If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[Sound Doxa]

AciDSniper

Risu the squirl

the thing that pisses me off aout people not letting gay people get married is that SOME s**t IS SAYING WHO CAN/CAN"T BE IN MY FAMILY

What? Could you clarify your statement?

I'm not sure if this is exactly what he was trying to say, but I interpreted it like he was saying that people who vote against gay marriage are trying to control who he wants in his family.
If he wants his brother to marry another guy, and he wants this guy in his family, then nobody but his brother should be able to make that decision.
The government should not be able to disallow people from being a part of other people's famliy.
If I want to marry another guy, then I should be able to.
Some s**t shouldn't be saying who can/can't be in my family.

[PoeticVengeance]

FreeArsenal

linaloki

I've read it. It says to me that Christians should concern themselves with the people of the world that are hurting as opposed to blabbing on about stuff that they shouldn't be. Such as things that cause hurt to people.

If you feel I am causing hurt, then I appologize. I feel that people are causing much larger hurts, however, by judging, hating, and despising homosexuals.

In response you choose to judge them as to whether they're a good or bad Christian?

I do, but I'm not a Christian.

I get to judge all I want.

^^

[PoeticVengeance]

ty_ping

PoeticVengeance

Elf Lord Chiewn

PoeticVengeance

Elf Lord Chiewn

This, of course, makes me heretical as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. I'll see about formulating something to clarify my position.

Considering that a good amount of the Catholic Church's dogmatic laws are blasphemous against the Scriptures, I think all the justification you need is that going randomly against Scripture is bad to negate the heresy charge.

Making the Church's position an appeal to authority.

I daresay that many of its rules and teachings are less than justified. 3nodding

Hear that boys and girls?

Using the position of the Catholic Church, Catholic Dogma, and the Cathechism to support an argument against homosexuality from the Christian perspective is fallacious.

So don't do it.

And yeah, Elf, I agree the Catholic Church's laws make very little sense from any perspective even a Scriptural one.

(Although they do make sense from the perspective of control and power over the population)

Part of the fun fun of the Catholic Church is that they have this circular scripture from John

Basically they say Jesus says Peter has well.. God`s power.
And because they (Pope) decends from peter and Has Gods Power they have the power to say they they were given the power,

So because they say that the line is true and the line says they tell the truth the line then is true.

...
Yea anyway that is the only thing the RCC has holding them up when it comes to WHY their allowed to make decisions that are not really scripturally founded or add to scripture. Which is a whole OTHER kettle of fish in which I find them suspiciously close to claiming they are God.

I don`t trust the Roman Catholic Church at all. The weirdest thing is most Roman Catholics agree with me but the whole Tradition thing keeps them there...

Yeah the RCC is a fun little paradoxical crazy time.

[PoeticVengeance]

Calida

I think I've mentioned on another post.. but here's the question:

For the religious, do you think that state and church should co-exist to govern a large-scale society such as our country (depending on where you're from).

Now, I'm sure most of you do realize this, but for those of you who don't, do you sincerely believe that YOUR OWN MORAL should be rooted into the government's legal action?

Let's examine this:
Hypothetically speaking, a group of vegans believe that animal abuse is wrong; therefore, they attempt to force the state to abolish the trading of all meat, leather, makeup (out of animal embryos/bones), and all dairy products.

Is this the way to go? If you are not a vegan, do you think you should fall under the rules of another group's morality?

So in turn, if a religious member does not agree that homosexuality is right, should one automatically rob a homosexual individual of her/his rights to enjoy a healthy, happy relationship under the protection as well as enjoying the benefits provided by our goverment for people who have devoted their lives to each other?

Um... we are arguing within the scope of Christianity.

Not within the scope of government or rights.

[AciDSniper]

FreeArsenal

linaloki

I've read it. It says to me that Christians should concern themselves with the people of the world that are hurting as opposed to blabbing on about stuff that they shouldn't be. Such as things that cause hurt to people.

If you feel I am causing hurt, then I appologize. I feel that people are causing much larger hurts, however, by judging, hating, and despising homosexuals.

In response you choose to judge them as to whether they're a good or bad Christian?

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 NASB

12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?

13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

Christians actually are supposed to be held to certain standards.

[PoeticVengeance]

Calmer

And, a lot later on:

PoeticVengeance

Not quite... I may have been unclear:

Its more like Christians can not claim anything is directly forbidden or considered sinful by God if it is not referenced or implicitly derived from a reference within the scripture of Christ.

Anything else is irrelevant to Scripture for Christians, and irrelevant to God in terms of Christians.

Not entirely sure how you're determining irrelevance here, but I agree with the prior paragraph.

I was being an unclear little girl again...

