Senate passes repeal of DADT with 65 votes

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You have created a world where it is literally impossible for you to be wrong. Any homosexual Christians are reprobate backsliders who aren't real Christians; conversely, anything in Christianity that can be considered true axiomatically validates your claims. You have effectively monopolized metaphysics.

look, I never said I couldn't be wrong, rather I simply allow the bible to be my guide between right and wrong within the realm of the areas it addresses, and I believe same-sex sex is one of the areas it addresses.

and I highly highly doubt if I have ever used the term backslide in any religious context on this forum because it is not a concept that has anything to do with Christianity

[Einzige Mk. II]

look, I never said I couldn't be wrong, rather I simply allow the bible to be my guide between right and wrong within the realm of the areas it addresses, and I believe same-sex sex is one of the areas it addresses.

And yet you presume that your own reading of 'scripture' is privileged at the expense of any other possible interpretations. That's one of the many, many theoretically difficulties of a hardline sola scriptura stance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The meaning is the same.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

look, I never said I couldn't be wrong, rather I simply allow the bible to be my guide between right and wrong within the realm of the areas it addresses, and I believe same-sex sex is one of the areas it addresses.

And yet you presume that your own reading of 'scripture' is privileged at the expense of any other possible interpretations. That's one of the many, many theoretically difficulties of a hardline sola scriptura stance.

What part of my interpretation is being questioned here?  Are you questioning if marriage was defined as the only proper context for sex?  Are you questioning whether marriage was defined as heterosexual?  Are you questioning whether every instance where the bible mentions same-sex sex is cast in an extremely negative light?  Are you questioning whether the New Testament condemns both the lust and act of same-sex sex?

Because the ONLY arguments I have seen in opposition attempt to introduce a context that is not presented (“they didn’t really desire to have sex with Lot’s visitors, they simply were trying to establish dominance”, “this was just the opinion of Moses who didn’t have any concept of a loving homosexual relationship”, “it only was a law for the Levites and not the whole of Israel”, “Paul is only forbidding homosexual sex in the context of pagan worship”)…and EACH AND EVERY ONE of those arguments falls to address the clear and undeniable fact that every one of these passages is addressing the desire to have same-sex sex, because when the desire for same-sex sex is the topic, it doesn’t matter what setting you wrapper around it, because when you’re discussing the desire you’re striking at the heart of the matter

Example:  Andrew totally stopped discussing Romans ch1 when I pointed out the undeniable facts that it explicitly referred to those who 1) had homosexual desires and engaged in consensual homosexual sex, and 2) had knowledge of the scriptural decrees that condemn the acts in which they were engaged.  And he stopped discussing it at that point because there is no context one can contemplate that can trump the obvious fact it was explicitly addressing homosexual desire leading to consensual homosexual sex among those who have knowledge of the word.  And once those facts were pointed out, no one has offerred an alternative "interpretation".



---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The meaning is the same.

I lost the plot here - What exactly are you comparing and equating to concept of being backslidden?

[afleitch]

Example:  Andrew totally stopped discussing Romans ch1 

I stopped discussing it when I ceased to hold any faith at all.

[memphis]

Could a mod please move this thread over to the religion board? The endless back and forth on whether or not jm's holy book approves of teh gays or slavery or human sacrifice has no bearing on US general discussion and is rather tiring to those of us who don't care.

[Storebought]

Jmfcst (sp?) is making arguments that can easily be refuted (any commentary against Augustine should do -- Google is one's friend), but not by anyone posting on the Atlas Forum. In fact, it's the responses to him that make me cringe the most.

And I agree that it should be moved to the philosophy thread.

[bullmoose88]

Jmfcst (sp?) is making arguments that can easily be refuted (any commentary against Augustine should do -- Google is one's friend), but not by anyone posting on the Atlas Forum. In fact, it's the responses to him that make me cringe the most.

Well, if you have the magic bullet...then fire away.

[Storebought]

Jmfcst (sp?) is making arguments that can easily be refuted (any commentary against Augustine should do -- Google is one's friend), but not by anyone posting on the Atlas Forum. In fact, it's the responses to him that make me cringe the most.

Well, if you have the magic bullet...then fire away.

Jmfcst's argument (and it is one ... that is what the previous commentators neglect) is based on Augustine's concept of the natural law. Every theological argument against it can be found trolling through philosophy department web sites. Then, relate jmfcst's points as an illustration of the refuted Natural Law. Anything else jmfcst says (Bible quotes and whatnot) is an appeal to authority, which we all know is fallacious.

I am unfortunately a proper subset of anyone posting on the Atlas Forum. Gully and Soulty could do this, but I, and no one else so far, can.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice comment Bushie.  Engaging in candid self reflection about yourself is a very good habit to try to cultivate. And it's tough - yes it is - to do that.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Could a mod please move this thread over to the religion board? The endless back and forth on whether or not jm's holy book approves of teh gays or slavery or human sacrifice has no bearing on US general discussion and is rather tiring to those of us who don't care.

Unfortunately, it has very much bearing. It shouldn't, but it does.