ydoaPs Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 The question was on whether it was hearsay or not. I did include this line in the message you replied to and this in my previous I think it is quite clear that I think the whole thing is false and a work of fiction. However, to dismiss the NT descriptions of Jesus as Hearsay is dangerous - because it is clearly not hearsay; and once people realise that the criticism is incorrect it adds a undeserved veneer of truth to the work. It IS hearsay and Luke even says as much. The Gospels don't pretend to be eyewitnesses (as I've just implied, Luke even explicitly says it's not); other people put the names on the texts and now people pretend they are witnesses. Bob's hearsay is still hearsay if Frank comes in a few hundred years later and calls him a witness. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xittenn Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) "Not pro" is not the same as "anti". The Bible isn't pro-firearm, either. My statement was more of an allusion to the anti LGBT statements that the bible does in fact make--as in they are not pro, because they are anti. I don't know what version everyone else is reading but a man lying with a man is a sin in the bible. I'm sure if two men marry they are going to have some special naked time! 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. That's some new testament shit right there! LGBT not being allowed to go to heaven isn't anti LGBT? According to the bible willfully acting in sin is not excusable, or in my words if you deliberately do something that is sinful and think that you are free to do so because you have asked for forgiveness, then you are sadly mistaken because God isn't stupid and he does have this whole wrathful side and all. Being Christian isn't a free pass to sin. All candidates could very well not be Christian, in fact some might say that our society as a whole has arrived--today--at an apex in where we are deeply rooted in sin. Should a Christian be president? In my opinion probably not, and for these very reasons--unless of course the American public wants to live under Christian rule, and this is a plausibility. Saying or doing something not Christian doesn't make you less Christian, deliberately living in sin does. *** weird broken post problem . . . removed quote tags Romans 8:35 - 39 "35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”[j] 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[k] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." All of Romans describes this very topic. Jesus died so that we are not judged by the laws of Abraham, but it is very delicate in making it clear that if God does not live within us we are bound to our sins of the flesh. It details a way of living such that if a person knows what is God's laws, or what God says to be sinful, in accepting Christ our souls will seek his ways and only then is God truly our lord. I don't think as an LGBT person we think that we have committed sin, but God clearly speaks through many of the prophets of the bible and says that in fact we are committing an act against God. Knowing what is sinful and choosing to ignore it is essentially an act which places you outside of God and makes you not Christian. My perspective on this might not be well liked, but I have been privy to a lifetime of this debate and as far as ministers are concerned this is a very real issue with the congregation. Have Christians moved forward on this? Absolutely! Is it right according to their religion? Probably not! Will Christians maintain their position and not renounce the president? Probably yes! Does this secure the position for generations to come? Not necessarily, no! It might very well result in a mass upheaval of the religious system, a lot of repentance, and a resulting reversion and stricter adhesion to earlier rule. That's people for you! Edited May 23, 2012 by Xittenn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 " Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." So, Heaven is full of clean-living lesbians then. More importantly, to whom is the quote actually attributed? Who said "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?"? Was it Christ, or one of his followers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 My statement was more of an allusion to the anti LGBT statements that the bible does in fact make--as in they are not pro, because they are anti. I don't know what version everyone else is reading but a man lying with a man is a sin in the bible. I'm sure if two men marry they are going to have some special naked time! As has been pointed out, this is not a reference to marriage (and also AFAIK not in regards to lesbianism). It's also an admonition not to lie with a man as one does with a woman. Were I to be so inclined, I would not have a problem not putting my penis into his vagina, so it's not a problem. Any other reading would seem to be and endorsement of M-F sodomy, and that doesn't really jibe with the Christian dogma I hear and read (I'm quite happy to take the Bible literally in cases such as this) And the admonition seems to be on par with other restrictions in Leviticus on clothing, farming practices, diets and leftovers, which all seem to be quite happily ignored these days and related in some ways to superstitions or realities related to health, which seem to not be nearly as much of a problem as they were several thousand years ago. The statements, such as they are, are anti-sex, not anti-marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Another issue is how frequently people mistakenly assume marriage to still be a religious institution instead of a social / civil one. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Another issue is how frequently people mistakenly assume marriage to still be a religious institution instead of a social / civil one. There were plenty of groups of people in the world who, though they had never heard of Christianity, still had weddings. Pair bonding was, in all sensible probability, here before Christianity or Judaism. So the point is not so much that they think marriage is still religious, it's wrong of them to assume that it ever really was. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xittenn Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 As has been pointed out, this is not a reference to marriage (and also AFAIK not in regards to lesbianism). It's also an admonition not to lie with a man as one does with a woman. Were I to be so inclined, I would not have a problem not putting my penis into his vagina, so it's not a problem. Any other reading would seem to be and endorsement of M-F sodomy, and that doesn't really jibe with the Christian dogma I hear and read (I'm quite happy to take the Bible literally in cases such as this) And the admonition seems to be on par with other restrictions in Leviticus on clothing, farming practices, diets and leftovers, which all seem to be quite happily ignored these days and related in some ways to superstitions or realities related to health, which seem to not be nearly as much of a problem as they were several thousand years ago. The statements, such as they are, are anti-sex, not anti-marriage. The bold is a typo right? I'm not sure how your personal preference is relevant? Is this a statement about transgendered persons? You will marry a man but not stick it in his vagina? You sir have some unusual perspectives on matters! --I'm just saying I didn't fully understand your statements, could you please clarify them?-- Sex is a part of marriage, I'm not sure where the few of you who have brought this up were taking this. So get married, but no sex? I'm pretty sure consummation of marriage is dealt with somewhere in the bible. I take the bible as a whole, not in pieces . . . . and it is clear on its position, people can twist it up into any old shaped pretzel they feel like, my opinion does not change, people who follow the Christian religion are following a religion that does not have a place for LGBT. This is really fine by me because I am not a religious type. It's funny how superstition of a thousand years ago was superstition of fifty years ago but somehow the fifty years ago gets dropped. Another issue is how frequently people mistakenly assume marriage to still be a religious institution instead of a social / civil one. If there lacked debate on this issue, then I wouldn't even be in this thread. If the socio-political system could ratify their statements so that this was clearly the fact, then I would feel much better about the matter. I'm sure this will be the case eventually, if it is not now, and LGBT people will be afforded their rights. It would be nice to know as well that individuals within politics were unable to influence their politics with their religious beliefs. Although, as Swansont has pointed out, this shouldn't be the case, is it in fact the case? I'm sure the answer is hardly, and this is probably another reason that this thread exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 ...Pair bonding was, in all sensible probability, here before Christianity or Judaism. So the point is not so much that they think marriage is still religious, it's wrong of them to assume that it ever really was. In addition, I would suppose that the proverbial pair, Adam and Eve, likely pair bonded long before Jesus walked the Earth and I suspect it was not a religious arrangement for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 The bold is a typo right? I'm not sure how your personal preference is relevant? Is this a statement about transgendered persons? You will marry a man but not stick it in his vagina? You sir have some unusual perspectives on matters! --I'm just saying I didn't fully understand your statements, could you please clarify them?-- The literal admonition in Leviticus seems pretty specific: don't have sex with a man the same way you have sex with a woman. That seems trivial to accomplish, biologically speaking. Sex is a part of marriage, I'm not sure where the few of you who have brought this up were taking this. So get married, but no sex? I'm pretty sure consummation of marriage is dealt with somewhere in the bible. I take the bible as a whole, not in pieces . . . . and it is clear on its position, people can twist it up into any old shaped pretzel they feel like, my opinion does not change, people who follow the Christian religion are following a religion that does not have a place for LGBT. This is really fine by me because I am not a religious type. It's funny how superstition of a thousand years ago was superstition of fifty years ago but somehow the fifty years ago gets dropped. I see a few passages on male homosexuality, but not so much on lesbian or trans-gender issues. Not surprising to me, since I don't think it was actually divinely inspired by an omnipotent editor. Which makes a lot of sense of e.g. "don't eat pork" and "don't eat food >3 days old" if it's recast as "these actions seem to be unhealthy, let's outlaw them by scaring people". Not that it's completely unfounded — trichinosis is/was a problem with pork, food spoils, people get infections and all of this was much more serious when they lacked proper medicine. But as for Christianity not having a place for LGBT people, it also doesn't have a place for anyone wearing a cotton/poly blend shirt or anyone that shaves or goes for the popcorn shrimp at the restaurant. Things that are "an abomination" seem to be petty misdemeanors, not felonies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 My statement was more of an allusion to the anti LGBT statements that the bible does in fact make--as in they are not pro, because they are anti. I don't know what version everyone else is reading but a man lying with a man is a sin in the bible. I'm sure if two men marry they are going to have some special naked time! Why does it matter what the Bible says with regards to whether someone is Christian? Aren't Mormons Christian, even though they have their own prophet that "set the record straight" long after the time of Christ? What about the New Ageish panhandler homeless guy, that believes he's not only Christian but that the NT and OT are