What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

California supreme court overturns gay marriage ban

  • Thread starter Clint
  • Start date
  • #141
I think it's interesting how many Christians use the Mosaic Law to justify many views when Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. I also think it's interesting how they pick and choose what they want to from the Bible then castigate others for doing the same thing.

If we're going to look at the Mosaic Law, remember that it's an abomination to wear clothings of mixed fiber. No poly/cotton blends for you, my dears. It's also unclean to eat animals with cloven hooves. Yum! This bacon cheeseburger sure is good!

I also think it's interesting how even though the New Testament CLEARLY states that Christians are no longer held to follow the Mosaic Law, Christians still follow very specific parts of it, typically those who are used to oppress others.

I think it's very interesting how Christians are opposed to the supposed "gay agenda" and accuse homosexuals of attempting to "convert" everyone to the way we live when Christians are dictated to proselityze all the world. I also think it's conveniently overlooked by many Christians who accuse gays of attemping to "convert" everyone to the way we live when as gays, many of us say we had no choice in the matter. If we believe we had no choice in the matter, why do you think we would believe that you have a choice in the matter? I find the whole "lifestyle choice" to be a laughable argument in the first place. Yes, I woke up one morning and decided that I'd like nothing better than to oppose everything I'd ever been taught, to be equated with molesters and practicers of bestiality, and to be scorned by society at large.

There have undoubtedly been countless atrocities committed in the name of God and of the Church. The Church has attempted to oppress people for centuries. Coming from a Deaf family, it's common knowledge that in years past, the official position of the Church was that people who were Deaf were uneducable and couldn't be saved (according to the Church's interpretation of scripture) because they could not "hear" the Word of God. I have a hard time believing that people like my grandparents, great grandparents, cousins, etc., are condemned. The Church has obviously been wrong before in their interpretation of the Bible and it seems obvious to me that the Church will be wrong again. The Church and its leaders are not infallible.
 
  • #142
This is what is absolutely shocking to me. You readily admit to never reading the Bible, yet you are using it to argue against a Christian perspective and a person who seems to me to know the Bible quite well. You are doing what so many people do... you use the bible when it is convenient and when it fits in with your agenda. People will discredit it in one breath and then pick and choose verses in another. If you are going to read the Bible to refute a Christian perspective, why even bother? You have a biased view and you will learn nothing. You cannot simply pick up the Bible, read it once, and grasp the full meaning of its content.

The bible thumpers do the same thing. They take parts of the bible and use it to support their idea and then discard the rest. You make comments like that is not relevant any more or we take it out of context or something. I know a little about the bible because I speak to folks who are studying the bible at work. I have seen other arguments with the bible for or against something. I have not read it because I have not had the time. I do know it contradicts itself and from what I read it was put together from several different peoples books and they conveniently left out the books that threatened to contradict the power of the church.

I agree with Will. The Church is not infallible. If murder is murder then why did the church have the crusades to convert the pagans? Then they took many of the pagan holidays and symbols as their own.
 
  • #143
I think it's interesting how many Christians use the Mosaic Law to justify many views when Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. I also think it's interesting how they pick and choose what they want to from the Bible then castigate others for doing the same thing.

Matthew 5:17-20:

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

If we're going to look at the Mosaic Law, remember that it's an abomination to wear clothings of mixed fiber. No poly/cotton blends for you, my dears. It's also unclean to eat animals with cloven hooves. Yum! This bacon cheeseburger sure is good!

Do you know why people weren't allowed back then to wear clothing of mixed fibers? This is an example of a cultural/background information that people like yourself don't know and therefore completely butcher the reasoning. The reasoning was pagans wore these clothings and the Israelites were not to look like pagans.

I also think it's interesting how even though the New Testament CLEARLY states that Christians are no longer held to follow the Mosaic Law, Christians still follow very specific parts of it, typically those who are used to oppress others.

Another mistake. We are no longer condemned by the law thanks to Christ but we are still to obey it as humanly possible:

Romans 6:1-23:
1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin-- 7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. 11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. 19 I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I think it's very interesting how Christians are opposed to the supposed "gay agenda" and accuse homosexuals of attempting to "convert" everyone to the way we live when Christians are dictated to proselityze all the world. I also think it's conveniently overlooked by many Christians who accuse gays of attemping to "convert" everyone to the way we live when as gays, many of us say we had no choice in the matter. If we believe we had no choice in the matter, why do you think we would believe that you have a choice in the matter? I find the whole "lifestyle choice" to be a laughable argument in the first place. Yes, I woke up one morning and decided that I'd like nothing better than to oppose everything I'd ever been taught, to be equated with molesters and practicers of bestiality, and to be scorned by society at large.

Regardless how you woke up, you didn't expect Christians or Jews to care about the redefining of the institution of marriage? Once again I have yet to see anyone prove that the term marriage needs redefining and that civil union or whatever term gays want to use will not be sufficient. It's not about rights.
 
  • #144
The bible thumpers do the same thing. They take parts of the bible and use it to support their idea and then discard the rest.

Please do show where me or Baylorguy have taken parts of the Bible to support our ideas and discard the rest. Nothing he's posted or that I've posted counters the Bible as a whole.

You make comments like that is not relevant any more or we take it out of context or something. I know a little about the bible because I speak to folks who are studying the bible at work. I have seen other arguments with the bible for or against something. I have not read it because I have not had the time. I do know it contradicts itself and from what I read it was put together from several different peoples books and they conveniently left out the books that threatened to contradict the power of the church.

So you assume that it contradicts itself because it was written by several authors, yet you haven't read it for yourself to find these contradictions? Lastly you must have ignored my reply to you, earlier in this thread. You are totally oblivious to what the gnostic gospels were and why they are not part of the Bible.

I agree with Will. The Church is not infallible. If murder is murder then why did the church have the crusades to convert the pagans? Then they took many of the pagan holidays and symbols as their own.

So the actions of a few men are enough to negate God and the Bible. I think not my friend. Also the crusades were not about converting pagans, it was about reacquiring the holy land.
 
  • #145
Ahh, OK. I thought you were trying to say homosexuality is worse than any other sin. As for diseases, anyone who has unprotected sex can pick up diseases. I'm sort of scared of sex, protected or unprotected, so I'm not a slut or anything, but I'm not any more afraid that if I were straight. Or at least I don't think I would be. Saying being gay has more consequences is like saying being black has more consequences since they have a higher rate of HIV than white people.

You totally did what I expected. You pick and choose what to believe when it fits your lifestyle. You put things into context when you find it convenient, but you take the parts about gays as literal and cut an dry. This is typical of Christians who think homosexuality is a sin. You can't say one thing is literal and cut and dry because it's in the Bible, and not the next. I provided the verse to the one you didn't know off hand. You made your own arguement in one post, and then totally contradicted it in the next. You did exactly what you were complaining people like Josh do.

Jesus clarified a law a bunch of self righteous, pious old men took way out in left field. Gee. I wonder if he would have touched on all of the OTHER BS laws in the Bible given the chance? OH MY GOD! I'm going to crap my pants! Now I see that even AFTER you went back and tried to justify not believing in terrible things, you're NOW saying that the Bible is your final word on what's right and wrong, and you believe in absolutes! You are a walking contradiction! It's like.... I'm in shock that you can contradict your own absolute arguments so much! You're saying two different things that totally conflict each other, and the worst part is you cant see it although we do.


I've never actually heard any Jews complaining about us wanting to extend the definition of Marriage. I'm sure some do, but Jews tend to be socially progressive and easy going. Don't they even allow gay Rabbi's?
 
  • #146
Ahh, OK. I thought you were trying to say homosexuality is worse than any other sin. As for diseases, anyone who has unprotected sex can pick up diseases. I'm sort of scared of sex, protected or unprotected, so I'm not a slut or anything, but I'm not any more afraid that if I were straight. Or at least I don't think I would be.

You totally did what I expected. You pick and choose what to believe when it fits your lifestyle. You put things into context when you find it convenient, but you take the parts about gays as literal and cut an dry. This is typical of Christians who think homosexuality is a sin. You can't say one thing is literal and cut and dry because it's in the Bible, and not the next. I provided the verse to the one you didn't know off hand. You made your own arguement in one post, and then totally contradicted it in the next. You did exactly what you were complaining people like Josh do.

Jesus clarified a law a bunch of self righteous, pious old men took way out in left field. Gee. I wonder if he would have touched on all of the OTHER BS laws in the Bible given the chance? OH MY GOD! I'm going to crap my pants! Now I see that even AFTER you went back and tried to justify not believing in terrible things, you're NOW saying that the Bible is your final word on what's right and wrong, and you believe in absolutes! You are a walking contradiction! It's like.... I'm in shock that you can contradict your own absolute arguments so much! You're saying two different things that totally conflict each other, and the worst part is you cant see it although we do.


I've never actually heard any Jews complaining about us wanting to extend the definition of Marriage. I'm sure some do, but Jews tend to be socially progressive and easy going. Don't they even allow gay Rabbi's?

Actually Dennis Prager is a practicing Jew and obviously does have problems with it.

We can argue Leviticus all you want, God made it pretty clear in Genesis that marriage is between a man and a woman. If homosexuality was sufficient, why did God deem it necessary that man needed woman? Why didn't God just create another man? Also God created man and woman in his image. Which is why it takes the two to make ONE flesh.
 
  • #147
He's a nut. He's batcrap crazy. He also believes America doesn't have to follow international law or the UN, among other crazy ideas.

Asking me why God didn't make everyone gay is like asking me why God didn't make everyone white, blond with blue eyes, and athletic Germans..... Why do we have people with disabilities? Why do we have short people? Why do we have people with green eyes? Why do we have people who prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate? Why can some people taste phenylthiocarbamide, but not most? Why do some people suck at math but rock at science? Why do some people think cucumbers taste better pickled? Why are some people born with one eye of one color and the other of a different color? Why do some people need glasses? Why do some people freckle, and others tan? Why are some people black and others white?

Why didn't God just create everyone the same? Why did he find it necessary to make diversity? Clearly we're in his image, so we should all be the same.
 
  • #148
He's a nut. He's batcrap crazy. He also believes America doesn't have to follow international law or the UN, among other crazy ideas.

It's crazy to suggest that America should be governed by America?

Asking me why God didn't make everyone gay is like asking me why God didn't make everyone white, blond with blue eyes, and athletic Germans..... Why do we have people with disabilities? Why do we have short people? Why do we have people with green eyes? Why do we have people who prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate? Why can some people taste phenylthiocarbamide, but not most? Why do some people suck at math but rock at science? Why do some people think cucumbers taste better pickled? Why are some people born with one eye of one color and the other of a different color? Why do some people need glasses? Why do some people freckle, and others tan? Why are some people black and others white?

Why didn't God just create everyone the same? Why did he find it necessary to make diversity? Clearly we're in his image, so we should all be the same.

I didn't ask you why God didn't make everyone gay, I just stated Genesis. Differences in appearance or disability is nothing in contrast to the definition of marriage vs redefining it.
 
  • #149
Yes. Suggesting America doesn't have to follow international law and the UN is crazy. We do not own the world.

Why do right-wingers say we're redefining it? We're broadening it to be more inclusive. Redefining it would be something like... "Marriage is what happens when a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it."

You actually DID ask me why God deemed it necessary to create woman, and not just another man.And as much as I like beating a dead horse with this subject, I'm about to go out of town for five days. I may or may not have wifi.
 
  • #150
anyone who has unprotected sex can pick up diseases.
Anddddd you can still get HPV even if you're wearing a condom.

To all the religious folk in this topic...
If you have a point that you can prove WITHOUT the bible, I'd be happy to hear it. The bible is not a history book, its not a law book, etc. It is one of the most hateful, bigoted, atrocious pieces of filth to ever slime its way across the literary table, and proves absolutely nothing. The psychotic ramblings of barely literate desert nomads, who thought stars were holes in the blanket of the night, does absolutely nothing for your arguments. It's like me quoting The Iliad. Continuously pointing to a book with little to no truth to it whatsoever makes you look bad. Or maybe I'm wrong....after all, everything in the bible is true, because the bible says the bible is true, so therefore, the bible is true. "god doesn't work so much in mysterious ways, as he does in ever decreasing circles" - Pat Condell

You guys can participate in your sun worshipping desert death cult all you want, but to try to use your fabricated truths to oppress others is a clear violation of human rights.
 
  • #151
I think it's interesting how many Christians use the Mosaic Law to justify many views when Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. I also think it's interesting how they pick and choose what they want to from the Bible then castigate others for doing the same thing.

