Oh really? You're not under the old law anymore?[b said:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html
And, hahah
Is Banning Gay Marriage Christian?
- Thread starter MichaelLogos
- Start date
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html
And, hahah
TastyWheat
New Member
it's funny 'cause it's true[b said:
Kidan
Moderator
minotesvardet -- Christ came to fulfill the law not finish it. For if He came saying that He was here to do away with the Law, then He would be a false prophet, for the Law says that any who come saying they are here to change the law says so. Yet in essence the greatest proof of this, is the fact that we are to live a life as close to Christ's as possible, and since He lived a life of perfection in perfect obedience to the letter of the law, this should be something that we should try.
Timor - That said, the Law as it exists today is the one that is written on our hearts, not necessarily how the Levites translated it. For the Bible also tells us that He writes the Law on our hearts, not on stone the way He did for the Isrealites. The Bible also tells us that we're under the Spirit of the Law, not the letter of the Law. As well, some of those topics you've brought up are dealing exclusively with concepts of clean and unclean. All of which were made moot with the cleansing power of Christ. Christ's blood is the ultimate and perfect cleansing offering, not just from sin, but from any state of uncleanness found in the Torah.
While it may seem that my replies to minotesvardet and Timor are mutually exclusive, if you truly look at them, you'll realize that they are saying the same thing. Yes we are under the law, but because we live under grace, that law is the one that God writes on our hearts as we grow to know Him more. It boils down to the fundamental differences between the literal words, and what God wants us to do.
Timor - That said, the Law as it exists today is the one that is written on our hearts, not necessarily how the Levites translated it. For the Bible also tells us that He writes the Law on our hearts, not on stone the way He did for the Isrealites. The Bible also tells us that we're under the Spirit of the Law, not the letter of the Law. As well, some of those topics you've brought up are dealing exclusively with concepts of clean and unclean. All of which were made moot with the cleansing power of Christ. Christ's blood is the ultimate and perfect cleansing offering, not just from sin, but from any state of uncleanness found in the Torah.
While it may seem that my replies to minotesvardet and Timor are mutually exclusive, if you truly look at them, you'll realize that they are saying the same thing. Yes we are under the law, but because we live under grace, that law is the one that God writes on our hearts as we grow to know Him more. It boils down to the fundamental differences between the literal words, and what God wants us to do.
Kidan
Moderator
not really
Spirit of the Law: It relates as to the actual meaning/reasoning behind a rule. An example is here in Florida there is a law that requires you to wear shoes while driving. That is the letter of the law, the spirit of the law is that you be able to break efficiently while driving (the law dates back to when the harder you pressed on the break pedal the quicker you stopped). The same concept applies to Christian living in relation to the law. The law tells us how to remain clean. The spirit of the law tells us that we should remain spiritually clean, which is done through the blood of Christ.
Written on our hearts. Is a reference to our concense, and in general our concept of what is right and wrong. As we grow closer to God, how He wants us to live, becomes clearer to us, and since we know it, when we are faced with situations that are wrong from God's pov, our hearts tells us this is wrong.
Spirit of the Law: It relates as to the actual meaning/reasoning behind a rule. An example is here in Florida there is a law that requires you to wear shoes while driving. That is the letter of the law, the spirit of the law is that you be able to break efficiently while driving (the law dates back to when the harder you pressed on the break pedal the quicker you stopped). The same concept applies to Christian living in relation to the law. The law tells us how to remain clean. The spirit of the law tells us that we should remain spiritually clean, which is done through the blood of Christ.
Written on our hearts. Is a reference to our concense, and in general our concept of what is right and wrong. As we grow closer to God, how He wants us to live, becomes clearer to us, and since we know it, when we are faced with situations that are wrong from God's pov, our hearts tells us this is wrong.
Kidan
Moderator
but it's not the law that condemns you to eternal damnation any longer. The OT Law shows us why we should be. It's a listing of things we do that show that we in the state we currently exist are not worthy of being God's children. The OT Law, is there to shine a spotlight on the sin we have in our life. But even still that's not what condmens you to eternal damnation.
