|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 5, 2023 23:59:34 GMT
No one should be forced to believe something that is against their religion, however, this does not give them any right to impose their religion on others who do believe in something that is against their religion. Okay, I can't argue with that, and I won't argue with that. I mention this because most of the time I disagree with you and I think it would save a lot of typing if instead of responding all the times I disagree, I just respond when I agree. Impressive efficiency, no? While I would not think to impose any religion on you merely because it is religion, I do think you might be entertained by my beliefs and the fascinating stories of how I arrived at them. After time you might decide you agree. That being of your own free will would be so much more valuable to me than if I had to coerce. Where I live coercion is highly unpopular, if perhaps in rare circumstances (more obvious transgressions) necessary. I think that failing to "disagree" with same sex marriage is is not the more significant failing. The more significant failing is to accept a definition of marriage which means no more than same sex marriage. When marriage no longer means attending to the people created by the union and the partner in that creation, it means no more than same sex marriage does. Worse, the likelihood of needing government intervention increases dramatically. I am not complaining about those people who take care of children who for whatever reason cannot expect their own parents to care for them. I think that is wonderful and applaud that. It is however an exception and I think it is important that exceptions do not become the rule. Okay, after some consideration I might reply when I disagree. That is if I can find the time of course.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 6, 2023 1:07:32 GMT
When marriage no longer means attending to the people created by the union and the partner in that creation, it means no more than same sex marriage does. Sounds like someone thinks that legal marriage requires having children. It doesn't (never has in this country), and having no such requirement is one reason why the state couldn't justify denying legal marriage to same-sex couples.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 6, 2023 1:43:45 GMT
Or...is supporting the legalization of same-sex marriage not in conflict with being a good Christian? Generally, the NT suggests staying out of politics.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 6, 2023 4:19:07 GMT
No one should be forced to believe something that is against their religion, however, this does not give them any right to impose their religion on others who do believe in something that is against their religion. Okay, I can't argue with that, and I won't argue with that. I mention this because most of the time I disagree with you and I think it would save a lot of typing if instead of responding all the times I disagree, I just respond when I agree. Impressive efficiency, no? While I would not think to impose any religion on you merely because it is religion, I do think you might be entertained by my beliefs and the fascinating stories of how I arrived at them. After time you might decide you agree. That being of your own free will would be so much more valuable to me than if I had to coerce. Where I live coercion is highly unpopular, if perhaps in rare circumstances (more obvious transgressions) necessary. I think that failing to "disagree" with same sex marriage is is not the more significant failing. The more significant failing is to accept a definition of marriage which means no more than same sex marriage. When marriage no longer means attending to the people created by the union and the partner in that creation, it means no more than same sex marriage does. Worse, the likelihood of needing government intervention increases dramatically. I am not complaining about those people who take care of children who for whatever reason cannot expect their own parents to care for them. I think that is wonderful and applaud that. It is however an exception and I think it is important that exceptions do not become the rule. Okay, after some consideration I might reply when I disagree. That is if I can find the time of course. You don't have to agree with me, I couldn't care less, just keep your personal religious prohibitions out and off of my life.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 6, 2023 10:44:41 GMT
When marriage no longer means attending to the people created by the union and the partner in that creation, it means no more than same sex marriage does. Sounds like someone thinks that legal marriage requires having children. It doesn't (never has in this country), and having no such requirement is one reason why the state couldn't justify denying legal marriage to same-sex couples.
