How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Jack and Diane and What's Love Got to Do   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Jack and Diane and What's Love Got to Do With It?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


125 posted 04-12-2004 12:43 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Ok... I've been reading these posts about marriage and gay marriage and sin and blah blah blah for days, and quite frankly it's giving me a beating my head against the wall headache. Bur I do have one point to make:

'Since you're a citizen of the USA, it wouldn't be a stretch to guess that you don't espouse Marxist / Communist ideology, and think it would bad, perhaps very bad, for our society.  And yet I'd be a fool to call you a "Communist hater" for that.'

Stephen, I would agree that I don't think communism is a good thing. BUT:

If others believe it is, I have no right to step in and say "Hold on.... you can't be a communist" or, more appropriately "You can't marry another communist and make little communist offspring!" I could only hope to step in with supporting legislation against them when their views started affecting me... like, let's say I didn't like a 20% tax hike. That's something I could justifiably want and try to change.

But I'm not sure how this is a valid comparison, since the last I knew, gays and lesbians weren't trying to overthrow the economic system. They're just trying to marry each other.

Reb.... yeah, my dad, too.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


126 posted 04-12-2004 11:49 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Hush:
quote:
If others believe it is, I have no right to step in and say "Hold on.... you can't be a communist" or, more appropriately "You can't marry another communist and make little communist offspring!"



That's not what I'm saying about homosexuality either.  But, I would bet that you support public legislation which does not allow communism to flourish within this democratic nation.  And yet I'd never call you a commu-phobe, or a communist-hater.


My point to LR was, it would be just as valid to call someone a "communist-hater" for being against public establishment of communism, as it would be to call someone a "homo-hater" for being against redefining marriage to suit the homosexual agenda.  

Hatred and being against an arbitrary change in public policy are not one and the same.  It's a logical fallacy to say so ... not to mention slanderous.



Stephen.  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


127 posted 04-13-2004 12:59 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

LR:
quote:
Back then people thought it was abnormal to be left-handed.  A genetic defect.  A mistake of nature.  Or maybe just plain evil.  At any rate -- they weren't going to teach any left-handers how to write at his school.
It's hard to fathom now.  But that was the prevailing world-view on hand orientation back then.



There's only one problem with this comparison ... it's not "back then" yet.  The research does not presently indicate that homosexuality is anything really like being left-handed.  You can't presume a cogent pro "world-view" about homosexuality based upon correct knowledge (including the social sciences, genetics, and ethics) if it isn't really here yet.  You may anticipate it (accurately or mistakenly), but the knowledge heretofore hasn't produced it.


quote:
If I say I think Communism is a bad idea that's one thing.  If I say it is going to be the downfall of the human race -- a Communist might get the idea that I hate him.



In a post cold war era, we too easily forget the militant expansionism that Communism employed.  It's way off the mark to say that we fought it, or even should have fought it, as merely a "bad idea"... despite the abuses of "McCarthyism".  

And by the way, I never said that Homosexuality alone would be the downfall of the human race.  Sin at it's very root is the downfall ... which is an insistence upon absolute human autonomy apart from God, and manifests itself in many many "sins".  But anything which contributes to the spoiling and fragmentation of culture, or the widespread acceptance and honor of sinful and harmful lifestyles, is by nature a part of the downfall.


quote:
In all of this there seems an attempt to wrap Christianity, the Bible, and Stephen's opinions all into one neat little package so that if anyone disagrees with you -- they are disagreeing with God and the Bible. That's a pretty convenient strategy.



Sounds deceptive doesn't it?  Until you try to defend homosexual behavior, or how it is a positive contribution for public policy, by using the Bible.  I'm not trying to smuggle anything by unexamined.  If you want an "apologetic" from scripture that shows homosexuality is wrong, I am fully prepared to give it.  If you want to present an apologetic that would defend homosexuality by using the Bible, I am fully prepared to refute it.  It doesn't hold water.  Probably the only headway you'll make here is to continue to say that the Bible is hopelessly ambiguous, using proof texts rather than taking a panoramic view of what the Bible says about a subject.  And you'll probably convince many ... at least many of those who do not read the Bible.  You're not the first to use this method.  Obscurantism makes progress by creating a mood and effect of fog and doubt, so that people don't generally feel like looking for themselves.  As effective as it can sometimes be, that still doesn't make it valid argumentation.


quote:
The only problem with that scenario is that there are plenty of Christians who don't agree with you... so you can't speak for them.


