kscrawler
All-Big 12 performer
Post #7257
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
The best secular arguement against same sex marriage Reply
This bishop has said exactly what my objection to same sex marriage is. It's not about us, it's about the children.
What governments throughout history have had a societal interest in, he said, is the well-being of dependent children who are born into the society. These children are necessarily born from the union of a man and woman, and this is why the government has an interest in encouraging stable marriages as a type of union with the potential to bring new life into the world.
But if marriage is simply about intimate relationships between adults, he asked, "why should the law even get involved at all?" He observed that there is no real governmental reason to recognize sexual relationships between adults.
He noted that the advent of the birth control pill led to an "explosion of contraception" that "divorced procreation from the conjugal act." Other erosions to marriage quickly followed, including no-fault divorce, which was "a huge blow to marriage," and experimenting with "open marriages." Suddenly, the traditional marks of marriage ? fidelity, permanence and openness to children ? were all gone, he said. Eventually, this led to a culture of "widespread promiscuity" as sex lost its meaning, a phenomenon that was serious "facilitated" by the common use of contraception.
Now, the bishop pointed out, marriage is seen merely as being about the legal benefits offered to the individuals entering into it, rather than as "a child-centered institution."
Link: link 7/7 4:24 PM | IP: Logged
LesGocats
GoPowercat Ring of Fame member
Post #18122
chithole, USA
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
did I hear right on the radio the other day that the presbyterian church Reply
NARROWLY defeated a rule that would allow same sex marriage in their churches?
Are you kidding me or have I been that detacted from what the presbyterians have evolved into?
LOL -> presbyterians
7/8 8:19 AM | IP: Logged
kscrawler
All-Big 12 performer
Post #7261
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: did I hear right on the radio the other day that the presbyterian church Reply
You have it right the vote was 338 to 308 to keep the current definition of marriage to be between one man and one woman.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/gay-marriage-presbyterian-general-assembly_n_1655327.htmlBut they also voted against spanking children, so it's not like the liberals didn't win anything.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/pcusa-passes-resolution-against-spanking-children-77776/I feel very sorry for faithful Presbyterians.
7/8 9:02 AM | IP: Logged
ksucatinokc
GoPowercat Ring of Fame member
Post #22476
Currently in Lawton, OK
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: did I hear right on the radio the other day that the presbyterian church Reply
This cancer has infected every denomination. As our old church went through it's transition...we lost a lot of liberal members BTW...we found out we were giving some money to a S. Baptist organization that had member churches with gay pastors who supported gay marriage. Once this was brought to light, the majority of the church voted to stop funding on those grounds alone...but, the vote was around 70-30. So, in a S. Baptist church you had 30% that basically support the abomination that is homo-pairing.
I would like to add that I feel it's time I came "out" about my heterosexual lifestyle...I really "love" and enjoy my wife and it's time I let the world know this fact.
EMAW
Todd M.
7/9 6:05 PM | IP: Logged
barnabus15
On the depth chart
Post #3017
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: The best secular arguement against same sex marriage Reply
I'm proud of you Todd it takes a lot of courage to admit your heteroness in this culture. You will be targeted and attacked now until you go back in the closet.
7/10 9:00 AM | IP: Logged
ksucatinokc
GoPowercat Ring of Fame member
Post #22480
Currently in Lawton, OK
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: The best secular arguement against same sex marriage Reply
Thank you for your support. It's very hard today being openly heterosexual...you don't get news articles written about you if you come out as hetero...but, everyone still knows how important revealing your sexual orientation is to the public. (if you're gay that is)
I just couldn't keep this a secret any longer and I wanted those in the underground hetero world to know that there are others like them out here...I WAS MADE THIS WAY BY GOD!!!!
Hetero and PROUD...in fact...I want to hold a march to bring recognition to hetero awareness!!! Think about all the young hetero teens out there that struggle every day with the fact they are no longer "cool"...it really is a modern day civil rights issue!!
EMAW
Todd M.
7/10 6:47 PM | IP: Logged
wichita_cat
GoPowercat Ring of Fame member
Post #42174
The Lonely Street of Dreams
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: The best secular arguement against same sex marriage Reply
that's the truth. there's nothing remotely cool about getting laid with women anymore...
.
in actual truth though, the times are a changin. many of you will have grandchildren who just see your current views as "products of their era."
