Dumb Move, GWB

[billvon 2,471]

>gross misinterpretations of the Bible concerning racist ideas to show
>how homosexuality is then justified.

I believe that people who believe that gays should not be given the same rights as heterosexuals are misinterpreting the bible as well. In fifty years, we will look back at our denial of rights to gays the same way we look back at the denial of rights to blacks - and will wonder what all the stink was about.

[mpsniper98 0]

this is 2004; i don't argue from a 1950's standpoint.

NBFT

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I believe that people who believe that gays should not be given the same rights as heterosexuals are misinterpreting the bible as well.

Sure, I've got religious reasons why I think the sanctity of marriage should be maintained and protected by defining it as only between one man and one woman. However, the defense of it will not ride on religious reasons and it doesn't need to. As for the Bible, however, it clearly defines homosexuality as wrong and also clearly describes the proper family unit ordained by God himself.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

Quote

I believe that people who believe that As for the Bible, however, it clearly defines homosexuality as wrong and also clearly describes the proper family unit ordained by God himself.

Bible? you mean that book who aparently was written 2000 years ago? Don´t you think it can be a bit old for this ages? I mean, acording to that book, i should have been stoned 3 times for 2 diferents reasons (that i know of, probably more) and kicked out several times from catholism.
If you can honestly tell me that you haven´t ever broke any of the laws that the Bible talks about and gone without due punishment... i will shut the fuck up right now, if not, you will have to agree with me that your bible is a bit old and needs to be rewritten.
As for the sociological and psicological consecuences of a child raised by two gays, i am sure it would be better if they were from diferent sex (hence not gays) but i am sure as well that it is better two parents (even gays) than only one, even if it is only for economical safety.

[pajarito 0]

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Quote

I believe that people who believe that gays should not be given the same rights as heterosexuals are misinterpreting the bible as well.

Sure, I've got religious reasons why I think the sanctity of marriage should be maintained and protected by defining it as only between one man and one woman. However, the defense of it will not ride on religious reasons and it doesn't need to. As for the Bible, however, it clearly defines homosexuality as wrong and also clearly describes the proper family unit ordained by God himself.

The Bible also defines other wrongs that are routinely ignored. The passages used the most to protect marriage are in Leviticus: 18:22 and 20:13. How about all the other 'rules' laid down in Leviticus? Example:

Leviticus 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are called an "abomination."


Leviticus 20:25 demands that "you are to make a distinction between the clean and unclean animal and between the unclean and clean bird; and you shall not make yourself an abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean."

Leviticus 19:19 forbids mixed breeding of various kinds of cattle, sowing various kinds of seeds in your field or wearing "a garment made from two kinds of material mixed together."

This ones my favorite:

Leviticus 20: 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death

It's hypocritical when some quote Leviticus as the end all be all regarding same sex marriage, yet completely disregard the other passages.

[pajarito 0]

We've already been through a VERY lengthy and informative discussion concerning the different Jewish laws both Old & New Testament and why some but not all would be applicable today. One of the threads was "Religion Based Intollerance." Don't get sidetracked. I wasn't even advocating defending marriage based on the Bible. Those were just my personal views.

[Casurf1978 0]

My apologies if it came off in the wrong manner. In my theology class in college the Jesuit prof went over Leviticus and his take on it was not what I thought it would be and was very enlightening.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

My apologies if it came off in the wrong manner. In my theology class in college the Jesuit prof went over Leviticus and his take on it was not what I thought it would be and was very enlightening.

Quote

It's hypocritical when some quote Leviticus as the end all be all regarding same sex marriage, yet completely disregard the other passages.

It's not just in the Old Testament, as in Leviticus, that describes homosexuality as wrong.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

this is 2004; i don't argue from a 1950's standpoint.

Yes, it's much better to ignore history and repeat the same mistakes over and over and over again in a different context.

1950's: According to the bible, blacks and whites shouldn't get married.

2000;s: According to the bible, gay people shouldn't get married

2050's: According to the bible, clones and natural births shouldn't get married.

[billvon 2,471]

>this is 2004; i don't argue from a 1950's standpoint.

Those that forget history are destined to repeat it.

[pajarito 0]

You're incorrectly using your statements with "according to the Bible." Where in the Bible does it say that blacks and whites shouldn't marry?

[pajarito 0]

Sorry...didn't see your . Were you kidding?

[billvon 2,471]

>Where in the Bible does it say that blacks and whites shouldn't marry?


--------------------------------------

Ezra 9 -

After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, "The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness."
. . .
After all that has come upon us for our evil deeds and our great guilt-though you, our God, have made less of our sinfulness than it deserved and have allowed us to survive as we do-- shall we again violate your commandments by intermarrying with these abominable peoples? Would you not become so angered with us as to destroy us without remnant or survivor? O LORD, God of Israel, you are just; yet we have been spared, the remnant we are today. Here we are before you in our sins. Because of all this, we can no longer stand in your presence.

----------------------------------

West Virginia Supreme Court:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

[pajarito 0]

Ezra 9 -

After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, "The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness."
. . .
After all that has come upon us for our evil deeds and our great guilt-though you, our God, have made less of our sinfulness than it deserved and have allowed us to survive as we do-- shall we again violate your commandments by intermarrying with these abominable peoples? Would you not become so angered with us as to destroy us without remnant or survivor? O LORD, God of Israel, you are just; yet we have been spared, the remnant we are today. Here we are before you in our sins. Because of all this, we can no longer stand in your presence.

----------------------------------

West Virginia Supreme Court:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

[pajarito 0]

Sorry, forgot to link the article.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4119.asp

[billvon 2,471]

>This linked article also gives a good explanation as to why
>preventing interratial marriage has absolutely no Biblical foundation.

I agree. In fifty years you will be able to quote another article that explains why a prohibition against gay marriage has absolutely no Biblical foundation. If anyone quotes the anti-gay passages in the bible, most people in the future will claim they are misinterpreting the bible and taking it out of context.

[PhillyKev 0]

At the time it wasn't considered a misinterpretation or being out of context. You know as well as I do that EVERYTHING in the bible is open to interpretation. That's why there are upteen religions based on it all with different ideas. Saying that gays shouldn't marry is your (mis)-interpretation of the bible that in time will be shown to be just as prejudicial and wrong. You just don't see it now.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

>This linked article also gives a good explanation as to why
>preventing interratial marriage has absolutely no Biblical foundation.

I agree. In fifty years you will be able to quote another article that explains why a prohibition against gay marriage has absolutely no Biblical foundation. If anyone quotes the anti-gay passages in the bible, most people in the future will claim they are misinterpreting the bible and taking it out of context.

I doubt it. It's stated very clearly. Both that homosexuality is wrong and is an abomination before God and that a marriage/family consists of one man and one woman. Some things in the Bible are easy to misinterpret. Others are most definitely not.

[billvon 2,471]

>It's stated very clearly.

A lot of things are stated very clearly, like if you curse your mother or father you MUST be put to death. You have come up with rationalizations to tell yourself that is not an important law; it's old history and is not really applicable to modern day life. You've done the same with interracial marriage; you have chosen an interpretation that allows it. In the future, the great majority of people will choose an interpretation of the bible that allows gay marriage. And their opinion will be every bit as valid as yours.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I doubt it. It's stated very clearly. Both that homosexuality is wrong and is an abomination before God

Really? Considering there was no word for homosexuality in hebrew or greek back then, I find that a little hard to believe.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

At the time it wasn't considered a misinterpretation or being out of context. You know as well as I do that EVERYTHING in the bible is open to interpretation. That's why there are upteen religions based on it all with different ideas. Saying that gays shouldn't marry is your (mis)-interpretation of the bible that in time will be shown to be just as prejudicial and wrong. You just don't see it now.

This spells it out pretty clearly and doesn't leave much for misinterpretation. I believe homosexuality will be seen as wrong 50 years from now by Christians just like it is now.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Romans 1:24-32

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

I doubt it. It's stated very clearly. Both that homosexuality is wrong and is an abomination before God

Really? Considering there was no word for homosexuality in hebrew or greek back then, I find that a little hard to believe.

There need not be a specific word for it because it is described in detail in the verse I just quoted. Call it what you will. It's still wrong.

[PhillyKev 0]

I believe the author of that was Paul? What did Peter have to say about him?

Quote

"Paul wrote things hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort, as they do the rest of scripture, to their own destruction! You, therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard lest, being carried away by the error of unprincipled people, you fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom is the glory, both now and to the day of eternity Amen."
Peter 3:16-18

If you read the entire context of Romans instead of just pulling out a piece to justify your belief the context of your quote is condemning idolatrous worship. He is describing some acts which were part of idolatrous rituals. But the intent is not to condemn those acts, but to condemn idolatry itself.

The word "passions" in 1:26 is the same word used to speak of the suffering and death of Jesus in Acts 1:3 and does not mean what we mean by "passion" today. Eros is the Greek word for romantic love, but eros is never used even once in the New Testament. "Passions" in 1:26 probably refers to the frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music.

We do not know the meaning of "burn" in 1:27, because Paul never used this particular word anywhere else, and it's origin is uncertain. The term "against nature" is also strange here, since exactly the same term is used by Paul in Romans 11:21-24 to speak of God acting "against nature" by including the Gentiles with the Jews in the family of God. "Against nature" was used to speak of something that was not done in the usual way, but did not necessarily mean that something "against nature" was evil, since God also "acted against nature."

Paul clearly taught throughout Romans, Galatians and his other letters that God's freely given and all inclusive love is for every person on earth. Notice what Paul said about judging others in Romans 2:1: "Therefore you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."

[christelsabine 1]

Just would like to ask you a question:

My son (20+) has a good friend, they are together since very first school years. This guy definately knows he's gay since he's 14. His mother is my best girl friend.

So, what would you recommend me to do? Telling everybody That's just wrong! ? BS!

My family loves this guy, his mother, they are part of our community.

Sorry for you guy, another PA deleted. Quit it.

dudeist skydiver # 3105