Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls

Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls (Page 10)
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 12:11 PM
 
ebuddy, did I miss your response to my post from last page (or did you miss mine)?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How did you get this from what I posted? What the Bible mentions they realize is the shame in being naked, not that Eve didn't have a willie.
do u think being naked is shameful?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 04:56 PM
 
In and of itself? No. Not shameful.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 09:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Jesus is not the "God" worshipped by Christians. He is considered one with God, yet his "son." He makes up part of God, but this IS an area where Muslims and Jews do disagree. "YHWH", is the "Father" worshiped by Christians, Jews and Muslims. He is the one that gave us the moral codes from the Old Testament. According to Christians, Jesus came to fill the prophecy of the "new covenant" which did away with many of the old ways and ceremonial law, while keeping the same moral code. Sin is still sin, but Jesus's blood was shed and there was no more need for the harsh, brutal sentences for breaking God's law.
Christians don't worship Jesus Christ? I guess praying to Jesus, wearing the cross, and having paintings/sculptures/statutes of Jesus isn't worshipping Jesus.

Jesus Christ, you are not the savior!

Who does Mormons worship?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
do u think being naked is shameful?
Nope.

Being naked => not shameful, not embarrassed
Being caught naked => embarrassed
Being caught masturbating => shameful
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 09:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post


This is exactly the opposite of what Athens was saying. The conversation began with the looney-left throwing tantrums over the mere mention of Christmas or having to look upon a Christmas tree. O'Reilly and Athens are decrying the same absurdity.
I think you just proved OldManMac's point.

O'Reilly and Fox News were throwing tantrums because stores and advertisements said "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Man, O'Reilly and Fox News guys are absurd.

I remember 2 years ago, O'Reilly makes up a fake 'War on' story every month. O'Reilly and his fake War on Christmas stories.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 02:23 PM
 
This is probably one of the best Daily Show vs. the O'Reilly Factor "War on Christmas" hunks ever.

Daily Show: War on Christmas | MilkandCookies
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2012, 07:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'd say sexual orientation in no less immutable then gender.
I'd say out the gate sexual orientation is more ambiguous than gender and couldn't disagree more.

Giving and enforcing rights isn't about ease. Difficulty of identification or acknowledgement has no bearing on whether someone has rights.
It depends on what you consider a right as gays have enjoyed rights not enjoyed by blacks or women throughout history.

To which is say, how would this have worked out for slavery, or civil rights? Does homosexuals being granted limited rights based on the lottery of which state they are born in sound right to you?
I'm saying they have more influence and accountability at the local level than they'd have fighting federal DOMA legislation from their perspectives today for example. It also matters what you consider a right and by that token they now live under Federal DOMA legislation. Their ability to escape the oppressive legislation of a State is certainly greater than escaping the oppressive legislation of their country. States rights enabled the Northern States to harbor runaway slaves and grant them sanctuary which I'd say worked out better for them than having to be returned to their Southern slave-owners as "property" under federal legislation.

I have no issue with that. But since no one is championing that cause (nationally), until the day "marriages" are reduced to "civil unions" to satisfy the sensibilities of the religious, gays have every right to marriages as straights do.
A short list of the rights, more than half would pay good money into a court system to relinquish?

That's circular logic. Couldn't you play the same game with regards to voting rights?
How do you discriminate a gay at the polling place? Laws are often a reflection of the people behind them. If people don't view marriage as a right, but a privilege and if sexual orientation is not as clearly defined as race and gender; gay marriage is simply not a squeeky enough wheel for most and I think this has a lot to do with the discussion today. You may call it "circular", but it is indeed the case none the less.

"Still, race is regarded differently than gender and I would submit the fact that black voting rights were granted in 1868 yet we're still discussing "women's suffrage" nearly 50 years later as evidence of this phenomena."

Or, reverse it:

"Still, gender is regarded differently than race and I would submit the fact that women's voting rights were granted in 1920 yet we're still discussing "civil rights" nearly 50 years later as evidence of this phenomena."
This is perfect evidence of my point. Of course, we're not talking about whether or not gays are allowed to vote are we? This had never been a consideration as far as I know. We're talking about their right to attain a marriage certificate in lieu of other contracts and provisions that grant them the same privileges.

