It's an ongoing conversation between those who are voting "no," and those who are voting "yes." Those on this thread who are voting "no" hold the position that Prop 8 is hateful and discriminatory propaganda. That's ok; they are fully entitled to this opinion, and their vote. But observe some of the flimsy reasoning they brandish in their arguments against a couple Christians who are supportive of Prop 8:
1) "Your personal beliefs on homosexuality should not be imposed upon the California Constitution."2) "If I remember correctly, there's an important commandment people are forgetting: 'treat others how you would like to be treated.'"3) "How would you feel if you were prohibited to marry the person you love?"4) "I am deeply offended that you would impose your religion on me and my fellow Californians."
Now, several others on the thread responded with sound, opposing arguments that need not be refined. Instead of rummaging through the details of the conversation, I want you to take a deeper look into the silly logic behind some of these statements, made above in the four points. Consider the faults in them:
1) Your personal beliefs on homosexuality should not be imposed upon the California Constitution.
Well, any vote you or I cast is going to be imposing on someone's beliefs, because not everyone agrees....that's why we vote, hello? Now...if my Christian beliefs (which are the foundation for my moral decisions) are not supposed to be incorporated into the voting process, than what is? How is this person who is voting against the proposition deciding her vote? I imagine it's from her personal beliefs. And I don't think her personal beliefs on homosexuality should be imposed upon the California Constitution.
2) If I remember correctly, there is an important commandment people are forgetting: 'treat others how you would like to be treated."
I've heard this pleading of Jesus' command made several times, and while it is a command to be followed, the quoter fails to draw into her conclusion consistent knowledge of the entire council of the Bible. We actually don't need to go very far for you to see what I mean...just finish the verse: "...for this is the Law and the Prophets." -Matt. 7:12
Hmm...So while Christians are commanded to treat others the way we want to be treated, we are still under the command NOT to practice homosexuality, since that was a command given by the Law the Prophets. In fact, if you were to keep reading down that chapter, you find some rather hard-edged truth-claims being made by Jesus Himself:
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." -Matt. 7:13"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." -Matt. 7:15"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." -Matt. 7:19
Someone should probably warn Jesus about the way He's treating people. Just kidding. Jesus is obviously not against the Christian warning, proclaiming, or preaching the truth (in love). And His previous statement about treatment has nothing to do with whether we are to speak out the truth or not. That is why Christians are "imposing their beliefs" on the Constitution. Because the Constitution is made up of people's beliefs, and during the voting process, the secular government is ASKING us to share our beliefs! For Christians, we get our beliefs from the Bible.
{This assertion is also peculiar because the same person who made the first objection (which itself was a double standard) is now using the very Bible she wishes was not being imposed on her, to argue against the Christian voting for Prop 8. But I digress...}
3) How would you feel if you were prohibited to marry the person you love?
These types of questions that are geared towards coercing your emotional response sometimes work well, but in this case, it does not. Why? Because Bible-believing Christians know that what or how we feel doesn't really matter in light of our clear instruction. Because let's be honest, we DO feel bad when we are prohibited from ANY kind of sin. That's why we needed Jesus in the first place, to help us stop sinning against Him.
To answer her question, I would probably feel the same way the cell phone driver feels when the cop prohibits him/her from using their cell phone while driving. I for one, like using my cell phone while driving, and I don't care if some people get in accidents, because I don't. And I'm sick and tired of people imposing their beliefs about cell phones on me, just because someone got in an accident with one.
4) I am deeply offended that you would impose your religion on me and my fellow Californians.
The logic behind this statement is somewhat self-refuting, and collapses upon itself when applied to, say, my position. You see, I (like her) am also deeply offended when others (like her) impose their opinions about me and my religion on me and my fellow Californians. So her statement is nullified by mine. Or the other way around? Ha:) (Silly logic).
...Just kidding, I'm not offended:) I just wanted to prove the point behind a very bad apologetic for Prop 8. And I'm still going to vote against what she is voting for based on my personal beliefs, which came from the Bible which I hold to be true.
Because I'm a Californian. And RockTheVote.com wants me to step up, and claim my voice.
Posts
5 comments:
thanks for this Chris, and the awesome recording from the ministry conference.
by the way...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/page/1
1) Your personal beliefs on homosexuality should not be imposed upon the California Constitution.
Well, any vote you or I cast is going to be imposing on someone's beliefs, because not everyone agrees....that's why we vote, hello? Now...if my Christian beliefs (which are the foundation for my moral decisions) are not supposed to be incorporated into the voting process, than what is? How is this person who is voting against the proposition deciding her vote? I imagine it's from her personal beliefs. And I don't think her personal beliefs on homosexuality should be imposed upon the California Constitution.
^There are a couple of problems with your reasoning. The most obvious here is that a person who decides to vote “no” on prop 8 for whatever reason (call it personal belief for the sake of argument) isn’t imposing anything upon the California Constitution. A “No” vote on prop 8 simply keeps the Constitution exactly the way it is. It doesn’t change anything. Because nothing is being changed, you can’t say that you don’t want their views on homosexuality to be imposed on the California Constitution. They aren’t imposing on it because nothing is being changed. You are holding the two votes to the same standard when only one of them does anything that can be construed as an imposition. Because of this, your argument fails.
Since prop 8 has passed, if another vote were to arise to eliminate that clause from the Constitution, THEN you could say that you don’t want their personal beliefs on homosexuality to be imposed on the California Constitution. That would be a vote to change the Constitution. Now, your objection would be a weak argument since it would hypothetically be repealing an imposition...but at least it would be a valid objection. In the context that you have used above, it is an invalid objection and you should not be holding the two votes to the same standard. To do so in light of this could be considered intentionally deceitful.
However, there is some merit in your argument. The decision to vote one way or another is ultimately up to the voter and any means used to arrive at their voting decision is perfectly within their right as an American citizen. I would consider statement number one to be an attack on your personal beliefs, and the methods you used to arrive at them, not an attack on your right to vote for a change the California Constitution. Whether or not you “should” vote one way or another is simply an opinion which needs to be supported with reasons. Unfortunately, any and all support for that argument is noticeably absent. Without addressing the reasons this person gave you for why you shouldn’t vote “yes,” you are only addressing the conclusion of your opposing argument. I hope that whoever made that argument supported it. If so, those are the arguments that need to be addressed. If not, the opinion shouldn’t be addressed because it requires that you postulate an argument on behalf of your opposition. In this case you assumed the argument being made is that you shouldn’t vote based on personal belief. This may have had absolutely nothing to do with the position that your opposition was taking.
As an example…I am betting that the person who made the argument is correct and that your personal beliefs on homosexuality should not be imposed on the California Constitution. However, I personally don’t know what reasons you used to arrive at your conclusion. Therefore, I can’t really attack your position on it until you propose some kind of support for it. I shouldn’t go around telling you statement number one without refuting your arguments in favor for imposing your personal beliefs on the Constitution. The good news is I can’t refute your reasoning if you don‘t provide support. The only thing you have said that you used to arrive at your opinion is “personal belief.” There is nothing there for me to refute based on that argument alone. The downside is that without the support for your opinion, it remains unjustified so you don’t really have any business (authority) to go around expressing it to others.
2) If I remember correctly, there is an important commandment people are forgetting: 'treat others how you would like to be treated.
"I've heard this pleading of Jesus' command made several times, and while it is a command to be followed, the quoter fails to draw into her conclusion consistent knowledge of the entire council of the Bible. We actually don't need to go very far for you to see what I mean...just finish the verse: "...for this is the Law and the Prophets." -Matt. 7:12Hmm...So while Christians are commanded to treat others the way we want to be treated, we are still under the command NOT to practice homosexuality, since that was a command given by theLawthe Prophets.
^The fact that the bible is not internally consistent is not the fault of the opposing argument. If you disagree with the objection then address it. Do you think that you should treat others the way you want to be treated? If so, then you are attempting to refute this argument by citing another portion of the bible where you are commanded to do the opposite? On top of that you are faulting the person who quoted the single portion of the text for the discrepancy? Are you suggesting that you are no longer instructed to obey the laws of the prophets and thereby implying that you don’t need to treat others as you would like to be treated? Are you implying that you are instructed to obey the laws of the prophets and thereby implying that you must obey ALL the laws of the prophets even if they contradict eachother? The argument being made here is that the bible instructs you to treat others how you would like to be treated and not recognizing gay marriage is counter to this end. If you disagree that you should treat others how you would like to be treated then say so. If you agree, then don’t undermine your own moral guideline by citing text inconsistent with that viewpoint. It does nothing to undermine the legitimacy of your opposing argument. You have done nothing to address it.
3) How would you feel if you were prohibited to marry the person you love?
These types of questions that are geared towards coercing your emotional response sometimes work well, but in this case, it does not. Why? Because Bible-believing Christians know that what or how we feel doesn't really matter in light of our clear instruction.
^Much of faith is derived based on emotional response and feeling. Are you sure you want to undermine the very thing that inspires Christianity in the first place? The potential implication here is that the feeling of God’s existence doesn’t really matter in light of our clear instruction. Our clear instruction could be that he doesn’t exist and that should override our emotional response and feelings that he does. I have a hunch that you may be holding emotional appeal to two different standards. This is something the very title ridicules the opposing view of doing. If so, your argument is reduced to the fallacy of begging the question:
“I know gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed because God has provided me with clear instruction that supersedes my emotional response.”
“I know right from wrong and that God exists because of my emotions (I feel him in me) which supersedes any clear instructions to the contrary.”
^Can you see how your argument would generate this problem? If emotional appeal is on the table for in determining right from wrong as well the belief in God itself, then it is on the table for determining whether or not to recognize homsexual marriage. Simply saying the emotional appeal doesn't work is unsatisfactory and postulating a clear instruction leads to the inevitable pitfall above.
Because let's be honest, we DO feel bad when we are prohibited from ANY kind of sin.
^No we don’t. I don’t feel bad for not killing people. I don’t feel bad for not lying. I don’t feel bad for not cheating. I don’t feel bad for not stealing. I don't feel bad when I am restricted for taking part in those activities. Do you? Do I need to continue with more examples or is this sufficient for your argument to die the death of a thousand qualifications? You bolded the word “do” when we “don’t” and the word “any” when it obviously isn’t. Even if I assume that you do feel bad everytime you are prohibited from any sin and I follow your logic, there is yet another problem...
That's why we needed Jesus in the first place, to help us stop sinning against Him. To answer her question, I would probably feel the same way the cell phone driver feels when the cop prohibits him/her from using their cell phone while driving. I for one, like using my cell phone while driving, and I don't care if some people get in accidents, because I don't. And I'm sick and tired of people imposing their beliefs about cell phones on me, just because someone got in an accident with one.
^Are you suggesting that talking on your cell phone while driving is a sin against God? Are you suggesting that disobeying any and every law of man is a sin against God? Can you provide some scripture that backs that up? After all, if not every law of man is a sin against God, then it is possible that feeling bad about a law we are going to create is justified. We may feel bad about a law because the law isn't morally right. Your cell phone example wouldn't be indicative of every case and therefore, your argument fails any way you look at it.
4. I am deeply offended that you would impose your religion on me and my fellow Californians.
The logic behind this statement is somewhat self-refuting, and collapses upon itself when applied to, say, my position. You see,I (like her) am also deeply offended when others (like her) impose their opinions about me and my religion on me and my fellow Californians. So her statement is nullified by mine. Or the other way around? Ha:) (Silly logic)....Just kidding, I'm not offended:) I just wanted to prove the point behind a very bad apologetic for Prop 8.
Actually it isn’t. Again, a “no” vote doesn’t impose her opinion onto you. You aren’t forced to recognize or not recognize anything based on NOT changing the constitution. However, your vote does impose your opinion onto her. She is justified in being deeply offended. If and when she does the opposite and writes homosexual marriage into the constitution, then you will be justified in holding the opposite view. Until then, you are guilty as charged and should attempt to justify your opinion with something stronger than religious belief. The potential negative ramifications of using religion alone without reasoning to justify your opinion is tyranny of the majority. Luckily, it is something that the writers of the U.S. Constitution set out to protect against.
