Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Presbyterian Church Approves Gay Marriage

YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.nytimes.com...

It's been a long and rocky road. The issue has split denominations, and even denominations within denominations. But, after three decades, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."
Tsar of DDO
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 7:57:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

It's been a long and rocky road. The issue has split denominations, and even denominations within denominations. But, after three decades, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."

Yet another church bending rewriting its theology to conform with cultural demands. What use is Christianity if it isn't prescriptive, but merely a resistive, behind-the-times representation of what people think? Pretty useless if you ask me. Better to just dump the belief system and adopt ones which are far more plastic to social and cultural norms and values.
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 7:59:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 7:57:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

It's been a long and rocky road. The issue has split denominations, and even denominations within denominations. But, after three decades, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."

Yet another church bending rewriting its theology to conform with cultural demands. What use is Christianity if it isn't prescriptive, but merely a resistive, behind-the-times representation of what people think? Pretty useless if you ask me. Better to just dump the belief system and adopt ones which are far more plastic to social and cultural norms and values.

You haven't shown that cultural demands were sufficient to affect the change, and even if it is that doesn't mean that theology is meaningless.

I know that you don't really understand how faith works; that it's a mystery to you. I don't expect that to change, though...
Tsar of DDO
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 8:13:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 7:59:37 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:57:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

It's been a long and rocky road. The issue has split denominations, and even denominations within denominations. But, after three decades, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."

Yet another church bending rewriting its theology to conform with cultural demands. What use is Christianity if it isn't prescriptive, but merely a resistive, behind-the-times representation of what people think? Pretty useless if you ask me. Better to just dump the belief system and adopt ones which are far more plastic to social and cultural norms and values.

You haven't shown that cultural demands were sufficient to affect the change, and even if it is that doesn't mean that theology is meaningless.

If they weren't sufficient, then they were at the very least a heavy contributing factor. Remember, Christianity is well over 1800 years in maturity, with numerous heavyweight philosophers and theologians within that intervening period.

A Christian needs to accept certain premises of faith to be coherently defined as a Christian, such as theological notions regarding Jesus, the resurrection, and God, which means that the literature from which you obtain your information from to support those tenets must in some way be valid.

However, because of the intimate self-referencing of the Bible, of Jesus' sayings of the preceding Jewish traditions and beliefs in God, then you are committed to the anti-homosexual philosophy that permeates throughout the Bible.

To argue otherwise is to undermine the very legitimacy of your religion, either case is bad for you.

I know that you don't really understand how faith works; that it's a mystery to you. I don't expect that to change, though...

I don't think you understand how basic Bible study and grounding a coherent philosophy works, and if that is a mystery to you then I don't expect that to change. Do you believe Jesus Christ existed? Do you believe he was crucified, died, rose, and ascended into heaven?

1. If you do not believe that, then you are not a Christian by definition.

Or

2a. You believe it to be true, and he did so, entirely on faith
2b. You believe it to be true, and he did so, on historical grounds

If the former, then your entirely philosophy demands no respect on any intellectual level. If the latter, then my previous argument necessarily entails.

Christianity is anti-homosexual if you want to remain consistent with its teachings.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 8:20:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

It's been a long and rocky road. The issue has split denominations, and even denominations within denominations. But, after three decades, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."

Does this mean Presbyterian Church's in Louisiana?
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 8:22:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 8:20:25 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

It's been a long and rocky road. The issue has split denominations, and even denominations within denominations. But, after three decades, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."

Does this mean Presbyterian Church's in Louisiana?

Well, there are a couple of different varieties of the Presbyterian church. This was the USA denomination. The PCA denomination will likely never change the definition. I believe LA has both.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 8:57:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 7:57:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

It's been a long and rocky road. The issue has split denominations, and even denominations within denominations. But, after three decades, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."

Yet another church bending rewriting its theology to conform with cultural demands. What use is Christianity if it isn't prescriptive, but merely a resistive, behind-the-times representation of what people think? Pretty useless if you ask me. Better to just dump the belief system and adopt ones which are far more plastic to social and cultural norms and values.

The true church will never bend. Deep down, Christians know what the Bible does and doesn't consider to be sin. Unfortunately, the American Church has lost its backbone (mostly) and will, with time, conform to "modern" ideas, such as the idea that homosexuality is not sinful. Still, some will always remain who hold fast to correct doctrine.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:05:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think you understand how basic Bible study and grounding a coherent philosophy works, and if that is a mystery to you then I don't expect that to change. Do you believe Jesus Christ existed? Do you believe he was crucified, died, rose, and ascended into heaven?

1. If you do not believe that, then you are not a Christian by definition.

Or

2a. You believe it to be true, and he did so, entirely on faith
2b. You believe it to be true, and he did so, on historical grounds

If the former, then your entirely philosophy demands no respect on any intellectual level. If the latter, then my previous argument necessarily entails.

Christianity is anti-homosexual if you want to remain consistent with its teachings.

A few points:

1. Christianity can be said to be anti-homosexual by association with Judaism, which is clearly anti-homosexual according to specific Bible verses you're all probably already familiar with so I won't bother to quote them.

However, the Christian scriptures themselves never touch on the matter. Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality; neither do Paul or any of the other letter writers of ancient times.

Still, we can probably be safe in the assumption that since Jesus not only was a Jew, but clearly taught from those scriptures on a number of occasions, that he would also have followed Jewish laws concerning homosexuality.

2. Christianity does necessitate belief in certain things, and you have stated several of them. One can quite easily believe those things on faith and still retain an intellectual discussion which is quite respectable, the same way one can believe on faith in anything else which is by no means guaranteed to be true and still retain an intellectual discussion which is quite respectable.

3. I'm not sure what your previous argument was (I take it you are referring to another thread) but as a neutral observer, it doesn't sound to me as if you fully understand the tenets of the religion you appear to be arguing against (that being specifically Christianity).
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:05:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 8:13:36 PM, Envisage wrote:

Christianity is anti-homosexual if you want to remain consistent with its teachings.

Nope.

@YYW - this is great news!
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:09:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 8:57:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:57:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

It's been a long and rocky road. The issue has split denominations, and even denominations within denominations. But, after three decades, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."

Yet another church bending rewriting its theology to conform with cultural demands. What use is Christianity if it isn't prescriptive, but merely a resistive, behind-the-times representation of what people think? Pretty useless if you ask me. Better to just dump the belief system and adopt ones which are far more plastic to social and cultural norms and values.

The true church will never bend. Deep down, Christians know what the Bible does and doesn't consider to be sin. Unfortunately, the American Church has lost its backbone (mostly) and will, with time, conform to "modern" ideas, such as the idea that homosexuality is not sinful. Still, some will always remain who hold fast to correct doctrine.

Please don't tell me that you are a conservative evangelical protestant and saying this with no sense of irony.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:09:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 9:05:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/17/2015 8:13:36 PM, Envisage wrote:

Christianity is anti-homosexual if you want to remain consistent with its teachings.

Nope.

If you have nothing but a bare assertion to make, then perhaps it would be better not to say thing at all? There are opinion polls for people who want to say "yep" and "nope" to. Also why don't you respond to Vox? A Christian that clearly goes further than affirming agreement with what I said.

@YYW - this is great news!
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:11:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 9:09:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/17/2015 8:57:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:57:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

It's been a long and rocky road. The issue has split denominations, and even denominations within denominations. But, after three decades, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."

Yet another church bending rewriting its theology to conform with cultural demands. What use is Christianity if it isn't prescriptive, but merely a resistive, behind-the-times representation of what people think? Pretty useless if you ask me. Better to just dump the belief system and adopt ones which are far more plastic to social and cultural norms and values.

The true church will never bend. Deep down, Christians know what the Bible does and doesn't consider to be sin. Unfortunately, the American Church has lost its backbone (mostly) and will, with time, conform to "modern" ideas, such as the idea that homosexuality is not sinful. Still, some will always remain who hold fast to correct doctrine.

Please don't tell me that you are a conservative evangelical protestant and saying this with no sense of irony.

What do you mean? Are you implying that Conservative Christians have no backbone, or that homosexuality is not immoral according to Christian doctrine? Or both?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:20:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 9:09:47 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:05:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/17/2015 8:13:36 PM, Envisage wrote:

Christianity is anti-homosexual if you want to remain consistent with its teachings.

Nope.

If you have nothing but a bare assertion to make, then perhaps it would be better not to say thing at all? There are opinion polls for people who want to say "yep" and "nope" to. Also why don't you respond to Vox? A Christian that clearly goes further than affirming agreement with what I said.

