Moral Judgments

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

The NT says that if you're under the law - then the cross has no effect.

---

But the NT also says that everyone is supposed to be under the law.Not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall be changed till all be fulfilled.You were circumcised at age eight by a mohel, were you not? You keep kosher, do you not?Jesus was very clear: Mosaic law is still in full effect.

quote:

---

We don't live by the law Shraff - you should know that this is not to reject the law - because Christ fulfilled it.

---

But the world hasn't ended. Therefore, not all has been fulfilled.Therefore, the law is still in effect.And, of course, Jesus couldn't possibly have fulfilled the law. He claimed to be the son of god which is precisely what the Messiah is NOT. That would be in direct violation of the very first commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.The Messiah is a man who would personally usher in the unification of Zion through force and violence. No miracles (except those performed by god since only god can perform miracles...don't you remember what god said to Moses?) no "son of god," just a warrior king.Jesus didn't do that. Ergo, Jesus was not the Messiah.You act like Jews don't understand their own religion. How insulting.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Tal writes:

quote:

---

It's as wrong as 2 boys kissing.

---

And since two boys kissing isn't wrong...?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Tal writes:

quote:

---

And the levitical law was specifically for Isreal back in the day.

---

No, Mosaic law applies to everyone. Haven't you read your own holy book? Jesus is quite specific: Not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall be changed till all be fulfilled.All has not been fulfilled.Ergo, the law is still in effect.I do hope you were circumcised in the correct religious manner. And I certainly hope you've been keeping kosher.Not one jot, not one tittle.Who are you going to believe, Paul or Jesus?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Tal responds to me:

quote:

---

It's a good thing it is not up to us to fulfill the law.

---

Then why are people trying?And why aren't you following the Law? It is still in effect and it applies to you, too.No other gods before me. What on earth are you doing worshipping this Jesus guy?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Tal writes:

quote:

---

What if I want to kiss your 7 year old daughter?

---

Why is it people seem to think that being gay is equivalent to being a pedophile?Does heterosexuality lead to child molestation?Then why on earth does changing the sex of the particpants involved in what is understood by everyone to be a loving, supporting, caring relationship make someone think of child molestation?You're sick, Tal. Why do you obsess over sexual activity with children? Are you trying to tell us something? You need to get to a therapist right away and admit your feelings before you actually hurt a child by acting out on them.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

Certainly if you can just "see" something wrong with adults romantically kissing a child, he can "see" two boys kissing each other as wrong.

---

Incorrect.Does the word "consent" mean nothing to you?If we start as a base a mixed-sex couple that everyone agrees is a normal, loving, supportive, caring relationship with absolutely no coercion of any kind, how does changing the sex of the people involved imediately lead someone to equate it to changing the age of the people involved?Are you saying that the ability to grant consent is correlated with a person's sex? Are you saying that the ability to grant consent is not correlated with a person's age?Does the word "consent" mean nothing to you?By your logic, it would be perfectly reasonable to start with a loving, committed couple and then say that it is equivalent to a rapist/victim relationship. After all, they both involve sex so therefore the two acts are equivalent.Why are you so obsessed over comparing consensual relationships with nonconsensual ones? Are you trying to tell us something?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

I would love to see him be consistent with regard to lev, but even in the New Testament there are passages (mainly from Paul) that could indicate homosexuality is wrong.

---

Who cares what Paul said? He directly advocated violation of the law. That was one of the first controversies in the early church: James/Peter vs. Paul. Paul was all about conversion and he knew that the whole "You want me to cut off my what?!" wasn't flying. So he made up out of whole cloth the idea that Jesus established a new covenant where those silly laws about keeping kosher and having to get circumcized were no longer necessary. All you had to do was believe. Salvation is through faith...just like him.Needless to say, he was much more successful than those who followed the tradition of James and Peter who insisted you still had to follow the law. Peter had more money and more converts and managed to wrest control of the nascent religion.But Paul was pulling all this shit out of his ass. Paul directly contradicts Jesus in many places. Why should we trust his opinion about anything?And, of course, this doesn't even begin to get into the fact that what Paul was talking about was not what we mean when we say "homosexuality."

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

He could have chosen many other moral issues and we could still be here.

---

Indeed. Tal could have chosen any number of completely boneheaded things to compare to same-sex relationships. The fact that only mixed-sex relationships are comparable seems to have slipped him right on by. He decided to compare gay people to child molestors.Since you knew that those that spoke against him were concentrating on the issue of consent, one wonders why you were so disingenuous as to posit that something else was being considered.Are you trying to tell us something?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

Protection of children from predation is a completely separate subject from whether a romantic kiss, or sex with a minor is morally wrong.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Are you seriously saying that preventing the sexual molestation of a child is not connected to protection of children from predation?

quote:

---

I was only arguing that any moral position regarding minors and sex, would have the same absolute basis as a moral position regarding gay sex.

---

Does the word "consent" mean nothing to you?Are you seriously saying that consent is correlated with a person's sex? Are you seriously saying that consent is not correlated with a person's age?

quote:

---

And I will point out again, that just being on a different mental and physical level does not make interacting with someone abusive.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?It is not abuse to take advantage of people due to their mental and/or physical deficiencies?Are you trying to tell us something, holmes?

quote:

---

This is truly a taboo subject, and I wish Tal had mentioned another sexual pecadillo so I could have made my point on that instead.

---

What else compares? The only rational comparison for a same-sex couple is an equivalent mixed-sex couple for the only thing that is different between them is the sex of the participants. And is that not what we are trying to compare? The effects of the sex of the participants in a relationship? What on earth are you doing considering irrelevant discrepancies such as making one of the participants incapable of giving consent?

quote:

---

Now can we get back to the real issue, which is that no one can claim Tal is simply wrong and they are right, especially if all that is given is certain physical differences between the situations.

---

Does the word "consent" mean nothing to you?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

However, and this is also beyond dispute, there is absolutely no empirical evidence that sexual activity (in general) is harmful to anyone at any age even when engaged in by anyone else of any other age.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Are you trying to tell us something, holmes?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Tal writes:

quote:

---

My view on this debate is who can say A or B or both are wrong or right?

---

You can. You're the one saying that such-and-such an act is right or wrong. Therefore, it is your responsibility to explain why.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But the world hasn't ended. Therefore, not all has been fulfilled.

---

​

Christ came to fulfill the law. - I didn't say the world ending would fulfill it.

---

I didn't say you did.I said Christ did. What do you think "fulfilled" means? It means all the predictions and propheices have come true and one of those is the end of the world. Jesus said so, himself. He even told some people directly that they would live to see it happen.So unless you're going to say that there are some 2,000-year-old people wandering around, then all the prophecies have failed to happen. The world was supposed to end 2,000 years ago. It didn't happen.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Therefore, the law is still in effect.

---

​

Yes - people can still follow the law, - Jews.

---

But the only way to get into heaven is to follow the law. Jesus said so, himself. He who follows the law and teaches others so will have the highest place in the kingdom of heaven.

quote:

---

But since I'm christian

---

Then you need to follow the law. Jesus said so. Who are you going to believe? Jesus or Paul?

quote:

---

I adhere to what the NT says, that Christ came to fulfill the law. He himself said this.

---

Yes. And what do you think "fulfill the law" means?It means the end of the world. But the world is still going on. Therefore, you must continue to follow the law because not all has been fulfilled.

quote:

---

Re-read the NT, it agrees with me.

---

Ah, so you believe Paul over Jesus. How nice. Good luck when you get to heaven.

quote:

---

Y do u think we r made in God's image?

---

Well, the Bible directly says so. What more do you need?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You act like Jews don't understand their own religion. How insulting.

---

​

I actually said that infact I'm not a Jew - that's all.

---

I know. But you also went on to insinuate that Jews don't understand their own religion. That Jesus did, indeed, fulfill the criteria to be declared the Messiah.But Jesus clearly did not. The Messiah is a human being with no divinity in him. There can be no such thing in Judaism. There is only one god. It's the very first commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. That's why the Jews were so upset with Jesus: He kept on claiming to be god. That's the primary blasphemy. There is no other god except god.

quote:

---

They distance themselves from Christ - a Jew, but in reality - there simply isn't any other Messiah candidate.

---

That doesn't make Jesus the Messiah, though. The Messiah is a human being who is a military warlord who will physically and through force of arms and use of violence reunite Zion.Jesus did none of that.He may have been the only candidate (which isn't true...there were lots of people claiming to be the Messiah at the time), but that doesn't mean he managed to succeed at fulfilling the prophecies of the Messiah.You act as if Jews don't understand their own religion.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

You forget the premise that the Jewish also say there'd be a Messiah

---

Incorrect. I quite adamantly keep returning to that fact: There will be a Messiah according the Jews.WILL be. There hasn't been one yet.You act as if Jesus was the only possible chance of a Messiah. You act as if Jews don't understand their own religion.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

This is exactly what the case was for homosexuality until homosexuals began arguing that cultures could create harm by their expectations, and so challenging mental "health" definitions.

---

(*ahem*)Don't we get to take the kid's word for it? They pretty much say that they didn't want it to happen and were harmed by the experience (notice, I simply said "harmed" and not "completely destroyed and incapable of living a fulfilled existence.")This is in comparison to the history of examination of gay people where the only people the psychologists knew about where those who were seeking counseling. That is, until Dr. Evelyn Hooker thought that perhaps they should look at the gay people who aren't in mental hospitals. It was amazing how normal they seemed. It seems obvious now, but at the time it never really occurred to the psychologists and psychiatrists that they had a biased sample. If you only look at people who have neuroses to begin with, you tend to conclude that they have neuroses.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Phatboy asks:

quote:

---

If rights are determined by the state, and if the state does not consent with "sky fairies" what is the source of state sanctioned morality?

---

Oh, "the people" couldn't possibly be the answer, could it? Nah. Humans could never come up with their own morality and rules.I mean, they can't even come up with a game like Monopoly. That was divinely inspired, right?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!