|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 18, 2007 5:08:29 GMT -5
If I was to go to a church again, I would probably go to either a really tiny one, or a black baptist church where people put so much feeling and physical energy into their praises. But I'm kind-of going off subject.... Many churches will bend and allow gay marriage. Many will not. Those that don't will start to be called names. Eventually those that don't will be basically demonized by media and a whole bunch of others. I think this is what people fear. I disagree. I think it will be the other way around. I think those that do marry gay people will be demonized, maybe not by the media, but by the vast amount of churches that will still refuse to marry gay people. I think that part goes without saying. Sure, that's going to happen. Churches and fundamentalists do NOT want to be treated the same way that many of them treat those who don't believe the same way as they do. Right now, the prejudice is primarily one-way. If gay marriage becomes legal, the prejudice will be both ways, and even stronger and more extreme than it was before. Some people who have always taken a safe position on things will be forced to take sides. It will surely make things more stressful--FOR A PERIOD OF TIME and then we'll wonder why there was any sort of big deal made about it in the first place. That period of time would probably be 8-10 years. As far as the church changing its position on something--they had to change their tune pretty quickly when it was proven that the Earth wasn't flat. They've had to change their tune many times when beliefs that they held dear were shown to be false, which is why SO much of the Bible is no longer studied in a literal fashion, and the times it IS studied literally, many things are skipped over because they're kind-of ridiculous--like the whole book of Leviticus--shellfish eaters and those wearing clothing of mixed fibers are ACTUALLY supposed to be just as bad as a man who lies with another man as he would a woman. The church HAS to change with time or it will cease to exist and would be replaced with a most-likely-bible-based belief that DOES change with time, that IS adaptive. The closest group of people in the U.S. to follow the Bible literally are the Amish, and even they can't live the way the Bible teaches. They certainly can't kill their children for disobeying like the old testament teaches. But still--no matter what, this issue is going to come to a head at some point and the feelings about it from both sides are going to bubble to the surface, and quite possibly in an ugly way in some instances.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Oct 18, 2007 6:01:29 GMT -5
This is in no way meant to be offensive. I hope that you have seen by my other posts that I don't bear fruit of anger, oppression, guilt tripping people, etc.
You aren't speaking of Christianity when you say that the church had to change position when it was proven that the earth wasn't flat, and when you say that they've had to change their tune so many times when the beliefs they held dear were shown to be false, what exactly are you saying? It sounds like a snipe remark that requires no accountability from my perspective. As far as the Bible no longer being studied in a literal fashion, what does that mean? I don't skip over anything, and neither does the church I attend. I get the feeling you say these things based off of television preachers. With the way you describe "ridiculous" you show that you have extremely limited knowledge of the Bible. I say this because the Sacrifice of Jesus completed the law, so that none of the things you see in the Old Testament was required anymore. The Old Testament exists in part to show us just what God's Son dying did for us. The Old Testament is cannon because each of the books prophecy of the coming of Jesus, even thousands of years later. This shows that it's not just "invented" by man. A pretty cool thing really. Now no one can dismiss the reality of Jesus when they must acknowledge that the OT was documented as being written FAR earlier than Jesus' time on Earth. This is where we step into the dangerous ground of potential for me to be labeled as "close minded". Because I say that the Amish are deceived. The old laws in the OT are obsolete. Again, sorry if I come across as harsh. I'm just so tired of people citing the OT to point out insanity when they clearly don't understand it. There is a quiz on FFRF.org (freedom from religion foundation) that asks a whole series of questions with answers that intentionally make Christianity seem archaic because all of the answers are from the OT.
EDIT* Hey, bad pun here, but I couldn't resist. I just noticed that the "Gay Marriage" folder on the thread is flaming. I hope no one is offended, just my humor, nothing hurtful meant in the least.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 18, 2007 7:29:37 GMT -5
I'm not speaking about the church you go to.
I know that the new testament basically makes the rules of the old testament somewhat void--the problem is, so many people use the text of the old testament to belittle or put down others, and in some cases, has been used for things like witch hunts and inquisitions. I WISH that more Christians would actually follow the new testament instead of preaching the old testament.
