Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

01/25/2010 11:45:58 PM · #4326

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
Has anyone considered asking johnnyphototo start another thread. I don't mind a slight digression... but this is nuts.

Ray

New thread? We got many ready made threads for him. :) Maybe we could go at Science and Theology, part three? :)

Hey... I'll go where everyone else goes. I keep trying to walk away from this thread but all the others are dead, so I just keep coming back. I'm like a fly and this thread is the light bulb.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

01/25/2010 11:58:58 PM · #4327

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Many religious people (Muslims, Jews, Christians) believe that discrimination that causes suffering is immoral. But those same people believe that gay marriage is even more immoral than discrimination. So, in the eyes of religious people, they are choosing the least immoral option.

01/20/2010 08:42:18 PM
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

But it's not......slavery, ergotism, concubines, pork, seafood, and the list goes on and on of things that have been proven to be dead wrong.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Yes, slavery and concubines and all the rest are unacceptable in many societies (but not all). However, while the Bible is 100% relevant for understanding God, the Bible is also 100% contextual. In the Bible some of the rules for living were only applicable to people that lived thousands of years ago. You need to study the Bible carefully in order to find out which teachings are applicable for living in the 21st century.

So in essence what you are saying here is that those people passing judgment who should be loving the sinners can ostracize a whole segment of society, notwithstanding the fact that in due course their acts could eventually be found to be acceptable to the church.

I also have a problem with the concept that one can love the sinner, hate the sin, but still render judgment... something that I was led to believe fell exclusively within God's realm.

Ray

01/26/2010 12:21:46 AM · #4328

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

The Bible does not condone slavery, concubines, etc... The Bible also teaches against judging others. The fact of the matter is that Christians are not perfect, they make mistakes too. Christians get caught judging people just like everybody else. Christians are still human, and still make human mistakes, and regret them later. Christians who do pass judgment without remorse fail to live according to their beliefs.

It's not a happy thing, but unfortunately the religious institution of Christianity has misrepresented Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Bible. Many people see how the church functions and think that's how the church is supposed to be and that's what the Bible teaches. Ultimately, the Christian religion does not perfectly resemble the teachings of scripture. What many people call "contradictions" are really the churches attempts to correct itself and get back to the Biblical basics. The Council of Nicea, Council of Trent, Reformation, Counter-Reformation, Great Awakening, etc... were all attempts to bring an end to hypocrisy.

Christians face a lot of harsh criticism today when sharing their faith for these reasons. People think they know the Bible and Jesus Christ and they decide they don't like it, when really what they know is the religious institution. That's reality, and for many people it's hard to get past. I know because I've been there myself. It's not easy being Christian in a post-religious society.

Believe me Ray, you're not the only one that has a problem with organized religion. There a many Christians that don't like organized religion any more than you do.

Message edited by author 2010-01-26 00:22:45.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/26/2010 01:58:35 AM · #4329

Originally posted by RayEthier:

But it's not......slavery, ergotism, concubines, pork, seafood, and the list goes on and on of things that have been proven to be dead wrong.

You might pick better words. "proven" is not likely the best word when we just got through the fact that morality is a human construct.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

01/26/2010 07:59:59 AM · #4330

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
But it's not......slavery, ergotism, concubines, pork, seafood, and the list goes on and on of things that have been proven to be dead wrong.

You might pick better words. "proven" is not likely the best word when we just got through the fact that morality is a human construct.

Actually the words are Nikon Jeb's and were penned on 01/20/2010 08:42:18 PM which I believe pre-dates the discussions on "morality being a human construct".

Ray

01/26/2010 08:24:49 AM · #4331

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

What? A global flood? Who told you that the flood had to be large scale? At the time the Bible was written the known world was very small. When the Bible says the whole world was flooded, it means the whole world that was known.

So would you agree that, rather than launching on a misguided attempt to save the local fauna by constructing the ark, Noah should have been a bit more proportionate and started walking?

If we are going to go down this route, then at the time the bible was written there were a lot of fables and stories and almost no real knowledge of how the universe started, how life evolved, or even the cause of natural phenomena like earthquakes and lightening.

I note that you did not really respond to the points made by me and others that evidence for the big bang and evolution is contemporaneous and reliable. Would you accept that this evidence conflicts with Genesis? As you say "Parts of the Bible are figurative" - given this, and your view that we should read the bible in the context of what its human authors knew, would you agree that Genesis is one of those figurative areas?

Can we then agree that it is appropriate to disregard the literality of Genesis and accordingly the troublesome concept of original sin?

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

God intervenes personally, and many people have personal testimonies about how God has intervened in their lives. But God hasn't performed large scale miracles since before the time of Christ.

If god intervenes, he should leave surely some impact?

We would expect to see people being helped by god as being differentiated in some way. If their prayers for the sick are actually working, then relatives of Christians might expect to be slightly healthier or long lived. If the impact is less pronouced - say just a better sense of well being - then we might expect Christians to be less prone to mental illnesses. Those would be statistically identifiable.

The problem for Christianity (and as far as I know all other religions) is that no such impact can be shown to exist. Some studies have even identified a worsening in the health of people who are prayed for (surmised to have been caused by expectation stress).

Message edited by author 2010-01-26 08:26:37.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

01/26/2010 09:49:36 AM · #4332

Out of interest how do you reconcile this:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The Bible does not condone slavery, concubines, etc... The Bible also teaches against judging others.

With this:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

[edit to add: both New Testament to avoid the spurious argument that the many OT references are superseded by the actions of Jesus]

I am sure that there is a way to see this as figurative - but you have also suggested that we take into account the actual knowledge of the time when the bible was written - and it was written at a time of widespread slavery. So I think that it is fair to say that the writers probably intended these words to be read as a literal instruction.

I'd be interested in knowing how you reconcile all that with this:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I don't claim to have "my own" type of Christianity. My faith is based 100% on the Bible and I will continue to adjust my life according to the Bible until the day I die. Like I just said, there is not a single verse of the Bible that I disagree with.

In other words, I don't manipulate the Bible to fit myself, I manipulate myself to fit the Bible.

Message edited by author 2010-01-26 09:53:20.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

01/26/2010 09:53:17 AM · #4333

Originally posted by Matthew:

Brilliant point.

So, living here in NYC it's pretty clear that Mt. Sinai Hospital has far better record than St Johns. Apparently the Jews got it right...?

Go Jews!

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

01/26/2010 10:39:46 AM · #4334

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by Matthew:
If god intervenes, he should leave surely some impact?

We would expect to see people being helped by god as being differentiated in some way. If their prayers for the sick are actually working, then relatives of Christians might expect to be slightly healthier or long lived.

Brilliant point.

So, living here in NYC it's pretty clear that Mt. Sinai Hospital has far better record than St Johns. Apparently the Jews got it right...?

Go Jews!

I like your illogic, Steve! If only that particular religion was recruiting...

pawdrix

Nikon D700

01/26/2010 10:50:41 AM · #4335

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by pawdrix:

Originally posted by Matthew:
If god intervenes, he should leave surely some impact?

We would expect to see people being helped by god as being differentiated in some way. If their prayers for the sick are actually working, then relatives of Christians might expect to be slightly healthier or long lived.

Brilliant point.

So, living here in NYC it's pretty clear that Mt. Sinai Hospital has far better record than St Johns. Apparently the Jews got it right...?

Go Jews!

I like your illogic, Steve! If only that particular religion was recruiting...

Illogic kinda goes with the territory...n'est-ce pas?

eta: Jews don't recruit, you're correct...and in fact, snicker a bit at converts. BUT they run damn good Hospitals.

Message edited by author 2010-01-26 10:53:01.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

01/26/2010 11:12:29 AM · #4336

Originally posted by pawdrix:

eta: Jews don't recruit, you're correct...and in fact, snicker a bit at converts. BUT they run damn good Hospitals.

And camera stores. :-)

scarbrd

Leica M10

01/26/2010 12:18:26 PM · #4337

Originally posted by Matthew:

Can we then agree that it is appropriate to disregard the literality of Genesis and accordingly the troublesome concept of original sin?

This is where you run headlong into the fundamentalists. In conversations I've had, it goes something like this.

The Garden of Eden story has to be literally true. Because, without Eden, you don't have the literal Adam and Eve, without Adam and Eve you don't have the singular act of Original Sin. Without Original sin that we all inherit from a common ancestry, you don't have the need for salvation, without the need for salvation, you don't have the need for a Savior. Without the need for a Savior, you don't need to follow the teachings of Christ in order to be saved.

If any part of this scenario is not literally true, then it all falls apart. Therefore, according to their logic, it all must be true.

George

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

01/26/2010 12:48:24 PM · #4338

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by Matthew:

Can we then agree that it is appropriate to disregard the literality of Genesis and accordingly the troublesome concept of original sin?

This is where you run headlong into the fundamentalists. In conversations I've had, it goes something like this.

The Garden of Eden story has to be literally true. Because, without Eden, you don't have the literal Adam and Eve, without Adam and Eve you don't have the singular act of Original Sin. Without Original sin that we all inherit from a common ancestry, you don't have the need for salvation, without the need for salvation, you don't have the need for a Savior. Without the need for a Savior, you don't need to follow the teachings of Christ in order to be saved.

If any part of this scenario is not literally true, then it all falls apart. Therefore, according to their logic, it all must be true.

Wait, I don't get it. Isn't that circular logic?

frisca

Nikon D70

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/26/2010 01:31:02 PM · #4339

the last few pages of this thread have been FASCINATING, and I have a lot of respect for all the contributors to the conversation, including johnnyphoto for standing up so gallantly and expressing his beliefs, HOWEVER, its off-track A LOT. So start a new thread, ressurrect an old one, or let this part of the conversation die; its time to get back to the topic at hand of gay rights/marriage and whether rights are evolving.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/26/2010 01:42:26 PM · #4340

Originally posted by scarbrd:

The Garden of Eden story has to be literally true. Because, without Eden, you don't have the literal Adam and Eve, without Adam and Eve you don't have the singular act of Original Sin. Without Original sin that we all inherit from a common ancestry, you don't have the need for salvation, without the need for salvation, you don't have the need for a Savior. Without the need for a Savior, you don't need to follow the teachings of Christ in order to be saved.

I disagree when you say that without original sin we don't need salvation. We screw up plenty and that insures our need for salvation leaving original sin out of the equation.

I have also seen liberal interpretations of Adam and Eve to postulate that they were real people, but not the first humans, merely the first to be infused with a soul. God's creative work through evolution had reached a point we were worthy of "his image" (ie. an indestructable soul). I'm not sure it's necessary to buy that, but it's interesting nonetheless.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/26/2010 02:01:14 PM · #4341

sorry Frisca. I didn't see your post. I'm gonna get this thread locked down baby!

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/26/2010 02:06:35 PM · #4342

Originally posted by Matthew:

I note that you did not really respond to the points made by me and others that evidence for the big bang and evolution is contemporaneous and reliable. Would you accept that this evidence conflicts with Genesis? As you say "Parts of the Bible are figurative" - given this, and your view that we should read the bible in the context of what its human authors knew, would you agree that Genesis is one of those figurative areas?

Can we then agree that it is appropriate to disregard the literality of Genesis and accordingly the troublesome concept of original sin?

The first chapters of Genesis, which describe creation, are written in such a way that they should be taken figuratively. Would I say that scientific evidence conflicts with Genesis? No, I would not. I would say the opposite. Because the creation story in Genesis is not literal, then it should not be held up against strict scientific methods. However, Genesis is not the only place in the Bible that talks about the creation of the world and original sin. The idea that God created the universe and the concept of original sin are scattered throughout the Bible, which is why they are dogma. The idea that God created the world in seven 24 hour days is not dogma, because we don't know if "day" in the creation story is figurative or literal, and the Bible doesn't clarify elsewhere. God could have used the Big Bang to create the universe, and he could have formed it over the course of Billions of years. There is no evidence in the Bible that suggests that couldn't have happened.

Originally posted by Matthew:

The problem here is that you're putting God in a box. You are assuming that God would allow himself to be studied like a lab rat. What you are describing is not "intervention" but "revelation". You are expecting God to perform miracles that will signal his existence to millions of people. God does "intervene", but he does not reveal himself like that. God reveals himself in only three ways. 1) His word, the Bible 2) Jesus Christ 3) personal revelation. God has revealed all that he wants to reveal and that is all that we need to believe. If people were healed miraculously in hospitals regularly, can you image how quickly that would spread through the media? That's not what God wants. John 20:29, "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."" For the record, there are plenty of miracles that happen in the developing world where Christianity is exploding (Africa, South American, Southeast Asia). We don't hear about them because people in those countries are not as shocked by the supernatural and spiritual as people in North America and as a result those events aren't commonly reported in the media. North America is a spiritually dead place in comparison to the three regions I mentioned above. God performs miracles to the faithful as a blessing, not to the skeptics as a revelation.

frisca

Nikon D70

01/26/2010 02:11:16 PM · #4343

sorry to do this, but next off-topic post gets this thread locked.

