Homosexual marriage

[The Gaffer]

Just a quickie to acknowledge that many great things are done by Christian groups and individuals.

The reason for making the point is that, as a group, US Christians seem to me more animated about homosexuality than about child poverty. Where are the fundamentalist groups pressurising political parties to do more about war, poverty, disease and hunger?

[Rían]

good question ... I can't really say except in my own case. Personally, I hate politics and think it's pretty much a miniscule return on a huge investment of money and time. So personally, I don't go around doing anything about marriage issues (except I talk about it here and I"ll vote for what I think is right if it comes to a vote) and instead, our family and church and the relief organization we have ties to spend time and money directly helping impoverished children in the US and abroad. So I guess it's just another point where I differ from the fundies (I'm not a political animal) even though people often like to lump me into that category without thinking. Maybe a lot of the good groups (as opposed to the obnoxious, loud groups) are doing that, too (helping directly but out of the political process), and that's why you don't hear about it much - it's quiet and direct, as opposed to trying to pass laws.

[Elfhelm]

Mosaic Law pretty much condemns homsexuality, and it is very harsh on a number of other topics that are open to debate, like crops to plant and such. The New Covenant that Jesus brought, according to those who believe it, is either one of two things. Either you go with Paul and are redeemed by faith, or you go with James and are redeemed by good works. Most arguments between Christians are around this split, which was also about papal succession in the early days.

But there is another twist: some do not think that Jesus brought a New Covenant or that he only modified the old one, and they incorporate Mosaic Law into their Christianity, while others say that Jesus was literally renouncing The Law with his Two Greatest Commandments. The argument that he only modified some of the Laws is pretty well supported with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which may have come from his sect's home and contain some of the same ideas though in earlier forms, but they do uphold The Law. Unfortunately, thousands of years of traditions have been established in family groups and they are mostly inclined to accept the interpretation of their forefathers despite any evidence in either direction.

Christian sects are different in how they split on these two basic issues: faith versus works and Law versus Freedom (I am using "freedom" in the Jamesian sense). In fact, the extent to which those who DO retain Mosaic Law actually follow those edicts is also quite variable.

FWIW, I agree with Rian in that those who espouse hate of any variety are really not followers of Jesus. I don't think it is right to blame the sheep for the actions of the wolves in sheep's clothing.

If Jesus' mission had been to be born into the early 21st century to bring his message, it is my guess that he would consider it a sin for someone to be in a relationship with another person of the same gender. But I very strongly believe he would be angered by guys who carry signs saying the God hates anyone. He would say that God loves them all, and I guess that he would encourage people to pay more attention to the needs of the poor.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Excellent post, Elfhelm. Hear, hear.

[Rían]

This should prob. get moved over to another thread, but whatthehay (speaking of crops)...

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Mosaic Law pretty much condemns homsexuality, and it is very harsh on a number of other topics that are open to debate, like crops to plant and such.

But the crop thing is fascinating! If it was followed, from what I've heard it would eliminate the need for pesticides, etc. Also, I love the commandments for not picking everything and leaving gleanings for the poor - great idea, because it's not a hand-out, there's still some work (and therefore dignity) involved while providing for the poor.

The New Covenant that Jesus brought, according to those who believe it, is either one of two things. Either you go with Paul and are redeemed by faith, or you go with James and are redeemed by good works.

Nah, James teaches that works are the EVIDENCE of a faith that is alive.

But there is another twist: some do not think that Jesus brought a New Covenant or that he only modified the old one, and they incorporate Mosaic Law into their Christianity, while others say that Jesus was literally renouncing The Law with his Two Greatest Commandments.

Jesus's remark on the subject is that the law is fulfilled by those 2 commandments (not modified or renounced).

FWIW, I agree with Rian in that those who espouse hate of any variety are really not followers of Jesus.

I'm glad you agree I think where the misunderstanding arises, esp. in this topic (see, I made an on-topic comment! ) is when people confuse love of a person with acceptance of any of their actions.

If Jesus' mission had been to be born into the early 21st century to bring his message, it is my guess that he would consider it a sin for someone to be in a relationship with another person of the same gender. But I very strongly believe he would be angered by guys who carry signs saying the God hates anyone. He would say that God loves them all, and I guess that he would encourage people to pay more attention to the needs of the poor.

One of the more interesting verses in the Bible to me is that when God Himself talks about the sins of Sodom in the book of Ezekiel. Most people would instantly say it's homosexuality, but God's only comment is that they were rich and neglected the poor. Pretty good insight into God, IMO.

[Elfhelm]

Well, it would be way off topic for me to point out what Martin Luther said about James... oops...

But since this thread is about gay marriage, and since non-Christians seem to be baffled by the diversity of opinions by Christians on the topic, I thought it best to point out that many different Christian sects disagree about the extent to which Mosaic Law should be carried forward into the present day, and why. I didn't really mean to choose a side on those differences myself.

Some Christians think it is OK for gay people to marry. I just want that said.

And most Christians are angered by the "God hates you" signs. I remember reading that at one funeral where those guys showed up they were driven off with stones... by Christians! How appropriate! (Not that I would have thrown any, mind you!)

While I maintain that I think Jesus would call it a sin, I am guessing that he would know about the children's issues here and be more concerned with making sure they were provided for. There are children being raised by people who don't even have the right to authorize stitches for a deep cut! No matter what society decides to do, it's important to provide that the children can be properly cared for.

[Rían]

Martin Luther wasn't perfect ...

