|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Heh, and we're both right back where we started.
I would agree to disagree, but that's so cliche.
I simply believe that marriage is not just a Christian thing, since it predates Christianity and is practiced by members of many other religions. To steal from klinton, no religion has a patent on the word or its meaning. It is because of this (and reasons stated previously) that I believe homosexuals should be given the right to legal "marriage."
But that point is trivial.
Truth is, I don't care what it is called. When same-sex partners can be given legal union WITH all the benefits and responsibilities of married heterosexual couples, I'll be one step closer to happy.
And for klinton, just because you have the right to marry does not mean you have to exercise that right. You are more than welcome (by me anyways) to stay in a non-marital relationship with your partner. I can definitely understand your reasons for doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain and it was placed in the Declaration not for that, but for future use.-- Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
I ask this as a serious exercise in allegory to gay rights:
If I want to marry a gerbil, or a horse, or my right fist, do I have a constitutional right to that, and my freedoms are restricted if I'm not granted this right?
Or would such a legal union be a parody and an insult to true marriage, warping the definition of marriage beyond what is consistent and reasonable?
I could as easily argue that I should be able to marry a 12 year old girl, or a 10 year old girl, because it has previously been done, when human life expectancy averaged about 35 years (for most of human history), and therefore things like childhood and adolescence had to be skipped, in order to get on with the shorter business of life at that time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
Some more two cents lol...
Now, the government cannot say what defines a religious marriage. That is up to each denomination. If a certain church decides to allow a homosexual marriage, then that is up to them and not the governmant.
Likewise, none of the churches can stop a legal definition of marriage. They do not have to recognize a marriage outside of their own church. But I see no reason why a same-sex marriage in the legal sense can be a problem.
For openers, run this train of thought by a Mormon, and you'll find yourself quickly corrected. The government has shut down polygamous marriages.
As I've said repeatedly, if the government legalizes gay marriage, then it recognizes gays as a legitimate minority. Which has a whole onslaught of ramifications.
Not the least of which would be possibly preventing Christians (and other Bible-based religious faiths) from publicly reading from the Bible the above scriptures I quoted. Which would clearly legislate how Christianity is to be practiced. And corrupt it.
In addition, what I already said about forcing Christian owned companies to provide gay spousal benefits and other benefits to gay employees.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I ask this as a serious exercise in allegory to gay rights:
If I want to marry a gerbil, or a horse, or my right fist, do I have a constitutional right to that, and my freedoms are restricted if I'm not granted this right?
Or would such a legal union be a parody and an insult to true marriage, warping the definition of marriage beyond what is consistent and reasonable?
I could as easily argue that I should be able to marry a 12 year old girl, or a 10 year old girl, because it has previously been done, when human life expectancy averaged about 35 years (for most of human history), and therefore things like childhood and adolescence had to be skipped, in order to get on with the shorter business of life at that time.
I can't beleive you posted this....You can spout disgusting, hateful shit like this (above and beyond any previous statements) and yet I live an immoral life? This is your idea of christian behavior? I stand by the "cold and empty" statment.
I just can't believe you belive this. I'm actually hurt, and offended at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I ask this as a serious exercise in allegory to gay rights:
If I want to marry a gerbil, or a horse, or my right fist, do I have a constitutional right to that, and my freedoms are restricted if I'm not granted this right?
Yes, they would be restricting your right to marry a gerbil, horse, or your right fist. However, since none of these things can consent to marrying you, it would be hard to hold a strong case in opposition. Takes two to tango.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Or would such a legal union be a parody and an insult to true marriage, warping the definition of marriage beyond what is consistent and reasonable?
Depends on your intent, but I think it would be safe to label it a parody. Laws are not made to prevent people from being insulted, however.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I could as easily argue that I should be able to marry a 12 year old girl, or a 10 year old girl, because it has previously been done, when human life expectancy averaged about 35 years (for most of human history), and therefore things like childhood and adolescence had to be skipped, in order to get on with the shorter business of life at that time.
Well, as you said, life expectancy was shorter back then.
Now, the legal minimum is what it is (it varies from state to state) because our governing bodies believe that people below the legal age limit do not generally have the maturity required to make this decision. Sexual orientation has no bearing on maturity, however, so we're talking apples and oranges.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
For openers, run this train of thought by a Mormon, and you'll find yourself quickly corrected. The government has shut down polygamous marriages.
This proves her point. The state will not recognize a polygamous marriage as a legally binding marriage, but it DOES NOT restrict someone from being in a polygamous RELIGIOUS marriage. It simply can't. Again, seperation of Church and State.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
This proves her point. The state will not recognize a polygamous marriage as a legally binding marriage, but it DOES NOT restrict someone from being in a polygamous RELIGIOUS marriage. It simply can't. Again, seperation of Church and State.
I don't think it proves her point (asserting that gay marriage would NOT restrict and warp the practice of Christianity, and the practice of others who recognize only traditional marriage between a man and a woman.)
And I don't think it's true that there is not a restriction on religious polygamous marriage. To my knowledge, polygamy, despite whatever justification, is a jailable offense.
Thanks for your answers to the other questions I raised as well, Wednesday. Your answers are logical, although not 100% aligned with my own perspective.
My point is that, however absurd my examples are, the notion of gay marriage is equally absurd to what the established definition of marriage is, in Christian scripture, as well as human law as it has existed for virtually all of the last 6,000 years, until recent times.
It's similar to having cats for the last 6,000 years, and then suddenly saying that dogs are cats too. No, they're not. Dogs are dogs, and cats are cats.
And my point again is that changing the established definition is not going to sit well with a vast percentage of the population, and that a separate term for gay union should be coined, so as not to contradict the traditional definition of marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I ask this as a serious exercise in allegory to gay rights:
If I want to marry a gerbil, or a horse, or my right fist, do I have a constitutional right to that, and my freedoms are restricted if I'm not granted this right?
Or would such a legal union be a parody and an insult to true marriage, warping the definition of marriage beyond what is consistent and reasonable?
I could as easily argue that I should be able to marry a 12 year old girl, or a 10 year old girl, because it has previously been done, when human life expectancy averaged about 35 years (for most of human history), and therefore things like childhood and adolescence had to be skipped, in order to get on with the shorter business of life at that time.
I can't beleive you posted this....You can spout disgusting, hateful shit like this (above and beyond any previous statements) and yet I live an immoral life? This is your idea of christian behavior? I stand by the "cold and empty" statment.
I just can't believe you believe this. I'm actually hurt, and offended at this point.
You know, klinton, I really don't want to offend you, but I really don't know how else to make my point, than to cite through parallel examples how absurd the concept of gay marriage is in a Christian setting.
I understand the desire to have a life partner and make a commitment, whether heterosexual or homosexual.
But I don't understand the need to establish a gay marriage, when the Bible is so crystal clear in its stance on homosexuality.
Why do gays seek to re-write Christianity, rather than simply ignore Christianity ?
The re-writing of Christianity to endorse homosexuality cuts to the core of my objection to gay marriage, and its corruptive influence, in re-writing the Bible.
The allegation has been made (by Wednesday, if I recall, and also Cowgirl Jack) that Christianity doesn't have exclusive domain on the concept of marriage.
But as I said, Christianity, and its earlier form Judaism (and Islam as well, that at least partly recognizes the Old Testament up until the sons of Abraham) does not begin in recent history, BUT GOES BACK TO THE BIRTH OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION, TO ADAM AND EVE.
The WRITTEN history goes back to 1400 B.C., beginning with Genesis, when written language began, but the so-called "oral tradition" of Judao-Christian faith goes back millenia before that. And arguably established the original, and enduring, concept of marriage.
Other religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and others, do not establish themselves as a monotheistic "one true faith" as Judaism and Chtistianity do. And since, to my knowledge, Hindu and Buddhist weddings are likewise between one man and one woman (I've never met a far eastern couple that was OTHER than a man and a woman), they are, as I said, functionally compatible with Western/Christian marriage traditions, despite worshipping a different God (or pantheon of gods).
The Bible (in the examples I gave in my post at the top of this page) makes clear that homosexuality is in contradiction with the Biblical concept of marriage, as described by God himself.
My example was to emphasize that a marriage between two men, or two women, is as much of an outrage to conventional marriage as marrying a gerbil, a horse or my fist. All have about as much Biblical and historical precedent. All fly about equally in the face of the traditions that most recognize marriage to be, Christian or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
My last reply to this subject is to once again ask (and I don't want an answer, just answer this to your own conscience) why is it you can sit there and tell me that "it's ok for you to to be gay, as long as it doesn't affect my life" but if I say " it's ok for you to be a christian as long as it doesn't affect mine" why are my needs and rights as a human being less important than your own? Who are you to judge the value of my rights?
