Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What the Law and the Bible say about Homosexuality.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by jgarden View Post
    Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

    The Bible is also quite explicit as to the punishment that awaits those children that "curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death" - but I don't see conservative Christians demanding that this Mosaic law be enacted!

    Could it be that they are also in the habit of "cherry picking" as to which Biblical verses they wish to adhere - and those they choose to ignore?
    Is it your argument that God is unjust?

    The law you site does not refer to young children but adult drunkards who publically dishonor their parents. Further, several laws in the Old Testament only had proper application within the context of the nation of Israel and God's special relationship with that nation. There are good arguments on both sides in regards whether that applies to this particular law but the point is that you don't really care to understand the context of such things. You're more interested in making mindlessly cheap points designed to discredit God as a source of moral standards by which to build a just legal system.
    sigpic
    "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

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
      If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by some agreement, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth. - Numbers 30:2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...2&version=NKJV

      Seems like a moral issue to me...
      If you try hard you can make anything into a moral issue.

      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
      How does this ^^^
      |
      Have anything to do with this vvv
      It doesn't. I was asked to name laws not based on morality and I did. The fact that some of them are parallel moral issues does not mean that is why they are law.

      Originally posted by ok doser View Post

      I am surprised that you don't get what I am saying.

      Look at abortion: We argue against abortion based on a person's right to Life. Abortion infringes on another person's rights, namely, the baby. We do not argue it on moral grounds.

      Currently, the problem is that the law does not recognize the unborn as person with all the rights a person has under the Constitution. Tat is we we can kill them because at resent they have no rights.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by jgarden View Post
        Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

        The Bible is also quite explicit as to the punishment that awaits those children that "curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death" - but I don't see conservative Christians demanding that this Mosaic law be enacted!

        Could it be that they are also in the habit of "cherry picking" as to which Biblical verses they wish to adhere - and those they choose to ignore?

        Its pretty bad when jgarden actually gets it right. What he gets wrong here is thinking that all conservatives are aiming to make this stuff illegal.

        It would be enough if Gay Marriage were not legal. Sadly, the courts over-reached and took it upon themselves to re-define what marriage is, and that was not their prerogative to d.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Clete View Post
          Is it your argument that God is unjust?

          The law you site does not refer to young children but adult drunkards who publically dishonor their parents. Further, several laws in the Old Testament only had proper application within the context of the nation of Israel and God's special relationship with that nation. There are good arguments on both sides in regards whether that applies to this particular law ...

          which is the sort of thing that makes this place interesting


          ... but the point is that you don't really care to understand the context of such things. You're more interested in making mindlessly cheap points designed to discredit God ...

          ... and His followers



          which is the sort of thing that makes this place stale, tiresome, boring

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by TrumpTrainCA View Post

            Look at abortion: We argue against abortion based on a person's right to Life. Abortion infringes on another person's rights, namely, the baby. We do not argue it on moral grounds.
            that right, the right to life comes from nowhere except God's moral commandment to us: Thou Shalt Not Kill (unjustly)


            similarly, all contract law is based on God's moral commandment: Thou Shalt Not Steal

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by ok doser View Post
              that right, the right to life comes from nowhere except God's moral commandment to us: Thou Shalt Not Kill (unjustly)
              You are having difficulty separating things out. Even if there were no God, I would still be alive, and I would have the right to not have someone else end my life. That would be a self-evident fundamental right.

              Comment


              • #52
                Look folks, we have a Constitution. Any law that is passed has to pass Constitutional scrutiny. You cannot pass a law that tells people what kind of sex they can have with each other. I challenge somebody to tell me where the institution covers that

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by TrumpTrainCA View Post
                  You are having difficulty separating things out. Even if there were no God, I would still be alive...
                  nope


                  ...and I would have the right to not have someone else end my life. That would be a self-evident fundamental right.

                  it never was absent God's command - in those societies that didn't know God, or who rejected His divine will (southern american slave-owners, for example) life was a tenuous affair, subject to the whims of the strong

                  where was that "self-evident fundamental right" in stalinist russia?

                  where was that "self-evident fundamental right" in maoist china?

                  cambodia under pol pot?

                  armenia under the turks?

                  rwanda?

                  nazi germany?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by TrumpTrainCA View Post
                    Look folks, we have a Constitution.
                    which has been a good basis for government but not a Godly one

                    Any law that is passed has to pass Constitutional scrutiny.

                    right - we used to have such laws

                    as a society, we agreed that they passed constitutional scrutiny

                    You cannot pass a law that tells people what kind of sex they can have with each other.
                    well, we still do, and we used to have more

                    I challenge somebody to tell me where the institution covers that
                    10 amendment

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                      10 amendment
                      So you want states to pass state laws against sodomy. I assume that you know that state laws existed against sodomy and have all been gotten rid of.

                      That ain't ever going to happen. Ever. You cannot force your morality on other people who do not share your morals.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by TrumpTrainCA View Post
                        You cannot force your morality on other people who do not share your morals.
                        not sure why you keep making this claim when you yourself have argued against it

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          we impose our morality on pedophiles, we impose our morality on rapists, we impose our morality on beastophiles

                          all of law is us imposing our morality on those who might not agree with it
                          Last edited by ok doser; April 27th, 2019, 01:17 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                            not sure why you keep making this claim when you yourself have argued against it
                            I have not. When morality is the ONLY issue at hand with a proposed law, it will fail.

                            If morality is but a secondary issue, and the main issue is protecting the rights of others, then your law has a chance of passing.

                            I have provided numerous examples of this.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by TrumpTrainCA View Post
                              I have not. When morality is the ONLY issue at hand with a proposed law, it will fail.

                              If morality is but a secondary issue, and the main issue is protecting the rights of others, then your law has a chance of passing.
                              In what way does this apply to beastiality?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                                In what way does this apply to bestiality?
                                Ostensibly it would be protecting an animal's rights regarding unwanted sex. Yes, I know that sounds weird, but in America today animals have been given rights at the state level, and since they cannot consent to sex, that means that a human being having sex with an animal is having sex that is not consensual.

                                Now, I grant you that many bestiality laws are old and were enacted for moral reasons just like the old sodomy laws were. But it is the new view of animal rights that keeps them from being overturned the way that the sodomy laws were overturned

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X