The all new, totally accepted, bigotry thread - "Blame a Christian"

[JollyRoger]

Don't know the verse but "there is neither ... male nor female"

So if there is neither male nor female, then marriages are genderless and Christians should not be against so-called gay marriage because it is the same genderless combo as so-called straight marriage.

The usual get-out clause is "Mosaic law was overturned", but no one seems clear on what exactly remains or why everything you dislike happens to still be in force.

Funny that is comes from the same people wanting the 10 Commandments posted everywhere.

That's the thing, no one's being treated differently. In Kentucky, no one can marry someone of the same gender, if Kentucky were to legalize SSM, everyone could marry someone of the same gender.

In Kentucky you are not allowed to marry a segment of the population that others are allowed to marry.

That the choice to engage in same-sex activities IS a choice.

I wouldn't even compare it to religion. Its fundamentally different, and freedom of religion so much more important.

Why should your deviant lifestyle choices be given special freedoms? Idolizing a genocidal maniac should be outlawed.

 

[useless]

So the freedom to praise someone who has committed genocide is more important than consumating a relationship of love?

Don't forget that Dommy believes that sometimes certain genocides are morally acceptable, as long as it's his god doing it

This...

Ah yes, the same person who:

Supports the goddamn confederates and makes excuses for slavery
Supports Ron Paul noted racist and bigot
Supports allowing business owners to reject people based upon race

Is seriously saying this

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What makes marrriage a right?

You're forcing a fundamentally statist definition on marriage, rather than using the natural one. So I ask you...

If you are going to use marriage to define a social contract as recognized by the state, why use a religious word?

What makes the word so important? Atheists already marry. People marry for financial and other reasons. People divorce. The fight to keep marriage as dictated by religion has been lost a long time ago. And without a peep from you fellers. But at the moment that gays want to marry, you cry foul. A little late and a little misdirected don't you think?

What 'natural' definition? There is no such thing.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I think that by gays being able to marry they just look for some form of recognision within society as it realy doesnt serve the same purpose as regular marriage. But the respect for someone else difference shouldnt come by creating some unnatural institutions...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think that by gays being able to marry they just look for some form of recognision within society as it realy doesnt serve the same purpose as regular marriage.

What purpose does a regular marriage serve that a gay marriage doesn't?

But the respect for someone else difference shouldnt come by creating some unnatural institutions...

Unnatural institution? What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Leoreth]

What makes marrriage a right?

You're forcing a fundamentally statist definition on marriage, rather than using the natural one. So I ask you...

If you are going to use marriage to define a social contract as recognized by the state, why use a religious word?

First of all, marriage is not a religious word. The fact that secular states (I know you're ignoring secularism in this whole marriage debate but please admit that we're living in secular states) recognize it - a portion of it - should prove that.

There is also no "natural" definition of marriage. Marriage is a social phenomenon, there's nothing natural about it.

And finally, marriage is not a right, but equal treatment is. If the state creates a legal status that gives various benefits (taxes, inheritance, visit rights ...) it should be available to everyone regardless of who they are. You could now say that you would prefer that the state has no business recognizing marriage at all, and I would agree with you. But that's not how it is, and so this legal status should be free for everyone to acquire. If you take issue with the word "marriage" applied to same-sex couples, take issue with the state calling its legal status such, not with people who want to achieve it.

That the choice to engage in same-sex activities IS a choice.

Yes, it is a choice. Breathing is a choice. Getting rich by controlling the means of production is a choice. Shall I continue? Just because something is a choice there is no reason why the onus is on those who want to make that choice to prove that they should be allowed to make it.

I wouldn't even compare it to religion. Its fundamentally different, and freedom of religion so much more important.

You're a hypocrite. "The things that are important to me are fundamentally more important! Reasons? Wait for after the commercial break."

 

[Arakhor]

Funny that is comes from the same people wanting the 10 Commandments posted everywhere.

Barack Obama recently quoted the Golden Rule, which I believe Jesus is on record as saying was the most important lesson of his entire ministry. I wonder how many Christians actually live by it.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

No, the most important would be "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." The Golden Rule is derived from the Great Commandment's Corollary, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." These are both quoted directly from the Old Testament scriptures. The New Testament does add that it is impossible to love God while hating your brother.