Having a license to repair internal combustion engines does not mean a person must repair internal combustion engines. A person might make a living operating a seafood restaurant and have some interest in internal combustion engines, even if his restaurant has no trucks. There is a "truckload" (lame pun) of reasons to be interested in internal combustion engines. Using that observation to decide that getting a license to repair internal combustion has nothing to do with internal combustion engines would be a terrible mistake. If you are saying that because some people marry with no immediate, or perhaps even long term, interest in having children then marriage is not about children does seem to me, correct me if I misread, a similar misapplication of logic. Has your opinion changed? Mine has not. Would you like to try again? Let me guess. You think that if other people can legally marry without having children then, seeing that the law should be applied equally, the same right to marry should apply to same sex couples? Some people in this world are cruel and might respond to that with peals of derisive laughter. They got an opinion somewhere along the way (There are better and worse sources.) that same sex couples are not suited to teach children the true variety of things they need to be taught. Ignoring them, it still does not follow that because some heterosexual married couples refrain from having children that homosexual couples have any qualifications whatsoever. Just because some people who get a license to repair internal combustion engines choose not to repair any does not by itself qualify anyone else to repair them.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 6, 2023 10:57:06 GMT
Okay, I can't argue with that, and I won't argue with that. I mention this because most of the time I disagree with you and I think it would save a lot of typing if instead of responding all the times I disagree, I just respond when I agree. Impressive efficiency, no? While I would not think to impose any religion on you merely because it is religion, I do think you might be entertained by my beliefs and the fascinating stories of how I arrived at them. After time you might decide you agree. That being of your own free will would be so much more valuable to me than if I had to coerce. Where I live coercion is highly unpopular, if perhaps in rare circumstances (more obvious transgressions) necessary. I think that failing to "disagree" with same sex marriage is is not the more significant failing. The more significant failing is to accept a definition of marriage which means no more than same sex marriage. When marriage no longer means attending to the people created by the union and the partner in that creation, it means no more than same sex marriage does. Worse, the likelihood of needing government intervention increases dramatically. I am not complaining about those people who take care of children who for whatever reason cannot expect their own parents to care for them. I think that is wonderful and applaud that. It is however an exception and I think it is important that exceptions do not become the rule. Okay, after some consideration I might reply when I disagree. That is if I can find the time of course. You don't have to agree with me, I couldn't care less, just keep your personal religious prohibitions out and off of my life.
I was not aware of "imposing" anything. You do know this is R,F & S, right? I am sorry you got so beleaguered somehow and hope it was not my doing. Might a person suggest a nice cup of tea?
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 6, 2023 11:00:27 GMT
You don't have to agree with me, I couldn't care less, just keep your personal religious prohibitions out and off of my life.
I was not aware of "imposing" anything. You do know this is R,F & S, right? I am sorry you got so beleaguered somehow and hope it was not my doing. Might a person suggest a nice cup of tea?
Religion has become politics.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 6, 2023 11:54:11 GMT
Sounds like someone thinks that legal marriage requires having children. It doesn't (never has in this country), and having no such requirement is one reason why the state couldn't justify denying legal marriage to same-sex couples.
It seems you are unfamiliar with the wise advise about when you find yourself in a hole you should stop digging. The evidence: And yet, since he has met the valid requirements, the state grants him the license, anyway.And there is, likewise a truckload of reasons for a same-sex couple to be interested in legal marriage. So, this analogy of yours only serves to support my point.You may have misread it. But you have definitely mischaracterized it. Legal marriage has much to say about children. But being legally married puts no requirement on couples to have children. (Which is fortunate, btw, for women over about the age of fifty who plan to marry.)And you fail to offer even one requirement of legal marriage that a same-sex couple cannot meet. But don't feel bad about that. Had even one lawyer in the many lower court cases been able to accomplish that feat, then same-sex couples would, today, still be denied marriage licenses.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 6, 2023 16:55:05 GMT
