| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/05/2010 03:30:44 PM · #5176 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
The real question seems to be, can you practice homosexuality and be Christian at the same time?
Notice how I phrased that. I believe you can be Gay and Christian; it's a harder cross to carry.
If a person doesn't believe in the bible, there's no use quoting bible passages. We'll have to deal with natural law.
All in all, sounds like another thread (Christianity and Homosexuality). Then this thread can focus on it's title. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we consider the "core" beliefs to mark whether or not you are a Christian, the answer is obviously "yes" as the core beliefs have nothing to do with homosexuality. That's my take anyway. |
Very nicely said, Jason. Thank you!
Tom, from where I sit, it seems to equate with pre-marital relations, having a relationship while separated but still married, in some denominations, divorce is a problem, and they pretty much all lead me to what Jason has stated above. My take on it is that if we are to be judged on any of those actions come the time, it would make sense to be judged then, by a higher power, rather than someone who would be trying to impose his/her beliefs on another......
Message edited by author 2010-11-05 15:32:27.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2010 03:41:03 PM · #5177 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
The real question seems to be, can you practice homosexuality and be Christian at the same time? |
The answer lies in the word "practice". If one could claim a repentant heart while still practicing...however the reality is it is God who will make that call. One reason it becomes convienient to not believe in God. No judgement from an etity that doesn't exist.
To further the discussion...can a practicing murderer be a christian? or a practicing adulterer? or one who practices disrespect for their mother or father? Lots of sins to be evaluated. Even more base...can a practicing sinner be a christian? Well I don't know the answer for sure - but I do know I have lots of practice at sinning. |
|
|
|
11/05/2010 03:49:02 PM · #5178 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Even more base...can a practicing sinner be a christian? Well I don't know the answer for sure - but I do know I have lots of practice at sinning. |
Not to be dense or anything, but as I understand it, as humans, aren't we all sinners? We just have to believe and accept the savior to be forgiven, right? Not looking for a bailout, butm it seems like it would be so much easier to get along together if humans would leave the judgement to the expert.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2010 06:37:17 PM · #5179 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
I have no idea with all this Christian stuff to be honest. It is quite confusing. But i'm curious. So, with that in mind, and tying it back to the theme of the thread. Can one of you post up thel parts of the Bible that you follow that dictates your anti-homosexual morality stuff. I'm honestly curious as i really don't think i've read it before. What part of your Christian belief, as is stated in the Bible, states that homosexuality is somehow wrong. |
This should suffice for a strong start on understanding various views. Some are hard line and some are less so. After reading, you can make up your own mind. Most do.
"Therefore, you should show him the same dignity as anyone else with whom you come in contact."
link 1
link 2
link 3
link 4
link 5
link 6 Wikipedia |
Thanks for the links Flash. I'll have a browse. Like i said, it's not something i've really looked into and none of my Christian friends hold those views so i'm quite shocked when i come across it and am curious. |
|
|
|
11/05/2010 06:57:01 PM · #5180 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Thanks for the links Flash. I'll have a browse. Like i said, it's not something i've really looked into and none of my Christian friends hold those views so i'm quite shocked when i come across it and am curious. |
Welcome to the world of conservative evangelical Christianity. There isn't much of that in Wales, or anywhere else in Europe. |
|
|
|
11/05/2010 07:39:41 PM · #5181 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Welcome to the world of conservative evangelical Christianity. There isn't much of that in Wales, or anywhere else in Europe. |
...and that would be a bad thing???
Ray |
|
|
|
11/05/2010 07:44:39 PM · #5182 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Welcome to the world of conservative evangelical Christianity. There isn't much of that in Wales, or anywhere else in Europe. |
...and that would be a bad thing???
Ray |
Is it?
I'm just saying that clive's Christian friends are supportive of gay rights because their probably liberal Christians like that Episcopalian Bishop mentioned earlier. |
|
|
|
11/05/2010 08:14:55 PM · #5183 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Welcome to the world of conservative evangelical Christianity. There isn't much of that in Wales, or anywhere else in Europe. |
...and that would be a bad thing???
Ray |
Is it?