The entire thing that saves or condemns you is your acceptance of Christ as your Lord and Saviour.
The entire thing that saves or condemns you is your acceptance of Christ as your Lord and Saviour.
Kidan, that's actually a dang good point. I suppose I have to go back and examine whether the secular vs religion angle is sufficently contentious to breach the Lemon Test on the basis of the "law being for secular purposes".
It is an interesting point though - homosexual leanings were generally denigrated in most religons, even the old ones, except those of a mediterranean placing. I understand that Greece and Egypt were rather more permissive - Greece even preferring homosexuals for its armies on the grounds that you fight much harder for a lover than a comrade.
It is an interesting point though - homosexual leanings were generally denigrated in most religons, even the old ones, except those of a mediterranean placing. I understand that Greece and Egypt were rather more permissive - Greece even preferring homosexuals for its armies on the grounds that you fight much harder for a lover than a comrade.
Kidan
Moderator
Eon- an the Lemon Test is exactly why I've always used marriage as a social institution, rather than marriage as a Christian institution as my argument against homosexual marriages.
but still, if you look at Greek, Roman and Egyptian cultures, where homosexaulity was permitted, and even occasionally encouraged, marriage was still between men and women.
but still, if you look at Greek, Roman and Egyptian cultures, where homosexaulity was permitted, and even occasionally encouraged, marriage was still between men and women.
MichaelLogos
New Member
Minotesvardet
"It isn't any different than heterosexual lust--it's natural, it happens, and it's sin if we indulge in it."
I’m going to be honest with you. I don’t lust for sex with another man. If I did, it would be sinning. But so would be having that lust to begin with, so why is indulging in it any worse? Jesus said in Mathew 5:28 “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” There is no such thing as a non-practicing homosexual, because the act of looking upon (in this case another man or another woman) in lust is considered a sin. If they are already Gay, there is no way for them to be less Gay by denying their desires and hiding their way of life from others. You cannot hide your way of thinking from God. However, as Christians we can still love and accept them. If it was natural for everyone to have homosexual desires, why do I not? And if you do, perhaps you should begin to question your true sexuality.
Kidan, I know you mean well but so many of the things you say are contradictory that it is hard for me to understand you. For example, you said "Often sin hurts noone, that doesnt stop it from being sin though." Jesus teaches us that sin does hurt us by its very nature, and that it is the work of the devil. you also said "No, I said that I can't tell homosexuals how to raise thier children, but that their lifestyle should not be treated as a respectable alternative in the school system, where such teachings would interfere with me raising mine." There are other religions in America that are treated as respectable alternatives in the school system, and that doesn’t interfere with you raising a Christian child. If you are suggesting that schools should discriminate against other religions, your views contradict the constitution. If not, why the double standard? You also said that abuse and adultery are the only reasons why divorce would be viable, but that means you should obey the law WITH exceptions. If you only follow what you believe to be the law of God only when it is convenient to you, is that truly faithful to the Lord?
And finally, Kidan, you said "The entire thing that saves or condemns you is your acceptance of Christ as your Lord and Saviour." Well then why condemn gay marriage? If it is not about the exact words in the bible, but rather the spirit of the law in our hearts, why can Christian gays who repent be forgiven and accepted, and allowed to be with those they love on earth of the same gender while they wait to be with jesus in heaven
"It isn't any different than heterosexual lust--it's natural, it happens, and it's sin if we indulge in it."
I’m going to be honest with you. I don’t lust for sex with another man. If I did, it would be sinning. But so would be having that lust to begin with, so why is indulging in it any worse? Jesus said in Mathew 5:28 “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” There is no such thing as a non-practicing homosexual, because the act of looking upon (in this case another man or another woman) in lust is considered a sin. If they are already Gay, there is no way for them to be less Gay by denying their desires and hiding their way of life from others. You cannot hide your way of thinking from God. However, as Christians we can still love and accept them. If it was natural for everyone to have homosexual desires, why do I not? And if you do, perhaps you should begin to question your true sexuality.
