Answered Questions Re: Miss California

[BroomJockey]

I never said it was moral then but not moral now. I just don't seek to reinstate it.

Please tell me I've misread that, because it sounds like you're saying slavery, as long as you're really nice to your slaves, is perfectly fine.

[Rubystars]

define:rationalization: the cognitive process of making something seem consistent with or based on reason

With your above argument, you have chosen to rationalize your argument. I have given clear cut examples, I have devoted several hours to trying to show you that your fundamental argument is flawed.

In return, you make excuses, and rationalize away what I show you to allow you to maintain your comfort zone.

This, in turn, allows you to continue to discriminate against an entire class of people on the basis of your opinion being the right one.

I don't think homosexuals are healthy and normal. The desires they have are contrary to normal desires and while I don't blame them for having them, I do think to acknowledge and accept that as normal would also be doing them a disservice.

There's a movement out there now called Mad Pride, based, interestingly enough, on the gay movement's inspiration. They're trying to say that their mental diseases are normal too.

define:sophistry: sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone

You have chosen to state that slavery was moral, but is not today. Therefore the timeless, ineffable word of God has been transmuted from "Go ahead and do slavery" to "Whoa, fuck off. Slavery is bad, mmkay?" However, that's the only place where the timeless, ineffable word of God has been allowed to be transmuted, and mainly because you happen to agree with the change.

I never said it was moral then but not moral now. I just don't seek to reinstate it. How many times in this thread and the other one have I had to start a sentence with "I never said"? It's impossible to debate with people properly if they don't read my posts and keep inserting convenient things in that I never actually said. I believe that's called setting up a strawman.

Your argument is based on shifting your truth around to fit your own desires, and then using sophistry and rationalization to explain away the discrepancies. You won't even admit to yourself that your arguments are completely invalid.

I have many names for people such as yourself. I'm sure you can guess what they are.

Then you have never managed to read the letters from Paul. Try it sometime. The man was a misogynistic bastard whose sole use for women appeared to be as some sort of servant. And that was when he was in a good mood.

A lot of things that I would see as benign you might see as misogynistic.

[Flyndaran]

...
I don't consider it a basic right to marry someone of the same sex.

So marriage isn't a basic right? Fortunately, your kind is becoming a minority. I hope you don't become a bitter old woman crying about how the world has all gone to hell.

[Pedersen]

I don't understand all the rules regarding slavery. I would have to ask someone more knowledgeable than myself about why some of the rules were in place. I remember reading about letting the husband go but keeping the wife and kids but I don't remember at the moment what the reason for it was.

In any case as a Christian I believe that Jesus lived a sin free life, and therefore he never advocated anything immoral.

define:rationalization: the cognitive process of making something seem consistent with or based on reason

With your above argument, you have chosen to rationalize your argument. I have given clear cut examples, I have devoted several hours to trying to show you that your fundamental argument is flawed.

In return, you make excuses, and rationalize away what I show you to allow you to maintain your comfort zone.

This, in turn, allows you to continue to discriminate against an entire class of people on the basis of your opinion being the right one.

I think how slaves are treated is more important than the fact that they were slaves. I don't want to re-institute slavery, in any form, today, so I don't really see the purpose of discussing it anyway. Anything Jesus or Paul said, I don't have a problem with.

define:sophistry: sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone

You have chosen to state that slavery was moral, but is not today. Therefore the timeless, ineffable word of God has been transmuted from "Go ahead and do slavery" to "Whoa, fuck off. Slavery is bad, mmkay?" However, that's the only place where the timeless, ineffable word of God has been allowed to be transmuted, and mainly because you happen to agree with the change.

Your argument is based on shifting your truth around to fit your own desires, and then using sophistry and rationalization to explain away the discrepancies. You won't even admit to yourself that your arguments are completely invalid.

I don't believe that Paul was misogynistic.

Then you have never managed to read the letters from Paul. Try it sometime. The man was a misogynistic bastard whose sole use for women appeared to be as some sort of servant. And that was when he was in a good mood.

[Rubystars]

Okay, having read that, I grant you that it wasn't as bad as slavery as practiced here in the USA during the pre-Civil War era.

That's what I was trying to tell you before. I'm glad you understand that now.

So, let's reduce the argument down to the barest minimums: At a minimum, slavery involves the ownership of a person, and the ability to treat that person as property. Furthermore, reading the verses I have already supplied, it can be seen that said property could be sold, and could be sold individually from the rest of the family. Families could be taken apart by someone who chose to sell one slave, but not the remainder of the slave's family.

These are facts that are not in dispute by any stretch of the imagination. These are items which are immoral under any circumstances. Jesus was okay with these things. Ergo, Jesus condoned immoral behavior.

I don't understand all the rules regarding slavery. I would have to ask someone more knowledgeable than myself about why some of the rules were in place. I remember reading about letting the husband go but keeping the wife and kids but I don't remember at the moment what the reason for it was.

In any case as a Christian I believe that Jesus lived a sin free life, and therefore he never advocated anything immoral.

I think how slaves are treated is more important than the fact that they were slaves. I don't want to re-institute slavery, in any form, today, so I don't really see the purpose of discussing it anyway. Anything Jesus or Paul said, I don't have a problem with.

Ah, now we're going with circumstantial evidence. Without doing any deep research, I can definitively say this: Jesus rebuked and abandoned his family (Matthew 12:47-49), Jesus traveled with a group of men at all times, Jesus explicitly stated that men are holy to God, but women were not mentioned (Luke 2:23), Jesus expressed no interest in carnal pleasures with women at any time that was documented, and when his mother saw him after his Resurrection, he forbade her from touching him (John 20:18), though he allowed Thomas to do so a few days later (John 20:24).

Toss in Paul's writings (an individual who would have been much closer to the source, and would have heard these stories merely second or third hand), and note how Paul has some serious issues with women, stating that men should not touch women (1 Corinthians 7:1-2), and that women should be silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). All of that is just getting warmed up on Paul.

If you're looking to build a case based on circumstantial evidence, I think that I've actually built a case that Jesus himself might have been gay.

I don't think I've ever seen anything more twisted than what you just tried to throw together. I don't even think I'm going to try to argue with you on that one because you're obviously deliberately misreading things in order to raise debate points with me. I believe at some point in this thread we were talking about gay marriage being legalized. Now you're getting into Biblical criticism. I don't believe that Paul was misogynistic.

Quite frankly, I'd think you'd want something more solid than circumstantial evidence as backing for your case, unless you want people to start giving you some mental images that are likely to squick you out.

Nowhere in the entire Bible is homosexuality condoned, but both the Old and New testaments condemn it. Regardless of what Jesus actually said, or didn't say, I think that in itself makes a pretty clear case for the Christian faith opposing homosexual behavior.

Well, I would hope you would have expected a condemnation of slavery. If you didn't, then we might have yet another 100+ post thread brewing.

If you want another debate you might have to wait a while. I'm trying to finish up with this one.

Technically, you are correct. But only by an extremely slim margin. What you did say was to post a link to Paul's epistles to the Corinthians about it when you were point blank asked what Jesus said about it. You're splitting a mighty fine hair there. Will a microscope help you see it better, make the split easier? Because I know that I didn't see it until you explicitly pointed it out to me.

Paul's words are part of the NT, so they are also considered to be Christian Scripture. Therefore they are relevant to demonstrate that the Christian faith would oppose homosexual behavior.

Of course! It makes perfect sense now! "You're not killing your disrespectful children, so stfu about my guy not washing his hands before dinner!" Perfectly reasoned and appropriate response. I understand completely now. Not even sure how I would have missed it before. He went for the over the top response, so as to generate maximum shock value. He didn't really mean what he said. Yep. I absolutely believe that now.

By the way, I'm pondering moving to Nebraska next year. You got any beachfront property I could buy there? I really love the ocean, you know.

Sarcasm again?

The primary difference is that, even in penitentiaries, they are not property. They cannot be bought and sold (well, not legally, anyway. Prison culture has a different opinion). They might well be put to work, but they are not owned by someone else.

And Jesus was condoning the owning of another human being as property. That is a thoroughly immoral act. When he's willing to condone one, who's to say he didn't condone others, and those others weren't written down?

I think treatment of the person has more to do with morality or immorality than the social status of the person.

[Rubystars]

Again, not all Christians are fundamentalists that take the Bible literally. I haven't read or studied enough of Paul to make a solid decision, but I take much of what's in the Bible with many grains of salt.

There are a lot of people who feel the same way these days. It's not something that makes me happy, but it is your choice to believe how you're going to believe. I am a lot more conservative, obviously.

Ironically enough, I don't really fit in too well with other conservative Christians, because they often consider me to be a liberal. People like yourself consider me to be a fundy.

