General Question

megs's avatar

How do you feel about gay marriage?

Asked by megs (147points) February 23rd, 2009

personally i think everywhere gay marriage should be legal

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

319 Answers

eponymoushipster's avatar

is this a question?

megs's avatar

like how do you feel about them, i know people have different perspectives so i wanna hear

Dog's avatar

The title does not match the description on this post so I am not sure what the question is.

essieness's avatar

@megs Can you clarify the question please?

TenaciousDenny's avatar

What they want to do with their lives is their business. I’m fine with gay marriage. If they want somebody nagging them 24/7, by all means, go for it.

Aethelwine's avatar

I have a sister and an aunt that are lesbians. My brother in-law is also gay. It is not a life that is chosen. They are the kindest people that I know and they should be allowed to marry their partners.

That’s how I feel about them, to answer your question.

wundayatta's avatar

It’s cool with me.

megs's avatar

i am bisexual i’m just asking because in some places its illegal its just what makes you happy if i find love with a woman and we wanted to get married then we should definatly be able to

jrpowell's avatar

We should get rid of marriage first. Half of the straight people fuck it up anyway. Start from scratch.

Redo it so everyone has an opportunity to fuck it up. Call it “The gamble” instead.

KrystaElyse's avatar

I’m a firm believer in live and let live. I don’t understand why this is such a hard concept for some people. Your sexual orientation should not be a barrier to equal rights.

tb1570's avatar

If two people truly love each other and choose to celebrate their love in this way, I’m all for it, regardless of age, gender, ethnic, cultural or social background, or sexual orientation. It always seems a little strange to me that some people will tell you that “love” is the reason we’re all here, but will then turn around and say “but I mean love between these kind of people, not those kind of people.”

bristolbaby's avatar

everyone should have the opportunity to get married if they choose to.

it’s not like heterosexuals have done a good job of it so far. Why exclude anyone?

the only way to change the laws is to keep up the protests. Once upon a time, black people were not allowed to marry white people and it wasn’t so long ago, that the law was changed in their favor.

I’m all for it.

loser's avatar

I agree! I think everyone should be treated equally.

essieness's avatar

Every human being has the inherent right to happiness and to enjoy freedoms and liberties that other human beings enjoy.

So yes, I think it should be legal. It’s ludicrous that it isn’t already.

fireside's avatar

I’m all for equality.

citycountrygirl's avatar

I’m answering this question based on a recent experience. A new roommate of the opposite sex just moved in and has been making suggestive remarks to me. One night after I went to bed he sent me text messages telling me that living under the same roof is going to drive himself crazy! Since I was somewhat attracted to him I decided to take the plunge and go to his room. Nothing really happened. Basically, he was not hard and didn’t get hard. He didnt even really kiss me-just little pecks here and there. So, I told him while in his bed that this was a mistake and went back to my room. I figured maybe he was just nervous. A couple of weeks later we went out to dinner and a movie,(which was his idea) and he then went to my room afterwards. Again! No hard on and not even a kiss! That’s when I thought to myself that he could possibly be gay. The next morning I could hear him laughing with my other roommates and it just made me so depressed and humiliated that I didnt want to leave my room until everybody left. So I guess I am totally and completely for gay rights because half of the gay men out there are too ashamed to admit and put people like myself in horrible situations!

ernie's avatar

I don’t like it. God certainly doesn’t like it. Marriage is for families not perversion

Response moderated
ernie's avatar

I will pray for you John Powell.

jrpowell's avatar

OK.. That might make you feel better. But I doubt it will help with my problems. Like tolerance.

tb1570's avatar

@ernie Whoa, boy. Get ready…

loser's avatar

@ernie what do you base that on?

ernie's avatar

Scripture

essieness's avatar

@ernie Uh oh… I hope you were being sarcastic.

KrystaElyse's avatar

@ernie – That’s such a shame that you think that way. Maybe you should stop hiding behind your bible and get a grip on reality.

Bri_L's avatar

I am for gay marriage.

I am against religious zeolitry and intolerance.

I am religious and I will pray for you Ern, because I am pretty sure God wants us love everyone, even you.

essieness's avatar

I think @ernie is joking. Look at his profile. Nobody can be THAT hillbilly-ish.

seVen's avatar

Perversion is not love and not of God, God created a male and female and not male and male or female and female.

ernie's avatar

Amen seVen

loser's avatar

@ ernie what scripture? Do you actually have anything to back that up or are you just repeating something you’ve heard.

loser's avatar

@ seven god made man and woman, yes, but did Jesus ever tell people that it not okay to be gay? No.

seVen's avatar

If you take God’s Word the Holy Bible lightly from the start you won’t know the truth, God will reveal Himself but only if you seriously/sincerely seek Him. Enough of discussion there’s no point on further debates. Peace

Bri_L's avatar

the same bible your talking about shows god got pretty pissed and vengeful about things. If it is so wrong, how come he doesn’t do something about it?

Likeradar's avatar

Please, let’s not encourage the forceful, closed-minded religious among us. This could turn into an interesting discussion if we actually talk about the issue.

jrpowell's avatar

seVen is right, we are wrong. End of discussion.

essieness's avatar

@ernie and @seVen “Because the Bible says so” is NOT a valid argument. About anything.

If you believe that it is, then you believe that everyone thinks the Bible is valid, and we don’t.

loser's avatar

@essieness but they can’t even produce evidence.

ernie's avatar

Im not going to argue with you guys. I answered the question honestly. There is two sides to it. You agree with it or you disagree. And those that will disagree probably disagree on religious reasons. Im not telling anyone to believe my way just I just answered the question.

jrpowell's avatar

Hey ernie and seVen. How do you feel about taxes that pay for health care for poor people?

Bri_L's avatar

@Likeradar that is what I am trying to do. They are using the book as if it were fact. So, using the same book, which sets a pattern and example of miracles and wrath, I want to know why God has not done anything about it.

I am tired of them whipping out the book as if it were up to date and written yesterday about events from the day before.

essieness's avatar

@Bri_L Good point. The Bible also says not to judge your neighbor… did they consider that?

Aethelwine's avatar

I have never understood how a person that lives their life by the word of God can have such disregard for a fellow human being.

essieness's avatar

@jonsblond WOW, great point! Lurve.

Bri_L's avatar

@essieness
@jhonsblond
lurve to both points!

tb1570's avatar

@KrystaElyse Maybe he should quit hiding behind his bible and get a “grip” on something else, ‘cause clearly he has some repression issues going on.

essieness's avatar

@tb1570 So true. The gayest people I have ever known were also once the most righteous, pious, religious people I have ever known. Such a strange phenomenon… heehee

I guess “gayest” isn’t the best choice of wording, but I couldn’t think of a better term.

elijah's avatar

I lurve gay marriage

basp's avatar

Stealing a quote from Whoopie Goldberg, “if you do not agree with gay marriage, then don’t marry a gay person”

essieness's avatar

Here’s the deal guys, @ernie obviously is a fake, fraud, troll, whatever. His point was to enter this thread and “stir the pot” so to speak. We’re letting him win (myself included). I’m sure he’s just leaning back in his chair right now having a good chuckle. I say we ignore the righteous, religious bullsh*t.

Aethelwine's avatar

I’ll take any chance to defend the rights of gays and lesbians. He’s the loser.

buster's avatar

Whatever floats your boat. It don’t bother me so I am 100% FINE with it.

elijah's avatar

@seVen and @ernie
Have you had premarital sex? Do you go to church every Sunday? Or are you Convienient Catholics like most religious people I know?

adreamofautumn's avatar

If you don’t like gay marriage…don’t marry a gay person.

On that note, I think that “marriage” is a religious term. I think the government should make ALL partnerships “unions” or some other word…leave the “marriage” up to the religious institutions. If the church does not feel comfortable performing the ceremony that is their problem, but we are SUPPOSED to have a separation of church and state.

onesecondregrets's avatar

Love is love. If you love someone and marriage is what you want to do with them, I do not think sexuality should get in the way of that. End of story.

dragonflyfaith's avatar

Love is love and it comes in many different packages.

onesecondregrets's avatar

@dragonflyfaith…great minds think alike. ;).

dynamicduo's avatar

Love is love.

The Bible is not credible in the least bit. It is not the word of God because God doesn’t exist. It is a work of man which contains many excellent guiding principles (respect your parents, don’t steal or kill) but also contains many non-excellent guiding principles or principles which the majority has chosen to not believe (homosexuality is wrong, eating shellfish or working on Sunday will not let you into heaven, the “old” God from the old testaments was a vengeful dick yet somehow is not the same god from the new testaments). Religion had a purpose a long time ago back when humans were, generally stated, dumb primitive creatures, it allowed us to forgo existentialist thoughts and focus on living and being a group. Religion is generally not needed in today’s society as we have science to explain the things we did not know of (case in point, look at how many credible scientists believe in a supreme being, the percentage is very low, lower than 15%).

I usually don’t fault religious people for continuing to be religious, just as I wouldn’t fault an injured person for using a crutch to help them get around. But I won’t sit back and let that injured person beat me on the head with their crutch, and I sure don’t let anyone’s religion dictate the way I or anyone else should live our peaceful lives.

Separation of church and state, folk.

wundayatta's avatar

When I see “discussions” like this, I always wonder if there’s anything that can be done to help it be a real conversation, instead of two sides, convinced of their righteousness banging heads with each other. “Did too!” “Did not!” “Did too!” “Did not!” Remember those arguments when you were a kid?

I think part of the problem is that the people who disagree are operating on two different principles for decide what should be done. Fundamentalist Christians are operating on a huge, long set of assumptions. They believe that back in the time of King James, that some translators made an inspired translation that means exactly what the original holy documents meant and was not an interpretation at all. They believe that the Bible is the literal truth and it accurately describes the best, and most moral way of living in this world. They believe that their pastors are telling them the God’s honest truth when they provide an interpretation of the Bible. They believe that the only rights people should have are those that are described in the Bible, as they interpret it (though they don’t think they are interpreting).

Also in the discussion are folks who believe in fairness and rights. However their notion of rights is based on a different foundation. These rights are based on a practical notion of what it takes to make society run the most efficiently. We need to make things as fair as possible for everyone. We believe that people are all equal in having their needs met, no matter whether they have any kind of difference from the average person or not. Thus color, age, gender, sexuality, health, mental ability, and more are no reason to deny anyone the basic rights we believe everyone should have.

Now there are other reasons why the anti-gay people believe what they believe. However, they tend to hide these reasons behind scripture, thus fooling themselves into believing they have a good basis for feeling as they do. They know in their hearts that they are wrong, but the problem is that they are disgusted, absolutely disgusted at what homosexuals do. The idea of men with men and women with women just makes their skin crawl. The logical outcome of this feeling is the statement that “it’s not natural.” Not hard to go from there to “perversion” and to seeking in your holy book for a justification of this feeling about a perversion.

As a result of this, the two sides aren’t really talking to each other. They are just denying each other. Each is probably a little disingenuous about what their thoughts on the subject are based on, although I think the fundamentalist Christians are strongly in denial about where they are coming from.

So how can you talk to someone who is in denial about why they believe what they believe? They cover it over with an appeal to religious legitimacy. The appeal falls on deaf ears for anyone who doesn’t believe as they do.

Personally, I think the only interesting thing to do is to inquire as to where the ideas come from. We all know we disagree. Still, there is always more information to gather about why folks think as they do. The best we can do is to discuss that. We can not hope to “win” an argument. That is just ridiculous. So, if people can be compassionate, even for those they believe are deeply, almost incomprehensible wrong, and just ask what is going on, without feeling like they have to defend themselves, then I think some good can come out of it. Other than that, it’s just kids fighting in the playground.

essieness's avatar

@dynamicduo I personally believe in a god (though I haven’t decided in what form), but I do agree with your viewpoint on the Bible not being credible. I like your “crutch” analogy. Well put!

TenaciousDenny's avatar

@dynamicduo Your argument is exactly how I feel on the subject of God, but when trying to debate the topic with religious zealots, or whatever this ernie fella is, I think starting it out with “It is not the word of God because God doesn’t exist” you’re losing your target audience right there. Not that I don’t agree with the statement, but I think you are losing credibility to those you are trying to debate with. After that statement, you’re just preaching to the choir.

Edit: Too many “right there“s. Now the sentence ends with a preposition. Deal with it.

dynamicduo's avatar

I know I’m preaching to the choir. I fully expect my words to go unheeded by those who may value most from them. I am not writing my words for these people who choose not to read or consider all points of view. As with many of my comments, I’m writing the words for myself.

Losing credibility in the eyes of religious zealots is not something I’m afraid of, you know.

essieness's avatar

I like the way @daloon put it… We need to find out where the points of view stem from, regardless of religious convictions or otherwise.

As far as the Bible goes, religious types tend to forget (or ignore) the fact that the Bible is not a fax sent down straight from God. It is a text with the ideas of MEN who supposedly heard from God personally. What I find interesting here is that their willing to suspend their disbelief in psychics and mediums for the purpose of believing in the Bible, but current psychics and mediums are evil and they aren’t supposed to believe a word those people say. Hmmm… Furthermore, when Constantine decided to switch the Pagans over to Christianity for political purposes, they had to come up with rules and regulations to keep people in line. The same sort of thing happened when King James got his grubby hands on the “word of God”... You have to consider the context of what was happening at the time. Why do you think there are no female leaders in the Bible and Mary Magdelene is portrayed as a whore when clearly she was Jesus’ right hand woman, if not his wife?

I know I’m getting off subject here, but it just frustrates me when people take the Bible so literally. You really expect me to believe that Job REALLY hung out in that whale’s stomach and didn’t get digested but I’m not supposed to believe that all humans should be free to enjoy equal rights? Please…

TenaciousDenny's avatar

@dynamicduo Ok, point taken. I would say that you aren’t considering their point of view, but considering their only argument thusfar is “it’s in the Bible”, I suppose I can hardly justify that as a point of view.

SO… I am going to play devil’s advocate and try to play the other side. Please don’t crucify me for this people.

I’m an atheist, as it appears many of us are. I believe in Darwin’s principles, natural selection, etc. etc. So is it fair to say that being gay is unnatural? Not that it is wrong, but unnatural. Biologically, males and females COMBINED contained all of the necessary parts for reproduction. Survival of the fittest (speaking completely biologically, not considering adoption and all that jazz) would suggest that gay people would die out (Obviously gays do not breed gays [ok, maybe they would, but I suppose we’ll never know that], so maybe my argument dies there). But biologically, our bodies were made to reproduce with the opposite sex, so all the hormones etc. that would lead up to the yaddda yadda yaddaing naturally have us attracted to the opposite sex. I’m sure scientific studies have been done to try to find out what exactly makes a gay person gay, so maybe someone here can enlighten me.

Once again, I don’t want to sound like a narrow minded jerk, just thought I’d bring it up.

KrystaElyse's avatar

Wouldn’t it be wise for people who choose to quote scripture as their main argument against gay marriage to remember that the Bible was also once used to support slavery and oppress women?

I just can’t understand why people feel the need to go out of their way to destroy the quality of life of others just because they have opposing beliefs. When it comes down to it, we’re all human beings. We live, breathe, and have many of the same basic needs and wants. Many of us have the desire to love and be loved, and to express that love in their own way. What makes it so incredibly difficult for people to accept that? I don’t understand why it bothers others so much. Aren’t there other pressing issues out there that deserve this kind of attention? It just makes me so incredibly sad.

essieness's avatar

Phew, I’m at a loss here.

Basically, I don’t care what the Bible says, or if it’s natural or not, who are we to decide if it’s right or wrong? They are who they are, let them be!! Why are Christians so hell bent on being the fucking hall monitors?

tinyfaery's avatar

Again. How many times must we go over this? I think fluther should put a 3–6 month moratorium on questions relating to homosexuality. It’s the same old arguments and obviously, no one is changing their minds.

My answer: I’d like to get married, please.

Bri_L's avatar

@dynamicduo – Isn’t it time for your weekly fisticuffs? kidding. I love the crutch analogy.

@ tenaciousDenny – Listen up fucker. Just kidding. Great job. Let’s go science, Pro. Evolution. Gays and lesbians circumvent that and adopt, use a sperm donner or another woman to give birth. They Darwin the whole shebang

dynamicduo's avatar

@TenaciousDenny – you don’t sound like a narrow minded jerk at all: narrow minded jerks don’t ask questions that may have answers they don’t like :)

From a completely evolutionary point of view, homosexuality does not produce offspring, and thus does not directly contribute to the prolonging of our species. Talking about evolution in terms of homosexuality is not completely logical though, because science has not determined why gay people are gay and straight people are straight. It’s likely not completely hereditary, it simply can’t be due to the fact that homosexuals can’t procreate. It’s likely not completely only the household a person was raised in, as not all gay people who raise children produce gay children, and straight parents have produced children who are gay, not to mention siblings raised together are often not both gay. It’s likely not completely biological as twin studies help to illustrate. Science really doesn’t definitively know yet why people are gay, so to debate it with a scientific eye is a bit premature, however it’s better than debating it with a religion-inspired eye.

Here’s one thought I’ve had as to why homosexuality was not made extinct by nature or by force. Two homosexual people having a stable relationship are similar to two heterosexual people having a stable relationship: both people contribute to creating a safe and secure family. Homosexuals can’t produce their own kids, but they sure can help raise other kids, maybe orphans, or babies from families who can’t deal with it. Fostering that child allows that child to continue their life and thus helps to propagate the species as a whole.

@Bri_L, thanks for teaching me a new word! The one difference is I’m not here to fight. I don’t care if anyone changes their position. It’d be nice, but that’s not why I’m here.

tb1570's avatar

@tinyfaery I’d like to get married, too! But my reasons may be diffferent than yours—I just can’t find my soul mate! So I definitely think that if two people are lucky enough to feel they have found their soulmate, then any truly open, loving, compassionate, godly human being should be happy for them and even encourage them to celebrate their love for each other!!

What gets me is that so many people just don’t seem to realize that any form of hatred for another human being is basically just another form of self-hatred.

megs's avatar

well i guess some of it’s true that’s what i mean by everyone has there own opinion on this like god did make adam and eve not adam and steve but still its just 2 people simply in love

Bri_L's avatar

@dynamicduo – I know, I am in a joking mood today.

“from a completely evolutionary point of view, homosexuality does not produce offspring, and thus does not directly contribute to the prolonging of our species.” I disagree with that. As my post indicates there are clearly ways they can easily contribute. The ability to use tools is considered an evolutionary step. So should the ability to use the other sex’s tools.

syz's avatar

If you read “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity” by Bruce Bagemihl, PhD, you’ll see that homosexuality occurs in nature across the animal spectrum at a relatively steady percentage. Many of these relationships function as adjunct parents or extended family members, increasing the survival rate of offspring and thus increasing the incidence of the genetic material of the homosexual couples. While they do not reproduce directly, they do have a genetic payoff for raising offspring.

For those of the religious bent, does that mean that God fucked up? Clearly, animals are not capable of intentional sin. Why, then, are there (consistently) so many homosexual animals? Did God create perverted animals?

As to the original question, church and state have already muddied the issue of “marriage”. A heterosexual couple can be married by a minister or by a justice of the peace. So change the terminology. A legal contract, that piece of paperwork filled out and filed at City Hall, that state of being that changes how you file your taxes, that situation that allows you to make life and death decisions about health and welfare – called it a civil union. Everyone has a civil union. And if you want your church to sanctify your union, then you also have a marriage. If you’re a gay couple and your church doesn’t recognize your union, find another church.

But that’s just my opinion.

augustlan's avatar

As I’m sure everyone here knows, as we’ve had this discussion many times before, I am all for it. It totally pisses me off that two consenting adults who love each other can’t get married. It’s ridiculous.

Reesale's avatar

Gay marriage is an oximoron.
Marriage is defined by a union that can procreate.
Last I checked, two people of the same gender cannot produce a child.

essieness's avatar

Here we go…

tinyfaery's avatar

Ooh. The marriage of peanut butter and jelly procreate to become a sandwich. The marriage of punk and pop procreate to become punk-pop. Huh? What dictionary are you using?

augustlan's avatar

@Reesale So… infertile people can’t marry? Hmm.

KrystaElyse's avatar

hahaha, fail!

cwilbur's avatar

@Reesale: when you enact laws that automatically divorce any couple that has been married for more than 5 years without children, I’ll believe that argument.

essieness's avatar

@Reesale Webster’s definition of marriage doesn’t say anything about procreation… Neither does any other definition I found.

But I’m sure you’re just trying to rile everyone up.

tinyfaery's avatar

Uh oh. Homophobia coming up people…

augustlan's avatar

Run for your lives!

futurelaker88's avatar

aside from the actual point of this thread, what strikes me most is the intolerance of the non religious! EVERY post above is expressing deep hatred for religious people, even calling names and much worse! i don’t see the religious people doing this at all. i see them saying that the ACT of gay sex is perversion and sinful, and saying NOTHING about hating gays or being homophobic. it’s the non religious “tolerant” people above that are showing the most intolerance! how can you guys be so hypocritical!? do you not see that you are doing the very same thing you accuse the Christians of doing?...being intolerant. i’ve never seen such vicious attacks on another group of people! and it’s coming from the people that are supposedly tolerant of ANY lifestyle! you guys lost your credibility as far as being inhateful people to me. and the “religious” people proved to be MUCH more peaceful. read this argument from a neutral position and see where that hate comes from. literally NONE came from people who are against gay marriage. they simply states that the ACT (according to their beliefs) is wrong. NOT the people are hated

essieness's avatar

@futurelaker88 We’re simply pointing out that their religious arguments don’t stand with us. When they are able to argue their viewpoints without using their religion as a backing, then I’m sure the discussion will take another turn.

Also, please give examples of how we are “expressing deep hatred for religious people, even calling them names and much worse” as I am unsure what you’re talking about.

TenaciousDenny's avatar

@futurelaker88 I don’t think there was any religious hating going on, I think they are just frustrated that the only argument from the religious standpoint it “it says so in the bible”. This site is a place for open debate, and that’s not much of an argument.

Aethelwine's avatar

@futurelaker88 I disagree. Not every single post was hateful.

My sister, aunt and brother-in-law have had to endure a very difficult life because of supposed “loving” christians treating them terrible. If they were really caring people, they would let my family live in peace.

futurelaker88's avatar

again, not everyone who calls themself a Christian is a true Christian number one. and number two, Christians are not perfect. they make mistakes and sin just like everyone else. that aside. this was definitely not “pointing out that their arguments do not stand.” it was hate and it was name calling and it was embarassing for people who claim to be tolerant of EVERYONE. it shows the truth… be tolerant of anyone that doesn’t have differing opponions

essieness's avatar

@futurelaker88 You still haven’t given us actual proof of this supposed hatred and namecalling. AGAIN, unless you can prove it, how is your point valid??

You are contradicting yourself.

augustlan's avatar

@futurelaker88 I don’t see how you can say every post was hateful. Mine certainly weren’t. I also didn’t see any name calling. Can you point that out please?

futurelaker88's avatar

ok every post that was hateful was from the irreligious. that might make more sense. and maybe 4 posts weren’t hateful alltogether. im using my phone so i can’t copy and paste but i don’t see a need to anyway, there are 90 posts above, start reading and you’ll see. there was tons of name calling. how can this be questioned!?!?

futurelaker88's avatar

“unless you give us proof you are contradicting yourself”

SCROLL UP. it’s not like im making claims that can’t be seen by all of you. lol move ur mouse to the side and scroll up! the proof is on THIS page! you don’t even have to click! i promise

TenaciousDenny's avatar

I don’t think there was any name calling or hatred. I think the fact that the argument is twenty people vs. two might just make it seem that way.

augustlan's avatar

@futurelaker88 I am not religious, nor am I hateful.

Aethelwine's avatar

@futurelaker88 Do you mean the post about @ernie possibly being a troll and that we are letting him win. In turn, I posted “he is the loser”. I meant the loser in the sense of missing out on the wonderful people that comprise the lesbian/gay community.

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker: Some of the people arguing with you are religious.

On the other hand, the people who are using their religion to justify discrimination and keeping people as second-class citizens deserve scorn and derision. The reaction you’re getting here is mild, and barely counts as mild disapproval. When two gay people take a Christian, beat him to within an inch of his life, and then hang him on a fence in Wyoming to die, then you can claim hatred and persecution. When there’s a referendum in multiple states on whether Christians should have the right to be married, then you can claim bias and discrimination.

When you and I go to stand before the Judge, He will inform one of us of our error, and then He will forgive whichever one of us is wrong. I am 110% certain of that. Why aren’t you?

futurelaker88's avatar

i don’t understand how anyone is saying there was no name calling! @jonsblond – there’s more than that one. and i lose even more respect when you try to deny the obvious intolerance for religious people. can’t one of these “20” people just say “yes, we are contradictive hypocrites in the real sense of the term in this respect, we hate those who oppose the way we think, in turn making us the same way as they (supposedly) are. sorry about that, we should be less attacking then we are.” I think people who are religious deserve that after this man. this was rough for anyone who believes in God at all to read

futurelaker88's avatar

@cwilbur – AGAIN!!!! for the 300th time…NOT EVERYONE WHO CLAIMS TO BE A CHRISTIAN IS!!! people can be misled and just plain liars or how about even deceived!! this does real christians no good, but i can say that true Christians would CRY at the sight of what you states above, not rejoice.

essieness's avatar

@futurelaker88 True, I might have made some remarks that were less than tactful, and I apologize if I offended anyone who is religious. However, I think you’re letting yourself get a little too fired up.

Aethelwine's avatar

@futurelaker88 I agree that I find it hard to tolerate people that try to shove their religion down my throat. Not once did any hatred come from my mouth though.

elijah's avatar

I don’t hate religious people, I think everyone has a right to believe what they want. I do however have a problem with people who think their religious beliefs give them a right to infringe on other peoples rights. I also don’t support people that live by double standards.

futurelaker88's avatar

@essieness – perhaps, but isnt it hard not too!? you guys get fired up when religious people make simple statements that dont even begin to express the dislike that is expressed above, and then call them intolerant, zealous, homophobic, judgemental bastards!

“The gayest people I have ever known were also once the most righteous, pious, religious people I have ever known”

now is that NOT intolerant!?!?!

futurelaker88's avatar

@elijahsuicide – hmmm…interesting, neither would i? now who are these people?

elijah's avatar

The problem I have with religion is that it preaches “god loves everyone! that lives withing this certain set of guidlines

futurelaker88's avatar

@elijahsuicide – FALSE! its that simple, you are misled. the bible teaches God loves everyone. you are correct. it teaches God HATES sin. NOT sinners. in fact, he died for ALL sinners (everyone)

john 3:16 – For God so loved THE WORLD, that he gave His only son…”

I bet you can all quote that verse, but somehow you still dont understand. God does not hate anyone! we are correct to preach that, because its true. somehow the world sees christians as hating sinners. its no such thing. its hating sin, and loving sinners just as much as yourself.

futurelaker88's avatar

PLEASE understand that ^

PLEASE!!! i am begging you

fireside's avatar

I think Syz has the best idea.
Everyone who gets a certificate of bonding from the state should be in a civil union.