7/11 9:24 AM | IP: Logged
barnabus15
On the depth chart
Post #3022
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: The best secular arguement against same sex marriage Reply
Originally posted by wichita_cat:
that's the truth. there's nothing remotely cool about getting laid with women anymore...
.
in actual truth though, the times are a changin. many of you will have grandchildren who just see your current views as "products of their era."
Why? This biblical perspective has lasted over 6000 years I doubt that will change. Is it possible I will have unbelieving grandchildren? Sure. Very rare that happens in our church community but it happens.
Cue the slavery arguement.
7/11 11:18 AM | IP: Logged
wichita_cat
GoPowercat Ring of Fame member
Post #42180
The Lonely Street of Dreams
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: The best secular arguement against same sex marriage Reply
as pointed out in other stats thrown in this thread, even among the religious the numbers are moving in the other direction.
.
while many churches still see homosexuality as being evil in the light of the most important of the 10 commandments. others put it in the same category as eating shrimp. very very few religions still take a completely literal stance on leviticus nowadays. like it or not, churches' views towards the bible tend to (sometimes slowly) follow thoses of overall society. i'm willing to bet you occasionally wear mixed threads, probably have shaved your beard at some point, and haven't participated in a mass stone of Miss Cleo to the best of my knoweldge. a few thousand years ago, your modern stance on those issues might have put your "believer" status very much in doubt...
.
maybe not your grandchildren, but somewhere down the line, your ancestors will think the modern backlash against gays silly. that's inevitable (for better or for worse).
This post was edited on 7/11 11:36 AM by wichita_cat
7/11 11:35 AM | IP: Logged
Murf12
New walk-on to the team
Post #45
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: The best secular arguement against same sex marriage Reply
Originally posted by wichita_cat:
as pointed out in other stats thrown in this thread, even among the religious the numbers are moving in the other direction.
.
while many churches still see homosexuality as being evil in the light of the most important of the 10 commandments. others put it in the same category as eating shrimp. very very few religions still take a completely literal stance on leviticus nowadays. like it or not, churches' views towards the bible tend to (sometimes slowly) follow thoses of overall society. i'm willing to bet you occasionally wear mixed threads, probably have shaved your beard at some point, and haven't participated in a mass stone of Miss Cleo to the best of my knoweldge. a few thousand years ago, your modern stance on those issues might have put your "believer" status very much in doubt...
.
maybe not your grandchildren, but somewhere down the line, your ancestors will think the modern backlash against gays silly. that's inevitable (for better or for worse).
This post was edited on 7/11 11:36 AM by wichita_cat
The laws of the Old Testament were replaced by Jesus Christ and him dying on the cross. The way to heaven is thru Jesus and his forgiveness of our sins, not by following the laws of the Old Testament. If an individual commits adultery and he repents his sin and truely means it, will still go to heaven. However, if that person continues to commit adultery, they will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Same as homosexuals, if you continue to live the homosexual lifestyle, judgement day will not be pleasant. So no, complete public accecptance of gays is not invevitable. People may still love the sinner, hate the sin, but approval will never be accepted by all.
7/11 12:08 PM | IP: Logged
wichita_cat
GoPowercat Ring of Fame member
Post #42181
The Lonely Street of Dreams
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: The best secular arguement against same sex marriage Reply
Do you repent mixed fibers and crab cakes?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted on 7/11 12:11 PM | IP: Logged
KramerDishDawg84
New walk-on to the team
Post #1
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: The best secular arguement against same sex marriage Reply
Sorry to say that your hate-filled tirade on Christians is completely ignorant, Wichita. Christians adhere to the New Law, not the Old Law of the Bible. The New Testament states in several places that homosexuals will not inherit eternal life. Those are what we believe to be Gods words, not our own. But please, feel free to continue to bash us Christians because we don't hold public stonings if it makes you feel better.
7/11 12:39 PM | IP: Logged
Catilac
GoPowercat Ring of Fame member
Post #19998
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: The best secular arguement against same sex marriage Reply
Originally posted by wichita_cat:
.
in actual truth though, the times are a changin. many of you will have grandchildren who just see your current views as "products of their era."
The generational and personal hubris implicit in this statement is exceptional. as is the choice of personal pronouns.
we are the product of thousands and thousands of years of human society. yet somehow it will be you, some 10 or 15 years younger than others on this board, and those who come after you that will finally clear the bar of enlightenment that 5,000 years of sociatial thought and evolution somehow couldn't ?
amazing.
and with it you, and my unborn grandchildren have declared the discovery of social/sexual dinosaurs pre factum.
7/11 1:09 PM | IP: Logged
Catilac
GoPowercat Ring of Fame member
Post #19999
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: The best secular arguement against same sex marriage Reply
these are monumental times you live in WC, what with your generation solving these greatest of social ills; you know, the ones those 10 years older than you didn't see, for whatever reason
I've got to ask, what's next on the docket for "you", or will this pretty much solve everything going forward?
7/11 1:14 PM | IP: Logged
barnabus15
On the depth chart
Post #3024
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: The best secular arguement against same sex marriage Reply
Christians there is no need to try and explain theology or scripture to most on this board. It is a waste of your time. The items they have cherry picked and chosen to eternalize they believe incapsulate the bible in toto.
7/11 1:18 PM | IP: Logged
wichita_cat
GoPowercat Ring of Fame member
Post #42182
The Lonely Street of Dreams
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: The best secular arguement against same sex marriage Reply
Originally posted by KramerDishDawg84:
Sorry to say that your hate-filled tirade on Christians is completely ignorant, Wichita.
Overreact much? Hell of a first post.
.
I'll argue that I give Christianity more credit that you do. I think it can withstand me asking a few questions and posing a few thoughts about it without needing knee jerk reactions calling it "hate-filled".
7/11 1:37 PM | IP: Logged
wichita_cat
GoPowercat Ring of Fame member
Post #42183
The Lonely Street of Dreams
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: The best secular arguement against same sex marriage Reply
Originally posted by Catilac:
Originally posted by wichita_cat:
.
in actual truth though, the times are a changin. many of you will have grandchildren who just see your current views as "products of their era."
The generational and personal hubris implicit in this statement is exceptional. as is the choice of personal pronouns.
we are the product of thousands and thousands of years of human society. yet somehow it will be you, some 10 or 15 years younger than others on this board, and those who come after you that will finally clear the bar of enlightenment that 5,000 years of sociatial thought and evolution somehow couldn't ?
amazing.
and with it you, and my unborn grandchildren have declared the discovery of social/sexual dinosaurs pre factum.
This thread has multiple posts from your buddies talking about how the numbers are changing within their own faiths (in a melancholy matter). I reiterate the same thought while seeing it as something less than a catastrophe and it becomes "personal hubris"?
.
The funny thing is that I'm actually pretty apathetic on this issue, outside of a few message board posts. To me, it just boils down to: If gays are allowed to marry, they're happier - the rest of us (reasonable) people continue living our lives EXACTLY as we have been (except for Crawler, who would now feel comfortable going out in public in his dorothy outfit). If gays aren't allowed to marry, they're not happy, and a group of people become irrationally celebratory over something that doesn't affect their daily lives. It's silly.
.
All in all, I'd actually much rather we all move on to much more important issues that do affect my daily life.
7/11 1:45 PM | IP: Logged
kscrawler
All-Big 12 performer
Post #7277
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: The best secular arguement against same sex marriage Reply
Do you really think you just thought of this and have found an ah ha moment? Did you learn nothing when you accused African Americans for always having a lot of illegitimate children and then forcing me to prove you wrong? Did you learn nothing when you blithely postulated that the ancient greeks didn't raise their men to be active homosexuals and then force me to prove you wrong? How many times are we going to have to do this before you decide to use Google prior to embarrasing yourself?
But because I am a kind person and you are obviously in need of education I will once again magnanimously show you the error of your liberal ways. So as to keep you from doing this I am copying below a complete explanation of the admonitions found in Leviticus so that you can understand and know them better.
Now shape up, it seems to me you used to be a far better sparring partner in the past. Maybe you need more sleep.
11 Things Atheists Criticize About the Bible, But We Know Better
It's been a long time since I have posted here. I have been focusing on Spanish materials and many other aspects of my work. But recently a blog post entitled "11 Things the Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway" caught my attention. I wrote, in a matter of minutes, a detailed point by point response, to the post at this site. Now I realize that the original post comes from this site. At any rate, I thought I would rewrite my answers here. Hopefully no one will get sucked in by the weak reasoning of the people who posted this in the first place.
The point of the original author was that the Bible contains many stupid prohibitions, and Christians are stupid to believe it. And the author provides 11 ideas to prove it. Here they are:
1. Round haircuts (Leviticus 19:27)
2. Playing football (Leviticus 11:8)
3. Fortune-telling (Leviticus 19:31, 20:6)
4. Pulling out during sex (Genesis 38:9-10)
5. Tattoos (Leviticus 19:28)
6. Wearing polyester and other mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19)
7. Divorce and remarriage (Mark 10:8-12)
8. Letting people without testicles into church (and tenth generation children of illegitimate children, Deuteronomy 23:1-2)
9. Wearing gold (1 Timothy 2:9)
10. Eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:10)
11. Wives defending their husbands by grabbing their husband's opponent by the testicles (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
The author goes on to criticize the ban on homosexuality as well, and trudges out the oft-repeated platitude that if we accept what the Law of Moses says about homosexuality, we must be consistent and prohibit all of the above as well.
How ought we respond to this?
1. First of all, it's not as if Christians haven't thought long and hard about these and other passages, or that such sentiments come as a surprise. The writer of the original post ignores centuries of thoughtful reflection on these topics, and acts as if he's the first to notice. But we Christians have very careful rules established to determine how to relate the Old and New Testaments and determine what is applicable today and in what way. In practice we may be inconsistent in our application of the Bible to life, but our interpretation of the Bible makes perfect sense if one takes the time to investigate.
2. One rule we use to mediate the relationship between the OT and the NT is that if a prohibition in the OT is repealed in the NT, it is no longer valid. The whole idea in the OT about unclean animals and foods was done away with in the NT (see Peter's vision on Acts 10:9-16). So it is not inconsistent to obey other laws in Leviticus but not obey food laws. We can effectively scratch #2 and #10 off our list of 11. They are no longer an issue. But, you might object, weren't those laws random and ridiculous when they were in force? No, not really.
The point of such laws is that Israel as a nation needed to be distinct from the nations around it in order to form and maintain its identity as a people. Food laws were one of the ways to maintain that distinction. And there was a rationale behind which animals were forbidden. From Genesis 1 on, God was all about separating things into separate categories and not mixing them. The word for that idea is holiness. Israel needed to be holy ? separate from the nations around it. So the animals that mixed elements from other animals were forbidden. Animals that chewed the cud AND had split hooves, creatures that lived in the sea AND walked on legs instead of swimming, etc, were forbidden. Israel was to be a nation that didn't blur its boundaries, and refused to eat animals whose composition and behavior blurred such boundaries.
So, no, there was no moral reason not to eat such animals, but the prohibition was not a random one. God wanted to form a distinct nation that would in time bring salvation to the other nations. And to do so, he gave them a separate diet and hygiene, among other things. Once Jesus came bringing that salvation, the apostles were charged with taking that salvation to the nations. So now the idea was not to be separate from the nations but to go out into them. Acts 10, mentioned above, makes that very connection: Peter's vision was not so much about food but about contact with 'unclean' Gentiles (non-Jews). The Gentiles and their culture were no longer unclean, including the food they eat. And so we see apostles living like Gentiles and adopting their culture in order to share the good news with them, rather than insisting that they adopt Jewish culture.
In short, in the preceding I show that the original rule wasn't stupid, that the changeover wasn't haphazard, and that Christians have a rationale for ignoring these two prohibitions found in their Bibles. Enjoy your bacon and shrimp, everyone!
3. The prohibition against round haircuts and blended fabrics (#1 and #6 on our list above), while not specifically repealed in the NT, clearly fall under the same umbrella. Blended fabrics was all about mixing things that should not be mixed, in order to avoid mixing and intermingling with the pagan nations around Israel. Now such rules are a non-issue, because we are a new Israel that incorporates Gentiles on the basis of faith in Jesus, not on the basis of adopting Jewish culture. I'm not really that crazy about tattoos, myself (#5 on our list), but I would still place it in the same category.
4. Another item in which a former prohibition has been repealed is #8. Israel's worship emphasized that access to God was limited. Certain people were only allowed so far. The temple had several areas, and depending whom you were, you would not be allowed to pass a certain point. The point was not that God didn't love everyone the same, but that God limited access to himself because of sinful humanity, and the layers of exclusivity were a visual reminder of that. Even among healthy Jewish male priests the same rules applied: in the center of the temple complex, only the high priest could enter, and only once a year.
But in the New Testament Jesus dies for humankind, and according to the book of Hebrews he gives us ? all of us who believe in him ? direct access to God. So whether you are Jew or Gentile, male or female, rich or poor, slave or free, whether you have perfect health or you have, like those mentioned in #8, 'damaged goods', God invites you to draw near to him through Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.