You intimation that if gay rights were clear cut they would already exist casually glosses over that public perception of their lifestyle necessitated most to "stay in the closet" as it were, delaying their push for equal treatment as people. Is there not a parallel between homosexual males who married women to maintain societal acceptance and mixed race children who would try to pass as white? Both hid who they were so they could attain the most in society; If the general population knew what they were, they would be discriminated against and treated as less.
Do you have any examples of mulattos successfully passing themselves off as white? IMO, this is a reach and I suppose if one were required to relate the two, a more apt comparison may be the bisexual right? Which reminds me, should bisexuals be able to realize their rights by marrying one of each gender? After all, it wouldn't be fair to require them to pick one would it? In actuality, mulattos have it exceptionally tough as not being "black" or "white" enough for society, contingent upon the majority of their peers or the "lottery" of where they were born.

(Also, weird coincidence on the 50 years line not needing be changed for both examples, eh?)
While the general rights exist, there remains all manner of discriminations these days and yes they are all unfortunate, but cannot all be legislated and will generally have to work their way through the court systems on a case-by-case basis.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2012, 09:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
You were saying?
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2012, 07:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Christians don't worship Jesus Christ?
Yes, they do. I'm not sure of your point, as it doesn't negate what I said.

I guess praying to Jesus, wearing the cross, and having paintings/sculptures/statutes of Jesus isn't worshipping Jesus.

Jesus Christ, you are not the savior!

Who does Mormons worship?
I believe that they also view Jesus the same way as mainstream Christians.

Regardless, the "God of Abraham" is the entity that the majority of the founders believed granted us all the rights we have and at the time of our founding. It would be pretty tough to argue credibly that our founders intended that there be a "right" for people engaging in behavior that went against the teaching of our "Creator" to have the government declare as "equal" their behavior which is opposed by the majority of the populace. Especially when you can show factually how there are inequalities in the things in question. Not saying that this can't change due to it being voted into law by the people, but we aren't really there yet seeing how the vast majority of states that are allowing votes on this are voting against it.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2012, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
yet
Quoted for emphasis.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2012, 09:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In and of itself? No. Not shameful.
why do u think adam and eve were?

on another note...

god created adam in his own image...i take this as god is humanoid...arms, legs head, etc

adam was created naked

is god naked?

before you dismiss this, i know we all imagine god as being in a white robe...why?

wearing clothes has 2 purposes:

1) warmth
2) modesty

god is god...temperature shouldn't affect him

and modesty...there was no one to be modest to before he created adam
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 01:23 AM
 
The answer to this depends on who you ask.

A purely secular answer would be that most other cultures at the time didn't have much of a nudity taboo, and the Jews didn't want to intermingle with those cultures. I've heard the same rationale given for why the Jews have such hardcore dietary laws: to make it difficult to associate too closely with people who don't follow those laws.

At the opposite end of the scale, nudity is shameful because God says it is. It's pretty straightforward.


As for your other questions, the interpretation I personally like is that God (proper) wasn't the only ultra powerful divine being hanging out at the time. There's certainly scriptural evidence of this here and there.

The reason I like this is it explains niggling inconsistencies of the type you mention. Since God isn't alone, that's who he's wearing clothes for.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 06:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Quoted for emphasis.
We've yet to make murder legal either.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 08:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Regardless, the "God of Abraham" is the entity that the majority of the founders believed granted us all the rights we have and at the time of our founding. It would be pretty tough to argue credibly that our founders intended that there be a "right" for people engaging in behavior that went against the teaching of our "Creator" to have the government declare as "equal" their behavior which is opposed by the majority of the populace.
You say this like there has ever been unilateral agreement on the teachings of your creator.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 08:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
before you dismiss this, i know we all imagine god as being in a white robe...why?
Due to all the paintings done of him this way, painted by men, who were already trained to be prudes, due to guilt from original sin...

The same reason Mary always has a bue headscarf and Jesus is white with light brown hair. Damn Renaissance painters.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 08:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
We've yet to make murder legal either.
And we're never likely to, but we have already made gay marriage legal in some states, as well as some countries. Try harder next time.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 11:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You say this like there has ever been unilateral agreement on the teachings of your creator.
No, but there's general agreement from the vast numbers of experts in regards to what the teachings of the creator mean in this regard. There will always be people who will have their own opinions, but there is pretty much consensus that any type of sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is sinful.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
And we're never likely to, but we have already made gay marriage legal in some states, as well as some countries. Try harder next time.
The vast majority of states went out of their way to make it illegal though. You seem to to quoting exemptions to the rule, which there are some even for murder.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 01:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
We've yet to make murder legal either.
Its legal depending on your Job and the context of the murder. Solders commit murder all the time as a part of the job. Laws like Stand Your Ground basically make murder legal depending on the context as well.

All deaths from another person is murder regardless of if its defense, a accident or doing ones job.

Man gets upset with another man and murders him. Illegal
Man who is a police officer while on the job has no choice but to murder another man putting his girlfriends life at risk pointing a weapon at her. Legal
Man who is a solder for the military has been ordered to murder enemy solders. Legal
State convicts a criminal to death for a crime. The man that pulls the switch or sticks the needle in murders the criminal. Legal
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 01:44 PM
 
@ OldmanMac and @ Supendousman

Didn't some states free slaves while others fought hard to keep them? Didn't a civil war break out over that issue?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 09:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The vast majority of states went out of their way to make it illegal though.
So what? The vast majority of states, at various times, had laws that have been overturned by courts (such as interracial marriage and women's' suffrage) , because they were later judged to be wrong, and this will happen in the gay marriage issue as well. You keep hanging onto tradition, and the past, and we don't live in caves anymore.

You seem to to quoting exemptions to the rule, which there are some even for murder.
Again; so what? Life is about change, and I know it's hard to believe, but there are people who realize that it has no effect on their lives if their neighbors are gay, and married. The world was coming to an end when blacks were allowed to marry whites, and when women were given the vote, and when blacks could drink out of the same fountain as whites, according to the ignorant, but we're still here, aren't we?
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 11:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The answer to this depends on who you ask.

A purely secular answer would be that most other cultures at the time didn't have much of a nudity taboo, and the Jews didn't want to intermingle with those cultures. I've heard the same rationale given for why the Jews have such hardcore dietary laws: to make it difficult to associate too closely with people who don't follow those laws.

At the opposite end of the scale, nudity is shameful because God says it is. It's pretty straightforward.


As for your other questions, the interpretation I personally like is that God (proper) wasn't the only ultra powerful divine being hanging out at the time. There's certainly scriptural evidence of this here and there.

The reason I like this is it explains niggling inconsistencies of the type you mention. Since God isn't alone, that's who he's wearing clothes for.

so, monotheism is out of the window?

can u give me info of the other "gods"

remind me...ru a believer of the bible or a hilarious cool dood?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 01:07 AM
 
After a fashion.

My (again, personal opinion) is they were henotheists. They believed there were other deities but theirs was supreme.

Evidence for the existence of other divine beings lies is passages like "you shall have no other gods before me" (implying there would be other gods one could have), or "let Us create man in Our image [emphasis added]. There are also parts of Genesis which just make more sense (to me, at least) if God (proper) wasn't the only divine being. The serpent having the ability to defy God's will for instance, or the ability to speak. You already mentioned for whom was nudity a taboo if there was only God (proper) and two pre-fall humans? The existence of "giants" or Nephilim in Gen. 6. "The Adversary" in the Book of Job. Note all of these have alternate explanations though.

As for my beliefs, I don't think I'm what you could call a believer in the Bible.

As for my doodness, I don't think that's for me to decide.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 05:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No, but there's general agreement from the vast numbers of experts in regards to what the teachings of the creator mean in this regard. There will always be people who will have their own opinions, but there is pretty much consensus that any type of sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is sinful.
I can see why you might think that, but nowadays a very large portion of the (various denominations of christian) population are perfectly ok with premarital sex and a good many of them have affairs without genuinely thinking they'll go to hell for it.

In centuries past, the church used to run a lot of brothels so perhaps the puritanical attitudes to sex are just a phase?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 06:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I can see why you might think that, but nowadays a very large portion of the (various denominations of christian) population are perfectly ok with premarital sex and a good many of them have affairs without genuinely thinking they'll go to hell for it.
Not practicing Christians who follow the teachings of Christ. They may very well have premarital sex and have affairs, but I'm guessing that the majority knows it's a "sin" and do feel guilt over doing so. According to Bible, all humans are sinners and will sin. It's human nature. The difference between those who follow the teachings of Christ and those that don't are that when they sin, they ask for forgiveness and try to sin no more. They don't suggest that what they've done is no longer a sin and against God's plan just because they wish to engage in sin.

In other words, like murder, it's going to be tough to get around the idea that homosexual relations aren't sinful to those who believe in the word of the God of Abraham, since you really can't go and change God's laws. Unlike race relations, slavery and other social issues, you aren't going to be able honestly finesse that there's no moral inequality according to "our Creator" in regards to the BEHAVIOR in question. This is something that isn't going to change with legislation - though some states are making it clear that they aren't going to be a part of the latest fad.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 08:21 AM
 
It's pretty clear under the teachings of the God of Abraham that man and women aren't created equal, yet Christians were somehow able to accept legislation to the opposite. The same will likely happen with same-sex marriage with time.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 09:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
It's pretty clear under the teachings of the God of Abraham that man and women aren't created equal, yet Christians were somehow able to accept legislation to the opposite. The same will likely happen with same-sex marriage with time.
You are comparing apples to oranges. I don't think that the God of Abraham would necessarily oppose the idea that governmental laws and protections should apply equally to men and women as they are all his creations. I don't think that he taught that men and women where not equal in his eyes, rather that they play different roles in relationships and in the church. In the eyes of some, these roles and responsibilities are equated with an inequality, but many would disagree with your interpretation.

However, there is no such nuance available for "same-sex marriage." We are dealing with a traditional cultural institution strongly linked to the laws of the God of Abraham. While I'm sure that some non-practicing Christians, atheists and agnostics may support or tolerate laws which violate basic common sense that confer equality on unequal arrangements - forcing them to accept a lie of equality by government mandate, I'm guessing things won't change all that much. States dominated by urban centers that draw those who shun traditional moral values will put into law all kinds of anarchistic policies which will eventually be proven to be failed societal experiments, while states that have a pretty much traditional view of morality will continue to keep legislations designed to promote the current affirmative actions we have in place for those who choose to engage in long-term unions that normally result in the production of offspring.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 09:07 AM
 
Really? It's specifically stated that women are to be subservient to men.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 09:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Really? It's specifically stated that women are to be subservient to men.
I believe that your interpretation is taken out of context.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 09:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I believe that your interpretation is taken out of context.
Please provide context:

Originally Posted by the "God of Abraham"
1 Corinthians 14:34-36
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Titus 2:4-5
Teach the young women to be ... obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

1 Peter 3:1
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.

1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 09:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Please provide context:
http://gospelhall.org/index.php?opti...k=view&id=3301

There are no laws currently on the books in regards to male/female equality which would require a Christian to not be able to follow God's instructions, nor accept standards that would require them to ignore God's laws.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 03:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Not practicing Christians who follow the teachings of Christ. They may very well have premarital sex and have affairs, but I'm guessing that the majority knows it's a "sin" and do feel guilt over doing so. According to Bible, all humans are sinners and will sin. It's human nature. The difference between those who follow the teachings of Christ and those that don't are that when they sin, they ask for forgiveness and try to sin no more. They don't suggest that what they've done is no longer a sin and against God's plan just because they wish to engage in sin.

In other words, like murder, it's going to be tough to get around the idea that homosexual relations aren't sinful to those who believe in the word of the God of Abraham, since you really can't go and change God's laws. Unlike race relations, slavery and other social issues, you aren't going to be able honestly finesse that there's no moral inequality according to "our Creator" in regards to the BEHAVIOR in question. This is something that isn't going to change with legislation - though some states are making it clear that they aren't going to be a part of the latest fad.
Can't help but notice you didn't address the church owned brothels.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
http://gospelhall.org/index.php?opti...k=view&id=3301

There are no laws currently on the books in regards to male/female equality which would require a Christian to not be able to follow God's instructions, nor accept standards that would require them to ignore God's laws.
*currently*
You're talking about present day where cultural norms and biblical interpretation have evolved. I'm talking about how the bible was interpreted *prior to* women being granted by law equal rights to men. Do you disagree that women were once considered to be under subjection to men, as per direction in the bible?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Not practicing Christians who follow the teachings of Christ. They may very well have premarital sex and have affairs, but I'm guessing that the majority knows it's a "sin" and do feel guilt over doing so. According to Bible, all humans are sinners and will sin. It's human nature. The difference between those who follow the teachings of Christ and those that don't are that when they sin, they ask for forgiveness and try to sin no more. They don't suggest that what they've done is no longer a sin and against God's plan just because they wish to engage in sin.

In other words, like murder, it's going to be tough to get around the idea that homosexual relations aren't sinful to those who believe in the word of the God of Abraham, since you really can't go and change God's laws. Unlike race relations, slavery and other social issues, you aren't going to be able honestly finesse that there's no moral inequality according to "our Creator" in regards to the BEHAVIOR in question. This is something that isn't going to change with legislation - though some states are making it clear that they aren't going to be a part of the latest fad.
what do you think the teachings of Christ are?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 09:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Can't help but notice you didn't address the church owned brothels.
I really see no need to examine instances in history where people claiming to be Christian have been found to be lacking in actually following what the Bible tells them, and instead they choose a corrupted way.

Are we also going to use as an example preachers who have been caught using prostitutes?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 09:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
*currently*
You're talking about present day where cultural norms and biblical interpretation have evolved. I'm talking about how the bible was interpreted *prior to* women being granted by law equal rights to men. Do you disagree that women were once considered to be under subjection to men, as per direction in the bible?
They are still considered to be under subjugation to their husbands, as their they and their husbands are subjugated to God. This has nothing to do with whether or not they have the same legal rights as all men.

