Christians for Gay Marriage

[emdash]

No, the Bible is both OT & NT...and assuming the trinity is accurate and God is omniscient (knowing everything in the past, present, and future) I'd have to include Christianity in there as well...

and you have found instances where slavery and incest are condoned in the new testament?

 

[razz]

and you have found instances where slavery and incest are condoned in the new testament?

Did you understand what I wrote?

What you're saying is akin to a murderer saying "well, yes I killed that women but that was then when I crazy and this is now...therefore I am a good guy"

 

[emdash]

Did you understand what I wrote?

What you're saying is akin to a murderer saying "well, yes I killed that women but that was then when I crazy and this is now...therefore I am a good guy"

to be fair, there were no christians until there was a new testament, which repealed a lot of the old testament. if you want to make fun of people who follow the old testament, you should be making fun of the jews.

 

[Binary_Digit]

and you have found instances where slavery and incest are condoned in the new testament?

Slavery is. Luke Chapter 12 (quoting Jesus):

"Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes."Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. "But if that slave says in his heart, `My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. "And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

This is just a parable; Jesus is not commanding people to beat their slaves. But he implicitly acknowledged slavery as a normal part of life. Instead of taking the opportunity to condemn slavery, he compared the slave master and slaves to God and his followers, to show that God won't punish people as severely if they weren't aware of his word and laws.

You might say he neither condoned nor condemned slavery here, but read it again in light of Ephesians 6:
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;

Just saying...

 

[Jerry]

Finally! A competent article voicing Christian beliefs in favor of same sex marriage.

NEWSWEEK Article dated for December 15th.

The article.

Discuss.

Specifically, and I quote:

1. Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.

2. The Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology—and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)

3. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?

4. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.

From your link:

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham...

Stop right there. The article skipped over Adam and Eve which is where marriage began.

Marriage did not begin with Abraham.

Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile?

This act was not endorsed by God. Quite the opposite, in fact, in that God told Abraham that he would have a son by Sara. His faith faltering, Abraham and Sara took it upon themselves to introduce Hagar into the mix and produce the nations we are at was with to this very day.

Just because the bible recorded it doesn’t mean the bible endorsed it.

Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)?

Again, just because the bible recorded it doesn’t mean the bible endorsed it.

Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.

David, for example, was *punished* by God for doing so.

Again, just because the bible recorded it doesn’t mean the bible endorsed it.

The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family.

This ignores everything Jesus says on marriage.

The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered.

Here the article cherry-picks a tiny portion of scripture to fool the reader into thinking it's authoritive. Here's the passage in context:

1 Corinthians 7
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

Here we see that the article deliberately misrepresented scripture. Far from being "the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered", Paul is in fact encouraging good sex given freely from husband and wife both.

I could go on but why bother. The entire article is like this.

***
Your article is not authoritive nor credible so therefore are your arguments based upon it completely moot.

You choose to knowingly lie repeatedly to advance your political ideology and I care even less about “gay rights” as a result.

 

[Jerry]

to be fair, there were no christians until there was a new testament, which repealed a lot of the old testament. if you want to make fun of people who follow the old testament, you should be making fun of the jews.

I wonder, then, how the Coptic Christian Church played an instrumental role in creating the new testament if, according to you, they didn't exist when they did it.

FYI: Christians existed before Christ even died.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

are you confusing christianity with judaism?

And yet many Jews have recognized that biblical interpretation is key to understanding bible teaching in a changing society and culture. All sects of Judaism, with the exception of the Orthodoxy, have, to one extent or the other, rejected the condemnation of homosexuality. Reform and Reconstructionist Jews have rejected the Levitical interpretation, and Conservatives using Talmudic principles and using standard Rabbinical Law decisions have overturned many of the prohibitions towards homosexuality.

Therefore your comment does not apply. Most sects of Judaism do not see the OT in a literal sense and understand that it is not only open to interpretation, but open to changes based on society.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

to be fair, there were no christians until there was a new testament, which repealed a lot of the old testament. if you want to make fun of people who follow the old testament, you should be making fun of the jews.

Nah, most Jews understand that the OT is open to interpretation and its tenets' applicability need to be looked at in the context of current society. Just make fun of the biblical literalists.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

From your link:


Stop right there. The article skipped over Adam and Eve which is where marriage began.

Marriage did not begin with Abraham.



This act was not endorsed by God. Quite the opposite, in fact, in that God told Abraham that he would have a son by Sara. His faith faltering, Abraham and Sara took it upon themselves to introduce Hagar into the mix and produce the nations we are at was with to this very day.

Just because the bible recorded it doesn’t mean the bible endorsed it.



Again, just because the bible recorded it doesn’t mean the bible endorsed it.



David, for example, was *punished* by God for doing so.

Again, just because the bible recorded it doesn’t mean the bible endorsed it.



This ignores everything Jesus says on marriage.



Here the article cherry-picks a tiny portion of scripture to fool the reader into thinking it's authoritive. Here's the passage in context:



Here we see that the article deliberately misrepresented scripture. Far from being "the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered", Paul is in fact encouraging good sex given freely from husband and wife both.

I could go on but why bother. The entire article is like this.

***
Your article is not authoritive nor credible so therefore are your arguments based upon it completely moot.

You choose to knowingly lie repeatedly to advance your political ideology and I care even less about “gay rights” as a result.

I'd say you're pretty on target with everything you said, here Jerry. Great reason why one should never argue gay marriage based on religion, from either side. Loser of an argument.

 

[emdash]

I wonder, then, how the Coptic Christian Church played an instrumental role in creating the new testament if, according to you, they didn't exist when they did it.

FYI: Christians existed before Christ even died.

you are perfectly right, of course. how sloppy of me.

 

[emdash]

And yet many Jews have recognized that biblical interpretation is key to understanding bible teaching in a changing society and culture. All sects of Judaism, with the exception of the Orthodoxy, have, to one extent or the other, rejected the condemnation of homosexuality. Reform and Reconstructionist Jews have rejected the Levitical interpretation, and Conservatives using Talmudic principles and using standard Rabbinical Law decisions have overturned many of the prohibitions towards homosexuality.

Therefore your comment does not apply. Most sects of Judaism do not see the OT in a literal sense and understand that it is not only open to interpretation, but open to changes based on society.

I think you misunderstood the implication of my post.

 

[emdash]

You might say he neither condoned nor condemned slavery here, but read it again in light of Ephesians 6:
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;

Just saying...

do you think including the context is helpful? to me it makes much more sense if you read the whole chunk.

Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. Ephesians 6

similarly,

23 Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men; 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. 25 For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality. Colossians 3

take it or leave it.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I think you misunderstood the implication of my post.

Certainly possible. Please clarify what you meant.

 

[Jerry]

I'd say you're pretty on target with everything you said, here Jerry. Great reason why one should never argue gay marriage based on religion, from either side. Loser of an argument.

Generally speaking, yes, you're correct, especially when debating what public policy should be.

You may be interested to know, however, that it was a religious argument that ended my active opposition to gay marriage.