Gay Rights

Discussion for Christian perspectives on ethical issues such as abortion, euthanasia, sexuality, and so forth.

Re: Gay Rights

Postby BryanH » Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:34 am

Bryan, marriage was instituted by God, at the creation of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2:21-25 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God [t]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
[u]She shall be called [v]Woman,
Because [w]she was taken out of [x]Man.”

24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.



Nicely put, but try quoting other sources than the bible... Let's see if you manage to prove that God instituted marriage...

Bryan, God created the heavens and the earth in 6 creation "days". And then God rested from His creation works on the seventh day. We are still in the seventh day now, and God is still at rest from creating new things.


You are just interpreting the word day to suit the Christian dogma and just to offer an explanation... And the fact that God needs to rest depicts him as being very human... So God is not that God after all and does not have infinite power. He does need a rest from time to time...

The universe cannot be infinite. The universe had a beginning. God chose the Jewish race, as the chosen race, through whom the Messiah would come, to redeem mankind from sin. I admit, in our finite, rational minds, that an infinite, loving God would come as a human to die for my sins, does not seem rational. But, it is truly amazing nonetheless.


At least we both agree on this one. It's quite amazing... the choice anyways...

That idea of a false christianity is an awful misrepresentation of real Christianity.


You have to be open-minded. It can be a possibility although it would be an awful one for a lot of people.

By definition, objective morality cannot change. Right and wrong is always right and wrong, regardless of what society allows.


PANTA REI
User avatar
BryanH
Valued Member
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:50 am
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: Gay Rights

Postby RickD » Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:26 am

You are just interpreting the word day to suit the Christian dogma and just to offer an explanation... And the fact that God needs to rest depicts him as being very human... So God is not that God after all and does not have infinite power. He does need a rest from time to time...

No, Bryan, I was just telling you that I believe God has not created any new universes, since this one was completed. Because God rested from His creation, doesn't mean He needed to rest because He was tired. He is resting until He creates the new heaven and new earth. After evil is eradicated in this temporary creation.


By definition, objective morality cannot change. Right and wrong is always right and wrong, regardless of what society allows.



PANTA REI

Bryan, Everything isn't changing.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
God is unchanging. That is why we have moral absolutes.


Nicely put, but try quoting other sources than the bible... Let's see if you manage to prove that God instituted marriage..


Bryan, showing you that I believe God instituted marriage, by showing you where He did in Genesis 2, was my response to what you said here:
Anyways, my main argument still stands: marriage has not been invented by God. It is man made invention and the fact that God was added into the equation doesn't change the way history works.


I actually let you duck out of proving your "main argument". If your main argument is that, then would you mind showing us the basis for that argument? You must have at least a historical basis for your argument, correct? Well, here's your chance to show us why you believe marriage was not from God, and was man made.

And Bryan, could you please explain what you said here, as well:
But getting back to the real issue here: one of the major problems of Christianity as I see it is their TOTAL REFUSAL of actually understanding two physics concepts called TIME and the UNIVERSE.
"Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before! What if Christmas, he thought, doesn't come from a store. What if Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more!"

---Dr. Seuss/The Grinch



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
 
Posts: 8485
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Location: N.E. Florida

Re: Gay Rights

Postby jlay » Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:54 am

Hey Bryan,

It's pretty obvious, IMO, that you are an antagonist. Personally I don't think you'd be content with any explanation. I was going to venture and explanation of the word 'rest' and help you see that you are applying an incorrect usage of the word, but what's the point.

Not sure why you are here. Do you consider yourself open minded?
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord

"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
User avatar
jlay
Ultimate Member
 
Posts: 3487
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Gay Rights

Postby BryanH » Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:31 pm

No, Bryan, I was just telling you that I believe God has not created any new universes, since this one was completed. Because God rested from His creation, doesn't mean He needed to rest because He was tired. He is resting until He creates the new heaven and new earth. After evil is eradicated in this temporary creation.


Who said anything about other universes in this discussion?

Anyways, getting to the point: I know your quote from the Revelation, but see, the statement is so general that it actually can be interpreted both ways. You can say something that will fit the Christian dogma, I can say something that will fit my beliefs. Who is right?

I actually let you duck out of proving your "main argument". If your main argument is that, then would you mind showing us the basis for that argument? You must have at least a historical basis for your argument, correct? Well, here's your chance to show us why you believe marriage was not from God, and was man made.


