On that “eye for an eye” topic? Does that mean that John Edwards or John McCain’s wives should have the freedom to commit adultery on them?

How can someone so omnipotent, and so involved in day to day earth activities that he would have a child killed to test someone’s faith, make so many mistakes creating men in his image and contradicting his own word?

#171 – upright left Says:
“Having laws that prohibit legitimizing a lifestyle that is fundamentally opposed to the beliefs of the majority doesn’t mean that everyone who supports the law claims to be sinless.”

May 23rd, 2008 at 11:51 am

OK, I think I know what you’re saying. Just because self-proclaimed ‘c’hristians “pick & choose” one verse to perpetuate discrimination against a minority, doesn’t mean they’re massive sinners for ignoring a verse (2 verses after the one they chose) that says any divorce for other than infidelity is a sin.

May 24th, 2008 at 6:48 am
_________

Sorry, but you’ve misinterpreted what I said. I said we are going to elect a sinner no matter who we elect. That doesn’t mean we have to throw out every prohibition against immorality. It would be nice if we had a sinless candidate. Unfortunately, no such person exists.

Do you believe that this relationship – one flesh – only applies to a man and a woman as Christ said?

How does DS know that McCain hasn’t been forgiven of the sin of adultery?”

May 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 am

Nitnit is answerintg question that Jesus never answered. Jesus was never asked “Does Marriage ONLY apply to one man and one woman? What about all the ‘godly’ people in the Bible that had multiple wives? What about the men who NEVER got married? Are they sinners?”

As for Sen. McCain, his divorce was not based on grounds of infidelity, so based on the words from Jesus, McCain is an adulterer.

May 23rd, 2008 at 11:51 am

OK, I think I know what you’re saying. Just because self-proclaimed ‘c’hristians “pick & choose” one verse to perpetuate discrimination against a minority, doesn’t mean they’re massive sinners for ignoring a verse (2 verses after the one they chose) that says any divorce for other than infidelity is a sin.

However, I’m free to scoff – and, believe me — I will.

Your book has absolutely no basis whatsoever in scientific fact, therefore, IMO, it cannot be used to prove anything.

May 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
________

Yes.

upright left Says:

Allowing gay marriage means society approves of something they consider to be fundamentally wrong.
—-
O what. Many feel that it is fundamentally wrong to not provide universal healthcare as well as many other things. What about the many people who support gay marriage? “Some people don’t like it” seems a lame argument against gay marriage. A lot of people don’t like abortion but it still is the law of the land, correct?

May 23rd, 2008 at 10:27 am
________

If a majority feel that way about universal healthcare, then we will have it. Of cousre, then you run into variations on how that should be accomplished, which is the current delimma. A majority may not agree with abortion, but, if so, that majority chooses not to do anything about it. That’s likely how gay marriage will also come to be permitted. Until then, if the majority feels that gay marriage is morally wrong and chooses to vote against it, that should be the law.

Now you’re being disingenuous, in trying to claim that my statement is supposed to legitimize sin.

I’m pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of the ‘c’hristians who use one Biblical verse to lambast a group of people, while completely ignoring another verse (two verses later) that paints “their” presidential candidate in a less-than perfect light.

These self-described ‘c’hristians claim to follow the entire Bible, yet they pick & choose the verses that support their prejudices while ignoring other verses that are inconvenient to them.

May 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 am

No, I’m simply saying we are going to elect a sinner. That doesn’t mean we have to throw out every prohibition against sinful behavior. Anyone who claims to successfully follow the Bible without error is no Christian. Having laws that prohibit legitimizing a lifestyle that is fundamentally opposed to the beliefs of the majority doesn’t mean that everyone who supports the law claims to be sinless.

See the thing is a whole lot of us aren’t overly concerned what you conservative christians do or do not like. It isn’t really our business. Your free to think/do whatever you want just as we are. Have fun. Do your thing and leave the rest of us to do our own thing. Why do you seem to suggest that the laws/policies of man should have anything to do with your own belief system or that of a convoluted book which only a certain segment of the poplulation bothers with?
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:28 am

Thanks so very much! That’s…so…ah… American of you, and I completely understand what you’re saying. bit even agrees.

But to make an example of the downside of what you’re saying consider this. Suppose someone wants to open a brothel( overtly or covertly just consider it legal) next to my kid’s school. They own the land. They plan to make it “discreet,” and as is often said on TP, don’t participate if you don’t believe in it. And as you said

Have fun. Do your thing and leave the rest of us to do our own thing.

Seems to bit, when there is a conflict of values and one value will prevail, has to prevail, then it’s best to be on the side of the value that causes the society to be worth preserving.

So-called same-same gender marriage makes the U.S. less worth preserving.

It diminishes the nation.

It doesn’t enlarge the nation.

This is bit’s opinion.

Actually, it would mean that society approves of something they consider to be fundamentally right!

If society approved of gay marriages, then said society would be doing it to extend equal rights to everyone, and not just for some.

The logic of your previous statement is flawed. If the majority of society approves of something, how can it be “wrong” to that majority?

Now, if you said “Allowing gay marriage means the majority of society approves of something the minority considers to be fundamentally wrong” then your logic would be correct.

May 23rd, 2008 at 10:05 am
_______

I don’t live in California and haven’t read extensively about that case, but what I’ve read indicated that the people had voted against gay marriage and judges overturned it. That’s obviously not the choice of the majority of society.

bitblt:
I was thinking more of those funky hat and garb of the clergy but now that you mention it, I don’t need to be told how to act or think by pride marchers either and I sure as hell don’t need to be told how to think or act by clergy in funny garb behind closed doors engage in the very acts they condemn. So how does bitbly feel about Bishop Robinson?
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 am

bitbly??? That may have some possibilities. Sounds rather British, wouldn’t you say?

As we Conservative Christians say, bit would not fellowship Mr. Robinson. To bit’s limited knowledge this man has done great harm to the Episcopal USA church. The three closest Episcopal churches declared sometime ago that they would no longer send money to Episcopal USA. It seems in Robinson’s actions one can see a true agenda item from so openly promoting homosexuality in the U.S. – to directly attack Christianity.

This is what so called same-same marriage is – an attack on Christianity.

Interestingly abortion denies the universal directive in Genesis 1:28 “…be fruitful and multiply…,” while
so called same-same marriage denies the “one flesh” qualifier in Genesis 3 ( Gn 2 or 3.)

We, mankind, really don’t want to be replicating the “…as in the Days of Noah…” in opening verses of Genesis 6.

Ok…? But bit is not being disingenuous. bit thinks you’re trying to legitimize sin.

However, this can get really plain really quickly.

Do you believe Christ meant what he said in Matthew in 19 where he answered a question by saying that a man and a woman are one flesh in a marriage?

Do you believe that this relationship – one flesh – only applies to a man and a woman as Christ said?

As to the using this same scripture to describe adultery as a sin…both you and bit will be well prepared if TP ever post anything about the pain, deception, heartbreak, and damage caused by the sin of adultery.

How does DS know that McCain hasn’t been forgiven of the sin of adultery?