California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by doogur

I responded that Jesus had nothing to say about the topic. He didn't. Though in Matthew he unfavorably compared Jerusalem's sin of inhospitality to that of Sodom.

The reality is that you quoted the old testament but choose to ignore literally hundreds of rules but spout off about a few that pique your interest.

Don't be quoting old testament and telling millions of people how to live if you can't live by the words yourself. You can't. Say you do and I'll start with more Leviticus and move to other parts of the Bible.

1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy both have quotes about homosexuality. See there, I can use the whole bible.

Leviticus also says that you shouldn't have sexual relations with an animal, but is that too, outdated and shouldn't be followed? Should we be allowed to have sexual relations with animals?

As I said the new testament, implemented a new law that amended the old testament, but this did not get rid of ALL those old customs but only certain ones. The fact homosexuality is denounced twice proves this.

[doogur]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Yes, I do know that Leviticus is Jewish tradition. What Jews call their Torah, we as Chrisitans call the Old Testament.

Well actually, the rules of Leviticus are what the Hebrews used to separate themselves from the Gentiles. It was code for Jewish behavior.

[doogur]

Originally Posted by nate2512

1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy both have quotes about homosexuality. See there, I can use the whole bible.

Leviticus also says that you shouldn't have sexual relations with an animal, but is that too, outdated and shouldn't be followed? Should we be allowed to have sexual relations with animals?

As I said the new testament, implemented a new law that amended the old testament, but this did not get rid of ALL those old customs but only certain ones. The fact homosexuality is denounced twice proves this.

There you go...equating sex between two consenting, loving adults with bestiality. Hmmm....

But on that point, at least it appears you see that those rules are evaluated in context and not merely because "the Bible says so." Maybe this is progress. Showin' a little flexibility there...awesome.

Ok, tomorrow we'll talk about the New Testament - there's a lot less to cover there in terms of actual quotes - but the discussion can be more complicated. But at least we made it to that point and that's a good sign.

In the meantime, I have some nasty accounting homework to do.

[preciousjeni]

You seem to be expecting the Bible to read as if it were written for us, doogur. It wasn't - although most Christians today read it as if it applied to us directly. The New Testament doesn't deal with homosexuality explicity because it wasn't an issue that was publicly discussed during that period of Jewish history. It was clumped into all sexual misconduct, including pre-marital sex.

Your argument has nothing to do with why gay marriage should or shouldn't be legalized and the way you are intentionally misusing biblical text isn't doing anything for your case.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by doogur

I wonder if you measure up to the same standard. Let's start with Leviticus, shall we?

Oh...this is going to be FUN!

Not really -- we've had that discussion on the ritual law and the ethical law before, not too long ago, in fact. The only fun is in seeing how some people attempt to make what they think are slam dunk arguments, like "do you observe every prohibition in Leviticus?" as though they discovered the Achilles Heel, when in fact they're just showing that they can proof-text without any reference to how one or two verses fit into the witness of the entire Bible.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

The New Testament doesn't deal with homosexuality explicity because it wasn't an issue that was publicly discussed during that period of Jewish history. It was clumped into all sexual misconduct, including pre-marital sex.

Hmmm, I think that's a bit of a stretch. The same-sex activities of various cultures, including the Greeks, were quite-well understood by Jews; they simply didn't condone them. Paul refers to the Greek practices.

If one wanted to argue that the Jews and those around them did not have an understanding of homosexuality as an orientation (that is, homosexual orientation vs. homosexual behavior), then there may be some solid ground from which to argue. But I don't think there's very much solid ground for saying that the NT doesn't mention homosexuality because it wasn't publicly discussed. Worrying about what was suitable for public discourse didn't usually seem to bother Jesus or Paul.

I think it's a bit dangerous to read too much into the fact that homosexuality/homosexual behavior is discussed so little in the Bible in general and the New Testament in particular. There simply can be no doubt that it was a big no-no in Jewish, and subsequently Christian, understanding. Is it more likely that Jesus didn't mention it because he didn't think it was a big deal (as some like doogur would say), or because it was pretty much a settled deal? Frankly, I think that latter is much more likely.

[Nanners52674]

I'll probably get flamed for this but. . . . using the bible or religious beliefs as ones argument for why there should be a law (state or national) banning gay marriage would not be fair to those who do not believe in that particular religion. Last i checked we had a law that separates church from state, therefore using religious teachings to create laws for America as a whole would violate that.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Nanners52674

I'll probably get flamed for this but. . . . using the bible or religious beliefs as ones argument for why there should be a law (state or national) banning gay marriage would not be fair to those who do not believe in that particular religion. Last i checked we had a law that separates church from state, therefore using religious teachings to create laws for America as a whole would violate that.

If we're going to get technical, the first amendment protects the church from the state...not the other way around.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by doogur

This IS on topic. I'm trying to show that you quote the Bible but don't follow it yourself. You have NO credibility.

Don't quote the Bible if you can't abide by your own words. Don't tell other people what they can and can't do if you can't follow the rule book yourself.

Do YOU understand? I'm trying to figure out why the whole Bible is relevant but you conveniently ignore hundreds of passages on a daily basis, but pick out the gay passage as a law never to be broken.

That is a fair and legitmate question and quite frankly you owe this board an answer.

You think too highly of me. Thanks!!!

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Nanners52674

I'll probably get flamed for this but. . . . using the bible or religious beliefs as ones argument for why there should be a law (state or national) banning gay marriage would not be fair to those who do not believe in that particular religion.

That is why, thankfully in this country, we get to vote to express our beliefs.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

If we're going to get technical, the first amendment protects the church from the state...not the other way around.

I know church people love to say that, but the historical record really shows it's to protect each from the intrusion of the other.

ETA: And how could I forget --originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal goverment. It wasn't until the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War that it became applicable to the states as well. So the original intent of the First Amendment, as much as anything, was to leave the question of religion to the states, some of which did have established churches into the Nineteenth Century.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I have, but in the course of this thread, that is the verse that applies.

So you don't eat shrimp, or wear polyester blends, or bathe on your period? Because all of that is an abomination too. You can't pick and choose if you're going to use one. And if you say the reasons for the rest are outdated, then that one is outdated too.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Yes, I do know that Leviticus is Jewish tradition. What Jews call their Torah, we as Chrisitans call the Old Testament.

No, not quite. The Torah is only a part of the Bible, the first five books.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the Bible was written by man, not G*d, and personal beliefs and prejudices were added.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

If we're going to get technical, the first amendment protects the church from the state...not the other way around.

Actually no, it grants freedom OF AND FROM religion. You can practice any religion you want and you cannot have religion forced upon you. The second part is why people object to having religious based morality determining law.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by kstar

So you don't eat shrimp, or wear polyester blends, or bathe on your period? Because all of that is an abomination too. You can't pick and choose if you're going to use one. And if you say the reasons for the rest are outdated, then that one is outdated too.



No, not quite. The Torah is only a part of the Bible, the first five books.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the Bible was written by man, not G*d, and personal beliefs and prejudices were added.

Not all this again. Read all the posts in their entirety before you post.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by kstar

Actually no, it grants freedom OF AND FROM religion. You can practice any religion you want and you cannot have religion forced upon you. The second part is why people object to having religious based morality determining law.

So what does determine law? Who gets to decide what is moral and what is not moral?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by kstar

So you don't eat shrimp, or wear polyester blends, or bathe on your period? Because all of that is an abomination too. You can't pick and choose if you're going to use one. And if you say the reasons for the rest are outdated, then that one is outdated too.

If the topic of this thread was about what you listed above, then my answer would be relevant. But since the topic of this thread is not about those items you listed, then I have no reason to answer them.

The only one who seems to be picking and choosing random biblical topics at will is doogur.

But, since you asked, yes I do eat shrimp, I do my absolute best to avoid all things polyester and I do bathe on my period.

As stated in an earlier post in this thread, I consider myself to be a New Testament Christian. I guess that offends you.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the Bible was written by man, not G*d, and personal beliefs and prejudices were added.

Not exactly. The Bible was written by man as God directed.