U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

The Dark Elf wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Onan's sin was not the "spilling of seed," per se; rather, the context of the passage suggests that his sin was the shirking of his familial obligations.  And yet both learned Jewish rabbis and important Christian Ecclesiastes interpreted the passage to refer to the "spilling of seed" as the sin, and that reading was maintained down through the ages to the 20th century. And the pope used the passage to ban contraception among Catholics in 1930. The Muslims believe the same thing in regards to egregious seed spilling by the way; except the soldiers of Mohammed had license to rape non-Muslim women and force captive women into orgies (but only if they were not on their period) because, after all, Islam is a religion of peace. Again, my point was that the book(s) are open to interpretation and therefore are unreliable. To have theologians of the same religion parsing out words and arguing over them appears to me to be the same as scientists debating hypotheticals. I do not worship science either.

You didn't answer my point.  You asked me to show that the Bible didn't identify sex without procreation was wrong and I did.  The fact that some people disagree with me does not disprove my point, neither does the fact that people have interpreted the Bible differently.

The Dark Elf wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: As to the Levitical regulations...are you talking about the same ones that prohibit eating bacon and wearing synthetic garments?  Christians are no longer bound to the Law, as Paul makes quite clear in Galatians, Romans, and Colossians.  The Law was supposed to be burdensome and impossible to keep; it was not meant to establish a universal moral code but rather to set God's chosen people apart and to point them toward Christ.  Now that Christ has fulfilled the Law, we need not submit to dietary restrictions or circumcision or laws about ritual impurity due to the spilling of semen.  The reason that Christians do not follow those laws is not that we "cherry pick" through them; it's that we have been freed from them. The whole idea that you can eschew some repugnant ideas, yet retain others (like the ten commandments, for instance) is laughable. Paul, in addition to being a misogynist, was a snake oil salesman and promoter. The only way he could sell Christianity to Gentiles was to make it more palatable. Jesus adhered to the Law as any pious Jew. Jesus never said ignore the parts you don't like, Paul made all that up.

On the contrary, Jesus broke the Law, and allowed others to do so.  He healed a man on the Sabbath (punishable by death), allowed his disciples to gather grain on the Sabbath (punishable by death), and declared that "it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth"; thereby freeing his followers from Jewish dietary restrictions.  Paul was merely expanding and interpreting the teaching of Christ on the issue.  Scripture makes it clear that the whole Law was fulfilled by Christ, and that Christians have been freed from the whole Law; there are many parts of Christian morality that overlap with the Mosaic Law but Christians do not abide by that morality because it is part of the Law.  The Mosaic Law and Christian ethics, actually, are very different; Christian ethics have a strong situational element due to their foundation on the concept of love; I wouldn't call it "situational ethics" per se, but it shares many similarities with that ethical system (which was actually originally a Christian idea).  This is quite different from the parsed-out, absolute positions of the Mosaic Law.  It is true that legalism has been a problem in the church as long as it has been in existence (evidence the book of Galatians, for example) but that doesn't mean that Scripture teaches it.

The Dark Elf wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: And the church fathers also said negative things about music, science, and a host of other things.  Their opinions are helpful and often enlightening, as they lived close to the time of Christ and the writing of the Scriptures.  However, their perspectives were tainted by the times, just as ours are; and many were influenced by neo-platonism to the expense of proper Scriptural doctrine.  Christians do not hold to their writings as inspired truth, as we do the Scriptures, so all you have proved with their quotes is, as I said, that some Christians believed what you are saying at some point in time.  That doesn't make it true biblical doctrine. And yet you rabbit on about Paul. How is his writing inspired truth, and someone like Jerome or Augustine are not? Paul never met Christ, he fell off his horse and claimed to see a vision. It was most likely a concussion. Reading Paul, he's not bloody Christlike.

You asked for an argument from Scripture, as it is the authoritative text for what Christians believe.  I gave you one.  Christians consider Paul's writing to be part of the canon.  His writings are absolutely authoritative for Christians and the church fathers' are not.

