Interracial marriage is wrong
Robert McClelland
blacks and whites (Deuteronomy 7:3 condemns interracial marriages). In 1959
a judge justified Virginia's ban on interracial marriage by declaring that
"Almighty God . . . did not intend for the races to mix."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/opinion/03KRIS.html
Hey, isn't this the same arguments being used to deny gay marriage.
--
Visit my blahg site.
GO NOW DAMMIT!
http://myblahg.blogspot.com/
Bill Oliver
Robert McClelland <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>Hey, isn't this the same arguments being used to deny gay marriage.
>
No.
billo
Robert McClelland
"Bill Oliver" <bi...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:bqqofg$klo$1...@news1.radix.net...
I'm sorry, it must have been some other billo in another ng that was quoting
scripture to support his argument against gay marriage. It must have been
some other gekko in another ng that was sqonking about how democracy should
rule because the majority of the people were against gay marriage.
Bill Oliver
Robert McClelland <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>"Bill Oliver" <bi...@radix.net> wrote in message
>news:bqqofg$klo$1...@news1.radix.net...
>> In article <wK3Ab.13998$yd.20...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
>> Robert McClelland <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >Hey, isn't this the same arguments being used to deny gay marriage.
>> >
>>
>> No.
>
>
>I'm sorry, it must have been some other billo in another ng that was quoting
>scripture to support his argument against gay marriage. It must have been
>some other gekko in another ng that was sqonking about how democracy should
>rule because the majority of the people were against gay marriage.
>
You really are making this up as you go along, aren't you. Please
feel free to quote what I have written about my position on
civil recognition of gay unions. Please. I await your
apology.
Further, you are wrong as to why most conservatives opposed the
Supreme Court ruling -- the problem is that the ruling implied
that *all* arbitrary unions must be recognized, including
polygamy, incest, etc. And that is how it is being argued
by groups in favor of polygamy, pedophilia, etc.
In fact, one of the more amusing things on the tube recently
was an interview with a spokesman of one of the louder gay
rights organizations who was saying that recognition of
gay marriage was OK, but the same rules should not apply
to the Utah polygamy case. Why? Because, well, gay marriage
was a good thing, but polygamy was just, well, wrong.
I had to laugh out loud.
But, in any case, you, of course, lie about what I
wrote.
billo
Robert McClelland
> In article <XI5Ab.14145$yd.21...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Robert McClelland <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >"Bill Oliver" <bi...@radix.net> wrote in message
> >news:bqqofg$klo$1...@news1.radix.net...
> >> In article <wK3Ab.13998$yd.20...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> >> Robert McClelland <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Hey, isn't this the same arguments being used to deny gay marriage.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >
> >I'm sorry, it must have been some other billo in another ng that was
quoting
> >scripture to support his argument against gay marriage. It must have been
> >some other gekko in another ng that was sqonking about how democracy
should
> >rule because the majority of the people were against gay marriage.
> >
>
>
> You really are making this up as you go along, aren't you. Please
> feel free to quote what I have written about my position on
> civil recognition of gay unions. Please. I await your
> apology.
Right. You didn't say weapons, you said weapons programs. Fuck sakes, billo.
Stand behind your words for once instead of claiming you didn't say that
when your arguments are sent packing back to the stoneage where they belong.
>
> Further, you are wrong as to why most conservatives opposed the
> Supreme Court ruling -- the problem is that the ruling implied
> that *all* arbitrary unions must be recognized, including
> polygamy, incest, etc. And that is how it is being argued
> by groups in favor of polygamy, pedophilia, etc.
What's wrong with polygamy? Oh right, wrath of god and all that. As for the
other unions, there are already valid reasons why they should not be
allowed. Pedophilia for instance is a crime against children whereas gay
marriage is between two adults and is therefore a crime against nobody.
Bill Oliver
Robert McClelland <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> >I'm sorry, it must have been some other billo in another ng that was
>quoting
>> >scripture to support his argument against gay marriage. It must have been
>> >some other gekko in another ng that was sqonking about how democracy
>should
>> >rule because the majority of the people were against gay marriage.
>> >
>>
>>
>> You really are making this up as you go along, aren't you. Please
>> feel free to quote what I have written about my position on
>> civil recognition of gay unions. Please. I await your
>> apology.
>
>
>Right. You didn't say weapons, you said weapons programs. Fuck sakes, billo.
>Stand behind your words for once instead of claiming you didn't say that
>when your arguments are sent packing back to the stoneage where they belong.
>
You really are making this up as you go along. I have written
extensively on my views on how the government should handle
gay marriage. Look it up and stop lying about it.
You are a liar, McClelland. Come up with the quote or apologize.
>>
>> Further, you are wrong as to why most conservatives opposed the
>> Supreme Court ruling -- the problem is that the ruling implied
>> that *all* arbitrary unions must be recognized, including
>> polygamy, incest, etc. And that is how it is being argued
>> by groups in favor of polygamy, pedophilia, etc.
>
>
>What's wrong with polygamy? Oh right, wrath of god and all that.
Hey, don't ask me, ask the gay rights groups. They're the ones
saying it's immoral.
billo
gekko
misc.writing I see little "Robert McClelland"
<robert.m...@sympatico.ca> saying:
> It must have been
> some other gekko in another ng that was sqonking about how
> democracy should rule because the majority of the people were
> against gay marriage.
It most certainly was some other gekko. Or, possibly, your own
fevered imagination twisting what this gekko said.
--
gekko
How much C could a C++ if a C+ could +C?
William Penrose
<robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>A 1958 poll found that 96 percent of whites disapproved of marriages between
>blacks and whites
I know that Republicans and Democrats don't interbreed. Something
about red and blue chromosomes.
Bill Penrose
Hippolyte Lizard
news:avn2tvgvluum1ctgk...@4ax.com...
I'll have you know they do indeed interbreed. And the results I'm
acquianted with are too smart to fall for either side.
HL
Kurt Ullman
<robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>What's wrong with polygamy?
More than one mother-in-law. That is reason enuff to outlaw it.
--
"People everywhere confuse what they read in the newspapers with news."
-A.J. Liebling
Bill Oliver
Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <1w9Ab.15319$yd.22...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Robert McClelland"
><robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>What's wrong with polygamy?
> More than one mother-in-law. That is reason enuff to outlaw it.
>
Heh. I had a Nigerian friend who had four wives. His tales of marital
relationships made it seem like anything but heaven. It's bad enough
when one man and one woman start bickering at each other -- imagine
what it's like when there are five people yelling at each other.
Four women with synchronized PMS, and all aimed at him...
billo
Stan (the Man)
Bill Oliver wrote:
> Heh. I had a Nigerian friend
Hey! I know him! He emailed me and offered to share a fortune in money
with me.
Small world, eh?
--
Stan
Bill Oliver
Yeah. He'll send you the $10 million -- but only if you take one of
his wives.
From his stories, it's not worth it.
billo
Dr Zen
> In article <1w9Ab.15319$yd.22...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Robert McClelland <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I'm sorry, it must have been some other billo in another ng that was
> quoting
> >> >scripture to support his argument against gay marriage. It must have been
> >> >some other gekko in another ng that was sqonking about how democracy
> should
> >> >rule because the majority of the people were against gay marriage.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> You really are making this up as you go along, aren't you. Please
> >> feel free to quote what I have written about my position on
> >> civil recognition of gay unions. Please. I await your
> >> apology.
> >
> >
> >Right. You didn't say weapons, you said weapons programs. Fuck sakes, billo.
> >Stand behind your words for once instead of claiming you didn't say that
> >when your arguments are sent packing back to the stoneage where they belong.
> >
>
> You really are making this up as you go along. I have written
> extensively on my views on how the government should handle
> gay marriage. Look it up and stop lying about it.
>
My understanding is that you do not believe the government should
legislate on who may or may not become married; however, you did write
somewhere that the term "marriage" ought perhaps to be reserved for
the religious sacrament, which is in its turn reserved for
heterosexual liaisons.
> You are a liar, McClelland. Come up with the quote or apologize.
>
>
All in all, McC is wrong.
If he'd said you don't think gay marriage is moral, he would probably
be right. But you don't say you want the government to impose your
moral views on others.
> >>
> >> Further, you are wrong as to why most conservatives opposed the
> >> Supreme Court ruling -- the problem is that the ruling implied
> >> that *all* arbitrary unions must be recognized, including
> >> polygamy, incest, etc. And that is how it is being argued
> >> by groups in favor of polygamy, pedophilia, etc.
> >
> >
> >What's wrong with polygamy? Oh right, wrath of god and all that.
>
> Hey, don't ask me, ask the gay rights groups. They're the ones
> saying it's immoral.
>
It would be typical that a group would seek to deny to others the
rights they demand for themselves. Strange though, that a group who
hates that it is discriminated against purely for subjective reasons
should wish others to suffer the same discrimination for no better
reason.
Zen
Bill Oliver
Close. The last sentence should read "... the term "marriage
out perhaps to be reserved for the religious sacrament, which
is then applied according to the tradition of the faith
giving that sacrament."
>> You are a liar, McClelland. Come up with the quote or apologize.
>>
>>
>
>All in all, McC is wrong.
>
>If he'd said you don't think gay marriage is moral, he would probably
>be right. But you don't say you want the government to impose your
>moral views on others.
>
No. I believe that promiscuity is immoral (for a number of reasons,
including that it is necessarily and inherently exploitative), and I
oppose that subset of gay activists who attempt to destroy the concept
of morality in order to justify homosexuality. There are those who
believe that homosexuality can exist within the framework of Christian
morality; I lean in that direction. The argument such folk make is not
with Christian morality, but about how it is applied in this case.
In contrast, there are those who believe that in order to justify
homosexuality it is necessary to attack the general acceptance of
Christian morality, and in fact to attack the basic idea of an absolute
morality. To these, homosexuality is not immoral because all morality
is arbitrary.
What's amusing about these latter folk is that they betray themselves,
usually when it comes to things such as pedophilia. They condemn
such acts because someone is ostensibly "hurt." Of course, they cannot
say *why* it is immoral to hurt or exploit someone. If all moral codes
are equal, then a moral code that says it's OK to exploit and harm
others is just as good as one that says it's not OK.
>
>It would be typical that a group would seek to deny to others the
>rights they demand for themselves. Strange though, that a group who
>hates that it is discriminated against purely for subjective reasons
>should wish others to suffer the same discrimination for no better
>reason.
>
There are no people more judgemental than those who pretend they
are not.
billo
Dr Zen
Which amounts to the same thing, all in all.
> >> You are a liar, McClelland. Come up with the quote or apologize.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >All in all, McC is wrong.
> >
> >If he'd said you don't think gay marriage is moral, he would probably
> >be right. But you don't say you want the government to impose your
> >moral views on others.
> >
>
> No. I believe that promiscuity is immoral (for a number of reasons,
> including that it is necessarily and inherently exploitative), and I
> oppose that subset of gay activists who attempt to destroy the concept
> of morality in order to justify homosexuality.
I think the idea that it requires "justifying" is a little odd.
> There are those who
> believe that homosexuality can exist within the framework of Christian
> morality; I lean in that direction.
Why? I think the scripture is quite explicit. I think that it's fairly
clear that Christian morality sees only one use for sex, and the
majority, at least, of Christians would probably agree that it ought
not to be indulged in outside the sacrament you mentioned. Whether it
needs redefining is another matter. I can only presume, since you feel
that morality is absolute, that you feel these things are fixed, so
that if homosexuality is okay with God today, it will be tomorrow and
the next day.
> The argument such folk make is not
> with Christian morality, but about how it is applied in this case.
>
To be frank, I think they want their cake and eat it. Christian
morality is thoroughly intolerant. In some cases, this is one of its
strengths - it can give clear guidance and benchmarks for moral
decisions - but it leaves those of you who don't *feel* any distaste
for homosexuals stuck with an antihomo stance.
> In contrast, there are those who believe that in order to justify
> homosexuality it is necessary to attack the general acceptance of
> Christian morality
Which I think is probably quite reasonable.
> and in fact to attack the basic idea of an absolute
> morality.
What else can they do? They cannot after all become straight. They
might, as they are obliged if they are Anglican clergy in the UK, not
act on their feelings (just as you might abstain from sex until you
are married), so we can despise the sin and not the sinner, but this
seems to me to be nothing more than a way to reconcile the desire not
to be *seen* as homophobic (which is contrary to the mores of the day)
with the homophobia inherent in the moral structure one is signed up
to.
> To these, homosexuality is not immoral because all morality
> is arbitrary.
Of course, it's clear that morality is contingent (and for that
matter, arbitrary). If it weren't, we'd surely be in far closer
agreement about what is moral.
But we can't. We cannot even agree on the broadest strokes of
morality.
>
> What's amusing about these latter folk is that they betray themselves,
> usually when it comes to things such as pedophilia. They condemn
> such acts because someone is ostensibly "hurt." Of course, they cannot
> say *why* it is immoral to hurt or exploit someone. If all moral codes
> are equal, then a moral code that says it's OK to exploit and harm
> others is just as good as one that says it's not OK.
>
I think you are only considering half their argument (that morality is
arbitrary) and ignoring the other (that it is contingent). Doing this
allows you to paint them as hypocrites. But it's rather convenient
that your *absolute* morality just happens to fit the day just as well
as their *relative* morality, just as your reading of scripture (which
does demand the execution of homosexuals, sale of daughters into
slavery and avoidance of seafood among other things) happens to tell
the story you want it to, and theirs tells theirs.
>
> >
> >It would be typical that a group would seek to deny to others the
> >rights they demand for themselves. Strange though, that a group who
> >hates that it is discriminated against purely for subjective reasons
> >should wish others to suffer the same discrimination for no better
> >reason.
> >
>
> There are no people more judgemental than those who pretend they
> are not.
>
I'm not sure about that, but I do think that the people you are
talking about like to pretend that morality is not a question of
judgment. Just like you, they like to pretend that.
Zen
Bill Oliver
>>
>> Close. The last sentence should read "... the term "marriage
>> out perhaps to be reserved for the religious sacrament, which
>> is then applied according to the tradition of the faith
>> giving that sacrament."
>>
>
>Which amounts to the same thing, all in all.
>
No. It would only amount to the same thing if there were only one
religious tradition. As I noted in my subsequent paragraphs, I would
have no problem were my tradition to start recognizing homosexual
marriage. I also have no particular problem that it does not, since
this is not an important issue to me.
>> >> You are a liar, McClelland. Come up with the quote or apologize.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >All in all, McC is wrong.
>> >
>> >If he'd said you don't think gay marriage is moral, he would probably
>> >be right. But you don't say you want the government to impose your
>> >moral views on others.
>> >
>>
>> No. I believe that promiscuity is immoral (for a number of reasons,
>> including that it is necessarily and inherently exploitative), and I
>> oppose that subset of gay activists who attempt to destroy the concept
>> of morality in order to justify homosexuality.
>
>I think the idea that it requires "justifying" is a little odd.
>
Not in a religious context. There are good reasons to believe that
homosexuality is inherently a sin. There are good reasons to
believe that it is not. This leads to debate and reliance on
the Spirit for guidance. Ambiguity is an inherent and wonderful
thing about Christianity.
>> There are those who
>> believe that homosexuality can exist within the framework of Christian
>> morality; I lean in that direction.
>
>Why? I think the scripture is quite explicit. I think that it's fairly
>clear that Christian morality sees only one use for sex, and the
>majority, at least, of Christians would probably agree that it ought
>not to be indulged in outside the sacrament you mentioned. Whether it
>needs redefining is another matter. I can only presume, since you feel
>that morality is absolute, that you feel these things are fixed, so
>that if homosexuality is okay with God today, it will be tomorrow and
>the next day.
>
No. You miss the fundamental difference between Christianity and
conservative Judaism. It is the difference between judging the act and
judging the motivation. It is the difference between orthopraxy and
orthodoxy. I will come back to this, after addressing your statement
about the scripture.
The scripture is paradoxical, depending on the level of authority one
gives to specific scripture.
The Old Testament is explicit, and I would expect orthodox Jews to be
strongly opposed to homosexuality. But remember that to most
mainstream orthodox Christians, the Old Testament is dispensationally
irrelevant. We are freed from the Law of Moses, and condemnations of
homosexuality in the Old Testament have the same authority as
condemnation of the eating of pork.
The next most explicit condemnation is found in the Pauline and
deutero-Pauline letters. The authority of this is dependent on how
fundamentalist one is about Paul.
There are two problems with the Pauline position. The first is that
Paul is self-contradictory about a number of things. In his writings
about the freedom from law brought by grace, Paul notes that Christians
are not bound by any Law. Instead we are driven by the Spirit -- that
essentially no act is a sin for a Christian when motivated by God. He
then spends portions of subsequent letters backing away from that
position, noting that even though it's not a sin we should not do
things too culturally insensitive, that we should engage in
conservative conventional morality, etc.
Thus, if a Christian could be an active homosexual *and* in tune with
the Spirit, then that homosexuality would not be a sin. Whether or
not a Christian could in fact do so is a matter between the Spirit and
the Christian -- a principle (at least when applied to things other
than homosexuality) that is comfortable within the many mystical
Christian traditions. Whether or not that Christian should be a
practicing homosexual, following Paul's "meat offered to idols"
guidance, would depend on what conventional morality dictated. If
conventional morality changed, then the advisability of the lifestyle
would change.
The second problem is that Paul is not God. Certainly, Paul was
personally uncomfortable with homosexuality and his writing reflected
conventional Jewish morality of the time. This is the fundamentalism
problem, and relates back to the contradiction problem. The writings
of Paul reflect a process of maturation and growth as Paul moved from
being a young-ish seat-of-the-pants evangelist to a senior power in
large organized international religious institution. It should not be
surprising that his later writings show evolution from his early
writings, and that he changes or better defines his position as he
matures and as he defends his position against opposing views within
the early Christian church. In any case, statements about specifics of
conventional morality, for a non-fundamentalist, have to be put into
context of who Paul was as a man of his time.
Finally, there are the words of Jesus Himself. Jesus had a different
set of priorities than Paul. Not surprisingly, homosexuality was not
such an important issue to Him that He felt it necessary to opine about
it. Jesus did not explicitly condemn homosexuality; He did not feel it
was important enough to comment on it at all.
This is in contrast to Jesus' statements about the importance of
committment and fidelity in marriage. Jesus was adamant about that.
Jesus *did* have occasion to opine about sexual sin, and gave a list.
Homosexuality was not important enough to be on that list. The things
that were important enough were fornication, adultery, and
licentiousness. There are those who would include homosexuality under
a very broad definition of "fornication," but can only really do so by
dropping back to the Pauline idea of relying on conventional morality
of the time (i.e. "fornication" means any form of unapproved sexual
behavior -- and in order not to be circular must then be defined in
terms of the Old Testament or conventional morality).
Thus, my conclusion from the scripture is that it is clear that Jewish
traditional morality opposed homosexuality. But Jesus freed us from
the Law of Moses, and the Law of Moses must be viewed by a Christian
not in terms of the specifics of the Law, but in terms of how basic
principles given by Christ are demonstrated by them. The Law was based
on orthopraxy -- how one acted was more important than how one
believed. Act like a good Jew, and the belief will come. Christianity
is based on orthodoxy -- how one believes is more important. Believe
in Christ, and the acts will flow from that. If one can be within the
Spirit and be an active homosexual, then one can. If one cannot, then
one cannot.
And this goes back to your "morality is absolute" statement. It is.
But it is absolute at a different level than you suggest. Jesus opined
about basic *principles* upon which one should build one's life, not
specific details about practice. If one wants to ask if a given action
is a sin, then one must ask how that act fits within the absolute
morality provided by the Christ. The appropriate question is not "is
homosexuality a sin," but instead "am I living my life in accordance to
the principles of devotion, compassion, selflessness, and fidelity that
Jesus demands."
If one can live as a homosexual and answer the latter question with a
"yes," or at least note that being an active homosexual does not
interfere with it, then it is not a sin. If, however, being an active
homosexual *does* interfere with living a life according to those
principles then it is, not because the act is a sin but because
choosing anything that interferes with those principles is a sin.
If it were a "meat before idols"' issue, then a change in conventional
morality would change whether or not one could engage in a behavior. Or
moving. Some things that are offensive in one place are not offensive
in another. If it were as matter of fidelity -- that being an active
homosexual somehow required promiscuity, then it would be a sin. If it
were a matter of exploitation -- that being an active homosexual
somehow required exploiting prostitutes or whatever, then it would be a
sin.
But the same thing is true of *heterosexuality.* And you can see the
same principles applied when either Jesus or Paul were asked about
celibacy. Both took the position that *any* sexuality was wrong to the
degree that one could not regulate one's sexual proclivities to stay
within the confines of Christian principles. Thus, Jesus opined about
the sanctity of marriage but also allowed that some would find it
necessary to become eunuchs "for the kingdom of heaven." It wasn't
that Jesus didn't approve of sex; it was that if one cannot engage in
sex responsibly (in the Christian context) then one should not do it at
all.
The same applies, as far as I am concerned, to homosexuality.
>> The argument such folk make is not
>> with Christian morality, but about how it is applied in this case.
>>
>
>To be frank, I think they want their cake and eat it. Christian
>morality is thoroughly intolerant. In some cases, this is one of its
>strengths - it can give clear guidance and benchmarks for moral
>decisions - but it leaves those of you who don't *feel* any distaste
>for homosexuals stuck with an antihomo stance.
>
Not at all.
>>
>> There are no people more judgemental than those who pretend they
>> are not.
>>
>
>I'm not sure about that, but I do think that the people you are
>talking about like to pretend that morality is not a question of
>judgment. Just like you, they like to pretend that.
You still don't get it. Morality is both absolute and *all* a question
of judgement.
billo
gekko
sink:
Zen:
>> >My understanding is that you do not believe the government
>> >should legislate on who may or may not become married; however,
>> >you did write somewhere that the term "marriage" ought perhaps
>> >to be reserved for the religious sacrament, which is in its turn
>> >reserved for heterosexual liaisons.
>>
Billo:
>> Close. The last sentence should read "... the term "marriage
>> out perhaps to be reserved for the religious sacrament, which
>> is then applied according to the tradition of the faith
>> giving that sacrament."
>>
>
> Which amounts to the same thing, all in all.
Not quite. It's starting to break out of the tight mold that the
more "traditional" Christian sects have been pushing. Methodists
innit.
--
gekko
Anyone can slap their writing in a newsgroup (any newsgroup)--few can
learn from and contribute to the consensual delusion and sum of
knowledge that is misc.writing. -- the erudite Wendy Chatley Green
Dr Zen
> MOMMY!!! Look what gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) left in the bathroom
> sink:
>
> Zen:
> >> >My understanding is that you do not believe the government
> >> >should legislate on who may or may not become married; however,
> >> >you did write somewhere that the term "marriage" ought perhaps
> >> >to be reserved for the religious sacrament, which is in its turn
> >> >reserved for heterosexual liaisons.
> >>
>
> Billo:
> >> Close. The last sentence should read "... the term "marriage
> >> out perhaps to be reserved for the religious sacrament, which
> >> is then applied according to the tradition of the faith
> >> giving that sacrament."
> >>
> >
> > Which amounts to the same thing, all in all.
>
> Not quite. It's starting to break out of the tight mold that the
> more "traditional" Christian sects have been pushing. Methodists
> innit.
Well maybe you'd like to be a bit tighter in your piffle. Are you
saying that Methodist gays ought to be allowed to be married but
Catholics not, because their different sects permit it? I think it
becomes quite clear why the state must take a hand.
Zen
Dr Zen
> In article <5e7da04d.03120...@posting.google.com>,
> Dr Zen <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >bi...@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote in message news:<bqtln3$4bd$1...@news1.radix.net>...
> >>
> >> Close. The last sentence should read "... the term "marriage
> >> out perhaps to be reserved for the religious sacrament, which
> >> is then applied according to the tradition of the faith
> >> giving that sacrament."
> >>
> >
> >Which amounts to the same thing, all in all.
> >
>
> No. It would only amount to the same thing if there were only one
> religious tradition.
I think "tradition" would be the key word here. Your relaxed approach
to homosexuality certainly isn't "traditional". It's clearly enjoined
in scripture, apart from any other consideration. There's no passage
in Matthew where Jesus says "Oh, and BTW, arsefucking is now okay.
Sorry about Onan and all."
> As I noted in my subsequent paragraphs, I would
> have no problem were my tradition to start recognizing homosexual
> marriage.
Despite its proscription in scripture?
I have a problem with a guy who talks about *absolute morality*, but
claims he will bend with the wind. Seems your morality is as relative
as mine, hey?
> I also have no particular problem that it does not, since
> this is not an important issue to me.
>
It is to me. I feel it is unjust that my lesbian friend cannot share
her partner's estate because the law will not recognise that she is
married to her partner.
> >> >> You are a liar, McClelland. Come up with the quote or apologize.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >All in all, McC is wrong.
> >> >
> >> >If he'd said you don't think gay marriage is moral, he would probably
> >> >be right. But you don't say you want the government to impose your
> >> >moral views on others.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No. I believe that promiscuity is immoral (for a number of reasons,
> >> including that it is necessarily and inherently exploitative), and I
> >> oppose that subset of gay activists who attempt to destroy the concept
> >> of morality in order to justify homosexuality.
> >
> >I think the idea that it requires "justifying" is a little odd.
> >
>
> Not in a religious context.
Are we only talking about activists who are also churchists then?
I'd like to get that clear. Personally, I have very little tolerance
for gay vicars, who whinge to fuck that the church is not tolerant.
Form your own fucking church, I say. People who have the right of free
association must surely be permitted to form clubs that are
constituted in any way they please, even if it's on bigoted premises?
In a broader context, though, gays have no need of justifying
themselves to churchists. We must surely be agreed on that?
> There are good reasons to believe that
> homosexuality is inherently a sin.
I wonder whether you'd care to share some?
> There are good reasons to
> believe that it is not.
That's clear. One can hardly expect that God would despise his own
creation.
> This leads to debate and reliance on
> the Spirit for guidance.
Yes, but you'll accept that most of us don't have the Spirit
whispering neocon ideology into our shell-likes?
> Ambiguity is an inherent and wonderful
> thing about Christianity.
>
Well, if it didn't bring so much pain and suffering, one might agree.
> >> There are those who
> >> believe that homosexuality can exist within the framework of Christian
> >> morality; I lean in that direction.
> >
> >Why? I think the scripture is quite explicit. I think that it's fairly
> >clear that Christian morality sees only one use for sex, and the
> >majority, at least, of Christians would probably agree that it ought
> >not to be indulged in outside the sacrament you mentioned. Whether it
> >needs redefining is another matter. I can only presume, since you feel
> >that morality is absolute, that you feel these things are fixed, so
> >that if homosexuality is okay with God today, it will be tomorrow and
> >the next day.
> >
>
>
> No. You miss the fundamental difference between Christianity and
> conservative Judaism. It is the difference between judging the act and
> judging the motivation. It is the difference between orthopraxy and
> orthodoxy. I will come back to this, after addressing your statement
> about the scripture.
>
I was quite clear, was I not, that most Christians might agree that
the act should not be indulged in, however the person feels about it.
> The scripture is paradoxical, depending on the level of authority one
> gives to specific scripture.
Oh, that's handy.
> The Old Testament is explicit, and I would expect orthodox Jews to be
> strongly opposed to homosexuality.
And anyone else who believes the OT to be God's word!
> But remember that to most
> mainstream orthodox Christians, the Old Testament is dispensationally
> irrelevant. We are freed from the Law of Moses, and condemnations of
> homosexuality in the Old Testament have the same authority as
> condemnation of the eating of pork.
>
Yes, of course, as I noted elsewhere, Bill. But posing Jesus as a
trendy vicar who blew out the cobwebs does two things: one, it obliges
you to find any place in the NT where Jesus says arsefucking is okay;
two, it obliges you to agree that morality is not in fact absolute.
God must, quite simply, have changed his mind. Of course, he is
allowed to do that.
> The next most explicit condemnation is found in the Pauline and
> deutero-Pauline letters. The authority of this is dependent on how
> fundamentalist one is about Paul.
Well, as you're aware, Paul is the foundation of the Christian
churches. Pauline orthodoxy *is* orthodoxy, don't you think?
> There are two problems with the Pauline position. The first is that
> Paul is self-contradictory about a number of things.
Yes, one of the things that permits the inconsistency you've noted in
Christianity.
> In his writings
> about the freedom from law brought by grace, Paul notes that Christians
> are not bound by any Law. Instead we are driven by the Spirit -- that
> essentially no act is a sin for a Christian when motivated by God.
That's handy. So if the Spirit makes me fuck my boyfriend, I'm sweet
with the Lord?
And of course we already know that your Spirit does not manifest to
anyone but you. Fucking convenient, all in all. It means that you and
only you know what is moral.
I have to say I prefer a contingent, negotiable morality. I prefer my
morality to be a thing of men and not ghosts.
> He
> then spends portions of subsequent letters backing away from that
> position, noting that even though it's not a sin we should not do
> things too culturally insensitive, that we should engage in
> conservative conventional morality, etc.
>
He probably realised that he had created a position that was
fundamentally amoral. We could perform immoral acts and claim that
that Spirit drove us. No one else could gainsay us, because your
Spirit only manifests on an intimate level (it doesn't give lectures
on morality or write columns for the Times).
> Thus, if a Christian could be an active homosexual *and* in tune with
> the Spirit, then that homosexuality would not be a sin.
How convenient! One could say the same about hacking one's neighbour
to death with an axe, of course.
> Whether or
> not a Christian could in fact do so is a matter between the Spirit and
> the Christian -- a principle (at least when applied to things other
> than homosexuality) that is comfortable within the many mystical
> Christian traditions. Whether or not that Christian should be a
> practicing homosexual, following Paul's "meat offered to idols"
> guidance, would depend on what conventional morality dictated. If
> conventional morality changed, then the advisability of the lifestyle
> would change.
So, your *absolute* morality is, after all, contingent on time and
place?
> The second problem is that Paul is not God. Certainly, Paul was
> personally uncomfortable with homosexuality and his writing reflected
> conventional Jewish morality of the time.
I have to remind you, once more, that morality pace Oliver is
*absolute*.
> This is the fundamentalism
> problem, and relates back to the contradiction problem. The writings
> of Paul reflect a process of maturation and growth as Paul moved from
> being a young-ish seat-of-the-pants evangelist to a senior power in
> large organized international religious institution. It should not be
> surprising that his later writings show evolution from his early
> writings, and that he changes or better defines his position as he
> matures and as he defends his position against opposing views within
> the early Christian church.
But, morality being absolute, *it* could not change. He must have been
wrong, and become right, or right, and become wrong.
> In any case, statements about specifics of
> conventional morality, for a non-fundamentalist, have to be put into
> context of who Paul was as a man of his time.
>
Not if you assert that morality is *absolute*. He was either right or
wrong.
You are complaining, let us remember, that gay activists believe
morality is relative. And at the same time you are dismissing Paul's
writings on the basis that his morality was relative to his time!
It seems to me that you are going to have to say that morality is not
only absolute, but that only *you* know what is correct. I think
that's your position in any case - you believe you are directed by
your Spirit, which rather conveniently manifests to you personally and
not, for instance, to me or the gay activists in question.
> Finally, there are the words of Jesus Himself. Jesus had a different
> set of priorities than Paul. Not surprisingly, homosexuality was not
> such an important issue to Him that He felt it necessary to opine about
> it.
Perhaps we ought to read that as his feeling he need not contradict
the prior diktat of his Father?
> Jesus did not explicitly condemn homosexuality; He did not feel it
> was important enough to comment on it at all.
>
He felt that God had already discussed the matter and it need not be
revisited.
> This is in contrast to Jesus' statements about the importance of
> committment and fidelity in marriage. Jesus was adamant about that.
> Jesus *did* have occasion to opine about sexual sin, and gave a list.
> Homosexuality was not important enough to be on that list. The things
> that were important enough were fornication, adultery, and
> licentiousness.
Fornication, one should remind oneself at this point, is defined as
unmarried sex, and in a broader sense, sex for pleasure rather than
for procreation.
> There are those who would include homosexuality under
> a very broad definition of "fornication,"
Homosexuality is clearly included in any definition of "fornication"
that would apply to Jesus's words, since they might not marry in those
days.
> but can only really do so by
> dropping back to the Pauline idea of relying on conventional morality
> of the time (i.e. "fornication" means any form of unapproved sexual
> behavior -- and in order not to be circular must then be defined in
> terms of the Old Testament or conventional morality).
So your solution is to render the word meaningless. Jesus clearly
meant a thing by "fornication", and we are clear what it is (perhaps
Wendy will supply us with the Greek word he would have used), but
because we do not now mean the same thing by it, you wish to redefine
him a posteriori.
Dude, you could outrelativise the relativists!
> Thus, my conclusion from the scripture is that it is clear that Jewish
> traditional morality opposed homosexuality.
Bullshit. Jesus did not, in fact, suggest arsefucking was okay. He
said fornication was out. Arsefucking, in the terms of his day, which
are the terms he used, given his audience, was fornication par
excellence.
> But Jesus freed us from
> the Law of Moses, and the Law of Moses must be viewed by a Christian
> not in terms of the specifics of the Law, but in terms of how basic
> principles given by Christ are demonstrated by them. The Law was based
> on orthopraxy -- how one acted was more important than how one
> believed. Act like a good Jew, and the belief will come. Christianity
> is based on orthodoxy -- how one believes is more important.
Tell the Archbish of Canterbury that! He certainly would not agree.
The CofE line is that it's fine to *be* gay but wrong, very wrong, to
*do* gay.
> Believe
> in Christ, and the acts will flow from that. If one can be within the
> Spirit and be an active homosexual, then one can. If one cannot, then
> one cannot.
>
If the Spirit despises the act, then one can only conclude that the
actor is acting without the Spirit. Or does your Spirit make
dispensations? Is it also a relativist, going case by case?
> And this goes back to your "morality is absolute" statement. It is.
> But it is absolute at a different level than you suggest.
Yes, clearly. It's absolute in the sense that it is not absolute
*whatsoever*!
> Jesus opined
> about basic *principles* upon which one should build one's life, not
> specific details about practice. If one wants to ask if a given action
> is a sin, then one must ask how that act fits within the absolute
> morality provided by the Christ. The appropriate question is not "is
> homosexuality a sin," but instead "am I living my life in accordance to
> the principles of devotion, compassion, selflessness, and fidelity that
> Jesus demands."
And the answer must, quite clearly, be no. Because Jesus said no
arsefucking, EOFS.
>
> If one can live as a homosexual and answer the latter question with a
> "yes," or at least note that being an active homosexual does not
> interfere with it, then it is not a sin.
So one is permitted, ultimately, to *interpret* Jesus how one chooses.
In your "morality", everything is permitted, so long as one can find
an interpretation to fit.
Fuck that! I'll take my morality, which must be negotiated among men,
rather than yours, which is dealt under the table by God.
> If, however, being an active
> homosexual *does* interfere with living a life according to those
> principles
What principles? It seems to me you pick and choose from what Jesus
said, to suit whatever morality you wish to adopt!
> then it is, not because the act is a sin but because
> choosing anything that interferes with those principles is a sin.
>
He said no arsefucking.
> If it were a "meat before idols"' issue, then a change in conventional
> morality would change whether or not one could engage in a behavior. Or
> moving. Some things that are offensive in one place are not offensive
> in another.
How convenient! But if morality is absolute, they must be moral or
immoral regardless. Whatever else can "absolute" mean?
> If it were as matter of fidelity -- that being an active
> homosexual somehow required promiscuity, then it would be a sin. If it
> were a matter of exploitation -- that being an active homosexual
> somehow required exploiting prostitutes or whatever, then it would be a
> sin.
>
No arsefucking.
> But the same thing is true of *heterosexuality.*
Yes. No arsefucking for straights either.
> And you can see the
> same principles applied when either Jesus or Paul were asked about
> celibacy. Both took the position that *any* sexuality was wrong to the
> degree that one could not regulate one's sexual proclivities to stay
> within the confines of Christian principles. Thus, Jesus opined about
> the sanctity of marriage but also allowed that some would find it
> necessary to become eunuchs "for the kingdom of heaven."
Indeed. That, I think, is the CofE's favourite scripture on this
issue.
> It wasn't
> that Jesus didn't approve of sex; it was that if one cannot engage in
> sex responsibly (in the Christian context) then one should not do it at
> all.
>
Ie, within marriage and for the purposes of procreation.
> The same applies, as far as I am concerned, to homosexuality.
You're a weasel, Bill. I'd respect your position far more were you to
say "Jesus said no arsefucking, so homosexuals are sinful, period."
But you don't have the courage of your convictions. Your morality is
*even more* contingent than mine!
> >> The argument such folk make is not
> >> with Christian morality, but about how it is applied in this case.
> >>
> >
> >To be frank, I think they want their cake and eat it. Christian
> >morality is thoroughly intolerant. In some cases, this is one of its
> >strengths - it can give clear guidance and benchmarks for moral
> >decisions - but it leaves those of you who don't *feel* any distaste
> >for homosexuals stuck with an antihomo stance.
> >
>
> Not at all.
>
I meant those of you who don't think they can weasel out of it by
claiming that a/ Jesus is not the son of the OT God (and consequently
does not share that God's morality) and b/ things was different then
so the "absolute" morals have shifted.
> >>
> >> There are no people more judgemental than those who pretend they
> >> are not.
> >>
> >
> >I'm not sure about that, but I do think that the people you are
> >talking about like to pretend that morality is not a question of
> >judgment. Just like you, they like to pretend that.
>
> You still don't get it. Morality is both absolute and *all* a question
> of judgement.
Bullshit.
Zen
gekko
gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote misc.writing saying:
> Well maybe you'd like to be a bit tighter in your piffle. Are you
> saying that Methodist gays ought to be allowed to be married but
> Catholics not, because their different sects permit it? I think it
> becomes quite clear why the state must take a hand.
I'm saying that the word "marriage" connotes a _sacrament_, not a
civil union. It is a religious thing. So, yes. Catholic gays ought
not be "married", if they fail to convince their sect that homosexual
unions are within the morals of their sect. If they want to live
together as spouses, OTOH, and enjoy the privileges (and travails) of
legally joined partners, that is outside of the church, and should be
permitted.
The state acknowledges the civil union of people married under the
auspices of the church. The church does not have to acknowledge the
union of those joined outside of the church.
My mother, for example, is not "married" to her husband, nor is my
father married to his wife according to the church of my father's
childhood. They are civilly joined, each to their spouses. My
mother's present church recognizes her union to her husband. My
father is unchurched and doesn't give a crap, but to the Catholic
church, my father and mother are still married to one another, and
are living in adulterous relationships with other people.
--
gekko
I'm not your type. I'm not inflatable.
Alan Hope
>I'm saying that the word "marriage" connotes a _sacrament_, not a
>civil union. It is a religious thing.
Well, you're plainly wrong about that. You might like it to mean a
sacrament, but that's not what it currently means. My lady wife and I
are married (to each other, what's more) and we never sought or
obtained the blessing of a chap in a dress or any other form of
Halloween costume. The law says we are married. Your law also
recognises our right to claim that status.
So it is very much a civil union. In fact, while couples may legally
do as we did, and dispense with the God-botherers, and still be
married, the reverse is not true: anyone who desires to be married by
his own cult-representative must, before or after, have his
"sacrament" legitimised by a government-approved official.
And thank goodness for that, I say. Christians would be content to
marry humans, presumably, (although some fundamentalist Catholic women
claim to be married to sprites) but the minute you let religion decide
who can and who can't, you're one step away from men marrying goats.
--
AH
Dr Zen
> Here are some of the interesting bits and selected pieces of what
> gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote misc.writing saying:
>
>
> > Well maybe you'd like to be a bit tighter in your piffle. Are you
> > saying that Methodist gays ought to be allowed to be married but
> > Catholics not, because their different sects permit it? I think it
> > becomes quite clear why the state must take a hand.
>
> I'm saying that the word "marriage" connotes a _sacrament_, not a
> civil union.
Yes indeed. That's what we're discussing here.
> It is a religious thing.
Yes.
> So, yes.
So, after all, we are quite clear on this.
> Catholic gays ought
> not be "married", if they fail to convince their sect that homosexual
> unions are within the morals of their sect.
Fine. I agree.
> If they want to live
> together as spouses, OTOH, and enjoy the privileges (and travails) of
> legally joined partners, that is outside of the church, and should be
> permitted.
>
Indeed. That is why I say it's clear that the state must take a hand.
You and Billo can call it marriage, cabbage or whatever you like. We
are in clear agreement that what Billo suggests is to reserve the word
"marriage" for the bigots and the rest of us will need to find another
word for our getting together.
> The state acknowledges the civil union of people married under the
> auspices of the church. The church does not have to acknowledge the
> union of those joined outside of the church.
Certainly not. I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who wish to
reform the church. They are denying the same freedom to the bigots
that they wish for themselves.
> My mother, for example, is not "married" to her husband, nor is my
> father married to his wife according to the church of my father's
> childhood.
Ooooh. Dirty.
> They are civilly joined, each to their spouses. My
> mother's present church recognizes her union to her husband. My
> father is unchurched and doesn't give a crap, but to the Catholic
> church, my father and mother are still married to one another, and
> are living in adulterous relationships with other people.
And will accordingly go to hell for it.
Zen
Dr Zen
> gekko goes:
>
> >I'm saying that the word "marriage" connotes a _sacrament_, not a
> >civil union. It is a religious thing.
>
> Well, you're plainly wrong about that.
No, I think they can define it how they like. We're not obliged to
agree.
Some people call a black man a nigger, innit.
I think it's healthy that these people put their prejudice out there
where we can see it.
Zen
gekko
Or, the rest of us can call it "marriage" or even "cabbage", and
the bigots who, for whatever reason, find the concept of two men
living together as life partners anathema can just deal. The
two men will not be "married" in the eyes of that church, but would
certainly be married in the eyes of the state. Assuming the
state and society in general can get over their hangups concerning
homosexuality.
>
> > The state acknowledges the civil union of people married under the
> > auspices of the church. The church does not have to acknowledge the
> > union of those joined outside of the church.
>
> Certainly not. I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who wish to
> reform the church. They are denying the same freedom to the bigots
> that they wish for themselves.
Yes.
>
> > My mother, for example, is not "married" to her husband, nor is my
> > father married to his wife according to the church of my father's
> > childhood.
>
> Ooooh. Dirty.
>
> > They are civilly joined, each to their spouses. My
> > mother's present church recognizes her union to her husband. My
> > father is unchurched and doesn't give a crap, but to the Catholic
> > church, my father and mother are still married to one another, and
> > are living in adulterous relationships with other people.
>
> And will accordingly go to hell for it.
Unless they pay their tuppence to the gatekeepers.
I may have misspoken. They divorced and remarried, and were thus
excommunicated, prior to the reforms, I believe. Since Mommy wasn't
born into the Catholic faith, but converted after she married Daddy,
I'm not sure if she's damned to hell, or merely to purgatory.
I'll have to check with my MIL's priest and get back with you.
Unless Father Luke happens to be hanging about and can answer
this ... Luke? Babe? Whazzup?
--
gekko
Try a nap. It doesn't change the day, but at least you will have missed part of it. -- Jan S. of misc.writing
Gene Royer
"gekko" <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote in message
<a snip ana snip>
>
> Or, the rest of us can call it "marriage" or even "cabbage", and
> the bigots who, for whatever reason, find the concept of two men
> living together as life partners anathema can just deal. The
> two men will not be "married" in the eyes of that church, but would
> certainly be married in the eyes of the state. Assuming the
> state and society in general can get over their hangups concerning
> homosexuality.
Who cares what society and the state think, as they are always in enmity
with God.
<paraphrased --Jesus the Christ>
Modern, adulterated Christianity (another name for society and the state)
has come to accept Homosexuality as Godly. <paraphrased--Geno the Wise>
--Gene Royer
Bill Oliver
>saying that Methodist gays ought to be allowed to be married but
>Catholics not, because their different sects permit it? I think it
>becomes quite clear why the state must take a hand.
>
Right. In the same way the state should dictate whether Jews or
Catholics can eat pork.
billo
Ray Haddad
>It is to me. I feel it is unjust that my lesbian friend cannot share
>her partner's estate because the law will not recognise that she is
>married to her partner.
Well, that settles it. If you "feel" it's unjust then it surely must be unjust.
On the other hand, how do you "feel" about sending someone an obscene e-mail
messages and having them (read that to be ME) broadcast it worldwide? Was that
unjust or was the sending of that message unjust?
Enquiring minds may want to know how you "feel." Me? I could not care any less
how you "feel" about any issue that defies the law of the land. Against the law
is against the law. If you don't like it, change the law. Otherwise, your
"feelings" may get you in trouble.
Ray
Ray Haddad
Bill,
Not can that but that they must eat pork. Eat pork or suffer the legal
consequences of an illegal consumption.
That's an interesting parallel you just made, Bill. Forcing anyone to recognize
a union of any kind is akin to forcing someone to eat pork or chicken or soup.
Ray
Ray Haddad
>Not can that but that they must eat pork. Eat pork or suffer the legal
>consequences of an illegal consumption.
Mea culpa. My grammar suffered here when I cut and pasted.
I should have stated, "Not that they can eat pork but that they must eat pork."
Dr Zen
The Indian Mutiny of 1857 was caused in large part because the sepoys
were unhappy that animal fats were used to grease the cartridges they
used to load their weapons (they had to bite the end off to use them).
What you ought to have said is "In the same way the state ought not to
mandate the eating of pork".
Zen
fundoc
"Ray Haddad" <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in message
news:9olatvgktce0n2m0a...@4ax.com...
> On 8 Dec 2003 04:11:03 -0800, gol...@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote:
>
> >It is to me. I feel it is unjust that my lesbian friend cannot share
> >her partner's estate because the law will not recognise that she is
> >married to her partner.
> Well, that settles it. If you "feel" it's unjust then it surely must be
unjust.
It may or may not be unjust, but it's certainly inaccurate. The law permits
lesbians to execute wills leaving their estates to their partners, or their cats
for that matter; what it doesn't do is distribute a share to a lesbian partner
in the case of intestacy -- just as it doesn't distribute a share to a hetero
common law spouse in the case of intestacy.
Bill Oliver
In article <5e7da04d.03120...@posting.google.com>,
Dr Zen <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>bi...@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote in message news:<bqvjmp$g8v$1...@news1.radix.net>...
>> In article <5e7da04d.03120...@posting.google.com>,
>> Dr Zen <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >bi...@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote in message news:<bqtln3$4bd$1...@news1.radix.net>...
>> >>
>
>to homosexuality certainly isn't "traditional". It's clearly enjoined
>in scripture, apart from any other consideration. There's no passage
>in Matthew where Jesus says "Oh, and BTW, arsefucking is now okay.
>Sorry about Onan and all."
>
No, but there is a passage in Mark where Jesus says about the
same thing when asked about food laws. In fact, He says something
that can easily apply to aspects of life other than food purity
taboos:
Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me,
everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him
'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man
that makes him 'unclean.' " After he had left the crowd and
entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable.
"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that
enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it
doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of
his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
(Mark 7L 14-19, NIV)
Thus, your contention that Jesus was a slave to Jewish law and would
reflexively parrot that position is wrong.
>> As I noted in my subsequent paragraphs, I would
>> have no problem were my tradition to start recognizing homosexual
>> marriage.
>
>Despite its proscription in scripture?
>
You mean like the dietary laws Jesus dismissed out of hand as noted
above? I provided an exegesis. Jesus was not a fundamentalist, why do
you demand that Christians be so?
>I have a problem with a guy who talks about *absolute morality*, but
>claims he will bend with the wind. Seems your morality is as relative
>as mine, hey?
>
No. Jesus provided a simple, absolute set of rules for morality.
To quote Him:
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus.
"Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your
mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "
"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you
will live."
(Luke 10: 20-25, NIV)
This is reiterated by Paul:
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then,
and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of
slavery...
You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not
use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one
another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command:
"Love your neighbor as yourself."
(Gal 5:1, 13-15)
Simple, and yes, Zen, absolute.
These are absolute and immutable moral rules. The problem you
have is that the application of these absolute rules allows the
use of judgement. Jesus didn't give an enumeration of all
possible acts and provide a yes/no for each one. Every
act must be judged not as an act that is moral or immoral
in isolation, but instead is judged against the absolute
rules of morality that Jesus provided.
And how did Jesus say we will know how to apply these
immutable and absolute morality in individual cases?
He gave use that Spirit who you find so silly. As Jesus stated:
..."If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My
Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with
him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words
you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
"All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the
Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you
all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as
the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be
afraid.
(John 14:23-25)
>> Not in a religious context.
>
>Are we only talking about activists who are also churchists then?
>
I do not know what a "churchist" is. There are many churches, some
of which accept gay marriage and some that do not.
>> There are good reasons to believe that
>> homosexuality is inherently a sin.
>
>I wonder whether you'd care to share some?
>
Sure. Christians who believe that they should follow Judaic laws would
consider homosexuality a sin. An example of such a tradition is that
of some of the Messianic Jews, and the Ebionites before them.
Fundamentalists who accept literal inerrancy of the Pauline letters
would necessarily consider homosexual practice a sin.
>> There are good reasons to
>> believe that it is not.
>
>That's clear. One can hardly expect that God would despise his own
>creation.
>
>> This leads to debate and reliance on
>> the Spirit for guidance.
>
>Yes, but you'll accept that most of us don't have the Spirit
>whispering neocon ideology into our shell-likes?
>
I'll accept that most of you will not listen to the Spirit when it
speaks. I have given you an example of Jesus saying that he is
providing the Spirit to us for exactly the purpose I state. People who
do not believe and who do not listen to the Spirit of course find it
foolish.
Paul addressed your attitude in his first letter to the Corinthians:
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For
who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit
within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God
except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the
world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what
God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words
taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit,
expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without
the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of
God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand
them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man
makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to
any man's judgment: "For who has known the mind of the Lord that
he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
That pretty much sums up our discussion about the importance of
the Spirit. You find my reliance on the Spirit foolish for
exactly the reason Paul said you would.
>>
>
>I was quite clear, was I not, that most Christians might agree that
>the act should not be indulged in, however the person feels about it.
>
No. You do not speak for most Christians.
>>
>
>Yes, of course, as I noted elsewhere, Bill. But posing Jesus as a
>trendy vicar who blew out the cobwebs does two things: one, it obliges
>you to find any place in the NT where Jesus says arsefucking is okay;
>two, it obliges you to agree that morality is not in fact absolute.
>God must, quite simply, have changed his mind. Of course, he is
>allowed to do that.
>
No, it does not require me to do that at all. As both Jesus and
Paul noted, the coming of the Savior liberated Christians from
the demands of the Law of Moses. By stating that one principle,
it is no longer necessary to enumerate each such Law and state
"this one also does not apply, or this one, or this one."
Once again, as Paul stated to the Galatians when opposing those who
wanted Christians to obey Old Testament laws:
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then,
and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of
slavery... You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not
use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one
another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command:
"Love your neighbor as yourself." If you keep on biting and
devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each
other. I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the
desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what
is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the
sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do
not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are
not under law.
>
>> In his writings
>> about the freedom from law brought by grace, Paul notes that Christians
>> are not bound by any Law. Instead we are driven by the Spirit -- that
>> essentially no act is a sin for a Christian when motivated by God.
>
>That's handy. So if the Spirit makes me fuck my boyfriend, I'm sweet
>with the Lord?
Were the Spirit to truly tell you that, then yes indeed. Whether
or not the Spirit would tell you to do so is a different question.
Since you have no sense of the Spirit, it is easy for you to pretend
that the Sprit will tell the Christian to do arbitrary things. It
will not.
It is the Spirit that has replaced the Law. Once again, as Paul
told the Romans:
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life
set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was
powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God
did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a
sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that
the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who
do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the
Spirit.
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set
on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with
the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The
mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit
is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not
submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the
sinful nature cannot please God.
So yes, Zen, if the Spirit "makes" you do anything, then by definition
it is not a sin. The task of the Christian is to become in tune to
the Spirit as much as possible and attempt to avoid mistaking one's
own desires as that of the Spirit.
>
>And of course we already know that your Spirit does not manifest to
>anyone but you. Fucking convenient, all in all. It means that you and
>only you know what is moral.
No, Zen. The Spirit manifests to anyone who will hear. That I
only know how the Spirit directs me does not mean that it does
not direct others.
>
>I have to say I prefer a contingent, negotiable morality. I prefer my
>morality to be a thing of men and not ghosts.
>
Of course you do.
>> He
>> then spends portions of subsequent letters backing away from that
>> position, noting that even though it's not a sin we should not do
>> things too culturally insensitive, that we should engage in
>> conservative conventional morality, etc.
>>
>
>He probably realised that he had created a position that was
>fundamentally amoral. We could perform immoral acts and claim that
>that Spirit drove us. No one else could gainsay us, because your
>Spirit only manifests on an intimate level (it doesn't give lectures
>on morality or write columns for the Times).
>
No. It is only fundamentally amoral if there is no such thing
as the Holy Spirit. Since Jesus *is* Lord, and since He gave
us the Spirit for the reasons given by Jesus and expanded by
Paul, following the direction of the Spirit is anything but
amoral.
>
>So, your *absolute* morality is, after all, contingent on time and
>place?
>
No. The rules are absolute. You have simply chosen to ignore
the absolute morality as laid out by Jesus and explored by
Paul, and demand something else.
>> Jesus did not explicitly condemn homosexuality; He did not feel it
>> was important enough to comment on it at all.
>>
>
>He felt that God had already discussed the matter and it need not be
>revisited.
>
Oh? And where did He say that?
Tell me, Zen. I have given you Jesus' enumeration of His
absolute rules of morality, and Paul's discussion of them.
How does gay marriage defy that absolute morality? It
does not.
>>
>> If one can live as a homosexual and answer the latter question with a
>> "yes," or at least note that being an active homosexual does not
>> interfere with it, then it is not a sin.
>
>So one is permitted, ultimately, to *interpret* Jesus how one chooses.
>In your "morality", everything is permitted, so long as one can find
>an interpretation to fit.
>
I can see where one would see it that way as long as you ignore
the rules that Jesus explicitly laid out, the words Jesus spoke,
and the voice of the Spirit. However, Jesus *did* enumerate
absolute rules of morality. And Jesus *did* give us the Spirit
to guide us. That you cannot bring yourself to note the absolute
rules Jesus gave and hold yourself deaf to the Spirit does not
mean that neither holds.
>
>> The same applies, as far as I am concerned, to homosexuality.
>
>You're a weasel, Bill. I'd respect your position far more were you to
>say "Jesus said no arsefucking, so homosexuals are sinful, period."
>But you don't have the courage of your convictions. Your morality is
>*even more* contingent than mine!
>
Except, of course, Jesus said no such thing. And "my" morality
is simply not the same as yours -- but it is not more "contingent."
>> >>
>> >> There are no people more judgemental than those who pretend they
>> >> are not.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I'm not sure about that, but I do think that the people you are
>> >talking about like to pretend that morality is not a question of
>> >judgment. Just like you, they like to pretend that.
>>
>> You still don't get it. Morality is both absolute and *all* a question
>> of judgement.
>
>Bullshit.
>
Not according to the Christ. He gave us absolute rules of morality, and
He gave us the Spirit to tell us how to apply them.
billo
RJM
news:br6d35$ouh$1...@news1.radix.net...
[. . .}
> He gave us absolute rules of morality, and
> He gave us the Spirit to tell us how to apply them.
He did? Where?
Stan (the Man)
Look behind the 'fridge.
--
Stan
Dr Zen
> In article <5e7da04d.03120...@posting.google.com>,
> Dr Zen <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >bi...@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote in message news:<bqvjmp$g8v$1...@news1.radix.net>...
> >> In article <5e7da04d.03120...@posting.google.com>,
> >> Dr Zen <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >bi...@radix.net (Bill Oliver) wrote in message news:<bqtln3$4bd$1...@news1.radix.net>...
> >> >>
> >
> >I think "tradition" would be the key word here. Your relaxed approach
> >to homosexuality certainly isn't "traditional". It's clearly enjoined
> >in scripture, apart from any other consideration. There's no passage
> >in Matthew where Jesus says "Oh, and BTW, arsefucking is now okay.
> >Sorry about Onan and all."
> >
>
> No, but there is a passage in Mark where Jesus says about the
> same thing when asked about food laws.
Yes, indeed.
> In fact, He says something
> that can easily apply to aspects of life other than food purity
> taboos:
>
> Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me,
> everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him
> 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man
> that makes him 'unclean.' " After he had left the crowd and
> entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable.
> "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that
> enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it
> doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of
> his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
>
> (Mark 7L 14-19, NIV)
>
Yes, Jesus declared all foods clean. Now, to my point. The passage
about arsefucking?
> Thus, your contention that Jesus was a slave to Jewish law and would
> reflexively parrot that position is wrong.
No, I said that if he didn't say he'd had a change of mind, one must
assume that he hadn't changed it. Quoting his changing it shows that
he was liable to!
> >> As I noted in my subsequent paragraphs, I would
> >> have no problem were my tradition to start recognizing homosexual
> >> marriage.
> >
> >Despite its proscription in scripture?
> >
>
> You mean like the dietary laws Jesus dismissed out of hand as noted
> above? I provided an exegesis. Jesus was not a fundamentalist, why do
> you demand that Christians be so?
>
I simply do not recall the passage where he agreed that arsefucking is
okay. I must have missed it in Sunday school.
> >I have a problem with a guy who talks about *absolute morality*, but
> >claims he will bend with the wind. Seems your morality is as relative
> >as mine, hey?
> >
>
> No. Jesus provided a simple, absolute set of rules for morality.
> To quote Him:
>
> On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus.
> "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
>
> "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
>
> He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
> with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your
> mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "
>
> "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you
> will live."
>
> (Luke 10: 20-25, NIV)
I still don't see his saying it's okay to fuck guys up the arse. I
just must be missing it.
>
> This is reiterated by Paul:
>
> It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then,
> and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of
> slavery...
>
> You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not
> use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature
ie, don't go thinking this means you can start fucking each other up
the arse.
> rather, serve one
> another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command:
> "Love your neighbor as yourself."
>
That ought not be read as an injunction to self-abuse though.
> (Gal 5:1, 13-15)
>
>
>
> Simple, and yes, Zen, absolute.
>
Yes, he's *very* clear. "...do not use your freedom to indulge the
sinful nature". Hello?
> These are absolute and immutable moral rules. The problem you
> have is that the application of these absolute rules allows the
> use of judgement. Jesus didn't give an enumeration of all
> possible acts and provide a yes/no for each one.
No. He said, the dietary laws have changed. He didn't say, arsefucking
is also now okay.
> Every
> act must be judged not as an act that is moral or immoral
> in isolation, but instead is judged against the absolute
> rules of morality that Jesus provided.
>
God explains in the OT how one should love him. He's *very* clear on
what love consists in. He explicitly outlaws arsefucking. He explains
that sex that does not aim at procreation is hateful to him. It
offends him so much that Onan wastes his seed that he smites him.
Are you suggesting that God and Jesus differ on this score?
> And how did Jesus say we will know how to apply these
> immutable and absolute morality in individual cases?
Didn't he suggest that we ought to keep the covenant we made with God?
I seem to recall that was the thrust of it.
> He gave use that Spirit who you find so silly. As Jesus stated:
>
>
> ..."If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My
> Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with
> him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words
> you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
The same guy, let's remind ourselves, who smote Onan for pulling out,
and who showed his displeasure at arsefucking.
> "All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the
> Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you
> all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
> Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as
> the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be
> afraid.
>
> (John 14:23-25)
>
I think at that point he might have said, btw, these are the rules
that have changed...
>
> >> Not in a religious context.
> >
> >Are we only talking about activists who are also churchists then?
> >
>
> I do not know what a "churchist" is.
Someone who belongs to a church as part of their religious practice.
It contrasts with someone who believes in God but is without a sect.
> There are many churches, some
> of which accept gay marriage and some that do not.
Yes, of course. But each believes it must be justified, no?
>
>
> >> There are good reasons to believe that
> >> homosexuality is inherently a sin.
> >
> >I wonder whether you'd care to share some?
> >
>
> Sure. Christians who believe that they should follow Judaic laws would
> consider homosexuality a sin.
That's not a reason as such, is it? You said reasons to believe it's
inherently a sin, which implies reasons anyone might hold, not reasons
some people believe it's a sin.
> An example of such a tradition is that
> of some of the Messianic Jews, and the Ebionites before them.
> Fundamentalists who accept literal inerrancy of the Pauline letters
> would necessarily consider homosexual practice a sin.
>
Anyone who believes the OT is divine scripture would believe it's a
sin, Bill. But that's not what you said.
So your reasons to believe it is *inherently* a sin amount to "some
people do". Nice one.
IOW, no reasons at all.
> >> There are good reasons to
> >> believe that it is not.
> >
> >That's clear. One can hardly expect that God would despise his own
> >creation.
> >
> >> This leads to debate and reliance on
> >> the Spirit for guidance.
> >
> >Yes, but you'll accept that most of us don't have the Spirit
> >whispering neocon ideology into our shell-likes?
> >
>
> I'll accept that most of you will not listen to the Spirit when it
> speaks.
Not if it says "bomb Iraq", anyway.
> I have given you an example of Jesus saying that he is
> providing the Spirit to us for exactly the purpose I state. People who
> do not believe and who do not listen to the Spirit of course find it
> foolish.
>
I don't find it foolish. I find it rather comforting that the Spirit
will whisper whatever I choose.
>
> Paul addressed your attitude in his first letter to the Corinthians:
>
> The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For
> who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit
> within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God
> except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the
> world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what
> God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words
> taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit,
> expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without
> the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of
> God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand
> them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man
> makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to
> any man's judgment: "For who has known the mind of the Lord that
> he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
>
>
> That pretty much sums up our discussion about the importance of
> the Spirit. You find my reliance on the Spirit foolish for
> exactly the reason Paul said you would.
>
No, indeed not. I find your reliance on the Spirit curious because it
never directs you against the repuligoon agenda. Who would have
thought the Spirit would be a rather extreme right-winger? You'd think
it would be a little bit more in favour of loving.
> >I was quite clear, was I not, that most Christians might agree that
> >the act should not be indulged in, however the person feels about it.
> >
>
> No. You do not speak for most Christians.
No one reading this would have an idea who I was or wasn't speaking
for, because, as is usual for you, you snipped the context!
The majority of Christians are, I believe, Roman Catholics. I'm sure
you're au fait with Catholic doctrine on arsefucking. The majority of
Anglicans expressed their opinion recently in the case of the gay
bishop here in the UK. They were not in favour of arsefucking
whatsoever. They toed the line of the CofE, which is that the act is
deplored, but the actor forgiven.
So, I think that covers most.
> >>
> >
> >Yes, of course, as I noted elsewhere, Bill. But posing Jesus as a
> >trendy vicar who blew out the cobwebs does two things: one, it obliges
> >you to find any place in the NT where Jesus says arsefucking is okay;
> >two, it obliges you to agree that morality is not in fact absolute.
> >God must, quite simply, have changed his mind. Of course, he is
> >allowed to do that.
> >
>
> No, it does not require me to do that at all. As both Jesus and
> Paul noted, the coming of the Savior liberated Christians from
> the demands of the Law of Moses.
How convenient! They said no such thing, of course. They explained
that the law of Moses was no more than the corollaries of a greater
principle.
> By stating that one principle,
> it is no longer necessary to enumerate each such Law and state
> "this one also does not apply, or this one, or this one."
>
> Once again, as Paul stated to the Galatians when opposing those who
> wanted Christians to obey Old Testament laws:
>
> It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then,
> and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of
> slavery... You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not
> use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one
> another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command:
> "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you keep on biting and
> devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each
> other. I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the
> desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what
> is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the
> sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do
> not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are
> not under law.
>
He's none too clear about what the sinful nature is, is he? But
elsewhere, as we've noted, he points out that arsefucking is very much
part of the sinful bit. You can't selectively quote Paul, scoffing at
his views on arsefucking as the outmoded, slightly quaint morality of
a turn of the AD Jew on the one hand and on the other claiming him as
the authority for your belief that a Spirit whispers neocon policy to
you.
> >
> >> In his writings
> >> about the freedom from law brought by grace, Paul notes that Christians
> >> are not bound by any Law. Instead we are driven by the Spirit -- that
> >> essentially no act is a sin for a Christian when motivated by God.
> >
> >That's handy. So if the Spirit makes me fuck my boyfriend, I'm sweet
> >with the Lord?
>
>
> Were the Spirit to truly tell you that, then yes indeed.
How convenient!
> Whether
> or not the Spirit would tell you to do so is a different question.
> Since you have no sense of the Spirit, it is easy for you to pretend
> that the Sprit will tell the Christian to do arbitrary things. It
> will not.
>
How do you know what it will tell me?
> It is the Spirit that has replaced the Law. Once again, as Paul
> told the Romans:
>
> Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
> Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life
> set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was
> powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God
> did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a
> sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that
> the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who
> do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the
> Spirit.
>
> Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set
> on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with
> the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The
> mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit
> is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not
> submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the
> sinful nature cannot please God.
>
> So yes, Zen, if the Spirit "makes" you do anything, then by definition
> it is not a sin. The task of the Christian is to become in tune to
> the Spirit as much as possible and attempt to avoid mistaking one's
> own desires as that of the Spirit.
>
How convenient! I reckon we can put arsefucking down to my own desires
and giving to charity down to the Spirit, don't you? See how it works?
You are trying to define "sinful" backwards, while Paul clearly has it
the other way round. Paul clearly believes the Spirit prompts you not
to do things you know to be sinful, not that the Spirit guides you to
know what is sinful in the first place. That understanding has already
been provided.
"For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the
sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of
sinful man to be a sin offering."
Even in the awful translation you use, it's clear. Where the law,
which God had already provided, was powerless to overcome sinful
nature, Jesus fills the gaps.
> >
> >And of course we already know that your Spirit does not manifest to
> >anyone but you. Fucking convenient, all in all. It means that you and
> >only you know what is moral.
>
>
> No, Zen. The Spirit manifests to anyone who will hear. That I
> only know how the Spirit directs me does not mean that it does
> not direct others.
But you cannot know what it says to others.
> >
> >I have to say I prefer a contingent, negotiable morality. I prefer my
> >morality to be a thing of men and not ghosts.
> >
>
> Of course you do.
>
> >> He
> >> then spends portions of subsequent letters backing away from that
> >> position, noting that even though it's not a sin we should not do
> >> things too culturally insensitive, that we should engage in
> >> conservative conventional morality, etc.
> >>
> >
> >He probably realised that he had created a position that was
> >fundamentally amoral. We could perform immoral acts and claim that
> >that Spirit drove us. No one else could gainsay us, because your
> >Spirit only manifests on an intimate level (it doesn't give lectures
> >on morality or write columns for the Times).
> >
>
>
> No. It is only fundamentally amoral if there is no such thing
> as the Holy Spirit.
It is fundamentally amoral because you cannot be gainsaid. "Jesus told
me to fuck your arse" cannot be gainsaid if the law is entirely
personal.
> Since Jesus *is* Lord, and since He gave
> us the Spirit for the reasons given by Jesus and expanded by
> Paul, following the direction of the Spirit is anything but
> amoral.
>
Paul is clear enough that the Spirit in fact directs you to abide by a
shared law, not to make it up ad hoc.
>
> >
> >So, your *absolute* morality is, after all, contingent on time and
> >place?
> >
>
> No. The rules are absolute. You have simply chosen to ignore
> the absolute morality as laid out by Jesus and explored by
> Paul, and demand something else.
Indeed not. I'm as clear as crystal what that morality consists of.
It's laid out in Genesis. Paul explains in the letter to Galatians the
relation between the law and the new way. Jesus rescues man from his
inability to abide by the law, but he does not cancel out the law. The
law is an expression of God's will.
In Romans, he's more explicit. In 3:31, Paul asks: Do we then make
void the law through faith?
Because he has been making the point you are making, that redemption
is through faith, not through adherence to the law.
But he says: God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
>
> >> Jesus did not explicitly condemn homosexuality; He did not feel it
> >> was important enough to comment on it at all.
> >>
> >
> >He felt that God had already discussed the matter and it need not be
> >revisited.
> >
>
> Oh? And where did He say that?
Where does he say that he is God?
> Tell me, Zen. I have given you Jesus' enumeration of His
> absolute rules of morality, and Paul's discussion of them.
> How does gay marriage defy that absolute morality? It
> does not.
>
"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good
but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the
commandments."
(He is of course asked which and enumerates them. I'll leave it to you
to look up the passage.)
Keep the commandments, Bill. Not "you can ignore all that OT shit,
it's all on for arsefucking from here on in".
Indeed, he said, as reported by Matthew:
5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt
not commit adultery:
5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust
after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from
thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should
perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Ho hum. He doesn't *appear* to have changed his tune in the lust
stakes, hey?
Leviticus 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.
Jesus *is* God. Let's not forget that. You might think you can pick
and choose. A verse here, a verse there.
But he is clear:
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets".
> >>
> >> If one can live as a homosexual and answer the latter question with a
> >> "yes," or at least note that being an active homosexual does not
> >> interfere with it, then it is not a sin.
> >
> >So one is permitted, ultimately, to *interpret* Jesus how one chooses.
> >In your "morality", everything is permitted, so long as one can find
> >an interpretation to fit.
> >
>
> I can see where one would see it that way as long as you ignore
> the rules that Jesus explicitly laid out, the words Jesus spoke,
> and the voice of the Spirit.
Jesus is indeed clear. He demands that we abide by the commandments he
has already professed. "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."
> However, Jesus *did* enumerate
> absolute rules of morality. And Jesus *did* give us the Spirit
> to guide us. That you cannot bring yourself to note the absolute
> rules Jesus gave and hold yourself deaf to the Spirit does not
> mean that neither holds.
