MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Going by what melon said there is no secular reason why homosexuals should marry. Governments are secular and as such have no reason to deny homosexuals the rights conferrred by marriage. I've long been split over the issue of the state's involvement in marraiges at all. While weddings are a chance to present the Gospel to those who otherwise wouldn't set foot in a church, it is a in a lot of ways a farce to get married in a church if you aren't religious (and considering the divorce rate why complicate a broken legal contract further by lying to a God you already don't believe in). More and more I'm leaning toa system where you get a legal marriage licence at a courthouse and then anyother rituals, religious or secular you want are up to you. Leave teh religious aspects of marraige to relgious groups and the legal aspects to the state. And that's where I come down on this issue. This is a not a battle over religious marriage, it is a battle over legal rights, and it is writen into teh constitution of my country and the US that relgion does not impact up on legal rights. It is there in writing, that's in the Constitution and any such amendment would be cause the Constitution to contradict itself.

Religiously and spiritually I'm quite personally divided on this issue. While I think anyone who thinks the wrath of God will fall upon any nation who "defiles" marriage is off the mark (and sometimes I fear my own father falls into this category at times) and I believe completely that the way gays and lesbians are shamelessly persecuted and loose thier family is a virulent evil, I still don't quite know where I stand on the issue of homosexual intercourse (which is the only aspect of what is today called homsexuality, is dealt with in Scripture). I have devoted much time in study of scripture private reading on the matter going over the scientific research and in prayer and I'm still no closer to finding a position which works for me intellecually, morally or spiritually.
 
Blacksword said:
I still don't quite know where I stand on the issue of homosexual intercourse (which is the only aspect of what is today called homsexuality, is dealt with in Scripture). I have devoted much time in study of scripture private reading on the matter going over the scientific research and in prayer and I'm still no closer to finding a position which works for me intellecually, morally or spiritually.

I won't try and argue until I'm blue in the face on the issue, but I believe that the sex is peripheral in all of the supposed "anti-gay" passages. The sin expressed isn't the sex; it's what's done with the sex. Sodom and Gomorrah is a great example, because all references to that passage in Genesis in the Bible, both OT and NT, refer to it as a violation against hospitality. The same goes with the rest of the passages: humiliation, idolatry, etc.

Melon
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I agree with you that this isn't the America I was sold. I also agree with the notion that if something like this ammendment passes I would really have to question my place in this country, but I wouldn't let the hate consume you. You can't fight hate with hate.

:yes:. Exactly.

Regardless, melon...:hug:.

At least sharky's right in saying that this is not likely to pass, which makes me wonder why in the hell they're even bothering with this-it's a waste of time that could be spent on something much more worthwhile.

Verte, that's a good idea: I should write to my senator, too. And I agree with your other post. It just infuriates me that Bush is willing to support something like this. I mean, I've made it quite clear that I was never a Bush supporter...but...I dunno...I guess I still had some hope that he'd never go this far, I guess I thought he wouldn't be cruel enough to support this. *Shrugs*

Also...

Originally posted by Blacksword
and considering the divorce rate why complicate a broken legal contract further by lying to a God you already don't believe in

Seriously...that is an excellent point. :up:.

As for the homosexual sex part...personally, I don't even think about it. To me, it doesn't matter what the Bible says about it-it's something I feel should remain a private matter.

But again, that's just me-well said with the rest of your post. :).

Angela
 
Last edited:
I don't think this ammendment will pass, but it saddens me that we've even gotten to this point. When will people stop feeling so threatened by those who are different than them?

I THINK Bush knows that this isn't likely to pass, but he's hoping that it will help him out in the election. It's good for diverting the attention that he's been getting for Iraq/his service record etc.

Bill Maher recently said something I really liked: There really isn't enough in the contitution about marriages, we should really put something about it in there. Then we should also add some stuff about birthdays in there too. ( from my memory, not an exact quote)
 
Moonlit_Angel said:


Seriously...that is an excellent point. :up:.


While I'd like to take credit for that, I got it from C. S. Lewis. It was really after reading his section on marriage in Mere Christianity that I began questioning the whole intermeshing of state and religion in marriage. A good sober view on that relationship (well aside from his chuvenist rationalization for wives submitting to husbands - ironically though still a bachelor when h wrote that book Lewis would go on to marry a very independent, brilliant woman).


That's a different take on the passages on homosexulaity than I've read before. The interpretation sI've come across were that it had to do with the ritual purity laws (as sodomy is described as abomination - the violation of purity laws), and the pre-modern view that the entire creative force of live existed in the sperm (to "waste" sperm in any way, was thus killing a potential life, my personal view is that this antiquated view is the basis behing the Vatican's condemnation of birth control). But is the identification between anal sex and Sodom a nuance of English or Chritianized Latin or something that goes back to the original Hebrew and Greek? Most material I've read on teh matter disregards the passages in Sodom as having nothign to do with the issue of homosexuality, rather to be an issue of rape and male humiliation rather than anything sexual. Though it is clear that homosexuality in the modern sense was not concieved of by the writers of either OT or NT cannon. Personally I find the Leviticus references rather unhelpful in my dilema as their context doesn't really help (bracketed on one side by bestiality and incest, things most people today would consider wrong while bracketed on the other side with sexual intercourse during menstruation which is a matter no one tosay would think to call a sin). So I'm really left with Paul's references against against the context of the "one flesh" for life view of sexual matters from the Gospels.
 
ILuvLarryMullen said:
I don't think this ammendment will pass, but it saddens me that we've even gotten to this point. When will people stop feeling so threatened by those who are different than them?

I don't know. But see...this is what offends me. Right here. This whole thing with Bush flat out supporting denying people equal rights. I can't believe our president, a man who is supposed to lead people, is supporting that.

Somebody had recently shared an essay from a homosexual in regards to all this, and one part that stood out to me was where they said that they wanted to go ask people, "Why me? What have I done to you? Why do you hate me so much?"

I so wished every single homophobe out there could've read that.

Originally posted by ILuvLarryMullen
I THINK Bush knows that this isn't likely to pass, but he's hoping that it will help him out in the election. It's good for diverting the attention that he's been getting for Iraq/his service record etc.

Oh, definitely. It's an election year, he wants to win the election, therefore, he'll do whatever he can to help himself (and every politician does that, we're not saying Bush is the only one).

Originally posted by ILuvLarryMullen
Bill Maher recently said something I really liked: There really isn't enough in the contitution about marriages, we should really put something about it in there. Then we should also add some stuff about birthdays in there too. ( from my memory, not an exact quote)

Ooh...yeah, I recall that, too-wasn't that on the same show where he gave a whole speech in support of gay marriage as part of the "New Rules" thing (and it was a damn good speech, too)?

Angela
 
Blacksword said:

So I'm really left with Paul's references against against the context of the "one flesh" for life view of sexual matters from the Gospels.


Personally, I would disregard anything found in the OT that might have the slightest bit to do with homosexuality. As a Christian, I believe that Jesus' life on earth voided the laws of the OT. Therefore, I can't pick and choose which verses I want to use a proof for this or that. Even if I was against homosexuality, I wouldn't try and manipulate verses in the OT in an attempt to prove homosexuality as a sin because I find little use for the OT other than some really interesting reading and loose moral guidlines on how to live. The REAL message and "laws" for Christians are those of the gospel and the REAL purpose is to emulate Christ.
 
ILuvLarryMullen said:
Bill Maher recently said something I really liked: There really isn't enough in the contitution about marriages, we should really put something about it in there. Then we should also add some stuff about birthdays in there too. ( from my memory, not an exact quote)

And finally, New Rule, Special Valentine's Day Edition: You can't claim you're the party of smaller government and then make laws about love. On this occasion of this Valentine's Day, let's stop and ask ourselves what business is it of the state how consenting adults choose to pair off, share expenses and eventually stop having sex with each other. And why does the Bush Administration want a Constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey, why stop at weddings? Birthdays are important; let's put them in the great document. Let's make a law that gay people can have birthdays, but straight people get more cake. You know, to send the right message to kids.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:



Personally, I would disregard anything found in the OT that might have the slightest bit to do with homosexuality. As a Christian, I believe that Jesus' life on earth voided the laws of the OT. Therefore, I can't pick and choose which verses I want to use a proof for this or that. Even if I was against homosexuality, I wouldn't try and manipulate verses in the OT in an attempt to prove homosexuality as a sin because I find little use for the OT other than some really interesting reading and loose moral guidlines on how to live. The REAL message and "laws" for Christians are those of the gospel and the REAL purpose is to emulate Christ.

I've never seen how the "disregard the OT" argument works.

1) In teh Gospels Jesus is called teh end/fulfillmentof the law (the word in Greek means both), but even end can mean completion as in the Law accomplishes no salvation without Christ as it's only the first half of the equation. This is basically Paul's argument. The Lwa brings knowledge of sin thus the Law still has a purpose, for one cannot accpet a Savior if you do not believe you need to be saved. As a final note Paul remained a Jew to his death. He kept the full extent of the Law (as he had reinterpreted it in the new context of Christ) even practicing sacrifice at the Temple in Jerusalem, and in all things he stated that Jews should continue to keep the Law as Christ believers.

2) The NT quotes the OT at length. There are both explict (as in direct) and implicit (along the lines of paraphrasing or subtle referencing) quotations of OT texts throughout the NT. Matthew is full of them, Jesus in all gospels is an authority on the Hebrew Bible and quotes heavily from it. Much of Jesus says can be found in the OT. A biblical scholar with the proper know how could probably turn up thousands of OT references in the NT. Paul again quotes heavily from the OT and the book of Revelation only becomes even remotely intelligible when you read it a long side the OT book of Daniel, the source of the imagery the writer uses to describe his vision. You cannot get the full significance of the NT without reading the OT.

3) The OT has been part of the Christian cannon fromt eh very beginning. Before the gospels were written, before Paul's letters and the writings of others were collected teh only texts the first belivers had were the Hebrew Bible. The first belivers the people who actually knew Jesus and/or the apostles knew the Hebrew Bible and read it.

There are more things I could say but to me to take the NT without the OT is absurd even in a strictly scholarly sense.
 
Actually, history supports the argument. If the Vatican is good for anything, it is document collection, and they have much of the documents surrounding the debate on the NT canon. Basically, St. Paul believes that "the law" is Jesus' commandment: love one another. He rejects the other "the law": Mosaic Law. But that's where it gets confusing for people, as I think many of us are accustomed to "the law" referring to the Mosaic Law, and, let's not fool ourselves, how many people actually read the entire book and not pick and choose verses? Even churches do that, sad to say. To add to the confusion, there was a competing church, founded by St. Peter and St. James, that was Jewish Christian: hence, they did follow all the Mosaic Law, down to the letter. However, St. Paul was vehemently against this sect, and some of his epistles are written directly to these Jewish Christians to get them to convert. In fact, Romans was written to them, if I remember correctly. By A.D. 200-ish, though, the Jewish Christian sect was destroyed, and St. Paul's church is our direct predecessor.

Back to the NT canon, since St. Paul and his church believed that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, and, thus, it was no longer of any relevance to them, they pondered eliminating the OT altogether. However, they decided to keep the OT, as the NT made some references to it, but they did not look at the OT as a morality guide. It was, more or less, a historical reference guide, to them.

So, basically, I disagree with point #1.

Melon
 
Did anyone see Mayor Newsom last night on Larry King?

He is a practicing Catholic, and I admire him. I agreed w/ everything he said. And there are many Catholics, including myself, who feel the way he does.

And I am completely against a constitutional amendment. I agree w/ what Senator Kennedy said about it, I'd have to find the quotes..
 
melon said:
Actually, history supports the argument. If the Vatican is good for anything, it is document collection, and they have much of the documents surrounding the debate on the NT canon. Basically, St. Paul believes that "the law" is Jesus' commandment: love one another. He rejects the other "the law": Mosaic Law. But that's where it gets confusing for people, as I think many of us are accustomed to "the law" referring to the Mosaic Law, and, let's not fool ourselves, how many people actually read the entire book and not pick and choose verses? Even churches do that, sad to say. To add to the confusion, there was a competing church, founded by St. Peter and St. James, that was Jewish Christian: hence, they did follow all the Mosaic Law, down to the letter. However, St. Paul was vehemently against this sect, and some of his epistles are written directly to these Jewish Christians to get them to convert. In fact, Romans was written to them, if I remember correctly. By A.D. 200-ish, though, the Jewish Christian sect was destroyed, and St. Paul's church is our direct predecessor.

Back to the NT canon, since St. Paul and his church believed that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, and, thus, it was no longer of any relevance to them, they pondered eliminating the OT altogether. However, they decided to keep the OT, as the NT made some references to it, but they did not look at the OT as a morality guide. It was, more or less, a historical reference guide, to them.

