U.S. Supreme court overturns anti gay marriage laws.

[Purple]

:)

[calarahil]

Considering religion is often used as justification for being against gay marriage I think it is relevant. I'm just trying to understand why some aspects of historical religious teachings and doctrine are looked upon favorably and as truths while other are not.

 

On one had we have the gay community trying to achieve rights for themselves, on the other the religious community trying to deny them this. I'm no so sure that we should tolerate people standing up for what they believe in when those beliefs pervert the rights of others. You don't hear of many people defending the rights of white supremacists to express their views, for example.

 

Consider the belief system that this country was founded upon and you'll find your answer. If you believed strong enough that what others were doing was wrong wouldn't you stand up for it. I.E if you lived in a terrorist society and you felt what they were doing was wrong would you just sit and watch or would you do something about it.  People who believe deeply that gay/bi/and lesbian relations are morally wrong they will fight for that. The country is moving towards a more free society people to make there own choice and be respected for it I just hope that with the direction its currently going that we do not push beyond freedom into restriction of that freedom. 

[Vitalius]

The parts in Leviticus that mention these sorts of laws of cleanliness also mention homosexual behavior being punishable by death. So my argument is basically why Christians are only focused on the homosexual part rather than the other parts of that chapter? 

 

All those other laws aren't tied into anything else within the Bible like homosexual relations are. Like I said prior, you can tell how much someone really knows about the Bible based on how they use verses. 

Sex and Marriage have many things about them said in the Bible, while shellfish and two clothed garments have far less. It is generally understood that the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were to separate the Jews from the Pagans. To visibly show they were different. Either to make a statement or so that the Jews could tell who really was their ally. Not sure which on that part.

As I said regarding 

Why? God is constant and never changing! 

 

Yes. You are quite right. But humans and societies aren't. 

God makes the laws to do what is best for us as He loves us. If we change, so must the laws that are specifically about things we do that have little to do with God. Such as eating shellfish. Or wearing two clothed garments.

Sex is tied to God as it is considered a spiritual thing (along with marriage) and thereby the laws regarding it never change because God never changes.

But that's just it isn't it. Pick what you like the sound of and discard, dismiss or somehow excuse the rest.

 

In my mind if someone is to really believe in the Christian God it has to be in absolutes. No half truths or cherry-picking. That goes from the accepted, such virgin birth, to the not so accepted, like the numerous laws exhibited in Deuteronomy, 22:22-29 for example. It's been theorized that the earth was not created in 6 days, 6000 years ago and many Christians accept this, though they are still willing to believe in the virgin birth. This makes no sense to me.

 

From this we can see that Christianity has evolved and been shaped with the progression of society, doesn't this make it man made?

 

- Fixed

Agreed, If God is constant and never changing than why are his words constantly up for debate among the 30,000 different denominations of Christianity? You would think there was consistency but no it's always up for interpretation. 

Just makes me facepalm a little....

Like I said, humans aren't God. They change. They aren't constant. You could tell 100 people the same thing about yourself and I guarantee you some of them would either get it wrong or sensationalize it. 

And if you are to make this argument (that if God is constant, why aren't Christianities teachings?) then I don't see why you didn't bring up Jesus or the fact there's a New and Old testament.

Now, as I also said before, the Jews didn't understand God. The Prophets did a bit, but the Jews as a group didn't. This is painfully obvious from all the stories in the Bible, and is truly solidified by the fact Jesus came.

That, however, doesn't mean the Jews' laws are moot, as they were laws made to follow God's commandments and teachings (the things they got right). 

If you want to say that's me explaining away parts of the Bible that I don't believe apply anymore, fine, but there is plenty of evidence to show that why I do this is true. That the Jews didn't understand God very well, and that the laws regarding shellfish, clothes, and other things like those were temporary things whereas laws regarding homosexuality are eternal.

Do note that the laws the Jews made aren't what makes the act a sin. The reason the laws were made is because the act was a sin. Two different things entirely.

And when I said "God makes the laws" earlier I was talking about Him defining what should be (i.e. man and woman in marriage, have no other gods before Him, etc.) and not laws like this. 

[eshbop]

 

- Fixed

 

I should of said 'been disproved that...'. You can't theorize a negative in a scientific sense. Science seeks to disprove things, not prove them, by asking and answering falsifiable questions. A scientist would ask 'Is the earth 6000 years old?' of which they would find evidence that it isn't, or 'Is the several billion years old?' of which they would find no evidence that it isn't.

 

I know you don't believe this, but whatever.

 

You say laws regarding homosexuality are eternal, then why not laws regarding adultery? I can understand why shellfish and clothes aren't but wouldn't adultery be just as important?

[calarahil]

I should of said 'been disproved that...'. You can't theorize a negative in a scientific sense. Science seeks to disprove things, not prove them, by asking and answering falsifiable questions. A scientist would ask 'Is the earth 6000 years old?' of which they would find evidence that it isn't, or 'Is the several billion years old?' of which they would find no evidence that it isn't.

 

I know you don't believe this, but whatever.

 

You say laws regarding homosexuality are eternal, then why not laws regarding adultery? I can understand why shellfish and clothes aren't but wouldn't adultery be just as important?

adultery is a immoral thing for those religious as well but good luck having people not participating in it ha!

[eshbop]

adultery is a immoral thing for those religious as well but good luck having people not participating in it ha!

Pick and choose, pick and choose.

[calarahil]

just because something is wrong doesn't mean you can always enforce it.

[Vitalius]

I should of said 'been disproved that...'. You can't theorize a negative in a scientific sense. Science seeks to disprove things, not prove them, by asking and answering falsifiable questions. A scientist would ask 'Is the earth 6000 years old?' of which they would find evidence that it isn't, or 'Is the several billion years old?' of which they would find no evidence that it isn't.

 

I know you don't believe this, but whatever.

 

You say laws regarding homosexuality are eternal, then why not laws regarding adultery? I can understand why shellfish and clothes aren't but wouldn't adultery be just as important?

Adultery is just as important. :|

Anything to do with marriage or sex is likely to be eternal.

Now, do note that I am saying that such things are still wrong no matter when you do them. I'm not saying the punishments the Jews chose were right. Like stoning to death or what have you.

[mr moose]

I find it interesting that this discussion is still going.  It is difficult for someone with a philosophical mindset to properly understand scientific method and data interpretation. This is why some people choose to believe and prefer the ideals of a faith based philosophy. 

 

But on the other hand it is quite apparent that the science minded people can have a real lack of knowledge/understanding when it comes to philosophy a social sciences, thus it can be difficult for some to understand how not only the bible but many ancient books are read and interpreted. a lot more goes into understanding how the bible relates to the time it was written and it's meaning. On top of that there has been a good 2000 years of various groups and people trying to bend its meaning to justify their personal cause or people who simply get carried away in a particular mindset, which then results in various translations to be created. For example the NIV talks about homosexuality in Sodom and Gamorah, however the original texts refer only to rape. There is a big difference between the two. if you read the original texts then rape is bad not homosexuality.

[calarahil]

 

I find it interesting that this discussion is still going.  It is difficult for someone with a philosophical mindset to properly understand scientific method and data interpretation. This is why some people choose to believe and prefer the ideals of a faith based philosophy. 

 

But on the other hand it is quite apparent that the science minded people can have a real lack of knowledge/understanding when it comes to philosophy a social sciences, thus it can be difficult for some to understand how not only the bible but many ancient books are read and interpreted. a lot more goes into understanding how the bible relates to the time it was written and it's meaning. On top of that there has been a good 2000 years of various groups and people trying to bend its meaning to justify their personal cause or people who simply get carried away in a particular mindset, which then results in various translations to be created. For example the NIV talks about homosexuality in Sodom and Gamorah, however the original texts refer only to rape. There is a big difference between the two. if you read the original texts then rape is bad not homosexuality.

 

 

Both sides wont move whether its scientists or those who believe in religion. I'm somewhere in between I believe things can be done with science but that goes without saying that there are larger things that science couldn't explain in its wildest dreams. 

