Answered Questions Re: Miss California

[Flyndaran]

I really don't get you Ruby. It seems as if this is the ony form of hate you have. I always thought bigots never hated only one group. Is this true, or do you dislike some other group of people?

[Nyoibo]

I was just thinking, we'll give you marriage, if you give us pagans back our holidays.

[Rubystars]

In which case, don't explain it to me. I'll accept a simple link that explains to me what being a slave to a Hebrew really meant. I would recommend having that source tell the limits of the abuse that a good Jew would be allowed to inflict. In addition, it should discuss why Hebrew slavery was a moral thing, instead of what an atrocity, like many in the Western world consider it to be.

Start with this, and if you need more, there's always google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_slave_trade

Ah, but you're perfectly capable of inferring what he said when it matches what you want to believe. Here, allow me to quote you:

So, when you hope that Jesus would have said what you want him to have said, then he probably said it.

I can't say what Jesus would have said about it, but I think I have a better circumstantial case than a pro-gay person would have.

However, when he is documented to have said something contrary to what you want him to have said, then we have to adjust for the times, plus not everything he said is written down.

What did he say that was contrary to what I would have wanted him to say?

Again, I say that this is a very convenient line for you. You basically get to tell everybody what Jesus said and believed on the grounds that you know what he said and believed better than everybody else. This even includes the people who did what they could for documenting his life.

They didn't write down "Gay is bad, and Jesus said so!" ? Oh well, they probably just left it out. Bob's copy of Word crashed that day, and he forgot to retype that segment up. They did write down about Jesus condoning slavery? This time, Zach's copy of Word crashed, and he didn't have any backup copies, so that time when Jesus opened up the can of whoopass on the slave trader just got left out of the final save.

This is extremely convenient for you. Unfortunately, for those of us who are aiming for a little bit of consistency, it tends to be a bit of a thorn, since the answer from you becomes "Jesus felt the way I would have wanted him to feel. Therefore, I'm right and you're wrong."

If something's not there, it's not there. Never did I say I knew exactly what was said if we don't have documentation of it.

Interesting. I wonder, do we have anything in common from the time of Jesus, where Jesus specifically told us what to do, and we are ignoring it? Think... think... think...

Ah, yes, we do! Children disrespecting their parents, cursing them out, etc. Now, let's ask the Bible how Jesus feels about this, shall we?

Ouch. Looks like the child who fails to properly honor his father and mother is to be put to death according to Jesus. He is, after all, upset about failure to follow the law in that passage.
Now, I don't hear of a whole lot of people following that particular law. Kids still do it, though. Seems that, again, we are finding ourselves dealing with changing standards of behavior. Again, ignoring the documented words and instructions of Jesus himself. Oh, and just
for good measure, again, Jesus condoning immoral behavior. Wait, condoning? That's a poor word choice here. He's not just condoning it, he's demanding it.

Now, I'm sure you're going to tell me that the timeless, ineffable word of God must be evaluated in the context of the time in which man wrote down these words. Which leads us back on the merry go round of showing you the pick-n-mix you engage in every day. Me saying "Look, here's a direct contradiction!", and you saying "Nope, no contradiction. la-la-
la" etc. Still, I'll try.

Are you being sarcastic this time? Do you really think that Jesus is demanding the deaths of children? He was being given a hard time by religious Pharisees for what they saw as violating the laws of Moses by not washing his hands. He used what you posted to point out their hypocrisy. Basically he's saying "you don't follow this, so don't give me a hard time about this, hypocrites." Then he went on to explain why washing his hands wasn't necessary. He never told them to actually start killing children.

I see you missed the note from Slytovhand: I'm very sarcastic. That entire line was meant to point out to you that I have shown numerous contradictions to you, and your answers have been stubbornly refusing to acknowledge them. For example, you defend the biblical buying and selling of people by stating that Hebrew slavery was different from what we call slavery, and therefore that's why it's okay with Jesus. All the while, you ignore that buying and selling people is, prima facie, an immoral act, and therefore should never have been condoned by Jesus, ever, under any circumstances. I fully expect your reply to this to amount to "You just don't understand". Well, I'm here, I'm reading. I'm backing up my assertions. You are just telling me I don't understand. Show me why I'm wrong. Explain it to me. And if you can't, get someone else to do so. Because I'll tell you, right now, Jesus is sounding a lot less morally upright than he should have been.

