You have not yet told me where the right to life comes from.

From us.

I want to live for as long as I can and so do most other people. The Golden Rule applies: you don’t try kill me and I won’t try to kill you.

Simple.

“No.”

Why not?

My church has never changed a dogmatic teaching. On the matter of your question, it should be evident that one should not trust a moral authority that can’t make up its mind about morals.

—”I think we can both agree that there are many issues in addition to this one that are up for debate.”

Sure.

—”After all, how many denominations of Christianity are there?”

Tens of thousands.

—”I’ve asked repeatedly how you know your interpretation is right, and haven’t received an answer.”

OK. Fair enough. I guess I owe you that much. I know my answer is right because it comes from the one Church that Christ founded over two thousand years ago, which never has and never will change its mind about any doctrine. However, that is one issue that I will not press [indeed, I will not mention it again] out of respect for my hosts.

—”Is it those who follow the Bible word for word? Does your church enforce ALL the laws in Leviticus?”

No.

—”I have a feeling that no matter what evidence I provide, you will write it off as a divorce from the Church to begin with, and therefore not worth recognizing as a legitimate example. This stategy reminds me of someone…”

The two tests are these: Is it Scriptural, that is, does it reflect the whole of God’s word, not just one part of it, and is it consistent with the natural moral law, which also cannot violate Scripture.

By that way, this discussion is not much fun for me either. I would much rather critique Hitchens militant atheism or the morality of abortionsts who attack babies in their mothers womb and torture them to death. Perhaps we can come together on that one.

—-Too easy. Those issues shouldn’t even be up for debate.

I agree, and I salute you for saying so.

I find it hard to believe that whatever Church you belong to has not changed a single thing since its inception, in which case the same consequences would apply. Nevertheless, let’s say, as you put it, the old interpretation was false. So what? How does that corrupt all trustworthiness?

I think we can both agree that there are many issues in addition to this one that are up for debate. After all, how many denominations of Christianity are there? I’ve asked repeatedly how you know your interpretation is right, and haven’t received an answer. Is it those who follow the Bible word for word? Does your church enforce ALL the laws in Leviticus?

I have a feeling that no matter what evidence I provide, you will write it off as a divorce from the Church to begin with, and therefore not worth recognizing as a legitimate example. This stategy reminds me of someone…

“By that way, this discussion is not much fun for me either. I would much rather critique Hitchens militant atheism or the morality of abortionsts who attack babies in their mothers womb and torture them to death. Perhaps we can come together on that one.”

Too easy. Those issues shouldn’t even be up for debate.

Insofar as they recognize gay relationships, that is correct. If they changed their “doctrine,” which the article you alluded to states, then either their old interpretation of Biblical morality was false, in which case it should never have been trusted, or else their new interpretation of Biblical morality is false, in which case it cannot be trusted now. If you are seeking truth, look for a Church or a moral source that doesn’t change its story.

—”So if I’m understanding this correctly, it is okay for someone to be gay, for that is how they were made, but they have to be celibate to remain moral?”

I didn’t say that they were “made” that way. Quite the contrary, I submit that, for the most part, cultural conditions cause it, meaning that it is a learned behavior based on a multitude of factors. There is no credible evidence to suggest that homosexuals are born that way. So, there are a lot of reasons to think that they can change with the right help and under the right circumstances; that which is learned can be unlearned. In the meantime, yes, homosexuals must remain chase to be moral, just as single heterosexuals must remain chaste to be moral.

Granted, it is a trial, for some a severe one, especially in a sex-crazed culture such as ours, but morality imposes trials on a lot of people. That is why moral relativism has become so popular and why some churches avoid all the hard sayings and change their doctrines to harmoize with the current zeitgeist.

By that way, this discussion is not much fun for me either. I would much rather critique Hitchens militant atheism or the morality of abortionsts who attack babies in their mothers womb and torture them to death. Perhaps we can come together on that one.

Sorry, I forgot. You are right. I am deluded. I guess the Lutheran church is no longer “Biblically oriented”: http://www.washingtontimes.com.....y-couples/

Instead of tap-dancing around the question and insulting me, it’d be better to just answer it.

“Are you talking about the homosexual orientation over which they have no control?”
So if I’m understanding this correctly, it is okay for someone to be gay, for that is how they were made, but they have to be celibate to remain moral?

You have not yet told me where the right to life comes from.

—”Please elaborate how the former does.”

Among other things, the gay lifestyle [and heterosexual libertinism] leads the uninformed to believe that the purpose of sex, which is to create a loving bond between husband and wife, co-create children with God, and infuse the culture with a pro-life ethic, is negotiable and can be altered to suit one’s personal desires.

—”Not all churches, and therefore interpretations of scripture, apparently. How do you know your Church, if you will, is right?”

If you want to delude yourself into believing that the Bible or any Biblically oriented church supports homosexual unions, I don’t think any argument would suffice for you.

—”Please elaborate.”

Ministers should support what the Bible teaches.

—”Well, it was you who brought it up to begin with. Maybe not openly gay pastors but certainly the idea that being gay is wrong.”

Well, not exactly. You asked me to visit a Christian gay website and render an opinion.

—”Again, if they accept Jesus Christ are their souls really in jeopardy?”

Are you talking about the homosexual orientation over which they have no control? If so, the answer is no. Are you talking about the gay lifestyle, over which they do have control. The answer is yes?

—”By a 30 year reduction in life I’m assuming you’re referring to AIDS. While it’s statistically more likely for a person to have AIDS if he is gay, I think that was uncalled for. Being heterosexual doesn’t make one immune to AIDS, anyway.”

I don’t think it is an act of compassion to ignore the fact that active gays typically lose decades out of their life and put their souls in jeopardy. I believe that most, not all, can change their orientation, because I think that it is, usually, not always, more of a “nurture” problem than a “nature” problem. On the other hand, I have not given heterosexual libertinsim a pass or suggested that it was any less sinful.

—”As far as popularity goes, I wasn’t suggesting you would hold your tongue for the sake being on good terms with others. My point is that it’s easier to have conviction on here than in the face of someone who has devoted himself to Christ and made it his life’s work, as well as made peace with who he is (or, as I guess you would put it, who he chooses to be).”

I have not said anything about choosing identities, only behaviors. Can one devote himself to Christ while ignoring his commandments? I will leave that one to you. On the other matter, yes it is easier to dispense hard sayings from a distance. No doubt about it.

Society doesn’t grant rights. It delegates that power to the state. What the state gives the state can take away. Only God granted rights can be inalienable.

In a democracy, the legislature is comprised of members who are chosen by the electorate to represent them. The legislature derives its authority and legitimacy from popular mandate.

A significant difference between the British and US systems, though, is that, in the UK, Parliament is held to be supreme. The two Houses are able to make or unmake any law. Nothing is immune. In the US, the constitution incorporates a Bill of Rights which, while not immune from Congressional amendment, are to some extent shielded from the ebb and flow of political debate. Changes cannot be made lightly or in haste. To that extent the American system is superior. While rights in the US may not be inalienable, by being incorporated in a single statute they are better protected than they are in the UK.

As for God-granted rights in what way are they inalienable? What is to prevent Him from changing His mind and withdrawing some or all of them if He chooses?

What happens if you think that the current abortion laws are reasonable and I think that they are unreasonable? We are both members of society are we not? How is that disagreement adjudicated?

The same way as such disputes are handled now. If the matter is important enough to the electorate it could become subject of public and political debate which could eventually lead to the tabling of draft legislation. This would be scrutinized, debated and finally put to the vote as with any other legislation.

I already explained that we cannot use your morality, my morality, or anyone else’s morality. That is precisely what gets us into trouble. We should use THE morality. If it doesn’t exist, we can’t invent it nor can we ever agree on it.

I prefer to believe that given sufficient time and goodwill we can reach an agreement on a collective morality. As with most such human endeavors, it will probably take time and be a messy business but that does not mean it cannot be done or that we shouldn’t try.

****But what if all four parties agree to it? You said earlier that if consenting adults want to have sex, they should not be discouraged from doing so. So, if both husbands and wives agree to it, there would be no betrayal. Under those circumstances, is adultery moral? What if a whole community works out its own morality such that all couples married or not can exchange partners freely and often?

If it is consensual between responsible adults then it is not immoral in my view

****Is it immoral for adults fornicate with the intention to abort if pregnancy occurs?

Yes, because it threatens an individual whose survival should be protected by the right to life. On the other hand, if they plan to employ contraception then I see no problem.