Also, by your own admittance, you aren't offended. So comparing it to your position doesn't collapse it on itself. Now if she were voting to nullify all Christian marriages via the state Constitution, then very likely you might take offence to that. Since her vote doesn't impose her personal beliefs onto you (it doesn't change the constitution) it is hard to determine why there would be any reason for you or anyone else to get offended over her vote. It is easy to see why a vote of exclusion would upset others. Because of this, there really are two different standards and the argument is NOT self refuting....or even "somewhat" self refuting.
The four arguments you responded to are not my own but I feel the reponses to them you generated above are fairly inadequate and may be guilty of doing the very thing your title describes.
Frumious-
I suppose since I arrived at my opinion based on “personal belief,” I won't be needing to address anything further, right? Since my belief is by its own merit, worthy of being expressed, since I also allow the same freedom to others, than I shall continue to do so to those who listen to me. Of course, if you were talking about being persuasive, than I can see your point about having support for my opinions, which I agree wholeheartedly with. So if the Yes that was passed on 8 ever gets overturned, I hope to revisit this conversation with persuasive reasons. Until then, let's move on...
The fact that the bible is not internally consistent is not the fault of the opposing argument. If you disagree with the objection then address it.
I object to your objection to the consistency of the Biblical texts. And I ask you to prove me wrong, by providing me with clear texts that contradict each other. I'm certain that if you come up with an example, it will be due to a faulty translation of the text or manuscript, or a faulty understanding by the reader. The Bible has stood strongly and without fault against harder questions by more acclaimed scholars and skeptics than you or me, so we shouldn't flatter ourselves too much. It will still be changing lives when you and I are gone.
In reference to my texts canceling each other's argument out, that is false. You are reasoning that one text is obligating me to allow anyone else to marry, since I myself am married. That is not what the texts are saying, and that is where you err. The Scriptures teach against homosexual behavior, making it a sin. Since that would render "gay marriage" paradoxical, it does not follow that the Prophets or the Law were instructing me to approve of homosexual marriage. I would however approve of anyones marriage to one of the opposite sex, which the Law and the Prophets DO condone, and would be a great example of Christian love. You are using conveniently placed proof-texts to dismantle my arguments, instead of considering the entire council of the Bible. I can also take any single verse of the Bible to make it say or support my fancy, however, each text must be measured and weighed by the others. To take verses out of context only leads to confusion and faulty translation.
I have a hunch that you may be holding emotional appeal to two different standards. This is something the very title ridicules the opposing view of doing. If so, your argument is reduced to the fallacy of begging the question:
“I know gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed because God has provided me with clear instruction that supersedes my emotional response.”
If you are asking me if I would rather trust in the commands of Scripture over my own feelings, then yes, I would and do. That God uses and incorporates emotions is not a problem for me, and I don't see why it should be. I would expect emotional response for a God who shows emotion, Himself (love, jealousy, anger, etc). However, my emotions should not dictate my life, especially when in contradiction to inspired instruction. Does that make sense? My emotions can change based on what I had to eat that morning. But the Bible seems to say the same thing it did last week...
(Your response to us wanting to sin) I don’t feel bad for not killing people. I don’t feel bad for not lying. I don’t feel bad for not cheating. I don’t feel bad for not stealing. I don't feel bad when I am restricted for taking part in those activities. Do you? Do I need to continue with more examples or is this sufficient for your argument to die the death of a thousand qualifications?
Yes, please do go on. We're quick to heap on the table the obnoxious sins like killing and stealing, and justify ourselves when we look back on our past and see that we were clear of those things, but the list goes on, does it not? Have you ever sped on the highway, or ran a stopsign? In California, Christians (such as myself) do this all the time (we call it a "california stop" to justify ourselves). Have you ever been selfish in the least, or wished ill for another? I have and do. Have you ever rebelled in your heart against an authority figure, or wanted something for selfish reasons? Have you ever looked at a girl and wondered what she looked like underneath her clothes? Have you ever sworn? Gotten drunk? Ate too much? Slept too much? Not paid tithes?
