Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Cat

Which 'biblical Marriage' Are Amendment One Supporters Talking About?

145 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to be fair, theologically speaking the old testament law has been replaced by new testament covenant, so it's really only fair to ascribe NT beliefs to supporters of the amendment

This is a common argument, but it's simply not true. Jesus said that he didn't come to replace the old testament, but to fulfill it, and that it is the word of God and is still law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a common argument, but it's simply not true. Jesus said that he didn't come to replace the old testament, but to fulfill it, and that it is the word of God and is still law.

The problem is, most modern Christians pay little attention to what Jesus is actually reported to have said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a common argument, but it's simply not true. Jesus said that he didn't come to replace the old testament, but to fulfill it, and that it is the word of God and is still law.

i stand corrected - i actually meant fulfilled but couldn't think of the right word.

generally accepted theology differentiates between the two though, right? i'm not defending the amendment oners by any stretch, i'm making sure we're not attributing a false argument to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Funnily enough the phrase "as with a woman" has a huge impact on that phrase. If they wanted to simply condemn gay sex, they would say "man shall not lie with man." That says it very clearly. But sticking the "as with a woman" pretty much makes it look like it means "If you're going to fug a man, fug him like a man, not like a woman."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i stand corrected - i actually meant fulfilled but couldn't think of the right word.

generally accepted theology differentiates between the two though, right? i'm not defending the amendment oners by any stretch, i'm making sure we're not attributing a false argument to them

I don't really believe there is such a thing as generally accepted theology. It's such an absolutely subjective subject where practically every single word has been reinterpreted to mean what its interpreters want it to.

For example: the word that is pointed to as meaning 'gay' in the new testament was never claimed to mean that until 1946. The word is used in over 50 different christian writings outside of the bible, and in not a single one of them does it mean 'gay.' In most of them it is translated as beastiality, and it wasn't until a few decades ago that translations started changing the meaning to 'homosexual.'

The entire thing is simply agenda driven masturbation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites