The Truth, the Whole Truth And. . .

[sirs]

LOL..."more clearly"??  So, you're advocating people who hate each other must stay together??

Look, I'm all against divorce myself.  When I took my vows, they were "till death do us part", not "til I get tired of you".  It's a solemn vow.  Those that divorce, "probably" shouldn't have gotten married in the 1st place, but that's just an opinion.  Point being, I'm not BANNNG or even supporting a ban that 2 guys or 2 gals can't get together.  Have at it, enjoy.  I'm not even supporting a "ban" that they can't arrange for a mutual level of rights, both legal & matrimonial, analogus to a married couple

So I think we know where we can shove your "ban" inferrence

And yea, I'd still love the divorced couple, if they were my friends, but hate the divorce

[Plane]

Getting divorced is a sin as well more clearly stated than homosexuality, but I haven't seen you push to ban divorce.

Why not?

It would be nice if we could.

But when Jesus himself was asked this question , he deplored devorce and did not forbid it.

Is it stated even more clearly than Homosexuality indeed?

What is the unclear part?

[_JS]

LOLOL

So, you're advocating people who hate each other must stay together??

I'm not advocating anything. I'm saying that by your logic you should be advocating that divorce be illegal (or some ridiculous compromise that separates divorced people into another group and labels them with some other bizarre moniker).

I have seen it all in this debate. A moral relativist who wishes to impose his concrete religious rules on others, but gets incredibly defensive when others make judgments about his arrival at this ethical law.

On the flipside we have someone who advocates learning about sex from the equine world and refers to his fellow man with tags of Nazi Youth and both compare homosexuals to adulterers and other bizarre sexual deviants, who by the way - can get married!

I've seen logic misused and not used...but I've never seen it beaten and dismantled then thrown together in chaos quite like this.

Truly impressive gentlemen.

[_JS]

And yes...more clearly. Directly from Christ and recorded by one not far removed.

The story of Sodom is from an Old Testament oral tradition passed down for centuries before it was ever in written form. Do you believe every story in the Old Testament to be absolute historical truth - word for word? Even the Jewish tradition does not hold to that belief.

[sirs]

And right on cue, Js, in his more evolved level of Christianity, has deemed sirs walk with God as bigoted, morally relativistic, and completely illogical

But he's not judging me............naaaaaaaaaaa



And you'll note at no time have I EVER referenced the notion that homosexuality be made illegal.  So that bit of intellectual dishonesty, when trying to apply it to divorces, really takes the cake.  But alas, I apparently haven't evolved enough in my Christianity to understand.  I sit in utter shame

[_JS]

Yes, yes you're the victim Sirs. 

I'm stating fact. Your ethical law of "hate the sin, love the sinner" is moral relativism. If it is not, then defend it. This is a board for debate, is it not? Am I going to have to carve out a special place for Sirs' feelings and his "walk with God?"

Please.

I'll try and use less personal language so I won't hurt your feelings.

The "personal walk with God" defense of using the "hate the sin, love the sinner" ethical rule is nothing more than a mask for moral relativism.

For example, one could say that "in my walk with God I learned to loathe poor people for their stupidity and faithlessness." In this example, the individual is simply using his or her "walk with god" to justify his or her own beliefs and/or lifestyle. It doesn't make it right. Nor does it make it wrong for someone else to correct that person.

[sirs]

Yes, yes you're the victim Sirs. 

ahh, now that Js has been called on his being judegemental in someone else's walk with God, he has to throw out the claim of that source of judgement being a victim now.  Nice deflection effort.  Compliments the intellectual dishonesty & name calling earlier, much the nicer   

I think we can stop now, don't you?  My anger level is still under control

[Plane]

And yes...more clearly. Directly from Christ and recorded by one not far removed.

The story of Sodom is from an Old Testament oral tradition passed down for centuries before it was ever in written form. Do you believe every story in the Old Testament to be absolute historical truth - word for word? Even the Jewish tradition does not hold to that belief.

You did not catch that your question was a quote of a Pharisee?
The purpose of the question in the first place was to catch Jesus in an embarrasing answer.

But Jesus did not forbid divorce , he advised that it is not an idea that God likes , but Moses allowed in law because of the hardness of peoples hearts. In those days Divorce was prone to put a woman into pitifull poverty , it was not as easy to survive then as now, but God still very likely disaproves of it about the same.

Sodom and Gamorrah hints that Homosexuality was part of the problem , it is stated more explicitly as a bad idea in Leviticus and in the Epistiles of Paul.

[_JS]

Yes, yes you're the victim Sirs. 

ahh, now that Js has been called on his being judegemental in someone else's walk with God, he has to throw out the claim of that source of judgement being a victim now.  Nice deflection effort.  Compliments the intellectual dishonesty & name calling earlier, much the nicer   

I think we can stop now, don't you?  My anger level is still under control

I'm not angry at all.

I really would like to debate the "hate the sin, love the sinner" point in sincerity and not with the personal garbage attached.

None of this bothers me Sirs. Call me judgmental, deflective...I don't care. I'd like to debate the topics. Sure, I'd like it to be a more academic debate, but that doesn't seem to happen here.

I still see you hiding behind "walk with God" as some sort of defense - it isn't. Anyone could say that. If we can debate the points without all the nitpicking personal crap (and I know I'm as guilty as anyone) then that much the better.

[Plane]

I'll try and use less personal language so I won't hurt your feelings.

Good policy in general.

The "personal walk with God" defense of using the "hate the sin, love the sinner" ethical rule is nothing more than a mask for moral relativism.

Oh?

What was the policy of Jesus himself in this re guard?

Didn't Jesus complain that Johnthe Baptist was criticised for fasting a lot and keeping to himself , while he ,Jesus , took criticism for eating out with ordinary and sinfull people?

Like Zacheus who was a notorious sinner but was host to Jesus in his own home , Jesus loved Zacheus but when criticised for spending time with him he didn't complement Zacheus virtue , he said he was here to heal and like a physician he wasn't here to heal the already well , he was looking for sinners to heal.

[sirs]

Yes, yes you're the victim Sirs.  

ahh, now that Js has been called on his being judegemental in someone else's walk with God, he has to throw out the claim of that source of judgement being a victim now.  Nice deflection effort.  Compliments the intellectual dishonesty & name calling earlier, much the nicer      I think we can stop now, don't you?  My anger level is still under control

I'm not angry at all.

Never said you were, did I now

I really would like to debate the "hate the sin, love the sinner" point in sincerity and not with the personal garbage attached.

Yea, being called a bigot, a victim, and morally relativisic are such endearing terms.  But hey, if you want to love the sin as well Js, by all means, that's between you and your God.  As opposed to you, I'm not going to sit over you in Judgement.

[Plane]

Yes, yes you're the victim Sirs.  

ahh, now that Js has been called on his being judegemental in someone else's walk with God, he has to throw out the claim of that source of judgement being a victim now.  Nice deflection effort.  Compliments the intellectual dishonesty & name calling earlier, much the nicer      I think we can stop now, don't you?  My anger level is still under control

I'm not angry at all.

Never said you were, did I now

I really would like to debate the "hate the sin, love the sinner" point in sincerity and not with the personal garbage attached.

Yea, being called a bigot, a victim, and morally relativisic are such endearing terms.  But hey, if you want to love the sin as well Js, by all means, that's between you and your God.  As opposed to you, I'm not going to sit over you in Judgement.

I think he loves you Sirs , but he can't stand your attitude.

[sirs]

Hard to tell, Plane.  This Christian evolving stuff is apparently much harder than I ever imagined

[hnumpah]

Yea, being called a bigot, a victim, and morally relativisic are such endearing terms.

Getting an idea how others feel being called a liar, illogical, senseless, etc, because they don't agree with you?

It has been quite amusing.

[sirs]

No, not at all.  I'm called names all the time H.  Doesn't both me a hoot.  I'm sorry if it bothers you.  Skin issue apparently

Who called you a liar, BTW?