Gay marraige? What would God say?

Originally posted by flyUnity
And Im debating my point ok?

Ok, I had not noticed... so explain how the bible is up to date if we are to stone people to death as in the text I pasted from a bible site?

ES

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Don't tell me about it, I'm just debating a point about a book that I feel is outdated. OK?

ES

The bible is not outdated if you don't interpret every word for what it means. Jesus taught that everyone should love their God with all their heart and all their mind and all their strength and to love their neighbours. Never to stone poeple. I just want to know if homosexuality is by nature evil according to the book of leviticus or not. Maybe we should just cut off the whole Hebrew scriptures.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The bible is not outdated if you don't interpret every word for what it means. Jesus taught that everyone should love their God with all their heart and all their mind and all their strength and to love their neighbours. Never to stone poeple. I just want to know if homosexuality is by nature evil according to the book of leviticus or not. Maybe we should just cut off the whole Hebrew scriptures.

Ah, so you pick and choose what to follow in the book.

Sweet.

ES

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Now that's not very Buddha-like, is it Bbarr ?


By the way what does Buddhism say about gay "marriage" ?

I'm not a Buddhist, so what's the problem? Anyway, I'm sure that the Buddha (like all right thinking people) would agree that there are pernicious falsehoods in the Bible. Whatever the case, Zen Buddhism does not prohibit homosexual relationships, and I am unaware of any aspect of Zen that would entail that same-sex couples ought not have the same rights and protections of heteroxexual couples. Bigotry is very un-Zen.

Originally posted by bbarr
I'm not a Buddhist, so what's the problem? Anyway, I'm sure that the Buddha (like all right thinking people) would agree that there are pernicious falsehoods in the Bible. Whatever the case, Zen Buddhism does not prohibit homosexual relationships, and I am unaware of any aspect of Zen that would entail that same-sex couples ought not have the same rights and protections of heteroxexual couples. Bigotry is very un-Zen.

You always manage to insert one or two insults one way or the other. I guess that is also very un-Zen ......... Unzip Your Zenness, Bbarr ..... 😀

Originally posted by ivanhoe

You always manage to insert one or two insults one way or the other. I guess that is also very un-Zen ......... Unzip Your Zenness, Bbarr ..... 😀

Insults? I just call it like I see it. The Bible contains pernicious falsehoods, falsehoods that have contributed to the bringing about of untold suffering. Prohibiting the extension of equal rights and protections to same-sex couples qualifies as bigotry, because it constitutes discrimination based on morally irrelevant features (just as race, gender, species, and so on are morally irrelevant features). If you take these simple statements of fact as insults, then I feel sorry for you.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Confused... you are reading a book thousands of years outdated.

ES

The Bible will never get out Dated.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The bible is not outdated if you don't interpret every word for what it means. Jesus taught that everyone should love their God with all their heart and all their mind and all their strength and to love their neighbours. Never to stone poeple. I just want to know if homosexuality is by nature evil according to the book of leviticus or not. Maybe we should just cut off the whole Hebrew scriptures.

According to the book Leviticus, homosexuality certainly is it defined as evil. Just read leviticus 20.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I am conflicted by the scriptures teachings. God describes the union of male and female as sacred and the human body as a sacred temple of God that should not ne defiled. Yet Jesus teaches that what you permit on Earth will be permitted in heaven and what you prohibit on Earth will be prohibited in heaven (Matthew 18. 18). Paul the apostle also tells us to ...[text shortened]... to filthy thingd and they will do filthy things with each other(Romans 1. 24.)
I'm confused.

I suppose if it upset him so much, he would wonder why the hell he made it up in the first place.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
From Deuteronomy, chapter 22
Bible, King James. Deuteronomy, from The holy Bible, King James version

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvDeut.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=22&division=div1

19: And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of t ...[text shortened]... ield, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

If you are refering to when the Elders brought the woman to Jesus and told him she was caught in adultry and according to the law she should be stoned. Jesus bent down and went to writting something in the dirt. He then told them who ever was with out sin to throw the first stone.

The point is they were trying to trick or trap Jesus. The law read "they shall both of them die", since the male accomplish was not there nor probably never was the law they were trying to get him to enforce was not valid.

Originally posted by Siebren
According to the book Leviticus, homosexuality certainly is it defined as evil. Just read leviticus 20.

Indeed. Read Leviticus, then take a straight-razor, excise Leviticus from your Bible, and commit it to the nearest fire. Then go and read the Sermon on the Mount, and reacquaint yourself with what is beautiful about Christianity.

Originally posted by bbarr
Insults? I just call it like I see it. The Bible contains pernicious falsehoods, falsehoods that have contributed to the bringing about of untold suffering. Prohibiting the extension of equal rights and protections to same-sex couples qual ...[text shortened]... e simple statements of fact as insults, then I feel sorry for you.

Bbarr, if I read your statements and think about the fact that you do not have any moral objections to medical experimenting on unborn children younger then six months in uterus, on the condition they receive painkillers and as you call it a "permissive abortion" is performed on these unborn children later on, it makes my stomach turn to read how you dare to speak about "morally irrelevant features".

Bbarr, tell me do you have any moral objections to marriages when more then two people, three men or three women or another combination decide to marry eachother ?

....after all we can redefine marriage in any way we want, can't we ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Bbarr, if I read your statements and think about the fact that you do not have any moral objections to medical experimenting on unborn children younger then six months in uterus, on the condition they receive painkillers and as you call it a "permissive abortion" is performed on these unborn children later on, it makes my stomach turn to read how you dare ...[text shortened]... marry eachother ?

....after all we can redefine marriage in any way we want, can't we ?

Presumbaly so. You'll note that he also listed species as being a morally irrelevant characteristic, so you could get quite a bit more creative.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Bbarr, if I read your statements and think about the fact that you do not have any moral objections to medical experimenting on unborn children younger then six months in uterus, on the condition they receive painkillers and as you call it ...[text shortened]... r all we can redefine marriage in any way we want, can't we ?

Yeah, well, you and I have radically different conceptions of the foundations of morality. You think that creatures who completely lack even the capacity for interests nonetheless satisfy some criterion or other (about which you have never been specific) for moral considerability (e.g., that they have a soul, or that they are genetically human, or that they are the subjects of some Godly edict, or...). Hence, you are prepared to support legislation that would allow the state to co-opt a pregant woman's body, and treat her as though she were little more than breeding stock. Your view, and your religion generally, is wedded to a deeply disturbing view of what it means to be autonomous and lead a life of dignity. On your view, we are only free when we willingly submit to the will of God. I find this little better than slavery, as I find chains of gold no less restrictive than chains of iron.

Anyway, you can use the term 'marriage' in any manner you see fit. I am talking about the providing of rights and priveleges to citizens by the state. If the state is going to be in the business of sanctioning some relationships over others, then the state ought treat citizens equitably, regardless of their sexual orientation. I have no moral objections to three people or more being in a committed union, and see no moral reason why they ought be prevented from partaking in the benefits that the government has seen fit to bestow on heterosexual relationships (regardless of how short-lived, polygamous, dysfunctional or abusive those relationships may be). Of course, there may be logistical reasons for treating unions with more than two partners differently (e.g., it may be unduly burdensome for businesses to have to provide insurance not only for an employee but also for that employee's two or three spouses). While I have my doubts concerning the nature of such polygamous unions (because I think that monogamy is an important part, normally, or building true intimacy and trust between partners), I don't see how this fact could justify unequal treatment of citizens on the part of the state.

Originally posted by bbarr
... I find chains of gold no less restrictive than chains of iron...

The man was born a poet, I tell you!

🙂