Yes, that was my opinion, and the opinion of all reasonable Christians (joke!) (but seriously, I think it is the most valid reading if one is into things like context as opposed to flip open the bible and stab your finger at a verse type of study)

And again, I'm so happy to see your concern for children. I think that's something that has fallen by the wayside all too often ... I think everyone that wants to file for divorce should be forced to spend a day in family court and look at the faces of the children there.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Nah, James teaches that works are the EVIDENCE of a faith that is alive.

Must...resist...

Must...also resist...reason for James being there in the first place...

Yes, that was my opinion

If I may ask, what exactly out of Elfhelm's quote is "that"?

[Elfhelm]

Yeah, is there a faith/works James/Paul thread? Then you won't have to resist.... but maybe I will! hahaha

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Mosaic Law pretty much condemns homsexuality

...I kinda disagree.

Take for example, Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Now, taking "lie with" in its meaning of "have sex with" (see for instance Genesis 19), we have what seems to be a prohibition against homosexual sex. But it is a very oddly phrased one, if it is one. For manifestly one does not actually have sex with men the same way one has with women. For a start, there is no genital-genital contact, which has always seemed to me to be the essence of default male-female sex. Now, I can see this as a prohibition against male genital-genital contact, but I have trouble seeing it as a prohibition against homosexual sex. Because it just doesn't fit the actual language.*

*and if you think Leviticus isn't precise with its language, just look at some of the dietary prescriptions. Yeesh.

[Elfhelm]

CC, I am bi and I favor gay marriage IF the two are making a commitment to make a family and raise children together. Even so I don't really think there is any doubt what is meant by that passage from Lev. I just don't think it's the right way to make laws in a democracy.

[Count Comfect]

I understand your position, Elfhelm. I just think that if it's in Leviticus, it better be more specific than that before we dismiss all consideration of alternate interpretations. We Jews have a fairly strong tradition of nitpicking - see the Talmud.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

CC, taking it in the strictest sense, going contrary to the text in Leviticuss would be physically impossible

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

We Jews have a fairly strong tradition of nitpicking ...

heehee!

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Even so I don't really think there is any doubt what is meant by that passage from Lev.

I strongly agree. I think it was no news to the Israelites that men don't have vaginas, which would be the only way I would think your interpretation would be even possible. (EDIT - oh, I see Gwai said it even better)

And I think if homosexual sex WAS ok, then the writer of Lev. would go on and describe things about it. But it is just entirely absent, so I can't really see how one could argue that it's ok.

Originally Posted by Gwai

If I may ask, what exactly out of Elfhelm's quote is "that"?

The "that" referred to my opinion on James's opinion on faith/works. I was clarifying that yes, my opinion of James's opinion of faith/works is an opinion, since he mentioned a differing viewpoint of ML.

Originally Posted by Gwai

Must...also resist...reason for James being there in the first place...

Why, to show that Jesus had a (half)brother, for one thing ...

[Elfhelm]

half... half??? ... must resist... must resist!!!! eek!

Anyway, isn't the point simply that for some of the Christians it is more important to follow the Law, not because homosexuality is wrong, but because the Book is always right. If the Book is wrong about that issue, it could be wrong about others, such as the Resurrection. Therefore, they will always find a way to make the Book right.

I hope that is not offensive. I'm just trying to make sense to those who don't get why, even though Jesus is all about Love, they can't get through to some Christians that this is about the right to Love freely. The reason is simply that there is much more at stake than this issue.

But for other Christians it is believed that Jesus brought us a new way to live, and that the Law of Moses is superceded by the Two Greatest Commandments. And that James said being a Christian is about taking care of widows and orphans, not just having faith. That is why there are many church groups marching in the Gay Pride Parade every year. Because the gays are some of the "widows and orphans" of this day and age.

[Rían]

"half" as in same mom, different dad ...

But do you think that Jesus would tell that overprotective mother, "Oh, it's ok to overprotect your son, stunting his growth, because you're doing it out of love" ?

And IMO, being "all about love" would certainly mean that you would want someone to not do something that's harmful to them if you knew it was harmful; wouldn't you agree? I don't think "love" is just a warm, fuzzy feeling. Sometimes love means fighting, as when people confront alcoholics.

EDIT - oh, the overprotective mother was on another thread! My example was that there are moms who have a very strong love for their kids that manifests itself in wanting to overprotect them. I think that is a good example of being motivated by love, but the expression of it is not good/right, like homosexuality IMO.

[Elfhelm]

I defintely get your analogy, Rian.

But what I have been trying to make clear, and I'll stop now because it's got to be getting boring, is that there really are many Christian churches who do support gay rights and gay marriage, and they know what it says in Leviticus but they think that Jesus taught a new Law.

To them, invalidating Leviticus does not invalidate the Gospels.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

CC, taking it in the strictest sense, going contrary to the text in Leviticuss would be physically impossible

Right. Which is clearly not, therefore, the meaning. But there is no reason not to take it as close as would be physically possible, hence my interpretation.

[Insidious Rex]

Even if we are to assume from that reading that homosexual SEX is wrong (by the way is there anything in the bible saying that anal sex is wrong whether between same sex or different sexes?) does that reference say anything about homosexual MARRIAGE per se? Seems like one could at least justify being married as long as there is no sex. Which granted is a bit ridiculous but certainly within the scope of the statement and therefore ok.

[brownjenkins]

Didn't Jesus basically reject the laws of Leviticus?