[eshbop]

Both sides wont move whether its scientists or those who believe in religion. I'm somewhere in between I believe things can be done with science but that goes without saying that there are larger things that science couldn't explain in its wildest dreams. 

*can't yet explain.

 

Knowledge always progresses, unless records are lost, it can't go backwards. The problem is the more you find out about something the more there is to learn. Science will never know everything, it never claims to. Religion on the other hand. That's the concept I find so difficult to understand.

 

 

 

But on the other hand it is quite apparent that the science minded people can have a real lack of knowledge/understanding when it comes to philosophy a social sciences, thus it can be difficult for some to understand how not only the bible but many ancient books are read and interpreted. 

 

 That's why I'm asking question, I like to see other point of view, especially when it isn't like minded. Life would be a bit dull if everyone agreed with you!

[mr moose]

Both sides wont move whether its scientists or those who believe in religion. I'm somewhere in between I believe things can be done with science but that goes without saying that there are larger things that science couldn't explain in its wildest dreams. 

I sit smack in the middle, I can see the argument from both sides.  It kinda erks me to hear people bash religion, you know the usual garbage like no religion no wars etc. They have absolutely no idea the role religions play in society and what we have because of them.  By the same token I get really angry when the die hard religious nutters come out and simply dismiss some of the worlds most heavily tested and proven theories using silly out dated interpretations of the bible.  most of them give religion a bad name at undo the good work the church did in the early ages.

[calarahil]

I sit smack in the middle, I can see the argument from both sides.  It kinda erks me to hear people bash religion, you know the usual garbage like no religion no wars etc. They have absolutely no idea the role religions play in society and what we have because of them.  By the same token I get really angry when the die hard religious nutters come out and simply dismiss some of the worlds most heavily tested and proven theories using silly out dated interpretations of the bible.  most of them give religion a bad name at undo the good work the church did in the early ages.

 

Yea i'm more so on your side here. Religion will never be something that scientists will be okay with because it deals with unknowns and unknowns are something I don't think sits well with them. And I believe science can bring more truth to things throughout the bible though because like I said prior its been translated enough times for things to be mistranslated 

[beebskadoo]

All those other laws aren't tied into anything else within the Bible like homosexual relations are. Like I said prior, you can tell how much someone really knows about the Bible based on how they use verses. 

Sex and Marriage have many things about them said in the Bible, while shellfish and two clothed garments have far less. It is generally understood that the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were to separate the Jews from the Pagans. To visibly show they were different. Either to make a statement or so that the Jews could tell who really was their ally. Not sure which on that part.

So the law that states in Deuteronomy where a Woman is raped must marry her rapist as long as he has 50 gold coins to pay her father to own her? This doesn't sound like separating Jews from Pagans...

So we should ignore the dietary/cleanliness laws but still regard the laws against homosexuality even though it's in the same book/chapter? 

[beebskadoo]

Adultery is just as important. :|

Anything to do with marriage or sex is likely to be eternal.

Now, do note that I am saying that such things are still wrong no matter when you do them. I'm not saying the punishments the Jews chose were right. Like stoning to death or what have you.

But they were gods punishments not the Jews punishments. I sense some cherry picking...

[Vitalius]

So the law that states in Deuteronomy where a Woman is raped must marry her rapist as long as he has 50 gold coins to pay her father to own her? This doesn't sound like separating Jews from Pagans...

So we should ignore the dietary/cleanliness laws but still regard the laws against homosexuality even though it's in the same book/chapter? 

Right. That wasn't to separate Jews from Pagans. That was a law made to try and keep God's purpose for marriage and sex pure. In that once two people are "connected" in this way, that they stay that way through marriage.

I'm not saying that was the right way to do it, but if I were in their position, unless God Himself told me what was the best thing to do in that situation, I'd be clueless.

 

Yes. Just because it is stated in the same book and chapter doesn't mean it was stated for the same reasons. It implies it but correlation is not causation and this works very similarly to that.

But they were gods punishments not the Jews punishments. I sense some cherry picking...

And Jesus said,

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." 

He did this to show them their hypocrisy, but at the same time, this implies to me that such a punishment for crimes made no sense considering how it was meant to be (the way Jesus taught it). And the crime they were talking about was indeed adultery.

Jesus (God) showed that was not the right way to treat someone who broke the law. So you tell me, was it God's punishment or the Jews' when God obviously shows that's not right.

On the whole topic of Old vs New testament teachings, this is exactly what I mean when I say there are many instances to show that the Jews didn't understand God. This being just one example. 

It's sort of the equivalent of this situation occurring:

God: ... And these are My commandments to you.

Jews: Alright. 

Jews: Ok everyone, to enforce these commandments, you either obey them or die (paraphrased).

I'm not saying God never said "Kill these people." or anything similar, but in regards to these specific laws (laws about marriage, sex, and such), I can't remember a point where He laid out the punishment for those laws as death by stoning. I always understood that as the Jews' way of enforcing His commandments.

[FireFox]

I can see this going on for all eternity :P

[eshbop]

I can see this going on for all eternity :P

I don't.

 

If you know what I mean lol

[FireFox]

I don't.

 

If you know what I mean lol

 

I do :P

[beebskadoo]

Right. That wasn't to separate Jews from Pagans. That was a law made to try and keep God's purpose for marriage and sex pure. In that once two people are "connected" in this way, that they stay that way through marriage.

I'm not saying that was the right way to do it, but if I were in their position, unless God Himself told me what was the best thing to do in that situation, I'd be clueless.

 

Yes. Just because it is stated in the same book and chapter doesn't mean it was stated for the same reasons. It implies it but correlation is not causation and this works very similarly to that.

And Jesus said,

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." 

He did this to show them their hypocrisy, but at the same time, this implies to me that such a punishment for crimes made no sense considering how it was meant to be (the way Jesus taught it). And the crime they were talking about was indeed adultery.

Jesus (God) showed that was not the right way to treat someone who broke the law. So you tell me, was it God's punishment or the Jews' when God obviously shows that's not right.

On the whole topic of Old vs New testament teachings, this is exactly what I mean when I say there are many instances to show that the Jews didn't understand God. This being just one example. 

It's sort of the equivalent of this situation occurring:

God: ... And these are My commandments to you.

Jews: Alright. 

Jews: Ok everyone, to enforce these commandments, you either obey them or die (paraphrased).

I'm not saying God never said "Kill these people." or anything similar, but in regards to these specific laws (laws about marriage, sex, and such), I can't remember a point where He laid out the punishment for those laws as death by stoning. I always understood that as the Jews' way of enforcing His commandments.

Jesus was referencing the laws of Moses when he said i have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. He never said that the laws were wrong. 

That was a law that was made BY GOD! He could have said the rapist should be stoned to death rather than forcing the man to marry her. Like when the Israelites were conquering neighboring tribes because god told them the land belongs to them. They would kill the men and take the virgin women and force marriage upon them. Forced marriage involves sex, forced sex which is rape. God didn't say 'hey guys, just worry about slaughtering the men and leaver the women alone' No they were taken as property and the male children were taken as slaves. 

Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

so they can beat their slaves as long as they don't die within 2 days....

God didn't say this was wrong did he? The only thing that was said is slaves obey your masters and masters be good to your slaves. This was speaking of Jewish indentured servants in where a man could repay a debt by being a slave for 6 years. and if he still wanted to be a slave after 6 years his ear was pierced and he was considered property by the master.

[Vitalius]

No, He was referencing God's law. :|

If He was referencing the law of Moses, then when He said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." He would've picked up a stone and killed the woman there for He was without sin and that is what the law required.

Yet He didn't.

So no, it wasn't a law made by God, or God would've followed it as He said He came to do.

That, and I believe that laws and punishments for making them are two different things, though that gets into a difference in semantics. 

Once again, you are just showing me more reasons that it's obvious the Jews/Israelites didn't understand God. They treated Him as if He were a war god, like Baal or other Pagan gods of war. If you think I'm making this up or that God was really a war god, then I would point you to where Moses came down from the mountain and found the Jews worshiping a golden calf.

Moses was obviously angry because he'd seen that this wasn't who God was and that they were worshiping something they shouldn't. Baal was a war god often represented as a bull or calf. He's also who the pagans worshiped as bringer of the rain/fertility of the land which the Jews attributed to Yahweh (God).

My point in bringing that up is to show how the Jews viewed God as compared to how God wanted to be viewed, to show that they didn't understand how He wanted things done.

If you think they followed God's word to a T, look at all the hardship they faced after going on this massive war path. Part of what Jesus taught as a means to turn a person from sin was to rebuke them. This means to command them in the right way then leave them to show you are serious. God gave them commandments, and then they went to war and after either succeeding or failing, prospered for a short time then went back into hardship.

Their enslavement by both the Babylonians and Assyrians (at different times) are examples of this.

My overall point is that God commanded nothing in regards to killing/raping/pillaging. He said the land was theirs, and little else beyond rebuking them. They essentially "didn't get it".

From what I've read in the Old Testament that I remember (it is quite long), it usually went like this:

"The LORD our God has given us this land, and so we must..." on and on to where they kill/rape/pillage. Note how it doesn't say "The LORD our God has given us this land and commanded us to ..." on and on to where they kill/rape/pillage. Though that's from memory so I could be wrong.

[NeoZeon]

@Vitalius

It is somewhat offensive to say that Jews "misunderstood" God, even if you believe it to be true. I'm not particularly offended by it, but I'm sure you are just trying to illustrate different understandings of theological documents. I know you are not trying to be offensive, but I think its a good idea for you to watch your language.

Furthermore, I doubt you have the Jewish Torah, only the Christian Old Testament. (Note, I have personally read the Torah in Hebrew) Even the English translations of the Torah are different enough from the Christian Old Testament.

I will never claim to know your religion or its people as well as you do. What I can tell you is that the entire Jewish Community has softened on its enforcement of the Torah as more than a historical text, well beyond what I perceive Christians have done. Perhaps this has to do with the age of the religion, but even Muslims to a degree have done this, and also Mormons. They were also formed in more "liberal" times.

I am not sure what type of congregation you are from, but your view on the Bible is not 1800 years old (about when the first Bible was written ). At best your interpretation is 475 years old, though its doubtful as the Protestants changed their opinions much after leaving Europe. My guess it is somewhere around 60 years old, coming from the religious revival that coincided with our soldiers returning from ww2.

Jews, in particular, are very open to the idea that they misunderstand God. This is why we have so many books on Jewish mysticism, that continue to be written. What concerns me is that you are so eager to point out Christians mastery of god without thinking that he is so vast and powerful that we may not understand him ourself. It is very dangerous to sculpt one man's mind through one eye. I recognize that you read other people's views, but perhaps you only read them with one eye.

(I can't believe I'm back in this thread)

[Vitalius]

@NeoZeon,
 

 

@Vitalius

Jews, in particular, are very open to the idea that they misunderstand God. This is why we have so many books on Jewish mysticism, that continue to be written. What concerns me is that you are so eager to point out Christians mastery of god without thinking that he is so vast and powerful that we may not understand him yourself. It is very dangerous to sculpt one man's mind through one eye. I recognize that you read other people's views, but perhaps you only read them with one eye.

I don't remember doing that. I said Jesus understood God and used examples as proof to show Jews misunderstood Him. If Jews are open to the idea that they misunderstood God then I don't understand why it's offensive. 

I also never said we have a mastery of God either in the sense of absolute mastery. Jesus did, in a sense (though I don't like that word "mastery"). 

Understanding God's purpose for giving a commandment is worlds and eons away from understanding Him in completion (all of Him). 

[NeoZeon]

Because you are implying that Jews are somehow inferior to a group of men who somehow think that they understand God.

[Vitalius]

Because you are implying that Jews are somehow inferior to a group of men who somehow think that they understand God.

Hmm, I didn't feel that my words implied that. 

The only One Jews are inferior to is Jesus/God. But everyone is. Technically.

I mean, I'm not saying Jews are inferior to Christians. Jews didn't have Jesus to follow (kinda). That's really the only difference between the two. Anything we understand that Jews don't isn't because of our own merit, but because of Him coming to show us it. That's about it. Or at least how I see that.