A message from God

Scuba Pete · Aug 25, 2006

sojourner said:
There are two fronts to this "war:" 1) Homosexual couples wishing the same rights and privileges as other, heterosexual couples, and 2) Homosexual couples wishing religious blessing of their union. Let's not confuse the two.

While I gree with the principle of this, there are lots of grey areas. Marriage need not be denied to those who do not believe the same way I do. Legally, a couple should be recognised by the state in the manner THEY wish to be recognised. I have no right to discriminate against them either by my morality or by our laws.

That being said, churches should never be forced to recognise a marriage by the state. Their moral conscience is the only law they should be held to.

sojourner · Aug 25, 2006

NetDoc said:
While I gree with the principle of this, there are lots of grey areas. Marriage need not be denied to those who do not believe the same way I do. Legally, a couple should be recognised by the state in the manner THEY wish to be recognised. I have no right to discriminate against them either by my morality or by our laws.

That being said, churches should never be forced to recognise a marriage by the state. Their moral conscience is the only law they should be held to.

Indeed! That flies in the face of separation of Church and state, as well as ethics.

Pah · Aug 25, 2006

sojourner said:
Exactly my point when I said that, once we "unstack the cards" -- that is, once we divorce religious "morality" (emphasis on quotation marks) from civil law, the state would be compelled to apply the contract equally.

What the religious right is trying to do is to stack the cards in favor of the "righteous," that is, "those who do not live in abomination before God." Clearly, the state should not concern itself with matters of "righteousness." Just as clearly, if the cards are stacked at all, the Church should always stack them in favor of the disenfranchised.

Then I apologize for poor misunderstanding of your post

Paraprakrti · Aug 25, 2006

Pah said:
It's strange that you would "down play" the word of God.

Perhaps you could tell us how those verses allow for the suppression of civil libertties.

There is no down play on my part. You are simply misunderstanding what the Bible is teaching. Otherwise, if we follow in your logic, then what about the "civil liberties" as far as having sex in a church? Gee, it's strange that you would "down play" the word of God regarding these civil liberties. You want to equate everything on the same platform and you are attempting to use the Bible to justify this. This kind of blatant misuse of Scripture is why so many bad things are done in the name of religion. If you do not like where civil liberties are applied in a Christian society, then better that you reject Christianity instead of attempting to use it to justify your sentiments.

Paraprakrti · Aug 25, 2006

Pah said:
That's a BIG "if".

Size is irrelevant.

Pah said:
Please show where a same-sex couple diminishes your spirituality. I would think that if your spirituality were dependent of someone else, it is not really spiritual.

Please show me where I said that a same-sex couple diminishes my spirituality.

Pah said:
You have not shown why the verses support your view.

You may be able to rationalize homosexual marriage rights by purporting on these verses alone. Any rascal can take a verse or verses out of the Bible and justify their own agenda. I may not have shown why these verses alone support my view, but you have presupposed that homosexual marriage is legitimate and then proceeded to use these verses as justification for their rights. I can also presuppose that having sex in church is legitimate and then proceed to comment on those rights as per the verses you cited. So what is the difference? Nothing. We would both be guilty of using a part of the Bible to justify our own whims.

Pah · Aug 25, 2006

Paraprakrti said:
There is no down play on my part. You are simply misunderstanding what the Bible is teaching. Otherwise, if we follow in your logic, then what about the "civil liberties" as far as having sex in a church? Gee, it's strange that you would "down play" the word of God regarding these civil liberties. You want to equate everything on the same platform and you are attempting to use the Bible to justify this. This kind of blatant misuse of Scripture is why so many bad things are done in the name of religion. If you do not like where civil liberties are applied in a Christian society, then better that you reject Christianity instead of attempting to use it to justify your sentiments.

Please let me be a bit emphatic. You have not harmonized the verses in any way to a position that would prohibit the verse taken as same-sex marriage. You argument has been avoidance of that point

Paraprakrti · Aug 25, 2006

Pah said:
Please let me be a bit emphatic. You have not harmonized the verses in any way to a position that would prohibit the verse taken as same-sex marriage. You argument has been avoidance of that point

And you are assuming that same-sex marriage is considered a legit practice in Christian society and then applying these verses to that assumption. Please show one instance where the Bible condones homosexual marriage. If you cannot do that then I am not required to "harmonize" any verses.

Paraprakrti · Aug 25, 2006

I have also not harmonized the verses in any way to a position that would prohibit the verses taken as in-church sex act.

I have also not harmonized the verses in any way to a position that would prohibit the verses taken as defecating in the pew.

I have also not harmonized the verses in any way to a position that would prohibit the verses taken as vampirism during the eucharist.

I can go on...

bigvindaloo · Aug 25, 2006

Paraprakrti said:
And you are assuming that same-sex marriage is considered a legit practice in Christian society and then applying these verses to that assumption. Please show one instance where the Bible condones homosexual marriage. If you cannot do that then I am not required to "harmonize" any verses.

Are you continuing a debate based on a faulty premise??

bigvindaloo · Aug 25, 2006

Pah said:
Please let me be a bit emphatic. You have not harmonized the verses in any way to a position that would prohibit the verse taken as same-sex marriage. You argument has been avoidance of that point

Did you start a debate based on a faulty premise??

Pah · Aug 25, 2006

Paraprakrti said:
I have also not harmonized the verses in any way to a position that would prohibit the verses taken as in-church sex act.

I have also not harmonized the verses in any way to a position that would prohibit the verses taken as defecating in the pew.

I have also not harmonized the verses in any way to a position that would prohibit the verses taken as vampirism during the eucharist.

I can go on...

Now that's a very foolish list. You have to give examples that match the circumstances of James 2:1-17, something along the lines of ethnicity, or wealth, or married status. It has nothing to do with behavior.

I can see why your having trouble understanding God's word in this instance

Pah · Aug 25, 2006

bigvindaloo said:
Did you start a debate based on a faulty premise??

What would that premise be?

bigvindaloo · Aug 25, 2006

Pah said:
What would that premise be?

Discussed in post # 5,6,7,9.

Pah · Aug 25, 2006

bigvindaloo said:
Discussed in post # 5,6,7,9.

I didn't address it because it sounded off-topic to me. The discussion is about favoritism as condemned in James 2:1-17

Care to discuss the topic?

Perhaps you like to say something about the rich man who is not promised the kingdom of God

Paraprakrti · Aug 26, 2006

bigvindaloo said:
Are you continuing a debate based on a faulty premise??

I am pointing out the faulty premise.

Paraprakrti · Aug 26, 2006

Pah said:
Now that's a very foolish list. You have to give examples that match the circumstances of James 2:1-17, something along the lines of ethnicity, or wealth, or married status. It has nothing to do with behavior.

I can see why your having trouble understanding God's word in this instance

The point is that neither my examples nor yours have facility in a Christian society.

If you are really bent on examples that have nothing to do with behavior then consider the following:

You write, "The poor man is, of course, the gay who must, by dint of the "marriage amendment", sit at the feet of the rich man."

Ok. Then one can simply replace same-sex marriage with different-species marriage. Therefore the poor man in James 2:1-17 represents the living entity who is romantically and/or sexually attracted to different-species and therefore these verses given one civil rights in marrying an entity of a different species.

Oh wait, man-animal marriage may not be considered consentual. No worries, James 2:1-17 does not mention consent.

We're good to go, people.

Paraprakrti · Aug 26, 2006

Pah said:
I didn't address it because it sounded off-topic to me. The discussion is about favoritism as condemned in James 2:1-17

Care to discuss the topic?

Perhaps you like to say something about the rich man who is not promised the kingdom of God

(bold emphasis added)

THAT would be off topic.

How is what I am addressing off topic when it is you who is applying James 2:1-17 to an arrangement (i.e. homosexual marriage) that does not exist in a Christian society?? Yet you want to discuss the rich man and how he is not promised the kingdom of God..??

Pah · Aug 26, 2006

Paraprakrti said:
The point is that neither my examples nor yours have facility in a Christian society.

If you are really bent on examples that have nothing to do with behavior then consider the following:

You write, "The poor man is, of course, the gay who must, by dint of the "marriage amendment", sit at the feet of the rich man."

Ok. Then one can simply replace same-sex marriage with different-species marriage. Therefore the poor man in James 2:1-17 represents the living entity who is romantically and/or sexually attracted to different-species and therefore these verses given one civil rights in marrying an entity of a different species.

Oh wait, man-animal marriage may not be considered consentual. No worries, James 2:1-17 does not mention consent.

We're good to go, people.

James gives example of humans. Get serious. If you cant discuss same-sex orientation then at least discuss the disparity of social status between rich and poor.

Pah · Aug 26, 2006

Paraprakrti said:
(bold emphasis added)

THAT would be off topic.

How is what I am addressing off topic when it is you who is applying James 2:1-17 to an arrangement (i.e. homosexual marriage) that does not exist in a Christian society?? Yet you want to discuss the rich man and how he is not promised the kingdom of God..??

Favoritism exists in Christianity. Discuss that and discuss ramifications of James to the "breaker of law"

Paraprakrti · Aug 26, 2006

Pah said:
James gives example of humans.

Ok. So what? James doesn't give examples of non-humans. James also does not give examples of marriage. What to speak of homosexual marriage, which you have yet to produce one condoned example of in Biblical text.

Pah said:
Get serious.

After you, sir.

Pah said:
If you cant discuss same-sex orientation then at least discuss the disparity of social status between rich and poor.

First of all, what does this have to do with your applying James 2:1-17 to homosexual marriage? Secondly, what of the social disparity? A rich man can pay for things that a poor man cannot. That is common sense. The point in these verses is that we should not consider the less fortunate to be lesser beings. We should give them equal consideration because to God we are all equal. Also, those verses do not state that the kingdom of God is promised to the poor. It does not follow that if you are materially poor, therefore you will go to the kingdom of God automatically. James 2:5 states,

"Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?"

Pay attention to the "which he hath promised to them that love him" part. The idea here is that the materially poor tend to be rich in faith and thus such individuals are heirs of the kingdom of God, BUT the qualification is that they love God.

A message from God

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Uber all member

Custom User

Custom User

Uber all member

Custom User

Custom User

Active Member

Active Member

Uber all member

Uber all member

Active Member

Uber all member

Custom User

Custom User

Custom User

Uber all member

Uber all member

Custom User