Pengiuns

[Strytllr]

hehe lochinvar,

What's amazing, that with the increase in science knowledge, we can now deduce that a woman isn't necessarily the mother of the children she gave birth to.

I followed up on this article. Very, very strange...

A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that a woman who conceived three sons with her husband was biologically unrelated to two of them. Doctors posited that the woman herself was part of an nonidentical-twin pair that fused at an early stage of her mother's pregnancy and that only her blood cells are hers, alone, while cells from her eggs and other tissues may have come from her sister's fetus. [Daily Telegraph (London)-New Scientist, 11-13-03]

That's a very interesting viewpoint, btw. The reason I find it so amusing is that the fundementalists had no problem with homosexual unions that were valid for every governmental situation as long as the term "marriage" was reserved for male and female joinings. The civil unions rejected that as not good enough...

[jBirch]

Lochinvar,

You may think you own us, but we know we own all your beaver.

Take it easy.

[pkt]

Originally posted by ****** the Hutt
Gay penguins...

I bet ya didn't know animals could be gay too, eh? Muh, ha ha ha ha haaaaa!

hey fag,

I guess you don't spend time with animals or watching nature shows on TV.
If you have you'd have seen that in the wild males do copulate with males as a means of asserting dominance.

Then there's the "bum sniffing getting to know you" business... Can you imagine people doing THAT!???

==)------------

marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Just because something is the norm in your society does not mean that it is the norm in other societies.

What do you think people who do not have religion - yes, they DO exist - do when they get hitched? they get married in a civil ceremony. It does not have to be sanctioned by any level of government as long as it is recognised by the community - this last bit is incorporated in the church wedding ceremony.

Again, if you have studied cultural anthropology, watched enough nature shows or read enough National Geographics you'd know that there's a big, big world out there that live a very diff't life from that we live, have a diff't value system than what we have in N. America.

==)------------

Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal", it's a good read.

PK

[D'Artagnan1673]

jBirch,


You spoke of the intent of male to male relationships. Is it the penetration that is the moral issue? I think you are missing the point and focussing on legalism. Think on what Jesus said in Matthew 5:27,28:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her alredy in his heart.

Hopefully, you can see that this passage and the other passages in Matthew 5 are meant on a broader scope than just the sins of anger and lust. Jesus is teaching that sin is not just an outword act, such as having an adulterous relationship. The sin of adultery is committed when someone lusts on a woman. This concept can be applied to almost everything. Jesus isnt' concerned with legalism. He isn't happy because two gay people didn't 'go all the way.' Nor is are unmarried heterosexual couples who aren't married justified if they too do not go all the way. It is not just peoples actions, but it is also the condition of their hearts.

[jBirch]

D'Artagnan1673,

I agree.

When I spoke of the intent of male-male relationships, in relation to Leviticus, I was speaking of the interpretation of the passage and how it is meant to be interpreted. We take "as he lieth with a woman" to mean sexual intercourse, but then, if sodomy is prohibited, how can a man lieth with another man like a woman? Wouldn't that mean that he would have to engage in anal intercourse with his woman? The original text of the passage seems to imply that all of these actions, including bestiality, are bad in the specific context of dedications to God. Marital sex, on the holy conjugal bed, is a sacred act and as such, a dedication to God, right?

The other disturbing thing is the deliberate injection of commentary and opinion into critical sections of the Bible. It means we can't trust it literally. And if we can't trust the Word, what can we trust? Trust God. Trust Jesus.

I always read Matthew 5 as Jesus saying to keep focused on what matters: love, understanding, commitment, and truth. If you take your righteousness and impose it on others (5:20), or you think yourself better then others (5:3-11), or you decry others (5:22), then you're missing the point and liable to incur His wrath. 5:32 talks of truth in marital relationships, 5:33 talks of truth in your relationship with God. A Christian who represses his homosexual tendencies and marries, commits adultery as surely as if he'd never married in the first place. 5:44 tells the Gay community what it should do in regards to Christian hatred, and what Jesus thinks of that hated. In fact, I read Matthew 5 to mean that love, commitment and truth are what's important in relationships, not gender and social norms.

I think we're starting to see eye to eye on this. My point in favour of same-sex marriage is not that homosexual marriage is good, but the repression and vilification of it is bad. Matt 7:1

Hope this helps.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

people can argue the theological aspects of homosexuality until they're personally blue in the face, as is their right. each person decides what they beleive is the correct interpretation of a higher power in the universe. these will be drastically different.

but.

and it's a big but.

there are lots of things that some religions consider "sinful".

premarital sex. alcohol consumption. eating pork. not covering your hair. marrying out of the faith. and, i'm not sure, but i'd make a strong bet that there's some religion based in the south that says it's morally wrong for different races to marry.


the government's role is to set basic guidlines- everyone has the right to persue happiness in the way that they see fit, as long as it doesn't interfere with other people.

murder is obviously morally wrong, and it obviously interferes with other people's right to persue happiness.

but there are certain things that some religions feel are immoral... but, i'm not interfering with your right to persue happiness if i don't wear a headscarf, if i get drunk in my own house, or if i masturbate.

people who have been divorced before can get married. people who had premarital sex can get married. rapists can get married. child molestestors, murderers, liars, cheats....

they can all marry whoever they want, just as long as they want to marry someone that is of the opposite gender.

let's say there's a very vengeful god-

one man dies, after spending a life mudering people, and not repenting.

another man dies, after spending a life being a good person, other than the fact that he spent his life with one other man, and they engaged in monogomous homosexual activity. he doesn't repent either.

i would think that murder is more sinful. i would also think that murder interferes with other people... and homosexuality doesn't.



this isn't about whether homosexuality is moral or not. this is about whether this kind of morality is something that government should have a role in...

and i don't think it should.

when it gets to issues like this, it depends on what religion you're in--- and there's a lil thing called "separation of church and state"

[MyrddinsPrecint]

a quote from the west wing that seems appropriate:

Bartlet "Forgive me, Dr. Jacobs. Are you a MD?"

Dr. Jacobs "PhD."

Bartlet "A PhD?"

Dr. Jacobs "Yes, sir."

Bartlet "In Psychology?"

Dr. Jacobs "No, Sir."

Bartlet "Theology?"

Dr. Jacobs "No."

Bartlet "Social work?"

Dr. Jacobs "I have a PhD in English Literature."

Bartlet "I'm asking, 'cause on your show, people call in for advice and you go by the name of Dr. Jacobs on your show. And I didn't know if maybe your listeners were confused by that, and assumed you had advanced training in Psychology, Theology, or health care."

Dr. Jacobs "I don't believe they are confused, no sir."

Bartlet "Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination."

Dr. Jacobs "I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does."

Bartlet "Yes, it does. Leviticus."

Dr. Jacobs "Eighteen twenty-two."

Bartlet "Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, and always clears the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath, Exodus 35:2, clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important, 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes us unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing, while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tightass Club, in this building, when the President stands nobody sits."

[D'Artagnan1673]

Myrddins,

I pray that on the day of judgement, you are not clinging to the hope that God will count you among the sheep becaues you were a better person that someone else out there. The Gospel of John clearly states that no one comes to the Father (God) except through the Son (Jesus).

God doesn't play moral relatism. He doesn't say, "Ooh, Johnnie might be gay, but he's better than Billy the murderer, I think I'll let Johnnie into Heaven because he's basically a good person." Romans 3:23 says that All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. However, verse 24 comes back and says that Being justified freely by his grace through the demption that is in Christ Jesus. Salvation is gained through Christ Jesus giving us redemption of our sins. Salvation has nothing to do with anything that we in and of ourselves cannot do. If you do not believe me, read the first three chapters of Romans.

Justification (Salvation) is not based upon good works, or being "good." Its based upon faith in Jesus alone, eph. 2-8,9. A person who has repented of their sins and trusts in Jesus alone will not want to do anything contrary to the Bible. Read Romans 6:
1. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2. God forbid. how shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therin?
6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, and henceforth we should not serve sin.
One who is truly saved will not try to twist the Word to suit his or her purpose. He will pray to the Lord that the Holy Spirit give him spiritual understanding to discern right and wrong. The Bible is just as clear on the imorality homosexuality as it is on any other sexual immorality, and just as clear as it is on murder. The idea that something is okay as long as it does not hurt somebody sounds fine from a humanistic viewpoint, but it has no place in the life of a Christian. God is Holy, he demands holiness from his sheep. Sure, we will stumble, but we must persevere to the end. Forgive me for my bad memory and poorer concordance, but there is a verse in one of the Gospels in which Jesus says that he who perseveres to the end will have enternal life.

I know that in our times, its nice and fluffy to talk about moral relatism and that its okay for you, but not for me. However, I would much rather stick to what the Bible teaches than to listen to mankind in his attempt to justify himself. Please take these words to heart.

[D'Artagnan1673]

Okay, I just read your self-righteous excerpt from the West Wing. If I were in the Dr.'s position, this is how I'd handle it.

Acts 15 - Some of the Jewish Christians wish to force gentile Christians to observe the law. Here are excerpts from Peter and then James.

6. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

7. And when there had been much dsiputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and bretheren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and belive.

8. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bear them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us.

9. Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

10. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus [the] Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

James
19. Wherefore my sentance is, that we trouble not them, which from amoung the Gentiles are turned to God:

20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from polutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled and from blood.

Note that in verse 28 the apostles letter to the Gentiles reads "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost [God], and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.

What does all this mean? In verse 9, Peter asks why should the Gentiles keep the law, which neither the fathers nor they could bear. Verse 10 states that it is through the grace of the Lord Jesus that both Jew and Gentile are saved. The Mosiac Law is not mentioned in regards to salvation. James goes on to say that the Gentiles should should abstain from idols, sexual immorality, which as defined in the Law, includes homosexuality, and from eating things strangled and from eating blood. All of these commandments came from the Law. However, the early church, through the Holy Spirit, told we the Gentiles what to adhere to. The legalistic points of the Mosiac Law, such as those your president mentioned, are no longer in effect.

Therefore, I conclude from this passage that fornication, sexual immorality, is still a sin.

[jeff]

With all due respect, D'art - it's your post that comes off self-righteous, not Myriddins'. In fact, M's post is a put down against self-righteousness and yours exemplifies it ("the way I believe is the only holy way. Believe and do as I do, or you go to hell"). I'm sure I could find words in the Koran saying that it's equally necessary for me to adopt Islam as the One True Way, and it's equally valid (that is, not at all) for people who don't choose it. If you believe in that, then good for you - but you must recognize that your belief isn't relevant to others not sharing it.

MyrddinsPrecint says: this isn't about whether homosexuality is moral or not. this is about whether this kind of morality is something that government should have a role in...

and i don't think it should.

when it gets to issues like this, it depends on what religion you're in--- and there's a lil thing called "separation of church and state"

Good for you, MP! Exactly right on. You're right: at one time it was the policy of the Southern Baptists, among others, to say that interracial marriage was immoral, and they "justified" it through scripture. Racist ideology was also part of Mormon theology, and is still a point of conflict.

There are plenty of things forbidden by one religion or another (gambling! dancing! drinking! smoking!) yet are still sanctioned and regulated by the state - no religion should have veto power over this. Marriage, or civil union definitely fits here as well.

[FoilyGeezer]

The fact of the matter is that marriage is first and foremost a secular institution in the United States. Granted, the framers of the Constitution wrote from a fairly ecumenically homogenous perspective. But they did create a separation of church and state, and nominal equality as citizens. So the argument about the subjective morality of marriage between gays/lesbians from a religious standpoint is very much beside the point here.

What the Massachusetts Supreme Court did was not to say that Gays had a right to get married in addition to their other rights. They said that Every consulting adult citizen has the right to civil union to any other consulting adult citizen who wishes the same, and that to say they can't based on their orientation or preference is and infringement of their rights, and thus discrimination.

The second ruling simply said that the creation of a "Seperate but Equal" institution wasn't necessary because if it were created as equal it would be redundant, and if it were created as unequal it would be discriminatory. In either case it's not necessary.

I boggle at the fact that the society I live in can condone Brittany Spears 3 day publicity stunt as a legal and proper union, yet my neigbors, two women who have been together for over 10 years and have raised two very normal kids together, are can't even get family health insurance. And that, my friends is the here and now, not the afterlife.

[jBirch]

D'Artagnan1673,

I understand your point on the Word through the Book. However, I would ask that you reread the passages that talk about tolerance, love and understanding. Homosexuality may be wrong, and I would argue this from talking to Him, but our role as Christians is to love and help those who sin, not judge and condemn them. Christians believe in the Word through Christ. Christ's central message, his central commandment, the Law we must keep above all others, "Love thy neighbour".

We must, as servants of the Lord, live our lives for Him. He requires that we hold tight the lepers, the prostitutes, the poor and destitute that they may too enter the Kingdom. Excessive fornication is a sin yet, our Lord chose to save the prostitutes. He washed the Lepers feet. He held close the sinners, didn't cast them away as vile and disgusting. He threw the Rabbis and moneychangers out, not the sinners. He details that we are not to act Rightously, nor agressively, nor in any other way then exemplifies the concept of Love and prayer. We pray, not like the Hypocrites, but like Christ: in private and with sincerity.

Our Church is not right, simply because it calls itself the Church of God. We, have the mandate to listen to God, to live for Him, and to hold his commandments sacred. When I talk to God, I fear. I fear for our religious leaders, who judge and condemn. That is God's role, not ours. I fear for those sheep who follow the wolf in sheep's clothing, and hunt those who would live in peace. I fear for those who listen to The Beast and think it the Lord because the Beast says, "I am Him".

Take it easy.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally posted by D'Artagnan1673
Okay, I just read your self-righteous excerpt from the West Wing. If I were in the Dr.'s position, this is how I'd handle it.

****i cut a whole lot of stuff****

Therefore, I conclude from this passage that fornication, sexual immorality, is still a sin.

you don't seem to get my point.

there are lots of things that the bible says are immoral or moral, and today's standards may see these differently, or see the punishment as too less or to great for each offense.

slavery is undeniably morally wrong: the bible permits it.

how do YOU reconcile those two facts?

my feeling, from reading the bible, is that god cares more about how judgemental we are, and how sorry we are for things that negatively affected other's lives, that he cares more about that stuff than he does what we did in our bedrooms with consenting adults.

he may also care about what happens in our bedroom-- if you're letter of the law, sure, it seems that he does. but it seems that that wouldn't be the very first thing on his list of questions about how we lived our life, just the way "did you really use that spoon when you made a meat dish AND when you made a milk dish???" won't be the first question.

God may think that you're a very good person because in your bedroom, you were a model citizen. but... uh... he's not even going to get there on the list of things written about your life if he gets to the "overly judgemental of others" and the "needs work in being nice to sinners" categories, and finds you lacking.



do you think there should be separation between church and state?

[Tireur]

there are lots of things that the bible says are immoral or moral, and today's standards may see these differently, or see the punishment as too less or to great for each offense.

Not that I disgree with you, but, this excerpt caught my eye.

Do you feel the bible should be updated regularly to accomodate the current moral outlook, or should be just adopt a new "moral guide"?

[jBirch]

Hey MyrddinsPrecint,

I think the point that D'Art is trying to make is that there is no "passing grade" for Christian redemption. You are either 100% pure or you're going to hell. If you screw up, as we are all wont to do, you can confess and beg forgiveness, which the Lord, in His mercy, will grant you. The confession = forgiveness route only works if you approach Jesus and ask Him to forgive you first. And he's going to look into your soul and see whether you are REALLY sorry, or just faking it to get into Heaven.

The point D'Art is making is that it doesn't matter if you sin once, or sin a lot, or do one REALLY bad sin as opposed to one REALLY minor sin: if you sin, you'll burn. That standards have changed, to a strict Christian mind, is irrelevant. It's society that's going to hell and you can choose to go along for the ride or not.

I don't disparage D'Art's way of looking at redemption. I disagree with his interpretation of what is sin and what is not (I don't think that homosexual intercourse is a sin), but not his right to believe what he wants. I also disagree with his belief as to what the Christian response to gay marriage should be and whether that action itself constitutes a sin.

Take it easy.

[D'Artagnan1673]

Gang,

Here are my answers to your questions.

slavery is undeniably morally wrong: the bible permits it.

how do YOU reconcile those two facts?

Whether or not slavery is or is not morally wrong in today's society, I'll take what the Bible says anyday. If the Bible is the inspired word of God, then we should be careful not to judge God of what we as humans perceive to be injustice in the behavior of God. Read Romans ch. 9. Personally, on this issue, I agree with you and I am sure that the New Testiment talks about slavery somewhere. I'll do some research of verses which point to the issues of slavery.

Myrridins, you call me lacking in forgiveness. jBirch understood and did a good job of explaining the whole issue about sin. You sin once, no matter how great or how small, then you're going to burn without the grace of God. I didn't say that, the Bible did. Take the time to read chapters I supplied before calling me judgemental. I'm not being judgemental, I am full of love for sinners. Did I not say that I pray for you to come to the understanding of the Gospel? Am I not a sinner as well? Do I not deserve hellfire as much as anyone? No, I am not judgemental, I am simply unwilling to reduce my moral standards just because the society I live in has. jBirch and I do not see the issue of salvation eye to eye, but that is beside the point for this disussion. jBirch, I'm a Calvanist if that gives you any idea as to where I am coming. Feel free to PM me or start a new thread if you'd like clarification. Just don't judge me on this before you've heard my side. Please don't trust what other people may have told you about Calvanism. It is in fact a very evangelical doctrine if understood and applied properly.

I will stand by my belief that homosexuality is a sin. It is Biblical and it is there in black and white. I do not have hatred or feeling of judgementalism in my heart for those who practise this behavior, or any sinful behavior for that matter. It goes against the teachings of the Bible. However, the Bible also does not say to go with the flow of the morals of your society, which is what you appear to be advocating in your posts. If you want an idea of my view of myself is, read the Parable of the Pharasee and the Publican in Luke Ch. 18. I am the Publican.

[jBirch]

D'Artagnan1673,

A Calvinist, eh? Well, at least we'll all know which reformists will burn in Hell! *grin* By the way, I always wondered if Calvinists find the comic Calvin & Hobbes as funny as I do? I *KNOW* there is more going on there, especially as John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes were kinda theologically influential. Besides most Calvinists know more about the roots and foundations of their particular brand of Christianity then catholics do theirs, so don't worry about heathen prejudice on my part. On the plus side, it's nice to argue with a student of God who doesn't take the word of the Pope as Gospel.

At any rate, (and in true protestant tradition) back to the point at hand: can you show me where in the Bible it states that loving homosexuality is a sin? Can you show me where loving homosexual intercourse is a sin? Can you show me where loving homosexual intercourse between two women is a sin? Can you show me where the realisation and rationalisation of marriage between two members of the same sex is a sin? Finally, can you show me where the Bible says that sinners can't marry or that we must be completely free of all sin before we can receive the sacrament of marriage?

Understand that I will take *all* translations of the Bible into account in order to assure myself that your particular Bible hasn't inserted commentary on the issue as is blatently demonstrated in the Living Bible. Also be advised that, because the Bible is a photocopy of a photocopy of a translation of a translation of a book of an oral communique, interpretation of the passages is, in my mind, key. As such, any possible misinterpretation is also open to debate.

Take it easy.

[D'Artagnan1673]

Well, I've only got about 2 mintues to post this so don't expect anything big. First, no, I've never paid attention to Calvin and Hobbes, but maybe I'll check this Sunday's paper.

Two, I'm not big on trying different versions of the Bible. If you can't tell by my archaic language, I'm pretty stuck on the KJV. I've heard the English Standard Version is good, or it that the Amercian Standard?

As Martin Luther said, I believe that a laymen with the Holy Spirit interpreting the Bible is above Pope and Council. I almost put that in my initial post because I could tell you were Catholic and I wanted to let you know early on where I stood. However, I was unsure if the way I was bringing it up would be offensive so I edited it out before anyone read it.

I don't know a super ton about my roots as a reformationist, but I'm learning. I'm currently on my second biography on Martin Luther and I've downloaded and listen to many sermons a week on Cavanistic doctrine. I've got fencing tonight and class the next two evenings so you may not hear much meat and bones out of me for the next few days.

D'Art