• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The real debate on gay marriage

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Strangelove said:
ha! which one? the thread has fragmented into multiple topics. (gay marriage, states rights,slavery,constitutional constructionism..etc)

Let's discuss motorcycles. I prefer water-cooled high performance twins.

und du? :D
The ones I addressed in post 46. And yeah... I've gotten entangled in some of the oddest of tangents. LOL
 

Mixed View

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
343
Reaction score
1
Location
MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
shuamort said:
Yeah, I hate those KWAAAAAZY judges that ruled to stop slavery. Them wacked out liberal judges that gave the blacks the vote too! Make it stop1!

Seriously. How does it affect you personally?

How does somone being murdered affect you in any way? Since it doesn't why don't we just legalize it then.( sarcasism ). Where do you people find your source that says that homosexuality isn't a sin? If it is yourself then that is pretty pitiful because no one is perfect and you, saying that homos aren't sinning, could be very incorect. I get my source from a man that said that abusers, dunkards, and homosexuals will not enter the kindom of God. This man was perfect, this man was never defeated, his name was Jesus. Weather you beleive him or not, Gays are sinning. " Does it affect you personally in any way" Well somone dieing in Alaska doesn't affect me in any way so maybe, since we are all sooo smart, we could legalize murder too.

Where do you atheists and agnostics base your reasonings that murder, stealing, and lying are wrong? You people are always contidicting yourselves! Without a God there are no morals! Do you beleive that sinning is even wrong?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
satinloveslibs said:
How does somone being murdered affect you in any way? Since it doesn't why don't we just legalize it then.( sarcasism ).?
You're equating homosexuality with murder? Ok then, how does someone masturbating in the privacy of their own home affect you? Both are sins in the eyes of the Lord and the Bible. Would you like masturbation outlawed too because of your religious beliefs?
satinloveslibs said:
Where do you people find your source that says that homosexuality isn't a sin? ).?
"You people?" "You people?" Way to judge, Mr. Christianity.
satinloveslibs said:
If it is yourself then that is pretty pitiful because no one is perfect and you, saying that homos aren't sinning, could be very incorect.
"Homos", You’re really teetering on that line of name calling there. Of course, the introduction of the word “homosexuality” into the bible is quite new.
satinloveslibs said:
I get my source from a man that said that abusers, dunkards, and homosexuals will not enter the kindom of God. This man was perfect, this man was never defeated, his name was Jesus.
What’s a drunkard? Wait, never defeated? Last time I heard he was killed on a cross. Let’s nail you to a cross for your beliefs and ask if you’re defeated or not. LOL
satinloveslibs said:
Weather you beleive him or not, Gays are sinning.
Don’t believe him. Don’t believe in the Bible. WAYYYYYYYY too many errors to make any sense. Wayyyyyy too many mistranslations, too many books deleted, too many books rewritten for me to belive in that hogwash.
satinloveslibs said:
" Does it affect you personally in any way" Well somone dieing in Alaska doesn't affect me in any way so maybe, since we are all sooo smart, we could legalize murder too.
Someone dying in Alaska doesn’t affect me either. Someone being murdered in Alaska on the other hand, well that’s a different story.
satinloveslibs said:
Where do you atheists and agnostics base your reasonings that murder, stealing, and lying are wrong?
I don’t speak for all atheists and agnostics, and I’m sure all Christians are thankful that you don’t speak for them. There are things called mores. Look up the word if you don’t know it. There’s also people that can reason, rationalize, and philosophize for themselves withouth having being told what to think. I’m sorry that you need to be told what to think, what to believe, and that you need to be told what’s right and wrong by other people.
satinloveslibs said:
You people are always contidicting yourselves!
Where’s the contradiction? (I’m assuming that’s the word you meant)
satinloveslibs said:
Without a God there are no morals!
Really, so Buddhists have no morals?
satinloveslibs said:
Do you beleive that sinning is even wrong?
Do I believe masturbation is wrong? No.
Do I believe that sex between consenting adults is wrong? No.
Do I believe that eating meat on Fridays is wrong? No.
Do I believe that eating seafood is wrong? No.
Do I believe murder is wrong? Yes.

You have to be able to define what the “sin” is before you can determine if it’s right or wrong. Life isn’t black and white.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
By the way, Satinloveslibs, I'm assuming you've read the Bible in its original Hebrew and Greek, correct?

Paul's use of the term arsenokoitai seems to be a word that was coined by Paul and nobody is exactly sure what it meant. It literally translates to "male bed" (or "male bedder") but the precise implication of the word is unknown. It is not found in Greek usage before Paul and subsequent uses are usually found in lists of vices (as it is used by Paul) that don't help us infer anything from context. There is at least one use that identifies it specifically with pederasty and a couple of other uses associate it with male prostitution (whether it designates the prostitute or the "John" is unclear, however). One other use associates it with male prostitutes who service women. So it's pretty confusing to figure it out. It can be stated that the word is never used categorically to refer to homosexuals. Paul was referring to pederasty and alluding to the use of boy prostitutes, especially as it pertained to married men. This was a common practice in the Greek world and was looked at with great distaste by Jews. Given the cultural and social context of the audience Paul was addressing, I think that this is a practice he would have been very likely to single out for condemnation.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

shuamort said:
You're equating homosexuality with murder? Ok then, how does someone masturbating in the privacy of their own home affect you? Both are sins in the eyes of the Lord and the Bible. Would you like masturbation outlawed too because of your religious beliefs?
"You people?" "You people?" Way to judge, Mr. Christianity.
"Homos", You’re really teetering on that line of name calling there. Of course, the introduction of the word “homosexuality” into the bible is quite new.
What’s a drunkard? Wait, never defeated? Last time I heard he was killed on a cross. Let’s nail you to a cross for your beliefs and ask if you’re defeated or not. LOL
Don’t believe him. Don’t believe in the Bible. WAYYYYYYYY too many errors to make any sense. Wayyyyyy too many mistranslations, too many books deleted, too many books rewritten for me to belive in that hogwash.
Someone dying in Alaska doesn’t affect me either. Someone being murdered in Alaska on the other hand, well that’s a different story.
I don’t speak for all atheists and agnostics, and I’m sure all Christians are thankful that you don’t speak for them. There are things called mores. Look up the word if you don’t know it. There’s also people that can reason, rationalize, and philosophize for themselves withouth having being told what to think. I’m sorry that you need to be told what to think, what to believe, and that you need to be told what’s right and wrong by other people.