@YYW - this is great news!

You haven't even made a clear case that Christianity is anti-homosexual. You actually have to bring up the clobber verses and when you do you'll find things are nearly so simple as you present them. Saying that we "have" to accept them because of Jesus reference to Jewish tradition and practice, and the self reference isn't strong enough. That's like saying because there is a three story cosmology referenced in the Bible and Jesus makes mention of it that he is *teaching* that. Making that inference requires much more legwork than saying he referenced it.

There's also not much to respond to either with someone who says of the opposition that "deep down" they know they are wrong.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:25:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 9:11:54 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:09:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/17/2015 8:57:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:57:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

It's been a long and rocky road. The issue has split denominations, and even denominations within denominations. But, after three decades, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."

Yet another church bending rewriting its theology to conform with cultural demands. What use is Christianity if it isn't prescriptive, but merely a resistive, behind-the-times representation of what people think? Pretty useless if you ask me. Better to just dump the belief system and adopt ones which are far more plastic to social and cultural norms and values.

The true church will never bend. Deep down, Christians know what the Bible does and doesn't consider to be sin. Unfortunately, the American Church has lost its backbone (mostly) and will, with time, conform to "modern" ideas, such as the idea that homosexuality is not sinful. Still, some will always remain who hold fast to correct doctrine.

Please don't tell me that you are a conservative evangelical protestant and saying this with no sense of irony.

What do you mean? Are you implying that Conservative Christians have no backbone, or that homosexuality is not immoral according to Christian doctrine? Or both?

Are you a conservative evangelical protestant? I'm saying that the whole (American) milieu of that modern movement is an exercise in conforming to "modern" ideas (especially the ideas about biblical inspiration and hermeneutics).
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:26:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 9:05:03 PM, zoinks wrote:
I don't think you understand how basic Bible study and grounding a coherent philosophy works, and if that is a mystery to you then I don't expect that to change. Do you believe Jesus Christ existed? Do you believe he was crucified, died, rose, and ascended into heaven?

1. If you do not believe that, then you are not a Christian by definition.

Or

2a. You believe it to be true, and he did so, entirely on faith
2b. You believe it to be true, and he did so, on historical grounds

If the former, then your entirely philosophy demands no respect on any intellectual level. If the latter, then my previous argument necessarily entails.

Christianity is anti-homosexual if you want to remain consistent with its teachings.

A few points:

1. Christianity can be said to be anti-homosexual by association with Judaism, which is clearly anti-homosexual according to specific Bible verses you're all probably already familiar with so I won't bother to quote them.

However, the Christian scriptures themselves never touch on the matter. Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality; neither do Paul or any of the other letter writers of ancient times.

1 Corrinthians 6:9-10? and if you are theologically committed to the canonicity of the bible also Timothy 1:8-11

Also you are employing an argument from silence here, which isn't particularly strong in face of positive affirmations to the contrary. Where did Jesus say homosexuality isn't wrong? The argument from silence works both ways. Given we have positive affirmations to precisely my thesis, then clearly Chrisanity is not pro-homosexuals.

Also, as a matter of fact, Jesus himself did (albeit indirectly) condemn homosexual acts. First he affirms the commandments Matthew 19:18 and implicitly defined marriage as between a man and woman in Matthew 19:4-6

Thus, it is impossible for two men or women to morally have sex, ever.

Still, we can probably be safe in the assumption that since Jesus not only was a Jew, but clearly taught from those scriptures on a number of occasions, that he would also have followed Jewish laws concerning homosexuality.

2. Christianity does necessitate belief in certain things, and you have stated several of them. One can quite easily believe those things on faith and still retain an intellectual discussion which is quite respectable, the same way one can believe on faith in anything else which is by no means guaranteed to be true and still retain an intellectual discussion which is quite respectable.

In doing so Christianity essentially becomes useless, since your beliefs are defining your faith, and not the other way around. Christianity is prescriptive and imperitive. It has a moral code. You essentially invent your own by picking and choosing. Thus my original point stands, it serves as an anchor of stagnation which gradually changes with modern views. If your faith is plastic to social norms, then why not ditch the useless philosophy and adopt one that is better suited to the demands of cultural norms?

