A few points in the argument for gay marriage

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 11 Nov 2004 15:52

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?"

_____________________________________________________________

Yep, it's a valid point, but most Christians (or educated Christians...

) belief in Christian liberation, thus freeing "us" from "your" rules of the Old Testament.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 11 Nov 2004 16:01

I was simply explaining how I came to spell Shiite wrong. Sorry for the confusion.

Yep, it's a valid point, but most Christians (or educated Christians... ) belief in Christian liberation, thus freeing "us" from "your" rules of the Old Testament.

So you are born again again?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 11 Nov 2004 16:03

BainbridgeShred wrote:How about you name some and watch me pick them apart?

Ok - here is something I see as a contradiction from the bible.

In Mathew, Mark and Luke the Last Supper takes place on the first day of Passover (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7).

In John it takes place a day before. (John 19:14)

edit: - I know this sounds pretty trivial - but it also seems pretty clear that somebody is wrong here. If they are wrong about what day Jesus died on - how can you know if they're not wrong about other things?

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 11 Nov 2004 16:09

The three gospels were written at different times, I think the earliest one was written 30 or so years after Jesus died, so basically those four depictions were the best of the hundreds floating around, there's no way they all can be perfect representations, they are all different summaries of indiviudals knowledge of the stories of Jesus.

shreddaily · Post by **shreddaily** » 11 Nov 2004 16:10

Not to mention anything writen 2000 years ago could be manipulated hundreds of times before people thought the world was round. People are constantly finding out that things writen in 1740 were bogus and actualy writen another time or by a different author than was though, or at least thats what they teach us at these good old universities.

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 11 Nov 2004 16:10

edit: i meant four gospels

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 11 Nov 2004 16:18

Seath basically summed it up, the gospels were written well after Christ's death and the founding of the Christian church... So in fact it would've been more questionable had all their stories matched up to a T.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 11 Nov 2004 16:27

Devil's Advocate

But if God is perfect, shouldn't the word of God also be perfect?

Disclaimer:
I was born Catholic, saved baptist at 15, and now simply floating in my religion as I have not been so pleased with the faces of some so called "Christians".

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 11 Nov 2004 16:34

I'm in the same boat Damon cept I was Catholic my dad is even a Deacon! But I guess God's perfect it's just that the bible was compiled by humans, and they aren't.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 11 Nov 2004 16:51

Damnit Seath I wanted BainbridgeShred to come up with that answer

.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 11 Nov 2004 16:53

Flex, the reason that God is perfect but his children, the human race, are of course not is fairly simple.

God gave humans free will because he understood that it would be better to have a race of species that had a huge capacity for love, but an equally large capacity for hate, instead of making it a species where love was the only option.

If this was the case, and love and peace and pacificism were the only option, this really wouldn't be free will at all and mankind would basically be a species of automata or robots.

So anyways, I think you can see God's reasoning in making us a faulted species because otherwise we would have been perfect, and then why live at all if we're already perfect.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 11 Nov 2004 16:57

My contradiction was of course a dig at fundamentalist christians - ie those that believe that the bible is "the word of God" - rather than those that believe that it is inspired by God.

Thanks everybody for pointing out the blatently obvious

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 11 Nov 2004 16:57

Right!

Just checkin' your faith brother.

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 11 Nov 2004 17:05

Jeremy wrote:My contradiction was of course a dig at fundamentalist christians - ie those that believe that the bible is "the word of God" - rather than those that believe that it is inspired by God.

Thanks everybody for pointing out the blatently obvious

I have nothing to say about idiots just I wish they didnt use religion to be so outspoken.

carl winslow · Post by **carl winslow** » 11 Nov 2004 17:19

time for uncle carl to toss his hat in the ring

Christians dont follow some of the Mosiac (old testament) laws because in the New testament Jesus downplayed their importance.
in one part of the new testament JC heals some guy on the sabbath, and when the rightous Jews call him out on it he says that the sabbath bassically isnt a big deal.
Also there is one part when JC says that whatever you eat doesnt defile you its what you believe in your heart that defiles you- that was saying that the kosher laws arent important either.
Just read the New testament it explains why christians eat pork.
JC loosened some of the old laws like keeping kosher and keeping the sabbath but he also strengthened other laws.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 11 Nov 2004 17:21

Exactly, same reason why Christians are circumsized religiously, we're "circumsized at heart"................

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 11 Nov 2004 17:22

I'm glad he got rid of those curls! damn imagine it was still a christian law haha, fashion as we know it would be totally different!

carl winslow · Post by **carl winslow** » 11 Nov 2004 23:24

heres another issue with gay marrage.
do you think it would mess a kid up if he was raised by 2 dads or by 2 moms. is it best to be raised by a mom and a dad?
i dont know- i dont really see anything wrong with it- its better than a single parent, but its an issue people who are against gay marrage bring up.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 12 Nov 2004 07:20

I think that it might hurt some kids originally, by being made fun of by people for having two dads, but that shit would just come with time. The only way to get past that is to first let it be legal for 2 men to marry, so that it will become more culturally and socially acceptable to the point where it will just be like a black person and a white person getting married.

Speaking of which... Why aren't their many black footbaggers?

mosher · Post by **mosher** » 12 Nov 2004 09:11

There are one or two..

It seems that almost every underground or "slightly below the surface" silly group I find myself in whether kicking a bag, spinning pens or crawling through drains they are ALL dominated almost entirely by youth white males.

I don't have an explanation for that.