Matthew 5:17..."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.... I could go on, but Jesus also never spoke against a range of things that are wrong today, does that make them no longer wrong? Does that give them a green light? Anyway, you are going to believe what you want, and I'm the same, but if you think that there is nothing wrong with a man having sex with another man, or that it is normal...that's your opinion. I respect your right to have an opinion..
Not being confrontational, honest question here: I believe in the bible as well, but how does someone rationalize taking the scripture and saying "look, here it says men shouldn't sleep with men, it's in the bible, it's law" Yet ignore other laws of the bible "don't eat shellfish, don't wear two different fabircs (yada yada we've all heard this argument before)". Isn't it that we see some of those "laws" as nonsensical or outdated and blatantly choose to ignore them, why does homosexuality not fall into that category?
I do not support gay marriage. I do support civil unions that grant every legal privilege marriage has to offer.
Whenever people put up the idea it's 'not normal' I always consider what exactly is normal? Is it normal for humans to live to 80 years, to wear these odd garments, to build buildings stretching half a mile into the sky? Is it normal to communicate with people half a world away, to walk on the Moon, to even have a job? It's not even about gay people or marriage, but what's normal is so subjective and changes all the time (heck just look back at 1960's haircuts) that I find it odd that people would use it in an argument.
I expect the main difference is that preachers haven't been banging away in his ear against tall buildings or shellfish (because, mmm, yummy, shellfish) for the last however many years. Christians that quote scripture to justify hate are bad Christians; Jesus hung with hookers and deviants. He liked it among the least of us and he said something rather famous about how impossible it would be for a rich man to enter Heaven, but you never hear any of these folks rail against greed, nope, it's always the homos. If Jesus hated anyone, and I know the idea is that he didn't, but if he ever came close, it was not gay people; it was rich people. Now the rich are celebrated in his churches. If he were here today he would swing through these anti-Christian "holy" places, all a'rage, JC Superstar style, and wail, "My temple should be a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves! Get out!" Picking and choosing from the Bible is a rather terrible malpractice on the part of the people that make the decisions (for The Church or for any given church); doing so to incite judgment, hate, bias, antagonism or really anything other than love is unforgivable. If a Christian can be forgiven everything, this would be the thing that Christ would have the most difficulty forgiving. Jesus said don't judge. Jesus said don't hate. I do not blame you that walk among the stain-ed flock; you know not what you do. You are puppets and tools. And you are the victims of the men that stand before you on Sunday mornings telling you to think and act and believe in a way that would have made Jesus barf. You know not what you do.
If you agree that there are stupid things in the Bible... Why continue to be a follower. Just take the good stuff from it and go find more good stuff
I'll clarify first, I'm questioning how someone can come to terms with using the bible as evidence that something is wrong, and do so many other things that the bible also points out as wrong. I don't believe in an overly strict interpretation of the bible.
The thing about shellfish for example... Why would you even rely on a book to serve as your guide for life if it says ridiculous things such as that. And I'm not letting other abrahamic books off the hook either. They say stupid stuff too For example the Quran says all creations are equal but then goes on to contradict that statement multiple times in various ways
Ah ok, we're on the same page. I want to hear someone who says they don't like gays or gays getting married because that's what the bible says, justify why they don't follow the rest of the bible to the letter.
Weighing in here. My ideal would be to see government completely out of the marriage business and it handled by contract law as Commodore proposes but that is unrealistic ideal since the institution of marriage is very deeply ingrained into human society. Marriage has been a government function since hunter gatherer tribes developed rituals to sanctify those unions. What is relatively new is the idea of a secular state sanction of marriage but that is only because separation of church and state is a relatively new thing in human history. To sum up if we were to completely remove government out of marriage that would take a huge reworking of many of our laws along with many private business practices. That is just not going to happen. For better or worse we are stuck with an entrenched institution but one that can easily accommodate same sex marriage. I am fine with using the term "civil unions" for state sanctioned marriages but in that case all unions whether homosexual or heterosexual should be called "civil unions." Not just use that term for homosexuals while reserving "marriage" for heterosexuals. What religious institutions want to call them is up to those institutions to decide.
What people need to keep in mind is that a lot of those religious rules have to be placed into context to when they were written. The rule regarding eating shell fish makes sense since shell fish are filter feeders and tend to have more toxic bacteria than other seafood. In an time when sanitation, refrigeration and medicine were almost non-existent it made sense to not eat shellfish. Also since religion, culture and government were basically one and the same the best way to record such practical knowledge was to record them as religious documents.
Lol I look forward to the day when, because of that, the word marriage drops out of common usage and people say 'My wife and I are happily unionised'.
Makes sense... point well taken... Another example from Islam, Muhammad married his (favorite) wife Aisha when she was 6-7 years old and then consummated when she was 9. That was common practice at the time because knowledge did not exist concerning the damage than could be done to such a young girl's body, in addition to the fact that well, women, aren't just baby machines. They deserve educations and careers too. So yes, context is important because times were different. But doesn't that just further prove the point that followers of religions should realize that some of their centuries-old teachings will not help anyone in the ever-changing present? We shouldn't devote our lives to a PERSON whom we have never met and lived more than a thousand years ago.. I'm not saying we shouldn't respect such people, but being infatuated with them (aka "I live for Jesus" or "thinking about the Prophet makes me cry") is not going to get society anywhere
Thanks for the respectful debate. I'd like to hear your opinion on QdoubleA's question: Since you get your moral code from the Bible and believe in the literal interpretation of the Old Testament, it follows that you also believe some other very questionable things mentioned above. How do you respond?
I'm not against gay marriage or anything, but a man frucking another in the butt hole is strange if not abnormal to me. I have nothing against them or anything, but the act of homosexually is hilarious to me.
What people call it in common parlance is a different matter than what the government calls it. I see no problem with people, heterosexual or homosexual, calling themselves "married" even if the state calls it something else. That is the current situation in states that don't have gay marriage for gay couples. What matters is that homosexuals are treated equally as heterosexuals. The only equal treatment that I see is either everyone is "married" or that everyone is "civil unioned" in the eyes of the state.
And yet this change in semantics was not even pitched before, not even in the demon-days of legalized interracial marriage did the racists cry for a new word to be used for the intermingling of men with mongrels. But teh gays! We need a new word!!!!!
True it wasn't but just speaking personally I don't see that as an issue as long as homosexuals are treated as equals as heterosexuals. No separate but equal when it comes to terms. Only one term is used from a legal standpoint.
