Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Melissia wrote:Even if you ignore the translation errors in that line (which, depending on how its translated, may not actually condemn homosexuality at all), using it still makes you a hypocrite if you don't also follow the rest of leviticus.

Haven't read it myself I must admit. Is there other parts of leviticus that say gayness not so bad afterall?

No. But Christians don't have to follow Leviticus; it was a recording of the old laws, the old Covenant. We are under new laws, a new Covenant-- a new Testament.

It's far better to look at the Old Testament and see it as a history, to look at so that you can understand the New.

I agree. Jesus is mean to fig trees though...

Is "lack of common sense" considered mentaly impaired?.........wait...we all experience lack of common sense at one time or another...Manny don't answer that let me research my "Book of Zeus"....

Okay, here is what I have to say:

This guy is an idiot. Plain and simple. I know many Christians, as my family is pretty much 100% Christian and they have tons of Christian family friends, and guess what? While many of them don't agree with homosexuality, they don't attempt to force it on other people. Who wulda thunk it?
The reason they take this passive disagreement stance is this: they are Christian Christians-AKA those who base their faith of of Christ's teachings. They seek only to better the world by helping and loving others, not to force their viewpoints on the world. My Grandmother is a major fan of science, from the Big Bang to the Higgs-Boson, and is also one of the most Christlike people I know. The same goes for many of my other family members: while they may, on a personal level, disagree with things such as evolution or homosexuality, they respect those who have differing views and don't attempt to force their opinions down others' throats.

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote:I don't mean crazy like schizophrenic. I mean uneducated and wacky and generally off. Like a person you would not hire to work at your business but also wouldn't call the asylum to cart away. Like a person you would not listen to about serious topics.

But saying "mentally impaired" implies that he's not competent to take care of himself or be held responsible for his words or actions. Which, is part of what makes absurd stuff like this and that jackass in the Chick Fil A drive-through disturbing. These may be otherwise reasonable people who are significantly damaged and incompetent only in certain areas; which sadly they still get to vote regarding.

My only protest is that someone would take the cereal burner as representative of the sum of all arguments against gay marriage -- much less as representative of Christianity. Just like I would object to the drive thru guy -- or the mayors of Chicago and Boston for that matter -- of being representative of all arguments for gay marriage.

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Manchu wrote:I don't mean crazy like schizophrenic. I mean uneducated and wacky and generally off. Like a person you would not hire to work at your business but also wouldn't call the asylum to cart away. Like a person you would not listen to about serious topics.

But saying "mentally impaired" implies that he's not competent to take care of himself or be held responsible for his words or actions. Which, is part of what makes absurd stuff like this and that jackass in the Chick Fil A drive-through disturbing. These may be otherwise reasonable people who are significantly damaged and incompetent only in certain areas; which sadly they still get to vote regarding.

My only protest is that someone would take the cereal burner as representative of the sum of all arguments against gay marriage -- much less as representative of Christianity. Just like I would object to the drive thru guy -- or the mayors of Chicago and Boston for that matter -- of being representative of all arguments for gay marriage.

That's not what the thread is about though, anyone with sense realizes that not all anti-gay groups are christian and the vast majority of Christians don't hate gays and are at worst ambivalent. The question was why do people immediately jump to the conclusion that an anti-gay person or group is evangelical christian. While individual pastors have put an emphasis on equality and good-will ( which I applaud them for) the evangelical community has done little to publicly distance themselves from those of their ranks that are bigoted. It is the same way that Muslims are assumed to be terrorists or a terrorist is always Muslim, while most imams condemn this activity the public doesn't see it. So if the public is only presented with one view point then there view of evangelical Christians will obviously be colloured by what they see

Melissia wrote:No. But Christians don't have to follow Leviticus; it was a recording of the old laws, the old Covenant. We are under new laws, a new Covenant-- a new Testament.

It's far better to look at the Old Testament and see it as a history, to look at so that you can understand the New.

