(July 14, 2018 at 12:56 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:I’ve had Tiz call me names and tell me how wrong I am, when I was agreeing with him. It seems to be his default response.

It was one time and it's because you were unclear in your statement .And nope my default response is showing that your wrong because you virtually always speak nonsense .

Tiz, I agree with your points. but please start using "you're" for 'you are'. I know, I'm a grammar bitch. Bring on the bitch comments.

(July 14, 2018 at 5:37 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(July 13, 2018 at 7:05 pm)SteveII Wrote: You don't thing the very very clear prohibitions and judgements covers God's opinion on homosexuality and by extension gay marriage?

Well, at least now you're acknowledging that the Christian attitude toward gay marriage is "by extension" of what is in the bible, rather than an affirmation of something actually present in the bible.  At least that's progress.  I will also note that, contrary to the way you frame your question, the bible actually says nothing about homosexuality, but rather addresses specific homosexual acts, not homosexuality as an orientation. But thank you for acknowledging that the Christian complaint about hating the sin and not the sinner is essentially bullshit.  But let's talk about what the bible actually does say.  First of all, I have to ask which part of the bible we're referring to here.  Because if you mean passages in the old testament, we no longer hold that people are abjured against eating shellfish or wearing cotton-polyester blends either, so I think we can ignore those prohibitions.  That leaves us with Paul's statements in Romans, if I'm not mistaken.  It's worth noting that neither Paul nor the writers of the old testament had any notion of homosexuality as an enduring sexual orientation, much less any concept of gay marriage as such.  So by necessity, the comments against homosexual sex are referring to sex outside marriage.  Is it right to extend these statements to statements as to how God feels about homosexual sex within marriage?  Can we likewise extend the prohibition against heterosexual sex outside marriage to what it should say about heterosexual sex within marriage?  I don't think so.  So anyone making such an argument is being ignorant.  But beyond that, even if we accepted that the new testament does say something about gay marriage, we need to look at how Christians actually apply the messages of the new testament in order to see if a coherent moral position is being advanced.  We note that Jesus explicitly condemns divorcing and remarrying, and he also speaks without censure about slavery.  Yet modern Christians take neither message to heart, ignoring what the bible says about divorce, and excusing Jesus' comments on slavery as being merely a product of the time (or perhaps progressive revelation).  Yet how do they treat the passages referring to homosexual behavior?  They zero in on those passages and extend them to things they weren't even talking about at the time.  And why do they do this, but ignore messages about divorce and slavery?  I contend it's because they like the messages condemning homosexual acts, and not the others.  Christians are picking and choosing what to affirm and what not to affirm based upon prior prejudice, rather than upon anything the bible actually says.  And cherry picking which parts of the bible to obey is not a rational procedure no matter how you choose to frame it.  The contemporary Christian, rather than being motivated by any hypothetical argument such as you make, is actually motivated by one thing: anti-homosexual prejudice.

1. You want to dismiss the OT because we can eat shellfish today? You are failing to distinguish between moral laws and laws for managing a theocracy. Sodom and Gomorrah were centuries before any theocracy/laws. No moral laws of the OT have ever been set aside/abolished/sunsetted.
2. Your assumption that Paul and the OT writers had no sense of homosexuality as an enduring sexual orientation has no substance. There were whole cultures where such things were common. Sodom and Gomorrah obviously had wide open ideas on this issue. The reason it does not warrant a mention is that there are a hundred different ways to be oriented toward sin--which was clearly the focus and reason for the NT. What makes this one special? 
3. The divorce analogy is very weak. You can find millions of people that think divorce and remarriage is morally wrong. Personally I think unless there is infidelity or abuse, remarriage violates the command of Jesus. If you find examples of special pleading, take it up with that person/group. The Bible does not special plead. 
4.  Why would Jesus single out chattel slavery in the Galilean countryside while speaking to the poor and working class?  Slavery has multiple definitions and cultural/social aspects to unpack and is a red herring. "...and love your neighbor as yourself for all the laws hang on these..." seems pretty clear you can infer the morality of thousands of things that didn't apply to the audience or haven't been invented yet. The difference is that homosexual acts were singled out in the OT and the NT. Christian's can't ignore it, because a cafeteria Christian undermines their own system of belief--even if they don't realize it (as you are pointing out). 
5. I don't like many contemporary Christians. They have piss-poor theology and made a mess they can't reconcile.
6. Reminder: everyone is a sinner. Homosexual acts don't have a special place. 
7. An appropriate Christian response is to love the sinner, don't compromise on the sin, but let God deal with it--it's not our job to change people's lives. 

If you want to focus in on one or two responses for more discussion, NP, just let me know.

It wasn't Billy Graham who committed adultery. It was Jimmy Swaggert who begged and cried for mercy only because he got caught.

(July 14, 2018 at 10:57 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Objective morality is a big issue for the materialist. 

I'm a materialist.  I think objective morality is an oxymoron, because morality is a value judgement and values are subjective.

(July 13, 2018 at 7:05 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 13, 2018 at 6:39 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I don't find the article particularly apt, given that it cites that marriage, according to God, is permanent, and divorce immoral.  Hardly something you'll find much adherence to among the Christian faithful, whose reasoning you are defending.

Regardless, neither passage even mentions gay marriage.  Where are the passages where God "unambiguously" forbids gay marriage?

