148 replies to this topic

[Cat]

http://clclt.com/cha...ent?oid=2655141

Perhaps they think everyone should follow the Biblical "tradition" of a man having a wife and a few concubines; hey, it was good enough for Abraham and Jacob. No, that's not it either? OK, then it must be the Bible's approval of a man having several wives, a la Gideon, Esau or the man-of-700-wives, Solomon. You're shaking your head, no.
Let's see, could Amendment One supporters be talking about the Biblical prescription that a woman who hasn't had any children when her husband dies must marry her brother-in-law and give motherhood a few more shots? No, that can't be it.
Well, then, how about the Bible requirement that slave owners assign female slaves to their male slaves? No, that obviously won't work.
Maybe the anti-gay, "Biblical" crowd is getting behind the rule in Deuteronomy that says a woman must marry a man who rapes her. No? I thought not.
The point? God may have defined marriage in the Bible, but the "definition" was all over the map, so its value as an argument for enforcing a specific type of marriage today is, to be frank, nonsensical.

[mav1234]

lala can't hear you lala

[Epistaxis]

[PhillyB]

to be fair, theologically speaking the old testament law has been replaced by new testament covenant, so it's really only fair to ascribe NT beliefs to supporters of the amendment

[Cat]

to be fair, theologically speaking the old testament law has been replaced by new testament covenant, so it's really only fair to ascribe NT beliefs to supporters of the amendment

Not true but on the assumption that it is, you're missing the point which is that the definition of marriage has changed many times even in the Bible so changing it now is not anything new.

Also most Christians quote the OT in regards to why they believe homosexuality is wrong.

[thatlookseasy]

to be fair, theologically speaking the old testament law has been replaced by new testament covenant, so it's really only fair to ascribe NT beliefs to supporters of the amendment

Why would you do that when they keep quoting the "You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination." line from Leviticus to prove their point?

[Inimicus]

Gotta stop the spread of the Ghey!

Keep them freaks from infectin more people!


And PhillyB is right.

Christ's life and sacrifice abrogated all of the old laws and rules.

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.

[cookinwithgas]

Jesus said:

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.

Kinda sounds like Jesus is cockblocking for His Dad there. sorta creepy.

[PhillyB]

Not true but on the assumption that it is you're missing the point which is that the definition of marriage has changed many times even in the Bible so changing it now is not anything new.

Also most Christians quote the OT in regards to why they believe homosexuality is wrong.

to my knowledge it was never defined in the new testament at all (at least not in the sense it was defined in the old testament.) because of the relationship between the OT and the NT, i'm not sure it's a stable arguing point to suggest that changing definitions negates the argument.

doesn't negate the stupidity, however, of mindless idiots referencing the OT while tossing out gods commandments to go slaughter women and children

[chris999]

/

[PhillyB]

I just cant understand how a fuging book has so much power over billions of people.

Religion was created as a way for powerful people to control everyone else.

incredibly inaccurate over-arching statement

[cookinwithgas]

I think that the long arc of history tends to support chris999's statement overall. Today it's not a big deal but a few hundred years ago when 90 percent of people never went further than 20 miles from their house, the church could control everything, and the leadership could control the church. Promising the peasants a great afterlife if they behave themselves here is about the greatest crowd control idea ever invented.

[PhillyB]

i would disagree on the grounds that there is (usually) an enormous difference between the founder and founding intent of a religion and the way it has been exploited politically (often immediately, leading to the widespread association of it with the adopting government's agenda/actions.)

[PhillyB]

jesus was overtly apolitical, pissing off the saducees and the pharisees that comprised the two main political factions of his day, for example, but adoption of the religion by empires, and subsequent histories of those empires, has made the adopters' motivations clear.

also i think you have to differentiate between monotheistic religions and poly/pantheistic religions in this case. way more examples of christianity and islam being politicized to control than, say, zoroastrianism or hinduism

[cotblock]

There's no doubt that from around the middle of the third century onward, the Christian church became much more about power and politics than spirituality. They struggled for power until Constantine became Emperor of Rome and had his "vision." He then gave the church the foothold it needed and it hasn't been about spirituality since. The mystic branches have maintained a focus on spirituality, but that's true in every religion. Apart from the mystics, it's nothing but power and control.