Irrelevant only in terms of moral rules. Obviously aspects of God's children wouldn't be irrelevant to Him.

Calmer

PoeticVengeance

However just because something is too small scale for God to consider relevant to the universe as a whole, doesn't mean its too small scale to be relevant to small groups.

By, "too small scale for God to consider relevant..." do you mean, as in, including in the Bible, or something else?

I'm actually not sure where I was going with that when I wrote it...

O_o

sorry for wasting your time there.

Calmer

PoeticVengeance

So my expectation would be that Christians would use ethical and logical justifications to build morals on things not handled in the relevant sections of the Bible.

So a Christian would be able to go against Gay Marriage, provided he/she could ethically and logically justify it. But that Christian would not be able to use the Bible to support that opposition. Therefore it is not a religious opposition to homosexual marriage but a personal one.

So to clarify, a Christian that engages in a religious based opposition of gay marriage is a bad Christian, and one that engages in a personal opposition to homosexual marriage is not (although he/she is probably bad with logic in that case.)

Yup, that explains it much better. If you are against homosexual marriage for religious reasons, you are a bad Christian. 3nodding

I'm glad my explaination was good there.

Its kind of hard to put into words the distinction.

I was worried I was going to screw it up...

Calmer

PoeticVengeance

I'm glad you brought this up.

The question is raised whether it actually has the position of enlightened interpretation that it claims.

Whereas Jesus fulfilled specific prophecies that labeled him the messiah (and granted him the authority to make such changes) the Catholic Church's authority appears to be noticably less supported by any form of Scriptural litmus test.

You are free to dispute this. I think it would be an interesting conversation.

Hmmm. I'm not sure exactly: I'll have to have a look at the Catechism again. However, I think the RCC claims Apostolic levels of interpretation, rather than near-Messianic. There were, similarly, a lack of prophecies regarding the Apostles, so at that level, I believe they're okay (insofar as any self-claim regarding divine influence and knowledge is 'okay').

I honestly can't remember. Its been so long since I was Catholic...

And I've been pretty busy with building Etherism now, so a lot of my religious knowledge of Christianity and Catholicism wasn't being put into use and kept in the brain as much as it would've been normally.

Calmer

Whether that degree of interpretation is high enough to allow the RCC to contradict the Bible in places as you assert is also an interesting debate.

Yes, yes it would be.

Calmer

PoeticVengeance

Actually, legal marriage should be separate from the Christian ceremony. State officals should be the ones to perform them, as it is a secular ceremony to gain secular rights.

Then if the couple is composed of Christians, it can get a Christian ceremony too.

Of course, being licensed to perform secular marriage isn't something we need to restrict. A church offical can still have that ability, but there must be a religion neutral government offical nearby that can perform the marriage if the church refuses.

Indeed: the present situation mostly stems from the fact that a large proportion of the legal/'secular' side of marriage has, for nearly the last millenium at least, been considered a Church matter, handled by Church officials (especially in England, during the Tudor period - no end of joy at the 'legitimacy' of marriages made whilst intermittent monarchs of different Christian faiths flip flop around xp ) and hence there was no distinction between secular and Christian (and different sects of Christianity's) marriages.

The worst part is, American Law actually does make that distinction, but its so ingrained in our Western culture to treat it as a religious ceremony that Americans freak out whenever secular marriage law contradicts Christian marriage law.

I've read about the fiascos with divorce and the Catholic church.

Calmer

PoeticVengeance

Does the bible address heterosexual marriage within Jesus' teachings?

If so then yes, you're right. Homosexual marriage is not forbidden but it is also not granted. Its something God has left to us to decide.

If not, then heterosexual marriage is weighed the same, and is up to us to determine its formation and actions.

Within Jesus' teachings, I believe the only time marriage is referenced is within several metaphorical parables, and once about Levirate (which is the "not married in heaven, will be like angels," passage).

Heterosexual marriage is addressed, in both rules regarding it and general practices, in the letters from the Apostles and several of the other post-Gospel chapters, hence it has some Biblical weight to it, but lacks actual direct teachings of Christ regarding it.

Ah, I see.

Calmer

Which presents the obvious dilemma of whether solely Apostolic support for it (and indeed, many of the letters only described how to act within a marriage, as opposed to the validity of the custom itself as regards God - it's possible to argue, I suppose, that Jesus' response above as regarding Levirate indicates marriage is an entirely social matter, without actual religious definition to it beyond the law of love as regards how you act towards your spouse and any children) is enough to determine it as a religious formation.

I would argue exactly that, actually.

Because of the lack of material in Scripture denoting the validity of marriage in God's eyes as a religious aspect, I would say that its a social matter.

I would also assert that the Apostolic material about it is simply an expression of the fact that religious law has effects on everything, including socially defined things (although in the case of socially determined things a more indirect effect) and that the socially defined construct of marriage is not exempt from that influence.

[PoeticVengeance]

FreeArsenal

linaloki

FreeArsenal

linaloki

I've read it. It says to me that Christians should concern themselves with the people of the world that are hurting as opposed to blabbing on about stuff that they shouldn't be. Such as things that cause hurt to people.

If you feel I am causing hurt, then I appologize. I feel that people are causing much larger hurts, however, by judging, hating, and despising homosexuals.

In response you choose to judge them as to whether they're a good or bad Christian?

I don't feel you're hurting people, I just feel you can do a better job. smile

I know I'm not the best Christian in the world. But I think sometimes it takes a good Holy Order smack of logic/insult to get them to pay attention. I try not to tell them they're bad Christians... but not following the teachings of Christ sure doesn't make you a good one. Especially the teaching of love.

So you prefer to use coldness and displays of anger to prove your point? You may or may not be conveying it, but a lot of posters here in general are angry.

Loki, Marshal, Ananel, Ty and the many other posters that I know are Christian have shown anything but coldness and anger.

Although others have (I shan't mention names) they have not identified themselves as Christians, at least not publically.

Even a few of the non-Christians like myself have shown a remarkable level of understanding for the standard Gaian C-Boxer and GDer, and as I'm sure you know speaking with them about anything serious and contraversial is a very trying experience.

Quote:

Does coldness then equal love linaloki?

Hardly. But has Loki shown coldness?

I have yet to see it.

[PoeticVengeance]

cherrymastadon

it was an honest question, I wanted to know how many people in here have attended a bible college.

I have not.

But being in an acedemic program does not make you more likely to be right about something that has incorrect answers about it propagating throughout the mainstream.

In fact (and sadly too) a lot of acedemics are strongly influenced by the mainstream views.

The only one relatively safe at this point is the Physical Sciences, as evidenced by the complete ownage Evolution Theory dealt to Intelligent Design and Creationism in the majority of American schools.

But then again, trying to replace or add to science with religion (which is definately not science) is a rather extreme thing, and likely to be noticed and stopped.

Quote:

i don't really have anything else to say about the subject in my own opinion, i stated it, it's done.

And your opinion was crushed.

You were defeated.

Welcome to the Extended Discussion forum. Where it never ends with stating your opinion.

Have a good day.

[PoeticVengeance]

cherrymastadon

my first reason is that this is the first time, ever, that this argument has been presented to me this way, and I need time to think/pray about it and research it myself. As of right now, my stance is that it is someone else's opinion, someone else's interpretation. I will say that it looks and sounds legitimate.
For example. I agree with the whole thing about leviticus not applying to us anymore. But it is my opinion that the three words that do not necessarily mean homosexuality, just might. It depends on who is interpreting it. "effeminate pervert" "man, bed" it sounds like homosexuality. the key word is SOUNDS. maybe it's not. maybe it is. but right now the only solid "proof" i have that homosexuality is a sin is what acts says, and i need to look at it a little closer, by what is stated here. i hope that will suffice

Ah well, I can't expect overnight change.

Good luck with your soul searching and research.

At least you're taking these arguments into consideration.

[PoeticVengeance]

cherrymastadon

that is also true. while I have close friends who are homosexual, in a way I am hurting them by not supporting gay marriage myself. good insight, I never thought of it that way.

3nodding

Its amazing how many people don't realize that, so don't feel to bad about not knowing it.

The fact that you acknowledge it now that you've learned it is huge to me.

[PoeticVengeance]

SoundDoctrine

Da House Kat

the fourth rule: only two guys to a fight

?

Fight Club.

Semi-obscure American pop culture references FTW.

[PoeticVengeance]

FreeArsenal

Eh, I have a question... if people who actually believe the Bible are wrong in interpreting it, how can I trust that people who do not believe in it are interpreting it right?

Since a lot of religions have this unfortunate tendency to encourage a lack of questioning of the religious rules and scriptures you actually can trust nonbelievers more.

Think about it for a moment. If you are discouraged from questioning your beliefs (which is essentially what the church is doing, even though the precondition is that those beliefs match the church's teachings) then you would be less likely to question your beliefs about the interpretation of your holy book you should use.

That means that if you screw up, you are less likely to self correct.

Now, if a misconception exists for a long time, then a lot of people will be born to it, and that will become their default beliefs (because if you think people that believe in a religion all read the holy book of their religion, you are very very naive about religion)

Whereas non-believers are immune to this occurance (their beliefs in the interpretation of the holy book is not set in stone) and can therefore give you a better idea of what's going on.

