• 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!

Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to perform gay weddings

Jesus recorded words don't makeup the entire Bible..... :shrug:

What part of the Bible presents things Jesus himself recorded? There are parts where someone tells us what they heard from Jesus, but not actually Jesus writing it down. And even where he was recorded, it was long after the actual event took place, not immediately following it. Plenty of time to get stories and details straight. That is the problem with eyewitness accounts, the farther removed they are/longer time between the event and the account being recorded, the less reliable they are just due to human nature.
 
Homosexuality is not listed as a sin in the bible. Jesus did love the downcast and persecuted. He'd more likely march in a Pride parade than protest gay marriage.

He'd probably be trying to heal them of their affliction.
 
What part of the Bible presents things Jesus himself recorded? There are parts where someone tells us what they heard from Jesus, but not actually Jesus writing it down. And even where he was recorded, it was long after the actual event took place, not immediately following it. Plenty of time to get stories and details straight. That is the problem with eyewitness accounts, the farther removed they are/longer time between the event and the account being recorded, the less reliable they are just due to human nature.

Didn't know I actually said that Jesus himself recorded the words......Do try to stick to my actual comments and not your made up versions of them.
 
New Testament negated the need for the dietary laws.

So you can pick and choose the parts to obey and the parts to ignore? Matthew 15:1-20, and Mark 7:1-23 only mention the dietary restrictions and the required washing of hands before eating, nothing about cutting your hair or beard, nothing about wearing mixed fibres, not a word as regards any of the other restrictions found in Leviticus. Then there was the whole circumcision thing - an action which nearly destroyed the faith in the early years. Considering how unsanitary medical practices were in those days, I can quite understand why adult males didn't much care for the thought of having their foreskins whacked off.


So why then should a "Christian" follow any of the precepts, laws and "words of God" that are found in the Old Testament? The New Testament provides us with enough moral precepts - doesn't it.
 
I said homosexuality is a sin. And FYI Chrsitians believe that everyone is a sinner.

Yes, Christians believe that everyone is a sinner. I believe that statement could be backed up by Jesus' words that were actually recorded.
Now, is being born homosexual a sin because you say so, or because Jesus said so? It sounds to me like you're trying to speak for Jesus.
 
So you can pick and choose the parts to obey and the parts to ignore? Matthew 15:1-20, and Mark 7:1-23 only mention the dietary restrictions and the required washing of hands before eating, nothing about cutting your hair or beard, nothing about wearing mixed fibres, not a word as regards any of the other restrictions found in Leviticus. Then there was the whole circumcision thing - an action which nearly destroyed the faith in the early years. Considering how unsanitary medical practices were in those days, I can quite understand why adult males didn't much care for the thought of having their foreskins whacked off.


So why then should a "Christian" follow any of the precepts, laws and "words of God" that are found in the Old Testament? The New Testament provides us with enough moral precepts - doesn't it.

That would constitute a whole new thread. Let me know when you have created this and I will gladly spell it out there.
 
Yes, Christians believe that everyone is a sinner. I believe that statement could be backed up by Jesus' words that were actually recorded.
Now, is being born homosexual a sin because you say so, or because Jesus said so? It sounds to me like you're trying to speak for Jesus.

Do you want to have a discussion? Or do you want to keep spinning words?
 
Do you want to have a discussion? Or do you want to keep spinning words?

It's difficult to have a discussion with someone who doesn't respond to questions and statements.
When someone wants to ascribe to Jesus words that were never recorded in the Bible, it does make one wonder just where that person is getting his version of Christian philosophy.
 
It's difficult to have a discussion with someone who doesn't respond to questions and statements.
When someone wants to ascribe to Jesus words that were never recorded in the Bible, it does make one wonder just where that person is getting his version of Christian philosophy.

Except that never happend.
 
Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to marry gays

Speaking of ****ting all over religious freedom ... I thought the GOP was all about that, guess not when it comes to gays.



Granted, not the most unbiased source in the world. However, don't you think that a religion should be free to perform a religious ceremony?
I've never been a fan of government having anything to do with marriage licensure or benefits law to begin with. To me the obvious solution is to hold civil weddings to the "equal rights" standard meaning no one can be denied a wedding for any reasons, and the church should feel free to perform ceremonies as they wish.
 
Except that never happend.

I'm not sure I understand your statement. What does "that" refer to?

Let's see if I understand your position. You can correct me if I'm wrong:

People who are gay are sinners because of being gay.
Christ condemned homosexuality as being a sin.
Even if the homosexual doesn't act on his attraction, he is still sinning by being gay.


Correct, or not?
 
I'm not sure I understand your statement. What does "that" refer to?

Let's see if I understand your position. You can correct me if I'm wrong:

People who are gay are sinners because of being gay.
Christ condemned homosexuality as being a sin.
Even if the homosexual doesn't act on his attraction, he is still sinning by being gay.


