Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[Tassman]

Genetic fallacy. Just sayin'. (And this assumes your accusation against Reagan even has merit.)

http://www.divorcestatistics.info/di...n-the-usa.html

No, it really doesn't. There is no possible way to interpret scripture as saying anything other than homosexuality is a sin.

Well yes it apparently does given that there are many Christian denominations which do just that. You can argue that they have misinterpreted scripture of course, but then they could say the same about you.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-gay-marriage/

[Mountain Man]

Can you show where in the Bible it says that the Leviticus ceremonial and social laws should no longer be followed, but the moral laws should? Should the penalties for not following those moral laws still be followed? If not, can you show where in the Bible it says that those penalties shouldn't be followed? Also, how is it determined which laws are social and which are moral? For example, is getting a tattoo a violation of a moral law, and thus should not be done, or a violation of a social law, and therefore permissible?

To be clear, I am not contesting your argument. I want to know more about it.

We need to pay attention to the language in scripture. For example, let's a pick a favorite of the "new atheists": shellfish. The prohibition against shellfish is stated in Leviticus 11 where the various rules in this and the following chapters are repeatedly referred to as "regulations", a translation of the Hebrew word towrah"The days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them."

Jesus explicitly refers to his death and resurrection as the beginning of the New Covenant in Luke 22:20: In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."

And as Paul explains in Romans 7:4-6: So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

[Mountain Man]

http://www.divorcestatistics.info/di...n-the-usa.htmlhttp://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-gay-marriage/

Yes, there are a lot of divorced and remarried Christians living in adultery. So what? This is nothing but an ad hominem tu quoque and doesn't change the fact that the Bible unambiguously calls homosexuality a sin, and it can not be reasonably interpreted as saying anything else.

There are two common "arguments" against the Bible on this. The first is, "But- but- but Christians eat shellfish!" or some similar nonsense. See my previous post to Psychic Missile for an answer.

The second tries to claim that we really don't know what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 6 despite the fact that 1) the term translated as "men who have sex with men" can not be referring to anything other than homosexuality; and 2) Paul's writings are consistent with prior Jewish teaching and tradition which unwaveringly condemns homosexuality.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes, there are a lot of divorced and remarried Christians living in adultery. So what? This is nothing but an ad hominem tu quoque and doesn't change the fact that the Bible unambiguously calls homosexuality a sin, and it can not be reasonably interpreted as saying anything else.

There are two common "arguments" against the Bible on this. The first is, "But- but- but Christians eat shellfish!" or some similar nonsense. See my previous post to Psychic Missile for an answer.

The second tries to claim that we really don't know what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 6 despite the fact that 1) the term translated as "men who have sex with men" can not be referring to anything other than homosexuality; and 2) Paul's writings are consistent with prior Jewish teaching and tradition which unwaveringly condemns homosexuality.

That and he is just taking the fundy approach, in which you bring forth a blanket condemning of entire groups of people and don't bother to look any further. A marriage is between two people and if one of these people decides not to work in their commitment anymore... what can the other really do about it? Funny how Tazzy Wazzy attacks Christians for being hateful and bitter and only goes and shows his own hatefulness and bitterness, with everything he post.

[Mountain Man]

A marriage is between two people and if one of these people decides not to work in their commitment anymore... what can the other really do about it?

The Bible even makes an explicit exception for such cases.

[Psychic Missile]

We need to pay attention to the language in scripture. For example, let's a pick a favorite of the "new atheists": shellfish. The prohibition against shellfish is stated in Leviticus 11 where the various rules in this and the following chapters are repeatedly referred to as "regulations", a translation of the Hebrew word towrah"The days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them."

Jesus explicitly refers to his death and resurrection as the beginning of the New Covenant in Luke 22:20: In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."

And as Paul explains in Romans 7:4-6: So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Okay, so you can tell what kind of law is which by the chapter and the context God gives. You can also tell which law to follow according to what Jesus said, like how he forbid stoning. What about a chapter like Leviticus 19, which appears to intermix custom and moral?

[Mountain Man]

What about a chapter like Leviticus 19, which appears to intermix custom and moral?

What about it? You apparently can tell that it's mixing social laws and moral laws, and one can use discernment to determine which is which.

[Epoetker]

Okay, so you can tell what kind of law is which by the chapter and the context God gives. You can also tell which law to follow according to what Jesus said, like how he forbid stoning. What about a chapter like Leviticus 19, which appears to intermix custom and moral?

Jesus never really forbade stoning so much as he expertly de-railed what was most likely an attempt at witness destruction and extrajudicial bloodshed that would have only hurt his mission. In the OT one of the salient features of stoning for adultery is the stoning of both parties, rather than just one grabbed at random in an attempt to hastily prove ones moral bona fides in front of a respected teacher. That particular episode was about 99% rhetorical rather than instructional, although the context in which it occurs and the way Jesus handles it is most definitely instructive.

Leviticus 19 is, again, extremely contextual instruction, given that it deals with how the Israelites are to behave when they "come into the Land." The instruction which is timeless tends to be repeated, as the Isrealites did of course require repeated instruction following their failures to observe the laws, or as is more common, their tendency to abuse loopholes in the laws whatever way possible. Much like our present homosexual belligerents, come to think of it.

Context is key. Context is life. Context gives you better judgment and understanding, and makes you less likely to be taken in by manufactured crises and the various lies and half-truths of the Spirit of the Age.

[Tassman]

Yes, there are a lot of divorced and remarried Christians living in adultery. So what? This is nothing but an ad hominem tu quoque and doesn't change the fact that the Bible unambiguously calls homosexuality a sin, and it can not be reasonably interpreted as saying anything else.

There are two common "arguments" against the Bible on this. The first is, "But- but- but Christians eat shellfish!" or some similar nonsense. See my previous post to Psychic Missile for an answer.

The second tries to claim that we really don't know what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 6 despite the fact that 1) the term translated as "men who have sex with men" can not be referring to anything other than homosexuality; and 2) Paul's writings are consistent with prior Jewish teaching and tradition which unwaveringly condemns homosexuality.

[Mountain Man]

If you think my arguments can be summarized as "I'm right, and they're wrong" then you can not have possibly understood my arguments. I sometimes forget how easy it is to talk over your head, but it's somewhat difficult for me to stoop to your intellectual level.

[Joel]

truehttp://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-gay-marriage/

The statement was about whether a considerable number of Christians believe that homosexual activity is sin.
Whether there also exists a considerable number of Christians who believe that homosexual activity is not sin, is a different question.

The one bit in your article that references individual beliefs is unacceptably misleading:

"This is not the case for members of the mainline Protestant churches. A solid majority of people who identify as mainliners now favor allowing gays and lesbians to wed. In a survey we conducted in September 2014, 60% of mainline Protestants now say they favor same-sex marriage, up from just 34% a decade earlier in 2004."

The author is deliberately conflating the survey of being in favor of legal same-sex marriage, with being in favor of their church approving of same-sex marriages or their church performing marriage rites for same-sex couples.

Let alone with believing that homosexual activity is not sin. Those are all different things.

honouring and affirminghonouring and affirming

Who says that?
Or are you knocking down a straw man?

[Tassman]

If you think my arguments can be summarized as "I'm right, and they're wrong" then you can not have possibly understood my arguments.

Your argument, such as it is, is your interpretation of the biblical view of homosexuality. The undeniable fact is that many Christians disagree with your interpretation.

I sometimes forget how easy it is to talk over your head, but it's somewhat difficult for me to stoop to your intellectual level.

Oh right.

[Tassman]

The statement was about whether a considerable number of Christians believe that homosexual activity is sin.
Whether there also exists a considerable number of Christians who believe that homosexual activity is not sin, is a different question.

The one bit in your article that references individual beliefs is unacceptably misleading:

"This is not the case for members of the mainline Protestant churches. A solid majority of people who identify as mainliners now favor allowing gays and lesbians to wed. In a survey we conducted in September 2014, 60% of mainline Protestants now say they favor same-sex marriage, up from just 34% a decade earlier in 2004."

The author is deliberately conflating the survey of being in favor of legal same-sex marriage, with being in favor of their church approving of same-sex marriages or their church performing marriage rites for same-sex couples.

Let alone with believing that homosexual activity is not sin. Those are all different things.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-gay-marriage/

Who says that?

Or are you knocking down a straw man?

[Epoetker]

"Hoping they get it right this time" is a pretty far cry from "Missing the point in the ugliest way imaginable." Some people have a higher tolerance for deviance than others, and we rarely expect perfection even among the elect. The amazing thing is that someone stood on any principle at all in the face of these devils and their supporters in high places. Perhaps in a better future, when people actually know and care for each other more, they will treat adultery in the same way.

Tell me, Tassman, do you hope for that future? Or is your philosophy still:

bumper-sticker-speak-power-to-truth.gif

[Sparko]

She did? Give me a link and a quote.