• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Episcopalians Vote to Allow Gay Marriage in Churches

You are using mans laws to decide what God's law means that is an exercise in futility

and about the vegetarian thing,

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. -Genesis 9:3

No. I'm pointing out the inconsistencies. You have still failed to point out where there is any agreement on what is or is not a violation of "thou shalt not kill/murder". Heck, the various Bible translations can't even get into agreement on what it should say, kill or murder.
 
His teachings are in the bible. How do you follow the teachings of Jesus without following the bible? Is there some other source of his teachings that I don't know about that somehow trumps the bible?

Some of his teachings are claimed to be in the Bible. That doesn't mean that someone cannot believe that there are more, nor that someone can't believe that some of those contained within the Bible are not wrong. Jesus never said the Bible was inspired by God. He couldn't because the Bible didn't exist in his time. So someone could believe that following Jesus, as much as they can find that they trust, is what God wants without believing that all or even most of the Bible is the word of God.
 
Just like there is plenty of room for politicians do debate the meaning of "is", but only the morally bankrupt ones will do it. Its very clear in the Bible that marriage is between a man and a woman. If you dont like that fine, but its not following the Bible under any stretch of the imagination.

I don't follow the Bible of your religion.

Yet I am still an American citizen.

I should not be subject only to what your God's laws are.
 
Just like there is plenty of room for politicians do debate the meaning of "is", but only the morally bankrupt ones will do it. Its very clear in the Bible that marriage is between a man and a woman. If you dont like that fine, but its not following the Bible under any stretch of the imagination.

and perhaps you put that first whereas other christian sects put love thy neighbor first. you aint god of christianity, so some sects can be all anti-gay and others will br pro-love and within the christian architecture all can exist.
 
Abandoned their faith? Like all the churches that accept without question the adulterers and fornicators? And I dont mean past sins, but currently sinning. Take their donations and church offerings, marry them without question, etc?

(And I dont mean the Catholic Church here)

any pastor that allows that stuff to go on in his church i would question him as well. more so if he knows about it and says nothing to his congregation. you seem to only pick and choose what you want. God's word is what it says it is.
The fact is you still haven't provided any argument and neither will this church organization of how they can equate the two of them.
 
"Man has created God in his own image: Intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent." ~ Marie

Read all about it in the Old Testament. Lots of intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent scripture there. If you try doing some of the things that it advocates in the USA you'll get locked up.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

Would that be the White Anglo-Saxon straight men and women? Since we're accused of pretty much all the ills of society....
 
The word is "yatsa" which literally means to "lose her offspring" - it obviously includes miscarriages. It does not use shacho because miscarriage is not the only possible consequence of an assault on a pregnant woman

The term "yatsa" doesn't mean "to lose her offspring" it means "to go out, to go forth". It certainly doesn't mean a dead child, it is simply meant to refer to the process going out, to include the process of childbirth - it is used, for example, to describe the live births of Esau and Jacob (Genesis 25:25-26). It is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew texts and is never used to mean miscarriage, except apparently this one time, where you are insisting that it's meaning has somehow magically and temporarily changed.

The word for "stillborn child" is "nephel" (Job 3:16, Eccl. 6:3-4, Psalms 58:8). The word for abortion or to cause miscarriage, is "shachol" (Genesis 31:38, Job 21:10, etc.) and is used by the author to mean miscarriage when he discusses miscarriage two chapters later (Exodus 23:26). The word used here is a noun form of a verb (yeled) that means "to bring forth children" and is used to refer to live births in the Old Testament (ex: Gen 21:8, Exodus 2:3, Ruth 4:16, Isaiah 9:6), including in the exact same chapter (Exodus 21:4).


Again, you are attempting to add in the term miscarriage when it was available the author, deliberately excluded by the author, and when the surrounding text indicates would have been antithetical to the intent of the author.
 
Last edited:
If a sect of Christians decided that the commandment "thou shall not kill" wasnt really a commandment and strated murdering people would you argue that they are still Christians who just have a different view on the Bible?

They did. During the Inquisition they (Catholics I believe) had no problem killing to serve their own purposes.

Today, many Christians support the death penalty....as well as certain sects.
 
Affecting society is not the same as harming society. While there are benefits given to couples for getting married, there are also benefits to society for them being married. Government economics just isn't as simple as if you give someone a tax break here, then that means they are costing the government money. There are other benefits that come to government from giving that tax benefit or exemption. There are also other places within our laws that would become so complicated that removing government from marriage would likely cause so many negative consequences on our society and economy that it would counter any benefits that any couple gets from marriage.
I did not say that there wasn't benefits. There are costs and there are benefits to society. Frankly I have not seen a good economic study comparing the costs, to government/society of reduced estate and inheritance tax income, reduced (perhaps) IRS tax income, and other costs with the benefits perhaps of more social stability, perhaps better health, intact family structure.

This seems to be grounds for discussion that should not be dismissed with some self-righteous "hater" label.
I would agree that there would be unintended consequences of ending the government special rights for married couples and, even though I would prefer to see government out of the married business and ending these benefits, I would accept marriage benefits extended to all, in the name of equal rights. Polygyny, polyandry, sibling/blood relatives, and others should be allowed to marry.
 
I did not say that there wasn't benefits. There are costs and there are benefits to society. Frankly I have not seen a good economic study comparing the costs, to government/society of reduced estate and inheritance tax income, reduced (perhaps) IRS tax income, and other costs with the benefits perhaps of more social stability, perhaps better health, intact family structure.

This seems to be grounds for discussion that should not be dismissed with some self-righteous "hater" label.
I would agree that there would be unintended consequences of ending the government special rights for married couples and, even though I would like to see government out of the married business and ending these benefits, I would like to see marriage benefits extended to all, in the name of equal rights. Polygyny, polyandry, sibling/blood relatives, and others should be allowed to marry.

I don't think it should be "extended to all". I believe that we should be extending some to many benefits (particularly protections and some spousal rights to those who want/have multiple spouses), but that it would be wrong to completely change marriage now to accommodate those groups. It would be a huge change (likely negative) for a large group of people just to accommodate a very small group. Siblings/blood relatives I have mixed feelings on. First cousins and further out should be allowed to marry. There should be some exceptions made for siblings who met as adults (with genetic counseling included). But the others have many of the benefits of spouses due to their current legal kinship status.
 
any pastor that allows that stuff to go on in his church i would question him as well. more so if he knows about it and says nothing to his congregation. you seem to only pick and choose what you want. God's word is what it says it is.
The fact is you still haven't provided any argument and neither will this church organization of how they can equate the two of them.

The Bible was written by men, influenced by their current culture & superstitions and without being able to take into account many things we know today. It's obvious even today men are freaked out by homosexuality. Easy enough to stuff those prejudices into the Bible and claim it as God's Word.

I go by the overall message of God and Jesus: peace, love, forgiveness, and treating your fellow man as you would yourself.

Do you believe God created the Earth in 6 days?
 
Abortion is not a word used in the Bible or other ancient text.

However, it expressly condemns the killing of the innocent. in both Testaments.

Does the Bible prohibit abortion? Abortion in the Bible and Church history

The unborn isnt 'innocent.' That is an attribute of something that can form intent or act.

Unless you think that flowers and trees are 'innocent?' Hey, if you want to value some 'innocence of emptiness', that's up to you. Better not pick any flowers then tho.
 
I don't think it should be "extended to all". I believe that we should be extending some to many benefits (particularly protections and some spousal rights to those who want/have multiple spouses), but that it would be wrong to completely change marriage now to accommodate those groups. It would be a huge change (likely negative) for a large group of people just to accommodate a very small group. Siblings/blood relatives I have mixed feelings on. First cousins and further out should be allowed to marry. There should be some exceptions made for siblings who met as adults (with genetic counseling included). But the others have many of the benefits of spouses due to their current legal kinship status.
I have been going back and forth with several on this so maybe I forgot what we covered. At one point I made the comment that it seems odd that government is essentially involved in what is basically a religious belief that sex is so special that it should be restricted to long term committed relationships and to assist this, we give government benefits. That was rejected as there is no requirement of sex or procreation in marriage. OK. So the government/social benefit of marriage comes from the social support of two or more people which results in better health, stable families, etc. Two elderly siblings can have this and can benefit from this. They don't need to be sexual relationships. A single parent with his/her single parent (say a daughter, with a child, and her mother) can benefit from this. An uncle with a favorite niece or nephew can benefit. And all these type families help society in the same way as a gay couple. I would be very curious as to the numbers involved. My gut feeling, as almost 50% of adults are currently single, is that there are a lot more of these type family units than there are SS couples who want to get married.
 
I have been going back and forth with several on this so maybe I forgot what we covered. At one point I made the comment that it seems odd that government is essentially involved in what is basically a religious belief that sex is so special that it should be restricted to long term committed relationships and to assist this, we give government benefits. That was rejected as there is no requirement of sex or procreation in marriage. OK. So the government/social benefit of marriage comes from the social support of two or more people which results in better health, stable families, etc. Two elderly siblings can have this and can benefit from this. They don't need to be sexual relationships. A single parent with his/her single parent (say a daughter, with a child, and her mother) can benefit from this. An uncle with a favorite niece or nephew can benefit. And all these type families help society in the same way as a gay couple. I would be very curious as to the numbers involved. My gut feeling, as almost 50% of adults are currently single, is that there are a lot more of these type family units than there are SS couples who want to get married.

You can't show that any of those mentioned couples help society in the same ways that either opposite sex or same sex spouses, in an intimate relationship, who have gone into the marriage at least expecting it to be longterm, help society.
 
That Episcopalians love their fellow man/woman more and leave the judging up to God?

That's not the job of a religious community. They are suppose to love and follow God's commandments.
 
That's not the job of a religious community. They are suppose to love and follow God's commandments.

And there's nothing in there about SSM. So we're good to go.
 
The unborn isnt 'innocent.' That is an attribute of something that can form intent or act.

Unless you think that flowers and trees are 'innocent?' Hey, if you want to value some 'innocence of emptiness', that's up to you. Better not pick any flowers then tho.

God gave us dominion over the flowers and trees etc.. He has dominion over humans....born or not. He breathed life into that human at conception.

Enough of your pro-abortion excuses.
 
God gave us dominion over the flowers and trees etc.. He has dominion over humans....born or not. He breathed life into that human at conception.

Really? Breathing means you are 'innocent?' Pretty sure that doesnt apply to alot of people, in prison and out.
 
Back
Top Bottom