May 3, 2012 Tim1584 commented on Testaments Old & New.
Thanks Kim. I appreciate that. :) However everyone on your side thinks that, how should I put it... the Bible is full of bullshit because it didn't spend every page between Genesis and Revelation speaking out against slavery. (hyperbole, I know - but used to make a point) The Bible wasn't written as a guidebook for how the world should be. It was written to guide us on how to live our lives in a fallen world that was full of sin and horrible things such as slavery. It wasn't intended to tell governments how to operate or businesses how to employ people but to speak to individuals. I would think that someone who claims to have actually studied the Bible, as Dan Savage claims, would be able to comprehend a point as salient as that. And yes, if the hypocrites in the South in the 17th, 18th and 19th century had actually read the Bible and understood it on a deeper level than they would have realized it too and come to the conclusion that those crazy Bible thumpers in the North who were risking their lives to free runaway slaves came to. Slavery is wrong. And if many of the people that call themselves Christian today would read it and understand it they too would realize that while the Bible does say the act of homosexuality is a sin we are all sinners and need to worry more about ourselves than condemning others. But now I suppose I'm a moron because I stated that the Bible claims homosexuality is a sin and I like shrimp and crab...
More...
May 3, 2012 Tim1584 commented on Testaments Old & New.
It's interesting how many posts discuss slavery two thousand years ago with the tone that they are experts on the subject. Regardless, the concept that the Bible does not ever specifically call slavery bad means that it must accept it as being legitimate. Fair enough. How many posts here have spoken up against the kidnapping of young girls and boys in Asia who are sold as sex slaves today not two thousand years ago? How many people in this thread have even read about the slavery that is going on today and written a letter to the editor, posted on facebook or commented on the situation anywhere online or in public? Are you all then in favor of the sex slave trade that is going on now? How many of you have put bumber stickers on your car next to the rainbow flags and the Tibet stickers to speak out about the current sex slave trade? Anyone... anyone? Now then, would I be justified to assume that you all support this current attrocity? No, I wouldn't. However there are multiple Christian organizations with committed Christians out there that are risking their lives to stop this horrid attrocity. And they're not doing it because they hate gays but because they love Jesus. What are you doing? Whining about why you can't get married to your life partner. Nice...
More...
May 3, 2012 Tim1584 commented on Testaments Old & New.
154 - Mr. Horton, you asked, "Do you vote for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage? Or do you support the rights of GLBT people?" I think a key to this argument is how do you define "rights"? Mirriam Webster defines it as "legally or morally exactable". Legally exactable in a representative republic such as the U.S. simply depends on the will of the people. If we look at it as "morally exactable" then is it moral? And then what defines moral and immoral? If you say that I am not for LGBT "rights" by allowing gay marriage then you are denying my the ability to define what I view as moral and immoral. But in America we are free to decide for ourselves what is moral and what is immoral are we not? What I find interesting among liberal arguments is how they can tell everybody to stay out of their lives but are constantly demanding to delve into what their opponents have decided is moral or immoral. Is not the creation of a system of morality a deeply personal held viewpoint? But the gay community that claims to be so open-minded and loving cannot comprehend that a thinking, intelligent person may actually follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and make decisions of morality on that basis. That seems very close-minded and bigoted to me. But marriage is not a "right". I have the right to fall in love but I don't have the right to marry the person I fall in love with. Marriage requires the consent of two people and therefore can not be by definition an individual right. If the person I love does not love me back are they denying me my "right" to marry them? Of course not. I have the right to speak my mind. I have the right to believe whatever it is I want to believe. I do not have the "right" to get married.

