gay marriage

[Permalost]

A non-Christian who believes what the Bible says? You're like a reverse Catholic!

[BoonDog]

I didn't post Bible quotes, because I wanted to keep my long post short. But, You're correct. However, if you look at (AKJ) Mark 16:16-20 You'll see, "Go forth and preach the gospel to every creature, baptizing them, etc, etc," .

That is why I suggest that you always cite when using scripture as to not cause confusion.

If you look later in James 3:1 "Not many of you should be teachers."

As has been pointed out being a teach and preaching the good news are two different things. You are confusing two different issues.



Please follow what I asked of you regarding Sodom. Please use Genesis to explain why Sodom was destroyed. This will go to why you argument about Christians thinking that allowing Gay marriage is God punishing them is invalid. Study carefully.

What I don't understand is why the need to keep it illegal. Gay people will be gay regardless.

And that is where Christians will divide with you. They will state the homosexuals can change and not practice homosexuality. They will also state why marriage is a religious act and should not be redefined to include a group that is practicing a sinful act in their minds. It is pretty simple and has nothing to do with Calvinism.

The US Constitution guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness and guarantees
the freedom of religion.

The US Constitution is a non issue as we are discussing why Christians world wide may not agree with homosexual marriage.

My point is, if gay marriage is allowed in our country, it doesn't make Christians a failure, and it doesn't mean Christians support it. A.

That was not your original argument. Your original argument was on how Calvinism caused Christians to oppose gay marriage supported by your misunderstanding of Calvin's views. This in itself is funny, as Chuck pointed out, since the bulk of Christians do not follow Calvin. You defined a large set by your misunderstanding of a subset. That is my main beef. You can have your views and even your understanding of Scripture. Just as we do not like posters who comment on martial arts without an understanding of them, please do not post on a subject without at least a little more scholarly work on your part.

[It is Fake]

That is why I suggest that you always cite when using scripture as to not cause confusion.



As has been pointed out being a teach and preaching the good news are two different things. You are confusing two different issues.



Please follow what I asked of you regarding Sodom. Please use Genesis to explain why Sodom was destroyed. This will go to why you argument about Christians thinking that allowing Gay marriage is God punishing them is invalid. Study carefully.



And that is where Christians will divide with you. They will state the homosexuals can change and not practice homosexuality. They will also state why marriage is a religious act and should not be redefined to include a group that is practicing a sinful act in their minds. It is pretty simple and has nothing to do with Calvinism.



The US Constitution is a non issue as we are discussing why Christians world wide may not agree with homosexual marriage.



That was not your original argument. Your original argument was on how Calvinism caused Christians to oppose gay marriage supported by your misunderstanding of Calvin's views. This in itself is funny, as Chuck pointed out, since the bulk of Christians do not follow Calvin. You defined a large set by your misunderstanding of a subset. That is my main beef. You can have your views and even your understanding of Scripture. Just as we do not like posters who comment on martial arts without an understanding of them, please do not post on a subject without at least a little more scholarly work on your part.

....and this and Sokara's post demonstrate why I DESPISE organized religion.

[Vieux Normand]

...I DESPISE organized religion.

After days of seeing naught but black smoke emerge from the chapel beneath the smouldering sun, the gathered multitudes' devotion was finally rewarded.

As the much-anticipated tide of crimson gore cascaded from the chimney onto St. Peter's Square, a cardinal--looking like he'd very nearly undergone the Change himself--stood at the balcony and looked down with bloodspattered orbs upon the multitudes, all of whom bared their teeth and swayed in holy rapture. From his torn and blackened jaws rasped the words all had awaited:

"T'rh'an'staan...Popatullllllaaaaaaah!"

The answering feral shriek from those teeming below was counterpointed by the sudden, thundering tones of the Newly-Changed One still within the ancient edifice. As had happened for thousands of years, great limbs--sometimes seeming many-jointed and sometimes moving like tentacles--emerged from the window and arced their terminal scythe-claws down towards the devout, one skewering the announcing Cardinal in its passage.

As the Swiss Guards corralled those whose faith was not enough to prevent them trying to flee, the new Pontiff squeezed Its chitinous bulk out of the window and descended amongst the masses, whereupon sets of newly-hardened mandibles began their holy work, there upon the ochre-stained tiles.

[Sorekara]

As has been pointed out being a teach and preaching the good news are two different things. You are confusing two different issues.

Maybe so, it is a deeper conversation that what can be carried out on this thread. It still doesn't change what I say. Apparently I'm not being very clear. Most people that "preach" also take it upon themselves to "teach". Many of those who decide to do either don't realize how Calvinism has affected their beliefs. I guess, a better way to put it is, too many Christians are completely subjective when it comes to reading or studying the Bible. Look at the whole Rapture debate. The great commission isn't for everyone. And, even if I'm wrong, it still doesn't change the fact, we're not supposed to try to force people to listen or believe or behave like we do.

Please follow what I asked of you regarding Sodom. Please use Genesis to explain why Sodom was destroyed. This will go to why you argument about Christians thinking that allowing Gay marriage is God punishing them is invalid. Study carefully.

I can do this, but what's the point. One verse in the Bible saying something doesn't negate the Bible further explaining in another part. What I say still stands true. The reason it stands true, is because, Scripture interprets Scripture. As you know. I'm not saying sexual immorality wasn't A reason for Sodom being destroyed. It's just not the only and main reason. Thinking (knowing) that some Christians think God will punish them along with whoever else is valid. I've talked with many people who feel this way. Most average Joe Christians when asked, "Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?" will reply, "Homosexuality". When in fact is only part of the reason, and not the complete reason.

And that is where Christians will divide with you. They will state the homosexuals can change and not practice homosexuality. They will also state why marriage is a religious act and should not be redefined to include a group that is practicing a sinful act in their minds. It is pretty simple and has nothing to do with Calvinism.

Not all Christians divide with me on this. There are quite a few that argue with me about this regularly. Gays changing or not practicing is not what I'm arguing. Homosexuality being a sin is not what I'm arguing. The fact that Christians feel the need to control the laws to force others to obey a law they are not bound by is wrong. That's my point. Again, It's an idea of Calvinism that has blead it's way into Christianity. My point, also, was that Christians should feel free to preach if that's what's in their hearts. Christians should not try to force the issue. If anyone doesn't want to hear you're supposed to leave it alone.

The US Constitution is a non issue as we are discussing why Christians world wide may not agree with homosexual marriage.

The US Constitution is a big part of the issue. The Constitution guarantees freedoms and rights. Christians do not have the right to take any of that away from someone else. Inside the Church, and inside our homes and inside ourselves, we have the right to believe and worship and follow our God in the way we see fit. We do not have the right, God given, or Constitutional given, to take any rights away from anyone else. That is the entire issue. And an explanation why some feel we have that right, is where Calvinism comes in. I never said Christians aren't, or shouldn't be against Gay marriage as far as a religious concern. I just said, Christians shouldn't make laws for it to be illegal. My argument is, if Gay marriage is legal, it doesn't mean Christians have failed. This is a secular society, with a secular Government. Those who are part of a secular society are not bound by the Laws of God.

That was not your original argument. Your original argument was on how Calvinism caused Christians to oppose gay marriage supported by your misunderstanding of Calvin's views.

Christians supporting or opposing gay marriage was never part of my discussion.As a matter of fact, I said, "if they want to preach fine" My argument was on how ideas of Calvinism infiltrated ideas of Christianity and causing a lot of Christians to believe they have the right to control and dictate the morals of a secular society around them. If the issue were gay marriage accepted within the church, that's a completely different topic. The only thing I misunderstood of Calvin's views, was mistaking the 5 points of Calvinism. My other point was that the world hates Christians not because of good being done, but because of oppression and attempts to dictate how others should believe or behave.

This in itself is funny, as Chuck pointed out, since the bulk of Christians do not follow Calvin. You defined a large set by your misunderstanding of a subset. That is my main beef. You can have your views and even your understanding of Scripture.

Now, here we get to the heart of the matter. I never said the bulk of Christians. What I did say were the ideas of Calvinism being part of ideas of Christianity without them realizing it. Given what you stated you understood from my post, I completely understand what you're saying. I don't think you understood my point at all.

You can have your views and even your understanding of Scripture

Just as we do not like posters who comment on martial arts without an understanding of them, please do not post on a subject without at least a little more scholarly work on your part.

