Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order

07-16-2014 , 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
The bible says keep the sabbath and not to eat shellfish and divorce is ok but now a no no. Why couldn't God change/adjust his rules on homosexuality like he did whit the others?
God's nature doesn't change, but circumstances change. For instance, before Christ came, certain cleanliness laws were to be kept in order to be clean, but when Christ came, we are made clean through him, so there is no need to keep the laws, so long as you accept Christ.

The same goes for the Sabbath, which was under the old covenant. The nature behind the specific rules are the same, but with the new covenant under Christ, there is no longer to keep certain laws. This is not an excuse for Christians to pick and choose, it is clearly outlined and understood by examining the new covenant in the NT. All the moral laws are still in effect.

What I find funny is that if I had to pick and choose whatever suited me, I would hold on to the Sabbath, I can get behind doing nothing for an entire day.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-16-2014 , 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
The bible says keep the sabbath and not to eat shellfish and divorce is ok but now a no no. Why couldn't God change/adjust his rules on homosexuality like he did whit the others?
Um, God never said divorce was ok. If you're referring to the divorce laws under the Mosaic Law, Jesus explained in Matthew 19 that: "Moses allowed you to divorce because of the hardness of your heart, but it was not this way from the beginning." And then he goes on to say that divorcing your spouse and marrying another is an act of adultery.

As a matter of fact, in Malachi 2:6 it says that God hates divorce.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-16-2014 , 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
God's nature doesn't change, but circumstances change. For instance, before Christ came, certain cleanliness laws were to be kept in order to be clean, but when Christ came, we are made clean through him, so there is no need to keep the laws, so long as you accept Christ.

The same goes for the Sabbath, which was under the old covenant. The nature behind the specific rules are the same, but with the new covenant under Christ, there is no longer to keep certain laws. This is not an excuse for Christians to pick and choose, it is clearly outlined and understood by examining the new covenant in the NT. All the moral laws are still in effect.

What I find funny is that if I had to pick and choose whatever suited me, I would hold on to the Sabbath, I can get behind doing nothing for an entire day.
Afaik according to Jews all Gods laws are moral laws.


Still if some like divorce can change dont know why others could not in different circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by festeringZit
Um, God never said divorce was ok. If you're referring to the divorce laws under the Mosaic Law, Jesus explained in Matthew 19 that: "Moses allowed you to divorce because of the hardness of your heart, but it was not this way from the beginning." And then he goes on to say that divorcing your spouse and marrying another is an act of adultery.

As a matter of fact, in Malachi 2:6 it says that God hates divorce.
Maybe homosexuality was not allowed because the hardness of hearts and now its ok.



If you guys want to say Gods nature doesn't change but what applys to us depending on circumstances can. Fine. But then there is no way you can say its not possible for laws on homosexuality to change in different circumstances.

Maybe God comes back to earth and says im setting up my kingdom you no longer need to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuality is ok now.

Last edited by batair; 07-16-2014 at 11:49 PM.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-17-2014 , 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
God's nature doesn't change, but circumstances change.
Aquinas made his natural/unnatural distinction based on what the purpose of an act is. The purpose of sex is procreation. That is its natural purpose as handed to us by God. Any sex that doesn't lead to generation of the next generation is unnatural.

He considered sex between a man and a woman for pleasure to be equally as bad as masturbation or homosexual acts. All are unnatural and therefore immoral.

The "circumstances change" thing is of your own making. If that is the case then all bets are off. Eat that lobster or blow some dude or make restful worship on the first day of the week instead of the 7th.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-17-2014 , 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
Afaik according to Jews all Gods laws are moral laws.
As they should, since they don't believe the Messiah ever came. Without Christ, all laws should be applicable. The only reason they don't perform some of the rituals and sacrifices is because they don't yet have a temple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
Still if some like divorce can change dont know why others could not in different circumstances.
God never approved of divorce.

Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
Maybe homosexuality was not allowed because the hardness of hearts and now its ok.
God never approved of homosexuality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
If you guys want to say Gods nature doesn't change but what applys to us depending on circumstances can. Fine. But then there is no way you can say its not possible for laws on homosexuality to change in different circumstances.

Maybe God comes back to earth and says im setting up my kingdom you no longer need to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuality is ok now.
The example of cleanliness laws was that in both scenarios, God requires us to be "clean". In the OT this is achieved by following certain procedures and laws, and in the NT, it is achieved by Christ and his atonement. So God does not approve of "uncleanliness" in both cases, he is not "okay" with one at any point.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-17-2014 , 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
Aquinas made his natural/unnatural distinction based on what the purpose of an act is. The purpose of sex is procreation. That is its natural purpose as handed to us by God. Any sex that doesn't lead to generation of the next generation is unnatural.

He considered sex between a man and a woman for pleasure to be equally as bad as masturbation or homosexual acts. All are unnatural and therefore immoral.

The "circumstances change" thing is of your own making. If that is the case then all bets are off. Eat that lobster or blow some dude or make restful worship on the first day of the week instead of the 7th.
Well, if Aquinas had been canonized, maybe your argument would have some power behind it, but as it is, that definition of unnatural is only his personal one, not a biblical idea.

If I had made up the new covenant, then you would be right, but I did not. It is not of my own making, it is God's.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-17-2014 , 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
As they should, since they don't believe the Messiah ever came. Without Christ, all laws should be applicable. The only reason they don't perform some of the rituals and sacrifices is because they don't yet have a temple.
Yup. Which would make all laws moral laws.

Which would mean.

'All the moral laws are still in effect. "

All moral laws are not still in effect.


Quote:
God never approved of divorce.
Yup, It was what God accepted for the people of the time because of circumstances.


Quote:
God never approved of homosexuality.
Not yet. Maybe the circumstances will change. Like with divorce. And it will be allowed for us like divorce was allowed before Jesus.

Quote:
The example of cleanliness laws was that in both scenarios, God requires us to be "clean". In the OT this is achieved by following certain procedures and laws, and in the NT, it is achieved by Christ and his atonement. So God does not approve of "uncleanliness" in both cases, he is not "okay" with one at any point.
Yeah i know im just being cheeky. Replace ok with what allow or whatever word let people divorce.

Last edited by batair; 07-17-2014 at 01:13 PM.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-17-2014 , 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
Well, if Aquinas had been canonized, maybe your argument would have some power behind it, but as it is, that definition of unnatural is only his personal one, not a biblical idea.
I know that by "canonized" you mean added to the canon of the bible, but in the Roman Catholic church he is not only canonized (included in the canon of saints) but is considered a Doctor of the Church, which basically means a very important teacher of theology. Outside of Catholicism it may in fact just be his opinion but that doesn't quite do justice to the importance of his opinions, historically speaking.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-17-2014 , 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
Yup. Which would make all laws moral laws.

Which would mean.

'All the moral laws are still in effect. "

All moral laws are not still in effect.




Yup, It was what God accepted for the people of the time because of circumstances.



Not yet. Maybe the circumstances will change. Like with divorce. And it will be allowed for us like divorce was allowed before Jesus.


Yeah i know im just being cheeky. Replace ok with what allow or whatever word let people divorce.
There is a difference in approved of and condoned, and tolerated. God tolerated divorce, even though he did not approve of it, and it's really not that much different than God tolerating sins today, yet he does not approve of them.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-17-2014 , 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
I know that by "canonized" you mean added to the canon of the bible, but in the Roman Catholic church he is not only canonized (included in the canon of saints) but is considered a Doctor of the Church, which basically means a very important teacher of theology. Outside of Catholicism it may in fact just be his opinion but that doesn't quite do justice to the importance of his opinions, historically speaking.
Yes, I meant biblically canonized, I'm aware he was declared a Saint. I agree with Aquinas on many things, but just because he is a respected theologian, doesn't mean that whatever he says about sin is true. I'm not entirely familiar with his view of sexual ethics, but I know his unnatural view was much about condemning homosexuality, so he is the last person to be used to prove a point in favour of it.

All that aside, the view of sex only for procreation is entirely unbiblical and contradicts what Paul taught the church at Corinth.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-17-2014 , 06:16 PM
No I definitely don't think Aquinas is used to argue against that moral judgement. I'm not sure exactly what BTM2 had in mind in referencing it, but when I referenced it (obliquely) before the purpose was just to say that my experience was not that Christians generally defended the moral judgement that homosexual behavior was immoral purely on a "because God says so because that's his nature" basis, although it may just be that I don't know enough Divine Command advocates.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-17-2014 , 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
No I definitely don't think Aquinas is used to argue against that moral judgement. I'm not sure exactly what BTM2 had in mind in referencing it, but when I referenced it (obliquely) before the purpose was just to say that my experience was not that Christians generally defended the moral judgement that homosexual behavior was immoral purely on a "because God says so because that's his nature" basis, although it may just be that I don't know enough Divine Command advocates.
I don't know many myself, although I'm not sure that morality must always be understood in a way to ascertain exactly why God does not approve of it. At the end of every examination of a particular immoral behaviour, the answer is usually an inherent one, that is, it's bad because it's bad.

I believe BTM was trying to argue that by the same reason that homosexuality is seen as wrong, that sex must always be for procreation (or else it's wrong). It's a fine argument, in theory, but there is no reason why a Christian would need to accept this line of thinking, even if Aquinas advocated it.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-17-2014 , 10:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
Yes, I meant biblically canonized, I'm aware he was declared a Saint. I agree with Aquinas on many things, but just because he is a respected theologian, doesn't mean that whatever he says about sin is true. I'm not entirely familiar with his view of sexual ethics, but I know his unnatural view was much about condemning homosexuality, so he is the last person to be used to prove a point in favour of it.

All that aside, the view of sex only for procreation is entirely unbiblical and contradicts what Paul taught the church at Corinth.
You brought up the unnatural argument a while back. Aquinas's is the only argument that I am aware of that is even slightly internally consistent.

I am not sure what you mean by biblically canonized. I imagine that you might mean "it says so in the bible." If so, find me the passage where it states that the new covenant says that it is now moral to do things that are an abomination to God in the old testament.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-17-2014 , 11:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
There is a difference in approved of and condoned, and tolerated. God tolerated divorce, even though he did not approve of it, and it's really not that much different than God tolerating sins today, yet he does not approve of them.
Yeah i know...

Maybe he will tolerate homosexuality in the future.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-18-2014 , 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
You brought up the unnatural argument a while back. Aquinas's is the only argument that I am aware of that is even slightly internally consistent.

I am not sure what you mean by biblically canonized. I imagine that you might mean "it says so in the bible." If so, find me the passage where it states that the new covenant says that it is now moral to do things that are an abomination to God in the old testament.
I meant that Aquinas and his writings are not in the bible, so there is no reason to acknowledge his theory as divine, per se. It's no less arbitrary than acknowledging Anselm, and concluding that the ontological argument is divinely inspired and proves God, since he is a Saint too.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-18-2014 , 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
Yeah i know...

Maybe he will tolerate homosexuality in the future.
Doesn't he tolerate it now?
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-18-2014 , 12:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
Doesn't he tolerate it now?
So he tolerates divorce now. Then what Jesus said was pretty meaningless.

Meh never mind i dont know why i bother. Its word games as far as i can tell.


I agree with the Jewish people. Christainty changed Gods laws and the whole fulfilled the law is bsing your way out of that.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-18-2014 , 12:16 PM
The point is that God "tolerates" sin in general, since we are still alive. Things are still wrong and right.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-18-2014 , 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
I meant that Aquinas and his writings are not in the bible, so there is no reason to acknowledge his theory as divine, per se. It's no less arbitrary than acknowledging Anselm, and concluding that the ontological argument is divinely inspired and proves God, since he is a Saint too.
That didn't answer my question. Where in the new covenant does it say that it is now moral to do the things that God said he abhorred in the old testament? Where in the new covenant does it say that things that were moral in the old testament are now immoral?

Your ideas certainly aren't canonized.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-18-2014 , 08:21 PM
I've explained this at least two times in depth in separate threads. If you think I'm making up the new covenant and what it entails, there is nothing I can say to you that will help.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-18-2014 , 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
I've explained this at least two times in depth in separate threads. If you think I'm making up the new covenant and what it entails, there is nothing I can say to you that will help.
The new covenant is that belief or grace (depending on the brand of Christianity, possibly good works) replaces burnt offerings for atonement.

Since you are now claiming that the Bible is the authority on what is right and wrong, I'd like to see you not argue (with your non-canonical arguments that must be invalid for being non-canonical) but show me the passages in which it states that what was once an abomination is now good and what was once perfectly fine is now bad.

***

On the other hand, perhaps you are just reading the bible incorrectly: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-19-2014 , 02:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
The new covenant is that belief or grace (depending on the brand of Christianity, possibly good works) replaces burnt offerings for atonement.

Since you are now claiming that the Bible is the authority on what is right and wrong, I'd like to see you not argue (with your non-canonical arguments that must be invalid for being non-canonical) but show me the passages in which it states that what was once an abomination is now good and what was once perfectly fine is now bad.

***

On the other hand, perhaps you are just reading the bible incorrectly: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm
What specifically do you believe I'm saying is okay that once wasn't, or vice versa?
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-20-2014 , 12:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
What specifically do you believe I'm saying is okay that once wasn't, or vice versa?
I have absolutely no access to your specific moral beliefs, so asking me is silly.

Pretend like I reposted my questions to you again. Then answer them.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-21-2014 , 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
I have absolutely no access to your specific moral beliefs, so asking me is silly.

Pretend like I reposted my questions to you again. Then answer them.
I don't think there are unexplainable contradictions pertaining to the covenants. The new covenant is explained in great deal in the NT, when you read it in full you get a clearer idea than when you only examine specific passages. They do go into detail about specific topics, like the Sabbath, or eating kosher, but it won't do the topic justice unless you read the NT.
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote
07-22-2014 , 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
They are generally characteristics of discrimination or give potential to discrimination and I don't think I need consider the list exhaustive.

However given the post quoted below which I'm now finished with I'm also perfectly happy to defend the statement that discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is bigoted. Irrespective of whether it's based on hatred distrust fear or some other characteristic some flawed moral framework religious or ideological.
In what way are gay people being discriminated against?
Obama to sign LGBT nondiscrimination executive order Quote

      
m