Same Sex Marriage?

what should be of concern is why every time the issue of same-sex marriage is brought up, inmediately the church is brought up as well. There is something very wrong with this country. Since when government and church are remotely the same thing? I really don't think the function of any gov. in the world should be anything but administrative. The laws of a country should be made not to uphold the beliefs of whoever is up in chamber, but to care for the citizen... no more, no less...
If you only take in account what the church says about the issue, you're leaving out a big portion of the population that is not part of the church, here I include myself. I do not belong to any belief system, being organized church or not. I do belong to the AAO (American Atheist Organization); and I also find myself more and more inclined politically towards Libertarianism. I advocate the individual right to freedom of speech as long as nobody tries to impose their point of view or moral values on me. Having been raised in a catholic family, you can probably imagine the kind of arguments that are raised at the table

Cool Ragan you're getting smater![;)]

Originally posted by ragan

and this was a poll done by cnn...conservatives are more likely to respond to soomething on the web like that....wonder why bush is president while there are more liberals than conservatives in this country? its because us liberals are lazy and didnt feel like getting outta bed to vote, or were too hungover to vote.

Ragan ... factoid for you ... CNN is run strictly by liberals, they are not a conservative news source which means at the very least they have reported their information correctly. Had this poll been done by Fox News I could have sided with you on your comments, but this was done by your parties preferred news source.

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm

Remember when it was a sex sin to do in a position other than the missionary position? Interesting how you guys keep changing views.

Ummmmm ... "we guys" have not changed our view. The Bible has been consistent from beginning to end, no changes. What has changed though, is the liberal argument seeking to validate itself by pointing fingers at conservatives. Hmmmm, just like you just did. How odd.

Originally posted by Coasterkidmwm

Since you guys are into denying religious rights to gay people do you deny "Last Rights" to gay people?

I don't know. Apparently, it is time to school you again. The Last Rights are a ritual performed by Catholics, I am not Catholic so your guess is as good as mine. Either way, this "ritual" is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, so who knows what council of men decided that it needed to be done. Kinda like confession ... why do I need to talk to someone who is flesh and bone like me, and has sinned as well when I can just talk to the Creator of the Universe? Interesting fight that is, but a fight for another day and some other doctrinal thread which frankly, may be wasted here.

Originally posted by ragan

haha. now i understand bush's position on this stuff. lol.

He is a Christian ... his view on this should not be that hard to forecast.

Originally posted by jayman

t.j. anyone who is as familiar with james dobson as i am can tell you that he cannot be expected to be unbiased. i do know that he knows what he's talking about, but that isn't exactly a objective source of information when it comes to this sort of thing. .. sorta like michael moore quoting a survey about the bush administration... i like michael moore, but i acknowledge that he's biased..
anyways, alabama and missisipi at the top of that list does not suprise me..

Fair enough ... the only reason James Dobson was in there was to stir the pot a bit and tick off the Left. He is not the only one leading the charge against gay marriages, but then again, my name was not mentioned either. [;)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_contro ... ns_of_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnn

Once again, you're wrong Tcon. CNN is definitely not run strictly by liberals. In fact, they were accused of showing bias IN FAVOR OF the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11.

And as far as your claim that the Christian definition of sexual sin has not changed, you are wrong, even according to many Christian theologists. For example, read this article by celebrated Christian theologist James B. Nelson. http://www.religion-online.org/showarti ... ?title=114 In it, at question number 3, he adresses the issue of the definition of sexual sin and how it has changed amongst Christians over time. And, keep in mind, while Nelson was an advocate of homosexual acceptance amongst the Christian church, he is also a GREATLY respected Christian Theologist even amongst major Christian figures who oopose homosexuality, gay marriage, etc. I find it ironic that you attack other people for posting inaccurate or shortsighted information, and then go on and do the exact same thing yourself.

[jayman]

well.. t.j. he's kinda right.. it's a stretch to say "strictly by liberals" in the same way that fox is "strictly by conservatives" you even eluded to that in your post..personally i trust cnn more than fox, BUT that's not saying too much.. maybe better put.. i trust fox less than i trust cnn and that's saying ALOT. i can trust either to present me with some facts, but i trust niether to form my opinion of anything.......

^^Remember that Wiki is a user inputed and edited information source. Its only as good as the people who put the information in plus its edited all the time.

I trust Wiki about as much as I trust the news...only with a grain of salt. I would need other cross reference sources to show that whats on Wiki is legit.

Lol, I got banned from Wiki for nonsense vandalism!

BTW Real, I sent you an e-mail. No hurry.

[jayman]

that's twice in 1 week that you've openly announced that you are a menace to any community you join on the internet.. wow.. i've got an idea.. add this site to your collection of sites you've been banned from. hey, you're rides wern't all that bad,showed promise even, in a stretch, but many of us won't miss you much.

Originally posted by Real

^^Remember that Wiki is a user inputed and edited information source. Its only as good as the people who put the information in plus its edited all the time.

I trust Wiki about as much as I trust the news...only with a grain of salt. I would need other cross reference sources to show that whats on Wiki is legit.

Well, I just posted the Wiki link for the purpose of general knowledge. I also tend to not trust Wiki on specifics, but the general information can usually be trusted. All I really wanted to use the Wiki link for was showing that CNN has been accused of Conservative bias as well as Liberal bias, so saying it's strictly liberal is inaccurate.

Originally posted by jayman

that's twice in 1 week that you've openly announced that you are a menace to any community you join on the internet.. wow.. i've got an idea.. add this site to your collection of sites you've been banned from. hey, you're rides wern't all that bad,showed promise even, in a stretch, but many of us won't miss you much.

i dont know, i sure would miss screwin with him! LOL

Originally posted by e-man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies_and_allegations_of_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnn

Once again, you're wrong Tcon. CNN is definitely not run strictly by liberals. In fact, they were accused of showing bias IN FAVOR OF the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11.

OK, education time again. The first thing you need to do e-man is to understand who runs Wikipedia.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/wikipedia/

It is a collaborative effort of tons of references, and therefore any argument you make CAN be proven or disproven by quoting them as your only source.

Originally posted by e-man

And as far as your claim that the Christian definition of sexual sin has not changed, you are wrong, even according to many Christian theologists. For example, read this article by celebrated Christian theologist James B. Nelson. http://www.religion-online.org/showarti ... ?title=114 In it, at question number 3, he adresses the issue of the definition of sexual sin and how it has changed amongst Christians over time. And, keep in mind, while Nelson was an advocate of homosexual acceptance amongst the Christian church, he is also a GREATLY respected Christian Theologist even amongst major Christian figures who oopose homosexuality, gay marriage, etc. I find it ironic that you attack other people for posting inaccurate or shortsighted information, and then go on and do the exact same thing yourself.

Fasten your seat belt man. James Nelson is one person, he is NOT the "voice of Christianity". He is a professor of Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities, New Brighton, Minnesota. Again, not the only voice, just one who happened to get published.

The true source I have used, the Bible, is still consistent -- and it has not changed. If you were paying attention to my previous post on page 5, you would know that:

Originally posted by TConwell

As far as the bible being outdated ... well, it is either all or nothing. Hebrews 13:8 says "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow." Therefore, the date of the publication not-withstanding ... if He remains the same, so are the principles He taught.

Originally posted by Real

^^Remember that Wiki is a user inputed and edited information source. Its only as good as the people who put the information in plus its edited all the time.

I trust Wiki about as much as I trust the news...only with a grain of salt. I would need other cross reference sources to show that whats on Wiki is legit.

Precisely.

Originally posted by e-man

Well, I just posted the Wiki link for the purpose of general knowledge. I also tend to not trust Wiki on specifics, but the general information can usually be trusted. All I really wanted to use the Wiki link for was showing that CNN has been accused of Conservative bias as well as Liberal bias, so saying it's strictly liberal is inaccurate.

This conflicts your previous post man. Consider your source man, knowing what book you are quoting to validate your argument is key here, and with this post, you have just attempted to back-step your post on the last page in hopes no one would catch it. Sorry man, I caught it. You are trying to validate your post, and it almost worked, but not totally.

Once again, the Wiki post was only used for general info. I don't blame you if you don't trust it, that's fine. You can go anywhere to find out that CNN is not run strictly by liberals, and I just posted a Wiki link since it gave the general knowledge of who works there and the many issues of bias that CNN has come across. http://www.cablenewslies.com/cnn.htm Now THERE is a strong source showing CNN is not strictly liberal. It contains many examples of CNN being biased in favor of Conservatives, and most of them are cited as well. So no, I'm not trying to back-step my post, and you didn't catch me. I was trying to get away with being lazy, and since you didn't let me get away with it, I have now gone and found a valid source that is not succeptible to any claims of user input etc. (The site itself is iffy, but the links and hard-evidence are reliable sources)
And I understand what you're saying about the Bible, but my point is that while the Bible itself remains constant, Christian interpretation of it has in fact changed over time. Ths makes sense, seeing as times change and the context of the Bible must be coonsidered when interpreting it. For this reason, Coasterkid is correct in saying that Christian definition of sexual sin has changed over time. And, while James B Nelson may just be one person, but he is respected by many high authorities amongst the Christian church. If you choose not to acknowledge what he thinks, fine.

Fair enough e-man, fair enough. Now that you have explained yourself I see where you are coming from, hopefully, you are willing to do the same. Just one thought though:

Originally posted by e-man

And, while James B Nelson may just be one person, but he is respected by many high authorities amongst the Christian church. If you choose not to acknowledge what he thinks, fine.

This is exactly what I was getting at. He is but one man, one source, and quite frankly a very conservative source. Oddly enough though, I have done some research on his views and publications today and what is really odd ... is his own views have been modified by the decade. Basically, he is changing with the times ... and thus may appear inconsistent.

However, again, the Bible does not change, but I agree that what I interpret may not be what another interprets -- but there ought to be some consistency in opinions, and sadly since there is often times not consistency (because someone wants to sell more books), the Christian community provides ample fodder for those seeking to point at the "obvious inconsistencies of faith".

No harm no foul my friend -- I welcome the conversation and chance to further expound on why I believe the way I do.

TJ After reading a lot of your posts here and in other topic I have concluded that you are some paster. You must perform some really funny sermons!

Well roller ... see for yourself:

www.bbcmarbury.com/Sermons.htm

Glad we could finally have a genuinely sophisticated debate Tcon. [;)] Also, I completely understand where you're coming from with the whole Christian interpretation bit, I have actually experienced this myself at my church. (Lutheran BTW)

*sorry if my view has already been shared, I don't really feel like reading 8 pages*

Its kind of hard to have a country built on freedom, allow any kind of religion or spirituality to be practiced, and then go and say that you can't have gay marriage, especially if one was to fall back on their own belief that gay marriage is un-christian.

Too bad on your not wanting to read SMer -- you have missed some excellent conversation.

Me too e-man ... me too. I kinda figured Lutheran, though I thought Episcopalian at first, but Lutheran makes more sense based on your stance(s). It is all theology and doctrine man ... when you look at the importance of the end result, getting there is half the fun.

[Coasterkidmwm]

I wish I haven't been working so much, this thread is so hilarious and contradictory.

Originally posted by TConwell

Originally posted by ragan

Ummmmm ... "we guys" have not changed our view. The Bible has been consistent from beginning to end, no changes.

Um, I thought you were a pastor of a church? Are you SERIOUSLY trying to say that the Bible hasn't changed? First it was in such languages such as Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, then it was TRANSLATED (which can never be without bias of the person doing the translation) into English. Then much later, King James ordered his "own" translation. That "true" version is so far removed from the original texts that it's simply preposterous to call it a "true" version.
And now you want to say that the Bible has been consistant?

That's the most irresponsible and incredulous thing I've seen in this thread so far.

"Coaster, my longtime friend ... I cannot seperate Jesus from my life, so please, do not ask me to do so by asking I leave Him out of this. I follow Him, therefore, I strive to be like Him. Legal rights or not ... different views or not ... it is what it is."

i say to leave jesus out of it because he has nothing to do with it. and i'm not telling you to leave him out completely. if YOU dont want to marry gays in your church then that's fine by me, but if you want to prevent them from going to city hall and signing a paper, then that's where i say to leave jesus out of it because what they're doing is simply applying for equal rights, not forcing you to marry them. if this country is going to afford special rights to certain people, that's just plain wrong. equal rights for everyone.


"Well, didnt the founders of the US leave the UK for religious freedom? And then werent pretty much all of the laws created based on their biblical beliefs?

Sure, they have been altered but lest you not forget the roots. Sure, things have changed. But you cant say to leave Jesus or the Bible out of it. It was the foundation for our roots. Like it or not."

didn't they also state that "all men are created equal", and that we each have the right to practice our seperate religions? this isnt about religion. i couldn't care less if a gay marraige happened in a church or a courtroom. i belive that we all should have the same rights, and so what if the laws were origionally based on the bible? that's all they knew back then and we should know better.

"Since you guys are into denying religious rights to gay people do you deny "Last Rights" to gay people?"

...keep god out of this. we want EQUAL LEGAL rights. while we're at it, i don't think pastors and reverands should have the right to legally marry people. they should do the religious part, let city hall take care of the paperwork.

Have you not done any research on bible translations?

When its translated its translated from the Greek and earliest texts. Its not like once it was translated from Greek to Aramaic that then it was translated from Aramaic to English etc. They always go back to the earliest texts. Maybe thats how it was awhile ago, but now with technology and having things on record and in databases they can go back to the earliest writings and re-translate from that.


Plus, while wordings may differ from translation to translation, you must still not get the point. What the bible teaches is timeless and boundless. It transcends time like nothing else has. The message is STILL the same as it was when it was written. If you think the message has changed any - you really need to do some soul searching.


Im also pretty certain you can find greek texts because I have both an NIV with tons of Greek translations along with a monster concordance that also has a huge section devoted to translations of key areas and words from both Greek and Aramaic. Not to mention I even got a Jewish New Testament (yes, such a thing exists from Messianic Jews) that is chaulk full is even more Hebrew and Greek writings.


So yes, the Bible has been consistant. Its fairly ignorant to think that when they do a translation they do it from the last translation as you are implying. They go back to the original Greek. Also, they dont just have one or two people do the translations, its hundreds of scholars who work together and double and triple check each others work so bias ISNT an issue.


Kind of like when you take a poll and you poll the entire spectrum to avoid bias? They do the same thing. Dont worry, its common to assume that but I had a scholar come to my church to explain the translation process and to debunk the myths and assumptions most people make. Its very painstaking and takes years of work.

Another comment about the Bible being "consistant".....

Let's look at three events in the New Testament. The miracle of the loaves and fishes, the Last Supper, and the empty tomb.

In the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), there are different versions of the Christ story.
Matt says there are 7 loaves and "a few" fish that fed 4000 men. Mark and John say 5 loaves and 2 fish fed 5000 men. Luke doesn't even bother to mention it at all. I guess he wasn't impressed enough to put it down.

At the Last Supper, Matt says that Jesus specifically points out Judas as his betrayer. Judas had already accepted 30 silver pieces to rat out Jesus.
Mark and Luke both get thru the story without Jesus ever mentioning Judas as the betrayer ("one of you" is as close as he comes), but Judas already accepted "some money" to do the deed.
John just talks about Jesus washing their feet, never mentions the sacrament of communion (this is my body, this is my blood, do this in rememberance of Me, etc), and says that Judas didn't agree to the betrayal until Jesus gave him some bread dipped in a bowl and at that moment Satan entered him.

Then the discovery at the tomb...
Matt says that Mary Magdelene and Mary mother of James go to the tomb, there's an earthquake, and angel comes down and rolls the stone away, some Roman guards freak out and faint, the women run away, then Jesus appears to them.
Mark says that Salome was with the two Marys. The stone was already rolled away, and some man in a bright white robe was in the tomb saying Jesus had gone. No guards, no earthquake.
Luke removes Salome from the list, adds Joanna, and "others". The stone is already rolled away, but this time TWO men in white robes are in the tomb.
John says it was just Mary Magdelene that went and saw the empty tomb. She goes back and tells Simon Peter and John. The three of them go back and see burial cloth in the tomb. The men leave, but Mary stays. There she sees two men in the tomb, one of whom reveals himself as Jesus.

Oh, YEAH. The Bible is REALLY consistant. The same, from the dawn of time.
Come on... it's not even consistant from book to book, let alone from translation to translation.

And another thing:


Here is EVERYTHING that Jesus ever said about homosexuality:

[ ]

Did you get that? NOTHING. He never said a word about it, one way or the other.

Wanna throw around that bit from Leviticus about it being an "abomination"? Fine. I'm not Jewish, so it doesn't apply to me. Leviticus was JEWISH LAW, and was abolished by Jesus and the New Covenant. If you're still following Leviticus law, then you are also not allowed to wear cotton/poly blends, eat a rare steak, eat shrimp cocktail, get a tattoo, and you can't play football. Oh, and that chick down the street with the fortune telling business? Gotta stone her to death.
Look it up.

For someone who is trying to interpret the Bible in a loose way, thats fairly literal, dont ya think?

Remember, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were each different men. Matthew was a Jew. Luke a doctor. Etc. Each one presented the Gospel in a way that would most effectivly reach their target audience. Is there anything wrong with that? No. Because to the Jews, certain things that Jesus did would mean nothing. Just like to the Gentiles, certain things that Jesus said to the Jews meant nothing as well.


As I said earlier, the message remains the same. You are obviously too blinded and too thick to see the message - you only see the text.


Does it matter if it was 5 loaves or 7 loaves? Did it not show a miracle?

Another thing you also seem to forget is that the each gospel is NOT written in its chronological order. The Bible was not written with all those little numbers in front of the chapters and verses. Instead, it was written as a story. Just like any story, there are parts you could move around and it would effect the overall message.


You have to understand each writer before you can start to disect and claim that theres no continuity. If you do so, youll find there are startling similarities among these seemingly unsimilar writings. Each writer was writing to a certain audience. With that being said, theres ALOT of meaning in the way each one was written, the order in which things were written and the language used.