I think I already said something about that. Marriage was present in other areas which had no influence from Judaism and Christianity. Marriage did exist before the bible was written in many places on this planet. The fact that Christian people say that the Bible is God's word doesn't change the fact that it was written by man alone.

This leads us again to the same problem: you can't actually prove that God exists in the first place so the bible is still a book written by man. The fact that you actually take what is written in the Bible as God's word is somehow weird for me. I prefer more reliable sources than people claiming to have been spoken to by God himself.

Let's assume that tomorrow I come to you and I confess that God has told me that his old rulings don't apply anymore and soon enough he will speak through me about new rules. Would you believe me?

Thousands of years ago the people could be fooled very easily and made to believe into a God(s).

I read something quite interesting recently: something out of the ordinaire should require out of ordinaire proof.

Until today I have not seen any hard evidence about the Bible being God's word. Just saying that it is doesn't make it so.


Bryan, Everything isn't changing.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
God is unchanging. That is why we have moral absolutes.


You keep saying that God is this and that... Since God didn't tell you that much about him, I ask you: how do you know that God is unchanging?

[b]1 Keep on loving one another as brothers and sisters. 2 Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it. 3 Continue to remember those in prison as if you were together with them in prison, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.
4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. 5 Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said,

“Never will I leave you;
never will I forsake you.”[a]

6 So we say with confidence,

“The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid.
What can mere mortals do to me?”[b]

7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

9 Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so. 10 We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat.[/quote]

This again can be interpreted in many ways. I appreciate your opinion on this interpretation.


My personal opinion is that you have interpreted this verse to suit your own personal beliefs which is ok. I do the same.
The verse you have provided uses metaphor which can be simply interpreted as "Jesus is eternal".
And besides that, Jesus and God are not actually in our world anymore. You have no idea if they changed or not.
Just saying that God doesn't change, doesn't make it necessarily true. It just means that you believe that.

But getting back to the real issue here: one of the major problems of Christianity as I see it is their TOTAL REFUSAL of actually understanding two physics concepts called TIME and the UNIVERSE


Already answered this. It was everything that followed after this statement about the way things change and the size of the universe.

Hey Bryan,

It's pretty obvious, IMO, that you are an antagonist. Personally I don't think you'd be content with any explanation. I was going to venture and explanation of the word 'rest' and help you see that you are applying an incorrect usage of the word, but what's the point.

Not sure why you are here. Do you consider yourself open minded?


Yes, I consider to be open-minded. The fact that I disagree with certain things that you believe in doesn't make me an antagonist. But I might appear as one because I do not agree with many "biblical laws" which you do respect and uphold. That can place you into a zone of discomfort. I apologize for that, but as I said to Stu: we talk, we argue and at the end we shake hands and remain friends. I'm not here to offend anyone.
User avatar
BryanH
Valued Member
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:50 am
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: Gay Rights

Postby Byblos » Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:02 pm

BryanH wrote:Yes, I consider to be open-minded. The fact that I disagree with certain things that you believe in doesn't make me an antagonist. But I might appear as one because I do not agree with many "biblical laws" which you do respect and uphold. That can place you into a zone of discomfort. I apologize for that, but as I said to Stu: we talk, we argue and at the end we shake hands and remain friends. I'm not here to offend anyone.


To be open-minded, at a minimum one must argue with coherence. In this thread you say you prefer more reliable sources than someone's word about the Bible (which in and of itself proves you really know little about the Bible) and in another thread you use nothing but your imagination to claim multiple universes and multiple first causes. If you want to be taken seriously Bryan then you ought to argue coherently. I don't know what your first impression of us was here but I can assure you we are not a bunch of bible-thumping hicks who can't string together a single coherent sentence. Our arguments are always grounded in reason and supported by science where possible. Take these arguments seriously and we might learn something from one another. Otherwise we'll keep talking past each other and tossing snide remarks while wasting our time and accomplishing nothing. Just a friendly advice.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
User avatar
Byblos
Old School
 
Posts: 4847
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Location: NY

Re: Gay Rights

Postby jlay » Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:16 pm

I don't know what your first impression of us was here but I can assure you we are not a bunch of bible-thumping hicks who can't string together a single coherent sentence.


On behalf of all bible thumping hicks, I take exception with your remarks. :pound:
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord

"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
User avatar
jlay
Ultimate Member
 
Posts: 3487
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Gay Rights

Postby BryanH » Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:18 am

To be open-minded, at a minimum one must argue with coherence. In this thread you say you prefer more reliable sources than someone's word about the Bible (which in and of itself proves you really know little about the Bible) and in another thread you use nothing but your imagination to claim multiple universes and multiple first causes. If you want to be taken seriously Bryan then you ought to argue coherently. I don't know what your first impression of us was here but I can assure you we are not a bunch of bible-thumping hicks who can't string together a single coherent sentence. Our arguments are always grounded in reason and supported by science where possible. Take these arguments seriously and we might learn something from one another. Otherwise we'll keep talking past each other and tossing snide remarks while wasting our time and accomplishing nothing. Just a friendly advice.


I did make some good points on this forum which are coherent and rational. I also admit that I made mistakes when saying certain things. The fact that I use my imagination is a good thing. That allows me to think outside the box and come up with questions that need answers.

Our arguments are always grounded in reason and supported by science where possible

I totally agree with what you say here. But you seek reason and science towards what supports your Christian beliefs. You simply can't imagine being wrong. Well, if you start from there, it's a nice place to start, but it's also very comfortable. Try placing yourself in a discomfort zone and then we can actually seriously argue.

Let me give you an example: 1) although nobody has proof of God, you say that he is the first uncaused cause of all things, he is almighty, absolute moral etc
2) when I say that parallel universes MAY exist, you tell me that I use my imagination too much and such a thing is impossible

Excuse me if I let my imagination go wild.

I don't know what your first impression of us was here but I can assure you we are not a bunch of bible-thumping hicks who can't string together a single coherent sentence.


You shouldn't have said that. I noticed that all of you have a lot of knowledge and stay informed and up to date. But that's not the issue. There is one old saying: "You can't see the forest because of the trees". Come out of the forest and then we can actually talk. As I said, you do seek reason and science but just to support your Christian beliefs. Try seeking reason and science that does not support your Christian beliefs. If you find it then you have a problem.
User avatar
BryanH
Valued Member
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:50 am
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: Gay Rights

Postby domokunrox » Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:09 am

Byran,

I don't normally care and really don't waste my time typing things out to people who clearly aren't willing to have discussion. I've read a few of your posts. Here's a few of my imaginary thoughts.

You say that the "fact" that you use your "imagination" is a "good" thing and "that" allow me to "think outside the box" with "questions" that need "answers".

Now, I put quotes around "things" that don't make any sense. You said, well, I did make mistakes in some things I said but "this" "outside the box" "imaginary" explanation of your rational and coherent state is supposed to help you?

I don't think there's anything wrong with using the "power of imagination". I mean, its probably fun I would bet. Its good to go back and remember those days where you had these huge boxes and you would use your imagination to play rocket ship or drive a car. That's all fine and dandy, but are you seriously suggesting that we use the "power of imagination" to submit as proof for their existence in concrete reality?

Your reasoning for this is that because at one point in human history we couldn't "imagine" these things we have now, so therefore anything we imagine is a reality that we will find true in the future?

That's quite a fallacious bit of reasoning you have, sir. Progress = reality? Would you say that progress is the identity of reality or of predication?
Surely, you're rational and coherent enough to know that there are some things that are in fact impossible, right?

I mean, you make entirely baseless statements like say like we're in the forest and we need to come out so that we can "actually talk". I haven't seen any miscommunication. We speak english here, we're not bigfoots hiding out in the wilderness and speaking some sort of non imaginative strange yeti language that nobody understands.

Then you say that we only look for reason and science that supports our christian beliefs. This statement is entirely baseless. You assume that we have never been skeptical of the Christian God and accepted it without looking at evidence. Are you actually serious? I mean if that isn't calling us blind, I don't know is. I assure you, I was skeptical but I gave it great thought. I concluded that a monism model for the universe is irrational and illogical in BOTH the mind and PHYSICAL REALITY.

Oh, and believe us, nobody here who is a thinking Christian can find reason and science that doesn't support our Christian beliefs. Guess what? Neither can you. The fact that we can reason and do science is because we began to exist in a logically and rational belief of a DUALISTIC reality.

So, really bryan. You're full of talk. No substance. Its like you watching a marathon of the twilight zone and projected it here with some strange quotes you thought would fit into atheism catch phrases and challenges to Christians. Nobody thinks you're cool. Nobody is intimidated by your posturing and empty rhetoric.

If you want to know why objects don't just indiscriminately appear without a reason, then I suggest you do more reading and ask questions instead of telling us about your imaginary rocket ship. If not, then tell me how much imaginary money one of those things costs and how long does it take for the imaginary factory to build my order. I have particular tastes.
domokunrox
Valued Member
 
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 12:52 am

Re: Gay Rights

Postby BryanH » Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:14 am

@domokunrox

I read your post and thanks for taking the time to answer me. I have to say that you said some harsh things about me. You did take some of my words out of context and you also misunderstood some of the things I said. I will try to clear them out.

I don't think there's anything wrong with using the "power of imagination". I mean, its probably fun I would bet. Its good to go back and remember those days where you had these huge boxes and you would use your imagination to play rocket ship or drive a car. That's all fine and dandy, but are you seriously suggesting that we use the "power of imagination" to submit as proof for their existence in concrete reality?


I didn't submit anything as proof using my imagination. That was related to a discussion about some theoretical science which is mainly theory anyways. That's all.

I mean, you make entirely baseless statements like say like we're in the forest and we need to come out so that we can "actually talk". I haven't seen any miscommunication. We speak english here, we're not bigfoots hiding out in the wilderness and speaking some sort of non imaginative strange yeti language that nobody understands.


I think you got my statement all wrong. I didn't say that I think that Christian people are retarded or blind. I also think that you don't know the expression I used: "You don't see the forest because(for) of the trees". You got it way too ad literam.

Simple explanation: It's an analogy used to express focusing too much on the details of a situation (the Trees), and not seeing the Big Picture (the Forest).

Your reasoning for this is that because at one point in human history we couldn't "imagine" these things we have now, so therefore anything we imagine is a reality that we will find true in the future?

This again was just related to a discussion about theoretical science. That's all.

Then you say that we only look for reason and science that supports our christian beliefs. This statement is entirely baseless. You assume that we have never been skeptical of the Christian God and accepted it without looking at evidence. Are you actually serious? I mean if that isn't calling us blind, I don't know is. I assure you, I was skeptical but I gave it great thought. I concluded that a monism model for the universe is irrational and illogical in BOTH the mind and PHYSICAL REALITY.


I didn't say that you werent skeptical and looking for evidence. I actually said the opposite. I said that lots of people here have knowledge and up to date information. All I did say though was that you don't question that much your beliefs anymore because you got used to being in that comfort zone. I understand that you were skeptical and gave it great thought, but you also reached a conclusion. When I was saying think outside the box, I was trying just to point out that you don't challenge some of your previous conclusions in the present. That's all.

Oh, and believe us, nobody here who is a thinking Christian can find reason and science that doesn't support our Christian beliefs. Guess what? Neither can you. The fact that we can reason and do science is because we began to exist in a logically and rational belief of a DUALISTIC reality.


Why do you say I can't find reason and science that doesn't support Christian beliefs?
I already did or else I would believe in God just like you.

So, really bryan. You're full of talk. No substance. Its like you watching a marathon of the twilight zone and projected it here with some strange quotes you thought would fit into atheism catch phrases and challenges to Christians. Nobody thinks you're cool. Nobody is intimidated by your posturing and empty rhetoric.

If you want to know why objects don't just indiscriminately appear without a reason, then I suggest you do more reading and ask questions instead of telling us about your imaginary rocket ship. If not, then tell me how much imaginary money one of those things costs and how long does it take for the imaginary factory to build my order. I have particular tastes.


Maybe you should read all my posts I made on this forum before you say some things that I sincerely find offending. You just wrote your comment based mainly on what I said in the topic "Has science gotten arrogant?".
Just select a discussion I have participated in and follow the line and then come say to me that I have an empthy rethoric and an imaginary rocket ship. And next time when and if you choose to communicate please do not remove my words out of context.
User avatar
BryanH
Valued Member
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:50 am
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: Gay Rights

Postby domokunrox » Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:45 am

Byran, I apologize. I mean no harm. I simply am being consistent with how you want me to think.

When we decide to use our imagination, sometimes we do this thing called thinking outside of the box. I am not sure how you expect me to stay inside the conformity of context. Its sort of like what we ask from you, don't you think?

No harm, no foul, bryan. The last post was just my imagination and it does not reflect the reality of what I really think of you.

Which is, you are a thinker, but however you are a bit misguided and inconsistent with the scope and implications of your conclusions.

You say that we don't challenge our christian thoughts. Our "comfort zone". This is silly bryan. Believe me, we don't agree on everything. I can assure you, I've opposed probably everyone here on at least something and at the end of the day it either matters to our faith to consider changing what we thought or it doesn't. We had a full blown Calvinism discussion for months, and it was ugly. My position was that double predestination was acceptable to the theology to its logical conclusion, therefore God is the author of evil. Hence, I reject its teaching because its defies logic and goes against too much scripture. Realistically, its like putting a heavy weight on about 4-8 verses in 1 particular chapter that was particularly hard to understand at times, while ignoring multitudes of other verses that show otherwise logical thoughts that God has given us to examine to prove his character as perfectly loving.

So, to some people, they shrugged it off as not important or accepted it. My opinion is that its heretical to conclude God's foreknowledge to divine foreordination. In the end, I don't think he liked all the dissenting opinions, so I haven't seen him since. Its unfortunate.

So, again, believe me. Some Christian thinkers are not guilty of being too much of a reductist. Most people think that reductism is the way to examine things. Personally, I play along. However, looking at the whole picture still supports my belief in theism.


What I mean when I say that you can't find reason and science that doesn't support Christian beliefs is exactly just that. The reason you can reason and do science is because you have thoughts. You have thought because you exist. You exist because there is purpose and meaning in your existence. Therefore, your reason and science is the direct reflection of that.

If to its logical conclusion we exist by complete accident and without purpose, our thoughts followed subsequently to our reason and science are in fact complete accidents and entirely pointless. Therefore, we have no good reason to believe that the thoughts and science are anything but complete accidents and have no purpose. To give them purpose is commit the noble lie. So, reason and scientific thought are completely contrary to what you are trying to prove.
domokunrox
Valued Member
 
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 12:52 am

Re: Gay Rights

Postby actsapostolos » Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:28 pm

"Look at churches that have been sued for millions of dollars, rich churches that have missions, orphanages, and hospitals, all of a sudden closed because of a civil law suit because the stuck to their beliefs."

Churches are shut down, because they have allowed themselves to become "state institutions." When a minister stands behind the pulpit with a "state marriage license (http://mcginnis360gmail.wordpress.com/2 ... -ordained/)" they become an "institution of the state." When a minister "advocates paying taxes" they become a "state institution." When a minister "advocates medicine, or doctors (which are regulated by the state)" they become "state institutions."

When a minister "advocates anything of this world," they become "state institutions."

When a church files a "501c3 tax exempt status," they become "institutions of the state."

Christ said WE, nor HIS HOUSE (Temple, church, etc.) are mandated to pay taxes, governments, etc. The first amendment of the Constitution forbids congress from having any say in the affairs of Hayah's House (Temple, church, etc.).

"The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding (preventing) the free exercise of religion....(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amen ... nstitution)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"Everson used the metaphor of a wall of separation between church and state, derived from the correspondence of President Thomas Jefferson."

No church, nor minister should attempt to "breech this wall." Breeching this wall, makes the church, religion, etc. an institution of the state. The first amendment was established to prevent the "state" from having any affairs in the operation of any church. Hayah has His own laws which govern the body of the Church, and man (void of religion) are governed by men.

Romans 13 refers to the "Bodily laws of Hayah's (Christs) House, not civil governments."

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers (powers of Christs Church). For there is no power but of YAH (civil government has no power against Christ): the powers that be (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers) are ordained from YAH.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance (law) of YAH: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation (damning of a nation).
3 For rulers (ministers) are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For HE IS THE MINISTER OF YAH to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword (Word of YAH) in vain: for HE IS THE MINISTER OF YAH, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute (tithes and offerings - see Malachi 3:10-12) also: for they are YAH'S MINISTERS, attending (to attend assiduously all the exercises) continually upon this very thing.

Paul here is speaking of "Hayah's Ministers." He is not speaking of "civil governments." On more than one occasion, The prophets, apostles, and Christ Himself "stood against civil governments."

"Ac 4:19-20 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of YAH to hearken unto you more than unto YAH, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard."

"Lk 23:2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give taxes to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King."

This was not a "false accusation:"

"Mt 17:24-26 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Joshua stopped him, saying, What were you thinking Simon? from whom do the kings of the earth take custom or taxes? from their own children, or from strangers? Peter saith unto him, from strangers. Joshua saith unto him, Then are their own children free."