Where’s the contradiction? (I’m assuming that’s the word you meant)

Really, so Buddhists have no morals?

Do I believe masturbation is wrong? No.
Do I believe that sex between consenting adults is wrong? No.
Do I believe that eating meat on Fridays is wrong? No.
Do I believe that eating seafood is wrong? No.
Do I believe murder is wrong? Yes.

You have to be able to define what the “sin” is before you can determine if it’s right or wrong. Life isn’t black and white.
As far as the Bible says, yes, masterbation as well as murder as well as having homosexual sex as well as lying all fall under tha same category. They are all actions that show how unlike a perfect God we are. Any action against the will of God, I would offer to you, is a sin.
However, I would dissagree that morals and God's law are one in the same. Morals have to do with the treatment between man to man, in an attempt to live together and grow as a species. A man can be a moral man and still commit sin every other minute of his life.
Now, some believe we should base laws off of what is God's law versus what is moral. Some argue laws should be void of God altogether. Some argue that laws ought to be based off of morals. Naturally, the laws of our Country follow none of these to the letter.
For instance: we cannot say that all laws are based on what affects the people around you, because of seat belt laws and helmet laws and drug laws andother such laws that are in place solely for the protection of the individual. So to say something should or should not be a law based on its effects on others, while it can serve as a factor, it does not, by example, mean that it should or should not be a adopted by a law.
Further more, there is no evidence to support that laws are completely based on the Bible either, as I see no evidence in the Bible that addresses the right to bear arms in a militia. Finally, the laws that alcohol cannot be served at certain times on Sunday show us that laws are not completely void of religious aspects either. So to what standard are either of you basing your arguments? Cause I would argue that by saying laws are based on this or that, you are both wrong.
As far as the story goes in the Bible, which asside from the account of Josephus, who arguably is in the exact same league as Luke, is the only account we have of the life and death of Christ, and it certainly doesn't end on the cross. I would argue that if you nail a guy to a cross, burry him in the ground, and then three days later the guys you had gaurding his tomb are passed out, the grave is open, and there he is walking around, gaining even more followers, then yeah, I'd say he was rather undeafeted at the time. If you believe him to be crucified based on historical accuracy of the Bible, then do not try to exclude the further details of the story by disputing its historical validity.
Errors, right! God actually meant Jesus died for your hens, not your sins. Heaven is really just made up of a bunch of fowl.
You're getting on this person's case because they "don't know what is right or wrong without someone telling them?" And yet, you don't believe in natural law? Then is there such thing as wrong or right?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sebastiansdreams said:
As far as the Bible says, yes, masterbation as well as murder as well as having homosexual sex as well as lying all fall under tha same category. They are all actions that show how unlike a perfect God we are. Any action against the will of God, I would offer to you, is a sin.
Please read my second post about arsenokoitai.

sebastiansdreams said:
Further more, there is no evidence to support that laws are completely based on the Bible either, as I see no evidence in the Bible that addresses the right to bear arms in a militia. Finally, the laws that alcohol cannot be served at certain times on Sunday show us that laws are not completely void of religious aspects either. So to what standard are either of you basing your arguments? Cause I would argue that by saying laws are based on this or that, you are both wrong.
My standard of basing laws is off of societal mores, reason, and Constitutional law and precedent. A lot of western mores are based on religions and history, Judeo-Christian beliefs to be specific. Does that mean that their sole raison d'etre is because of the bible? No.
sebastiansdreams said:
As far as the story goes in the Bible, which asside from the account of Josephus, who arguably is in the exact same league as Luke, is the only account we have of the life and death of Christ, and it certainly doesn't end on the cross. I would argue that if you nail a guy to a cross, burry him in the ground, and then three days later the guys you had gaurding his tomb are passed out, the grave is open, and there he is walking around, gaining even more followers, then yeah, I'd say he was rather undeafeted at the time. If you believe him to be crucified based on historical accuracy of the Bible, then do not try to exclude the further details of the story by disputing its historical validity.
It was his defeat and subsequent resurrection. He was defeated. Just because a team loses a football game doesn't mean they can't win the superbowl. Same logic.
sebastiansdreams said:
Errors, right! God actually meant Jesus died for your hens, not your sins. Heaven is really just made up of a bunch of fowl.
You're getting on this person's case because they "don't know what is right or wrong without someone telling them?" And yet, you don't believe in natural law? Then is there such thing as wrong or right?
As I've said above, life isn't black and white. Laws aren't derivative from one source obviously.
Is killing someone wrong? Yes.
What if the only way to save your child who is being strangled to death is by shooting the strangler? Life sure isn't black and white there, is it?
 
S

sebastiansdreams

shuamort said:
Please read my second post about arsenokoitai.

My standard of basing laws is off of societal mores, reason, and Constitutional law and precedent. A lot of western mores are based on religions and history, Judeo-Christian beliefs to be specific. Does that mean that their sole raison d'etre is because of the bible? No.

It was his defeat and subsequent resurrection. He was defeated. Just because a team loses a football game doesn't mean they can't win the superbowl. Same logic.