I'm just saying that clive's Christian friends are supportive of gay rights because their probably liberal Christians like that Episcopalian Bishop mentioned earlier. |
...and if they are, would you consider them in the same light as the comments you made on 11/03/2010 05:12:28 #5135 where you said: "This guy must have lost some of his marbles"
Ray |
|
|
|
11/05/2010 09:25:49 PM · #5184 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Welcome to the world of conservative evangelical Christianity. There isn't much of that in Wales, or anywhere else in Europe. |
...and that would be a bad thing???
Ray |
Is it?
I'm just saying that clive's Christian friends are supportive of gay rights because their probably liberal Christians like that Episcopalian Bishop mentioned earlier. |
...and if they are, would you consider them in the same light as the comments you made on 11/03/2010 05:12:28 #5135 where you said: "This guy must have lost some of his marbles"
Ray |
It depends on what they believe. I have a number of friends and family members whom I would consider liberal Protestants that still have all their marbles together. However, if one of them were to tell me that they rejected the Doctrine of the Resurrection then I would tell them that they'd lost their marbles. I'm not saying that all people who reject the Doctrine of the Resurrection have lost their marbles, but that all people who call themselves Christians and deny the resurrection have lost their marbles. |
|
|
|
11/05/2010 10:17:42 PM · #5185 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm not saying that all people who reject the Doctrine of the Resurrection have lost their marbles, but that all people who call themselves Christians and deny the resurrection have lost their marbles. |
It's kinda like, we can't allow the gays to "redefine" marriage, and we can't allow the liberal theologians to "redefine" Christianity. Do I have that right? You and your uber-conservative ilk have a particular definition in mind, for pretty much everything that's important to you, and anybody that doesn't agree with that definition is on the outside looking in?
Doesn't leave a lot of room for a society to evolve in, does it?
R. |
|
|
|
11/05/2010 10:29:09 PM · #5186 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm not saying that all people who reject the Doctrine of the Resurrection have lost their marbles, but that all people who call themselves Christians and deny the resurrection have lost their marbles. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's kinda like, we can't allow the gays to "redefine" marriage, and we can't allow the liberal theologians to "redefine" Christianity. Do I have that right? You and your uber-conservative ilk have a particular definition in mind, for pretty much everything that's important to you, and anybody that doesn't agree with that definition is on the outside looking in?
Doesn't leave a lot of room for a society to evolve in, does it?
R. |
I'm *soooooooooo* surprised that the concept of evolution is such a foreign concept to uber-conservative Christians! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
11/05/2010 11:44:39 PM · #5187 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm not saying that all people who reject the Doctrine of the Resurrection have lost their marbles, but that all people who call themselves Christians and deny the resurrection have lost their marbles. |
It's kinda like, we can't allow the gays to "redefine" marriage, and we can't allow the liberal theologians to "redefine" Christianity. Do I have that right? You and your uber-conservative ilk have a particular definition in mind, for pretty much everything that's important to you, and anybody that doesn't agree with that definition is on the outside looking in?
Doesn't leave a lot of room for a society to evolve in, does it?
R. |
I've never been called uber-conservative before... I have to think about that one.
I don't really have a problem with "redefining" Christianity because I don't believe that actually happens. New categories, or "denominations" are created all the time in Christianity. Bishop Spong is an Episcopalian, which is part of the larger category of Protestantism, which is part of the even larger category of Christianity. I really don't have a problem with Bishop Spong being called a Christian because he's not part of the same category of Christianity as I am. Snakes and lizards are both reptiles, but they're different categories of reptile. I don't have a problem with calling either one of them a reptile, but I might make a stink if you try to call a Black Mamba a lizard. That just makes life confusing. Snakes and lizards have some common characteristics (enough to be in the same class of reptile) but they also have enough characteristics that differ that they are classified in different orders. I don't have a problem with how animals and plants are classified, and I don't have a problem with how different denominations of Christianity are classified. What makes me frustrated is when Joe Smoe the Maverick Christian from denomination "X" wants to do something stupid and all of Christianity as a whole gets blamed. In my mind that's just as silly as it would be to blame all reptiles for human deaths caused by Black Mamba bites.
Gay marriage is a different situation. Politically speaking, there is nothing wrong with allowing gay people to get married just as there is nothing wrong with calling the Episcopalian Church "Christianity". My only question is, why can't we do that for gay marriage? Why does it have to be called just "marriage"? All other categories that we create get their own name, so why don't we make a new name for gay marriage?
You can hate my analogy if you want to. You can even hate me for suggesting that gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are different. Don't categories exist for a reason? What's wrong with wanting to have different categories for gay marriage and heterosexual marriage? Forget the whole "redefining" marriage argument. Can someone simply explain to me what is so offense about differentiating between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage? |
|
|
|
11/05/2010 11:48:57 PM · #5188 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Forget the whole "redefining" marriage argumentan someone simply explain to me what is so offense about differentiating between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage? |
Rather than have this drag out forever and a day... why not simply tell us why you would deny a loving couple the right to marry.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/05/2010 11:56:58 PM · #5189 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm not saying that all people who reject the Doctrine of the Resurrection have lost their marbles, but that all people who call themselves Christians and deny the resurrection have lost their marbles. |
It's kinda like, we can't allow the gays to "redefine" marriage, and we can't allow the liberal theologians to "redefine" Christianity. Do I have that right? You and your uber-conservative ilk have a particular definition in mind, for pretty much everything that's important to you, and anybody that doesn't agree with that definition is on the outside looking in?
Doesn't leave a lot of room for a society to evolve in, does it?
R. |
I hate to take a little umbrage at your description of "uber-conservative". If Johnny is defined as "uber-conservative" does that imply he is as far to one extreme as possible? and if not, what words are you reserving for that group? I know you take particular pleasure in your knowledge of the English language, but I think you are abusing it here (with a German pretend prefix even!). |
|
|
|
11/06/2010 12:08:05 AM · #5190 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
You can hate my analogy if you want to. You can even hate me for suggesting that gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are different. Don't categories exist for a reason? What's wrong with wanting to have different categories for gay marriage and heterosexual marriage? Forget the whole "redefining" marriage argument. Can someone simply explain to me what is so offense about differentiating between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage? |
First, let me say I've been informed that "ilk" is construed as a negative word, sort of snarkish name-calling. I didn't mean it that way, I've never used it that way. So I just meant "conservatives like you" up there. You suggest you're not really uber-conservative, and for all I know you're not, but I only know you from these threads, so you seem very conservative to me. However, it's only a label, so we can wash that off, it doesn't really matter.
You ask "what's so offensive about differentiating between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage?" I'll try to answer that:
The issue seems to be that it doesn't seem *right* to say, "OK, my heterosexual marriage is a "real" marriage and your gay marriage is something else," which is basically what you're proposing. You can, I suppose, go all disingenuous on us and say "I don't mean to imply that at all, we're just putting precise labels on these things to eliminate any confusion," but this is completely ignoring the point.
The *point* is that there's no functional reason WHY we need to distinguish between the two, and the very act of distinguishing is in fact applying a hierarchy to them. We're not discussing taxonomic issues here, there's no NEED to distinguish between "lizards" (heterosexuals) and "snakes" (homosexuals), they aren't different species, they are just different superficially. Straight people fall in love, gay people fall in love, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything that requires constant speciation.
IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!
And as long as you persist in trying to *label* homosexual behaviors, you are placing gay people in a disadvantaged sub-category. Surely you understand that? There's just no point in it. These "homosexuals" have every bit as much right to their behaviors as you and I do to ours. It's impossibly condescending for us to inform them that we colonized "marriage" before they did, and if they want a piece of the marriage pie they have to accept that it will be labeled and compartmentalized as "different" from the pie we get to eat ourselves. That stinks!
I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear, but it seems so obvious to me. It seems obvious to me that this is absolutely a lost battle, that there's NO WAY to hold the line and deny to gay people what straight people take for granted. Biblical injunctions mean less than nothing in this context, it's about civil liberties, not moral arthritis.
R. |
|
|
|
11/06/2010 12:12:46 AM · #5191 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If Johnny is defined as "uber-conservative" does that imply he is as far to one extreme as possible? and if not, what words are you reserving for that group? I know you take particular pleasure in your knowledge of the English language, but I think you are abusing it here (with a German pretend prefix even!). |
Well, "uber" is a word I've always used (along with "Ur") so...
Ãœber or ueber comes from the German language. It is a cognate of both Latin super and Greek ὑπέρ (hyper), as well as English over and above. It is also sometimes used as a hyphenated prefix in informal English, usually for emphasis.
It may not be very precise, but I've already indicated to Johnny I may have been being a tad hyperbolic above; don't let it derail what I've been trying to express, OK? Suffice it that in this particular area he seems like a pretty conservative guy to me. Seems like a nice guy too, I got no personal quarrel with him, but I totally don't agree with what he's suggesting re: gay marriage, and that's what I'm trying to express.
R. |
|
|
|
11/06/2010 12:17:46 AM · #5192 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
My only question is, why can't we do that for gay marriage? Why does it have to be called just "marriage"? All other categories that we create get their own name, so why don't we make a new name for gay marriage? |
Because marriage is the general term that applies to all unions just as Christianity applies to all denominations and reptiles covers snakes, turtles and lizards. |
|
|
|
11/06/2010 12:30:33 AM · #5193 |
One only has to look at countries like Canada to realize just how much of a non-issue gay marriage really is. Going on 7 years now in many provinces, and 4 years federally, the issue has been completely nullified. It just IS.
The fact that the U.S. continues to fight it and be completely idiotic about it is a head-scratcher of the most amazing level. It just makes no sense, whatsoever. |
|
|
|
11/06/2010 07:55:56 AM · #5194 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Forget the whole "redefining" marriage argumentan someone simply explain to me what is so offense about differentiating between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage? |
Because it's catering to one special interest group, yet applies to the population as a whole. Marriage was around before Christianity, so why is it reasonable for Christians to decide how it should be defined? Also, as has been repeated ad nauseum....in *NO WAY* does it affect you, so what's the issue? What makes you think there's any reason to differentiate? The only thing gays want is to be able to have the same rights as any marriage. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation, yet fearful people try to make it so.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2010 12:10:17 PM · #5195 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If Johnny is defined as "uber-conservative" does that imply he is as far to one extreme as possible? and if not, what words are you reserving for that group? I know you take particular pleasure in your knowledge of the English language, but I think you are abusing it here (with a German pretend prefix even!). |
Well, "uber" is a word I've always used (along with "Ur") so...
Ãœber or ueber comes from the German language. It is a cognate of both Latin super and Greek ὑπέρ (hyper), as well as English over and above. It is also sometimes used as a hyphenated prefix in informal English, usually for emphasis.
It may not be very precise, but I've already indicated to Johnny I may have been being a tad hyperbolic above; don't let it derail what I've been trying to express, OK? Suffice it that in this particular area he seems like a pretty conservative guy to me. Seems like a nice guy too, I got no personal quarrel with him, but I totally don't agree with what he's suggesting re: gay marriage, and that's what I'm trying to express.
R. |
Yes. I'm aware of where "uber" comes from as I was a German exchange student in high school. I just try to calm down the hyperbole because it doesn't help touchy conversations and it is, as you put it, not very precise. If Johnny is "uber-conservative" on this subject, what words do we have left for the Westboro folks? It seems to leave no room and unfairly lumps Johnny into the same category (which I think he would dislike very much). But no need to belabor it. Carry on. |
|
|
|
11/06/2010 12:51:11 PM · #5196 |
In response the last few posts:
Have I ever said that I would deny marriage from a gay couple? For religious and moral reasons I cannot support it, but I've never said that I would deliberately take action to deny it. I understand that this is a political/civil issue and not a moral/religious issue. I'm not trying to turn it into a religious issue. I realize that my life will probably not be affected in any way if gay marriage is legalized. Why am I judged so harshly for asking the simple question, "why must it be called marriage?" After all, what's in a name? Is the goal to show the world that gays are the same as heterosexuals? If so, then I can understand why words and names are so important. I was under the impression that equal treatment and fair rights are the goal of gay rights activists. If that's the case then why does it matter what words we use? That's all I ask.
