Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[Quantum Windbag]

Please point out where "insurance" is in any of that.

In that case, I can prove everyone that said Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality.

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. John 8:11

So ALL sinners aren't Christians. Got it.

I didn't say that.

I told you you wouldn't like the answer if I gave it to you, and you are proving me right every time you try to twist my words to mean something else. Maybe you should devote your effort to proving me wrong on that point instead of getting your panties into a wad.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Jesus, in the bible, the book that talks about all the shit he said, is mum on the gays.

Sorry, but you're the one who is wrong. If you say and believe you are a Christian, you are. That's it. No special decoder ring.

The Bible is not mum on homosexuality.

I didn't say the bible, I said Jesus.

And, as I pointed out, many Christians believe that Jesus is God, and that God wrote the Bible, which would mean that Jesus is not mum on homosexuals.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

lol insurance and insider trading are not new. They existed even the time of Jesus. And he did speak to it.

How could there have been insider trading in the time of Jesus when the first stock exchange didn't exist until the 17th century?

Shares of property are not a new concept.

Didn't I just say they date back to the 17th century? Are you arguing with yourself again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Incorrect.

16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 19:16-22)

Bearing false witness is lying about someone in order to get them convicted of a crime, insurance fraud is not.

You don't get to define the terms of the bible.

Read the following uses of the term them come back and explain how bearing false witness about an accident to steal money is not the type of sin Jesus is talking about.

What Does the Bible Say About Bearing False Witness?

You want to point out which thing you just posted you think contradicts my definition? Or should I just assume you really don't have any idea what you are talking about and ignore you?

 

[RKMBrown]

Jesus, in the bible, the book that talks about all the shit he said, is mum on the gays.

Sorry, but you're the one who is wrong. If you say and believe you are a Christian, you are. That's it. No special decoder ring.

The Bible is not mum on homosexuality.

I didn't say the bible, I said Jesus.

I took your statement as meaning the New vs. Old Testament. The old books include the only reference I know about... Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Some would argue that Jesus agreed with the laws of the old testament, thus by inclusion this law also applies. But, IMO Jesus brought a significantly different message that in effect changed many of the old testament's precepts. Slavery was common in the old times.. and the closest Jesus came to denouncing that was to say we should give up all worldly possessions. Probably best to just say it didn't come up because there just wasn't time to cover every single issue. That or the folks who wrote the books purposefully left it out or it got edited out at a later time.

 

[RKMBrown]

Bearing false witness is lying about someone in order to get them convicted of a crime, insurance fraud is not.

You don't get to define the terms of the bible.

Read the following uses of the term them come back and explain how bearing false witness about an accident to steal money is not the type of sin Jesus is talking about.

What Does the Bible Say About Bearing False Witness?

You want to point out which thing you just posted you think contradicts my definition? Or should I just assume you really don't have any idea what you are talking about and ignore you?

You are trying to qualify false witness to a limited type of false witness as that of giving false witness about a crime of another. There are many types of false witness and the citation from Matthew did not qualify which. You are trying to limit gods word to some narrow meaning. Why? Why would false witness NOT INCLUDE FALSE WITNESS ABOUT YOUR OWN CRIMES? Are you really trying to pretend that lying about insurance fraud is not a crime? Or are you trying to say insurance fraud is not a crime of theft. lol wow

 

[Seawytch]

In that case, I can prove everyone that said Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality.

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. John 8:11

So ALL sinners aren't Christians. Got it.

I didn't say that.

I told you you wouldn't like the answer if I gave it to you, and you are proving me right every time you try to twist my words to mean something else. Maybe you should devote your effort to proving me wrong on that point instead of getting your panties into a wad.

You implied gays could not be Christians.

 

[Seawytch]

The Bible is not mum on homosexuality.

I didn't say the bible, I said Jesus.

And, as I pointed out, many Christians believe that Jesus is God, and that God wrote the Bible, which would mean that Jesus is not mum on homosexuals.

Jesus, no matter what denomination of Christianity, is the son of god, the New Testament Guy. Jesus said nothing about gays.

 

[Seawytch]

I dont see anything about denying gays anything under due process. You fail.

Both DOMA and Prop 8 were ruled unconstitutional (one by SCOTUS) because they violated the due process of gays and lesbians.

Not true.

SCOTUS actually said that no one had standing to defend Prop 8 when it was appealed to them, that has nothing to do with due process. If it did they would have actually decided the case on its merits.

Lower court ruling stands. That ruling said Prop 8 violated due process.

By the way, the DOMA decision struck down the federal definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, which means that, currently, there is nothing in federal law that puts any restrictions on polygamous marriages.

It did not strike down laws against polygamy. Honestly...

