Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

01/30/2010 10:28:01 PM · #4451

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

I have no problems whatsoever in having people voice their concerns, but I do not understand why individuals or groups can be so unwilling to allow others to share in the joys of matrimony, particularly when we consider that enabling this type of union will have absolutely no impact on the lives of those opposed.

Ray

You can't understand the unwillingness until you understand the worldview of Christianity.

Shall work on the premise then that unless I become a Christian that I am doomed to lifelong ignorance. There are some of us my friend that are not apt to even consider that option and as such I fear that the possibility that we can share a common understanding of this situation is nil.

Rather sad that I and others would have to understand YOUR worldview, particularly when we consider that Christians have always endeavoured to imposed their religious views on others.

Do have a nice day. I wish you well but I fear that any meaningful discussions are no longer possible as our views and me, of what is or should transpire are diametrically opposed.

The best of luck to you in life.

Ray

Message edited by author 2010-01-30 22:29:31.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/30/2010 10:48:06 PM · #4452

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Rather sad that I and others would have to understand YOUR worldview, particularly when we consider that Christians have always endeavoured to imposed their religious views on others.

Isn't that the only way Christians throughout history get their worldview accepted and adopted? It surely isn't in the arena of rational discourse.

Message edited by author 2010-01-30 22:48:48.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/30/2010 11:31:01 PM · #4453

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Matthew:

Do you see any problem with a religion casting just one particular format of human relationship as "perfect" and "God's intention"?

No

And thus, the bullshitty problem. The woes of the world start at your door.

01/31/2010 03:07:57 AM · #4454

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Do have a nice day. I wish you well but I fear that any meaningful discussions are no longer possible as our views and me, of what is or should transpire are diametrically opposed.

This is why the debate continues my friend.

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
Rather sad that I and others would have to understand YOUR worldview, particularly when we consider that Christians have always endeavoured to imposed their religious views on others.

Isn't that the only way Christians throughout history get their worldview accepted and adopted? It surely isn't in the arena of rational discourse.

I hope you realize that out of all my posts in this thread, not a single one was written for the purpose of imposing my beliefs on anyone. "Impose" implies authority, so unless you think Christians are an authority, you might reconsider your vocabulary. Faith is something that can only be willingly accepted, regardless of which religion it belongs to. Nobody can force or impose their faith upon you unless you're willing to accept it.

Originally posted by Louis:

And thus, the bullshitty problem. The woes of the world start at your door.

According to your worldview they do :)

Message edited by author 2010-01-31 03:08:21.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/31/2010 03:20:01 AM · #4455

Originally posted by Matthew:

Do you see any problem with a religion casting just one particular format of human relationship as "perfect" and "God's intention"?

My religion says what it says. I could very easily justify acting in opposition to gay marriage, but I choose to take no action. Do you see a problem with that? I can oppose gay marriage and support discrimination, or I can support gay marriage and oppose my faith. Since neither of those options are palatable, I do nothing. Think what you want, but for the record, I generally avoid politics anyway so it's not like I'm choosing to watch from the sidelines on just this one issue.

david_c

Canon EOS-7D

01/31/2010 09:17:49 AM · #4456

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

My religion says what it says. I could very easily justify acting in opposition to gay marriage, but I choose to take no action.

I see. Christian, I assume? Would you be so kind as to point out where in the bible it instructs you to oppose "gay" marriage, therefore allowing you to "justify action"...thanks. Not being facetious, genuinely curious.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/31/2010 11:47:01 AM · #4457

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Matthew:

Do you see any problem with a religion casting just one particular format of human relationship as "perfect" and "God's intention"?

No

Do you think that religion should ever re-interpret its texts in the light of modern knowledge and practice?

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Matthew:
You have me very confused. If you are not using physical evidence that directly contradicts the bible as a guide for which bits are figurative v. fact - then what plausible basis are you using? How is this not "your" special interpretation?

I'm not going to get into theological discussion regarding the creation story and get off track again. If you really want me to answer that then PM me or something.

I think that it is quite relevant here: you are relying upon the creation story as grounds for discriminating between hetero and homo sexual relations (perfect/imperfect). It is fair to challenge the reliability of the creation story.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/31/2010 01:39:30 PM · #4458

To get back to the thread topic, ~~US residents might want to~~ check out this program broadcast on PBS:

Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?
Debating Same-sex Marriage; The Good Life (direct link to the show's site -- you can watch online)
The Season 1 finale focuses on same-sex marriage and the link between law and morality.

For those insistent on continuing the discussion on religion, you might want to check out Episode 4 of The Really Big Questions, which explores whether science can explain the origins of religion and belief.

Message edited by author 2010-01-31 16:05:10.

02/01/2010 11:33:40 AM · #4459

Originally posted by david_c:

The Bible doesn't instruct anyone to oppose gay marriage. The Bible condemns all forms of sexual immorality, which includes anything other than sex withing a heterosexual monogamous marriage relationship between a man and a woman. This is partially why it's so frustrating when Christians are criticized for singling out gays. That is certainly not the case. I assure you that well over half of Americans would fall into the category of sexual immorality. Most of the Christians that I know disagree with divorce or promiscuity just as strongly as gay marriage. If you want to know which verses are typically used to oppose gay marriage, you can find them from a quick Google search.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Do you think that religion should ever re-interpret its texts in the light of modern knowledge and practice?

The only interpretation that means anything is God's interpretation, which is what Scripture's original message was at the time of writing. Theology, in a sense, is re-interpreting Scripture in order to refine our understanding of its original meaning. We should always "re-interpret" based on new historical, archeological, or textual discoveries to better understand the original meaning of Scripture. We should never "re-interpret" for our own purposes to gain power or authority. In other words, Scripture should be interpreted to accomplish God's will, and not to accomplish man's will.

Originally posted by Matthew:

The creation story is just one example from the Bible of what God intended for human relationships. There are numerous other examples. Even if you could somehow prove that the creation story is unreliable, there would be plenty of other examples that would uphold the argument.

And for the record, I do not discriminate against gays. Discrimination implies that I do something to differentiate between gays and straights. I don't do anything. I don't protest, speak out against gay marriage, vote against it, or anything. Like I already said, I have an opinion, but I keep it to myself (with the exception of this forum). Having an opinion does not qualify as discrimination.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/01/2010 12:38:01 PM · #4460

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

... Having an opinion does not qualify as discrimination.

Really... one could argue that sitting idly by, whilst a segment of the population is being persecuted could be viewed as tacit approval of the discriminatory activity.

Ray

Louis

Nikon D800

02/01/2010 12:44:05 PM · #4461

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

And for the record, I do not discriminate against gays. Discrimination implies that I do something to differentiate between gays and straights. I don't do anything. I don't protest, speak out against gay marriage, vote against it, or anything. Like I already said, I have an opinion, but I keep it to myself (with the exception of this forum). Having an opinion does not qualify as discrimination.

Absolutely and unequivocally wrong. You are a bigot, because you hold bigoted ideas, irrespective of how you wish to clothe them in high ideals of omnipotent beings and perfect scripture. Your ideas spring from the status quo of your milieu. You disseminate them by interacting with like individuals, by expressing them in the action of reinforcing your dogmatic position through study, and by merely holding them. That you could even think that someone is lesser in your eyes by virtue of his or her being, that even your very mythology dismisses the worth of an individual because of his/her sex, is an outrage. Yes, you don't think less, you don't dismiss -- only this is doublespeak, because your position, and by way of your position your actions, speak for themselves.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/01/2010 01:47:58 PM · #4462

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... Having an opinion does not qualify as discrimination.

Really... one could argue that sitting idly by, whilst a segment of the population is being persecuted could be viewed as tacit approval of the discriminatory activity.

Ray

In that case every person on the planet is guilty of discrimination because no one person can work to end every form of discrimination that exists. There is too much discrimination in the world to act against all of them at the same time. Everyone picks and chooses the issues that are closest to their heart and acts on those.

Originally posted by Louis:

It only seems like doublespeak to you because of your presuppositions and misconceptions about what The Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that all men are equally sinful, but also equally loved by God. This is what I believe. This is not doublespeak. It is not a contradiction to say that all men are equally sinful and at the same time we are all equally valuable and equally loved.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/01/2010 02:19:29 PM · #4463

We need to remain focused on the thread topic, but it's hard to resist this one ... :-(

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

In other words, Scripture should be interpreted to accomplish God's will, and not to accomplish man's will.

If Scripture must be "interpreted" (i.e. is not 100% the literal "Word of God"), exactly how is it possible for anyone to know God's will? Every such "interpretation" must necessarily be someone's opinion of what they think "God's will" might be.

02/01/2010 02:55:13 PM · #4464

Originally posted by GeneralE:

We need to remain focused on the thread topic, but it's hard to resist this one ... :-(
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
In other words, Scripture should be interpreted to accomplish God's will, and not to accomplish man's will.

If Scripture must be "interpreted" (i.e. is not 100% the literal "Word of God"), exactly how is it possible for anyone to know God's will? Every such "interpretation" must necessarily be someone's opinion of what they think "God's will" might be.

Like I said in a previous post. The different "interpretations" fall into three main categories. Dogma, doctrine, and opinion. All Christians agree on dogma, most agree on doctrine, and there are many different opinions. Dogma is irrefutable and is required for salvation. Doctrine and opinion are debated, but they are not required for salvation. In other words, all Christians agree that Christ died as an atoning sacrifice for our sin. That is not negotiable. The doctrine of baptism is debated. Some Christians claim that infant baptism is okay, and some claim that believer's (adult) baptism is the only meaningful baptism. However, the vast majority of Christians agree that God will not send you to hell because you received the "wrong" baptism.

Message edited by author 2010-02-01 16:59:40.

02/01/2010 06:10:10 PM · #4465

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Matthew:
Do you think that religion should ever re-interpret its texts in the light of modern knowledge and practice?

The only interpretation that means anything is God's interpretation, which is what Scripture's original message was at the time of writing. Theology, in a sense, is re-interpreting Scripture in order to refine our understanding of its original meaning. We should always "re-interpret" based on new historical, archeological, or textual discoveries to better understand the original meaning of Scripture. We should never "re-interpret" for our own purposes to gain power or authority. In other words, Scripture should be interpreted to accomplish God's will, and not to accomplish man's will.

Would you advocate that muslims should convert non-believers, failing which they should fight them and subdue them, and failing that kill them?

Would you advocate that Christian adulterers should be stoned, and that homosexuals put to death?

I mean these questions seriously: they are currently being imposed or proposed in some countries that apply your line of reasoning. IMO, Societies have evolved in 2,000+ years and are better functioning, more pleasant and more efficient precisely because we don't preserve ancient ways of thinking.

Out of interest, are you aware that your preferred means of divining god's intention (heavy reliance on the text of the bible) was promoted and made popular by 16th century princes who used it to establish their independence from the Catholic church and thereby gain power and authority? The very basis of your belief system is the by-product of a political power grab.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Even if you could somehow prove that the creation story is unreliable, there would be plenty of other examples that would uphold the argument.

I genuinely don't know much about this - where else is the concept of original sin established?

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Matthew:
I think that it is quite relevant here: you are relying upon the creation story as grounds for discriminating between hetero and homo sexual relations (perfect/imperfect). It is fair to challenge the reliability of the creation story.

And for the record, I do not discriminate against gays. Discrimination implies that I do something to differentiate between gays and straights. I don't do anything. I don't protest, speak out against gay marriage, vote against it, or anything. Like I already said, I have an opinion, but I keep it to myself (with the exception of this forum). Having an opinion does not qualify as discrimination.

Please read what I said more carefully. You clearly do discriminate between hetero and homo-sexual relations. I didn't suggest that you actively and negatively discriminate against gay people (though others have pointed out the difficulties of the position you occupy).

02/01/2010 07:24:59 PM · #4466

Originally posted by Matthew:

No and No.

Originally posted by Matthew:

I mean these questions seriously: they are currently being imposed or proposed in some countries that apply your line of reasoning. IMO, Societies have evolved in 2,000+ years and are better functioning, more pleasant and more efficient precisely because we don't preserve ancient ways of thinking.

I'm aware of that. However, to say that I condone those things because I read the same Bible would be like saying all Muslims condone 9/11 because they all read the same Quran.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Out of interest, are you aware that your preferred means of divining god's intention (heavy reliance on the text of the bible) was promoted and made popular by 16th century princes who used it to establish their independence from the Catholic church and thereby gain power and authority? The very basis of your belief system is the by-product of a political power grab.

That's an interesting perspective. I would be interested to know the source of that argument. You do realize that ancient Jews and the early Christian church relied heavily on Scripture? To claim that heavy reliance on Scripture didn't begin until the 16th century sounds slightly ridiculous. Especially considering the low literacy rates of that time, and the fact that most people still did not possess a Bible in their native language. The fact that people in the past have used The Bible as a means of gaining power only shows how deceptive and manipulative people can be. The Bible clearly rebukes the prospect of man using God's word to gain glory for man.

Originally posted by Matthew:

I genuinely don't know much about this - where else is the concept of original sin established?

The doctrine of original sin is supported by the Apostle Paul in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15:22.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Nature itself "discriminates" between heterosexual and homosexual relations.

02/01/2010 08:09:39 PM · #4467

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Matthew:
Would you advocate that muslims should convert non-believers, failing which they should fight them and subdue them, and failing that kill them?

Would you advocate that Christian adulterers should be stoned, and that homosexuals put to death?

No and No.

Why not? Those holy texts are reasonably clear - enough so for whole countries to implement (or try to implement) laws accordingly.

You did say "Scripture should be interpreted to accomplish God's will, and not to accomplish man's will". If the scripture is clear, isn't it man's desire to avoid needless and bloody conflict, or unjust and inhumane punishments, that is getting in the way of God's will?

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

To claim that heavy reliance on Scripture didn't begin until the 16th century sounds slightly ridiculous. Especially considering the low literacy rates of that time, and the fact that most people still did not possess a Bible in their native language. The fact that people in the past have used The Bible as a means of gaining power only shows how deceptive and manipulative people can be. The Bible clearly rebukes the prospect of man using God's word to gain glory for man.

It was precisely the low literacy rates and absence of local language bibles (and church services) until the 16th Century that meant that individuals could not independently study the bible until then. The Reformation changed that: it was kick started by Martin Luther. Luther was only successful because he was politically useful to various Princes in the Holy Roman Empire.

I don't think that it is a particularly contentious argument - generally regarded as being accurate - that the princes in the Holy Roman Empire supported the spread of Lutheranism because it focussed on the individual's relationship with scripture, increased the independence of the peasant classes, and significantly diminished the power of the church. Allegiances such as the Schmalkaldic League resulted. The peasants found a degree of religious independence of thought and the princes became rich and powerful.

As a result of all that (cutting a very long story very short): protestantism and the start of private relationships with scripture. And a multitude of different and differing interpretations (apart from your one true interpretation).

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The doctrine of original sin is supported by the Apostle Paul in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15:22.

But those passages rest upon the Genesis story. If Genesis is figurative then these passages don't help (they were written at a time when people believed the stories were more than figurative).

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Nature itself "discriminates" between heterosexual and homosexual relations.

Well - there is certainly a difference. But interestingly homosexuality survives as a trait so evolutionary discrimination is not fundamentally negative.

Message edited by author 2010-02-01 20:14:13.

02/01/2010 11:02:28 PM · #4468

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

... It is not a contradiction to say that all men are equally sinful and at the same time we are all equally valuable and equally loved.

That may be true... but it seems that the love expressed towards homosexuals is only that of your God, otherwise true Christians would be more apt to forgive their sins,accept them into the fold, and rejoice in the fact that they too can have access to the joys of matrimony.

Ray

02/01/2010 11:39:11 PM · #4469

Originally posted by Matthew:

You did say "Scripture should be interpreted to accomplish God's will, and not to accomplish man's will". If the scripture is clear, isn't it man's desire to avoid needless and bloody conflict, or unjust and inhumane punishments, that is getting in the way of God's will?

You will have a hard time finding a Christian theologian that will argue that God's will is for people to be stoned.

Originally posted by Matthew:

I don't think a history lesson is going to benefit the argument. My point was that heavy reliance on Scripture is a Christian tradition dating back to the early church in the first century AD. That tradition did not begin in the 16th century.

Originally posted by Matthew:

But those passages rest upon the Genesis story. If Genesis is figurative then these passages don't help (they were written at a time when people believed the stories were more than figurative).

Once again, you will have a hard time finding a Christian theologian willing to argue that the doctrine of original sin is questionable because the Genesis story is unreliable. First of all, good luck finding a theologian that will claim Genesis is not reliable. Second, good luck finding one that will claim that the previous claim disproves original sin. Thirdly, good luck finding a theologian that will claim that the previous two claims somehow disprove Paul's point in Romans and 1 Corinthians. And if you find a theologian that argues for all three claims, I will tip my hat to you.

Message edited by author 2010-02-02 10:46:53.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/02/2010 08:20:14 AM · #4470

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

You will have a hard time finding a Christian theologian that will argue that God's will is for people to be stoned.

Lev. 20:10 If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

You say you agree with every passage of the bible. What is not clear about this? Surely we are applying modern (secular) ethical standards to make the call that the biblically prescribed punishment is no longer appropriate.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I don't think a history lesson is going to benefit the argument.

You did say:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

That's an interesting perspective. I would be interested to know the source of that argument.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

My point was that heavy reliance on Scripture is a Christian tradition dating back to the early church in the first century AD. That tradition did not begin in the 16th century.

I think that you are wrong (though would be pleased to know why you are not).

My point was that the modern protestant view was established in the 16th century. This is when we had the translation and distribution of the bible from latin into the vernacular, the invention of the printing press making it possible for people (not just churches) to own bibles, the switch from latinate to vernacular services, the writing of the common book of prayer, all establishing the new concept that people should have a personal relationship with the bible and god, not the church and his representative on Earth.

The relevance is that these were politically useful concepts - the ruling elite used this new relationship to finance wars agains the papal elite and empowered the populace to resist the church. Your decision to read the bible rather than listen to the pope is an accident of politics and history, not some divine truth. You should recognise this before advocating that the bible is the sole way to determine god's will in relation to human relationships.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

good luck finding a theologian that will claim [X, Y, Z]

If it was so obvious, wouldn't you be able to tell me?

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

02/02/2010 10:56:04 AM · #4471

Originally posted by Matthew:

Your decision to read the bible rather than listen to the pope is an accident of politics and history, not some divine truth.

I just caught the Futurama last night where Bender floats through space and winds up in front of a galaxy which is, in essence, God. The final word of advice from God was, "If you do things right, nobody will be sure you did anything at all."

A humorous way to imply that your two options are not mutually exclusive.

02/02/2010 11:50:01 AM · #4472

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
You will have a hard time finding a Christian theologian that will argue that God's will is for people to be stoned.

Lev. 20:10 If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

You say you agree with every passage of the bible. What is not clear about this? Surely we are applying modern (secular) ethical standards to make the call that the biblically prescribed punishment is no longer appropriate.

I agree with every passage of The Bible in the correct context. You can't just take a random verse from the Old Testament and say, "Oh! We should do this!" The verse you quoted from Leviticus is part of the Mosaic Law. Mosaic Law was given to the Jews through Moses. Jesus Christ fulfilled all the requirements of the law in his sacrificial death, and as a result believers receive the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Christians are to live according to the Spirit, and not according to the Law. You need references? This is standard Bible knowledge.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

My point was that heavy reliance on Scripture is a Christian tradition dating back to the early church in the first century AD. That tradition did not begin in the 16th century.

Originally posted by Matthew:

I think that you are wrong (though would be pleased to know why you are not).

Before Christ, Jews gathered in the synagogue every sabbath day (once a week) to read and study the Law and the Scriptures. After Christ's death the early Christians followed the same format as the Jews, since most of them were Jewish converts. The early Christians gathered weekly to read Scripture aloud, and since it was a time before everyone had a personal copy, many early Christians memorized as much as they could. The explosive growth of the early church created a demand for copies of the Scriptures, and the Scriptures were copied throughout the known world. We know that Paul's letters were in circulation by the end of the first century. This is why there are more than 5,000 manuscripts and fragments for the New Testament while other ancient texts from Pliny, Thucydides, Herodotus, Tacitus, etc. have fewer than a dozen or two manuscripts and fragments in existence. If the early Christians didn't have a high regard for Scripture then why did they copy it so much?

Go read about the Muratorian Canon. It is a list of books that the early Church fathers accepted as authoritative (canonical). The manuscript we have is a translation from the 7th century, but the original list would have been written around 170 AD in Greek. This shows that the New Testament books were widely used in the 2nd century. This also disproves the claim that the New Testament canon was "chosen" in the fourth century. The New Testament was codified, or made official, at that time but there was widespread agreement on most of the books of the modern New Testament.

Originally posted by Matthew:

The relevance is that these were politically useful concepts - the ruling elite used this new relationship to finance wars agains the papal elite and empowered the populace to resist the church. Your decision to read the bible rather than listen to the pope is an accident of politics and history, not some divine truth. You should recognise this before advocating that the bible is the sole way to determine god's will in relation to human relationships.

My decision to read The Bible rather than listen to the pope is certainly not an accident. The papal office exists as an accident of politics. The early church didn't have a pope. In fact there were multiple leaders of the early church. The church did not become universal or organized until persecution ended under Emperor Constantine. Reading The Bible and studying Scripture goes all the way back to the ancient Jews, Jesus, and the early church... not the pope.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/02/2010 12:57:00 PM · #4473

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Matthew:
Your decision to read the bible rather than listen to the pope is an accident of politics and history, not some divine truth.

I just caught the Futurama last night where Bender floats through space and winds up in front of a galaxy which is, in essence, God. The final word of advice from God was, "If you do things right, nobody will be sure you did anything at all."

A humorous way to imply that your two options are not mutually exclusive.

...except of course those who that might have benefited from the "Right" actions of others. It could be argued that the whole of Christianity is based on this very premise. :O)

Ray

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/02/2010 02:04:58 PM · #4474

OK, let's please carry on this analysis of Christian theology in one of these threads or one of these threads or one of these threads and try to keep this thread on-topic before it gets locked.