Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples

Then that whole Corinthians passage you quoted is merely a guideline and not a commandment. If you accept that premise, then how much else of Paul is merely a set of guidelines?
Read verses 1-9 of the same chapter. You asked me to talk about a specific point, and I did. But now you're bringing up a separate point, which is addressed in a slightly different place. What Paul has to say is pretty consistent with what the Gospels have Christ saying.
 
What did Christ have to say about homosexuality? And where did Christ address his shortcomings for not taking a wife?
 
What did Christ have to say about homosexuality? And where did Christ address his shortcomings for not taking a wife?
If you're not going to actually listen to what I'm saying, then I'm not going to bother saying it.
 
Case closed.
Yeah, your case has been dismissed due to lack of evidence.

When you want to actually talk, let me know. (This might require you actually checking out what we're talking about -- your questions, especially that last one, show you really haven't done your homework, and aren't even reading the specific verses I've referred you to.)
 
Traditional marriage according to the Bible:

Spoiler :
A nice mixture of boring and well-known truths, inaccuracies, uncharitable interpretations, a laughable ignorance of the distinction between statements of fact and statements of justification, and simple extratextual interpolations. But, other than that, cool graphic.
 
I'm pretty sure that graph is accurate.

What did Paul think of Jesus failing to have a wife?

A former roommate of mine once went on a long explanation about how they were a gay couple, it seemed fairly convincing.

Because Old Testament laws are null

I've often remarked that half the bible is made up, thanks for confirming that.
 
Nothing specific to rebut? How telling.
It's pretty much poor history or theology, or both. If I weren't in the middle of writing a long paper, I'd go into detail now -- but I am, so all I had time for was a simple assessment. If I have time tomorrow I'll get around to it, and if not then, over the weekend. (It's a crazy week.) If I forget, don't hesitate to PM me. I have no problem responding to this thing, again, but I'll probably spend a good hour finding the specific verses and explaining why that graph sucks, and with this paper needing to be done in six hours, and no sleep happening tonight, that's not going to happen right now.
 
I've used that excuse before. I recall actually reading the relevant parts of the bible to that graph, and I don't see a problem (other than the bible being outdated, culturally and/or morally wrong that is).
 
People get away with so much by casually referring to Old and New Covenants. It's almost as if the New Covenant conveniently only disbars the stuff you disagree with and sanitises everything you like.
 
Because Old Testament laws are null, the former exists in both Testaments whereas the latter is only in the Old Testament

People get away with so much by casually referring to Old and New Covenants. It's almost as if the New Covenant conveniently only disbars the stuff you disagree with and sanitises everything you like.

That.

Old Testament laws are obviously not "null". From what I gathered, some Old Testament laws no longer apply, particularly in the specific form of the Ten Commandments, but some were affirmed. What's concerning is that Christians pick from all over the New Testament in order to justify what is still disapproved of and what is no longer disapproved of, and considering the writers of the New Testament were hardly of one mind, one could go pretty far to question their beliefs as they stand.
 
That was part of the old covenant, but homosexuality is still forbidden in the New testament.

Ehn, so is the proscription against eating snared rabbit, working on the Sabbath, remarrying after divorce, and ignoring the poor while partaking in excess. Might want to put down the porkribs and click off the TV remote before picking at the speck in my eye.

Regardless, God was able to bless the consumption of abominations through direct revelation to Peter. Private revelation of holiness is Scripturally sound (see Galatians 5 for more detail). The average Christian cannot tell if a homosexual union is blessed by God or not, because there's no reason to think that God gives private revelations to everyone, even when they occur.

Pork was just as 'condemned' in the OT as homosexual unions. In the New Testament, consuming pork violates my understanding of the Golden Rule, but a good gay marriage certainly does not. Galatians 5 tells us that if it's really love, then it's allowed. And, I think, Jesus's summary of the law was to suggest that we stop being asses about the law, and figure out the intent.

How is race generally related to childbirth in any way?

:lol: We're totally miscommunicating somehow! Clearly, because the answer obviously (to me, anyway) is that the race of the child is influenced by the race of the parents. Of course social restriction of marriage (according to racial lines) can have a meaningful impact upon racist urges. A Christian interpretation banning interracial marriage is going to have material effects upon the 'natural' outcomes of marriage, namely the race of children.
 
I'm pretty sure that graph is accurate.

A former roommate of mine once went on a long explanation about how they were a gay couple, it seemed fairly convincing.

I've often remarked that half the bible is made up, thanks for confirming that.
Respectfully, your roommate is an idiot, Jesus and John the Beloved Disciple were clearly in a relationship.

I said null as in no longer in force.
That.

Old Testament laws are obviously not "null". From what I gathered, some Old Testament laws no longer apply, particularly in the specific form of the Ten Commandments, but some were affirmed. What's concerning is that Christians pick from all over the New Testament in order to justify what is still disapproved of and what is no longer disapproved of, and considering the writers of the New Testament were hardly of one mind, one could go pretty far to question their beliefs as they stand.
The New Testament is fully valid
Ehn, so is the proscription against eating snared rabbit, working on the Sabbath, remarrying after divorce, and ignoring the poor while partaking in excess. Might want to put down the porkribs and click off the TV remote before picking at the speck in my eye.

Regardless, God was able to bless the consumption of abominations through direct revelation to Peter. Private revelation of holiness is Scripturally sound (see Galatians 5 for more detail). The average Christian cannot tell if a homosexual union is blessed by God or not, because there's no reason to think that God gives private revelations to everyone, even when they occur.

Pork was just as 'condemned' in the OT as homosexual unions. In the New Testament, consuming pork violates my understanding of the Golden Rule, but a good gay marriage certainly does not. Galatians 5 tells us that if it's really love, then it's allowed. And, I think, Jesus's summary of the law was to suggest that we stop being asses about the law, and figure out the intent.

:lol: We're totally miscommunicating somehow! Clearly, because the answer obviously (to me, anyway) is that the race of the child is influenced by the race of the parents. Of course social restriction of marriage (according to racial lines) can have a meaningful impact upon racist urges. A Christian interpretation banning interracial marriage is going to have material effects upon the 'natural' outcomes of marriage, namely the race of children.
Matthew 15:11 said:
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Galatians 5:16-26 said:
I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would. But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, Mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity. Against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's, have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be made desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Loving someone of the same sex is not prohibited as that is from the spirit, but shagging them is as that is lust of the flesh. Man and man can not be conjugally joined nor woman and woman thus sexual acts between the two are inherently fornication which is prohibited in Galatians 5. Savor love that is chaste for it is pure as new snow and with the beauty of a snowflake reap the fruits of the Spirit and rejoice .
 
You honestly present a good argument. The only problem is that shagging helps build 'real' love, this is reasonably proven in the modern day. It's just the nature of the hormones. I'm not saying it's "guaranteed to" or "always causes". I mean 'helps'. IF it helps build real love, I think that Galatians 5 kicks in. IF it does not build real love, then clearly Gal 5 is out. But this would be determined at the individual level.
 
The New Testament is fully valid.

That's not much by way of a response, so you'll excuse me if I continue to question that your beliefs are valid and consistent.
 
:lol: We're totally miscommunicating somehow! Clearly, because the answer obviously (to me, anyway) is that the race of the child is influenced by the race of the parents. Of course social restriction of marriage (according to racial lines) can have a meaningful impact upon racist urges. A Christian interpretation banning interracial marriage is going to have material effects upon the 'natural' outcomes of marriage, namely the race of children.

Uh, hair color and eye colour also effect characteristics of children, so race isn't really that important.
 
Tell me, why should I care what the NT says in a matter of legal rights in a modern, secular, liberal democracy?
 
Top Bottom