Jesus Christ himself never once declared my life and it's course invalid. Not once. In fact, the most violent condemnations he uttered were against the religious leaders of his time who attempted to declare thier will as the word of God and judge others by thier own warped interpretation of scripture. If the son of God, HIM personified, turned his anger toward people like you, without ever once even commenting on people like me, can you at least open your mind to the idea that maybe you might be wrong on this one?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
I'm just going to address a couple things I read on this thread tonight. Wednesday, you said the Bible wasn't translated correctly throughout the years, or whatever your exact words were. Well according to one of the pastors at my church, yes it was. He's basing this on cold hard facts. It has been proven the current translation versus the old transaltion and it is word for word, with very few mistakes. I don't remember the exact number off hand, but he said this on May 14th actually. Unfortunatly, they don't have the weekday messages online yet, but they do have them on tape and cd, so I could go back any time I want and get that information, or better yet, I could send the guy and email and ask for his notes. Now for the second thing I wanted to address... klinton, you said at one point that gays are persecuted. Well from the way you go on about it, you make it sound like gays are the only ones persecuted. Well I have news for you, they're not. There are plenty of instances where Christians are killed simply because of their beliefe. You want to talk persecution, well you've come to the right person. No one knows it better than a Middle Easterner and that's just what I am. I can go on and on about how women are persecuted in the Middle East. Or how Christians have to hide their faith or risk being killed. In fact, I know I guy that went on a missions trip to the Middle East and his life was in danger the whole time he was there, simply because he's a Christian. Course I could turn that around and point out all the violence towards Muslims and Middle Easterners in general after 9/11. Heck, look at Afghanistan before we went in there. Look at the way women were being persecuted, and yes they were being persecuted. I've heard plenty of stories of how women were walking down the street, and were beaten to death just because you could see their pants from underneath their burcas. Or how about the time when Michael Tait, a well known (black) Christian artist, 1/3 of DC Talk and founding member of the E.R.A.C.E. Foundation was in a town in the South one day with some friends of his, all of whom were white, and they were joking about how it was a real redneck part of the south, the part that still treats blacks like they used to, and they joked about how they'd protect him if anyone hassled them or whatever. Well, they walked into a store, and the owner/manager/whatever told them to leave, that Mike wasn't welcome in there. This happened in the last couple years!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Batwoman...I never implied that gays and lesbians were the only persecuted group, or that they have the worst lot in life. Not once. My point at that time was that they have been, and still are. And if you really want to argue that being a christian in America is a harder than being a gay man, and filled with more daily affronts to human rights, than I'd love to hear your take on that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
I did't say anything about Christians in America being persecuted, I was saying in certain parts of the world they are. I also pointed out a very true and sad, in that I can't believe this crap still goes on way, story of a black Christian man who is a successful musician who was treated like the civil rights movement never happened, just recently.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
No, I agree. In all honesty, I do feel that racism and sexism are the two most vile forms of persecution that exist in American society...I mean, how daft do people have to be to feel that these are criteria for judging a person's worth. The saddest thing about racism in particular is that the people who tend to express it the loudest are usualy far from shining examples of successful human beings.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
Oh boy, where to start...???
First, let me say I'm a very horrible Christian..I'm not good at it but I try. This is where my opinions are coming from...
While, I understand the words seperation of church and state have become a cliche in our culture that has been falsely propagated...I also know that our country is a secular one at heart and always has been. Yes, we have practiced various religions, mostly christian, from the onset and were basically created out of Christian ideals. We still do not, and have never had a state sponsored religion. Our leaders have always been vague about GOD, and what GOD they were talking about. They never mentioned Jesus in the Constitution, nor did they mention Jahweh. They couldn't because there is a thing called freedom of religion. That also falls to people who are agnostic or atheistic or satanist.
Many states have sodomy laws, prostitution laws, and age consent laws...but mostly they are state laws..not federal laws. I do not believe or agree with the practice of homosexuality, but that is my belief and opinion, and I believe one shared by my Bible and God. That said, there are many other practices that my bible does not agree with as well. And I'm sure these practices are looked upon just as sharply. After all, even if you like calling homosexuality an abomination or a desolation or whatever...It's still a sin. And I can only remember 1 unforgivable sin..that's calling a work of the devil a work of god, and debatably suicide.
A sin is a sin folks. And most people here are probably all sinners with a capital S. Do you honestly believe God sits upstairs and thinks... " AAh, those two guys can't ever get into Heaven because they had sex with each other."?? No, only if they never repent of it. And that's strictly from a judeo-christian viewpoint. I'm sure God looks on 98% just as disdainfully...Those of us who are always watching R rated movies, watching porn, lusting after women, drinking beer, having sex freely, commiting adultery, stealing, envying, being back-stabbers, gambling, wasting money, not tithing properly, lacking faith, being mean-spritted, etc, etc, etc, etc...... Let him/her who is without sin cast the first stone... yes, God hates homosexuality, but he hates almost everything else about western lifestyles as well...
Sins aren't weighted..you're forgiven or you aren't. Any pastor, rabbi, clergyman, or reverand worth his salt would never marry 2 homosexual men or women...so can there ever truly be a godly sponsored wedding..no, because the person performing the ceremony couldn't really be a Christian.
I don't like the idea of same sex partners being able to get married, but this is 21st century secular America. A place where all traditional "christian" values have become distorted and ramrodded. The thing I find most shocking is that after all the desensitizations we have endured is that people actually seem to be shocked by the idea of same sex marriage. I for one am the last person to sit here and say exactly what 2 free adult citizens can do and what rights the state affords them. I wish Christians would worry more about telling and showing homosexual people how they should live rather than demanding it of them. I wish people would quite thinking of the Bible as hate literature, because basically it disdains us all- not exclusively homosexuals. We cannot change what is wrong or evil in the eyes of God to suit our own wishes. We have to recognize the wrong we are commiting and ask forgiveness for it.
Never forget that we are indeed living in a secular nation as much as christians want to claim it is a christian one. So we should try to live a holy life and live by example. After all, if we can't be responsible for ourselves how can we help to be instruments to help others? Gay marriage in the US will happen and it will happen sooner rather than later. So be responsible for yourself and your family. And try to be a positive example and influence for everyone else and help when you can. Yes, a person can oppose this and oppose that and try to ban this or ban that, but most laws don't modify behavior..they may limit it, but they don't stop it.
Quite honestly, the only thing I am concerned about is that Pedophiles are always riding on the coat tails of the homosexual movement...as they are doing marvelously at in Canada. I'm fearful that the legitimaztion and recognition of homosexual marriage will lead to the recognition of pedophiles as a legitimate group as well. You think it won't happen.You might laugh at me now, but wait 8-10 years and you'll see the cultural changes and the lawyers, psychiatrists, lobbyists and politicians all seeking to protect this "misunderstood" group. So my advice is to take the energy you have against homosexual marriage and start early on the pedophilia movement and age of consent laws. There you may be able to make a difference, and protect something that the "christian" God holds so dear..namely children.
Klinton and anyone else. I have several homosexual acquantances and often hang out with them and have an interesting time. While I won't lie and say they are my best friends I do like them and am glad to know them. So I hope that makes me just a little less of a Bastard...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
LOL..I loved your closing statment, and no you're not a bastard. I tried to express earlier in this oh-so-fun thread that I realize that none of these people are evil people (and yes, Dave that includes yourself). This is a polar topic, that not unless it's happening to you it seems hard for people to 'get'. My parents, for all the hatred between us today, are not bad people...I mean, I have them to thank for so many things in my life (including that life itself).
In fact, Piggy, I wish that everyone saw things the way you do. If you want to look at my life as a sinful existence, fine....but do not deny that in the eyes of god you are no better than me, that your own sins are just as great. The people who bemoan homosexuality the loudest have taken it upon themselves to judge me as only Jesus is entitled, a practice I cannot imagine how they justify in thier hearts. This alone, despite any other lavasciousness they might engender puts them on par with my 'sins' in His eyes.
The one thing I want to take you to task about here is the statments that come dangerously close to equating pedophelia with homosexuality. I know that you never actually draw a comparison, and throw the blame on the fuckers themselves for attempting to manipulate a situation for thier own ends...But that link alone disturbs me.
Do you really feel that by allowing two adults, who love and care for eachother with the same emotions that you employ in your relationships can ever be compared to such depravity? To link the two is like saying that because you're entiled to have sex with your girlfriend, the law will eventually come to terms with the fact that raping her is accepable, regardless of her desires...This is to say that there is no possible link bettween somone who would hurt a child and somone who just wants to love another grown man or woman. I think people are smart enought to realize the distinction here, don't you?
Thank's again for your post here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
Jesus Christ himself never once declared my life and it's course invalid. Not once. In fact, the most violent condemnations he uttered were against the religious leaders of his time who attempted to declare thier will as the word of God and judge others by thier own warped interpretation of scripture. If the son of God, HIM personified, turned his anger toward people like you, without ever once even commenting on people like me, can you at least open your mind to the idea that maybe you might be wrong on this one?
Once again, you have distorted the meaning of the Bible to serve your own ends. The Bible is in absolute incontrovertible opposition to what you just said.
As I said in my opening post (the first post of page 4, just in case this jumps to a 5th page), with detailed quotes from Genesis, Leviticus, John, Romans and elsewhere in the Bible, Jesus and God the Father Himself ("I and the Father are one...") condemn homosexuality directly,
What you've said about your homosexuality not being condemned by the Bible, is a blatant lie, and perversion of scripture.
I haven't personally judged your homosexual lifestyle. I've only clarified what the Biblical standard is (which you've clearly and deliberately warped to rationalize and attempt to legitimize your own actions.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
I never said that the bible doesn't frown on homosexuality, I said none of Jesus words in all of the gospels even address it.
Yes I know that the bible contains passages that out and out condemn homosexuality...right alongside ones that advocate slavery and the execution of petulant children, as well as the ownership of one's wife. These are all statndards that you don't seem to live by, so why single out homosexuality?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27 |
It seems to me that this bias against gay marriages is just another, in a long line of, example of the followers of christian mythology persecuting those they disagree with. The christian war on homosexuals is just this generation's version of burn the witches. Will you never learn.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,880 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,880 Likes: 52 |
Lots of thoughtful, intelligent debate from both sides here. Can't say I really can offer much to further that. However, it would be nice to marry to marry my lover of 13 yrs. The arguments against gay marriages really boil down to "my rights & beliefs are more important than yours" & to me that really goes against what America is about. You have the right to believe homosexuality is wrong but the government shouldn't. It's flawed & just doesn't square with this countrys ideals.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
I never said that the bible doesn't frown on homosexuality, I said none of Jesus words in all of the gospels even address it.
That is, again, a blatant and indisputable lie.
As I said, Jesus and God the Father are two manifestations of the same person, appearing in two forms. ("I and the Father are one...").
(JOHN 10, verse 30)
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=JOHN+10&language=english&version=NIV
...and also JOHN 1, verse 1:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=JOHN+1&language=english&version=NIV
Jesus came to add to The Law (the Old Testament) not to abolish it. (MATTHEW 5, verses 17-19)
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=MATT+5&language=english&version=NIV
You constantly bring up potential abstractions and technicalities, and ignore the major thrust of the Bible.
Because Jesus didn't say it directly is a diversionary tactic, that circumvents around the fact that every word of the Bible is inspired by God. And that God the Father speaks with the same voice as Jesus.
Homosexuality again and again is described in the Bible as the ultimate downturn of a society, the point at which God abandons a society to its own self-destruction, where a culture becomes so hardened to God that they are beyond redemption, and God leaves them to their fate.
While there is a chance of repentance, God keeps protection over a person for their repentance.
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
Yes I know that the bible contains passages that out and out condemn homosexuality...right alongside ones that advocate slavery and the execution of petulant children, as well as the ownership of one's wife. These are all statndards that you don't seem to live by, so why single out homosexuality?
Because homosexuality, unlike any of these other things, has an ideology that attempts to warp scripture, and to thus pervert the Bible and Christianity from its true meaning.
As I've already said (with scripture to back it up, at the top of Page 4 of this topic).
Slavery is not an issue in modern society. And in any case, the Bible does NOT endorse it. It was, again, opportunistically misinterpeted by those who advocated slavery. But the message of the Bible is the equality and brotherhood of all men in the eyes of God. All are equal before God. Equally sinful, equally loved, equally desired to be redeemed.
I think you misinterpret the issue about "owning" your wife. Men and women are linked in marriage and have responsibility to each other. Women are to submit to the needs of their husband, and husbands to those of their wife, in respect for each other's needs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
Lots of thoughtful, intelligent debate from both sides here. Can't say I really can offer much to further that. However, it would be nice to marry to marry my lover of 13 yrs. The arguments against gay marriages really boil down to "my rights & beliefs are more important than yours" & to me that really goes against what America is about. You have the right to believe homosexuality is wrong but the government shouldn't. It's flawed & just doesn't square with this countrys ideals.
Again, it's about maintaining a balance.
Once again, I have no problem with a person's choice to be gay, so long as laws are not passed that infringe on and pervert the meaning of the Bible and Christianity. Which I've made very clear, chapter and verse, is being attempted.
I again support a free country, where gays and Christians have a right to choose and practice their individual beliefs.
But my problem is with the fact that gays (or at least a large portion of the gay community) is not satisfied with that, and not only want to practice their lifestyle, but to force Christians (against scripture) to say that homosexuality is morally right in the eyes of God, and in all law.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut-EL:
It seems to me that this bias against gay marriages is just another, in a long line of, example of the followers of christian mythology persecuting those they disagree with. The christian war on homosexuals is just this generation's version of burn the witches. Will you never learn.
It seems to me that YOU'RE the one resorting to sweeping generalizations and stereotypes.
I've backed up what I had to say with scripture. And made it clear that I support the right for gays to practice their lifestyle, so long as it doesn't interfere with my rights and freedoms as a Christian, and as long as laws are not passed that will pervert the meaning and practice of Christianity itself.
As usual, more slanderous innuendo on your part.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
It's not a diversionary tactic, Dave. Christ out and out said that he came to replace the Law Covanent, and adressed all sorts of evils to be condemned (again, the most distastful to him were the missuses of scripture by the rabinical class). If he came to do away with the Law Covanent, then how can you go about quoting it's passages as a means to judge me?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut-EL:
It seems to me that this bias against gay marriages is just another, in a long line of, example of the followers of christian mythology persecuting those they disagree with. The christian war on homosexuals is just this generation's version of burn the witches. Will you never learn.
Excuse me, but I was acting as reasonably as possible. I do not persecute anyone, I follow the examples of the martyrs that came before me. Oh yeah, they were persecuted. I know I am not the world's greatest example of a Christian, but I am trying my best and I am also trying my best to be an American, where I have to respect the law and the rights of others. I understand that according to my Church, being a homosexual is not a sin, but the actual acts are sinful. Well duh, they say the same thing about any pre-marital couple. Now granted, a legal marriage, or 'union' if that's a better word, would not be legitimate to an established religion, but that is enough for some people. My sis is legally married and is not married by any church -- it's not a problem for us. Beardguy57 said it best: 'I do NOT want " Special Rights". I DO want the same rights as heterosexuals.' And it is not impossible for a homosexual to believe in God in some form.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,880 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,880 Likes: 52 |
Thats life in this country though Dave. It's part of living in a multi cultural society. I don't need the government to wave the rainbow flag for me. Forcing you to say something you don't believe goes against the principle of what I want. You already have to teach your kids that people of different faiths are going to hell even though they are treated equally under the law so it shouldn't be a problem adding homosexuallity to the list. I don't see the problem here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
Pig Iron, I've been struggling, in the number of points tossed out here to answer, to get back to your post. As usual, you are the model of non-inflammatory moderation, that reaches out to both sides, that makes me (for one) want to be conciliatory. Your point is well taken, that all sin is equal in the eyes of God. I'm no more pure than a gay man, or anyone else. We've all fallen short of the perfect standard, in one way or another. Myself included. So we're all subject to the same judgement. I haven't personally condemned homosexuality, only the homosexual movement's anti-Biblical attempt to cloak itself in religious/moral purity, by instituting the concept of gay marriage, and attempting to force the rest of us to accept this clearly non-Biblical standard as somehow legitimate. I've only focused on homosexuality because it is the subject of this discussion. But I've also frequently railed on many other destructive elements in our culture. Particularly the decadence of popular culture, that promotes instant gratification and cynicism through virtually every source of entertainment and information: movies, television, cable, music lyrics, music video, network news, celebrity news, video games, and even comic books. One part of what you said that I particularly appreciated: quote:
Originally posted by Pig Iron (on Page 4):
I wish people would quit thinking of the Bible as hate literature, because basically it [ the Bible ] disdains us all- not exclusively homosexuals. We cannot change what is wrong or evil in the eyes of God to suit our own wishes. We have to recognize the wrong we are commiting and ask forgiveness for it.
I couldn't agree more.
Being a Christian is a daily exercise in humility, because ALL have fallen short of the standard of God. quote:
Ephesians 2:verses 8 and 9:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith --and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast."
I don't personally condemn homosexuality, I only point out what the Bible says on the subject, so there can be no misinterpretation of what the Biblical stance is on homosexuality.
And in this exposure of actual scripture, there can be no mistake where the line is drawn, and how enacting laws endorsing homosexuality would negatively impact Biblical teachings.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
It's not a diversionary tactic, Dave. Christ out and out said that he came to replace the Law Covanent, and adressed all sorts of evils to be condemned (again, the most distastful to him were the missuses of scripture by the rabinical class). If he came to do away with the Law Covanent, then how can you go about quoting it's passages as a means to judge me?
For the 50th time, I'm NOT judging you. I'm only pointing out the Biblical standard, so you can decide on your own behavior in an informed fashion.
And you could not possibly have butchered the words of Jesus Christ Himself more than you did in your last statement.
Borrowing from the Gospel of Matthew:
quote:
Matthew 5, verses 17-19:
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
The teachings of Jesus are polar opposite what you allege.
I believe the corrupt interpretation is clear.
And verse 18, by the way, is a command not to change or re-write the Bible in any way, but to preserve it as written.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
Howard Dean, liberal candidate for DEM Pres. Nomination had an interesting take this morning on Meet the Press.
He said he doesn't support gay "marriage". He said marriage is a religious institution. He says he likes his state's "civil union" policy.
He says it is simply a matter of equal rights.
This seems somewhat consistent with Dave's points.
But I have one follow up question to Dave:
If a non-marriage alternative were allowed, wouldn't this, in your mind, still interfere with your religious views? Even if it isn't infringing on the definition of marriage, wouldn't it still require those religious businesses to pay the benefits of the legally recognized gay partner?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
I saw Howard Dean this morning as well, Willie.
I have no problem with a gay union that is clear and distinctive from marriage.
I WOULD have a problem with a legal standard that forces Christians to hire and provide benefits to gay individuals, whose lifestyle Christians clearly don't agree with.
The problem is that any legal approval of gay marriage, or an equivalent by another name, is a beach-head that gays will use to push for these other things.
That is what was attempted with legally recognizing gays in the military, back in 1993 under Clinton. Giving gays recognition as a minority under federal military law, recognizing gays as a minority group, would have been exactly the legal precedent that gays are attempting now, through gay marriage legislation.
I think the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy is a good compromise, that dodges state recognition of gays.
And thus allows gays to practice their lifestyle, without legally stepping on Christian toes.
It's a legal standard that has a balance between rights for both groups(gays and Christians).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
Dang you beat me to it.
What is 'marriage' refered only to a religious union, and some other word was used for a secular / legal one? That would make everyone happy, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
I do appologize for my lack of quotation here, but I will have it for you by day's end...But Christ did in fact state that he hasd come to yes, fulfill the Old Covenant, and usher in a new one. I'm posting now, only so as you don't feel I'm ignoring you.
And as to the "for the 50th time, I'm not judging you" : how can you sit here and state that your 'rights' as a christian come before my rights as an equal human being and tell me you haven't passed judgement?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
Everyone...posting too fast...I'm am typing too slow on roomie's laptop...slow down! lol
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
And as to the "for the 50th time, I'm not judging you" : how can you sit here and state that your 'rights' as a christian come before my rights as an equal human being and tell me you haven't passed judgement?
Where does this "before" crap come from.
I've said all along that a balance is to be maintained. I already said: gay rights in a free society are fine by me. I only object to gay rights at the point that they bastardize scripture, and inhibit/corrupt the practice of Christianity, by legally forcing Christians to accept a standard they Biblically know to be immoral. The irrefutable proof is in the scriptures I quoted above.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I saw Howard Dean this morning as well, Willie.
I am so NOT use to this user name. When I saw "Willie" in your post, I thought for a second you were patronizing me! Then I realized that for some reason, I didn't use the old standard username.
quote:
I have no problem with a gay union that is clear and distinctive from marriage.
I WOULD have a problem with a legal standard that forces Christians to hire and provide benefits to gay individuals, whose lifestyle Christians clearly don't agree with.
Interesting. But wouldn't such a classification be worthless if it weren't enforced? How would it work from a practical standpoint? Optional benefits?
quote:
The problem is that any legal approval of gay marriage, or an equivalent by another name, is a beach-head that gays will use to push for these other things.
The slippery slope argument, yes? What would be worse in your views than marriage? Adoption would be the logical next step. After that there isn't much more that homosexuals can ask for is there? Overall, the gay community is far too successful to ask for Affirmative Action. I don't see any grounds for economic reperations.
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
I do appologize for my lack of quotation here, but I will have it for you by day's end...But Christ did in fact state that he hasd come to yes, fulfill the Old Covenant, and usher in a new one. I'm posting now, only so as you don't feel I'm ignoring you.
And as to the "for the 50th time, I'm not judging you" : how can you sit here and state that your 'rights' as a christian come before my rights as an equal human being and tell me you haven't passed judgement?
He isn't "judging" your soul or condemning you. I'd say that is following Jesus's quote pretty well actually. That passage is often misinterpreted.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Ok...sorry for the delay:
One original prophecy fortelling the passing of the Law covenant:
Jeremiah 31:31, 32 - "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Isreal, and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with thier fathers in the day that I took them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they break, although I was an husband unto them sayeth the Lord:"
Jesus declaring the new covenant:
Matthew 26: 27, 28 - "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it;
For it is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
St. Paul's further acknowledgement of the Law Covenant's passing:
2Corinthians 3:6 - "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
i'd love to go to texas and break some sodomy laws with a black guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,285 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by Batwoman:
Wednesday, you said the Bible wasn't translated correctly throughout the years, or whatever your exact words were. Well according to one of the pastors at my church, yes it was. He's basing this on cold hard facts.
Thanks for bringing this up, Amy. In the rush of points raised, this is one I neglected to get back to.
There's a guy named Josh McDowell, who in the early 1970's was an atheist who set out to prove that the Bible has been doctored and re-written to suit the clergy. He set out to write a book that disproves the Bible, as inconsistent and unprovable. He instead found overwhelming evidence that the Bible is the most consistent and proveable ancient document that exists, with roughly 40,000 (updated to 60,000 in a later edition) hand-written manusripts that exist within 200 years of the life of Christ, and many manuscripts before that, including the Dead Sea Scrolls (ancient hand-written copies of the Old Testament that date back to 500-600 B.C)
Josh McDowell ended up becoming a Christian, and he wrote the first of his many books on the subject, Evidence That Demands A Verdict.
The one of his books that I found the most persuasive and readable is He Walked Among Us: Evidence For the Historical Jesus, which looks at what Jesus' enemies had to say about Him, including the text of Roman historians such as Josephus, and Rabbis of various other Jewish sects of the time. It shows that even they acknowledge miracles Jesus performed, however they interpreted Him to have done these things. And regardless, they acknowledge He existed.
Another Christian author/historian I actually prefer to Josh McDowell, is Francis Schaffer.
But regardless, tremendous care has been put into the preservation of the Bible, and its translation into English and other languages.
Read the preface of an NIV English translation, and you will see the tremendous labor for accuracy, confirmation by various scholars of every denomination, and attempt to closely preserve even the style of the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic(the latter an ancient Syrian dialect) that the Old and New Testaments were written in.
Study Bibles are footnoted, and explain the subtleties and context of ancient words and languages that may have been lost, or less clear, in a modern translation.
But as McDowell points out, the Bible is more verifiable and has far more existing ancient manuscripts, and verifiable accuracy, than The Iliad, or even more modern writings, such as the plays of William Shakespeare.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
quote:
Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:
]He isn't "judging" your soul or condemning you. I'd say that is following Jesus's quote pretty well actually. That passage is often misinterpreted. [/QB]
Which passage? Jesus spoke on all levels, about treating your fellow man with love and compassion. Telling me that I don't deserve spousal benefits if I worked at his company, nor the ability to retain a marriage of equal stature to his own...This is a judgemnt on my worth as a human being is it not?
|
|
|
|
|