As I've said above, life isn't black and white. Laws aren't derivative from one source obviously.
Is killing someone wrong? Yes.
What if the only way to save your child who is being strangled to death is by shooting the strangler? Life sure isn't black and white there, is it?
I am aware of the debate of the actual meaning of this word. And you are right, there is still debate over the word. However, more than I base my argument off of that word, I argue two other points. It is made pretty clear in the NT that marriage is meant to be a union between man and woman (not Paul's explanation of roles within marraige). Furthermore, we are commanded not to have sex outside of marriage. So if marriage is only meant to be between man and woman, and sex is only meant to be for those who are married, I would argue that pershaps that alone eliminates the possibilty of sex between homosexuals as anything less than a sin.
Note, I am not at all trying to argue that the Bible should be used in developing laws. But at the same time, it has been used to determine laws. Furthermore, not all of your methods of creating laws add up, and I certainly argue that social mores should not be a determiner of laws. Wouldn't it be awful to think that farting out loud in public was a punishable crime?
As far as defeat, if you argue, as the Bible does, that He died in order to act as a sacrifice for all men for all ages, isn't His death actually one of His greatest accomplishments?
I don't know how black and white life is. My judgement is still in suspension, because granted, that person had what we consider a "just motive" for killing the other person, but the result is the same, a person is dead. Are there ways of preventing someone from killing another without killing that person, in most cases I would argue yes.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sebastiansdreams said:
I am aware of the debate of the actual meaning of this word. And you are right, there is still debate over the word. However, more than I base my argument off of that word, I argue two other points. It is made pretty clear in the NT that marriage is meant to be a union between man and woman (not Paul's explanation of roles within marraige). Furthermore, we are commanded not to have sex outside of marriage. So if marriage is only meant to be between man and woman, and sex is only meant to be for those who are married, I would argue that pershaps that alone eliminates the possibilty of sex between homosexuals as anything less than a sin.

I'm not seeing where it says that marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. Please show the quote where it says ONLY.

As a matter of fact, there's $5000.00 in it for you if you can produce that quote:
Alabama State Representative Alvin Holmes is offering $5,000 to anyone who can show him in the Bible where it states that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The offer comes in response to the state legislature’s consideration of a ban on homosexual marriage.

Of course, in Hebrews 13:4, it's said that Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Not just some, but all.


sebastiansdreams said:
Note, I am not at all trying to argue that the Bible should be used in developing laws. But at the same time, it has been used to determine laws. Furthermore, not all of your methods of creating laws add up, and I certainly argue that social mores should not be a determiner of laws. Wouldn't it be awful to think that farting out loud in public was a punishable crime?
Yeah, you're right. I'm glad I DIDN'T say that mores were the SOLE determiner of laws. Or else you would've caught me there. :roll:

sebastiansdreams said:
As far as defeat, if you argue, as the Bible does, that He died in order to act as a sacrifice for all men for all ages, isn't His death actually one of His greatest accomplishments?
He was defeated to become a martyr. Still, he was defeated. How can you not argue that the means to an end still has the means involved?
sebastiansdreams said:
I don't know how black and white life is. My judgement is still in suspension, because granted, that person had what we consider a "just motive" for killing the other person, but the result is the same, a person is dead. Are there ways of preventing someone from killing another without killing that person, in most cases I would argue yes.
Sure there are, but there are times when there aren't. That's why there's ambiguity. Your point about the Sabbath comes into play.. Jews are very strict on when the Sabbath is (Sunset Fri to sunset Sat). That's their interpretation. Turns out that according to Jesus (according to you) is that it's not black or white as the Jewish people believe.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

shuamort said:
I'm not seeing where it says that marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman. Please show the quote where it says ONLY.

As a matter of fact, there's $5000.00 in it for you if you can produce that quote:
Alabama State Representative Alvin Holmes is offering $5,000 to anyone who can show him in the Bible where it states that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The offer comes in response to the state legislature’s consideration of a ban on homosexual marriage.

Of course, in Hebrews 13:4, it's said that Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Not just some, but all.


Yeah, you're right. I'm glad I DIDN'T say that mores were the SOLE determiner of laws. Or else you would've caught me there. :roll:


He was defeated to become a martyr. Still, he was defeated. How can you not argue that the means to an end still has the means involved?

Sure there are, but there are times when there aren't. That's why there's ambiguity. Your point about the Sabbath comes into play.. Jews are very strict on when the Sabbath is (Sunset Fri to sunset Sat). That's their interpretation. Turns out that according to Jesus (according to you) is that it's not black or white as the Jewish people believe.
Okay, try to follow me on this. I argue that it is not what the Bible does say about marriage being only between man and woman, but more about the fact that it totally does not even address homosexual marriage as an acceptable possibility to begin with.
1 Corinthians 7:1-5 says...
About the things you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have relations with a woman." But because of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. A husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise a wife to her husband. A wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does. Equally, a husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not deprive one another--except when you agree, for a time, to devote yourselves to prayer.
This is pretty direct in that fact that it does not leave the option for "a husband and his husband" or "a wife to her wife." It is not stating, as such, "thou shalt marry someone of the opposite sex," but it is also certainly not leaving itself open to the dispute that perhaps it could be taken as male with male, female with female.

I noted that you had mentioned no one source can be used, I just found it as an anecdotal break in all the heavy theology.

My argument is this: Jesus's purpose in life was to come and die so that others may have life. If His intention was to die, which we see that it was, then by dying, He was achieving His intention. That is certainly not defeat. To the contrary, it would only have been defeat if He had come to earth to die for the sins of its people and then failed to die, or chosen not to (as he was arguably God on earth and capable of preventing His own death).
Hmm, I guess that boils down to the qestion "Is saving someone to be consider laboring in the sense that God meant it?" I mean, technically, if you are still doing God's will, are you not forgetting Him on that day? Morever, is it fair to say that acting to heal someone is considered labor when put in to light of what other defintions labor might entail? I don't know either way, I'm simply presenting arguments. But really, it doesn't matter in the end, because by electing judges, we are kind of eliminating the chance that there may be such things as RIGHT versus WRONG and only judge on a scale of majority opinion.
 