As far as marriage is concerned I struggle to understand why the gay community would want to be married? Do you want to be subjected to the marriage penalty in the tax code? I've known plenty of heterosexuals who made a mess of their lives because they entered into a legal contract of marriage and regret doing so. I've had this discussion with my sister, who disagrees with me, multiple times and she's made arguments such as, "Gay people cannot visit their partners in hospitals or make medical decisions for them the way that a married couple can." I'm not a lawyer but I would imagine that there are legal recourses around that such as a simple POA with defined limits. Regardless the argument is not with the legal definition of marriage but with hospital policies. Introduce a law forcing hospitals to give gay partners the same powers that married couples have and I'll be all for it. Changing the definition of a societally accepted institution that's been around for thousands of years is a slippery slope. Furthermore do you deny Mormons or Muslims the "right" to marry as many women as they want or do you see a potential problem with that? What about children? Do you deny them the "right" to get married? Should we have 6 years old pledging to love and honor till death do us part? Do you deny a 30 year old man the "right" to marry a 10 year old girl or boy? What if my neighbor demands the "right" to marry his dog? In the end I would imagine that you would place limits on who has the "right" to marry and I would not consider you a hypocrite for doing so even if your own argument and statements would.

Finally, it is not the Christian Conservatives that are "passing laws". The law defining marriage has been in place since the founding of this country and it is those on the left that are passing legislation to change that, not my side. You stated, "While it would sure be nice for you to stop passing judgment on whom they choose to love, the real battle is for you to stop passing laws that interfere with their health and safety." I do not pass judgement on who you can love. You are free to love whomever you want. I am curious to find out why you feel the need for a legal document in order to love someone though? You even said previously in your post that you don't need my blessing so I'm conflicted, do you need it or not? Furthermore the whole "don't judge me" argument is ridiculous. If by saying I disagree with you means that I am judging you then we need to have a discussion on rhetoric and not gay marriage. And if you still feel that way then don't judge me for excercising the right to believe what I want to believe. Neither is the law "interfering with [your] health and safety". If marriage is a requirement for health and safety there are a lot of sick and unsafe single people out there.
More...
May 1, 2012 Tim1584 commented on Testaments Old & New.
Wow ajphoto... For a second there you had me believing that Jesus said that. I guess it was your statement "Jesus says" that threw me off. What Luke 19:27 actually is is a verse at the end of a parable, a story told to teach a lesson. In the parable a young noble man says, "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." It was in the context of a story and was a statement made by a character in that story, a comment that would be believable coming from a king or a noble. Many kings and rulers throughout history have called for the death of their enemies. Jesus on the other hand commanded his followers in this way, "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" Matthew 5:44. That actually is a quote from Jesus. What you stated is no more a quote of Jesus than claiming that William Shakespeare professed his love for a man named Romeo. It was Juliet, a character in a play who professed her love, not the person telling the story.
May 1, 2012 Tim1584 commented on Testaments Old & New.
@Daniel_NY - I agree wholeheartedly with your comment that if we accept the Bible's condemnation of the act of homosexuality then we must also accept it's condemnation of the many sins that we have committed in our lives. Many Christians do just that. We accept that we are sinners. We acknowledge that our sin seperates us from the love of God. We also accept the path to salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that God offers. You go on to state that if we accept the Bible is the inspired word of God we are either blasphemers or lunatics. That sounds much like the accusations the Sanhedrin made against Jesus and many modern scholars have argued that Jesus' words and actions can result in only two options, either he was the Son of God or he was a lunatic. Which one do you believe is true, lunatic or God? As far as the act of blasphemy it applies to speaking sacriligously about God. Stating that God has spoken to me is not in and of itself an act of blasphemy. If I say that God spoke to me and told me that the only way to salvation is to be a good person and do good things all my life, that would be an act of blasphemy. We have all sinned but it is only through the grace and mercy of God that we can be saved. To believe that there is a living God and that he can speak to us through the written word is not an act of lunacy but rather an act of faith. Much in the same way that a handful of high school students quietly stood up and walked out in the middle of a speech that they believed to be offensive. It was faith that caused them to act against human nature and open themselves up to the derision of their fellow students and the speaker. They did not disrupt the speech or shout at the speaker whom they disagreed with. They protested in a peaceful and non-verbal way and that took faith and courage.
More...
May 1, 2012 Tim1584 joined My Stranger Face
May 1, 2012 Tim1584 joined My Stranger Face