3. I'm not sure what your previous argument was (I take it you are referring to another thread) but as a neutral observer, it doesn't sound to me as if you fully understand the tenets of the religion you appear to be arguing against (that being specifically Christianity).

I absolutely agree, because "Christianity" is extremely poorly defined. I would go as far as to say that labelling yourself as a "Christian" nowadays tells me virtually nothing about you. That's how useless the label has become and that's how useless the ohilosophy is in this day and age. I stated very basic, very fundemental tenets of Christianity, and if even these are being challenged then that speaks volumes about it. None good.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:31:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 9:25:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:11:54 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:09:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/17/2015 8:57:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:57:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

It's been a long and rocky road. The issue has split denominations, and even denominations within denominations. But, after three decades, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."

Yet another church bending rewriting its theology to conform with cultural demands. What use is Christianity if it isn't prescriptive, but merely a resistive, behind-the-times representation of what people think? Pretty useless if you ask me. Better to just dump the belief system and adopt ones which are far more plastic to social and cultural norms and values.

The true church will never bend. Deep down, Christians know what the Bible does and doesn't consider to be sin. Unfortunately, the American Church has lost its backbone (mostly) and will, with time, conform to "modern" ideas, such as the idea that homosexuality is not sinful. Still, some will always remain who hold fast to correct doctrine.

Please don't tell me that you are a conservative evangelical protestant and saying this with no sense of irony.

What do you mean? Are you implying that Conservative Christians have no backbone, or that homosexuality is not immoral according to Christian doctrine? Or both?

Are you a conservative evangelical protestant? I'm saying that the whole (American) milieu of that modern movement is an exercise in conforming to "modern" ideas (especially the ideas about biblical inspiration and hermeneutics).

Are you saying that Conservative Evangelical Protestantism is a modern invention and not rooted in originally accepted Christian doctrine?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:31:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 9:11:54 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:09:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/17/2015 8:57:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:57:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

It's been a long and rocky road. The issue has split denominations, and even denominations within denominations. But, after three decades, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."

Yet another church bending rewriting its theology to conform with cultural demands. What use is Christianity if it isn't prescriptive, but merely a resistive, behind-the-times representation of what people think? Pretty useless if you ask me. Better to just dump the belief system and adopt ones which are far more plastic to social and cultural norms and values.

The true church will never bend. Deep down, Christians know what the Bible does and doesn't consider to be sin. Unfortunately, the American Church has lost its backbone (mostly) and will, with time, conform to "modern" ideas, such as the idea that homosexuality is not sinful. Still, some will always remain who hold fast to correct doctrine.

Please don't tell me that you are a conservative evangelical protestant and saying this with no sense of irony.

What do you mean? Are you implying that Conservative Christians have no backbone, or that homosexuality is not immoral according to Christian doctrine? Or both?

And, no, homosexuality isn't immoral according to Christian doctrine. Even most conservatives don't consider homosexual orientation itself sinful - homosexual desires aren't sinful in and of themselves - but the acts are. Whether that is actually a legitimate distinction in practice is doubtful, but...

But I'm going further and saying that some homosexual acts aren't immoral according to Christian doctrine.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 9:34:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 9:31:36 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:11:54 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:09:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/17/2015 8:57:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:57:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

It's been a long and rocky road. The issue has split denominations, and even denominations within denominations. But, after three decades, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."

Yet another church bending rewriting its theology to conform with cultural demands. What use is Christianity if it isn't prescriptive, but merely a resistive, behind-the-times representation of what people think? Pretty useless if you ask me. Better to just dump the belief system and adopt ones which are far more plastic to social and cultural norms and values.

The true church will never bend. Deep down, Christians know what the Bible does and doesn't consider to be sin. Unfortunately, the American Church has lost its backbone (mostly) and will, with time, conform to "modern" ideas, such as the idea that homosexuality is not sinful. Still, some will always remain who hold fast to correct doctrine.

Please don't tell me that you are a conservative evangelical protestant and saying this with no sense of irony.

What do you mean? Are you implying that Conservative Christians have no backbone, or that homosexuality is not immoral according to Christian doctrine? Or both?

And, no, homosexuality isn't immoral according to Christian doctrine. Even most conservatives don't consider homosexual orientation itself sinful - homosexual desires aren't sinful in and of themselves - but the acts are. Whether that is actually a legitimate distinction in practice is doubtful, but...

