith, but still, it is a kind of Christianity.

It is not, however, the only kind.

Which I thinks shows gay is not Christian and as a concept is especially un-Christian as it is sexual attraction opposite to what God has created and ordained. You have proved my point for me.

First, you have completely missed my point. Gay is not the opposite of Christian anymore than Peanut Butter is the opposite of Christian.

Peanut Butter is not Christian, but that does not make it un-Christian.

 

[KCKID]

Which I thinks shows gay is not Christian and as a concept is especially un-Christian as it is sexual attraction opposite to what God has created and ordained. You have proved my point for me.

So, what you always seem to be implying is that some of the robots are faulty and need to be repaired or destroyed in order to make the perfect robots that function according to the manual feel comfortable ...? The truth is that ALL the robots are faulty and NONE function according to the manual but many of them don't realize this.

 

[OllieFranz]

So, what you always seem to be implying is that some of the robots are faulty and need to be repaired or destroyed in order to make the perfect robots that function according to the manual feel comfortable ...? The truth is that ALL the robots are faulty and NONE function according to the manual but many of them don't realize this.

Oh they realize it. They even cite the section of the Manual that confirms it. (Romans 3:23). They just don't really believe that it even applies to them, which is also listed as a faulty function in the Manual (Luke 18:10-14)