It doesn't seem to me that a civil marriage is a christian institution.

Also, nice way to quote the Bible with no context. Incidentally, what's wrong with either of those passages, Rogue?
Isn't that exactly what those who try to argue against homosexuality do?


Oh, and what Samuel said.

_EW_

We're not saying they can't boink, but given that Christianity is a religious institution, it seems to me to be rather unconstitutional for the Feds to be telling us that we have to let them taint it.

Also, nice way to quote the Bible with no context. Incidentally, what's wrong with either of those passages, Rogue?the slavery bit

e: and the murder part

We're not saying they can't boink, but given that Christianity is a religious institution, it seems to me to be rather unconstitutional for the Feds to be telling us that we have to let them taint it.
What Sam said. You Christians don't get marriage all to yourselves.

Also, nice way to quote the Bible with no context. Incidentally, what's wrong with either of those passages, Rogue?
I dunno man, they seem pretty straightforward to me, tellin' me I can own slaves and shoot my wife if she cheats on me. Straight Bible-livin', yo.

One, I am a Conservative Christian--obviously. We all know that explaination. I agree with what the Bible says, call me close minded but that is what I stick to/will stick to.

This is a big moral issue--most are. I don't agree with it because I don't see homosexual relationships 'natural', and ethical.

I am entitled to my opinion, am I not?
Cut the swearing. --Jae

The bible also says to own slaves.

Where is your slave Rev?

I dunno man, they seem pretty straightforward to me, tellin' me I can own slaves and shoot my wife if she cheats on me. Straight Bible-livin', yo.

QFE.

_EW_

I find it sad when people misinterpret what the Bible is meant to mean. Taking it out of context is ignorant, put simply. The original greek/hebrew syntax of the Biblical text is far more complex, specific, and meaningful than what the English translation conveys.

A studied theologian (RB Theime perhaps) can explain it quite well.

Well I'm going hold back on my further things to say about this unless if someone wishes to have yet another religion debate... *shrugs*

I, Darth InSidious, Supreme Overlord of What is and What is Not, Lord of the Limits, Supreme Being, King of Kings, Ruling over Rulers, Ruler of Time, Great Khan, Ard Ri Eirinn and Holy Roman Emperor, declare to all and singular that I am so important that my every action will be announced to you at all times.

Right now, I am eating a cookie. You should all take note and comment how awesome I am.


The orginal greek/hebrew syntax of the Biblical text is far more complex, specific, and meaningful than what the English translation conveys.
Perhaps, O Praised One Whom The Praised Ones Praise, you'd like to give us your expert analysis? I await with interest your thoughts upon the Sahidic manuscript of John's Gospel and its implications, particularly the possible qualitative interpretation, and its relationship with the koine.

I find it sad when people misinterpret what the Bible is meant to mean. Taking it out of context is ignorant, put simply. The orginal greek/hebrew syntax of the Biblical text is far more complex, specific, and meaningful than what the English translation conveys.

Was that directed at me and Niner? or at Rev?

Because I'm quite aware of what the context was of what I wrote, and I didn't misinterpret it.

Interesting that you could make a normative claim on my understanding, though.

_EW_

I find it sad when people misinterpret what the Bible is meant to mean. Taking it out of context is ignorant, put simply. The orginal greek/hebrew syntax of the Biblical text is far more complex, specific, and meaningful than what the English translation conveys.
Dude, there are only so many ways to say 'kill your wife if she cheats on you'.

No, not really. Most of the Bible passages against Homosexuality mean the same thing when you put them in context. Paul is pretty dang clear, especially in Romans 1:26.

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

If that could possibly refer to anything other than homosexuality, I can't figure out what it is. But please, if you can tell me how that does not refer to homosexuality or it's only the context that's condemning it, do so. Here's all the material you should need.

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;

Also, what's wrong with killing your wife for cheating on you? They actually took a solemn vow seriously back then. A pity we've left that in the dust.