But the key here, is that a notable number of believers agree with us. (Quite a few believers are in this thread)

Quote:

And how can I trust that one person's written thesis is correct above all the other thesii (is that a word) out there?

You can't, which is why you have to analyze it and its logic and compare to other thesii (I have no clue if it is, but I'll roll with your new plural) out there.

No one expects you to just accept it blindly, that's the problem that lead to the misconceptions in the Christian faith currently.

[PoeticVengeance]

FreeArsenal

SoundDoctrine

If a person who believes in the Bible does not read it in context, and does not look at the original meaning of the Greek/Hebrew words, and they then minsunderstand the Bible, or twist it to fit their won idea of what's right, they are misinterpreting the Bible and comitting eisegesis.
If a person who does not believe in the Bible still reads it in context, looks at the meanings of the original Geek/Hebrew, and then they only go by what the Bible actually says, then they are understanding the Bible correctly and using exegesis.
The belief in the Bible does not automatically mean understanding it in a correct way, and the non-belief in the Bible does not automatically mean that a person is misunderstanding the Bible.
The Bible, while some believe it to be a Holy Book, is still a piece of literature, and any person comitted to learning or reading literature should be able to read it in context and find the meaning of it's original words.

Well, then why should I believe one person's interpretation of greek and Hebrew over another? There are many sources online and in books, why is it that this one guy is correct? I've looked up hebrew and greek interpretations, and they are totally different from most of what is posted here. Why do I have to give trust to people here and no trust to others? Aren't both sides biased?

Also, Bible scholars themselves don't agree, those that are fluent in the ancient Greek and Hebrew... if those that read Greek and Hebrew don't agree, how can I be sure that one person's statement on both Greek and Hebrew is correct above all others, when the sources he sites are indeed from only one position?

You're supposed to analyze them.

We're not here to make your decisions for you, we're here to provide an alternate stance that we feel is more logical and more well thought out then the opposing stance.

Quote:

SoundDoctrine

Theses.
You find out which one is more logically sound and which one is supported more by good sources.
If you find two theses equalling each other in logic and support, you debate over which one you want to be right. You try and find as much information as possible that supports your side, and you balance that information with whatever you can gather from the opposing side.
Which ever thesis wins the debate, that is the one that is correct.

Okay, I've read Ananel's thesis, checked his sources, looked at scriptures, and I still don't get how people agree with it... what now?

I'm confused.

What exactly is wrong with it?

Quote:

I'm not trying to be difficult... I just simply can't see how it works out to be in such a way that homosexuality is "okay."

You need to be more specific.

Is it the New Testament material that you have an issue with or the Old Testament?

What is not making sense or not falling into place for you?

Quote:

Now don't get me wrong, I don't do politics, I've really got nothing to say about gay marriage, I'm not against it, nor am I for it, I just can't put together how this one person's view is logical.

More details please.

[SapphWolf]

PoeticVengeance

cherrymastadon

my first reason is that this is the first time, ever, that this argument has been presented to me this way, and I need time to think/pray about it and research it myself. As of right now, my stance is that it is someone else's opinion, someone else's interpretation. I will say that it looks and sounds legitimate.
For example. I agree with the whole thing about leviticus not applying to us anymore. But it is my opinion that the three words that do not necessarily mean homosexuality, just might. It depends on who is interpreting it. "effeminate pervert" "man, bed" it sounds like homosexuality. the key word is SOUNDS. maybe it's not. maybe it is. but right now the only solid "proof" i have that homosexuality is a sin is what acts says, and i need to look at it a little closer, by what is stated here. i hope that will suffice

Ah well, I can't expect overnight change.

Good luck with your soul searching and research.

At least you're taking these arguments into consideration.

It's a hell a lot more then most people I've seen on this site or in real life. Kudos. 4laugh

PoeticVengeance

cherrymastadon

that is also true. while I have close friends who are homosexual, in a way I am hurting them by not supporting gay marriage myself. good insight, I never thought of it that way.

3nodding

Its amazing how many people don't realize that, so don't feel to bad about not knowing it.

The fact that you acknowledge it now that you've learned it is huge to me.

At least you're willing to concider such an idea. My hipocrit friend doesn't seem to think it's hurtful at all that he doesn't support gay marriages. Another one of my Christian friends doesn't support it for the simple fact that he's affraid of the potential backlash the situation could cause which may result in churhces being forced to marry homosexuals. Which is rediculous. God...my friends are douches... neutral Guess it's true what they say. Love makes you blind to a persons faults.

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

At least they've got you, Sapph.

Now to get rid of their bigotry...