Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

No more Hitler, OK? Please?

I agree with Kef here. Posts about Hitler = deleted posts.

_________________

Well, yes, they did make it illegal. That was until the Supreme Court stepped in and ruled those laws unconstitutional. They invade your right of privacy. What happens between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom should be left alone, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Two men engaging in a sexual act doesn't hurt anyone else, nor does it hurt society as a whole, despite what many a conservative may say.

_________________

No, you're supposed to fear God.

Also, the Bible never mentions gay people, it just says you aren't supposed to crossdress, but that's blown out or proportion by a lot of translations and used as an anti-gay sentiment. So, since the Bible doesn't mention it, I have no reason to discriminate gay people or think that they're going to hell.

_________________

That's not true, Otaku. Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:24-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9. I already addressed that earlier in the thread.

(and if anyone would like to dispute the translations, I'd suggest you provide us with proper exegesis).

However, as stated numerous times already, this thread isn't about whether it is religiously wrong, but whether it is politically wrong.

_________________

No, you are supposed to love God, not fear him. I know I don't. The Old Testament God was meant to be feared, the New Testament version is not.

_________________

Are you so sure about that, BTG? Are we talking about the same God who went into the Temple and attacked the money-changers, and who called the Pharisees "White-washed tombs?" The same God who, when he spoke to the storm and it became silent, the disciples were left in fear of him? The same one who has said that, when he returns, he will wage war against those who opposed him?

Please keep in mind, when we speak of "fear of the Lord," we are not speaking of terror, as one might feel in the presence of a tyrant like Hitler or Saddam, but rather, "healthy respect," as one might feel in the presence of a great general or a benevolent king. Even the Old Testament phraseology distinguishes the two kinds of fear (although the verbs are the same, the prepositional prefixes are different). Fear of the Lord is similar to the way in which the Pevensie children know that Alsan is to be revered and respected (after all, he is not a tame lion), but still have confidence in his goodness.

Fear of the Lord is ultimately the recognition that he is in control. Fear of the Lord is the alcoholic who says, "I am powerless, and my life has become unmanageable. Yet, there is One who can help me."

_________________

KJV says "effeminate," not homosexual.

_________________

Quoted for truth.

(Though I must add that "Bible" should be capitalized--not for religious reasons alone, but also because it's a proper noun. </grammar police>)

_________________

No, you have to do everything it says. It's definitely not just a guide.

_________________

Didymus is a scholar, going much deeper than the KJV... the KJV is but one interpretation of the Bible.

Anyway, we are still off-topic...

- Kef

KJV is a translation, not an authoritative text itself. I'd suggest you examine the Greek if you wish to dispute the terms. As I stated in my previous post, those terms specifically refer to homosexual behavior.


But what good is a guidebook if you don't follow it?

SIMULPOST'D!!

Thanks, Kef.

_________________

I don't know which is funnier: Non-Christians telling Christians how to be Christian (a form of cultural relativism) or Christians telling other Christians how to interpret their own broad religion ("No True Scotsman" fallacy).

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I find the first rather absurd. But for the second, consider my profession (which is, in fact, teaching Christians how to understand and live by our faith). I am rather of the opinion that, while Christians themselves tend to be very broad at times, the Faith itself is really more narrow, and, honestly, even the best of us doesn't get it all right (which is why we all stand in need of divine grace). Nevertheless, I do feel that, as Christians, we have a responsibility to challenge each other to examine these things according to our Faith, and to live as best we humanly can in accordance with it, recognizing both our tendency to fail, as well as our utter dependence upon God to aid us in fulfilling his will for us. Simply dismissing some parts in favor of others, I do not feel is an adequate way of doing this.

Here I will concede a point: if what Rusty means is that Christians should not presume that the Scriptures should be made into national law, I agree. Remember, the early Church existed in a pluralistic society, and I am under no illusions that this nation is now or ever was "Christian" in the Pat Robertson/James Kennedy sense of the term.

But if his intended meaning is that Christians ought to pick and choose for themselves what parts of God's commands they wish to obey, well, that's almost like saying we can pick and choose which traffic laws we wish to obey. But when you get right down to it, our responsibility as Christians isn't to merely enforce morality on others, but rather to be light and salt in this world by living that morality ourselves. Or, as our Lord put it, "Pull the plank out of your own eye before you attempt to pull the speck out of your brother's."

_________________

So, in order to get in the goods with god, I gotta get Circumsized? yeah, thats logical.

_________________

Uh, no. Acts 15: Gentile Christians are not required to be circumcised. The Covenant of Circumcision was given only the the Hebrew people.

But what if God's demand WERE that you be circumcised? (it certainly was for the Hebrew people). Are you the one who determines what God's expectations of you are, or is he?

The Law is there for three reasons:

1. To show mankind his utter dependence on God. When a man looks at God's Law, he should ask himself the question: "Am I living up to this?" If he's honest, he'll realize he isn't - at least not perfectly. Recognizing his own inabilities and limitations, he should then realize his need for divine grace, and hopefully, submit to it.

2. To keep social order. Here, we're not speaking strictly of religious law, but of Law in the civil sense. When people are in general taught that it is wrong to kill, steal, or commit various other crimes, and when those expectations are enforced in a society, it makes life a lot safer for everyone involved. (Here is where I think Wes is coming from - only he seems to be confusing Left Hand Kingdom, civil justice, with Right Hand Kingdom, God's expectations for his people).

3. As a GUIDEBOOK for Christian living. When the Christian asks himself, "How do I show God my appreciation for all he's done for me?", the answer is basically, "Live in this manner." So Rusty's not terribly off on this one.

But can we please get off the subject of religious law vs. civil law?