 

[Seawytch]

I dont see anything about denying gays anything under due process. You fail.

Both DOMA and Prop 8 were ruled unconstitutional (one by SCOTUS) because they violated the due process of gays and lesbians.

Pure legislation by the bench

Like Heller and the Voting Rights Act?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Oh, so you're being silly. All we know of what Jesus says is the bible. In the bible, Jesus never said a damn thing.

Why is it nobody calls the fornicators, adulterers, covetors, drunks, etc. "fake Christians"? No, only the gay ones, despite Jesus being completely mum on the subject.

Actually, you are wrong, (by omission) yet again. True, Jesus never spoke DIRECTLY about homosexuality, however he DID say this when He spoke about marriage, He affirmed it as an institution between a male and a female. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees asked Him what He thought about divorce, hoping to trap Him into disagreeing with Moses and therefore finding reason for condemning Him. Now, in Jesus’ response about why divorce is a bad thing and a result of the hardness of human hearts, Jesus says, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

So, yes, Jesus never actually addressed homosexuality, but he made it quite clear that marriage is between a man and a woman - not two "pretenders".

Putting words in gods mouth now? Wow you don't think much of yourself do you.

still wearing that hat and those chaps I see

 

[RKMBrown]

Actually, you are wrong, (by omission) yet again. True, Jesus never spoke DIRECTLY about homosexuality, however he DID say this when He spoke about marriage, He affirmed it as an institution between a male and a female. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees asked Him what He thought about divorce, hoping to trap Him into disagreeing with Moses and therefore finding reason for condemning Him. Now, in Jesus’ response about why divorce is a bad thing and a result of the hardness of human hearts, Jesus says, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

So, yes, Jesus never actually addressed homosexuality, but he made it quite clear that marriage is between a man and a woman - not two "pretenders".

Putting words in gods mouth now? Wow you don't think much of yourself do you.

still wearing that hat and those chaps I see

What is with your fascination with chaps?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Oh, so you're being silly. All we know of what Jesus says is the bible. In the bible, Jesus never said a damn thing.

Why is it nobody calls the fornicators, adulterers, covetors, drunks, etc. "fake Christians"? No, only the gay ones, despite Jesus being completely mum on the subject.

Actually, you are wrong, (by omission) yet again. True, Jesus never spoke DIRECTLY about homosexuality, however he DID say this when He spoke about marriage, He affirmed it as an institution between a male and a female. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees asked Him what He thought about divorce, hoping to trap Him into disagreeing with Moses and therefore finding reason for condemning Him. Now, in Jesus’ response about why divorce is a bad thing and a result of the hardness of human hearts, Jesus says, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

So, yes, Jesus never actually addressed homosexuality, but he made it quite clear that marriage is between a man and a woman - not two "pretenders".

So I'm right, he never said a damn thing about homosexuality. That's all you had to say. In the passage you're referring to, he was actually being the original feminist and was talking about divorce and how guys shouldn't just shuck off a chick when they're bored with them. He wasn't even thinking about the gays.

Still engaging in legalese to excuse your behavior I see...OK..whatever lets you sleep at night. However, here are the facts:


1) Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it. There were dimensions of the Jewish law that do not carry over into Christianity. But Christ told us He fulfilled the law, not reneged on it. As He explained, He heightened its morality (Matt 5:17-20); fulfilled its signs, made good on its promises and gave substance to its shadows (Luke 24:46-47). He did not come hat in hand conceding that Old Testament God was backwards and uninformed. Leviticus says that God finds homosexuality “detestable” (Lev 18:22). God did not change, morally, in the New Testament. What God finds detestable one day He does not suddenly find agreeable the next. Now, if anything, Jesus says, we have a morality that now supercedes, and not contradicts, the moral law (Matt 5:17-21). Certain ceremonial shadows and social codes were fulfilled in Christ, but He did not, in any way, come to revise the God behind the law.

But why, you ask, didn’t Jesus speak directly against homosexuality? Simply put, He assumed the moral tenets of the Mosaic law, as did the people He spoke to. He also didn’t directly speak against bestiality, genocide, child molestation, or gang rape because these things were assumed, based on the Mosaic Law, to be sinful. You cannot separate His teaching from its Old Testament backdrop. His every word, He said, has its anchor and meaning in the Old. It is true that Jesus said that the Great Commandment was to “love God and love others” (Matthew 22:37-38) but note that He said in that same passage that that “Great Commandment” was the summation of the OT law. In other words, the OT law was an expression of what it looked like to love God and love others. “Love God and love others” was an abbreviated version of what the OT law gave in longer form.

To say that because He never mentioned it we should assume He’s ambivalent about it is the logical fallacy of “argument from silence,” and in this case its a really bad one that completely ignores Jesus’ context.

Your "legalese" could very well cost you in the long run, but go ahead and obfuscate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Bible is not mum on homosexuality.

I didn't say the bible, I said Jesus.

And, as I pointed out, many Christians believe that Jesus is God, and that God wrote the Bible, which would mean that Jesus is not mum on homosexuals.

If God and/or Jesus wrote the Bible, then we already know that for some reason they were wrong about how the Earth was created,

which is curious since God says he created it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, you are wrong, (by omission) yet again. True, Jesus never spoke DIRECTLY about homosexuality, however he DID say this when He spoke about marriage, He affirmed it as an institution between a male and a female. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees asked Him what He thought about divorce, hoping to trap Him into disagreeing with Moses and therefore finding reason for condemning Him. Now, in Jesus’ response about why divorce is a bad thing and a result of the hardness of human hearts, Jesus says, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

So, yes, Jesus never actually addressed homosexuality, but he made it quite clear that marriage is between a man and a woman - not two "pretenders".

So I'm right, he never said a damn thing about homosexuality. That's all you had to say. In the passage you're referring to, he was actually being the original feminist and was talking about divorce and how guys shouldn't just shuck off a chick when they're bored with them. He wasn't even thinking about the gays.

Still engaging in legalese to excuse your behavior I see...OK..whatever lets you sleep at night. However, here are the facts:


1) Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it. There were dimensions of the Jewish law that do not carry over into Christianity. But Christ told us He fulfilled the law, not reneged on it. As He explained, He heightened its morality (Matt 5:17-20); fulfilled its signs, made good on its promises and gave substance to its shadows (Luke 24:46-47). He did not come hat in hand conceding that Old Testament God was backwards and uninformed. Leviticus says that God finds homosexuality “detestable” (Lev 18:22). God did not change, morally, in the New Testament. What God finds detestable one day He does not suddenly find agreeable the next. Now, if anything, Jesus says, we have a morality that now supercedes, and not contradicts, the moral law (Matt 5:17-21). Certain ceremonial shadows and social codes were fulfilled in Christ, but He did not, in any way, come to revise the God behind the law.

But why, you ask, didn’t Jesus speak directly against homosexuality? Simply put, He assumed the moral tenets of the Mosaic law, as did the people He spoke to. He also didn’t directly speak against bestiality, genocide, child molestation, or gang rape because these things were assumed, based on the Mosaic Law, to be sinful. You cannot separate His teaching from its Old Testament backdrop. His every word, He said, has its anchor and meaning in the Old. It is true that Jesus said that the Great Commandment was to “love God and love others” (Matthew 22:37-38) but note that He said in that same passage that that “Great Commandment” was the summation of the OT law. In other words, the OT law was an expression of what it looked like to love God and love others. “Love God and love others” was an abbreviated version of what the OT law gave in longer form.

To say that because He never mentioned it we should assume He’s ambivalent about it is the logical fallacy of “argument from silence,” and in this case its a really bad one that completely ignores Jesus’ context.

Your "legalese" could very well cost you in the long run, but go ahead and obfuscate.

We don't have a Christian theocracy. Nor are we in any way bound to follow ancient law,

unless of course the voters decide to pass modern laws that happen to reflect something in ancient law.

 

[RKMBrown]

I didn't say the bible, I said Jesus.

And, as I pointed out, many Christians believe that Jesus is God, and that God wrote the Bible, which would mean that Jesus is not mum on homosexuals.

If God and/or Jesus wrote the Bible, then we already know that for some reason they were wrong about how the Earth was created,

which is curious since God says he created it.

What part was wrong? The only part most folks complain about is the time duration it took. But those folks are usually ignorant to the fact that time is relative to the traveler.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Jesus never said anything about insurance fraud either. Does that make it OK?

Incorrect.

16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 19:16-22)

Bearing false witness is lying about someone in order to get them convicted of a crime, insurance fraud is not.

Even if that were true, it's moot because we know that insurance fraud is stealing and thou shall not steal was a commandment.

 

[RandallFlagg]

So I'm right, he never said a damn thing about homosexuality. That's all you had to say. In the passage you're referring to, he was actually being the original feminist and was talking about divorce and how guys shouldn't just shuck off a chick when they're bored with them. He wasn't even thinking about the gays.

Still engaging in legalese to excuse your behavior I see...OK..whatever lets you sleep at night. However, here are the facts:


1) Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it. There were dimensions of the Jewish law that do not carry over into Christianity. But Christ told us He fulfilled the law, not reneged on it. As He explained, He heightened its morality (Matt 5:17-20); fulfilled its signs, made good on its promises and gave substance to its shadows (Luke 24:46-47). He did not come hat in hand conceding that Old Testament God was backwards and uninformed. Leviticus says that God finds homosexuality “detestable” (Lev 18:22). God did not change, morally, in the New Testament. What God finds detestable one day He does not suddenly find agreeable the next. Now, if anything, Jesus says, we have a morality that now supercedes, and not contradicts, the moral law (Matt 5:17-21). Certain ceremonial shadows and social codes were fulfilled in Christ, but He did not, in any way, come to revise the God behind the law.

But why, you ask, didn’t Jesus speak directly against homosexuality? Simply put, He assumed the moral tenets of the Mosaic law, as did the people He spoke to. He also didn’t directly speak against bestiality, genocide, child molestation, or gang rape because these things were assumed, based on the Mosaic Law, to be sinful. You cannot separate His teaching from its Old Testament backdrop. His every word, He said, has its anchor and meaning in the Old. It is true that Jesus said that the Great Commandment was to “love God and love others” (Matthew 22:37-38) but note that He said in that same passage that that “Great Commandment” was the summation of the OT law. In other words, the OT law was an expression of what it looked like to love God and love others. “Love God and love others” was an abbreviated version of what the OT law gave in longer form.

To say that because He never mentioned it we should assume He’s ambivalent about it is the logical fallacy of “argument from silence,” and in this case its a really bad one that completely ignores Jesus’ context.

Your "legalese" could very well cost you in the long run, but go ahead and obfuscate.

We don't have a Christian theocracy. Nor are we in any way bound to follow ancient law,

unless of course the voters decide to pass modern laws that happen to reflect something in ancient law.

Thats not the point. The subject was that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality. Jesus wouldn't have necessarily had a reason to speak out about it. It was a given in those days.

No one here is advocating adopting Mosiac law into the civil code.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And, as I pointed out, many Christians believe that Jesus is God, and that God wrote the Bible, which would mean that Jesus is not mum on homosexuals.

If God and/or Jesus wrote the Bible, then we already know that for some reason they were wrong about how the Earth was created,

which is curious since God says he created it.

What part was wrong? The only part most folks complain about is the time duration it took. But those folks are usually ignorant to the fact that time is relative to the traveler.

In other words mortal men are allowed to interpret Genesis any way they see fit in order to make the creation myth match up with scientific fact and therefore clear God of any charge of error?

lol good one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Still engaging in legalese to excuse your behavior I see...OK..whatever lets you sleep at night. However, here are the facts:


1) Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it. There were dimensions of the Jewish law that do not carry over into Christianity. But Christ told us He fulfilled the law, not reneged on it. As He explained, He heightened its morality (Matt 5:17-20); fulfilled its signs, made good on its promises and gave substance to its shadows (Luke 24:46-47). He did not come hat in hand conceding that Old Testament God was backwards and uninformed. Leviticus says that God finds homosexuality “detestable” (Lev 18:22). God did not change, morally, in the New Testament. What God finds detestable one day He does not suddenly find agreeable the next. Now, if anything, Jesus says, we have a morality that now supercedes, and not contradicts, the moral law (Matt 5:17-21). Certain ceremonial shadows and social codes were fulfilled in Christ, but He did not, in any way, come to revise the God behind the law.

But why, you ask, didn’t Jesus speak directly against homosexuality? Simply put, He assumed the moral tenets of the Mosaic law, as did the people He spoke to. He also didn’t directly speak against bestiality, genocide, child molestation, or gang rape because these things were assumed, based on the Mosaic Law, to be sinful. You cannot separate His teaching from its Old Testament backdrop. His every word, He said, has its anchor and meaning in the Old. It is true that Jesus said that the Great Commandment was to “love God and love others” (Matthew 22:37-38) but note that He said in that same passage that that “Great Commandment” was the summation of the OT law. In other words, the OT law was an expression of what it looked like to love God and love others. “Love God and love others” was an abbreviated version of what the OT law gave in longer form.

To say that because He never mentioned it we should assume He’s ambivalent about it is the logical fallacy of “argument from silence,” and in this case its a really bad one that completely ignores Jesus’ context.

Your "legalese" could very well cost you in the long run, but go ahead and obfuscate.

We don't have a Christian theocracy. Nor are we in any way bound to follow ancient law,

unless of course the voters decide to pass modern laws that happen to reflect something in ancient law.

Thats not the point. The subject was that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality. Jesus wouldn't have necessarily had a reason to speak out about it. It was a given in those days.

No one here is advocating adopting Mosiac law into the civil code.

If you are arguing for the teachings of Jesus to be reflected in our laws, as you are above, then you are advocating for theocracy, albeit a democratic theocracy of sorts.