Your whole argument about how god talks to people is based on feeling, that feeling is fundamentalism. No gadreeel, it really isn't. It's actually based on THE BIBLE! That's why I'm asking you questions about it in terms of how you rationalize your beliefs in accordance with what it says. You made an argument that "it was mistranslated a long time ago" but also claimed QUOTE "I feel like I follow the idea of a loving God and the message was certainly communicated to me". You are the one who brought up "feelings" my friend, not me! I'm just using your own logic! I'm asking you why you think your feeling is indicative of some objective truth about God, when other people have opposite feelings that comport more to what scripture actually says? It doesn't seem like you have a good answer to that. Also, let's get something clear, I'm obviously not a "fundamentalist" anything. How can I be a fundamentalist when I'm an atheist? All I did was ask you some very specific questions regarding the God that you claim to believe in. You say that the Bible does not have homophobic teachings and that God is essentially okay with gays. You also say that you understand this through your own personal feelings. If God communicates "clearly" to anyone, and the vast majority of Christians believe that they are receiving a clear communication from God that he essentially hates the gays, then that only leaves a few possible options: 1) God is NOT communicating clearly to anyone at all and is the author of confusion 2) God is ONLY communicating to you clearly (because you're special compared to other Christians) 3) God is ONLY communicating to other Christians (because they're special and you're not) 4) God doesn't actually exist at all and this is all just people going off of their own moral judgement and attributing it to a god Now obviously I believe that the correct answer is 4) because in accordance with the principle of Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is the best one. This is the explanation that most closely comports with our direct observations and the one which assumes the least variables. However, maybe I'm wrong. So, you tell me - which one is it? And if it's none of the above, then how do you explain this contradiction between your feelings about what God says, and everyone else's contradictory feelings about what he says? -Why is God allowing so many of his worshippers to arrive at DIFFERENT conclusions about him and his morality? You don't seem to be willing to answer that question, which to me is indicative of some cognitive dissonance. This is not a "fundamentalist" question; it's a critical thinking question that challenges your theological position. You should be able to answer this without being a fundamentalist. If you can't, then there's a serious problem with your epistemological approach. Well first off lets talk about all the gospels that never made it into the bible, Sure let's talk about them - beginning with the fact that they are non-canon and considered apocryphal by the Church, which means they are by definition NOT Christian doctrine, right? then we can talk about the corpus of Christian writers in the last 2000 years as well, Aquinas, Spong, Rohr. Cool, let's talk about them. Which of their writings deal with sexuality, or otherwise clarify God's stance on sexual orientation? I'm all ears! We can also talk in a esoteric way about the Jews and their writings as they contribute to the basis of Christian thought, especially metaphysically, Absolutely! According to Jewish doctrine and writings, what do the Jews believe about homosexuality? Go! and then we can talk about the writings of the various popes and scholars, not to mention, priests throughout the ages Brilliant. Let's begin with THIS age, and the CURRENT Pope. You made a claim about how the Catholic church today (in most places) sanctions gay marriage. I've literally just shown you evidence that the current Pope does NOT sanction gay marriage. You responded by pointing to a pewresearch article showing how most "Catholics" feel about homosexuality and gay marriage (results of which vary greatly throughout the world, where 90% of Ukrainian Catholics are AGAINST gay marriage while 92% of Dutch Catholics support it). But these stats are completely irrelevant because how Catholics around the world FEEL does not inform upon us about Christian doctrine! They are only FOLLOWERS. What do the LEADERS of said religion say? The popes, saints, apostles, priests, and scholars? Those are the people who matter because they are the ones who decide what is doctrine; not the followers. And if you refer to your own link and read it more carefully, it explains that while the Pope supports legal civil unions in the context of civil, secular laws, he "insisted marriage can be only between a man and a woman". So, how do you explain that? Then explain to me which Popes, priests, or scholars EVER sanctioned gay marriage or any homosexual activity as morally permissible at any time? If you happen to be an esoteric (or mystical) Christian then there is also the stream of writing around that, which includes hermetic texts, writings out of the temple of light, and various 'occult' writings throughout history, of course given that Christianity is not a monolith, we also have the writings or the Jehovah's witnesses, the ratana church, and even the book of Mormon. Fine. Which of ^these Christians schools of thought do YOU personally