|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 728 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Perhaps you should start a thread about homosexual acts and how you feel it relates to eschatology Faith. I am interested in your view with regards to the tiny book of Jude which quotes the gigantically important Book of Enoch which has fallen angels as an end times issue PLUS a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah. I feel the Sodom issue relates to angels and sex but is the possible homosexual angle the reason for your post?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 728 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
This whole obsession with gay "sins" confuses me. Sorry if this was already addressed but all the loaded side issues have larded this discussion and I missed the actual theological specifics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 728 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
quote: So it isn't necessary for a businessman to "know" if a person was divorced before they remarry because just being between a male and female is good enough and passes the test? This applies to wedding cake sellers, land-lords, hotel owners when they decide who to provide services to. Should certain questions be asked to get certain answers? Is this all a "don't ask, don't tell issue" or what exactly? Is the very nature of same sex marriage just too "in your face" to you or what is it exactly? If "sin" is not the issue, then renting a hotel room to a male and female, with a different last name doesn't bother you, I suppose. Marriage is a sacred issue and an institution that can't be secular in any way? This sounds so theocratic. So would "civil unions" work then? Would cakes be o.k. if it was called a civil union? These legal issues are really confusing me because I'm sense some massive inconsistency here. (Everything gets confusing when the law is being discussed, because it is often a high precision - to the letter - technical sort of thing, which makes this inconsistent religious-motivated type of described/proclaimed "really really important" mortal sin and/or sacred institution declaration, over a highly selective type of violation, a really poor fit for a sophisticated law code of allowed/proscribed conduct among individuals and businesses) Your position seems a poor fit for a non-chaotic type of society we should all want to live in. Can't you see a minefield of discrimination being opened up by all of this? What if circumcision becomes a requirement for one to become a citizen with rights to marry in order to fit the sacred institution? Christians who couldn't show they were circumcised had to worship the profane Roman Gods, you know. You brought it up. Don't mix sacred with profane.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 728 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Roman and Greek society allowed same sex marriage. Jesus opposed fornication and divorce. Acts 15 had the old law partly obtained for all gentiles and it covered food prohibition and fornication. Homosexual acts were irrelevant it seems. This is so selective at best to even want to make homosexual marriage some sort of Christian issue AND it is outright discrimination to behave like the Christian faith or Law is at stake if homosexuals are allowed to have rights tthat all others have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 728 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Read and quote the next 2 verses in Romans. I think it was verses 12 to 13 where Paul said all things are lawful or was that verse 7? The plain reading of your text might not back you up even if you take homosexual acts to be a sin in the said text. Quote the whole context Faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 728 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
I meant to type I Correct 6 spell check won't let me type "1 Cor 6" GOT IT. Romans was a typo, dismiss post title. AnywCorrectr spell check is acting up need to keep post short. I think you should quote all of Paul's relevanti n c hapter 6 instead of dictating what he supposedly meant WHILE FAILING TO QUOTE HIS IMMEDIATE LINES ABOUT THE LAW.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 728 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Paul was talking about sin and marriage in I Corinthians 5-7 and you stopped quoting him just before he said that all things are lawful. Please quote the King James version (which is more accurate PERHAPS than newer translations of 6:12)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 728 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Well, I wanted you to quote a larger context than what you selectively did some dozens of posts ago. At least you are engaging the issue anyway. The commentary should come later. I have seen honest comentators express genuine confusion at how Paul would say what he did at a moment he is discussing the sins he is in chapter 6. If I remember correctly, they often say he is quoting a response to his vice lists. Most modern translations put his words in quotation marks, however selectively. Some feel that Paul's words in chapter 6 got additional lines added to from other texts of Paul ssamea spell chemo Viva giving me hell ERASIng multiple words. Making things short. Some suggest line corruption or sentence transposition. I don't know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 728 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Please, I am trying to hold back on commenting on this issue. Eventually I will as I now think that Galatians 6:2 or 6:3 and the LAW OF CHRIST might solve the mystery of what law outlawed meat eating. I have found cutting edge journal articles from fundamentalist scholars and they aren"t making a vegetarian argument but admit that1Romans 15:1-3 seems to be a parallel us Corinthians 9 around verse 20 or something. Very complicated additional issues. But this vegetarian requirement might be closer to being explained.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 728 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
In no way was I going to say anything more in this thread. I was just responding to the fact that meat eating keeps coming up here.iinsa I was saying it in a partially light hearted manner. I am also about done on the marriage issues too though much more can be said
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 728 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Again I wasn't going to comment but the constant bringing up of meat in this thread was noteworthy anyway. My post was just an observation. A one time observation and it seemed slightly ironic
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 728 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
See posts 302, 7-8, 79, plus your post. I also mentioned Acts 15 in a post. I also suspected Faith would say Corinthians 6:12 was just about meat. I brought up Acts 15 because I see that as the only left over Old Testament law that remained in effect for all. I brought up I Cor 6:12 because of the multiple possible implications such as Paul possibly saying that sins shouldn't be made illegal by the state. I know meat gets brought up and the "ceremonial" excuse quickly rears its head in these types of debates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 728 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
People say New York City is liberal but they are clueless. Blacks and Hispanics are like 55 percent of the population and there are lots of super religious Asians and whites too. The word liberal is the most thrown around, used, and abused cloudy mushroom that blows away any hope of getting an understanding of what is and has been going on in America and the world. I almost prefer b.s. about legal homosexual marriage bringing the fall of Rome in 476 (nevermind theocracy and all the stuff that really happened ) over this endless throwing the L word around to describe the modern United States.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 728 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
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 (Idle past 728 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024