Religion and LGBT Issues

[The East Marches]

Not at all, they are predicated on feelings, just as much as religious ones are. There is no real difference between the two.

At this point, you are basically saying "Both involve humans! They're the same!"

But feelings are not some sort of objective morality. Why shouldn't we listen to the Christians in such a case? They can at least claim sky man told them and not just the fee-fees.

[Lavan Tiri]

1. Actually, it is, because "helper" has no gender.

2. Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. Also, interpretations can be wrong.

3. Source? Also, complimentarianism is sexist.

That's why multiple councils exist. To verify and eliminate any misconceptions and agree on doctrine.

Why do there need to be councils? Can't God protect His super-special book from being so fucked-up as to need man's interpretation?

[United Marxist Nations]

Because I missed it:

The underlined is not true. Paul got the word from the Greek Septuagint in Leviticus.

So, you're saying that Paul got a Greek word from a Hebrew text, and that no other Greek writer used that word between Leviticus and Paul's writings?

I call so much bullshit.

Did you not read what I said?

Paul got a Greek word from a Greek translation of the Hebrew text.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Going by the opinions of those in this thread, they are entirely dependent on the caprices of a cosmic sociopath.

And the alternative is that they're based on the caprices of some human thinker, as if that's better

No. Because society is not run by a single human thinker handing out moral diktats.

[Genivaria]

Going by the opinions of those in this thread, they are entirely dependent on the caprices of a cosmic sociopath.

And the alternative is that they're based on the caprices of some human thinker, as if that's better

Compared to the bible? Yes much better.
Or rather modern values are better than those of the people who wrote the bible.

You denounce secular ethics for being from humans as if your ethics aren't also from humans.

[United Marxist Nations]

And the alternative is that they're based on the caprices of some human thinker, as if that's better

Compared to the bible? Yes much better.
Or rather modern values are better than those of the people who wrote the bible.

You denounce secular ethics for being from humans as if your ethics aren't also from humans.

How so?

[Uxupox]

That's why multiple councils exist. To verify and eliminate any misconceptions and agree on doctrine.

Why do there need to be councils? Can't God protect His super-special book from being so fucked-up as to need man's interpretation?

God's free to do as he wishes.

[Genivaria]

1. Actually, it is, because "helper" has no gender.

2. Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. Also, interpretations can be wrong.

3. Source? Also, complimentarianism is sexist.

That's why multiple councils exist. To verify and eliminate any misconceptions and agree on doctrine.

They exist because the Abrahamic god is apparently incapable of clearing it up itself.

[The East Marches]

And the alternative is that they're based on the caprices of some human thinker, as if that's better

Compared to the bible? Yes much better.
Or rather modern values are better than those of the people who wrote the bible.

You denounce secular ethics for being from humans as if your ethics aren't also from humans.

His ethics have the threat of hell behind him, yours have the potential disapproval of the person who will be murdered or robbed, as if that matters to the murderer or robber. I think his will be more effective in the long run.

[Grenartia]

1. Actually, it is, because "helper" has no gender.

2. Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. Also, interpretations can be wrong.

3. Source? Also, complimentarianism is sexist.

1) The helper is Eve.

2) The appeal is to the source, which is the Church.

3) http://www.antiochian.org/node/17964

4. Whether it's sexist or not, has nothing to do with its truth. Complimentarianism has always been followed by the Church. Men and women have complimentary roles.

1. And...?

2. You seem to believe that the church is infallible, which it is not.

3. TL;DR, biased Catholic source, give me book, chapter, and verse.

4. Sexism is bad. Which is incompatible with God, who according to Christian thought, can only be good.

[Genivaria]

Why do there need to be councils? Can't God protect His super-special book from being so fucked-up as to need man's interpretation?

God's free to do as he wishes.

Then your god makes no fucking sense.
Clearly he was inspired by men.

[Genivaria]

Compared to the bible? Yes much better.
Or rather modern values are better than those of the people who wrote the bible.

You denounce secular ethics for being from humans as if your ethics aren't also from humans.

His ethics have the threat of hell behind him, yours have the potential disapproval of the person who will be murdered or robbed, as if that matters to the murderer or robber. I think his will be more effective in the long run.

So?

[Uxupox]

God's free to do as he wishes.

Then your god makes no fucking sense.
Clearly he was inspired by men.

Nobody can comprehend God my friend. He is beyond our understanding.

[Grenartia]

"Homosexuals" hasn't been in any translation since the turn of the last century. Also, did you miss the part where I said that there's no basis for arsenokoitai to be translated as "homosexuals" or any word/phrase that means it? There was an already existing Greek word for it. There's no need for Paul to make one up.

Then why do all Bibles being NASB, NEB and NIV contain this phrase?

Because of politcal pressure (do you realize how much whining and crying and general temper tantrums the religious right would start if they changed it?), and because this is a 17 century long misconception.

[The East Marches]

His ethics have the threat of hell behind him, yours have the potential disapproval of the person who will be murdered or robbed, as if that matters to the murderer or robber. I think his will be more effective in the long run.

So?

That is more of a reason to care than the potential feelings of your victims. Since its been established that both rely on fee-fees, who has the better deterrent factor for governing society? The Sky Man guys do.

[Grenartia]

Because I missed it:



So, you're saying that Paul got a Greek word from a Hebrew text, and that no other Greek writer used that word between Leviticus and Paul's writings?

I call so much bullshit.

Did you not read what I said?

Paul got a Greek word from a Greek translation of the Hebrew text.

Except, it appears nowhere in Greek before Paul's writing. If Paul had gotten it from a Greek translation of the text, then it would have appeared in Greek before Paul.

Come on, this isn't rocket science.

[Uxupox]

Then why do all Bibles being NASB, NEB and NIV contain this phrase?

Because of politcal pressure (do you realize how much whining and crying and general temper tantrums the religious right would start if they changed it?), and because this is a 17 century long misconception.

what.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

At this point, you are basically saying "Both involve humans! They're the same!"

But feelings are not some sort of objective morality. Why shouldn't we listen to the Christians in such a case? They can at least claim sky man told them and not just the fee-fees.

I haven't claimed that there is an objective morality. I've held up a useful tool I possess and said, "This is a useful tool. Look how useful it is."
Skyman (particularly his edgy, younger self) is not a useful tool.

[United Marxist Nations]

1) The helper is Eve.

2) The appeal is to the source, which is the Church.

3) http://www.antiochian.org/node/17964

4. Whether it's sexist or not, has nothing to do with its truth. Complimentarianism has always been followed by the Church. Men and women have complimentary roles.

1. And...?

2. You seem to believe that the church is infallible, which it is not.

3. TL;DR, biased Catholic source, give me book, chapter, and verse.

4. Sexism is bad. Which is incompatible with God, who according to Christian thought, can only be good.

1) That means that the helper has a gender.

2) The traditional view is that the Church is infallible. Also, the Church made the Bible, it should be allowed to interpret its own writings.

3) "Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate."

— Matt. 19:4–6, Mark 10:7–9
In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus appealed to God's will in creation. He builds upon the narratives in where male and female are created together[Genesis 1:27] and for one another.[2:24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian ... remarriage
Even though this is primarily about divorce, it still defines marriage, as being between male and female. There is no basis for same-sex marriage.

4) You think it's bad.

[The East Marches]

But feelings are not some sort of objective morality. Why shouldn't we listen to the Christians in such a case? They can at least claim sky man told them and not just the fee-fees.

I haven't claimed that there is an objective morality. I've held up a useful tool I possess and said, "This is a useful tool. Look how useful it is."
Skyman (particularly his edgy, younger self) is not a useful tool.

I thought you were arguing from the same place as Grenatia. Eitherway, that tool of yours doesn't seem to be as effective as the Skyman tool. Why should I trust it to do a better job of running society?

[Grenartia]

Because of politcal pressure (do you realize how much whining and crying and general temper tantrums the religious right would start if they changed it?), and because this is a 17 century long misconception.

what.

What part of that is too hard to understand?

Its a misconception that's been held for over 1.7 millenia. And only just recently has it begun to be explored that it isn't true.

[United Marxist Nations]

Did you not read what I said?

Paul got a Greek word from a Greek translation of the Hebrew text.

Except, it appears nowhere in Greek before Paul's writing. If Paul had gotten it from a Greek translation of the text, then it would have appeared in Greek before Paul.

Come on, this isn't rocket science.

I am telling you that that is not true:

καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι θανατούσθωσαν ἔνοχοί εἰσιν

This is the direct text from the Septuagint, which was before Paul.

"If a man lies with a man (arsenos koiten) as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13

[Balkenreich]

Because of politcal pressure (do you realize how much whining and crying and general temper tantrums the religious right would start if they changed it?), and because this is a 17 century long misconception.

what.

Republicans time traveled.

[United Marxist Nations]

what.

What part of that is too hard to understand?

Its a misconception that's been held for over 1.7 millenia. And only just recently has it begun to be explored that it isn't true.

You're literally engaging in historical conspiracy theories to justify your heresy.

[Grenartia]

1. And...?

2. You seem to believe that the church is infallible, which it is not.

3. TL;DR, biased Catholic source, give me book, chapter, and verse.

4. Sexism is bad. Which is incompatible with God, who according to Christian thought, can only be good.

1) That means that the helper has a gender.

2) The traditional view is that the Church is infallible. Also, the Church made the Bible, it should be allowed to interpret its own writings.

3) "Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate."

— Matt. 19:4–6, Mark 10:7–9
In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus appealed to God's will in creation. He builds upon the narratives in where male and female are created together[Genesis 1:27] and for one another.[2:24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian ... remarriage
Even though this is primarily about divorce, it still defines marriage, as being between male and female. There is no basis for same-sex marriage.

4) You think it's bad.

1. But it does not mean that all helpers afterwards are required to have said gender.

2. No, the church did not exist when the Bible was written. And no, the church is not infallible. There's proof of that much going back centuries.

3. Again, does not rule out same-sex pairings. Only talks about the most common of pairings. Just because the Bible doesn't talk about something, does not mean that something is bad.

4. I know its bad. Its a fact that its bad.