subscribe to? Are you a mystical Christian? Do you accept "occult" writings? Are you a Jehovah's Witness? Are you a Mormon? By the way, what exactly do the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons say about homosexuality? Do they support it or condemn it? I'm pretty sure we both know the answer to that, so I don't know why you think this helps your argument. I think you think that Christian means Catholic in this regard, I actually don't think that at all. The reason I brought up Catholicism is because it's the LARGEST denomination of Christianity and the one which codified the Bible (that you know) as the canonical source of doctrine. And the reason I brought up the Pope is because YOU SAID: "the majority of the catholic church support gay marriage in most countries". That statement is false! The majority of Catholic FOLLOWERS support gay marriage in SOME countries. That's what your article showed, which is very different from your claim. and even then you are ignoring the writings and proclamations on behalf of god from the various popes through the ages, which is what Papal Infallibility is about. I'm actually not ignoring them. First of all, I don't recognize the existence of any writings or proclamations "on behalf of God". I see writings and proclamations which CLAIM to be on behalf of God, but with no evidence of this actually being the case. Nevertheless, I'm willing to consider what all of them have to say if they impact Christian doctrine. It doesn't matter what I believe because YOU are the believer! I don't need to believe that these are proclamations on behalf of God because it's YOUR belief that matters here. If YOU believe they are proclamations on behalf of God, then you are the one who needs to defend them. All you have to do is produce an example of these writings and point to where any of them support homosexual activity of any kind. So far, you've made a lot of references to these other writings, but you haven't provided a link to any of them or even quoted from any of them showing that they support homosexuality as permissible. Christianity is huge, and varied, I'm not interested in your dictating my belief from your fundamentalist stance. But apparently you ARE interested in straw man arguments (since I've never done that). I don't believe what fundamentalist Christians believe, so why are you FALSEY accusing me of holding their beliefs? You're also interested in distracting with red-herrings. And that's why you brought up the occult writings, and beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons (which you don't even accept yourself). You're NOT dictating your own beliefs at this point, but rather appealing to the beliefs of others! That is dishonest. And the bigger problem you have in doing that is that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are just as homophobic as fundamentlist mainstream Christians are! Actually, in some cases, they're even worse. And their writings are just as homophobic as Catholic writings are. So it's a ridiculous (and hypocritical) argument you are making by accusing me of distracting from your beliefs. That's literally what you just did.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 6, 2023 19:23:16 GMT
Your whole argument about how god talks to people is based on feeling, that feeling is fundamentalism. No gadreeel, it really isn't. It's actually based on THE BIBLE! That's why I'm asking you questions about it in terms of how you rationalize your beliefs in accordance with what it says. You made an argument that "it was mistranslated a long time ago" but also claimed QUOTE "I feel like I follow the idea of a loving God and the message was certainly communicated to me". You are the one who brought up "feelings" my friend, not me! I'm just using your own logic! I'm asking you why you think your feeling is indicative of some objective truth about God, when other people have opposite feelings that comport more to what scripture actually says? It doesn't seem like you have a good answer to that. Also, let's get something clear, I'm obviously not a "fundamentalist" anything. How can I be a fundamentalist when I'm an atheist? All I did was ask you some very specific questions regarding the God that you claim to believe in. You say that the Bible does not have homophobic teachings and that God is essentially okay with gays. You also say that you understand this through your own personal feelings. If God communicates "clearly" to anyone, and the vast majority of Christians believe that they are receiving a clear communication from God that he essentially hates the gays, then that only leaves a few possible options: 1) God is NOT communicating clearly to anyone at all and is the author of confusion 2) God is ONLY communicating to you clearly (because you're special compared to other Christians) 3) God is ONLY communicating to other Christians (because they're special and you're not) 4) God doesn't actually exist at all and this is all just people going off of their own moral judgement and attributing it to a god Now obviously I believe that the correct answer is 4) because in accordance with the principle of Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is the best one. This is the explanation that most closely comports with our direct observations and the one which assumes the least variables. However, maybe I'm