Gays blaming blacks for gay marriage ban in California

[Truthspeaker]

It is irrelevant what happened to the child. David sinned by taking another man's woman and was punished for it. God's position is clear on immorality and speaks very plainly about how he feels. It is not really open for interpretation.

 

[sky dancer]

True there, GOD loves the person committing the act of homosexuality, but hates the act. See in order to really love, you have to really hate sin, there just aint no way around it.

Sure there is. Non-theists don't have this problem. No God; no sin, no act to hate or God to love the person.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Sure there is. Non-theists don't have this problem. No God; no sin, no act to hate or God to love the person.

You are absolutely right. It is time for people to be unashamed of what side they stand on. The Lord's side, or the side of people who believe there is no Lord and no sin.

 

[Truthspeaker]

by the way, sky, can you please start a buddhism thread, I would like to join and ask some genuine questions about that faith.

 

[sky dancer]

You are absolutely right. It is time for people to be unashamed of what side they stand on. The Lord's side, or the side of people who believe there is no Lord and no sin.

Buddhism has codes of conduct--including sexual misconduct. Homosexuality is not considered sexual misconduct in my lineage and school of Buddhism.

I stand in the truth fo the teachings of my path of spiritual practice.

 

[sky dancer]

by the way, sky, can you please start a buddhism thread, I would like to join and ask some genuine questions about that faith.

I have already started one.

 

[WhiteLion]

Sure there is. Non-theists don't have this problem. No God; no sin, no act to hate or God to love the person.

True, no thought for Abortion, no thought for traditional marriage, no accountibility, life is cheapened, in fact no conscious of real life substance whatsoever, its this kind of thought logic that gives countries like Russia, North Korea, China and others like'm the so-called right to KILL for any and all reasons???. But do remember this, weather or not you believe in Jesus the Christ GOD come in the flesh, you will stand accountible before him one day. GODs WORD says be not decieved for GODs not mocked for what a man soweth there he shall reap...

 

[Father Time]

its this kind of thought logic that gives countries like Russia, North Korea, China and others like'm the so-called right to KILL for any and all reasons???.

No it was power at all costs that was the logic for them (that and trying to get the populace to tow the government line)

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.....it would behoove more Christians to remember that you reap what you sow.

Maybe then, they wouldn't be so intolerant of others.

 

[Southpaw]

Apparently, short passages in the book of Acts are acceptable to you when they work to your advantage, but not when they advocate a political philosophy that you oppose.

If you are referring to communal giving/living, I tend to disagree with those who interpret the 1/2 passages in Acts as setting a pattern for all Christians. After all, the dietary thing and the moral enforcement of the law were repeatedly established as patterns of behavior.

Second, note that these people gave freely of their own volition. Government was not involved. I give a fairly substantial portion of my income to others, including some to the church I go to. That's my choice. I don't want the government taking a sizable portion of my money to use as it will because it is incredibly inefficient and generally uses it for things which are outside of the government's responsibilities.

Was the fate of David and Bathsheba's first child evidence of God's high regard for innocent life?

He got a quick trip to Heaven.

Before you respond with abortion, note that Jewish/Christian doctrine is quite clear that God can do what He wants to do. In a spiritual context, God can kill whom He wills.

 

[catzmeow]

You are absolutely right. It is time for people to be unashamed of what side they stand on. The Lord's side, or the side of people who believe there is no Lord and no sin.

I'm pretty clearly on the side that says there is no Lord and the concept of sin is WHACK.

 

[Southpaw]

I'm pretty clearly on the side that says there is no Lord and the concept of sin is WHACK.

Are you talking about sin in the Judeo-Christian sense or right v. wrong in general?

 

[Agnapostate]

If you are referring to communal giving/living, I tend to disagree with those who interpret the 1/2 passages in Acts as setting a pattern for all Christians. After all, the dietary thing and the moral enforcement of the law were repeatedly established as patterns of behavior.

Increasingly less so, particularly in the book of Acts, given the repeal of the Old Testament law regarding circumcision.

Second, note that these people gave freely of their own volition. Government was not involved. I give a fairly substantial portion of my income to others, including some to the church I go to. That's my choice. I don't want the government taking a sizable portion of my money to use as it will because it is incredibly inefficient and generally uses it for things which are outside of the government's responsibilities.

No hierarchical "government" is involved in a libertarian communist setting either, so this is more of a proscription against authoritarian socialism and communism than libertarian socialism and communism. It can be interpreted as support of the latter.

He got a quick trip to Heaven.

Before you respond with abortion, note that Jewish/Christian doctrine is quite clear that God can do what He wants to do. In a spiritual context, God can kill whom He wills.

That's quite arbitrary. God could have very easily said "Thou shalt kill" rather than "Thou shalt not kill," or better yet, "Thou shalt kill infants."

 

[Southpaw]

Increasingly less so, particularly in the book of Acts, given the repeal of the Old Testament law regarding circumcision.

Not sure where you are going with this. Please expound.

No hierarchical "government" is involved in a libertarian communist setting either, so this is more of a proscription against authoritarian socialism and communism than libertarian socialism and communism. It can be interpreted as support of the latter.

Show me a libertarian communist setting that actually works and I might be interested. My problems with communism are less with the ideologies (though I do disagree with some of the inherent principles) and more with their historical implementation.

That's quite arbitrary. God could have very easily said "Thou shalt kill" rather than "Thou shalt not kill," or better yet, "Thou shalt kill infants."

He's God. He gets to make the rules. It's part of that whole 'I created stuff' thing.

 

[Agnapostate]

Not sure where you are going with this. Please expound.

New Testament proscriptions ought to be a more preferable guide for Christian morality than Old Testament ones, especially since the book of Acts recounts the history of the early church immediately after the Great Commission. Hence, Christian practices in the book of Acts cannot be as quickly rejected as Old Testament dietary laws.

Show me a libertarian communist setting that actually works and I might be interested. My problems with communism are less with the ideologies (though I do disagree with some of the inherent principles) and more with their historical implementation.

The primary form of libertarian communism that has been implemented is that of the anarchist variety. Even so, anarcho-communism has not been as widely implemented as other forms of anarcho-socialism, yet clearly functioned in some instances. I would cite the Spanish Revolution, the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Paris Commune, and the current establishment of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation as pertinent examples of the implementation of libertarian socialism.

Also, I'd honestly venture to say that you're unfamiliar with some of the "inherent principles" of socialism and communism, given some of your statements in the past.

He's God. He gets to make the rules. It's part of that whole 'I created stuff' thing.

I'm simply trying to gauge whether or not you have ethical standards outside of God's commands. If God had declared that the Holocaust must be committed, I wonder if you would accept that as ethical.

 

[Southpaw]

New Testament proscriptions ought to be a more preferable guide for Christian morality than Old Testament ones, especially since the book of Acts recounts the history of the early church immediately after the Great Commission. Hence, Christian practices in the book of Acts cannot be as quickly rejected as Old Testament dietary laws.

I agree. By the way, I do practice what the early Christians did in Acts. I just don't agree with the idea that the government should do that for me and decide how to spend what I 'give.'

The primary form of libertarian communism that has been implemented is that of the anarchist variety. Even so, anarcho-communism has not been as widely implemented as other forms of anarcho-socialism, yet clearly functioned in some instances. I would cite the Spanish Revolution, the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Paris Commune, and the current establishment of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation as pertinent examples of the implementation of libertarian socialism.

Also, I'd honestly venture to say that you're unfamiliar with some of the "inherent principles" of socialism and communism, given some of your statements in the past.

I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert in socialism or communism. I will study them at some point but I'm into some other things right now. Why? Because they don't work in real life. They are not of practical interest to me.

I'm simply trying to gauge whether or not you have ethical standards outside of God's commands. If God had declared that the Holocaust must be committed, I wonder if you would accept that as ethical.

Very interesting question which is more complex and in-depth than one might assume.

You are asking if right is right because it is right or because God said so. I tend to believe that because God is right, He said what was right, and therefore it is right. However, when I discuss issues with someone who does not believe in God, I am not forced to retreat to 'because God said so' arguments because I believe it is morally self-evident as to what is right and what is not.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I'm pretty clearly on the side that says there is no Lord and the concept of sin is WHACK.

If you believe that nonsense, you shouldn't have any problem living in an place where there are no laws and crime is free to run amok.

 

[catzmeow]

If you believe that nonsense, you shouldn't have any problem living in an place where there are no laws and crime is free to run amok.

I fully believe in the concept of laws. A god is not necessary to support laws.

 

[catzmeow]

Are you talking about sin in the Judeo-Christian sense or right v. wrong in general?

I'm talking about sin in the Judeo-Christian sense.

 

[Truthspeaker]

People who believe in God will always be at debate stalemate with irreligious people because the reasons for political stances are either religious or "logical". However, I believe that my religious reasons are also logical. Sometimes the simplest answer is the best answer. Being tolerant of peoples lifestyles is different than being accepting of peoples lifestyles. I would say I am tolerant because I tolerate it. I don't gay bash, I don't preach violence or hellfire upon them, in fact I say that gays are loved by god as much as any of his children. I do think they are in error and I will not accept that that is the way God made them and will eventually have this temptation removed in the next life and have the ability to overcome it in this life. That is how I do not accept their lifestyle.
Do you all see the difference between tolerance and acceptance?