You're right, he did come to fulfill the law, but that does not mean he came to omit it. There were some things that were obviously being interpreted wrong (i.e. doing anything on the Sabbath is a sin) and Jesus clarified this mistake; however, it is a leap in logic to assume that means you can toss out Old Testament Law. I have answered what has been thrown at me... so I would like to think I am not picking and choosing.

If we're going to look at the Mosaic Law, remember that it's an abomination to wear clothings of mixed fiber. No poly/cotton blends for you, my dears. It's also unclean to eat animals with cloven hooves. Yum! This bacon cheeseburger sure is good!

Many of these laws (i.e. it is forbidden to eat the blood of animal) were done to protect the people. Resistance to disease was not as strong in Old Testament times as it is now nor did they have the medical infrastructure we do. There were also obvious cultural differences; there is a fine line, however, in understanding some of the Mosaic Law is obviously outdated versus thinking that means the entire law is obsolete. If Jesus came to fulfill the law, it implies the law still has merit.


I also think it's interesting how even though the New Testament CLEARLY states that Christians are no longer held to follow the Mosaic Law, Christians still follow very specific parts of it, typically those who are used to oppress others.

So you are saying Christians are no longer held to "Thou shalt not murder?"



I think it's very interesting how Christians are opposed to the supposed "gay agenda" and accuse homosexuals of attempting to "convert" everyone to the way we live when Christians are dictated to proselityze all the world. I also think it's conveniently overlooked by many Christians who accuse gays of attempting to "convert" everyone to the way we live when as gays, many of us say we had no choice in the matter. If we believe we had no choice in the matter, why do you think we would believe that you have a choice in the matter? I find the whole "lifestyle choice" to be a laughable argument in the first place. Yes, I woke up one morning and decided that I'd like nothing better than to oppose everything I'd ever been taught, to be equated with molesters and practicers of bestiality, and to be scorned by society at large.
Agreed. I have never made the argument or claim that gays are trying to convert everyone. If someone asks me, I will say I do not agree with the lifestyle, but I am not going to run out into the street with a sign and wave it around like a lunatic. I live my life and they live theirs. "Christians" that burn down abortion clinics or persecute someone for their lifestyle are the exception, just as Muslims who fly planes into buildings are the exceptions. So just as you are asking for the generalizations to be left at the cutting room floor, so am I.

There have undoubtedly been countless atrocities committed in the name of God and of the Church. The Church has attempted to oppress people for centuries. Coming from a Deaf family, it's common knowledge that in years past, the official position of the Church was that people who were Deaf were uneducable and couldn't be saved (according to the Church's interpretation of scripture) because they could not "hear" the Word of God. I have a hard time believing that people like my grandparents, great grandparents, cousins, etc., are condemned. The Church has obviously been wrong before in their interpretation of the Bible and it seems obvious to me that the Church will be wrong again. The Church and its leaders are not infallible.

AGREED. Cannot agree more. The Church has committed many blunders in the past and will keep doing so... because of what you said... it is made of humans. Herein lies the difference... one can easily see if the church has made a mistake by seeing if it contradicts the Word of God. If it does, then we know people were operating on their own selfish, political agenda and it is not of God. The Church has made many mistakes, but that does not invalidate the core doctrines of Christianity... it simply means there are stupid people out there. Now, if you look at it and stricken absolutes, anything goes, so whatever the church does is completely justified.

Finally, simply because the Church has been wrong in the past does not mean it is wrong where the concept of homosexuality is concerned.
 
  • #152
Please do show where have taken parts of the Bible to support [my] ideas and discard the rest.



1) Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

2) Comment not on the mote in thine brothers eye while ignoring the plank in thine own


Your attitude and comments toward others run counter to those passages taken from the bible
 
  • #153
1) Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

First off do you even know what this verse means, or the context that it was used in? You obviously don't and I never said I was without sin.

2) Comment not on the mote in thine brothers eye while ignoring the plank in thine own

I don't believe I'm arranging a gay marriage, so please show me where my plank is.

Your attitude and comments toward others run counter to those passages taken from the bible

My values and where I get my values from may run counter to others on here, I agree.
 
  • #155
Finally, simply because the Church has been wrong in the past does not mean it is wrong where the concept of homosexuality is concerned.

Uh, they make up what's right or wrong, so if they church decides it, it's right for the church, BY DEFINITION! It isn't ever fact-checked against reality because there is no such test possible. It's an expression of values, so there is no objective right or wrong.

Of course, this whole issue rests on the error some Christians make in thinking that the rules of their church have any sway on members outside of their church. It is this hubris and arrogance that angers so many people who don't share their doctrine, but it's also something that is individual: many Christians do not try to foist their doctrine upon others at all. Unfortunately, however, a lot don't seem to understand that church membership is voluntary.

Capslock
 
  • #156
I think it is necessary, since most everyone uses the Bible extensively as their support for arguments, to examine the Bible's validity and reliability.

What we have to remember is that Jesus taught his disciples orally; Jesus wrote nothing himself. It follows that traditions about Jesus were circulated by word of mouth, because they were not committed to writing until at least two decades after his death.

Word of mouth is highly volatile.

It was around 40 years after his death until the first canonical gospel was composed, the Gospel of Mark. Mark was not an eyewitness to the events he reports.

Another thing is between the gospels of Matthew and Luke, they incorporate nearly all of Mark's gospel into their own gospels, often almost word for word (Markan Priority). In addition, Matthew and Luke make use of a presumed "lost gospel" called "Q" which is a "sayings" gospel (with no narrative framework) almost word for word. Finally, Matthew and Luke make use of information that is unknown to each other, Mark, and "Q."

This implies that the New Testament is not reliable at all as a source.

Basically I just wanted to inform--this applies to the New Testament only--you guys about these "quirks" of the New Testament.
 
Last edited:
  • #157
Outsider, Your not even worth any more of my time. Go spread your insults someplace else. I'm done with bigots like you.

Your just as bad as the preacher man at work who is married yet always hitting on the pretty girls trying to get some play. When I call him out on it his excuse is "god's still working on me"
 
  • #158
Ahh, nothing like 16 pages of proof that the world would be better off without religion.
 
  • #159
Outsider, Your not even worth any more of my time. Go spread your insults someplace else. I'm done with bigots like you.

I'm not worth your time..pity. What have I said to you that's insulting? How am I a bigot?

Your just as bad as the preacher man at work who is married yet always hitting on the pretty girls trying to get some play. When I call him out on it his excuse is "god's still working on me"

???

Okie dokie then... you got me.... right. :crazy:
 
  • #160
Uh, they make up what's right or wrong, so if they church decides it, it's right for the church, BY DEFINITION! It isn't ever fact-checked against reality because there is no such test possible. It's an expression of values, so there is no objective right or wrong.

I am willing to concede the Church has not always interpreted the Bible correctly and has created an agenda that contradicts the character of God and thus His nature, but it still for the most part operates according to an absolute code. You are referring to a moral relativism in that people create their own rules... they "make up what is right and wrong." If one operates with as unselfish a perspective as possible, it is quickly evident that the core values in the Bible do not operate according to moral relativism, but rather to moral absolutism.

It's funny, you think the Bible should be cross checked with reality. I feel things should be cross checked with the Bible. I know, terribly out of date and not up to speed, right? I would rather rely on a book that has survived thousands of years and thus the test of time than to simply change my moral view as often as the wind changes direction, or as often as is fashionable or popular to do so. I do not go with the popular majority... I go by what has been at my core for my entire life.

Of course, this whole issue rests on the error some Christians make in thinking that the rules of their church have any sway on members outside of their church. It is this hubris and arrogance that angers so many people who don't share their doctrine, but it's also something that is individual: many Christians do not try to foist their doctrine upon others at all. Unfortunately, however, a lot don't seem to understand that church membership is voluntary.

Agreed to a certain extent. I started using the Bible in order to counter other poor interpretations of scripture within this thread. There are just as many if not more people misquoting the Bible and thus leading people astray than Christians who do not know how to use sound logic and thus speak without thinking.

Is it any surprise that Christians use the Bible as their moral code? This is what I go by and this is my moral compass; therefore, I must use it when discussing controversial topics, ESPECIALLY when those topics fall in the realm of ethics and morality. What's funny is that I rarely have to bring it up... if someone knows I am a Christan, it seems that by default I am challenged and the validity of the Bible is questioned.

Christians should not be foisting their doctrine on others. I help when needed and try to encourage people. If what I believe offends someone, I simply shake the dust off my feet and move on.
 
Back
Top