tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post989826030726685827..comments2024-03-01T21:01:15.174-06:00Comments on Biblical Christianity: Homosexual judge rules to validate his actionsDJPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-65012056869973996402010-08-06T20:39:54.927-05:002010-08-06T20:39:54.927-05:00Rupert, much as I like you, I am going to have to ...Rupert, much as I like you, I am going to have to figure out a way to keep you on-topic, and enforce some sort of rule to keep the conversation from getting bogged down with the same already-answered question being posed over and over without a lick of progress.<br /><br />So, in review:<br /><br />1. The oldest religion recognized only one man + one woman as defining marriage.<br /><br />2. You don't get to shrug off a devastating response because you don't like it. Homosexuals have the right to marry. They do not have the right to force a culture to normalize perversion, or make words/institutions mean what suits them just because it eases their feeling of guilt and shame slightly.<br /><br />3. Yes, as a matter of fact, it is perversion. You don't have the right to a view on it, since you do not have a transcendent norm against which to weigh anything. The transcendent norm in this case is God, who stigmatizes all homosexual activity as definitionally immoral.<br /><br />4. Of course you say "YUK," because that's all you have. Thus spake the atheist/god-wannabe, by necessity. Today you don't like it, tomorrow - who knows? Not only is that worthless for clearing or condemning your actions, it is (if possible) less so for making any comment on anyone else's.<br /><br />If there is no God — I speak as a fool — then all there is is preference and power. This is what we see in Judge Walker's decision: he has a preference, and power.<br /><br />God save us from such arbitrary tyranny.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-58788751497825984082010-08-06T20:28:57.940-05:002010-08-06T20:28:57.940-05:00I apologize, everyone.
Just remembered: I am the ...I apologize, everyone.<br /><br />Just remembered: I am the blog administrator, so why am I allowing a meta to get waylaid by comments I don't even want to have to read, myself?<br /><br /><b>Feetxxx-guy</b>: if you want to interact on an adult, English-language blog:<br /><br />1. Learn to punctuate, including caps, paragraphs, intelligible sentences... the whole 9 yards.<br /><br />2. Read the post, and the comments, <i>before</i> commenting.<br /><br />Bring up your game, try it again.<br /><br />Sorry, everyone.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-22590360689811046912010-08-06T18:28:20.785-05:002010-08-06T18:28:20.785-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.feetxxxlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09931575208523991190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-48153689030489666462010-08-06T18:04:54.942-05:002010-08-06T18:04:54.942-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.feetxxxlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09931575208523991190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-48677589603125955982010-08-06T17:54:28.345-05:002010-08-06T17:54:28.345-05:00Struth, talk about While I was Sleeping...!
Come ...Struth, talk about <i>While I was Sleeping...</i>!<br /><br />Come on DJP, I said I wouldn't marry <i>my</i> cousin, I didn't say I wouldn't marry yours ;-) I'm sure they are all perfectly lovely! But I am spoken for and would not entertain getting married anyway.<br /><br />Thanks Daniel, I think someone else also pointed that out earlier. Homosexuals are allowed to marry heterosexuals. How droll.<br /><br />Lynda O., I think we are saying pretty much the same thing about there not really being a great deal of serious legislation against 'incest'.<br /><br />Sir Aaron! I am shocked at your talk of becoming a monster without your faith. That's a shocker! It would be interesting to be able to compare crime rates between true atheists and theists. Morals, ethics etc. did actually exist before organized religion and the adoption of the Bible though.<br /><br />During the furore over the national day of prayer I read a lot from both sides of the debate as well as the black and white evidence between them. I disagree with the weight some give to faith in the formation and intent of the relevant documents and decrees.<br /><br />Anyway, moving on. I am a bit disappointed in myself. Have I been naive, gullible or just plain silly? I have allowed myself to be distracted by semantic argument on irrelevancies. <br /><br />Homosexuality is <i>not</i> a perversion, sexual or otherwise. Certainly no more than inter-racial relationships. ('In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking racist interpretations of the Bible, particularly of the story of Phinehas and the "Curse of Ham") It does not fall into the same category as child molestation or rape, on any level.<br /><br />Someone mentioned the potential danger of the lack of procreation. Given that homosexuals account for 10% of the populace at the most, I think there are other factors having a greater impact on this factor. Two income households, the alternatives of time consumption in the modern age. Maybe even electricity and television.Ruperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16141432408537488025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-48923033633103904112010-08-06T16:44:23.362-05:002010-08-06T16:44:23.362-05:00feet:
I appreciate that you've cut and paste ...feet:<br /><br />I appreciate that you've cut and paste from some atheistic propaganda website. <br /><br />Unfortunately, your source isn't all that clever. The Bible speaks of slaves and slavery many times. And yet, I'm still waiting for the passage in Leviticus where it says slavery is "good." <br /><br />The argument about "acceptable today" isn't relevant as there are many things that are accepted or not accepted today that are contrary to God's moral precepts that we find in Scripture.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-91546092511810486662010-08-06T16:25:36.667-05:002010-08-06T16:25:36.667-05:00all humans can do is distance themselves from thei...<i>all humans can do is distance themselves from their own very goodness by believing lies that come against it</i>.<br /><br />Man, that would be funny if it weren't so sad.<br /><br />So, person with very large feet, why do you accept Genesis 1:31 as true -- that God created everything very good -- and yet not accept Genesis 3 where we learn that Adam and Eve sinned against God and were expelled from fellowship with Him? Were they simply distancing themselves from their own goodness, or were they rebelling against a clear command given to them by their God?<br /><br />Belief in the goodness of the original creation does not in any way negate the truth that humanity sinned in rebellion against God, died spiritually, are now consequently totally depraved, and will incur His wrath without a sin-bearing substitute. God did good, we did bad. And now we're dead unless God does some more good. No contradiction whatsoever.<br /><br />I invite you to believe upon that sin-baring substitute, who lived a life as it was meant to be lived -- a "very good" life as God designed it to be in the Garden. And He declared that on the cross the sacrifice of His righteous life paid the penalty for all those who would admit their own depravity and sinfulness, and look to Him alone for their righteousness before a Holy God. And He was resurrected 3 days later to prove the sufficiency and acceptability of His sacrifice to the Father. Would you look to Him?Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-90643377852784883782010-08-06T15:34:20.391-05:002010-08-06T15:34:20.391-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.feetxxxlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09931575208523991190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-55109098515399212032010-08-06T12:20:07.238-05:002010-08-06T12:20:07.238-05:00Merrilee:
I am a slacker by nature. No need to f...Merrilee:<br /><br />I am a slacker by nature. No need to fear lightning, I readily admit what you see.<br /><br />I promise to do better next time! (or wait until I'm not using my Iphone).Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-72973673220639530912010-08-06T12:19:07.159-05:002010-08-06T12:19:07.159-05:00Just adding to my last post to Feetxxl. I can tell...Just adding to my last post to Feetxxl. I can tell you before I was saved, I did do pretty much anything to please myself. I committed all kinds of depraved acts. Gradually I realized that there was some lines I would not cross because of some standard (although gradually eroding) of morality that I held. It was then that I realized that either there was a morale code by God that I needed to follow or there was no code and therefore, there need not be any lines.<br /><br />Also, I want to add that I did not experience true joy, true peace, true happiness, or true love until after salvation. All the acts of selfish depravity could not secure what submission to God could. And now sweet liberty.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-50249426858630090902010-08-06T11:39:25.646-05:002010-08-06T11:39:25.646-05:00Rupert asks, "Can you elucidate on your claim...<b>Rupert asks,</b> "<i>Can you elucidate on your claim that homosexuals can marry?</i>"<br /><br />If I may...<br /><br />An eligible homosexual male has the same right to marry an eligible female as an eligible heterosexual male does.<br /><br />If you stop reading "homosexual marriage" into the statement, you will see what is meant.<br /><br />I hope that helps.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06734845463331170748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-50592031561520676812010-08-06T11:39:24.273-05:002010-08-06T11:39:24.273-05:00DJP:
I was thinking I'm at work and using my ...DJP:<br /><br />I was thinking I'm at work and using my Iphone! If I were at home on my PC, I'd do it.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-43426585584965505772010-08-06T11:38:25.312-05:002010-08-06T11:38:25.312-05:00feetxxl:
@feetxxl:
1.) Yes, if it weren't fo...feetxxl:<br /><br />@feetxxl:<br /><br />1.) Yes, if it weren't for the Bible, I'd have zero compunction against murdering another person, except for the fear of being punished. I've given my testimony here before, but long ago I came to the realization that if there is no God, then I can and should do whatever it takes to please myself. And if I need to murder somebody to accomplish that, then I would. Fortunately for you and others, I was saved by God's grace and now submit to his morale commands and precepts.<br /><br />2.) You've cited a problem where none exists. In truth, the founding fathers, especially during the Constitutional delegates, came from a vast difference of denominations and beliefs. And yet, they were able to come to an agreement on basic morale precepts from the Bible. In truth, Catholics, Lutherans, and Baptists all essentially agree on most moral laws that should be enforced by government. They also agree to its basic source (God).<br /><br />3.) Please quote where LEviticus says slavery is good. Second, please tell me how slavery in the Bible is anything like what your modern concepts of such are. I'll save you from that last one, because they it isn't.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-76976912349950081742010-08-06T11:36:19.330-05:002010-08-06T11:36:19.330-05:00DJP:
(I was gonna call him a slacker, but didn'...DJP:<br />(I was gonna call him a slacker, but didn't want to get struck by lightning.)Merrilee Stevensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12770625841767761025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-19228344456291044722010-08-06T11:30:16.419-05:002010-08-06T11:30:16.419-05:00too lazy to do the proper citing.
Dude! Think of ...<i>too lazy to do the proper citing.</i><br /><br />Dude! Think of where you are!<br /><br />Bring up your game!DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-56638717981207569562010-08-06T11:29:18.169-05:002010-08-06T11:29:18.169-05:00Check out wallbuilders. They have a lot of resourc...Check out wallbuilders. They have a lot of resources and available quotes. BTW, my last post was composed of different quotes, each being delineated by paragraph. I was too lazy to do the proper citing.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-40155838557902685382010-08-06T11:14:36.688-05:002010-08-06T11:14:36.688-05:00Rupert: "Would you marry your cousin? I cert...Rupert: "Would you marry your cousin? I certainly wouldn't (mine, not yours, lets not get misinterpreted again). Yet it's not that long since this was common in even 'western' societies."<br /><br />Actually the reference to cousins is misguided, for in fact many U.S. states still do allow the marriage of cousins (heterosexual of course). Some prohibit double-first-cousins from marrying for obvious genetic reasons, but generally cousins can marry and it's never been that big of an issue, and cousins are not among the prohibited sexual relationships (Leviticus 20) mentioned in the Bible.<br /><br />The great issue in this case, as I see, is that we now no longer have law by a republic (representative government) but law by dictatorship -- the judgocracy, whereby the will of the people is overruled by the vested and exalted view of a few (one in this case; at most 9 individuals). No doubt the founding fathers (who did agree with Christian morality) would be shocked to realize their carefully constructed government has come to this. Such can only lead to anarchy and tyranny, and makes our official system (voting by the people) worthless. We may think how great we have it, that we have "free elections" unlike some countries where the people vote with a gun pointed at the head -- but when the actual law is set by appointed judges, in the end what would be the point of voting?Lynda Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01755739519555633760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-41297157804258037302010-08-06T10:53:19.144-05:002010-08-06T10:53:19.144-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.feetxxxlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09931575208523991190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-26083300031919834272010-08-06T10:49:36.475-05:002010-08-06T10:49:36.475-05:00@ Sir Aaron: could you please cite your source? ...@ Sir Aaron: could you please cite your source? That's a great quote.Merrilee Stevensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12770625841767761025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-28314405902164284002010-08-06T10:48:04.485-05:002010-08-06T10:48:04.485-05:00Um, wouldn't the 19th amendment to the constit...Um, wouldn't the 19th amendment to the constitution be an example of "because this is allowed, then this?"<br /><br />Should homosexuals be placed in a higher-class status than people in general, regardless of gender or color? If a person is brutally murdered, it's murder. But if a homosexual is murdered, it's something MORE vile and repulsive? If a person slanders someone because they have dimples, that's bad, but if the above-dimpled person is also a homosexual, it's hate-speech?<br /><br />The homosexual agenda as it were, seems to be to classify themselves as something beyond the rest of us humans.Merrilee Stevensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12770625841767761025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-63437857196628696452010-08-06T10:23:02.155-05:002010-08-06T10:23:02.155-05:00Rupert:
You want to know how the founders felt:
...Rupert:<br /><br />You want to know how the founders felt:<br /><br /><i>Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments</i>.<br /><br /><i>To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them</i>.<br /><br /><i>And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric</i>?<br /><br />And that, my friend, is a merely a drop in the ocean. As I said, it was inconceivable to them, even to the deists and unbelievers.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-49931243922562985112010-08-06T10:12:43.642-05:002010-08-06T10:12:43.642-05:00Rupert,
It was inconceivable to the American foun...Rupert,<br /><br />It was inconceivable to the American founding fathers...ALL OF THEM, that our laws would be ripped from the moorings of the Bible. Even those who were not necessarily Christian believed that the Bible was crucial to a just society.<br /><br />And whenever laws are made on something other than a Biblical basis,there will always be less freedom and eventually tyranny.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-18942631314514916202010-08-06T09:15:30.471-05:002010-08-06T09:15:30.471-05:00feetxxxl,
Although I agree with Dan's analysi...feetxxxl,<br /><br />Although I agree with Dan's analysis of your comment, here is an explanation for you...<br /><br />If we change the definition of marriage because we are saying that it goes against one group's beliefes, then who are we to say that another group's (polygamists) beliefs are not valid, also? If we can not hold that the Bible is the authoritative source of truth, then what do we use? And who are you to say that your beliefs about polygamy should be the standard? Obviously the majority doesn't matter on this issue, at least according to the judge presiding over this case. <br /><br />No, if you are saying that people should be allowed to marry whoever they want to based upon their own beliefs, then you have to open it up for any and all belief systems. I mean, that is what postmodern philosphy is all about, right?Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13987985549747283669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-64047640952961527592010-08-06T08:55:52.506-05:002010-08-06T08:55:52.506-05:00the polygamy arguement is ridiculous
So, where yo...<i>the polygamy arguement is ridiculous</i><br /><br />So, where you live, is that considered an argument?<br /><br />Then here you go: no, it isn't!<br /><br />Whee, this is fun, and 'way easier than having to reason!DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9313009.post-24948938733834541942010-08-06T08:51:28.817-05:002010-08-06T08:51:28.817-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.feetxxxlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09931575208523991190noreply@blogger.com