I grew up going to church my whole childhood. I was quite religious for a long time. I was also molested by a priest for a year when I was 8. I was also taught by the sunday school I was going to that split up the class, making the girls leave to another room, and then taught the boys that the desire to look at women naked is sinful and they'd even test us on it .
I'm a little jaded, you can imagine. At points, I have been quite angry that I turned out gay because I don't know for sure FOR ME whether it's really a genetic thing or not--everything it was to be a man was pretty much guilt-tripped out of me by the churches I was going to and by my grandmother. I TRY to be as open minded as I know how about religion.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Oct 18, 2007 7:58:18 GMT -5
I just think that the way it came across when you said "As far as the church changing its position on something--they had to change their tune pretty quickly when it was proven that the Earth wasn't flat. They've had to change their tune many times when beliefs that they held dear were shown to be false, which is why SO much of the Bible is no longer studied in a literal fashion, and the times it IS studied literally, many things are skipped over because they're kind-of ridiculous--like the whole book of Leviticus--shellfish eaters and those wearing clothing of mixed fibers are ACTUALLY supposed to be just as bad as a man who lies with another man as he would a woman." seemed like the usual blanket statement from someone who doesn't understand the whole NT/OT relation. And it seemed to me that you used that statement to explain why the church WILL HAVE TO CHANGE, and then as you also said, "like they've done many times". I was just saying that I've not seen those "many times" nor can I even cite any times. I have seen in history the horrors you speak of, but that's not the church, that's insane people in the church. And I don't doubt that you try to be as open minded as possible, you display that often. I didn't mean to imply that you were speaking about the church I go to, the only thing I even said about that was the church I go to doesn't skip over things out of convenience.
I guess the main thing is that your statement about citing examples where the church had changed so many times seemed more like your explanation about why they would change for gay marriage and less about a viewpoint that you wish less Christians had.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Oct 18, 2007 16:43:59 GMT -5
This is in no way meant to be offensive. I hope that you have seen by my other posts that I don't bear fruit of anger, oppression, guilt tripping people, etc. You aren't speaking of Christianity when you say that the church had to change position when it was proven that the earth wasn't flat, and when you say that they've had to change their tune so many times when the beliefs they held dear were shown to be false, what exactly are you saying? It sounds like a snipe remark that requires no accountability from my perspective. As far as the Bible no longer being studied in a literal fashion, what does that mean? I don't skip over anything, and neither does the church I attend. I get the feeling you say these things based off of television preachers. With the way you describe "ridiculous" you show that you have extremely limited knowledge of the Bible. I say this because the Sacrifice of Jesus completed the law, so that none of the things you see in the Old Testament was required anymore. The Old Testament exists in part to show us just what God's Son dying did for us. The Old Testament is cannon because each of the books prophecy of the coming of Jesus, even thousands of years later. This shows that it's not just "invented" by man. A pretty cool thing really. Now no one can dismiss the reality of Jesus when they must acknowledge that the OT was documented as being written FAR earlier than Jesus' time on Earth. This is where we step into the dangerous ground of potential for me to be labeled as "close minded". Because I say that the Amish are deceived. The old laws in the OT are obsolete. Again, sorry if I come across as harsh. I'm just so tired of people citing the OT to point out insanity when they clearly don't understand it. There is a quiz on FFRF.org (freedom from religion foundation) that asks a whole series of questions with answers that intentionally make Christianity seem archaic because all of the answers are from the OT. EDIT* Hey, bad pun here, but I couldn't resist. I just noticed that the "Gay Marriage" folder on the thread is flaming. I hope no one is offended, just my humor, nothing hurtful meant in the least. Sorry, but your whole argument here is invalid. You are saying that the old testament is obsolete, but according to the New Testament, that is not true. Here is what Jesus said Matthew 5:17-18 (New International Version) The Fulfillment of the Law 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Oct 18, 2007 17:08:48 GMT -5
I should have clarified what I meant. I meant obsolete in the ways of following them as a means to access God. In the way of trying to check and balance people, you can't use the OT laws, otherwise you negate what Jesus did. I just assumed it would be taken that way since that was what you seemed to be talking about.
EDIT* Whoops! I thought I was responding to Kizzume. So I should say "what HE seemed to be talking about".
|
|
|
Post by jq on Oct 18, 2007 17:11:51 GMT -5
I should have clarified what I meant. I meant obsolete in the ways of following them as a means to access God. In the way of trying to check and balance people, you can't use the OT laws, otherwise you negate what Jesus did. Which OT laws negate what Jesus did? Are you referring to the 10 commandments? I suppose what you mean to say is that some of the ceremonies and practices, such as sacrificing cattle, is no longer needed. But those were never the law of God. The law of God (unless I am mistaken) is the 10 commandments, which is still in effect. The reason why you can still go to heaven, even if you break those laws, is because of what Jesus did. But those laws are still in effect. You are still forbidden to murder, lie, covet, lust, bow to falls idols, etc according to the Word.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Oct 18, 2007 17:16:39 GMT -5
My response was to this: As far as the church changing its position on something--they had to change their tune pretty quickly when it was proven that the Earth wasn't flat. They've had to change their tune many times when beliefs that they held dear were shown to be false, which is why SO much of the Bible is no longer studied in a literal fashion, and the times it IS studied literally, many things are skipped over because they're kind-of ridiculous--like the whole book of Leviticus--shellfish eaters and those wearing clothing of mixed fibers are ACTUALLY supposed to be just as bad as a man who lies with another man as he would a woman. and this: I know that the new testament basically makes the rules of the old testament somewhat void--the problem is, so many people use the text of the old testament to belittle or put down others, and in some cases, has been used for things like witch hunts and inquisitions. I WISH that more Christians would actually follow the new testament instead of preaching the old testament., which is what we were talking about. I didn't think anyone thought that the 10 commandments were obsolete.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Oct 18, 2007 17:20:57 GMT -5
But you also said "In the way of trying to check and balance people, you can't use the OT laws, otherwise you negate what Jesus did."
And I was just stating that the OT laws, (The Ten Commandments at the very minimum) do not all negate what Jesus did. In fact, much of the laws are still supposed to be upheld.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 18, 2007 17:51:38 GMT -5
I guess the main thing is that your statement about citing examples where the church had changed so many times seemed more like your explanation about why they would change for gay marriage and less about a viewpoint that you wish less Christians had. It was both. Without the people, the church is meaningless, as we have established already. The Catholic church didn't seem to condemn the actions of people of the time during atrocities being done in the name of Christ and Mother Mary. When I refer to "the church", I'm talking about major established church--the Catholic church, etc. The established church at the time supported the idea that the earth was flat. There was nothing to stop the Spanish Inquisition. jq--you are making some good points.
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Oct 18, 2007 21:11:23 GMT -5
That last post of Kizzume's just showed me how very differently we are thinking. The problem here is that you guys are referring to the church as The Catholic Church. That's a false church. (there are a ton of reasons why, and I'll cite them if you require) I am now, and have always been speaking from the view of "the church" being what the apostles were part of after the ascension of Christ. You know, the NT church, not some bible violating church like the Catholics have). The Catholic Church is irrelevant to me and it was presumptuous of me to assume it would be to you as well. If we are speaking from the point of view of Catholics being "The Church" then I agree with you both. The church that God charged the apostles to have never viewed the earth as flat. At the risk of coming across as some kind of elitist (and not meaning to), I was talking about the One True Church. The one from the NT.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Oct 18, 2007 21:37:57 GMT -5
Well int his case I was simply arguing not really for or against the church (at this point in the discussion,) but rather that I believe the Old Testament is still very important to the overall aspect of Christianity. Remember that Levitical law was never intended for everyone. It certainly doesn't apply to us. But, if we are to follow the Bible and believe it to be true, I am stating that the Old Testament is still very vital and relevant. That is, of course, if we are to take the perspective that the Bible is true. (And arguing whether or not the Bible is true seems like a whole nother thread, easily!) But assuming it is, I don't feel like there are elements of the Old Testament that should be written off as unimportant. Some of it is necessary for historical understandings, some of it for its message. But all of it is vital.