wrong. So, you tell me - which one is it? And if it's none of the above, then how do you explain this contradiction between your feelings about what God says, and everyone else's contradictory feelings about what he says? -Why is God allowing so many of his worshippers to arrive at DIFFERENT conclusions about him and his morality? You don't seem to be willing to answer that question, which to me is indicative of some cognitive dissonance. This is not a "fundamentalist" question; it's a critical thinking question that challenges your theological position. You should be able to answer this without being a fundamentalist. If you can't, then there's a serious problem with your epistemological approach. Well first off lets talk about all the gospels that never made it into the bible, Sure let's talk about them - beginning with the fact that they are non-canon and considered apocryphal by the Church, which means they are by definition NOT Christian doctrine, right? then we can talk about the corpus of Christian writers in the last 2000 years as well, Aquinas, Spong, Rohr. Cool, let's talk about them. Which of their writings deal with sexuality, or otherwise clarify God's stance on sexual orientation? I'm all ears! We can also talk in a esoteric way about the Jews and their writings as they contribute to the basis of Christian thought, especially metaphysically, Absolutely! According to Jewish doctrine and writings, what do the Jews believe about homosexuality? Go! and then we can talk about the writings of the various popes and scholars, not to mention, priests throughout the ages Brilliant. Let's begin with THIS age, and the CURRENT Pope. You made a claim about how the Catholic church today (in most places) sanctions gay marriage. I've literally just shown you evidence that the current Pope does NOT sanction gay marriage. You responded by pointing to a pewresearch article showing how most "Catholics" feel about homosexuality and gay marriage (results of which vary greatly throughout the world, where 90% of Ukrainian Catholics are AGAINST gay marriage while 92% of Dutch Catholics support it). But these stats are completely irrelevant because how Catholics around the world FEEL does not inform upon us about Christian doctrine! They are only FOLLOWERS. What do the LEADERS of said religion say? The popes, saints, apostles, priests, and scholars? Those are the people who matter because they are the ones who decide what is doctrine; not the followers. And if you refer to your own link and read it more carefully, it explains that while the Pope supports legal civil unions in the context of civil, secular laws, he "insisted marriage can be only between a man and a woman". So, how do you explain that? Then explain to me which Popes, priests, or scholars EVER sanctioned gay marriage or any homosexual activity as morally permissible at any time? If you happen to be an esoteric (or mystical) Christian then there is also the stream of writing around that, which includes hermetic texts, writings out of the temple of light, and various 'occult' writings throughout history, of course given that Christianity is not a monolith, we also have the writings or the Jehovah's witnesses, the ratana church, and even the book of Mormon. Fine. Which of ^these Christians schools of thought do YOU personally subscribe to? Are you a mystical Christian? Do you accept "occult" writings? Are you a Jehovah's Witness? Are you a Mormon? By the way, what exactly do the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons say about homosexuality? Do they support it or condemn it? I'm pretty sure we both know the answer to that, so I don't know why you think this helps your argument. I think you think that Christian means Catholic in this regard, I actually don't think that at all. The reason I brought up Catholicism is because it's the LARGEST denomination of Christianity and the one which codified the Bible (that you know) as the canonical source of doctrine. And the reason I brought up the Pope is because YOU SAID: "the majority of the catholic church support gay marriage in most countries". That statement is false! The majority of Catholic FOLLOWERS support gay marriage in SOME countries. That's what your article showed, which is very different from your claim. and even then you are ignoring the writings and proclamations on behalf of god from the various popes through the ages, which is what Papal Infallibility is about. I'm actually not ignoring them. First of all, I don't recognize the existence of any writings or proclamations "on behalf of God". I see writings and proclamations which CLAIM to be on behalf of God, but with no evidence of this actually being the case. Nevertheless, I'm willing to consider what all of them have to say if they impact Christian doctrine. It doesn't matter what I believe because YOU are the believer! I don't need to believe that these are proclamations on behalf of God because it's YOUR belief that matters here. If YOU believe they are proclamations on behalf of God, then you are the one who needs to defend them. All you have to do is produce an example of these writings and point to where any of them support homosexual activity of any kind. So far, you've made a lot of references to these other writings, but you haven't provided a link to any of them or even quoted from any of them showing that they support