_________________

If we can't keep this thread on topic, I'm going to stop posting in it...

'
To me it's my rulebook. It should be my freaking life, but I'm not perfect.


It would be in my eyes.

I've done some soul searching and I have come to the conclusion that being gay is the direct cause of the devil influencing your mind too much. The only way to "cure" a gay is to for them to pray to God to help them.

_________________

*sighs*

I don't know what he have to do to prove to you that homosexuality is not a disease. My cousin proves that logic wrong, too. He is Catholic and he prays regularly. He does ask God for help, but it's for daily problems.

_________________

I'm sorry to say, but I truly don't believe that Catholic beliefs have power with God. Please don't kill me for having an opposing belief.

_________________

Why not?
(Okay, sorry, this is still off-topic, but there doesn't seem to be anything left to discuss.)

_________________

It doesn't matter why, not. That is a discussion for another thread. If you want to start it, go ahead, but that's not the topic here.

_________________

Because they interpret the Holy Bible differently than I (and my entire sect)think. Therefore since I believe we have power with him: They can't.

_________________

The last time I checked, Wes, Jesus Christ died for the sins of all humanity, and Roman Catholicism confessed this to be true (see Nicene Creed). I would also have you know that at one time of my life, I carefully considered converting to Roman Catholicism. While I certainly do have some disagreements with RC on account of some specifics of their faith, I have many similar disagreements with modern-day "evangelicalism" and "fundamentalism."

(For example, while I might disagree with RC about some of what they call Sacraments, I have a real problem with modern evangelicals who reject all of them).

But even if I have such disagreements, I would never say that Christ has denied them grace, or that they do not worship him as Lord.

Tell me something, Wes, have you ever struggled with a sin that you just can't seem to overcome? Anger? Lust, maybe? If you have, then maybe you should consider a bit of empathy for BTG's cousin.

But, for the millionth time, let's try to keep this thread about civil justice and homosexuality?

_________________

I don't think I have much to add to what's already been said, but here goes:

I personally believe that since God designed marriage to be between a man & a woman, same-sex couples should not get married. They should, however, be allowed to get civil unions or domestic partnerships that would grant them SOME of the rights that normal marriages have, such as child adoption and hospital visitation. Last year in Colorado there was a referendum that, if passed, would have allowed domestic partnerships in the state. Had I turned 18 a little earlier, I would have voted in favor of it.

The supporters of Referendum I even flat-out said: "It's not marriage. It's basic legal rights." And I think that, again, if same-sex couples can't get legally married in the same way as heterosexual couples, they should still get basic legal rights.

_________________

Wes, I find your statements highly offensive. I am a Roman Catholic, and saying that we're wrong just because we don't agree with you is not only bigoted, but downright stupid. What would you say if I said the same about you and your sect? You'd probably be offended too.

I know that we as people can have different opinions, but don't let them be offensive.


Also, what gives you the authority to say that you are right and I am wrong? How do you truly know that you have the power with God? What if you're wrong? What if I'm wrong? What if Christianity Is wrong? So please, don't make assume, because we all know what that does.


So Wes, you better watch what you say. You've been ruffling some feathers here, such as mine, Rads, and Dids. And we're all mods here. You're skating on thin ice.

_________________

I still don't understand what's wrong with removing marriage from government altogether, replacing it entirely with "civil unions". If you want to marry at a church or something, you still could, but only civil unions would be recognized by law. This would keep religion and the law separate, which is what we're supposed to be doing in the first place.

- Kef

You know, I've never thought about that. It sounds sensible, but I don't think many people will be in favor it.

_________________

Mine, too, honestly...though I more see Wes as being just another case that hopelessly in too deep in such close-mindedness. I've even met people who have openly stated that they are close-minded in a very proud way, as if it were something positive instead of negative. Wes' arguments boil down to the fallacy of argumentum par excellance--in other words, "I'm right and you're wrong because I said so and I KNOW that I'm right because I feel it in my heart and God told me so." ...Or something to that effect. The problem is, ANYONE can state such a claim, and since it's 100% subjective, based wholly on individual experience, there's no way to refute such a claim. It cannot be proven one way or another. On a personal note, I myself spent the better part of college doing my own soul searching, and found that Christianity is wrong--or at least, not right for me. People say "I know Jesus is Lord because I feel it in my heart." Well, that's great, because honestly, I know that he wasn't--and isn't--because I feel it in MY heart. And any argument stating "Well, your heart is corrupted by Satan!" or anything like that is just further examples of the argumentum par excellance. No one person can claim to be the ultimate authority on religion and spirituality, because no one is simply that good at it.

So fine, Wes. It's great how much you "know" that you're right...just like Ghandi knew that he was right, Siddharta knew that he was right, Ann Coulter knows that she's right, Michael Moore knows that he's right, Fred Phelps knows that he's right, and, at the risk of initiating Godwin's Law, Hitler knew that he was right. So there you have it. Arguing these opinions brings up more argumentum par excellance and No True Scotsman fallacies. You simply can't sit there and say, in essense, "Your opinion is WRONG!" and expect people to go along with it. Compromise and civility lie in the root of objectivity.

And as an aside (and partly to try to get this to some semblance of toastpaintyness), Ian, I'd be interested in knowing precisely what laws you think that only heterosexual couples married under the law should be privvy to...which ones should gay couples be denied, if you seem to be for adoption and hospital visitations?

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

To be honest, PMG, I didn't look at all of Referendum I, particularly because I wasn't eligible to vote at the time. However I will look into the benefits in both the referendum (the House bill is here) as well as what constitutes the benefits of a legal marriage before I go any further in this thread.

_________________