"Ez 7:23-24 Whatsoever is commanded by the YAH of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the YAH of heaven: for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons? Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of YAH, it shall not be lawful to impose (lay a burden of) toll, taxes, or custom, upon them."

"Da 3:17-27 If it be so, our YAH whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand (governments hand), O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image (civil government) which thou hast set up.....Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: therefore he spake, and commanded that they should heat the furnace one seven times more than it was wont to be heated. And he commanded the most mighty men that were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace. Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.....Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of YAH."

"He 11:32-40 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect."

Anyone understand yet? If your minister is advocating any of these things, He is not YAH'S minister, but is an agent of the "State."
actsapostolos
Newbie Member
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:17 am

Re: Gay Rights

Postby Beanybag » Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:09 am

Hi. Sorry to jump in this topic, but it seems to have derailed somewhat. I hope to bring some centering to this subject. I'll preface this with the fact that I am a bisexual citizen in the United States who is very much in favor of equal rights to marry. I will lay out my case below.

To start, I would like to point out what a legal marriage entails: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and ... ted_States

As you can see, married couples are afforded rights and responsibilities that are not afforded to other couples. This is a legal distinction of two people in the eyes of the government which must have sufficient justification for doing so. So what is that justification? We can say that contract law applies, the parties involved must be legally consenting adults. This number, in order to be fair to the parties involved, has been limited to two (and out of tradition and the number of parents typically involved in a relationship) - more on this later. So, we have a distinction between two, legally consenting adults. What justification do we have to deny this right to only heterosexual couples, when this can be shown to cause demonstrable harm to those couples?

Murray wrote:Some gays would argue marriage Rights correct? Ok, that’s fine, why do atheist not get married then? Many atheist get civil unions (which have all, and I mean all, the same rights as marriage). Marriage is a religious institution and the government has absolutely no right to mandate churches to marry gays. Look at churches that have been sued for millions of dollars, rich churches that have missions, orphanages, and hospitals, all of a sudden closed because of a civil law suit because the stuck to their beliefs. How many adoption centers have been closed by the catholic church rather than give married gays children? Its horrible, this movement does nothing but shock, offend, and even degrade homosexuals. Even as one who is generally light on the topic of homosexuality, looking in to this movement it has really changed my view on its legitimacy.


You would argue that civil unions are equal in every way, but separate. A supreme court ruling has set the precedent that separate but equal is unconstitutional - if they are equal, why not make them the same? If marriage is too deep seated in religious history, why not turn all legal marriage into legal civil unions? If marriage is a religious institution, what place does it have in a secular government that says it "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?

I should also point out that in no way does the legalization of gay marriage force any church to marry any gay couple nor respect their marriage as legitimate within their own establishment - this is simply not true. Nor is gay marriage something expressly forbidden by christian doctrine - many denominations support gay marriage and even marry gay couples in states where gay marriage is not legal!

I will put further - by what code of morality (by what demonstrable harm) does the catholic church deny a gay couple the right to adopt a child? Does the church not care about the child's well-being? Why do they ignore the science? Gay couples are not harmful parents, but legitimate and just as good as heterosexual couples - a loving and safe environment is what is good for kids. Of course, I am a moral realist that argues for secular morals (I can argue more on this in another thread, but will not do so here).

If the catholic church wishes to extend their religious influence to institutions outside of church, such as health care, adoption, etc. It must be prepared to use secular (non theistic) arguments to argue their policy. Why? Because their policy is in the United States where religious freedoms and many different religions exist and interact! If their interactions are going to affect other parties, they must be prepared to adequately deal with such parties. Since no non-religious moral argument can be made successfully against gay marriage and homosexuality, then I think closing down of their orphanages is their only option to maintain their exclusivity. In other words, in the legal framework of our government, the terms are explicit. You can demand certain morals from your denominational constituents, but no more.

I will end this on this parting word: I understand that marriage has a rich and very religious history - for this reason I think it should be taken out of government and left to different religious institutions to manage. I propose a civil union structure that would allow for as many consenting parties as is desired, that has explicit, scaling, and flexible options for the parties to choose from, and which defines contract termination consequences from the get-go. I think this would make legal marriage (or legal unions, as they would be called) much cleaner, safer, fairer, and less controversial. I realize it has little chance of being realized, but I hope it is a compromise that christians, muslims, jews, atheists, and what ever you have in our mish mash of a country can agree to.

Thanks for your time. :)
Beanybag
Valued Member
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:22 am

Previous

Return to Moral and Ethical Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests