Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#16 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,394 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 02:55 PM

to be fair, theologically speaking the old testament law has been replaced by new testament covenant, so it's really only fair to ascribe NT beliefs to supporters of the amendment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

#17 cotblock

cotblock

    Don't Call Me Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 335 posts
  • Location34.887133,-81.00769

Posted 10 April 2012 - 02:58 PM

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.

#18 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,795 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:00 PM

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

#19 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,394 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:06 PM

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."

#20 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,394 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:11 PM

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.

#21 LongTriad

LongTriad

    Missunderstood

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,711 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:14 PM

I had decided that this matter was not my business and that I would not vote on this matter. Now I must ask, is it my business or not?

#22 cotblock

cotblock

    Don't Call Me Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 335 posts
  • Location34.887133,-81.00769

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:24 PM

I had decided that this matter was not my business and that I would not vote on this matter. Now I must ask, is it my business or not?


I think it's everyone's business.

#23 cotblock

cotblock

    Don't Call Me Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 335 posts
  • Location34.887133,-81.00769

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:28 PM

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.


This is not exactly correct. The NT terms usually translated as "homosexual" or "homosexuality" almost always refer either to pederasty (men having sex with underaged boys) or with ritual prostitution...neither of which have anything to do with a committed, loving, homosexual relationship. I have never read anything that suggests any of the terms have anything to do with bestiality.

#24 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,795 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:38 PM

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.


i need to be more specific with these things haha. by generally accepted i meant within the framework of the conservative evangelical community in america that is for the most part behind this.

#25 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,804 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:43 PM

the framework is that they are scared of queers, mostly because they are attracted to them.

#26 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,023 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 10 April 2012 - 04:20 PM

/

#27 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,394 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 04:20 PM

I think it's everyone's business.


I think it's nobody's business. We shouldn't be voting on civil rights.

#28 cotblock

cotblock

    Don't Call Me Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 335 posts
  • Location34.887133,-81.00769

Posted 10 April 2012 - 04:23 PM

I think it's nobody's business. We shouldn't be voting on civil rights.


Dr. King says hi.

#29 LongTriad

LongTriad

    Missunderstood

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,711 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 10 April 2012 - 04:25 PM

I think it's everyone's business.

Ok. I will vote.

#30 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,394 posts

Posted 10 April 2012 - 04:36 PM

Dr. King says hi.

"I have a dream, that some day, civil rights will be put up for a vote to see if we get them or not."

No. Rights are rights. They are ingrained and inalienable and should not have to go through an approval process.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.