homosexuality as permissible. Christianity is huge, and varied, I'm not interested in your dictating my belief from your fundamentalist stance. But apparently you ARE interested in straw man arguments (since I've never done that). I don't believe what fundamentalist Christians believe, so why are you FALSEY accusing me of holding their beliefs? You're also interested in distracting with red-herrings. And that's why you brought up the occult writings, and beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons (which you don't even accept yourself). You're NOT dictating your own beliefs at this point, but rather appealing to the beliefs of others! That is dishonest. And the bigger problem you have in doing that is that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are just as homophobic as fundamentlist mainstream Christians are! Actually, in some cases, they're even worse. And their writings are just as homophobic as Catholic writings are. So it's a ridiculous (and hypocritical) argument you are making by accusing me of distracting from your beliefs. That's literally what you just did. And yet all your arguments stem from, 'thats not church doctrine so it cannot be correct' Your very foundation is Christian, mostly catholic doctrine, and you betray it by saying that if it was not included in the bible it is not Christian teaching, hmm, so Thomas is not included in the bible, hold on I thought he was an apostle, is there a part of Jesus writings that explain why he is not in the bible? Is Jesus and the teachings of him not Christian? I mean why even keep him around and make him a founding father of your legacy if you don think he has something important to say? Not the point, they are Christian, so the writings their church produces are Christian writings. You brought up Christian doctrine, as some kind of argument that the bible is as they say, not as modern thinkers believe. I dont give a stuttering ducks fuck for 'Christian doctrine' as it's an oxymoron, which Christian doctrine? Obviously you think only Catholic, there are many Christian doctrines. And here we have the crux, welcome to cherry pick lane, population you. You claim the bible is the source of Gods thoughts, so clearly (or at least according to the argument you dont even believe) the bible is written on behalf of God, but for some reason you think thats when writings on his behalf stopped. NO ONE writes on behalf of God, God is eneffable. Bottom line, I believe three things: Modern hermeneutics that show us it is very unlikely that any of the verses in the bible are condemning a loving relationship between two partners of the same sex, most of these so called condemnations are either mistranslations, or in context actually talking about something else (Soddom and Gommorah being the prime example, leviticus very close behind) God is a force for unity and love God created/allowed us to be as we are, homosexuals included, a loving god would not condemn people to a hell (that does not exist) because he created them that way. Im sorry in your eyes I am sure that does not make me a Christian, you are in company you will enjoy, Erjen is a fundamentalist too. By making your arguments from a fundamentalist perspective, which is 100% your angle. www.sthugh.net/lgbtq-affirming-scripture
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 6, 2023 19:43:36 GMT
-Why is God allowing so many of his worshippers to arrive at DIFFERENT conclusions about him and his morality? An earnest Christian (of some variety or other) might answer thusly: "These differences display for Jesus the wheat from the chaff. Most confusion results from people's own laziness and the willingness to accept false teaching. What people must do is to study God’s Word diligently (which includes discerning right translations from wrong ones) and, most especially, prayerfully rely on the Holy Spirit. For those who are truly heartfelt enough, the Holy Spirit will open one's heart to God’s truth concerning Him. If you are still sticking to the wrong path, that shows you're not really seeking in total honesty and commitment.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 6, 2023 21:08:10 GMT
-Why is God allowing so many of his worshippers to arrive at DIFFERENT conclusions about him and his morality? An earnest Christian (of some variety or other) might answer thusly: "These differences display for Jesus the wheat from the chaff. Most confusion results from people's own laziness and the willingness to accept false teaching. What people must do is to study God’s Word diligently (which includes discerning right translations from wrong ones) and, most especially, prayerfully rely on the Holy Spirit. For those who are truly heartfelt enough, the Holy Spirit will open one's heart to God’s truth concerning Him. If you are still sticking to the wrong path, that shows you're not really seeking in total honesty and commitment. The real question I think a dilligent Christian should ask is, what is gods word?? What words actually come from god?? What can we actually know about god. When we ask these questions we tend to see that everything that is written about god is an interpretation from man, and that we can reject vast swathes of it when we realise that lots of it says things about god that we cannot possibly know. How on earth can we really know what god thinks about homosexuals??
