Any Dudes Wanna Get Married?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1023

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
What we don’t do is play as if it is okay to act on their homosexuality.

[/quote]
As long as this is true, you are NOT accepting gays. You have to accept all parts of them or none at all. [/quote]

I have to concur with others. Why?

Obviously this is an abstract idea and not actually based in reality. Although you maybe confusing accepting and tolerating. Or are misunderstanding my use of accepting.

The Catholic Church has accepted men that have acted on their homosexual tendencies. However, if they are to join the ranks of clergy they have to refrain from further behavior before entering the seminary. We accept homosexuals into the Church, we won’t stop them from taking an RCIA class and being baptized and confirmed. However, we do not accept homosexual acts or sexual acts outside marriage (which automatically excludes homosexual acts) or they cannot participate in the sacrament of communion (they first have to go to confession).

We also have love for our homosexual brethren, but we only tolerate their homosexual behavior. We accept the person, but not necessarily their actions.

If this is still not clear; the Catholic Church accepts sinners, but we do not play as if it is okay to sin (that was Luther’s idea).

[/quote]

And in the process, you communicate the message that their sexual orientation is an abomination, and force them to choose between acting contrary to their orientation, or living an asexual and lonely life. Neither choice comes anywhere close to acceptance.[/quote]

Their sexual orientation isn’t an abomination, their actions are an abomination. Human’s orientation can also be towards sinning in general, not particularly just sexual sin.

Did you not read that post of a GAY CATHOLIC MAN who doesn’t sleep with other men? No one is forcing anyone to do anything, they joined the Catholic Church with their own free will, if they want to be a Catholic they have to act like one, which means refraining from sin and the occasion of sin.

1024

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course we can. What we can’t do (at least most of the time) is objectively discern whether what a religious system teaches is actually true.[/quote]

But that’s not what you objected to when you objected to my “christian flavored” comment. I made a statement about the nature, the teaching, of Christianity and homosexuality. I wasn’t engaged in trying to prove the truth of that teaching. Again, only that it was incompatible WITH Christianity.

You:

[/quote]
because there is no objective standard by which to judge.[/quote]

Yes, there is…That’s my point. That was my point with the “Jews, Hindus, and Muslims believe in the divinity of Christ.” We can (even non-christians) research their holy scriptures and traditions. The holy text of the christian isn’t silent or ambiguous about this. Objectively, I am correct.[/quote]

They clearly state that they aren’t Christians, so there’s no definitional disagreement.

I’m talking about faiths disagreeing on what it actually means to be a Christian.

Look at how Tiribulus defines a Christian vs. Pat. How can you objectively prove one is right and the other is wrong?

Tiribulus believes that as a gay man, I am bound for hell. Pat believes that as a gay man, god will judge my heart and the way I treat my fellow men, and may go to heaven despite being gay. American Episcopalians believe my being gay is a complete non-issue.

All have faith, all believe they are Christians, yet all differ in their views on homosexuality. Who is right?[/quote]

Pat and Tirib agree on what is objectively true in Christianity. A sin. The American Episcopalians have jumped the shark. As I said, it’s moral weight in Christianity is not ambiguous. No faith which says it’s a complete non-issue is a Christian faith. Objectively, again, I am correct. The thing is, I’m sure you have enough knowledge of scripture to know there is no doubt on this issue. It is dealt with and plainly stated. Same goes for adultery or any fornication despite anyone’s attempt to say “well, Christianity doesn’t address any of that.”
[/quote]

The same could be said of divorce, or many other moral issues on which Christians disagree. You say they’ve jumped the shark, and they say they are true Christians. It comes down to how you interpret the bible, what you consider literal vs. allegorical, what you consider absolute vs. cultural, whether you believe in the possibility of ongoing revelation, etc. They are as sincere as you, and they have faith just like you. They’ve simply arrived at a different conclusion.

It’s no different than Tiribulus disagreeing with Pat on predestination vs. double predestination.[/quote]

You’re backtracking. You’ve already admitted that we can objectively discern what is true to the faith. Therefore, you can correctly say I am wrong in mistakenly saying that Hindus and Jews believe in the divinity of Christ. We aren’t disputing “faith” in general. We are discussing a very specific issue, and what is objectively true to the the faith in question, Christianity. You haven’t asked me my evidence, and I can understand why. We both know I have solid evidence, as you know enough of scripture to know what I have in mind. It is, without debate, in complete contradiction to Christianity. You’re hitting reset again, when I’ve already received agreement from you that we can identify teachings objectively true, or not, to in various faiths. But let’s do it again, in another way. “Christianity holds that men and women are not to commit themselves to each other in marriage. ‘Free love’ is instead the moral imperative.” Objectively untrue.

1025

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course we can. What we can’t do (at least most of the time) is objectively discern whether what a religious system teaches is actually true.[/quote]

But that’s not what you objected to when you objected to my “christian flavored” comment. I made a statement about the nature, the teaching, of Christianity and homosexuality. I wasn’t engaged in trying to prove the truth of that teaching. Again, only that it was incompatible WITH Christianity.

You:

[/quote]
because there is no objective standard by which to judge.[/quote]

Yes, there is…That’s my point. That was my point with the “Jews, Hindus, and Muslims believe in the divinity of Christ.” We can (even non-christians) research their holy scriptures and traditions. The holy text of the christian isn’t silent or ambiguous about this. Objectively, I am correct.[/quote]

They clearly state that they aren’t Christians, so there’s no definitional disagreement.

I’m talking about faiths disagreeing on what it actually means to be a Christian.

Look at how Tiribulus defines a Christian vs. Pat. How can you objectively prove one is right and the other is wrong?

