User Tag List

Page 22 of 37 FirstFirst ... 121920212223242532 ... LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 542

Thread: What the Law and the Bible say about Homosexuality.

  1. #316
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,041
    Thanks
    222
    Thanked 420 Times in 349 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    36304
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    Where are there laws on the books against homosexuality in the United States of America?
    Wherever there's a 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' lying around, for starters.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...sm/ccc_toc.htm
    Last edited by Idolater; May 2nd, 2019 at 05:53 PM. Reason: Jacob's quote was missing so I added it back in
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  2. #317
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    18,785
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked 947 Times in 871 Posts

    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Wherever there's a 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' lying around, for starters.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...sm/ccc_toc.htm
    Anything you want to point out? You know that I am talking about the state or the government or states or our nation's laws?

    I am not Catholic. I do not accept Catholic doctrine for the law of the United States of America. However, I have grown up in the church, and I recognize issues with law between church and state.

    The nation of Israel has the Torah, and I believe the United States of America should too.

  3. #318
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,041
    Thanks
    222
    Thanked 420 Times in 349 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    36304
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    Anything you want to point out?
    Text 2357:
    Quote Originally Posted by The Church's authentic pastors
    Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    You know that I am talking about the state or the government or states or our nation's laws?

    I am not Catholic. I do not accept Catholic doctrine for the law of the United States of America. However, I have grown up in the church, and I recognize issues with law between church and state.

    The nation of Israel has the Torah, and I believe the United States of America should too.
    Cool.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  4. #319
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    18,785
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked 947 Times in 871 Posts

    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Text 2357:
    Cool.
    Shalom.

  5. #320
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    16,003
    Thanks
    9,925
    Thanked 7,769 Times in 5,219 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    Arthur,

    Of course you are advocating for harmful behavior when you deny that it should be punished, and instead of being punished it should be considered harmless behavior.

    The other message I get from you is that those who harm others by their behavior should not be punished because punishment hurts. Where is your compassion for those who are harmed by those behaviors? That hurts too. Have you ever been molested? I can tell you by personal experience the long term effects of that are extremely painful. Where is your compassion for me?

    Evidently, by the things you repeatedly say you're far more concerned for those who harm others than those who are harmed by their behavior. I look at things just the opposite for I consider that point of view harmful for society as a whole. I view punishing those who harm others as the way to protect society from them. I take the long view, not the myopic view. Victims, and potential victims, must be protected from their abusers. To deny that shows a major lack of compassion for out fellow man.
    Hey, I have never been molested and have nothing but compassion for those who have been victims of any such atrocity and the like so that's not an argument you can begin to use with me as I've had a family member be the victim of rape. You think I don't want to see the perpetrator face justice for what he did? The guy was never caught. I know gay people who's only "crime" among some of the more zealous is for simply being "abnormal" if they act on attractions with other consenting adults. I count a couple of those as my friends . I don't conflate homosexuality with pedophilia and have nothing but contempt for the latter, rape or any other atrocity inflicted on another human being so you get that through your head, okay?

  6. #321
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington
    Posts
    18,785
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked 947 Times in 871 Posts

    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    1 Timothy 1:8-10 affirms that the Law is for those who practice homosexuality, among other things.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob View Post
    1 Timothy 1:8-10 affirms that the Law is for those who practice homosexuality.

    1 Timothy 1:8-10 NASB - But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
    those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

  7. #322
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,830
    Thanks
    2,756
    Thanked 4,791 Times in 2,870 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147736
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    What on earth does that have to do with the right to religious liberty being infringed Lon.
    Simply this: Many 'religious' ideals are yet enforced by common law. You don't see it yet, but you have expressed a dichotomy yourself, that you haven't reconciled. You are thinking there is a moral sentiment, but there is none apart from Christianity. There is no religion that has as high of moral standards. "IF" one eradicates Christianity or tries to 'separate' then they are attacking morals in principle, on the false basis that they are 'encouraging Christianity.' For a long long time, our country got this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    That's what being a democratic republic is all about, yes.
    So you are okay when the majority want communism I guess it 'was' democratic....right up until the end.


    The right to religious liberty is imo merely a certain form of the one inalienable right that we all possess as human beings. It's the right to life, the right to speak and write freely, the right to believe and practice however we want to religiously, and the right to self defense /bear arms. There are other formulations of it, but I see it as just one right.
    No, they are intricately tied together or one or the other cannot stand. We 'were' apologetically Christian.' There can be no denying that. What MADE this country so free and so great, was that Christians didn't demand that others fall in line or convert. The problem is this: As the Christians lose representation, either by legislation or by lack of population, no other group holds to our same freedom of values nor do they insist on unharmful behavior by common law. In Muslim countries? Still legal to rape, to persecute, and indeed, sanctioned by EVERY Muslim controlled country: criminalize any religion but theirs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Laws are made in any variety of ways, and in the US they are made by legislators who are elected in free and fair elections, and these laws are all amenable to legal challenge, and our highest court decides ultimately whether the laws are in accord with our constitution, which is the highest law in the land.
    At present, yes. It used to be the Constitution and not reinterpretation of it, kept such from happening.

    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    We are able to amend our constitution. But the interaction between laws and rights is what we're discussing here. We divide along basically religious lines, with our different opinions about LGBTQI+ conjugal behaviors, as to their morality, and as to their legality. There are some of us who take them to all be gravely immoral, but that we oughtn't make laws forbidding them, though it feels as if we are in the minority, and much more so on TOL.
    It depends whether we believe God, whether the behavior is always damaging to self and others. I believe it is, from scripture. Such MUST be demonstrable to the rest of society (and I'm convinced it will all come to light, Luke 8:17

    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Largely it seems there are two prominent and noisy camps, they are the ones who take these behaviors to be fundamentally amoral (because it's really just about love, or some other canard), and so naturally they oppose outlawing them, and then there are those who take them to be very seriously sinful and wrong and reprehensible, and that they ought to be outlawed civilly as well.
    I do agree with you, we have liberty with common law. Mostly, we need laws that protect 'from' rather imposing laws 'against,' but if it is shown our choices wound up hurting any particular group in the process of more freedom, we have to own collectively any harm done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    This latter group bases their political opinion on their religious belief. This contravenes our constitution.

    I suppose there are also those who do not take LGBTQI+ conjugal behavior as immoral for whatever reason, but who insist they should be civilly outlawed anyway, based on measured deleterious effects upon the health of those who do such things, but I think they are an even tinier minority than those of us who take these behaviors to be gravely immoral, but who think that laws against them are not well founded laws /they are Unconstitutional.

    And incidentally perhaps, laws forbidding adultery make spouses into slaves in a way. We would be under such laws barred from making our own choice in the matter, as slaves are barred by their masters from being free people. Part of the evolution of laws in the US over the centuries is about dismantling vestiges of slavery that existed when our nation was founded, even while it was multiple distinct colonies.
    I don't believe it did that. First of all, the crime was not death and very little jail time, but it did carry consequences. On top of that, had a spouse held self-control, there was no penalty for divorce or separation. It allowed, rather, someone to carry a suit against the cheating spouse.
    I believe current laws 'still' punish and adulterer, as deference is given to the grieving spouse in courts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    While laws forbidding adultery and LGBTQI+ conjugal relations were not categorized then as parallel to laws permitting human slavery and trafficking, it appears to have been a case of being overwhelmed by the institution of southern slavery that blinded them from all the other laws that resembled laws permitting slavery. Repealing /nullifying those laws are part of the dismantling of the institution of slavery. Many of our changing laws have been about repealing slavery completely.

    When Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death," he expressed what I'm talking about. The freedom from being enslaved, from being murdered, from being raped, they are all different facets of the one right we all possess inalienably. The right to religious liberty is one of those facets too, and yes, that does mean the right to commit adultery, and to practice LGBTQI+ conjugal relations; but see my Mencken quote below before responding here.
    The Enlightenment period is granted by historians to have given birth to the notion of rights. This notion arose through conflict with power, power and rights being offset by one another. Power is government, police, military, basically anyone who can force, coerce, compel, etc. people to do and not do things. The right to religious liberty /of the pursuit of happiness, stands against power. We want to believe in the right to religious liberty, but sometimes we have to hold our nose when making laws, in order to hold the right of religious liberty as sacred.

    (It irks me whenever I hear an elected official talk about how their branch or bureau of government has a /the "right" to do such-and-such. Government is power, government power must be limited, government does not possess rights. I worry about people who think government has rights. It makes it sound like government is in any way victims of free people---the opposite is the only actual possibility; and it's a possibility that has been and still is all too frequently realized.)
    Very much agree here. All government officials, without exception, are servants of the people. The problem? Judges started this by going against the democracy of the people, that is, we just didn't count any more when it came to policy. They literally took a bunch of things doing good for our country, and outlawed them WHILE making poor things no longer against the laws. This is incredibly hard on society and begins tearing down the moral fiber of a nation and literally giving nothing to put back in its place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    But it was really the Church who should be credited with discovering human rights imo, and my evidence there is because of a brief mention of rights in a letter written by Bishop Polycarp in the early 2nd century, the era immediately following the Apostolic era. Polycarp all the way back then counselled Christians to respect the rights of everybody. He was, afaik, the first person to ever recognize that people possess inalienable rights, that did then, have since, and always will, stand up to and against power.
    Your argument then is against all war. Just because, due to how it turned out, the Civil War had "one American killing another American," the South had formally seceded from the US, and they were another nation. If the South had prevailed, then it wouldn't have been "one American killing another American." The outcome of the conflict determines that it was "one American killing another American," but if the outcome had been different, it wouldn't be the story.
    My point was that there are times, and will be again when what we view as murder, will be condoned and encouraged. Granted it is 'sanctioned' by somebody at that point and that is what I'm saying: It can, will, does, happen again. If all we are are the sum of our parts, then these United States can be destroyed from within. We might well become the United Socialist Americas. Democracy 'can' allow that if that is the majority vote. That's a scary thing. I believe laws under Democracy must ALWAYS protect Democracy (Republics).

    The Civil War was a war for the Constitution. The South seceded because it no longer recognized the Constitution. And President Lincoln waged the war because he believed that secession was illegal under the Constitution. Although he did suspend 'habeas corpus,' so . . . .
    I'm leery of this. Are you saying that police were aware of who the murderers were, and deliberately chose to not prosecute them? My suspicion is that murderers in such chaos were able to avoid detection, which is obviously a different thing from "many murders went unprosecuted" deliberately.
    No, I don't think that far, but I'd think that some people are forced to be quiet because of it, that normally wouldn't be involved thus there is a complicity. It always happens when masses of people go against common law. The common law is suspended. I think your slavery topic speaks to this. We had to embrace Constitutional laws for everyone, barring their unconstitution behavior of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Try to take assurance then in the fact that Martin Luther was condemned to the death penalty for being excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Only a friend of his stood between his murder, for exercising his inalienable right to religious liberty, and him surviving to preside over one major limb of the Protestant Reformation. The laws permitting power to murder people for practicing their religious liberty, including the laws that permitted John Calvin to authorize the murder of Michael Servetus, for practicing his own religious liberty, in denying the Trinity, were all illegal under our constitution, and all violated the inalienable right to religious liberty.
    Calvin, as best as I've read and understood history, was rather the 'whistle-blower.' He (again if I read correctly) wasn't an active member in government, by choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Voiding /repealing /nullifying such laws are a score for the good guys, for rights against power. And vanquishing laws against LGBTQI+ conjugal behaviors and against adultery are in the same category as eliminating laws that permitted the murders of Martin Luther and of Michael Servetus.
    ??? The former were laws against religious liberty, the latter concerning at-risk behaviors....I'm not following.
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." Mencken
    So he recognizes he is defending the scoundrel, in opposition to losing a freedom. It cannot apply to murder, by instance. He would have you and I 'free to kill' by such a sentiment, instead of saying murder is against the law. I know that's an absurd extreme, but it does illustrate the problem with his sentiment. He didn't think it through far enough, because it cannot be even a 'general rule.' It just doesn't work like that, we use discretion and are alway, rather, looking for the higher good. Democracy is to be defended and uplifted, but not to the expense of its people's welfare.
    I find it good to keep in mind the above.
    To me, still not a good rule of thumb, but I think TownH agrees with you. I disagree with you both on this principle. It just can be shown to not work on its extreme, thus is not a profitable rule of thumb in my assessment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Those are literally examples of the right to religious liberty not being recognized, affirmed, or protected. The right to not be murdered equals the right to religious liberty (among others), which is just reiteration of my contention that we all possess just the one right, variously formulated /expressed as the right to not be murdered, the right to not be enslaved, the right to not be raped, the right to religious liberty, the right to bear arms, the right to self defense, the right to free speech and to free peaceful assembly, etc.
    As I said above, 'if' Democracy enables the choice of nonDemocracy (communism, Sharia law, etc.), then Democracy allowed its own demise. Such doesn't ultimately make sense. I cannot remember who quoted it, but communism could only work, if God were in charge of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Anybody can validly argue that LGBTQI+ conjugal behaviors should be outlawed, so long as the grounds for such arguments are in no way religious or invoke God (basically the same thing). The main way I've seen, are the ones based on confirmed negative health effects of those who practice such things. And wrt common law, recall that English common law evolved from within a period when England was establishing the Church of England, which is specifically proscribed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It was Unconstitutional to enforce such laws back then, which is only something that we all know now, because of the Supreme Court obeying the Constitution in condemning such laws as Unconstitutional.
    Our Constitution mentions our Creator. I think the 'problem' is in the secularist mind, not by necessity any government official's mind, nor any other citizen's. We should not allow 'secularists' to secularize our government. Such is an atheistic state. Our Constitution didn't outright forbid that from taking place, but it IS taking place and against the sentiments of its wording (see sig). I'm not shocked, it is the mark of the end times, but I'm against it and will effect change if I can. The Power of our Constitution clearly rests on what is 'endowed by our Creator' thus makes our nation deist, at least, by demand of those virtues and rights appealed to for their substantiation.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Lon For Your Post:

    ok doser (May 2nd, 2019)

  9. #323
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,830
    Thanks
    2,756
    Thanked 4,791 Times in 2,870 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147736
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    I know gay people who's only "crime" among some of the more zealous is for simply being "abnormal" if they act on attractions with other consenting adults. I count a couple of those as my friends . I don't conflate homosexuality with pedophilia and have nothing but contempt for the latter, rape or any other atrocity inflicted on another human being so you get that through your head, okay?
    I'm not sure you can say this with any confidence. I've family too, and I've seen the hurts and problems such behavior affects. I have no confidence at all in saying "it hurts nobody."
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Lon For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (May 2nd, 2019)

  11. #324
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    643
    Thanked 6,855 Times in 3,646 Posts

    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147774
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    None of those things are in the constitution.

    In fact, they are actually unconstitutional.
    "Authority does not flow from the bottom up but from the Top down (note the capital T)." - "Government of, by and for the people" and "the consent of the governed" are the foundational premises of the constition and is the entire idea of democracy, including democratic republics, both of which God hates.

    "Justice by committee is unjust, by definition. The larger the committee, the more likely an unjust outcome because the majority is not righteous nor just (same thing)." - what is the world else are jury trials other than justice by committee?

    Ever heard of jury nullification? That's where a jury consciously decides to find someone not guilty even though he clearly is because they don't like the law or for whatever reason.

    It is jundamentally unjust.

    "Blacks (slaves of any color really) are not 3/5 of a person." - The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

    The fact that this was later changed is beside the point.

    "A progressive income tax is theft." - Of course this is constitutional. The 16th amendment was passed and ratified for the express purpose of not only enacting a federal income tax but a progressive one so as to shift the tax burden toward the rich because the thinking at the time was that tariffs put too much of the burden on the poor.

    "Abortion is murder." - The closest you've come to being right is with this one. There is no right to an abortion explicitly given by the constitution but that wasn't the point of including it in the list. The point is that if the constitution was just, as has been suggested, it would not have been possible for the Supreme Court to establish such a right via Roe v. Wade or any other decision, never mind reaffirm that right several times since.

    In other words, whether you and I think it constitutional or not, there are several Supreme Court Justices, who's job it is to decide such things, that have and do disagree.

    OK... those are not really problems with the constitution itself, but with people.

    I agree with your general idea.
    Two points here:

    1. The constitution is based upon the will of the people and so the problem with people is a problem with the constitution.
    2. Even if that weren't true (which it is) the constitution itself defines the process by which it can be modified. The prohibition of adult beverages was a perfectly legal process that followed the constitution perfectly and that exact same process could theoretically be used to prohibit anything that the people decided they don't like.


    Agreed. But I would also point out that most of what goes on today in our government is actually quite unconstitutional and most people don't even care or understand. This is why politicians like Bernie Sanders can be so popular.
    This is just another reason to understand that the foundation of our government is flawed and not the just and all but divinely inspired document that many think it to be.

    And what's so unconstitutional about Bernie's proposals? It's not like he's proposing to enact policies by fiat. He intends to have his policies enacted into law by the congress. He wants to make Medicare available to everyone. You think the Supreme Court is going to strike down Medicare? I doubt it!

    And once again, whether you think the text of the document could support such a law or not isn't relevant to the point. What the constitution does permit for such a law to be passed in the first place, which is flatly unjust. Whether the checks and balances placed within the constitution work to uphold justice is something of a coin toss. A lot of time they do work but often they do not.


    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (May 3rd, 2019)

  13. #325
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    972
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 510 Times in 352 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    164417
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Hey, I have never been molested and have nothing but compassion for those who have been victims of any such atrocity and the like so that's not an argument you can begin to use with me as I've had a family member be the victim of rape. You think I don't want to see the perpetrator face justice for what he did? The guy was never caught. I know gay people who's only "crime" among some of the more zealous is for simply being "abnormal" if they act on attractions with other consenting adults. I count a couple of those as my friends . I don't conflate homosexuality with pedophilia and have nothing but contempt for the latter, rape or any other atrocity inflicted on another human being so you get that through your head, okay?
    I'm sorry to hear about your family member being raped. That is something that should never happen.

    Homosexuality is not some harmless behavior. AIDS began in the homosexual community and spread to the heterosexual community through bi-sexuals having sex with both genders. That is not harmless behavior. Millions of people have suffered because of it. In the same way adultery in the heterosexual community also spreads stds. So adultery isn't harmless behavior either. And that leaves out the destruction of children's lives whose parents split because of adultery or who lost their parents at a young age because of AIDS. My step children's lives were badly damaged because their father is a jerk and chooses to sleep around on a regular basis. My stepdaughter is in her 40s and she is still suffering from the effects of her father's choice to indulge in harmful behavior. His choices had a major effect on the men she has chosen, and those choices have made her life one of misery. Her father, and I use that term only under protest as he was no father to his kids, has gone through 3 more wives because he wouldn't keep his pants zipped up.

    Oh, something I forgot to include in my last post to you. Homosexuality is a behavior. Heterosexuality is a behavior. Adultery is a behavior. Fornication is a behavior. Stealing is a behavior. Lying is a behavior. Taking your elderly neighbor a bag of groceries is a behavior. Buying a homeless person a meal is a behavior. Me taking my dog for a walk every day is a behavior. Eating is a behavior. Surfing to TOL and reading and writing posts is a behavior. All actions we human beings take are behaviors. A behavior is simply something we do. There are good, bad, and indifferent behaviors, although I believe most things we do affect others either for good or for ill.

  14. #326
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    15,718
    Thanks
    14,132
    Thanked 21,702 Times in 12,266 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147618

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    "Authority does not flow from the bottom up but from the Top down (note the capital T)." - "Government of, by and for the people" and "the consent of the governed" are the foundational premises of the constition and is the entire idea of democracy, including democratic republics, both of which God hates.
    I must have missed the scripture on that one. But I think that I get your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    "Justice by committee is unjust, by definition. The larger the committee, the more likely an unjust outcome because the majority is not righteous nor just (same thing)." - what is the world else are jury trials other than justice by committee?

    Ever heard of jury nullification? That's where a jury consciously decides to find someone not guilty even though he clearly is because they don't like the law or for whatever reason.

    It is jundamentally unjust.
    Without the Lord Jesus Christ here to judge justly, how else would we do it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    "Blacks (slaves of any color really) are not 3/5 of a person." - The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

    The fact that this was later changed is beside the point.
    Okay

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    "A progressive income tax is theft." - Of course this is constitutional. The 16th amendment was passed and ratified for the express purpose of not only enacting a federal income tax but a progressive one so as to shift the tax burden toward the rich because the thinking at the time was that tariffs put too much of the burden on the poor.
    Any form of income tax is unjust, I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    "Abortion is murder." - The closest you've come to being right is with this one. There is no right to an abortion explicitly given by the constitution but that wasn't the point of including it in the list. The point is that if the constitution was just, as has been suggested, it would not have been possible for the Supreme Court to establish such a right via Roe v. Wade or any other decision, never mind reaffirm that right several times since.

    In other words, whether you and I think it constitutional or not, there are several Supreme Court Justices, who's job it is to decide such things, that have and do disagree.
    That the government is unjust and tyrannical we agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Two points here:

    1. The constitution is based upon the will of the people and so the problem with people is a problem with the constitution.
    2. Even if that weren't true (which it is) the constitution itself defines the process by which it can be modified. The prohibition of adult beverages was a perfectly legal process that followed the constitution perfectly and that exact same process could theoretically be used to prohibit anything that the people decided they don't like.
    The world is a messed up place. Is there a better system of government anywhere on earth? BTW, I'm not a constitution worshiper, and I do not think that our system of government is anywhere near perfect. All governments suck big time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    This is just another reason to understand that the foundation of our government is flawed and not the just and all but divinely inspired document that many think it to be.
    I don't think so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    And what's so unconstitutional about Bernie's proposals? It's not like he's proposing to enact policies by fiat. He intends to have his policies enacted into law by the congress. He wants to make Medicare available to everyone. You think the Supreme Court is going to strike down Medicare? I doubt it!

    And once again, whether you think the text of the document could support such a law or not isn't relevant to the point. What the constitution does permit for such a law to be passed in the first place, which is flatly unjust. Whether the checks and balances placed within the constitution work to uphold justice is something of a coin toss. A lot of time they do work but often they do not.

    Clete
    Basically the constitution is meaningless.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  15. #327
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    15,718
    Thanks
    14,132
    Thanked 21,702 Times in 12,266 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147618

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    Oh, something I forgot to include in my last post to you. Homosexuality is a behavior. Heterosexuality is a behavior. Adultery is a behavior. Fornication is a behavior. Stealing is a behavior. Lying is a behavior. Taking your elderly neighbor a bag of groceries is a behavior. Buying a homeless person a meal is a behavior. Me taking my dog for a walk every day is a behavior. Eating is a behavior. Surfing to TOL and reading and writing posts is a behavior. All actions we human beings take are behaviors. A behavior is simply something we do. There are good, bad, and indifferent behaviors, although I believe most things we do affect others either for good or for ill.
    Not to be too pedantic, but those things are actions.
    A behavior is something more systemic, like repeated actions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (May 3rd, 2019),Lon (May 3rd, 2019),ok doser (May 3rd, 2019)

  17. #328
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,622
    Thanks
    643
    Thanked 6,855 Times in 3,646 Posts

    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147774
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    I must have missed the scripture on that one. But I think that I get your point.
    Numbers 16

    Also, read this...