But I'm going further and saying that some homosexual acts aren't immoral according to Christian doctrine.

I can perhaps understand a brushing aside of Biblical verses on Homosexuality as part of the OT Law, but it's probably a stretch to suggest that the Bible actually condones homosexuality.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
YYW
Posts: 36,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 10:08:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 9:20:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:09:47 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:05:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/17/2015 8:13:36 PM, Envisage wrote:

Christianity is anti-homosexual if you want to remain consistent with its teachings.

Nope.

If you have nothing but a bare assertion to make, then perhaps it would be better not to say thing at all? There are opinion polls for people who want to say "yep" and "nope" to. Also why don't you respond to Vox? A Christian that clearly goes further than affirming agreement with what I said.

@YYW - this is great news!

You haven't even made a clear case that Christianity is anti-homosexual. You actually have to bring up the clobber verses and when you do you'll find things are nearly so simple as you present them. Saying that we "have" to accept them because of Jesus reference to Jewish tradition and practice, and the self reference isn't strong enough. That's like saying because there is a three story cosmology referenced in the Bible and Jesus makes mention of it that he is *teaching* that. Making that inference requires much more legwork than saying he referenced it.

There's also not much to respond to either with someone who says of the opposition that "deep down" they know they are wrong.

Which is more or less why I don't care about what Envisage thinks about theology. It's changed profoundly over time, and he's assuming that the way it is now is the "truth" or the "final truth" or whatever.

But really, he's just not well versed in it enough to know what he doesn't know, so that's why he adopts certain ludicrous positions. It's not just about Christianity that he's like this with, though... so at least he's consistent(ly wrong).
Tsar of DDO
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 10:54:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

It's been a long and rocky road. The issue has split denominations, and even denominations within denominations. But, after three decades, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."

Man was created both male and female, anyway, so it made no difference to God if male appearing men married female appearing men or male appearing men married male appearing men.

Either way, every person who ever got married in this world has committed adultery because they weren't marrying their perfectly made partner.

In the next age, ONE created man will be formed with two bodies. One male body and one female body. They will be perfect partners for eternity and experience every vision and dream together.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 11:23:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM, YYW wrote:
the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."

So, new theological information just in: homosexuality isn't sinful, and never was.

I would hope to see PC-USA give a complete explanation of what new theological evidence has arisen to draw this conclusion now, or if it does so on previously-available scriptural evidence, an explanation of by what scholarly incompetence or malignant bigotry over 20,000 ordained ministers had been unable to interpret scripture correctly for over 150 years.

And further, since false scriptural interpretation is surely bearing false witness, I hope to see the PC-USA issue a public apology to all its parishioners for its past institutional immorality, and to offer compensation to anyone whose life has been wrecked by the moral strain of its ignorant and negligent theological advice, and to the families of any gay former parishioner who may have suicided due to religious persecution.

Or else do as any other large, self-promoting, amoral and amnesiac corporate must, and pay tax.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 11:34:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 9:26:32 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:05:03 PM, zoinks wrote:
I don't think you understand how basic Bible study and grounding a coherent philosophy works, and if that is a mystery to you then I don't expect that to change. Do you believe Jesus Christ existed? Do you believe he was crucified, died, rose, and ascended into heaven?

1. If you do not believe that, then you are not a Christian by definition.

Or

2a. You believe it to be true, and he did so, entirely on faith
2b. You believe it to be true, and he did so, on historical grounds

If the former, then your entirely philosophy demands no respect on any intellectual level. If the latter, then my previous argument necessarily entails.

Christianity is anti-homosexual if you want to remain consistent with its teachings.

A few points:

1. Christianity can be said to be anti-homosexual by association with Judaism, which is clearly anti-homosexual according to specific Bible verses you're all probably already familiar with so I won't bother to quote them.

However, the Christian scriptures themselves never touch on the matter. Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality; neither do Paul or any of the other letter writers of ancient times.

1 Corrinthians 6:9-10? and if you are theologically committed to the canonicity of the bible also Timothy 1:8-11

Also you are employing an argument from silence here, which isn't particularly strong in face of positive affirmations to the contrary. Where did Jesus say homosexuality isn't wrong? The argument from silence works both ways. Given we have positive affirmations to precisely my thesis, then clearly Chrisanity is not pro-homosexuals.

