Christianity and Gay Marriage

[Ray]

Or do you beleive that God told these prophets to write down his or her words.

I believe that God told his prophets what to say . That others (scribes or other writers) wrote the words down.

Nowadays this would be seen as insanity.

Call me crazy then.

If you look at the life of Christ without any of the claims to immaculate conception

I believe that Christ was born of a virgin, but I do not believe in immaculate conception nor original sin.

you will see that he lived a life of service filled with love and understanding. Yeshua or jesus would frequently surround himself with the outcasts. He beleived that these people needed attention more than the wealthy or so called Kosher upright snobs of the day.

I wouldn't say that Christ had an issue with those who kept kosher (if you mean the Law of Moses)...it was the self-righteous, hypocritcal leaders who built a hedge around the law, etc. Those whom he surrounded himself with were those who were willing to be around him, to hear his message of salvation; the humble, poor outcasts. Sometimes the tax-collector or wealthy fisherman. Do you think that if the leaders he spoke against had humbled themselves he would have turned them away?

 

[Carol]

I hope the conversation can stay respectful. This is a discussion that touches upon some very sensitive subjects. I personally don't expect that a consensus opinion will be reached, but I do hope that anyone that wants to participate in the discussion can do so without attacking another point of view, or being attacked for their point of view.

Thanks :asian:

 

[morph4me]

A true and living prophet is like Moses, God speaks to him.

I don't want to be disrespectful of your beliefs, but how do you know that God spoke to Moses and that he wasn't just deluded or a very clever con man using the same tools as his enemies?

There are institutions full of people who hear god, demons, and voices talking to them, telling them what to do, etc. I prefer listening to my own instincts, intellect, and conscience, and am willing to take the consequences of any decision I make, rather than the voice of a prophet who tells me what to believe because they hear "God", and my opinion of homosexuality and marriage, abortion, suicide or anything else isn't going to change because someone hears voices, unless there is a compelling reason to rethink my position.

 

[Xue Sheng]

What the Hell are you people thinking. First off you can't even use the bible as an ultimate truth. Do you beleive god came down to earth and wrote this tale of fiction. Or do you beleive that God told these prophets to write down his or her words. Nowadays this would be seen as insanity.

If you look at the life of Christ without any of the claims to immaculate conception you will see that he lived a life of service filled with love and understanding. Yeshua or jesus would frequently surround himself with the outcasts. He beleived that these people needed attention more than the wealthy or so called Kosher upright snobs of the day. Jesus would not have cared where you inserted your private parts.

And the issue of Homosexuals ruining the sanctity of marriage, well straights have destroyed the holiness of that tradition long ago.

Sorry but…This is entirely off topic so I will make it brief but I have seen this in all of your posts so far.

Could you please stop posting in bold it gives the impression that you are yelling at people

Thanks
XS

 

[BrandiJo]

i would have to agree with the orignal post, I believe homosexuality is a sin, and so against the bible, how ever i would love and suport anyone who choses/or born with this. I think so where along the way Chirstians forgot that everyone sins, just because one sin is more public then the other does not make it any worse. All sins are equil in Gods eyes, and i have yet to meet a single person today who has never sinned, be it lieing or sleeping with the same gender.
​

 

[Ray]

I prefer listening to my own instincts, intellect, and conscience, and am willing to take the consequences of any decision I make, rather than the voice of a prophet who tells me what to believe because they hear "God", and my opinion of homosexuality and marriage, abortion, suicide or anything else isn't going to change because someone hears voices, unless there is a compelling reason to rethink my position.

You're absolutely correct - you must make your own decisions. Even if you were acquainted with a person you believed to be a prophet, you'd still need to make your own evaluations and decisions.

I would never encourage blindly following anyone or anything. Much contemplation and study is wise. Even thoughtful reconsideration of long-held or strongly-held beliefs is in order. At least that's what I believe.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

There are institutions full of people who hear god, demons, and voices talking to them, telling them what to do, etc. I prefer listening to my own instincts, intellect, and conscience, and am willing to take the consequences of any decision I make, rather than the voice of a prophet who tells me what to believe because they hear "God", and my opinion of homosexuality and marriage, abortion, suicide or anything else isn't going to change because someone hears voices, unless there is a compelling reason to rethink my position.

We no longer have 'blessed' people or 'evil' people. Now we call them insane.

 

[morph4me]

We no longer have 'blessed' people or 'evil' people. Now we call them insane.

I don't think being insane precludes being blessed or evil any more than being sane does.

 

[Ping898]

I don't think being insane precludes being blessed or evil any more than being sane does.

This is true however, I believe the joke does go something along the lines of, If you talk to God you are praying, if god talks to you you get checked into a psych ward...

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I don't think being insane precludes being blessed or evil any more than being sane does.

i think you're in the minority.

my point was that the behaviors we would have classified as 'evil' or 'blessed' two hundred years ago have been robbed of their power by being labelled and simply called 'nuts'.

if a guy showed up saying god told him it was time to move the isrealites to dellaware, we'd put him away.

if a guy skins children, we don't call him evil and end him. we call him insane and grant him extra mercy.

 

[IcemanSK]

you know I have nothing against homosexuals. I don't support it, however....I believe that Jesus would not look upon those who condemn others with favor. He always sat, ate, and drank with the unfavorable of his time period.

I agree with your statement here, Matt. I've struggled with my feelings on homosexuality & the Church for sometime. I'm certainly not going to condemn (sp?) folks for the practice, but I'm not willing to embrace it within the Church, either. I serve at my church along side godly folks who are gay. They are my friends & we have mutually beneficial relationships. But I'm still not ready to say I'm comfortable with gay marriage sanctioned by the Church. I'm fine with the State allowing it, however.

I wrestle with the issue, but er on the side of love.

 

[heretic888]

"I support gay marriage, even though I can't reconcile it in the Bible."

Do you agree with this? If so why or why not?

This depends entirely on how you see the Bible.

Of course, there are a handful of passages that condemn homosexuality (although, if memory serves, they don't say anything about marriage). But, the crux of the issue is whether you see the Bible as a document containing "zero point" values magically floating "outside" of culture and history, or whether you see the ethical precepts of the Bible as invariably reflecting the sociohistorical context of the people writing them.

As someone with a fair understanding of anthropology and history (as well as how the Biblical literature actually developed), my own interpretation is that of the contextualist variety.

Laterz.

 

[Super_Noob]

Yes gay marriage and homosexuality are a sin. But like all sins, it can be forgiven. There exists no sin in the bible that can't be forgiven by God. Everybody from the moment they were born instantly became sinners. Christians know that that they too are sinners, and that God died for their sins. If homosexuality is considered a sin, then God died for that too. Christianity is founded on the idea of loving one another, and following God. Jesus himself did not alienate anyone. He welcomed EVERYONE, regardless of race, gender, background, social class, job, etc, with open arms.

As for myself, I really don't care. Let people do whatever they want. A guy doing another guy isn't going to effect me directly, and it probably won't bother me anyway. I really could care less on the matter.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Me and another one of those darned stories.

There is a teacher of the Law who is well known, and lived in a small town where he taught many students. One day, outside the boundaries of this village, a guru showed up teaching that the only thing necessary was to love completely.

Students that went to see him did not return. So the Teacher of the Law eventually went to see this guru himself. When he heard the guru speaking, he challenged him: "What about the need for purification through discipline?", he asked.

"The only thing that is necessary is that one loves completely", the guru replied.

So the Teacher asked, "But do not the scriptures say that we must seek the mind and will of God by knowing His Will, through His word?"

"The only thing that is necessary is that one love, completely", the guru responded.

As the Teacher neared the guru, he felt washed in the presence of perfect love, complete in it's enveloping wholeness. At once, his eyes were opened.

So, as a follower of the teachings of Christ, I would think you would first need to reconcile the identity of Christ. Is he a Giver of Perfect Law, or He who Loves Completely? If you choose Law-Giver, then you essentially have to live in accordance with the law in totality ("for I tell you this: unless a man fulfill the very letter of the law, he shall not see the kingdom of God"). If you choose consumate Lover, then you can't really reconcile an anti-anything stance: Love is patient, Love is kind, etc. (that list does not incidentally include the discriminatory stances exhibited so often by the conservative religious right...patience, kindness, goodness, failfulness, gentleness, self-control, against such things there is no law). And whether or not you support homosexual lifestyles is made irrelevant by the New testament of Gods word (Beloved, let us love one another...for love is of God, and everyone who loves knows God, and is born of God ... because God is love. 1st John, 4:7-8). Unless you can make an argument that gays do not know love, I'm thinking your bible just called them sacred aspects of the divine (it does say "everyone", and not "just the people who believe and practice the same way you do").

Just a thought,

Dave

 

[someguy]

Ok so here is my opinion of it all.
A persons religion is between them and what ever it is out there. I belive in the holy trinity. If you don't well thats between you and what ever it is or I suppose isn't out there. I guess I kind of care some but I'm really not about to sit here and preach to anyone about christianity. I have no doubt I have several things wrong. I am merely human with no realy absolute knowledge of higher beings. If you want to debate religion then I'm up for it.
As for gay marrage. Well I know several people who are gay so if anyone gets homophobic yeah I really do have a problem with you. Then your stepping on my toes by stepping on the toes of some people I'm close to. Let everyone suffer and get married all the same. After all what does it matter. Preventing gay marrage isn't going to magically stop people from being gay. It's also probably not goign to magically up and turn people gay. I have spent plenty of time around gay people. Ummm I'm not gay so ya know I'm prrof. I know a few people who have gay parents. They aren't gay. Live and let live. The only time you should stop a person from being themselves is if it hurts you.
Yeah thats about all I have to say about that. If you don't like it. Well umm flame me all you want. It won't hurt me. If you like what I said, well what can I say your brilliant.

 

[Tames D]

Ok so here is my opinion of it all.
A persons religion is between them and what ever it is out there. I belive in the holy trinity. If you don't well thats between you and what ever it is or I suppose isn't out there. I guess I kind of care some but I'm really not about to sit here and preach to anyone about christianity. I have no doubt I have several things wrong. I am merely human with no realy absolute knowledge of higher beings. If you want to debate religion then I'm up for it.
As for gay marrage. Well I know several people who are gay so if anyone gets homophobic yeah I really do have a problem with you. Then your stepping on my toes by stepping on the toes of some people I'm close to. Let everyone suffer and get married all the same. After all what does it matter. Preventing gay marrage isn't going to magically stop people from being gay. It's also probably not goign to magically up and turn people gay. I have spent plenty of time around gay people. Ummm I'm not gay so ya know I'm prrof. I know a few people who have gay parents. They aren't gay. Live and let live. The only time you should stop a person from being themselves is if it hurts you.
Yeah thats about all I have to say about that. If you don't like it. Well umm flame me all you want. It won't hurt me. If you like what I said, well what can I say your brilliant.

I'm brilliant.

 

[RED]

Religion hmmm…I had my fall from grace about three years ago. At least according to the church I left. I say the Gays can go out and rewrite the Bible to suit them. Heck many of the religions out there are fabrications of the Bible, emotions and justifications. The problem with the human race is the need to be justified in the eyes of other people instead of God. They want someone to say you are OK/ normal for acting in a manner out of the popular thought because it is easier to change to suit your demons than it is to confront them. I wish people would simply get away from this acceptance mentality. Gay people want to get married…let them…I really don’t care…I’m not the one who has to answer for them at the gates of heaven. Although Ezekiel has references to duty to others perishing. All I can do is tell them to read the Bible and come to their own conclusion. If they ask for help I can help them understand it. I can’t add my own philosophy to the scriptures…i.e. the laws of the Old Testament is over with because of the new covenant. We could drag this topic out offending many like the mainstream churched have today when it comes down to it we have to answer for our own sins. The gays have the ability to read the Bible for themselves and develop their own theory for belief, the same way I have read the Bible and developed my own theories. The key to what I’ve said is “to read the Bible” completely and study it out. Then make a decision based on that and be humble enough to at least research out other’s theories. If it changes your conviction it is still YOUR conviction. Justification (Pro or con) with one scripture isn’t reading the Bible. I have read the Bible a couple times and studied it thoroughly. I have made the decision to walk away from the church with the full knowledge of possible damnation and I accept this, although I attend a Methodist Church regularly for my children’s sake. I openly admit to my choice I will not justify my decisions with a drive by scripture quote. If a gay person reads the Bible and can believe in their heart that they are OK with God then let them believe. None of us will know, if the lie we told for a discount on our kids meals at a restaurant (a 13year old pretending to be 12 to get a cheaper meal) will give us the same damnation as a mass murderer, until the judgment day. I believe all sin separates us from God no matter what the sin is too. Yes let them get married. It might give everyone a larger insurance pool for people. I don’t have a problem with it, God might but I don’t know I’m not God. I believe eveyone has the same oppurtunilty to find out about Jesus and the trinity. It's called the Bible. If you haven't read it completely then how can you say you worship the God in the Bible?

My 2 ¥

 

[tellner]

...and a number ten size can of worms is opened

There are so many issues here. Homosexuality and religion. The Bible. What exactly marriage is.

Let's start with the whole religion and sexuality thing. First off, the Rabbis have gone over this thing longer and in more detail than any Christian theologians. What have they concluded? The only such act that is actually scripturally forbidden is, umm, the insertion of tab "A" into slot "C" by one man on another. Other things including all lesbian activities and all other male-male stuff comes under the vague catch-all of sexual immorality, mostly rabbinically prohibited. To put it bluntly, the really terrible thing to their mind was for a man to be someone's *****.

Back in the day marriage wasn't really about love. It was about property. It was about land and flocks and alliances between families. It might be about having a beautiful wife. It wasn't about romantic love. That sort of passion was considered all well and good in its place but hardly a matter for so important a civil contract. As they said "marriage without love leads to love without marriage". Mistresses, concubines and prostitutes were very common. Even in recent times (cf. The Way We Never Were) most men had their first sexual experience with prostitutes and by some measures most of their sex period.

Things we would call erotic friendships between women from "old school friends" to Boston Marriages were more or less common. But since it didn't have anything to do with a man taking the subordinate female role and no pregnancy was possible it just wasn't as important culturally.

In fact, "homosexuality" per se is a fairly recent invention. There were men who preferred boys or men, women who got their passion from other women. Some acts were tolerated or prohibited depending on time and place. Was the love of David and Johnathan deep, abiding and possessed of an erotic component? Almost certainly. Was David the king and could get away with a lot that regular people couldn't? Definitely. Was it "homosexual" in the modern sense? Depends on how you define it, but they wouldn't have thought of it that way. A man might have his closest emotional (and maybe physical) relationships with another man, but marriage was a matter of business between a man and his wives' families. Yes, I'm still wondering why the Christians got rid of that particular custom.

Marriage? I alluded to "Boston marriages". They existed under one form or another for a long time and were socially acceptable in several more religious times. But marriage was always at least as much a civil and financial contract as anything else. Dowries. Bride-prices. Obligations to support children. Family status in the case of the death of one of the parties. The Best Man marrying the bride if the groom died before the ceremony. The sin of Onan. Primogeniture. The household as the fundamental economic unit.

In fact, it seems that the medeival Catholic Church had same-sex union ceremonies that were not exactly marriage but were darned close. They don't quite fit into the single-size religious and civil contract we have now.

So what is marriage? What should it be? It has gone through more forms than you can imagine all over the world through history. Generally it has supported the economic form, encouraged social stability, conserved capital and provided for the well-being of any offspring. The confusion comes when the civic/civil/economic gets conflated with passion, eroticism and affection and the Church (anyone's Church) gets layered on top of it.

I would say that clarity is important. Insofar as marriage is a religious thing, keep it out of the laws and the laws out of it. Let the churches mumble the words over those whom they choose according to their rules. By the same token, mature competent adults should be able to enter into contracts with each other. If that contract doesn't meet with the approval of the Church, fine. The Church doesn't have to approve it, and the participants don't have to attend that Church.

Sex and passion? Men and women have been fumbling around and making any variety of mistakes and arrangements for a long time. Whatever a man, a woman, and another woman with dangly bits want to do with a troupe of acrobatic midgets is their business, not mine. They probably will anyway. If a particular religion doesn't endorse it, fine. The pervs don't have to approve of them.

But the idea that the contractual aspects of marriage and the erotic and the emotional have to conform to the religious muddles and confuses things. Society will not fall apart if people are allowed to arrange these things for themselves. And as things change different arrangements will inevitably arise to better suit the times. My pastoralist ancestors lived much different lives than the desperately poor lumpenproletariat of the Roman Empire out of which Trinitarian Pauline Christianity arose. The requirements of an agricultural lifestyle were different again. Now we're back to the cities, but this time we have low infant mortality, contraception, longer lifetimes, and women whose sole economic value isn't the number of children they produce. The arrangements of the earlier eras will be modified again. If you try to pick a Golden Age and fix the rules there, well, you might as well try to hold back the sea.

So what does it come down to? Let adults enter into the kind of contracts they want within broad restrictions. Let the Churches approve or forbid whatever they want for those who put themselves under that Church's authority. And don't even try to figure out the intricate idiocies of human sexuality. People will always make their own mistakes on that score.

 

[tellner]

Another thing, I notice that Pauline Christianity is very inconsistent about what it cherry picks from the Scriptures by which I mean Genesis through Malachi plus Esther and the Oral Law. Paul (who died and made him a prophet anyhow?) says that the old Law is fulfilled and now void, but his followers are fond of pulling out just the stuff they want from, say Leviticus. They condemn male-male sexual behavior because it's in the Law but don't observe the Sabbath, continue to wear wool-linen blends, don't celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread and any number of other things. If the 639 Laws are void, then what they call the Ten Commandments should be as well.

Fish or cut bait, guys

 

[heretic888]

Well, this is somewhat off-topic, but....

Another thing, I notice that Pauline Christianity is very inconsistent about what it cherry picks from the Scriptures by which I mean Genesis through Malachi plus Esther and the Oral Law. Paul (who died and made him a prophet anyhow?) says that the old Law is fulfilled and now void, but his followers are fond of pulling out just the stuff they want from, say Leviticus. They condemn male-male sexual behavior because it's in the Law but don't observe the Sabbath, continue to wear wool-linen blends, don't celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread and any number of other things. If the 639 Laws are void, then what they call the Ten Commandments should be as well.

Fish or cut bait, guys

A few things need to be pointed out here.

One, only seven of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament are considered "authentic", with the so-called Pastorals (Timothy and Titus) being almost universally accepted by critical scholarship as pseudipigraphica. Furthermore, even these seven or so "authentic" letters are actually orthodox redactions and revisions that have survived, not original photographs that Paul wrote.

Two, nobody in particular died and made Paul a "prophet". Pauline Christianity became accepted because by the middle of the second century, it was very popular and influential. As I pointed out in another thread, the author of the Markan Gospel was most likely a Pauline Christian himself (he definately had knowledge of the Pauline Epistles when constructing his storyboard). The Markan Gospel, of course, was a source for the Lukan and Matthean Gospels.

Three, the basic point of Paul's Christianity is that the Law is not necessary for salvation. This is why he argued against the "Pillars" in Jerusalem that Gentiles need not follow the Law to become Christians. Unlike the "Pillars", Paul had direct contact with the Gentiles so it became germane to his outlook.

Laterz.