Tiribulus believes that as a gay man, I am bound for hell. Pat believes that as a gay man, god will judge my heart and the way I treat my fellow men, and may go to heaven despite being gay. American Episcopalians believe my being gay is a complete non-issue.

All have faith, all believe they are Christians, yet all differ in their views on homosexuality. Who is right?[/quote]

Pat and Tirib agree on what is objectively true in Christianity. A sin. The American Episcopalians have jumped the shark. As I said, it’s moral weight in Christianity is not ambiguous. No faith which says it’s a complete non-issue is a Christian faith. Objectively, again, I am correct. The thing is, I’m sure you have enough knowledge of scripture to know there is no doubt on this issue. It is dealt with and plainly stated. Same goes for adultery or any fornication despite anyone’s attempt to say “well, Christianity doesn’t address any of that.”
[/quote]

The same could be said of divorce, or many other moral issues on which Christians disagree. You say they’ve jumped the shark, and they say they are true Christians. It comes down to how you interpret the bible, what you consider literal vs. allegorical, what you consider absolute vs. cultural, whether you believe in the possibility of ongoing revelation, etc. They are as sincere as you, and they have faith just like you. They’ve simply arrived at a different conclusion.

It’s no different than Tiribulus disagreeing with Pat on predestination vs. double predestination.[/quote]

You’re backtracking. You’ve already admitted that we can objectively discern what is true to the faith. Therefore, you can correctly say I am wrong in mistakenly saying that Hindus and Jews believe in the divinity of Christ. We aren’t disputing “faith” in general. We are discussing a very specific issue, and what is objectively true to the the faith in question, Christianity. You haven’t asked me my evidence, and I can understand why. We both know I have solid evidence, as you know enough of scripture to know what I have in mind. It is, without debate, in complete contradiction to Christianity. You’re hitting reset again, when I’ve already received agreement from you that we can identify teachings objectively true, or not, to in various faiths. But let’s do it again, in another way. “Christianity holds that men and women are not to commit themselves to each other in marriage. ‘Free love’ is instead the moral imperative.” Objectively untrue.

[/quote]

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Jews for Jesus?

The life of St. Issa?

You will find both Jews and Hindus that believe in Jesus divinity.

1026

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Someone should point out to our resident atheist homosexual that it doesn’t matter which doctrine is true. All those who accept Christ get into Heaven.

And that leaves him out.

OUCH![/quote]

Big deal. If you don’t believe in Heaven, there’s no point in being butt hurt about not getting into it when you die.

1027

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course we can. What we can’t do (at least most of the time) is objectively discern whether what a religious system teaches is actually true.[/quote]

But that’s not what you objected to when you objected to my “christian flavored” comment. I made a statement about the nature, the teaching, of Christianity and homosexuality. I wasn’t engaged in trying to prove the truth of that teaching. Again, only that it was incompatible WITH Christianity.

You:

[/quote]
because there is no objective standard by which to judge.[/quote]

Yes, there is…That’s my point. That was my point with the “Jews, Hindus, and Muslims believe in the divinity of Christ.” We can (even non-christians) research their holy scriptures and traditions. The holy text of the christian isn’t silent or ambiguous about this. Objectively, I am correct.[/quote]

They clearly state that they aren’t Christians, so there’s no definitional disagreement.

I’m talking about faiths disagreeing on what it actually means to be a Christian.

Look at how Tiribulus defines a Christian vs. Pat. How can you objectively prove one is right and the other is wrong?

Tiribulus believes that as a gay man, I am bound for hell. Pat believes that as a gay man, god will judge my heart and the way I treat my fellow men, and may go to heaven despite being gay. American Episcopalians believe my being gay is a complete non-issue.

All have faith, all believe they are Christians, yet all differ in their views on homosexuality. Who is right?[/quote]

Pat and Tirib agree on what is objectively true in Christianity. A sin. The American Episcopalians have jumped the shark. As I said, it’s moral weight in Christianity is not ambiguous. No faith which says it’s a complete non-issue is a Christian faith. Objectively, again, I am correct. The thing is, I’m sure you have enough knowledge of scripture to know there is no doubt on this issue. It is dealt with and plainly stated. Same goes for adultery or any fornication despite anyone’s attempt to say “well, Christianity doesn’t address any of that.”
[/quote]

The same could be said of divorce, or many other moral issues on which Christians disagree. You say they’ve jumped the shark, and they say they are true Christians. It comes down to how you interpret the bible, what you consider literal vs. allegorical, what you consider absolute vs. cultural, whether you believe in the possibility of ongoing revelation, etc. They are as sincere as you, and they have faith just like you. They’ve simply arrived at a different conclusion.

It’s no different than Tiribulus disagreeing with Pat on predestination vs. double predestination.[/quote]

You’re backtracking. You’ve already admitted that we can objectively discern what is true to the faith. Therefore, you can correctly say I am wrong in mistakenly saying that Hindus and Jews believe in the divinity of Christ. We aren’t disputing “faith” in general. We are discussing a very specific issue, and what is objectively true to the the faith in question, Christianity. You haven’t asked me my evidence, and I can understand why. We both know I have solid evidence, as you know enough of scripture to know what I have in mind. It is, without debate, in complete contradiction to Christianity. You’re hitting reset again, when I’ve already received agreement from you that we can identify teachings objectively true, or not, to in various faiths. But let’s do it again, in another way. “Christianity holds that men and women are not to commit themselves to each other in marriage. ‘Free love’ is instead the moral imperative.” Objectively untrue.

[/quote]

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Jews for Jesus?

The life of St. Issa?

You will find both Jews and Hindus that believe in Jesus divinity. [/quote]

But only Christians believe Jesus is the Christ. All others believe he’s a prophet, nothing more.

