ninetailschris said:
I'm just going to respond to this because I need to correct you on this. " Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,"
In case you may not be aware Corinthians is in the New Testament and not Old. The rest of the argument in the quote that needs to be corrected is that it's basically bandwagon fallacy. Because Christians think x even though it contradicts y passage in bible, doesn't mean x is ok. If we thought that than killing would be ok because x Christians agree.
Thirdly you say many if not most christian church's agree with same-sex marriage. Do you have source for that?
(merge double post if mod is watching)
|
Oh, man! Now you blew it! Nothing like a mistranslation of Paul's letter. Sorry dude, but you are just plain wrong. Please study your history and Bible before slamming a group of people and trying to destroy the legal recognition of their families.
Let's go and really look at Corinthans, King James Version.
9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
It's only modern translators, such as 'the living Bible' that have turned in into homosexuals because of their personal agenda, they do not understand the context, and plain ol' sloppy work.
The passage was written in a letter that Paul (Saul of Tarsus) wrote to the church at Corinth. The language used was Koine Greek. In Koine Greek, the word literally means "soft." It was generally used to describe clothing worn by the Roman elite of Paul's time. Since the word was used in a list here, there is very little if any context to its usage. Therefore, it's difficult to see how these translators came up with saying homosexual in your version. The word's usage in I Corinthians is ambiguous at best. Some scholars believe that Paul simply meant persons with soft or very limited morals in general. Others believe that he meant persons who were spineless or cowards.
In Greek ethical theory, which was adopted by the Romans, the idea of "softness" was used to refer to men who didn't have control over their desires. It also referred to men who were too eager to avoid pain.
So coward or 'player' would be a more accurate word in today's language. But nice try. You really have to ask yourself that a man who preached love, being true to oneself, and true to the one you are with, would have some issue with two men who want to be together and make a new family. It goes on all the time, what benefit it is of any government to deny them their civil rights?
Regardless, no relegious book has any effect regarding the government of the United States. When women stopped being property and became full citizens, with the rights to work, own property and have jobs, why should any state deny them the right of marriage because of gender? The answer is they can't. Nor could they deny a man the same right of choice of the person he married because of gender.
I understand this is hard for you to accept. It has been hard for many people to accept inter racial marriage, but they eventually realize they can only effect themselves and their choice of partner and not force their will on others. If you personally don't like gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same gender. You can't force others to do as you personally wish.
As I said, feel free to contact me privately if you wish you discuses this and have questions you would rather not answer in public.
|
Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon! |
|
 |
Tell me a funny joke! |