For a long time in this thread, people have been reading into my posts a lot more than they should. Just because I oppose gay marriage for religious reasons people assume that I'm homophobic, that I hate gays or think they're abominations, that I go out of my way to stop gay rights legislation, and even that I have no sympathy for gays. None of that is true. I'm here to discuss the issue and throw my views into the mix. I realize that my views are objectionable to some, but I still have the right to talk about them. Just because I want to talk about gay rights doesn't mean that it's an issue that I'm greatly concerned with. |
|
|
|
11/06/2010 01:52:16 PM · #5197 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
"why must it be called marriage? |
Because that's what it is. Do we call "voting" something else when women do it? Votes are traditionally defined as ballots cast by males, so let's not redefine voting by pretending that women's opinions are equal to those of men. Do we call "schools" something else when minorities attend them? After all, the sanctity of our educations might be threatened if African Americans can say they went to school, too. Let them use some other word so we can maintain a distinction between their education and a real school. These are ridiculous arguments that serve no purpose but to create an artificial inequality where none is warranted– a futile attempt to establish some "separate but equal" class of marriage to avoid the acknowledgement that same sex relationships are just as valid as our own. |
|
|
|
11/07/2010 12:58:43 PM · #5198 |
Johnny, the issue becomes one of definition. Generally you can say "marriage" is a civil institution that is defined by the civic system. You can also say "marriage" is a traditional institution that has been defined by historical precedent. As with many controversial subject (abortion springs to mind as an obvious example), the two groups do not even start on the same fundamental playing field. I find that when this happens it leads to exasperation because each argument does make sense if you make the fundamental assumptions each case bases themselves upon. Someone who does not realize this just cannot fathom how the other side fails to see the obviousness of their case.
On the other hand, both sides do seem to have faults and areas to attack that they can't deal with. The pro- side declares that the institution of marriage can be defined by civic system, but refuse to allow that to happen if the civic system comes up with the "wrong" definition. The anti- side declares that the institution of marriage is a tradition, but refuse to see that other versions of marriage have existed in the past (polygamy being a much more obvious example than gay marriage which has truly been exceptional until modern times).
Anyway, that's what I've taken away from the eight zillion threads this argument has provided. |
|
|
|
11/07/2010 01:43:01 PM · #5199 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Johnny, the issue becomes one of definition. Generally you can say "marriage" is a civil institution that is defined by the civic system. You can also say "marriage" is a traditional institution that has been defined by historical precedent. As with many controversial subject (abortion springs to mind as an obvious example), the two groups do not even start on the same fundamental playing field. I find that when this happens it leads to exasperation because each argument does make sense if you make the fundamental assumptions each case bases themselves upon. Someone who does not realize this just cannot fathom how the other side fails to see the obviousness of their case.
On the other hand, both sides do seem to have faults and areas to attack that they can't deal with. The pro- side declares that the institution of marriage can be defined by civic system, but refuse to allow that to happen if the civic system comes up with the "wrong" definition. The anti- side declares that the institution of marriage is a tradition, but refuse to see that other versions of marriage have existed in the past (polygamy being a much more obvious example than gay marriage which has truly been exceptional until modern times).
Anyway, that's what I've taken away from the eight zillion threads this argument has provided. |
I think that's a fair summary. I don't agree with polygamy, but at least there's a different name for it that distinguishes it from "traditional" marriage.
Either way it doesn't really matter. Marriage is on the way out with rises in divorce, remarriage, casual sex, and common-law marriage. Two hundred years from now marriage might not even exist in any form.
Message edited by author 2010-11-07 13:43:31. |
|
|
|
11/07/2010 02:36:48 PM · #5200 |
Marriage as a civil union has rarely ventured into specifying which consenting adults you're allowed to marry. Previous taboos on interracial, intercultural and interfaith marriage have all been abandoned as infringements on personal liberty in this country, and tend to be characteristic of repressive regimes elsewhere.
The traditional claims don't help your cause either as gay marriage was NOT "exceptional until modern times." Same sex unions were socially recognized in ancient Greece, Rome, China and among native American indians. The first written accounts of gay marriage are from the early Roman Empire. Emperor Nero married a man named Sporus in a very public ceremony... with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse. A friend gave the "bride" away "as required by law." The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies. The emperor Elagabalus married an athlete named Hierocles in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens. The practice was first outlawed by Emperor Constantine, who was himself reported to have been involved with young males by the historian Ammianus Marcellinus, yet Constantine's son was famously gay and taxes on male prostitutes continued to be collected until the reign of Anastasius. Homosexuality was not actually forbidden until 390AD under Theodosius, and the penalty was death by fire (WWJD?).
Far from ageless tradition, opposition to same sex marriage was a policy introduced by oppressive medieval dictators hundreds of years after Jesus. Note that the first-ever lawsuit seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages was filed by a church in 1970. |
|