1028

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course we can. What we can’t do (at least most of the time) is objectively discern whether what a religious system teaches is actually true.[/quote]

But that’s not what you objected to when you objected to my “christian flavored” comment. I made a statement about the nature, the teaching, of Christianity and homosexuality. I wasn’t engaged in trying to prove the truth of that teaching. Again, only that it was incompatible WITH Christianity.

You:

[/quote]
because there is no objective standard by which to judge.[/quote]

Yes, there is…That’s my point. That was my point with the “Jews, Hindus, and Muslims believe in the divinity of Christ.” We can (even non-christians) research their holy scriptures and traditions. The holy text of the christian isn’t silent or ambiguous about this. Objectively, I am correct.[/quote]

They clearly state that they aren’t Christians, so there’s no definitional disagreement.

I’m talking about faiths disagreeing on what it actually means to be a Christian.

Look at how Tiribulus defines a Christian vs. Pat. How can you objectively prove one is right and the other is wrong?

Tiribulus believes that as a gay man, I am bound for hell. Pat believes that as a gay man, god will judge my heart and the way I treat my fellow men, and may go to heaven despite being gay. American Episcopalians believe my being gay is a complete non-issue.

All have faith, all believe they are Christians, yet all differ in their views on homosexuality. Who is right?[/quote]

Pat and Tirib agree on what is objectively true in Christianity. A sin. The American Episcopalians have jumped the shark. As I said, it’s moral weight in Christianity is not ambiguous. No faith which says it’s a complete non-issue is a Christian faith. Objectively, again, I am correct. The thing is, I’m sure you have enough knowledge of scripture to know there is no doubt on this issue. It is dealt with and plainly stated. Same goes for adultery or any fornication despite anyone’s attempt to say “well, Christianity doesn’t address any of that.”
[/quote]

The same could be said of divorce, or many other moral issues on which Christians disagree. You say they’ve jumped the shark, and they say they are true Christians. It comes down to how you interpret the bible, what you consider literal vs. allegorical, what you consider absolute vs. cultural, whether you believe in the possibility of ongoing revelation, etc. They are as sincere as you, and they have faith just like you. They’ve simply arrived at a different conclusion.

It’s no different than Tiribulus disagreeing with Pat on predestination vs. double predestination.[/quote]

You’re backtracking. You’ve already admitted that we can objectively discern what is true to the faith. Therefore, you can correctly say I am wrong in mistakenly saying that Hindus and Jews believe in the divinity of Christ. We aren’t disputing “faith” in general. We are discussing a very specific issue, and what is objectively true to the the faith in question, Christianity. You haven’t asked me my evidence, and I can understand why. We both know I have solid evidence, as you know enough of scripture to know what I have in mind. It is, without debate, in complete contradiction to Christianity. You’re hitting reset again, when I’ve already received agreement from you that we can identify teachings objectively true, or not, to in various faiths. But let’s do it again, in another way. “Christianity holds that men and women are not to commit themselves to each other in marriage. ‘Free love’ is instead the moral imperative.” Objectively untrue.

[/quote]

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Jews for Jesus?

The life of St. Issa?

You will find both Jews and Hindus that believe in Jesus divinity. [/quote]

But only Christians believe Jesus is the Christ. All others believe he’s a prophet, nothing more. [/quote]

And there’s atheistic Jews, too. And Christ and the earliest disciples were Jews. I’m talking about the Hebrew/Jewish faith. The old covenant, the torah, full stop. Making sense, yet? Or must I start drawing pictures?

1029

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Someone should point out to our resident atheist homosexual that it doesn’t matter which doctrine is true. All those who accept Christ get into Heaven.

And that leaves him out.

OUCH![/quote]

Big deal. If you don’t believe in Heaven, there’s no point in being butt hurt about not getting into it when you die.
[/quote]

Except for the eternal torment and hatred one experiences after they die if they do not get into Heaven or Purgatory.

1030

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course we can. What we can’t do (at least most of the time) is objectively discern whether what a religious system teaches is actually true.[/quote]

But that’s not what you objected to when you objected to my “christian flavored” comment. I made a statement about the nature, the teaching, of Christianity and homosexuality. I wasn’t engaged in trying to prove the truth of that teaching. Again, only that it was incompatible WITH Christianity.

You:

[/quote]
because there is no objective standard by which to judge.[/quote]

Yes, there is…That’s my point. That was my point with the “Jews, Hindus, and Muslims believe in the divinity of Christ.” We can (even non-christians) research their holy scriptures and traditions. The holy text of the christian isn’t silent or ambiguous about this. Objectively, I am correct.[/quote]

They clearly state that they aren’t Christians, so there’s no definitional disagreement.

I’m talking about faiths disagreeing on what it actually means to be a Christian.

Look at how Tiribulus defines a Christian vs. Pat. How can you objectively prove one is right and the other is wrong?

Tiribulus believes that as a gay man, I am bound for hell. Pat believes that as a gay man, god will judge my heart and the way I treat my fellow men, and may go to heaven despite being gay. American Episcopalians believe my being gay is a complete non-issue.

All have faith, all believe they are Christians, yet all differ in their views on homosexuality. Who is right?[/quote]

Pat and Tirib agree on what is objectively true in Christianity. A sin. The American Episcopalians have jumped the shark. As I said, it’s moral weight in Christianity is not ambiguous. No faith which says it’s a complete non-issue is a Christian faith. Objectively, again, I am correct. The thing is, I’m sure you have enough knowledge of scripture to know there is no doubt on this issue. It is dealt with and plainly stated. Same goes for adultery or any fornication despite anyone’s attempt to say “well, Christianity doesn’t address any of that.”
[/quote]

The same could be said of divorce, or many other moral issues on which Christians disagree. You say they’ve jumped the shark, and they say they are true Christians. It comes down to how you interpret the bible, what you consider literal vs. allegorical, what you consider absolute vs. cultural, whether you believe in the possibility of ongoing revelation, etc. They are as sincere as you, and they have faith just like you. They’ve simply arrived at a different conclusion.