Also, as a matter of fact, Jesus himself did (albeit indirectly) condemn homosexual acts. First he affirms the commandments Matthew 19:18 and implicitly defined marriage as between a man and woman in Matthew 19:4-6

Thus, it is impossible for two men or women to morally have sex, ever.

Still, we can probably be safe in the assumption that since Jesus not only was a Jew, but clearly taught from those scriptures on a number of occasions, that he would also have followed Jewish laws concerning homosexuality.

2. Christianity does necessitate belief in certain things, and you have stated several of them. One can quite easily believe those things on faith and still retain an intellectual discussion which is quite respectable, the same way one can believe on faith in anything else which is by no means guaranteed to be true and still retain an intellectual discussion which is quite respectable.

In doing so Christianity essentially becomes useless, since your beliefs are defining your faith, and not the other way around. Christianity is prescriptive and imperitive. It has a moral code. You essentially invent your own by picking and choosing. Thus my original point stands, it serves as an anchor of stagnation which gradually changes with modern views. If your faith is plastic to social norms, then why not ditch the useless philosophy and adopt one that is better suited to the demands of cultural norms?

3. I'm not sure what your previous argument was (I take it you are referring to another thread) but as a neutral observer, it doesn't sound to me as if you fully understand the tenets of the religion you appear to be arguing against (that being specifically Christianity).

I absolutely agree, because "Christianity" is extremely poorly defined. I would go as far as to say that labelling yourself as a "Christian" nowadays tells me virtually nothing about you. That's how useless the label has become and that's how useless the ohilosophy is in this day and age. I stated very basic, very fundemental tenets of Christianity, and if even these are being challenged then that speaks volumes about it. None good.

I'm glad you pointed this out, beat me to it. And even included 1Timothy which is a verse most people forget.

As a rule, I stay away from Old Testament verses on the matter and use New Testament verses.

Anyways, this doesn't really matter as a whole though for a few reasons.
1. I don't get why Christians harp on homosexuality so much, its just a sin like countless others.
2. Marriage isn't between two men even if the Presbyterians want it to be. Therefore, all gays get is a lovely earthly marriage and the church feels modern but I doubt such a union will truly be spiritual in nature in the eyes of God.
2a. And if it is accepted by God then they win and well those who oppose it are wrong but since true Christians already have salvation being wrong on such an issue really isn't that big of a deal.

That being said I do still think that these unilateral internal church changes are dangerous which is why people just need to trust the word of Scripture and found beliefs on their own based on the Bible alone.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 11:50:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
1. I don't get why Christians harp on homosexuality so much, its just a sin like countless others.

Because its the saving grace. Its a safe bet that a VAST majority (not complete, but overwhelming majority) of Christians haven't engaged in some variety of homosexual activity, where as the other sins are things they have probably committed in various points in their life while they knew better, many times. To harp on that aspect of sin gives them that one thing they can always definitively point at in others while their own more "trivial" sins cannot be proven (well, not without serious much racking). In short, it gives a good number of people something to feel morally superior about because they don't have much else.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2015 11:52:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 11:50:01 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
1. I don't get why Christians harp on homosexuality so much, its just a sin like countless others.


Because its the saving grace. Its a safe bet that a VAST majority (not complete, but overwhelming majority) of Christians haven't engaged in some variety of homosexual activity, where as the other sins are things they have probably committed in various points in their life while they knew better, many times. To harp on that aspect of sin gives them that one thing they can always definitively point at in others while their own more "trivial" sins cannot be proven (well, not without serious much racking). In short, it gives a good number of people something to feel morally superior about because they don't have much else.

Which is completely against the actual teachings and tenants of Christianity. Which is why it bothers me I guess.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 12:05:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 9:31:10 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:25:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:11:54 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:09:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/17/2015 8:57:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:57:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

It's been a long and rocky road. The issue has split denominations, and even denominations within denominations. But, after three decades, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."

Yet another church bending rewriting its theology to conform with cultural demands. What use is Christianity if it isn't prescriptive, but merely a resistive, behind-the-times representation of what people think? Pretty useless if you ask me. Better to just dump the belief system and adopt ones which are far more plastic to social and cultural norms and values.