You are correct that Christians aren't called to follow Levitican law.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."
Leviticus 20:13

In this passage, the penalty established by leviticus was death. That is the law. But, something else can be found in this passage, that "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." This is not the law. This is stated in the Bible as a fact, an inherent truth about homosexuality. This was not "overthrown" by the New Covenant, and still stands as truth.



It is a common misconception that all that can be found in Leviticus is laws, and that Leviticus serves no purpose under the New Covenant.

"You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord."
Leviticus 19:18

This is not a law, it is a command.

mattyrm wrote:Of course its sensible to assume they are Christians. There is a perfectly logical pathway from devout theistic belief and homophobia and any fair minded observer can see it, you wont get any argument from me. People don't like it when you mention facts they don't like though.

Oh while you are on, don't forget the Muzzas though, I don't like threads like this without my acid-throwing pals in Afghanistan getting a mention. Funny thing they arent too hot for Gays either, as evidenced by the ridiculously absurd fact that the men in charge handed the World Cup to Qatar.

And the point, fairly fething obviously, is if Christian groups don't want to end up with the same vitriol directed at them that Islamic groups currently face, then they would probably want to reconsider their stance on homosexuality.

Or we can just rant about all the Muslim mattyrm doesn't like. We haven't done that in at least a week.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Any one can win a debate that is not actually happening.

In this vid, we have a guy who is pretty clearly mentally impaired. It's a fair bet that his "accomplices" are taking the piss, setting this guy up to make a funny video. Sort of like "Angry Grandpa" and similar stuff, except Angry Grandpa eventually figures out that his real personality can be amped up into an act. (This guy only has one video at the moment.) So it's a wee bit absurd to look at this guy and say "people who disagree with me clearly have no arguments and are clearly morons" as if this guy stands for every viewpoint that doesn't coincide with yours.

The point wasn't 'this guys anti-gay idiot, therefore all people who are anti-gay are idiots'.

My point is that this video went all over the net, and everywhere it went everyone assumed the guy in it was an Evangelical Christian, despite him saying absolutely nothing about religion at all. They assumed this because he was saying anti-gay stuff. And they were right.

Now, if we take as a given that homosexuality will become accepted (and looking at the trends in polls and the inevitability of demographics it is pretty much a given) then I think Christians need to ask themselves if they really want to be on the losing side of that debate? What will it mean in a decade or two


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:I don't quite get the connection between homosexuality and cheerios.

The parent company came out with a statement supporting gay marriage. The guy in the video explains that.

But according to sebster since I am an evangelical Christian and actually believe the Bible and don't buy into all of the politicking/proselytizing being done by the homosexual lobby, who are so desperate for society at large to accept their behavior..I'm an "Autobigot" so I guess I should think like cereal burner guy.

No, I didn't say that. Conversations work much better when you actually listen to what I'm saying.

Right now there is a common assumption that when someone is making really strong comments about homosexuality, that he will be a Christian, and most like an Evangelical Christian. Those assumptions seem to be pretty soundly based.

And while you might claim that the bible clearly states homosexuality is wrong, it'd be downright delusional of you to claim this is some kind of priority in the text, compared to the stuff on poverty and charity. And yet, right now you are far more likely to hear comments from Christian leaders on homosexuality than you are on measures to end poverty.

That should sound warning bells to anyone who wants Christianity to primarily be about ending poverty. And yet instead you hear it as an attack on you.

When you remove God from the equation anythings goes, or as Dostoevski put it "If there is no God, everything is permitted."

Which is why all us atheists are out there killing people for fun.

For feth's sake, you contort my statements to read into it a criticism so you can claim to be so offended, and then you go and just straight up call atheists amoral. It's pathetic, so stop fething doing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:I'm not particularly fond of how sebster's raised the subject.

I am more than willing to accept the way I raised this issue was clumsy. There are a lot of good reasons I'm not a social commentator, after all

Many Christians try to counter the actions of bigots by not being bigots themselves, and by participating in their church and speaking up against bigotry within that framework.

Sure, and I should clarify I'm not making an attack on any individual Christian. Even leaders only have so much power to work within their organisation as a whole.

The point is more a question for any individual Christian, whether he's pro-, against, or entirely indifferent to gay rights - "is this really the issue I want my faith to go to the mat over?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I guess so. Right, like how someone can read the instructions on a tube of Preparation H and end up brushing their teeth with it.

The bigger question is how could anyone look at a text that is full of complex stories with many possible meanings, note that that text has been debated by learned men for more than a century and produced many wildly varying interpretations, and conclude that there is a single, obvious meaning to the text?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:Does every story about gay marriage have to turn into a "christians are stupid" thread?

I hope not. Best way to prevent that is to try and argue in good faith, and try to prevent the lazy attacks, whether they come from your side or the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:But honestly, if I were to start as many threads talking about "gays are stupid for not believing in God and their sins" as there are threads talking about "Christians are stupid" I wouldn't get in trouble?

I am always pretty dang good with not being all up in people's faces about my religion, but people who are always all up in people's faces about how stupid their religion is never seem to stop.

Depressing.

They never stop, as long as you're willing to pretend every comment about Christianity is an attack. This thread is not a fething attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Sebtser will be along shortly to explain that he nowhere stated that Christians are dumb. The ... er, quality of DIDM's posts on this issue speaks for itself.

Because I fething didn't.

I happen to know a lot of Christians. I happened to be married to one. So you can leave that 'oh he's so mean to us' bs at the door.

And that Christian lady I'm married to, well it was out of a conversation with her and then a follow up conversation with another Christian friend on-line that I produced my line of thinking on this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xole wrote:So is it really fair to make any assumptions about the man other than that he doesn't like gay people?

Is it fair to make assumptions because he doesn't like gay people? No, it isn't. I know a few people with some pretty strongly held views against gay people, who happen to otherwise be exceptionally good people - generous, great with the families, hard working, all that stuff. In fact I'd call them exceptional people.

But is it fair to make assumptions about a guy who thinks burning cheerios because a company made a press-release is a sensible protest, and who's other on-line videos are entirely about homosexuality? Yeah, it's probably pretty safe to assume he's a loon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:My only protest is that someone would take the cereal burner as representative of the sum of all arguments against gay marriage -- much less as representative of Christianity. Just like I would object to the drive thru guy -- or the mayors of Chicago and Boston for that matter -- of being representative of all arguments for gay marriage.

Has anyone done that?

I mean, my point was 'people assumed that this whacko was Christian just because his protest was anti-gay, and I'd think Christians would want to distance themselves from this kind of stuff'

generalgrog wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:
Some parts of the King James Bible are blatantly opposed to homosexuality, especially Leviticus. This crazy guy isn't making up gak about the Bible. He is a Christian and when Christians claim he's not, they're falling victim to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

No, he's not a Christian. He, like virtually all Christians, are only selectively practicing what is said in the Bible. There are hundreds of oddly specifc rules that you have to follow. Fun facts:

True Christians are forbidden from wearing clothing made of mixed fibers. So poly-cotton blend = not a Christian.

True Christians are forbidden from sitting on any seat where a menstruating woman has sat. So riding the bus or sharing any seat in your home with your wife = not a Christian.

True Christians play the lyre twice a day. So no lyre = not a Christian.

True Christians cannot shave their beards. So not looking like the Unabomber = not a Christian.

Your mixing up orthodox Judaism with Christianity my friend. This whole argument about "If you don't follow old testament law to the letter than you aren't a true Christian" is a huge red herring. Paul delt with this issue during the early church, they were called judaisers.

I'm not a judaiser, I'm not an orthodox Jew. I'm a Christian. The law as practiced in the old testament has passed away in the sense of following temple rituals, and legal laws. That is part of the reason for the Holy Spirit, which wasn't released fully until after Pentecost of Acts 2. "the letter killeth, the spirit giveth life"

GG

But don't ya see the point? Nobody can justify Leviticus if they don't follow those rules, too. If you wanna keep Leviticus, then ya gotta do all that other goofy crap, too. You don't get to selectively cherry pick the parts you like. You either take it as a Gestalt, or you stop calling yourself a Christian. (and the part about the lyre is New Testament, btw)

I start worrying when extremist starts screaming "God Wills It"

The Bringer wrote:"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."
Leviticus 20:13

An amusing mistranslation to be sure.

The term "abomination" was inserted in by the Wycliffe bible, and an old latin translation, but not in the original hebrew. If you REALLY want to see a crime that both God and Jesus hate, yet modern Christianity is willing to accept and even embrace, look at adultery. Hell, a local pastor was caught committing adultery on his wife, and he was EMBRACED for it because they thought it made him more human or some other nonsense. This despite the fact that adultery is one of the most heavily condemned acts in both the new testament and the old. Divorce, likewise, is heavily condemned by the new testament, and yet it is accepted by most Christians, even many Catholics. The gathering of riches, as well, was condemned strongly by Jesus.

Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 come to mind as examples of Jesus actually blessing a homosexual couple, for that matter. The Centurion's younger male lover (Referred to as Pais in Matthew, which translates to a few things-- son, slave, junior/younger male partner in a couple, and referred to as Entimos Doulos in Luke, or "honored slave", making it obvious that the centurion's pais wasn't familial, and was probably his lover) needed healing, and he asked Jesus for such healing. Jesus said he would come to the Centurion's home and heal him, but the Centurion said he did not deserve such an honor-- and believed that if Jesus just said the word, the servant would be healed. Jesus, praising the man's faith, healed the servant.

The term "homosexual" itself is absent in the bible, and Jesus himself never mentioned it explicitly, despite living in a society that embraced it. The academic concept of homosexuality wasn't really very well developed until the 1800s, even though it existed in practice well before then. But the point is, Jesus reached out to outsiders-- and there were little more outsider than the centurion, part of an invading army and part of a culture who openly and avidly practiced homosexual acts upon their young male servants-- and accepted them for their faith, stating that they are great examples of faith.


edit: Wow, typos galore. I should stop posting when I'm sick.

Only people Jesus had an unkind word about was rich people. Never see that get brought up in American politics.

Melissia wrote:edit: Wow, typos galore.

Obliviously that invalidates your entire argument.

Melissia wrote:

A Beke Books wrote:"Unlike the 'modern math' theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute…A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory."

I.... I need to lay down now.

Before I murder someone.

Well, I too despise radical constructivism, but I don't see how set theory comes in the equation, except by maybe being too frakking hard to understand. Hell the strongest critics of set theory were constructivists... ?

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Melissia wrote:

A Beke Books wrote:"Unlike the 'modern math' theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute…A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory."

I.... I need to lay down now.

Before I murder someone.

Well, I too despise radical constructivism, but I don't see how set theory comes in the equation, except by maybe being too frakking hard to understand. Hell the strongest critics of set theory were constructivists... ?

Set theory is an affront to the LORD, accept JEAEASUUS lest yer immortal soul be claimed by the devil that is set theory. That shall not fall to the temptation that is multiple infinities as it is an affront to GOD, amen!

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Only people Jesus had an unkind word about was rich people. Never see that get brought up in American politics.

To be completely fair those other issues are raised by other Christian groups. The other week 60 Christian leaders who more less represent the mainline Christian denominations put out a press release saying they wanted the continuation of family tax credits. The statement was completely ignored by media, either mainstream or on-line.

Which is kind of weird when you think how much attention the right wing of US Christian politics get, both from people wanting to shout at them, and from the Republican Party who are desperate to make as many appealing noises as they can (which they almost always do nothing about in office, but that's another story).

youbedead wrote:Set theory is an affront to the LORD, accept JEAEASUUS lest yer immortal soul be claimed by the devil that is set theory. That shall not fall to the temptation that is multiple infinities as it is an affront to GOD, amen!

God I laughed to the point of tears. I wish sermons would really go like that.

Melissia wrote:

A Beke Books wrote:"Unlike the 'modern math' theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute…A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory."

I.... I need to lay down now.

Before I murder someone.

Don't attack A Beka Book, attack Pensacola Christian College.

dogma wrote:[
Don't attack A Beka Book, attack Pensacola Christian College.

That place sounds like fun. Especially as its qualifications are worthless.

'A website attacks us?!?!''
''BAN THE INTERWEBZ!!!''

lol.

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:

A Beke Books wrote:"Unlike the 'modern math' theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute…A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory."

I.... I need to lay down now.

Before I murder someone.

Don't attack A Beka Book, attack Pensacola Christian College.

Can't I like... attack... both?

Melissia wrote:

A Beke Books wrote:"Unlike the 'modern math' theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute…A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory."

I.... I need to lay down now.

Before I murder someone.

I think you need a hug.

But yeah, it is absurd. Ugh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Can't I like... attack... both?

Of course you can.

Melissia wrote:An amusing mistranslation to be sure.

I simply used one of many available online translations for that. I'm not arguing that the translation is questionable.

Melissia wrote:
If you REALLY want to see a crime that both God and Jesus hate, yet modern Christianity is willing to accept and even embrace, look at adultery. Hell, a local pastor was caught committing adultery on his wife, and he was EMBRACED for it because they thought it made him more human or some other nonsense. This despite the fact that adultery is one of the most heavily condemned acts in both the new testament and the old.

So the fact that many Christians are hypocrites invalidates my argument? I hate it when figures of leadership in the Chruch commit sins like this because it tarnishes the reputation of Christianity as a whole, and has a very widespread negative affect on our reputation. I swear that if our pastor did that, not one man in our church would praise him.

Melissia wrote:
Divorce, likewise, is heavily condemned by the new testament, and yet it is accepted by most Christians, even many Catholics. The gathering of riches, as well, was condemned strongly by Jesus.

Divorce is not widely accepted. Those Christians I know who divorced justified it by saying that what the Bible says about divorce doesn't really apply in today's day and age, it was just a cultural thing... which it total bs. Once again, I regret that these "christians" hurt the reputation of the Body of Christ.

Melissia wrote:
Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 come to mind as examples of Jesus actually blessing a homosexual couple, for that matter. The Centurion's younger male lover (Referred to as Pais in Matthew, which translates to a few things-- son, slave, junior/younger male partner in a couple, and referred to as Entimos Doulos in Luke, or "honored slave", making it obvious that the centurion's pais wasn't familial, and was probably his lover) needed healing, and he asked Jesus for such healing.

Interesting, but really, you take things as facts that could have other meanings. Pais translates as male slave child, sexual or non sexual. The fact that they were an honored slave doesn't change anything. Yes, it could be possible that it was the Centurion's partner, but it is just as possible (or perhaps more possible) that this slave was simply honored because he served his master so well. Nothing here is "obvious" as you claim.

Melissia wrote:
The term "homosexual" itself is absent in the bible

I'm not denying that.

Melissia wrote:
, and Jesus himself never mentioned it explicitly, despite living in a society that embraced it. The academic concept of homosexuality wasn't really very well developed until the 1800s, even though it existed in practice well before then. But the point is, Jesus reached out to outsiders-- and there were little more outsider than the centurion, part of an invading army and part of a culture who openly and avidly practiced homosexual acts upon their young male servants-- and accepted them for their faith, stating that they are great examples of faith.

Even so, suppose they were homosexuals, the fact that he healed them does not mean he condones homosexuality. According to the Bible, all men are sinners, we are inherently sinful. Does that mean when Jesus healed so many people that he was condoning their various sins? No.

Do you have anything to say to my argument on the passage in Leviticus?

Simple, leviticus does not apply to Christians.

It is the old covenant, and was overridden by the new.

Leviticus was, historically speaking, a set of laws created by Jewish priests, designed for Jews in order for themselves to differentiate from the common cultures of the time, the Canaanites and what have you. The bad translations of it only make it even less relevant.

The original text translated to "And with mankind you shall not lie beds (plural noun) a woman/wife (singular noun)", which is a confusing statement-- twin nouns effectively being like saying "bedswoman". It could simply be a proscription against having gay sex in a woman's bed (just like there's a proscription against men sitting on a chair of a woman who has menstruated). Or it could be something else entirely that we don't really think about because we don't understand the culture at the time of its writing.

The term "abomination", however, has no place in it and is a politically motivated mistranslation. That there are no instances in the Talmud of people being brought before the Sanhedrin and tried for homosexuality lends credence to this. I find it most likely that it was a proscription against temple prostitution, and that as temple prostitution was effectively wiped out, confused Christians tried to figure out what it was a proscription against, and applied it to something they didn't like. Masturbation, prostitution in general, homosexuality-- anything they might be able to justify.

It's similar to the story of Sodom, whom was punished for its inhospitality rather than for any sexual sin*. And yet, due to the early political work of such notable persons as Emperor Justinian, whom attempted to convert the sin of Sodom in to homosexuality to attack his political enemies whom still practiced Roman lifestyles, the meaning has changed over time, and not for the better.

(Unfortunately, at the time of Sodom and even in some places today, gang-rape was viewed as a means to humiliate and subjugate enemies and strangers. The inhospitality of the town in trying to humiliate the angels is what was punished. Aside from the obvious, I feel I should point out that ALL of Sodom and Gomorrah were killed for the inhospitality-- men and women and children. Not just the men, whom would have been the ones killed if it was merely for homosexuality. Similarly, those who showed up to "know" the angels were not just the men, but also the women-- the word translates to "mortals" or "people", not men specifically.

To explain why inhospitality was punished-- a common theme at the time-- think about how slow and dangerous travel was at the time of the writing. The Jewish population in particular had a long history of being treated inhospitably, and so they valued it even more than the other cultures. There are stories, however, in Greco-Roman culture about the punishment of inhospitality, usually through a god showing up in mortal form and punishing inhospitality or rewarding hospitality, depending on how the host acted. Other cultures typically had similar stories.)


Even ignoring its meaning, original or otherwise, it's still not relevant to Christians.

Melissia wrote:Can't I like... attack... both?

Sure, but so long as you're attacking you may as well go for the gusto.

More importantly, why should what's written in the bible be written in the laws of the country? It doesn't make much sense.

Though, the entire argument around gay marriage is ridiculous to me. I mean, would the people here arguing against it be bothered if civic union was just made legally identical to marriage, and if not, how can you be comfortable with legally penalising people for "sins" which harm no one?

Da Boss wrote:More importantly, why should what's written in the bible be written in the laws of the country? It doesn't make much sense.

I don't believe that they should be. From a Christian perspective, creating laws to stop people from committing sin does not change their heart, which is what truly matters.

"I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. " - Galatians 2:21

I'm not saying that there should be no laws, am saying that Christians foisting their moral beliefs on others won't achieve anything.


Melissia, I'm going to need some time to organize my thoughts.

Well then I tip my hat to you, sir.

Whatever the bible says, this is still a secular state and marriage is not of christian origin. Christianity will just have to deal with it. Which I think there is precedence for, "Give to Caesar what is due to Caesar and to God what is due to God".

xole wrote:Whatever the bible says, this is still a secular state and marriage is not of christian origin.

Actually, if the Bible is true, then it is very well possible that marriage was an institution directly formed by God in the beginning of time.

And yet, it also doesn't indicate that the marriage should be between a man and a woman.

The bible doesn't really contain family values. I mean, Adam's sons killed eachother. then Abraham's wife makes him get a servant pregnant, then mistreats the servant afterwards. Then there's Jacob, who stole his brother's birthright, and Jephthah, who had to sacrifice his only child to god for victory in war. David's... hell, he kills his general, takes the generla's wife, then his son rapes his daughter. Jesus himself said he has come to set father against son and mother against daughter-- to create family discord.

It's not about the family, but about love. Love between god, between people, and between lovers, but in the end, love.