completely wrong, because Jesus talks to him in his head? Why were Protestants burned by Catholics as heretics? In my opinion, it's because the Catholics at the time didn't like the idea of a group of people also calling themselves Christian, but following a different interpretation. At the time the Catholics were basically the defacto Christians of the era, and if anyone had the right to set the term, it would have been them... yet burning people alive did not stop Protestants from calling themselves Christian and even the Pope couldn't win that Terminology War. Knowing what is sinful and choosing to ignore it is essentially an act which places you outside of God and makes you not Christian. My perspective on this might not be well liked, but I have been privy to a lifetime of this debate and as far as ministers are concerned this is a very real issue with the congregation. I don't doubt you've been exposed to a lot of ministers who have reinforced a very specific concept of Christianity for you - but what I don't understand is how that leads to such a sweeping generalization. If you had gotten a different outcome in "birthplace roulette" you could have grown up around Unitarians and any number of New Age Christian variants. You could have been surrounded by only Mormon priests. Had the original group of Ministers that influenced you been different - would you have a different view of what a Christian is? Would it be different enough that, if any of the actual ministers you talked to were to pop on this board, that you'd feel they were the ones not Christian? If we create definitions that way, we inherently over-weight the ones we are first exposed to, which is based on truly random variables - not a good basis for consensus forming or creating a versatile terminology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) Not surprising to me, since I don't think it was actually divinely inspired by an omnipotent editor. Which makes a lot of sense of e.g. "don't eat pork" and "don't eat food >3 days old" if it's recast as "these actions seem to be unhealthy, let's outlaw them by scaring people". Not that it's completely unfounded � trichinosis is/was a problem with pork, food spoils, people get infections and all of this was much more serious when they lacked proper medicine. I too think that many of the OT laws are merely a health code that came around before germ theory (they didn't have a biology class or public health services, they had to scare people) As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. Sounds reasonable, next verse, For the LORD your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you. Holy Shit! Edited May 23, 2012 by mississippichem 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewmon Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) [Matthew's, Mark's, Luke's and John's] evidence of what Jesus said is completely acceptable as evidence of what Jesus said - it is first party eyewitness testimony of an event It IS hearsay and Luke even says as much. The Gospels don't pretend to be eyewitnesses (as I've just implied, Luke even explicitly says it's not); other people put the names on the texts and now people pretend they are witnesses. Matthew's, Mark's and John's gospels are wide-considered as first-person testimony as they were contemporary followers of Christ; Luke states specifically that he researched and compiled the most complete gospel, and his gospel is definitely not first-hand and is considered hearsay. It can be argued that any non-contemporary historical account is hearsay.* I'm pretty sure consummation of marriage is dealt with somewhere in the bible. ... people who follow the Christian religion are following a religion that does not have a place for LGBT. I don't remember anything on consummation in the Bible. As it is, LGBT marriages have pretty much thrown into question the definition of consummation as well as the (reason for) age of consent. If pregnancy cannot result, the age of consent becomes artificial or arbitrary or undefined. Christians do not consider any of the LGBT lifestyles as acceptable for Christians; however, as everyone knows, some churches do accept LGBT people as members and/or officers. Please keep in mind that the vast majority of Christians don't hate or "judge" non-believers. The few that you hear about in the news are the "squeaky wheels" that get far too much attention. *For example, Archimedes supposed stated that Aristarchus wrote a book about a heliocentric (ie, solar) system of the Sun and the planets. But it's all hearsay, and we aren't even sure that Archimedes actually made such a claim. Yet, scientists readily accept this singular historical account as true. Edited May 23, 2012 by ewmon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I don't remember anything on consummation in the Bible. As it is, LGBT marriages have pretty much thrown into question the definition of consummation as well as the (reason for) age of consent. If pregnancy cannot result, the age of consent becomes artificial or arbitrary or undefined. Well, that only applies to people who define marriage a certain way - not everyone considers the possibility of pregnancy a necessary component for a complete marriage. I certainly do not, nor do most Christians that I am aware of, since most Christian churches are happy to marry sterile couples and many marry homosexual couples. Secondarily, the age of consent is only tied to the capacity of the minor party to understand the implications of their actions on par with their partner - any tie to the age of fertility is a vestige of when daughters were property, and only had value when they could married off and give a husband sons. Christians do not consider any of the LGBT lifestyles as acceptable for Christians; however, as everyone knows, some churches do accept LGBT people as members and/or officers. Which Christians??? I understand some Christians consider LGBT people (unless you want to debate if it's a lifestyle or intrinsic) simply as people, while others say they are okay only if they don't profess they are Christian, and yet other Christians