Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 811 of 1484 (803573)
04-02-2017 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 809 by LamarkNewAge
04-02-2017 6:13 AM


Re: Did it occur to you that Paul separated sin and state?
Well, now again you've gone off into wacko land and I have no idea what you are trying to say, so I can't even try right now. And please stop accusing me of "ignoring" something that has nothing to do with the point I'm making. It's YOUR preoccupation not mine, I can't ignore something that exists only in your head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 809 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-02-2017 6:13 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 813 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-02-2017 6:29 AM Faith has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 812 of 1484 (803574)
04-02-2017 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 810 by Faith
04-02-2017 6:14 AM


Quote Christian conservatives opposed civil unions Faith.
Civil Unions were opposed by 57 to 40 by all Americans in around 2003-2004 and opposition was fierce and long lasting by conservatives. The public swung strongly in favor of gay marriage suddenly around a 5 year period from 2008 to 2013. It was so fast of a sudden swing that the wave has clowded the recollection of strong opposition to even civil unions just a few years prior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 810 by Faith, posted 04-02-2017 6:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 813 of 1484 (803575)
04-02-2017 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 811 by Faith
04-02-2017 6:22 AM


Re: Did it occur to you that Paul separated sin and state?
You are allergic to Acts 15, aren't you.? And you make arguments about I Corinthians 6:12-13 that are totally contrary to literal definitions of several words and critical ones at that. The "all" part is supportive of your claims how?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 811 by Faith, posted 04-02-2017 6:22 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 823 by Faith, posted 04-02-2017 1:49 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 814 of 1484 (803576)
04-02-2017 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 800 by Rrhain
04-02-2017 3:33 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Rrhain writes:
Unfortunately, you are judged by your statements and how wrong they are.
I think you might be surprised at how your cherry picking and deliberate distortions of what I am saying in being judged. You're behaving like the zealots you oppose.
The LGBT community doesn't need your "help" no matter who much you claim to be an ally.
The LGBT community needs acceptance and that's what it has from me. It doesn't matter to me that you personally are a very poor representative of it - you deserve and will get my support if you are discriminated against in any way.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 800 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2017 3:33 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 815 of 1484 (803577)
04-02-2017 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 804 by Faith
04-02-2017 5:43 AM


Re: Did it occur to you that Paul separated sin and state?
"can you think of any human government or state that explicitly legalizes any of the sins Paul lists as keeping a person out of the kingdom of God ? Don't nations tend to have laws against such things-- or just don't have any laws about them at all?" *************** *****+********* ****,**** +++++++*,******++ +** ***********+** ********* The I Corinthians 6 says Kingdom of Heaven and it is a Hindu and Zoroastrian concept. Svarga ( or Swarga) is the concept. Asvarga means your conduct is not kingdom of heaven bound. Krishna told Arjuna he could break the cycle of birth and rebirth if he fulfilled his duty to Dharma or righteousness by fighting the war of defense. (I think that might be the "violent take it by force" Jesus talked about ). The Hindu religions tend to be in a part of the world where Asvarga is tolerated though. Asvarga is NOT good conduct. NOT heavenBound
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : The multiple heavens Paul famously mentioned in 2 Corinthians is undisputedly related to Zoroastrian and Hindu influences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 804 by Faith, posted 04-02-2017 5:43 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 825 by Faith, posted 04-02-2017 1:59 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 816 of 1484 (803585)
04-02-2017 8:41 AM


Moderator Request
Let's please keep it civil, folks. Most posts are fine, thanks.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6407
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 817 of 1484 (803589)
04-02-2017 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 788 by Faith
04-01-2017 6:26 PM


Re: marriage ordinance again
But I'm realizing that nobody reads anything I write or you'd already know my answer to all the silly things people keep bringing up on this thread because I've already discussed them.
But we do read what you write. Maybe you should try reading it yourself.
To think Jesus would be talking about living together the way people do today is really really culturally obtuse. Cleave together, become one flesh?
"Cleave together, become one flesh" is obviously a reference to sexual intercourse. As far as I know, people who live together today often engage in that.
In your case what I've already discussed is that marriage is not always created with a ceremony.
Right. It is called "common law marriage". And it isn't a Christian thing. If anything, Christians have been opposed to it and have considered it to be sinful. Yet the biblical references that you gave, if anything at all to do with marriage, were about common law marriage. And wedding cakes are not involved.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 788 by Faith, posted 04-01-2017 6:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 818 by jar, posted 04-02-2017 12:30 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 819 by Faith, posted 04-02-2017 1:00 PM nwr has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(4)
Message 818 of 1484 (803592)
04-02-2017 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 817 by nwr
04-02-2017 10:43 AM


