Your Opinion on Marriage

[nmoira]

Pam, the response for "what about the other gods" really wasn't breaking board rules:

No, but I think the post that spawned the question was. I don't think it's OK to state that those who don't believe in God cannot be moral people:

 

I've read all these posts with great interest and much sadness. When we as a society can not even agree on what is right and wrong or moral and immoral, well the door is wide open for anything or everything. It basically comes down to this: Either two men or women having sex with each other is wrong or it is not. And whether it is right or wrong has nothing to do with what WE think. Right will always be right and wrong will always be wrong. And homosexuality is wrong. Plain and simple. Not because I say so or because that is my opinion. It's wrong simply because our Creator has said so. But, if you don't believe in God then you have no standard to go by. You are making up rules and opinions solely on what you think or how you feel about the issue.

 

This is offensive to me. If I posted that those who believe in a God cannot be moral persons because they are only following externalized moral codes out of fear of negative consequences (perhaps eternal, depending on the religion) and didn't even bother to couch it in "I" language, I would expect to be taken to task.

[Robin in Tx]

I'm not following this line of reasoning at all. Aside from the fact that, among straight couples, lots and lots of them get married and never have kids and lots and lots more of them have kids without getting married....gay people DO have kids all the time. I mean, really, it's not at all a freakishly rare thing. It would seem to me that legalizing gay marriage would, in fact, encourage MORE couples to produce future workers and tax payers, since it would give much more legal security with regard to custody disputes, rights of the non-biological parent in lesbian relationships, etc.

 

You have to look at the generalizations, not the exceptions. Generally speaking, straight couples marry with the intent to start a family. Gay couples do not have children as commonly... not at all. In a way, they are in the same boat as infertile straight couples... they have to find surrogates, incur the cost of artificial insemination, or adopt. They are not baby producers in the same way. I know that many won't agree with this line of thinking but believe me.. this is THE reason why marriage is rewarded by the government - it's not for emotional or religious reasons... it's for economic ones.

[Phred]

It doesn't matter why people get married or why government gives tax breaks to marriages. Once you establish it you open it to everyone who meets the qualifications.

 

Two people who love each other.

 

Oops, what we really meant was "two people of the same tribe" who love each other. Well, that didn't work so we're back to two people who love each other.

 

Oops, what we really meant was two people "of the same faith" who love each other. That didn't work so we're back to two people who love each other.

 

Oops... what we really meant was two people "of the same race" who love each other. That didn't work so we're back to two people who love each other.

 

Oops, what we really meant was two people "of the opposite sex" who love each other.

 

And the arguments come out like clockwork.

 

"God doesn't like it"

"It's immoral"

"It's bad for the children"

"It's not natural"

"If you let them get married the next thing you know they'll be getting married"

 

But the arguments, as they always have been, are not enough to prohibit gay marriage.

 

God never expresses an opinion. Men do... Men believe lots of things. If you wish to believe it that's up to you. I don't have to believe it, I don't believe it and I won't believe it until a god decides to come here and tell us himself. Before you answer with, "He already has." My answer to you is, "That's what you believe."

 

Immoral? Sez who?

 

The kids seem pretty darned happy except for when one of their two moms or dads die and they are prevented from getting the same social security benefits regular kids get.

 

It's as natural as things get. We see homosexual behavior throughout the animal kingdom. Human beings can't help who they're attracted to. Can you?

 

If the slippery slope arguments are valid... then... OH NO! Stop all marriages! If people didn't get married at all then nobody could commit adultery! Homosexuals wouldn't want to get married!

 

 

I suppose one day this discussion will be about letting humans marry aliens so save all the arguments.

[Greta]

And the arguments come out like clockwork.

 

"God doesn't like it"

"It's immoral"

"It's bad for the children"

"It's not natural"

"If you let them get married the next thing you know they'll be getting married"

 

 

 

Exactly. It was only a couple of generations ago that society was having these EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS about whites and blacks getting married. Now interracial marriage is common and, shocking as it is, society is still standing! Children are still thriving! And marriages between same-race partners haven't all crumbled to dust, they're still as strong as they were!

 

Fear does not form a good foundation on which to build laws. Reason works much better.

[nmoira]

 

It doesn't matter why people get married or why government gives tax breaks to marriages. Once you establish it you open it to everyone who meets the qualifications.

:iagree: I can't rep you again for awhile...

[Cricket]

No, but I think the post that spawned the question was. I don't think it's OK to state that those who don't believe in God cannot be moral people:

 

This is offensive to me. If I posted that those who believe in a God cannot be moral persons because they are only following externalized moral codes out of fear of negative consequences (perhaps eternal, depending on the religion) and didn't even bother to couch it in "I" language, I would expect to be taken to task.

 

I think people would take issue with that last comment because it isn't true representation of the Christian faith. I am a Christian and I don't follow a moral code out of fear of going to hell. I realize that if it is up to me to perfectly follow God's law, I am forever lost because that is an impossible task. I follow God's law to the best of my ability because I am forever grateful for the price Christ paid for my salvation. I do it out of respect and love, not out of fear.

 

I think people who don't believe in God can do good deeds. I've known atheists who were incredibly giving and loving and at times seemed more Christian than some Christians I knew. That is much different though than saying people who don't believe in God can stand blameless before him. What we view as moral and what God views as holy are two completely different things. Christians aren't holy because of what we do. It is because we have realized that no matter what we do, we will never be good enough. We believe that God provided the perfect remedy in his son Jesus Christ.

 

Not wanting to argue, just trying to clarify a point that I think many people take the wrong way. I don't like seeing people offended when they think Christians are saying that they are perfect and everyone else isn't and can never be--even though many Christians seem to say that which I do find offensive myself. We are all in the same position before God and need his mercy. :) I'm not sure what the original post was that brought up this question!

[Kimber]

I'm curious. Where does the bible say that slavery is okay? And where does it say that biracial marriages are wrong?

 

I'm really interested.

 

Kimberly

 

BTW, I'm not sure of my opinion although I voted one man and one woman. But if it's legal for homosexuals, then I see no problem making plural marriages among adults either.

 

I do tend to think that the bible is the end word on these subjects. But the interpretation of it varies often. So that is the reason I'm curious about the scriptures that said those things--slavery and separation of races--were okay.

 

Thanks!

[nmoira]

This is offensive to me. If I posted that those who believe in a God cannot be moral persons because they are only following externalized moral codes out of fear of negative consequences (perhaps eternal, depending on the religion) and didn't even bother to couch it in "I" language, I would expect to be taken to task.

I think people would take issue with that last comment because it isn't true representation of the Christian faith. I am a Christian and I don't follow a moral code out of fear of going to hell. I realize that if it is up to me to perfectly follow God's law, I am forever lost because that is an impossible task. I follow God's law to the best of my ability because I am forever grateful for the price Christ paid for my salvation. I do it out of respect and love, not out of fear.

And that's one of the points I was trying to make: It's a stereotypical (from a non-Christian POV) and simplistic representation, just as the other was. The degree to which I believe that statement is irrelevant when coupled the fact that I would never assume that all people of such a diverse group could be represented in such a cut-and-dried way. I simply would not make a blanket statement about the moral standards, positive or negative, of another group (even assuming I felt educated enough to do so) which implied that it was also necessarily true of all its members. For someone to say that all people who don't believe as they do must necessarily lack a moral standard is offensive, especially in a public forum like this with people of many beliefs; that is the nature of the comment I was responding to.

[nukeswife]

It doesn't matter why people get married or why government gives tax breaks to marriages. Once you establish it you open it to everyone who meets the qualifications.

 

Two people who love each other.

 

Oops, what we really meant was "two people of the same tribe" who love each other. Well, that didn't work so we're back to two people who love each other.

 

Oops, what we really meant was two people "of the same faith" who love each other. That didn't work so we're back to two people who love each other.

 

Oops... what we really meant was two people "of the same race" who love each other. That didn't work so we're back to two people who love each

other.

 

Oops, what we really meant was two people "of the opposite sex" who love each other.

 

And the arguments come out like clockwork.

 

"God doesn't like it"

"It's immoral"

"It's bad for the children"

"It's not natural"

"If you let them get married the next thing you know they'll be getting married"

 

But the arguments, as they always have been, are not enough to prohibit gay marriage.

 

God never expresses an opinion. Men do... Men believe lots of things. If you wish to believe it that's up to you. I don't have to believe it, I don't believe it and I won't believe it until a god decides to come here and tell us himself. Before you answer with, "He already has." My answer to you is, "That's what you believe."

 

Immoral? Sez who?

 

The kids seem pretty darned happy except for when one of their two moms or dads die and they are prevented from getting the same social security benefits regular kids get.

 

It's as natural as things get. We see homosexual behavior throughout the animal kingdom. Human beings can't help who they're attracted to. Can you?

 

If the slippery slope arguments are valid... then... OH NO! Stop all marriages! If people didn't get married at all then nobody could commit adultery! Homosexuals wouldn't want to get married!

 

 

I suppose one day this discussion will be about letting humans marry aliens so save all the arguments.

 

:iagree:

 

I just rep'd you for this and hit enter before typing my name.

[nukeswife]

If I posted that those who believe in a God cannot be moral persons because they are only following externalized moral codes out of fear of negative consequences (perhaps eternal, depending on the religion) and didn't even bother to couch it in "I" language, I would expect to be taken to task.

 

:iagree:

 

That's what I was trying to say earlier. If anyone of us were to question a persons morality because they are only following The Bible and therefore were unable to think for themselves, you bet we'd be called out on it.

Seems that this isn't the case for many of us. If we don't believe as others do then we are said to have no moral code because we couldn't possibly be able to know right from wrong without The Bible laying it all out in front of us.

[Robin in Tx]

It doesn't matter why people get married or why government gives tax breaks to marriages.

 

Sure it does. It might not matter to you or to someone else, but it matters to the federal budget (and the IRS/tax code).

 

 

It's as natural as things get. We see homosexual behavior throughout the animal kingdom.

 

You know, I am always so very surprised by this argument. If I were a gay person arguing for my right to marry, the *last* thing I would use is the, "Animals do it so we're normal" argument. I think it is very demeaning to gays to compare their loving relationships to the behavior of animals. And most animal homosexual behavior is not actually sexual, it is affectionate beavhior. Dogs and lions will hump each other, but they'll also fight over a female in heat. Straight men in a prison environment will engage in homosexual behavior but return to their girlfriends or wives. All that is about being horny. It's not about the sort of union that marriage represents. I sure hope we don't get to the point to where marriage is reduced to simply a license to have sex. What a sad day that would be for everyone.

[*anj*]

I'm curious. Where does the bible say that slavery is okay? And where does it say that biracial marriages are wrong?

 

 

It doesn't say either of those things. Anywhere.

[Kate CA]

Wow, what a great post with some truly good questions. :) Thanks for making it a dialog - I really appreciate that.

 

I do find it difficult (and recently blogged about the difficulty I have been having) in deciding what is the right way to view and act in a secular government from a Christian perspective. What is my role in a republic such as ours, as a Christian. It is not an easy question. I don't want to legislate faith - I think that is wholly incompatible with Scripture and with Christ's message. There has never been any basis for any "killing for Christ" that has happened over history and it is a great stain on the Christian church.

 

I don't have any wish to establish a "Christian state" and value my freedom to worship in the same way you value yours. I would not want someone telling me I could not attend my church or worship my Savior. It is abhorrent to me.

 

You asked me, "How far are you willing to go to legislate morality?"

 

That is the very question I have been asking. I believe that the moral code was established in God's word, your Torah, first. Those are ancient laws set up for the good of mankind. There was a reason He set those up and we should pay attention. Many of those laws serve as the foundation for our own laws in the US.

 

As a Christian I am constantly being told, "You can't legislate your morality." But every law establishes someone's morality. So who gets to set the standard?

 

I think Laurie gives an excellent post that discusses the dangers of this lifestyle outside the context of Scripture: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?p=235594#post235594

 

I think we as a society are foolish to ignore these things.

 

You asked: "Do you believe you have the right to legislate against promiscuity? To require church attendance?"

 

Promiscuity - we already do. Prostitution is illegal; adult to child sexual behavior is illegal; sexual behavior with an animal is illegal; etc.

 

Church attendance - no. That is forcing faith on someone. I don't see that in Scripture.

 

Here is my main point: Establishing moral laws is not establishing faith.

 

"Perhaps more relevant: do you not believe that all other religions are false? ... that some are idolatry? Are there not some very strong words in your Scriptures, as there are in mine, against idolatry? Do you believe that non-Xtian religions should be outlawed? That seems to be the logical extension of what you are arguing - that there are Eternal truths and those Truths should be the basis for our government's legislation."

 

I think you know that I believe there is one way to God, through His Son, Jesus Christ. ["I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6)] But I would never tell you that you cannot believe and worship what you believe--just as I think you would never tell me that I could not believe and worship as I do. Yes, I do believe that some religions are idolatry. I would imagine you probably do too. Do I believe in legislating against idolotry or that non-Christians should be outlawed? Not at all! That is legislating faith. Again, my main point, establishing moral laws is not the same as establishing faith. Establishing any one faith in a free society would eliminate its freedom.

 

There are truths that belong in the realm of faith that will affect every faithful person because faith does that - the way I vote will reflect my faith, the way I treat those in my life will reflect my faith, the way I give or love or serve will reflect my faith. Then there are moral codes and laws that transcend all faiths for the good of mankind.

 

Marriage is between a man and a woman and always has been.

 

Genesis 2:24

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

 

The world may legislate otherwise, but this will always be the truth.

 

You wrote, "I hope my passion doesn't come across as an attack - I don't want to convey hostility or disrespect!"

 

No, not at all. I really appreciate you being so honest. I hope I didn't come across as attacking because it is the furthest thing from my heart. I respect you believe differently than I do and I so appreciate your willingness to discuss this. :)

[kokotg]

You have to look at the generalizations, not the exceptions. Generally speaking, straight couples marry with the intent to start a family. Gay couples do not have children as commonly... not at all. In a way, they are in the same boat as infertile straight couples... they have to find surrogates, incur the cost of artificial insemination, or adopt. They are not baby producers in the same way. I know that many won't agree with this line of thinking but believe me.. this is THE reason why marriage is rewarded by the government - it's not for emotional or religious reasons... it's for economic ones.

 

Maybe the gay people I know are just different from the gay people you know. I live outside of Atlanta; I know several lesbian couples with children (and, frankly, sperm isn't that hard to come by. The logistics of getting pregnant for a lesbian woman really aren't that tough to work out), and many of them have told me that families with two moms are not at all uncommon in their kids' schools. This article indicates that 29% of lesbian couples in Massachusetts have children (18 % of gay male couples; maybe only lesbians should be allowed to get married?). Doesn't seem like "an exception" to me. If the government is really interested in encouraging people to have children, it seems to me that they'd be adopting a lot of policies European countries have, with generous maternity and paternity leave, stipends for at-home parents, etc. If this is really the government's argument against gay marriage, then I think it's a pretty weak argument. Is there really a tax benefit for being married? I thought conservatives were all up in arms about the "marriage tax" awhile back? Child Tax credits have nothing to do with marriage; parents (straight and gay) get them whether they're married or not. And, again, it seems evident to me that removing a lot of the legal roadblocks that gay couples who might want children encounter would go a long way toward encouraging them to have kids.

[Robin in Tx]

Most the gays I know are men (because I have a male gay family member). None of them have children. I don't know many lesbians. I wonder how many of the children in those marriages, though, are from previous marriages or from adoption (like the one cited in the article). Adoption is competitive and expensive.

 

I don't competely disagree with some of your other points, but they are not tax code issues. I will stick by the fact that as far as the tax code goes the marriage break is definitely a encouragement for that activity. There was a fight when legislature had made an amendment to the code that PUNISHED married couples... that was overturned and we now enjoy, once again, a break on our taxes if we are married filing jointly. Again, I don't think it's the government's argument *against* gay marriage, it's the reason why gay marriage will impact tax revenues, etc.

[kokotg]

Okay, I take your point. I still think the government's on the wrong track, though, with that reasoning. Maybe I'll send off some e-mails to congress ;)

[Phred]

I'm curious. Where does the bible say that slavery is okay? And where does it say that biracial marriages are wrong?

 

It doesn't say either of those things. Anywhere.

I'm sorry, that's incorrect. The Bible quite clearly does condone slavery. Neither Jesus nor Paul says anything contradictory to slavery and both are noted as saying things supporting the institution of slavery. First off, it's necessary to note that slavery was a part of life in Palestine back then. Secondly, the term "servant" refers to a slave. Let's stick to the New Testament as the OT is just rampant and I don't have that sort of time.

 

People in debt were sold into slavery:

 

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

 

Priests owned slaves:

 

Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"

 

Jesus mentions slavery and prescribes how a slave should be punished:

 

Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

 

You'd think he'd have condemned it here but... no.

 

Paul tells slaves to obey their owners the way that they obey Jesus:

 

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

 

Shall I continue or is this enough? I have several more bookmarked.

 

As to interracial marriage the Bible doesn't say it's wrong but some tried to make the case. You can read more here if you're really interested.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm sorry, that's incorrect. The Bible quite clearly does condone slavery. Neither Jesus nor Paul says anything contradictory to slavery and both are noted as saying things supporting the institution of slavery. First off, it's necessary to note that slavery was a part of life in Palestine back then. Secondly, the term "servant" refers to a slave.

Shall I continue or is this enough? I have several more bookmarked.

 

 

actually, yeah, you'd have to continue, because none of your "bookmarks" take into account God's ideal of treating each other as a brother in Christ, not as a slave. As i mentioned previously, read Philemon. The rest of scripture pretty much backs up that concept too. Add in the Christian's duty to submit to authorities and governments [who still allow stuff like this], and you have quite a world for Christians to deal with.

 

and no, "servant" does not automatically mean "slave."

 

And coupled w/ the context of scripture --according to faith-- there's even more about the how's and why's of God "condoning" cultural practices. And it's all folly to one who doesn't believe, and truth to those who do.

 

Without a faith behind your "biblical" arguments, you are doing about as much as the Devil when he tempted Christ. Not that *I'm* calling YOU the Devil, but the tactics are identical. And as such they carry little credibility to those who study the Bible for themselves.

 

ETA: ....to those who study the Bible for themselves, In The Context of Faith.

 

And FTR, agreeing w/ what the Bible SAYS doesn't mean we are unable to think for ourselves ;)

[Karenciavo]

I'm sorry, that's incorrect. The Bible quite clearly does condone slavery. Neither Jesus nor Paul says anything contradictory to slavery and both are noted as saying things supporting the institution of slavery. First off, it's necessary to note that slavery was a part of life in Palestine back then. Secondly, the term "servant" refers to a slave. Let's stick to the New Testament as the OT is just rampant and I don't have that sort of time.

 

People in debt were sold into slavery:

 

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

 

Priests owned slaves:

 

Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"

 

Jesus mentions slavery and prescribes how a slave should be punished:

 

Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

 

You'd think he'd have condemned it here but... no.

 

Paul tells slaves to obey their owners the way that they obey Jesus:

 

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

 

Shall I continue or is this enough? I have several more bookmarked.

 

As to interracial marriage the Bible doesn't say it's wrong but some tried to make the case. You can read more here if you're really interested.

 

You are taking Scripture out of context.

Matthew 18:25: Parable about forgiveness

 

Mark 14:66: How does mentioning that the high priest has a servant/slave condone it?

 

Luke 12:45-48: Actually your quote begins at verse 46 and it's an explanation of a parable

 

Ephesians 6:5-9: Paul is giving people Godly advise on how to live no matter their circumstance. Advising people how to best live out their lives is not condoning.

 

[Mrs Mungo]

Robin in TX posted:

You have to look at the generalizations, not the exceptions. Generally speaking, straight couples marry with the intent to start a family. Gay couples do not have children as commonly... not at all. In a way, they are in the same boat as infertile straight couples... they have to find surrogates, incur the cost of artificial insemination, or adopt.

They are not baby producers in the same way. I know that many won't agree with this line of thinking but believe me.. this is THE reason why marriage is rewarded by the government - it's not for emotional or religious reasons... it's for economic ones.

 

Why the government began rewarding marriage is beside the point. Many gay couples do have children (even if they adopt, this is no different than a hetero couple adopting) and many hetero couples are very happily child-free. So, the original application and reasoning is lost in the modern world. And I would disagree that children are the only reason. The military at one time discouraged marriage. However, studies and statistics showed the married soldiers (even the ones without kids) were more stable, less often got into trouble, etc. Marriage is a stabilizing force even when it does not involve children.

[Michelle in MO]

I'm sorry, that's incorrect. The Bible quite clearly does condone slavery. Neither Jesus nor Paul says anything contradictory to slavery and both are noted as saying things supporting the institution of slavery. First off, it's necessary to note that slavery was a part of life in Palestine back then. Secondly, the term "servant" refers to a slave. Let's stick to the New Testament as the OT is just rampant and I don't have that sort of time.

 

People in debt were sold into slavery:

 

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

 

Priests owned slaves:

 

Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"

 

Jesus mentions slavery and prescribes how a slave should be punished:

 

Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

 

You'd think he'd have condemned it here but... no.

 

Paul tells slaves to obey their owners the way that they obey Jesus:

 

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

 

Shall I continue or is this enough? I have several more bookmarked.

 

As to interracial marriage the Bible doesn't say it's wrong but some tried to make the case. You can read more here if you're really interested.

 

The New Testament certainly does not condone slavery. It was a very unfortunate, almost inevitable fact of the times.

 

Matthew 18:25 - Yes, certainly people who were in debt were sold into slavery. However, Phred, you completely missed the context of this verse: it was one of Jesus' parables, used as an illustration to portray the necessity of forgiveness. There is nothing surrounding those particular verses that states in any way that Jesus is condoning the practice of slavery.

 

Mark 14:66 - "there cometh one of the maids of the high priest." Certainly a maid here could be considered a slave; but the word is equally translated from the Greek paidiske as a maid or handmaid or bondmaid or bondservant. By the way, someone who was a bondservant became that way voluntarily. However, if the word does mean "slave" in this context, yes, certainly high priests owned slaves. In other words, by your reasoning, simply because there is a mention of possible slavery in this verse, the NT is condoning slavery. Hardly the case. Jesus isn't condoning it, either. This is simply a historical footnote to a scene prior to the crucifixion.

 

Luke 12:45-48 - Again, you're looking at these verses completely out of context. Jesus was using this illustration as a parable to explain another concept to the listeners of his time. Jesus here is speaking of the necessity of being faithful. He's hardly condoning slavery or the beating of slaves. Context is important.

 

Like Peek-a-Boo mentioned, you've completely missed Philemon. The whole point of Ephesians 6:5-9 is most definitely not to encourage slavery, but to encourage Christian slaves to respond as a Christian should, even in difficult circumstances.

 

All those Christian abolitionists, as well as other abolitionists, must have been horribly deceived prior to the Civil War and during the Civil War in the United States. It's funny that they saw ending slavery as their Christian duty; they must have misread their NT.

 

Read here:

 

http://ctlibrary.com/ch/1992/issue33/3321.html

 

Or here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionists

 

Slavery has been a horrible reality in human history; in fact, it's still not over in certain countries. Witness the child soldiers that are pressed into service in parts of Africa.

 

Nevertheless, it's a real stretch to state that the NT condones slavery. Slavery was a huge part of the Roman empire; many of these verses were intended to help Christians and Jews cope and hopefully overcome in the midst of this evil reality.

[Jenny in Atl]

Slavery lasted far past the Roman Empire. It still continues to this day. I would think if the Bible is the play bk for mankind. All the does & don't would be listed clearly!!!

 

This quote seemed interesting...

http://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq98.html

 

"God's perfect will would be that all men be free, but the Lord does not run the affairs of world governments. He has given man free reign to do what is right in his own eyes. The Almighty will someday rule on earth, but for now His role is to act as an advisor to mankind.

 

A very good reason the Bible doesn't focus on forced servitude is that slavery of the mind to sin is a much bigger problem than the imprisonment of the body. It is meaningless for someone to gain physical freedom and lose his eternal soul."

[Phred]

You are taking Scripture out of context.

Matthew 18:25: Parable about forgiveness

 

Mark 14:66: How does mentioning that the high priest has a servant/slave condone it?

 

Luke 12:45-48: Actually your quote begins at verse 46 and it's an explanation of a parable

 

Ephesians 6:5-9: Paul is giving people Godly advise on how to live no matter their circumstance. Advising people how to best live out their lives is not condoning.

 

Jesus specifically tells us how many times a slave should be whipped. Parable or not... what more do you need? He accepts that a man may be a slave and even that this man may be whipped. You can work the apologetics of it any way you wish. 150 years ago they were dancing in the streets over this verse. Do you know better than all those priests, ministers and bishops and such who supported slavery back then using these very verses from the same Bible telling people that it was a Godly enterprise?

 

I'm amazed that you can even try to argue this.

[RebeccaC]

It doesn't matter why people get married or why government gives tax breaks to marriages. Once you establish it you open it to everyone who meets the qualifications.

 

Two people who love each other.

 

Oops, what we really meant was "two people of the same tribe" who love each other. Well, that didn't work so we're back to two people who love each other.

 

Oops, what we really meant was two people "of the same faith" who love each other. That didn't work so we're back to two people who love each other.

 

Oops... what we really meant was two people "of the same race" who love each other. That didn't work so we're back to two people who love each other.

 

Oops, what we really meant was two people "of the opposite sex" who love each other.

 

And the arguments come out like clockwork.

 

"God doesn't like it"

"It's immoral"

"It's bad for the children"

"It's not natural"

"If you let them get married the next thing you know they'll be getting married"

 

But the arguments, as they always have been, are not enough to prohibit gay marriage.

 

God never expresses an opinion. Men do... Men believe lots of things. If you wish to believe it that's up to you. I don't have to believe it, I don't believe it and I won't believe it until a god decides to come here and tell us himself. Before you answer with, "He already has." My answer to you is, "That's what you believe."

 

Immoral? Sez who?

 

The kids seem pretty darned happy except for when one of their two moms or dads die and they are prevented from getting the same social security benefits regular kids get.

 

It's as natural as things get. We see homosexual behavior throughout the animal kingdom. Human beings can't help who they're attracted to. Can you?

 

If the slippery slope arguments are valid... then... OH NO! Stop all marriages! If people didn't get married at all then nobody could commit adultery! Homosexuals wouldn't want to get married!

 

 

I suppose one day this discussion will be about letting humans marry aliens so save all the arguments.

 

Phred on the other thread you stated that you believed, "I try to not harm others." So would you extend that out and would you say that you believe that love is not harming the one loved?

[Kay in Cal]

I know it is far down the thread, but I found this well worth reading, and might generate some discussion. The following is a message from Bishop Swenson, who represents the California-Pacific annual conference (leading churches in the region of Southern California, Hawaii, Guam and Saipan ) of the United Methodist Church.

 

"Bishop Swenson

Friday, May 16, 2008

 

A weekly look-around at the Church in the World.

 

Today the State of California is at the top of the national news: “The California Supreme Court, striking down two state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman, ruled on Thursday that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.†(New York Times.) In its decision, the Court wrote, “…the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.â€

 

Barely three weeks ago, the United Methodist Church sustained the current language of our Book of Discipline, which will continue to exclude those who are not heterosexual from full participation in the life and leadership of the Church. What to make of this timely juxtaposition of two major institutions addressing what is essentially the same issue?

 

For me, what stands out is how much the roles of church and state—in this instance at least—have switched places from where we were in the 1960’s. In that era, the Protestant church was a socially activist leader in the civil rights movement. Those of us with gray or limited hair can remember the thrill of seeing pastors and church leaders at the forefront and in the news, their statements and actions analyzed as closely as any presidential candidate today.

 

Today, religious leaders usually appear in the news as crackpots or despots. This is in part because the news loves the extremist of whatever stripe: it makes for easier, faster, sound-bite, black-white reporting. But it is also because such extremists are more common and available. The voices of a more temperate faith have a hard time getting traction with a media machine that runs on hype and is regularly fed by hypsters.

 

So the carefully deliberative method of our General Conference, even in its decisions about human sexuality and the institutional church, did not rise to the level of must-see TV or front page headlines. But that does not mean people did not care. Retired U.M. pastor Gil Caldwell (whom it was my honor to appoint in the Rocky Mountain Conference and a national leader in the civil rights movement,) wrote incisively following the General Conference decisions: “Martin Luther King once said of segregation, ‘Segregation is dead, it is just a question of how long and expensive some folk want to make the funeral…[As a church, we] have chosen to extend and finance the funeral of heterosexism even though we know that it is on its deathbed...â€

 

The media won’t much care for the writings of even such a historic leader as Rev. Caldwell. But we can attend to the voices in our own midst, and in so doing, perhaps find a voice that will move the church forward to contend with the State for leadership on issues of moral segregation. I am particularly mindful (and inspired by) yet another letter on my desk: a retired pastor from Oklahoma wrote to me on this issue prior to General Conference, echoing Reverends Caldwell and King: “I still think the present U.M. position on homosexuality is humpty-dumpty, and I hope it will have a hard fall at this General Conference. If not this time, it is sure to fall in the future.†And here’s the clincher: “p.s. Please forgive my handwriting. My daughter is not available at the time to write this for me. I am 101 years old and approaching 102 in August 12th if I live that long.â€

 

May we all live so long, and continue to lift our voices, so that the church turns its ear, its heart, and its voice, to greater truths yet to be told.

 

Shalom, Mary Ann"

 

If you'd like to see this on the web, it's at: http://www.cal-pac.org/

[Phred]

Phred on the other thread you stated that you believed, "I try to not harm others." So would you extend that out and would you say that you believe that love is not harming the one loved?

Loving someone is not always a good thing for the other person. Still, personally I try not to harm others.

[RebeccaC]

Loving someone is not always a good thing for the other person. Still, personally I try not to harm others.

 

I did not ask if loving some one was good or not good for another person I asked if love would harm. Does real love seek to harm another?

 

Nature teaches does it not?

[Phred]

“I still think the present U.M. position on homosexuality is humpty-dumpty, and I hope it will have a hard fall at this General Conference. If not this time, it is sure to fall in the future.†And here’s the clincher: “p.s. Please forgive my handwriting. My daughter is not available at the time to write this for me. I am 101 years old and approaching 102 in August 12th if I live that long.â€

 

May we all live so long, and continue to lift our voices, so that the church turns its ear, its heart, and its voice, to greater truths yet to be told.

 

Shalom, Mary Ann"

 

If you'd like to see this on the web, it's at: http://www.cal-pac.org/

Kay, thank you so much for posting this.

[Peek a Boo]

Jesus specifically tells us how many times a slave should be whipped. Parable or not... what more do you need? He accepts that a man may be a slave and even that this man may be whipped. You can work the apologetics of it any way you wish. 150 years ago they were dancing in the streets over this verse. Do you know better than all those priests, ministers and bishops and such who supported slavery back then using these very verses from the same Bible telling people that it was a Godly enterprise?

 

I'm amazed that you can even try to argue this.

 

"Parable or not...."??? ok, so you freely admit [previously] that you not only disagree w/ the entire premise and believability of the Bible, but you also want to insert a motive where there is none?

 

And yes, i believe we CAN know better than people years ago, and people today, and possibly even some in the future. God does not change. The context of His Word does not change. People's understandings and cultural "norms" change though, and there's always SOMEone who is willing to pull verses out of context and use them to back up any ol' claim they want :)

 

You are willing to ignore the entire context of the Bible in general, which you refuse to address.

 

The amazement goes both ways.

[Phred]

I did not ask if loving some one was good or not good for another person I asked if love would harm. Does real love seek to harm another?

 

Nature teaches does it not?

Oh now Rebecca... True Love© won't harm. Love is a feeling. Love cannot DO anything. Love, being an emotion, is a thing that can't be touched... so how can it harm or seek? Only people driven by emotion actually DO anything.

 

Same as people driven by faith are the ones that DO anything. You know, the True Christians©.

 

:001_huh:

[Storm Bay]

Oh now Rebecca... True Love© won't harm. Love is a feeling. Love cannot DO anything. Love, being an emotion, is a thing that can't be touched... so how can it harm or seek? Only people driven by emotion actually DO anything.

 

Same as people driven by faith are the ones that DO anything. You know, the True Christians©.

 

:001_huh:

 

Ah, but not everyone agrees on the definition of love. I think that there are about 5 different kinds of love, of which feeling is just one of them. And how do you define True Christians? Many Christians I know would not consider me Christian because I don't believe the trinity, just as some Biblical unitarians in the past were grouped with Deists even if they weren't.

 

But, here's another reply I made to you that didn't post because somehow I became logged out.

 

Jesus specifically tells us how many times a slave should be whipped. Parable or not... what more do you need? He accepts that a man may be a slave and even that this man may be whipped. You can work the apologetics of it any way you wish. 150 years ago they were dancing in the streets over this verse. Do you know better than all those priests, ministers and bishops and such who supported slavery back then using these very verses from the same Bible telling people that it was a Godly enterprise?

 

I'm amazed that you can even try to argue this.

 

To start, I'm a dispensationalist, although not to the radical extreme of this. Jesus didn't condone it, although I don't recall him condemning it.

 

The words used translated slave do not all have the exact same connotations that they do to us today. Some chose this to pay off debt, and these were the Hebrews who were to be freed after 6 years. All land bought from other Israelites had to be returned to the original owners in the year of the Jubilee, and the price given for land reflected the number of years left.

 

I do believe in free will, and that God's primary will was not to give a law such as the law of Moses in the first place. If you take the Biblical timeline literally, or even if you don't, you'll find that it took thousands of years for this law to be given. A literal interpretation of Biblical chronology means that Genesis 1-10 last close to 2000 years. A figurative interpretation, based on uniformitarianism, would make this time far, far longer, allowing for the theory of evolution events to occur, etc. Even a Biblical gap theology allows for a far longer time.

 

So, why a law? Clearly in Genesis 38, Judah is operating under the code of Khammurabi (the law of levirate marriage, which was different than that covered in the Mosaic law, and also the order to burn Tamar for her alleged adultery.) Because people left on their own were not living ethically, and often adopted much harsher laws (eg the code of Khammurabi). The punishments given, and the law that there needed to be 2 independent witnesses to testify, are more lenient than the codes of the area. People had slaves. There isn't one commandment to have slaves. In Genesis, it's clearly stated that a man should have one wife. Yet polygamous marriage existed. The laws about the treatment of slaves and multiple wives may seem harsh or immoral to many of us today, but they were generally more humane and fair than the laws of the surrounding people.

 

The problem is that you can take anything out of context to support just about any position you like. Another challenge is that it isn't written to the western mind or with contemporary, western examples.

 

At any rate, this thread began about marriage, did it not? I'm not sure that the rules of slavery or debating whether or not Jesus condoned slavery sticks to this issue. No one has mentioned Philemon, have they? This is an entire epistle that Paul writes to Philemon sent by the hand of a runaway slave, Onesimus. According to Roman law, Onesimus ought to have been put to death, but Paul entreats, not orders, Philemon to take him back as a brother, etc.

 

On to the topic of marriage, and what should be legalized, which is what the OP started with and the poll is all about. This is a tough issue, quite frankly as tough as the issue about legalizing pornography is. Biblically, the answer is no. But our government is hardly Biblically based. One of my favourite professors, (not a Christian) a philosophy prof who taught a methodology course I had to take for my Women's Studies 400 requirement, brought up the whole issue of pornography. At that time, feminists were very opposed to this (I'm guess they still are, but haven't been following the latest on that), but she pointed out that once you pass censorship laws, where do you draw the line? Who makes those decisions?

 

Biblically, we see that Jesus did bring the standard back to one husband, one wife, yet the Mosaic law has clear guidelines for multiple wives. But just like the law for divorce (Jesus pointed out that the laws governing this were given because of the hardness of their hearts) this was to help alleviate problems in a situation. Controlling and condoning are not the same thing.

 

How could I claim to believe the Bible, including the New Testament, and say I agree with polygamous marriage? It would seem hypocritical, although I confess there have been moments when I wondered if it might be easier if my dh had another wife to help out around here (not that I told him that!!!). But polygamous relationships will continue whether or not sanctioned by law. Will making this legal somehow make it less likely that abuse will occur? There's no way to be sure of this, because domestic violence, verbal and emotional abuse continue even in monogamous relationships.

 

Fwiw, my belief is that sin is sin, and that in God's eyes they don't come in different sizes. If you steal a paperclip or a million dollars, you've still stolen. But you can't run a country punishing everyone who steals a paperclip with the same prison sentence you give to someone who steals a million dollars. We don't use a Biblical penal code, where repayment was required, nor do I think that it's feasible or practical to try to institute one, even though I think our penal system has inherent problems. But this is a tangent; my point is about the size of the issue before the next part of my post.

 

How about marriage between two men or two women? Can I condone this based on scripture if I choose to be sola scriptura without watering down or mishandling scripture? If I agree that the government is separate and secular, can I still in good conscience agree to legalizing this or civil unions? I do have a gay brother (not the actor or the physicist, but the one in the business world) who is single right now. Would I love him any less if he married another man? No. He knows what I believe, but understands that not everyone has to be either pro-gay or homophobic, that there are other options. He has told me he feels closer to me than any of my siblings, yet they are far more supportive of his lifestyle. I think he has the right to choose what he does without the need for me to criticize or condemn--or agree. He doesn't agree with Christianity, but doesn't feel a need to criticize or condemn me. But I also think that the Mosaic law was fulfilled already and that we're no longer under it.

 

But I don't feel a need to defend my position or argue. I have a whole family who feel much like you do on this (and on evolution, for that matter.) I've been through all the arguments I feel I need to. You and I aren't going to see eye to eye on this, nor do I expect us to as we have very different philosophies. This is the same with me and everyone else who thinks it ought to be legalized. We're never going to have everyone agreeing. What I think is interesting is that no one, at least not the last time I checked, voted for polygamy (or polyandry although this was essentially excluded--it has occurred), but only when it was all lumped together.

[Phred]

And yes, i believe we CAN know better than people years ago, and people today, and possibly even some in the future. God does not change. The context of His Word does not change. People's understandings and cultural "norms" change though, and there's always SOMEone who is willing to pull verses out of context and use them to back up any ol' claim they want

Right... exactly like you're doing. Thank you for making my point. I've simply taken the verses that were used to support slavery and used them to show that the Bible was used to... support slavery.

 

The point here is simple... the Bible was used to support slavery, now it is not.

 

The Bible was used to support being against interracial marriage, now it's not.

 

The Bible is being used to support anti-homosexual sentiment, tomorrow it won't be.

 

You say it's now, magically, never said anything that's pro-slavery. That all those people in the past were mistaken, the Bible never meant that and they were all wrong.

 

Ok... whatever. Tomorrow maybe we'll find out what the Bible really means. Or... can you tell me?

[Michelle in MO]

Slavery lasted far past the Roman Empire. It still continues to this day. I would think if the Bible is the play bk for mankind. All the does & don't would be listed clearly!!!

 

Slavery does indeed still exist. In fact, in the not-too-distant past, African slaves were being sold by the Muslims. And, of course, I mentioned children who are currently pressed into becoming soldiers for various militia groups in Africa. Child prostitution would be another example.

 

As Christians, we're required to think, aren't we, so although many does and don'ts are listed quite clearly (including this issue of slavery), we're also required, as Christians, to be able to understand Scriptural principles and learn to apply them to our daily lives. That takes time, understanding, and maturity.

 

And then this:

 

Jesus specifically tells us how many times a slave should be whipped. Parable or not... what more do you need? He accepts that a man may be a slave and even that this man may be whipped. You can work the apologetics of it any way you wish. 150 years ago they were dancing in the streets over this verse. Do you know better than all those priests, ministers and bishops and such who supported slavery back then using these very verses from the same Bible telling people that it was a Godly enterprise?

 

Phred, you're continuing to interpret many, many of these verses completely out of context. So---read into them what you will. Nevertheless, this was and still is a parable and is meant as an example, not to be taken literally.

 

I'm amazed that you can even try to argue this.

 

Agreed. I find myself truly amazed that you can read what you're reading into these Scriptures, when in actuality they are speaking of far, far different things than you think they're alluding to.

[Michelle in MO]

Right... exactly like you're doing. Thank you for making my point. I've simply taken the verses that were used to support slavery and used them to show that the Bible was used to... support slavery.

 

The point here is simple... the Bible was used to support slavery, now it is not.

 

The Bible was used to support being against interracial marriage, now it's not.

 

The Bible is being used to support anti-homosexual sentiment, tomorrow it won't be.

 

You say it's now, magically, never said anything that's pro-slavery. That all those people in the past were mistaken, the Bible never meant that and they were all wrong.

 

Ok... whatever. Tomorrow maybe we'll find out what the Bible really means. Or... can you tell me?

 

it's very tragic that the Bible has been used to justify so many evil things. That doesn't negate a fair reading of these verses, or the truth of the Bible. The German Christian Church under Hitler in WWII misused the Bible to justify the persecution of the Jews. Were they wrong? Absolutely! The Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche) argued constantly against these so-called "Deutsche Christen", and many of them---Catholic and Protestant---lost their lives in defense of the truth.

 

Yes, I most definitely believe that people that have misused these Scriptures were mistaken. There is no justification for misusing Scripture, is there? I'm sure you would agree.

[RebeccaC]

Oh now Rebecca... True Love© won't harm. Love is a feeling. Love cannot DO anything. Love, being an emotion, is a thing that can't be touched... so how can it harm or seek? Only people driven by emotion actually DO anything.

 

Same as people driven by faith are the ones that DO anything. You know, the True Christians©.

 

:001_huh:

 

Ok so then the argument that two men loving each other is moot.

 

You and I both know that nature teaches. Sphincter muscle are a one way door of sorts are they not? Heartburn happens when a sphincter muscle is not working properly. The rectum, an*s is in part a sphincter muscle. When it stopping working correctly then a colostomy is needed. Homos*xual s*x breaks down the ability of the an*l sphincter muscles to work and does over time irreversible damage. An*l s*x in heterosexuals does the same. As a society we ban, create laws that state all kinds of pleasurable yet harmful behavior is unlawful.

 

However the homos*xual community has set up the straw man that their behavior is OK in the name of love. That we as a society are only to look at their emotion which we can not measure and are to ignore what the physical consequences of their behavior is to their and their partners body which can be measured.

 

This is one reason why non-Christians societies have in the past made homos*xual behavior a taboo. It does bad things to the body. It is not healthy. Bible aside nature itself teaches that an*l s*x is harmful and therefore wrong.

 

Why as a society should we not only legalize this harmful behavior but also celebrate it by saying it is the same as s*x between a man and a woman. I have yet to meet the woman who had to have a colostomy due to vaginal s*x.

[Jenny in Atl]

Ok so then the argument that two men loving each other is moot.

 

You and I both know that nature teaches. Sphincter muscle are a one way door of sorts are they not? Heartburn happens when a sphincter muscle is not working properly. The rectum, an*s is in part a sphincter muscle. When it stopping working correctly then a colostomy is needed. Homos*xual s*x breaks down the ability of the an*l sphincter muscles to work and does over time irreversible damage. An*l s*x in heterosexuals does the same. As a society we ban, create laws that state all kinds of pleasurable yet harmful behavior is unlawful.

 

However the homos*xual community has set up the straw man that their behavior is OK in the name of love. That we as a society are only to look at their emotion which we can not measure and are to ignore what the physical consequences of their behavior is to their and their partners body which can be measured.

 

This is one reason why non-christians societies have in the past made homos*xual behavior a taboo. It does bad things to the body. It is not healthy. Bible aside nature itself teaches that an*l s*x is harmful and therefore wrong.

 

Then I guess female gay s*x is ok, since I can't fathom any body parts getting hurt unless they try to do as you mention above. :confused:

[Karenciavo]

Jesus specifically tells us how many times a slave should be whipped. Parable or not... what more do you need? He accepts that a man may be a slave and even that this man may be whipped. You can work the apologetics of it any way you wish. 150 years ago they were dancing in the streets over this verse. Do you know better than all those priests, ministers and bishops and such who supported slavery back then using these very verses from the same Bible telling people that it was a Godly enterprise?

 

I'm amazed that you can even try to argue this.

 

It makes a difference. The fact that you can't understand that doesn't surprise me though. Jesus spoke in parables to confound the "wise."

 

I'm not going to support anyone who takes Scripture out of context, be they priests, ministers, bishops, butchers, bakers or candlestick makers. But I don't throw the baby out with the bath water, what sense does that make? Fallible man takes the infallible word of God and perverts it to support their own motives. Pretty standard.

[Peek a Boo]

Right... exactly like you're doing. Thank you for making my point. I've simply taken the verses that were used to support slavery and used them to show that the Bible was used to... support slavery.

 

The point here is simple... the Bible was used to support slavery, now it is not.

 

The Bible was used to support being against interracial marriage, now it's not.

 

The Bible is being used to support anti-homosexual sentiment, tomorrow it won't be.

 

You say it's now, magically, never said anything that's pro-slavery. That all those people in the past were mistaken, the Bible never meant that and they were all wrong.

 

Ok... whatever. Tomorrow maybe we'll find out what the Bible really means. Or... can you tell me?

 

 

Yes, actually, i can tell you :)

 

The Bible is simply God's Word on how to Follow Him in Christ.

 

or as someone else has already put it:

"According to Scripture, the Bible does have many purposes. It is “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work†(2 Tim. 3:16-17). Paul tells Timothy to “preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction†(2 Tim. 4:2). There are many different kinds of functions for various parts of the Bible, in teaching and instructing, rebuking and encouraging. At the same time, since God is one, there is naturally a unity of purpose to all his word. All his words manifest his glory (cf. John 17:1). In all his words to us, God enjoins us to “be holy, because I am holy†(1 Peter 1:16; Lev. 19:2; 20:7). Or, as James says, “Do not merely listen to the word; and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says†(James 1:22). All of the Bible leads to Christ (Luke 24:44-49).

 

We may misconstrue the Bible either by paying attention only to one purpose, by reducing all the purposes to one, or by artificially isolating the purposes, as if we could adequately accomplish one in isolation from the rest."

 

http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/GCBI/BG04PurBi.htm

 

 

It speaks against adultery, and always will.

It speaks against homosexuality and "unnatural" sexual practices and it always will.

It speaks against husbands beating their wives and wives being shrewish nags, and it always will :)

It speaks AGAINST treating other people like slaves, and always will.

It speaks of loving EVERYONE, even those we must physically judge.

 

What i *said* is that people will take what is the cultural norm and try to fit verses to support that: slavery was very integral to the society at the time. I'm sure all kinds of people find verses to fit what they want. The Inquisition, Crusades, and even the KKK all use snippets to support what they want to exert. That's not magic :)

 

Is your point that people are flawed? Then yes, i would agree with that.

 

Is your point that the Bible's context DOES allow for same sex marriage? I'd say that you can't prove that in a literary -or faith- sense.

That flawed people take snippets and try to use them doesn't change the CONTEXT of the Bible.

 

Your attempt to extract passages about homosexual behavior as something other than what the Biblical context demands wasn't very successful because it ignores the whole context of scripture.

 

Again --serious question here, no snark, i promise: what do *you* think is the Context of the Bible? I would expect someone as reasoned as you are to at least have a literary grasp of what the Bible is, whether you agree w/ it or not....

[RebeccaC]

Then I guess female gay s*x is ok, since I can fathom any body parts getting hurt unless they try to do as you mention above. :confused:

 

 

I did not write that. They do have acts that harm the vagina but I am not going to go into them :blush: Susan might block me from the board. The same act done by a man to a woman will cause harm.

 

Did I mention that I went the premed route in school...... Was a nursing student for a while. Worked a surgical ward for a year and a half. One of the grand plans to pay for grad school and need the premed to be able to id human bones found on archeology sites.. I know what I know about male gay s*x because I took care of them after colostomy surgery. I saw the very loving relationships and what it did to the body.

[genie]

Why as a society should we not only legalize this harmful behavior but also celebrate it by saying it is the same as s*x between a man and a woman.

 

So following this line of reasoning, we should make McDonald's illegal? I mean, if the only things that should be legal are things that aren't harmful, well, I guess our politicians have their jobs cut out for them.

[RebeccaC]

So following this line of reasoning, we should make McDonald's illegal? I mean, if the only things that should be legal are things that aren't harmful, well, I guess our politicians have their jobs cut out for them.

 

Well our society has followed this line of logic and made drugs like crack, heroin, meth, ect illegal. We have laws that keep folks from doctor shopping so that they do not abuse pain meds like OxyContin so I guess our politicians don't have too big of a problem following such logic. Of course McD's is an addiction a bit easier to break than meth, OxyCotin, or deviant s*ex.

 

One of the surgeons at the hospital I worked at catered to the homos*xual community. We had one of his guys come in several time to have an abscess cleaned out that was caused by an*l s*x. Problem was the guy could not abstain long enough for the abscess to heal. He died from that abscess. In the day and age of great antibiotics he died of an abscess caused by an*l s*x that he would not abstain from to save his life. He was in his late 30s. He was a nice guy very funny and caring just no self control when it came to his s*ex life. His death was tragic. I know this is anecdotal however facts are facts an*l s*x harms the body and the psyche.

[j.griff]

Of course McD's is an addiction a bit easier to break than meth, OxyCotin, or deviant s*ex.

 

 

 

I disagree that a McD's addiction is easier to break than an addiction to sex or drugs. An addiction to McD's (or similar) is often harder for many people- eating is necessary for life, and food addictions are more socially acceptable, as well as legally acceptable. So many aspects of our lives revolve around food, parties, gatherings, business meetings, etc.

[Peek a Boo]

At any rate, this thread began about marriage, did it not? I'm not sure that the rules of slavery or debating whether or not Jesus condoned slavery sticks to this issue. No one has mentioned Philemon, have they? This is an entire epistle that Paul writes to Philemon sent by the hand of a runaway slave, Onesimus. According to Roman law, Onesimus ought to have been put to death, but Paul entreats, not orders, Philemon to take him back as a brother, etc.

 

 

yeah, we mentioned Philemon awhile back. It was being ignored again at the last post.

 

I believe Phred was trying to use verses about slavery to try to show that "we" can twist the Bible to be against homosexuality, when it "really" isn't condemning homosexuality at all.

 

that tactic doesn't seem to be working too well. :)

[Peek a Boo]

I disagree that a McD's addiction is easier to break than an addiction to sex or drugs. An addiction to McD's (or similar) is often harder for many people- eating is necessary for life, and food addictions are more socially acceptable, as well as legally acceptable. So many aspects of our lives revolve around food, parties, gatherings, business meetings, etc.

 

 

I'd have to say that a food addiction may be "harder" to break, but also isn't [usually] as immediately devestating as drugs and sex [sTD's/ AIDS]. Risk factors are a lot different too. i really don't see it as a valid comparison, but that's just me. [cue upbeat funky kodachrome music] "Please don't take -- my cokes and chocolate away.....!"

 

:D

[genie]

Well our society has followed this line of logic and made drugs like crack, heroin, meth, ect illegal.

 

Okay, so what about hydrogenated oils? Aspartame? Pesticides on foods? Food dyes? Not a single one of those has any positive effect on our bodies. They harm our bodies without doubt. But they are not illegal. You simply can't argue that something should be illegal because it may cause harm in some cases. Then what about trampolines? Rollerblades?

 

We had one of his guys come in several time to have an abscess cleaned out that was caused by an*l s*x. Problem was the guy could not abstain long enough for the abscess to heal. He died from that abscess.

 

How many people have had numerous surgeries and then died due to complications from being overweight? They just couldn't abstain from junk food. Shall we make being overweight illegal too? I may choose to eat junk food (and I do often) even though it is harmful to my body. Is that the best choice I could make? No. Does that mean junk food should be illegal? No.

 

I know this is anecdotal however facts are facts an*l s*x harms the body and the psyche.

 

And there are plenty of anecdotes telling stories of how childbirth harms some women's bodies and psyche. Should we also outlaw childbirth?

[Peek a Boo]

How many people have had numerous surgeries and then died due to complications from being overweight? They just couldn't abstain from junk food. Shall we make being overweight illegal too? I may choose to eat junk food (and I do often) even though it is harmful to my body. Is that the best choice I could make? No. Does that mean junk food should be illegal? No.

 

And there are plenty of anecdotes telling stories of how childbirth harms some women's bodies and psyche. Should we also outlaw childbirth?

 

don't forget alcohol addiction! nicotine! and driving!!! millions of people die in driving accidents!

:D

 

but seriously, all these things ARE being restricted and legislated. some more slowly than others, but it's happening. The FDA has criteria that needs to be met, or effects that need to be proven. I don't think i agree w/ your "without a doubt" statement. Almost every industry has some sort of licensing criteria. Even marriage ;)

 

and yeah, I can see childbirth being regulated. Involuntary sterilizations based on breeding standards or class. It happens already in other countries.

not that i AGREE w/ it, but I can see it....

[genie]

I don't think i agree w/ your "without a doubt" statement.

 

Fair enough. But I've never seen any research showing the items I listed having any kind of positive effect on our bodies, only negative. Of course, carrots, in excess, can kill you, too. :D Which is basically my point. We can't legislate every last thing that can be harmful, nor do I believe we should.

 

 

and yeah, I can see childbirth being regulated. Involuntary sterilizations based on breeding standards or class. It happens already in other countries.

not that i AGREE w/ it, but I can see it....

 

Yes, but I hope we never see the day that happens here in America!

 

All I'm saying is that there are all kinds of "harmful" activities that we willingly take part in every day, and the simple fact that something has the potential to be harmful isn't just cause for it to be made illegal.

[Peek a Boo]

We can't legislate every last thing that can be harmful, nor do I believe we should.

 

All I'm saying is that there are all kinds of "harmful" activities that we willingly take part in every day, and the simple fact that something has the potential to be harmful isn't just cause for it to be made illegal.

 

I agree that we can't and shouldn't legislate every little thing, but i do agree that there are some things that certainly benefit us when they are. Like seatbelts :)

 

I also agree that just because we can't/shouldn't legislate "everything" doesn't mean that we should refuse to consider a legitimate concern/risk when we are asking the government to license something or condone a legal contract.

[nmoira]

I saw the very loving relationships and what it did to the body.

I see what you mean. Women who remain virgins don't get cervical cancer. Women who don't have children don't get prolapsed uteri or a host of other complications.

 

I was curious about the rate of colostomies in gay men due to merely their being gay, and couldn't find any studies. Perhaps you could supply one. The closest I came was finding conflicting information about whether anal s*x results in a higher incidence of anal cancer (due to HPV). There is also conflicting information as to whether it can lead to incontinence. Of course, there's always the risk of physical damage (localized trauma, fissures, hemorrhoids), but this can be minimised by taking care.

[nmoira]

 

I have just spent a little time looking into this and can find no medical research to support your position that an*l s*x is intrinsically hazardous.

That's funny... we were probably reading the same articles at about the same time. It certainly wasn't something on my reading list this morning. I've checked with my best friend who was a Senior Editor on several respected medical journals (including a yearly gay s*x supplement to one publication) and she could not recall seeing any relevant studies. I figure she would know.