Same-sex couples begin marrying

DamnYankee said:
None of us has the authority to judge God's actions. Many OT people were immoral. Ham was certainly immoral. Sodom and Gomorrah are prime examples. Many were moral, beginning with Noah.
Click to expand...

You are trying to duck the question again, you invertebrate slimeball.

You are arguing that your morality was not present until Christ and if that is so one would have to conclude that the earlier leaders and supposed edicts of God were immoral or amoral, according to you.
 
I did find it interesting. I wanted to see why he felt that way. I never said they didn't change, I don't think.
 
I won't tell you what I smell, lol!

By the time of Moses monotheism was firmly established. It is true that the Israelites held onto polytheism, but That changed by the time of Moses. There was the occasional slip when they were conquered by "pagan" nations, but the prophets brought them back.

Jesus was always a Jew, until his death, his only condemnation was that laws were made for man, not man for the laws. His followers, some of them still practiced Judiaism because they believed Jesus was the Jewish messiah, after his death, there was a division between the Hellenistic Paul and the Jewish Peter. Dietary laws and circumcision were debated, but Christians kept the Old Testament as a part of their sacred literature.
 
Jesus rejected the Jewish belief system, and then went on tour telling anyone he could about his new value system. From the Jewish point of view he was a heretic. Ask any rabbi.

Some go as far as to deny he ever existed.
 
pisskop said:
Jesus rejected the Jewish belief system, and then went on tour telling anyone he could about his new value system. From the Jewish point of view he was a heretic. Ask any rabbi.

Some go as far as to deny he ever existed.
Click to expand...

I have studied with a rabbi.
 
By the time of Moses monotheism was firmly established. It is true that the Israelites held onto polytheism, but That changed by the time of Moses. There was the occasional slip when they were conquered by "pagan" nations, but the prophets brought them back.
Click to expand...


Early Judaism contains many, many elements of polytheism. It is often regarded, even by the Jewish scholars themselves, as a transitionary period between the two, a compromise to help ease the masses into it.

Sacrifices, animal burning, harsh penalties for dissidents and non-believers, a ever-present warpath, astounding miracles for a select few faithful. Moses had to climb a mountain and meditate for several days to 'recieve' the 10 commandments.

All of the above is reminicient of paganism.

But, I digress, you seem to think you know a lot about religion. Why do you disown it then?



EDIT: ahh, you studied with a rabbi. You din't find the faith conviencing?
 
pisskop said:
Jesus rejected the Jewish belief system, and then went on tour telling anyone he could about his new value system. From the Jewish point of view he was a heretic. Ask any rabbi.

Some go as far as to deny he ever existed.
Click to expand...

The majority of Jews rejected Jesus because they did not think he was the Messiah, this is why they thought him a heretic, but Jesus lived his life as a devote Jew.
 
Okay. And indeed you are right.

My information tells me he believed himself a Jew, but the attention he grabbed and then how he refused to deny his messiah-hood is what made him a heretic to many.
 
pisskop said:
Early Judaism contains many, many elements of polytheism. It is often regarded, even by the Jewish scholars themselves, as a transitionary period between the two, a compromise to help ease the masses into it.

Sacrifices, animal burning, harsh penalties for dissidents and non-believers, a ever-present warpath, astounding miracles for a select few faithful. Moses had to climb a mountain and meditate for several days to 'recieve' the 10 commandments.

All of the above is reminicient of paganism.

But, I digress, you seem to think you know a lot about religion. Why do you
EDIT: ahh, you studied with a rabbi. You din't find the faith conviencing?
Click to expand...

Because I know a lot about it.
 
Fair enough. I hope I didn't offend you. I sometimes worry I sound come across that way over the internets. No non-verbal communication to assist my meaning. . .
 
pisskop said:
Fair enough. I hope I didn't offend you. I sometimes worry I sound come across that way over the internets. No non-verbal communication to assist my meaning. . .
Click to expand...

I have been on messages board far too long to be offended. No problem ;)
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
You are trying to duck the question again, you invertebrate slimeball.

You are arguing that your morality was not present until Christ and if that is so one would have to conclude that the earlier leaders and supposed edicts of God were immoral or amoral, according to you.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing anything before the time of Christ except for the fact that is historical and scripture that He fulfilled. I've answered all your questions in spite of your silly name calling; you just don't like the answers.
 
DamnYankee said:
That hilarious how you assume false victories like that. You live in your your own little world.
Click to expand...

You presented a series of arguments against homosexual marriage. I posted why each reason was bogus. But mainly I pointed out that you hold gays to standards that straights are not held to.

The Cameron thing was hilarious. Watching you post as if he were a serious researcher and that his views were not laughable was so much fun.

The gun thing actually had a cult following for a bit. People totally uninterested in firearms followed it.
 
patriot66 said:
Right it's about money that's what I said
Click to expand...


It also comes down to being able to make decisions for your spouse if they are unable. Is that about money?

It also comes down to being able to insure your spouses last wishes are carried out. Is that about money?

It also comes down to being able to visit your spouse in a hospital where only family is allowed. Is that about money?

It also comes down to being parents in an adoption. Is that about money?



You can try and paint this as a money issue, but to do so is to ignore the facts.
 
pisskop said:
I answer no. The moral of our culture do not change so fast as to grant one the ability to say "I think I'm going to fuck this guy over because morality is slippery!" Morality as all other things is usually a graded thing.

All this is not to say that a certain amount of moral flexiblity is not required for those in power. Absolutes are dangereous, and that applies to leadership as well, esp if one believes the state must attempt to survive. Machiavelli proved as much to me.
Click to expand...

Actually, I answer yes. Society doesn't creep along, but instead moves like pendulum, with periods of rapid change and stagnation. Sometimes things happen rapidly, sometimes they don't. Look at the mid 20th, which saw a brief period of heavy social enlightenment, followed my a period of very little. Then our technological development, which was shortly preceded by much less.

And look at Russia. A long period of stagnation, followed by one of heavy development and change.

In any case, we're near a turning point, where current structures are no longer sustainable. I'm not saying SSM will be legalized, but much of the current morality will have to be trashed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top