Homosexual marriage II

[Lizra]

If the bible quotes are your only reason to deny gay marriage Gwai, I'm very unimpressed. (I know this doesn't matter to you ....just wanted to come on record with it though )
Bible thumpers have no proof their book is anything more than a bunch of fairy tales and parables from times long past.....all the different world religions have their sacred books of tales.....and to them all I say, "interesting...but seriously..... Whoopie Doo ."
So with that being your only reason, it is quite obvious to me that homosexual mairriage should be legal.
As someone already said recently "All the rest is Rubbish"......and this debate seems merely one of people with open minds arguing with those who wear prejudicial religious blinders.

[klatukatt]

Ooh, and Lizra comes out swinging.

[Lizra]

Heh! Can't keep a swingbabe down.......

[Nurvingiel]

This is a continuation of post #280 (on the previous page). By the way, the play was great.

(I moved the Bible quotes to the middle of the post.)

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But if you don't believe the rest of it, why believe those parts? That's what I mean. If the rest is incredible, why believe any of it? Why believe there was a man named Jesus? Why believe he taught those things, or did those things?

I do believe the rest of the Bible. I believe the whole Bible and what it says, but I do not believe it says what you think it says, necessarily. The Bible is a complex tome of metaphors and stories which should be taken in context to divine their purpose and meaning. It is not something relatively easy like an instruction manual to tear down and rebuild the engine of an E-Type Jag. The Bible must be carefully studied, not simply taken at face value.

The Bible is much more deep in meaning than can be derived from simply skimming the surface and taking everything literally. Taking everything literally is dangerous - if we do that, we'll get nutters who go around making idol worshippers drink molten gold. Not that Moses was nuts, necessarily, but that story is a metaphor that worshipping a statue instead of God has negative consequences. Those consequences are spiritual, represented by physical consequences in the story.

Other stories in the Bible, which often describe historical people and events, serve to give context to the different messages in the Bible. The various anti-gay passages serve to point out what society was like at the time. It was totally unacceptable two-thousand years ago for someone to be gay. Women were second class citizens. Slavery was acceptable. Society, in fact, was very intolerant.

That's why Jesus's message, once you have read some of the other passages in the Bible, is even more wonderful. Would Jesus tell a gay man that he should not defile himself with another man? No, he would invite that man over for dinner. Jesus was radical and liberal. He was a mover and changer of society. He wanted to make the world a better place for everyone, especially the people in the society in which he lived who were marginalised by those in power: women, tax collectors, people with disfiguring illnesses, poor people, and many others.

Some of his Disciples really struggled with his radical ideas. It went against many of the values they had been taught all their lives. I think St. Paul struggled with his faith especially, which is why I respect him so much, even though I do disagree with him on some points like, IIRC, the role of women in marriage.

In sum, I think that being against gay marriage because of the passages of the Bible that describe it extremely negatively defeats the entire purpose of the Bible, which is to teach us how to be good people and live in God's way.

The Bible will continue to be relevant as long as we don't discount the time when it was written.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Spong also discredits the Bible completely, and even has a book devoted to "the Sins of Scripure"; in fact, if I recall, from reading the back of the book, this very issue was one of the charges he brought against holy writ. You can hardly say that because Spong says A is true, that Spong says Scripture says A.

John Spong does not discredit the Bible completely, far from it.

I read the back of the same book you did here. What I got from the book jacket is that this book is about how people have used the Bible to further hateful works. John Spong is not arguing that the Bible is sinful, that is actually completely opposite to his real argument.

I don't think we should debate too heavily about a book that neither of us has actually read.

Now for the quotes...

Romans 1:21-23; 26-27

21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things....26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

For the anti-gay part, please see my earlier giant rant.

Now, I have a huge problem with this phrase: "26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature." The use of women? It is natural to use women? Or is it saying that it was the women who changed the behavious of the men? More clarification is needed.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

This, again, I feel provides context about the society at the time. I believe this context is very important. I do not believe this passage means gay people (the "liers with mankind") shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Because then guys who act kind of girly (effeminate, I really hate this word), would not be allowed to marry either, even if they wanted to marry women. People who are greedy and wish they had stuff their neighbours and friends had (covetous)? Can't get married. Drunks? Can't get married. Railers, whoever they are, can't get married either.