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 6, 2023 21:22:58 GMT
An earnest Christian (of some variety or other) might answer thusly: "These differences display for Jesus the wheat from the chaff. Most confusion results from people's own laziness and the willingness to accept false teaching. What people must do is to study God’s Word diligently (which includes discerning right translations from wrong ones) and, most especially, prayerfully rely on the Holy Spirit. For those who are truly heartfelt enough, the Holy Spirit will open one's heart to God’s truth concerning Him. If you are still sticking to the wrong path, that shows you're not really seeking in total honesty and commitment. The real question I think a dilligent Christian should ask is, what is gods word?? What words actually come from god?? What can we actually know about god. When we ask these questions we tend to see that everything that is written about god is an interpretation from man, and that we can reject vast swathes of it when we realise that lots of it says things about god that we cannot possibly know. How on earth can we really know what god thinks about homosexuals?? Continuing in the same vein of my imagined Christian: "God's word is that Bible with 66 books that God made available for the whole world. Whatever stuff that didn't make it in there was not intended to. What God wants us to know about Him is found there. The things you are saying are the confused ideas of one not earnestly seeking the truth. And so, the Holy Spirit is not present to guide you."
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 6, 2023 21:31:44 GMT
The real question I think a dilligent Christian should ask is, what is gods word?? What words actually come from god?? What can we actually know about god. When we ask these questions we tend to see that everything that is written about god is an interpretation from man, and that we can reject vast swathes of it when we realise that lots of it says things about god that we cannot possibly know. How on earth can we really know what god thinks about homosexuals?? Continuing in the same vein of my imagined Christian: "God's word is that Bible with 66 books that God made available for the whole world. Whatever stuff that didn't make it in there was not intended to. What God wants us to know about Him is found there. The things you are saying are the confused ideas of one not earnestly seeking the truth. And so, the Holy Spirit is not present to guide you." Fair enough, I guess this is the reason we have doctrinal schism. I personally take the hermetic view, that there have been enlightened people throughout all cultures and history and they wrote about spirituality, most religions (I hesitate to say all) contain some of these pieces of wisdom, normally filtered through their cultural norms. Many religions hold very similar ideas so that supports this. I reject the argument that God had a hand in creating the bible, for any number of reasons, not the least of which is he seems to have plenty to do already without micromanaging his followers.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 6, 2023 21:48:25 GMT
Continuing in the same vein of my imagined Christian: "God's word is that Bible with 66 books that God made available for the whole world. Whatever stuff that didn't make it in there was not intended to. What God wants us to know about Him is found there. The things you are saying are the confused ideas of one not earnestly seeking the truth. And so, the Holy Spirit is not present to guide you." Fair enough, I guess this is the reason we have doctrinal schism. I can keep this up, you know."Which is why you don't have the answers you seek. You allow this cacophony of voices in that only bring confusion.""You badly underestimate God's capacity to handle both the macro and the micro. He is God, after all, not some corporate CEO. This demonstrates a lack of faith on your part, and so your heart is not fully open to God's truth."