Last edited:

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sebastiansdreams said:
Okay, try to follow me on this. I argue that it is not what the Bible does say about marriage being only between man and woman, but more about the fact that it totally does not even address homosexual marriage as an acceptable possibility to begin with.
1 Corinthians 7:1-5 says...
About the things you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have relations with a woman." But because of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. A husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise a wife to her husband. A wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does. Equally, a husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does. Do not deprive one another--except when you agree, for a time, to devote yourselves to prayer.
This is pretty direct in that fact that it does not leave the option for "a husband and his husband" or "a wife to her wife." It is not stating, as such, "thou shalt marry someone of the opposite sex," but it is also certainly not leaving itself open to the dispute that perhaps it could be taken as male with male, female with female.
The operative word is PERHAPS. Since it's unknowable, why err on the side against equality? Especially since marriage is for all. Moreover, what the Bible doesn't address about what's right, wrong, and in between could fill a lot of books, don't you agree?


sebastiansdreams said:
My argument is this: Jesus's purpose in life was to come and die so that others may have life. If His intention was to die, which we see that it was, then by dying, He was achieving His intention. That is certainly not defeat. To the contrary, it would only have been defeat if He had come to earth to die for the sins of its people and then failed to die, or chosen not to (as he was arguably God on earth and capable of preventing His own death).
Jesus may have been achieving God's intentions, but it was against Jesus' will one could argue. Why else would he have felt forsaken?

sebastiansdreams said:
Hmm, I guess that boils down to the qestion "Is saving someone to be consider laboring in the sense that God meant it?" I mean, technically, if you are still doing God's will, are you not forgetting Him on that day? Morever, is it fair to say that acting to heal someone is considered labor when put in to light of what other defintions labor might entail? I don't know either way, I'm simply presenting arguments.
We both are. Presenting arguments that way. None of us are really sure what will happen in the future or after we've left this mortal coil. But while we're here, why not treat everyone in the best way we can? Why not respect differences and not deprive others of happiness when their actions harm no one?
 
S

sebastiansdreams

shuamort said:
The operative word is PERHAPS. Since it's unknowable, why err on the side against equality? Especially since marriage is for all. Moreover, what the Bible doesn't address about what's right, wrong, and in between could fill a lot of books, don't you agree?

Jesus may have been achieving God's intentions, but it was against Jesus' will one could argue. Why else would he have felt forsaken?

We both are. Presenting arguments that way. None of us are really sure what will happen in the future or after we've left this mortal coil. But while we're here, why not treat everyone in the best way we can? Why not respect differences and not deprive others of happiness when their actions harm no one?
You must admit, it is not a very large perhaps. In fact, really it just a shade away from saying it. But yet another argument that would suggest the boundaries of marriage to be between man and woman is that throughout the entirety of the Bible, do you ever see it said _____ and his husband _____. Or _______ and her wife ______? If it is ambiguous, and if it is acceptable to marry your own sex, then why out of the endless names of couples that are given in the Bible, both Hebrew (Christian) or not, it is never mentioned that there was a union between same sex? Why "err" on the side of the possibility of the very slight loophole? When an argument has so much evidence leaning one way as opposed to another, it is not illogical to choose that side based on that evidence. Equality is not at all the issue. All men are created equal, with an equal amount of love and respect from God. That however has nothing to do with whether or not it is a sin to have homosexual sex. Remember that what we are arguing is whether or not it ought to be legal, we, in this discussion, are arguing whether or not it is sinful.
Why not respect differences and not deprive others of happiness when their actions harm no one?
Theoretically? Because, as CS Lewis would argue, a soul's inner state also affects others. He makes the analogy of a group of ships sailing together. If one ship begins to lose control of itself then it begins colliding into other ships and creating a problem in maintaining the course of the other ships. Is it fair to, because of your own selfishness, let your own spiritual self rot at the expense of others? Is it not harm to bring someone down with you?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sebastiansdreams said:
Theoretically? Because, as CS Lewis would argue, a soul's inner state also affects others. He makes the analogy of a group of ships sailing together. If one ship begins to lose control of itself then it begins colliding into other ships and creating a problem in maintaining the course of the other ships. Is it fair to, because of your own selfishness, let your own spiritual self rot at the expense of others? Is it not harm to bring someone down with you?
So you find no problems foisting your religion on someone. Regardless of their beliefs or not? Of course, CS Lewis' poorly written books and slippery slope arguments are post hoc definitions of morals. Also, you still haven't proven that homosexuality is sinful nor moral by definition of the bible. Just that sex outside of a marriage is sinful and that the bible doesn't define marriage to be only between a man and a woman.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

shuamort said:
So you find no problems foisting your religion on someone. Regardless of their beliefs or not? Of course, CS Lewis' poorly written books and slippery slope arguments are post hoc definitions of morals. Also, you still haven't proven that homosexuality is sinful nor moral by definition of the bible. Just that sex outside of a marriage is sinful and that the bible doesn't define marriage to be only between a man and a woman.
No, I would not show up at a church holding a marriage between two men seeking to join in matromony before God, both truly convinced that that is God's will for their lives, and having found a pastor that honestly believes that it is God's intention that men should be married together attempting to object. So no, I will not "foist" my relgion on anyone. Just stating what I believe to be an incredibly logical assessment of the Bible's intentions, that's all.
As for slipperly slope argument, while a probability of digression is not absolute, it is none the less probable, and CS Lewis was working off of probability. And my point was to show you that for all intensive purposes, the Bible certainly does not CONDONE nor SUGGEST that homosexual marriage should be practiced, so it is certainly a noble leap to say that "just because it isn't written, word for word, the way I think it ought to be written, it must be allowed."
 
Last edited:

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sebastiansdreams said:
No, I would not show up at a church holding a marriage between two men seeking to join in matromony before God, both truly convinced that that is God's will for their lives, and having found a pastor that honestly believes that it is God's intention that men should be married together attempting to object. So no, I will not "foist" my relgion on anyone. Just stating what I believe to be an incredibly logical assessment of the Bible's intentions, that's all.
As for slipperly slope argument, while a probability of digression is not absolute, it is none the less probable, and CS Lewis was working off of probability. And my point was to show you that for all intensive purposes, the Bible certainly does not CONDONE nor SUGGEST that homosexual marriage should be practiced, so it is certainly a noble leap to say that "just because it isn't written, word for word, the way I think it ought to be written, it must be allowed."
At the same fold, the bible does not suggest nor condone political debate via the internet, does that mean that it's a sin or that the Bible was limited in its scope?
 