Message edited by author 2010-01-26 14:12:44.

citymars

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/26/2010 02:22:51 PM · #4344

Originally posted by frisca:

sorry to do this, but next off-topic post gets this thread locked.

This reminds me of that old I Love Lucy episode where the small-town sheriff says "If you so much as say 'Boo', I'll lock you all up!" And then you see Lucy's face, considering it....

Anyway -- I support gay rights!

01/26/2010 02:44:55 PM · #4345

Originally posted by Matthew:

Out of interest how do you reconcile this:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The Bible does not condone slavery, concubines, etc... The Bible also teaches against judging others.

With this:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

[edit to add: both New Testament to avoid the spurious argument that the many OT references are superseded by the actions of Jesus]

I am sure that there is a way to see this as figurative - but you have also suggested that we take into account the actual knowledge of the time when the bible was written - and it was written at a time of widespread slavery. So I think that it is fair to say that the writers probably intended these words to be read as a literal instruction.

I'd be interested in knowing how you reconcile all that with this:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I don't claim to have "my own" type of Christianity. My faith is based 100% on the Bible and I will continue to adjust my life according to the Bible until the day I die. Like I just said, there is not a single verse of the Bible that I disagree with.

In other words, I don't manipulate the Bible to fit myself, I manipulate myself to fit the Bible.

You don't need to manipulate the Bible to reconcile the above verses regarding slavery. It's all about context. People in our part of the world tend to read those verses and jump to conclusions. "HA! Those verses do not condemn slavery, that means the Bible condones slavery!" But that's not the case. Here's a history lesson for you. In first century Rome, as many as one third to half of the population in any given city were slaves. Slavery was not an institution based on race, like it was in the United States. Slavery in antiquity was based on social class. The middle class as we know it did not exist in antiquity. There was a stratification of the upper class, and the lower class often sold themselves into slavery because they couldn't survive on their own. Slave owners could still be cruel, and some people from enemy nations were forced into slavery, but in general slavery was an integral part of life. Also, slaves were usually not forced into hard labor. Many slaves were very skilled. Doctors, scribes, and educated people often sold themselves into slavery when they couldn't make a living. Also, the majority of slavers in antiquity were able to buy themselves out of slavery after a certain amount of time. Main Point: Slavery was an integral part of life in antiquity and it was very different from modern day slavery that we think of.

Here's how you reconcile it all... Paul's letter to the Church in Ephesus was written to, you guessed it, Christians. Paul was not telling all slaves in the Roman Empire to obey their masters. In antiquity, slaves were part of the family, especially in Christian families. Paul was writing to Christian slaves and Christian slave owners in Christian families. If you read all of Ephesians rather than taking verse 6:5 out of context, you will see that the teaching for slaves and slave owners comes right after the verses about husbands and wives, and parents and children. Paul is giving family guidance, not condoning slavery. If you keep reading Ephesians and get to the point of Paul's teaching you see this... "Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him." - Ephesians 6:9. We see that in God's eyes, slaves and masters are equal, because they are both servants of Christ. Paul is teaching families to honor and respect those in positions of authority (whether it's your husband, your parent, or your master) just as all Christians are supposed to honor and respect the authority of Christ.

At any rate, there is good historical evidence suggesting that Christianity lead to the decline of slavery in the Roman Empire. The Apostle Paul's letter to Philemon was a plea on behalf of a slave, Onesimus. Onesimus was a slave that ran away, met up with Paul, and became a Christian. In order to obey Roman law Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon, his master, but also pleaded with Philemon to grant Onesimus his freedom. You still think the Bible condones slavery?

01/26/2010 02:45:14 PM · #4346

Originally posted by frisca:

Okay, I'll stop...

01/26/2010 02:46:37 PM · #4347

Originally posted by frisca:

sorry to do this, but next off-topic post gets this thread locked.

I didn't see this until after my last off topic post. That was my last one :)

01/26/2010 03:29:40 PM · #4348

Originally posted by frisca:

sorry to do this, but next off-topic post gets this thread locked.

It is a bit unfair to lock threads like this because they have taken an interesting, not unrelated detour.

It is not like other threads in which someone might be looking for guidance. This is more like the bar conversation threads - just a bit more interesting.