I really don't see much of a biblical case for arguing that the Ten Commandments apply to gentiles. They are explicitly addressed to those led out of Egypt. Orthodox Jews teach that they only apply to Jews, and that it is sinful to try to get others to follow the Ten Commandments without fully converting and accepting all 613 Mitzvah of the Law of Moses. (Gentiles are however bound my the Seven Laws of Noah, which are only of worth is followed out of love and obedience.) That seems to fit pretty well with what Paul taught, and with the decision of the Apostolic Conference/Council of Jerusalem/

 

[JollyRoger]

I think that by gays being able to marry they just look for some form of recognision within society as it realy doesnt serve the same purpose as regular marriage.

Government recognition serves over 1,000 of the same pruposes.

 

[Traitorfish]

What makes marrriage a right?

You're forcing a fundamentally statist definition on marriage, rather than using the natural one. So I ask you...

If you are going to use marriage to define a social contract as recognized by the state, why use a religious word?

It was never a religious word in Scotland. Does that imply that you would be a-ok with it if we introduced gay marriage?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

What purpose does a regular marriage serve that a gay marriage doesn't?

Well, help the kids to grow up in healthy and natural enviroment is what comes to my mind.

Unnatural institution? What the hell are you talking about?

Funny, heh? I guess it would be to much trouble to define the unnatural so let me define the opposite: "natural" institution would be something which is in harmony with general nature of human beings, their well being, presservation and progress.

 

[Akka]

You claimed that I base what I think is sin on things I disapprove of. However, that is not the case.

Yeah, you don't even base what you think on sin on things you disapprove of. You base it on things that a book tells you to...
That's even more pathetic, you don't even have a mind of your own and need a book to think for yourself :-/

 

[Formaldehyde]

I really don't see much of a biblical case for arguing that the Ten Commandments apply to gentiles. They are explicitly addressed to those led out of Egypt. Orthodox Jews teach that they only apply to Jews, and that it is sinful to try to get others to follow the Ten Commandments without fully converting and accepting all 613 Mitzvah of the Law of Moses. (Gentiles are however bound my the Seven Laws of Noah, which are only of worth is followed out of love and obedience.) That seems to fit pretty well with what Paul taught, and with the decision of the Apostolic Conference/Council of Jerusalem/

That is certainly an interesting interpretation believed by some, but the vast majority of Christians don't seem to see it that way at all.

How Do the Ten Commandments Apply to Christians?

The Ten Commandments represent the moral character of God. They represent what God expects of his covenant people. The Ten Commandments were given to the Israelites through Moses after God delivered them from bondage in the land of Egypt. The context of the Ten Commandments is the formation of the nation of Israel. They form the basis of the Mosaic Covenant and serve as sort of the preamble for the covenant. If the Constitution of the United States is the foundational document of our nation, then think of the Ten Commandments as serving a similar function for the Israelites.

Seeing that the Ten Commandments were addressed to the Jewish nation to govern their life according to the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant, one might ask the question “How do the Ten Commandments apply to Christians?” That’s a fair question! There are some who would argue that the Law doesn’t apply to us because “we’re not under law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14). Jesus said that he came to “fulfill the law” (Matthew 5:17). However, if the Ten Commandments represent the moral character of God, and since we’re called to be imitators of God (Ephesians 5:1), then the law (namely, the Ten Commandments) must have some use to us on this side of the cross.

The Protestant Reformers developed the idea of the Three Uses of the Law. The first use of the law was the pedagogic use of the law. This use of the law shows us our sin in relation to God’s holy standards. The law condemns and convicts and drives us to Christ. The second use of the law is the civil use of the law. In this capacity, the law restrains evil in society by ascribing punishment to transgressions of the law. The third use of the law is the didactic use of the law. In this mode, the law serves as a guide for Christian behavior (very similar to the way it was supposed to for the Israelites). The didactic use of the law teaches us God’s character and provides instruction on how Christians ought to live; in particular how to love God and love their neighbor. Specific teaching on the Ten Commandments appears in both the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Catechisms – classic documents on teaching Christian doctrine to children or new believers.

