Gay marraige? What would God say?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
I just did. How much of it did you read? Basically it's a whole list of things that you should be put to death for.

Leviticus 20:18
If a man lies in sexual intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period, both of them shall be cut off from their people, because they have laid bare the flowing fountain of her blood.

Do you agree with this one? ...[text shortened]... t to death; since he has cursed his father or mother, he has forfeited his life.

Or this one?

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...🙂

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Does freedom imply the absence of consequence?

Of course not, and I never said it did. Quite explicitly above I claimed that on my reading of 'freedom', a man may freely submit to the will of another. What I am disagreeing with is any view according to which it is a necessary condition on being truly free that one intentionally act in accord with the will of some external agent.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The question is - does loving one's neighbour mean condoning everything he/she does? Look at some real-life examples:

- A husband loves his wife but does not condone her sleeping with another man.
- A mother loves her son, but does not condone his shop-lifting.
- A man loves his friend, but does not condone the latter's drug abuse.

To love someone is to take on yourself the moral responsibility of pointing out when he/she is in error.

Loving you neihbour involves:
- A husband loves his wife but does not condone her sleeping with another man. But forgives he because she wants to repent
- A mother loves her son, but does not condone his shop-lifting.
But he forgives because he wants to repent
- A man loves his friend, but does not condone the latter's drug abuse. But he forgives because he wants to repent

If they do not wnat to repent Jesus taught take to forgive not seven but 777 times

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What is the Zen view of murder?

It would be a mistake to think of Zen as a doctrinal system. There are core values shared by the vast majority of Zen practitioners, but moral questions are not answered from a Zen perspective by reference to some abstract principle. In this way, the normative aspect of Zen is more akin to Aristotelian virtue theory than, say, consequentialist or deontological theories. Other sorts of Buddhist views (theraveda Buddhism, for instance) may have codified moral priniciples relating to murder. I am not interested in such views for the same reason I am not interested in Catholicism: they mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
My comment is a response to Bennett's statement that "Bigotry is very un-Zen". Bigotry is an intolerance of differing views. I was merely wondering how Zen approaches those who consider murder justified and/or desirable.

Bigotry is not "intolerance of differing views". If so, then if I were to be intolerant of the views of one who was actively seeking my death, I would qualify as bigoted. This is absurd.

Originally posted by bbarr
Bigotry is not "intolerance of differing views". If so, then if I were to be intolerant of the views of one who was actively seeking my death, I would qualify as bigoted. This is absurd.

bigot

n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Originally posted by lucifershammer
bigot

n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Is "any" meant in an existential or univeral sense?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Is "any" meant in an existential or univeral sense?

"any" does not mean all or every so it would not be universal. And existential should really only apply to mathematical concepts, not logical.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
bigot

n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

From the OED:

bigot:

[a. F. bigot, of unknown origin: see below.]

A. n.

1. a. A hypocritical professor of religion, a hypocrite. b. A superstitious adherent of religion.

1598 SPEGHT Chaucer, Bigin, bigot, superstitious hypocrite [1602 adds or hypocriticall woman]. 1653 URQUHART Rabelais I. xl, He is no bigot or hypocrite. 1656 BLOUNT Glossogr., Bigot (Fr.), an hypocrite, or one that seems much more holy then he is, also a scrupulous or Superstitious fellow. 1664 H. MORE Myst. Iniq. 436 One part of their Church becomes Sotts and Bigots.



2. A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, or ritual.

1661 COWLEY Cromwell Wks. II. 655 He was rather a well-meaning and deluding Bigot, than a crafty and malicious Impostor. 1741 WATTS Improv. Mind i. Wks. (1813) 14 A dogmatist in religion is not a long way off from a bigot. 1844 STANLEY Arnold II. viii. 13 [Dr. Arnold] was almost equally condemned, in London as a bigot, and in Oxford as a latitudinarian.



b. transf. (Of other than religious opinions.)

1687 CONGREVE Old Bach. I. v, Yet is adored by that bigot Sir Joseph Wittol as the image of valour. 1838 HALLAM Hist. Lit. I. vii. §14 I. 395 Lord Bacon, certainly no bigot to Aristotle. 1863 KINGSLEY Water-Bab. vi. 290 The children of Prometheus are..the bigots, and the bores.


Notice that while your first, absurd definition succumbs to the obvious counterexample above, this one does not. The obvious reason is the 'bigot' is term with both normative and descriptive components, and the definition 'intolerant of the views of others' captures merely the descriptive component.

What does God say on gay marriage? Taking the Bible as His word, I'd predict God would say "Your kidding, right?" 🙂

I don't think it's compatible with Christianity. But I don't think there should be a constitutional amendment. I'd rather see the government get out of the whole marriage issue all together. The government should also not be in the marriage "license" business.

Originally posted by Coletti
And existential should really only apply to mathematical concepts, not logical.

It is not the case that there exists a logician who shares this view.

Originally posted by Coletti
"any" does not mean all or every so it would not be universal. And existential should really only apply to mathematical concepts, not logical.

So what does "any" mean? How would you reword the definition using different terminology while preserving the original meaning?

Originally posted by Coletti
"any" does not mean all or every so it would not be universal. And existential should really only apply to mathematical concepts, not logical.

What?

Consider the following exchange:

Q: What beer would you like from those on tap?

A: Any of the beers on tap will be fine.

The term 'any' in the answer is accurately characterized in first-order logic by the universal quantifier. We can translate the answer accordingly:

At: For all X, if X is a beer on tap, then X will be fine.


Further, the existensional quantifier is absolutely applicable to logical concepts. All the existential quantifier signifies is that there is something within the domain of discourse of which something else can be predicated. Consider:

There is some X such that X is a transitive, reflexive relation every object bears uniquely to itself.

The logical concept of identitfy satisfies this claim.

Originally posted by bbarr
What?

Consider the following exchange:

Q: What beer would you like from those on tap?

A: Any of the beers on tap will be fine.

The term 'any' in the answer is accurately characterized in first-order logic by the universal quantifier. We can translate the answer accordingly:

At: For all X, if X is a beer on tap, then X will be fine.


Fu ...[text shortened]... t bears uniquely to itself.

The [b]logical concept of identitfy satisfies this claim.

[/b]

But I would not be thereby be requesting all of the beers on tap - only the one or two. The question is a request for a beer. And the answer is that some of the beers, one glass, and limited to the selection of those on tap will be acceptable. But please don't give me 30 glasses of beer if that is all the kinds of beers on tap.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
So what does "any" mean? How would you reword the definition using different terminology while preserving the original meaning?

Any would mean less than or equal to all. Since all can not be less than all, than any does not mean all all the time.