Correct, or not?

That is correct, we all have a sin nature. Homosexuality is sin. You are correct. Wasn't what you said before, but you are correct in that statement. No more than I am a sinner from birth. The difference is Christ and calling him Lord. A homosexual can do that and turn from their ways.
 
Christ condemned homosexuality as being a sin.

Really, can you provide His words that "condemned homosexuality as being a sin"??


Not the words of that guy named Paul who changed the faith that Jesus taught into one which was more acceptable to the majority in the Roman Empire of the First Century.


None of the debate in recent pages has been on topic. Why do so many on the right, not all but many, support an oppressive government action which rather blatantly violates the First Amendment? I thought you guys were almost always against "oppressive government actions"
 
Never claimed they were.

Yet you keep talking about the sex. Nothing but gay sex and how terrible gay sex is. (and that, by the way, is what the OT specifically condemns) Guess what? Gay people can and do have sex. It's already legal. That fight is over, SCOTUS decided it. (and that's also when Scalia lost his freaking mind on the whole gay thing)

We're talking about a marriage contract, not sex. Can you think of a compelling reason that the state should have an interest in barring two dudes from signing a contract? Something other than the fact that you personally disapprove? Because I personally disapprove of a lot of things that are legal, it's not a good enough reason to make them illegal.

Doesn't mean there was not an uprising about it.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.
 
That is correct, we all have a sin nature. Homosexuality is sin. You are correct. Wasn't what you said before, but you are correct in that statement. No more than I am a sinner from birth. The difference is Christ and calling him Lord. A homosexual can do that and turn from their ways.

Why is any of this relevant to the US government and a legal contract?
 
Yet you keep talking about the sex. Nothing but gay sex and how terrible gay sex is. (and that, by the way, is what the OT specifically condemns) Guess what? Gay people can and do have sex. It's already legal. That fight is over, SCOTUS decided it. (and that's also when Scalia lost his freaking mind on the whole gay thing)

We're talking about a marriage contract, not sex. Can you think of a compelling reason that the state should have an interest in barring two dudes from signing a contract? Something other than the fact that you personally disapprove? Because I personally disapprove of a lot of things that are legal, it's not a good enough reason to make them illegal.



I don't think that word means what you think it means.

So should all states make incest legal too? Why should family members not enter into a contract? Your argument isn't logical.
 
Didn't know I actually said that Jesus himself recorded the words......Do try to stick to my actual comments and not your made up versions of them.

Then maybe you should try writing using proper grammar so that people can tell what exactly you are talking about.
 
That is correct, we all have a sin nature. Homosexuality is sin. You are correct. Wasn't what you said before, but you are correct in that statement. No more than I am a sinner from birth. The difference is Christ and calling him Lord. A homosexual can do that and turn from their ways.

Does that mean you think a homosexual can become hetero by accepting Christ?
That must be the basis for your belief that Christ considered homosexuality a sin, as there are no statements attributed to Him that say so.
 
Does that mean you think a homosexual can become hetero by accepting Christ?
That must be the basis for your belief that Christ considered homosexuality a sin, as there are no statements attributed to Him that say so.

Yes, I believe Christ can change our hearts and minds. However, Christ considered homosexuality a sin because he is in line with Scripture.
 
So should all states make incest legal too? Why should family members not enter into a contract? Your argument isn't logical.

The problem with incest is that it creates genetic problems. The same can't be said for homosexuality.
 
The problem with incest is that it creates genetic problems. The same can't be said for homosexuality.

But that isn't the issue according to you guys. You aren't talking about the sex remember, you are talking about the contract.
 
Yes, I believe Christ can change our hearts and minds. However, Christ considered homosexuality a sin because he is in line with Scripture.

Old Testament scripture?

It seems we've already had discussions of Old Testament statements about homosexuality, along with wearing two kinds of cloth, planting two sorts of plants in the same field, and a whole lot more. The OT has been translated and retranslated to the point it is quite open to interpretation.

I agree that acceptance of Christ can change hearts and minds. What I don't believe is that it can change physical characteristics. So, now it boils down to: Is homosexuality in the mind, or in the body?
 
Could you show me which post you are referring to?

Sure. This one.

Jesus recorded words don't makeup the entire Bible..... :shrug:

The one I quoted before.

It is missing either a sign of possession (Jesus' recorded words) or some other grammatical indication that it is not saying that Jesus recorded words that are part of the Bible.
 
Sure. This one.



The one I quoted before.

It is missing either a sign of possession (Jesus' recorded words) or some other grammatical indication that it is not saying that Jesus recorded words that are part of the Bible.

Fine, put an ' after Jesus. Pretty sure we addressed that earlier and clarified what I was talking about. I see you can't seem to move one and have real discussion.
 
Back
Top Bottom