It’s no different than Tiribulus disagreeing with Pat on predestination vs. double predestination.[/quote]

You’re backtracking. You’ve already admitted that we can objectively discern what is true to the faith. Therefore, you can correctly say I am wrong in mistakenly saying that Hindus and Jews believe in the divinity of Christ. We aren’t disputing “faith” in general. We are discussing a very specific issue, and what is objectively true to the the faith in question, Christianity. You haven’t asked me my evidence, and I can understand why. We both know I have solid evidence, as you know enough of scripture to know what I have in mind. It is, without debate, in complete contradiction to Christianity. You’re hitting reset again, when I’ve already received agreement from you that we can identify teachings objectively true, or not, to in various faiths. But let’s do it again, in another way. “Christianity holds that men and women are not to commit themselves to each other in marriage. ‘Free love’ is instead the moral imperative.” Objectively untrue.

[/quote]

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Jews for Jesus?

The life of St. Issa?

You will find both Jews and Hindus that believe in Jesus divinity. [/quote]

But only Christians believe Jesus is the Christ. All others believe he’s a prophet, nothing more. [/quote]

And there’s atheistic Jews, too. And Christ and the earliest disciples were Jews. I’m talking about the Hebrew/Jewish faith. The old covenant, the torah, full stop. Making sense, yet? Or must I start drawing pictures?[/quote]

You post was, divinity, Jesus.

Divinity Jesus it is.

If you now backpedal and draw ever smaller circles when it comes to what defines a “Christian”, Forlifes point still stands.

1031

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course we can. What we can’t do (at least most of the time) is objectively discern whether what a religious system teaches is actually true.[/quote]

But that’s not what you objected to when you objected to my “christian flavored” comment. I made a statement about the nature, the teaching, of Christianity and homosexuality. I wasn’t engaged in trying to prove the truth of that teaching. Again, only that it was incompatible WITH Christianity.

You:

[/quote]
because there is no objective standard by which to judge.[/quote]

Yes, there is…That’s my point. That was my point with the “Jews, Hindus, and Muslims believe in the divinity of Christ.” We can (even non-christians) research their holy scriptures and traditions. The holy text of the christian isn’t silent or ambiguous about this. Objectively, I am correct.[/quote]

They clearly state that they aren’t Christians, so there’s no definitional disagreement.

I’m talking about faiths disagreeing on what it actually means to be a Christian.

Look at how Tiribulus defines a Christian vs. Pat. How can you objectively prove one is right and the other is wrong?

Tiribulus believes that as a gay man, I am bound for hell. Pat believes that as a gay man, god will judge my heart and the way I treat my fellow men, and may go to heaven despite being gay. American Episcopalians believe my being gay is a complete non-issue.

All have faith, all believe they are Christians, yet all differ in their views on homosexuality. Who is right?[/quote]

Pat and Tirib agree on what is objectively true in Christianity. A sin. The American Episcopalians have jumped the shark. As I said, it’s moral weight in Christianity is not ambiguous. No faith which says it’s a complete non-issue is a Christian faith. Objectively, again, I am correct. The thing is, I’m sure you have enough knowledge of scripture to know there is no doubt on this issue. It is dealt with and plainly stated. Same goes for adultery or any fornication despite anyone’s attempt to say “well, Christianity doesn’t address any of that.”
[/quote]

The same could be said of divorce, or many other moral issues on which Christians disagree. You say they’ve jumped the shark, and they say they are true Christians. It comes down to how you interpret the bible, what you consider literal vs. allegorical, what you consider absolute vs. cultural, whether you believe in the possibility of ongoing revelation, etc. They are as sincere as you, and they have faith just like you. They’ve simply arrived at a different conclusion.

It’s no different than Tiribulus disagreeing with Pat on predestination vs. double predestination.[/quote]

You’re backtracking. You’ve already admitted that we can objectively discern what is true to the faith. Therefore, you can correctly say I am wrong in mistakenly saying that Hindus and Jews believe in the divinity of Christ. We aren’t disputing “faith” in general. We are discussing a very specific issue, and what is objectively true to the the faith in question, Christianity. You haven’t asked me my evidence, and I can understand why. We both know I have solid evidence, as you know enough of scripture to know what I have in mind. It is, without debate, in complete contradiction to Christianity. You’re hitting reset again, when I’ve already received agreement from you that we can identify teachings objectively true, or not, to in various faiths. But let’s do it again, in another way. “Christianity holds that men and women are not to commit themselves to each other in marriage. ‘Free love’ is instead the moral imperative.” Objectively untrue.

[/quote]

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Jews for Jesus?

The life of St. Issa?

You will find both Jews and Hindus that believe in Jesus divinity. [/quote]

But only Christians believe Jesus is the Christ. All others believe he’s a prophet, nothing more. [/quote]

And there’s atheistic Jews, too. And Christ and the earliest disciples were Jews. I’m talking about the Hebrew/Jewish faith. The old covenant, the torah, full stop. Making sense, yet? Or must I start drawing pictures?[/quote]

You post was, divinity, Jesus.

Divinity Jesus it is.

If you now backpedal and draw ever smaller circles when it comes to what defines a “Christian”, Forlifes point still stands.

[/quote]

No, it doesn’t. He knew exactly what I was asking and answered correctly. If you’re hung up on an “ethnic” description, instead of the obvious religious meaning we’re discussing, than this conversation is simply above you’re understanding. There’s no point in trying to be clever when no scholar would answer that the jewish faith teaches the divinity Christ. Knock it off and troll some other thread. Maybe begin your statement with “Pish-Posh…”

1032

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Someone should point out to our resident atheist homosexual that it doesn’t matter which doctrine is true. All those who accept Christ get into Heaven.

