By the Bible, Same-Sex Relations are Okay

By the Bible, Same-Sex Marriages are Okay

Obama is a "true Christian" after all​

My Take​

I guess it's true that many of the preachers, especially those of the religious, conservative ilk tend to read their Bible based not from a theological understanding of it, but rather a combination of personal conviction and poor interpretation of the book itself. Some may dismiss this article as "trash", but the discussion on the matter would definitely open up new conversations on the role of religion in our society and politics.

Ever since Obama took a progressive (and rational) position on same-sex rights, notably marriage, it sort of jolted the conversation. While it won't be a major issue in many minds come election day, it will help spark a renewed debate on the motion of social change. North Carolina took a step backwards in civil rights as of late and sad enough, it's possible places like Minnesota will follow suit.

People still complain that there isn't hope and change. Well, you maybe under a rock because this very thing is an example of the President's message. A step forward in many ways, and yet a long way to do.

 

Oh lord, BBW


No pun intended

 

:smt043:smt043

 

Those are very selective interpretations of the Old and New Testament.
I'd say they're the equivalent for the most part of 'seeing' Moses part the Red Sea in a bowl of oatmeal.

 

The Bible defines marriage as a bond between a man and a women (Genesis 2: 24)(Mathew 19: 4-6), it also says that sex outside of the marriage bond is a sin (Hebrews 13: 4). Ergo homosexuality is not "cool" Biblically speaking.

But none of that matters, because Gay-Marriage as it is being used today is a LEGAL union, so it has nothing to do with religious beliefs. So I say if two dudes or two chicks want to hitch themselves together under government law, go for it. We should stop getting a religious issue confused with a political issue.

 

* Jesus affirmed a gay couple. Matthew 8:5-13
This section is about the Faith of the Centurion. There is no mention of Jesus affirming a gay couple

* Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve. Genesis 2:24, Ruth 1:14
Genesis 2:24 says "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."

* Jesus said some are born gay. Matthew 19:10-12
It says nothing about gays, it says eunuchs. Eunuchs were people who were castrated and could not enter into marriage.

* The early church welcomed a gay man. Acts 8:26-40
Again this passage is referring to eunuch

* David loved Jonathan more than women. II Samuel 1:26
David was married to Jonathan's sister and loved him like a brother. This is referring to the strong friendship the two men had

* Romans 1:21-28
This verse is very clear on where God stands. Not sure how this can even be interpreted as God being in favor of gay relationships. Verse 26-27 says "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

* Leviticus 18 and 20
Leviticus 18:22 says “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

 

Exactly...I've never understood the whole bible thing as it relates to this issue of gay marriage. Marriage is a state issued license that has nothing to do with religion. Its like saying that you cant get a drivers license if you had premarital sex. Hell, there are millions of atheists and agnostics that are married. This is just another attempt to mask bigotry with the bible. Gay people have every right to be as miserable in marriage as straight people.

 

:smt023

 

Sorry but the bible says to kill gay people. And a bunch of moronic liberals want to somehow make the bible compatible with social liberal ideas, and go against the religion they claim to support. A bunch of hypocrities and heretics.

 

Show me...in the New Testament. Christ's teachings.

 

Pretty selective.

 

Because the command in the Old Testament (which is what he is likely referring to) was to a selective group. It was directed to the Hebrew nation and part of the Mosaic law. Christ came to fulfill all the requirements of the Law. So I want to know where, in the New Testament, which represents the time and teachings of Christ and His disciples, the Bible advocates killing gay people.

 

Christians are taught God's word from the entire Bible, not just the New Testament.

I have yet to go to a Christian denomination that only read from the New Testament.

 

Pretty much. If you define yourslf through a religion, then you cant ignore the inconvenient "truths" therein.

 

True that. But most people unschooled in the Bible do not understand the connection between the two testaments. Christ's life, death & resurrection is a fulfillment of the Law of the Old Testament. You can't pick a verse from the Mosaic Law and apply it to today (when it may have been directed solely to the Hebrew nation for a specific purpose) without taking into account how Christ's death affects that law/verse.

 

Challenge Accepted

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)


“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:26-1:27)

 

The problem here, James, is that the modern texts have had a difficult time translating old world languages. In other words, certain words or phrases within the biblical texts are often mistranslated due to words not being found on an accurate level. Furthermore, your comprehension level on that matter is VERY (and not surprising) skewed to reactionary thinking.

Certainly, it's an interpretation, but there are greater truths behind these passages on homosexuality. Some who were born Eunuchs were averse towards women, which could be the case why they could come to the idea that could be gay.

And of course, the popular Leviticus passage reeks of a problem, through the meaning of abomination. The issue is that the word isn't an accurate translation of the word itself. Rather, theological scholars indicated that the particular word in that passage simply implied that it was unheard of or uncommon during those times. Didn't state one way or another that it's immoral or a sin.

Also Thump, just because the Bible defines marriage between a man and a woman, doesn't state that homosexuality or gay marriage is sinful. That's just an implied impression by bigoted individuals who took that position and carried it unto themselves.

 

The bible also views women as property which is not legal any more. No man owns me and in the time of Jesus the word virgin had a completely different meaning that what uptight, prudish fundies see it as.

You can not take something that was written millennia ago and think at all that it would apply to now. That's like saying that what they practiced as medicine in the early stages of medicine should be held as dogma now.
Doctors used to go to the morgue to perform autopsies and then without washing their hands go to L and D and deliver all kinds of babies. This was before anyone knew anything about those lovely things called germs. When science discovered that medicine had to move forward or it helped no one.

Marriage at parts in the bible is NOT defined as a union between one man and one woman.
To hate on someone because of who they sleep with is just as backward an ignant as hatin' on someone because they aren't the same color as you.
It's really easy to use what you believe in to keep a narrow minded approach to define things that don't fit into your world view.
It's quite hypocritical to say that being gay is a sin based on a book written by men high on drugs and power trips but turn around and say its a shame that people hate other people because they are black or white or yellow or purple.
Hate and discrimination are still that no matter what words you use to veil it so that you can still continue to justify it it.

 

OK or not no one should have the right to withhold another persons civil rights based on their religious belief.