So, basically, I disagree with point #1.

Melon

What Paul opposed was not the sect of James but rather radicals within that sect who demanded that Gentiles observe the entire Mosaic Law. Paul was vehemently against this. Yet he explicitly denied ever telling Jewish Christians not to keep the Mosaic Law. It was over this matter that the trouble in Jerusalem that eventually lead to him going to Rome to appeal to the Emperor. A group in the Jerusalem Church accused Paul of telling Jews to forsake the Mosaic Law. James came to Paul and basically said "I know you don't but you have to prove yourself." He asked Paul to go through the rite of Purification at the Temple which involved sacrifices among other things and it was while Paul was doing this that anti-Christian Jewish radicals nearly killed him, prompting the the Roman Tribune to put Paul in protective custody and sort the details out later. It's all in Acts.

As another example Paul approves of Timothy's circumcision as his mother was Jewish making hima full Jew under Jewish custom. For the Jews the Law was still valid. For Gentiles who were not part of God's first covanant it was not an obligation. Paul in many ways considered the Law a burden which he did not want to lay upon Gentile believers.

But he still valued that Covanant. That's why he got so angry with the Galatians because many of them were becoming Jews only to escape persecution by the Roman authorities. Several decades before, Augustus had outlawed all new collegia (formal associations or groups) as a danger to the safety of the state. Old established collegia were allowed to continue as they had proven they could operate loyally within the Roman state. Under Roman Law the Jewish Synagogue was a collegium, one with very special rights which included being exempt from having to offer sacrifices to the cult of the Divine Emperor. However the only way to be protected under the umbrella of the Synagogue was to be a Jew, that is to be circumcised and live out the Mosaic Law. Otherwise you could be arrested for sedition and treason for not particpating in the Imprial cult, if the community didn't take to Christians. Thus Paul rebukes the Galatians for trivializing Jewish status and for cowardice. For Paul at least in the case of Jews the Law was still valid as it was part of the Covanent. And for non-Jews it served to bring knowlege of sin, though they were not required to attempt to follow it. Rather they were simply to emulate Chirst to the best of thier abilities. For Paul the Law still was in effect for Jews and still served the purpose that it always had served, however it could not provide salvation (that was the big point Paul made severl times in his letters, that's where for Paul Christainity differed from existing forms of Judaism, in that it denied that the Law had to power to save, it still had a function but it did not save). The only instructions given to Gentile believers were to refrain from fornication, eating blood and eating food offered to idols, and that came down from the Jerusalem Church in the person of James. Things weren't always cheery, Acts mentions at least one argument Paul and Peter had over the Jew-Gentile divide (where Paul rightly called Peter a hypocrite), but from where matters in Jerusalem are left off in Acts the formal leadership of the Church there never required Gentiles to become Jews (after the point where Acts breaks off I can't say). Why should they have been overly concerned with Gentiles when thier mission was to convert those already Jews, and to make Jesus centred Judaism the only form of Judaism.
 
Last edited:
Here's the link for a rush transcript of Larry King from Tuesday night, if anyone's interested in reading that

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/24/lkl.00.html

I have to say that Chad Allen amazed me in how dignified and respectful he was, considering some of the things that were being said. I don't know how he did it, but then again I don't know how homosexuals deal w/ that on a regular basis. I have much compassion and respect for the fact that they do.
 

MACARTHUR: And homosexuality...

KING: ... a sin to you.

MACARTHUR: Yes. And...

KING: Therefore, it's a choice.

MACARTHUR: It's a choice you make. It's a sinful choice.

KING: Did you make a choice to be heterosexual?

MACARTHUR: I don't think I had to make a choice to be heterosexual. I think that's a natural thing.

KING: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. In other words, one is a choice and one is not?

MACARTHUR: Yes.

KING: So he was unlucky and you're...

MACARTHUR: Because -- because you're not talking about -- because it's natural to be heterosexual. That's built...

KING: What do you mean by natural?

MACARTHUR: Well, I mean, that's the way God made us. That's the normal...

KING: But if he doesn't feel that way, what is he, then? He's not a sinner. It wasn't his decision.

MACARTHUR: Yes, I think it was his decision.

ALLEN: I would love, absolutely love for the pastor to point out for me when in my life I made that decision because I have to tell you, it caused a lot of pain in my family. It caused a lot of pain to me. It's a very, very tough thing that I had to go through. I don't remember making that decision. If I did, maybe can you point it out, but that wasn't the case for me.

(CROSSTALK)

ALLEN: It's who I am. You also said that it was in the fabric of the human being that -- to understand that marriage was between a man and a woman and that's what family was. It must not be because it's not in the fabric of what who I am. It's not the way I see it. I think families come in all shapes, sizes and colors.


:up:
 
There was an excellent debate on this subject on Real Time with Bill Maher this week. If you get HBO and missed it, it's still re-running this week.
 
Governor Says Law Permitting Gay Marriage Would Be 'Fine'

Schwarzenegger also tells 'Tonight Show' host that he opposes Bush's proposed amendment.

By Joe Mathews, Peter Nicholas and Nancy Vogel
Times Staff Writers

March 2, 2004

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said on national television Monday night that it would be "fine with me" if state law were changed to permit same-sex marriages.

In an interview with Jay Leno on NBC's "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," Schwarzenegger also strongly rejected President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. "I think those issues should be left to the state, so I have no use for a constitutional amendment or change in that at all," he said.

The governor reiterated his opposition to the decision by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, saying city officials should abide by the state law.

But when Leno asked, "Would you have any problem if they changed the law?" the governor replied: "No, I don't have a problem. Let the court decide. Let the people decide."

After noting that voters had approved Proposition 22 in recent years to limit marriage to a man and a woman, Schwarzenegger indicated he was open at least to an initiative to legalize same-sex marriage.

"If the people change their minds and they want to overrule that, that's fine with me."

The author of Proposition 22, Sen. William "Pete" Knight (R-Palmdale) said he was surprised at Schwarzenegger's comments and disappointed by the governor's overall handling of the gay marriage issue.

If Schwarzenegger announced support for gay marriage legislation, it would pass, Knight added.

"If he says he'll sign it," said Knight, "it'll whistle through there."

Former Gov. Gray Davis, who has socialized with Schwarzenegger in recent weeks, made a surprise appearance on Monday's show, and the two exchanged a few quips.

The former movie star said he had been advising Davis about a possible acting career.

"He's helped me a lot with acting, particularly with my pronunciation," Davis said.-

Schwarzenegger's interview with Leno gave the first indication that the governor is not opposed to gay marriage at a moral level, and that if Californians wanted to change the law, he would not be an obstacle.

When asked, Schwarzenegger has spoken in favor of gay rights since his days as a bodybuilder in the 1970s. He has also expressed support for California's existing domestic partnership law. But as governor he had largely sidestepped questions about the fairness of barring same-sex couples from marrying.

His only previous statement, during a recall campaign interview with talk show host Sean Hannity, appeared to be a malapropism: "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman."

Asked last week if he had voted for Proposition 22 when it was on the ballot in 2000, the governor said: "I'll be honest with you. I can't remember."

In the past two weeks, Schwarzenegger has staked out the position that what is chiefly offensive to him about the marriages in San Francisco is the violation of law.

"He sees this primarily as a matter of the rule of law," his communications director, Rob Stutzman, said in an interview last week.

Asked Monday night about Schwarzenegger's statement on Leno, Stutzman said: "I think the governor's words speak for themselves."

The stance hews closely to the governor's position on most controversial issues. As the self-proclaimed "People's Governor," he has said he wants to follow the wishes of the public as expressed at the ballot box.

But his comments were a notable departure in tone for the governor. Over the past two weeks, Schwarzenegger has suggested that San Francisco's granting of licenses was a threat to "civil order." On Feb. 22, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," he said of the scene in San Francisco, "We see riots and we see protests and we see people clashing. The next thing we know is there are injured or dead people, and we don't want to have that." San Francisco authorities disputed that, saying there have been no riots connected to the issue.

On the same show, he added: "We cannot have, all of a sudden now, mayors go and hand out licenses for various different things. If it is ? you know, in San Francisco, it's the license for marriage of same sex. Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons. And someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs."

Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who is no relation to Jay Leno, last month introduced a bill to legalize gay marriage in California. Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill.

The assemblyman said he was pleased to hear that the governor opposed a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. But, he said, he saw Schwarzenegger's statements "let the court decide ? let the people decide" as contradictory.

"Constitutional issues need to be reviewed and decided by courts and not left to majority opinion polls or cast ballots," said Leno. "Otherwise, few in this country would have any civil rights."

Knight, on the other hand, said he was disappointed in Schwarzenegger's inability to halt the marriages in San Francisco.

"He's not followed up in San Francisco," said Knight. "They're still issuing marriage licenses, they're still breaking the law."

Knight said that if the Legislature passed a bill to legalize gay marriage, he would sue, just as he has sued to try to block a new law sponsored by Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles) that next January will grant more rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners.

"Eventually the courts are going to have to take the issue and decide," he said. "Although I don't have much hope in California. The judges so far have not been willing to tackle the issue."

During the "Tonight Show" interview, Jay Leno made an extended speech about what he saw as growing support for gay marriage among the young. "With younger people, it seems to be gathering momentum," Leno said.

"That's good," Schwarzenegger said. "I think it's a good debate. It's a very interesting question, and I think the courts should make those decisions. But I think before that happens, we should obey the law."

Schwarzenegger has been one of the most frequent guests in the history of "The Tonight Show," and has used the venue to make major announcements about his career, including his entry into politics on Aug. 6 of last year.

But the governor did not appear to be attempting to make news on gay marriage. During the same interview, the governor joked he was fighting with his Hollywood agents because they wanted 10% of the state budget. Schwarzenegger seemed more intent on campaigning for two ballot measures to eliminate budget deficits ? Propositions 57 and 58 ? which appear on today's statewide ballot.

Schwarzenegger initially glared at Jay Leno when he raised the issue of gay marriage, but the ensuing discussion was lighthearted.

After Jay Leno introduced the subject by asking, "This gay marriage thing, what's your position on it, how do you deal with it?"

Schwarzenegger paused pregnantly and asked, "Are you trying to ask me something?"

"No, I'm not trying to ask you something," Leno replied.

"C'mon, admit it," the governor said. "All right, I admit," Leno said. "I'm in love with you."
 
Blacksword said:


I've never seen how the "disregard the OT" argument works.

1) In teh Gospels Jesus is called teh end/fulfillmentof the law (the word in Greek means both), but even end can mean completion as in the Law accomplishes no salvation without Christ as it's only the first half of the equation. This is basically Paul's argument. The Lwa brings knowledge of sin thus the Law still has a purpose, for one cannot accpet a Savior if you do not believe you need to be saved. As a final note Paul remained a Jew to his death. He kept the full extent of the Law (as he had reinterpreted it in the new context of Christ) even practicing sacrifice at the Temple in Jerusalem, and in all things he stated that Jews should continue to keep the Law as Christ believers.

2) The NT quotes the OT at length. There are both explict (as in direct) and implicit (along the lines of paraphrasing or subtle referencing) quotations of OT texts throughout the NT. Matthew is full of them, Jesus in all gospels is an authority on the Hebrew Bible and quotes heavily from it. Much of Jesus says can be found in the OT. A biblical scholar with the proper know how could probably turn up thousands of OT references in the NT. Paul again quotes heavily from the OT and the book of Revelation only becomes even remotely intelligible when you read it a long side the OT book of Daniel, the source of the imagery the writer uses to describe his vision. You cannot get the full significance of the NT without reading the OT.

3) The OT has been part of the Christian cannon fromt eh very beginning. Before the gospels were written, before Paul's letters and the writings of others were collected teh only texts the first belivers had were the Hebrew Bible. The first belivers the people who actually knew Jesus and/or the apostles knew the Hebrew Bible and read it.

There are more things I could say but to me to take the NT without the OT is absurd even in a strictly scholarly sense.

Sorry, my response is a bit late, but....

What I meant was that the NT is, as far as I'm concerned, the Law regarding religious issues. The NT disregards a lot of the OT. Anything in the OT that is important to how I as a Christian should live is also present, whether directly or implied, in the NT. For example, the OT says "thou shalt not kill". The NT doesn't throw that out and say we CAN kill, but it says we should "love thy neighbor as thyself" which obviously includes NOT killing people. So I don't mean to say by voiding the rules of the OT I CAN kill and steal and worship idols, but I don't NEED those rules anymore b/c if I am srtiving to live like Jesus, that implies that I'm not killing, stealing, etc. Also, the OT has so many specifics that no longer are relevent. Like, certain meat being unclean - I know there's one part in the NT where Jesus tells this guy who's supposed to dine at a pagan's house that he can eat the meat that is served.

The OT is important for the history of Christianity and theology, but if hypothetically there was no longer an OT, I don't believe the rules for living a Christian life would change. Everything that's necessary for salvation is in the NT.

Sorry, that had nothing to do with gay marriage...
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
The OT is important for the history of Christianity and theology, but if hypothetically there was no longer an OT, I don't believe the rules for living a Christian life would change. Everything that's necessary for salvation is in the NT.

But, as you point out, to live by NT commands, we look to the OT to give it meaning. Salvation does not come by the Law (i.e., works), but "We know that the law is good if one uses it properly." 1 Tim 1:8
 
Why is that people only want to pick and choose the Old Testament laws? If you're going to use these laws in order to argue against gay marriage look at the rest and see how many you follow, or even how many make sence these days.
 
bonosloveslave said:
And yet another state jumps on the bandwagon...


That's great.

The cat's out of the bag here, kids. And it ain't going back in. :up:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Why is that people only want to pick and choose the Old Testament laws? If you're going to use these laws in order to argue against gay marriage look at the rest and see how many you follow, or even how many make sence these days.

Exactly, the OT laws are worthless in the sense that they are not the laws that govern a pious Christian lifestyle. Sure, they're important for theological and historical reasons and as the origins for NT interpretations, but other than that, they're just old laws that we no longer need.
 
They still serve an important function as Paul lays out. Through the Law (of Moses) comes the knowledge of sin. No one who diesn't belive they are a sinner can turn to a Savior. And that is the situation amongst a lot of society today. They don't want to be saved because they don't think they need saving. Therefore the Law's purpose is still very valid. We as Gentile belivers are not required to keep the Law but we still need to be aware of it to serve as guide posts for our behavior. Though its funny how some of teh explicit NT laws get ignored, like the whole no fornication thing. Just try convincing people that's a sin these days.

One of the big problems with applying the OT and NT Laws and guidelines on the matter of homosexual intercourse is that both sets of texts assume everyone is heterosexual by default. However as we know modern science has made it clear that homosexuality is a sexual identity that in nearly all cases results from a mixture of genetic, biological, environmental and psychological factors (anyone who trys to say it's been proven to be purely genetic in all cases or in any cases is misinformed as the jury is still out and a lot more reseach needs to be done). In any case for the vast majority of homosexuals in the moderns sense, it is not a conscious choice. Now whether one regards homosexuality as a natural state, a genetic disorder or a psychological disorder is a matter of opinion (on the last count we have the lines blurred a bit now with the psychologist who lead the charge to have homosexuality removed as a pyschological disorder saying that unwanted homosexual feelings can be reverse). With so much data floating around and so many studies I find it hard to take definite opinion. However as it is clear that homsexuals are functional individuals (though there are some indications of increased mental stress in some studies, the higher rate of depression and suicide is often referred to) there is no reason for them to be denied rights no matter what your take on the science is. Whether or not you consider the condition to be reversable or unhealthy spiritually or metally is a matter beyond the realm of law.

As a moderate conservative on this issue I tend to fall on the side of harmful to the individual but not debilitating, but not harmful to society as a whole as it is not a matter of conscious decision that's gonna catch on like a plague which the "gay menace" crowd seem to think. Nor do I think gays are going to hell for one sin which they have little to no control over, (save in the as yet undecied possibility that homosexuality may may be reversible in at least a certain percentage of individuals should they desire it - and even then I don't think anyone is going to say such a changeover would be easy). And that said I do think homosexual intercourse is a sin and it is explicitly so for "straight" people who have no cause to do so, that much is clear in scripture. Of course then there's the problem of there being a sexual continuum due to the imperfect nature of human genetics as well as a gender continuum. This does not make any of these people of less value or more sinners than other people but it does once again remind us of a situation where one must make the choice to live as best as they can rather than meeting an ideal which for a number of people is out of reach entirely. Such is the reality of sin, nothing can be perfect, yet we should still endeavor to bring ourselves into as right a relationship with God as possible. And yes in my opinion that does mean that people who are irreversibly homosexual can be in a solid relationship with God, becuase then they would simply not be capable of living out one small section of the Law. One can't be held culpable for things that can't be controlled (and if one is not capable of being celebate I don't advocate it, as the harm in that course is made quite clear in all the problems facing the Catholic clergy right now).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom