Why do toasters, dogs and children have the same legal standing as adults?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
H

hopesprings

Guest
#41
Just wondering....did someone say that every single part of the bible was to be taken literally??
 
M

megaman125

Guest
#42
"No, that will come after the beastiality movement, when people start demanding their rights to freely marry and have sex with animals"

The "beasitiality movement" you were referring to happening just like this "gay rights movement" which would stand to show that you believe they are just s equally valid. Therefore, this would insinuate that one would believe that homosexuals and a kitty cat have the same legal standing.....none.
That's an aweful lot of assuming to reach that conclusion. All I was saying is that people will soon start demanding rights to marry/have sex with animals, nothing about what I believe anyone's legal standings should be.
 
S

smithbr8

Guest
#43
That's an aweful lot of assuming to reach that conclusion. All I was saying is that people will soon start demanding rights to marry/have sex with animals, nothing about what I believe anyone's legal standings should be.
But please tell me you do understand the difference between two consenting adults marrying and a man wanting to marry an inanimate object, and animal which has no ability to gives consent according to the law, and a child who again has no ability to give consent according to the law. If you do, then why should those two grown consenting adults be forbidden to get married? Brothers and sisters technically CAN since they're man and woman, and worry about birth defects. Why can't two same sex people agree to marriage and adopt a child and avoid the birth defects?
 
M

megaman125

Guest
#44
But please tell me you do understand the difference between two consenting adults marrying and a man wanting to marry an inanimate object, and animal which has no ability to gives consent according to the law, and a child who again has no ability to give consent according to the law.
Oh, I know the difference. But what makes consent the determinating factor of what's right and wrong, moral or immoral? Why should the line be drawn on the basis of consent?
 
S

smithbr8

Guest
#45
Oh, I know the difference. But what makes consent the determinating factor of what's right and wrong, moral or immoral? Why should the line be drawn on the basis of consent?
The law seems to view it that way. Granted, it's man's law, but why would God put the officials in charge if that was not part of His plan? Didn't he guide them to make these laws as part of his Grand Design?
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#46
It doesn't matter. To look at it literally as in the very definition of each word, that is what the phrase means. Just like "One who does not hear the word of God is not saved".
It does matter. You already stated phrases can have alternate meanings.

How do we know the usage of a phrase?
 
N

nw2u

Guest
#47
Hang in there. Prayers sent for you. Don't give up.
 
S

smithbr8

Guest
#48
It does matter. You already stated phrases can have alternate meanings.

How do we know the usage of a phrase?
CAN have. IF you interpret it. IF read literally, then there's only ONE meaning.
 

Red_Tory

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2010
611
17
18
#49
CAN have. IF you interpret it. IF read literally, then there's only ONE meaning.
...Yes, and to take such a literal reading violates the principles of charitable interpretation, leading to a ridiculous result. However, when reading such texts one should stop and ask "is this what the author may have actually meant?" - that is what you're failing to do.

This goes far beyond people of faith becoming angry when their beliefs are questioned - it has more to do with your violation of basic standards and principles that comprise the basis of discourse. Maybe people yell at you or become frustrated when you ask questions because your posts clearly exhibit intellectual dishonesty at such a fundamental level.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#50
CAN have. IF you interpret it. IF read literally, then there's only ONE meaning.
If someone uses the phrase, "stop beating around the bush, and just tell the truth!" How do you know how the phrase is being used?


What you advocate is called eisegesis. What we are to engage in if we are going to be honest with the word of God is called exegesis, as Red_Tory pointed out.

When I approach verses like, "Faith comes from hearing..." my approach is, "so what is Paul saying?" Whereas you seem to think the way we should approach scripture is with the mind set of, "heh, how can I troll some dumb Christians on the internet with this?"

I sure hope the latter isn't the case, but it is most certainly the atmosphere you give out especially after recognizing that phrases can have multiple meanings, yet insisting that deaf people are going to hell based on your man-handling of the text.


I understand that you are trying to make a point, but the way you are going about doing so causes what you say to fall on deaf ears.

By the way, when I said "fall on deaf ears", am I saying everyone who reads your posts is deaf, or am I saying that what you say will "simply be ignored"? Maybe you'll choose your personal preference rather than what is intended, since that is the trend thus far.
 
D

David_E

Guest
#51
Homosexuality is a sin!! That being said, lying, coveting, premarital sex, and cursing are all sins too. It saddens me that people devote so much time hating gay people, and ignore all the other commandments. People are people, and no one is without sin. I once got the "what if people want to marry a tree" argument, quite the strawman reference, but it was amusing.
 
R

Relena7

Guest
#52
One of the most common arguments I'm seeing on here in regards to homosexual marriage is "Well, if we let that happen, then people will want to marry their dog, their child, their toaster, their sister" etc. Since when do animals, inanimate objects, and children have the same legal standing in terms of getting married? Now the sibling thing, technically yes- it should be allowed. Do I agree with it as something I'd do myself? No, but if someone wants to, why stop them? They could claim they are following the Christian ideals of sexual interactions considering incest was allowed back the old times.

Why do we still use that argument? Pedophiles have sex with children. Let me reiterate that. Pedophiles. Have sex. With. CHILDREN. Not only that, but children who DON'T WANT SEX. Now, how is that ANYTHING like two grown adults consenting to each other?

lol....what?? XD

I must have missed about a book's worth of something here. I'm so lost.