Does enforcing any of that make sense to you? Why just pick on the "liers with men" in this passage - simply because it's easier to exclude them in legal definitions?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

If I recall correctly, the Jerusalem Bible has for "effeminate" "catamites", and for liers with mankind "sodomites". One could debate the former, but the latter clearly refers to homosexual conduct.

The meaning is essentially the same, so, see above.

1 Timothy 1:9-11

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 Which is according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which hath been committed to my trust.

So now murderers, gay people, and people who have lied under oath can't get married? Because two of them can right now, so why not three? Again, why pick on the gay people here?

You could make it illegal for murders and people who have lied under oath to marry, because there is a legal record of this activity.

Originally Posted by Lizra

Bible thumpers have no proof their book is anything more than a bunch of fairy tales and parables from times long past.....all the different world religions have their sacred books of tales.....and to them all I say, "interesting...but seriously..... Whoopie Doo ."

The Bible has actually been proven to be a historical document. Many stories describe events that have been verified.

Happily, none of these events mean that gay people can't marry.

Originally Posted by Lizra

So with that being your only reason, it is quite obvious to me that homosexual mairriage should be legal.
As someone already said recently "All the rest is Rubbish"......and this debate seems merely one of people with open minds arguing with those who wear prejudicial religious blinders.

I do generally agree with you. I too see absolutely no reason whatsoever why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married.

However, just because the Bible doesn't mean a lot to you doesn't mean that it doesn't mean a lot to everybody. There's nothing wrong with basing your world view on the basis that the Bible is true, even if you do misunderstand the parts about homosexuality. This means that some conclusions of this world view are incorrect, not that those who believe this world view are somehow morons.

Got that from the tone of your post.

It's great to see you around BTW.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The Bible has actually been proven to be a historical document. Many stories describe events that have been verified.

I'd say that it contains some events that may mirror history, and maybe even a touch of actual history, but by that measure, you could call Shakespeare's Julius Caesar a historical document as it contains many real people and real events. But, in reality, it's just a dramatization of events.

However, I do agree with your "deeper meaning". The bible represents the best of Abrahamic philosophy at the time it was written, and the Jesus story a degree of humanism that wasn't seen that much before it's time. Prior to that, very few religions had all that much respect for the individual, which is the main concept that really makes it unique.

And you make a very good point about Corinthians 6:9-10 as well.

In my mind, these restrictions are more the product of the all too human tendencies of control and conservatism. A co-opting of the message. Something I'd think any god would be far beyond.

[Lizra]

Not morons....but imo, folks who are taking the easy way out.....And sure.....some of the broad events/places mentioned of the bible are considered historic fact, but the whole "word of god" thing is what I find ...well...nutty. Sorry, but I can't really think of a nicer way to describe it.

Oh! ...thanks Nurv!

[Count Comfect]

Railers are those who rail - or, via dictionary.com "utter bitter complaint or vehement denunciation."

We've got a lot of those who are married. Some of whom are that BECAUSE they are married

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Not morons....but imo, folks who are taking the easy way out.....And sure.....some of the broad events/places mentioned of the bible are considered historic fact, but the whole "word of god" thing is what I find ...well...nutty. Sorry, but I can't really think of a nicer way to describe it.

Oh! ...thanks Nurv!

If I wasn't laughing so hard, I might be offended!

The fact that the Bible is the word of God is the basis of Christianity! It's not nutty, it's simply not something that makes sense to you. And that's cool too, there's a reason that the entire world isn't Christian; our beliefs don't make sense to everyone.

But we didn't base a whole religion on something nutty, sheesh.

Now, I personally don't think God provided the visions to the Bible's authors in order to write it, I think they wrote what they saw. Believing that God did provide visions to the author's is also not nutty, if that's what you were actually referring to.

Logically, if God is capable of manifesting Himself in human form and sending his Son to Earth, then He is easily capable of giving fifty people visions of His message.

Christians do believe the former since that's what makes us Christian, so the latter isn't a huge stretch.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I'd say that it contains some events that may mirror history, and maybe even a touch of actual history, but by that measure, you could call Shakespeare's Julius Caesar a historical document as it contains many real people and real events. But, in reality, it's just a dramatization of events.

Well, a lot of actual people who really existed (Jesus, Harod, Pontius Pilate, Abraham, Moses, and others) are in the Bible. I'm sure some of the events in the Bible are historic as well.

The entire Bible obviously isn't historic, since like I said before there are many metaphors.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

However, I do agree with your "deeper meaning". The bible represents the best of Abrahamic philosophy at the time it was written, and the Jesus story a degree of humanism that wasn't seen that much before it's time. Prior to that, very few religions had all that much respect for the individual, which is the main concept that really makes it unique.

The Bible really rocks. Sadly, taking the Bible at face value detracts from its awesomeness.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And you make a very good point about Corinthians 6:9-10 as well.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In my mind, these restrictions are more the product of the all too human tendencies of control and conservatism. A co-opting of the message. Something I'd think any god would be far beyond.

Yeah, otherwise God would simply have written us a to do list.

God: Okay, I went to a lot of trouble to organise a book of useful metaphors for life and wonderful stories and teachings, but you guys are morons so here's the new Bible.

To do:
1. Love each other
2. Love Jesus
3. Don't forget that I love you

How hard is this, really? The next person who screws this up is getting smote.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

More or less wind up at this, don't they, Nurvingiel?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Yeah, otherwise God would simply have written us a to do list.

God: Okay, I went to a lot of trouble to organise a book of useful metaphors for life and wonderful stories and teachings, but you guys are morons so here's the new Bible.

To do:
1. Love each other
2. Love Jesus
3. Don't forget that I love you

Matt 22-36 as in http://www.carm.org/kjv/Matt/matt_22.htm
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets



The sense I always had was that God said, "Okay. We've been through this bit with the law and the prophets. Frankly, I've gotten a lot of feedback that I'm grading on too hard a curve. And Heaven was really dull, with just the righteous of 12 tribes. So we're going to try opening it up, and we're going to symplify the rules. "

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The fact that the Bible is the word of God is the basis of Christianity!

But this is highly debatable. I would say that "The fact that Jesus Christ dies to forgive our sins" was the basis of Christianity. The Bible is ancillary to that. And even IF you believed that the Bible was inspired by God, if not His actual Word, as a believing Christian you'd still have reasonable ground to say that the message of the New Testament superseded the Old. Version Bible.2, and the old software might not run on it.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

How hard is this, really? The next person who screws this up is getting smote.

That would be Ananias and Saphira, my favorite (non-Jesus based) NT story.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Logically, if God is capable of manifesting Himself in human form and sending his Son to Earth, then He is easily capable of giving fifty people visions of His message.

Or giving each person his or her OWN version.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

But we didn't base a whole religion on something nutty, sheesh.

Hard to say, logically.

[hectorberlioz]

No, that Christ is God incarnate is the basis of Christianity.

[Count Comfect]

Hmmm... methinks we have a thread for that discussion And also, pretty clearly I think people can disagree over what "the" basis of any religion is.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Hmmm... methinks we have a thread for that discussion And also, pretty clearly I think people can disagree over what "the" basis of any religion is.

There's a Trinitarian thread?

[Count Comfect]

Theological Opinions II Kinda.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

More or less wind up at this, don't they, Nurvingiel?

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Matt 22-36 as in http://www.carm.org/kjv/Matt/matt_22.htm
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets

That is some good stuff.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The sense I always had was that God said, "Okay. We've been through this bit with the law and the prophets. Frankly, I've gotten a lot of feedback that I'm grading on too hard a curve. And Heaven was really dull, with just the righteous of 12 tribes. So we're going to try opening it up, and we're going to symplify the rules. "

Haha, awesome. "These guys are a bit stuffy some times and none of them want to play Uno."

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

But this is highly debatable. I would say that "The fact that Jesus Christ dies to forgive our sins" was the basis of Christianity. The Bible is ancillary to that. And even IF you believed that the Bible was inspired by God, if not His actual Word, as a believing Christian you'd still have reasonable ground to say that the message of the New Testament superseded the Old. Version Bible.2, and the old software might not run on it.

Okay yeah, I agree with you and with Hector.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

That would be Ananias and Saphira, my favorite (non-Jesus based) NT story.

Bzzzzaat.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Or giving each person his or her OWN version.

That too.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Hard to say, logically.

Well, Jesus did exist, and His teachings were written down, so it's not nuts to worship the God you can see in those teachings. Plus, Judaism and Islam confirm how awesome Jesus is. So I'd say, we can be nuts, but not because we are Christians.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

So I'd say, we can be nuts, but not because we are Christians.

Good one, Nurv!

(it's fun to be nuts! o.O )

[Nurvingiel]

Hahaha. It's RÃ*an! *tries to tackle* *misses*

Darn.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Alright then. If this is a basis under which we can and should discriminate, A) fornicators B) liars C) the covetous D) drunkards E) railers etc should all be prevented from the same things as you want to bar homosexuals from. Far more, indeed, for lying, coveting, and fornicating are complained of far MORE (say, the 10 commmandments). Yet they can marry, and adopt; and indeed, I think if you tried to ban "railers" from adopting, you'd get into trouble for discrimination. Likely the same is true of fornicators.

If by "the same things" you mean official government condonement of their sins, then certainly. But drunkenness, covetousness, etc. manifest in different ways than homosexuality.

How to intepret religious texts. And it's not a claim. It's a fact.

Sure, in a very broad sense; when you get down to the particulars, however, it doesn't necessarily hold up very well. Usually a tradition will either regard their texts as literally true or figurative true as a whole, without very much in the way of back and forth between the two.

Originally Posted by Nurvi

What the heck can't you do? Anything that doesn't violage the Charter or the Constitution is obviously allowed, so what's the problem?

You cannot, among other things (for your own example) abstain from an action which you believe (I'm thinking of California now) makes you complicit in the killing of an innocent person. That's a pretty frickin' big deal there.

Don't forget that this same Charter protects your very right to be Catholic.

In name only.

You don't need to actively discriminate against gay people to be a practicing Catholic.

Ah, Nurvi, "practicing Catholic" is a very broad term; it includes any Catholic who fulfills the bare minimum requirements of the Church (Mass on Sundays and holy days, Communion and Confession once a year). I am not concerned with that kind of noncommital false religion.

What is right action then? Or should we just shelve this part of the debate? (I'm cool with that.)

Umm...doing the right thing...I'm not sure what you're looking for...I don't mean to use it as any sort of loaded term.

Originally Posted by Lizra

If the bible quotes are your only reason to deny gay marriage Gwai, I'm very unimpressed. (I know this doesn't matter to you ....just wanted to come on record with it though )

Well, I'm sorry Lizra, I really am. I suppose when you get right down to it, it's not really my only reason, but you could reduce it all to religion, and a little bit of philosophy, maybe, though I'm kind of iffy in that regard.

Bible thumpers have no proof their book is anything more than a bunch of fairy tales and parables from times long past.....all the different world religions have their sacred books of tales

Please, be fair. You can't honestly expect us to go into some kind of a huge intellectual/spiritual death struggle every time we refer back to our sacred books, can you? We'd never get anywhere.

I do believe the rest of the Bible. I believe the whole Bible and what it says, but I do not believe it says what you think it says, necessarily. The Bible is a complex tome of metaphors and stories which should be taken in context to divine their purpose and meaning. It is not something relatively easy like an instruction manual to tear down and rebuild the engine of an E-Type Jag. The Bible must be carefully studied, not simply taken at face value.

My dear, you have taken the quote out of context. I was saying that if you do think the Bible is simply the work of men, why believe in Christianity at all? Why believe that Christ was God incarnate, and that he died, and rose again on the third day?

The Bible is much more deep in meaning than can be derived from simply skimming the surface and taking everything literally.

Most definitely. Absolute literalism is highly problematic.

Taking everything literally is dangerous - if we do that, we'll get nutters who go around making idol worshippers drink molten gold.

I certainly agree that it's dangerous, but I don't think you'd make them drink molten gold. You'd simply acknowledge that Moses did so.

Other stories in the Bible, which often describe historical people and events, serve to give context to the different messages in the Bible. The various anti-gay passages serve to point out what society was like at the time. It was totally unacceptable two-thousand years ago for someone to be gay.

No, not really. That's not how history tells it.

Women were second class citizens. Slavery was acceptable. Society, in fact, was very intolerant.

That's why Jesus's message, once you have read some of the other passages in the Bible, is even more wonderful. Would Jesus tell a gay man that he should not defile himself with another man? No, he would invite that man over for dinner.

He would do both. He told the adulteress to go and sin no more, after he saved her from stoning.

Jesus was radical and liberal. He was a mover and changer of society. He wanted to make the world a better place for everyone, especially the people in the society in which he lived who were marginalised by those in power: women, tax collectors, people with disfiguring illnesses, poor people, and many others.

Very true.

