This was before or after he healed lepers and the blind?
Maybe people should assume they have the authority of Jesus once they act like Jesus. And not before.
Federal Judge rules Utah's ban on gay marrage illegal. Internet about to explode
- Thread starter downtown
- Start date
This was before or after he healed lepers and the blind?
Maybe people should assume they have the authority of Jesus once they act like Jesus. And not before.
Yup, that was Utah's last chance at an emergency stay, which was rejected. Their next plan is to draft an appeal to the 10th circuit, while we wait for the rest of the state to comply with the law. It looks like individual clerks got some (surprise!) conflicting information about their obligations.
I just find it surprising that somebody who clearly already holds the institution in contempt (enough to consider that approach anyway) would be riled up about this at all?
This isn't schadenfreude on my part (I'm an active Mormon myself, after all). I just don't understand how any religious person can credibly claim suffering from this. If it's been impacted at all, I'd say these developments have been a *positive* thing as far as strengthening my own marriage.
Maybe people should just stop butt <snip> each other like dogs in alleyways.
Now I'm not like Jesus. Do you like me better?
Moderator Action: Inappropriate language removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Neverwonagame3
Self-Styled Intellectual
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2006
- Messages
- 3,549
O.K O.K- I admit to making a small error. A glutton who claims that there is no sin in gluttony, or a murderer who claims there is no sin in murder, should be banned from religious organisations just as a homosexual who claims there is no wrong in homosexuality.
An individual who admits to homosexual behaviour but sees it as a vice (as it is from a Christian perspective) and is repentant of such, however, could reasonably be admitted.
An individual who admits to homosexual behaviour but sees it as a vice (as it is from a Christian perspective) and is repentant of such, however, could reasonably be admitted.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Ah. So some Catholic priests and Republican congressmen are ostensibly exempt from this blatant discrimination.
I'm sorry, what? There's no need to be crude. Any discussion of marriage tends to preclude dirty alley sex, humor excepted. It's nigh impossible to avoid coming across as a homophobe if you fall back to using crude imagery.
Additionally, I was speaking to Classical_Hero, who seems to justify his behaviour from some divine mandate.
Actually, that's a pretty big error! It's a night and day difference in how people perceive the Christian message. I mean, disagree ... one can be both Christian AND believe that certain gay relationships are passably acceptable. BUT, 'accepting the sinner not the sin' is a theme that tends to be aggressively considered (normally)
It is true, if you know and embrace the concepts of god and sin, to unrepentantly continue the acts is against "what you claim to be".
Can there be a "christian homosexual"? Certainly, as there can be a "christian thief" or whatever. But when it comes down to your communion with god, if you can say to him, "well, you say this is wrong, but I don't, so I don't repent", then you're only calling yourself a christian, and not much of a real one.
Neverwonagame3
Self-Styled Intellectual
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2006
- Messages
- 3,549
I am not talking about the policy question of what Christian schools should decide to do. I am talking about whether or not they can admit homosexuals without being hypocrites. I am giving the case that they can't.
Right, so I'm dealing with "certain people" with "one hand tied behind my back". I'm not allowed to say certain things, but you can say what you like about me.
This is alot like how I see "dealing with ******** people". So, because what's ok for you is not ok for me, because I'm responsible for restraining myself, I must categorically put "interactions with homosexuals" in the same context as "interactions with people with Down syndrome".
I hope you understand you contribute to this sentiment.
Additionally, I don't care to whom you were referring. You don't "use Jesus" for your argument in that fashion.
Well, no, other people are expected to restrain themselves too. Just because others have trolled you, I don't think that justifies being rude to me. I mean, it explains it, but it doesn't justify it. If you're coming across as an actual homophobe, you might want to consider if you wish to come across that way.
edit: Apologies if suggesting that healing lepers in order to emulate Jesus comes across as insulting. It's not. I think healing lepers is a good thing.
You don't feel it's "anything". You don't believe it, so the only purpose in your use of it is to demean it as with sarcasm or cynicism.
Well, I don't want to come across as dirty, that's for sure. Unrepentant? Fine. I'm certainly apostate, so from some perspectives I'm unrepentant. Deviant? That shouldn't be slipping into online discussions.
Demean what? People's assumption of Jesus's authority to condemn others? Ya, I don't respect that. But, healing lepers? Big fan.
Demean what? People's assumption of Jesus's authority to condemn others? Ya, I don't respect that. But, healing lepers? Big fan.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,552
Neither you nor your sister is allowed to marry Angelina Jolie. For that you've got to start working on the polygamy laws.
Well, you're honest.
Honestly from my point, no one's condemning anyone here. No one's "threatening hellfire" here or "leaving an injured human on the side of the road". No one's being "planted" in the ground so a crowd can throw rocks at their head.
"Judging" or "condemning" are very easy words to throw around, eliciting sentiment of "weak vs. strong". Everyone judges and makes decisions about how they best would fill the space around themselves. Judges "judge" and certainly often "condemn" but not entirely in the manner we feel god does. It's a word game people play when they're "against the ropes". I'm not affected by their term usage, and will, quite comfortably, continue to "judge" as "these people" say I should not.
Honestly from my point, no one's condemning anyone here. No one's "threatening hellfire" here or "leaving an injured human on the side of the road". No one's being "planted" in the ground so a crowd can throw rocks at their head.
"Judging" or "condemning" are very easy words to throw around, eliciting sentiment of "weak vs. strong". Everyone judges and makes decisions about how they best would fill the space around themselves. Judges "judge" and certainly often "condemn" but not entirely in the manner we feel god does. It's a word game people play when they're "against the ropes". I'm not affected by their term usage, and will, quite comfortably, continue to "judge" as "these people" say I should not.
Meh. It's the tide of demographics that will sweep all but the most futile pockets of resistance out of the way. Rightly or wrongly, a few decades from now opposition to gay marriage will be viewed in the same light as opposition to mixed-race marriage is today. The interesting thing to me is, ten years ago the political (and religious) leaders could have seen the writing on the wall and angled the debate toward getting government out of the marriage business, rather than manning the barricades against government recognition of gay marriage. But, they made their choice, and now that the water level is rising around their thighs, it's too late. Soon it'll only be a fight within individual churches, and a sudden outpouring of 'no true Scotsman' fallacies will be upon us.
And at that point, polygamy will probably be next up to bat.
And at that point, polygamy will probably be next up to bat.
That implies that we haven't started working on that. Purely for Angelina Jolie's benefit, mind you.
Similar threads