S

sebastiansdreams

shuamort said:
At the same fold, the bible does not suggest nor condone political debate via the internet, does that mean that it's a sin or that the Bible was limited in its scope?
True, but debating politics on a forum is a long step away from convening in the house of God and having a servant of God unite two people, and doing so in God's name. And that is what a marriage, under the pretenses we are discussing, means.
Also, it is not as though homosexuality, or even bestiality was beyond the "scope" of the Bible. It is well accepted that homosexuality was openly practiced by some cultures during the historical span of the Bible. So it is not as though it just didn't happen to occur to them, or like in the case of the internet, it didn't exist during that time.
When an issue, such as marriage, is addressed over and over and over again in the Bible, and yet never, not even once, hints at the alternative possibility of marrying someone of your own sex, why would it be logical to assume that just because it doesn't state it as a direct commandment that it is still in God's will?
That's the same as saying "because mom didn't say I couldn't play with this gun, it is obviously within her will that I do so."
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sebastiansdreams said:
True, but debating politics on a forum is a long step away from convening in the house of God and having a servant of God unite two people, and doing so in God's name. And that is what a marriage, under the pretenses we are discussing, means.
Funny, I didn't realize that ALL marriages have to be done in a church in God's name.

sebastiansdreams said:
Also, it is not as though homosexuality, or even bestiality was beyond the "scope" of the Bible. It is well accepted that homosexuality was openly practiced by some cultures during the historical span of the Bible. So it is not as though it just didn't happen to occur to them, or like in the case of the internet, it didn't exist during that time.
Well, it's funny that they didn't mention homosexuality in the NT Bible then, isn't it? You think that they would have been direct about it. (Especially considering that Jesus/Paul did away with Mosaic law, right?)

sebastiansdreams said:
When an issue, such as marriage, is addressed over and over and over again in the Bible, and yet never, not even once, hints at the alternative possibility of marrying someone of your own sex, why would it be logical to assume that just because it doesn't state it as a direct commandment that it is still in God's will?
That's the same as saying "because mom didn't say I couldn't play with this gun, it is obviously within her will that I do so."
Yes, but that's the point you were trying to make. That it's inference was there when it wasn't. You say that if it's not in the Bible specifically, that God would be against it.

You really can't have it both ways. Well, you can, it's your belief system and it's impossible to debate logic with someone whose beliefs aren't rooted in logic.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

shuamort said:
Funny, I didn't realize that ALL marriages have to be done in a church in God's name.

Well, it's funny that they didn't mention homosexuality in the NT Bible then, isn't it? You think that they would have been direct about it. (Especially considering that Jesus/Paul did away with Mosaic law, right?)

Yes, but that's the point you were trying to make. That it's inference was there when it wasn't. You say that if it's not in the Bible specifically, that God would be against it.

You really can't have it both ways. Well, you can, it's your belief system and it's impossible to debate logic with someone whose beliefs aren't rooted in logic.
Of course they don't, I wasn't arguing that. We are debating whether having homosexual sex is a sin. And I'm telling you that since marriage, as presented in the Bible, is a union under God, and meant to be for heterosexuals, it is sinful in any case for a man to have sex with another man or a woman have sex with another woman.
Did away with the law hey? Jesus said: "I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." They aren't getting rid of any of the laws, they're just straightening out some misconceptions and creating a new covenant.
No, I'm not arguing that if it isn't in the Bible then God is against it.
Okay, let's look at it this way. Assuming you are actually concerned with committing sin. This warrants two separate facts. A) You are a Christian who has chosen to devote your life to God and be His servant, attempting to do everything in your capable ability to concord with His will and B) even if you commit a sin, which will separate you from God, you are still at least attempting to seek his will, even if you fail to do so out of misunderstanding.
So, if I was a man who desired to follow God's will (the alternative to sin), would it be more servant like to seek what God actually intended of me, and follow the directions that he laid out in the NT regarding marriage and the like? Or would it be more servant like to look at his word, note the things it doesn't strictly prohibit, and then attempt to argue that since God didn't say it directly, I can get away with it. You are taking the concept of sin out of it's context. Sin is an act that leads in a direction other that God's will. And I think it's not at all off base to argue that God's will is a marriage between opposite sex partners, in order to form a supportive union and build a family.
You mistake logical belief versus what you can prove empirically, they are not mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sebastiansdreams said:
Of course they don't, I wasn't arguing that. We are debating whether having homosexual sex is a sin. And I'm telling you that since marriage, as presented in the Bible, is a union under God, and meant to be for heterosexuals, it is sinful in any case for a man to have sex with another man or a woman have sex with another woman.
You're making logical jumps and syllogisms without having the facts to support your claim. The Bible NEVER says that marriage is only for heterosexuals. The Bible never mentions men having sex with another man. (And the part in the OT if you're going to grasp that straw was done away with, with the rest of the Mosaic laws by Jesus/Paul). The Bible NEVER mentions women having sex with another woman either.

sebastiansdreams said:
Did away with the law hey? Jesus said: "I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." They aren't getting rid of any of the laws, they're just straightening out some misconceptions and creating a new covenant.
WRONG. Was it a misconception about seafood or cloven hoofs in Mosaic law or was Jesus actually doing away with those laws. It's obviously the latter.
sebastiansdreams said:
No, I'm not arguing that if it isn't in the Bible then God is against it. What I'm arguing
Then you should have no problem with gays getting married then.
sebastiansdreams said:
Okay, let's look at it this way. Assuming you are actually concerned with committing sin. This warrants two separate facts. A) You are a Christian who has chosen to devote your life to God and be His servant, attempting to do everything in your capable ability to concord with His will and B) even if you commit a sin, which will separate you from God, you are still at least attempting to seek his will, even if you fail to do so out of misunderstanding.
Of course, the only sin that would bar you from heaven would be the sin of not letting Jesus into your heart, right? All other sins can be cleansed from the soul.
sebastiansdreams said:
So, if I was a man who desired to follow God's will (the alternative to sin), would it be more servant like to seek what God actually intended of me, and follow the directions that he laid out in the NT regarding marriage and the like? Or would it be more servant like to look at his word, note the things it doesn't strictly prohibit, and then attempt to argue that since God didn't say it directly, I can get away with it. You are taking the concept of sin out of it's context. Sin is an act that leads in a direction other that God's will. And I think it's not at all off base to argue that God's will is a marriage between opposite sex partners, in order to form a supportive union and build a family.
It's presumptive to speak for God as you're doing. Which is also a big sin.
sebastiansdreams said:
You mistake logical belief versus what you can prove empirically, they are not mutually exclusive.
There is no logical belief on your side. You're working with black and white and denying the existance of the overlapping gray. Moreover, Cartesian thought can be disproven without getting into the realms of empiricism.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

