|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
The first 3 verses Faith quoted. I will take it to the end.
(this post is NOT REALLY about meat mind you) King James
quote: ESV
quote: The issue of drinking among the vices seems to go against this whole idea that what goes inside isn't an issue. Faith wants to have it both ways. I am really not making this an issue of flesh/meat consumption but here is a verse people will look at (Jerome used this to justify that vegetarianism is a sin and mind you that he hated the Jewish Christian Ebionites/Nazarines/ Elkesaites as well as Manicheans) to argue what Faith argued earlier. (though it is open to multiple interpretations) Romans 14:21
quote: Mark 7 and Matthew 15 have a Jesus quote. The Mark version is used to justify Jesus allowing all meat to be eaten - thus annulling Leviticus and Deuteronomy - (though even modern fundamentalist scholars will admit there are other interpretations and I can show quotes when I get back to Nebraska), though modern scholars will quickly add that Jesus didn't say it and the evangelist added to it ("Mark" in c.70 A.D.). The Matthew version is generally taken to only apply to the oral law and not Leviticus or Deuteronomy's written laws. Actually, the King James translation of Mark 7 actually didn't take it to "cleanse" all meats (like modern translations) but just referred to crapping out the food, and that translation (which is what the old Syriac said) would be compatible with Jesus actually saying it. "Cleaning: is the much better translation than "purging" or "removing" though.
quote: Matthew only has the quote that says something like "nothing that goes into the mouth defilith, but what comes out" which scholars, like Steve Mason, say is a Semiticism which means that certain foods are less important than other sins, but still doesn't mean it isn't a sin. Similar to "mercy, not sacrifice" not ending sacrifice. He and others say Matthew only had Jesus rejecting the oral law. Not written law. But, this is all irrelevant to an extent (except the Paul quote) because Paul didn't base his "outside the body" type of prohibitions on the clean/unclean issue. MY POINT? The drinking issue in Paul's I Corinthians 6 vice lists means that Faith can't really have it both ways on her "outside the body" issues (whether taken to be ceremonial issue or a table fellowship issue or whatever) THAT IS F-O-O-D! It's all the same thing! If food is a temporary and in essence "cultural", as opposed to "moral", issue then so is the sexual part. That is the religious aspect. There is also the possibility that Paul is saying that marriage issues (which are covered fully in chapter 7) as well as all other sexual issues shouldn't be made illegal by the state.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: Lets ignore 1 Corinthians 8 (like verses 10-13,as well as Romans 15:1,14:14, 14:1, Galatians 6:2-3, 1 Corinthians 9 around verse 20) and look at chapter 10
quote: Now do you think Paul's describing drinking (to get drunk anyway) in the chapter 6 vices supports your argument about sacrifices to idols? It is possible that Paul is speaking on multiple levels here. You keep using special pleas to make your point. Endless selectivity and parsing. I admit the issue is complicated, but you didn't even want to address the complications.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Why would you think I think that since I've said no such thing? I'm new to this thread, I must have misunderstood the recent discussion. It sounds like you're okay with a secular definition of marriage that includes same-sex marriage as long as Christians who run businesses can still decide who they're going to serve. And they have the right to do so because it's an act of conscience because the Bible says it's a sin. But the Biblical definition of marriage you cited in Message 278 (Gen. 2:24, Mark 10:8, Matthew 19:5-6) doesn't say anything about homosexuality being a sin, or that gay marriage is a sin. Think it through. A man who doesn't marry doesn't "cleave to his wife" any more than a gay man does, but you do not consider it a sin to not marry. There's no Biblical pronouncement that a man can cleave only to a wife and nothing else. And the Bible says nothing about who women shall cleave to. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Fix Bible reference. Word typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh good grief. The point is ONLY that the words Paul used -- "All things are lawful to me" -- refer to the passage about eating meat sacrificed to idols. Those very words. That's why 1 Cor 6 is always referred to that passage. And there's nothing spiritualized about that reference, it's about actual meat that has been actually sacrificed on an altar to some demon ido/godl, and whether Christians should be concerned about actually eating that actual meat because it might associate them in their own minds with idolatry. There's no need to bring any other reference into this.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
jar writes: No mention of marriage there Faith. If you're referring to Matthew 19:5-6, if the translation "cleave to his wife" is correct, that does seem to be referring to marriage. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You're correct.
AbE: Kinda. What it does say is that the guy should move outta the house; what it does not say is what constitutes a marriage.There are though Biblical standards of what does constitute a marriage as I outlined back in Message 269 and those standards do not mention anything about it being one man and one woman. Edited by jar, : hit wrong key, see AbE:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
But I *am* on the side of LGBT folk that can see beyond their own prejudice. Show me how Rachel and Laurel were being prejudiced.
I wish you luck with it, but if what you say is true, you need to work out who your friends are because it sounds like you need some. I know who my friends are. They are not the people who are saying gay folk are being prejudiced against Christians when they make formal complaints to regulatory boards after being illegally harmed by them, they are not the people who call them irritating despite the fact that it was the Christians that posted their complaint, who went to the media, and who released their personal information leading to threatening correspondence, disastrous consequences for their family and living with the fear of losing their kids. By all means disagree with something someone has done, but you stop using weasel words like 'might' and 'may' and avoiding discussing particular cases where you feel someone 'might' be doing harm; start being specific. Otherwise I can say that your 'suggestions' might be doing the harm, may be undoing the successes that you seem so concerned with - with as much weight as you have said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Why would you think I think that since I've said no such thing? I'm new to this thread, I must have misunderstood the recent discussion. It sounds like you're okay with a secular definition of marriage that includes same-sex marriage as long as Christians who run businesses can still decide who they're going to serve. And they have the right to do so because it's an act of conscience because the Bible says it's a sin. But that is not what is being discussed and things are confused enough without my trying to get into the question of the validity of the law itself. It's a secular law in a secular society, a Christian can't very well ask for it to be different, and nobody is suggesting any way we get a right to be exempted from it, so it's taken for granted on this thread that we have to obey or take the consequences. The only point is that it does affect Christians who can't agree with the secular definition and that's really all there is to it, except people keep arguing that we're wrong to see it as we do, and so on and so forth. Again, the only point on this thread is that the law legitimizing gay marriage can put strict Bible-believing Christians in the position of appearing to agree with the legitimacy of gay marriage if asked to do something that implies its legitimacy, such as make a wedding cake for a gay wedding, or arrange flowers for a gay wedding, or take photos at a gay wedding, which they cannot do because of how they/we understand God's ordinance of marriage, based on the passages I quoted.
But the Biblical definition of marriage you cited in Message 278 (Gen. 2:24, Mark 10:8, Matthew 19:5-6) doesn't say anything about homosexuality being a sin, or that gay marriage is a sin. Everything in the Bible is to be read in the light of everything else in the Bible because it's all true and one part can't be made to contradict another part. Homosexual acts are clearly forbidden in many places in the Bible. They are treated as sin. The idea that you could somehow sanctify homosexual acts by "marriage" is at least a cruel joke from a Christian point of view. The passage I quoted is understood to be THE definition of marriage. It covers the entirety of what constitutes marriage: man cleaves to wife (woman) and together they two, and nobody else, become "one flesh" -- which is objectified in the birth of children, if there are any, the children of course being the literal fleshly fruit of the marital union.
Think it through. A man who doesn't marry doesn't "cleave to his wife" any more than a gay man does, but you do not consider it a sin to not marry. There's no Biblical pronouncement that a man can cleave only to a wife and nothing else. And the Bible says nothing about who women shall cleave to.
However, the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what anyone thinks about it except the conservative Christians who are getting punished for refusing to violate it, which is a small number so far, but that view is shared by millions of others. Really, the only answer to this is that yes, we are subject to the law, and yes in some circumstances we will be forced to disobey it, and yes, in that case we will be punished, giving up all businesses that cater to weddings in some cases, and yes, some people will be very happy to see us punished. Such as AZPaul who is nearly in ecstasy at the thought. That's all there is to it. If everyone would just agree the thread could be closed. Edited by Faith, : improve wording
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Modulous writes: They are not the people who are saying gay folk are being prejudiced against Christians when they make formal complaints to regulatory boards after being illegally harmed by them. I think your emotions have got the better of you.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
First, that the highly similar sentence in 1 Corinthians 6:12 to one in chapter 10 proves that chapter 6:12-13 can only be talking about the same issue as chapter 10. So chapter 10 and its issue gets to define Paul's words and entire point in 6:12. Nevermind any other possible points the standalone plain reading of chapter 6 and its text might have to show us . Nevermind that chapter 6 chronogically preceded chapter 10. If anything, chapter 10 might be a totally different reapplication of his earlier words. ,*,********,*,*********,****,,,,************************************* Second, you thus argue that the point of chapter 10 had to do with meat sacrificed to idols (it did and it generally was forbidden to be eaten but meat was temporarily still allowed to be eaten though Paul elsewhere seemed to be describing situations that indicated a permanent ban on all flesh consumption . Even the situation in chapter 10 has logic which indicates an eventual ban such as not eating certain meats that offend if others know what you do )so that must then be the point of chapter 6 especially verses 12-13. The problem is that it doesn't fit too neatly into the point of chapter 6 or at least not in an obvious way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
To her the Bible governs all secularism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
"Cleave" is probably the only word in the English language that is its own antonym.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
But I *am* on the side of LGBT folk that can see beyond their own prejudice. Show me how Rachel and Laurel were being prejudiced...start being specific That's what I thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 641 days) Posts: 3228 Joined:
|
If you don't buckle those two beams together, the bridge will buckle under pressure
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK runs away:
quote: And yet your tail is between your legs.
quote: You mean you didn't write the things you wrote? If you didn't mean it what you wrote, why did you write it? If you think you've been misinterpreted, why don't you rephrase? Remember, everyone can see your posts. They can see me quoting you again and again. They can see you trying to pretend that you didn't write what you wrote.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024