Seeing as the whole gay marriage (More broadly the morale issues in general) controversy decided the election in favor of Bush in bringing out the whole christian evangelical base, I thought I would just shed some light on the subject.
Speaking as a evangelical Christian myself, the bible as we know it today was taken largely from the earliest scripts and texts that have lasted, which largely are in Greek. The problem is the Greeks didn't even have a word for "homosexual". Even in Hebrew there was no word for homosexuals.
Also, the main passage in which is seen as the biggest point of condemnation of homosexuals is in Leviticus where it says something along the lines of "Man shall not have sex with another man, for that is an adbomination". Problem for Christians is, this is the same chapter (Leviticus) that forbids people from eating pig products (Reason why Jews don't eat pork and such). So this really makes no sense, if Christians eat pork at will, isn't it hypocritical for them to condemn gays? Wouldn't be eating pork for a Christian be equally as sinful as performing anal sex on a man?
Also on a more practical and less religious note, a lot of conservatives make the argument that allowing gay marriage would ruin the sanctity of marriage, problem is that Massachutes, the whole hotbed of the gay marriage controversy, has the lowest divorce rate in the entire country. Guess what states have the highest divorce rate? That's right, all state in the midwest or the south.
Anyways, hope some of you found this remotely interesting.
A few points in the argument for gay marriage
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
To answer Tom,
Because people take what they want from the Bible and leave the rest. Ned Flanders made a good point on the Simpsons when his wife died.
He said, "Ok God, I've been a good chiristian. I've done everything the good book said. I even did the stuff that contradicts the other stuff..."
Since the Bible is a translation and not the original work, editors have taken it upon themselves to alter text, etc... To fit their agenda. Case in point, King James himself. He had text omitted, and verses changed along the way.
Who really knows what was truelly intended to be taken literally and what is metaphorical (sp?). Guess that's why we have so many denominations of Christian religions, because the Baptists don't interpret the Bible the same as the Presbyterians.
Just as the Sunnis and the Shites(sp?) see the Koran differently.
All in the interpretation.
Because people take what they want from the Bible and leave the rest. Ned Flanders made a good point on the Simpsons when his wife died.
He said, "Ok God, I've been a good chiristian. I've done everything the good book said. I even did the stuff that contradicts the other stuff..."
Since the Bible is a translation and not the original work, editors have taken it upon themselves to alter text, etc... To fit their agenda. Case in point, King James himself. He had text omitted, and verses changed along the way.
Who really knows what was truelly intended to be taken literally and what is metaphorical (sp?). Guess that's why we have so many denominations of Christian religions, because the Baptists don't interpret the Bible the same as the Presbyterians.
Just as the Sunnis and the Shites(sp?) see the Koran differently.
All in the interpretation.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Thanks for the kind words Frenzal.
"That was informative and logical - my question is why are somethings to be taken quite literally where as other things can be ignored when they are all 'holy scripture'?"
Honestly, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, you'd probably have to give me specifics for me to fully understand what you mean. As in the issue of homosexuality in the bible, alot of things got translated poorly from Greek/Hebrew/Arabic into English, so some inconsistencies do apply.
Also, Christians don't tend to follow the religious rules of the Old Testament (The ones the Jews do follow), so there might be some contradictories there.
"That was informative and logical - my question is why are somethings to be taken quite literally where as other things can be ignored when they are all 'holy scripture'?"
Honestly, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, you'd probably have to give me specifics for me to fully understand what you mean. As in the issue of homosexuality in the bible, alot of things got translated poorly from Greek/Hebrew/Arabic into English, so some inconsistencies do apply.
Also, Christians don't tend to follow the religious rules of the Old Testament (The ones the Jews do follow), so there might be some contradictories there.
The teachings of the Bible are great; however, the modern day interpretation of Bush as a man of God demonstrates that organized religion has been a complete failure in teachings the values of God. Bush's election has made the Church a major player in legislation in this country. The Church and State were seperated to protect the Church from criticism of government policy. The seperation has ended, and the Church is now fair game to target for protests of Bush's policies. The Church has rendered itself on par with any other corrupt corporation that influences policy to the detriment of the people the government represents.
-
shreddaily
- Flower Child
- Posts: 1665
- Joined: 03 Sep 2003 16:56
Re: A few points in the argument for gay marriage
Religion and hypocritical are synonyms. You unvailed 1 of thousands of double standards that christians decide not to acknkowlage.BainbridgeShred wrote: So this really makes no sense, if Christians eat pork at will, isn't it hypocritical for them to condemn gays?
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
-
mosher
- brutal footbag cronie
- Posts: 6177
- Joined: 22 Jan 2004 23:30
- Location: Toronto, Ontario
- Contact:
Bainbridge - I was referring to the sort of thing you pointed out, as in the hypocrysies. It seems odd that that is allowed.
You either have to take it all as metaphorical and 'some good ideas' or you have to take it all as literal and there isn't much room for fence sitting there, though lots of people get to pick and choose which parts apply to their lives and which parts need not be followed.
You either have to take it all as metaphorical and 'some good ideas' or you have to take it all as literal and there isn't much room for fence sitting there, though lots of people get to pick and choose which parts apply to their lives and which parts need not be followed.
Tom Mosher
hate is a waste of passion!
hate is a waste of passion!
-
Senor Grommet
- Post Master General
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: 18 Oct 2002 20:25
- Location: Greater Santa Cruz, CA
I just wanted to say that, as a Jew, Ive been saying this shiznit for years: "If you call yourself a good chiristian of any sort, and you acknowledge that your religion believes bin oth the old and the new testament, then why do you eat pork, shellfish, hooved creatures, etc but acknowledge things that are convenient for you?"
Anyway, thanks for this.
Anyway, thanks for this.
My name: Jeremy Mirken, AKA Chocolatey Shatner, AKA jerk enemy rim.
I kick it with trunk chef elf and liz luck key my.
I kick it with trunk chef elf and liz luck key my.
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Well Mosher, you're right, a lot of people in my religion are hypocrits. You look at the religious right who continuously slanders anyone who gets in there way with nothing but pure hate and angst, all for taking a different political stance. Is that very Christ like?
Point is religion (Not only Christianity, but Judaism, Islam, Hinduuism and even Buddhism) have been misrepresented to serve contradictory purposes.
Now getting more specifically to your question, I think a lot of the tales in the Old Testament are just that, tales, or metaphorical stories, while the New Testament is historical.
Their is a system some historians use to weigh a text to determine wether it is false or not based on a series of question, and the New Testament passes it. I can post some of this evidence but I'd first like to know wether or not anyone cares because it is relitivly long even though I could condense it.
Point is religion (Not only Christianity, but Judaism, Islam, Hinduuism and even Buddhism) have been misrepresented to serve contradictory purposes.
Now getting more specifically to your question, I think a lot of the tales in the Old Testament are just that, tales, or metaphorical stories, while the New Testament is historical.
Their is a system some historians use to weigh a text to determine wether it is false or not based on a series of question, and the New Testament passes it. I can post some of this evidence but I'd first like to know wether or not anyone cares because it is relitivly long even though I could condense it.
Check out that link. Its the comic strip, This Modern World
'A Brief History of Marriage in America'
it depicts the evolution of Civil Rights regarding marriage
'A Brief History of Marriage in America'
it depicts the evolution of Civil Rights regarding marriage
It's set up like a deck of cards,
theyre sendin us to early graves
for the diamonds
they use a pair of clubs to beat the spades(ratm)
Cloud9-Juan Rangel
theyre sendin us to early graves
for the diamonds
they use a pair of clubs to beat the spades(ratm)
Cloud9-Juan Rangel
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