Okay, I'm going to lay this out once more, just in hopes that you will actually try to understand this argument and not just ignore parts of the argument and run us around in circles again.
1 Corintheans 7:1-4
About the things you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have relations with a woman." But because of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. A husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise a wife to her husband. A wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does. Equally, a husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does.
After truly considering those verses, how can you create an argument that God intended a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman?
This is exclusivly saying that a husband should have a wife and a wife should have a husband. There is no grounds left in which to argue that God intended marriage to be for homosexuals.

WRONG. Was it a misconception about seafood or cloven hoofs in Mosaic law or was Jesus actually doing away with those laws. It's obviously the latter.
Neither. You ignored the second half of the statement. He was creating a new covenant. Renewing the covenant meant letting go of some of the specifications within the agreements but adding others. A new covenant built around the old covenant.

Then you should have no problem with gays getting married then.
I'm not. I just do not think that it is theologically sound that they do so in the house of God, seeking to make an agreement together before God and his servant (a pastor or priest).

Of course, the only sin that would bar you from heaven would be the sin of not letting Jesus into your heart, right? All other sins can be cleansed from the soul.
I don't know that I'd consider it a sin to not ask for forgiveness for your sins, rather just a failure to accept the sacrifice that can cleanse them. But either way, yes, you're right. The only thing that can keep you out of heaven is refusing to accept Jesus's sacrifice. But, as a Christian, my goal is not to get into heaven, that is assured, rather it is to live my life as closely as I possibly can to the way God designed it, so that I may have a fulfilled and joyful life with as few irriations and disasters as possible.

It's presumptive to speak for God as you're doing. Which is also a big sin.
There is no such thing as a big sin versus a little one. Furthermore, I am not at all speaking for God. I am speaking from the eyes and life of a servant seeking to find God's will, which can be found in the Bible and through prayer and communication with God and councilors who are familiar with God. In the end, I am doing nothing more than attempting to understand God's commandands and will (that's why I pray that his will be done, and that as much as possible that he let me know it). I do not declare law, and I do not attempt to punish or forgive in the name of God. I am certainly not "using his name in vain" if that is your argument.

There is no logical belief on your side.
No. I feel God's presence, and I can visually see Him working in my life and in the lives around me. To ignore what has happened in my life and in the lives of others would be illogical and would be an act of lying to myself.
 
Last edited:

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sebastiansdreams said:
Okay, I'm going to lay this out once more, just in hopes that you will actually try to understand this argument and not just ignore parts of the argument and run us around in circles again.
1 Corintheans 7:1-4
About the things you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have relations with a woman." But because of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. A husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise a wife to her husband. A wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does. Equally, a husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does.
After truly considering those verses, how can you create an argument that God intended a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman?
This is exclusivly saying that a husband should have a wife and a wife should have a husband. There is no grounds left in which to argue that God intended marriage to be for homosexuals.
If we're going to use your bible, let's examine the language. Especially the should, the future subjunctive conjugation of shall. So it doesn't mandate, it suggests. Thus creating no exclusivity. If you wanna nitpick, there's a festering one.

sebastiansdreams said:
Neither. You ignored the second half of the statement. He was creating a new covenant. Renewing the covenant meant letting go of some of the specifications within the agreements but adding others. A new covenant built around the old covenant.
Some? No. All
"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."(Galatians 3: 23-25)

sebastiansdreams said:
I'm not. I just do not think that it is theologically sound that they do so in the house of God, seeking to make an agreement together before God and his servant (a pastor or priest).
Fortunately for those gay christians, there are churches that believe above all else that God is Love first.
sebastiansdreams said:
I don't know that I'd consider it a sin to not ask for forgiveness for your sins, rather just a failure to accept the sacrifice that can cleanse them. But either way, yes, you're right. The only thing that can keep you out of heaven is refusing to accept Jesus's sacrifice. But, as a Christian, my goal is not to get into heaven, that is assured, rather it is to live my life as closely as I possibly can to the way God designed it, so that I may have a fulfilled and joyful life with as few irriations and disasters as possible.
And since no one is infallible, why the judgment on others? Especially since you're wavering in the claims you're making.
sebastiansdreams said:
There is no such thing as a big sin versus a little one.
A sin is a sin is a sin. Of course, there's no proof that the Bible considers homosexuality to be a sin.
sebastiansdreams said:
Furthermore, I am not at all speaking for God. I am speaking from the eyes and life of a servant seeking to find God's will, which can be found in the Bible and through prayer and communication with God and councilors who are familiar with God. In the end, I am doing nothing more than attempting to understand God's commandands and will (that's why I pray that his will be done, and that as much as possible that he let me know it). I do not declare law, and I do not attempt to punish or forgive in the name of God. I am certainly not "using his name in vain" if that is your argument.
Your interpretations would beg to differ. Especially if you're proselytizing

sebastiansdreams said:
No. I feel God's presence, and I can visually see Him working in my life and in the lives around me. To ignore what has happened in my life and in the lives of others would be illogical and would be an act of lying to myself.
And I feel no presence of a God whatsoever. I see no proof of an existence of a God either. There's no logical, quantifiable, qualifiable, circumstantial, or empirical evidence. Now, whose logic is going to win out?
 
S

sebastiansdreams

shuamort said:
If we're going to use your bible, let's examine the language. Especially the should, the future subjunctive conjugation of shall. So it doesn't mandate, it suggests. Thus creating no exclusivity. If you wanna nitpick, there's a festering one.
Wait? So "thou SHALL not kill" is only suggestive as well you're arguing?

Some? No. All
But Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus says
"Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished.

Fortunately for those gay christians, there are churches that believe above all else that God is Love first.
Are you under the misconception that someone most agree with you if they are to love. Or that I am suggesting that there is anyone in the world that God doesn't love? Because that is certianly not the case.

And since no one is infallible, why the judgment on others? Especially since you're wavering in the claims you're making.
Who is judging? I KNOW I am a sinner and in desperate need of salvation. The question was is homosexual sex a sin? How am I passing judgement on them by offering to you my understanding of the Bible? You were seeking what I think and take from the Bible (even though I know you were only doing so to argue with it). My real name is Daniel, which means God is my judge. And I do not dare stand in His place as Judge.

There's that lovely word again that you throw around so haphazardly. "Proof" by definition of you is "an argument that serves your own opinion." But regardless, I am not arguing to you that being homosexual is a sin. Homosexuality is not a sin as far as I'm concerned. But sex, no matter who it is with, outside of marriage is.

Your interpretations would beg to differ. Especially if you're proselytizing
Give an example of me speaking for God.

There's no logical, quantifiable, qualifiable, circumstantial, or empirical evidence.
empirical - Relying on or derived from observation or experiment

I have observed the change in the lives of those around me who have accepted Christ in their life and so could you if you were to take the time to study it.
But in the end, of course YOUR logic wins out, because you are always right in your own mind. And arguably, if God came down and got face to face with you and said "Hey look, here I am" you will still fail to believe in Him and you would check yourself into a psych ward.
 
Last edited:

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sebastiansdreams said:
Wait? So "thou SHALL not kill" is only suggestive as well you're arguing?
Is "SHALL" conjugated in the future subjunctive? No. So it doesn't apply. Fun ain't it?


sebastiansdreams said:
But Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus says
"Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished.
That does nothing to disprove what I've put forth.

sebastiansdreams said:
Are you under the misconception that someone most agree with you if they are to love. Or that I am suggesting that there is anyone in the world that God doesn't love? Because that is certianly not the case.
:roll: When you come back, bring a sensible argument. One that isn't a false decision between either/or.

sebastiansdreams said:
Who is judging? I KNOW I am a sinner and in desperate need of salvation. The question was is homosexual sex a sin? How am I passing judgement on them by offering to you my understanding of the Bible? You were seeking what I think and take from the Bible (even though I know you were only doing so to argue with it). My real name is Daniel, which means God is my judge. And I do not dare stand in His place as Judge.
No, the question from the OP was actually about gays seeking marriage through the court systems. Your hijack was "is homosexual sex a sin". I would say that all sex outside of a marriage is a sin according to the bible. The gays that are married and having sex are not sinning by having sex.

sebastiansdreams said:
There's that lovely word again that you throw around so haphazardly. "Proof" by definition of you is "an argument that serves your own opinion." But regardless, I am not arguing to you that being homosexual is a sin. Homosexuality is not a sin as far as I'm concerned. But sex, no matter who it is with, outside of marriage is.
I'm sorry that you feel that proof gets bandied about a lot. It's because this is a debate and debates require proof to buttress claims, especially outlandish ones. But since we both agree that homosexuality is NOT a sin, maybe we can move on from that point, eh?
sebastiansdreams said:
Give an example of me speaking for God.
Just stating what I believe to be an incredibly logical assessment of the Bible's intentions

sebastiansdreams said:
empirical - Relying on or derived from observation or experiment
You cannot observe nor experiment on faith. Why, because it's not capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.

sebastiansdreams said:
I have observed the change in the lives of those around me who have accepted Christ in their life and so could you if you were to take the time to study it.
But in the end, of course YOUR logic wins out, because you are always right in your own mind. And arguably, if God came down and got face to face with you and said "Hey look, here I am" you will still fail to believe in Him and you would check yourself into a psych ward.
How do you know it's Christ though? You're using syllogistic logic to arrive at that conclusion from the information you're proffering here.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

shuamort said:
Is "SHALL" conjugated in the future subjunctive? No. So it doesn't apply. Fun ain't it?
So you are arguing that the fact that something is congegated to its future subjunctive that it presumably turns from "mandate" to suggestion, which is not really a supportable literary argument. But you are missing the point that just because the Bible does not specifically state something in words, does not mean that it is in the will of God. And since it is if nothing more suggested by God that one marry to the opposite sex, would you not begin to believe that that is his will? And if it is HIS WILL that marriage be between man and woman, and homosexual marriage falls out side of that, it is contrary to His will therefore it is sin.
The Bible doesn't have to state something is a sin, it can be deduced that if one thing is the will of God, then an action counter to that is against God's will. Homosexual sex, therefore, since it is not the will of God, is a sin.
(Especially considering that Jesus/Paul did away with Mosaic law, right?)
Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law
How is that not disproving your argument?

When you come back, bring a sensible argument. One that isn't a false decision between either/or.
But I wasn't making an argument to begin with. I was asking you what you were implying by saying there are some churches that believe that God is love. You should be more careful to distungish between someone who is making a statement and asking you a question.

The gays that are married and having sex are not sinning by having sex.
Possibly. But I guess that goes back to the question of the word arsenokoitai. And I would ask you, why err on the side of possibilty of acting against God's will just to feed your own appetite?
I'm sorry that you feel that proof gets bandied about a lot. It's because this is a debate and debates require proof to buttress claims, especially outlandish ones.
Look, I have no problem supplying evidence in order to come to a truth, but your defintion of proof differs from the rest of the worlds. You will not accept any reasonable argument if it counter balances what you believe to be true, and that is what I have a problem with. And by the way, outlandish is a completely relative term, one that you use regarding anything you simply don't want to believe.
You cannot observe nor experiment on faith. Why, because it's not capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.
Huh?
Look, let's be real here. You aren't searching for imperical evidence or evidence of any other kind for that matter. I can sit and show you statistics all day of how many people are changed because of Christ in their life, I could draw a list a mile long of those who have talked to Him and experienced Him in one way or another. But all of that is simply evidence that you would ignore. Because you are not looking for evidence that might argue in favor of Christianity. You are looking for someone to come to you with "proof" that God exists that is impossible to argue against. But there are no statements nor truths that can not be argued against. I can argue all day that the ball is blue if it's actually green. Nothing is beyond argument.
You're using syllogistic logic to arrive at that conclusion from the information you're proffering here.
Precisely, I'm using logic to argue that Christ has changed my life. But since you apparently from our discussions up to this point do not believe in a true definition of logic, that wouldn't matter to you.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,002
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
sebastiansdreams said:
So you are arguing that the fact that something is congegated to its future subjunctive that it presumably turns from "mandate" to suggestion, which is not really a supportable literary argument. But you are missing the point that just because the Bible does not specifically state something in words, does not mean that it is in the will of God. And since it is if nothing more suggested by God that one marry to the opposite sex, would you not begin to believe that that is his will? And if it is HIS WILL that marriage be between man and woman, and homosexual marriage falls out side of that, it is contrary to His will therefore it is sin.
It was my nitpick as I said earlier. There is a HUGE difference in meaning between should and shall.

Please see the difference:
1)I should stop hopping on one foot.
2)I shall stop hopping on one foot.


sebastiansdreams said:
The Bible doesn't have to state something is a sin, it can be deduced that if one thing is the will of God, then an action counter to that is against God's will. Homosexual sex, therefore, since it is not the will of God, is a sin.

You still haven't proved that homosexual sex is against God's will. I've pointed that part out to you over and over.
sebastiansdreams said:
But I wasn't making an argument to begin with. I was asking you what you were implying by saying there are some churches that believe that God is love. You should be more careful to distungish between someone who is making a statement and asking you a question.
Wrong, you were giving a false decision. Please re-read your words. I do hate going in circles to prove a point that's already been made due to your alliteracy of my posts.
sebastiansdreams said:
Possibly. But I guess that goes back to the question of the word arsenokoitai. And I would ask you, why err on the side of possibilty of acting against God's will just to feed your own appetite?
Why err on the side of possibility of acting against God's will just to feed your own bigotry?
sebastiansdreams said:
Look, I have no problem supplying evidence in order to come to a truth, but your defintion of proof differs from the rest of the worlds. You will not accept any reasonable argument if it counter balances what you believe to be true, and that is what I have a problem with. And by the way, outlandish is a completely relative term, one that you use regarding anything you simply don't want to believe.
You mean scientific, irrefutable, provable in test cases, and REprovable. That's where the proof lies. I'm of no doubt that you can't prove your case since a person witnessing can't find or demonstrate any quantifiable evidence that can be moved over to any test cases either. And that's what faith is about. It doesn't have evidence, it's not provable. You're welcome to have your faith, just don't say it's provalble any more than the invisible pink unicorn standing behind me is.

sebastiansdreams said:
Huh?
Look, let's be real here. You aren't searching for imperical evidence or evidence of any other kind for that matter. I can sit and show you statistics all day of how many people are changed because of Christ in their life, I could draw a list a mile long of those who have talked to Him and experienced Him in one way or another. But all of that is simply evidence that you would ignore. Because you are not looking for evidence that might argue in favor of Christianity. You are looking for someone to come to you with "proof" that God exists that is impossible to argue against. But there are no statements nor truths that can not be argued against. I can argue all day that the ball is blue if it's actually green. Nothing is beyond argument.

Precisely, I'm using logic to argue that Christ has changed my life. But since you apparently from our discussions up to this point do not believe in a true definition of logic, that wouldn't matter to you.
Sadly you don't understand that using a syllogism is false logic. It doesn't prove anything.

Consider the following three statements:

- 1. God is perfectly good
- 2. The Bible is the perfect word of God
- 3. The Bible condemns loving homosexual relationships

It is my contention that at least one of those statements must logically be false. It is logically impossible for all of them to be true. If any two are true, then the third one must be false.

Of the three statements, I would say that the most likely to be false is statement 2, but I hope I've also presented a case that statement 3 is at least questionable. I will not accept the possibility that (if God exists) statement 1 is false.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

shuamort said:
It was my nitpick as I said earlier. There is a HUGE difference in meaning between should and shall.

Please see the difference:
1)I should stop hopping on one foot.
2)I shall stop hopping on one foot.

But we are not talking first person. We are talking theoretically, the words of God. You are arguing that God, in saying "You SHOULD do this" is not God conveying His will?

You still haven't proved that homosexual sex is against God's will. I've pointed that part out to you over and over.
Okay, assuming that arsenokoitai does not mean homosexual sex, which you cannot prove, then there is a possibility that a married couple, through law, would not be sinning by having sex. But that is also throwing out the argument that marriage is meant for man and woman based solely on the premise that it does not say "thou shalt only marry your own sex."

Why err on the side of possibility of acting against God's will just to feed your own bigotry?
Firstly, bigotry suggests that I think less of homosexuals than I do of myself. And that is not a correct statement, so do not presume to make such a loaded statement unless you are certain it is fact. Furthermore, it is not the place for man to seek his own pleasure, just so long as he does not leave the boundaries of what God has clearly stated, rather it is the place of man to go above and beyond to seek the actual will of God. If you are wavering on a fence between sinning against God and feeding your own desires, it is better to lean towards pleasing God.

I went to the bank yesterday.
But I know you possibly couldn't believe that because I cannot prove it through means that are "scientific, irrefutable, provable in test cases, and REprovable."
You're welcome to have your faith, just don't say it's provalble any more than the invisible pink unicorn standing behind me is.
But if your invisible pink unicorn was causing millions of people to change their lives in an unexplainable positive way in which they all claim is true... then maybe you ought to take a second thought about just saying He couldn't possibly exist.
Sadly you don't understand that using a syllogism is false logic. It doesn't prove anything.
syl·lo·gism Pronunciation Key (sl-jzm)
n. Logic. A form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion; for example, All humans are mortal, the major premise, I am a human, the minor premise, therefore, I am mortal, the conclusion.
Where in that do you get false logic?
 
Top Bottom