[Pedersen]

Start with this, and if you need more, there's always google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_slave_trade

Okay, having read that, I grant you that it wasn't as bad as slavery as practiced here in the USA during the pre-Civil War era. So, let's reduce the argument down to the barest minimums: At a minimum, slavery involves the ownership of a person, and the ability to treat that person as property. Furthermore, reading the verses I have already supplied, it can be seen that said property could be sold, and could be sold individually from the rest of the family. Families could be taken apart by someone who chose to sell one slave, but not the remainder of the slave's family.

These are facts that are not in dispute by any stretch of the imagination. These are items which are immoral under any circumstances. Jesus was okay with these things. Ergo, Jesus condoned immoral behavior.

I can't say what Jesus would have said about it, but I think I have a better circumstantial case than a pro-gay person would have.

Ah, now we're going with circumstantial evidence. Without doing any deep research, I can definitively say this: Jesus rebuked and abandoned his family (Matthew 12:47-49), Jesus traveled with a group of men at all times, Jesus explicitly stated that men are holy to God, but women were not mentioned (Luke 2:23), Jesus expressed no interest in carnal pleasures with women at any time that was documented, and when his mother saw him after his Resurrection, he forbade her from touching him (John 20:18), though he allowed Thomas to do so a few days later (John 20:24).

Toss in Paul's writings (an individual who would have been much closer to the source, and would have heard these stories merely second or third hand), and note how Paul has some serious issues with women, stating that men should not touch women (1 Corinthians 7:1-2), and that women should be silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). All of that is just getting warmed up on Paul.

If you're looking to build a case based on circumstantial evidence, I think that I've actually built a case that Jesus himself might have been gay.

Quite frankly, I'd think you'd want something more solid than circumstantial evidence as backing for your case, unless you want people to start giving you some mental images that are likely to squick you out.

What did he say that was contrary to what I would have wanted him to say?

Well, I would hope you would have expected a condemnation of slavery. If you didn't, then we might have yet another 100+ post thread brewing.

If something's not there, it's not there. Never did I say I knew exactly what was said if we don't have documentation of it.

Technically, you are correct. But only by an extremely slim margin. What you did say was to post a link to Paul's epistles to the Corinthians about it when you were point blank asked what Jesus said about it. You're splitting a mighty fine hair there. Will a microscope help you see it better, make the split easier? Because I know that I didn't see it until you explicitly pointed it out to me.

Are you being sarcastic this time? Do you really think that Jesus is demanding the deaths of children? He was being given a hard time by religious Pharisees for what they saw as violating the laws of Moses by not washing his hands. He used what you posted to point out their hypocrisy. Basically he's saying "you don't follow this, so don't give me a hard time about this, hypocrites." Then he went on to explain why washing his hands wasn't necessary. He never told them to actually start killing children.

Of course! It makes perfect sense now! "You're not killing your disrespectful children, so stfu about my guy not washing his hands before dinner!" Perfectly reasoned and appropriate response. I understand completely now. Not even sure how I would have missed it before. He went for the over the top response, so as to generate maximum shock value. He didn't really mean what he said. Yep. I absolutely believe that now.

By the way, I'm pondering moving to Nebraska next year. You got any beachfront property I could buy there? I really love the ocean, you know.

Servitude in various forms has been around for all of human history. The main problem I see is with abusive treatment of people rather than people being a servile position. As I mentioned before, we put people in penitentiaries to hard labor and they're not allowed to leave. By technical definition, they would be slaves, because they're not free workers. I don't think it's immoral to put people into penitentiaries.

The primary difference is that, even in penitentiaries, they are not property. They cannot be bought and sold (well, not legally, anyway. Prison culture has a different opinion). They might well be put to work, but they are not owned by someone else.

And Jesus was condoning the owning of another human being as property. That is a thoroughly immoral act. When he's willing to condone one, who's to say he didn't condone others, and those others weren't written down?

[AdminAssistant]

Again, not all Christians are fundamentalists that take the Bible literally. I haven't read or studied enough of Paul to make a solid decision, but I take much of what's in the Bible with many grains of salt.

[Rubystars]

Woah there.... 'standard definition' seems to have a different meaning for you than for the rest of the English speaking world.

Almost nobody in America or Europe before the last several decades would have thought of two men if you brought up the topic of marriage. The image that would have come to mind would have been a man and a woman.

I've just given you a link to a stack of different definitions (and, granted, some are talking about bands or songs...), so I can't really accept that it's 'the gays' who are fighting to change the 'standard definition', but the 'conservatives'. (of course, 'conservative' is a rather amusing and ironic term... I knew someone who was following a druid path, in a family of Catholics and Uniting Church members (and, I think, one of the Eastern Religions)... yes - the druid is, technically, the 'conservative' in the family ).

Good for him

Anyway, back to topic.... just because you can point to a few hundred years doesn't mean you can claim rights to a certain term (as has been pointed out). The word 'marriage' has meant different things to different cultures... if you want to have your own religious definition for the word - fine! But, please, don't try and enforce that on the government... and that's what the rest of us are arguing about.

(sorry about the 'Catholic' bit... I was still thinking of another post where I used it as an example.. I wasn't actually trying to label you).

So you acknowledge that marriage has been basically between men and women for at least hundreds of years in Western culture, but you think conservatives are the ones trying to change the definition.

(emphasis mine).

Yes, yes I do - within a certain definition. Is it everyone's right to be able to marry? If so, why? And, given that 'rights' are actually artificially given by society, who or what is giving that right? So, let me ask you... who do you think grants such 'rights'? Who or what should be granting those rights, and what considerations should be taken into account when deciding them? (not much different to the gun control debate, actually!)

I think that everyone has certain rights by virtue of simply being human, regardless of what the greater society around them believes. Babies for example have the right not to be abused even if society believes in that. Of course, without society's consensus, those rights won't mean anything in practical terms.

I don't believe that the right to marry someone of the same sex is something that someone has as their natural rights, and I don't believe society should give that right either.

For me, I see: A - 2 people (humans, as this case may happen to be), B - some words in the presence of a witness, and C - some legal documentation. Marriage is a social construct, so to an extent, it's quite irrelevant. A car (as you've exampled in the past) can't sign the legal document, thus, it can't get married - fair enough! You'd be hard pressed to get many things other than humans to get married (though, I'm sure some out there would try). And then, there's the other bits of the ceremony... that's why I don't see it as any different, any non-equal, any non-equivalent. It's the signatures and names on the documents than are important from a legal standpoint.

You could train an ape to make a mark on a paper. Would that be a valid marriage? Not trying to dehumanize gays, just saying that there are those other than human that could potentially sign a document. A robot could also potentially leave a signature. Would either of those marriages be valid in your opinion?

Now - just before Ped jumps on, it'd be worth your time (and ours) to see how you explain Free Will in the face of predestination.... it might take the debate into interesting directions...

I already said all I really want to say about it. That's a debate that goes nowhere.

Ok - why? No, really... it's the biggest and most major part of your argument against gay marriage, so why? Yes, we all expect citations. I'd like to think that where there is some controversial topic or choice to make, a standard Christian would ask themselves "What would Jesus do?", and then do that. This is no different - so... "What would Jesus do?", and what evidence would make you think that?? (As you've seen, quoting Paul isn't likely to get you far with some members of this board)

I've never heard anything more ridiculous than expecting a Christian to reject the writings of Paul. Paul's writings have been canonized, and they are part of the Christian Bible. I'm a Christian and therefore I believe what Paul wrote about homosexuality. The whole attempt to divide Paul and Jesus seems silly to me because obviously Christians believe Paul was inspired.

[Rubystars]

There are if you eat pork, or wear cloth made from more than one sort of fabric.

My problem is that you're labelling yourself as a member of one faith, yet also saying you don't go to church much and don't really read the bible that much. Despite that, you feel that you can say that because of your faith you believe that a distinct group of people who differ only in sexuality should not have tha same abilities to commit to a relationship that you do. That's based on your faith.

However, despite claiming that your faith says you shouldn't accept homosexuality, you say that you don't really know the rest of the restrictions that well (if I remember your posts right). You're effectively using just one part of the biblical texts and none of the rest.

As per the other thread, I'm of the opinion that I appreciate people who follow all the tenets of their faith, or who think hard about which bits to select. I can't see you as having done either, save for enough to attempt to justify dismissing something you don't like.

Rapscallion

I already answered this question earlier in this thread. I already explained the New Testament teaching that those laws about pork, etc. do not apply to Gentile Christians.

[Rubystars]

Absolutely not! It is a part of WHAT they are, not who they are. I wouldn't care if tomorrow I woke up female. It wouldn't change WHO I am at all.

