NationStates

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Neoconstantius wrote:Not exactly an anti-LGBT source, and raises some interesting points although with marked confirmation bias
Old but relevant nonetheless

You'll probably pull up the criticism that ensued after ABC aired that 20/20 episode in 2004, so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree here. I think there's more evidence to suggest that homophobia was not the primary factor, but that's my interpretation.

This is why I don't believe in hate crime legislation.

Doesn't make sense.

You're against an entirely positive set of laws that help countless victims of violence and hatred purely because the murder of one person who's murder possibly wasn't entirely motivated by hate? Sounds a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water to me.

Grenartia wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

This is why I don't believe in hate crime legislation.

Doesn't make sense.

You're against an entirely positive set of laws that help countless victims of violence and hatred purely because the murder of one person who's murder possibly wasn't entirely motivated by hate? Sounds a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water to me.

Hold each person accountable for the crime they committed, not for 'hate'

Grenartia wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

This is why I don't believe in hate crime legislation.

Doesn't make sense.

You're against an entirely positive set of laws that help countless victims of violence and hatred purely because the murder of one person who's murder possibly wasn't entirely motivated by hate? Sounds a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water to me.

Except they aren't positive.


1. We already have laws against hate crimes, they're called crimes. You can't murder, assault, torture, harass, rape, etc etc, regardless of motive. The Laramie incident happened before Hate Crime laws existed, yet they're still in prison for 2 consecutive life sentences. What would hate crime laws have accomplished? Absolutely nothing.


2. The Government has no right to pass laws legislating against the way people think.

3. It creates an undue burden on law enforcement and prosecution to prove
what a person was thinking at the time of the act.

4. It now fosters division in society, and resentment across racial, gender, philosophical lines, because now if any crime is committed across demographic lines, hate crime comes into the picture regardless of intent.

5. Ultimately enforcement is politicized and implementation favors minority groups. And any law that adversely affects any demographic group, to a disproportionate amount, whether majority or minority, is ultimately and unequivocally immoral.


Any way this isn't the place to discuss that.

Grenartia wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:


1. They're not mistranslations no matter how you try to convince yourself.

2. Anyway, they reason I made the comment was what we were discussing had nothing tomdomwith homosexuality. And rather than acknowledge the off color but badhumor I offered, you had to make it serious and insert homosexuality into the discussion.

1. Then why, if arsenokoitai refers to gay sex, did Paul have to make it up and use it, instead of the already existing Greek word for it?

Firstly, paiderastia does not refer to homosexual acts in the encompassing act he meant. It refers to Men having sex with young hairless boys, and hairless girls, hairless meaning of the prepubescent kind . So actually, what you claim to be the translation would have more weight if he had used that word, as in temple prostitution these younglings were the typical fare. But, he didn't because, he was not talking about temple prostitution.

Now Simply because any explanation I give wont be as thorough:

Leviticus18:22and 20:13 forbid a man lying with another man as one would with a woman. Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew, but Paul was a Greek-educated Jew writing to Gentiles in Greek, the common language of the day, and probably was using the Greek translation of the Old Testament available in that day, the Septuagint, or LXX, for his Scripture quotations.
The Greek translation of these Leviticus passages condemns a man (arseno) lying with (koitai) another man (arseno); these words (excuse the pun) lie side-by-side in these passages in Leviticus. Paul joins these two words together into a neologism, a new word (as we do in saying database or software), and thus he condemns in 1Corinthians and 1Timothy what was condemned in Leviticus.

It should also be noted, that these two verses are the ONLY places that word is used in the NT. Your argument would have more traction, if there weren't other places in the NT (like Romans) where Paul condemned homosexual acts, and didn't use arsenokoitai.

Grenartia wrote:2. It needn't have been any more than "off color but badhumor" in the same vein as that you offered, but you had to make it serious and complain about me 'always bringing up teh gheyz'.

Fine, lets just move past it, shall we?

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
1. Then why, if arsenokoitai refers to gay sex, did Paul have to make it up and use it, instead of the already existing Greek word for it?

Firstly, paiderastia does not refer to homosexual acts in the encompassing act he meant. It refers to Men having sex with young hairless boys, and hairless girls. So actually what you claim to be the translation would have more weight if he had used that word. But he didn't because he was not talking about temple prostitution.

Now Simply because any explanation I give wont be as thorough:

Leviticus18:22and 20:13 forbid a man lying with another man as one would with a woman. Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew, but Paul was a Greek-educated Jew writing to Gentiles in Greek, the common language of the day, and probably was using the Greek translation of the Old Testament available in that day, the Septuagint, or LXX, for his Scripture quotations.
The Greek translation of these Leviticus passages condemns a man (arseno) lying with (koitai) another man (arseno); these words (excuse the pun) lie side-by-side in these passages in Leviticus. Paul joins these two words together into a neologism, a new word (as we do in saying database or software), and thus he condemns in 1Corinthians and 1Timothy what was condemned in Leviticus.

Grenartia wrote:2. It needn't have been any more than "off color but badhumor" in the same vein as that you offered, but you had to make it serious and complain about me 'always bringing up teh gheyz'.

Fine, lets just move past it, shall we?

I agree. Sexuality should never be the domain of Christianity.

Czechanada wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Firstly, paiderastia does not refer to homosexual acts in the encompassing act he meant. It refers to Men having sex with young hairless boys, and hairless girls. So actually what you claim to be the translation would have more weight if he had used that word. But he didn't because he was not talking about temple prostitution.

Now Simply because any explanation I give wont be as thorough:




Fine, lets just move past it, shall we?

I agree. Sexuality should never be the domain of Christianity.

Que?

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

The Holy Church of Arius wrote:
The Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father. Regarding the creation, God said to sent the Son and the Holy Spirit. In Latin the word processio concerns also the mission (which according to Orthodox theology becomes the Son) and the emanation (concerning only the Father) of the Spirit, this idiom is what causes the misunderstanding.

Processio is a noun not a verb. Precedit is the conjugated form of procedere, not processio. You're point is irrelevant.

Who said anything about processio being a verb. And how's my point irrelevant. Care to explain your point?

The Holy Church of Arius wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Processio is a noun not a verb. Precedit is the conjugated form of procedere, not processio. You're point is irrelevant.

Who said anything about processio being a verb. And how's my point irrelevant. Care to explain your point?

We're discussing the Filioque part of the Nicene Creed. The wording is important.

You said the "The Holy Spirit Proceeds from the father" You then tried to explain it using the noun Processio. But Processio means "The Procession" as in a Funeral Procession, a Parade, etc etc. Your explanation cites the wrong word.

Proceeds is an English word derived from the latin verb Precedere which litterally means "To Go". In the Filioque it is conjugated as Procedit, which litterally translates to Proceeds, but in the context of its root, means to go first or to go from.

Thus, according to the filioque, the Holy Spirit goes from both the Father and the Son. While that is the literal translation, Cyril of Alexandria explains what it infers, that the Holy Spirit proceeds From the Father and the Son, by Proceeding from the father through the son. Just as the Holiest of Holies was cast open following the Death at Calvary, the Holy Spirit now makes its dwelling in the hearts of men because of Christ actions. It is through the Son's actions that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Doesn't make sense.

You're against an entirely positive set of laws that help countless victims of violence and hatred purely because the murder of one person who's murder possibly wasn't entirely motivated by hate? Sounds a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water to me.

Except they aren't positive.


1. We already have laws against hate crimes, they're called crimes. You can't murder, assault, torture, harass, rape, etc etc, regardless of motive. The Laramie incident happened before Hate Crime laws existed, yet they're still in prison for 2 consecutive life sentences. What would hate crime laws have accomplished? Absolutely nothing.


2. The Government has no right to pass laws legislating against the way people think.

3. It creates an undue burden on law enforcement and prosecution to prove
what a person was thinking at the time of the act.

4. It now fosters division in society, and resentment across racial, gender, philosophical lines, because now if any crime is committed across demographic lines, hate crime comes into the picture regardless of intent.

5. Ultimately enforcement is politicized and implementation favors minority groups. And any law that adversely affects any demographic group, to a disproportionate amount, whether majority or minority, is ultimately and unequivocally immoral.


Any way this isn't the place to discuss that.

I agree. Murder is murder, theft is theft and so on. You have the right to self-defence. But you don't have the right to kill in self-defence.

Spiritual Universalism wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Except they aren't positive.


1. We already have laws against hate crimes, they're called crimes. You can't murder, assault, torture, harass, rape, etc etc, regardless of motive. The Laramie incident happened before Hate Crime laws existed, yet they're still in prison for 2 consecutive life sentences. What would hate crime laws have accomplished? Absolutely nothing.


2. The Government has no right to pass laws legislating against the way people think.

3. It creates an undue burden on law enforcement and prosecution to prove
what a person was thinking at the time of the act.

4. It now fosters division in society, and resentment across racial, gender, philosophical lines, because now if any crime is committed across demographic lines, hate crime comes into the picture regardless of intent.

5. Ultimately enforcement is politicized and implementation favors minority groups. And any law that adversely affects any demographic group, to a disproportionate amount, whether majority or minority, is ultimately and unequivocally immoral.


Any way this isn't the place to discuss that.

I agree. Murder is murder, theft is theft and so on. You have the right to self-defence. But you don't have the right to kill in self-defence.

Depends on the situation, but regardless let's not debate this here.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Othelos wrote:By "elsewhere", I meant out of other people's lives. Not the CDT.

Fair enough, but that is still Christian Ideals.

Debatable.

Othelos wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Fair enough, but that is still Christian Ideals.

Debatable.

What isn't?

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Othelos wrote:Debatable.

What isn't?

Some Christians have a more libertarian approach to others' lives based on scripture.

I guess it depends on the person.

Othelos wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
What isn't?

Some Christians have a more libertarian approach to others' lives based on scripture.

I guess it depends on the person.

The Church is ultimately (by doctrine, not philosophically), the safeguard and ultimate judiciary of morality. Thus, by Nature it is the Church's place to correct morality. Christians are also called to not necessarily correct and judge as outlined in Mathew 7, but to assist each other to maintain moral practices as deemed by God, and by extension the Church.

There is a constant message of the Church, including the Laity, of being Pastors or more accurately Shepherds. The People of Christ are his sheep, and Sheep require Shepherds not just to protect them from the wolves, but to guide them in the right direction.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Othelos wrote:Some Christians have a more libertarian approach to others' lives based on scripture.

I guess it depends on the person.

The Church is ultimately (by doctrine, not philosophically), the safeguard and ultimate judiciary of morality. Thus, by Nature it is the Church's place to correct morality. Christians are also called to not necessarily correct and judge as outlined in Mathew 7, but to assist each other to maintain moral practices as deemed by God, and by extension the Church.

There is a constant message of the Church, including the Laity, of being Pastors or more accurately Shepherds. The People of Christ are his sheep, and Sheep require Shepherds not just to protect them from the wolves, but to guide them in the right direction.

When you say "Church" you mean the religious organisation or the total believers that embraces?

Spiritual Universalism wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
The Church is ultimately (by doctrine, not philosophically), the safeguard and ultimate judiciary of morality. Thus, by Nature it is the Church's place to correct morality. Christians are also called to not necessarily correct and judge as outlined in Mathew 7, but to assist each other to maintain moral practices as deemed by God, and by extension the Church.

There is a constant message of the Church, including the Laity, of being Pastors or more accurately Shepherds. The People of Christ are his sheep, and Sheep require Shepherds not just to protect them from the wolves, but to guide them in the right direction.

When you say "Church" you mean the religious organisation or the total believers that embraces?

They are one

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Spiritual Universalism wrote:
When you say "Church" you mean the religious organisation or the total believers that embraces?

They are one

Source?

Spiritual Universalism wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:They are one

Source?

I understand he is referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_priesthood_(doctrine)

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Othelos wrote:Some Christians have a more libertarian approach to others' lives based on scripture.

I guess it depends on the person.

The Church is ultimately (by doctrine, not philosophically), the safeguard and ultimate judiciary of morality. Thus, by Nature it is the Church's place to correct morality. Christians are also called to not necessarily correct and judge as outlined in Mathew 7, but to assist each other to maintain moral practices as deemed by God, and by extension the Church.

There is a constant message of the Church, including the Laity, of being Pastors or more accurately Shepherds. The People of Christ are his sheep, and Sheep require Shepherds not just to protect them from the wolves, but to guide them in the right direction.

So, how exactly would you propose morally guiding someone who's biology is different? Abstinence is a policy inviting failure.

And I don't understand why love should be prevented or stopped.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Othelos wrote:Some Christians have a more libertarian approach to others' lives based on scripture.

I guess it depends on the person.

The Church is ultimately (by doctrine, not philosophically), the safeguard and ultimate judiciary of morality. Thus, by Nature it is the Church's place to correct morality. Christians are also called to not necessarily correct and judge as outlined in Mathew 7, but to assist each other to maintain moral practices as deemed by God, and by extension the Church.

There is a constant message of the Church, including the Laity, of being Pastors or more accurately Shepherds. The People of Christ are his sheep, and Sheep require Shepherds not just to protect them from the wolves, but to guide them in the right direction.

If people are supposed to be more like Christ, then surely that means that they should be their own shepherds?

Othelos wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
The Church is ultimately (by doctrine, not philosophically), the safeguard and ultimate judiciary of morality. Thus, by Nature it is the Church's place to correct morality. Christians are also called to not necessarily correct and judge as outlined in Mathew 7, but to assist each other to maintain moral practices as deemed by God, and by extension the Church.

There is a constant message of the Church, including the Laity, of being Pastors or more accurately Shepherds. The People of Christ are his sheep, and Sheep require Shepherds not just to protect them from the wolves, but to guide them in the right direction.

So, how exactly would you propose morally guiding someone who's biology is different? Abstinence is a policy inviting failure.

And I don't understand why love should be prevented or stopped.

Cause Moulin Rouge was a terrible movie.

Conscentia wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
The Church is ultimately (by doctrine, not philosophically), the safeguard and ultimate judiciary of morality. Thus, by Nature it is the Church's place to correct morality. Christians are also called to not necessarily correct and judge as outlined in Mathew 7, but to assist each other to maintain moral practices as deemed by God, and by extension the Church.

There is a constant message of the Church, including the Laity, of being Pastors or more accurately Shepherds. The People of Christ are his sheep, and Sheep require Shepherds not just to protect them from the wolves, but to guide them in the right direction.

If people are supposed to be more like Christ, then surely that means that they should be their own shepherds?

They are to be both.

Spiritual Universalism wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
They are one

Source?

I don't have time to educate you on Christianity 101

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Conscentia wrote:If people are supposed to be more like Christ, then surely that means that they should be their own shepherds?

They are to be both.

Sheep that herd themselves? That metaphor doesn't really work.

Conscentia wrote:

Spiritual Universalism wrote:Source?

I understand he is referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_priesthood_(doctrine)

Understandable, but he said:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:The People of Christ are his sheep, and Sheep require Shepherds not just to protect them from the wolves, but to guide them in the right direction.

He just implies the use of "higher level" priests-believers to "protect from the wolves" and "guide in the right direction". Thus he creates a separation and division already in the community.

So we are not talking about a unity and commonwealth of all believers (in his words "Church"), but the separation between the Shepherds and the rest.

People don't need shepherds, people need to find their own way to the High Truth. No one will tell me what to do and how I will approach the Spiritual. Suggestions yes. But orders or even instructions, no. I believe it's a personal quest.