<shrug> They can believe that all that they like
SilverWarder Send a noteboard - 18/01/2010 08:07:28 PM
It's a perfectly good reason to kick them out of your church if that's your thing.
However here's the thing - not everyone shares the belief that homosexuality is sinful. Not even all Christian churches agree on that one. Christ doesn't seem to address it - at least that I know of and, having seen some recent studies on the matter, even if someone has a passage that says he does we can't be sure that's even what was really said.
The entire "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" quote, for instance, is found only in ONE document out of the massive collection which eventually became gathered together into the bible. It's appended at the end and in a different dialect that was not in use when the original document was written. By some entirely unknown and unnamed scribe. Did that phrase actually get said? Probably not.
Now that doesn't invalidate the base message, necessarily, but it means relying on specific text or phrases is dangerous because they may not be right. One biblical scholar who spent his ENTIRE LIFE studying original scripture, has a degree from the extremely reglious Moody Bible College etc. will tell you flat out that there are more discrepancies in the original biblical texts than there are WORDS in the new testament!
So did Christ ever condemn homosexuality himself? We don't know. If there is something that does lead to that conclusion there's no guarantee that the scribe writing that text didn't just tweak it in there because of their personal beliefs or to dovetail better with the story of Lot or some such.
One thing we can be at least somewhat certain of based on the original texts is that homosexuality, practice of it or lack of it is not a main theme in Christ's teachings. It just doesn't appear enough. Given the holes in the original documents and their disagreements we just cannot KNOW anything much past the 'If it came up at all, it sure didn't come up very much.'
So from Christ's view, we cannot know.
From society's view, however, the practice is not illegal and is becoming less and less marginalized each and every year that passes. Once any kind of homosexual sex was flat out illegal. The Supreme Court shot that down back in (IIRC) 1967.
Marriage is NOT a purely Christian activity. Secular people get married without any religious overtones at all (my own wedding wass purely secular - in fact we had a good friend perform the ceremony, something perfectly legal in this Province with the correct permissions filed). But even if we delve into religion, then many non-Christian religions have forms of marriage. Hindu, Sikh, Buddist, Muslim, Neo-Pagan, Ancient Pagan (of many stripes), Shinto the list goes on and on and on. Not all of those marriages even fit the fundamentalist Christian interpretation of a single man and a single woman. Indeed, in ancient Judaic tradition there are many examples of people extremely holy and beloved of God who were part of various types of plural or multiple marriages. One sect of Christianity does not 'own' the term by any stretch of the imagination.
The United States, people tend to forget, was founded under an original mandate of Freedom of Religion. It is, in fact, why the Pilgrims and many of the original settlers came to the New World in the first place! Within that mandate NO ONE has the right to place their version of marriage (or a funeral or any other sacrament or activity) above any other. LEGALLY the laws as they are should not be. Should never have been save that people are imperfect creatures at following the original Founding Father's ideals. And let's not forget that those ideals were intentionally framed in broad terms. Even their specific beliefs would need amending with the passage of time and it's certain that at least some of them knew that. Recall that when the US Constitution was written slavery was legal and women had few if any rights.
Hatemongers and bigots notwithstanding - Gay marriage is coming. It will happen, almost certainly, when the Prop 8 case finally wends its way to the Supreme Court. And so it should.
It is not for us to judge who someone else may love. As Joel himself says, love cannot be coerced. Nor should it be damned simply because someone who has saddled themselves with a belief system millennia out of date can't get their minds into the twenty first century.
Basically, Aisha has it right. Sure, SHE may not believe that what's going on is allowed by her religion, but as long as they don't follow that religion, well then that's all good now ain't it?
Oh yes, on other little tidbit. For me, a combination of nature and nurture has left me pretty much incapable of faith. It's not what I would choose - because it's a very uncomfortable place to live one's life in. It is, however, honest. Were I to 'profess my belief in Christ' it would be pure hypocrisy because I am not CAPABLE of believing such a thing. I didn't choose to lack that capability. That came with the package same as blue/green/grey eyes, broad shoulders and hair that fell out way too early. It just IS.
And I'm damned/excommunicate for that inability to believe? Well, I suppose that's a good thing because if that is how it is, then I know which side I'd have been on in the war in heaven and it ain't the side that won.
However here's the thing - not everyone shares the belief that homosexuality is sinful. Not even all Christian churches agree on that one. Christ doesn't seem to address it - at least that I know of and, having seen some recent studies on the matter, even if someone has a passage that says he does we can't be sure that's even what was really said.
The entire "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" quote, for instance, is found only in ONE document out of the massive collection which eventually became gathered together into the bible. It's appended at the end and in a different dialect that was not in use when the original document was written. By some entirely unknown and unnamed scribe. Did that phrase actually get said? Probably not.
Now that doesn't invalidate the base message, necessarily, but it means relying on specific text or phrases is dangerous because they may not be right. One biblical scholar who spent his ENTIRE LIFE studying original scripture, has a degree from the extremely reglious Moody Bible College etc. will tell you flat out that there are more discrepancies in the original biblical texts than there are WORDS in the new testament!
So did Christ ever condemn homosexuality himself? We don't know. If there is something that does lead to that conclusion there's no guarantee that the scribe writing that text didn't just tweak it in there because of their personal beliefs or to dovetail better with the story of Lot or some such.
One thing we can be at least somewhat certain of based on the original texts is that homosexuality, practice of it or lack of it is not a main theme in Christ's teachings. It just doesn't appear enough. Given the holes in the original documents and their disagreements we just cannot KNOW anything much past the 'If it came up at all, it sure didn't come up very much.'
So from Christ's view, we cannot know.
From society's view, however, the practice is not illegal and is becoming less and less marginalized each and every year that passes. Once any kind of homosexual sex was flat out illegal. The Supreme Court shot that down back in (IIRC) 1967.
Marriage is NOT a purely Christian activity. Secular people get married without any religious overtones at all (my own wedding wass purely secular - in fact we had a good friend perform the ceremony, something perfectly legal in this Province with the correct permissions filed). But even if we delve into religion, then many non-Christian religions have forms of marriage. Hindu, Sikh, Buddist, Muslim, Neo-Pagan, Ancient Pagan (of many stripes), Shinto the list goes on and on and on. Not all of those marriages even fit the fundamentalist Christian interpretation of a single man and a single woman. Indeed, in ancient Judaic tradition there are many examples of people extremely holy and beloved of God who were part of various types of plural or multiple marriages. One sect of Christianity does not 'own' the term by any stretch of the imagination.
The United States, people tend to forget, was founded under an original mandate of Freedom of Religion. It is, in fact, why the Pilgrims and many of the original settlers came to the New World in the first place! Within that mandate NO ONE has the right to place their version of marriage (or a funeral or any other sacrament or activity) above any other. LEGALLY the laws as they are should not be. Should never have been save that people are imperfect creatures at following the original Founding Father's ideals. And let's not forget that those ideals were intentionally framed in broad terms. Even their specific beliefs would need amending with the passage of time and it's certain that at least some of them knew that. Recall that when the US Constitution was written slavery was legal and women had few if any rights.
Hatemongers and bigots notwithstanding - Gay marriage is coming. It will happen, almost certainly, when the Prop 8 case finally wends its way to the Supreme Court. And so it should.
It is not for us to judge who someone else may love. As Joel himself says, love cannot be coerced. Nor should it be damned simply because someone who has saddled themselves with a belief system millennia out of date can't get their minds into the twenty first century.
Basically, Aisha has it right. Sure, SHE may not believe that what's going on is allowed by her religion, but as long as they don't follow that religion, well then that's all good now ain't it?
Oh yes, on other little tidbit. For me, a combination of nature and nurture has left me pretty much incapable of faith. It's not what I would choose - because it's a very uncomfortable place to live one's life in. It is, however, honest. Were I to 'profess my belief in Christ' it would be pure hypocrisy because I am not CAPABLE of believing such a thing. I didn't choose to lack that capability. That came with the package same as blue/green/grey eyes, broad shoulders and hair that fell out way too early. It just IS.
And I'm damned/excommunicate for that inability to believe? Well, I suppose that's a good thing because if that is how it is, then I know which side I'd have been on in the war in heaven and it ain't the side that won.
May God stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk.
