| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2013 10:21:28 AM · #6101 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The Bible says what the Bible says - period. And it doesn't matter if you quote a King James, a New Jeruselum, an NIV - it still says the same thing. Amazing really - that a book so reviled and so full of contradictions is nearly identical version to version to version regardless of the scholars who translated it. |
Hilarious. The primary basis for a 'father-son-holy ghost' trinity doesn't match up in the two bibles you noted. At least the NIV has enough honesty to point out that the text you believe was so faithfully copied is "not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century." |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 10:30:34 AM · #6102 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
That's pretty much all that's happened here too. There is no compelling argument against gay marriage besides that the bible says its wrong. |
Umm, where exactly does the Bible say Gay Marriage is wrong? If read in verses the Bible says whatever someone wants it to say, but when read in entirety it says One Thing. And that One Thing is most certainly NOT anything at all about Gay Marriage. I could pick and choose verses to make an argument for genocide, slavery, oppression, murder, rape, and just about any other atrocity one human would like to inflict on another. In fact that's already been done many times. But that's NOT what the Bible says.
Just sayin' |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 10:43:54 AM · #6103 |
| oh good, so there is no compelling argument against gay marriage? lets just remove the ban and move on to the next polarizing topic. |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 11:15:36 AM · #6104 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by mike_311:
That's pretty much all that's happened here too. There is no compelling argument against gay marriage besides that the bible says its wrong. |
Umm, where exactly does the Bible say Gay Marriage is wrong? If read in verses the Bible says whatever someone wants it to say, but when read in entirety it says One Thing. And that One Thing is most certainly NOT anything at all about Gay Marriage. I could pick and choose verses to make an argument for genocide, slavery, oppression, murder, rape, and just about any other atrocity one human would like to inflict on another. In fact that's already been done many times. But that's NOT what the Bible says.
Just sayin' |
Communal blind spots. There are lots of definitions in the Bible of marriage that aren't just consenting man and consenting woman and when those are brought up, they are promptly ignored.
People are very skilled at crafting their own realities and sticking to them, doesn't really matter what the Bible actually says in the end.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2013 11:21:34 AM · #6105 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
There are lots of definitions in the Bible of marriage that aren't just consenting man and consenting woman and when those are brought up, they are promptly ignored. |
Can you show 2-3 examples, please? |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 11:49:45 AM · #6106 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
There are lots of definitions in the Bible of marriage that aren't just consenting man and consenting woman and when those are brought up, they are promptly ignored. |
Can you show 2-3 examples, please? |
Rape marriage:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
"28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
No marriage outside of faith (somewhat unrelated to my original statement but still relevant I believe):
2 Corinthians 6:14
"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"
Lots of polygamy but here is one:
Exodus 21:10
"If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish."
Arranged slave marriage:
Exodus 21:4
"If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
Message edited by author 2013-03-28 11:50:35. |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 12:03:45 PM · #6107 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Rape marriage:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
"28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." |
Exodus 22:16–17 is similar, and let's not not forget the biblical requirement to marry your brother's widow (Deuteronomy 25:5)- no consent from either party necessary. However this is another direct biblical contradiction... "a marriage between a man and his brother’s widow is unclean. (Leviticus 20:21)"
There's also the lovely courtship of Deuteronomy 21:10-14 where you get to marry any captives of your enemies you might find attractive, although you do have to give her a month to mourn her parents after you murder them and you can kick her out later if she displeases you. Ah, traditional marriage.
Message edited by author 2013-03-28 12:10:19. |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 12:15:53 PM · #6108 |
| its a good thing no one takes this book literally. |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 12:21:34 PM · #6109 |
I'm sure this was covered 2 or 3 years ago in this thread, but I'm not going to look it up....
Going back to the source manuscripts, it isn't at all clear what exactly the bible really says. Anyone who has studied any ancient texts on any topic in any language can tell you that they're *all* ambiguous. Linguistic and cultural changes make them hard to interpret, and interpreting them requires contextual knowledge that is often missing. A prime example of this ambiguity are the old testament admonitions against what is often translated in most modern bibles as lying with mankind as with womankind (Leviticus, among other places). The original might mean something about homosexuality, or it could be an admonition against human sacrifice, but it is most likely about worshiping false gods. Knowing something about context matters. Pagan worship originally involved human sacrifice. People, being people, didn't want to actually sacrifice each other, so human sacrifice eventually changed to men sacrificing their seed. A bunch of guys dancing around the fire sacrificing their seed led to ummmm...other activities. So to me, it's more believable that the original bible text was about worshiping false gods, not the specific activities that resulted from that false worship.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2013 12:25:55 PM · #6110 |
That's all Old Testament though. Predates Christianity. Lots of strangeness in that book, eh? LOTS of it. Let's stone some adulteresses, eh? But then we have Jesus in the New Testament telling us that if we are without sin, we should go ahead and cast stones. For the purposes of THIS discussion, New Testament I think is the only relevant "authority", if you choose to call it that. What would Jesus say, basically... 'Cuz He took that Old Testament world and turned it upside down. That's why so many folks were out to get HIm, don'tcha know?
So how about it? New Testament on marriage and homosexuality? What does it have to say? |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 12:38:30 PM · #6111 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's all Old Testament though. Predates Christianity. Lots of strangeness in that book, eh? LOTS of it. Let's stone some adulteresses, eh? But then we have Jesus in the New Testament telling us that if we are without sin, we should go ahead and cast stones. For the purposes of THIS discussion, New Testament I think is the only relevant "authority", if you choose to call it that. What would Jesus say, basically... 'Cuz He took that Old Testament world and turned it upside down. That's why so many folks were out to get HIm, don'tcha know?
So how about it? New Testament on marriage and homosexuality? What does it have to say? |
Specifically about homosexuality, the New Testament says diddly. As  myqyl keeps correctly pointing out, the New Testament says that all that's really required is to love God and love your neighbor. In religious circles, the "love God" part is often taken to mean following God's laws as stated in the Old Testament. Where some divergence occurs, however, is in exactly how many of God's Old Testament laws get followed. Do we follow the 10 commandments? Yes, of course. Do we follow the (probably mistranslated) one about lying with man as with woman? Surely, because Leviticus tells us that that's an abomination. But what about the one in the same section of Leviticus about eating shellfish? That's an abomination too. In the original Hebrew, the original word for abomination is the same in both places, so both are equally abominable. |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 01:17:35 PM · #6112 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's all Old Testament though. Predates Christianity. Lots of strangeness in that book, eh? LOTS of it. Let's stone some adulteresses, eh? But then we have Jesus in the New Testament telling us that if we are without sin, we should go ahead and cast stones. For the purposes of THIS discussion, New Testament I think is the only relevant "authority", if you choose to call it that. What would Jesus say, basically... 'Cuz He took that Old Testament world and turned it upside down. That's why so many folks were out to get HIm, don'tcha know?
So how about it? New Testament on marriage and homosexuality? What does it have to say? |
That's kind of the point I meant about crafting your own reality and communal blind spots. The verses used against gay marriage are also in the old testament, no?
It's like "well let's throw all that old stuff out cus it's crazy, even we can see that, EXCEPT this one. God was VERY CLEAR on that one."
I've tried this argument again and again when it comes to slavery, concubines, eating Kosher, etc, and that's always the response. Silence or sort of, 'that stuff is silly and we can ignore it to eat our bacon cheeseburgers, but the gay stuff God is very clear on.' |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 01:50:48 PM · #6113 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
There are lots of definitions in the Bible of marriage that aren't just consenting man and consenting woman and when those are brought up, they are promptly ignored. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's all Old Testament though. Predates Christianity. Lots of strangeness in that book, eh? LOTS of it. Let's stone some adulteresses, eh? But then we have Jesus in the New Testament telling us that if we are without sin, we should go ahead and cast stones. |
That's the 'promptly ignored' thing Monica was referring to, and the part about casting stones was added to the New Testament sometime in the 4th century. It did not exist in any manuscript before then. |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 03:10:11 PM · #6114 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
There are lots of definitions in the Bible of marriage that aren't just consenting man and consenting woman and when those are brought up, they are promptly ignored. |
Can you show 2-3 examples, please? |
Rape marriage:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
"28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
No marriage outside of faith (somewhat unrelated to my original statement but still relevant I believe):
2 Corinthians 6:14
"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"
Lots of polygamy but here is one:
Exodus 21:10
"If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish."
Arranged slave marriage:
Exodus 21:4
"If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." |
2 that I can think of that you missed is Solomon (Marriage is one man and a whole bunch of women) and the question Jesus was asked by the folks that didn't like the whole Resurrection idea, where a woman that survived her husband would have to marry his brother... I believe Enok or someone did this in Genesis too, but I'm at work and can't look it up. |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 03:40:56 PM · #6115 |
I once had a discussion with a very well studied person about the "laws" in the Old Testament and what she said made absolute perfect sense to me. Why was there a "law" against eating Shellfish? If you live in the desert, it's a bad idea to eat things that could kill you if you weren't careful with when you caught them and how you prepared them. Same deal with pork... Why a ban on Gay Marriage? If you're fighting your way across a wilderness, at war with virtually everyone you meet, it's a really good idea to have a high birth rate. Taking even a small percentage of the males that avoid death in combat out of your gene pool could very well mean obliteration.
But we ain't in the desert any more. Jesus came and explained (amplified) the Law... Very simple... "Love each other as I have Loved you" (i.e. Be ready to lay down your life for each other, even your enemies)
But all of that is a moot point. If being Gay IS a sin (which I'm not decided on either way), so what? The sins I tend to commit are all legal (well, for the most part)... Why do we only outlaw their sins? |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 06:00:44 PM · #6116 |
RNC Committeeman Dave Agema on why he's sticking with his anti-gay stance despite more-publicized examples of Republicans breaking ranks on the issue. He posted a quasi-viral list of anti-gay lifestyle arguments from Frank Joseph, M.D. and followed it with this:
"His [Joseph's] findings and others confirm its an unhealthy lifestyle. The gay activists portray themselves as innocent victims ; however, we who believe in traditional, time tested values are being bullied. Because I disagree with their views, I have had threats to me and my family -- that's hate! This is not about hate but a lifestyle that is against 230 years of American history and filled with medical, psychological, legal and costs reasons to oppose it. If you truly loved someone, you would want them to know their lifestyle usually leads to early death. It's about common sense. It's about maintaining the family and its importance to the well being of the children and this nation."
Gawd help us all... |
|
|
|
03/28/2013 06:19:20 PM · #6117 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
RNC Committeeman Dave Agema on why he's sticking with his anti-gay stance despite more-publicized examples of Republicans breaking ranks on the issue. He posted a quasi-viral list of anti-gay lifestyle arguments from Frank Joseph, M.D. and followed it with this:
"His [Joseph's] findings and others confirm its an unhealthy lifestyle. The gay activists portray themselves as innocent victims ; however, we who believe in traditional, time tested values are being bullied. Because I disagree with their views, I have had threats to me and my family -- that's hate! This is not about hate but a lifestyle that is against 230 years of American history and filled with medical, psychological, legal and costs reasons to oppose it. If you truly loved someone, you would want them to know their lifestyle usually leads to early death. It's about common sense. It's about maintaining the family and its importance to the well being of the children and this nation."
Gawd help us all... |
Wait...what? I'm not dead yet...
BTW, he's quoting this guy, who apparently hasn't read or written anything since 1994.
|
|
|
|
03/29/2013 02:25:27 AM · #6118 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So how about it? New Testament on marriage and homosexuality? What does it have to say? |
Specifically about homosexuality, the New Testament says diddly. |
Romans 1:26-27
New International Version (NIV)
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. |
|
|
|
03/29/2013 10:11:18 AM · #6119 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Romans 1:26-27
New International Version (NIV) |
Bigots pay no attention to the fact that this section refers to formerly heterosexual people who went against their nature or to the explicit instructions in Romans 14:1-4
New International Version (NIV)
Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person̢۪s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else̢۪s servant? |
|
|
|
03/30/2013 02:40:31 AM · #6120 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Bigots pay no attention to the fact that this section refers to formerly heterosexual people who went against their nature
|
No need to call anyone a bigot. Also your point is irrelevant to the question that was raised, which was whether or not the New Testament says anything at all about homosexuality. If the question raised was about interpretation, then your comment would be helpful. Since that was not the question, your unfortunate name calling is not only unhelpful (in that it does not advance the discussion), but it is also quite perplexing. Perhaps you were simply waiting for an opportunity to call someone a bigot?
Originally posted by scalvert:
or to the explicit instructions in Romans 14:1-4
New International Version (NIV)
Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person̢۪s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else̢۪s servant? |
Are you equating homosexuality with the eating of vegetables? If so, your point is once again irrelevant and I am once again perplexed. If not, then what is your point, exactly? |
|
|
|
03/30/2013 06:40:09 AM · #6121 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Bigots pay no attention to the fact that this section refers to formerly heterosexual people who went against their nature
|
No need to call anyone a bigot. Also your point is irrelevant to the question that was raised, which was whether or not the New Testament says anything at all about homosexuality. If the question raised was about interpretation, then your comment would be helpful. |
You might wish to look up the term bigot and then determine if it might be justifiably applied under the present circumstances. The point  Scalvert made is indeed relevant to the discussion at hand as it, (as you so aptly state), deals with the issues of context and interpretation, factors that are normally very germane to a discussion.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Are you equating homosexuality with the eating of vegetables? If so, your point is once again irrelevant and I am once again perplexed. If not, then what is your point, exactly? |
This is something you may want to read again as it seems evident that you truly did fail to comprehend the intent of the message. Read the last line over again...
Ray |
|
|
|
03/30/2013 12:52:51 PM · #6122 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
No need to call anyone a bigot. |
That is the correct dictionary term, and used appropriately in the context of people who cherry pick some parts of the Bible while completely ignoring others to justify their own hatred and discrimination. Note that Romans is supposedly Paul's own opinion without any direct authority or knowledge (acknowledged several times in Corinthians), just as you would expect from someone whose only divine connection was a single vision. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus has absolutely nothing to say about homosexuality, reserving his condemnation instead for those who judge others. |
|
|
|
03/30/2013 02:11:34 PM · #6123 |
Okay, I love a good intelligent discussion about the bible (which this has mostly been) as much as anyone, but this is Rant, and I'm feeling the need to rant a bit right now.
After a bit of a long engagement (15 years), Allex and I got married in 2008. That's the good part, never mind that what we did became illegal 4 days later. We were married, and all was well. Except....for the taxes.
Before we got married, we filed 2 single returns, which wasn't a problem, given our incomes (the amount of taxes we paid was roughly equal to what we would have paid if we were filing jointly). It was more trouble to file 2 returns than one, but our taxes are fairly simple, and I could do it myself in an afternoon.
After we got married, all hell broke loose. According to federal law (the lovely DoMA), we're still single. According to California state law, though, we're married. So in 2008 and 2009, we filed three different federal returns, 2 for the feds, as single people, then a "pro-forma" joint return that we filed with our state taxes. More painful than what we did before we got married, but I could still do it in a (slightly longer) afternoon.
Then in 2010, the IRS realized that we live in a community property state, and that all of our income and assets are community property. Because of DOMA, they can't actually treat us as the married people that we are, but they *can* force us to follow the community property rules. Which they did. So now, I file the same three federal forms, except I have to use the "married filing separately in a community property state" rules, which requires me to add all of our income and divide by 2, add all of our deductions and divide by 2, add all our taxes withheld and divide by 2, put the adjustments somewhere on the form, and create a spreadsheet explaining all of this. There aren't even lines on the 1040 for this, and they didn't even create a worksheet until this year. In 2010, I had to file an extension, because TurboTax didn't come out with the correct worksheets until June. When they did, I found that I'd done a better job of it myself using Excel.
Anyway, to make a long story less long, it takes me about 40 hours to do my own fairly simple taxes now. About half of that time is doing some very fiddly math to get all the additions and subtractions to balance, and about half of that time is figuring out where to put the numbers on the form.
And don't even get me started on the fact that every year I get a letter from the IRS, telling me that we owe them some crazy large amount of money (always > $10,000) because they can't figure it out either. Fortunately I know the tax law better than they do, and a letter always clears it up, but still...
|
|
|
|
03/30/2013 02:21:11 PM · #6124 |
Originally posted by Ann:
... but still... |
I bet you can't wait to file three years of amended returns when DOMA is ruled unconstitutional ... ;-) |
|
|
|
03/30/2013 02:27:08 PM · #6125 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Ann:
... but still... |
I bet you can't wait to file three years of amended returns when DOMA is ruled unconstitutional ... ;-) |
I wouldn't touch that with a 10 ft pole. Doing it was complicated. Undoing it would be even more complicated, and my actual tax bill is about the same either way. But Allex retired last December, so it will make a big difference on our 2013 taxes. |
|
