NC Amendment 1 Passes (Constitutionally Prevents Gay Marriage)

Just pointing out martyrdom doesn't prove righteous cause. Let me know if you need me to decode anything else for you.

 

In context, he is saying he is in agreement or equality in authority with God, not that he is God.

 

By confirm it, you mean pick a side in a political disagreement between two important diocese? This was not something discussed by the very early church, this was an addition.

 

How do you know that it was the FIRST time it was ever mentioned? Most things don't come up for debate, take this issue in the OP for instance. I don't think this is the first time its been mentioned.

 

That's essentially what I've been arguing, as well. Of course, issues like this, where culture and religion are at a crossroad, are strange for me to argue. On one hand, religious arguments mean nothing to me, but I also find myself using religious arguments to persuade the more religious to my viewpoint. An odd dichotomy.

 

I think the verse, "I and my Father are one", pretty much says that he is God. Nice spin. Good try, etc..... Plus if you go back to the book of Genesis, where it says that "Let US make man in OUR image" Does that not imply that there was not a trinity?Or at least more than one? As a kid asked me once, How can there be a trinity, I explained it this way, "I" am my Fathers son, "I" am my on person, and "I" am a Father. Three in one.

 

I don't know that it was the first time it was mentioned, but it clearly was something that a bunch of guys got together and "decided" 300 years after the fact, based on their self-described "yes or no, was Jesus God?" premise. That much is certain. It was either yes, and entities were one and the same, or no, and the looming ramifications of a less than absolutely divine Jesus. To maintain their new-found position and power, what choice did they really have?

 

I'm just looking at it in context.

I know trinitarians simply scoff at the idea of that being an issue of a "royal we," so I won't bother. How do you explain God calling himself the great "I am" instead of the great "we are?" That seems odd.

 

The difference being the disciples weren't acting purely on faith.

 

According to your faith-based belief.

 

Which doesn't affect the analogy.

 

How does it not? If you were a radical Islamic, you might believe the spirit and will of Allah was done by those terrorists and they were not acting purely on faith but as divine instruments.

 

If I knew actual living, breathing Jesus I would have more on which to base my willingness to die than a radical Muslim living centuries after the death of Muhammed.

 

That depends on the nature of that actual living, breathing Jesus, doesn't it? This is a red herring because you have impregnated your analogy with an assumption about the nature of Christ.

 

What assumption would that be?

 

So you were listening to gs! Makes sense now!

 

I don't know if being gay is any more of a choice than being black, and I don't think that it matters. I don't agree with what a lot of people do, but that doesn't mean my own opinion should set the standard how others live their life.

I believe in freedom, but with freedom comes having to put up with some shit that you don't like. I hate the Westboro church and their message, but I support their freedom to say it. I might not like gay marriage, but I support their right to be as miserable as straight couples.

 

That he's the son of God? Divine? You know, Christian doctrine? You are assuming that to be the case in your comparison.

David Karesh's followers actually met him and believed he was a messiah. Jim Jones' followers actually met and lived with him and believed he was the messiah. So much so, they "martyred" themselves. I am sure you would reject any idea of entertaining some sort of divinity in those two.

It is difficult to discuss anything like the themes in this thread because we are communicating from wildly different starting places. At this juncture, I'll just borrow the quote: "When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

 

Please show where I made the assumption that Jesus was anything.

Your second paragraph makes sense in relation to what I said. Hence, you must have understood why I chose to highlight the distinction between disciples and America-hating murderers. Not sure what the rest has to do with anything.

And you coming from a wildly different place isn't really that hard for me to understand.

 

America-hating murderers that do so based on their spiritual beliefs shows that going to extremes and martyrdom is not evidence of, well, anything. So saying "look how the disciples led dangerous lives cut short by martyrdom" doesn't necessarily prove anything other than they were devout and sincere in their belief. I already said that.