Old Egyptian Blessing
Old Egyptian Blessing
I may have lost a friend over same sex marriage
17/01/2010 08:03:26 AM
- 1407 Views
the problem with your friend is the "southern evangelical christian" part
17/01/2010 09:07:02 AM
- 714 Views
They believe gay marriage is ongoing unrepentant sin.
17/01/2010 12:04:58 PM
- 723 Views
God your a moron.
17/01/2010 09:10:17 PM
- 660 Views
That was remarkably unconstructive.
18/01/2010 12:13:45 AM
- 532 Views
youll have to excuse Adam, he is a Heathen, its not his fault *NM*
18/01/2010 06:26:34 AM
- 257 Views
Ad hominems w/o substance are never excusable, especially in one who knows beter: They're forfeits.
18/01/2010 06:39:33 AM
- 559 Views
<shrug> They can believe that all that they like
18/01/2010 08:07:28 PM
- 625 Views
And live accordingly. Just like everyone else.
18/01/2010 11:10:51 PM
- 635 Views
You can't use logic in an irrational argument.
17/01/2010 10:12:11 AM
- 612 Views
LOL... *NM*
18/01/2010 05:21:14 AM
- 338 Views
You and Adam are being equally unconstructive.
18/01/2010 06:21:45 AM
- 538 Views
First, I'm nothing at all like Adam.
18/01/2010 06:33:54 AM
- 603 Views
I was similarly unclear what prompted the comments, but I only needed you to elaborate a little.
18/01/2010 07:37:43 AM
- 703 Views
Not much of a friend then. Good ridance to bad friends. *NM*
17/01/2010 08:51:02 PM
- 410 Views
I agree. A friend who can't respect differences of opinion is no friend at all. *NM*
17/01/2010 09:11:33 PM
- 269 Views
seriously. *NM*
17/01/2010 10:46:17 PM
- 229 Views
Only because such sentiment is my pet peeve...condemning exclusivity is hypocritical. *NM*
19/01/2010 12:37:37 AM
- 298 Views
It forces other people to accept THEIR ideology that same sex unions are legitimate.
18/01/2010 01:49:20 AM
- 706 Views
I would assume, then, that you don't support any government-mandated health care?
18/01/2010 02:07:40 AM
- 536 Views
Correct
18/01/2010 04:29:04 AM
- 622 Views
Although I disagree with the vast majority of your arguments,
18/01/2010 08:50:09 AM
- 615 Views
Thank you.
20/01/2010 01:47:34 AM
- 767 Views
Please tell me you have a source for that quotation. Other than me.
21/01/2010 12:31:27 PM
- 623 Views
It's GK Chesterton! What the hell are you going on about?
27/01/2010 02:41:00 AM
- 506 Views
we do not exist in a free market.
18/01/2010 04:09:37 AM
- 543 Views
And that's bad. Since when has the correct response to oppression been "accept further oppression"? *NM*
18/01/2010 04:30:44 AM
- 277 Views
I am simply pointing out your arguments do not apply to the present economic environment.
18/01/2010 04:46:04 AM
- 499 Views
That's utter nonsense.
18/01/2010 04:19:57 AM
- 576 Views
Re: That's utter nonsense.
18/01/2010 04:41:27 AM
- 596 Views
Re: That's utter nonsense.
18/01/2010 07:15:50 AM
- 664 Views
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
18/01/2010 07:49:27 AM
- 570 Views
I really dont like the idea of a black person marrying a white person
18/01/2010 06:36:26 AM
- 649 Views
That's such an amusing argument
18/01/2010 08:17:15 PM
- 538 Views
And you're fairly appalling in either pretending to misunderstand free markets or in your stupidity
27/01/2010 03:00:21 AM
- 733 Views
I'm against people with pasta based nicknames on fantasy forums *NM*
19/01/2010 03:03:31 PM
- 235 Views
cannoli is a pastry *NM*
19/01/2010 07:25:04 PM
- 213 Views
I have no problem with people with pastry based names, just pasta
21/01/2010 12:28:44 AM
- 490 Views
you acept your friends with their warts or you don't
18/01/2010 06:45:13 PM
- 647 Views
I think you missed who was the one to walk out *NM*
18/01/2010 08:01:25 PM
- 207 Views
I don't think it was that clear
18/01/2010 10:01:32 PM
- 560 Views