    Against Democracy: The Biblical Argument

    Without the Lord Jesus Christ here to judge justly, how else would we do it?
    Well, for one thing you make the judge responsible for his decisions and you remove from him any discretion as to what the sentence will be for the convicted criminal. The punishment is determined by the crime, not the judge and is clearly taught in the bible.

    Also, a just criminal justice system does not attempt to make it so that people cannot commit crime, as our current system attempts to do. Rather, it makes it so that people will not commit crime by doing to the criminal as he did (or sought to do) to his neighbor. As a result crime is dramatically diminished in a just system and there wouldn't be the months or even years long back log of cases that need investigated and tried.

    The world is a messed up place. Is there a better system of government anywhere on earth? BTW, I'm not a constitution worshiper, and I do not think that our system of government is anywhere near perfect. All governments suck big time.
    All governments that are in place now suck, yes but God has put a really good one in the bible. It isn't perfect either, by the way. It's just as good as it is possible.

    Basically the constitution is meaningless.
    No, the constitution isn't meaningless. On the contrary, as human government systems go, it's better than most in some ways and worse than most in others. In other words, we could do far worse and many nations do. But we could also do much better. As I said, the biblical system excellent. It is far more just, far simpler and for more effective, not to mention far less expensive. Indeed, in regards to criminal justice, the biblical system is very inexpensive and extremely effective while our current system is wildly expensive and almost totally ineffective.

    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (May 4th, 2019)

  19. #329
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    16,003
    Thanks
    9,925
    Thanked 7,769 Times in 5,219 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    I'm sorry to hear about your family member being raped. That is something that should never happen.
    Thank you.

    Homosexuality is not some harmless behavior. AIDS began in the homosexual community and spread to the heterosexual community through bi-sexuals having sex with both genders. That is not harmless behavior. Millions of people have suffered because of it. In the same way adultery in the heterosexual community also spreads stds. So adultery isn't harmless behavior either. And that leaves out the destruction of children's lives whose parents split because of adultery or who lost their parents at a young age because of AIDS. My step children's lives were badly damaged because their father is a jerk and chooses to sleep around on a regular basis. My stepdaughter is in her 40s and she is still suffering from the effects of her father's choice to indulge in harmful behavior. His choices had a major effect on the men she has chosen, and those choices have made her life one of misery. Her father, and I use that term only under protest as he was no father to his kids, has gone through 3 more wives because he wouldn't keep his pants zipped up.
    The common consensus on AIDS is that originated in Africa among non human primates and the cross transference of it in humans wasn't a result of homosexuals. You're going as far back as the early twentieth century, it was never a "gay" disease as some still seem to like to think. The spread of it wasn't just unprotected sex although a main cause sure but that applied to everybody.

    Oh, something I forgot to include in my last post to you. Homosexuality is a behavior. Heterosexuality is a behavior. Adultery is a behavior. Fornication is a behavior. Stealing is a behavior. Lying is a behavior. Taking your elderly neighbor a bag of groceries is a behavior. Buying a homeless person a meal is a behavior. Me taking my dog for a walk every day is a behavior. Eating is a behavior. Surfing to TOL and reading and writing posts is a behavior. All actions we human beings take are behaviors. A behavior is simply something we do. There are good, bad, and indifferent behaviors, although I believe most things we do affect others either for good or for ill.
    No, the first two aren't and the rest are actions. It is not a behaviour either to be attracted to the opposite, the same or both sexes just as much as being attracted to someone isn't. How you may act on that attraction is another thing altogether but if you're straight and are solely attracted to women then there is no behaviour in that, it's simply your orientation.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Arthur Brain For Your Post:

    Rusha (May 6th, 2019)

  21. #330
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    16,003
    Thanks
    9,925
    Thanked 7,769 Times in 5,219 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    I'm not sure you can say this with any confidence. I've family too, and I've seen the hurts and problems such behavior affects. I have no confidence at all in saying "it hurts nobody."
    Well that would depend on what problems you're referring to, else homosexuality isn't one just as heterosexuality isn't a problem if someone acts irresponsibly or hurtful to their family.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us