The Bible and Gay Marriage

[CARDINAL 205]

That's a pretty far-fetched analogy you've concocted there. People don't fight for and die for social darwinism, at least not at the state level.

 

The Nazis did when they were in charge of Germany. Thantos post says that pretty clearly, and he is 100% correct!

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

I understand that the story of Jonathan and David can be interpreted many different ways, but let's just say I think there is STRONG evidence to show that they had an intimate relationship. First of all, it says that their love "surpassed the love of women." This quote suggests that they may have had stronger feelings toward each other than women.

 

Next, it says that their souls were "knitted together" and they made a "covenant." The first phrase there suggests that they were bound together. The word "covenant" is used frequently in the Bible to describe marriage.

 

Obviously it is a controversial story and I am unsure of whether or not I am convinced that they were lovers, but there is a lot of room for interpretation there and the fact that the story was NEVER mentioned in my years of attending religious services nearly every week frustrates me and has motivated me to do a complete read-through of the Bible this summer.

 

Also, let me point out that the examples that I gave in the OP were quite notable. The story of Jonathan and David took up a good portion of Samuel, and the fourth quote was from Matthew, a book well-known as the words of Jesus himself. The verses used to condemn homosexuality are largely from the Old Testament, most notable Leviticus. In those books, an extreme caution must be taken with historical context, as they also condemn women and condone slavery.

 

In summary, I will not say that the Bible is fully on board with homosexuality, but I think there is a lot of interpreting to do and there have been a lot of passages that have been intentionally hidden over the years to cover up any question to Priest/Pastor's condemnation of homosexuality.

 

If you have any, how much do you love your brothers and sisters? Would you agree that in some sense you and your siblings be connected by deeper roots then just blood? Believe it or not, Christians are knitted in souls the same way (spiritually), etc.

 

The Bible has many forms of covenants. Not just marriage, but some farther then that, the old and new testament themselves in a way are covenants to it's readers. All a covenant is (I say "all" like it's not a big deal, but it's a huge deal) is a promise between two individual parties, and forming consequences, both good and bad of breaking or keeping the promises b/w each other alive.

 

But I will say this, I somewhat agree with your last paragraph. Not in the same sense (homosexuality) but just in general, because it may lead to confusion by some individuals when they are presented with certain verses, preachers may or may not hide some verses. But then again it all comes back to you, and when you are ready to explore and come to conclusions on your own.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

The Nazis did when they were in charge of Germany. Thantos post says that pretty clearly, and he is 100% correct!

 

Those Nazi soldiers had no idea they were fighting for social darwinism. That was Hitler's idea and it was covered heavily in propaganda.

[Thanatos 2,847]

That's a pretty far-fetched analogy you've concocted there. People don't fight for and die for social darwinism, at least not at the state level.

 

All it takes is one tyrant who is affected by the ideas. The people weren't fighting for it, but that didn't matter. Hitler simply applied Darwin's ideas to different races within mankind, (I understand he was twisting what Darwin actually said, that's the whole point). It wasn't solely Darwin he was drawing on, of course, as I said Nietzche was also drawn on, but the idea of evolution, specifically, "helping" humankind to evolve is pretty much the sole reason for many of the terrible ideas that arose in the early 1900s, specifically the idea of eugenics.

 

People were talking about passing laws to prevent the poor people from being able to reproduce. Germany's example of what happens when a regime goes down that path prevented most countries from actually following through on it. Their idea was to direct human evolution down a favorable path. That's all Hitler was trying to do.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

All it takes is one tyrant who is affected by the ideas. The people weren't fighting for it, but that didn't matter. Hitler simply applied Darwin's ideas to different races within mankind, (I understand he was twisting what Darwin actually said, that's the whole point). It wasn't solely Darwin he was drawing on, of course, as I said Nietzche was also drawn on, but the idea of evolution, specifically, "helping" humankind to evolve is pretty much the sole reason for many of the terrible ideas that arose in the early 1900s, specifically the idea of eugenics.

 

People were talking about passing laws to prevent the poor people from being able to reproduce. Germany's example of what happens when a regime goes down that path prevented most countries from actually following through on it. Their idea was to direct human evolution down a favorable path. That's all Hitler was trying to do.

 

Right, but my question is would those Germans have followed Hitler to the extent that they did had he openly admitted his ideas of a super race, eugenics, whatever. I would venture to say no, and that that's where the distinction should be drawn between religious fanaticism and basically everything else. People always have and still to this day fight with those that don't believe in the same god precisely BECAUSE they don't believe in the same god. That's a cause they're willing to die for. Will people sacrifice themselves in the name of social darwinism? I haven't seen it. Nazi soldiers thought they were defending injustices against their country, not fighting for social darwinism. Religious fanatics and their leaders do not hide their motives. Hitler did.

 

Do you see the disconnect I'm trying to explain here? I'm a little brain dead because I've been writing essays all morning so I'm sorry if I'm not talking with a lot of clarity right now.

 

Edit 2: I guess I should also include this disclaimer: I have no idea where I'm going with this. I initially disagreed (and still do) with your comparison, but now I'm just enjoying exploring this concept in more depth. This is fun.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Phailadelphia

[OSUViking 505]

I think another dangerous line of thought that Phail just brought up is nationalism. People may not be willing to die and kill for an ideology, but most are willing to die for their country.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Seriously ? With all respect to the religious people in this forum, as I got a lot of love for most people on this board.

 

That said, Who gives a shit what the bible says ? I mean I understand people wanting to please god. If that is your bag then fine you should be allowed to do it.

 

If there is a gay guy who says he is a made up man in the sky and the bible is just an antiquated book filled with fairy tales to scare people the he is entitled to it.

 

This whole topic burns me up. I have no problem with gay people and I have no problem with religious people. I hate gays who think the whole world is against them and that being gay means you are cultured and part of a fad. I hate religious people who think that they must preach or "witness" to every motherfucker they cross paths with. Just leave people the fuck alone and let them do them.

 

Now with that rant out of the way. I could see the first one going either way. The rest I think are too narrow to make any sort of opinion about.

 

I also think that Christianity is just as bloody as Islam throughout history.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Ngata_Chance

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Just leave people the fuck alone and let them do them.

 

This is classic liberalism in a nutshell. I don't know what's led us to stray so far away from it. Gay marriage should not be a political issue.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Phailadelphia

[Thanatos 2,847]

Right, but my question is would those Germans have followed Hitler to the extent that they did had he openly admitted his ideas of a super race, eugenics, whatever. I would venture to say no, and that that's where the distinction should be drawn between religious fanaticism and basically everything else. People always have and still to this day fight with those that don't believe in the same god precisely BECAUSE they don't believe in the same god. That's a cause they're willing to die for. Will people sacrifice themselves in the name of social darwinism? I haven't seen it. Nazi soldiers thought they were defending injustices against their country, not fighting for social darwinism. Religious fanatics and their leaders do not hide their motives. Hitler did.

 

Do you see the disconnect I'm trying to explain here? I'm a little brain dead because I've been writing essays all morning so I'm sorry if I'm not talking with a lot of clarity right now.

 

Edit 2: I guess I should also include this disclaimer: I have no idea where I'm going with this. I initially disagreed (and still do) with your comparison, but now I'm just enjoying exploring this concept in more depth. This is fun.

 

I completely agree. Religious fanatics use religion to motivate people. I'm not saying that Darwin's ideas could be used in the same manner, because most people don't get all that fired up about it. But it can be used for the same effect, and thus, his ideas are just as dangerous.

 

It also seems to be more of something that the "intellectuals" are about. I mean, during the early 1900s, the average citizen was completely against the concept of eugenics. But because the idea had caught on in the "higher" circles of society, it was nearly put into law. Really, the only thing that stopped it from actually being put into law was the outbreak of WWI.

 

Also to clarify something that I'm pretty sure I've said before, but just because of what Ngata was saying: I believe that gays should be allowed to marry. I don't use my interpretation of what the Bible says to prevent someone from living their life the way they want to live it, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else from doing so, (I will stop someone from stealing, murdering, etc.)

 

It's not my place. I will tell them, if asked, as lovingly as I possibly can, what I believe God says about the issue. But I don't let that spill over into what I believe is politically allowable.

 

The question that this topic asked, however, was what the Bible says about homosexuality. That's what my original answer was directed at.

 

As far as Christianity and Islam, I once wrote a rather long paper on the topic. My views have changed somewhat since then, but the core of it I still agree with. The difference is how they started.

 

Christianity began not as a warlike religion, but as a religion that believed in allowing yourself to be martyred in order to send a message. The early church cared about spreading the gospel, helping each other out, and sending out missionaries. They did not start a war with the Jews or the Romans, they accepted persecution. It was only after a few hundred years, when religion started to mix with the state, (Constantine), that things turned ugly. People usurped the original ideas of Christianity and used them as a political tool. The Reformation was all about returning to the early church's ideas. Now Luther had been steeped in catholicism for so long that he still had terrible beliefs about the freedom of religion and the relationship of the upper and lower classes, etc. But his ideas were to return the church to what the early fathers believed.

 

Contrast this with the history of Islam. They venerate someone who killed his brother, and took his wife for his own. Someone who married a six-year-old child, (he waited to have sex with her till she was 9, way to restrain yourself, bro), who taught violence against infidels, and the principles of jihad. If Islam were to have a similar reformation to what Christianity went through in the Middle Ages, it would solve nothing, because they were originally founded on violence.

 

Obviously, not all Muslims are violent, I'm not claiming that. But the core of Islam is not peaceful. The core of Christianity is.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Thanatos19

[Sarge+ 3,436]

I don't have anything to add to this topic, but I have been reading it. I just wanted to say I enjoy reading threads like this on here. I hope it keeps going, and I hope to keep seeing threads like this pop up on here.

[OSUViking 505]

This is classic liberalism in a nutshell. I don't know what's led us to stray so far away from it. Gay marriage should not be a political issue.

 

Marriage, bodily consumption, and sexual activities should not be governed by anyone other than one's self, in my opinion; however, marriage has gotten so bad that I don't think anyone would recognize gay marriage without a government decree.

[OSUViking 505]

 

 

Christianity began not as a warlike religion, but as a religion that believed in allowing yourself to be martyred in order to send a message. The early church cared about spreading the gospel, helping each other out, and sending out missionaries. They did not start a war with the Jews or the Romans, they accepted persecution. It was only after a few hundred years, when religion started to mix with the state, (Constantine), that things turned ugly. People usurped the original ideas of Christianity and used them as a political tool. The Reformation was all about returning to the early church's ideas. Now Luther had been steeped in catholicism for so long that he still had terrible beliefs about the freedom of religion and the relationship of the upper and lower classes, etc. But his ideas were to return the church to what the early fathers believed.

 

Contrast this with the history of Islam. They venerate someone who killed his brother, and took his wife for his own. Someone who married a six-year-old child, (he waited to have sex with her till she was 9, way to restrain yourself, bro), who taught violence against infidels, and the principles of jihad. If Islam were to have a similar reformation to what Christianity went through in the Middle Ages, it would solve nothing, because they were originally founded on violence.

 

Obviously, not all Muslims are violent, I'm not claiming that. But the core of Islam is not peaceful. The core of Christianity is.

 

 

You hit the history of Christianity right on the head. For all intents and purposes, the early Church was well-intending. That quote "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" rings true with the Catholic Church, as well. Everything gets corrupted, but I do [personally] think the Church had one of the worst falls in history. I also won't debate the violent upbringings of Islam - but, my point earlier was that so many people call Islam super violent (it's very radical and sensitive, from what I've seen... no offense to any practicing Muslims on the boards and correct me if I'm wrong... I'm ignorant and would like to correct that) without realizing that Christianity (including both the Church and individuals) has had its fair share of violence. SO many people overlook that today just because of an insane case of Islamaphobia, and it kind of irks me.

[WindyCitySports 407]

If you have any, how much do you love your brothers and sisters? Would you agree that in some sense you and your siblings be connected by deeper roots then just blood? Believe it or not, Christians are knitted in souls the same way (spiritually), etc.

 

The Bible has many forms of covenants. Not just marriage, but some farther then that, the old and new testament themselves in a way are covenants to it's readers. All a covenant is (I say "all" like it's not a big deal, but it's a huge deal) is a promise between two individual parties, and forming consequences, both good and bad of breaking or keeping the promises b/w each other alive.

 

But I will say this, I somewhat agree with your last paragraph. Not in the same sense (homosexuality) but just in general, because it may lead to confusion by some individuals when they are presented with certain verses, preachers may or may not hide some verses. But then again it all comes back to you, and when you are ready to explore and come to conclusions on your own.

I love my brother and sister very much, and that love is most definitely a different kind of love than intimate love that I cannot put on the same scale as the word "surpassed" does. But, even putting that aside, they were indeed not brothers. I would not go to one of my friends and tell them that their love "surpassed the love of women." Would you?

 

I understand that covenant can mean many things, but the general term when formed between two people frequently means marriage in the Bible.

 

At least we can agree on that. There is so much in the Bible and so much can be interpreted in different ways that it really is important to read and interpret on your own, while still listening to the guidance of the establishment you attend.

[oochymp 2,393]

I love my brother and sister very much, and that love is most definitely a different kind of love than intimate love that I cannot put on the same scale as the word "surpassed" does. But, even putting that aside, they were indeed not brothers. I would not go to one of my friends and tell them that their love "surpassed the love of women." Would you?

this is starting to sound more and more like an argument in semantics, which is incredibly difficult when you're dealing with a translation and every translation is a little different, for example, I'm not sure what translation you used but the NIV uses the phrase "more wonderful" rather than "surpassing" I have no idea what the original Hebrew term is (and it wouldn't really mean much to me since I don't know Hebrew) but I don't think that necessarily implies a sexual relationship

 

also, to make one thing clear when talking about the Biblical background for any form of marriage you have to understand that the Bible has only a lukewarm acceptance at best of the institution as a whole

[Thanatos 2,847]

I love my brother and sister very much, and that love is most definitely a different kind of love than intimate love that I cannot put on the same scale as the word "surpassed" does. But, even putting that aside, they were indeed not brothers. I would not go to one of my friends and tell them that their love "surpassed the love of women." Would you?

 

I understand that covenant can mean many things, but the general term when formed between two people frequently means marriage in the Bible.

 

At least we can agree on that. There is so much in the Bible and so much can be interpreted in different ways that it really is important to read and interpret on your own, while still listening to the guidance of the establishment you attend.

 

Actually no. Forming a covenant is generally between God and the Israelites. Its not generally used in the language used in the Jonathan/David example to mean marriage. And again, like I said, this is a cultural thing. You wouldn't go to a friend and say that, but the Israelites did it frequently.

 

Little known fact: It was the Jews that came up with the phrase: "Bros before hos."

 

There's just no way Jonathan and David were homosexual. It would be against all the regulations in the book of Leviticus, which was still in effect at the time.

[CARDINAL 205]

I don't have anything to add to this topic, but I have been reading it. I just wanted to say I enjoy reading threads like this on here. I hope it keeps going, and I hope to keep seeing threads like this pop up on here.

 

I just want to say that when you do add to a thread like this one your comments / thoughts are highly valued and often help to make the thread much more interesting Sarge!

[Omerta+ 1,206]

^^^^^

 

 

Edited March 3, 2013 by Ngata_Chance

[SteelersNation36 128]

[BradyFan81 404]

@bolded: This isn't a "could"; people have interpreted the Bible, picked the verses they wanted to agree with and ignored the ones they disagreed with, and completely (sometimes knowingly) fucked up the intentional message to spread their own beliefs. This is why I see the Bible as another form of propaganda. It's used to spread an ideology (a lot of times forcefully, historically at least), so I see it as a form of propaganda. One of the reasons I avoid it at all costs is because it's so dangerous; one person can read it and think he should go help starving children in the Third World, yet another person can interpret it as his calling to go overtly attack a group of people.

 

This is just my opinion (except for the first sentence... that's not even debatable), and I don't mean any offense to any Christians on the Palace.

 

I really disagree with that reason to avoid the Bible. People interpret a ton of things differently, but that's more of a reflection on the person than the object he incorrectly interprets. Like some guy read Catcher in the Rye and thought it was telling him to kill John Lennon. Is Catcher in the Rye dangerous? People say video games like Grand Theft auto are dangerous cause it makes it seem okay to murder and steal yet millions play it and are perfectly normal.

 

Idk, I just think it's dumb to think the Bible is dangerous just cause there are crazy people out there.

 

Your 1st sentence is correct, but again, that's about the crazy power hungry people and not the Bible's message. Like someone earlier in this thread said (Thanatos I believe), deranged maniacs will take things and twist it to what they want.

Edited March 8, 2013 by BradyFan81

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

I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin... I really don't think some people understand the idea behind "judging" someone... From the Bible's perspective...

[Thanatos 2,847]

I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin... I really don't think some people understand the idea behind "judging" someone... From the Bible's perspective...

 

Judge not lest you be judged is hands down the most taken out of context verse in the entirety of the Bible. Liberal, (I don't mean politically, but how they interpret the Bible) guys that really don't understand the Bible are always quick to throw that verse back in your face.

 

Jesus also called the Pharisees whitewashed tombs with unclean bones inside of them. He tore up the markets within the temple because it was making a mockery of God's holy place. There is most certainly a place for righteous anger and judging.

 

The judge not lest you be judged is solely referring to hypocrites, as the context of the passage makes perfectly clear. Do not judge someone for the same sin that you struggle with. Remove the beam from your own eye first.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Thanatos19

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Judge not lest you be judged is hands down the most taken out of context verse in the entirety of the Bible. Liberal, (I don't mean politically, but how they interpret the Bible) guys that really don't understand the Bible are always quick to throw that verse back in your face.

 

Jesus also called the Pharisees whitewashed tombs with unclean bones inside of them. He tore up the markets within the temple because it was making a mockery of God's holy place. There is most certainly a place for righteous anger and judging.

 

The judge not lest you be judged is solely referring to hypocrites, as the context of the passage makes perfectly clear. Do not judge someone for the same sin that you struggle with. Remove the beam from your own eye first.

 

And that is why I personally can not stand the bible. There is a righteous way to judge others ? It says do not be a hypocrite but if you confront someone with their own sin while you still sin yourself is that not hypocritical ?

 

You and Dmac both represent your faiths well I will give you that. That being said It is better if we all try not to judge because of the fact that not one of us are perfect. If we stopped and got a come to jesus meeting going for every sinner we crossed paths with we would never make it to work.

 

I would not want to be part of a higher organizations plan who could cast out one of his "children" with so little regret for loving someone. I guess forgiveness goes out the window if you are talking about all those damn fags huh? That is bull, if he forgives me or whoever else for what we have done then who are others to stick their nose in it ? It is ridiculous. I also find it funny the passage where he says if one is not enough get others to ensure that every charge is established. Way to promote the mob mentality.

[OSUViking 505]

I really disagree with that reason to avoid the Bible. People interpret a ton of things differently, but that's more of a reflection on the person than the object he incorrectly interprets. Like some guy read Catcher in the Rye and thought it was telling him to kill John Lennon. Is Catcher in the Rye dangerous? People say video games like Grand Theft auto are dangerous cause it makes it seem okay to murder and steal yet millions play it and are perfectly normal.

 

Idk, I just think it's dumb to think the Bible is dangerous just cause there are crazy people out there.

 

Your 1st sentence is correct, but again, that's about the crazy power hungry people and not the Bible's message. Like someone earlier in this thread said (Thanatos I believe), deranged maniacs will take things and twist it to what they want.

 

Of course, other things are open to interpretation. I put the Bible on its own level of danger because of how many people believe in it. The Bible is far more powerful to the average person than Catcher in the Rye or Grand Theft Auto. Hell, we had to read Catcher in the Rye along with Honors English and I think one person had a high enough understanding of the book to score above an 80 on the comprehensive and objective test.

 

The Bible, and the people that were generally the people that interpreted it, have a large amount of influence over the lives of the average Christian (which make up a sizable portion of the population).

[Thanatos 2,847]

And that is why I personally can not stand the bible. There is a righteous way to judge others ? It says do not be a hypocrite but if you confront someone with their own sin while you still sin yourself is that not hypocritical ?

 

Yes, there is a righteous way to judge others, biblically. The word has a different connotation than what you generally take it to mean. Let me give you an example of righteous judgment.

 

Most true Christian churches believe in church discipline. This means, if a member of ours is found to be committing a habitual sin, then we do have the right to judge him/her and attempt to correct their error. We don't simply "live and let live" here, because in the long run allowing a person to, say, continue having an affair, will have a negative impact on his family, the church, and our effective witness as a whole. If they refuse to correct their error, then the church can exercise righteous judgment and vote to remove them from the church body.

 

The reason why I said "Judge not lest ye be judged" is the most taken out of context verse in the entire Bible is two fold. First, it is talking about habitual sin. Everyone sins. Pretty much on a daily basis. But if you keep doing the same sin, over and over, without any remorse or attempt to get help, that is habitual sin. That's what this verse is talking about. Secondly, it goes on to explain that this is supposed to be between Christians. "Remove the log from your own eye before removing the speck from your brother's." A Christian's job to unbelievers is not to judge them, period. We certainly know that someone is sinning, but it is not our job to judge them for that sin. The primary, indeed really the only spiritual responsibility we have towards a non-believer is to lead them to Christ. Once they are a Christian, then we can address issues of sin. This isn't to say we don't have other responsibilities towards them as friends, I wouldn't let my non-Christian friends drive while drunk, for example. Common ethical considerations still apply, not saying that.

 

You and Dmac both represent your faiths well I will give you that. That being said It is better if we all try not to judge because of the fact that not one of us are perfect. If we stopped and got a come to jesus meeting going for every sinner we crossed paths with we would never make it to work.

 

Which is why the verse is taken out of context. Among Christian brothers and sisters there has to be righteous judging. Yes, we all know that we are sinners, still, but we cannot just sit back and do nothing if a brother is tarnishing their witness by doing drugs or being an alcoholic or having an affair.

 

I would not want to be part of a higher organizations plan who could cast out one of his "children" with so little regret for loving someone. I guess forgiveness goes out the window if you are talking about all those damn fags huh? That is bull, if he forgives me or whoever else for what we have done then who are others to stick their nose in it ? It is ridiculous. I also find it funny the passage where he says if one is not enough get others to ensure that every charge is established. Way to promote the mob mentality.

 

I'm not sure where on earth you are getting the first part. Even if a Christian church votes to cast someone out of the body, that doesn't mean we stop loving them. Nor does it even mean they lose their salvation- if they are truly a Christian, they have not. It's a last-ditch effort to keep someone from destroying their witness for Christ, and their lives in most cases. In all my years in church, I have seen two people get removed from church membership. One person was hooked on cocaine and refused to get help, and over the course of two years continued to fall back into drugs, the second was committing adultery and everyone knew it. (Side note, I don't mean they can't come to church, but they can no longer be a member.)

 

I'm not sure what the second passage you are referencing is, unless its the one about one not being enough for a witness. It's not promoting mob mentality at all, it's saying you need two eye-witnesses to convict someone of a crime.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Thanatos19