condemn anyone who is LGBT regardless of (or lack of) faith. What you are saying is only true for some Christians, but you can say almost anything and it will be true for some people within any large demographic, religious or otherwise. I am still unconvinced this hair can be split. Side note: I would have taken issue with some of the hearsay comments, but what is going to be illuminated by reaching either consensus? If Mark and John's accounts are not considered hearsay, they are still thousands of years old and still have been copied many, many times. We still have no reason to place any more merit than any other historical eye witness accounts recorded in that era, and even if we thought they were accurate eye witness accounts, we still have to acknowledge that we only have access to a small surviving subset of documents and as such everything is still conjecture. If Mark and John's accounts are considered hearsay then... it still doesn't affect any of the above factors. It doesn't change a single thing, and remains moot. (This is still in the Politics section, right?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 MMl&J's evidence of what Jesus said is completely acceptable as evidence of what Jesus said - it is first party eyewitness testimony of an event.... Wow!!! Matthew: Authorship and sources The Gospel of Matthew does not name its author. The Christian bishop, Papias of Hierapolis, about 100–140 AD, in a passage with several ambiguous phrases, wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia—sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialektōi—perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen—or "translated") them as best he could." On the surface this implies that Matthew was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, but Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation." Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language. Papias does not identify his Matthew, but by the end of the 2nd century the tradition of Matthew the tax-collector had become widely accepted, and the line "The Gospel According to Matthew" began to be added to manuscripts. For many reasons most scholars today doubt this—for example, the gospel is based on Mark, and "it seems unlikely that an eyewitness of Jesus's ministry, such as Matthew, would need to rely on others for information about it"—and believe instead that it was written between about 80–90 AD by a highly educated Jew (an "Israelite", in the language of the gospel itself), intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, standing on the boundary between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values. The disciple Matthew was probably honoured within the author's circle, as the name Matthew is more prominent in this gospel than any other, and it is possible that some of the "M" material may have originated with Matthew himself... ^^^Matthew is hearsay^^^ Mark: Authorship and sources According to Irenaeus, Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early 2nd century, reported that this gospel was by John Mark, the companion of Saint Peter in Rome, who "had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it." Most modern scholars believe that the gospel was written in Syria by an unknown Christian no earlier than AD 70, using various sources including a passion narrative (probably written), collections of miracles stories (oral or written), apocalyptic traditions (probably written), and disputations and didactic sayings (some possibly written). Some of the material in Mark, however, goes back a very long way, representing an important source for historical information about Jesus.... ^^^Mark is more hearsay^^^ Luke: Sources The traditional view is that Luke, who was not an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry, wrote his gospel after gathering the best sources of information within his reach (Luke 1:1-4).[28] Critical scholarship generally holds to the two-source hypothesis as most probable, which argues that the author used the Gospel of Mark and the hypothetical Q document in addition to unique material, as sources for the gospel. ^^^Luke is even more hearsay^^^ John: Authorship The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The text does not actually name this disciple, but by the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus's innermost circle). Today the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90-100 AD... ^^^And John is still more hearsay^^^ Now, please support your assertion that the 4 gospels are the "first party eyewitness testimony" you claim them to be!!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xittenn Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Here's one suggestion with respect to God's view of consummation. I'm not saying that Christians can't express themselves in new ways, I'm saying until they have ratified their position it has little meaning to me as an external observer! I understand the logic involved, but understand me, a flock that wonders back and forth is a flock that back and forth--as in, sure if y'all say so. @mississippichem . . . lawl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewmon Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) any tie to the age of fertility is a vestige of when daughters were property, and only had value when they could married off and give a husband sons.... other Christians condemn anyone who is LGBT I, for one, wasn't talking about age of fertility. Age of consent (ie, adulthood) plays an important role in developing countries (and all countries) where females are married too early, and so, don't get the proper formal education that they deserve, and thus, are denied a career and the ability to live a full and productive life. A girl married off at age 13 has little prospect other than being a baby factory. The situation concerning age of consent is important because it allows the woman to consent to marriage and to choose who to marry — a very basic personal right. Many Christians (I believe the majority of them) "condemn" what they see as sin, and some Christians (whose numbers I believe are rather small — although they can be the loudest ones) condemn the actual LBGT persons. Again, most Christians see a spiritual warfare, not one of flesh and blood. "Love the person, hate the sin" ... this quote is very often used among Christians. It really is that simple. Here's one suggestion with respect to God's view of consummation. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing anything in the quote about consummation of marriage. Edited May 24, 2012 by ewmon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xittenn Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing anything in the quote about consummation of marriage. See the surprised look on my face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Matthew's, Mark's and John's gospels are wide-considered as first-person testimony Not by any reputable scholar. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) I, for one, wasn't talking about age of fertility. Age of consent (ie, adulthood) plays an important role in developing countries (and all countries) where females are married too early, and so, don't get the proper formal education that they deserve, and thus, are denied a career and the ability to live a full and productive life. A girl married off at age 13 has little prospect other than being a baby factory. The situation concerning age of consent is important because it allows the woman to consent to marriage and to choose who to marry — a very basic personal right. I agree entirely, with the one stipulation being age of consent primarily (in the contemporary sense) applies to adult sexual relationships - marriage or otherwise. My point is that where consent ages are low, they are that low because people got in the habit of marrying off their young daughters as property, which is tied to fertility far more than the girl's personal development. Many Christians (I believe the majority of them) "condemn" what they see as sin, and some Christians (whose numbers I believe are rather small — although they can be the loudest ones) condemn the actual LBGT persons. Again, most Christians see a spiritual warfare, not one of flesh and blood. "Love the person, hate the sin" ... this quote is very often used among Christians. It really is that simple. It is not that simple because Christians do not, and never have agreed on what is a sin. As I mentioned twice before, these little disagreements have literally led to Christians burning Christians over the semantics. I know the church has evolved a lot since it's "burny days" and that is great, but the only real consensus that came out of it is that it's probably a little over the top to set people on fire who disagree about scripture. The actual disagreements have never gone away, and GBLT issues are just a few of the modern ones. It's not like Christians agree on contraception, abortion, sex education, adoption, sex before marriage, divorce, interfaith marriage, interracial marriage, Sunday services, prayer, graven images that are not of The Lord, graven images that are of The Lord, saints, popes, bishops, cardinals, angels, demonic possession, non-Christian holidays, coffee, alcohol, drugs, blood transfusions, modern medicine in general, underwear, rock music, any music newer than rock music, Ireland, profanity... do I need to go on? The GBLT stuff is just high on the radar at the moment, but there is always vehement disagreement among Christians about what is a sin. Edited May 24, 2012 by padren 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anders Hoveland Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 If Barack Obama is Christian, then why does he support gay marriage? Maybe it is his whacky church preacher, Reverend Wright. Here you can see him preaching to the congregation that Jesus was a Black man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM Now before you completely dismiss him as just some rogue preacher, you should now a few little facts. Jeremiah Wright was the reverend at the Trinity United Church of Christ, which Barack Obama was an active member of for two decades, Obama was even baptized there, and married to his wife Michelle by Reverend Wright. Wright also baptized their two daughters and is even credited by Obama for the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Exactly. Gay people don't gay park their cars; they park them. They don't gay walk their dogs; they walk them. They don't gay love; they love. The qualifier only comes into play when there are bigots getting in the way. I don't know ydoaPs, i remember guys who ran like girls... Just kidding great post, you deserve the pos rep. I've read the Bible a few times, and although I don't remember him explicitly saying anything about homosexuality, Christ was a Jew who adhered to the Jewish scriptures (what's called the Old Testament) which explicitly prohibit homosexuality. So, unless Christ said that the Old Testament was wrong about homosexuality or that it had been misinterpreted one way and should be interpreted another way, the Old Testament stands as is. It's not as though Christ came along and rewrote the Jewish scriptures, or trashed them and started fresh. ewmon, why is homosexuality such an issue when the other abominations mentioned in the old testament are ok? No one gets upset over someone wearing two different types of thread in their cloths, why don't we kill unruly children? Homosexuality must be very special since all the others can be ignored but this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 ! Moderator Note Anders,Please try and keep your posts on topic.And a reminder of section 2.1 of the forum rules: Section 2: PostingTo maintain civility in discussions on SFN, the following rules are enforced:1. Be civil.<...> Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KatzAndMice Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 If Barack Obama is Christian, then why does he support gay marriage? Maybe you need to be american to understand...unfortunately I am not. So, anyone care to explain...? secularism ... derp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now