god

moe · Jan 31, 2009

Slippery Slope said:
So then you must be for gay rights and gay marriage?

The law of man is subject to change. The law of God is not. Thus no I can not support gay marriage. As to gay rights, The church should support the equal treatment and human rights of all people.

gay marriage is an attempt to redifine the laws of man. As I stated to you earlier I do not care who you marry. marry your own sons and daughters if you wish but do not expect me support it. You are of the world and follow a different law than we follow.

You will get this law in time. The real problems will come when man tries to enforce his law on Gods churches.

Moe

Slippery Slope · Feb 3, 2009

moe said:
The law of man is subject to change. The law of God is not. Thus no I can not support gay marriage. As to gay rights, The church should support the equal treatment and human rights of all people.

gay marriage is an attempt to redifine the laws of man. As I stated to you earlier I do not care who you marry. marry your own sons and daughters if you wish but do not expect me support it. You are of the world and follow a different law than we follow.

You will get this law in time. The real problems will come when man tries to enforce his law on Gods churches.

Moe

Where in the bible does it say "thou shalt not be gay"? I don't recall this law.

I think men have recently created the institution of marriage as it is today, which is the way xians claim god wants it. However, we know that, the one man and one woman marriage is not biblical and quite modern. So how can you support the idea of one man and one woman which seems to be against gods original plan?

moe · Feb 3, 2009

Slippery Slope said:
Where in the bible does it say "thou shalt not be gay"? I don't recall this law.

Come now surly you have been involved in enough such debates where the OT and NT verses have been shown concerning homosexuality.

Slippery Slope said:
I think men have recently created the institution of marriage as it is today, which is the way xians claim god wants it. However, we know that, the one man and one woman marriage is not biblical and quite modern. So how can you support the idea of one man and one woman which seems to be against gods original plan?

Actually you are correct. The bible shows monogamous marriage as preferred but never enforced. Even in the NT Paul never forbid polygamous marriages but he made it a requirement of the church to only appoint pastors elders deacons bishops etc who were married to one woman to set the preferred example for the modern church.

The marriage laws today concerning polygamy are the law of the land and do not conflict with the laws of God so we are bound to obey them.

Moe

Jerry · Feb 3, 2009

moe said:
Come now surly you have been involved in enough such debates where the OT and NT verses have been shown concerning homosexuality.

Scripture does not address any sexual orientation.

Scripture addresses a sexual behavior which both homosexuals AND heterosexual men engage in.

moe · Feb 3, 2009

Jerry said:
Scripture does not address any sexual orientation.

Scripture addresses a sexual behavior which both homosexuals AND heterosexual men engage in.

I see your point. I am so used to people just talking about the gay rights issue that is all I think about when confronted with these kinds of questions anymore

Moe

razz · Feb 4, 2009

moe, if the "law of God" stated that black people do not deserve to work for white men, would you adhere to those to or make an exception?

First Thought · Feb 4, 2009

razz said:
moe, if the "law of God" stated that black people do not deserve to work for white men, would you adhere to those to or make an exception?

How is that relevant? "What if" situations are kinda lame.

Jerry · Feb 5, 2009

EgoffTib said:
How is that relevant? "What if" situations are kinda lame.

It's a Loaded Question.

A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:

"Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."

"No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."

If you answer "yes" then you are blindly following just whatever the text says.

If you answer "no" then you don't really believe in the authority of the text.

Since a question is not an argument, simply asking a loaded question is not a fallacious argument. Rather, loaded questions are typically used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. For instance, salespeople learn to ask such loaded questions as: "Will that be cash or charge?" This question gives only two alternatives, thus presuming that the potential buyer has already decided to make a purchase, which is similar to the Black-or-White Fallacy. If the potential buyer answers the question directly, he may suddenly find himself an actual buyer.

Since he can't address your argument he's trying to trick you into making a mistake so that he can troll.

razz · Feb 5, 2009

Where is the presupposition in my question? Do you even know what that means, it's defined as "An assumption, conjecture, speculation or something supposed without proof" - so what is the assumption I was making, what was I speculating without proof? Enlighten me...