I'm not.


quote:
It's pretty dangerous to speak for the Bible too -- especially when you have a history of saying things like this and being wrong..."



Firstly, I don't think I am wrong concerning the total view of slavery in the Bible.  Your proof texting surely doesn't prove my view wrong.  Though we can't debate that issue here on this thread, as extensive as it is.  If you're going to keep bringing it up, you better start a thread.  I'd be delighted to respond and search the matter out in public format.  


Secondly, I'll admit that the moral focus of the Bible concerning slavery is more upon the things which typically accompany slavery ... cruelty, physical abuse, pride, etc...  Choosing to address a culturally pervasive practice, not with external prohibition but with establishment of moral principles.  So in that regard the Bible is not as strong upon slavery as it is homosex.  But you're not taking the whole of biblical teaching into account, when you say that the Bible "supports" slavery.  You can say it's supported from Genesis to Revelation as much as you like, but you only seem to be willing to tell the parts you want to tell.    


Thirdly, slavery is another issue altogether.  There is no ambiguity about homosexuality in the Bible.  EVERY reference to it is in the negative.  It can be discussed as to why the Bible takes one approach to slavery, versus another to homosexuality.  It can be asked is there any justification in the difference.  Those are good questions to discuss, especially in a separate thread on slavery.  But it is not valid to imply that the Biblical stance on homosexuality is the same as that of slavery.  Homosexuality is emphatically spoken of as inherently sinful ... like adultery, fornication, stealing, or murder.


quote:
Slavery and racism are very clearly covered (and clearly condoned in the Book of the Law) from Genesis to Revelation Stephen.  It just depends on whose interpretation you want to apply.



By saying "clearly condoned" you are implying that one interpretation is better than another.  I agree with that implication.  But why do you turn around and shoot your own foot by saying "it just depends on whose interpretation you want to apply".  Obviously, you think your interpretation is "clearly" superior to, let's say mine.  Therefore obscurantism does you no good.  I am prepared to debate, using biblical texts and reasoning, and show that racism is not condoned by the Bible, and that slavery, though permitted, was not upheld as meritorious.  You should be prepared to argue the antithesis with confidence, not alongside reiterating the ambiguity of the Bible.  Can't have your interpretive cake and eat it too.
  

quote:
What's more -- you continue to embrace -- as is your right -- a view of homosexuality that is all but rejected by medicine and science.



No.  It is all but rejected by relativistic ultra-liberal culture .... and some physicians and scientists happen espouse that ideology and try to wed inconclusive data to their views.  But their view is not proven by the data that medicine and science currently provide.


quote:
Even though I don't think you hate homosexuals -- what you seem to be unaware of is how the rhetoric you espouse has caused even greater pain and violence to those in the homosexual community than what was caused to my father for being left-handed.



Any point of truth, as well as error, can be acted upon in a wrong and immoral way.  I am not unaware of such dangers ... I just don't conclude that we should therefore obscure truth just because it can be misapplied.  And by the way I naturally (since we disagree) think your view is a bit "rhetorical" too, rather than based in truth.  I'd rather keep debating the merits / weaknesses of our positions than continually restating the obvious fact that we disagree, cloaked in terms like "rhetoric".




Stephen    
          
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


128 posted 04-13-2004 01:22 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant:
quote:
If homosexuality is wrong, I will hear God himself say it presently and unconfusedly


He has.




Old Testament:


"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (Leviticus 18:22)


New Testament:


"... God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator- who is forever praised.  Amen.  

Because of this, Go gave them over to shameful lusts.  Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men, and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
"  (Romans 1:24-27)




Stephen.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


129 posted 04-13-2004 02:20 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

It's not entirely relevant to this thread, since interpretations of the Bible hold no authority in civil law, but I honestly think your analysis of Romans is flawed, Stephen. The emphasis should be on "Because of THIS, God gave them over to shameful lusts." By concentrating on details and examples, you are obscuring the real point of the passage.

It would not be at all difficult to argue that the sin is lust, not homosexuality, especially when the following verses you didn't cite include all of the other seven deadly sins and examples that at times demonstrate those sins. Or do your really think that all debaters and inventors risk their immortal soul? I don't believe these passages were ever intended to be a definitive list of sin, but rather were a warning against "exchanging the truth of God for a lie."

There's a couple of stone tablets that long ago explained what sin is. Romans doesn't detail what sin is, but rather WHY sin is.

As to your request for an apologetic defending homosexuality, I thought I already provided that?

quote:
If you want to present an apologetic that would defend homosexuality by using the Bible, I am fully prepared to refute it.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Matt. 7:3)

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


130 posted 04-13-2004 03:07 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

The Word of the bible is not God's own voice in itself to confirm it.



[This message has been edited by Essorant (04-13-2004 08:23 PM).]

jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


131 posted 04-13-2004 09:22 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Ron:

Come on, Ron.  You're not suggesting that Paul of Tarsus condoned homosexual behavior are you?  I think there are some compelling legal reasons for government recognition of homosexual unions (not that I necessarily agree with those reasons, but they are compelling), but that doesn't mean we ought to go back and attempt to rework what has previously been written to bring those writings in line with modern, liberal thought.

I think you are partially correct in noting Paul's intent in his letter to the Romans was to explain why sin is, but more importantly, he was building the case for why those who never received the Ten Commandments are still subject to the Law of God and, therefore, subject to the penalty for breaching it.  The sins he cited are best interpreted as exemplary of such breaches of God's law - in fact AND attitude.

You have to remember that, at the time Paul wrote his letter, homosexual behavior was widely accepted in the Roman world, and would have been practiced without shame in the community surrounding the Roman Christians and god-fearers.  Paul would have used it as an example of depravity because of how common a practice it had become.  What I think you as the reader of Paul's letter needs to decide is not how to make Paul agree with Ron, but WHETHER Ron agrees with Paul.

It is true that the courts have decided that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, and legislatures may grant homosexual unions equal or similar recognition as heterosexual marriages, and if that is what the government ultimately decides, fine.  But to try to find justification for the behavior in the Biblical text so as to suggest Paul or Moses didn't regard the behavior as sin is just poor exegesis.  And to cite the "speck and plank" passage to try to hobble anyone saying the behavior is sin is equally unbiblical, or else Paul himself could never have authored Romans 1.

J/M/O.

Jim
jellybeans
Member Elite
since 10-13-2000
Posts 2347


132 posted 04-13-2004 02:35 PM       View Profile for jellybeans   Email jellybeans   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jellybeans

*great big grin* oh my gosh how  you guys can argue...I feel sorry for your wives...whatever sex they might be.......*shakes her head*

jellybeans gives Argue Awards to the PIP champions *smile* **yes, since you are now asking yourselves how I rate to give out Argue Awards, I am a accredited Argue Award giver...by right of 31 years of arguable marriage**
I am not a debater by nature, but love the eye opening words posted here, thank you all

now jb then goes back to read more,

I am still cheering for the right side *grin*
Stephanos' reasoning is close to mine, but his vocabulary and logic far surpasses mine, so will most likely just quiet my fingers and cheer him on

however LR, will paste your reply and see what comes to mind....am glad I stopped by to see what's up
jellybeans
Member Elite
since 10-13-2000
Posts 2347


133 posted 04-13-2004 03:11 PM       View Profile for jellybeans   Email jellybeans   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jellybeans

ok gotta throw in another penny or two...I ain't got many cents, so I am fairly frugal with my thoughts...but there are so many twists and turns to this issue, that I feel shining some light can't hurt

Glenn T. Stanton is Director of Social Research and Cultural Affairs and Senior Analyst for Marriage and Sexuality at Focus on the Family


quote:
Redefining Marriage is Not a Civil Right
March 2, 2004

by Glenn T. Stanton

Same-sex marriage proponents have made surprising strides in getting a hearing for their radical marriage counterfeit. No society at any time has ever raised a generation of children in same-sex families, yet these family revolutionaries only needed to convince four judges in Massachusetts and one lawless mayor in San Francisco to inflict their highly experimental ideas on the rest of us.

Gay activists have gained their ground through emotional manipulation and by diverting the public’s attention away from the thousands of scientific studies that tell us how healthy child-development requires mothers and fathers. They have manipulated us by high-jacking civil rights language. And as a result, millions of boys and girls will be subjected to intentionally motherless and fatherless families for no other reason than to fulfill the desires of adults who want such families.

A moment’s reflection reveals that “giving marriage a gay make-over” as one gay protester in Denver recently put it, is not a civil rights issue. Sex preference is not skin color. San Francisco is not Selma. Marriage is not a lunch counter or a seat on a bus.


and in another article…
quote:

But can we really say that any of us can play the role of husband or wife, regardless of what nature has endowed us with? Can we really believe that a child will find all she needs from a mother in two loving, nurturing men? Can that child find what he needs from a father in two strong, compassionate women? And this gets us to why same-sex families are actually cruel – they intentionally deny every child they touch either their biological mother or father – all in the interest of fulfilling adult desire.

Anthropology tells us no human society, ancient or modern, primitive or civilized has ever sustained itself with a buffet-like family model – just pick what suits you. Whether this is done in an effort to serve “fairness” cannot soften the consequences. We cannot escape that male and female matter. And so, in redefining marriage, the court and same-sex marriage proponents diminish all of our humanity by saying we are only generic persons randomly equipped with either sperm or eggs. This deconstruction will not be without profound and painful consequences.




w w w.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/ssuap/
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


134 posted 04-13-2004 04:34 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
But to try to find justification for the behavior in the Biblical text so as to suggest Paul or Moses didn't regard the behavior as sin is just poor exegesis.

The question isn't whether they regarded it as a sin, Jim, but rather why they regarded it a sin. Remember, the same exact behavior between a man and a woman is regarded a sin outside the confines of marriage.

As I've said elsewhere, when an interpretation of scripture conflicts with the Spirit of Christianity, I'm going to assume the interpretation is flawed. If that is poor exegesis, so be it.

quote:
And to cite the "speck and plank" passage to try to hobble anyone saying the behavior is sin is equally unbiblical, or else Paul himself could never have authored Romans 1.

I disagree. There is a great deal of difference between condemning the sin and condemning the sinner. Even if one is convinced that homosexuality is a sin, that view does not warrant man's punishment of the sinner. Or do you think Jesus was condoning adultery when He said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? We can and must judge sin, but only within the context of our own behavior. We don't have the authority to judge the sinner. Nor, history would suggest, do we have the wisdom.

quote:
No society at any time has ever raised a generation of children in same-sex families, yet these family revolutionaries only needed to convince four judges in Massachusetts and one lawless mayor in San Francisco to inflict their highly experimental ideas on the rest of us.

Tradition was also against letting blacks sit at the front of the bus. Fortunately, mankind has the ability to learn from its mistakes. Even mistakes that have a long history.

quote:
And this gets us to why same-sex families are actually cruel – they intentionally deny every child they touch either their biological mother or father – all in the interest of fulfilling adult desire.

Isn't it funny how that sounds an awful lot like a description of divorce?

  
jellybeans
Member Elite
since 10-13-2000
Posts 2347


135 posted 04-13-2004 04:45 PM       View Profile for jellybeans   Email jellybeans   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jellybeans


Isn't it funny how that sounds an awful lot like a description of divorce?



and divorce is proven very destructive to children's emotional well being...seems you just made my point  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


136 posted 04-13-2004 05:47 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
and divorce is proven very destructive to children's emotional well being...seems you just made my point  

So, do you want to disallow divorce or allow same-sex marriage? By your logic, they should either both be legal or both be illegal.
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


137 posted 04-13-2004 06:52 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Stephen-

'But, I would bet that you support public legislation which does not allow communism to flourish within this democratic nation.'

That's a tough call. The relativist in me says "no, not necessarily" because I believe there is inherent value in almost all ideology... and I believe communism has a "greater good" at heart, even if its implementation leads to nothing but ruin. That's fine, they can ahve their ideology, and they can have their communes and give up personal ownership... I really don't care. It isn't until they try to impose communistic economic sanctions that apply to me that I have a problem. When the communist party starts to harm me, I'll care.

And, since I don't recall the homosexual party ever wanting to force gay love on us all, or even having a political party, I must say I think your comparison is pretty logically unsound.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


138 posted 04-13-2004 07:44 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

You will probably have to wait for a response a while yet JB... busy week and... my interest is waning.

Stephen -- you feel slandered by your own words?
jellybeans
Member Elite
since 10-13-2000
Posts 2347


139 posted 04-14-2004 09:39 AM       View Profile for jellybeans   Email jellybeans   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jellybeans

Ron,
Divorce and same sex unions are both spoken against in the bible, if I believe in the bible, which I do, then I am against both of them.
what part of 'Til death do we part' equals divorce?

no problem reb, has been a rough week here, have just been enjoying using my mind instead of just working *g*
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


140 posted 04-14-2004 12:39 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Divorce and same sex unions are both spoken against in the bible, if I believe in the bible, which I do, then I am against both of them. what part of 'Til death do we part' equals divorce?

What part of 'Til death do we part' do you find in the Bible?

Protestants seem to be at one end of the spectrum, Mormons at the other, with Catholics sitting in the middle. Seemingly with you? Whose interpretation is wrong? Whose, if any, is right?

Are you willing to legislatively impose your interpretation of scripture on the millions of people around the world who apparently disagree and, according to you, are now bigamists and adulterers?

I'm honestly not sure if that's courage or hubris.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


141 posted 04-14-2004 01:03 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

But, Ron, isn't your view on the issue based upon your interpretation of the nature of homosexuality?  Are you willing to legislatively impose your interpretation of nature on the millions of people around the world who apparently disagree, and, according to you, are now bigots and Bible-thumpers?

I'm honestly not sure if that's courage or hubris.

While the Laws of God have, in large part, fallen by the wayside as a foundation for American jurisprudence, certainly the laws of nature still hold some weight.  And I believe this is certainly something that ought to be vigorously debated by legislatures rather than shifting the presumption of truth to those who advocate the normalcy of homosexuality.

And while I don't think this ought to become a thread on hermeneutics, you allusion to the "woman caught in adultery" failed to recognize Jesus' consistent advocacy against the selective, arbitrary enforcement of the Law.  In Jewish law, both the man AND woman caught in adultery warranted stoning - perhaps a better understanding of that account would consider Jesus' "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" be first understood as a challenge to the man she was caught with.

Jim
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


142 posted 04-14-2004 02:27 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron:
quote:
I honestly think your analysis of Romans is flawed, Stephen. The emphasis should be on "Because of THIS, God gave them over to shameful lusts." By concentrating on details and examples, you are obscuring the real point of the passage.


Pointing out details and examples is by no means "obscuring" the real point of the passage.  If it were, then Paul himself was at fault in his description.  I agree with you that sin, as a general concept, is the thrust of this passage.  However, considering specific outworkings and examples of sin surely isn't at variance with the general thesis.  One supports the other.  They are harmonious.  What is not harmonious is admitting sin as a reality, and yet denying that any actions can enbody it.  And worse, denying that specific examples which the apostle identified as exemplary of sin, should be thought of as sin.  That kind of moral relativism and the Biblical view of sin are hopelessly irreconcilable.


  
quote:
It would not be at all difficult to argue that the sin is lust, not homosexuality, especially when the following verses you didn't cite include all of the other seven deadly sins and examples that at times demonstrate those sins.


Even so, homosexuality would be exemplary of that lust.  Lust is simply desire in the wrong context ... a legitimate need, met in an illegitimate way.  Desiring sex is a good thing.  Desiring sex with someone other than your wife is not.  What you can cogently do is to say that sexual sin is much wider than homosexuality, and therefore there are other sexual sins as well.  What you cannot do is cite examples of either adultery, fornication or homosexuality where this lust is not operative.  Why?  Because they ALL lie outside of God's parameters for human sexuality ... which is a man and woman joined by Covenant relationship.    
  


quote:
Or do your really think that all debaters and inventors risk their immortal soul?



I'm really not sure where you get "debaters" from, unless you are inferring it from what the NIV calls "insolent, arrogant, and boastful" in Romans 1:30.  But if that is the case, this passage would describe a certain type of debater, not debating in general.  


I guess by "inventors" you are referring to the phrase "inventors of evil things"?  If so, you've taken the word "inventors" (ephuretes in the Greek) right out of its context, to make your point... which is the only way you can make your point.  Paul qualified the term with another term, "kakos" in the Greek which means:


1.  of a bad nature;  not such as it ought to be

2.  of a mode of thinking, feeling, acting;  base, wrong, wicked

3.  troublesome, injurious, pernicious, destructive, baneful


So yes, I think that all inventors of "ways to do evil", with that intent of heart as implied in the text, do risk their immortal soul.
  


quote:
I don't believe these passages were ever intended to be a definitive list of sin, but rather were a warning against "exchanging the truth of God for a lie."



You make it an "either/ or" choice, when it is clearly a "both/ and".   Paul would be pretty ineffective in his warning about a spiritual "exchange", if his described results were not necessarily contiguous with that exchange.


Also the view that homosexuality is sin, is consistent with every other reference to it in the Bible.  I challenge you to cite one reference to homosexuality in scripture which would support your interpretation that it is "neutral", and may or may not involve sin.
  


quote:
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Matt. 7:3)



Pulling someone out of a ditch always involves the risk of sending them to the ditch on the other side of the road.  This scripture definitely speaks against judgmentalism and self-righteousness.  But it does not, therefore, speak FOR libertinism.  There is just as much of a danger of abusing and misapplying the scripture you quoted, as there is a danger of not heeding it’s main point.  It’s demonstrated by the fact that “Judge not lest you be judged” is about the only scripture which many who live in sin, know how to quote.  

  
The rest of the above passage of scripture (which you didn't quote) goes on to say that we should first deal with our own sins, before being morbidly concerned with those of others.  “First remove the plank in your own eye ...”.  But this was given to spur us onward to moral purity, so that we CAN be used in the area of moral reform, not so that we should abandon it for a bland tolerance of everything with everybody.


Consider whether the following scriptures can be meaningful at all as instruction, if your interpretation of Matthew 7:3 is correct . . .



. . . the Lord’s servant must not quarrel;  instead he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.  Those who oppose him, he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

(2 Timothy 2:24-26)


All Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

(2 Timothy 3:16-17)


Preach the Word;  be prepared in season and out of season;  correct, rebuke and encourage- with great patience and careful instruction.  For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.  Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

(2 Timothy 4:2-3)




I am against hypocrisy as much as you are.  But I don’t think the stern Biblical teachings against it should be misused to say that we should never speak the moral truth, unless it directly concerns our own personal behavior.  That may be how you take it, but it doesn’t square with the rest of the Bible.  What you’re going to have a hard time doing is showing that teachings on hypocrisy, are not compatible with saints making moral judgements ... especially when the standard of scripture (being a high one) calls us to both avoid hypocrisy AND to uphold moral truth as it is revealed.


quote:
The question isn't whether they regarded it as a sin, Jim, but rather why they regarded it a sin. Remember, the same exact behavior between a man and a woman is regarded a sin outside the confines of marriage.



As I’ve already mentioned, adultery is sin because it lay outside of God’s parameters for human sexuality, as does homosexuality “married” or not.  Paul does not describe homosexuality as simply a variation of adultery.  If he had done so, he might have urged those who practice it to marry to avoid the sin ... (as he did toward heterosexual “singles” in 1 Corinthians chapter 7).



quote:
As I've said elsewhere, when an interpretation of scripture conflicts with the Spirit of Christianity, I'm going to assume the interpretation is flawed. If that is poor exegesis, so be it.



The correct interpretation of Romans 1 (and other passages dealing with homosexuality) is not contradictory with the Spirit of Christianity ... unless it’s spirit is “I’m OK.  You’re OK.”  I think rather than foisting the spirit of contemporary “tolerance” upon Christianity, we should derive the spirit of Christianity from Christ himself, who when dealing with the woman caught in adultery, showed great and unusual mercy, and yet did not fail to say “Go and sin no more.”.


quote:
Even if one is convinced that homosexuality is a sin, that view does not warrant man's punishment of the sinner. Or do you think Jesus was condoning adultery when He said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?



In context of this discussion, the public preservation of traditional marriage should not be thought as “punishment”.  Some actions are punishment.  Some consequences are natural outworkings of actions/ choices/ lifestyles.  I cannot easily get a paycheck by refusing to work.  It wouldn’t make sense to accuse this example of public policy as “punishment”.


The absurdity of this position is the idea that society all along has been “punishing” homosexuals by recognizing only heterosexual marriages.  So all of history is cruelly and backwardly wrong, and we are obviously and arrogantly right.  Casting a stone at an individual, and preserving a stone already placed as a foundation and boundary are two very different things.


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (04-14-2004 03:02 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


143 posted 04-14-2004 02:55 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Hush:
quote:
That's a tough call. The relativist in me says "no, not necessarily" because I believe there is inherent value in almost all ideology... and I believe communism has a "greater good" at heart, even if its implementation leads to nothing but ruin. That's fine, they can ahve their ideology, and they can have their communes and give up personal ownership... I really don't care. It isn't until they try to impose communistic economic sanctions that apply to me that I have a problem.



Then you're confirming exactly what I was trying to say ... You're really not going to fight communism as an idea or even a personal practice.  It's when it becomes implemented as public policy that you will become active to oppose.  


That's exactly my stand with the homosexual agenda.  The whole question of altering the very definition of marriage, is a significant launch of someone's agenda into the realm of public and governmental policy.


quote:
And, since I don't recall the homosexual party ever wanting to force gay love on us all, or even having a political party, I must say I think your comparison is pretty logically unsound.



No, not gay love ... but there is a marked forcing of their view of what marriage should be.  This is something that will be "forced" upon us all.  And you don't think the homosexual agenda has definitive political overtones, or that it represents a certain ultra-liberalism politically?  


Stephen.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


144 posted 04-14-2004 03:08 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I challenge you to cite one reference to homosexuality in scripture which would support your interpretation that it is "neutral", and may or may not involve sin.

Love your neighbor.  

quote:
The rest of the above passage of scripture (which you didn't quote) goes on to say that we should first deal with our own sins, before being morbidly concerned with those of others.  “First remove the plank in your own eye ...”.  

And you have done that, Stephen? As I recall, right after that feat comes walking on water.  
quote:
Consider whether the following scriptures can be meaningful at all as instruction, if your interpretation of Matthew 7:3 is correct

Okay, more seriously this time.

Each of the passages you cite, Stephen, as well as everything else in the Bible, only supports exactly what I've been saying all along. Christians should teach, not coerce with civil law.

quote:
I think rather than foisting the spirit of contemporary “tolerance” upon Christianity, we should derive the spirit of Christianity from Christ himself, who when dealing with the woman caught in adultery, showed great and unusual mercy, and yet did not fail to say “Go and sin no more.”.

… but did NOT call on civil authority to enforce His condemnation of her sin.

You and any other Christian convinced your interpretation of Scripture is without fault are perfectly free to say so, just as Catholics are perfectly free to condemn divorce. No one, however, is free to legislate their interpretations on others. It's called free will for a reason.

  
quote:
In context of this discussion, the public preservation of traditional marriage should not be thought as “punishment”.  Some actions are punishment.  Some consequences are natural outworkings of actions/ choices/ lifestyles.  I cannot easily get a paycheck by refusing to work.  It wouldn’t make sense to accuse this example of public policy as “punishment”.

Marriage isn't anything like receiving a paycheck, Stephen, because you have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that entitles you to marry. You can, of course, do many things that will temporarily remove the option of marriage from your life, such as joining the Marines or going to prison, but there is nothing in our system short of death that will permanently preclude you from marrying the person of your choice.

What you are really supporting is the denial of that paycheck to people who haven't refused to work. Unless, of course, they're willing to choose the paycheck you have all picked out for them. You want to punish them for not making the choices you have made.

The question remains, as always, why you feel so threatened. Who do they hurt?
Local Rebel will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Jack and Diane and What's Love Got to Do   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors