Is Same Sex Marriage A Government Or Religious Issue? How Do We Untie This Knot?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
One thing is clear, that he stated he did not come to change the Mosaic laws as given to the Israelites.

Actually, thats the one thing that is clear..that he did in fact change it.
Adultry was, by mosaic law, demanding death by stoning
he changed that, making only people without sin able to cast stone..

Ultimately the only thing a christian cares about is going into heaven...thats it...no more, no less.
And Jesus was asked that question specifically...how do I get into heaven. So, he said quite simply, do you follow the commandments? well, meh, just love yourself, love your neighbor, love god...oh, and judge not, lest ye be judged.
Simple really.
And it SERIOUSLY blows away lots of mosaic laws.

He didn't come to change them...sure
he came to dismiss them. (or as said, "fulfill"...semantics here)

Glad you don't eat pig...nothing healthy comes from em
hows your beard doing btw?

And final point then I am done here
The christian/judic thing is pretty simple...every crime means an execution. every single crime, from eating the hearts of babies, to jaywalking...all are equal, all are forbidden, all will keep you from salvation, period.
So, a person whom does some work on sabbath is equally damned as someone whom is gay, or a serial killer, or who trimmed their beard...all are damned, all are going to hell equally...there is no degrees here, its all or nothing.

So, either you accept what christ said specifically (whom did dismiss pretty much all of moses's rants and blabberings through fulfillment), or you don't, and continue on the hypocracy of why one person is damned for violating one law, while your fine even though you violate a different verion...

I am an atheist btw, so for me this all is just academic mythology...but that allows me to see a lot more clear than those whom are taught to believe a specific interpretation.

Pity christians don't listen to what Christ said and did though...that guy seemed to have some good ideas. meh...I guess its too radical for them.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Actually, thats the one thing that is clear..that he did in fact change it.

Ok he did stop the stoning as a punishment. But he did not make the adultery legal, he merely brought forgiveness. Are you trying to say that he sanctioned adultery now?

Why do you think he said, "Go and sin no more"? Is that part conveniently forgotten? This was the true teaching here that if one wants to repent of his sins, he can be forgiven and go on. Not that we have to allow sinful behavior now because of some supposed change people think he may have made. He made it clear, he did not change the mosaic law.

Pity christians don't listen to what Christ said and did though...that guy seemed to have some good ideas. meh...I guess its too radical for them.

Pity that some people don't understand his true teachings and try to use it to skew things toward a political agenda
I think you need to study Christ's teachings in a deeper way, instead of just jumping onto some faulty logic pushed by a social agenda.

This is also why I posted the bit about the Essenes, because I think it is likely that he held a more compassionate view of things and possbly a more metaphysical view as well.

We could say that he may have held a view of the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. To stone someone for adultery would be acting on the letter of the law, whereas to forgive someone and tell them to go on would be acting on the spirit of the law. That is how I see it.

I also feel that the Israelites including the Essenes also held the family in very high esteem. That is why today it is tragic that the family is under such a heavy assault by people who want to change the definitions of family. Karl Marx hated the bourgeois family and wanted to change the definintion of family and replace the importance of the family with the Supreme State. This is a fact and there is no going around it. Marxists today still want to eliminate both the nuclear family and private property.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

41 "And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." 42 And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" 43 And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.

Thief did only one thing...he knew he was a screw-up. He didn't stop ever, he simply was not kidding himself.
Saved...done.

There appears to be only one requirement really in getting into the pearly gates...which is to simply know you have not measured up to the best form of innocence, and to simply ask christ to accept you, sins and all...and voila. done.

Else christ screwed up here...

there is far, far more evidence showing christ takes on the burdens of sin no matter what so long as you ask than there is to put 400 contingencies on top of that based on what some said after he was gone...oh, well jesus probably meant this, and ignore that part, and etc etc etc.

just read the story..its not a long one...ignore the stuff that comes after, or before, and focus in on what -did- jesus do, not what would he do.
suddenly things are a hell of a lot more clear...he was a pretty friendly and accepting guy..he knew we were screwups eternally, but liked us anyhow.
So there ya go...christians can stop being douches. tada

reply to post by SaturnFX

There appears to be only one requirement really in getting into the pearly gates...which is to simply know you have not measured up to the best form of innocence, and to simply ask christ to accept you, sins and all...and voila. done.

I must say that I do not believe in vicarious atonement, and I do not believe that is the original teaching of Jesus. I come from a belief in karma and reincarnation which is generally not discussed in the bible as such but can be found in hints.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Matthew 5:18 King James Bible

That is to say, that we must all balance our karma. To do this, forgiveness is a facilitator to temporarily set aside personal karma so we can be about our Father's business.

What I see you doing is using the bible to justify certain things. The arguments are old. It was never meant to suggest that we can sin as much as we like and then just get into heaven anyways.

I believe Jesus did not wish for us to walk around in the sinful sense, hence his teaching on forgiveness of sins. To "go and sin no more" is to go on and continue along the path of personal Christhood without the sense of condemnation.

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father who is in heaven is perfect.

Matthew 5:48
Webster's Bible translation

So there ya go...christians can stop being douches. tada

So can humanists if they stop trying to use the bible to justify any human behavior without understanding the deeper metaphysics of things.
Tada

just love yourself, love your neighbor, love god...oh, and judge not, lest ye be judged.

Oldest trick in the book. The point here is to not judge others while you yourself still have sins. We know that most of us have sinned, but does any of this apply to such things as muder? Does this mean that a murderer does not have to pay society for his actions? Why don't we just forgive all the violent murderers and tell them to not sin anymore and release them out into society?

reply to post by halfoldman


Genesis 19:4-11

Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.”

6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”

9 And they said, “Stand back!” Then they said, “This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them.” So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door.

Underlined portion. Men wanting to know other males carnally generally means they want to have sex with them. The word "know" within the bible oftentimes means to have sex, more so in the OT. The fact that the men could have had 2 young virgin women but would rather have males, generally implies that they were not of the heterosexual persuasion.

Bold portion assertaines that Lot's daughters were virgins and never had sex for they had never "known a man".

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

It was never meant to suggest that we can sin as much as we like and then just get into heaven anyways

This right here, people who claim to be christians or other messianic but think they have a ticket to unlimited sin. That is the teachings of the Nicolaitans and you can read Reveation 2 to find out what Yeshua has to say about the Nicolaitans. Nicolaitans are also linked with antinomianism:

To counter the nicolaitans and antinomianism we simply have to look at the book of James.

James 2:14-26

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[d] works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Homosexuality within the constraits of the bible is a sexual immorality and those were dealt with at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts.

Now i'm done jumping through these same circular hoops because there are those who will refuse to see the truth while seeking after their own desires and i have wasted more than enough time on this same subject yet again.

It's a sexist, biased government or religious issue

Discriminating based on biological sex or gender.

that is, if a government dictates what SEX consenting adult you can love, marry, spend your life with, its a government issue.

if an organized religion/cult preaches you should love/marry based on what part is between someone legs instead of whats in their heart and soul, its a government issue.

both sexist, both biasest and both a slap in the face of Love and God or/or Constitutional equality.

its a civil rights issue because the wording used to create the union of your existence as an american. someone/s think/s they have the pursuit of happiness as a counter weight to their own hearts intentions to procure social acceptance for "marrying" as a "homosexual". disregarding religion since religion in america has been tainted because of ... the legalese behind pro same sex marriage is that it is a civil rights violation on a person since a person can marry and a person can marry.

to use religion as a precedent for why not to allow same sex would be backpeddling on the accepted misinterpretations of scripture used to "prosper" america that are still in the books.

since the backpeddling is so great it reached the "14 amendment" to/of a document supposedly used to build the union of your existence contractually with your "government"/god. who is going to proclaim their religious imposition on a gay person who wants to marry another gay person? stand up first and be noted. taking a vote over it is a serious crime and greater backpeddling and greater revelations about the truth of the founding of this country and what the fruits of some peoples labors will constantly be.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

For sure, the men of Sodom wanted to commit homosexual rape, however nowhere is that given as a reason or cause for the destruction of the already condemned city.
Rather, it seems to be a symptom of a deeper disrespect and materialism, and where a cause is given in Ezekial 16:48-50 this incident is not even mentioned as a cause.

The issue of male rape is again repeated in Judges 19 in the narrative of the Levite and his concubine.
Here God doesn't get directly involved at all (according to the narrative until Judges 20: 28), and it's hardly a centrality of the story.
Neither is this story repeated by modern anti-gay fundamentalists, probably because the psychopathic violence against the concubine and the women of Shiloh in chapter 20 makes it too scandalous and embarrassing to extract a homophobic point.
The incident does result in a civil war, which almost causes the Benjamites to be annihilated, but all ends well when they steal the women from another tribe (the Israelites may not share their own women with the Benjamites), with the prompting of their suddenly remorseful tribal relatives and former enemies.
In a feminist reading it highlights the extreme misogyny and violence against women in the Old Testament, but in more apologetic readings it refers to disrespect for kinsmen and lawlessness without a king.
Either way the opportunistic homosexual threats of rape are symptoms, rather than the clear causes of events.
Clearly these men were not really gay and they had an itch to scratch without an outlet, either because the women became too uppity to oblige, or because there weren't enough about.
In my humble interpretation the materialistic women gathered around the rich "players" of Sodom, leaving the rest of the men as disgruntled underdogs.
There's almost a sense of outrage and protest from the would-be rapists in the pre-rape negotiations, and this verbal engagement indicates that there are wider issues at stake both in Genesis and Judges.

Clearly systems where men have no access to women, like modern prisons, would have been totally anathema to the author(s) of Genesis, and indeed, they remain centers of opportunistic rape today, yet conservatives often champion increasing prison populations, even for victimless crimes. At least in SA male rape was only legislated as such with the advent of gay rights, so homophobic systems do not in themselves prevent homosexual rape. For me equating the men of Sodom with a gay minority totally misses the point of Genesis 19.

So yes, homosexual rape and bullying are certainly a part of such narratives (although in wider gender readings it is the women who are punished, in ways that are almost incidental and dismissive).
But it's certainly a misuse of scripture to say that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, or even worse, because of gay people, because there's no such causal verse.
Yet this is something that's often repeated by self-styled "literalists", also in Islam and Judaism.

So I was looking for the verse that says something to the effect that God destroyed Sodom because the men wanted to know each other, or humble each other (the more common KJV term for violent rape, which is not employed in these texts). The contexts here are too thick to extract such a meaning.

Here, for example, is a debate between Muslims and a Rabbi, all framed around the "Sodomites", and as such a wholly inaccurate debate from a scriptural angle, in which Sodom gets conflated with modern gay rights and ideals of scriptural purity, with the implication that Sharia law is superior because it retains a homophobia supposedly prompted by the story of Sodom. Of course there are other verses which are also problematic to single out from entire legal systems (as the Rabbi here also suggests), but it's the story of Sodom that continues to be employed most spontaneously, with a total negation of its message against social inequality:

The government has made it a government issue by granting certain additional rights and benefits to married people that single people are not granted. If the government doesnt want to get involved in the same sex marrage issue then they should grant all citizens the same rights and benefits regardless of their maritial status.