Gay marraige? What would God say?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

We'll have to wait and see. What bothers me most is that Bbarr almost always places himself above the other in discussions. Very Un-Zen ......

I don't think bbarr is Zen or has ever claimed to be one ...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't think bbarr is Zen or has ever claimed to be one ...

..... I never claimed such a thing either ..... but the fact remains it is very Un-Zen ........ 😀

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
From the definition in question, does it follow that if there exists an opinion which a person does not hold and of which that person is intolerant, then that person is a bigot?

bigot is "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own" could be written: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of one or all of the opinions differencing from his own. However that sounds strange. But to say :a prejudiced person who is intolerant of all opinions differing from his own - would be too restrictive. Because then if one is tolerant of a few opinions, that person could not be a bigot. I think that "any" may be too loose, but "all" is certainly too strict.

Originally posted by Coletti
bigot is "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own" could be written: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of one or all of the opinions differencing from his own. However that sounds strange. But to say :a prejudiced person who is intolerant of all opinions differing from his own - would be too restrictive. Because ...[text shortened]... ld not be a bigot. I think that "any" may be too loose, but "all" is certainly too strict.

So, is lucifershammer's definition worthless, since it has no reasonable interpretation?

Or shall we intuit that "any" implicitly specifies some minimal percent of intolerance?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
So, is lucifershammer's definition worthless, since it has no reasonable interpretation?

Or shall we intuit that "any" implicitly specifies some minimal percent of intolerance?

Just the opposite. It is a worthwhile definition as long as one does not take any to mean all. Not perfect - but it would be poor logic to say it is worthless.

Originally posted by kbzaerogurl
um dude that was the old testament, when the Jews were under the law. Jesus came and sacraficed his life....( have u seen the movie the Pasion of the Christ)....which freed them from the law...........
BUT... it does mention many times about sexual imorality.....plus why would God have created man and woman, if he didn't have a problem with homosexuality....man was not made for man, woman was not made for woman...think about it...🙂

I was responding to someone who mentioned Levitcus as the source in the bible speaking against Homosexuality. So if those rules don't apply why don't you find another place the bible condemns it.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
I was responding to someone who mentioned Levitcus as the source in the bible speaking against Homosexuality. So if those rules don't apply why don't you find another place the bible condemns it.

Homosexuality is not easily reconciled with a Christian perspective, if one accepts the words of
St Paul as representative of God's perspective.

Romans 1:24-28
Therefore God gave them up to the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather thatn the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason, God
gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received their own persons the dur penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit ot acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.

In the list of sins in I Corinthians 6:9-10, St Paul lists a word which is alternately translated as
'homosexuals' or 'sodomites.' The word in Greek is 'arsenokoitai' and is literally translated
as 'male bed partners.' The same term is referred to in I Timothy 1:10 (arsenokoitais) (even if
you believe that St Paul was not the author, it still carries the weight of 'Scripture'😉.

At issue is whether St Paul was referring to some intrinsic aspect of homosexuality or whether he
was referring to homosexuality as it was practiced at the time (and, consequently, whether
monogamous, dedicated homosexual relationships today are even analagous to what St Paul was
preaching against.

I hope these citations help you.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Homosexuality is not easily reconciled with a Christian perspective, if one accepts the words of
St Paul as representative of God's perspective.

Romans 1:24-28
[i]Therefore God gave them up to the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and ...[text shortened]... analagous to what St Paul was
preaching against.

I hope these citations help you.

Nemesio

Yes but read Matthew 18. 18- 21. Something along the line of what you permit on Earth will be permiited in Heaven.
Oo gee would that be relatavism.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Homosexuality is not easily reconciled with a Christian perspective, if one accepts the words of
St Paul as representative of God's perspective.

Romans 1:24-28
[i]Therefore God gave them up to the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and ...[text shortened]... analagous to what St Paul was
preaching against.

I hope these citations help you.

Nemesio

Thank you for actually responding to my question.

In the Romans passage the greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated as natural and unnatural respectively. This is often interpreted as saying homosexuality is against nature.

However paraphysin is better interpreted as "action that is uncharacteristic for that person". In fact this very meaning is used in Romans 11:24 where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles.

As for the arsenokoitai I always thought it was arsenokeeteh but no matter. It is a two part word meaning literally 'male' and 'bed'. In other places in the bible (sorry no reference) the word arsenokeeteh is used to describe prostitutes who engage in cultish sex acts of both homosexual and hetrosexual nature. Given Paul's concern with cult prostitution, it can only be assumed that this is what he was referring to.

Now all this comes from various sources, I'm no ancient Greek scholar so I can't check the veracity of the claims myself but it seems to fit.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Your reply can either mean:

1. Moral questions are not answered from a Zen perspective.
2. Moral questions are answered from a Zen perspective, but not using some abstract principle.

Which one is it?

What does "way of being in the world" mean?

I meant #2. If you don't know what it means to say that Zen is a way of being in the world, then I don't know if I can tell you. Being virtuous is a way of being in the world. Can this be codified into principles of conduct that admit of an algorithmic solution to any moral dilemma? One should be honest. One should be compassionate. One should be generous. One should be temperate. Etc., etc. etc. What happens is these virtuous character traits conflict? Then one must engage in practical reasoning, and such reasoning should be guided by wisdom. This can't be captured in a set of rules; the rules merely point to the necessary traits of character. Having these traits of character constitutes a way of being in the world. Now apply these comments on virtue theory to Zen. Read some D. T. Suzuki for a more robust explication.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Let me see if I understand you correctly.

"An astronaut is a person who goes to outer space. Astronauts have to undergo years of training."

The first sentence is normative; the second is descriptive. Correct?

No. Neither of the these claims are normative. Both are descriptive.

Originally posted by xxxenophobe
Whoa... wait a sec.."GOD DESCRIBES"... i think you mean the guy who wrote that part of the bible, while taking in consideration what HE percieved or was "told by god" describes as a union of male and female. Dont get me wrong.. if we all turned gay it would be the end of our species unless they legalized cloaning... but thats a total different issue. ...[text shortened]... his behavior... then what the f$#@... why not... but he who looooves the PU$$Y shouldnt worry...

Well those who love PU$$Y aren't entirely off the hook. You could still commit sin through fornication. However i dont think God cares about homosexuality or fornication if he truly loves each individual and accepts them. I think the pope is deadly wrong and is as bad as the Pharisees. How long are his tassels.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well those who love PU$$Y aren't entirely off the hook. You could still commit sin through fornication. However i dont think God cares about homosexuality or fornication if he truly loves each individual and accepts them. I think the pope is deadly wrong and is as bad as the Pharisees. How long are his tassels.

i am off the hook... i dont believe in sin as Christians label it... I fornicate redily, repedidly, and as oten as possible... and tech. i'm still married legally.. till this thursday any way... lol...

Originally posted by xxxenophobe
i am off the hook... i dont believe in sin as Christians label it... I fornicate redily, repedidly, and as oten as possible... and tech. i'm still married legally.. till this thursday any way... lol...

I dont exactly think its a sin either. Human compassion and love are crusial. What makes us clean come from this inside and what makes us unclean come from the inside.