Try making this case to the transsexuals who are agonized over being born the "wrong" gender.

Marriage is considered a civil right according to the civil rights ruling involving interracial marriage a few decades ago.
You really don't consider marriage that important? You woulnd't have any problem with me saying that you don't have the right to marry who you want to?

I don't consider it a basic right to marry someone of the same sex.

[Rapscallion]

Are there Bible verses that oppose my views?

There are if you eat pork, or wear cloth made from more than one sort of fabric.

My problem is that you're labelling yourself as a member of one faith, yet also saying you don't go to church much and don't really read the bible that much. Despite that, you feel that you can say that because of your faith you believe that a distinct group of people who differ only in sexuality should not have tha same abilities to commit to a relationship that you do. That's based on your faith.

However, despite claiming that your faith says you shouldn't accept homosexuality, you say that you don't really know the rest of the restrictions that well (if I remember your posts right). You're effectively using just one part of the biblical texts and none of the rest.

As per the other thread, I'm of the opinion that I appreciate people who follow all the tenets of their faith, or who think hard about which bits to select. I can't see you as having done either, save for enough to attempt to justify dismissing something you don't like.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

In my opinion it's gays who are fighting to change the standard definition of marriage.

Woah there.... 'standard definition' seems to have a different meaning for you than for the rest of the English speaking world. I've just given you a link to a stack of different definitions (and, granted, some are talking about bands or songs...), so I can't really accept that it's 'the gays' who are fighting to change the 'standard definition', but the 'conservatives'. (of course, 'conservative' is a rather amusing and ironic term... I knew someone who was following a druid path, in a family of Catholics and Uniting Church members (and, I think, one of the Eastern Religions)... yes - the druid is, technically, the 'conservative' in the family ). Anyway, back to topic.... just because you can point to a few hundred years doesn't mean you can claim rights to a certain term (as has been pointed out). The word 'marriage' has meant different things to different cultures... if you want to have your own religious definition for the word - fine! But, please, don't try and enforce that on the government... and that's what the rest of us are arguing about.

(sorry about the 'Catholic' bit... I was still thinking of another post where I used it as an example.. I wasn't actually trying to label you).

<snip>a basic right

(emphasis mine).

Yes, yes I do - within a certain definition. Is it everyone's right to be able to marry? If so, why? And, given that 'rights' are actually artificially given by society, who or what is giving that right? So, let me ask you... who do you think grants such 'rights'? Who or what should be granting those rights, and what considerations should be taken into account when deciding them? (not much different to the gun control debate, actually!)

<snip>not equivalent, not equal,

For me, I see: A - 2 people (humans, as this case may happen to be), B - some words in the presence of a witness, and C - some legal documentation. Marriage is a social construct, so to an extent, it's quite irrelevant. A car (as you've exampled in the past) can't sign the legal document, thus, it can't get married - fair enough! You'd be hard pressed to get many things other than humans to get married (though, I'm sure some out there would try). And then, there's the other bits of the ceremony... that's why I don't see it as any different, any non-equal, any non-equivalent. It's the signatures and names on the documents than are important from a legal standpoint.


Now - just before Ped jumps on, it'd be worth your time (and ours) to see how you explain Free Will in the face of predestination.... it might take the debate into interesting directions...

I can't say what Jesus would have said about it, but I think I have a better circumstantial case than a pro-gay person would have.

Ok - why? No, really... it's the biggest and most major part of your argument against gay marriage, so why? Yes, we all expect citations. I'd like to think that where there is some controversial topic or choice to make, a standard Christian would ask themselves "What would Jesus do?", and then do that. This is no different - so... "What would Jesus do?", and what evidence would make you think that?? (As you've seen, quoting Paul isn't likely to get you far with some members of this board)

[Flyndaran]

Someone's sex is an important part of who they are..

Absolutely not! It is a part of WHAT they are, not who they are. I wouldn't care if tomorrow I woke up female. It wouldn't change WHO I am at all.

The differnce here is that you consider it a basic right to marry anyone of their choosing regardless of the sex of the other person, and I don't.

Marriage is considered a civil right according to the civil rights ruling involving interracial marriage a few decades ago.
You really don't consider marriage that important? You woulnd't have any problem with me saying that you don't have the right to marry who you want to?

[Rubystars]

I was just thinking, we'll give you marriage, if you give us pagans back our holidays.

I like the pretty trees though