Same Sex Marrige By a Church.

[LittleNipper]

Well, thank you for sharing your superstitions with the rest of us; it's always interesting from an anthropological perspective.

So I gather you have no support whatsoever for your assertion that after death we'll be judged?

The Bible tells us so, and CHRIST agreed. What do you base your assertions that nothing will happen on?

 

[Autodidact]

The Bible tells us so, and CHRIST agreed. What do you base your assertions that nothing will happen on?

Oh, the Bible. That's weird--and interesting. And how did you come to choose the Bible as the book that accurately tells how what happens to us after we die? Did you do a comparison study of all of the world's holy texts and test them in some way? Or perhaps were you told it's God's book from an early age, and really aren't very familiar with any other holy books? Does the Bible have some other, independent evidence that supports it? For example, does scientific research tend to agree, or disagree with it? Looking at it objectively, what would we consider the Bible in particular to be reliable on this point?

Try to answer without assuming your conclusions. I realize this is hard for Christians, which is why I warn you about it.

Also, just making claims is not persuasive, unless you can support them in some way.

Did I assert that nothing happens? I don't know what happens after we die, but my best guess is that we're dead. That's where the evidence seems to point. You have some evidence to the contrary?

Speaking for myself, I have looked into it, and overall I find it spectacularly inaccurate and just plain wrong. Prayer doesn't move mountains or anything else. Slaughtering babies is not moral. There was never a global flood. Trye was never destroyed. So I'm wondering why you think different.

Did I say nothing happens? I really don't know what happens after we die. My best guess is that we're dead. That's where the evidence seems to point to me. Do you have some evidence to the contrary?

 

[sojourner]

Well you see I don't believe it is their nature (as in TRUE nature). I believe everyone from a microbe to a human to a god in the higher realms is equally spirit. To try to be more clear I am on earth playing the role of a heterosexual male but that is not my identity anymore then a homosexual male is another persons identity.

"...male and female God created them."

Since I view everyone(homo or hetero) as spiritsoul, an eternal part of God, which is far higher than considering someone as mere human. My view of others (including homosexuals) is much more generous than yours.

And much more gnostic.

On the question of "nature, what seems natural to a person at any one time does make it acceptable. Consider the pedophile whose sexual desires seem so strong and natural to him that he may even force sex on his daughter.

Not the same thing. I really wish people would stop equating pedophilia with homosexuality.
The pedophile suffers from a mental illness. Therefore, he is not capable of making the determination of what is natural. Since homosexuality is considered to be a healthy human condition, the homosexual is capable of making that determination for himself.

As a humanitarian do you OK his behavior as just another lifestyle choice because it feels natural to him? I am sure you don't. There are so many other similar examples.

Name one.

I am not condemning anyone but rather making an object evaluation.

No you're not. You're making a subjective evaluation.

 

[sojourner]

If a worldwide poll were taken I am quite sure you would be in the minority.

Does history present us with any instance in which the majority was right?

 

[comradesoul]

"...male and female God created them."

You think the forms are the real self. I don,t. God form man from the dust of the earth and then breath into that form the breath of life. I consider that breath of life to be the true self.

[gnostic]And much more gnostic.[/gnostic]

And before gnostic was the Bhagavad-gita which is my source. I am not very familiar with the gnostic beliefs.

Not the same thing. I really wish people would stop equating pedophilia with homosexuality.

The pedophile suffers from a mental illness. Therefore, he is not capable of making the determination of what is natural. Since homosexuality is considered to be a healthy human condition, the homosexual is capable of making that determination for himself.

Homosexuality is considered a normal healthy condition by you. I obviously consider it the opposite.
It used to be considered a mental illness by the American Pyschiatric Association also and now they have changed to your position. Were they right then or right now?

Name one.

The example was used to show that following one's nature does not make it right.
Take the example for what it is. You are 'mistaking the finger for the moon'.

No you're not. You're making a subjective evaluation.

And that is your subjective evaluation of my evaluation. But word games are really a waste of time.

I never should have posted twice on this thread. Now I find myself caught in it. My bad.

 

[comradesoul]

Heh... I didn't say I was "beyond the dictates of the material world". My point was that the idea of nature as some sort of intelligent entity that tells us what types of behaviour are right and what ones are wrong is foolish and not based in reality.

I am not discussing this in terms of Intelligent Design although that is my position. If you can't see by observation that the natural world favors and works off a heterosexual model then what can I saw. Homosexuality is also observable in nature but as an aberration rather than the norm. To equate the two as equal in the natural world is ludicrous.

There's a big difference between "if you eat, you'll have to poo later" and "nature doesn't 'want' you to be gay". One is a logical consequence of physical reality; the other is an unsubstantiated projection of the speaker's morality onto an unintelligent abstract concept.

refer to the last answer.

 

[sojourner]

You think the forms are the real self. I don,t. God form man from the dust of the earth and then breath into that form the breath of life. I consider that breath of life to be the true self.

[gnostic]And much more gnostic.[/gnostic]

And before gnostic was the Bhagavad-gita which is my source. I am not very familiar with the gnostic beliefs.

Yeah, well, there's your problem. The theologies presented by those two sources are not necessarily congruent in all matters.

Homosexuality is considered a normal healthy condition by you. I obviously consider it the opposite.
It used to be considered a mental illness by the American Pyschiatric Association also and now they have changed to your position. Were they right then or right now?

Scientists used to think the world was flat and that the sun revolved around it. Now they say it's round and revolves around the sun. Were they right then or right now?
Doctors used to think that lobotomies and Thalidamide were proper treatment. Now they say differently. Were they right then or right now?
Surgeons used to operate with septic instruments. Now they don't. Were they right then or right now?

"Now" gets my vote.

The example was used to show that following one's nature does not make it right.
Take the example for what it is.

But you forgot the variable of mental illness. Therefore, the example does not serve any purpose.

And that is your subjective evaluation of my evaluation.

Nice try. But as ineffective as the rest of your assertions here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not discussing this in terms of Intelligent Design although that is my position.

Sure you're not.

If you can't see by observation that the natural world favors and works off a heterosexual model then what can I saw.

The natural world works off of many models. No single strategy predominates.

Homosexuality is also observable in nature but as an aberration rather than the norm.

It's the norm for homosexuals.

To equate the two as equal in the natural world is ludicrous.

I didn't equate them; I just pointed out that nature doesn't care about whether you're gay or straight, because nature, being an unintelligent abstract concept, is incapable of caring about anything.

 

[LittleNipper]

Oh, the Bible. That's weird--and interesting. And how did you come to choose the Bible as the book that accurately tells how what happens to us after we die? Did you do a comparison study of all of the world's holy texts and test them in some way? Or perhaps were you told it's God's book from an early age, and really aren't very familiar with any other holy books? Does the Bible have some other, independent evidence that supports it? For example, does scientific research tend to agree, or disagree with it? Looking at it objectively, what would we consider the Bible in particular to be reliable on this point?

Try to answer without assuming your conclusions. I realize this is hard for Christians, which is why I warn you about it.

Also, just making claims is not persuasive, unless you can support them in some way.

Did I assert that nothing happens? I don't know what happens after we die, but my best guess is that we're dead. That's where the evidence seems to point. You have some evidence to the contrary?

Speaking for myself, I have looked into it, and overall I find it spectacularly inaccurate and just plain wrong. Prayer doesn't move mountains or anything else. Slaughtering babies is not moral. There was never a global flood. Trye was never destroyed. So I'm wondering why you think different.

Did I say nothing happens? I really don't know what happens after we die. My best guess is that we're dead. That's where the evidence seems to point to me. Do you have some evidence to the contrary?

I was blessed to be born in the United States where such things are openly investigated and discussed.

 

[Autodidact]

I was blessed to be born in the United States where such things are openly investigated and discussed openly.

So that would be no, you have no reasons, no evidence, no logic, and no basis on which to conclude that the Bible has authoritative information on what happens after we die?

 

[LittleNipper]

So that would be no, you have no reasons, no evidence, no logic, and no basis on which to conclude that the Bible has authoritative information on what happens after we die?

No one has shown me that it is false and Palestine is a real place, and you prayers are answered. I'm joyous even in hard times. How about you? Do you worry? I get upset sometimes, but I don't worry as much as I did before I knew the LORD.

 

[McBell]

No one has shown me that it is false and Palestine is a real place, and you prayers are answered. I'm joyous even in hard times. How about you? Do you worry? I get upset sometimes, but I don't worry as much as I did before I knew the LORD.

So your whole argument is "No one has shown me my beliefs are false so they are by default correct"?

Why does that argument not work for you when it comes to the Mormons?
I mean, you have not shown how their beliefs are false, you have only shown how their beliefs are different from yours.....

 

[Autodidact]

No one has shown me that it is false

That's it? If no one proves it false then you accept it as true. Wow.

and Palestine is a real place,

Palestine is a real place therefore the Bible is true?!? Are you joking?!?!!

and you prayers are answered.

Could you tell what you mean by "prayers are answered?" Because I don't think you mean what we normally mean by that.

I'm joyous even in hard times.

Me too.

How about you? Do you worry?

Not much. I'm pretty happy.

I get upset sometimes, but I don't worry as much as I did before I knew the LORD.

Wait a minute. Let me follow your logic. You know I'll be judged after I die because the Bible is true. And you know the Bible is true because you've been in a better mood since you started believing it? That's your argument???

One thing I've learned from the quality of arguments advanced by Christians on the internet is that I have no need to doubt my tentative conclusion that there is no God. I mean, if there were any decent arguments, they'd make them, right?

 

[challupa]

That's it? If no one proves it false then you accept it as true. Wow. Palestine is a real place therefore the Bible is true?!? Are you joking?!?!! Could you tell what you mean by "prayers are answered?" Because I don't think you mean what we normally mean by that. Me too. Not much. I'm pretty happy.

Wait a minute. Let me follow your logic. You know I'll be judged after I die because the Bible is true. And you know the Bible is true because you've been in a better mood since you started believing it? That's your argument???

One thing I've learned from the quality of arguments advanced by Christians on the internet is that I have no need to doubt my tentative conclusion that there is no God. I mean, if there were any decent arguments, they'd make them, right?

One would hope so... So far though, no takers!

 

[fantome profane]

No one has shown me that it is false and Palestine is a real place, and you prayers are answered.

I was watching CSI Miami the other day. I have since discovered that Miami is actually a real place. I guess I was watching a documentary.

Do you worry? I get upset sometimes, but I don't worry as much as I did before I knew the LORD.

I don’t worry about anything either, not since I started taking crystal meth.

 

[Muffled]

Apostate to the love of Christ or the compassion of the Gospel?

I don't see how mutual lifelong commitment violates the unity of Christ and the Church.

Absolutely.

A lifelong connittment to sin violates Christ. Jesus can't be joined to sin because He is holy and we are called to be Holy as He is. A church united in sin is not a church of God.

 

[Muffled]

I believe that everyone is entitled to have the freedom to worship (or not) any way they choose. If a church doesn't believe in same sex marriage so be it.

I'm only saying that many people who have been divorced and wish to marry again have come under the same scrutiny. Whether either is right or wrong we are not suppose to judge.

Rather than to endure the stress of letting someone dictate and demean my relationship and ruin the happiness on my commitment in a relationship I would simply find a place where I could proceed and live the life that I know will make me happy. The controversy involved is not worth losing your own dreams and risk losing the love of your life.... There is a church on every corner, one of them is the right one for you......

Of course the devil has his churches and infiltrates the ones he doesn't have but being a church does not legitimize them. A person might as well attend a satanist church as attend an apostate church.

Divorce is a sin and God hates it but He also legitimizes it because you can't put back together something that is broken. Multiple marriages are the sin of adultery but the same allowance can be made because there is no way to fix what is damaged. A church can not be condemned for promoting what should be, ie. a healthy marriage between a man and a woman. What would you then say that the church promotes sin in this? Not in the least but there is one denomination that sees it otherwise.

A homosexual relationship demeans itself. No amount of church whitewashing will remove that crimson stain.

 

[Muffled]

There is no scripture that prohibits it. We're not looking for your opinion, but for scripture. Got any?

Le 20:13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination

 

[sojourner]

Le 20:13 And if aman lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination

That's purity Law, which is reactionary against racial and cultural blending; not moral Law, which is proactive and leads us to God.

Our culture (and religion) is far different than the religion and culture of ancient Palestine. They also could have polygamous marriages -- and bound concubines. We cannot. They could have slaves. We cannot. Our culture is far more open and borad, both spiritually and sociologically. The Levitican purity laws do not apply to post-modern, Western culture.

 

[Autodidact]

Absolutely.

A lifelong connittment to sin violates Christ. Jesus can't be joined to sin because He is holy and we are called to be Holy as He is. A church united in sin is not a church of God.