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 6, 2023 22:24:57 GMT
Fair enough, I guess this is the reason we have doctrinal schism. I can keep this up, you know."Which is why you don't have the answers you seek. You allow this cacophony of voices in that only bring confusion.""You badly underestimate God's capacity to handle both the macro and the micro. He is God, after all, not some corporate CEO. This demonstrates a lack of faith on your part, and so your heart is not fully open to God's truth." ok I am pretty sure you dont believe any of that. I am sure you can keep it up for devils advocate purposes, I personally have a different view of god.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 6, 2023 22:26:29 GMT
It seems you are unfamiliar with the wise advise about when you find yourself in a hole you should stop digging. The evidence:And yet, since he has met the valid requirements, the state grants him the license, anyway.And there is, likewise a truckload of reasons for a same-sex couple to be interested in legal marriage. So, this analogy of yours only serves to support my point.You may have misread it. But you have definitely mischaracterized it. Legal marriage has much to say about children. But being legally married puts no requirement on couples to have children. (Which is fortunate, btw, for women over about the age of fifty who plan to marry.)And you fail to offer even one requirement of legal marriage that a same-sex couple cannot meet. But don't feel bad about that. Had even one lawyer in the many lower court cases been able to accomplish that feat, then same-sex couples would, today, still be denied marriage licenses.
Your first mistake was assuming that because qualified people refrain from doing something anyone can be qualified even if they cannot do that thing. You are still wrong however much it remains beyond your understanding. Your second mistake is assuming that being "interested" in something necessarily qualifies anyone for anything. I admit that it is sometimes the case that a genuine interest in something does promote gaining skills, but it is far from guaranteed. Additionally the interest might not be genuine. So no, "interest" =/= "qualification." Your third mistake is assuming that the status quo is necessarily correct. I mean take a look around. I will try to be as sporting about this as possible. How many people do you know who cling to your opinions even after having things explained to them? Are they perhaps atheists?
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 6, 2023 23:06:02 GMT
It seems you are unfamiliar with the wise advise about when you find yourself in a hole you should stop digging. The evidence:And yet, since he has met the valid requirements, the state grants him the license, anyway.And there is, likewise a truckload of reasons for a same-sex couple to be interested in legal marriage. So, this analogy of yours only serves to support my point.You may have misread it. But you have definitely mischaracterized it. Legal marriage has much to say about children. But being legally married puts no requirement on couples to have children. (Which is fortunate, btw, for women over about the age of fifty who plan to marry.)And you fail to offer even one requirement of legal marriage that a same-sex couple cannot meet. But don't feel bad about that. Had even one lawyer in the many lower court cases been able to accomplish that feat, then same-sex couples would, today, still be denied marriage licenses.
Your first mistake was assuming that because qualified people refrain from doing something anyone can be qualified even if they cannot do that thing. Nothing I said even implies such an assumption.And again, no honest reader of what I said would imagine I'm assuming any such silly thing. And now, after having multiple chances to do so, you still can't offer a single reason why same-sex couples are unable to, or must be prevented from having the same state contract called legal marriage that is granted to opposite-sex couples.Completely bonkers! If I love the status quo, I would have joined in the opposition to legal marriage for same-sex couples, since excluding them was the status quo for our entire history until recently.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 6, 2023 23:08:26 GMT
I can keep this up, you know."Which is why you don't have the answers you seek. You allow this cacophony of voices in that only bring confusion.""You badly underestimate God's capacity to handle both the macro and the micro. He is God, after all, not some corporate CEO. This demonstrates a lack of faith on your part, and so your heart is not fully open to God's truth." ok I am pretty sure you dont believe any of that. I am sure you can keep it up for devils advocate purposes, I personally have a different view of god. That's why I began with "An earnest Christian (of some variety or other) might answer thusly".
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 6, 2023 23:29:22 GMT
ok I am pretty sure you dont believe any of that. I am sure you can keep it up for devils advocate purposes, I personally have a different view of god. That's why I began with "An earnest Christian (of some variety or other) might answer thusly". I know and they might, it just becomes a taser argument though. We used to have people saying (in martial arts) oh but what if I do this, it breaks your move, eventually you have to respond, oh I would taser you. there is always a counter argument, I tend to agree people can always say something (look at erjen and arlon) I am not sure how valuable that is. I guess at the end of the day sure people disagree with me, and a few Christians tell me there is no way I can be one with my belief set, having said that I do believe what I believe, and I am informed (mostly) from the Christian stream.
|
|