The hypothetical I posed is a perfectly legitimate question as it reveals the hypocrisy in people's statements.

moe said:

moe said:
The law of man is subject to change. The law of God is not. Thus no I can not support gay marriage.

So I simply asked, imagine an extra verse had been written that said "Thou shall not allow thy black men to work for thy white men" - would he have said:

moe said:
The law of man is subject to change. The law of God is not. Thus no I can not support the rights of black people working for white men.

So would he go against "God" or would he support black rights?

Slippery Slope · Feb 5, 2009

moe said:
Come now surly you have been involved in enough such debates where the OT and NT verses have been shown concerning homosexuality.

No, no one has ever produced those verses, probably because they don't exist but I'm asking you to be the first. So let's see them, from both the OT and NT.

Actually you are correct. The bible shows monogamous marriage as preferred but never enforced.

While you're looking up the homosexual quotes you can add the verses that show monogamous marriage as "preferred".

Even in the NT Paul never forbid polygamous marriages but he made it a requirement of the church to only appoint pastors elders deacons bishops etc who were married to one woman to set the preferred example for the modern church.

So that would be Paul's "law" and not gods, right?

The marriage laws today concerning polygamy are the law of the land and do not conflict with the laws of God so we are bound to obey them.
Moe

So you agree that marriage between one man and one woman is not gods law. Thank you.

Slippery Slope · Feb 5, 2009

razz said:
moe, if the "law of God" stated that black people do not deserve to work for white men, would you adhere to those to or make an exception?

That's not a very good question in the first place but in the second place, xians are moral relativists so obviously they will forfeit god's law for man's where ever it's convenient to do so.

moe · Feb 5, 2009

Slippery Slope said:
No, no one has ever produced those verses, probably because they don't exist but I'm asking you to be the first. So let's see them, from both the OT and NT.

Le 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.

Ro 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Ro 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another *; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Ro 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Slippery Slope said:
While you're looking up the homosexual quotes you can add the verses that show monogamous marriage as "preferred".

Ge 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Ge 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

1ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Slippery Slope said:
So that would be Paul's "law" and not gods, right?

Concerning marriage Paul never made it a commandment .

1co 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
1co 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
1co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
1co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
1co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

Slippery Slope said:
So you agree that marriage between one man and one woman is not gods law. Thank you.

Me thinks you thank me to soon

Moe

Jerry · Feb 5, 2009

razz said:
Where is the presupposition in my question? Do you even know what that means, it's defined as "An assumption, conjecture, speculation or something supposed without proof" - so what is the assumption I was making, what was I speculating without proof? Enlighten me...

The hypothetical I posed is a perfectly legitimate question as it reveals the hypocrisy in people's statements.

moe said:

So I simply asked, imagine an extra verse had been written that said "Thou shall not allow thy black men to work for thy white men" - would he have said:

So would he go against "God" or would he support black rights?

Your question assumes that there is no reason or centuries of social experimentation supporting the validity of the commandments.

Your question assumes religious beliefs/texts are whimsical, which is a false presumption, so your question is therefore loaded.

Slippery Slope · Feb 6, 2009

moe said:
Le 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.

A man doesn't lay with another man as he lays with a woman. A woman has a vagina.

But let's run with this. How do you propose they should be put to death? You can't just pick out the part you'd like to use and ignore the rest. So either you are against homosexuality and believe they should be killed or you ignore the whole verse. Which is it going to be? After we are done figuring that one out we can move on to the rest of Leviticus 20, beginning with 20:01 and go down the list to see how many other of gods laws you ignore.

Ro 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Once again we see the ignorance of the bible. Homosexuality does exist in nature and is therefore NOT against nature.

Ro 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another *; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

This doesn't say anything about god's attitude toward homosexuality.

Ro 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

This doesn't say anything about god's attitude toward homosexuality.

Ge 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

This doesn't say anything about marriage.

Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

This doesn't say that one wife is preferred. Granted it doesn't say "wives" but then when a man leaves home he usually only has one wife at that time and acquires more later. Therefore an interpretation of that would be that when it's time for a man to get married and leave home, he will probably only have one wife.

Ge 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Irrelevant

1ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Can Bishops even get married? Beyond that it seems quite obvious that multiple wives were condoned as normal, i.e. preferred, It is an exception: "If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,"

1ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

see above.

Concerning marriage Paul never made it a commandment

Of course not, only god can make commandments, right?

1co 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
1co 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
1co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
1co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
1co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

Only the last verse speaks of marriage and that is regarding divorce. Why aren't you trying to make divorce illegal? Moral relativism?

So all in all, nothing, nada.

moe · Feb 6, 2009

Slippery Slope said:
A man doesn't lay with another man as he lays with a woman. A woman has a vagina.

.

Sexual manner slope. But you already know that don't you. If you think I am going to sit here and give you a step by step education in ancient marriages concerning the rights of the first wife and concubines etc and how the OT law is today interpreted using the NT teachings you have another thing coming. especially considering the " Woman has a Vagina"line. It is very obvious that a woman has vagina. It also is very obvious nature means the manner in which procreation is involved. Thus this is not a serious discussion on your part at all.

Moe

razz · Feb 6, 2009

Jerry said:
Your question assumes that there is no reason or centuries of social experimentation supporting the validity of the commandments.

Your question assumes religious beliefs/texts are whimsical, which is a false presumption, so your question is therefore loaded.

What the hell are you talking about? You got that from a simple hypothetical?

The only thing loaded here is your head, apparently with air.

moe · Feb 6, 2009

razz said:
What the hell are you talking about? You got that from a simple hypothetical?

The only thing loaded here is your head, apparently with air.

Razz.

There is no point in discussing something that the bible does not even teach. There are all kinds of things that it does teach that are in contention both inside and outside of the church.

Such as your every body who does not accept Christ goes to hell thread. Surely you see there are differing views even among us Christians. Why not pick something that really is controversial and lets deal with that?
Google up bible controversies or what ever and pick one that suits you and post it and lets discuss that rather than a non existent topic that has no real relevance.

Moe

Jerry · Feb 7, 2009

razz said:
What the hell are you talking about? You got that from a simple hypothetical?

The only thing loaded here is your head, apparently with air.

I'd like to take this opertunity to point out another logical error in your argument, from the same site:

The Fallacy of Personal Attack

Exposition:
A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.

Exposure:
Ad Hominem is the most familiar of informal fallacies, and—with the possible exception of Undistributed Middle—the most familiar logical fallacy of them all. It is also one of the most used and abused of fallacies, and both justified and unjustified accusations of Ad Hominem abound in any debate.

Be well :2wave:

razz · Feb 7, 2009

moe said:
Razz.

There is no point in discussing something that the bible does not even teach. There are all kinds of things that it does teach that are in contention both inside and outside of the church.

Such as your every body who does not accept Christ goes to hell thread. Surely you see there are differing views even among us Christians. Why not pick something that really is controversial and lets deal with that?
Google up bible controversies or what ever and pick one that suits you and post it and lets discuss that rather than a non existent topic that has no real relevance.

Moe

Moe I'm trying to show how people will interpret and "view" things different based on the societal standard...just imagine for instance that the Bible was for hating black people, would you interpret that differently or would you hate people because a book told you to?

Jerry said:
I'd like to take this opertunity to point out another logical error in your argument, from the same site:

The Fallacy of Personal Attack

Be well :2wave:

I tend to personally attack nazi's, klan members, etc....

moe · Feb 7, 2009

razz said:
Moe I'm trying to show how people will interpret and "view" things different based on the societal standard

And there are some people who do use the bible in such a manner. Curse of cain and ham etc.

The problem is the view that the bible teaches people to hate. It does not.

If you want to continue more on this subject I am willing to do so but I am a little involved in another thread at the moment so I will just stop here for now.

Moe

Jerry · Feb 7, 2009

razz said:
I tend to personally attack nazi's, klan members, etc....

...and Conservative Christians who do not stand in the way of gay-marriage, who comply with pro-choice law despite ideological objections, like me, yeah I get it.

It still doesn't follow, though, that you would knowingly make falacious arguments against Nazis when the obvious result is your giving that Nazi credibility when they keep their cool while you flame.

It's as though you want your argument to self destruct, to fail, to empower and embolden your opponent.

Curious.

Zakany · Feb 8, 2009

An interesting cartoon about god and evolution debate here:
Evolution & Intelligent Design - "Life in Research" Cartoon | VADLO Bioinformatics Search Engine

Slippery Slope · Feb 9, 2009

moe said:
Sexual manner slope. But you already know that don't you. If you think I am going to sit here and give you a step by step education in ancient marriages concerning the rights of the first wife and concubines etc and how the OT law is today interpreted using the NT teachings you have another thing coming. especially considering the " Woman has a Vagina"line. It is very obvious that a woman has vagina. It also is very obvious nature means the manner in which procreation is involved. Thus this is not a serious discussion on your part at all.

Moe

In the first line I am simply being obtuse because of the ambiguity of the interpretation. You see, anyone can interpret the bible any way they want. It's just one of the shell game parlor tricks that have kept the bible around for so long.

I love it when xians bow out of a discussion of their own bull**** by telling the nonbeliever that they aren't going to "teach" us blah blah blah... you were more than willing before I shot down, line by line, your scriptural argument.

I also note how you called the first wife a wife and the rest are all just concubines... :roll:

moe · Feb 9, 2009

Slippery Slope said:
I love it when xians bow out of a discussion of their own bull**** by telling the nonbeliever that they aren't going to "teach" us blah blah blah... you were more than willing before I shot down, line by line, your scriptural argument.

I also note how you called the first wife a wife and the rest are all just concubines... :roll:

Yeah your a real sniper there slope

POLYGYNY AND CONCUBINES IN THE BIBLE - Biblical Polygamy

“Concubine. A secondary wife acquired by purchase or as a war captive, and allowed in polygamous society such as existed in the Middle east in biblical times. . . .
Concubines were protected under Mosaic law (Exod. 21:7-11; Dt. 21:10-14), though they were distinguished from wives (Jdg. 8:31) and were more easily divorced (Gen.21:10-14)”>26

" . . . Concubinage was a legally sanctioned and socially acceptable practice in ancient cultures, including that of the Hebrews; concubines, however, were denied the protection to which a legal wife was entitled. . .”>27.

But I'll bet you already knew that right? Just being obtuse again until you reloaded. Can't fool you, You wascally unbeleiver you.:mrgreen:

Moe

jallman · Feb 10, 2009

Slippery Slope said:
In the first line I am simply being obtuse because of the ambiguity of the interpretation. You see, anyone can interpret the bible any way they want. It's just one of the shell game parlor tricks that have kept the bible around for so long.

I'm sure you could interpret the Bible any way you want. And then I would interpret your failure as illiteracy, knowing nothing of history, and having very shallow analytical ability.

I love it when xians bow out of a discussion of their own bull**** by telling the nonbeliever that they aren't going to "teach" us blah blah blah... you were more than willing before I shot down, line by line, your scriptural argument.

You did no such thing. You made a few predictable vitriolic snipes and that's about it.

I also note how you called the first wife a wife and the rest are all just concubines... :roll:

Uh, because that's what they are.

god

moe

Slippery Slope

moe

Jerry

moe

razz

Member

First Thought

Jerry

razz

Member

Slippery Slope

Slippery Slope

moe

Jerry

Slippery Slope

moe

razz

Member

moe

Jerry

razz

Member

moe

Jerry

Zakany

New member

Slippery Slope

moe

jallman