So while we are “not under law, but under grace,” we are not free to live any which way we choose. Christians have the law written on their hearts (Jeremiah 31:33), but we still need to obey what our Lord taught. That is why we have his written word. Our redeemed spirits reside in unredeemed flesh and we need a reminder of how we ought to live. The good news is that our position before God is not based on our observance to the law, but on the fact that Christ fulfilled the law on our behalf (Romans 8:4). Our obedience to the law serves as our ‘love offering’ to God (John 14:23).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Importance_within_Judaism_and_Christianity

The Eastern Orthodox Church holds its moral truths to be chiefly contained in the Ten Commandments.[25] A confession begins with the Confessor reciting the Ten Commandments and asking the penitent which of them he has broken.[26]

In Roman Catholicism, Jesus freed Christians from the Jewish obligation to keep the 613 mitzvot, but not from their obligation to keep the Ten Commandments.[27] They are to the moral order what the creation story is to the natural order.[27]

Even after rejecting the Roman Catholic moral theology, giving less importance to biblical law in order to better hear and be moved by the gospel, early Protestant theologians still took the Ten Commandments to be the starting point of Christian moral life.[28] Different versions of Christianity have varied in how they have translated the bare principles into the specifics that make up a full Christian ethic.[28] Where Catholicism emphasizes taking action to fulfill the Ten Commandments, Protestantism uses the Ten Commandments for two purposes: to outline the Christian life to each person, and to make each person realize, through their failure to live that life, that they lack the ability to do it on their own.[28] Thus for Protestant Christianity, the Ten Commandments primarily serve to lead each Christian to the grace of God.

 

[Leoreth]

Well, help the kids to grow up in healthy and natural enviroment is what comes to my mind.

Yeah, I'm sure it's better for them if their adoptive homosexual parents are married.

But I guess you'd rather have them in the orphanage.

Funny, heh? I guess it would be to much trouble to define the unnatural so let me define the opposite: "natural" institution would be something which is in harmony with general nature of human beings, their well being, presservation and progress.

You defined "natural" through the "general nature" of human beings. Congratulations, you have discovered the unlimited power of tautology!

If you'd care about the well-being of human beings and progress of our civilization you wouldn't deny one particular groups their basic right of equal legal treatment.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I am afraid that particular definition of "natural" would disqualify many Christian parents.

 

[JollyRoger]

Christians shouldn't marry or have children as they should aspire to be Christlike.

 

[kochman]

Christians shouldn't marry or have children as they should aspire to be Christlike.

Well, I guess your parents were sinners.

 

[Arakhor]

You haven't been talking to many evangelicals, have you Kochman? The concept of original sin is applied universally.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, help the kids to grow up in healthy and natural environment is what comes to my mind.

There's that word natural again.

You can't explain natural by going: it's natural.

Funny, heh? I guess it would be to much trouble to define the unnatural so let me define the opposite: "natural" institution would be something which is in harmony with general nature of human beings, their well being, preservation and progress.

Now all you need to explain is how gay marriage and/or gay parenting isn't in harmony with human's well-being, preservation and progress.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

There's that word natural again.
You can't explain natural by going: it's natural.

Well, luckily for me I am dealing with somebody who has decent amount of patience so in spite of knowing I am bound to fail I will give it one more shot:
in broader sense nature is force or/and enviroment which creates/evolves, sustains, supports and uses all that it encompasses for its own intrinsic purpose.
In the context I used it I am pointing out to the fact that gay persons nature is not in line of what generaly nature needs from human being: developing of sustainable and healthy humanity. This twist or perversion of nature however does not mean that gay person could be wieved as less respectable or that his life is less fullfiling.

Now all you need to explain is how gay marriage and/or gay parenting isn't in harmony with human's well-being, preservation and progress.

I ment humanity as whole. Imagine if all people where gay - do I need to say anything more...

Yeah, I'm sure it's better for them if their adoptive homosexual parents are married.

But I guess you'd rather have them in the orphanage.

I know quite a few relatives of mine from "atheistic hell of Czechia" who simply do not see much value in getting married despite having offsprings. So the same would go for gay people I suppose - its subjective.
Now about gay peoples adoption my opinion is not quite settled but it would seem that it could be at times better then orphanage or say some regular families with all sorts of problems...

You defined "natural" through the "general nature" of human beings. Congratulations, you have discovered the unlimited power of tautology!

Yes, I have limited the meaning of natural to general nature of humanity to point out that gay people nature is not in line with it (in certain and for most people very important aspects). It however does not mean that nature cannot work out anything meaningfull out of this twist. It would rather seem to me that its one of the ways which nature works - trying to find out different possibilities and even deadends of its functionings in the sum off its potentiality.

If you'd care about the well-being of human beings and progress of our civilization you wouldn't deny one particular groups their basic right of equal legal treatment.

But marriage isnt purely legal institution is it? It is something moral developed out of religious life.
But you may have a point that if particular gay marriage whould fulfill the purpose of the regular one (by rising adoptive kids) then it shouldnt be denied..
As I said before I am not sure about the whole issue and I post here to learn more about it (well at least in frame concerning this thread...)