interesting new angle on the gay marriage debate

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
[Q]Some here argue that what kids need most are loving parents, regardless of whether or not it’s a mother or father. What a child needs most are a loving father and mother. A wealth of secular research over the past 30 years has shown us this. Yet, same-sex marriage and parenting intentionally deprive children of a mother or father. The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man. [/Q]

Umm...Most men are NOT doing their job, married or not. It is a poor argument. The institution of marriage does not make someone a better father.
 
AEON said:


non-reproduction = extinction

So, we can go back to banning marriages for celibate and couples who don't want kids. Yippee.:|


AEON said:

No human society, not a single one, has ever declared “marriage” between members of the same sex as a norm for family life. It was not until very recently have we believed that we can improve upon this ancient and universal institution.

It was also defined between men and women of similar religions, same origin, same skin color, and class. Should we go back to those days?
AEON said:

This public meaning of marriage is not something that each new generation is free to redefine. Marriage is defined by God and nature—and a wise society will protect marriage as it has always been understood. Marriage is the way our culture promotes stability by insuring that every child has a mother and father.

By God and nature? :lol: First of all when did nature ever define marriage, was that back when you could only marry within your race and economic class? Secondly, WE DON'T LIVE IN A THEOCRACY!
AEON said:

The fact that some heterosexual couples cannot have children is the exception and not the rule. Many of these childless couples adopt, and their adoptive children receive the benefits of both father and mother this way. It is impossible for a homosexual couple to bestow that benefit—the presence of a father and a mother— on any child, even if that couple adopts or uses artificial insemination.

Impossible huh? You know very little about same sex adoption, don't you?

I guess you're going to ban single mothers too.

I guess you've never heard of grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc that play big parts in raising children.

You use to hide behind your religion, but the last day or so and your true colors have come out.

Pure homophobia.
 
AEON said:

Some here argue that what kids need most are loving parents, regardless of whether or not it’s a mother or father. What a child needs most are a loving father and mother. A wealth of secular research over the past 30 years has shown us this. Yet, same-sex marriage and parenting intentionally deprive children of a mother or father. The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman. A gay man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman. A lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband. Is love enough to help two gay dads guide their daughter through her first menstrual cycle? Like a mom, they cannot comfort her by sharing their first experience. Little boys and girls need the loving daily influence of both male and female parents to become who they are meant to be.



wow, the kids of single parents are going to be very upset with this post.

first, the stereotypes you pull out about lesbians and men are simply not substantiated by facts, and most gay parents have opposite-sex role models available to their children, and you're ignoring children of single parents. the single woman next door to me just adopted a baby boy from Guatemala. is that child never going to know how to be a man?

and simply because i am incapable of a sexual attraction to a woman doesn't mean that i would be incapable of modeling love and respect for all people regardless of their gender.

what about heterosexual couples who choose not to have children, or post-menopausal women? you're essentially arguing that the only condition for marriage has to be parenthood, that marriage licenses shouldn't be issued until the baby pops out of the uterus or the adoption papers are signed.

and here's what the science suggests:

[q]So let's look at the science. From small, pioneering studies in the 1970s, to today's larger scale investigations, researchers consistently find that it is the quality of children's relationships to their parents that matter most in raising children. Good parents can be gay or straight, as can bad parents, but in the end, these studies all demonstrate that children's psychological, social, emotional and academic development cannot be tied to a parent's sexual orientation or gender. These studies have been conducted by academics at institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania, Tufts University and the University of Virginia, and have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

Many medical, psychological and child welfare organizations have extensively reviewed this research, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists, and the American Psychological Association. Experts at these organizations have meticulously examined 30 years of scholarship, and have reached a degree of consensus rare in science. These professionals are uniquely qualified to assess the research findings and methodology in their field. As a result, each of these organizations adopted official policies acknowledging that children of same-sex parents are as healthy, happy and well-adjusted as their peers.

Opponents cannot point to a single legitimate study (i.e., studies not sponsored by ideological think-tanks) that supports their view that being raised by same-sex parents harms children. Instead, they either assert that all children must have a mother and a father to become well-adjusted adults, or they cite flawed and biased research, such as studies that look at differences between heterosexual two-parent families and single-parent families, usually following divorce. These studies don't address parental gender or sexual orientation, but look at the lesser economic and educational resources that a single parent may offer a child, and the psychological fallout of divorce.

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion...rtjul11,0,449874.story?coll=hc-headlines-oped

[/q]




Denying gay marriage only seems cruel because of the times in which we live. Our society prizes what seems fair, more than what is true. Children truly need both a mom and a dad. The cruelty is in intentionally denying them this. The research supporting this is both substantial and unequivocal. (mostly cut and pasted from an argument made by Glenn T. Stanton)
[/QUOTE]


no, our laws should support what is fair. we are all entitled to equal treatment under the law, and notions of "truth" or what is "right" are subjective in the extreme and are not rational grounds for discrimination. is it the "truth" that the races should not intermarry? is it the "truth" that women should be subservient to men? you are free to believe in any of these truths and to say what you believe as loudly as you wish, however these do not form the basis of a just and equal society where all persons are guaranteed the same rights under the law.

Glen T. Stanton:

[q]Glenn has published articles in Christianity Today, The American Enterprise, The World & I, Boundless.org, Family Policy, Current Thoughts and Trends, National Forum and Dr. Laura’s Perspective. He has had cover stories in both Citizen and Focus on the Family magazine. He is a winner of the 2001 Amy Foundation Writing Award. Glenn is featured in the PBS documentary, "Affluenza" and has been a guest on numerous Focus on the Family radio broadcasts. He was recently selected by Christianity Today to be one of the few leading voices in evangelicalism to serve as a contributing writer to their Christian Vision Project.

http://www.family.org/welcome/bios/a0032215.cfm

[/q]
 
[Q] Is love enough to help two gay dads guide their daughter through her first menstrual cycle?[/Q]

Umm...yes...single Dads do it all the time.
 
Last edited:
With all due respect AEON, I think you have an unrealistically idealized view of family relationships. I realize that my experience does not represent any or all either, but..

Not something I ever thought I'd share here, but my mother never told me anything about menstruation-until my first period came and she fumbled to give me some info. So there was no comforting or sharing there. I honestly think two gay men and/or gay women could have done a better job.

"The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man" Depends on what your definition of a man is. My definition encompasses so much more than what a father has to offer a son. I don't believe in traditionally defined gender roles in parenting and in raising boys and girls.


"Likewise, the most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman."-Why not, can you explain how that is the case? I do know that my father made me feel so badly in so many ways about being a woman. Any loving gay father certainly could have helped me be a woman and more importantly, helped me trust and love men and not fear them, and have a positive image of them. What defines being a woman? A gay father could have done all that for me , as long as he was the right kind of man. Orientation is irrelevant.

"A gay man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman. A lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband."

Why not? Gay men intrinsically know nothing about women or hate them in some way? I don't believe that at all. Same for lesbian women I would imagine, I think they still know what a good man is. It's the same as what a good person is only the gender is male.

Your ideals are yours and you have a right to them but I respectfully think they are rooted in stereotypes and don't give people nearly enough credit.
 
Last edited:
^
^
I am of course supporting "the best case scenario" which in essence should be the model IMHO.

Yes, some women find themselves at a disadvantage of being a single parent. Can she make it work? Of course. They do it all the time. I am such a product (ok - no jokes please). But was it the "best case scenario?" - no.

To me, an outsider I guess, the argument for gay marriage simply doesn't make rational sense at any level on how it could possible benefit society.

This doesn't make me a bigot or a homophobe. I have neither hatred nor fear of homosexuals. Calling someone a bigot or homophobe because they don't agree with gay marriage is like calling someone a bigot or Christianphobe because they don't accept the Resurrection.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
With all due respect AEON, I think you have an unrealistically idealized view of family relationships. I realize that my experience does not represent any or all either, but..

Not something I ever thought I'd share here, but my mother never told me anything about menstruation-until my first period came and she fumbled to give me some info. So there was no comforting or sharing there. I honestly think two gay men and/or gay women could have done a better job.

"The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man" Depends on what your definition of a man is. My definition encompasses so much more than what a father has to offer a son. I don't believe in traditionally defined gender roles in parenting and in raising boys and girls.


"Likewise, the most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman."-Why not, can you explain how that is the case? I do know that my father made me feel so badly in so many ways about being a woman. Any loving gay father certainly could have helped me be a woman and more importantly, helped me trust and love men and not fear them, and have a positive image of them. What defines being a woman? A gay father could have done all that for me , as long as he was the right kind of man. Orientation is irrelevant.

"A gay man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman. A lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband."

Why not? Gay men intrinsically know nothing about women or hate them in some way? I don't believe that at all. Same for lesbian women I would imagine, I think they still know what a good man is. It's the same as what a good person is only the gender is male.

Your ideals are yours and you have a right to them but I respectfully think they are rooted in stereotypes and don't give people nearly enough credit.

You do raise some good points. I was indeed generalizing in order to make the larger point. It looks like I may have slipped into stereotyping a bit.

I still think the overall logic stands, however.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
Why not? Gay men intrinsically know nothing about women or hate them in some way?



i go shopping with women all the time ... perhaps we know more about women than straight men do.

:sexywink:

gay dads going shopping with their daughters, lesbian moms building tree houses with their songs ... actually, these stereotypes sound great to me.
 
AEON said:
[BTo me, an outsider I guess, the argument for gay marriage simply doesn't make rational sense at any level on how it could possible benefit society.
[/B]



how about this: adults in stable, monogamous relationships provides a benefit to society.

further, when gays and lesbians have children, it is in their children's best interest to have married parents.
 
AEON said:



Are you saying that NO ONE in your lineage is a lefty? Grandma? Great great grandpa? Obviously, left handed people can still pass on their genes through procreation.

However, it seems that the "homosexual gene" would be far more difficult to pass down, being that there is only one miraculous birth that I am currently aware of.

In terms of evolution- how would a homosexual gene benefit the survival of the species? How could it possibly be passed down if it did "randomly occur" in nature? And if it does "randomly occur" - isn't that considered a "mutation" of the genetic blueprint? (not my words - Darwin's)

Most of the compelling arguments against a homosexual gene come from evolutionary biologists - not from Christian preachers.


We get our genes from our parents. Some genes have a direct effect on our physical and chemical makeup. I believe, for instance, there is a gene that determines your eye color; your sex; etc. However, most of our physical and chemical characteristics are formed by interacting genes - if that makes sense. In other words, most of our characteristics are not based on one single gene. Rather, a combination of genes in a specific sequence determine characteristics. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that there is one single gene that "makes" someone gay. Instead, a sequence of many genes together may be responsible.
There is another recent interesting hypothesis. In the womb, the type and level of hormones may affect the sexual orientation of the soon-to-be baby.

In any case, Darwinism certainly does not make homosexuality an impossibility. If (for the sake of argument) there is one gene that is responsible, it is rather easy to see how recessive traits become dominant traits in the offspring. If this gene is a mutation (which isn't by nature a bad thing, mutations are the reason why we're not all green goop - is that how you spell the word?) and let's even say that this mutation does not increase the fitness level of an organism, it is still easy to understand how such a gene can be passed along. Many organisms have traits that are not beneficial, sometimes detrimental, to their fitness. We, for example, have a tail bone; some moles have eyes even though they are never used; some water-dwelling creatures have the capacity to breath oxygen. These are called vestigial structures. As mentioned, sometimes they are quiet harmful to the organisms chances of survival. Yet, if the organism is able to survive, then it will continue to pass along its genetic code. We certainly have been able to do that.
 
AEON said:

I still think the overall logic stands, however.

No offense to you but isn't the overall logic inherently flawed because it can't be applied to every relationship? Because it's an ideal that is intrinsically flawed because it doesn't exist for everyone?

I would love to find a gay man who is just a good man in the ways that I define a good man to be my late-in-life surrogate father and help me undo what happened as a result of the kind of father my father was. And to be the kind of father I always dreamed of having. I think it would be a lot cheaper than therapy and would be beneficial for me. And I'm serious about that, not just joking around.
 
Last edited:
blueyedpoet said:




In any case, Darwinism certainly does not make homosexuality an impossibility. If (for the sake of argument) there is one gene that is responsible, it is rather easy to see how recessive traits become dominant traits in the offspring. If this gene is a mutation (which isn't by nature a bad thing, mutations are the reason why we're not all green goop - is that how you spell the word?) and let's even say that this mutation does not increase the fitness level of an organism, it is still easy to understand how such a gene can be passed along. Many organisms have traits that are not beneficial, sometimes detrimental, to their fitness. We, for example, have a tail bone; some moles have eyes even though they are never used; some water-dwelling creatures have the capacity to breath oxygen. These are called vestigial structures. As mentioned, sometimes they are quiet harmful to the organisms chances of survival. Yet, if the organism is able to survive, then it will continue to pass along its genetic code. We certainly have been able to do that.

I think a Darwinist would argue that animals that have traits that are no longer beneficial – those traits were at one time beneficial to their ancestors and the genes were passed down through procreation.

Genetic homosexuality cannot be passed down as a trait because of the very simply fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate. There is nothing to pass down because “the buck stop here.” – so to speak…
 
Last edited:
MrsSpringsteen said:


No offense to you but isn't the overall logic inherently flawed because it can't be applied to every relationship? Because it's an ideal that is intrinsically flawed because it doesn't exist for everyone?

I would love to find a gay man who is just a good man in the ways that I define a good man to be my late-in-life surrogate father and help me undo what happened as a result of the kind of father my father was. And to be the kind of father I always dreamed of having. I think it would be a lot cheaper than therapy and would be beneficial for me. And I'm serious about that, not just joking around.

Agreed - it is tough to argue this point.

Would you agree, that the best case scenario would have been to have the kind of father you really needed and wanted?
 
Last edited:
AEON said:

Would you agree, that the best case scenario would have been to have the kind of father you really needed and wanted?

If you're somehow suggesting that that has nothing to do with a gay father and can exist outside that whole issue then no, I can't agree to that. The best scenario for me would have been a optimally healthy functioning family and the kind of father I needed and wanted-gay or straight, black or white, rich or poor, etc etc.

So if the best scenario is a good father and a good father is not gay or straight, he's just good-then what are we left with?

I realize that every family is flawed and we all deal with the results as best we can, but the flaws happen as a result of what kind of people parents are and their parenting skills, which have absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation as far as I am concerned. We live in 2006 and June and Ward Cleaver don't exist anymore because they never really did. I don't mean to insult you or your ideals by saying that, it is just life as I see it.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:


We live in 2006 and June and Ward Cleaver don't exist anymore because they never really did. I don't mean to insult you or your ideals by saying that, it is just life as I see it.

I don't feel insulted. I follow your reasoning.

What's really funny about this post was that always thought Ward Cleaver was an AWESOME father, perhaps because I really didn't have one.

I pour my heart into my two kids. It would crush me to have them ever think that I wasn't "there" for them through their life. My little step daughter has an active father, but we still have our own unique and awesome relationship. And my little boy, now 14 months old, is so darn cute and interactive. Already his own personality is showing. I only hope to ‘direct’ but not to ‘mold’ him. If that makes sense. The only thing that can really keep me from them is being deployed overseas. And I think about that a lot. Will my family think I abandoned them? Will my family think that I put my country before them…etc

Well. I think I understand your point MrsSpringsteen. But I am a person that does believe in “ideals” – and that the “ideal” is not flawed simply because we mess it up – the flaw is in us, not the ideal.
 
Last edited:
one other thing about the genetic component to homosexuality -- if it is not genetic, why is a solid 5-10% of every population in every country in the world homosexual? surely environment alone cannot explain such a consistent percentage, and if it were environmental, wouldn't some societies be "gayer" than others?
 
AEON said:



No human society, not a single one, has ever declared “marriage” between members of the same sex as a norm for family life. It was not until very recently have we believed that we can improve upon this ancient and universal institution.

This public meaning of marriage is not something that each new generation is free to redefine. Marriage is defined by God and nature—and a wise society will protect marriage as it has always been understood. Marriage is the way our culture promotes stability by insuring that every child has a mother and father.

The fact that some heterosexual couples cannot have children is the exception and not the rule. Many of these childless couples adopt, and their adoptive children receive the benefits of both father and mother this way. It is impossible for a homosexual couple to bestow that benefit—the presence of a father and a mother— on any child, even if that couple adopts or uses artificial insemination.

Some here argue that what kids need most are loving parents, regardless of whether or not it’s a mother or father. What a child needs most are a loving father and mother. A wealth of secular research over the past 30 years has shown us this. Yet, same-sex marriage and parenting intentionally deprive children of a mother or father. The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman. A gay man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman. A lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband. Is love enough to help two gay dads guide their daughter through her first menstrual cycle? Like a mom, they cannot comfort her by sharing their first experience. Little boys and girls need the loving daily influence of both male and female parents to become who they are meant to be.

Denying gay marriage only seems cruel because of the times in which we live. Our society prizes what seems fair, more than what is true. Children truly need both a mom and a dad. The cruelty is in intentionally denying them this. The research supporting this is both substantial and unequivocal. (mostly cut and pasted from an argument made by Glenn T. Stanton)


Irvine511 said:



wow, the kids of single parents are going to be very upset with this post.

As are the single parents who are doing a damn fine job of raising those kids. :|
 
AEON said:


This doesn't make me a bigot or a homophobe. I have neither hatred nor fear of homosexuals. Calling someone a bigot or homophobe because they don't agree with gay marriage is like calling someone a bigot or Christianphobe because they don't accept the Resurrection.


No someone would be a bigot or Christianphobe if they said Christians lead to the downfall of society, because esentially that is what you are saying.

And to be honest some "Christians" are making huge strides to destroy our society, but I would never generalize based on a small percentage.


Someone can say, I don't agree with your Christian beliefs but I support your privelage to do so.

Yet you are saying I don't think you're natural and a public and legal acceptance of your love will lead to society's downfall.

BIG DIFFERENCE!!!
 
AEON said:

But I am a person that does believe in “ideals” – and that the “ideal” is not flawed simply because we mess it up – the flaw is in us, not the ideal.

But ideals can be flawed in and of themselves-because they are hurtful and sometimes even hateful, because they just won't work any longer in today's world (sometimes we just have to be practical and realistic in order to function as a peaceful and loving society), because they discriminate, because they exclude, and for so many other reasons. Believing in ideals can be good, but it can be negative and ultimately destructive. Sometimes it can be good that we are flawed and that we mess them up as you say. Good and positive change can come from that, not just negatives.

I don't know you so I would never presume otherwise- but I really struggle to understand how, since you didn't have a father as you say- how you could not want any and every child to have a father and a good father, whether that father is gay or straight. Honestly some of your posts here indicate the opposite. Certainly there are so many gay men who are fantastic fathers.
 
The question of who we are attracted to raises a couple of interesting issues as they relate to the concept of choice. It would appear that anyone’s attraction to another individual is not a pure function of conscious choice (as are many of our functions or actions). But what is it? Is it the result of our environment and experiences, or is it part of our genetic makeup? Is there a way to measure between the two? Studies which try to show genetic links or biological causes produce inconsistent, non-predictable results. And we have never provided a way to measure results other than through self-declaration – which is by itself a flawed scientific method.

The next step is how we define our response to our attractions (the as of yet undefined impulses) – is that a choice?
 
nbcrusader said:
The question of who we are attracted to raises a couple of interesting issues as they relate to the concept of choice. It would appear that anyone’s attraction to another individual is not a pure function of conscious choice (as are many of our functions or actions). But what is it? Is it the result of our environment and experiences, or is it part of our genetic makeup? Is there a way to measure between the two? Studies which try to show genetic links or biological causes produce inconsistent, non-predictable results. And we have never provided a way to measure results other than through self-declaration – which is by itself a flawed scientific method.

The next step is how we define our response to our attractions (the as of yet undefined impulses) – is that a choice?



all very interesting questions, perhaps desire and love are simply unable to be adequately addressed by the scientific method?

perhaps this is where we simply have to trust people at their word, that what they say really is what is.

it also tosses notions of what is or what is not "moral" or "natural" right out the window, which is a benefit of the scientific method.

i think there are some genetic factors for attraction -- generally speaking, there are some universal standards of what is considered "beautiful" that transcend cultures. facial symmetry, the appearance of health, things like this -- though we can all find exceptions to this rule (love his music, but i don't find Lyle Lovett attractive, yet some do even though he defies conventional standards of beauty) and these exceptions, that which we find quirky, might be rooted in experience and environment. we can learn to love the quirk, or to adapt the quirk to whatever genetically wired responses to notions of "beauty" we already possess.

the important thing to realize, however, is that it is involuntary, and it is the suppression of whatever attractions you do have that causes dysfunction and misery.

of course, the exception to this is for those unfortunate few who's attractions are illegal -- specifically, pedophiles. most pedophiles can't help their attraction, it is unchosen, and most wish they weren't attracted to children, but because there is a clear victim, there is a clear harm to such an attraction, society has made it illegal and we punish those who act upon their attractions because a child is unable to give consent and damage is done to the child.
 
These last 2 posts by Irvine and nbcrusader raise some very intriguing questions.
 
AEON said:
non-reproduction = extinction

So the 10% who don't have children by nature of sexual orientation threaten the 90% who can have children by nature of sexual orientation?

This argument ignores the glaring fact that we have overpopulation, not underpopulation.

Of course, a lot of these arguments originally emanated from racists, as white nationalists only cared whether white people have children. As such, they would bitch about how the white birth rate is rather low when compared to the minority birth rate. Nowadays, these arguments just are pathetic.

Melon
 
melon said:

these arguments just are pathetic.


:up:

They've tried reproduction, pseudo-genetic science, tradition, the Bible, but haven't cemented one. Not one argument.

Yet they still argue it's not guided by bigotry or homophobia...

It's almost laughable if it weren't so sad.
 
melon said:


So the 10% who don't have children by nature of sexual orientation threaten the 90% who can have children by nature of sexual orientation?

This argument ignores the glaring fact that we have overpopulation, not underpopulation.

and this without mentioning (it would be redundant, I know) the millions of children , who are (oh surprise!!) product of heterosexual unions (and marriages) who are abandoned, neglected, abused, living with the minimun and with lack of love and atention.

saying this makes me ask how heterosexual families has contributed to this society. The idea of an ideal mom-dad-kids family is relatively new, and as far as I know it has evolved from ancient family structures and from the concept of childhood and private property, so in certain way it is product of the actual circumstances.
 
Last edited:
AEON said:
Melon, according to this line of reasoning - we should not take anything you say regarding your interpretation of the Bible's stance on homosexuality because you are gay – and therefore you are much more likely to “read into” the Bible what isn’t really there; or that I shouldn't take Irvine seriously about gay marriage because he is gay and in love – therefore, how could he possibly be objective?

The truth is, we all carry our own baggage into our research. Hoever, even kowing that, I do not discredit anything you or Irvine says. As a matter of fact, both of you have taught me quite a bit. What is important is the research itself.

(BTW - calling ID Pseudoscience was a cute little aside :) That’s a pretty arrogant statement considering that men like Einstein supported it. But you can address this in the other thread related to this)

The big difference here is that the research stating that sexual orientation is unchangeable has been peer reviewed and duplicated, using the scientific process. This is to ensure that personal bias is not a factor. The research you describe has not passed that test, and is suspect when it's done by a "researcher" with demonstrable bias against the subject. Name one "Christian researcher" that has ever produced a study that goes against his or her faith. That's problematic.

Secondly, what I have said about the Bible is not something I pulled out of my ass. Again, it is something that has been studied by serious Biblical scholars who have been studying the Bible as objectively as they would study any ancient text. This means studying the original words for their meanings, how they were commonly used, and ignoring the fact that we already have traditional interpretations for this book. That's the scientific process, and it is that process that I am drawing my information from.

I find the study of linguistics to be interesting. I have thought that if I ever give up on my current career path that I will go back to school to work towards a Ph.D in it. But one day at a time...

Melon
 
I was thinking.....

Would Christ be pushing for IDEALS or dealing with reality.

The only time he is violent, based on my recollection is towards the money changers at the TEMPLE.

The rest of the time, it seems to me, he looked at reality....

this sick need healing...shudder...even on the Sabbath....so he did against the IDEAL of the day.

He ate with the TAX collector, against the IDEAL of the day.

He accepted the gentile, against the IDEAL of the day.

I think GOD would love the ideal, and I dare say, there are people who make it in this word who fit the mold, but I also believe GOD a realist...look at the people he chose to work with...They were certainly not the ideal.....

There were many IDEALISTS in Jesus' day...I am not certain he hung with them.

Why is Billy Joel going through my head......
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom