Comments on: Why Maine marriage vote matters

By: Pastor Roy

Pastor Roy — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:02:45 +0000

Spinoza 11.12.09 AT 5:56 PM
PR – Simply repeating your own prejudices in the face of evidence to the contrary doesn’t establish them as true, it just proves that you’re out of touch with reality.
—
What evidence ? ever time you post you are clear of your hate for the Christian and our beliefs. So your own prejudices shows when it comes to the Christian Belief and God’s Word you are the out of touch. An can not be trusted with telling the truth.

Report comment to moderator

By: Spinoza

Spinoza — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:56:07 +0000

PR – Simply repeating your own prejudices in the face of evidence to the contrary doesn’t establish them as true, it just proves that you’re out of touch with reality.

Report comment to moderator

By: Pastor Roy

Pastor Roy — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:48:20 +0000

Mark 13:30 has been creatively re-interpreted by apocalypse forecasters such as yourself to cover up the embarrassing and obvious fact that the early church thought the end was nigh 2,000 years ago. Such a hermeneutical game of Twister is dishonest and laughably absurd. The biblical time interval for your “end times” doomsday prophecy ended long ago, and the words did NOT come to pass. Neither will they happen in the immediate future! ”

—-

this is not true so you are wrong

Report comment to moderator

By: Pastor Roy

Pastor Roy — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:47:36 +0000

Spinoza 11.12.09 AT 5:34 PM
i.e., wrong about the following propositions:

1. The early church thought the second coming was imminent

– no problem with that

2. The failed occurrence of the second coming precipitated after-the-fact re-interpretations of biblical texts )
—-
no re-interpreatation this is where you are wrong

That’s not controversial among trained biblical scholars and historians – it’s accepted historical fact.
—
sorry not accepted by biblical scholars and historians.

Report comment to moderator

By: Spinoza

Spinoza — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:37:51 +0000

Even Wikipedia knows better:

Beliefs about the timing of the Second Coming

Report comment to moderator

By: Spinoza

Spinoza — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:34:42 +0000

i.e., wrong about the following propositions:

1. The early church thought the second coming was imminent

2. The failed occurrence of the second coming precipitated after-the-fact re-interpretations of biblical texts )

That’s not controversial among trained biblical scholars and historians – it’s accepted historical fact.

Report comment to moderator

By: Spinoza

Spinoza — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:29:10 +0000

And why, pray tell, am I wrong?

Report comment to moderator

By: Pastor Roy

Pastor Roy — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:39:56 +0000

Spinoza 11.12.09 AT 2:17 PM
“good try but wrong again”

Is this what you always say when you don’t have reply of substance?
—-
Not at all when you are wrong, you are wrong.

Report comment to moderator

By: Spinoza

Spinoza — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:17:44 +0000

“good try but wrong again”

Is this what you always say when you don’t have reply of substance?

Report comment to moderator

By: mugwump

mugwump — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:42:51 +0000

The issue isn’t whether homosexual behavior harms heterosexual marriage, the issue is whether homosexual behavior is harmful to the people who engage in it. Granting of marriage status through the state is an effort to encourage, promote and foster certain behaviors. Granting that status to homosexual behavior would only be justified, if such behavior is something worth encouraging. That is a moral judgment, which begs the question as to what is the foundation, or basis for such moral judgment. Ultimately the only objective foundation for moral judgments would be some concept of God. Otherwise every personal or group judgment would be equally justifiable, and there should be no argument.

The argument that homosexual behavior is equal to heterosexual behavior leads to the same place. This requires a moral judgment that the two have equal status by some objective moral standard that could only logically derive from the concept of God. Again, if there is no God, then there could be no argument that the two behaviors are equal or not, there would just be different personal or group preferences.

The argument regarding rights is similar. What is the basis for a claimed right. Some objective value, and hence an objective value holder, that is binding on all.

The real issue is what is God’s will regarding these matters. If you conclude that there is no God, or that he is not relevant to our determinations, then there can be no argument about anything. All you would have is personal or group preferences, all of which must necessarily be of equivalent value. To disagree with someone is to assert some objective value standard which is binding on them, which can only derive from the concept of God.

Report comment to moderator