In sum, I think that being against gay marriage because of the passages of the Bible that describe it extremely negatively defeats the entire purpose of the Bible, which is to teach us how to be good people and live in God's way.

Well, Nurvi, why is it that St. Paul says what he says in that context? It sure doesn't sound like it's meant to just be something

I don't think we should debate too heavily about a book that neither of us has actually read.

Fair enough; but remember he calls them "texts of terror". While neither of us has read it, it sure sounds like he's imputing the sin to the Scripture. Also, notice this passage: "These biblical texts, according to Spong, are not the incontrovertible Word of God, but flawed human responses to perceived threats."

But as you pointed out, neither of us has read it, so we can't say too much.

Now, I have a huge problem with this phrase: "26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature." The use of women? It is natural to use women? Or is it saying that it was the women who changed the behavious of the men? More clarification is needed.

I took it to mean, from the context, that they gave the natural use of the sexual parts for the unnatural.

This, again, I feel provides context about the society at the time. I believe this context is very important. I do not believe this passage means gay people (the "liers with mankind") shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Nor do I, I think it means that it is sinful to do such things.

Because then guys who act kind of girly (effeminate, I really hate this word), would not be allowed to marry either, even if they wanted to marry women. People who are greedy and wish they had stuff their neighbours and friends had (covetous)? Can't get married. Drunks? Can't get married. Railers, whoever they are, can't get married either.

I don't think you quite understood what I was saying. This text was from the Douay Rheims, a very old translation, and in old translations, indelicate matters are often alluded to. The Jerusalem Bible has for effeminate, "catamites", which means the receptive partner in homosexual intercourse. This makes sense, in historical context, and also as the next verse refers to liers with mankind.

As for the rest of what you are saying, the point is not that the text says they shouldn't get married, its that it says it is sinful. If you will look back, you see that my reason for these texts was that I said that the "prohibition on homosexuality" was found in the New Testament. I'm frankly very surprised that you all actually think I am arguing that all of these people shouldn't be married; how incredibly stupid you must think me.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

As for the rest of what you are saying, the point is not that the text says they shouldn't get married, its that it says it is sinful. If you will look back, you see that my reason for these texts was that I said that the "prohibition on homosexuality" was found in the New Testament. I'm frankly very surprised that you all actually think I am arguing that all of these people shouldn't be married; how incredibly stupid you must think me.

And yet you brought up the idea of the Bible prohibiting it as follows:
responding to this quote:
"The white elephant in the room is that the only real reason for denying homosexuals marriage is because the bible, by some interpretations, says so."

Originally Posted by Gwai

The Bible says so, by any interpretation that doesn't completely disregard what the authors say in order to impose a liberal modernistic view on the text.

So I hope you'll excuse me, but that certainly sounds like saying the Bible prohibits homosexual MARRIAGE, not just that it prohibits homosexuality. Because in that exchange "says so" is in reference to "denying homosexuals marriage."

And since the verses you quoted prohibit not only homosexuality, but many other sins, I must in turn conclude that you think that those prohibitions are also barriers to marriage.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

You cannot, among other things (for your own example) abstain from an action which you believe (I'm thinking of California now) makes you complicit in the killing of an innocent person. That's a pretty frickin' big deal there.

I agree that there is a clash. You can abstain, you'll just have to avoid choosing being a pharmacist or an abortion doctor for a carreer. It sucks, but that's how you can avoid breaking the laws and violating your own beliefs.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

In name only.

No, it actually does. If there was ever a law prohibiting Catholics from marrying for example, it would be immediately struck down because that would violate the Charter.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Ah, Nurvi, "practicing Catholic" is a very broad term; it includes any Catholic who fulfills the bare minimum requirements of the Church (Mass on Sundays and holy days, Communion and Confession once a year). I am not concerned with that kind of noncommital false religion.

Practicing Catholic is a broad term. But hey, take in easy on the C&E Christians eh? All Christians worship God in his or her own way.

There's more than one way to be a good Catholic. Just because it isn't your way doesn't mean they aren't uncommitted or are false.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Umm...doing the right thing...I'm not sure what you're looking for...I don't mean to use it as any sort of loaded term.

No, that's what I was looking for. I go about my life trying to do the right thing and you go about your life trying to do the right thing. For me, that includes supporting gay marriage, which I believe to be right. For you, the opposite is true. Yet both of us are doing the right thing, because it's what we believe.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

My dear, you have taken the quote out of context. I was saying that if you do think the Bible is simply the work of men, why believe in Christianity at all? Why believe that Christ was God incarnate, and that he died, and rose again on the third day?

Why not believe it? People were there and they wrote it down.

I'm actually not sure if I believe some of the details. But the important thing is that something very wonderful happened. Do you think we should take this to the Theology thread? My beliefs around what is true in Christianity are veering away from this thread's subject.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Most definitely. Absolute literalism is highly problematic.

Yes. Now, let's take a step back from absolute literalism. Absolute literalism takes everything in the Bible literally, and people who believe this hold only one view of what the Bible says. Everything else is wrong, and there is only one way to view the Bible.

Based on some of your past statements, don't you think you are also adopting a very narrow view of Christianity, that there is only one way to be a good Catholic and only one way to view the Bible? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I certainly agree that it's dangerous, but I don't think you'd make them drink molten gold. You'd simply acknowledge that Moses did so.

Of course you wouldn't! You'd have to be completely deranged.

I wonder if Moses really did do something so horrible as to make people, including children, drink molten gold. I think this is another metaphor. Would you really worship a God who actually instructed His followers to do such cruel acts? But I think this part of the discussion should also go to Theology.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No, not really. That's not how history tells it.

History does tell us homosexuality was unacceptable 2000 years ago. The Bible provides us with an example of that as well.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

He would do both. He told the adulteress to go and sin no more, after he saved her from stoning.

Though, Jesus never expresses whether or not being gay is a sin. IIRC he never makes a single comment about homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Well, Nurvi, why is it that St. Paul says what he says in that context? It sure doesn't sound like it's meant to just be something

It looks like you were going to write more there.

Also, did you mean to have a comment on this?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Women were second class citizens. Slavery was acceptable. Society, in fact, was very intolerant.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Fair enough; but remember he calls them "texts of terror". While neither of us has read it, it sure sounds like he's imputing the sin to the Scripture. Also, notice this passage: "These biblical texts, according to Spong, are not the incontrovertible Word of God, but flawed human responses to perceived threats."

But as you pointed out, neither of us has read it, so we can't say too much.

Yeah, we would only really know what the book is about by reading it. I agree.

I would like to read it, but I'm going to leave my spiritual studies until later in life.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I took it to mean, from the context, that they gave the natural use of the sexual parts for the unnatural.

Oh, yes, that makes a lot of sense. I am no longer offended. In that case I think that this passage also serves to outline the attitudes of the day towards homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Nor do I, I think it means that it is sinful to do such things.

Is what you're really arguing not that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married, but that homosexuality is a sin?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I don't think you quite understood what I was saying. This text was from the Douay Rheims, a very old translation, and in old translations, indelicate matters are often alluded to. The Jerusalem Bible has for effeminate, "catamites", which means the receptive partner in homosexual intercourse. This makes sense, in historical context, and also as the next verse refers to liers with mankind.

All translations of the Bible are done from the original text so as not to lose meaning. Therefore old translations should be just as accurate as new translations, except that now we know a lot more about linguistics.

Catamites = the bottom? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

As for the rest of what you are saying, the point is not that the text says they shouldn't get married, its that it says it is sinful. If you will look back, you see that my reason for these texts was that I said that the "prohibition on homosexuality" was found in the New Testament. I'm frankly very surprised that you all actually think I am arguing that all of these people shouldn't be married; how incredibly stupid you must think me.

I don't think you're stupid, I also don't think you're saying drunkards, covetous people, and railers shouldn't get married.

What I am saying, is that since you are arguing that gay people shouldn't be allowed based on Corinthians 6:9-10, I'm pointing out the inconsistency in not arguing that drunkers, idolaters and etc. can't marry. This argument is stupid, of course, but then why would this passage support your argument that gay people can't marry, if it doesn't support that the other people mentioned can't get married?

I don't think this passage can be used to argue against gay marriage at all, because of that.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

So I hope you'll excuse me, but that certainly sounds like saying the Bible prohibits homosexual MARRIAGE, not just that it prohibits homosexuality. Because in that exchange "says so" is in reference to "denying homosexuals marriage."

My apologies, I took it for granted that speaking of the Bible saying something about homosexuality, it referred not specifically to marriage, but to the act itself, since that is I think what most people of intelligence who tried to use the Bible as a principle in the debate about homosexuality would say, as the Bible does not say anything whatsoever about man marrying man, I believe; maybe there's some verse I'm overlooking, but I don't think so. I mean, one could infer an argument from Scripture, but it doesn't say anything explicitly. I assumed that was considered as being so.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I agree that there is a clash. You can abstain, you'll just have to avoid choosing being a pharmacist or an abortion doctor for a carreer. It sucks, but that's how you can avoid breaking the laws and violating your own beliefs.

Practicing Catholic is a broad term. But hey, take in easy on the C&E Christians eh? All Christians worship God in his or her own way.

Do you mean Church of England? I'll certainly grant that.

There's more than one way to be a good Catholic. Just because it isn't your way doesn't mean they aren't uncommitted or are false.

There is more than one way to be a good Catholic, but they are set within fairly strictly defined parameters. Within those parameters, diversity is welcomed, but those parameters are a must. This is a big difference between the Anglican Communion and the Roman. The Anglican religion doesn't really have a strong central leadership; the primate of any given Church is a primus inter pares, nothing more, and the head of the communion of the whole is the same, a primus inter pares. A consequence of this is that what to believe and what not to believe is largely up to individual, whereas the leadership in the Roman Church is endowed with the highest authority known to man, and their word, to put it briefly, goes. If you deny the Catholic Church, you are not a Catholic.

No, that's what I was looking for. I go about my life trying to do the right thing and you go about your life trying to do the right thing. For me, that includes supporting gay marriage, which I believe to be right. For you, the opposite is true. Yet both of us are doing the right thing, because it's what we believe.

Are you saying that there is no objective right and wrong?

Why not believe it? People were there and they wrote it down.

Do you believe the Gospels are eyewitness accounts?

I'm actually not sure if I believe some of the details. But the important thing is that something very wonderful happened. Do you think we should take this to the Theology thread? My beliefs around what is true in Christianity are veering away from this thread's subject.

Hmm...maybe...

Based on some of your past statements, don't you think you are also adopting a very narrow view of Christianity, that there is only one way to be a good Catholic and only one way to view the Bible? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I hold to neither of those views. There are many ways to be a good Catholic, and a number of ways to read the Bible well.

History does tell us homosexuality was unacceptable 2000 years ago. The Bible provides us with an example of that as well.

Not in the Greco-Roman culture, by any means, which is where Christianity was really spreading.

Though, Jesus never expresses whether or not being gay is a sin. IIRC he never makes a single comment about homosexuality.

I have the same memories! *high five*

It looks like you were going to write more there.

Also, did you mean to have a comment on this?

I don't remember reading it, but I'll comment, just for you.

Christianity elevated the woman in many respects above the place she had in the pagan or Jewish worldview.

Slavery...I just had a discussion in theology class about this. Let me just say that, while slavery is certainly a social evil, it is not the greatest social evil, so that it is wrong to take certain measures to eliminate it.

Society was certainly intolerant in many ways, but Christianity is by no means representative of the society of the time. In fact, it radically departs from it.

Oh, yes, that makes a lot of sense. I am no longer offended. In that case I think that this passage also serves to outline the attitudes of the day towards homosexuality.

Glad you're not offended. Though it doesn't show the attitudes of the day.

Is what you're really arguing not that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married, but that homosexuality is a sin?

All translations of the Bible are done from the original text so as not to lose meaning.

Sorry, my dear, but it's just not true. The Douay is translated from the Vulgate, itself a Latin translation.

Therefore old translations should be just as accurate as new translations, except that now we know a lot more about linguistics.

Old translations tend to be more accurate; new translations tend to put a spin on the text, a la The Message. But anyway, in old translations, people were rather more prudish, and you just wouldn't put a word like "catamite" in a Bible!

Catamites = the bottom? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Actually, apparently, the ancient Greeks tended to do things in a rather different fashion...

What I am saying, is that since you are arguing that gay people shouldn't be allowed based on Corinthians 6:9-10, I'm pointing out the inconsistency in not arguing that drunkers, idolaters and etc. can't marry. This argument is stupid, of course, but then why would this passage support your argument that gay people can't marry, if it doesn't support that the other people mentioned can't get married?

As established above, my argument is not that gays shouldn't be married. I'm merely showing that New Testament Scripture provides texts which support the idea that homosexuality is sinful.

I don't think this passage can be used to argue against gay marriage at all, because of that.[/QUOTE]