Did you not read the link I gave?
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 09:57 PM
 
What you just said is contradictory, and that website is blather.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 10:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
What you just said is contradictory, and that website is blather.

Complete and utter blather from the dark ages, which perhaps explains a little as to where stupendousman's head is.

Ideally, Christian marriage involves two Spirit-filled believers fulfilling their God-given roles (Ephesians 5:17-33). The husband loves his wife with an unconditional devotion to her wellbeing (verses 25-28); the wife recognizes the responsibility God has given to her husband and respectfully defers to him (verses 22-24, 33). Neither should ever have to remind the other to fulfill his responsibility, because attaining this high standard is enough to challenge each one for a lifetime.
Wife defers to husband, what year is this again?

Rather than looking at marriage as male-dominant, verse 21 establishes marriage as "Lord-dominant," where both are in subjection to the Lord and respectfully defer to Him.
Great, but...

Subjection does not indicate that a wife exists for the benefit of her husband. In fact, he is responsible to nourish her (verse 29). "A woman’s job" and "a man’s job" are not absolute definitions, but a husband and wife define them by mutual agreement. The couple makes these and all decisions in the marriage with the understanding that God has entrusted to the husband both leadership in the relationship and responsibility for the health of the marriage and for the spiritual, physical, emotional, mental, and financial well-being of his wife.
So it is the husband's responsibility to nourish and not the reverse, and the husband is entrusted with the leadership...

You'd think there would be fewer women into this sort of crap.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 10:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
What you just said is contradictory, and that website is blather.
Your opinion is noted.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 10:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Complete and utter blather from the dark ages....
Dude...no one is forcing you to be a Christian. Lighten up.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 10:35 PM
 
Pearls...
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 11:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Dude...no one is forcing you to be a Christian. Lighten up.
Exactly, you're only trying to force him to live by Christian rules.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 11:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Dude...no one is forcing you to be a Christian. Lighten up.
Really? Doesn't seem like it, according to your interpretations. The irony.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 06:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Exactly, you're only trying to force him to live by Christian rules.
Live by the standards established by our Founding Fathers. That doesn't require you to be a Christian.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 07:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Please provide context:
If you were the least bit curious, you wouldn't need stupendousman to provide you anything. Have you read any Christian apologetics for the verses in question? They'll give you the necessary historical perspective, the cultural perspective, and in many cases the original text for greater clarity.

Unless of course you're saying that you'll renounce this faithlessness and take up your cross to follow Jesus because someone in a political forum was skilled enough to illustrate your lacking discernment. Somehow I doubt it.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 07:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You'd think there would be fewer women into this sort of crap.
If only these women were as smart as besson right? Maybe they should defer to you or is that not PC enough for 2012?

Answer: There are so many women into this crap because they understand exponentially more about it than you.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 07:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Pearls...
Perhaps, but it may not yet be time to dust the ol' sandals at the doorway - out.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If only these women were as smart as besson right? Maybe they should defer to you or is that not PC enough for 2012?

Answer: There are so many women into this crap because they understand exponentially more about it than you.

Any woman that adheres to this part of Christianity in a literal way has serious self-esteem issues, mental issues, or both. It doesn't take a religious scholar or a scholar of any kind to see this.

Any man that manipulates a woman into thinking this tripe is an asshole.


I don't normally speak in absolutes, but in this case this is all pretty obvious stuff. This is completely outdated thinking. It makes me sad to have to consider that humanity is not evolved as it seems, if this thinking is still prevalent.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 02:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If only these women were as smart as besson right? Maybe they should defer to you or is that not PC enough for 2012? Answer: There are so many women into this crap because they understand exponentially more about it than you.
It is very interesting to me that there is a type of reverse-psychology-women's-lib tactic here, where anyone who is astounded by this lifestyle is deemed to be oppressive to women, or intending to take away their choice to live this way. It's an interesting tactic, to use your opponents usual weapon (choice) against them.

These women choose this life, and thus choose to give up other choices, by deferring to their husbands. They all seem happy. Sure. I get that.

However, if you raise someone to believe the sky is called Flisbot, they will call the sky Flisbot. They will not believe the sky is blue. (Blasphemy! We must homeschool our children to learn the proper names of things! )

That manifesto for marriage Stu-man linked to, mentions some things I think any good marriage, religious or no, includes: respecting each other, sharing the work, devotion to each other. Masking these with male "leadership" roles, subjection, and deferring, however, cancels them out.

I don't think Christ cares who takes the garbage out.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:59 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2