If someone is to use Old Testament to discredit the Bible, they would be doing so under a mistunderstanding (I think.) Because a lot of the "laws" of the Old Testament are circumstantial. For example, pork really was unclean back then! That is no lie. That is, historically, very true. Does that mean you can't eat pork now? Well of course not, if you include the New Testament you will remember what is said in Acts 10:15: "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." This is why as a religious piece, I feel that the Bible is equally relevent the whole way through. If someone were to criticize what the old testament says about pork in the Old Testament, they wouldn't be looking at the book as a whole.
But I don't think we can pick and choose what parts of the Bible are not obsolete and which ones aren't. Take it or leave it the Bible is compiled in its order for an important reason and many of the laws have remained through the New Testament, such as the Ten Commandments, and Jesus himself said he did not come to abolish the laws of the Old Testament, but to uphold them.
(Changing subject a little) -------------------------------------------------------------------- As for the Church itself, it has often been corrupt. As you know Jesus himself overturned tables of a corrupt temple.
Matthew 21:12 "Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves."
But the reason why he was so mad wasn't because it was a Church, but because of its corruption. So in nature, I don't think a Church has to be a bad thing, and I am certainly not saying it is.
However, I would argue that I believe homosexuality is not a sin.
I think if it was forbidden at one time it was for an important reason, just like the reason Pork was forbidden at one time. But times have changed and pork is no longer outlawed to eat.
At one time, reproduction was a necessity that was in danger. Now, I'd say we have plenty of people and the idea of man going extinct is no longer a threat (no longer a threat in concern to reproduction. Nuclear Warfare and all that is another ball of wax.). Times have changed, and so should our understanding of the laws.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Oct 18, 2007 23:46:15 GMT -5
That last post of Kizzume's just showed me how very differently we are thinking. The problem here is that you guys are referring to the church as The Catholic Church. That's a false church. (there are a ton of reasons why, and I'll cite them if you require) I am now, and have always been speaking from the view of "the church" being what the apostles were part of after the ascension of Christ. You know, the NT church, not some bible violating church like the Catholics have). The Catholic Church is irrelevant to me and it was presumptuous of me to assume it would be to you as well. If we are speaking from the point of view of Catholics being "The Church" then I agree with you both. The church that God charged the apostles to have never viewed the earth as flat. At the risk of coming across as some kind of elitist (and not meaning to), I was talking about the One True Church. The one from the NT. Fair enough. The Catholic church sure has had some immense power. You have brought up a good point. JQ: That was another really good post.
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 1, 2007 23:55:21 GMT -5
I see the word marriage as being made up of three components.
The first and primary component that has the debate raging is the legal component. Many states have established that marriage is a contract that can be entered into by two consenting adults of opposite sex who are not related. The contract can have virtually any motivation, including but not limited to love, benefits, and social status.
The second component of marriage is religion. Many people view marriage as a religious contract between two individuals sanctioned by God. Because they view marriage in this manner, they feel that it should be sanctioned by the church and have religious significance.
The final component of marriage is the social component. A couple being married sends certain messages to the community as a whole.
It is my personal opinion that we should remove the word marriage from the law. By doing this we protect the sanctity of the word/institution for religious purposes. Each church will be able to determine who they will bestow the marriage title on and we wouldn't have to be worried about non-religious people violating the intent/significance of the word.
Doing this will also create the equality between civil unions and 'legal' marriage. Under the law, they would be treated equally with the same benefits and responsibilities. This will stop the state from sanctioning institutionalized segregation.
Finally, removing the word marriage for the law will allow society to stop fighting about something so frivolous as a word and allow us to focus on the issues of the day such as the war on terror.
Until that day, where we have equal opportunity under the law, we will continue to fight over something so basically human as love. We should allow the coupling of two consenting unrelated adults without the state differentiating between the two. This will translate into real equity in property transfer rights, contract law, and legal status.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 2, 2007 0:05:29 GMT -5
That fits into my all-or-nothing viewpoint: Either EVERYONE should be able to legally get married, or NOBODY should be able to legally get married. It's the only way it can be equal.
|
|