Re: [luv-talk] Libs/Labs and other politics, statistics and myths
On Sat, November 8, 2014 8:06 am, Michael Scott wrote:
1st Corinthians 6:
Great, so you don't believe they'll inherit the kingdom of God; from the same book of Paul which says women must be silent in church. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked which (apparently because it needs repeating) "So why can't your church/denomination/whatever have their own marriage requirements and just leave everyone else alone? Why is that your definition of marriage has to be enshrined in law?"
Ahh, so it's subject to interpretation and context. Well, how about that? So why is it that the interpretation and context that you think is right is that one that must be enshrined in civil law?
Slaves, as an example, didn't have Centrelink. They could be slaves or starve. It was economically better for them to be slaves. Please don't plead context and deliberately comment out of context.
Apart the slave issue being complete nonsense (slaves were typically the spoils of conquest.. they could go home you know), I am mocking your selective use of context. Sometimes you seem to think that a biblical marriage is absolute and sometimes you appeal to context. It's rather like this guy.. http://technoccult.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/leviticustattoo.jpg (For those who don't get the joke, a couple of pages later in Leviticus is a prohibition on tatoos) Despite all this you have no justification on why your religious version of marriage is the one which everyone else has to live with.
The execution of people who worked on the Sabbath was based on a tradition of Jewish law, not Christian. If you had any idea about Christianity, Jewish tradition, you would find that Jesus frowned on the legalism of Jews, that they had developed laws based on their traditions over the centuries which did not glorify God, but their own traditions.
Apparently "I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets" is something you can selectively choose.
Jews are of Israeli heritage, whether of the Jewish faith or not.
What? Can you explain to me the ethnic Israeli heritage of the Ugandan Jews? You know, I think mDNA studies might disagree with your assertion.
I have made my position quite clear on this. As a Christian I cannot SUPPORT same sex marriage. I support their legal rights as much as any others.
So you agree to the legal establishment of same-sex marriage, but you don't support it yourself? Well that would be good of you. It would show that you're capable of distinguishing between secular laws which apply to all of us, and are based on available evidence, and heavenly laws which belong to particular sects in accordance to their beliefs. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Lev Lafayette <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
On Sat, November 8, 2014 8:06 am, Michael Scott wrote:
1st Corinthians 6:
Great, so you don't believe they'll inherit the kingdom of God; from the same book of Paul which says women must be silent in church.
Please show me a contextual reference to that so I can at least argue it.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked which (apparently because it needs repeating)
The question asked? Where was a question ever asked? All I've had is attacks at me and whenever i provide anything I'm attacked from another angle. What question?
"So why can't your church/denomination/whatever have their own marriage requirements and just leave everyone else alone? Why is that your definition of marriage has to be enshrined in law?"
"My" definition of marriage IS enshrined in law. You want to CHANGE that definition. I've said many times in this discussion alone, I Can't SUPPORT your wanting to change that definition. Why can't YOU understand MY feelings on that? You want ME to understand YOURS.
On Sat, November 8, 2014 9:12 am, Michael Scott wrote:
Please show me a contextual reference to that so I can at least argue it.
What?! You don't know this famous quote? It may interest you to know that it was in Melbourne that the first ordained minister in what was then the British Empire, Rev. Martha Taylor, took the opportunity to quote it in her first sermon. It's pretty clear what she thought of it. "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says." (Cor 1 14:34)
The question asked? Where was a question ever asked? All I've had is attacks at me and whenever i provide anything I'm attacked from another angle. What question?
It follows again, for the third time.
"So why can't your church/denomination/whatever have their own marriage requirements and just leave everyone else alone? Why is that your definition of marriage has to be enshrined in law?"
"My" definition of marriage IS enshrined in law. You want to CHANGE that definition. I've said many times in this discussion alone, I Can't SUPPORT your wanting to change that definition. Why can't YOU understand MY feelings on that? You want ME to understand YOURS.
Of course you can support it. It's not very hard at all. This is what you do. a) You could realise that there should be a separation of church and state. That people are entitled to their own religious beliefs or even none at all. Civil government can, and should, be independent of such matters. b) Following this, you could realise that the introduction of marriage equality in civil law in no way changes your denomination's disapproval of such marriages and in no way forces your denomination to conduct marriages that they do not agree with. You don't have to support same-sex marriage personally; all you have to do is say that same-sex couples should be entitled to the same legal rights as others, including marriage. The expansion of rights which you claim for yourself to others in no way diminishes your existing right. It's not as if anyone is arguing that same-sex marriage should be the only type available. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On Sat, 8 Nov 2014, "Lev Lafayette" <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
b) Following this, you could realise that the introduction of marriage equality in civil law in no way changes your denomination's disapproval of such marriages and in no way forces your denomination to conduct marriages that they do not agree with.
You don't have to support same-sex marriage personally; all you have to do is say that same-sex couples should be entitled to the same legal rights as others, including marriage.
I think that every church which is supported by my tax money should be subject to all laws against discrimination. Any organisation that wants a religious exemption to anti-discrimination laws should pay their own way. Currently donations to religious organisations are tax deductable. That means that my tax money is subsidising donations to churches. That situation is wrong. If a church wanted to tax deduct it's own donations to charity (IE having subsidiaries that care for the poor etc) then that would be OK. But just having tax deductions for any money that flows through a religious organisation is wrong. Among other things this is why Scientology is now claimed to be a religion. Instead of taxing the poorest people when they get medical treatment or buy basic food items (under Abbott's new GST plans) they should tax all the clergy who have expensive houses and cars subsidised by the tax payer. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Lev Lafayette <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
On Sat, November 8, 2014 8:06 am, Michael Scott wrote:
1st Corinthians 6:
Great, so you don't believe they'll inherit the kingdom of God; from the same book of Paul which says women must be silent in church.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked which (apparently because it needs repeating)
"So why can't your church/denomination/whatever have their own marriage requirements and just leave everyone else alone? Why is that your definition of marriage has to be enshrined in law?"
Ahh, so it's subject to interpretation and context. Well, how about that? So why is it that the interpretation and context that you think is right is that one that must be enshrined in civil law?
Any other part of the Bible you'd like me to interpret for you? Don't expect me, not a Bible scholar, to justify to you every passage you'd like to put in front of me. Just to justify your cause. I can probably justify every one, but I'm not a Bible scholar and you're simply plucking passages for your convenience. Remember that the Old Testament was written probably between 2-4000 years ago.
Slaves, as an example, didn't have Centrelink. They could be slaves or starve. It was economically better for them to be slaves. Please don't plead context and deliberately comment out of context.
Apart the slave issue being complete nonsense (slaves were typically the spoils of conquest.. they could go home you know), I am mocking your selective use of context. Sometimes you seem to think that a biblical marriage is absolute and sometimes you appeal to context.
You brought up slavery...am I not allowed to use something you brought up? I can't answer for ancient marriage practices. I don't know what the traditions were in Jewish life. Whether those traditions were acceptable to God is another thing. Throughout the Old Testament God despaired at the sinful acts of the Jews. The Slavery issue was just an example of context and how modern views can fog ancient customs.
It's rather like this guy..
http://technoccult.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/leviticustattoo.jpg
(For those who don't get the joke, a couple of pages later in Leviticus is a prohibition on tatoos)
Despite all this you have no justification on why your religious version of marriage is the one which everyone else has to live with.
No, all I said was I Can't SUPPORT your version of marriage.
Jews are of Israeli heritage, whether of the Jewish faith or not.
What? Can you explain to me the ethnic Israeli heritage of the Ugandan Jews?
No, I'm not a scholar of Jewish heritage. They also found their way into Eastern Europe. I can't explain that either. Neither is it relevant.
You know, I think mDNA studies might disagree with your assertion.
I have made my position quite clear on this. As a Christian I cannot SUPPORT same sex marriage. I support their legal rights as much as any others.
So you agree to the legal establishment of same-sex marriage, but you don't support it yourself?
So you CAN read English. It's what I asserted right from the start, what I've insisted since, what i've tried to make you understand, what you've been blinded to for some reason.
Well that would be good of you. It would show that you're capable of distinguishing between secular laws which apply to all of us, and are based on available evidence, and heavenly laws which belong to particular sects in accordance to their beliefs.
-- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Sat, November 8, 2014 9:36 am, Michael Scott wrote:
I have made my position quite clear on this. As a Christian I cannot SUPPORT same sex marriage. I support their legal rights as much as any others.
So you agree to the legal establishment of same-sex marriage, but you don't support it yourself?
So you CAN read English. It's what I asserted right from the start, what I've insisted since, what i've tried to make you understand, what you've been blinded to for some reason.
To be perfectly honest, and I think that others would agree, you've been less than clear on the matter. It's good to know that you support the legal establishment of same-sex marriage. Have a nice day, -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
participants (3)
-
Lev Lafayette -
Michael Scott -
Russell Coker