Servitude in various forms has been around for all of human history. The main problem I see is with abusive treatment of people rather than people being a servile position. As I mentioned before, we put people in penitentiaries to hard labor and they're not allowed to leave. By technical definition, they would be slaves, because they're not free workers. I don't think it's immoral to put people into penitentiaries.

And by putting the word proof in quotes, you neatly show your contempt for something you have not even read. You also attempt to discredit it using the same notation. If you want to debate it, I've got the thread. I've given the link. Do so. Don't choose the cowardly option of trying to discredit something without any backing. At least pretend to have something other than "because I said so".

Basically I feel that just because God knows what you will choose, that doesn't mean you don't have a choice to make. There are certain debates I try to stay out of, that's one of them. Another is abortion. I try not to debate that anymore because arguments get way too heated and they go nowhere. Sorry if I seemed contemptuous.

[Rubystars]

Oww... I warned you about Ped..
Ok, back to me (it's always about me, I hope you know! )

The issue I'm suggesting is you're basing 'marriage' on what the people involved in the marriage do, not on the fact that they are just 2 human beings. In other words, on 'doingness' not 'beingness'.

It's important who those human beings are. Unless they have a birth defect which gives them an intersex condition, humans are male or female. They're not just generic human beings.

But that's only because you're choosing to make what they do more important than who they are.

Someone's sex is an important part of who they are.

You see, the rest of the laws aren't based on such discriminations which don't actually have a negative impact on society - that's called 'discrimination', and people can get sued for it. Thus, the ultimate question is: if a black person goes into a shop and is refused service because they are black, they sue. If a muslim walks into a shop and gets refused service, they can sue. etc. If a black couple are refused marriage because they are black, they can sue. If a muslim couple are refused to marry for being muslim, then they can sue. So, what's the relevant significant difference here? Ok - it's not 'a man' and 'a woman' to 'each other'...it's still denying their basic right to marry a person of their choosing who is of legal age and consenting.. and that is a form of legal discrimination.

The differnce here is that you consider it a basic right to marry anyone of their choosing regardless of the sex of the other person, and I don't.

Ah, well, you see - I'm not referencing back to any Christian churches. I'm disputing your influence of Judeo-Christian laws and traditions on current 'western' civilisation. We owe far to the Greeks and Romans than we do to the Jews and Christians... our form of government, our laws, legislature, judiciary, court system, philosophy, finances and banking, 'rights', obligations and responsibilities, etc. Judaism has had bugger all to do with our society now (other than a bit of a guilt trip from the last hundred years or so), and Christianity's influence has mainly been about killing people or converting them.. and being the cause of a stack of wars (and shaming and guilting people... and looking down on them). Our philosophy is Greek, our science is Greek, democracy is Greek. Our roads, our sewerage, our senate is Roman. Our language is a combination of Greek and Latin... extremely little is Hebrew (and Christianity doesn't even have it's own language!). Science?? Let's not even go there! (well, ok, let's... Christianity held the sciences back for almost 1000 years...because - perhaps not quite coincidentally - no-one was allowed to question Christian doctrine - on penalty of death or imprisonment).

Bibles... I have it on good authority that the KJB version was the one which introduced 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live amongst you' crap... where all others have the translation as 'thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live amongst you'... bit of a difference!

There were a lot of evil things done by medeival Christians which I can not and will not justify. It's my belief that people who murdered others for not following the same religion went to hell.

There were a lot of good things that came from Greek culture but there were some bad things too. Yes those ancient cultures had an influence on ours, but I don't think that erases the fact that Christianity has also been a prominent influence.

But you are wanting the law to adhere to your religion's tenets! Your religion (apparently... I'll let Ped and the others argue that line) says that homosexuality is bad, and you want the law to say that legal marriages shouldn't be allowed.. and it's only on that basis. So, yes, you are forcing people to 'follow' your religion... certainly to get dragged along behind it. After all, in Wicca, they have handfastings between same sex couples, I don't see anywhere forcing people to make that into law.

