I hate this argument.
I believe in G-d. I accept that some people do not. I generally trust these people to be guided by their consciences and their capacity for empathy.
How do you tell when he is being one or the other? What evidence do you have that Paul really spoke for God?
The following is from the NT so it counts right?
“19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.” James chapter 2
Or do you have another excuse? If so, what is it this time?
Why would sex between consenting adults be morally reprehensible? Just cause the Bible says so? You have already described lots of reasons why we should not trust the Bible on other things, so why on this?
It’s your religion and your reasoning. I agree it’s absurd.
I don’t have a problem with porn at all. As a libertarian I think prostitution should be legal. I haven’t given much thought to beastiality but if the animal isn’t harmed I don’t have any particular problem with it. Probably most animals would prefer it to being killed and eaten. Still that’s a tough one, so I’d be open to hear other reason based arguments. Certainly the perpetrator does not deserve to be put to death like the Bible says.
You didn’t answer if you thought beastiality was still a sin or not since Jesus freed you from the law and OT laws in your opinion are no longer applicable. Is it still morally reprehensible? Can a person who openly engages in beastiality be ordained a Presbyterian minister?
I forgot to answer this. I like call things good if they increase the well being of conscious creatures, bad if they decrease it. FYI, I borrowed that from Sam Harris.
Shouldn’t God, if he exists, be able to clarify this issue unambiguously?
And he exists, but doesn’t care, why should we?
That’s nonsense. The majority of “large-scale cultural phenomenon” don’t make so many claims that are so logically inconsistent and contradictory to both physical law and known facts.* Football or baseball stadiums for example don’t sell tickets to watch empty fields and insist that there’s really a pair of teams there that no one but the faithful can see.
*And those that do tend to be shut down and the people behind it arrested for fraud - they weren’t smart enough to couch their fraud in religious terms.
[quote=“Kable, post:182, topic:660225”]
How do you tell when he is being one or the other? What evidence do you have that Paul really spoke for God? [/UNQUOTE]
The first question is too big to be discussed briefly. The existence of Christianity and the church is evidence for the second.
[QUOTE]
The following is from the NT so it counts right?
“19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.” James chapter 2
Or do you have another excuse? If so, what is it this time?
[/QUOTE/
No excuse. This is an argument within Christianity that dates back to the 1st Century, and is still undecided. It is certain, however, that James and Paul are in disagreement on what faith is.
I was imprecise. Sex between consenting adults is not morally reprehensible, per se, IMHO. Exploiting sex is because it treats women and men as objects to be used for financial gain.
Last question first: no, because it’s illegal, and avowedly unrepentant criminals aren’t ordained by the Presbyterian church. Given the fact that sex with animals is a generator of STD’s, I’m certain it’s a bad idea.
The word “sin” means error or mistake, so, yes, bestiality would qualify as a sin, and, yes, it’s morally reprehensible.
And how does exploiting pornstars for money increase their well being?
Do try.
OK, by that you must mean, “none whatsoever”, or “about the same amount of evidence that Mohammad was God’s only prophet?”
You seem pretty certain that Paul was right and James wrong. It must be rough for you Christians trying to follow such conflicting instructions.
So as a Christian you think fornication is just fine. You can be an open fornicator and still be ordained a minister.
Raping children does not seem to stop people from being ordained. Why different from animals? But just suppose for instance that it weren’t illegal, would you still think it’s morally reprehensible? I just looked it up and it’s only illegal in 37 states. Suppose you are in one of the 13 others.
You mean like sex in general? I imagine in both cases you could practice safe sex.
Are you basing that on the Bible? As a Christian, how does that differ from a man laying with a man as if he were a woman?
When you say “exploiting” do you really mean paying? That’s easy, the porn star gets money and they can use that money to purchase food, clothing, shelter and various luxuries. That money increases their well being.
I just looked it up and it seems homosexuality used to be illegal under anti-sodomy laws, the same that used to be used against bestiality. Not sure if you have any comments on that but it seems to me that the Presbyterian church is more a follower rather than a leader when it comes to what’s good and moral. It just seems they are a little confused as to whether they want to follow their God’s law or man’s law.
It is? Have you got a cite for that?
The bible also says that people who work on the sabbath should be put to death. (Exodus 31:15)
So unless the OP has shot up a 7/11 on a sunday, he/she is not a real christian.
PS I find it quite interesting that “Sabbath” passes the SDMB spell check but “sabbath” doesn’t.
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto San Diego, Remove hence to Alaska; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
For an example see my post #118 link to Acts, chapter 15, where Paul argues with some of the original Apostles about the matter and a compromise is arrived at by which the new converts are waived most but NOT absolutely ALL prohibitions and ritual requirements under the Old Law. Like it was mentioned earlier, part of the process of the new teaching transforming from a Jewish Messianist cult into a “Universal” religion. From the beginning the “fulfillment” is subject to interpretation.
Even in the universe of the Gospels, you find rabbis and priests debating with Jesus “What does it mean where the Scripture says X, Y, Z” or the authors saying “This event is the one the Prophet was talking about when he said A, B, C”. Straight out every-word-means-only-exactly-the-plain-text literalism was not even around then – if you were a scribe you had to copy every single word exactly and not add or subtract anything, sure, but then afterward you could argue what it meant.
Funny, funny .. actually all He really said was the word “Portobello” I thought it was in Alaska, turns out that He wants the fleet to move to Hawaii.
Doesn’t that sound better, plus a lot warmer … Portobello, Hawaii
Now back to those poor mis-guided souls who think it’s okay to sin (resist the will of God) and get away with it on judgement day.
Thou shall not judge means good or bad … discerning is learning/judging is trudging
Remind me again why you started this thread…
Seriously, how can you not see the inherent and blatant hypocrisy of what you’re saying?
Well, at least some questions are answered readily:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_health.