The true church will never bend. Deep down, Christians know what the Bible does and doesn't consider to be sin. Unfortunately, the American Church has lost its backbone (mostly) and will, with time, conform to "modern" ideas, such as the idea that homosexuality is not sinful. Still, some will always remain who hold fast to correct doctrine.

Please don't tell me that you are a conservative evangelical protestant and saying this with no sense of irony.

What do you mean? Are you implying that Conservative Christians have no backbone, or that homosexuality is not immoral according to Christian doctrine? Or both?

Are you a conservative evangelical protestant? I'm saying that the whole (American) milieu of that modern movement is an exercise in conforming to "modern" ideas (especially the ideas about biblical inspiration and hermeneutics).

Are you saying that Conservative Evangelical Protestantism is a modern invention and not rooted in originally accepted Christian doctrine?

I don't understand how this whole argument is even remotely tenable. The original church during the Apostolic and Patristic eras was scattered to the four winds as far as doctrine was concerned. Debate was fierce, and orthodoxy was only really established by the Catholics after several councils, banishments, and denouncements of heresies. If anything, the logical result is that the Assyrian, Nestorian, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, or Catholic Churches are the ones rooted in originally accepted Christian doctrine. The idea that everybody forgot what Jesus was all about until a bunch of people with dubious theological credibility stumbled onto it millennia later is so doubtful as to be farcical.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 2:42:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/17/2015 11:23:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM, YYW wrote:
the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."

So, new theological information just in: homosexuality isn't sinful, and never was.

I would hope to see PC-USA give a complete explanation of what new theological evidence has arisen to draw this conclusion now, or if it does so on previously-available scriptural evidence, an explanation of by what scholarly incompetence or malignant bigotry over 20,000 ordained ministers had been unable to interpret scripture correctly for over 150 years.

And further, since false scriptural interpretation is surely bearing false witness, I hope to see the PC-USA issue a public apology to all its parishioners for its past institutional immorality, and to offer compensation to anyone whose life has been wrecked by the moral strain of its ignorant and negligent theological advice, and to the families of any gay former parishioner who may have suicided due to religious persecution.

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God made you an awesome atheist my friend. I'm glad you're in this forum and showing these Christians how fickle they are.

Or else do as any other large, self-promoting, amoral and amnesiac corporate must, and pay tax.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 6:11:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As homosexuality is totally normal there is no reason why gay couples shouldn't have the same rights to marry as heterosexual couples.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 8:04:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 12:05:02 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:31:10 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:25:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:11:54 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/17/2015 9:09:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/17/2015 8:57:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:57:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/17/2015 7:29:43 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

It's been a long and rocky road. The issue has split denominations, and even denominations within denominations. But, after three decades, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has changed the definition of marriage in the Church's constitution to include same sex marriage. Marriage is now defined as between "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."

Yet another church bending rewriting its theology to conform with cultural demands. What use is Christianity if it isn't prescriptive, but merely a resistive, behind-the-times representation of what people think? Pretty useless if you ask me. Better to just dump the belief system and adopt ones which are far more plastic to social and cultural norms and values.

The true church will never bend. Deep down, Christians know what the Bible does and doesn't consider to be sin. Unfortunately, the American Church has lost its backbone (mostly) and will, with time, conform to "modern" ideas, such as the idea that homosexuality is not sinful. Still, some will always remain who hold fast to correct doctrine.

Please don't tell me that you are a conservative evangelical protestant and saying this with no sense of irony.

What do you mean? Are you implying that Conservative Christians have no backbone, or that homosexuality is not immoral according to Christian doctrine? Or both?

Are you a conservative evangelical protestant? I'm saying that the whole (American) milieu of that modern movement is an exercise in conforming to "modern" ideas (especially the ideas about biblical inspiration and hermeneutics).

Are you saying that Conservative Evangelical Protestantism is a modern invention and not rooted in originally accepted Christian doctrine?

I don't understand how this whole argument is even remotely tenable. The original church during the Apostolic and Patristic eras was scattered to the four winds as far as doctrine was concerned. Debate was fierce, and orthodoxy was only really established by the Catholics after several councils, banishments, and denouncements of heresies. If anything, the logical result is that the Assyrian, Nestorian, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, or Catholic Churches are the ones rooted in originally accepted Christian doctrine. The idea that everybody forgot what Jesus was all about until a bunch of people with dubious theological credibility stumbled onto it millennia later is so doubtful as to be farcical

Winner.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!