>
Yes, if you want to enter life, abide by the law. It's right there.
No arsefucking.
> >
> >> The same applies, as far as I am concerned, to homosexuality.
> >
> >You're a weasel, Bill. I'd respect your position far more were you to
> >say "Jesus said no arsefucking, so homosexuals are sinful, period."
> >But you don't have the courage of your convictions. Your morality is
> >*even more* contingent than mine!
> >
>
> Except, of course, Jesus said no such thing.
He said one should abide by the commandments of his father, Bill. His
father is clear on the score of arsefucking.
> And "my" morality
> is simply not the same as yours -- but it is not more "contingent."
>
>
>
> >> >>
> >> >> There are no people more judgemental than those who pretend they
> >> >> are not.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I'm not sure about that, but I do think that the people you are
> >> >talking about like to pretend that morality is not a question of
> >> >judgment. Just like you, they like to pretend that.
> >>
> >> You still don't get it. Morality is both absolute and *all* a question
> >> of judgement.
> >
> >Bullshit.
> >
>
> Not according to the Christ. He gave us absolute rules of morality, and
> He gave us the Spirit to tell us how to apply them.
>
>
Zen
RJM
"Stan (the Man)" <sk...@NOSPAMoptonline.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:iqDBb.14234$655.1...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Doh, why din't I think of that. I'll get back to you, Bill.
Bill Oliver
Dr Zen <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>No, indeed not. I find your reliance on the Spirit curious because it
>never directs you against the repuligoon agenda. Who would have
>thought the Spirit would be a rather extreme right-winger? You'd think
>it would be a little bit more in favour of loving.
>
When you argue by making a caricature of me, and of the scripture,
you really don't make that many points. Tell me Zen, what is my
position on capital punishment? On reproductive choice? On
homosexual rights? It's funny, my opinions never deviate from
the Republican position -- as long as you ignore what my opinions
really are. And the scripture says what you claim, as long as
you ignore what it actually says.
billo
Father Luke
If God hates homos, I now believe it's for being - per capita - just
as stupid as the rest of the people on Earth. And that kind of
stupidity should breed contempt in even the most forgiving of divine
beings.
High-five on your right to get married, Ladybird. Welcome to the club
of fucking idiots. This is one of many reasons that I would rather be
a dog or a silverfish than human.
Let's try to make this simple. There is no reason for "law" to ever be
involved in a personal relationship of any kind, ever, for any reason.
If you want to give to give your relationship a title - whether it be
"going out", "hooking up" or "seeing each other" - that is your own
business.
"Do you, Archibald, take this man to be your lawfully wedded..."
< http://snipurl.com/3d4b >
If you think making a commitment to one another deserves a public
celebration, go to Pistol Pete's Pizza, stomp on a glass in a hankie
and declare yourselves "on the verge of finger-fucking" or whatever it
is you want to call it.
The reason that marriage exists today is that one prick, somewhere in
time, invented it and now you have to do it. Like Secretaries Day,
some shitbean at a greeting card company invented it, promoted it and
now you have to give her a card or a flower or you are an asshole.
The main reason it continues to exist is ego. There are very few
moments in life where the average person has all the attention on
them. Your birthday, graduation, wedding, childbirth and death. Those
make up your 15 minutes. So you sign the contract and get all giddy
because finally a bunch of people will be paying a lot of attention to
you.
For no reason whatsoever.
Marriage doesn’t do anything, legal or otherwise. It is a cute
sentiment at best. Terrell Owens of the San Francisco 49ers has
dedicated the rest of the season to his Grandma who has Alzhiemers.
Adorable and sweet or pointless and empty, depending on how dark or
logical you are. Either way, it means nothing -other than sentiment.
No matter how much he means it, it doesn’t effect the outcome of the
game.
Now imagine that there were a government institution of "dedication",
where one would have to "legally" dedicate a season to a dying person.
Sounds ridiculous, but you’d do it out of emotion and for the fact
that someone invented it and now you have to.
Next imagine that, should you not win the rest of the season, you will
be held legally responsible and have to hire lawyers and bargain away
part of your earnings. You’d still risk it, because you love your
Grandma and this is for her.
Now imagine faggots wanted to dedicate seasons to other faggots. Your
Grandma weren’t no faggot! I’ll fight against any faggot getting the
right to dedicate no seasons to nobody, much less other faggots!
Stupid faggots.
Stupid people.
They have you fighting on two sides of an issue that shouldn’t exist.
I wish I were a silverfish.
Thanks to Doug Stanhope < www.dougstanhope.com for the answer.
Father Luke
RJM
news:br6d35$ouh$1...@news1.radix.net...
> Not according to the Christ. He gave us absolute rules of morality, and
> He gave us the Spirit to tell us how to apply them.
Yo Bill, as you were, it *was* behind the fridge, Stan was spot on.
Yeah, there it was, Superstition for Dummies by Jesus H. Christ,
published by Holy Books Inc., still in its dust cover. My god! What
a revelation. I mean, apparently there are people believe that they
gain in stature simply by standing on The Bible (insert holy book of
choice). Imagine! One minute you're this completely normal adult,
next minute you get up on your bible, and voila, you're two inches
taller. I tried it with my hardback edition of Moby Dick. Amazing!
Instantly I was able to declaim (in a rather attractive booming voice)
an awesome sermon on the tragic quest in question, describing in
some detail the inner workings of a tortured soul on a doomed quest
to revenge himself on the symbolic whale sent by a demonic god to
bite off his leg. My dog, Bruce, sat there with his tongue hanging out,
so enthralled was he with my performance of the message that only
he could hear. Caitlin, as usual was out. No, I'm not given to the early
morning Bildungsroman, at least not before I've had a shit, shave and
a shampoo and seen the little woman off to work. But one read of one
of the Big Books, and Bingo! I'm a prophet in my own living room.
I hope you're as grateful as I am, Bill, for the help and guidance of our
own lawgiver, Stan, whose unerring instinct for a clue led me, at least, to
the place we all seek in our very souls, enlightening darkness behind the
whited sepulchre. Thanks Stan.
Dr Zen
> In article <5e7da04d.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> Dr Zen <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >No, indeed not. I find your reliance on the Spirit curious because it
> >never directs you against the repuligoon agenda. Who would have
> >thought the Spirit would be a rather extreme right-winger? You'd think
> >it would be a little bit more in favour of loving.
> >
>
> When you argue by making a caricature of me, and of the scripture,
> you really don't make that many points.
Oh, I think I do.
> Tell me Zen, what is my
> position on capital punishment? On reproductive choice? On
> homosexual rights? It's funny, my opinions never deviate from
> the Republican position -- as long as you ignore what my opinions
> really are. And the scripture says what you claim, as long as
> you ignore what it actually says.
>
Don't it though!
Zen
Dr Zen
Yes, well done, dwarf boy. You never like to let the obvious pass by
without stating it.
Zen
William Penrose
> "William Penrose" <wpen...@customsensorsolutions.com> wrote in message
> > I know that Republicans and Democrats don't interbreed. Something
> > about red and blue chromosomes.
>
> I'll have you know they do indeed interbreed. And the results I'm
> acquianted with are too smart to fall for either side.
They vote for Nader???
Bill Penrose
(I wouldn't want to count those chromosomes.)
fundoc
"Dr Zen" <gol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e7da04d.03121...@posting.google.com...
> You never like to let the obvious pass by
> without stating it.
Hardly true: I rarely mention how tiresome you are.
gekko
But Father Luke <A_Small_Town_Comic_@_Peace.Baby> had this to say in
message news:8u5gtvstscirbrrg3...@4ax.com:
Yes, but if we didn't have marriage, there would be no marriage
licenses. And if there are no marriage licenses, how would we track
all those loose kids?
--
gekko
'Write what you know' is a good mantra, but we need to be allowed to
gain knowledge in ways that do not include osmosis. -- Dick Harper
Alan Hope
[snip 800 lines]
>Yes, but <SLAP!>
Learn to snip you stupid top-posting newbie cunt who only didn't
top-post this time because she had a fucking ACCIDENT with her fucking
nails or something.
You don't want to rile me. Curb your instinct to come back with a
pithy 800-liner. You really don't. That's all.
Would I lie to you.
--
AH
Whoooshboy
>From: Alan Hope ah...@skynet.be
>Date: 12/12/03 2:42 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <9a6ktv8cfdebffshc...@4ax.com>
>
>gekko goes:
>
>[snip 800 lines]
>
>>Yes, but <SLAP!>
>
>Learn to snip you stupid top-posting newbie cunt who only didn't
>top-post this time because she had a fucking ACCIDENT with her fucking
>nails or something.
Whooosh!
Whoooshboy
First thing we'll do is WHOOOSH! all the lawyers. Atttorneys. Whatever.
gekko
Did you have something to say, Alan?
Ohmigosh! It's Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be>! And look! On 12 Dec
2003 s/he wrote something in misc.writing! See?
> gekko goes:
>
> [snip 800 lines]
>
>>Yes, but <SLAP!>
>
> Learn to snip
> you stupid top-posting newbie cunt who only didn't
> top-post this time because
> she had a fucking ACCIDENT with her
> fucking nails or something.
>
> You don't want to rile me. Curb your instinct to come back with a
> pithy 800-liner. You really don't. That's all.
>
> Would I lie to you.
--
gekko
The first step is to say nice things about myself. The second, to do
nice things for myself. The third, to find someone to buy me nice
things.
Sylvia
<...>
> And thank goodness for that, I say. Christians would be
> content to marry humans, presumably, (although some
> fundamentalist Catholic women claim to be married to
> sprites) but the minute you let religion decide who can and
> who can't, you're one step away from men marrying goats.
<bursting into tears>
Did you *have* to bring that up? I'm not done dealing with it yet!
<running out of room>
"I Meh-eh-eh-eh-ehrried a Goat
that started the whole world talking
Oh but I didn't see
That the goat was a he
oh no-o-o oh no-o-o-o-oh."
-- Sir Throckey
--
Sylvia
--
"I sent this [writing question] to misc.writing.moderated <...>,
but it appears that everyone there died, and the last one to do
so turned off the moderation software."
-- SRH