the purpose of marriage
nwr writes:
Right. It is called "common law marriage". And it isn't a Christian thing. If anything, Christians have been opposed to it and have considered it to be sinful. Yet the biblical references that you gave, if anything at all to do with marriage, were about common law marriage. And wedding cakes are not involved.
There is a greater point. What you say is true and what the writers have the Jesus character saying has to do with the issue of fidelity.
Marriage is an entirely different subject. Marriage was necessary as part of the inheritance cycle. The whole purpose of marriage was related to power, influence and property.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 817 by nwr, posted 04-02-2017 10:43 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 819 of 1484 (803594)
04-02-2017 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 817 by nwr
04-02-2017 10:43 AM


Re: marriage ordinance again
Cleave together, become one flesh" is obviously a reference to sexual intercourse. As far as I know, people who live together today often engage in that.
Sorry, you are just imposing your culturebound notions on the Bible. Marriage isn't defined by ceremonies in the Bible, it's defined by cleaving together in a permanent union, and yes sexual union is what brings it together as a marriage, creating "one flesh." Sexual union would get them stoned to death if marriage wasn't created by it. Today it isn't considered permanent, multiple sex partners don't even get you stoned to death. We require a ceremony to make it permanent, they didn't, at least not way back in ancient times -- a woman being in the man's tent, which was publicly witnessed, was how a marriage was contracted. In SOME times and places, mind you, I'm sure there were plenty of variations.
Right. It is called "common law marriage". And it isn't a Christian thing. If anything, Christians have been opposed to it and have considered it to be sinful. Yet the biblical references that you gave, if anything at all to do with marriage, were about common law marriage. And wedding cakes are not involved.
The ancient marriages based on Genesis 2 weren't a "Christian thing" either. Marriage itself isn't a "Christian thing," just because the Bible gives God's ordinance for it. The ordinance applied in all times and places because it's GOD's, it's not "Christian." In ancient times they had no such concept as "common law marriage" -- if they were together in his tent they were married. That's again you imposing your cultural context on them.
And no they didn't have wedding cakes as far as we're told. That's a symbol of marriage in OUR culture. If someone wants a wedding cake in OUR culture it's for a wedding.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 817 by nwr, posted 04-02-2017 10:43 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 838 by nwr, posted 04-02-2017 6:19 PM Faith has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4750
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 820 of 1484 (803596)
04-02-2017 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 782 by NoNukes
04-01-2017 11:17 AM


Re: Eighth time, Faith
NoNukes;
NN writes:
I don't like it either, but surely you are aware that the idea that black people are the sons of Ham, an idea that prominent Creationist Ken Ham still adheres to, was used to justify racism toward and even slavery of people of color.
So yeah, the criticism while repugnant, is quite apt.
I am not sure Ken Ham would adhere to that. But even so, where and when black people originated doesn't affect their status as human beings, because the pigment of skin, the colour of skin, is of no consequence in the bible.
Creationist organisations, and AIG too, preach that there is one race, that all came from Adam so this notion that Ken Ham preaches this, sound like a very strange notion, I have heard Ken Ham speak several times on racism and he always seems to make the same point - that we all descended from a brown-skinned Adam and Eve with the information to later produce the different, "races" but mostly he seems to argue we are the same race.
Nevertheless, what the Christian bible says and what God says in it, is what is being disputed, and all of the bullshi* racists try to argue like the mark of Cain is just that - bullshi* they read into the bible, so they can pretend the bible condones it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 782 by NoNukes, posted 04-01-2017 11:17 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 821 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2017 1:32 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 824 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-02-2017 1:49 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 821 of 1484 (803597)
04-02-2017 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 820 by mike the wiz
04-02-2017 1:12 PM


Re: Eighth time, Faith
NoNukes writes:
that the idea that black people are the sons of Ham, an idea that prominent Creationist Ken Ham still adheres to
mike the wiz writes:
I am not sure Ken Ham would adhere to that.
There is no doubt that he adheres. Here is Ham's position from AIG. Note that Ham denies that his belief is racists, and I take him at his word, but he does embrace the descendants of Ham stuff.
quote:
Some of these atheist bloggers claim we are racist because we discuss that certain people in Africa are descended from Noah’s son Ham. But they fail to explain that we teach that many different people groups descended from Ham, including the Chinese.
But even so, where and when black people originated doesn't affect their status as human beings, because the pigment of skin, the colour of skin, is of no consequence in the bible.
First of all, Africans are from among the first people, so the idea that there are descendant's of Ham via Noah is complete nonsense.
Secondly, the Bible does speak of curses being visited upon the generations of folks, and the curse on Ham is certainly Biblical. Like many Bible beliefs that folks have espoused, this one can be argued against, but so are some things that folks currently believe, such as the Trinity doctrine for which equally strong counter-arguments can be made. What is the case, however, is that folks did defend racism and slavery on the basis of what can be read in the Bible. It is further the case that the Bible, from cover to cover, is silent about any opprobrium for slavery.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 820 by mike the wiz, posted 04-02-2017 1:12 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 822 by mike the wiz, posted 04-02-2017 1:41 PM NoNukes has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4750
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 822 of 1484 (803598)
04-02-2017 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 821 by NoNukes
04-02-2017 1:32 PM


Re: Eighth time, Faith
Racism | Answers in Genesis
I suppose you also believe creationists eat children. As you can see from the link, there are no races as such, under creationism, so tribes can't be delineated by outer appearance.
NoNukes writes:
First of all, Africans are from among the first people, so the idea that there are descendant's of Ham via Noah is complete nonsense
Certain people groups coming from Ham, has nothing to do with being cursed anyway, in the sense of racism.
But you're confusing the terms of debate. It is your position that Africans are the first people according to evolution, as creationists we believe that all "races" came from Adam.
NoNukes writes:
Secondly, the Bible does speak of curses being visited upon the generations of folks, and the curse on Ham is certainly Biblical. Like many Bible beliefs that folks have espoused, this one can be argued against, but so are some things that folks currently believe, such as the Trinity doctrine. What is the case however is that folks did defend racism and slavery on the basis of what can be read in the Bible. It is further the case that the Bible, from cover to cover, is silent about any opprobrium for slavery.
I'm sorry but this is a very tenuous case. How many times did God have a chance in the bible, to pick on certain races with certain skin colours, and tell us they are worth less as human beings. Even in the law, we might expect such a clear law such as, "and the people with black skin of tribe Bilbo, are not to be accepted, and cannot rise to your station, to whip the tar out of them as slaves."
Sorry but your argument is this; "you can read the bible and perhaps get racism from it somehow if you try and force fit it in there."
But it is clear that there is nothing in the bible which condones it, and there was plenty of chances for God to speak about it, but He only said man is made in His image, He never singles out certain people groups. Even if there was some, "curse" this wouldn't refer to skin colour, if your claim is the bible says racist things, you have to show evidence it clearly does.
I myself have never read anything racist in the bible, it seems like an open and shut case that wicked people try and get things into the bible so as to justify those agendas by appealing to the bible as the authority which justifies those notions.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 821 by NoNukes, posted 04-02-2017 1:32 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 883 by NoNukes, posted 04-03-2017 1:55 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 823 of 1484 (803600)
04-02-2017 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 813 by LamarkNewAge
04-02-2017 6:29 AM