The Dark Elf wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Furthermore, I'm tired of being accused of "foisting my opinion on everyone else in the courts and congress."  I've already made it perfectly clear in this thread that I have no desire to prohibit homosexuals from getting married or to prohibit sexual immorality in general, and I would prefer that you not assume that I hold certain opinions merely because you have pre-existing assumptions of what Christians must believe. I will retract the "foisting" comment in regards to you, and aim it at large. But I will say that you do amuse me when you say I have "pre-existing assumptions" of what Christians believe, as if I was never one myself, have not studied extensively (having a background in historical research), and do not interact with Christian friends and family on a daily basis. I did not become anti-religious over night. That epiphany was years in the making.

The basis of your assumptions on personal experience does not alter the fact that they are assumptions.  That was not a personal attack, by the way.

The Dark Elf wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: And on the marriage topic; I may have been unclear if my previous statements made it sound like I think marriage is a horrible thing that ends up badly for everyone.  On the contrary, I think marriage is a good thing, and that a good marriage is ultimately fulfilling.  But I do believe that, like everything else, it is tainted by sin, and that it is hard, not always pleasant, and involves conflict and strife like any other relationship, except intensified by the very nature of the marriage relationship.  With that said, I stick by what I said before. You have my sympathy. It is a terrible viewpoint to believe everything is tainted with sin. How sad it is that you must lug about such an unnecessary burden.

On the contrary, I see it as merely realistic.  Whether or not you believe in the concept of sin, it must be admitted that human behavior is full of selfishness, deceit, pride, etc.; things that are considered by Christians to be sin.  This does not mean that there is no good in the world; notice I said tainted, not ruined.

Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - June 06 2013 at 00:21

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: Because oftentimes, when I've "engag(ed) other people" they have lied to me.  Do you know what you're doing?  Here, I'll explain it to you: in the Bible, Jesus and the Holy Spirit both are referred to as an "Advocate".  The actual word used is "parakletos" - it means defense attorney.  Do you know what word is used for "The Satan"?  Accuser.  He's the prosecution lawyer.  When you insist no one is trustworthy and you can't listen to anyone, which one of these two's voices are you listening to more?  Which one do you think you're doing a better job of representing? Also you're assuming that the perspective you have is most definitely the right one without examining any other perspectives to find out if they have merit.  The Bible also has something to say about that - it's called pride. You realize Rob has studied Scripture extensively and considered all kinds of different perspectives and has good reasons to hold the opinions he does, right?

I don't care.  There's never an excuse for pride.  No matter how much Scripture studying you've done, no matter how many perspectives you've taken a look at, you should always test yourself.  The scientific community got it right on this one, and the religious community has not.

Epignosis wrote: Consider John 6:70, where Jesus calls Judas Iscariot a devil.

Epignosis wrote:   I think I've already strayed off topic enough, so I have responded to you in a more appropriate place: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=56485&PID=4792048#4792048

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: On the contrary, I see it as merely realistic.  Whether or not you believe in the concept of sin, it must be admitted that human behavior is full of selfishness, deceit, pride, etc.; things that are considered by Christians to be sin.  This does not mean that there is no good in the world; notice I said tainted, not ruined.

What exactly is selfish, deceitful or vain about a happy and long lasting married union where both partners have remained loyal to each other to the very end?  It is ok for you to believe what your scriptures tell you but as Dean already pointed out once before, the moment you try to impose these beliefs on general logic and values, you are going to get into trouble.  I could show you so many couples I know where the partners made very sacrifice for each other's happiness and of the kids and never cheated on each other.   The religious text - of any religion - is interpreted by humans and it is human to err, especially to err in a way that suits their purpose.

Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: I'll keep you in mind the next time I need a lesson on pride.  Uh huh.  Mr. "I don't ever need to listen to alternative perspectives because nobody's trustworthy" is going to use me as an example of pride.  There's irony for you. Because that's totally what I said.

How is that not what you implied?  I said that because we all have filters that have come about by the way we were raised and taught, we must identify what is truth and what is filter by engaging other people.  And you said:

Epignosis wrote: Awesome.  Where can I find this truth that you speak of?  Because oftentimes, when I've "engag(ed) other people" they have lied to me.

This implies that you don't feel any need to engage anyone who doesn't agree with you except to proove them wrong.  This is prideful.

You have a lot of Biblical knowledge.  But you talk about shooting up the government if they ever come into your house to enforce the law, and that doesn't sound like Jesus.  Jesus is the whole point of the Bible.  All your Biblical knowledge is worth sh*t if you don't know Jesus.  There is a Buddhist saying - in Buddhism, they call the sayings of the Buddha the Dharma.  They say that the Dharma is not the Buddha's teachings.  The Dharma only points to the Buddha's teachings.  Look at the way the Buddha lived.  Those are the Buddha's teachings.

The Bible is not the Word of God.  The Bible only points to the Word of God.  Look at Jesus, and the way he lived.  That's the Word of God.  Live in the Word of God.  Not in your amazing knowledge that gives you the right to look down your nose at people who don't share your opinion and say you don't need to engage them and be challenged.

rogerthat wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: On the contrary, I see it as merely realistic.  Whether or not you believe in the concept of sin, it must be admitted that human behavior is full of selfishness, deceit, pride, etc.; things that are considered by Christians to be sin.  This does not mean that there is no good in the world; notice I said tainted, not ruined. What exactly is selfish, deceitful or vain about a happy and long lasting married union where both partners have remained loyal to each other to the very end?  It is ok for you to believe what your scriptures tell you but as Dean already pointed out once before, the moment you try to impose these beliefs on general logic and values, you are going to get into trouble.  I could show you so many couples I know where the partners made very sacrifice for each other's happiness and of the kids and never cheated on each other.   The religious text - of any religion - is interpreted by humans and it is human to err, especially to err in a way that suits their purpose.

I didn't say that a marriage couldn't be successful, or that faithfulness is impossible, or that people cannot love and make sacrifices for each other.

When two people are in a relationship, conflict inevitably arises.  This conflict is a result of what Christians call sin.  In a good relationship, various conflicts are eventually resolved; some are resolved easily, some only by a long, difficult, and painful process.  In bad relationships, the conflicts don't get resolved.  This is true for all relationships and is amplified in marriages because of the inherent intimacy of the relationship.

You don't understand what I'm getting at, Jacob.   Let me try to expound.

I am presuming that, since Rob claims to be a Christian, he believes two things:
1) God is infinite
2) God is the source of all truth

Now, since the truth includes God, who is infinite and thus unknowable, this logically means that the truth is unknowable.   Yet we constantly claim to know the truth, and fit God into our little boxes.   We claim that our box of truth is right and others' boxes of truth are wrong.   When, in actuality, the truth is ALWAYS that everything we say is both a lie and truth at the same time.   Every true statement contains within itself some untruth, and every false statement contains within itself some truth.   When Dr. House said " everybody lies", he was correct.   But the inverse is also true and he knows this even though he never puts it into words - everybody tells the truth.   No lie would ever convince anyone if it didn't contain some truth.   And because the truth is infinitely unknowable, no statement we make is ever without some falsehood within it.   So when I say Rob should engage, I do not mean "get in their face with your vast and superior knowledge and tell them how wrong they are", but rather I mean he should not scoff but test everything, holding on to the good and discarding the bad (this is a biblical principle, by the way).   As Thomas Merton said, "no man is so wrong as the man who has all the answers."   Now, Rob may say "I'm not scoffing."   But if it is perceived that he is scoffing by an outsider, who is right and who is wrong?

Ambient Hurricanes wrote:   When two people are in a relationship, conflict inevitably arises.  This conflict is a result of what Christians call sin.  In a good relationship, various conflicts are eventually resolved; some are resolved easily, some only by a long, difficult, and painful process.  In bad relationships, the conflicts don't get resolved.  This is true for all relationships and is amplified in marriages because of the inherent intimacy of the relationship.