I think of heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage as being completely different things, that is, not equivalent, not equal, not the same thing at all. Most people on this board just see two adults who want to get married in both situations and can't figure out why I'm so "bigoted". Like I stated in the last thread, to me it's like someone saying they want to marry any number of ridiculous things or people that would be inappropriate.

Actually, no they don't. Anger, maybe. But in reality, bigots are labelled as such because of their attitudes as expressed verbally. A line here, a thought pattern there. A word of advice to someone which is clearly based on... well, nothing except ignorance. Bigots don't get violent.. unless they've got a violent personality. Totally stupid and ridiculous claims that have absolutely no bearing on reality (I had it recently by a couple of friends of mine in regards to going to China... ah, no, they aren't particularly backwards... take a look at where most of the stuff you own is made... you really think they're lacking technologically???)

China isn't lacking in technology but it is lacking in regulation, so I would be careful about some things there too if you go there.

Absolutely right there with you on that one!!!

(and, damn, don't ya just hate it when you get a thought, and you forget it cos other stuff gets in the way??? grrr)

ETA: Ok, sorry if this has been covered in the previous 10 pages (this is the fastest growing thread I've seen... rivalled only by Ruby's other thread.. wow!!)

It was surprising to me too.

Anyway, I've seen written a couple of times: "Even if the government hands you a marriage license and officially condones your "marriage", I still won't consider that to be a marriage. It just doesn't fit the definition of marriage."

So, let's look at that...

Google - define: marriage

Nowhere on that page does it say anything about the gender of the people involved! Ergo, the definition of 'marriage' that you are using, Ruby, is not the standard definition, and is in fact a specific one that you are arguing against. This topic has also been brought up elsewhere, when looking back through history (which, I note has not yet been adequately addressed by yourself...).

So, if you wish to say - "Gay marriage would not be a Christian marriage" - ok, fine, you've got grounds for that - particularly if that religious breed happens to be Catholic. If you want to link to what definition you're referring to, that everyone can accept, and is therefore 'valid' in a broader context than your own milieu, please... we would need that!

BUT... you can't just adopt a particular word, use it your own way, and then expect everyone else to follow suit.

I'm not a Catholic, I'm non-denominational. In my opinion it's gays who are fighting to change the standard definition of marriage.

Also, if the government chooses to adopt same-sex marriages, yes that IS a marriage! Totally, absolutely and completely regardless of whether you choose to accept it or not. The world (or at least, the US) doesn't revolve around yours (or any other individual or groups) definitions. It's supposed to be about what is for the benefit of all human beings (granted, we know this isn't actually the way things go, but that's a different thread... ones I believe that have already been covered).

You can call it that if you want to. I still won't consider it to be a marriage.

[Rubystars]

I was just thinking, we'll give you marriage, if you give us pagans back our holidays.

I like the pretty trees though

[Flyndaran]

Someone's sex is an important part of who they are..

Absolutely not! It is a part of WHAT they are, not who they are. I wouldn't care if tomorrow I woke up female. It wouldn't change WHO I am at all.

The differnce here is that you consider it a basic right to marry anyone of their choosing regardless of the sex of the other person, and I don't.

Marriage is considered a civil right according to the civil rights ruling involving interracial marriage a few decades ago.
You really don't consider marriage that important? You woulnd't have any problem with me saying that you don't have the right to marry who you want to?

[Slytovhand]

In my opinion it's gays who are fighting to change the standard definition of marriage.

Woah there.... 'standard definition' seems to have a different meaning for you than for the rest of the English speaking world. I've just given you a link to a stack of different definitions (and, granted, some are talking about bands or songs...), so I can't really accept that it's 'the gays' who are fighting to change the 'standard definition', but the 'conservatives'. (of course, 'conservative' is a rather amusing and ironic term... I knew someone who was following a druid path, in a family of Catholics and Uniting Church members (and, I think, one of the Eastern Religions)... yes - the druid is, technically, the 'conservative' in the family ). Anyway, back to topic.... just because you can point to a few hundred years doesn't mean you can claim rights to a certain term (as has been pointed out). The word 'marriage' has meant different things to different cultures... if you want to have your own religious definition for the word - fine! But, please, don't try and enforce that on the government... and that's what the rest of us are arguing about.

(sorry about the 'Catholic' bit... I was still thinking of another post where I used it as an example.. I wasn't actually trying to label you).

<snip>a basic right

(emphasis mine).

Yes, yes I do - within a certain definition. Is it everyone's right to be able to marry? If so, why? And, given that 'rights' are actually artificially given by society, who or what is giving that right? So, let me ask you... who do you think grants such 'rights'? Who or what should be granting those rights, and what considerations should be taken into account when deciding them? (not much different to the gun control debate, actually!)

<snip>not equivalent, not equal,

For me, I see: A - 2 people (humans, as this case may happen to be), B - some words in the presence of a witness, and C - some legal documentation. Marriage is a social construct, so to an extent, it's quite irrelevant. A car (as you've exampled in the past) can't sign the legal document, thus, it can't get married - fair enough! You'd be hard pressed to get many things other than humans to get married (though, I'm sure some out there would try). And then, there's the other bits of the ceremony... that's why I don't see it as any different, any non-equal, any non-equivalent. It's the signatures and names on the documents than are important from a legal standpoint.


Now - just before Ped jumps on, it'd be worth your time (and ours) to see how you explain Free Will in the face of predestination.... it might take the debate into interesting directions...

I can't say what Jesus would have said about it, but I think I have a better circumstantial case than a pro-gay person would have.

Ok - why? No, really... it's the biggest and most major part of your argument against gay marriage, so why? Yes, we all expect citations. I'd like to think that where there is some controversial topic or choice to make, a standard Christian would ask themselves "What would Jesus do?", and then do that. This is no different - so... "What would Jesus do?", and what evidence would make you think that?? (As you've seen, quoting Paul isn't likely to get you far with some members of this board)

[Rapscallion]

Are there Bible verses that oppose my views?

There are if you eat pork, or wear cloth made from more than one sort of fabric.

My problem is that you're labelling yourself as a member of one faith, yet also saying you don't go to church much and don't really read the bible that much. Despite that, you feel that you can say that because of your faith you believe that a distinct group of people who differ only in sexuality should not have tha same abilities to commit to a relationship that you do. That's based on your faith.

However, despite claiming that your faith says you shouldn't accept homosexuality, you say that you don't really know the rest of the restrictions that well (if I remember your posts right). You're effectively using just one part of the biblical texts and none of the rest.

As per the other thread, I'm of the opinion that I appreciate people who follow all the tenets of their faith, or who think hard about which bits to select. I can't see you as having done either, save for enough to attempt to justify dismissing something you don't like.

Rapscallion

[Rubystars]

Absolutely not! It is a part of WHAT they are, not who they are. I wouldn't care if tomorrow I woke up female. It wouldn't change WHO I am at all.

Try making this case to the transsexuals who are agonized over being born the "wrong" gender.

Marriage is considered a civil right according to the civil rights ruling involving interracial marriage a few decades ago.
You really don't consider marriage that important? You woulnd't have any problem with me saying that you don't have the right to marry who you want to?

I don't consider it a basic right to marry someone of the same sex.

[Rubystars]

There are if you eat pork, or wear cloth made from more than one sort of fabric.

My problem is that you're labelling yourself as a member of one faith, yet also saying you don't go to church much and don't really read the bible that much. Despite that, you feel that you can say that because of your faith you believe that a distinct group of people who differ only in sexuality should not have tha same abilities to commit to a relationship that you do. That's based on your faith.

However, despite claiming that your faith says you shouldn't accept homosexuality, you say that you don't really know the rest of the restrictions that well (if I remember your posts right). You're effectively using just one part of the biblical texts and none of the rest.

As per the other thread, I'm of the opinion that I appreciate people who follow all the tenets of their faith, or who think hard about which bits to select. I can't see you as having done either, save for enough to attempt to justify dismissing something you don't like.

Rapscallion

I already answered this question earlier in this thread. I already explained the New Testament teaching that those laws about pork, etc. do not apply to Gentile Christians.

[Rubystars]

Woah there.... 'standard definition' seems to have a different meaning for you than for the rest of the English speaking world.

Almost nobody in America or Europe before the last several decades would have thought of two men if you brought up the topic of marriage. The image that would have come to mind would have been a man and a woman.

I've just given you a link to a stack of different definitions (and, granted, some are talking about bands or songs...), so I can't really accept that it's 'the gays' who are fighting to change the 'standard definition', but the 'conservatives'. (of course, 'conservative' is a rather amusing and ironic term... I knew someone who was following a druid path, in a family of Catholics and Uniting Church members (and, I think, one of the Eastern Religions)... yes - the druid is, technically, the 'conservative' in the family ).

Good for him

Anyway, back to topic.... just because you can point to a few hundred years doesn't mean you can claim rights to a certain term (as has been pointed out). The word 'marriage' has meant different things to different cultures... if you want to have your own religious definition for the word - fine! But, please, don't try and enforce that on the government... and that's what the rest of us are arguing about.

(sorry about the 'Catholic' bit... I was still thinking of another post where I used it as an example.. I wasn't actually trying to label you).

So you acknowledge that marriage has been basically between men and women for at least hundreds of years in Western culture, but you think conservatives are the ones trying to change the definition.

(emphasis mine).

Yes, yes I do - within a certain definition. Is it everyone's right to be able to marry? If so, why? And, given that 'rights' are actually artificially given by society, who or what is giving that right? So, let me ask you... who do you think grants such 'rights'? Who or what should be granting those rights, and what considerations should be taken into account when deciding them? (not much different to the gun control debate, actually!)

I think that everyone has certain rights by virtue of simply being human, regardless of what the greater society around them believes. Babies for example have the right not to be abused even if society believes in that. Of course, without society's consensus, those rights won't mean anything in practical terms.

I don't believe that the right to marry someone of the same sex is something that someone has as their natural rights, and I don't believe society should give that right either.

For me, I see: A - 2 people (humans, as this case may happen to be), B - some words in the presence of a witness, and C - some legal documentation. Marriage is a social construct, so to an extent, it's quite irrelevant. A car (as you've exampled in the past) can't sign the legal document, thus, it can't get married - fair enough! You'd be hard pressed to get many things other than humans to get married (though, I'm sure some out there would try). And then, there's the other bits of the ceremony... that's why I don't see it as any different, any non-equal, any non-equivalent. It's the signatures and names on the documents than are important from a legal standpoint.

You could train an ape to make a mark on a paper. Would that be a valid marriage? Not trying to dehumanize gays, just saying that there are those other than human that could potentially sign a document. A robot could also potentially leave a signature. Would either of those marriages be valid in your opinion?

Now - just before Ped jumps on, it'd be worth your time (and ours) to see how you explain Free Will in the face of predestination.... it might take the debate into interesting directions...

I already said all I really want to say about it. That's a debate that goes nowhere.

Ok - why? No, really... it's the biggest and most major part of your argument against gay marriage, so why? Yes, we all expect citations. I'd like to think that where there is some controversial topic or choice to make, a standard Christian would ask themselves "What would Jesus do?", and then do that. This is no different - so... "What would Jesus do?", and what evidence would make you think that?? (As you've seen, quoting Paul isn't likely to get you far with some members of this board)

I've never heard anything more ridiculous than expecting a Christian to reject the writings of Paul. Paul's writings have been canonized, and they are part of the Christian Bible. I'm a Christian and therefore I believe what Paul wrote about homosexuality. The whole attempt to divide Paul and Jesus seems silly to me because obviously Christians believe Paul was inspired.

[AdminAssistant]

Again, not all Christians are fundamentalists that take the Bible literally. I haven't read or studied enough of Paul to make a solid decision, but I take much of what's in the Bible with many grains of salt.

[Pedersen]

Start with this, and if you need more, there's always google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_slave_trade

Okay, having read that, I grant you that it wasn't as bad as slavery as practiced here in the USA during the pre-Civil War era. So, let's reduce the argument down to the barest minimums: At a minimum, slavery involves the ownership of a person, and the ability to treat that person as property. Furthermore, reading the verses I have already supplied, it can be seen that said property could be sold, and could be sold individually from the rest of the family. Families could be taken apart by someone who chose to sell one slave, but not the remainder of the slave's family.