Nothing lacking scholarly on my part. Only a simple matter of a misunderstanding of a view and an explanation, on your part.

[Homernoid]

You can have your views and even your understanding of Scripture. Just as we do not like posters who comment on martial arts without an understanding of them, please do not post on a subject without at least a little more scholarly work on your part.

I would really prefere people to post for themselves and not claiming to speak for a (w)hole bunch of people. Group-pressure claiming rhetorics seem foul to me, much more, I am irritated about efforts of cutting free speech, when you don#t like the arguments of the other side.

IMO Sorekara's argumentation, using constitutional rights immediately, leads towards human rights eventually. This offers the opportunity of more freedom to more people, without harming anyone or cutting freedom - the demand of tolerance hardly causes harm or cuts freedom, don't you think?

[ChuckWepner]

Maybe so, it is a deeper conversation that what can be carried out on this thread. It still doesn't change what I say. Apparently I'm not being very clear. Most people that "preach" also take it upon themselves to "teach". Many of those who decide to do either don't realize how Calvinism has affected their beliefs. I guess, a better way to put it is, too many Christians are completely subjective when it comes to reading or studying the Bible. Look at the whole Rapture debate. The great commission isn't for everyone. And, even if I'm wrong, it still doesn't change the fact, we're not supposed to try to force people to listen or believe or behave like we do.

I can do this, but what's the point. One verse in the Bible saying something doesn't negate the Bible further explaining in another part. What I say still stands true. The reason it stands true, is because, Scripture interprets Scripture. As you know. I'm not saying sexual immorality wasn't A reason for Sodom being destroyed. It's just not the only and main reason. Thinking (knowing) that some Christians think God will punish them along with whoever else is valid. I've talked with many people who feel this way. Most average Joe Christians when asked, "Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?" will reply, "Homosexuality". When in fact is only part of the reason, and not the complete reason.

Not all Christians divide with me on this. There are quite a few that argue with me about this regularly. Gays changing or not practicing is not what I'm arguing. Homosexuality being a sin is not what I'm arguing. The fact that Christians feel the need to control the laws to force others to obey a law they are not bound by is wrong. That's my point. Again, It's an idea of Calvinism that has blead it's way into Christianity. My point, also, was that Christians should feel free to preach if that's what's in their hearts. Christians should not try to force the issue. If anyone doesn't want to hear you're supposed to leave it alone.

The US Constitution is a big part of the issue. The Constitution guarantees freedoms and rights. Christians do not have the right to take any of that away from someone else. Inside the Church, and inside our homes and inside ourselves, we have the right to believe and worship and follow our God in the way we see fit. We do not have the right, God given, or Constitutional given, to take any rights away from anyone else. That is the entire issue. And an explanation why some feel we have that right, is where Calvinism comes in. I never said Christians aren't, or shouldn't be against Gay marriage as far as a religious concern. I just said, Christians shouldn't make laws for it to be illegal. My argument is, if Gay marriage is legal, it doesn't mean Christians have failed. This is a secular society, with a secular Government. Those who are part of a secular society are not bound by the Laws of God.

Christians supporting or opposing gay marriage was never part of my discussion.As a matter of fact, I said, "if they want to preach fine" My argument was on how ideas of Calvinism infiltrated ideas of Christianity and causing a lot of Christians to believe they have the right to control and dictate the morals of a secular society around them. If the issue were gay marriage accepted within the church, that's a completely different topic. The only thing I misunderstood of Calvin's views, was mistaking the 5 points of Calvinism. My other point was that the world hates Christians not because of good being done, but because of oppression and attempts to dictate how others should believe or behave.

Now, here we get to the heart of the matter. I never said the bulk of Christians. What I did say were the ideas of Calvinism being part of ideas of Christianity without them realizing it. Given what you stated you understood from my post, I completely understand what you're saying. I don't think you understood my point at all.

Nothing lacking scholarly on my part. Only a simple matter of a misunderstanding of a view and an explanation, on your part.

You have a lot of views about what Christians do and why they do those things. Unfortunately, you don't know what you are talking about. You keep throwing around "Calvinism" when the only reference you made to Calvinism was a complete miss about the most famous aspect of Calvinism.

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You are offering ignorant, confused, armchair sociology of religion, as well as putting forward a confused, scattershot account of what Christians should do, based on poorly understood fragments of scripture and irrelevant references to the Constitution.

Do you not realize that your alleged reference to Calvinism was a complete failure? You don't know what Calvinism is. Stop talking about it until you do. I'm not a Calvinist, but I've studied Calvin and Calvinism both in historical and in philosophical / theological terms. Unless you can explain what you mean by Calvinism here (without completely muffing it this time) and give some reason to think that it plays the role you suggest, it will be clear that you are still just talking out your ass and regurgitating some pop-sociological account of why those Christians are so mean that you don't even understand.

So far, about 75% of your specific claims have been demonstrable bullshit. Do you want to try offering some serious reasoning or is that the level you are comfortable at?

[ChuckWepner]

I would really prefere people to post for themselves and not claiming to speak for a (w)hole bunch of people. Group-pressure claiming rhetorics seem foul to me, much more, I am irritated about efforts of cutting free speech, when you don#t like the arguments of the other side.

IMO Sorekara's argumentation, using constitutional rights immediately, leads towards human rights eventually. This offers the opportunity of more freedom to more people, without harming anyone or cutting freedom - the demand of tolerance hardly causes harm or cuts freedom, don't you think?

On Bullshido, when you offer claims that imply knowledge or expertise about something, you are expected to have that knowledge or expertise. No one's free speech is curtailed by the demand that they back their claims up with proper evidence or scholarship, especially when they are making sweeping claims which are littered with obvious factual errors. Boondog didn't make this up, it is part of the fundamental ethos of the site. Just because the topic is religion-related doesn't mean that one should be able to offer bogus historical and sociological claims with impunity.

As for your claim about tolerance, this is convincing, if you already believe that freedom and tolerance are the only values at stake. Of course, those who oppose same-sex marriage believe that other things of value would be sacrificed if we expanded freedom in that way.

That is the real crux of the issue, I would argue: would society lose something of such considerable value if it permitted same-sex marriage that it is justified in restricting the freedom of homosexuals from marrying? That is the case that needs to be made by opponents of same-sex marriage, because prima facie considerations of equal liberty seem clearly to favor it.

[Homernoid]

On Bullshido, when you offer claims that imply knowledge or expertise about something, you are expected to have that knowledge or expertise. No one's free speech is curtailed by the demand that they back their claims up with proper evidence or scholarship, especially when they are making sweeping claims which are littered with obvious factual errors. Boondog didn't make this up, it is part of the fundamental ethos of the site. Just because the topic is religion-related doesn't mean that one should be able to offer bogus historical and sociological claims with impunity.

You are claiming them so, I'm fine with that. From my point of view Sorekara didn't missed it entirely, at least there are some strong points inside.

As for your claim about tolerance, this is convincing, if you already believe that freedom and tolerance are the only values at stake. Of course, those who oppose same-sex marriage believe that other things of value would be sacrificed if we expanded freedom in that way.

I believe in human rights and do value peace and freedom for all people - organized religions of any kind, through their dumb and commited devotees, have proven historically that they tend to be less of help in that issue. Hence my reservation to cherish religion-based arguments on legal questions.
[Edit] I am not discussing, if it is religion-followers or religions/folowers are being captured or exploited by powerplay makers, etc.

That is the real crux of the issue, I would argue: would society lose something of such considerable value if it permitted same-sex marriage that it is justified in restricting the freedom of homosexuals from marrying? That is the case that needs to be made by opponents of same-sex marriage, because prima facie considerations of equal liberty seem clearly to favor it.

agreed

not talking bout Calvin here, cause I read M Weber and some others on that issue.

[BoonDog]

....and this and Sokara's post demonstrate why I DESPISE organized religion.

Understandable. I am just trying to get Sokara to actually cite his justification for his beliefs. So far it has been "my opinion is..." Look at my location. My state, last election, just passed a law allowing for gay marriage. I heard a lot from Christians on why they were opposed to homosexual unions. Almost every one of them cited Genesis 3 where, in their view, God ordained marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. I can cite many teachers from the early church onward who also hold this view. I am trying to see where Sokara cites the view he/she espoused.

Many of those who decide to do either don't realize how Calvinism has affected their beliefs. .

Please cite Calvin's view on gay marriage. Please also cite your evidence that Calvinism influenced Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and other non Calvinist churches. Can you define the teachings of Calvin on government and marriage? Hint, Calvin may have more in line with Thomas Jefferson and his writings to the Baptist Church.

As you know. I'm not saying sexual immorality wasn't A reason for Sodom being destroyed. It's just not the only and main reason.

Please show where I stated that was the reason. Please use the actual account of the destruction in Genesis to explain why the cities were destroyed.

Most average Joe Christians when asked, "Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?" will reply, "Homosexuality".

And they would be incorrect and get the same lecture I am giving you. Most Christians I talk to do not think that and understand by reading Genesis why the cities were destroyed.

The fact that Christians feel the need to control the laws to force others to obey a law they are not bound by is wrong. That's my point. Again, It's an idea of Calvinism that has blead it's way into Christianity.

Please show how this is strictly a Calvinist view point. Also, it is not wrong for a group to voice their views if they think the laws of the government are going against their beliefs.

The US Constitution is a big part of the issue.

Only in the US. Seeing at the OP is discussing New Zealand, I do not think the US Constitution plays much of a role.

My argument was on how ideas of Calvinism infiltrated ideas of Christianity and causing a lot of Christians to believe they have the right to control and dictate the morals of a secular society around them.

So your original argument was not about the influence of Calvinism on the issue of gay marriage for Christians, but on the influence of Calvinism on the issue of "morals of a secular society." Glad you agree that this was your original argument as I stated. Now, please explain this Calvinism you keep talking about and Calvin's view of Government's role.

I never said the bulk of Christians. What I did say were the ideas of Calvinism being part of ideas of Christianity without them realizing it.

So Calvinism permeates Christianity, but not the bulk of Christians? You do seem to have some strange understandings. What I am stating is that you do not understand the view of Calvin, nor do you understand Christianity all that well.

Nothing lacking scholarly on my part.

Except any scholarly understanding of Calvin, the Church, Christian views and the world or any citation for you beliefs on why Christians act the way they do. Other than that you are doing a bang up job of explaining why YOU are upset at Christians voicing their opinions on matters they hold dear.

[BoonDog]

I am irritated about efforts of cutting free speech, when you don#t like the arguments of the other side.

Please show where I stated Sokara cannot have an opinion. All I stated was to use evidence to support the claim.

Using constitutional rights immediately, leads towards human rights eventually.

My view on the US Constitution has no bearing on what Calvin's teaching are or on Christian stances on gay marriage are.

[It is Fake]

Understandable. I am just trying to get Sokara to actually cite his justification for his beliefs. So far it has been "my opinion is..." Look at my location. My state, last election, just passed a law allowing for gay marriage. I heard a lot from Christians on why they were opposed to homosexual unions. Almost every one of them cited Genesis 3 where, in their view, God ordained marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. I can cite many teachers from the early church onward who also hold this view. I am trying to see where Sokara cites the view he/she espoused.

Since religion leads to misunderstandings, weird comments about voting, location and legalities let me clarify my comment.

I despise it because religion is SO WIDE OPEN for interpretation, it is an endeavor in futility to expect a logical conclusion. It has nothing to do with who is right, wrong or misreading Calvin.

You can see what I mean now, as I just started reading the comments while I crafted this response.

[BoonDog]

I despise it because religion is SO WIDE OPEN for interpretation, it is an endeavor in futility to expect a logical conclusion. It has nothing to do with who is right, wrong or misreading Calvin..

But that is just your interpretation :)

I see where you are coming from. Honestly, I would not mind meeting one day with you, Omega, and Der and discussing Religion.

[It is Fake]

It'd be interesting to say the least.

[Homernoid]

Please show where I stated Sokara cannot have an opinion. All I stated was to use evidence to support the claim.

I read this here:

You can have your views and even your understanding of Scripture. Just as we do not like posters who comment on martial arts without an understanding of them, please do not post on a subject without at least a little more scholarly work on your part.

Because, that is, IMO the point of free speech - unreasonable applications are certainly part of it. Every bubble so to speak.

My view on the US Constitution has no bearing on what Calvin's teaching are or on Christian stances on gay marriage are.

I thout Sorekara brought this kind of argument up. This is, where his argument is heading, as far I can see.
So no matter at all here.