Posted on 02/19/2009 11:41:26 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
That title has some double entendre’s apparently. I figure if all gays would straighten up, no one would be gay.
MEGoody wrote: “Making the claim that God’s word does not apply to people today is certainly in direct opposition to what scripture teaches. From a scriptural perspective, the writer of this article would be much more like the false teachers scripture warns of than Jesus. Therefore, calling the person who said this writing was ‘of the devil’ a Pharisee shows a complete lack of scriptural underestanding.
“Annie’s behavior is much more readily likened to that of Jesus or one of the apostles than a Pharisee.”
Scripture means “writing.” Scripture is written. The writers were human beings. The translators were human beings. The readers and interpreters are human beings.
The Reformation that distinguished Protestant Christianity from the Catholic Church was precisely on the right of individuals to read and interpret scripture free from the dictated interpretations of a self-anointed and self-perpetuating clergy.
God gave me the power to read, write, interpret and think. I am neither more nor less empowered by God to read and contemplate the meaning and applicability of scripture than any other human being gifted with an independent soul and a free will by our Creator.
Those who deny this freedom are, as I said, committing the same sin the Pharisees did when Jesus taught them a new interpretation of existing scriptures.
Neil
“The problem Lot was having is not that the Sodomites were andromen”.
50sDad said it better that I, but what I am getting at is that in the Genesis passages the crowd of Sodomites takes on a life of it’s own. It’s almost like a ravenous beast. It won’t listen to reason and it won’t be thwarted until it gets what it wants - the satisfaction of it’s lust. If violence is necessary, then so be it.
“Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them... “
This is the collective nature of the sodomites/andromen. That same nature is evident in their collective actions in the current day and may become more so as events progress.
The Bible describes that collective nature as demonic.
Mr. Schulman is straining credulity to only consider as sexual, those acts which are, or are designed to be, pro-creative. Seems terribly silly to me for someone to try to push that notion. If an action involves the use of ANY sexual organ, it it a sexual act, plain and simple.
Because of this notion, he's twisting the meaning of celibacy. Yes, one definition is someone who remains unmarried, but the definition used by the Church in dealing with priests, or men and women in the committed religious life means not having sexual relations with anyone, whether those relations are pro-creative, or not.
Neil, it’s been so long since I’ve seen one of your posts, I’d forgotten that you post here. Nice seeing you again. It’s been a while since I read “Stopping Power”.
They're called "Wills, Contracts, and Power of Attorney". Look into them sometime.
L
L
“...my firmly grasping sharp ideological nettles.”
That’s hysterically funny.
Matters of inheritance are dealt with by a legal instrument known as a "Will".
Medical care decisions are dealt with by a legal instrument known as a "Power of Attorney".
Neither one of these legal instruments requires the State or Federal governments to become involved in the question of what is or is not a marriage.
L
Lurker,
Thanks!
For myself, I wonder just what marriage accomplishes that can’t also be accomplished by a well-drawn up living trust with living will provisions.
Neil
Personally I don't think the State should be involved in it one way or the other. It's none of their business to whom I chose to bond myself religiously, assuming of course that all parties involved are doing so willingly and are of the age of majority.
We as human beings allow the State to intrude far too much into matters that are quite frankly none of their damned business.
Frankly I'm pretty much fed up with it.
I found your article to be very good in its logic and construction. I really have only any nit to pick with it.
As a libertarian I find abortion to be an almost completely unjustifiable act of violence against a totally innocent third party. To my way of thinking it's completely contrary to Libertarian principles. Once they zygote has attached itself to the uterine wall you have, scientifically speaking, a human being.
Killing it as a matter of convenience is abhorrent to me.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Thanks for the article. It's good to see the voice of reason around here from time to time.
L
What do you make of the distinction between “marriage” (religious) and “civil union” (legal)? That would at least seem to accomodate the fact that the government (or, ideally, other institutions filling its current role in keeping the peace and settling disputes) has a different role than religion (specifically, that the former has obligations to be just and evenhanded that are not binding on the latter).
Lurker,
I incline to the original belief, unrevised by the biological sciences of gestation, that one becomes a human being when the soul enters the body at first breath.
I find it ironic that so many “fundamentalist” abortion opponents do so on the basis of a modernist biological view that either ignores the question of ensoulment or holds to the absurdity that a soul can fuse with an undeveloped zygote.
Neil
It’s not so much what I believe that’s at issue but what those with the agenda of extending marriage to same-sex couples wish to accomplish. California already had domestic partnership laws on its books when they pushed for the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples. The agenda to norm the acceptance of same-sex coupling won’t stop at the government marriage license bureau but is being pursued as vigorously toward acceptance on the church altar.
thefrankbaum wrote: “How exactly do you deal with issues of inheritance, medical decisions, etc.?”
Living trusts which contain provisions for powers-of-attorney and living wills.
See above - intestacy issues? It is a nice thought, but people often do not have updated legal arrangements in place.
I didn’t say the guy was the devil....stop lying.
Yes, I saw that warning - thank you. And, I stand by my comment regarding this tripe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.