Preacher's gay rights speech

[Thanatos 2,847]

Oh please, it was in jest. I was raised a Jehovah's Witness and force fed the BS for 17 years. I also don't care what religion you are, to read a book and not allow some one to get married just cause your little book says "that's bad" is wrong. The bible also approved of slavery. You can tell me that was OT or w/e all you want but it doesn't change the fact.

 

You're just picking and choosing which of "gods" rules to follow just to suit your own needs.

 

EDIT: I'm sure some of you also read the story about the little girl being shot in the head just because she wanted to go to school, bravo religion.

 

The Bible never says that slavery is a good thing. The laws are simply reflecting the practical happenings of the time. It's the same thing with divorce. Moses allowed the Israelis to divorce their spouse, but Christ said that was only given to them because of the hardness of their hearts. It would be better if no one divorced at all- with the exceptions that are laid out.

 

I do love how people continually, and ignorantly, use the argument about picking and choosing. It is you who are picking and choosing, when you read the OT laws and assume they are meant to apply to everyone.

 

Let me ask you this. If I am talking to someone, and telling them what to do, and you are eavesdropping on that conversation, should you follow everything that I just told that person to do? Of course not, because you may not be in the same situation.

 

The Old Testament laws, and the laws of the old covenant, are written for one people. You can try to misinterpret it and say it applies to everyone, but it very clearly does not. Any unbiased reading of the whole of Scripture will come to that conclusion.

 

I'm not picking and choosing which of God's laws to follow, I am simply not bound to follow the ones that He specifically laid out for a single, chosen, people. I am not the Old Testament Israelis. There is no contradiction here, not even a paradox.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Thanatos19

[blotsfan 2,112]

Id say the logic is that Christians keep quoting Leviticus as a reason gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Id say the logic is that Christians keep quoting Leviticus as a reason gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

 

Anyone who is quoting anything from any passage of Scripture as the sole reason why gay marriage should not be allowed does not understand the 1st Amendment.

 

And if they're quoting Leviticus, they don't understand the Bible either.

[SteelersNation36 128]

I do love how people continually, and ignorantly, use the argument about picking and choosing. It is you who are picking and choosing, when you read the OT laws and assume they are meant to apply to everyone.

 

So leviticus and 1st peter are old testament? Serious question.

Edited November 3, 2012 by SteelersNation36

[NaTaS+ 958]

Thanatos and Milla have summed it up nicely. Just posting to show my support of their arguments.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

So leviticus and 1st peter are old testament? Serious question.

 

Leviticus is the 3rd book in the Old Testament, all the Peter books are in the second.

[Thanatos 2,847]

So leviticus and 1st peter are old testament? Serious question.

 

Leviticus is OT, 1st Peter is in the NT.

 

What do you have against Peter?

[SteelersNation36 128]

Leviticus is OT, 1st Peter is in the NT.

 

What do you have against Peter?

 

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."

 

But this isn't really saying that slavery is ok, you have to take it in context. Btw i'm just stirring the pot, I like to debate. Although I do firmly believe with holding rights from someone is wrong on the original subject.

 

Also 1st Cor. 7:22 "For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave."

 

I hope you're not taking this personally Thanatos. Just arguing with you for the sake of arguing mostly, you always debate well.

[Thanatos 2,847]

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."

 

But this isn't really saying that slavery is ok, you have to take it in context. Btw i'm just stirring the pot, I like to debate. Although I do firmly believe with holding rights from someone is wrong on the original subject.

 

Also 1st Cor. 7:22 "For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave."

 

I hope you're not taking this personally Thanatos. Just arguing with you for the sake of arguing mostly, you always debate well.

 

No worries. I was only taking it personally if you meant House's slogan was true, (and by the way, I love watching House. It's fascinating for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it features someone with a polar opposite worldview).

 

I think the idea here in 1 Peter is that Peter is telling a Christian individual how to act in a variety of circumstances. It says nothing about whether or not slavery is an evil institution, but obviously Christians were far too few at the time to uproot an institution that had existed since the dawn of time. Peter is giving practical advice to Christians who find themselves in that situation.

 

The Corinthians passage is written by Paul. I have no problem with saying I am Christ's slave, but the actual word is bondservant. No modern translation uses that because we have no grasp of what the word means, and it is much closer to the idea of a slave than a servant. The primary difference is that a bondservant is voluntary. The person volunteers themselves into service for a period of time, and then in essence is a slave.