Even if you have NEVER sinned (which is unlikely Rom. 3:23), the Bible tells us that we are sinners anyway, born into it by our mothers womb as children of wrath and iniquity (Ps 51, 58; Rom 5; 1 Cor 15; Eph 2). Romans 1 tells us that even though we know God exists because He made it obvious, we not only reject Him, but we approve of sin and those who do it, as well. Humanity would, of course, be quick to dismiss this, because Romans 1 says that they will...because of our sin. Even our righteous deeds are like filthy rags to God, by comparison to His holiness (Is. 64:6) Of course, there is the horrific sin of rejecting God. Have you done that? And are you ok with that? If you answered yes to both of those, you would also be answering your own question. Skip the killing and leave those to people like Pol Pot and Hitler. We still sin, whether its big sin or small sin. All sin is sin. And without the grace of God, we are just as guilty as the grossest of them all. Let's spare ourselves the self-righteous claim of having done less sin than others.
Are you suggesting that talking on your cell phone while driving is a sin against God? Are you suggesting that disobeying any and every law of man is a sin against God? Can you provide some scripture that backs that up?
I am not suggesting it. Scripture does (Romans 13:1-4). However, when the laws are contrary to God's, we have the obligation to resist them, since as Paul puts it, "There is no authority except from God."
You said my argument fails in anyway I look at it. But it seems to be sound. I think it fails in the way you're looking at it though.
A “no” vote doesn’t impose her opinion onto you. You aren’t forced to recognize or not recognize anything based on NOT changing the constitution. However, your vote does impose your opinion onto her. She is justified in being deeply offended.
This, like your first point, is grounded in the assumption that prop 8 takes away something (like rights) that belongs to someone else. Prop 8 protects the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, which has been the historic definition long before America or its constitution has been around. From what I have observed in California law, there are absolutely no rights afforded to a married couple that a gay or lesbian partnership does not also have. It follows from my perspective that it's all about the title, "Marriage." I'm sorry, but that title means something specific. I am not going to get on a high-horse and protest homosexual unions, and to be honest, I don't worry all that much what other people do with their relationships. But call it something else. It's not a marriage, as marriage has been traditionally defined.
Besides all this, my original point was an ironic protest to hers. Neither of us are imposing our beliefs. We were both asked by the US government for our opinions (which are based on our beliefs), and as citizens, are obligated to be heard. I applaud them for voting. However, my opinion was agreed upon by the majority, and I am also happy about that, because I believe my opinion had the best reasons for it to be passed.
The four arguments you responded to are not my own but I feel the reponses to them you generated above are fairly inadequate and may be guilty of doing the very thing your title describes.
I disagree. But thank you for your input and criticism.
I suppose since I arrived at my opinion based on “personal belief,” I won't be needing to address anything further, right?
^Of course you don’t need to. Nobody is obligated to express their opinion or defend it. Even if you didn’t have any reason whatsoever to hold your opinion and even if your reasoning was incorrect (simply for the sake of argument) I would still defend your right to express it. No address is necessary.
Since my belief is by its own merit, worthy of being expressed, since I also allow the same freedom to others, than I shall continue to do so to those who listen to me.
^Absolutely. I would encourage you to do so to those who would not as well.
Of course, if you were talking about being persuasive, than I can see your point about having support for my opinions, which I agree wholeheartedly with. So if the Yes that was passed on 8 ever gets overturned, I hope to revisit this conversation with persuasive reasons.
^I would give it another decade.
Until then, let's move on...
I object to your objection to the consistency of the Biblical texts. And I ask you to prove me wrong, by providing me with clear texts that contradict each other. I'm certain that if you come up with an example, it will be due to a faulty translation of the text or manuscript, or a faulty understanding by the reader.
^So you are making the argument that such contradictions don’t exist and then you follow it up by acknowledging that they may exist….but if they do, you have already rationalized them prior to me providing them? This I find akin to the argument that:
“I am certain you have buried treasure in your back yard. You should go dig it up. If you don’t find it then that simply means it was there and someone got it first or it simply means that it will be buried there in the future.”
I am sure you can understand why I am hesitant to go digging in my back yard.
The Bible has stood strongly and without fault against harder questions by more acclaimed scholars and skeptics than you or me, so we shouldn't flatter ourselves too much. It will still be changing lives when you and I are gone.
^When you make this statement…which translation are you referring to? Since there are over 38,000 Christian denominations…
http://christianity.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=christianity&cdn=religion&tm=15&gps=359_588_1276_626&f=10&tt=11&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/globalchristianity/resources.php
^Which one of those 38,000 interpretations is the true testament (no pun intended) that has stood strongly without fault? After all, if what you are saying were true, shouldn’t there be only one interpretation? Furthermore, this isn’t really answering any questions. Rather than addressing the scrutiny you are making an appeal to the authority of others under the assumption that this has already been addressed and refuted. In addition, I am not debating the legitimacy of the bible. What I am debating is the moral guideline you claim it outlines.
I can’t help but get the feeling that you are dodging the question:
In reference to my texts canceling each other's argument out, that is false. You are reasoning that one text is obligating me to allow anyone else to marry, since I myself am married. That is not what the texts are saying, and that is where you err. The Scriptures teach against homosexual behavior, making it a sin. Since that would render "gay marriage" paradoxical, it does not follow that the Prophets or the Law were instructing me to approve of homosexual marriage.
So when the bible says something along the lines of “treat others how you would like to be treated”…does this law apply to homosexuals? If you were a homosexual (simply for the sake of argument), is that how you would like to be treated? I am confused here. I know that if I was a homosexual, I would want the right to get married to the person I loved. That person would inevitably be a member of the same sex. It seems to me that it would follow that homosexuals should be allowed to marry based on the rule that I should treat others how I would like to be treated. Yet another law of the prophets says otherwise. It may not be for you, but to me…that seems like a moral contradiction.
Which one should I follow and how do you rationalize this? Am I supposed to follow every law of the prophets? After all, there are plenty in there that we do not follow. Why is this particular law of the prophets (regarding homosexuality) something we should follow and not all of the others?
Matt 19:
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
18"Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[d] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[e]"
^According to Jesus himself, these are the rules outlining what is needed to achieve everlasting life. There is nothing in there about sexual behavior or making sure to keep any specific law of the prophets. Yet you seem to be implying otherwise. I challenge your reasoning on this. In fact…if you want to be perfect….(Matt 19 Continued):
20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
^That’s it…unless Jesus forgot something right? Those rules are what is required to be "perfect" according to Jesus himself. So where does homosexuality come in? Where is the law against that? By providing me with that, perhaps you will uncover some contradictions for me without me having to go dig in my backyard after all.
I would however approve of anyone’s marriage to one of the opposite sex, which the Law and the Prophets DO condone, and would be a great example of Christian love.
^That is all well and good. However, are we to abide by all the laws of the prophets? If not, then why are we picking and choosing which laws of the prophets to follow?
You are using conveniently placed proof-texts to dismantle my arguments, instead of considering the entire council of the Bible.
^If I operate under your assumption that there are zero contradictions regarding the entire council of the bible, then there would be no way for me to use the text to dismantle your arguments without some trickery on my part. I am not trying to be deceitful. Further, the argument in question is not my own. What I am debating is your response to them. What I read from you was that the law of the prophets (“treat others…”) does not apply to homosexuality because of another law of the prophets. You are using one law to contradict the implications of another. That is not my fault and it is not the fault of the person that you were responding to. You then follow it up by saying simply that you aren’t using them to contradict each other. Well that may be true…if it is then please explain it to me.
I can also take any single verse of the Bible to make it say or support my fancy, however, each text must be measured and weighed by the others. To take verses out of context only leads to confusion and faulty translation.
^I am perfectly fine with taking versus in context. However, I am not Ok with reading something into the text which is what I have proposed that you may have done. It is why I have provided you with the Matt 19 quote. Perhaps I am in error. Please explain.
If you are asking me if I would rather trust in the commands of Scripture over my own feelings, then yes, I would and do. That God uses and incorporates emotions is not a problem for me, and I don't see why it should be. I would expect emotional response for a God who shows emotion, Himself (love, jealousy, anger, etc). However, my emotions should not dictate my life, especially when in contradiction to inspired instruction. Does that make sense? My emotions can change based on what I had to eat that morning. But the Bible seems to say the same thing it did last week...
^The problem here is circular reasoning.
“I trust the commands of scripture because the commands of the scripture say I should trust them.”
Lots of things stay the same as they did last week. But that is no reason to give them precedence over our emotions and logic. Certainly you don’t believe God exists simply because the bible says so. My guess is that you have had to have had a transcendental experience at least once in your life.
Yes, please do go on. We're quick to heap on the table the obnoxious sins like killing and stealing, and justify ourselves when we look back on our past and see that we were clear of those things, but the list goes on, does it not?
^That is kind of the point. I again feel like you are dodging the question. I believe you have contradicted yourself and you are not acknowledging it. Perhaps it is a reluctance to admit the argument is invalid? Perhaps you misunderstood me the first time? Perhaps I wasn’t clear? Again, please answer the question. Your argument was that we feel bad whenever we are prohibited from ANY kind of sin. Do you feel bad when you are not allowed to kill someone? Do you feel bad when you are not allowed to steal? Do you feel bad when you are not allowed to lie? Do you feel bad when you are not allowed to commit adultery? If you do not feel bad when you are not allowed to commit ANY sin, then your argument has been rendered invalid. Therefore, please provide me with an explanation. If you do feel bad about not being able to do all the things above then I will acknowledge your argument is still valid.
Have you ever sped on the highway, or ran a stopsign? In California, Christians (such as myself) do this all the time (we call it a "california stop" to justify ourselves). Have you ever been selfish in the least, or wished ill for another? I have and do. Have you ever rebelled in your heart against an authority figure, or wanted something for selfish reasons? Have you ever looked at a girl and wondered what she looked like underneath her clothes? Have you ever sworn? Gotten drunk? Ate too much? Slept too much? Not paid tithes?
^perhaps you are not familiar with the logical fallacy of death by a thousand qualifications? If you make an argument…that has exception after exception after exception to it…then you have committed this fallacy. It means you don’t have a valid argument anymore because you have to keep applying qualifier after qualifier almost indefinitely. Providing more examples that are applicable to your argument after you have committed this fallacy does not make your argument valid again.
Even if you have NEVER sinned (which is unlikely Rom. 3:23), the Bible tells us that we are sinners anyway, born into it by our mothers womb as children of wrath and iniquity (Ps 51, 58; Rom 5; 1 Cor 15; Eph 2).
^That is all well and good. However it is unrelated to backing up your fallacy and more importantly it adds no credibility to your refutation. I can’t see that it has anything at all to do with what we are talking about.
Romans 1 tells us that even though we know God exists because He made it obvious,
^By making it obvious was Romans talking about the bible or was Romans referring to a logical and emotional appeal? After all, if it wasn’t simply the bible then you may have contradicted yourself. Explain.
we not only reject Him, but we approve of sin and those who do it, as well. Humanity would, of course, be quick to dismiss this, because Romans 1 says that they will...because of our sin. Even our righteous deeds are like filthy rags to God, by comparison to His holiness (Is. 64:6) Of course, there is the horrific sin of rejecting God. Have you done that? And are you ok with that? If you answered yes to both of those, you would also be answering your own question.
^Again, I fail to see how any of this has anything to do with recognizing homosexual marriage, justifying your reply or reinforcing your previous argument in which it appears you may have committed a fallacy. The questions you have asked me do not answer the questions I have proposed to you.
Skip the killing and leave those to people like Pol Pot and Hitler. We still sin, whether its big sin or small sin. All sin is sin. And without the grace of God, we are just as guilty as the grossest of them all. Let's spare ourselves the self-righteous claim of having done less sin than others.
^I am not making that claim. I am not claiming that you are making that claim. My claim is that you have made an invalid argument because I think there are plenty of examples of sins that you don’t feel bad to be prohibited from doing and as such you would have to add so many qualifiers to your argument that it isn‘t a valid argument anymore. I am challenging your argument because I think you have committed a fallacy.
I am not suggesting it. Scripture does (Romans 13:1-4). However, when the laws are contrary to God's, we have the obligation to resist them, since as Paul puts it, "There is no authority except from God."
^That doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense. On the one hand you are suggesting that we should submit to all laws of man and on the other you are saying that we should only submit to the laws of man that are not contrary to God. Please explain to me how this is not a contradictory proposition (a self refuting claim).
You said my argument fails in anyway I look at it. But it seems to be sound. I think it fails in the way you're looking at it though.
^I can’t see it as sound at all. I think it is based on a fallacy to begin with and on top of that:
If not every law of man is a sin against God, then it is possible that feeling bad about a law we are going to create is justified. We may feel bad about a law because the law isn't morally right. Your cell phone example wouldn't be indicative of every case and therefore, your argument fails any way you look at it.
If you think it fails in the way I am looking at it then please explain. I would request that you do answer my questions and please do not quote any more scripture that has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
This, like your first point, is grounded in the assumption that prop 8 takes away something (like rights) that belongs to someone else. Prop 8 protects the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, which has been the historic definition long before America or its constitution has been around.
^Agreed on your first point. However, I challenge your reasoning on the second. Should we always enact a law based on historic definition? After all, the historic definition of marriage eliminated more than just homosexuality from it’s context. Are you willing to go down that road and eliminate rights based on the fact that rights have been eliminated in the past? Prop 8 does not protect the definition of marriage from anything. If Prop 8 had not passed are you suggesting that heterosexual couples would no longer be allowed to marry based on definition? Please explain.
From what I have observed in California law, there are absolutely no rights afforded to a married couple that a gay or lesbian partnership does not also have. It follows from my perspective that it's all about the title, "Marriage." I'm sorry, but that title means something specific. I am not going to get on a high-horse and protest homosexual unions, and to be honest, I don't worry all that much what other people do with their relationships.
^If you don’t worry all that much, then why would you be worried about what terms they use? I have to wonder whether you think gay or lesbian partnerships deserve equal rights as granted to them under the California Constitution. Do you? If you do then you must acknowledge that prop 8 is simply a “separate but equal” clause being inserted into the state Constitution. "Separate but equal" is inherently unequal. It separates the two marriages by assigning them different terms for the sole purposes of discrimination. These types of clauses are what plagued our nation during the civil rights era. Truth be told, the same arguments used to justify using them back then, you are using now. Please explain yourself.
But call it something else. It's not a marriage, as marriage has been traditionally defined. Besides all this, my original point was an ironic protest to hers. Neither of us are imposing our beliefs.
^You are. She is not. You are disqualifying certain individuals from being able to obtain a marriage license. She is not. Hers was a vote to do nothing. Therefore, there is nothing ironic about it.
We were both asked by the US government for our opinions (which are based on our beliefs), and as citizens, are obligated to be heard. I applaud them for voting. However, my opinion was agreed upon by the majority, and I am also happy about that, because I believe my opinion had the best reasons for it to be passed.
^Again, I will defend your right to vote any way you want based on whatever reasoning you want and you don’t need to explain yourself to me or anyone else if you don’t want to. However, all of that being said, I have yet to hear any valid reason whatsoever based on her objections to you and now to me. I figured that if you were going to defend your opinion, you might want to at least start with that.
Why does God think homosexuality is immoral? I can understand why he would make killing, lying, stealing, adultery, etc.. a sin. I, and I imagine many others, don’t understand the rationality behind homosexuality being labeled a sin.
Post a Comment