And that leaves him out.

OUCH![/quote]

Big deal. If you don’t believe in Heaven, there’s no point in being butt hurt about not getting into it when you die.
[/quote]

Could be a very big deal. Just because you don’t believe in Heaven does not mean it doesn’t exist. Therefore, being “butt hurt” will be the least of your problems.

1033

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course we can. What we can’t do (at least most of the time) is objectively discern whether what a religious system teaches is actually true.[/quote]

But that’s not what you objected to when you objected to my “christian flavored” comment. I made a statement about the nature, the teaching, of Christianity and homosexuality. I wasn’t engaged in trying to prove the truth of that teaching. Again, only that it was incompatible WITH Christianity.

You:

[/quote]
because there is no objective standard by which to judge.[/quote]

Yes, there is…That’s my point. That was my point with the “Jews, Hindus, and Muslims believe in the divinity of Christ.” We can (even non-christians) research their holy scriptures and traditions. The holy text of the christian isn’t silent or ambiguous about this. Objectively, I am correct.[/quote]

They clearly state that they aren’t Christians, so there’s no definitional disagreement.

I’m talking about faiths disagreeing on what it actually means to be a Christian.

Look at how Tiribulus defines a Christian vs. Pat. How can you objectively prove one is right and the other is wrong?

Tiribulus believes that as a gay man, I am bound for hell. Pat believes that as a gay man, god will judge my heart and the way I treat my fellow men, and may go to heaven despite being gay. American Episcopalians believe my being gay is a complete non-issue.

All have faith, all believe they are Christians, yet all differ in their views on homosexuality. Who is right?[/quote]

Pat and Tirib agree on what is objectively true in Christianity. A sin. The American Episcopalians have jumped the shark. As I said, it’s moral weight in Christianity is not ambiguous. No faith which says it’s a complete non-issue is a Christian faith. Objectively, again, I am correct. The thing is, I’m sure you have enough knowledge of scripture to know there is no doubt on this issue. It is dealt with and plainly stated. Same goes for adultery or any fornication despite anyone’s attempt to say “well, Christianity doesn’t address any of that.”
[/quote]

The same could be said of divorce, or many other moral issues on which Christians disagree. You say they’ve jumped the shark, and they say they are true Christians. It comes down to how you interpret the bible, what you consider literal vs. allegorical, what you consider absolute vs. cultural, whether you believe in the possibility of ongoing revelation, etc. They are as sincere as you, and they have faith just like you. They’ve simply arrived at a different conclusion.

It’s no different than Tiribulus disagreeing with Pat on predestination vs. double predestination.[/quote]

You’re backtracking. You’ve already admitted that we can objectively discern what is true to the faith. Therefore, you can correctly say I am wrong in mistakenly saying that Hindus and Jews believe in the divinity of Christ. We aren’t disputing “faith” in general. We are discussing a very specific issue, and what is objectively true to the the faith in question, Christianity. You haven’t asked me my evidence, and I can understand why. We both know I have solid evidence, as you know enough of scripture to know what I have in mind. It is, without debate, in complete contradiction to Christianity. You’re hitting reset again, when I’ve already received agreement from you that we can identify teachings objectively true, or not, to in various faiths. But let’s do it again, in another way. “Christianity holds that men and women are not to commit themselves to each other in marriage. ‘Free love’ is instead the moral imperative.” Objectively untrue.

[/quote]

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Jews for Jesus?

The life of St. Issa?

You will find both Jews and Hindus that believe in Jesus divinity. [/quote]

But only Christians believe Jesus is the Christ. All others believe he’s a prophet, nothing more. [/quote]

And there’s atheistic Jews, too. And Christ and the earliest disciples were Jews. I’m talking about the Hebrew/Jewish faith. The old covenant, the torah, full stop. Making sense, yet? Or must I start drawing pictures?[/quote]

You post was, divinity, Jesus.

Divinity Jesus it is.

If you now backpedal and draw ever smaller circles when it comes to what defines a “Christian”, Forlifes point still stands.

[/quote]

No, it doesn’t. He knew exactly what I was asking and answered correctly. If you’re hung up on an “ethnic” description, instead of the obvious religious meaning we’re discussing, than this conversation is simply above you’re understanding. There’s no point in trying to be clever when no scholar would answer that the jewish faith teaches the divinity Christ. Knock it off and troll some other thread. Maybe begin your statement with “Pish-Posh…”[/quote]

No problem.

Pish posh, what a scholar says is irrelevant, if they get big enough as a group they get their own scholars that will tell them precisely what they want to hear, including bible verses and all.

What you are trying to pull off here is a thinly veiled appeal to authority when the issue is that in this area there not even is an universally accepted authority.

Not that it wouldnt be a logical fallacy if there was.

1034

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course we can. What we can’t do (at least most of the time) is objectively discern whether what a religious system teaches is actually true.[/quote]

But that’s not what you objected to when you objected to my “christian flavored” comment. I made a statement about the nature, the teaching, of Christianity and homosexuality. I wasn’t engaged in trying to prove the truth of that teaching. Again, only that it was incompatible WITH Christianity.

You:

[/quote]
because there is no objective standard by which to judge.[/quote]

Yes, there is…That’s my point. That was my point with the “Jews, Hindus, and Muslims believe in the divinity of Christ.” We can (even non-christians) research their holy scriptures and traditions. The holy text of the christian isn’t silent or ambiguous about this. Objectively, I am correct.[/quote]

They clearly state that they aren’t Christians, so there’s no definitional disagreement.

I’m talking about faiths disagreeing on what it actually means to be a Christian.

Look at how Tiribulus defines a Christian vs. Pat. How can you objectively prove one is right and the other is wrong?

Tiribulus believes that as a gay man, I am bound for hell. Pat believes that as a gay man, god will judge my heart and the way I treat my fellow men, and may go to heaven despite being gay. American Episcopalians believe my being gay is a complete non-issue.

All have faith, all believe they are Christians, yet all differ in their views on homosexuality. Who is right?[/quote]

Pat and Tirib agree on what is objectively true in Christianity. A sin. The American Episcopalians have jumped the shark. As I said, it’s moral weight in Christianity is not ambiguous. No faith which says it’s a complete non-issue is a Christian faith. Objectively, again, I am correct. The thing is, I’m sure you have enough knowledge of scripture to know there is no doubt on this issue. It is dealt with and plainly stated. Same goes for adultery or any fornication despite anyone’s attempt to say “well, Christianity doesn’t address any of that.”
[/quote]

The same could be said of divorce, or many other moral issues on which Christians disagree. You say they’ve jumped the shark, and they say they are true Christians. It comes down to how you interpret the bible, what you consider literal vs. allegorical, what you consider absolute vs. cultural, whether you believe in the possibility of ongoing revelation, etc. They are as sincere as you, and they have faith just like you. They’ve simply arrived at a different conclusion.

It’s no different than Tiribulus disagreeing with Pat on predestination vs. double predestination.[/quote]

You’re backtracking. You’ve already admitted that we can objectively discern what is true to the faith. Therefore, you can correctly say I am wrong in mistakenly saying that Hindus and Jews believe in the divinity of Christ. We aren’t disputing “faith” in general. We are discussing a very specific issue, and what is objectively true to the the faith in question, Christianity. You haven’t asked me my evidence, and I can understand why. We both know I have solid evidence, as you know enough of scripture to know what I have in mind. It is, without debate, in complete contradiction to Christianity. You’re hitting reset again, when I’ve already received agreement from you that we can identify teachings objectively true, or not, to in various faiths. But let’s do it again, in another way. “Christianity holds that men and women are not to commit themselves to each other in marriage. ‘Free love’ is instead the moral imperative.” Objectively untrue.

[/quote]

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Jews for Jesus?

The life of St. Issa?

You will find both Jews and Hindus that believe in Jesus divinity. [/quote]

But only Christians believe Jesus is the Christ. All others believe he’s a prophet, nothing more. [/quote]

And there’s atheistic Jews, too. And Christ and the earliest disciples were Jews. I’m talking about the Hebrew/Jewish faith. The old covenant, the torah, full stop. Making sense, yet? Or must I start drawing pictures?[/quote]

You post was, divinity, Jesus.

Divinity Jesus it is.

If you now backpedal and draw ever smaller circles when it comes to what defines a “Christian”, Forlifes point still stands.

[/quote]

No, it doesn’t. He knew exactly what I was asking and answered correctly. If you’re hung up on an “ethnic” description, instead of the obvious religious meaning we’re discussing, than this conversation is simply above you’re understanding. There’s no point in trying to be clever when no scholar would answer that the jewish faith teaches the divinity Christ. Knock it off and troll some other thread. Maybe begin your statement with “Pish-Posh…”[/quote]

No problem.

Pish posh, what a scholar says is irrelevant, if they get big enough as a group they get their own scholars that will tell them precisely what they want to hear, including bible verses and all.

What you are trying to pull off here is a thinly veiled appeal to authority when the issue is that in this area there not even is an universally accepted authority.

Not that it wouldnt be a logical fallacy if there was.

[/quote]

You be trolling.

1035

To expand this a little further you are also arguing in circles, you claim that you can say that every Christian believes certain things and then claim that everyone who does not is not really a Christian.

That is not an argument, that is you chasing your tail.

It also came as a surprise to a lot of Christians that indeed did not believe in Jesus divinity that he was actually the son of God.

There was no need for him to be, as the Messiah he only had to be from the Davidian line, which he supposedly was, even though his lineage is shaky at best.

1036

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Someone should point out to our resident atheist homosexual that it doesn’t matter which doctrine is true. All those who accept Christ get into Heaven.

And that leaves him out.

OUCH![/quote]

Big deal. If you don’t believe in Heaven, there’s no point in being butt hurt about not getting into it when you die.
[/quote]

except not…

Except for the eternal torment and hatred one experiences after they die if they do not get into Heaven or Purgatory.[/quote]

1037

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course we can. What we can’t do (at least most of the time) is objectively discern whether what a religious system teaches is actually true.[/quote]

But that’s not what you objected to when you objected to my “christian flavored” comment. I made a statement about the nature, the teaching, of Christianity and homosexuality. I wasn’t engaged in trying to prove the truth of that teaching. Again, only that it was incompatible WITH Christianity.

You:

[/quote]
because there is no objective standard by which to judge.[/quote]

Yes, there is…That’s my point. That was my point with the “Jews, Hindus, and Muslims believe in the divinity of Christ.” We can (even non-christians) research their holy scriptures and traditions. The holy text of the christian isn’t silent or ambiguous about this. Objectively, I am correct.[/quote]

They clearly state that they aren’t Christians, so there’s no definitional disagreement.

I’m talking about faiths disagreeing on what it actually means to be a Christian.

Look at how Tiribulus defines a Christian vs. Pat. How can you objectively prove one is right and the other is wrong?

Tiribulus believes that as a gay man, I am bound for hell. Pat believes that as a gay man, god will judge my heart and the way I treat my fellow men, and may go to heaven despite being gay. American Episcopalians believe my being gay is a complete non-issue.

All have faith, all believe they are Christians, yet all differ in their views on homosexuality. Who is right?[/quote]

Pat and Tirib agree on what is objectively true in Christianity. A sin. The American Episcopalians have jumped the shark. As I said, it’s moral weight in Christianity is not ambiguous. No faith which says it’s a complete non-issue is a Christian faith. Objectively, again, I am correct. The thing is, I’m sure you have enough knowledge of scripture to know there is no doubt on this issue. It is dealt with and plainly stated. Same goes for adultery or any fornication despite anyone’s attempt to say “well, Christianity doesn’t address any of that.”
[/quote]

The same could be said of divorce, or many other moral issues on which Christians disagree. You say they’ve jumped the shark, and they say they are true Christians. It comes down to how you interpret the bible, what you consider literal vs. allegorical, what you consider absolute vs. cultural, whether you believe in the possibility of ongoing revelation, etc. They are as sincere as you, and they have faith just like you. They’ve simply arrived at a different conclusion.

It’s no different than Tiribulus disagreeing with Pat on predestination vs. double predestination.[/quote]

You’re backtracking. You’ve already admitted that we can objectively discern what is true to the faith. Therefore, you can correctly say I am wrong in mistakenly saying that Hindus and Jews believe in the divinity of Christ. We aren’t disputing “faith” in general. We are discussing a very specific issue, and what is objectively true to the the faith in question, Christianity. You haven’t asked me my evidence, and I can understand why. We both know I have solid evidence, as you know enough of scripture to know what I have in mind. It is, without debate, in complete contradiction to Christianity. You’re hitting reset again, when I’ve already received agreement from you that we can identify teachings objectively true, or not, to in various faiths. But let’s do it again, in another way. “Christianity holds that men and women are not to commit themselves to each other in marriage. ‘Free love’ is instead the moral imperative.” Objectively untrue.

[/quote]

I said you can objectively determine that generally, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus don’t recognize the divinity of Jesus.

However, wouldn’t you agree there is disagreement on what constitutes a “true Christian”?

Jefferson called himself a Christian, but didn’t recognize the divinity of Jesus. Was he a true Christian?

Tiribulus insists Catholics aren’t true Christians, but Pat disagrees. Who is right?

Mormons consider themselves to be true Christians, but certain other sects disagree. Who is objectively right?

I can post a long list of reasons certain sects accept homosexuality, and another long list of reasons certain sects don’t. All have faith, all insist they are Christian and not Christian-flavored. Who is right?

1038

[quote]forlife wrote:

I can post a long list of reasons certain sects accept homosexuality, and another long list of reasons certain sects don’t. All have faith, all insist they are Christian and not Chrisian-flavored. Who is right?[/quote]

You can’t post any scriptural reference that condones homosexuality, turning 180 degrees from the foundational hebrew faith. I can post old and new testament scripture condemning it. It is objectively outside of Christ’s/Christian teaching. Any argument otherwise is intellectually dishonest, as it CAN be answered with simple research of the faith’s text(s). AS any unbiased scholar would be capable of doing. “Hey guys, Christianity teaches that Shiva the Destroyer is coming to make us all Ice cream cones.” “Hey guys, Christianity teaches pre-marital sex is good for the soul.”

That’s it for me on this topic. I’m not going to entertain the ludicrous with you guys. Research is a basic topic in college. If you haven’t picked up the ability to do it, you should. Objectively, the churches in question, are not Christian. Simple reading of the central holy text of the faith never condones it, and always condemns it. Any conclusion outside of the mainstream is a complete disconnect from what it easily and objectively researched. Stop trolling my posts, or I’m giving up on the both of you and make use of the ignore function. Don’t care if I do? Me neither.

Tired of conversations where people choose to play dumb. Especially when they’re supposedly college educated.

1039

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

I can post a long list of reasons certain sects accept homosexuality, and another long list of reasons certain sects don’t. All have faith, all insist they are Christian and not Chrisian-flavored. Who is right?[/quote]

You can’t post any scriptural reference that condones homosexuality, turning 180 degrees from the foundational hebrew faith. I can post old and new testament scripture condemning it. It is objectively outside of Christ’s/Christian teaching. Any argument otherwise is intellectually dishonest, as it CAN be answered with simple research of the faith’s text(s). AS any unbiased scholar would be capable of doing. “Hey guys, Christianity teaches that Shiva the Destroyer is coming to make us all Ice cream cones.” “Hey guys, Christianity teaches pre-marital sex is good for the soul.”

That’s it for me on this topic. I’m not going to entertain the ludicrous with you guys. Research is a basic topic in college. If you haven’t picked up the ability to do it, you should. Objectively, the churches in question, are not Christian. Simple reading of the central holy text of the faith never condones it, and always condemns it. Any conclusion outside of the mainstream is a complete disconnect from what it easily and objectively researched. Stop trolling my posts, or I’m giving up on the both of you and make use of the ignore function. Don’t care if I do? Me neither.

Tired of conversations where people choose to play dumb. Especially when they’re supposedly college educated.

[/quote]

So Mormons, Calvinists, and any other sect that disagrees with your definition of a true Christian are just intellectually dishonest trolls, and couldn’t possibly be sincere in their faith?

Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. who accept homosexuality are similarly intellectually dishonest trolls, lacking real faith?

Come on, dude. They’re as sincere as you are. They may be wrong from your perspective, but don’t insult their sincerity.

1040

[quote]forlife wrote:

Come on, dude. They’re as sincere as you are. They may be wrong from your perspective, but don’t insult their sincerity.[/quote]

We aren’t speaking about SINCERITY, knock it off. Stop moving the goal posts. We are talking about what we CAN know about what Christianity absolutely teaches. We are talking about how, objectively, Christianity condemns homosexuality, period. Both of us know I can turn right to the holy text these ‘churches’ are supposedly centered around and prove my case. Any evidence you have will fall outside of their own holy text. And, would contradict what is explicitly stated in their own holy text. You might as well be sitting here sticking up for pro-adultery Christianity as being intellectually honest. If you’re claiming to be an academic, who seeks knowledge through objective means, you’re not doing yourself a favor.

  1. Show us where the Christian holy text condones homosexuality.
  2. Give us the Christian tradition which condones homosexuality WITHOUT contradicting it’s holy text.
  3. I will, if need be, provide scripture that flatly condemns it. No allegories, no drawn out prose. Just short and simple condemnations. The problem is, I know you’re aware of such, from both Old and New testament. So, if you request it, I will post it. But I’ll know you’re deliberately trying to exhaust my patience in responding, making me jump through hoops when we both know it was never necessary. You already know what the Bible says about homosexuality, men with men, and women with women. You know it’s a clear on the practice as it is about adultery.
1041

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Come on, dude. They’re as sincere as you are. They may be wrong from your perspective, but don’t insult their sincerity.[/quote]

We aren’t speaking about SINCERITY, knock it off. Stop moving the goal posts. We are talking about what we CAN know about what Christianity absolutely teaches. We are talking about how, objectively, Christianity condemns homosexuality, period. Both of us know I can turn right to the holy text these ‘churches’ are supposedly centered around and prove my case. Any evidence you have will fall outside of their own holy text. And, would contradict what is explicitly stated in their own holy text. You might as well be sitting here sticking up for pro-adultery Christianity as being intellectually honest. If you’re claiming to be an academic, who seeks knowledge through objective means, you’re not doing yourself a favor.

  1. Show us where the Christian holy text condones homosexuality.
  2. Give us the Christian tradition which condones homosexuality WITHOUT contradicting it’s holy text.
  3. I will, if need be, provide scripture that flatly condemns it. No allegories, no drawn out prose. Just short and simple condemnations. The problem is, I know you’re aware of such, from both Old and New testament. So, if you request it, I will post it. But I’ll know you’re deliberately trying to exhaust my patience in responding, making me jump through hoops when we both know it was never necessary. You already know what the Bible says about homosexuality, men with men, and women with women. You know it’s a clear on the practice as it is about adultery. [/quote]

If you acknowledge their sincerity, you must acknowledge that the Christian position on homosexuality is subject to interpretation. Episcopalians and Lutherans consider themselves to be 100% Christian. They know the bible as well as you, they have as much faith as you, but their interpretation is different.

Does that surprise you? It’s no different than Calvinists and Catholics having different interpretations on predestination.

I can post details if you like, but here are some of their reasons for believing as they do:

  1. The bible doesn’t specifically condemn committed, monogamous same sex relationships. The translation refers to male prostitution rather than committed gay relationships.

  2. Condemnations of homosexuality in the bible reflect the cultural mores of the time, in the same way that condemnations of women speaking in church or having their heads uncovered reflect the cultural mores of the time.

  3. The bible condemns other practices like divorce; why do believers ignore these condemnations while focusing on the small handful of passages about homosexuality?

  4. Jesus himself never said a word about homosexuality. If it was so important, why didn’t he address it specifically?

I don’t agree or disagree with any of this, because in my opinion the bible is nothing more than a semi-historical, semi-fictional, semi-haphazard collection of writings from an antiquated culture. I’m just sharing with you what these other Christian sects believe. Whether or not you agree with them, I’m glad you at least acknowledge their earnestness and sincerity.

1042

[quote]forlife wrote:

  1. The bible doesn’t specifically condemn committed, monogamous same sex relationships.[/quote]

Err, unless they’re completely celibate you’ve no basis for saying this.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Leviticus 18:22

And others.

Now, show me one verse mentioning homosexual activity in a positive light. The very activity of a man laying with a man, as with a woman, is condemned. That is universal. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. Not once is a sanctioned institutions ever discussed as a proper place for homosexual activity. A man laying with a woman isn’t condemned universally. Marriage, man and wife. A sanctioned and proper place.

Oh, and the only sanctioned marriage was man and wife. Riddled throughout, we both know I’ve no need to post one. But you need one example of man and man being sanctioned. Give me just one.

Not relevant. Stay on topic.

Completely irrelevant. What other people do or say about other topics isn’t germane. You and I are talking about homosexuality. You as an objective fact seeker must support the implication that homosexuality isn’t condemned in the Christian holy text. I have supported that is, see my verses.

He is a continuation and fulfillment of the old covenant, he didn’t have to say anything. It wasn’t in doubt, you see. Christian sexual morality had already been present. He and his disciples were Jews. See the lev verse if you need a reminder what old covenant faith taught. Though he did repeat that sanctioned place for sex was between man and wife. No shockers about wife and wife, or man and man delivered.

Again, not relevant. It doesn’t matter if you thought the bible was worth no more than “A Game of Thrones.” You can still pick up either, check on a claim about what is or isn’t expressed there, and answer objectively. When did your feelings about the bible become the topic under scrutiny? Stay on topic, again.

I’m tired of chasing tangents. If you want to drop verses on their behalf, do so. Only then we’ll we continue. We both know that the only way homosexual activity is ever mentioned, is in terms that leave no doubt to it being condemned. Not once mentioned positively. Not once.

Until you’re willing to share some verse about homosexuality I’ve apparently never seen, there’s just nothing else to be said. There simply isn’t. It’s not a debate if I can, and am willing to list verse, and my opponent has nothing more to add than ‘nuh-uh.’ It’s not a mature conversation, though it pretty much makes my case for me.

When you challenged my little ‘fixed’ post of yours, and I said something like “Christianity allows for adultery,” you should’ve realized that there are core objective truths which, hey, even an atheist scholar could pick up with a simple reading. Good day.