5. That leaves us with #3, 4, 7, 9, and 11, all of which have less to do with the difference between the Old and New Testaments and more to do with the author failing to read the passages in their historical and literary contexts.
6. The sin of Onan in pulling out during sex (#4) was not that he pulled out, but that he did so in order to avoid a sacred obligation to his deceased brother's family. In those days it was important to produce offspring and continue the family name. But sometimes men died young, and if they had brothers, it was the brother's duty to provide offspring for the deceased brother. Then it was their duty to financially provide for such offspring. Onan was more concerned about saving money than he was about his brother's family line, so he pulled out in order to avoid spending the big bucks on raising a kid for this brother. But note that he didn't do so by refusing to sleep with his brother's wife. He shacked up with the widow and did the equivalent of spitting on his brother's grave. If you do something similar, you are guilty of this very justifiable prohibition. Otherwise ignore it.
7. While we are on the subject of being fruitful and multiplying, let's tackle #11. I admit that this is the strangest of the prohibitions on the list. My gut reaction is that this only got in Deuteronomy's rulebook because someone had recently done something like that. But it might be that in those days when two men got into a fistfight, women made it a habit of attempting to grab their opponents by the family jewels. Who knows? Even here, I think, there is a logical rationale: as mentioned before, producing offspring was all-important in Israel, an obligation stemming from Genesis 1 itself. So the idea is that if two men are fighting, they are bound to get a few scrapes and bruises, but it would be far worse to eliminate an opponent's ability to have kids than it would be to let the guys just duke it out. A foreign idea, maybe, to our ears, but it has its own internal logic.
8. The prohibition of wearing gold (among other things) in 1 Timothy (#9 above) should be read in connection with the similar recommendation in 1 Peter 3:3-5. People should invest their time and money in cultivating their inner, spiritual beauty, not in enhancing their physical beauty. In that culture women needed to attract men, and the apostles say they should do so by displaying the qualities that really matter, not by enhancing their physical appearance. And people shouldn't go to church meetings dressed in a way to draw attention to themselves. They should be modest. Rather than being a foolish, random prohibition, I think it is quite relevant for Christians today. I see too many people doing in church just what Paul and Peter urge us not to do in these passages.
9. Divorce and remarriage (#7 above): Jesus prohibited divorce and remarriage because men were using divorce as a 'legal' way to dump their wives and hook up with another woman without getting stoned for adultery. Jesus took away that loophole in order to protect women ? who in that society could not realistically survive financially without being under the wing of either a father or a husband ? from being dumped for something simple as burning their husband's toast and then being forced out of necessity to remarry. Jesus was saying that men should not be able to get away with that kind of thing without being held responsible.
Jesus and, incidentally, Paul, both recognize that there are valid exceptions when divorce is allowable. Jesus mentions that if your spouse commits adultery, you might find it necessary to divorce. Paul mentions the possibility involving cases of abandonment by an unbeliever. I would use the precedent afforded by these exceptions to add another: when wife and/or children are threatened by severe harm from their husbands. What is sad is not the prohibition given by Jesus but the misuse of it by Christians who force wives into staying in abusive, hostile marriages for fear of sinning by divorcing. Jesus' point was to protect women from cruel husbands. He is to be applauded, not ridiculed. But Christian misuse of this prohibition goes directly against the spirit of the command, and is to be condemned.
10. Down to one: fortune-telling. Sorcery of any form is a pagan ritual, not a harmless pastime. It involves going outside the religious establishment and paying an unauthorized, self-proclaimed religious person to consult what turn out to be demonic forces about important choices pertaining to your future rather than using the brains and wisdom God gave you and resorting to prayer when that is not enough. It is condemned by both testaments, and rightly so.
So there you have it. I sat down an hour or so ago, and pumped out this article without so much as getting up or checking other resources, and I answered all 11 objections to the Bible without a sweat. I'm not saying it is always this easy. There are much more demanding objections to Christian faith. But the Bible is not stupid, as the original 11 point post claims. And we who believe it are not stupid for doing so. Blessings to all who have an ear to hear.
7/11 2:27 PM | IP: Logged
barnabus15
On the depth chart
Post #3025
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: The best secular arguement against same sex marriage Reply
I appreciated the post crawler. WC is either googling up a storm or more likely as I stated earlier has no genuine interest in learning about things that don't align with his progressive ideals.
7/12 10:31 AM | IP: Logged