Kidan, I know you mean well but so many of the things you say are contradictory that it is hard for me to understand you. For example, you said "Often sin hurts noone, that doesnt stop it from being sin though." Jesus teaches us that sin does hurt us by its very nature, and that it is the work of the devil. you also said "No, I said that I can't tell homosexuals how to raise thier children, but that their lifestyle should not be treated as a respectable alternative in the school system, where such teachings would interfere with me raising mine." There are other religions in America that are treated as respectable alternatives in the school system, and that doesn’t interfere with you raising a Christian child. If you are suggesting that schools should discriminate against other religions, your views contradict the constitution. If not, why the double standard? You also said that abuse and adultery are the only reasons why divorce would be viable, but that means you should obey the law WITH exceptions. If you only follow what you believe to be the law of God only when it is convenient to you, is that truly faithful to the Lord?
And finally, Kidan, you said "The entire thing that saves or condemns you is your acceptance of Christ as your Lord and Saviour." Well then why condemn gay marriage? If it is not about the exact words in the bible, but rather the spirit of the law in our hearts, why can Christian gays who repent be forgiven and accepted, and allowed to be with those they love on earth of the same gender while they wait to be with jesus in heaven
Kidan
Moderator
Micheal -- actually I haven't contradicted myself at all. My arguements are quite logical, even if they're rather cryptic.
1) sin hurts noone. I see your point, but my discussion was on the fact that a sin does not necessarily damage another human. How sin affects the sinner is another discussion entirely.
2) And our wonderful school systems take great pains to not teach ANY religion over another. Yet, marriage trancends religious and cultural boundaries as a human universal. As such, it is taught and encouraged in various classes from Life Skills to Home Ec. Teaching that homosexuality is a viable marriage relationship (which if approved those classes would) does affect my raising my child. You're comparing apples and oranges with your example.
3) Actually even Christ said adultery is a viable reason to divorce. The LAW gives a list of reasons, which I personally would restrict down to the two.
4) Read my arguements. I condemn gay marriages not because I'm Christian but because I'm human. All my arguements against gay marriage have been from a social, not religious standpoint. Now, you say why can't Gays, accept Christ and still be homosexual? First, this has nothing to do with the issue of Gay Marriage. The answer though is because that is clearly defined in the Bible as wrong. A good percentage of Christian doctrine is infered from Biblical texts. Things such as baptism as a requirement, laying on of hands, anointing with oil. Some denominations do these, others don't. Some perform them entirely different than others. Those differences are inferred from the Bible. Yet there is a section of doctrine that is clear, concise, and we can't argue with. Homosexuality, and all other forms of sexual fornication fall into this category. The Bible is clear that homosexuals WILL NOT inherit the Kingdom of God. I can tell them they're Christian day in and day out, but that doesn't change the fact that they're not.
Now to answer in regards to what you posted to Minotesvardet.
Can you (from your post, I'm assuming you're a male) as a male, look at a woman, appreciate how attractive she is, and not lust? More accurately, can you look at an attractive female, and not desire her? I personally believe it's impossible not to fell SOMETHING when faced with an attractive woman. Yet, you don't have to sit there and daydream about a relationship (which is where it becomes LUST), you don't have to persue a relationship with her (which is where it can become lust). In today's society, lust is oft used in place of desire. People seem to forgo the actual definition of lust as "a strong sexual desire or sinful longing" (dictionary.com). I can't speak for minote, but I believe she fell into this trap, of misusing the word lust. If you rebuild the qoute, using desire, the sentence reads faithfully to Biblical precepts.
"It isn't any different than heterosexual [desire]--it's natural, it happens, and it's sin if we indulge in it."
Yet, your choice of words here "And if you do, perhaps you should begin to question your true sexuality" implies that minotes has no choice in the matter as to whether or not she'll be homosexual. This is a wrong conculsion. Homosexuality is a choice.
1) sin hurts noone. I see your point, but my discussion was on the fact that a sin does not necessarily damage another human. How sin affects the sinner is another discussion entirely.
2) And our wonderful school systems take great pains to not teach ANY religion over another. Yet, marriage trancends religious and cultural boundaries as a human universal. As such, it is taught and encouraged in various classes from Life Skills to Home Ec. Teaching that homosexuality is a viable marriage relationship (which if approved those classes would) does affect my raising my child. You're comparing apples and oranges with your example.
3) Actually even Christ said adultery is a viable reason to divorce. The LAW gives a list of reasons, which I personally would restrict down to the two.
4) Read my arguements. I condemn gay marriages not because I'm Christian but because I'm human. All my arguements against gay marriage have been from a social, not religious standpoint. Now, you say why can't Gays, accept Christ and still be homosexual? First, this has nothing to do with the issue of Gay Marriage. The answer though is because that is clearly defined in the Bible as wrong. A good percentage of Christian doctrine is infered from Biblical texts. Things such as baptism as a requirement, laying on of hands, anointing with oil. Some denominations do these, others don't. Some perform them entirely different than others. Those differences are inferred from the Bible. Yet there is a section of doctrine that is clear, concise, and we can't argue with. Homosexuality, and all other forms of sexual fornication fall into this category. The Bible is clear that homosexuals WILL NOT inherit the Kingdom of God. I can tell them they're Christian day in and day out, but that doesn't change the fact that they're not.
Now to answer in regards to what you posted to Minotesvardet.
Can you (from your post, I'm assuming you're a male) as a male, look at a woman, appreciate how attractive she is, and not lust? More accurately, can you look at an attractive female, and not desire her? I personally believe it's impossible not to fell SOMETHING when faced with an attractive woman. Yet, you don't have to sit there and daydream about a relationship (which is where it becomes LUST), you don't have to persue a relationship with her (which is where it can become lust). In today's society, lust is oft used in place of desire. People seem to forgo the actual definition of lust as "a strong sexual desire or sinful longing" (dictionary.com). I can't speak for minote, but I believe she fell into this trap, of misusing the word lust. If you rebuild the qoute, using desire, the sentence reads faithfully to Biblical precepts.
"It isn't any different than heterosexual [desire]--it's natural, it happens, and it's sin if we indulge in it."
Yet, your choice of words here "And if you do, perhaps you should begin to question your true sexuality" implies that minotes has no choice in the matter as to whether or not she'll be homosexual. This is a wrong conculsion. Homosexuality is a choice.
[toj.cc]El Jefe[sww:D]
New Member
Is it possible for a male who has only had contact with females to be homosexual (i.e. he is the only male he knows to exist)? If you believe homosexuality is a genetic thing, answer to me how a person can "desire" something of which there is no evidence of existence. (don't bother turning this question into a "there's no evidence of God" thread, I'm not basing my idea on any religious principle) Or let me rephrase in anticipation of an obvious question: can "Bob" be homosexual if the only male he knows is himself?
I believe because "Bob" has no alternative (ignoring self-pleasing options) to a female mate, he is unable to be homosexual. This would mean that homosexuality is in direct relation with having a second option (e.g. another gender) to choose from.
And one last thought. If homosexuality and heterosexuality are both genetic, then what of a person who abstains? I mean a person that naturally wants to abstain from sex.
In a side note, thank you guys for keeping this thread a lot cleaner than the other homosexual discussion thread. Just because something is wrong, does not mean it needs to be attacked and criticized in insulting language.
I believe because "Bob" has no alternative (ignoring self-pleasing options) to a female mate, he is unable to be homosexual. This would mean that homosexuality is in direct relation with having a second option (e.g. another gender) to choose from.
And one last thought. If homosexuality and heterosexuality are both genetic, then what of a person who abstains? I mean a person that naturally wants to abstain from sex.
In a side note, thank you guys for keeping this thread a lot cleaner than the other homosexual discussion thread. Just because something is wrong, does not mean it needs to be attacked and criticized in insulting language.
So basically, their whole life is a life of sin. They don't even have to perform any actions - they just have to breathe, to exist.[b said:
But wait, it is the same way for everyone, according to Christian theology, is it not? For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God!
So, what difference does being homosexual make in the least? In the end, on judgement day, their being homosexual does not put them in any worse position than a straight person. So what's the big deal?
While I understand your point well, it is nil, because other males do exist. We're dealing with real and present issues here, not abstract and hypothetical theory.[b said:Quote[/b] ([toj.cc]El Jefe[sww] @ Mar. 24 2004,1:09)]Is it possible for a male who has only had contact with females to be homosexual (i.e. he is the only male he knows to exist)? If you believe homosexuality is a genetic thing, answer to me how a person can "desire" something of which there is no evidence of existence. (don't bother turning this question into a "there's no evidence of God" thread, I'm not basing my idea on any religious principle) Or let me rephrase in anticipation of an obvious question: can "Bob" be homosexual if the only male he knows is himself?
I believe because "Bob" has no alternative (ignoring self-pleasing options) to a female mate, he is unable to be homosexual. This would mean that homosexuality is in direct relation with having a second option (e.g. another gender) to choose from.
And one last thought. If homosexuality and heterosexuality are both genetic, then what of a person who abstains? I mean a person that naturally wants to abstain from sex.
In a side note, thank you guys for keeping this thread a lot cleaner than the other homosexual discussion thread. Just because something is wrong, does not mean it needs to be attacked and criticized in insulting language.
But to answer your question, sure, because at least one male does exist - Bob. Perhaps Bob is narcissistic, and desires another human being like himself (that is, without being too vulgar, another human being with external genitalia).
UnToUcHaBlE747
New Member
So even if you were not Christian you would still condemn gay marriages?? Does that mean you condemn gay people to even if they do not get married?[b said:
What if your child was gay what would you think then
and El Jefe i believe you are wrong when you say it is the persons choice to be gay... I know someone who is gay and he would give anything to be what you people believe is "normal" he does not like being harrassed and made fun of beat up etc. for being gay but that is who he is he cannot change that. t was NOT his choice to be gay
Kidan
Moderator
Untouchable:
I really can't answer that question, it delves way to deeply into the world of whatifs. But to answer your second question, no I don't condemn gay people. Do I think their lifestyle is a sin? Yes. But it's not different than any other sin. Worthy of trying to get them to live their life correctly, but not worth condemning over.
My child won't be gay. He'll be raised such that he'll understand his responsibilities to both his future spouse and his God.
You say that people don't get to choose to be gay or not, yet that is a fundamentally flawed arguement. We choose with whom we sleep with (otherwise there would be a lot more rapes int he world), we choose when we sleep with people, we choose everything concerning our sexaul drive. We even have the ability to turn it on and off, with merely taking a pill now. To say that this one subset of people don't have this ability calls into question all sorts of things. Are those who commit incest, genetically predisposed to have sex with their close relatives? Are those who commit bestiality genetcially predisposed to have sex with animals? Are necrophiliacs genetically predisposed to have sex with the dead? If those sins aren't genetic, why would homosexuality be so? No, I will never believe that nature causes me to do anything. Nature may have a hand in predisposing me towards a certain type of thing, but I choose what I do or do not do.
timor-- the big deal is that as Christians we should be striving to live a sin-free life. Therefore being a homosexual (a sin) Christian is a slight oxymoron.
I really can't answer that question, it delves way to deeply into the world of whatifs. But to answer your second question, no I don't condemn gay people. Do I think their lifestyle is a sin? Yes. But it's not different than any other sin. Worthy of trying to get them to live their life correctly, but not worth condemning over.
My child won't be gay. He'll be raised such that he'll understand his responsibilities to both his future spouse and his God.
You say that people don't get to choose to be gay or not, yet that is a fundamentally flawed arguement. We choose with whom we sleep with (otherwise there would be a lot more rapes int he world), we choose when we sleep with people, we choose everything concerning our sexaul drive. We even have the ability to turn it on and off, with merely taking a pill now. To say that this one subset of people don't have this ability calls into question all sorts of things. Are those who commit incest, genetically predisposed to have sex with their close relatives? Are those who commit bestiality genetcially predisposed to have sex with animals? Are necrophiliacs genetically predisposed to have sex with the dead? If those sins aren't genetic, why would homosexuality be so? No, I will never believe that nature causes me to do anything. Nature may have a hand in predisposing me towards a certain type of thing, but I choose what I do or do not do.
timor-- the big deal is that as Christians we should be striving to live a sin-free life. Therefore being a homosexual (a sin) Christian is a slight oxymoron.
Jango
New Member
Taking into considerination of course it is his choice in the end.[b said:
So you think it isn't his choice to lie down with another man? You are terribly mistaken, my friend.[b said:
I need to prove that the genes exist ey. "If you can't prove it, then it's a chosen behavior." What kind of logic (or rather, the lack thereof) is this? Not only is that completely nonsensical..but it's unreasonable as well. I think you know how ridiculous such a demand that is... Genetics is a very new feild of study...it'st still in it's infant years. We haven't even come close to unlocking all the secrets to the human genetic system...so it's perfectly reasonable for a 'gay' gene to be as of yet undiscovered. What is unreasonable is that you stubbornly insist that I dish out, when you know that I cannot. Of course I can't prove it--that doesn't 'prove' anything, especially since you certainly can't 'disprove' it either. You keep on saying "homosexuality is a choice"...but your points just add up. If logic is your goal, then your arguement is basically nonexistant. I don't want to repeat myself though..so I won't..but I'll ask you this once more: Why would someone make the concious decision to alienate him or herself from a vast portion of the society they know and 'chose' to become a homosexual? Please answer that question before this goes any further...[b said:
You say that they've studied it...first of all, I'd just like to point out that you are tending to disregard any studies that go against your opinion and quickly accepting those that go along with it...regardless of the fact that all of them have relatively equal reliability and validity. Maybe I'm being hypocritical..I'm just telling you what I see. But anyway, you cannot throw statistics at me like that..like polls, they are easily manipulated. I can think of numerable alternate reasons to explain why children would react like that given their situation, the largest and most feasible being the fact that society does not accept their parents. It's hard to imagine what that knowledge can do to a developing child's psyche, but it certainly is detrimental. What I'm saying is, those effects that they are reporting are most likely not becuase of substandard parenting, but of outside reasons. Either way, a statistic is the same...that's why they shouldn't be leaned on. If you want something to lean on though, take a look at this: http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html Hundreds of studies are shown here, from one of the most reliable and renowned psychological associations in the country, and all of them point to my 'side of the story'. Read up if you like...but if you want a summary...it says that you're the opposite of correct.
Now, you could easily say that I'm being hypocritical here..by giving you a site and saying "hah..so there"..but this one is different, as it is from such a reliable source, and the test trials are in such magnitude. To quote, "Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth." If you want more "proof", I'll be glad to oblige.
As for the adoption thing, my point is the following. You say that it is wrong for homosexuals to marry becuase their relationship would inherently not be pro-creational. (Again though, sterile couples are able to marry..I don't see anyone distressing about that..) But what of the hundreds of thousands of children up for adoption that never get parents? You seem so pre-occupied with the developement of children, but I think even you would agree that two homosexual parents are better than no parents. Homosexual marriages aren't 'all about sex,' as you seem to believe...you said the following on your site I believe: "The thought that the defining characteristic of marriage will become 'having sex' rather than 'union between a man and woman' is probably the most abhorent." But homosexual relationships are no more about sex than heterosexual ones. Above all else, just like heterosexuals, homosexuals marry for love. Not for procreation, not for excercise of their civil rights--love. And not necessarily love of each other..they are just as capable to care for a child as any other 'kind' of person, as I have previously addressed.
Blah..I'm done for now.
Avesther
New Member
[b said:
The burden of proof is always on the claimant. It is so in law, it is so in the natural order or disorder of the world. If you want to make the claim that it is genetic, then the burden of proof is upon your shoulders.
[b said:
[b said:
It appears you can throw numbers around with no reference.
[b said:
Yep
Turn it around though to the other side and it is you that is making the claim that it is a choice. I say both options are currently claims b/c the discussion itself would be null if either were actually proved true.[b said:
So what do we use as proof that it is not Genetic that it is a choice? ~ Excluding what we would consider "common sense".