Re: Did it occur to you that Paul separated sin and state?
You are allergic to Acts 15, aren't you.? And you make arguments about I Corinthians 6:12-13 that are totally contrary to literal definitions of several words and critical ones at that. The "all" part is supportive of your claims how?
What on earth does Acts 15 have to do with any of this? You are living in some kind of alternate universe, I have NO idea what is going on in your head. The idea that I'm "allergic" to Acts 15 has to do with something YOU have in mind that makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm not avoiding it I just don't get it.
Here's your other post on this subject, Message 809:
Faith. Unless my eyes are playing tricks on me, you did draw a distinction between "moral" law and what not?
The Moral Law of God is basically the Ten Commandments and all their variations as discussed in the Books of the Law of Moses, such as Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I was saying maybe you are confusing this Law of God with the laws enacted by nations? God's Moral Law rules everything, rules the universe, rules us all, and sin is violations of this law, and violations of this law is what takes us to Hell.
Nations of course have some laws based on the Moral Law, such as laws against murder and stealing, that are judged and punished according to the government or legal system of that nation. This is something else. They can have laws that have nothing to do with the Moral Law of God, or they can have punishments for some laws such as stoning for adultery or no punishment at all, etc.
I see you are using the ceremonial argument.
You keep using that term "ceremonial." It's one of the things that is confusing. There is no concept of ceremonial law in the New Testament; there is in the Old Testament though. But you are using it in relation to the New Testament Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and I do not get what your point is. I'm not aware of using any "ceremonial" argument at all, I don't know what you are talking about.
I can see why you keep ignoring Acts 15 since the kosher slaughter practices and fornication are present which complicates your ceremonial cleaness argument.
Huh?
The lack of requirement for circumcision eliminates the claim that gentiles were required to follow the commands just for Temple sacrifice .
Huh? "Temple sacrifice?????"
The uncircumcised could NOT enter the Temple. Paul said all things are lawful but you claim that broma or bread for the stomach (which God will destroy both ) is what is covered by "all things ".
Huh? What ARE you talking about?
Perhaps he is saying it all comes to nothing when the world ends or people die? Everything profane and worldly? I love how you can be so happy for such a certain brushing aside of "all" things only refering to idol meat and discount his other possible meanings.
Have you ever read a Christian commentary or do you just invent all this gobbledygook in your own head?
Acts 15 is about the believing Jews being upset because the Gentiles were getting saved without having to obey any of the laws the Jews had been taught to obey. Paul was trying to teach the Jews that God doesn't requir4e obedience to those laws any more, -- the ceremonial ones anyway -- but the Jews had grown up under strict obedience to them and their conscience was bound by them and they couldn't just change course that easily. (As in the case of meat sacrificed to idols, no well-brought-up Jew could touch the stuff for fear of being contaminated, so Paul doesn't require it of them, but asks others to respect their strict conscience about it.)
Paul teaches that when a brother's conscience is bound the rest of the believers who are free of that bondage are to yield to those whose conscience is bound.
So they had this council to determine which laws were most important to the Jews in this respect, in order to ask the Gentiles to obey those laws for the sake of the conscience of the Jews. Paul had already taught at great length against the need for circumcision so that one wasn't included. Instead they made a short list of laws for the Gentiles to obey in order to avoid offending the Jews. These included fornication and meats with the blood in them. When the Jews were no longer the leaders of the churches and Christianity had become more Gentile than Jewish, there was no longer a need for these laws because there weren't enough Jews brought up in the Law to be offended any more.
Having said all that I guess you are saying something about the difference between the law of blood and the law of fornication? I guess the law of blood being a dietary law was a "ceremonial" law so I guess you are saying something about that, but I really am not sure what. Fornication of course is against God's Moral Law so we are to obey that in any case, council or no council. But the law of blood no longer applies to us.
Now, if I've managed to sort all that out at least to some extent, can you explain what you keep trying to say about it all?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 813 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-02-2017 6:29 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 826 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-02-2017 2:04 PM Faith has replied
 Message 875 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-03-2017 12:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 824 of 1484 (803601)
04-02-2017 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 820 by mike the wiz
04-02-2017 1:12 PM


Shem ,Ham (father of Egypt, Lybia, Ethiopia, Canaan),Japeth
Three children of Noah on ark that repopulated earth. Ham was father of Canaan (northern Egypt population and Canaanite population of Palestine plus Tarshish and other colonies ) and he uncovered Noah nude while drunk. Cush or Nubia Ethiopia were the typical black slaves though. I am thus not sure skin color was reason for story initially though later Midrash stories had Canaan represent black skinned people. The view became the Christian American view of choice in the first century of the nation's founding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 820 by mike the wiz, posted 04-02-2017 1:12 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 825 of 1484 (803603)
04-02-2017 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 815 by LamarkNewAge
04-02-2017 7:42 AM


Re: Did it occur to you that Paul separated sin and state?
"can you think of any human government or state that explicitly legalizes any of the sins Paul lists as keeping a person out of the kingdom of God ? Don't nations tend to have laws against such things-- or just don't have any laws about them at all?"
The I Corinthians 6 says Kingdom of Heaven and it is a Hindu and Zoroastrian concept. Svarga ( or Swarga) is the concept. Asvarga means your conduct is not kingdom of heaven bound. Krishna told Arjuna he could break the cycle of birth and rebirth if he fulfilled his duty to Dharma or righteousness by fighting the war of defense. (I think that might be the "violent take it by force" Jesus talked about ). The Hindu religions tend to be in a part of the world where Asvarga is tolerated though. Asvarga is NOT good conduct. NOT heavenBound
I asked fror an example of a nation that LEGALIZES any of the moral sins listed in the Bible. Againj as usual I don't know what you are trying to say.
"Kingdom of heaven" is a Biblical concept. Even if Hinduism has some similar idea it's the Biblical version that matters in this discussion. Nothing in Hinduism has anything to do with Jesus' teaching.
But if there is any connection at all between what you are saying and what I asked, what you are offering is an example of something that AGREES with God's moral law, forbidding what it forbids, not legalizing what it forbids.
As far as I can tell.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 815 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-02-2017 7:42 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 828 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-02-2017 2:16 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024