You don't thing the very very clear prohibitions and judgements covers God's opinion on homosexuality homosexual acts and by extension gay marriage?

I'm editing this because the distinction is important. Homosexual orientation is not a sin.

I don't think it's reasonable at all to deny someone the right to express their sexuality in a consensual adult relationship. Calling it "sin" is just mythological tosh.

(July 14, 2018 at 1:26 am)Joods Wrote:

(July 13, 2018 at 5:26 pm)SteveII Wrote: So, your position is that if there is a God that created the universe, who is responsible for every concept that ever was and every person that ever lived, he is immoral--because your morality derived from your subjective experience and opinions during a timeframe that would not even appear as a blip in just the history of the universe says so. Color me surprised.

Well - there's no concrete proof that your god even exists so, really, your entire argument is moot. 

An individual should not be told they are going to hell or that they are sinners simply for who they fall in love with or are attracted to. The real problem is that homophobic white men decided a long time ago that something natural and beautiful, grossed them out and so they decided that it "must" be a bad thing because it didn't fit in with their narratives of what "normal" love should be. 

Fuck that noise. What other people decided to do behind closed doors is none of anyone else's business. Plain and simple. If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. If you don't like gay sex, don't participate in it. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to be in a gay relationship. So if they aren't hurting christians, then christians need to mind their own fucking business.

Thank you for the very clear examples of mischaracterizations, red herrings, and straw men arguments that you beat up on.  If you are incapable or don't care to even understand the other side, this automatically makes you ineligible to be part of the conversation. You are just unproductive/destructive noise. This is what is wrong in society today!

No one is trying to stop people from doing anything behind closed doors. The current issue is the redefinition of marriage. Given the belief structure of Christians (God ordained the relationship right from the beginning and everything that follows), you really can't see why they (as a group) have a problem with redefining the word 'marriage'? You could just disagree with this point, but no, that won't do. You want to characterize it as Christians trying to control what's going on in the bedroom because that's a straw man you feel you have a strong argument against. Another disingenuous trick is to find extreme view and then label everyone else with that view.

I don't think biblical marriage should be the prototype.

(July 14, 2018 at 4:46 pm)warmdecember Wrote: It wasn't Billy Graham who committed adultery. It was Jimmy Swaggert who begged and cried for mercy only because he got caught.

Pretty sure Billy Graham loved the cock.  But not as much as his son does.

Quote:Thank you for the very clear examples of mischaracterizations, red herrings, and straw men arguments that you beat up on.  If you are incapable or don't care to even understand the other side, this automatically makes you ineligible to be part of the conversation. You are just unproductive/destructive noise. This is what is wrong in society today!

There is nothing to understand there is no other side just screeching horde of regressive bigots waving a book around

Quote:No one is trying to stop people from doing anything behind closed doors. The current issue is the redefinition of marriage. Given the belief structure of Christians (God ordained the relationship right from the beginning and everything that follows), you really can't see why they (as a group) have a problem with redefining the word 'marriage'? You could just disagree with this point, but no, that won't do. You want to characterize it as Christians trying to control what's going on in the bedroom because that's a straw man you feel you have a strong argument against. Another disingenuous trick is to find extreme view and then label everyone else with that view.

Yup because dictate in your big book of nonsense thus we don't care .And gays should not have to do it" behind close doors" And your opposition is ideological  bigotry and of story and there is no disagreement because not an opinion .

---

Quote:I'm editing this because the distinction is important. Homosexual orientation is not a sin.

Same difference if gays are not permitted to express those feelings or marry the person they love it might as well be a sin .

---

Quote:1. You want to dismiss the OT because we can eat shellfish today? You are failing to distinguish between moral laws and laws for managing a theocracy. Sodom and Gomorrah were centuries before any theocracy/laws. No moral laws of the OT have ever been set aside/abolished/sunsetted.
2. Your assumption that Paul and the OT writers had no sense of homosexuality as an enduring sexual orientation has no substance. There were whole cultures where such things were common. Sodom and Gomorrah obviously had wide open ideas on this issue. The reason it does not warrant a mention is that there are a hundred different ways to be oriented toward sin--which was clearly the focus and reason for the NT. What makes this one special? 
3. The divorce analogy is very weak. You can find millions of people that think divorce and remarriage is morally wrong. Personally I think unless there is infidelity or abuse, remarriage violates the command of Jesus. If you find examples of special pleading, take it up with that person/group. The Bible does not special plead. 
4.  Why would Jesus single out chattel slavery in the Galilean countryside while speaking to the poor and working class?  Slavery has multiple definitions and cultural/social aspects to unpack and is a red herring. "...and love your neighbor as yourself for all the laws hang on these..." seems pretty clear you can infer the morality of thousands of things that didn't apply to the audience or haven't been invented yet. The difference is that homosexual acts were singled out in the OT and the NT. Christian's can't ignore it, because a cafeteria Christian undermines their own system of belief--even if they don't realize it (as you are pointing out). 
5. I don't like many contemporary Christians. They have piss-poor theology and made a mess they can't reconcile.
6. Reminder: everyone is a sinner. Homosexual acts don't have a special place. 
7. An appropriate Christian response is to love the sinner, don't compromise on the sin, but let God deal with it--it's not our job to change people's lives. 

If you want to focus in on one or two responses for more discussion, NP, just let me know.

Long rant of excuse making for Steve's ideological bigotry