Since the term “Marriage” is the big blockage because it was used in the Bible, then only Religious ceremonies should be able to create a marriage.

The question that religious people should ask is whether it is immoral to deny rights to any person simply because they don’t believe as you do. If you are to love your brother as yourself, then wouldn’t you hope to be accepted and given the same rights as others? I don’t care if the division is gender based, sexuality based, religiously based, ethnically or culturally based.

It’s is just wrong.

@futurelaker88 – If God loves everyone, then why can’t all religious people. If people are sinners, so be it. I bet that there are very few people who can live by all of God’s commandments and avoid all sin. Does that make them any less worthy of the respect that all people deserve? Isn’t sin a personal thing between the soul and God? When did God make us judges over sins that don’t harm anyone else?

Fyi – I am a big fan of God.

syz's avatar

You’re missing the point, futurelaker88. The bible may say that, but people’s actions don’t.

Aethelwine's avatar

@syz This is exactly the reason why I chose to be agnostic.

essieness's avatar

@futurelaker88 My comment about the gayest people I’ve known etc. is not intolerant. Like you and your fellow Christians, I am simply making a statement based on my personal experiences. Many people that I’ve known that ended up coming out of the closet were once VERY religious and presented the same arguments that you and your fellow Christians are experiencing. I just find it ironic.

futurelaker88's avatar

@syz – and again youre missing the point too. true christians actions DO. i sit them multiple times a week for 20 years. i go to the prayer groups in peoples living rooms that pray for this very topic. i participate in the wrapping of christmas gifts for AIDS patients in NYC, i study and read with MANY people about this very issue, where grown men cry about it, and where GAY PEOPLE come in and cry WITH them. so dont tell me christians hate, and dont tell me our actions dont show it. tell me you dont know what true christianity IS.

elijah's avatar

@futurelaker88 I honestly comend you for having such strong faith, you obviously deeply believe in god and that’s great. I support any group that uses it’s power to make improvement in the world. The thing I don’t understand is when you say god doesn’t hate gays, but hates the sins of gays, aren’t you implying that being gay is a choice? Sins are when you know you are doing something wrong, yet do it anyway. I don’t believe being gay is a choice, therefore I can’t believe it’s a sin.

syz's avatar

@futurelaker88 I can only base my opinion on my own 45 years worth of experience (growing up in the oh-so religious bible belt, btw). And I can tell you that if I had met more Christians who lived the christian ideal, I would be more tolerant. But in those 45 years, I have seen hypocrisy, bigotry, bias, sexism, racism, exclusivity, hatred – all wrapped up in religious trappings.

essieness's avatar

@syz I think you and I have had much of the same experiences as I too live in the Bible belt.

futurelaker88's avatar

@syz – so does this give you the right to say anything against christians? im confused, if i were to say “well most people i know who say they (idk) jog weekly, really lie.” does that mean i can call everyone i meet who says they jog weekly a liar now, because the chances are they dont. this is irrelevant. their are plenty of true christians out there, and we are frustrated with being seen as haters when its simply not true…not according the the bible, not according to God, and not according to the christian life. anything that differs from what the bible says…is NOT christianity

fireside's avatar

@syz – I think that speaks more to a culture of intolerance that comes out of many things (Civil War , for one) but can be easily wrapped in a religious package. I’ve known plenty of religious people in the midwest and northeast and do not get that impression from the vast majority of believers.

augustlan's avatar

I don’t think most believers are hateful. Maybe misguided, but that’s a different discussion. But, anyone who uses their personal religious beliefs to deny rights to a group of people is wrong.

futurelaker88's avatar

@elijahsuicide – yea this is a different issue, i respect and thank you for that post! um, yes the issue of homosexuality as a choice. here is another entire topic. in short, i can say that i do believe it is a choice and i will try to explain quickly why. I have met and know multiple gay individuals who have become straight, and the stories I hear are not stories of happiness and true love and satisfaction, they are stories of twisted life of lies, and of abuse and of crying themselves to sleep because they felt wrong about their lifestyle. Now all this is coming from them, not me! and they successfully “switched.” not to mention, the fact that i know people who were straight, and turned gay. another argument can bring up is HOW an individual is raised. for me personally 99% of the gay men i know, grew up in a fatherless home. i strongly doubt this is a coincidence. it comes from a lack of a boyhood, and playing baseball with dad, and play fighting, and all that. now this happens because of SOME kind of (and im careful here) mis-parenting if i can create a word. something is wrong in the childs upbringing and it enables the TENDENCIES to be gay to take over. i do not believe that someone born into a mother-father-parent family, and get proper love and affection from both sides, and is brought up truly accepted and wanted, will be gay – MOST of the time. thats a dangerous statement i know, but i find it to be the case. also, because i believe the bible, and the bible refutes acts of homosexuality as perversion, i can only then believe that God does not CREATE someone and force them to be gay, then condemn them for it. that is against the characteristics of God found in every other area of the bible. hope that helps! thanks again @elijahsuicide

futurelaker88's avatar

@augustlan – wouldnt tolerance be considered your “religion” in a sense.

Religion – something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience

and are you not saying that those who dont hold your beliefs are “wrong.” how can you make this statement? if anything, ALL you have the RIGHT to say is that its wrong TO YOU! dont you DARE say “its wrong.” because after all, this leaves you doing the very thing you are hating

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker88: I know that not everyone who claims to be a Christian actually is one.

“What you do to the least of them, you do to Me.”

essieness's avatar

@futurelaker88 I am interested to know the denomination of the church you attend. Also, I’m interested to know where your information is coming from (particularly in reference to HOW people turn straight or gay).

Is it possible that the previously gay people who made the switch felt guilty because they were made to feel that way by the people surrounding them? Is it also possible that they “switched” to appease everyone else and the life they now live as straight people is a falsehood? I think that’s tragic, if it’s the case.

And I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the theory on people “turning gay” because there isn’t a father present in the home.

At the risk of offending you yet again, I’m just going to put it out there that your reply to elijahsuicide comes across as misinformed and more like a parroting of what you have been told by your church leaders. Have you researched homosexuality in a purely scientific fashion? What I mean is, have you read anything about homosexuality that is not backed by the church??

Again, not trying to offend you, that’s just how the whole comment comes across to ME.

toomuchcoffee911's avatar

I have no idea whatsoever why gay marriage isn’t legal. I think it is embarrassing to me a human being that others are not allowing it. I used to have neighbors who were gay and they were some of the nicest people ever.

futurelaker88's avatar

@essieness – its not simply my opinion or things i hear, i know plenty of gay people, and EVERY time i get to know them, their father was not present, or was always at work and too busy to “be the father”

essieness's avatar

@futurelaker88 But that is also true of so many straight people, so how can that be your deciding factor?

essieness's avatar

@futurelaker88 And you didn’t answer my questions…

futurelaker88's avatar

@essieness – the church is nondenominational. but if you must place it into some kind of spectrum, we are close to baptists, although they have some MINOR minor differences, but believe the same gospel

Bri_L's avatar

@futurelaker88 – if you start reading the thread from the top, the very first occurrence anyone could possibly construe as name calling is obvious and it is from a self proclaim bible following religious person. “Marriage is for families not perversion”. Thus saying, because of the topic that marriage is not for gays and lesbians as they are perverse.

futurelaker88's avatar

@essieness its not my deciding factor. i specifically said that. lol did i not? again with the ignoring and putting words in my mouth

essieness's avatar

@futurelaker88 You may be a master manipulator of others, but not me. I think I’ll remove myself from this conversation as it’s going absolutely nowhere.

Bri_L's avatar

@ALL

I just wanted to say no matter what is going on in this thread, and others, we should all give props to futerlaker88.

A few others always chime in and take off.

He sticks around. It takes a pair!

KUDOS AND LURVE!

futurelaker88's avatar

@Bri_L – this is not name calling at all! its calling the ACT of homosexual sex perversion. he never says “you perverts!” he says (according to the bible) gay sex is a perversion, and according to the bible, it is, and thats a fact he is stating. he is not immaturely calling ANYONE a name. and even if he DID, the argument was that YOU guys are. and YOU guys claim to be “all tolerant” so you did not answer MY question

Aethelwine's avatar

@futurelaker88 My half-sister grew up with my mom and dad (not her father) in a loving household. She is lesbian.

My aunt’s father passed away when she was 10. Lesbian also.

My brother-in-law’s father was an alcoholic and not a very nice person. My brother-in-law is gay.

I’ll let them know that you found the secret ingredient that turned them gay.

futurelaker88's avatar

@Bri_L thank you very much. it does get hard, and i do feel attacked and on the defensive sometimes. but try to imagine ALWAYS being in the minority, and for false reasons. its hard sometimes, but i admire the intelligence and respect and responses from everyone here! this is what this site is for!

futurelaker88's avatar

@Bri_L lurve to you too!

Aethelwine's avatar

@futurelaker88 Agnostics are always the minority, except on fluther.

futurelaker88's avatar

@jonsblond – and my brother is blonde and neither one of my parents are! does that mean that the fact that i said “not always” was true!?!?

futurelaker88's avatar

@jonsblond – i disagree. EVERYWHERE i go, the people i run into would be for gay marriage and despise religion. from school, to my job, to the subway.

futurelaker88's avatar

@jonsblond – look at the election.

elijah's avatar

As I believe that people do not choose to be gay, I also believe they can’t choose to not be gay. Yes, they may choose to live a “straight” life, but they would not have made that choice unless they felt the pressure of others saying it’s wrong. Some people may ignore/deny their feelings in order to be accepted. I’m sure you are right that some people who were once gay went straight, but I would have to argue that they were bisexual and with maturity found the right path for them. I must stand by my belief that sexual preference is not a choice.

Aethelwine's avatar

@futurelaker88 Bri_L is right, this discussion would not exist without you. Props!

augustlan's avatar

@futurelaker88 You are missing my point. You are free to feel however you want about homosexuality. I am free to do the same. I’m saying it is wrong to use how you feel about it to deny a group of people the right to marry.

futurelaker88's avatar

@elijahsuicide – i agree in THIS sense. i do not think someone will grow up and say “i choose to be gay.” BUT, i DO think that the way they are brought up will determine their preference. NOT the way they were born. that’s MY oppinion. and i think that goes along with my biblical perspective. (no sarcasm intended)

Bri_L's avatar

@futurelaker88 – I consider that is symantical dodge that some could actually claim was a “perversion” of the bible.

Secondly, I specifically said in my comment to that “I am against religious zeolitry and intolerance.” So, I guess I am a bit hypocritical in that I am intolerant of intolerance. I am also prejudice against bigots.

futurelaker88's avatar

@augustlan – if i may play devils advocate…

why? why is it wrong. can i not say in response “it is wrong for you to tell me that MY way is wrong! who gave YOU the right to decide what is right and wrong? if i WANT to deny them marriage (which i dont…devils advocate remember) then who are you to tell me its wrong. are you not then being mad at me for telling someone they are wrong when thats exactly what you are doing!?”

futurelaker88's avatar

@Bri_L – YES! that was my point from the beginning. Intolerant of intolerance! well said. is that not hypocritical? christians are intolerant of SIN and we admit that from the start, we are NOT intolerant of sinners! and “intolerant of sin” does NOT mean that we DO NOT sin! we do, but we do not support it just because we do it. hope that clears things up

augustlan's avatar

@futurelaker88 Ok, let me try one more time. You can say this or that is wrong, I can say this or that is wrong. However, neither of us has the right to impose our beliefs on others to the extant that we are denying them the right to do something that everyone else takes for granted.

augustlan's avatar

Also, so are you saying that you are for gay marriage rights?

futurelaker88's avatar

but im not imposing my beliefs on you as a person! but you ARE. you are saying that i am WRONG. and i am saying gay sex (according to the bible) is wrong. do you see the difference

futurelaker88's avatar

@aug – no, i think its a tough issue, and i agree that the church and state should be separate with certain things (possibly this) im not sure at this point. i do not think it should be illegal, but i agree with the fact that it is as of now i guess. its hard. i do not SUPPORT it, but i do not HATE someone if they are. clear?

Bri_L's avatar

@futurelaker88 – I agree. I just don’t believe love is a sin. I do believe not allowing it is. Just like slavery, killing, and stealing.

futurelaker88's avatar

@Bri_L yes this is a tough issue as a christian. if i believe gay sex (forgive the terminology) is wrong, i feel hypocritical voting FOR it. but at the same time, i do not think its entirely right for them not to be ALLOWED to do it if they dont believe what I do. so its hard. i dont believe i could feel completely right voting FOR something i believe to be sinful. but i also do not believe people who are gay should be FORCED not to marry. perhaps the entire issue would be solved if it was never illegal to begin with. Then i wouldnt HAVE to vote for OR against it, and christians would have their view of it, and gays could not WRONGLY attack christians for being responsible and restricting them. this is still a tough issue, maybe i will look at this in an hour and wish i said something different lol.

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker88: I don’t have to imagine being in the minority. I’m a gay man, and my civil rights are subject to popular referendum.

galileogirl's avatar

IDIOT ALERT!!!

Re ernie: He just posted two “funny” jokes on another thread, one calling the Obama girls “coons” and the other trying to be cute about Dale Earnheart’s death.

Don’t sell him short, he is obviously as big an idiotic P#%*K as he is acting.

galileogirl's avatar

Re: marriage-gay or straight, they all have to be crazy.

Bri_L's avatar

@galileogirl – so your not for marriage at all?

and they left his “coon” joke up there?

galileogirl's avatar

Marriage for life made sense when the average life expectancy was less than 40. Maybe it would make sense if you had to renew every 10 years or so. So many marriages fail and there is so much acrimony attached, it just doesn’t make sense. There should be legal contracts providing for children and money but when your license expires you should be able to re-up or just shake hands and move on.

Bri_L's avatar

@galileogirl I hear you. My parents dropped the ball on marriage so I have seen what your talking about.

galileogirl's avatar

And I would think someone would feel an even greater failure if you had looked forward to marriage and fought for the legal right, then found yourself getting a divorce. Ouch!

laureth's avatar

I’ve skimmed most of the responses to this point, but I didn’t see this question addressed:

What do people hope to accomplish by denying homosexuals the right to marry?

1. Even if straight people couldn’t marry, men and women would still hook up anyway. Denying gay people a marriage ceremony won’t make them stop hooking up either, so that can’t be the point.

2. If you think being gay is a sin and want to save their souls, well, forbidding them to marry doesn’t “cure the gay,” it just makes them unhappy. You are not saving their souls by forbidding them to marry.

3. If you are worried about legitimizing “depravity and perversion,” well, I’m here to tell you that many, many straight people have such kinky, perverse sex that it makes gay people look positively vanilla – and yet they stay married. Banning gay marriage doesn’t end perversity, it just forces them to have sex outside of marriage. Which is also pretty perverse in some peoples’ Books.

4. If only people who can breed can marry, then I (as a woman who is probably infertile) should not be married. But I am! And if only babymaking people can marry, that would include my mom, a lesbian, who birthed me.

5. I can see no reason to forbid other people from marrying the person they love so much that they would probably die for, other than simple hate and misunderstanding. These are not positive traits I would encourage anyone to develop, let alone those who preach the gospel of the God of Love.

So, what do people think they will accomplish by forbidding gay people to marry?

kwhull's avatar

When I was much younger, I thought the worst about gay people. Then my sister-in-law introduced me to a (male) friend of hers who was gay. He was a great guy and really opened my eyes. Now, I have a son that is gay and his partner is a really great guy too. As you get older and have more experiences you learn how to tolerate peoples lifestyles. (maybe tolerate is the wrong word.) It’s not something that is for me and as long as it is not “shoved down my throat” I say live and let live.

adreamofautumn's avatar

sorry to just jump back into this conversation now, but I have to ask @futurelaker88 does it not bother you at all that you are picking and choosing which parts of the bible you believe in? I am not condemning your right to believe in your beliefs, but what about the REST of the bible? It appears in your picture that you are clean shaven (pretty sure you’re not supposed to do that), I would bet anything I have that you wear clothes made out of more than one material (pretty sure you’re not supposed to do that), eat fat (ever, because Leviticus calls you out on that), if you have kids or will someday and they misbehave are you prepared to stone them to death (deuteronomy sees to that one). I could go on. So I ask you…does it bother you that you’re picking and choosing what you want to believe?

futurelaker88's avatar

@adreamofautumn – ok, you obviously dont understand the bible. i can tell you havent studied it at all or read up on it. this is a very simple answer, so first take a deep breath, before you realize what you thought was going to “trap” me, is completely ridiculous. you are referring to the OLD testament. This was Gods laws for BEFORE the resurrection, and therefore laws that would determine a persons faith and trust in God BEFORE Jesus paid for our sins. there was no way to be saved before Christ died for the sins of the world, so God had different laws for people before Jesus came. So there you go, thats why eating meat on the sabath, and the hair thing, and all those things DO NOT apply to christians post-christ. wasnt that easy? so it doesnt bother me that Im “picking and choosing” no, it bothers me that ignorant people accuse me with such arrogance and confidence and show complete lack of understanding. that does bother me. i wouldnt be upset if you asked it politely, or even if you knew what you were talking about. but the fact that you yourself SHOW the old testament books you found your scriptures in, reveals that you know very little about the book. thanks, hope that helps, and i also wish i had responded before you earned 5 more points for your lurve.

adreamofautumn's avatar

@futurelaker88 isn’t it STILL “god’s word”? I just don’t understand how god’s “rules” before Jesus are any less relevant AFTER Jesus. Are Christians implying that god made a mistake the first time and that he needed to send his son to fix it? I would assume they would believe that God is infallible and thus ALL of the words of God would be relevant. This is something I really don’t understand. I’m not trying to start a fight i’m trying to make sense of it. I have sat through many Catholic masses in my life growing up and the Old Testament is STILL in the church, taught/referenced in CCD, the 10 commandments (which are also Old Testament) are still preached, so once again I feel like the justification that the old testament essentially “doesn’t count” anymore is still essentially “picking and choosing”. I wasn’t trying to “Trap” you either, it was a legitimate question. I have no problem with people having their own opinions, I just feel like people always use the Bible as a reason for their beliefs, but are quick to dismiss the things that aren’t suitable to them.

galileogirl's avatar

@adreamofautumn See, you don’t get it. The ‘word of God’ has to be updated so it stays hip. Of course the NEW testament, especially when it quotes the son of God, is all about war being evil, taking care of the weak and poor, and being humble etc.

The BRAND NEW testament espoused by many modern Christians is what futurelaker88 is referring to. It says if you want to get lots of wealth all you have to do is pray and you should keep the poor on the other side of the border behind a fence and if someone gets a disease it;s because God is a hater and the one that you missed completely about limiting who you can love. C’mon dream, catch up on your reading.

adreamofautumn's avatar

@futurelaker88 I am taking this moment to say that I am not trying to make you “the bad guy” in any way. I am listening to what you have to say. I don’t want you to feel attacked. I am just curious.

futurelaker88's avatar

ok i give up. no one REALLY cares. you guys are here to make fun and show no respect and be intolerant. i give up for today. sorry everyone. i tried. when i give good answers, you realize that we actually have them, and then just resort to making fun. @galileogirl – wow. honesly, youre a stupid individual. thats not name calling. its a fact. that was unbelieveable, and there can be no excuse for something like that if you read this thread.

fireinthepriory's avatar

@futurelaker88 Wow, no, we care a LOT. These are our rights, and our lives that are at stake – not yours. So I really don’t think you can say that WE don’t care.

adreamofautumn's avatar

@futurelaker88 i’m sorry you give up. I really, seriously, was not trying to pick a fight, or make fun or anything else. I really was trying to make sense of it. Thank you for at least trying to explain it to me. I’m not being sarcastic. I am serious. I enjoy intellectual stimulation.

futurelaker88's avatar

read @galileogirl last post. i cant go through this over and over. and nothing against you @adreamofautumn – i will answer your question. im just too tired tonight. i appreciate your respect and attitude. thank you very much!

tinyfaery's avatar

I care. Marriage, please. Don’t I deserve to file a joint tax return?

Aethelwine's avatar

@tinyfaery I believe that you do.

Bri_L's avatar

@tinyfaery there you go. Let’s take religion out of it. Forget what the bible says. Your union should be as valid for any benefits as a man and a woman.

So, the bible is the word of god, perfect and there is only one way to see it according to some. The following circumstances just don’t lead me to believe that.

New testament

“Most were written in the later 1st century AD, though none can be precisely dated”, “Only two authors are known for certain”,
“Attributions of other authors range from highly likely…. to completely unknown”.
“These documents circulated among the early churches and were used as preaching and teaching sources. ”
“A church council of 382 gave final approval to the list” <—Man approved it??????? Talk about religious egotism. God’s editors.

TaoSan's avatar

Oh goodness, not with the old gayhater in the clouds again!

fireside's avatar

@futurelaker88 – Kudos to you for explaining your faith and doing so in a mostly respectful manner. I think this is a very honest post and it should be commended because it is probably the clearest picture for why things are the way they are legally.

Simply put, it is hard to vote for something that you believe is wrong, even if you have no problem with the people that voting against the issue would effect. But it is a complicated moral issue that everyone should really think about.

@adreamofautumn – My take on the changing commands is that God provides both spiritual and cultural messages for the people of the Prophet’s dispensation. The timeless spiritual truths can be found in all religions and the cultural messages change. But then, I also believe that there were more messages from God than just the ones brought to us by Moses and Jesus.

TaoSan's avatar

@futurelaker88

but im not imposing my beliefs on you as a person! but you ARE. you are saying that i am WRONG. and i am saying gay sex (according to the bible) is wrong. do you see the difference

Sorry buddy, but why the double standard? you call something “wrong” and feel you are justified by the old book of jewish fairytales, someone else calls that wrong , according to their beliefs. I don’t see a difference at all.

By the way, the bible mentions quite a couple of gay “rolemodels”, if the bible is the word of God, why don’t the Roman Centurion and the gay slave boy burn in hell? When it comes to their homosexuality, they were “unrepentant”

Bri_L's avatar

what about this logic:

Gay = sin > according to the bible > results in no marriage > No benefits of union

shouldn’t it then follow the same reason

coveting thy neighbors goods = sin > according to the bible > results in non marriage > No benefits of uninon

If thats true, then there is a whole lot more to protest for those who are serious about their faith. If it isn’t true, then there is a whole lot more to consider if one is going to vote based on your faith and the book.

fireside's avatar

Hey, in my religion alcohol is forbidden.

So if you drink, no marriage : P

galileogirl's avatar

Some might say that drink makes marriage easier.

Bri_L's avatar

@galileogirl You beat me to that one!! Lurve. In some cases marriage is the result of drinking.

tb1570's avatar

Brainwashing in action! Fascinating!

Bri_L's avatar

@tb1570 I don’t understand your comment?

tb1570's avatar

Yeah, maybe that wasn’t a very clear statement. Sorry. My meaning was that watching/reading/listening to someone try to debate who has clearly been brainwashed and is incapable of rational, logical debate is a fascinating study of sociology and human psychology.

Bri_L's avatar

Ah. Gotcha.

Well, I respect the fact that, unlike the first poster at the top Mr. Ernie “marriage is for families not perversion” who enjoys nascar, church goi’n and republican goats, futurelaker88 sticks around and tries and against a shit load of people.

Its not like he’s offering us kool aid or something.

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker: So, now that you have accepted that Christ’s sacrifice made the rules in Leviticus irrelevant, how do you justify claiming homosexuality is a sin based solely on the New Testament?

Honestly, and I don’t mean this rudely, based on our earlier interactions this seems to be a concept that you’ve come to recently and you’re still working through. It might be wise to think on this for a while before wading into any more pro-gay/anti-gay discussions.

cwilbur's avatar

@adreamofautumn: Before Christ, the path to salvation was to follow the law rigorously and to offer sacrifices of atonement at the temple when you strayed from the law. God sent Christ as a sacrifice to atone for every sin, past, present, and future.

When Christ was sacrificed, everything changed.

cwilbur's avatar

@Bri_L: The fundamental difference is that Christians with political power all visibly engage in coveting their neighbors’ possessions, and so it would not be in their self-interest to make laws against something they want to do. On the other hand, when they have same-sex liaisons, it’s usually with prostitutes or random men in airport bathrooms—people they have no intent to marry—and so laws against gay marriage don’t hurt them.

cwilbur's avatar

And yes, I have to say that I respect futurelaker88’s passion and conviction, and the level of respect he shows the people he disagrees with. I’ve also seen him learn things and change his mind (however slightly—it’s more than most people do) from Fluther discussions. I think he adds a lot of value to these discussions, even if I disagree with him about a lot of points, because he explains his view clearly and responds to my points after thinking about them.

Asinine remarks like @galileogirl‘s are just uncalled for; she would do well to remember that there are people of faith who largely agree with her, and that Christianity is not limited to the strident bigots that form the voice of the political-religious right.

fireside's avatar

According to Matthew 5:27–30, Jesus had some pretty specific examples of sin.

5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into hell. 5:30 If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into hell.

Does this mean that anyone with a lustful eye is not allowed to marry either since they have sinned?

adreamofautumn's avatar

@tb1570 take it easy on @futurelaker88, I wouldn’t agree with the comment that it’s “brainwashing”. People have a right to their own beliefs whether we agree with them or not. I don’t think that the Bible is a justified excuse for keeping rights from people, but I think that @futurelaker88 has done a hell of a job trying to explain where he is coming from and has done it in a respectful way for the most part.

tb1570's avatar

@adreamofautumn You’ve got your definition, I’ve got mine. : )

galileogirl's avatar

@futurelaker88 Good morning. The mistake many Christians make (and I am a Christian) is to disrespect the beliefs of billions of others. You are free to believe and live by your interpretation of the Bible and take it as the direct word of God, but it is insufferable to demand that everybody else not only accept your beliefs but that they should live by them.

That’s why those of us with different faiths or biblical interpretations object to being lectured to with the “The Bible says” doctrine. You might as well say blue is the best color and expect everyone else to just accept it. A lot of us don’t agree. We all agree you have the right to believe what you want but don’t understand why some Christians seemingly cannot understand our rights to believe as well.

Oh wait a minute, that takes us back to where we started——respecting other peoples’ rights. How about that?

Bri_L's avatar

@ fireside – that is my logic point. If gays are being denied marriage because being gay is a sin. then shouldn’t those who lust and covet also?

elijah's avatar

Wouldn’t it just be easier for the church to set up a group of laws for their followers. If you want to be a part of our club, you may not be gay (discriminatory, yes but it’s a private club). Just make it “illegal” for your religion, instead of everyone that doesn’t believe what you do.

futurelaker88's avatar

@galileogirl – when did i TELL anyone to believe what i believe and disrespect them? it seems SOME people were TELLING me to believe what THEY did, and disrespected me! didnt it?

and just as another aside…christians believe the bible is the ONLY way to be saved from eternal damnation. and what kind of people would we be, if we believed this to be 100% true, and kept out mouths shut!? the bible (God) specifically tells christians to be an example and spread the good news to all! we do it not because we want to ruin lives, but because we genuinely believe its the ONLY way to escape an eternity in hell and we will stand before God one day and have to explain WHY we didnt tell anyone. does that make it at least a little clearer? its the whole “go tell it on a mountain” idea. no one should FORCE their beliefs on someone, but what kind of christian would i (or anyone else) be if we didnt share what we believe to be the ONLY escape!

Bri_L's avatar

@futurelaker88 – This will sound stupid and I am sorry but I am learning here. When you say “the bible” does that include the new and the old testament?

futurelaker88's avatar

@Bri_L – yes the new and old testament, all of the bible is true and relevant. HOWEVER, many people are making the mistake of thinking that the old testament law (which is NOT for people in 2009, but for a specific group of people at a specific time ONLY) is being ignored by christians, therefore making it seem like we are picking and choosing what we WANT to follow. this is in NO way the case. that law WAS actually the law, and DID apply to a certain group of people BEFORE Jesus came to pay for our sins! now we DONT have to live by THAT law anymore, and are now under christs blood and thats where the new testament comes in! also, the old testament is not ALL about the old testament law. there are still great things in the old testament that we can apply to our lives today! does this help?

fireside's avatar

@futurelaker88 – I believe that Krishna, Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Christ, Muhammed, the Bab and Baha’u’llah are all sharing the same spiritual teachings combined with cultural messages of their time.

Is that what you mean by, “the old testament law (which is NOT for people in 2009, but for a specific group of people at a specific time ONLY)”?

futurelaker88's avatar

@fireside – im not sure i understand what you are saying :/ i do know that the teachings of Muhammed and Buddha differ GREATLY from the teachings of scripture. does that answer your question?

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker88: um, Christians believe that accepting Christ’s sacrifice of atonement is the only way to be saved from damnation. The Bible is just a historical record and document that explains that. (Big “just,” but there you have it.)

(Long aside coming.)

There are also a lot of opinions about exactly when that acceptance has to happen to be effective. In particular, here’s a tricky little paradox: only two of these three following statements can be true simultaneously. (1) God is omnipotent, and rules everything. (2) God loves every creature, and wants us all to be saved. (3) God condemns souls to Hell for eternity.

The simplest explanation consonant with Scripture is that (3) is not accurate—we condemn ourselves to Hell, and Hell is the torment of a soul that refuses to accept God’s gift of salvation or the shame of a soul that has realized its error but does not yet accept forgiveness.

God loves everyone and will forgive anything, if only we truly accept the forgiveness. Eventually, because it is His will and He is infinitely patient, we will all be reconciled to Him. It’s just considerably easier for all concerned if we make the effort in this lifetime.

futurelaker88's avatar

@cwilbur – God only condemns if an individual CHOOSES to reject Him. He doesnt make that individual reject him, then condemn Him. Yes, of course He WANTS us all to be saved, but He will not MAKE us believe in Him! if He did that, what would be the point of ANY of the things in the Bible. ALL of this is based on the fact that its our CHOICE! im not sure if there was another point you brought up that i am not addressing.if there is, let me know

Bri_L's avatar

@futurelaker88 – I have two questions, one I will pm you because it is not relevent to the thread.

Would you address this line of logic according to the “being gay is a sin” stance:

Gay = sin > according to the bible > results in no marriage > No benefits of union

shouldn’t it then follow the same reason

coveting thy neighbors goods = sin > according to the bible > results in non marriage > No benefits of uninon

If thats true, then there is a whole lot more to protest for those who are serious about their faith. If it isn’t true, then there is a whole lot more to consider if one is going to vote based on your faith and the book.

fireside's avatar

@futurelaker88 – that’s what i once thought. but not if you study the similarities:

…spiritual virtues and divine qualities; this does not change nor alter: it is the Holy of Holies, which is the essence of the Law of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muḥammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh, and which lasts and is established in all the prophetic cycles. It will never be abrogated, for it is spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. It shows mercy to the poor, defends the oppressed, gives to the wretched and uplifts the fallen….These virtues of humanity will be renewed in each of the different cycles; for at the end of every cycle the spiritual Law of God—that is to say, the human virtues—disappears, and only the form subsists. Thus among the Jews, at the end of the cycle of Moses, which coincides with the Christian manifestation, the Law of God disappeared, only a form without spirit remaining….These foundations of the Religion of God, which are spiritual and which are the virtues of humanity, cannot be abrogated; they are irremovable and eternal, and are renewed in the cycle of every Prophet.

The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world, and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.

futurelaker88's avatar

@Bri_L – it doesnt follow in the same reason, because coveting the neighbors goods IS a sin, but its a sin that has nothing to do with the fact that the original marriage was legitimate. of course adultery is legitimate for divorce if one wishes, but this is entirely different from a marriage that is BASED on (according to the bible) sexual perversion. the marriage is sinful, and therefore unbiblical. however, the bible says nothing about making gay marriage illegal. it just calls it a sin. the benefits that are received and/or not received now are only based on GOVERNMENTAL law, not biblical law. so while it is a sin, illegal is a different issue. and as i stated earlier, i find it hard/hypocritical to vote for something i believe to be a sin…BUT i also do not think its fair to not ALLOW someone to (and forgive me here) sin (biblically) if they CHOOSE to.

futurelaker88's avatar

@Bri_L – its like saying if i lied to my wife, we shouldnt be married now. of course not. the difference is the sin IS the marriage!

dynamicduo's avatar

@futurelaker88 – Why don’t you think it’s fair to allow someone to sin if they choose to?

futurelaker88's avatar

@dynamicduo – i just said i DO.

“i find it hard/hypocritical to vote for something i believe to be a sin…BUT i also do not think its fair to not ALLOW someone to (and forgive me here) sin (biblically) if they CHOOSE to.”

dynamicduo's avatar

@futurelaker88 – sorry, you made a typo (now versus not) which critically changed your sentence’s meaning.

futurelaker88's avatar

@dynamicduo – lol yea i just caught/fixed it. thanks!!! you scared me at first! my fault

galileogirl's avatar

@futurelaker88 “and what kind of people would we be, if we believed this to be 100% true, and kept out mouths shut!?” you would be the polite, non-intrusive kind.

”(God) specifically tells christians to be an example and spread the good news to all!” I believe wholeheartedly in being an example but I would not bring news to people who are uninterested. I don’t tell strangers not to smoke, yell at their kids or get more exercise and eat right just because I believe in those things. If you don’t like the response you get, then consider stepping back instead of pushing and bringing on greater resistance.

Bri_L's avatar

@futurelaker88 – I totally followed where you are coming from on that. Thanks for helping me understand.

@galileogirl – in all fairness he is barraged with people pushing their opinions on him here, asking him to defend his. Heck, this whole sight is nothing but that. You and I have had debates very similar to this over other issues.

futurelaker88's avatar

@Bri_L – are you referring to the comment i left, or a post here? sorry lol.

Bri_L's avatar

Your answer to my logic question,yup.

futurelaker88's avatar

@galileogirl – but its different. no one randomly walks up to me and says “excuse me, how do i get saved?” we tell people who SEEM interested, or people who come to church, or people if it comes up in a conversation. technically, it would be ok to tell anyone anywhere (thought its not accepted for the most part if the person is not interested to begin with). i brought it up here, because it was relevant to this thread, it asked what I thought about gay marriage. so i gave my oppinion, and then people questioned it, so i responded. make sense?

fireinthepriory's avatar

@futurelaker88 Just wondering – does the new testament say anything about homosexuality? I thought it was all in the old testament. (And considering my mother is an episcopal priest I thought I was pretty up on the bible!)

futurelaker88's avatar

@fireinthepriory – i might also add that my father is a pastor as well then lol. and a VERY well-read and studied (from christian AND non christian literature)...im talking old-school sit in an office and just read, day in and day out. but in response to your question…

Romans 1:26 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 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.”

1 Corinthians 6:9 “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders…”

those are TWO examples of homosexuality in the new testament….so maybe your not as “up to date” as you’d like to think

@EVERYONE

ALSO VERY IMPORTANT – i found this online and i think its perfect to solve a lot of problems here!.....

We also have to remember that homosexuality is just as forgivable a sin as all other sins. God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, liar, proud man, etc. God’s love and desire to save extends to homosexuals (John 3:16; Romans 5:8). God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17).

To give sanction to homosexual marriage would be to give approval to that lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. I believe that Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage / same sex marriage. Marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21–24; Matthew 19:4–6). Homosexual marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. God forbids and condemns homosexuality, so He clearly is opposed to homosexual marriage. As Christians, we are to seek to share the love of God and salvation through Christ with homosexuals. We are to be loving and kind to homosexuals, while at the same time not condoning their sinful lifestyle.

Bri_L's avatar

@fireinthepriory – great name. Welcome to fluther.

fireinthepriory's avatar

@futurelaker88 Another PK! We’ve probably been to church more times than everyone else in this forum combined. :) I calculated it once, it was staggering number. But to get back on track – thank you for the information, although in my opinion that’s disappointing news. From everything I was told (and I freely admit I have certainly NOT read the bible in its entirety nor have I studied it in any way other than going to church school for a good 15 or so years, I’m a biologist as well as a queer so I figured I was a lost cause ;) ) the New Testament was all about love. Guess I was wrongly informed. Once again, disappointing to me, but in that case you definitely have a point.

I’m sure this has been said above, but it’s becoming more clear that there’s really only one way to solve this. Have the STATE grant civil unions only and the CHURCH grant marriages. Then it’s down to the denomination as to whether two people of the same sex can be married in their church, but the state isn’t discriminating against anyone. If marriage is ordained by God then our government really has no business with it.

And thanks, Bri_L!

galileogirl's avatar

Hmmm I guess that arrogance, pride and self importance are the equivilent of homosexuality in God’s eyes…interesting concept.

laureth's avatar

If someone wants to “tell me about the good news” because their Bible tells them to do this (and they fear God’s wrath for not doing so), that’s fine. However, I do believe that we’re down to three people on the face of the earth (all of whom live deep in the Amazon rainforest) that have still yet to hear of the Gospel and Jesus. If you live in Western culture, it’s steeped into our very bones from babyhood on up. Parents christen and baptize (sometimes if they don’t even believe). We have friends who go to Church, and have asked us to go with them since elementary school. We read newspapers and see on TV. There are preachers on street corners. “In God We Trust” is on the money, and we pledge to be one nation under God. We pass Churches driving in on the way to work, there are Bibles in hotel rooms, and I get “junk” mail from Christian charities asking for my support. We (as a society) are VERY aware of Jesus. Even after all of this, if you want to add another Chick tract to my collection, that’s just fine. I firmly believe in freedom of speech.

However, reminding me about the story of Jesus (because I might have missed out hearing about it today) is very, very different from expecting me to live by the laws of a religion that is not my own. That’s the thing, see? Forbidding my mom to marry the woman she loves, because it goes against the tenets of your religion (if you’re Christian), is exactly the same as me forbidding you to go to church or read the Bible because I don’t believe in Jesus or Christianity. You wouldn’t want to live under my laws any more than I want to live under yours. So why don’t we just let each other alone and be happy? My mom could get married, and so can you.

tinyfaery's avatar

Good point laureth.

elijah's avatar

I like the way you said that @laureth :-)

cwilbur's avatar

@fireinthepriory: Both of the passages that @futurelaker88 cited are really problematic, and are not nearly so cut-and-dried as he portrays.

In the letter to the Romans, unnatural lusts are the punishment for idolatry. Being part of an unnatural act—and, for a straight man, a homosexual act is unnatural—is a punishment in that passage, not a sin in itself. The passage is a comment on idolatry and temple prostitution, not homosexuality.

In the letter to the Corinthians, the problem is the meaning of the words malakoi and arsenokoitai. The former merely means “soft ones” and was used idiomatically in that time time to refer to people who had weak morals in general, and did not necessarily have anything to do with homosexuality. The translators of the King James Version, however, infused it with their own biases, which other translations have followed. And arsenokoitai has very few citations aside from the two in the Pauline epistles; the guess that it means “homosexual offenders” is merely that, a guess.

(Beyond that, if we’re going to take Paul seriously, marriage at all should be prohibited, and we should all remain chaste and unmarried so that we can devote ourselves to prayer and preparation for the return of Christ, which Paul expects to happen within his lifetime. Um, oops.)

fireinthepriory's avatar

@cwilbur Cool, thanks! It’s easy to forget that the bible’s not as cut-and-dried as it’s made it out to be when it’s not something I study. Especially being a scientist – where everything is cut-and-dried! I’m glad there are people out there who study this and know about the mistranslations etc. that are making their way in there. :) God didn’t write the bible, people did. Makes it hard to know what’s what, huh?

cwilbur's avatar

Well, that’s why it’s your responsibility to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest it. Nobody else can do that for you.

futurelaker88's avatar

@cwilbur – ok, so then you are saying that God condemns “soft” men and ifeminite men to hell but NOT men that have sex with each other!?!? of course that’s not what it means. soft and ifeminite men was his polite way of saying gay. and THATS why we translated it to “homosexual.” because that’s the word they used back then. and how then do you answer the Romans verse where he clearly let’s you KNOW he’s talking about homosexual relations. he says men take their lust for woman and use it towards men and calls it perversion and sin. also Paul never says ALL marriage is sin or wrong at all. he sarcastically says “it’s almost better to avoid all the trouble IF YOU CAN and stay unmarried, and then he goes
on to say that most men cannot do that

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker88: no, I’m saying that the word Paul used was the Koine Greek word for “soft,” and that really doesn’t have the same connotation as the modern English word “soft,” and effeminacy doesn’t enter into it at all—these were all added in translation.

If anything, the closest modern translation for malakoi would probably be “wishy-washy people” or “people who lack the courage of their convictions.” The translators who provided the sense of “homosexual” in there were no doubt making their best attempt, but it’s an attempt that is wrong.

And as for Romans—

First, you can’t read Romans 1:26–27 in isolation; you have to read the whole passage, starting in Romans 1:18, and you have to read it in its social context. Paul is a Greek rhetorician, and constructs his arguments very carefully, even though in this case, he shows that he has no real argument. Originally, he claims, God was self-evident (18–20, especially 20). But because people knew God but did not glorify him (21), because they thought they were wise (22), because they built idols, (23), because they loved the idols in unnatural ways and more than they loved God (24), because they lied to themselves about God, (25), therefore God punished them with unnatural passions (26–27) and a host of all other unpleasant things (28–32). This is Paul, offering an amateur account of pagan Roman history.

The other point is another issue of translation. The words Paul uses for ‘unnatural’ is probably better translated as ‘uncharacteristic’ or ‘unusual’; and it’s the same word he uses in Romans 11:24 (which the KJV translates as ‘contrary to nature’) to refer to something that God is doing. So if you insist that ‘para physei’ means ‘unnatural’ (and, by implication, ‘sinful’) in Romans 1:26–27, you have to accept that in Romans 11:24, Paul is speaking of God doing something sinful. And the ‘degrading passions’—Paul uses the same word, ‘atimia,’ to refer to himself, because of his belief in Christ (2 Cor. 6:8 and 11:21), and to men who grow their hair long (1 Cor. 11:14). He’s not talking about moral reprehensibility; he’s talking about social opprobium.

Paul is engaging in just the sort of amateur psychoanalysis that you did earlier in this thread when you ascribed homosexuality to an absent or weak father, and it’s got as much grounding in fact. He’s also pushing buttons in his audience, and here he shows his skill as a master propagandist, writing to a congregation of mixed Jews and Gentiles that’s having internal disputes over the value of adhering to the old law. The former Jews in the Roman church would have a strong aversion to homosexuality, because they were raised according to the laws in Leviticus, and would have felt themselves superior to the Gentiles, who had no purity codes. (This is unjustified because Christ does away with purity codes through His sacrifice, but people are not always rational.) So Paul gives the Jews a capsule description of the history of Roman paganism, aimed at making the Jews feel superior—but then at the beginning of Romans 2, he changes his tone, and points out that, even though they adhere to the law, they also break the law regularly and are just as guilty of sin as the Gentiles.

But he does this to set up the punch of his real argument. The whole first two chapters of Romans are a setup to get his audience on his side so that he can drive the point home more effectively—Paul uses the example of a purity code in order to make the argument that purity codes are irrelevant—the example in 1:25 is an example of what happened before Christ, to set up the opposition with what he says in Romans 8: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus,” which he elaborates on for the rest of the book.

If you pick a verse in isolation, you can make the Bible say any damnfool thing you want, and many people have. If you actually study it in Scriptural and cultural context, however, you’re likely to find that many of the damnfool things people have told you that the Bible says actually aren’t accurate.

futurelaker88's avatar

@cwilbur – i will give u props for having convincing arguments and intelligent responses, and for providing examples of what you claim the bible is saying. BUT i refuse to believe that EVERY christian/church/theologian ive ever encountered in 20 years has NEVER said ANYTHING even CLOSE to what you said up there. and i also might add that if one is reading through the bible, yes in context, all the way through, i am 100% positive that he will come away KNOWING the homosexuality is a sin. it seems (and PLEASE take no offense to this) that someone who passionately WANTS it to say otherwise, will find SOME way to make it possible. which is what i believe you (or whoever wrote what you posted above) has done. they (or you) do a convincing job of confusing one into thinking (after they think ‘what the heck is he talking about’) that you have a convincing argument. let me put it this way. if ANY of what you said was true…

there could be no more christians. because the bible would hold NO ground. but, it does, and there are. so i can only say…the translations mean what they say.

ALL of youre arguments are based on the fact that “well, it doesnt REALLY mean THAT!!!” it means what it says, and its easy. yes words did have original translations, but theres no way ALL that above SOMEHOW was translated to say…

1 Corinthians 6:9 “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders…”

read into it all you want….thats what it says

fireside's avatar

That’s kind of sad. There are over 6000 different translations of the bible and you deny the original language over your version. “it seems (and PLEASE take no offense to this) that someone who passionately WANTS it to say otherwise, will find SOME way to make it possible” – so true.

How about this translation?

9 Bad peeplz duz not get to join Ceiling Cat’s kingdm! U knows dis! Peeplz who do bad thingz dont get to join, there are lotz of bad things, I forgetted them all LOL.

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker88: I have read the Bible all the way through, in context. The nature of my discussions with you should make that abundantly clear.

You have been taught that homosexuality is a sin by people who have an agenda. To do this, they rely on flawed translations. We’ve been over the problem of translating ‘malakoi’ as ‘male prostitutes’ and ‘arsenokotai’ as ‘homosexual offenders.’ You can’t keep on citing that verse, poorly translated and out of context, because it doesn’t mean what you claim it means. If I translated “malakoi” as “basketball players” (because I wrestled in high school, and we all knew the basketball players were a bunch of wimps, totally soft) and “arsenokotai” as “preachers’ kids” (because hey, we have no idea what it means, and so I might as well make a guess that suits my agenda, and a lot of preachers’ kids play basketball), and then used it to tell you you were going to Hell, would you quietly sit down and take it, because the quality of the translation doesn’t matter? I really doubt it.

And If everything I say is true, there can still be Christians—the people who accept God’s grace and the sacrifice of Jesus as forgiveness for all sins, past, present, and future. That is all it takes to be a Christian. You want to define Christians as people who live according to a certain set of rules, probably because you’ve grown up in a church where that is the case, but the last few chapters of Romans should make it abundantly clear that there are no purity codes and no set of laws that distinguish between Christians and non-Christians.

To be a Christian, you have to accept Christ’s sacrifice of atonement. That’s all. Christ came to do away with purity codes; why are you so insistent on restoring them?

Bri_L's avatar

@futurelaker88 – ”. . . which is what i believe you (or whoever wrote what you posted above) has done.”
Ouch. was that necessary? See, until you wrote that I wasn’t questioning what you wrote any more or less than anyone else.

futurelaker88's avatar

@fireside – what is they “REAL translation” of the Bible that YOU are referring to? The New American standard is the BEST word for word translation available in English and THAT translation agrees with what I have stated concerning Homosexuality.

@cwilbur – The problem here is the usual one – when we want something to be true so badly we are willing to overlook the obvious in order to have our way. Its like anything else the Bible teaches that men don’t WANT it to teach i.e. No Female Preachers, No drunkenness, no other way to God but through Christ, no annihilation upon death but eternal punishment for the wicked etc. Shall we cut all of these passages out of the Bible or sugar coat them or re-translate them to suite our preferences? Just because we don’t LIKE what the Bible teaches doesn’t give us the right to CHANGE it! I don’t enjoy the fact that sex before marriage is prohibited in the Bible but I am surrender to the fact that God (who invented sex) knows better than me and I dont Re-WORD the commands so I can disobey – no matter how you slice it – you have to live with the fact that this is what MANY, MANY people are doing – nothing new!!

1 Timothy 4:1–2 “The Spirit clearly says that in the last days many will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teaching come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been calloused with a hot iron.”

1 Timothy 6:3–4 “If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree with the sound (dependable) instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to Godly teaching, they are conceited and understand NOTHING. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and arguments ABOUT WORDS that result in friction…”

1 Corinthians 2:12–14 “We have NOT received the Spirit of the world but the spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught by us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing Spiritual truths and Spiritual words. The man WITHOUT the Spirit does NOT accept things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are FOOLISH to him, and he CANNOT understand them, because they are Spiritually discerned.

THIS IS OUR WHOLE PROBLEM

By the way @cwilbur Paul was NOT a “greek rhetorician” but a Jewish apostle who was a ROMAN citizen. Therefore demolishing your comment “Paul offering an amateur account of pagan Roman history.” I believe a Roman citizen LIVING IN the first century AD would be better versed in Roman history than the ‘modern scholar.

* recommendation*

may i humbly recommend for your consideration two small booklets on the topic of homosexuality? (if we are convinced of what we believe we will not be afraid to put it to the test…right?)

1. The True, The False, And the Homosexual- by Waldron
2. Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic – Moberly

futurelaker88's avatar

@cwilbur – i have over 50 translations of the bible at my house (INCLUDING – Hebrew/Greek) and NOT ONE of them translates those words the way you do. Let me ask you this…are all of those Greek and Hebrew scholars with P.H.D’s (IN BIBLICAL LANGUAGES) wrong?!?!? That sounds might arrogant. What are your qualifications in Greek and Hebrew? What translation are YOU using?

futurelaker88's avatar

@ALL just because many of you are condemning “my interpretation of the bible” can ANYONE give me another interpretation besides the obvious one…

John 14:6 – Jesus answered, I am the way, the truth, and the life, NO ONE comes to the Father (salvation) except through ME

the obvious interpretation is that Jesus is excluding ALL OTHER religions. this is NOT MY interpretation alone, but the most widely held interpretation over the last 2000 years, and the PLAIN intention of Jesus’ words if we just let them stand, and not butcher it with the “cleaver of our own desire”

fireside's avatar

I do think it is interesting to note that neither Matthew, Mark or Luke seemed to think that was important enough to put in their accounts of the Last Supper.

But regardless of that, feel free to read through this if you want the Bahai perspective on Jesus’ meaning.

galileogirl's avatar

Everybody knows Paul had issues about sex

Now watch future’s head explode.

Future, you can’t claim divinity for Paul can you? Or all those theological experts you have been listening to.

laureth's avatar

@futurelaker88 – Re: “Just because we don’t LIKE what the Bible teaches doesn’t give us the right to CHANGE it!”

I think what @cwilbur is saying that the people who made the translation from the original language to the KJV (and indirectly to all the ones that are based on KJV) is that they did change it from the original, exactly the thing that you say is wrong. Staying with a wrong thing (even though you were taught from childhood on up that the mistranslation is what God actually meant) doesn’t make a wrong thing right.

If someone (even a preacher) has only read the bad translation, they may never understand that it is a mistranslation. What people are doing nowadays with retranslating in a more correct manner is getting back to the root of what Paul’s letter really meant, the way Paul intended. They’re not changing it – they’re changing it back.

futurelaker88's avatar

im still waiting for someone to answer my question. i refuse to continue until someone gives me THEIR sources and SHOWS me the hundreds of authors and scholars and great minds that back THEIR opinions of the way that the text should be translated. also, id like to hear any alternate interpretations of the passage above, since when i stated that what we believe is the ONLY way, and a number of you responded with “you are free to interpret it the way YOU want, but do not tell anyone else to interpret it the same way.” well im open to hear all of your alternate interpretations along with your abundant backup and support for it.

fireside's avatar

I guess you didn’t read my link?

I can summarize: Jesus was one of a line of Prophets. They were connected with God. They were God. God is in all of us. Each prophet comes to us and gives us spiritual lessons that are timeless and are meant for the advancement of our souls.

When Jesus says “I am the way the truth and the light” it is just as valid as Muhammed saying “I am all of the prophets” because they are both speaking messages from God.

tinyfaery's avatar

Yawn. I’m gonna go home to my wife and commit some sin.

fireside's avatar

@tinyfaery – maybe read through this thread with her when you get home.

futurelaker88's avatar

@fireside – ok, before i tear apart the bahai faith, i would like to even hear if you yourself believe this as a possibility of truth? if not, that could only mean that EVEN TO YOU it doesn’t hold. so to just throw random, senseless interpretations into the argument is even a greater waste of my time and yours. if you do think this bahai faith may have some truth to it, we can go from there.

fireside's avatar

No, please feel free to “tear apart the Bahai faith”
I’d be interested to hear your ideas.

futurelaker88's avatar

@fireside – still not sure whether or not you believe the bahai faith

futurelaker88's avatar

@ALL i will be back tomorrow. gotta leave for the night.

cwilbur's avatar

@futurelaker88: Paul was a master rhetorician who was writing in Greek; this makes him a Greek rhetorician, even if he is a Roman citizen. And he was offering an amateur history of Roman paganism, in a brief summary that paints in very broad strokes.

And I doubt your books will change my mind; the premise we disagree on is that you want there to be a purity code, a standard of behavior where, if you follow it, you’re saved, and if you don’t follow it, you’re damned. But that’s exactly what Christ came to do away with. After Christ’s sacrifice, it’s not about whether or not your behavior adheres to a certain set of standards, but whether your heart is pure. If your pamphlets are arguments about standards of behavior, they won’t change my mind, because, as I’ve said multiple times: Christ came to do away with purity codes. We are saved by grace alone, and God gives that grace freely to anyone who accepts it.

To be honest, I find it very amusing that from my point of view you’re doing exactly what you’re telling me not to do—choosing your interpretation of the Bible to support what you want to believe. If you go back to the original Greek, there is remarkably little support for condeming homosexuality; most of it was added by translators later. And yet my insistence on reading the original text in its original context is seen by you as changing the text—when in fact I’m just going back to the original sources.

I’ve studied this; I’ve taken the responsibility for my own soul. One of us is clearly wrong. But I am entirely prepared to stand and be judged, and if it turns out I was wrong, I am entirely, completely certain that God will forgive me for that mistake. Are you so certain that if you’re wrong, He will forgive you for politically persecuting gay people in His name?

futurelaker88's avatar

@cwilbur – im truly sorry sir but you are mistaken. Christ came to do away with the old testament law and provide atonement. but of course not to do away with ALL sin!
yes one is saved through the blood of Christ, but Paul says “should we just live in sin because we are forgiven? OF COURSE NOT, but we should live all the more for the glory of God!” of course sin is still sin, and we will be punished (yes maintaining our salvation if we are saved) but punished nonetheless. NO WHERE does the bible give is freedom to sin as we please just because we are saved! as a true Christian we should hate sin all the more and lose desire for such things! right? where do you see the bible telling us in ANY fashion that sin is irrelevant after the resurrection? i see the exact opposite!

cwilbur's avatar

It’s not freedom to sin; it’s more that my certainty of my salvation does not come from my ability to avoid sin, but from my faith that if I do sin, I will be forgiven for it.

Sin is not failing to live up to a set of purity codes, but in acting in ways that aren’t full of compassion, charity, truth, and love. Remember Christ’s summary of the law: love the Lord your God with all your being, and love your neighbor as yourself. After Christ, God did away with purity codes; all the ones that remain are the work of man.

I am not saying that there is no such thing as sin; I am saying that what you claim to be sin is at odds with what Christ said. And when what you say contradicts what Christ said, I know who I’m going to believe. (For that matter, when what Paul says contradicts what Christ says, I know who I’m going to believe there too.)

John 3:16 doesn’t say ”...that whoever believes in him, and also followed a set of legalistic rules based on questionable translations, shall not perish, but have eternal life.” We are saved by grace and faith, not by acts and behavior.

And frankly, you’re welcome to disagree with me. One of us is wrong. But I have studied the Bible in depth, and I am satisfied that I understand what God meant. When I go to judgment, I am prepared to find out that I am wrong, but I am also completely certain that I will be forgiven. Can you say the same thing, with your complex legalistic purity codes?

fireside's avatar

If Jesus came to do away with the old testament law, then why did he say this in Matthew chapter 5?

17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

cwilbur's avatar

@fireside: A rough translation of that is “I am not here to tell you that the Law and the Prophets are meaningless, but to tell you that I am the Messiah they predict, and now they are complete.” “These commandments” properly refers to what Jesus teaches in the few books prior, not to the Law and the Prophets.

Further, later on in that gospel, Christ reinterprets the Law—see 5:21–48.

This interpretation is echoed in Paul, where he tells the Romans that circumcision is not necessary for salvation. If the first-century Christians understood that passage to mean that the entire Old Testament law was still in effect and in full force, the question would not have been up for debate.

futurelaker88's avatar

@fireside – read Romans 11…that should explain the passage you mentioned. in short, Jesus (God) has two different plans (one for Israel and the Jews, and the other for the church). Romans 11 explains that more clearly

and in response to the Bahai faith, which im not sure you even believe is truth, ALL that is doing is pointing out the times that Jesus is claiming that the Father (God) is greater then him…

“How can Jesus be God if God is greater than Jesus?” – it states along with other similar passages that show Jesus talking about them as separate/different

THE ANSWER

Jesus is referring to himself as a human on earth (God in the flesh) and claiming to his followers that “the father is greater than i” meaning, “if you guys think I am amazing, wait until you see the heavenly form! I REDUCED my spiritual self to fulfill God’s plan. so ALL of the differences that Jesus speaks about are in that regard.

look at what it says here (from your link)

“From these passages we can conclude that “God was manifest in the flesh” of Jesus, that in Jesus dwelled “all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”, that God was in Jesus and that Jesus was in God, that Jesus was one with God and that whoever had seen Jesus had also seen God. This is pretty compelling evidence that Jesus personally was God…. except for that fact that Jesus also said that “my Father is greater than I�”-John 14:28”

lol, the Bahai faith ITSELF admits the COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT JESUS IS GOD!!! theyre only argument is the words “my Father is greater than I.” A Christian understands what Jesus is talking about. Help?

futurelaker88's avatar

@cwilbur – thanks for that, i realized you gave him the meaning of that verse as well. thanks

futurelaker88's avatar

@fireside – might I also add this, (in regard to the Bahai) their basis of belief is (without even attempting to HIDE it) that the verses that show “pretty compelling evidence that Jesus personally was God” be completely ignored. and then they go on the ONE they have to show that it MIGHT mean otherwise. ok, so wouldnt it make more sense that the massive amt of scripture that teaches that Jesus is God are correct and the ONE you have is misinterpreted? Would it not be more likely that (with all the verses that clearly contradict what they claim this verse to mean) that they are misinterpreting it. if they are not, what then do they do with all of the verses that contradict it!?!?

fireside's avatar

I do understand the part about fulfilling the old prophecies, but immediately after saying this, Jesus goes on to lay out an even stricter code of laws. What about those?

28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

@futurelaker88 – yeah, i have to admit that link wouldn’t have convinced me either. but all you asked for was a different interpretation. To me I have already accepted Jesus’ teachings in my heart, so I have gone through him.

Bahai’s believe that Jesus was a Manifestation of God. That means Jesus was God.

futurelaker88's avatar

@fireside – ok, so the Bahai page was a different interpretation yes, but you agree that it doesnt make sense yes? so thank you for posting that, idk if anyone else here is following, but I think that helped because the ONE other interpretation that we have is (i think we can all agree) senseless. so the obvious interpretation still stands. I am the way, the truth and the life, NO ONE comes to the Father but by me! this dismisses all other religions, and its Jesus’ words! not mine.

and in response to the other laws you mention above. i believe those apply today yes. which is where i and @cwilbur disagree. Jesus is saying those to US, those are sins, and He is talking to His followers about the law, and they are telling him ”(paraphrasing) Lord, we do not commit adultery! We have done NONE of these things, does that mean we are saved! We havent sinned!!!” and Jesus answers by saying “any who even LOOKS at a woman with a lustful eye has already commited adultery in God’s eyes!” so He is telling them “no guys, you dont get it, you can sin in your MIND too! God knows your thoughts, and they still count!” and the gouge out the eye is an expression, i can relate it today by saying “if you are tempted by porn and you CANT stop…you better get rid of your computer.” this is what Jesus is doing here. If your lusting, you better get rid of your eye, because isnt it worse to be thrown into hell forever then to enjoy a little temporary lust on earth?

fireside's avatar

So, how do we know which part is just an expression and which part is literal specificity?

cwilbur's avatar

@fireside: Jesus is laying down a new law, about purity of thought and heart rather than conforming your actions to a strict legalistic code. The thing that makes adultery a sin is not the actual sex, but the desire to do something that is a violation of your marriage vows (or another person’s marriage vows, or both). It doesn’t matter whether you follow through and have actual sex. Jesus is shifting the emphasis from the action to the intent behind the action.

Where @futurelaker88 and I disagree, primarily, is that he thinks the laws still apply in themselves, and I think the laws are examples of how to determine whether something is sinful or not. Jesus emphasizes the purity of thought and intent, and so I think that relationships that grow out of love and mutual respect are the sort of relationships that God wants us to have.

And you figure out what it means the same way you figure out anything else in the Bible—you study it, you read it in context, you compare translations, and you think and pray on it. You look at it in the larger context of the rest of the Bible and in history. When you come to a conclusion, you act on it; God sees into your heart and knows your motivations, and if you’re legitimately wrong, He will forgive you.

futurelaker88's avatar

@fireside – not quite sure what you mean. which other part could be speculated? its only the “eye” analogy that can even be mistaken (in terms of taking it literally). and of course if one knows the rest of the Bible, they know that Jesus is not telling us to chop limbs off of our body. He specifically tells us to take care of our physical bodies multiple times throughout scripture. But i still believe that what he says is true, (He intentionally goes to the extreme to make His point) it WOULD be better to be without an arm on this earth, then to be cast into Hell for all eternity. But because we are forgiven by the blood of Jesus, there is no need to cut off our limbs! we are forgiven! so its obvious he is saying, whatever is causing you to stumble, get rid of it…your rewards in heaven are well worth it.

futurelaker88's avatar

@cwilbur – so do you agree with my post right under yours? it seems we see eye to eye on that issue. up until this point, i thought that you did not believe in the Bible as the word of God. Was I wrong? Do you believe in Christianity, and just interpret the verses differently than i do in terms of homosexuality, or do you not believe it is a supernatural book at all? im curious because recently you have been shocking me with your responses lol. i dont believe you have opened up in terms of your beliefs about God in a specific sense. maybe im wrong. thanks!!

cwilbur's avatar

Yes, I am a Christian. More specifically, I’m a fairly liberal small-u universalist Episcopalian. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but as humans are imperfect, it’s been received and preserved imperfectly—when we get a chance to read the intended version, I think we’re likely to be shocked and surprised. In the meanwhile, we look to Scripture, tradition, and reason to illuminate what God wants for us, and we make our best effort, and as God knows we are imperfect and doing the best we can (well, assuming we are legitimately doing the best we can), that will be good enough.

And yes, I think it’s fair to say that I do interpret the verses differently than you.

If you mean this post—the Incarnation is one of the things I struggle with. There’s a terrible beauty about God having a master plan, knowing even as He is giving the Law to Moses that He is preparing us for His masterstroke, that He is going to become human and be sacrificed, because He chose to give us free will knowing that we would use it poorly, and loving us enough to offer Himself as a sacrifice anyway. It is such a marvelous and wondrous thing that I have a hard time accepting it; but doubt is the flip side of faith, and if I couldn’t say “I’m not sure,” then I couldn’t say “I believe.”

And I think what you see in those passages in John is a bit of the problem of the Trinity. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three aspects of the same Being. It’s simultaneously possible for Jesus and God to be one, and for God to be greater than Jesus, especially constrained as Jesus is by being limited to a human form in a specific time and place.

fireside's avatar

@cwilbur – I agree completely with this statement, “Jesus is shifting the emphasis from the action to the intent behind the action.”

It goes right in line with my belief that the notion of sin and Hell is an allusion to spiritual heath and that each person is responsible for their own well being. It separates Societal law from spiritual fulfillment.

@futurelaker88 – What I mean to point out is that you are perfectly comfortable accepting Jesus words as not literal there, but in other examples there is no other possible interpretation. I guess you answered that point.

futurelaker88's avatar

@cwilbur – i agree, thats a great point! (the end about the Father being greater than Jesus) i think thats ANOTHER way to show what Jesus is saying. But in the least, one can argue that their is a chance that He is saying it the way i said as well (flesh vs perfect/spiritual body), the point is, either way, it dismisses the Bahai interpretation, and therefore, leaves Jesus’ claim to be the ONLY way….exactly that, the ONLY WAY.

i would still recommend those two small booklets I mentioned above, even more so now knowing that you believe the BIble is/was at one point the words of God. I think they will have some points you will find VERY interesting. and they are VERY short! you might even find them online. but i appreciate that. thanks!

futurelaker88's avatar

@cwilbur – an a side point, I’d be interested to hear how you would accept the fact that God would allow His “Master Plan/Instruction Manual” book to be misinterpreted by men over 2000 years. If we can agree that He supernaturally was involved in the writing (and i think i mentioned this above) wouldnt it only make sense for him to supernaturally “protect” His guide for His people? MILLIONS of christians are living everyday based on the Bible we have today! (which i am convinced is perfectly accurate and i know we disagree there) But this would mean that virtually ALL todays Christians are wrong in MOST of their beliefs and therefore arent Christians at all! this is a bold statement to make. It seems to me that the creator of the universe would not allow HIS BOOK to be ruined by us…i mean, isnt it hard enough to convince people that TODAYS Bible is truth!? lol, now you are claiming that even THAT is wrong. could you please elaborate? im in no way sarcastic here. I wish this could be said verbally. then you (and everyone else) could hear how i would be saying these things lol. thank you very much!

fireside's avatar

@futurelaker88 – Based on Progressive Revelation, all you can say is that Jesus dismissed the old religions. You can’t say it dismisses the Bahai dispensaton.

laureth's avatar

One thing’s for sure, Jesus didn’t say a single word about homosexuality. All the rest is commentary. ;)

futurelaker88's avatar

@fireside – im not quite sure i understand that either. it does dismiss it, because it leaves the Bahai interpretation not making any sense. I thought you just agreed with that yourself. It dismisses ALL other religions, past, present, and future. if Jesus is the ONLY way “period,” how can a religion created after that time CHANGE the ONE truth. It cant!

fireside's avatar

I guess you still don’t quite get the Bahai faith. That’s okay.

futurelaker88's avatar

@laureth i hope thats a joke? you realize that we’re here debating ALL of the times Jesus mentions it in the old AND new testament.

cwilbur's avatar

No, I don’t think being wrong in some of your beliefs makes you not a Christian. It makes you a Christian who’s not perfect. And I don’t think being right is a popularity contest: if millions of people believe an incorrect thing, it is still an incorrect thing. The sole thing that makes someone a Christian is accepting Christ’s sacrifice of atonement. As long as they’ve done that, even if they are completely wrong in their beliefs, God will accept their best efforts.

God gave us reason so that we could examine His book and understand what it meant, and I think He made it complex and subtle so that we could grow by thinking and arguing about it. But even in its current imperfect state, the Bible still points clearly to salvation.

I’m also a universalist, remember—I don’t think it is in God’s nature, as a Being Who loves everyone unconditionally and only waits for that love to be returned, to condemn anyone for eternity. I think in the fullness of time we will all be reconciled to God.

futurelaker88's avatar

@ALL how could ANYONE possibly give laureth lurve for that last statement!?!?!? i dont understand! lol, im literally laughing. the statement is completely false!!!

“peanut butter is made of whale skin.”

wheres my lurve? ive made a claim, show me some support because it must be true

augustlan's avatar

@futurelaker88 How could Jesus have talked about homosexuality in the old testament?

laureth's avatar

No joke. As far as I know, it’s Paul, or some other OT prophet talking about it. Those people are not Jesus, unless you interpret Scripture in some kind of wacky way.

futurelaker88's avatar

@augustlan – thank you for that, i meant that we are discussing the BIBLE mentioning it in both testaments. thats my fault. adrenaline rush. lol. that was a mistake on my part.

fireside's avatar

@laureth
Gallatians 3:28…ye are all one in Christ Jesus ; )

laureth's avatar

I’ve even seen KJV bibles where all of Jesus’ words and sayings are in Red. None of those words dis the gay. Now, what other people said before he was born, or what other people said after he died, that’s not Jesus.

(The wacky way would be to say that since the whole Bible is God-inspired, and Jesus is God, ipso facto Jesus wrote the Bible, but you might as well not argue a darn thing with people like that.)

futurelaker88's avatar

@laureth – i dont interpret it in a wacky way, i interpret it the way that all christians interpret it…and that is, that the book is inspired by God, and therefore, when an apostle claims something, he is claiming God’s will.

fireside's avatar

No man can or should, at least claim God’s will.

laureth's avatar

If God was so adamant about gay people being bad, though, don’t you think the fleshly-incarnation of God (Jesus) would have at least touched on the subject?

futurelaker88's avatar

@laureth ok, your jumping in 200 posts later and saying something we are already past here. im not going to start over again. read the whole thing first please. OF COURSE we believe that the Bible is inspired by God! this is not “wacky” at all…its Christianity, and i refuse to start all this again. read the entire thread please.

futurelaker88's avatar

@fireside – what were apostles then? how can you make such a statement? where are you getting that from?

laureth's avatar

You know, he’d be “Y’all are forgiven, blessed are the meek, God is love, and by the way, gays deserve to be beaten to death.” But he didn’t mention them at all.

cwilbur's avatar

The apostles didn’t know God’s will any more than the rest of us do. We care what they thought and wrote because they were passing on and elucidating on what Jesus taught them.

fireside's avatar

The apostles were disciples of Jesus who were interpreting God’s will according to their thoughts. They were men, not God.

futurelaker88's avatar

@fireside how can you make such a statement? you are confusing me! you KNOW the Bible was written by men! so then we are back the beginning!!! lol if the Bible at all is to be taken seriously we have to agree that it is inspired by God. @Laureth you are ruining the entire thread right now. you are jumping in to a conversation between 3 people and saying things that we have already past. and this is getting back to what it started at and i cant do it again. if this starts again, we will have to talk some other way guys. im sorry.

fireside's avatar

I do believe the Bible was inspired by God. but there is no Gospel of Jesus.

You show me the gospel of Jesus and I will believe every word.
You give me the gospel of anyone who is not a manifestation of God and I will have to question if some human error slipped into the text.

That doesn’t take away from the inspiration and the divine teachings of Jesus.

cwilbur's avatar

@laureth: making snide quips is really not likely to contribute to the discussion. We’ve actually dug into some theology here and found a few solid points of disagreement between futurelaker88 and me, and having snarky asides that cover ground we went over dozens of responses ago isn’t helpful.

futurelaker88's avatar

@ALL im sorry guys, we narrowed this ENTIRE thread to one simple issue and now its blown into an entire things again lol. we had a serious thing going and i was actually enjoying it. now its back to trouble. i cant spend my entire life at the computer :/ im sorry. you guys can message/comment me if you want

cwilbur's avatar

If it helps, I was enjoying it too. I like being challenged on what I believe, because it makes me think about what I believe and why I believe it. And I am really glad, and even somewhat honored, that you can discuss this with me respectfully, @futurelaker88, even given our obvious points of disagreement.

tinyfaery's avatar

Good to know the bombasts have retired.

cwilbur's avatar

@tinyfaery, you do yourself very few favors by copping an attitude.

fireside's avatar

I don’t think we really went of track, the last point futurelaker88 said was that he wasn’t sure how cwilbur could think that man has misinterpreted the bible.

We’re still at that same point.
Which is actually where we started, but the water is much clearer now.

futurelaker88's avatar

@cwilbur – i agree completely. this was very intriguing and (as you said) fun, i like challenge as well. i also like that others can read and see both perspectives (not that they like it) but they do lol. and apparently im even more in the minority after this. im not quite sure that would be the case if fluther had some more Christians willing to chime in ;)

and @tinyfaery – thanks for that. we love mature posts and intelligent input like that.

thats precisely the reason its easy for me to be ok with the fact that the “non religious” call ME hateful, because, its they who reveal their true nature, without me even having to try and prove otherwise

so thanks @tinyfaery

laureth's avatar

If a few Laureth one-liners can derail a whole serious conversation about God, I must be more powerful than I think – or the attention spans here are weak.

re: @Laureth you are ruining the entire thread right now. – If someone from the general Internet public can ruin a conversation on a generally public internet thread, well, I certainly owe an apology. See y’all on the flipside.

futurelaker88's avatar

@fireside – i will most likely be back here to talk with YOU guys. but for tonight, im going to have to give it a rest lol. sorry. i look foward to finishing this

cwilbur's avatar

@Laureth: it’s just tiresome to put up with snark in a serious discussion thread, especially when it’s rehashed snark from pages and pages ago. It’s not particularly funny, it doesn’t make any point that hasn’t already been made, and it lowers the level of the discussion.

galileogirl's avatar

@laureth Of course you are absolutely in the right. The hijackers are accusing you of hijacking. A pettifogging, closed-minded nit-picker has turned a discussion of gay marriage into a platform for her religious prejudices. She is unwilling to even listen to any other views or admit there might, in the last 2000 years, be other valid interpretations than her own.

There is no chance of discussion when one clings to anti-intellectual dogma.

BTW, If it matters, in my opinion Paul was a homosexual in denial.

Aethelwine's avatar

I didn’t know that only three people were allowed in this discussion. I don’t see how laureth has ruined it.

I am not a religious person, but I have followed this thread. I have followed because I don’t understand why religion needs to be the reason that my sister, aunt and brother-in-law can’t properly provide for their partners that they love.

fireside's avatar

The break in the conversation actually helped because we found that there is still a point of confusion in the discussion. laureth was just making sure we stayed on topic so as not to get modded. I think it is easy enough to sum up:
——————————————-

It is agreed, for the purposes of this discussion and among at least three of us, that the New Testament is the inspired word of God as written by the apostles based on their love, admiration and fidelity to Jesus Christ.

The point of contention is whether God would directly intervene with humanity to ensure that the exact words were recorded and preserved through countless translations over centuries.

To me the evidence is in the Bible. God directly intervened with the earth bound souls throughout the Old Testament. To my recollection, there are very few, if any, instances of God directly intervening with human activity in the New Testament, after the time of the immaculate conception. It was Jesus that caused the miracles.

This leads me to the belief that the men who wrote the Bible were human and were capable of exaggeration and ego, just like all humans. Perhaps in their zeal and righteous fire to share the word, they embellished a little to help prove their case or overlooked a few details?

The way to find the truth is to study the similarities and investigate the discrepancies. Knowing God requires that exploration. For me this investigation led me beyond Christianity and to the Bahai faith because I also believe in a universal God that all souls are progressing towards.

tinyfaery's avatar

Who said I’m trying to do myself any favors. Don’t mistake my motives for your’s.

This is not a thread about gay marriage, it’s about who can one-up the other. You can type until you’re fingers bleed, and it will be all to make yourselves feel superior. Unlike most of you, I have a stake I’m this issue. I’m full of tinyfaerytude. Just ask harp.

fireside's avatar

@tinyfaery – so you’re saying, ‘talk to the hands’?

I actually thought it was a good conversation. It’s interesting to find out about where other people’s beliefs are formed. That’s the only way to work towards a common understanding.

tinyfaery's avatar

I wasn’t enlightened…wait, yes I was, I was enlightened to the fact that reason is not compatible with fundamentalism or zealotry. I also learned that nothing is more powerful than the human ego.

tinyfaery's avatar

@fireside Huh? What? : )

fireside's avatar

@tinyfaery hey! no fair changing avatars : P

tinyfaery's avatar

I do it all the time.

fireside's avatar

well, duh, that’s what we’re talking about here is your doing it all the time : P

cwilbur's avatar

@tinyfaery, you seriously think you’re the only one with a stake here?

Have you missed any of the threads where I identified myself as a gay man?

Jeez. Get a clue, and stop pissing all over everyone who disagrees with you—because hell, I mostly agree with you, and I think you’re being a royal pill here.

Aethelwine's avatar

300+ responses so far and @megs has only received one great question?!?

She even corrected the question when her first try was a bit confusing. Lurve megs!

tb1570's avatar

@tinyfaery “I was enlightened to the fact that reason is not compatible with fundamentalism or zealotry.”

absa-friggin’-lootly!!!

And I’d still throw a little “brainwashing” in to the mix…

cwilbur's avatar

It amazes me how the people who scream the loudest about ignorance, intolerance, prejudice, and bigotry directed towards them are the first to display it towards others.

I’m talking about you, @tinyfaery, @laureth, @tb1570.

You want people to respect the choices you make in your life because of your strong convictions? Start respecting the choices other people make in their lives for the same reasons. Display the tolerance that you want other people to display towards you.

tb1570's avatar

@cwilbur How was my statement ignorant, or prejudiced, or intolerant or bigoted? (OK, maybe a little bigoted) I merely agreed w/ another’s assertation that sometimes in regards to religious fundamentalists or zealots, there seems to be an incapacity for reason or logic, and I added my own opinion that there seems to be elements of brainwashing also thrown into the mix at times (look up the defiinition if you like).

I stand by all those statements.

futurelaker88's avatar

@cwilbur – amen. lol. that only reaffirms what i have been saying since my first post. thank you for that.

p.s. they still wont see that as truth

tinyfaery's avatar

Keep your bigotries to yourself and I have no problem, if you let them affect me I’ll fight you till the end. My choices DO NOT infringe upon the rights of others. Those who choose to champion and legislate their biases are the problem.

@cwilbur Internalize much?

cwilbur's avatar

@tinyfaery: if you kept your bigotries to yourself, I wouldn’t be calling you out as a bigot.

Or do you not consider saying things like “I wasn’t enlightened…wait, yes I was, I was enlightened to the fact that reason is not compatible with fundamentalism or zealotry. I also learned that nothing is more powerful than the human ego.” (here), after a string of snark about people having a discussion about the actual matter in the question, referring to the people having a discussion, as bigotry?

You seem to think that you have the right to lash out in any way that suits you when you perceive that people are oppressing you, and then you get all pissy and insulted when you try to shut people down and we get upset about it.

The flak you’re taking now is not because people disagree with you. It’s because you’re being so damned disagreeable and nasty about it. You’re not making any sort of coherent point (except, perhaps, that you can use your powers of incredible snarky childishness to disrupt a discussion, but we didn’t need a demonstration of that) and you’re coming across as a judgmental bigot. Is that really what you want to be doing?

If you had been paying attention to this thread, you’d have a clear set of arguments you could use to engage any self-identified Christian who tells you that homosexuality is inherently sinful. You could learn, and change someone’s mind with what you learn. Instead, you’re so tied up in your prejudice that Christians hate gays and your bigotry against religious people, tied up in your misconception that Christians are stupid, brainwashed, or both, that you’ve failed to learn anything here, and you’ve made yourself look like a bigoted, judgmental ass to boot.

tinyfaery's avatar

You are the only one giving me flack. And I never said anyone was brainwashed, and I have no problem with religious people who are not zealots. I’m done. Go bash someone else.

fireside's avatar

I do have to agree that cwilbur just laid out probably one of the finest theological justifications for gay marriage that I have ever heard. It’s kind of a shame that the thread got broken because it was actually pretty close to a point of consensus.

But hey, it happens.

CloveQbear's avatar

I agree with that! It is your life, you have your right for marriage.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther