Oh, Mike...

Be that as it may, homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament as it is in the Old Testament. If a person chooses to be a practicing homosexual then they are transgressing God's law and thus bear responsibility for the consequenses of their choices.

I've read the gospels. Jesus never mentions homosexuality.

TerryRC wrote:Be that as it may, homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament as it is in the Old Testament. If a person chooses to be a practicing homosexual then they are transgressing God's law and thus bear responsibility for the consequenses of their choices.

I've read the gospels. Jesus never mentions homosexuality.

You can't pick and choose what you want. Homosexuality is condemned in Romans one.

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:I'm not sure what you're getting at Mike but it seems to me that you want to condemn homosexuality based on the laws of Israel but not allow slavery based on the laws of Ontario. This begs the question, either you (and by you I mean the religious right) live under Old Testament law or you don't. So which is it?

I can't speak for anyone else here, but the New Covenent, ie. the New Testament is the law the is valid now. The Old Testament was replaced by the New Testament at Christ's death on the Cross. Be that as it may, homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament as it is in the Old Testament. If a person chooses to be a practicing homosexual then they are transgressing God's law and thus bear responsibility for the consequenses of their choices.

As is one who doesn't obey Christ commandant to Love thy neighbor as they love themselves. So who gets into heaven, a homosexual that obeys that as well as every other biblical law or the straight person who claims Jesus but who's works say otherwise?

First, sometimes love means telling a person the truth. Love is not a warm fuzzy feeling. Love, true love, is caring enough to to seek the best for another, which might mean saying things they don't want to hear or walking away fromt hem if their behavior is something you cannot be involved with.

Some years ago, a family member got in trouble. I told them, I would stand with them, but I would not help them get out of trouble. I told them, they got themselve in the mess and they would have to get themselves out. I also informed them that their behavior was unaceptable to me or my wife and that I would not tolerate it. They didn't like it, but they did straightened themselves up and have never been in trouble since. Did I hate them, no I didn't. I loved them, not in a fuzzy warm way, but in a away pointing out their error and holding them responsible.

As far as your question as to who gets into heave. The anwer is found in Matthew 7 and John 14:15. It is those that keep his commandments. Those who are obediently faithful as is described in hebrew Chapter 11 and James 2 the last part of the chapter.

"For it is by grace that you have been saved, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast."

As far as the whole gay thing goes, people choose whether or not to have sex, making gay activity a choice just as straight activity is.

Ziggy,

You suggest that peopel should have standards provided they do not put them on others. Are you not therefore putting your standard (of not putting standards on others) on ME?

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

You suggest that peopel should have standards provided they do not put them on others. Are you not therefore putting your standard (of not putting standards on others) on ME?

No. You can adopt the standards of others as your own if you want to, Mike.

You usually do better than this kind of double-talk, Mike.

No, Ziggy, this is not double talk.

The first question is whether universal standards exist, independent of our own preferences. I suggest the answer is yes.

My own standards may "miss the mark" or not, but the existence of universal standards of right and wrong do not hinge on my rhetorical ability. I may consider gay sex wrong, but ultimately I am either right or wrong that it is a universal wrong. Saying that I cannot impose my standards upon others is effectively imposing your standard upon me. In many ways the law itself is corporate morality, we say that you cannot murder because we have determined it either "wrong" or "harmful to society."

Why is it that standards cannot be applied upon others? Governments do it all the time.

SheikBen wrote:No, Ziggy, this is not double talk.

The first question is whether universal standards exist, independent of our own preferences. I suggest the answer is yes.

My own standards may "miss the mark" or not, but the existence of universal standards of right and wrong do not hinge on my rhetorical ability. I may consider gay sex wrong, but ultimately I am either right or wrong that it is a universal wrong. Saying that I cannot impose my standards upon others is effectively imposing your standard upon me.

No. It is saying that ONLY you can impose standards upon yourself- and only me upon myself.

In many ways the law itself is corporate morality, we say that you cannot murder because we have determined it either "wrong" or "harmful to society."

Yes, we have. And there is a compelling public purpose / compelling public interest to that law- to keep us from killing each other off with impunity. And the Courts have ruled that governments can enact and enforce laws that primarily serve a demonstratable public interest- that those laws are constitutional.

Why is it that standards cannot be applied upon others? Governments do it all the time.

In the USA, there is that little thing called the Constitution. It is ONLY the government that can impose standards other than our own upon us. And, when challenged in the Courts, the government has to demonstrate that the laws it enacts and enforces serve some compelling public interest not prohibited by the Constitution.

In the matter of sexual practices, the Courts have determined that sexual acts between or among consenting adults, not matter how repugnant of perverted some of us might feel them to be, are almost always constitutionally exempt from government prohibition because no compelling public interest is served in prohibiting and exerting punishment for performing those acts.

ziggy wrote:
No. It is saying that ONLY you can impose standards upon yourself- and only me upon myself.

Then the standard is, there is no standard. Is that what you are saying?

Thanks, Cato, that's what I was laboring to get out!

Recall, Ziggy, that I do not care to regulate gay sex under the law, but rather believe that God forbids it. I'm entirely happy to leave the human law out of it, but I reserve the right to believe that God can (and has) set moral standards that transcend man's preferences, even woman's.

SheikBen wrote:Thanks, Cato, that's what I was laboring to get out!

Recall, Ziggy, that I do not care to regulate gay sex under the law, but rather believe that God forbids it. I'm entirely happy to leave the human law out of it, but I reserve the right to believe that God can (and has) set moral standards that transcend man's preferences, even woman's.

That is absolutely correct. However, since Ziggy like so many don't want to be held to that standard of behavior, yet they want to at least keep thier foot in the door of belief. Ask Ziggy, he'll tell you he is a Christain. So what they do is attempt to discount the standard or to weasal word themselves out of the requirement of compliance if one truly believes.

What galls me about this type of stance is the dishonesty. If you don't want held to the standard of behavior God sets before mankind, just be honest and state you don't believe in God, and thus his standard isn't applicable.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
No. It is saying that ONLY you can impose standards upon yourself- and only me upon myself.

Then the standard is, there is no standard. Is that what you are saying?

No.

I am saying that we each set our own standards for ourselves. Why is that so troubling to you in a land of constitutionally protected freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of self-pursuit of happiness?

SheikBen wrote:Thanks, Cato, that's what I was laboring to get out!

Recall, Ziggy, that I do not care to regulate gay sex under the law, but rather believe that God forbids it. I'm entirely happy to leave the human law out of it, but I reserve the right to believe that God can (and has) set moral standards that transcend man's preferences, even woman's.

But when we look around the world, we readily see that our different Gods forbid different things. So we are back to each of us setting our own standards- or, if you prefer, each of our Gods setting our standards.

What galls me about this type of stance is the dishonesty. If you don't want held to the standard of behavior God sets before mankind, just be honest and state you don't believe in God, and thus his standard isn't applicable.

It is not dishonest to not want to be held to the standard of YOUR or anyone else's God.

What is dishonest is for you to pretend that we all have the same supernatural God, but that only YOUR version of "God's" standards are the correct "standard" for all of us.

If you don't want held to the standard of behavior God sets before mankind, just be honest and state you don't believe in God, and thus his standard isn't applicable.

You obviously do not believe in my God, so why should I believe in yours?

Ziggy,

God exists beyond our own "visions" of Him. And if somehow there were no god, then you would be right. I contend that indeed there is a God, and it is not ours to define Him. If there is no god, then indeed it is to our own standards (or the gods we create). If, however, there is a God, and I submit to you there is, He is an altogether final authority on moral practice.

Has someone ever got the wrong impression of you, Zig? Did that wrong impression somehow change you or your standards?

ziggy wrote:

If you don't want held to the standard of behavior God sets before mankind, just be honest and state you don't believe in God, and thus his standard isn't applicable.

You obviously do not believe in my God, so why should I believe in yours?

You are welcome to believe whatever you desire. Just be honest about it however.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
No. It is saying that ONLY you can impose standards upon yourself- and only me upon myself.

Then the standard is, there is no standard. Is that what you are saying?

No.

I am saying that we each set our own standards for ourselves. Why is that so troubling to you in a land of constitutionally protected freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of self-pursuit of happiness?

So if we each set our won standards, pray tell me how any standard exists. A standard indicates an absolute that everything is measured to. What you are say is that no standard exists, however your statement is flawed because you statement then becomes the standard.

As far as the rest of your statement, it isn't troubling for me as long as it remains a two way street. However, that is not the case. I have no problem with the government staying out of the marriage business, yet you and Terry support forcing me to rent my property to people I choose not to. I fail to see the equality here.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

If you don't want held to the standard of behavior God sets before mankind, just be honest and state you don't believe in God, and thus his standard isn't applicable.

You obviously do not believe in my God, so why should I believe in yours?

You are welcome to believe whatever you desire. Just be honest about it however.

I have been. I have told you what I think and believe. And that seems to be of great grief to you.

You do not want honesty; you want conformity to your vision of God and to your version of what standards for human conduct ought to be for everyone.

Cato wrote:So if we each set our won standards, pray tell me how any standard exists. A standard indicates an absolute that everything is measured to.

NO! Human standards are not absolute in a free society, and ought not be imposed as absolute.

What you are saying is that no standard exists, however your statement is flawed because you statement then becomes the standard.

Only for those who agree with me. Others can tell me to go to hell and proceed to set their own standards, and that would not diminish the standards I have for myself.

As far as the rest of your statement, it isn't troubling for me as long as it remains a two way street. However, that is not the case. I have no problem with the government staying out of the marriage business, yet you and Terry support forcing me to rent my property to people I choose not to. I fail to see the equality here.

And I fail to see the "equality" in discriminating against people based on their sexual proclivities that do you no harm.

SheikBen wrote:Has someone ever got the wrong impression of you, Zig? Did that wrong impression somehow change you or your standards?

I am not sure what you mean here, Mike. If you mean have I changed my standards and my conduct based on real human experiences- then yes, sure I have. If we believe and live based on all the same things we did 20 years ago, then we have not learned anything in that 20 years.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

God exists beyond our own "visions" of Him. And if somehow there were no god, then you would be right. I contend that indeed there is a God, and it is not ours to define Him.

Well, I would agree that it is not for you and Cato to define God for me nor for anyone else but for yourselves. And if you chose to not define God for yourselves, that is OK with me. But what I see here is your and Cato's apparent attempt to define an absolute God for everyone.

If there is no god, then indeed it is to our own standards (or the gods we create). If, however, there is a God, and I submit to you there is, He is an altogether final authority on moral practice.

Your God for your moral practices, and others their Gods for their own moral practices, yes.

ziggy wrote:
NO! Human standards are not absolute in a free society, and ought not be imposed as absolute.

But Ziggy, you've just stated an absolute.

ziggy wrote: Only for those who agree with me. Others can tell me to go to hell and proceed to set their own standards, and that would not diminish the standards I have for myself.

So what you are saying is that if I don't think murder is wrong, it is alright for me to commit murder.

ziggy wrote: And I fail to see the "equality" in discriminating against people based on their sexual proclivities that do you no harm.

Just as same sex couple have the right to marriage should not I have the right to quiet enjoyment of my property. Or do rights only belong to those you think they should belong?

Ziggy,

God exists independent of our own preferences. We may be closer or further away from who He is, but He doesn't change just because we think differently of him. As such, God is the same whether we're dealing with the personal morality of Cato, Sheik, Ziggy, or George W Bush.