I find it sad when people misinterpret what the Bible is meant to mean. Taking it out of context is ignorant, put simply. The original greek/hebrew syntax of the Biblical text is far more complex, specific, and meaningful than what the English translation conveys.

A studied theologian (RB Theime perhaps) can explain it quite well.stop cluttering the thread i'm trying to break in and sort my slaves into their cages (i color code them) i can't be sifting through relevant posts

If that could possibly refer to anything other than homosexuality, I can't figure out what it is. But please, if you can tell me how that does not refer to homosexuality or it's only the context that's condemning it, do so. Here's all the material you should need.yes yes jolly good http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2487425&postcount=183)

This is nuts. I lean towards the right more often than not and I see absolutely no justification in imposing your religious/social beliefs on another.

Same-sex marriage should be banned simply because it offends a certain group of people? Please. :roleyess:

At the same time I think that I should be allowed to kill my spouse (and her lover) if she cheats on me. :devsmoke:

Corinthian, still waiting on you to explain how I should read my favorite verses.

Oh and Paul was pretty good about saying how slaves should act (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:%201-2;&version=31;):
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go make some unruly slaves respect me. Wanna give me a hand? I've got a lot of them.

Also, what's wrong with killing your wife for cheating on you?
Aside from the fact that it's MURDER, nothing at all.

I don't see why I need to explain any of these. They're pretty clear.

If that could possibly refer to anything other than homosexuality, I can't figure out what it is. But please, if you can tell me how that does not refer to homosexuality or it's only the context that's condemning it, do so. Here's all the material you should need.
I'd be fascinated to see your analysis of the Greek. Please, don't hold back; I'm sure your knowledge of euphemism in the ancient world will dazzle us all. :)


Also, what's wrong with killing your wife for cheating on you? They actually took a solemn vow seriously back then. A pity we've left that in the dust.
1. Murder is bad;
2. No, we haven't.

If that could possibly refer to anything other than homosexuality, I can't figure out what it is. But please, if you can tell me how that does not refer to homosexuality or it's only the context that's condemning it, do so. Here's all the material you should need.

First of all there are many re-workings of the Bible, it's virtually impossible to know which one is the RIGHT one. But I do know this, that was written by PAUL. If homosexuality was that important, it probably would have been in the 10 commandments.



Also, what's wrong with killing your wife for cheating on you? They actually took a solemn vow seriously back then. A pity we've left that in the dust.

Yet the wife can't kill a cheating husband. Boy, that's a loving and fair religious view.

I don't see why I need to explain any of these. They're pretty clear.

Oh good. That's how I respond during a logical discourse as well.

Arguments are only worthwhile if there is a back and forth; once someone stops trying to further the discussion their usefulness has ceased.

_EW_

The Bible also says this:
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals1, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Homosexuality is like any other sin. Ask God for repentance, and you shall recieve it. That is an entirely different discussion though, and I don't think that we should really get into that because it is off topic.
What is so 'unethical' about homosexual people? Are they lesser beings because they're gay? Are they less than you or me?
You misunderstand what I am saying. I do not agree with homosexuality. I respect homosexual people just as much as heterosexual people. Homosexuals are not any different than you or I.
You are, but we're also entitled to disagree with your rather bigoted opinion.
Yes you are entitled to disagree. I am not intolerant of those that are homosexuals, nor do I condemn them. I simply do not agree with it. Normally when someone votes they agree or disagree with/who they happen to be voting for.
Where is your slave Rev?
I do not have one.
I find it sad when people misinterpret what the Bible is meant to mean. Taking it out of context is ignorant, put simply. The original greek/hebrew syntax of the Biblical text is far more complex, specific, and meaningful than what the English translation conveys.

A studied theologian (RB Theime perhaps) can explain it quite well.
I do not believe that I am misinterpreting the Bible.

**

I am not trying to impose my religion on someone else. The thread title is pretty clear--"Proposition 8: Good or Bad?" I have answered that. I have given you the reasons why I agree with Prop 8.

No, I imagine the husband getting cheated on by his wife is the administrator of justice there. It's quite elegant. Instead of putting an extra line about it working vice versa, they just let the men do all the head chopping. And it wouldn't be murder, it'd be a just execution.

Sin is Sin. God doesn't make fine distinctions there. Besides, just because it might allegedly be a 'lesser sin' doesn't mean we should embrace it with open arms.

We're not saying they can't boink, but given that Christianity is a religious institution, it seems to me to be rather unconstitutional for the Feds to be telling us that we have to let them taint it.


Unless you're telling me Barney Frank is going to teabag the bible with this bill, I don't think anything is going to be tainted by gay people getting married.

Well, Marriage happens to be a rather religious institution in general. The Feds telling us, any of us, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever, what we can or can't do with our ceremonies is bloody ridiculous. You're the ones who keep whining about the separation of Church and State. Does that go out the window when it isn't convenient?

Well, Marriage happens to be a rather religious institution in general. The Feds telling us, any of us, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever, what we can or can't do with our ceremonies is bloody ridiculous. You're the ones who keep whining about the separation of Church and State. Does that go out the window when it isn't convenient?marriage is also a legal institution

I do not believe that I am misinterpreting the Bible.

Perhaps you would like to explain, then how τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου is not an emphatic and absolute declaration of fact? You may want to cross-reference with John 6:25-70.

you have a funny way of showing it by rejoicing in them not being able to marry

I said that I was happy to see that it passed. Just as you are not happy that it passed.

Darth Insidious: My post was not directed at you, not to mention that your posts here show that you understand what the Bible is meant to mean quite well. I was saying that I would debate about religion in another thread if anyone wanted to, because if I do in this thread, I would be taking about metaphysics and whatnot, which is off topic in this thread.

Well, Marriage happens to be a rather religious institution in general. The Feds telling us, any of us, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever, what we can or can't do with our ceremonies is bloody ridiculous. You're the ones who keep whining about the separation of Church and State. Does that go out the window when it isn't convenient?

You can have this thing, I think they call it a marriage that doesn't involve religion. I hear they've been doing that since before the Hittites.

Also churches are, have, and will always be allowed to say "NO fags" when they come asking for a minister to marry them.

The Bible also says this:


Hello? That was my point. The bible says some pretty odd things that we certainly don't agree with nowadays, what's to say that homosexuality isn't another?



Homosexuality is like any other sin. Ask God for repentance, and you shall recieve it. That is an entirely different discussion though, and I don't think that we should really get into that because it is off topic.
Except for the part that it's a sin, sure.
Here's some bible for you, buddy:
Do not judge, lest you be judged; for so as you judge, so shall you be judged.
Take that.

You misunderstand what I am saying. I do not agree with homosexuality. I respect homosexual people just as much as heterosexual people. Homosexuals are not any different than you or I.


Ok, so you don't agree with them. That doesn't entitle you to take away their rights. You said yourself that you think homosexuals are not any different from any of us; yet we should be allowed to marry and they should not?
Normally when someone votes they agree or disagree with/who they happen to be voting for.

Except when the law is unjust, as I've tried to explain. Ergo, the law should have been voted against by everyone (except bigots) because even if you disagree with their choice you should still be able to recognize their humanity, respect them for it, and afford them the same rights as we have.

I do not believe that I am misinterpreting the Bible.

_EW_

I said that I was happy to see that it passed. Just as you are not happy that it passed.so how is that being respectful?

So, basically, Ender, what you're saying is that we should pick and choose among the Bible for parts that we agree with? Just ignore anything that doesn't suit your worldview?

Classy.

You can have this thing, I think they call it a marriage that doesn't involve religion. I hear they've been doing that since before the Hittites.

Also churches are, have, and will always be allowed to say "NO fags" when they come asking for a minister to marry them.

Oh snap!

Darth Insidious: My post was not directed at you, not to mention that your posts here show that you understand what the Bible is meant to mean quite well. I was saying that I would debate about religion in another thread if anyone wanted to, because if I do in this thread, I would be taking about metaphysics and whatnot, which is off topic in this thread.

You didn't seem to answer my question as to whether or not you're directing it at me. snipped flamebait --Jae
_EW_


EDIT::So, basically, Ender, what you're saying is that we should pick and choose among the Bible for parts that we agree with? Just ignore anything that doesn't suit your worldview?

Classy.


No, I'm saying we shouldn't rely on the diction in the bible in order to prove our bigoted points. ;)
The Bible's a book. Written by humans. With a human bias.

Obviously we no longer believe slavery is morally acceptable, but it is in the bible. Perhaps we shouldn't let the bible dictate morality?

marriage is also a legal institutionExactly. If you don't want marriage available to everyone, then rename your state's legal institution of marriage to something else. Saying that the government can grant a certain contract to some and not others by mere fact of their gender is absolutely unacceptable.

The Bible also says this:
:words:
Yeah, and do you agree with what the Bible says in the verses I quoted? I demand an answer on this.

Homosexuality is like any other sin.
Fine, homosexuals are sinners, yadda yadda whatever. Does that mean you get to take away their rights?

I respect homosexual people just as much as heterosexual people. Homosexuals are not any different than you or I.
Then why do you agree with taking their rights away?

Snipped flame --Jae

Sin is Sin. God doesn't make fine distinctions there.
Fine, by that logic, no one should have the right to marry because we're all sinners and not deserving of that right.

Well, Marriage happens to be a rather religious institution in general. The Feds telling us, any of us, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever, what we can or can't do with our ceremonies is bloody ridiculous. You're the ones who keep whining about the separation of Church and State. Does that go out the window when it isn't convenient?
Excuse me, but marriage is also a legal term. It is completely possible to have a marriage in a town hall completely devoid of any religious affiliation. Again, you religious people don't get to keep marriage to yourselves.

So, basically, Ender, what you're saying is that we should pick and choose among the Bible for parts that we agree with? Just ignore anything that doesn't suit your worldview?

Classy.
That's what most Christians do today, FYI.

They're there for a reason.

And God doesn't say 'Get you a slave' he says 'Take slaves from the others'. Implying 'not from your brethren. Our modern sensibilities get offended by any mention of slavery, but this moral indignation coming from the liberals who are big on moral relativity and such is rather rich.

I do not believe that I am misinterpreting the Bible.

I didn't say you did. I said that EW and R9 did.

Also, Jmac, that argument of ridicule towards Rev7 about slaves seemed rather tasteless...

Edit: Jeesh the debate going too fast to keep up with all of the posts.

EW, this is what seemd out of context:

The bible also says:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviticus 19:27
Don't cut your hair nor shave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 17:2-7
Kill anyone with a different religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviticus 19:19
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric.

They're there for a reason.

Sorry, could you elucidate to us commonfolk what that reason is? I'm not to clear on it.

_EW_

I do not believe

yeah that really counts for a lot

The Old Testament is basically a codex of laws. As well as a history and a religious text. Everything written in it serves one or more of those purposes. I can't exactly tell you what the parts about murder, war, and slavery are about without a little bit of context - the Bible is a pretty big book and not exactly pulp.

Snipped--if the post is offensive, just report it instead. --Jae

snipped

And I'm still waiting for this masterful dissertation of yours.

I didn't say you did. I said that EW and R9 did.


Wow, even though you agree with us, you still feel like arguing bible meanings with us.

I'll repeat:
I'm quite aware of what the context was of what I wrote, and I didn't misinterpret it. Interesting that you could make a normative claim on my understanding, though.

I'm a Christian - and a better one than you, to be honest. Not really an insult, just an understanding that God isn't fond of atheists.

As for what I comprehend about the bible, the verses I wrote were to make a point. The fact that you went ahead and insulted me for no apparent reason, and called me ignorant even though you actually have no real clue as to what I know about Bible verses is kind of disappointing. And then, to top it off by insinuating that you do understand the native greek and hebrew is so arrogant that I wish they had a stronger word for it.


Also, Jmac, that argument of ridicule towards Rev7 about slaves seemed rather tasteless...

And yet it was directly relevant.

_EW_

Hello? That was my point. The bible says some pretty odd things that we certainly don't agree with nowadays, what's to say that homosexuality isn't another?
You put out there that the Bible says not to shave, kill anyone with a different religion, not wear clothes with more than one fabric. And the thing about pork. None of that is relevent to the topic. ;)
Do not judge, lest you be judged; for so as you judge, so shall you be judged.
Have you not judged me for what I think is right and wrong Ender? I am not judging, I am stating what the Bible says, and what I think. I don't think that this constitutes as judging someone.
Ok, so you don't agree with them. That doesn't entitle you to take away their rights. You said yourself that you think homosexuals are not any different from any of us; yet we should be allowed to marry and they should not?
I have not taken away their rights. I do not live in California, and even if I did, I would not be allowed to vote.

Except when the law is unjust, as I've tried to explain. Ergo, the law should have been voted against by everyone (except bigots) because even if you disagree with their choice you should still be able to recognize their humanity, respect them for it, and afford them the same rights as we have.
Am I being a bigot (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot)?) I am not being intolerant of homosexuals. According to my religion, homosexuality is a sin, and I do not want people to sin, so I do not agree with homosexuality.

yes we're all horrible people for thinking slavery is wrong

Funny thing how Christians helped quite a bit with the civil rights movement back when brown skin color was considered to make a person unequal to a white person.

Everyone is missing the point. You can't ban gay marriage, you can however oppose supporting it.


So don't marry the gays.

Funny, I think they just DID ban Gay Marriage.

Funny thing how Christians helped quite a bit with the civil rights movement back when brown skin color was considered to make a person unequal to a white person.

Aren't you forgetting something important?

I'll give you a hint.

THE KKK

Funny, I think they just DID ban Gay Marriage.

Pffft, and that'll last 6 months. Then they'll get it back, people will have another hissy fit. Something with Ellen will happen and we'll all do the same thing over and over again.

Everyone is missing the point. You can't ban gay marriage, you can however oppose supporting it.


So don't marry the gays.
/thread.

You put out there that the Bible says not to shave, kill anyone with a different religion, not wear clothes with more than one fabric. And the thing about pork. None of that is relevent to the topic. ;)
You were the one who said he does what the Bible tells him. It doesn't make sense that you disapprove of gays because the Bible tells you they're unnatural but doesn't do a variety of other things the Bible tells you to. Which means you're just using the Bible to cover your cherry-picking You're a mod--if you're going to enforce flaming rules, then don't flame --Jae.

I have not taken away their rights. I do not live in California, and even if I did, I would not be allowed to vote.
But you agreed with California voters taking away their rights.

Take a break tonight, folks. I've dealt with no less than 12 reported messages/posts and 15 PMs on mod stuff today, and I'd like to actually go do something fun besides moderate a bunch of people yelling at each other. I'll look this over and re-open tomorrow after the caca has been dealt with.

I have spent the last hour and a half cleaning up this thread, deleting stupid irrelevant posts and handing out warning cards for blatant flaming and spamming.

I am utterly appalled by the atrocious behavior here from people on both sides of this very controversial subject.

If I see any more flaming, including calling each other names (and calling someone a 'bigot' is a flame, and just as judgmental as the action you think is judgmental) or telling people to shut up, you WILL receive the 5 point flaming infraction. People are entitled to agree or disagree with homosexuality as long as it's done respectfully.

If I see any more posts about slavery or idiotic off-topic posts (including my favorite "I'm making a post to tell you I'm not making a post"), you WILL receive the 5 point infraction for blatant spam.

If I need to moderate this thread further because people can't act like adults and discuss the topic without swearing at each other, flaming, or spamming, I'm not going to waste my time anymore, I'm going to lock it permanently. I have zero patience for more crap in this thread, and despite my instincts to keep it locked, I'm going to re-open it. Don't abuse my trust in you all, please.