These are facts that are not in dispute by any stretch of the imagination. These are items which are immoral under any circumstances. Jesus was okay with these things. Ergo, Jesus condoned immoral behavior.

I can't say what Jesus would have said about it, but I think I have a better circumstantial case than a pro-gay person would have.

Ah, now we're going with circumstantial evidence. Without doing any deep research, I can definitively say this: Jesus rebuked and abandoned his family (Matthew 12:47-49), Jesus traveled with a group of men at all times, Jesus explicitly stated that men are holy to God, but women were not mentioned (Luke 2:23), Jesus expressed no interest in carnal pleasures with women at any time that was documented, and when his mother saw him after his Resurrection, he forbade her from touching him (John 20:18), though he allowed Thomas to do so a few days later (John 20:24).

Toss in Paul's writings (an individual who would have been much closer to the source, and would have heard these stories merely second or third hand), and note how Paul has some serious issues with women, stating that men should not touch women (1 Corinthians 7:1-2), and that women should be silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). All of that is just getting warmed up on Paul.

If you're looking to build a case based on circumstantial evidence, I think that I've actually built a case that Jesus himself might have been gay.

Quite frankly, I'd think you'd want something more solid than circumstantial evidence as backing for your case, unless you want people to start giving you some mental images that are likely to squick you out.

What did he say that was contrary to what I would have wanted him to say?

Well, I would hope you would have expected a condemnation of slavery. If you didn't, then we might have yet another 100+ post thread brewing.

If something's not there, it's not there. Never did I say I knew exactly what was said if we don't have documentation of it.

Technically, you are correct. But only by an extremely slim margin. What you did say was to post a link to Paul's epistles to the Corinthians about it when you were point blank asked what Jesus said about it. You're splitting a mighty fine hair there. Will a microscope help you see it better, make the split easier? Because I know that I didn't see it until you explicitly pointed it out to me.

Are you being sarcastic this time? Do you really think that Jesus is demanding the deaths of children? He was being given a hard time by religious Pharisees for what they saw as violating the laws of Moses by not washing his hands. He used what you posted to point out their hypocrisy. Basically he's saying "you don't follow this, so don't give me a hard time about this, hypocrites." Then he went on to explain why washing his hands wasn't necessary. He never told them to actually start killing children.

Of course! It makes perfect sense now! "You're not killing your disrespectful children, so stfu about my guy not washing his hands before dinner!" Perfectly reasoned and appropriate response. I understand completely now. Not even sure how I would have missed it before. He went for the over the top response, so as to generate maximum shock value. He didn't really mean what he said. Yep. I absolutely believe that now.

By the way, I'm pondering moving to Nebraska next year. You got any beachfront property I could buy there? I really love the ocean, you know.

Servitude in various forms has been around for all of human history. The main problem I see is with abusive treatment of people rather than people being a servile position. As I mentioned before, we put people in penitentiaries to hard labor and they're not allowed to leave. By technical definition, they would be slaves, because they're not free workers. I don't think it's immoral to put people into penitentiaries.

The primary difference is that, even in penitentiaries, they are not property. They cannot be bought and sold (well, not legally, anyway. Prison culture has a different opinion). They might well be put to work, but they are not owned by someone else.

And Jesus was condoning the owning of another human being as property. That is a thoroughly immoral act. When he's willing to condone one, who's to say he didn't condone others, and those others weren't written down?

[Rubystars]

Again, not all Christians are fundamentalists that take the Bible literally. I haven't read or studied enough of Paul to make a solid decision, but I take much of what's in the Bible with many grains of salt.

There are a lot of people who feel the same way these days. It's not something that makes me happy, but it is your choice to believe how you're going to believe. I am a lot more conservative, obviously.

Ironically enough, I don't really fit in too well with other conservative Christians, because they often consider me to be a liberal. People like yourself consider me to be a fundy.

[Rubystars]

Okay, having read that, I grant you that it wasn't as bad as slavery as practiced here in the USA during the pre-Civil War era.

That's what I was trying to tell you before. I'm glad you understand that now.

So, let's reduce the argument down to the barest minimums: At a minimum, slavery involves the ownership of a person, and the ability to treat that person as property. Furthermore, reading the verses I have already supplied, it can be seen that said property could be sold, and could be sold individually from the rest of the family. Families could be taken apart by someone who chose to sell one slave, but not the remainder of the slave's family.

These are facts that are not in dispute by any stretch of the imagination. These are items which are immoral under any circumstances. Jesus was okay with these things. Ergo, Jesus condoned immoral behavior.

I don't understand all the rules regarding slavery. I would have to ask someone more knowledgeable than myself about why some of the rules were in place. I remember reading about letting the husband go but keeping the wife and kids but I don't remember at the moment what the reason for it was.

In any case as a Christian I believe that Jesus lived a sin free life, and therefore he never advocated anything immoral.

I think how slaves are treated is more important than the fact that they were slaves. I don't want to re-institute slavery, in any form, today, so I don't really see the purpose of discussing it anyway. Anything Jesus or Paul said, I don't have a problem with.

Ah, now we're going with circumstantial evidence. Without doing any deep research, I can definitively say this: Jesus rebuked and abandoned his family (Matthew 12:47-49), Jesus traveled with a group of men at all times, Jesus explicitly stated that men are holy to God, but women were not mentioned (Luke 2:23), Jesus expressed no interest in carnal pleasures with women at any time that was documented, and when his mother saw him after his Resurrection, he forbade her from touching him (John 20:18), though he allowed Thomas to do so a few days later (John 20:24).

Toss in Paul's writings (an individual who would have been much closer to the source, and would have heard these stories merely second or third hand), and note how Paul has some serious issues with women, stating that men should not touch women (1 Corinthians 7:1-2), and that women should be silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). All of that is just getting warmed up on Paul.

If you're looking to build a case based on circumstantial evidence, I think that I've actually built a case that Jesus himself might have been gay.

I don't think I've ever seen anything more twisted than what you just tried to throw together. I don't even think I'm going to try to argue with you on that one because you're obviously deliberately misreading things in order to raise debate points with me. I believe at some point in this thread we were talking about gay marriage being legalized. Now you're getting into Biblical criticism. I don't believe that Paul was misogynistic.

Quite frankly, I'd think you'd want something more solid than circumstantial evidence as backing for your case, unless you want people to start giving you some mental images that are likely to squick you out.

Nowhere in the entire Bible is homosexuality condoned, but both the Old and New testaments condemn it. Regardless of what Jesus actually said, or didn't say, I think that in itself makes a pretty clear case for the Christian faith opposing homosexual behavior.

Well, I would hope you would have expected a condemnation of slavery. If you didn't, then we might have yet another 100+ post thread brewing.

If you want another debate you might have to wait a while. I'm trying to finish up with this one.

Technically, you are correct. But only by an extremely slim margin. What you did say was to post a link to Paul's epistles to the Corinthians about it when you were point blank asked what Jesus said about it. You're splitting a mighty fine hair there. Will a microscope help you see it better, make the split easier? Because I know that I didn't see it until you explicitly pointed it out to me.

Paul's words are part of the NT, so they are also considered to be Christian Scripture. Therefore they are relevant to demonstrate that the Christian faith would oppose homosexual behavior.

Of course! It makes perfect sense now! "You're not killing your disrespectful children, so stfu about my guy not washing his hands before dinner!" Perfectly reasoned and appropriate response. I understand completely now. Not even sure how I would have missed it before. He went for the over the top response, so as to generate maximum shock value. He didn't really mean what he said. Yep. I absolutely believe that now.

By the way, I'm pondering moving to Nebraska next year. You got any beachfront property I could buy there? I really love the ocean, you know.

Sarcasm again?

The primary difference is that, even in penitentiaries, they are not property. They cannot be bought and sold (well, not legally, anyway. Prison culture has a different opinion). They might well be put to work, but they are not owned by someone else.

And Jesus was condoning the owning of another human being as property. That is a thoroughly immoral act. When he's willing to condone one, who's to say he didn't condone others, and those others weren't written down?

I think treatment of the person has more to do with morality or immorality than the social status of the person.