Presbyterian Church endorses same-sex marriages

[ArchAngel]

Wait, you deny these happened or were in the bible?

[selderane]

Wait, you deny these happened or were in the bible?

I reject the characterization. I'd elaborate further but it's readily apparent the criticism is merely an attempt to score a cheap shot; not genuine understanding.

[ArchAngel]

A cheap shot? Those very serious atrocities that were codified into law by a bronze age morality, and it'd be just that, a study in bronze age morality, if people still didn't point to it as infallible. This has a direct relation to the issues with gay marriage we're dealing with. There has even been people, albeit a small minority, that think marriage is a reasonable followup to rape.

If you can't give credence to points level against you, what makes you feel entitled to other people assuming the most favorable interpretation for you. It doesn't matter if you reject that characterization, that text is pretty blatant in it's meaning. Even if you can successfully argue an alternative understanding, you've got a lot more work ahead of you if you want to convince people that the straight forward reading is improbable or impossible.

[selderane]

For a conversation to be fruitful, especially on a contentious issue, the individual raising the objection must be of a heart genuinely seeking understanding. I do not expect them to be deferential to my position, but willing to give my explanation an honest hearing is a must.

You and Mr. Campbell are not unlettered fools and have already come to your own conclusions on these issues. Therefore there is no conversation being sought. And since there is no conversation being sought the only reason for Mr. Campbell to bring up the issues he did, in the manner he did, was as I've already explained:

To score a cheap shot.

[Sstavix]

Actually, I thought Bruce did bring up a legitimate point. There are many things in the Bible that indicated it was a capital offense, including adultery, homosexuality and taking the Lord's name in vain. I think that many people - Christians included - think that going away from killing people for these types of offenses is a positive move. In fact, there are many people - Christians included - that want to do away with all forms of capital punishment.

God may be unchanging, but there is a precedent for Him to change His mind. As the creator of everything, He can go ahead and "move the goalposts," as it were, whenever He wants to. And it's probably a good thing, too - otherwise, for example, Abraham would have a dead son on his hands and the Judeo-Christian heritage would have a dangerous precedent for human sacrifice.

So back to the subject at hand - is this decision by the Presbyterian council divinely inspired? If the people of the council are of the consensus that this is God's will, then so be it. I may or may not agree with it, but I won't debate the communications that other people receive from Heavenly Father. After all, it's His plan, not mine. But if this decision by the council isn't motivated by God, I have to wonder what the motivation is to change it, and what that says about the church as a whole.

[selderane]

Actually, I thought Bruce did bring up a legitimate point. There are many things in the Bible that indicated it was a capital offense, including adultery, homosexuality and taking the Lord's name in vain. I think that many people - Christians included - think that going away from killing people for these types of offenses is a positive move. In fact, there are many people - Christians included - that want to do away with all forms of capital punishment.

God may be unchanging, but there is a precedent for Him to change His mind. As the creator of everything, He can go ahead and "move the goalposts," as it were, whenever He wants to. And it's probably a good thing, too - otherwise, for example, Abraham would have a dead son on his hands and the Judeo-Christian heritage would have a dangerous precedent for human sacrifice.

Death is the punishment for sin, all sin. That has never changed. But there has always been grace and forgiveness when one repents.

Furthermore, there is always a trial and more often than not an unrepentant sinner were banished, not killed. There's a Jewish saying (that I'll paraphrase badly) that one court in a hundred years that sentenced a person to death was a failure. So the judges tried really damned hard not to kill someone for their sin.

But you're unrepentant and refuse to leave? That's on you, bub.

And Yahweh didn't change His mind when it came to Isaac's death; Isaac was never going to die but Yahweh needed Abraham to commit to doing it so that He could sacrifice His own son for us in turn

Simply put: If Abraham had not obeyed and refused to kill Isaac, Yahweh could not have sent Yeshua to die.

The Abrahimic and Mosiac covenants are full of examples like that: God saying, "If you do X I'll do Y; if you don't do X I can't do Y."

[ArchAngel]

For a conversation to be fruitful, especially on a contentious issue, the individual raising the objection must be of a heart genuinely seeking understanding. I do not expect them to be deferential to my position, but willing to give my explanation an honest hearing is a must.

You and Mr. Campbell are not unlettered fools and have already come to your own conclusions on these issues. Therefore there is no conversation being sought. And since there is no conversation being sought the only reason for Mr. Campbell to bring up the issues he did, in the manner he did, was as I've already explained:

To score a cheap shot.

False dichotomy and a premature conclusion.
By your logic, are you just trying to make cheap shots at us now?

We have indeed come to our own conclusions, but we are not past listening or trying to understand. But then, we're not the ones giving up before even trying.

Actually, come to think of it, Bruce and I only made claims about biblical passages, you are the own who is asserting that Bruce (and probably myself) have no knowledge in Biblical history, that we would not seek to understand in a discussion, and that we are not genuine in our attempts at a conversation but simple just to make cheap shots. But do you back these up? No, you calling it quits after making your attacks, already apparently having made up your minds about us. We're willing to have a conversation, but it seems you aren't from square one. Talk about a cheap shot.

So, no, I'm calling this on you. You can't pretend to take the high road here when you are a worse offender than what you seek to paint us as.

You know, I don't think you are deliberately or maliciously trying to do this, but you need to take a step back and see how you are being unfair in your presumptions. I'm ready for a discussion and have done nothing to deter that, but it seems you haven't brought us the base amount of respect to even engage. We've been around here far longer than you; we're not trolls. People can testify to that.

So did the members of the general assembly all receive visions or messages from Heavenly Father indicating that it was time to reverse a centuries-long standing in regards to homosexuality? We have seen instances of God supposedly "changing His mind" in places in the scriptures (for example, Paul's vision in Acts which allows us Christians to enjoy that miracle what is bacon), so it may not be too far a stretch to argue that the same has happened here. Or would it be more of a decision by the church leaders to try and adopt a more mainstream, politically-correct approach in order to try and attract more members to their churches?

Obviously, I don't think they had visions or messages from God, but I don't think anybody did. What I am willing to give them, and I choose to extend this to everyone unless evidenced otherwise, is that they are genuine in their statements of belief. I think they think they are doing what's right and are following God's will. I think they are acting according to their conscience.
Maybe, in a roundabout/integer-overload way, we both agree that they aren't following "God's Will."
After that, I can't really speak from them any more. I don't know if they think God changed his mind, or the church's interpretation of the Bible was incorrect, or that some of those verses simply are not the word of God. I would be interested to hear you discuss this with some Christians of one of those opinions.

[Wildebear]

Actually, I thought Bruce did bring up a legitimate point. There are many things in the Bible that indicated it was a capital offense, including adultery, homosexuality and taking the Lord's name in vain. I think that many people - Christians included - think that going away from killing people for these types of offenses is a positive move. In fact, there are many people - Christians included - that want to do away with all forms of capital punishment.

God may be unchanging, but there is a precedent for Him to change His mind. As the creator of everything, He can go ahead and "move the goalposts," as it were, whenever He wants to. And it's probably a good thing, too - otherwise, for example, Abraham would have a dead son on his hands and the Judeo-Christian heritage would have a dangerous precedent for human sacrifice.

Death is the punishment for sin, all sin. That has never changed. But there has always been grace and forgiveness when one repents.

Furthermore, there is always a trial and more often than not an unrepentant sinner were banished, not killed. There's a Jewish saying (that I'll paraphrase badly) that one court in a hundred years that sentenced a person to death was a failure. So the judges tried really damned hard not to kill someone for their sin.

But you're unrepentant and refuse to leave? That's on you, bub.

And Yahweh didn't change His mind when it came to Isaac's death; Isaac was never going to die but Yahweh needed Abraham to commit to doing it so that He could sacrifice His own son for us in turn

Simply put: If Abraham had not obeyed and refused to kill Isaac, Yahweh could not have sent Yeshua to die.

The Abrahimic and Mosiac covenants are full of examples like that: God saying, "If you do X I'll do Y; if you don't do X I can't do Y."

Very well said!

[ArchAngel]

Actually, I'm going to roll on what you said.

Furthermore, there is always a trial and more often than not an unrepentant sinner were banished, not killed. There's a Jewish saying (that I'll paraphrase badly) that one court in a hundred years that sentenced a person to death was a failure. So the judges tried really damned hard not to kill someone for their sin.

You're going to have to provide some examples of banishment, because executions were recorded in the bible and codified into OT law. Do you think the stoning of Christian martyrs was a new fad they started?

And Yahweh didn't change His mind when it came to Isaac's death; Isaac was never going to die but Yahweh needed Abraham to commit to doing it so that He could sacrifice His own son for us in turn

God needed Abraham to be willing to kill his son so that God could send Jesus? Well, first, that connection was never in the Bible, and that doesn't even make sense. What sort of "omnipotent" god do you worship?
Secondly, don't you find the request for Abraham to sacrifice his son to be vaguely disturbing. I know you don't and I didn't when I was a christian, but what sort of moral standard is set up that killing your own child is a test. How is that even... Just... it really seems cultish. A complete departure from any moral character and just do whatever you are told, no matter how atrocious or evil it might seem.
Would any of you kill your child if you thought God was asking you? How is this story taught it Sunday school?
It's a bit shocking that once you take a step back, how off this all seems.

I'm not going to convince any of you that these biblical stories are immoral to it's very core, but maybe to help you understand how they look to the rest of us, and, in the long run, make a case for a reason and empathy based morality and see some dangers in absolute morality systems.

[selderane]

For a conversation to be fruitful, especially on a contentious issue, the individual raising the objection must be of a heart genuinely seeking understanding. I do not expect them to be deferential to my position, but willing to give my explanation an honest hearing is a must.

You and Mr. Campbell are not unlettered fools and have already come to your own conclusions on these issues. Therefore there is no conversation being sought. And since there is no conversation being sought the only reason for Mr. Campbell to bring up the issues he did, in the manner he did, was as I've already explained:

To score a cheap shot.

False dichotomy and a premature conclusion.
By your logic, are you just trying to make cheap shots at us now?

We have indeed come to our own conclusions, but we are not past listening or trying to understand. But then, we're not the ones giving up before even trying.

I am not making a cheap shot, just merely being direct. Allow me to be direct once again: I do not believe you when you say you are not past listening or trying to understand. I believe you believe what you're saying, so I do not think you are a liar, but most everything I've read from you, and my interactions with you, tell me something different.

So I've decided not to play the game.

Actually, come to think of it, Bruce and I only made claims about biblical passages, you are the own who is asserting that Bruce (and probably myself) have no knowledge in Biblical history, that we would not seek to understand in a discussion, and that we are not genuine in our attempts at a conversation but simple just to make cheap shots. But do you back these up? No, you calling it quits after making your attacks, already apparently having made up your minds about us. We're willing to have a conversation, but it seems you aren't from square one. Talk about a cheap shot.

Bruce responded to me flippantly, so I returned the favor.

So, no, I'm calling this on you. You can't pretend to take the high road here when you are a worse offender than what you seek to paint us as.

And somehow my response was worse. I remember having this fight in high school once. When the bully told the teacher I responded to his action in kind the teacher wasn't inclined to care knowing the bully's track record.

I'm disinclined to care here too.

You know, I don't think you are deliberately or maliciously trying to do this, but you need to take a step back and see how you are being unfair in your presumptions. I'm ready for a discussion and have done nothing to deter that, but it seems you haven't brought us the base amount of respect to even engage. We've been around here far longer than you; we're not trolls. People can testify to that.

I never called anyone a troll. I don't think you're trolls. Trolls say what they say for their own amusement. I do not believe either of you are trolls. And regardless of Bruce's flippant response, I know he believes what he said. Sure, it was an intentional prod, but not trolling.

So, in summary, because this is the last I will write on this particular topic (as not to derail this thread any further): I do not think you are trolls. I do not think you are liars. I think you are honest about how you feel. I simply do not believe you are as open minded as you want me to think you are.

Which is fine, because there are things I'm not very open minded about either.

[selderane]

Actually, I'm going to roll on what you said.

Furthermore, there is always a trial and more often than not an unrepentant sinner were banished, not killed. There's a Jewish saying (that I'll paraphrase badly) that one court in a hundred years that sentenced a person to death was a failure. So the judges tried really damned hard not to kill someone for their sin.

You're going to have to provide some examples of banishment, because executions were recorded in the bible and codified into OT law. Do you think the stoning of Christian martyrs was a new fad they started?

There are many examples of banishment within Torah for sins. Wikipedia compiles a list.

As for trials, to determine guilt the Bible simply says you need two witnesses to testify. So the procedure is fairly light on detail. However, rabbis over time created a court system that established additional guidelines and thresholds that needed to be met.

Additionally it was only the Sanhedrin, the high court, that was permitted (by Jewish law) to pass a capital sentence. It is noted in the Talmud (found my source!) that a court that passed a death sentence more than once in 70 years was a "bloodthirsty court".

As for stoning martyrs, there's nothing in Scripture to suggest those actions were just, even if they were a cultural norm. No one is making the argument things didn't probably got out of hand with the Jewish people...

And Yahweh didn't change His mind when it came to Isaac's death; Isaac was never going to die but Yahweh needed Abraham to commit to doing it so that He could sacrifice His own son for us in turn

God needed Abraham to be willing to kill his son so that God could send Jesus? Well, first, that connection was never in the Bible, and that doesn't even make sense. What sort of "omnipotent" god do you worship?

The sort of god that gives humanity far more autonomy than people seems to realize.

There are patterns with Yahweh that are there to see if you look. This is one of them. If fact, it's common Christian teaching that, after Isaac was spared, the sheep caught up in the thorns that was sacrificed in Isaac's place was a foreshadowing of Yeshua's death.

Yahweh was willing to sacrifice His own son for man, but for Him to be able to do that He needed an obedient man to be willing to do the same for Him. It's balance. It's Yahweh honoring our actions in obedience to Him with actions of His own.

Again, the Abrahimic and Mosiac covenants are littered with this pattern.

Secondly, don't you find the request for Abraham to sacrifice his son to be vaguely disturbing. I know you don't and I didn't when I was a christian, but what sort of moral standard is set up that killing your own child is a test. How is that even... Just... it really seems cultish. A complete departure from any moral character and just do whatever you are told, no matter how atrocious or evil it might seem.

Who is the author of morality? Shouldn't He be the final arbiter of that? And it's obvious that Abraham was utterly wracked with grief over what he was about to do. He wasn't a mindless zombie in a cult. He was horrified. But he'd seen the power of Yahweh and the blessings and miracles He delivered.

So, in faith, when his mind was reeling, he obeyed.

When you were a Christian did you not believe Yeshua when He said (Matt. 10:37), "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

The same level of devotion to Yahweh that Abraham showed Believers today are commanded to show.

Would any of you kill your child if you thought God was asking you? How is this story taught it Sunday school?
It's a bit shocking that once you take a step back, how off this all seems.

There's how it seems, and what it is in reality. And the choice Abraham was given was a one time event to enable Yahweh to respond in kind. It will never happen again and anyone who thinks Yahweh is asking them to murder or sacrifice anyone isn't hearing from Him.

I'm not going to convince any of you that these biblical stories are immoral to it's very core, but maybe to help you understand how they look to the rest of us, and, in the long run, make a case for a reason and empathy based morality and see some dangers in absolute morality systems.

I reject the assertion that an absolute moral system must necessarily lack reason and empathy. Yahweh's system is full of the very things you want, but it is rooted in stone. The system you advocate will chance as tastes change.

Which means what is virtue in one generation may become vice in the next. That's not moral truth. That's an opinion.

Yahweh sacrificed His son for us when He was under no obligation other than what He put upon Himself voluntarily; and you want to say His way is without compassion or love?

I'm sorry but that is an opinion utterly disconnected from reason.

[Bruce_Campbell]

Was thinking about replying, but then anything I say will either be replying to thinly veiled insults or restating what ArchAngel said. I do want to give kudos to Sstavix for being the cool, respectful guy that he is (and I mean that sincerely). Anyway, back to the spectator seats.

[ArchAngel]

Whenever I engage in a debate with someone, I listen and I make discernments based on how ideas stand up to my challenges. If you don't think I listen, that's really your business, but don't give me this nonsense that you choose "not to play the game." You cast the die as soon as you tried calling out Bruce for a lack of biblical knowledge.

I'm curious, how do you qualify someone as "open-minded?"

And somehow my response was worse. I remember having this fight in high school once. When the bully told the teacher I responded to his action in kind the teacher wasn't inclined to care knowing the bully's track record.

I'm disinclined to care here too.

Do elaborate on how I'm a systemic hypocrite.

Was thinking about replying, but then anything I say will either be replying to thinly veiled insults or restating what ArchAngel said. I do want to give kudos to Sstavix for being the cool, respectful guy that he is (and I mean that sincerely). Anyway, back to the spectator seats.

Yeah, he's cool. I'm curious where our thread of discussion will lead.

[selderane]

Whenever I engage in a debate with someone, I listen and I make discernments based on how ideas stand up to my challenges. If you don't think I listen, that's really your business, but don't give me this nonsense that you choose "not to play the game." You cast the die as soon as you tried calling out Bruce for a lack of biblical knowledge.

I'm curious, how do you qualify someone as "open-minded?"

And somehow my response was worse. I remember having this fight in high school once. When the bully told the teacher I responded to his action in kind the teacher wasn't inclined to care knowing the bully's track record.

I'm disinclined to care here too.

Do elaborate on how I'm a systemic hypocrite.

Was thinking about replying, but then anything I say will either be replying to thinly veiled insults or restating what ArchAngel said. I do want to give kudos to Sstavix for being the cool, respectful guy that he is (and I mean that sincerely). Anyway, back to the spectator seats.

Yeah, he's cool. I'm curious where our thread of discussion will lead.

Responded to your other post.

[ArchAngel]

There are many examples of banishment within Torah for sins. Wikipedia compiles a list.

As for trials, to determine guilt the Bible simply says you need two witnesses to testify.

Yes, but that does undue all the death sentences in the Bible, nor is two witnesses a very strong system. It's better than the whim of a ruler, and I'm not claiming that OT Law is pure bad.

However, rabbis over time created a court system that established additional guidelines and thresholds that needed to be met.

Additionally it was only the Sanhedrin, the high court, that was permitted (by Jewish law) to pass a capital sentence. It is noted in the Talmud (found my source!) that a court that passed a death sentence more than once in 70 years was a "bloodthirsty court".

My knowledge of the Talmud is paltry at best, and if they sentenced so little to death, I'm glad they are not holding OT law so strictly or severly. This being said, the crimes that being a rebellious son or violating the sabbath was still cause for the crime. And the talk about on execution in 70 years , or 7 with other rabbis, being a blood thirsty court is talk from rabbis around the time of Jesus, and not necessarily the opinion of antiquity. These rabbis, Akiba and Tarfon, also claim that "Had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death."
Do you consider the Talmud to be the word of God?

Yahweh was willing to sacrifice His own son for man, but for Him to be able to do that He needed an obedient man to be willing to do the same for Him. It's balance. It's Yahweh honoring our actions in obedience to Him with actions of His own.

This is the second time you asserted this, but I don't recall ever reading this in the Bible.
Not to mention, this is horribly in conflict with the Christian doctrine. This implies that our actions indeed did earn in some way Jesus' sacrifice and that isn't wasn't purely out of grace. Apparently, Abraham willing to cut open his son helped by you some forgiveness from sin.

And it's obvious that Abraham was utterly wracked with grief over what he was about to do. He wasn't a mindless zombie in a cult. He was horrified. But he'd seen the power of Yahweh and the blessings and miracles He delivered.

So, in faith, when his mind was reeling, he obeyed....The same level of devotion to Yahweh that Abraham showed Believers today are commanded to show.

That's terrifying. Worse, even! You were just talking about how your god gives autonomy, but now, you are required such obedience to potentially commit acts so opposed to your own conscience and so grievous to our loved ones?

When you were a Christian did you not believe Yeshua when He said (Matt. 10:37), "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

I used to believe that, but look, I love my own wife a far site more than you, but I'd never consider killing you if she asked it.

And the choice Abraham was given was a one time event to enable Yahweh to respond in kind. It will never happen again and anyone who thinks Yahweh is asking them to murder or sacrifice anyone isn't hearing from Him.

Yeah? How do you know that? You aren't the arbiter of absolute morality, huh? It's not written in the Bible, it's not guaranteed it'll never be asked. Jephthah sacrificed his daughter to keep a promise he made to God. Legitimately killed her. To thank God.
I am glad to see that you wouldn't do it and you have rationalizations to keep you from it, but shouldn't have Abraham as well?

Yahweh's system is full of the very things you want, but it is rooted in stone. The system you advocate will chance as tastes change.

Which means what is virtue in one generation may become vice in the next. That's not moral truth. That's an opinion.

What? I haven't even begun advocating a morality system, but reason and empathy isn't a matter of taste and it's not an opinion.
And the church's morality is hardly rooted in stone. Apparently, we got a huge re-write and continually changes.
Nor is being rooted in stone a good thing. As we learn more things, we should grow and our ideas of morality should as well.

And no, the ethical system in the Bible is horrible. We're going over that now, what makes you think you can assert it's "full of the very things I want." No, it's not. Not remotely.
You seem to speak for me a lot...

And I haven't even begun to address how bad a vicarious justice system is. That's.. that's just a separate topic.