What does the bible say bout divorce?

[Deleted]

Aug 9, 2012 10:01:28 GMT -5 @lauriergirl28 said:

Aug 9, 2012 9:27:42 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

I'd be bothered by it too. I mean I'd be bothered by it anyway, but to sort of just ignore that she isn't adhering to a "biblical lifestyle" either (by a long shot) is additionally irritating.

I'm sure this isn't the only area of life she is apathetic about.

She's pretty darn rigid. And VERY vocal about others who aren't adhering to a biblical lifestyle. I'd imagine I won't be the only one questioning her about this.

I'm not surprised she's divorcing. I couldn't imagine someone being married to her.

Why not quote the liviticus passage about wearing combined fibers? 19:19 I think.
Also, ask her for the passage about how Jesus wanted to end slavery. You know the one, its...errr...oh. lolz

[bhnumbers]

Aug 9, 2012 8:25:57 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Matthew says "except for infidelity / adultery / being an unchaste slutty slut, which is an inaccurate translation of the Greek word anyway. Mark and Luke make no exception.

hmmm, these guys should have checked with someone to make sure they had it right, for the sake of consistency at least. you know, some kind of supreme being who could have guided them with their writing....

[sydney02]

Basically there is no logical way to justify divorce and yet be against gay marriage for biblical reasons. None. I actually had the balls to ask this of on FB during one of the many gay bashing threads (my FB family and inlaws are fundies/Southern Baptist)

I asked if anyone could tell me if a gay person can't get married why a divorced person can get remarried? Because according to the Bible not only is divorce a sin unless there is infedelity, but it clearly states that remarriage is NOT an option as long as that person's ex-spouse is still alive.

I had one taker to answer my question. She said that while the marriage may be dissolved according to the state, the institution of marriage within the church is forever. I said well in that case, then a person who gets married in the church, divorces and then remarries is a polygamist?

The Bible literalists just kill me. They are the reason people can't stand Christians. Nobody lives according to the Bible and for a person to even imply they live their life Biblicly is so sanctimonious and delusional, I just have no room for people like that in my life anymore if I can help it.

[msmerymac]

Aug 9, 2012 13:45:33 GMT -5 sydney02 said:

Basically there is no logical way to justify divorce and yet be against gay marriage for biblical reasons. None. I actually had the balls to ask this of on FB during one of the many gay bashing threads (my FB family and inlaws are fundies/Southern Baptist)

I asked if anyone could tell me if a gay person can't get married why a divorced person can get remarried? Because according to the Bible not only is divorce a sin unless there is infedelity, but it clearly states that remarriage is NOT an option as long as that person's ex-spouse is still alive.

I had one taker to answer my question. She said that while the marriage may be dissolved according to the state, the institution of marriage within the church is forever. I said well in that case, then a person who gets married in the church, divorces and then remarries is a polygamist?

The Bible literalists just kill me. They are the reason people can't stand Christians. Nobody lives according to the Bible and for a person to even imply they live their life Biblicly is so sanctimonious and delusional, I just have no room for people like that in my life anymore if I can help it.

And, in that case, no one should care who the government chooses to identify as married for their own purposes, since civil marriage is separate from church marriage. HTH! We solved the gay marriage issue!

[heliocentric]

Aug 9, 2012 12:57:45 GMT -5 bhnumbers said:

Aug 9, 2012 8:25:57 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Matthew says "except for infidelity / adultery / being an unchaste slutty slut, which is an inaccurate translation of the Greek word anyway. Mark and Luke make no exception.

hmmm, these guys should have checked with someone to make sure they had it right, for the sake of consistency at least. you know, some kind of supreme being who could have guided them with their writing....

:Y:

[llama]

Aug 9, 2012 13:54:41 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Aug 9, 2012 13:45:33 GMT -5 sydney02 said:

Basically there is no logical way to justify divorce and yet be against gay marriage for biblical reasons. None. I actually had the balls to ask this of on FB during one of the many gay bashing threads (my FB family and inlaws are fundies/Southern Baptist)

I asked if anyone could tell me if a gay person can't get married why a divorced person can get remarried? Because according to the Bible not only is divorce a sin unless there is infedelity, but it clearly states that remarriage is NOT an option as long as that person's ex-spouse is still alive.

I had one taker to answer my question. She said that while the marriage may be dissolved according to the state, the institution of marriage within the church is forever. I said well in that case, then a person who gets married in the church, divorces and then remarries is a polygamist?

The Bible literalists just kill me. They are the reason people can't stand Christians. Nobody lives according to the Bible and for a person to even imply they live their life Biblicly is so sanctimonious and delusional, I just have no room for people like that in my life anymore if I can help it.

And, in that case, no one should care who the government chooses to identify as married for their own purposes, since civil marriage is separate from church marriage. HTH! We solved the gay marriage issue!

And yet the response to your very logical conclusion about the already existing separation of civil marriage and church marriage is always more complaining about why can't gays just call our marriages something ELSE and stop whining about the title because it's *just a name.* Well, that is if they even think we should be able to have unions at all.

So let me get this straight. When they are the ones who want the name (and want to exclude us from it) it is a big religious deal. When we are the ones who want the name (and do not want to exclude hetero people from it) it's just a name and why are we whining about it. No, nothing to be frustrated about here, folks. 8-D

[2vermont]

Aug 9, 2012 13:45:33 GMT -5 sydney02 said:

Basically there is no logical way to justify divorce and yet be against gay marriage for biblical reasons. None. I actually had the balls to ask this of on FB during one of the many gay bashing threads (my FB family and inlaws are fundies/Southern Baptist)

I asked if anyone could tell me if a gay person can't get married why a divorced person can get remarried? Because according to the Bible not only is divorce a sin unless there is infedelity, but it clearly states that remarriage is NOT an option as long as that person's ex-spouse is still alive.

I had one taker to answer my question. She said that while the marriage may be dissolved according to the state, the institution of marriage within the church is forever. I said well in that case, then a person who gets married in the church, divorces and then remarries is a polygamist?

The Bible literalists just kill me. They are the reason people can't stand Christians. Nobody lives according to the Bible and for a person to even imply they live their life Biblicly is so sanctimonious and delusional, I just have no room for people like that in my life anymore if I can help it.

I wouldn't even get into the re-marriage aspect. The bottom line is divorce is legal. If divorce can be legal, why not the marriage between two gay folks?

[sydney02]

2Vermont, you're right. It's just I know so many people who were married at 19 or 20, divorced by 22, remarried by 25 so according to the Bible they have a double whammy....divorce and remarriage. Oh noes!

But 2Vermont, you are correct, I've always known unequally yoked as to mean a believer and a non-believer. So if someone doesn't get along with their spouse any more, that is not being unequally yoked.

I'm surprised this woman is Catholic, because I've had the best experiences with Catholics. I've always found them to be very open minded and even enjoying interpreting the Bible. I think they get unfairly grouped with the evangelicals.

llama, yeah I've heard that too about giving it a new name. WTF? It goes back to what I said, Christians don't own marriage. It's been around long before the Bible was written. It's not like it's a sacrament that belongs to that particular religion that no one can partake in unless you are of that religion.

I do think marriage is something sacred and beautiful and nobody would cherish it and appreciate it like the gay people I know. My cousin has been with his partner over 20 years and pines for the day they can marry.

[llama]

I just wanted to say, Sydney, how sad I feel for your cousin. I hope he and his partner are able to marry soon. I have so so so many friends still waiting to marry that sometimes I even feel guilty for being legally married (even though the federal government won't recognize it) because it's unfair that we can and they can't.

I totally agree that Christianity or any religion doesn't own marriage. It's totally ahistorical to claim that marriage is only about religion. Plus, I thought we were pretty well-established on the separate =/= equal deal.

[sydney02]

My cousin is in Ohio so he's thinking it won't be anytime soon. It's really sad.

I don't know how gay marriage isn't protected under the 14th amendment that states equal rights and due process. Isn't that what was used to make interracial marriage legal in the 60's?
I really believe that 20 years from now, we will look back at this gay marriage war like we look back at civil rights era where we scratch our heads and say how the hell did that even happen? How the fuck was there a law that said people of different races couldn't marry?
Meanwhile, this generation of gay people who want to marry get screwed and it's bullshit.
I do know so many Christians who have no problem with gay marriage so I know it's not all religious people. It's just the buttheads like the ones in my family who are the most vocal about it.

[llama]

Aug 9, 2012 22:19:14 GMT -5 sydney02 said:

My cousin is in Ohio so he's thinking it won't be anytime soon. It's really sad.

I don't know how gay marriage isn't protected under the 14th amendment that states equal rights and due process. Isn't that what was used to make interracial marriage legal in the 60's?
I really believe that 20 years from now, we will look back at this gay marriage war like we look back at civil rights era where we scratch our heads and say how the hell did that even happen? How the fuck was there a law that said people of different races couldn't marry?
Meanwhile, this generation of gay people who want to marry get screwed and it's bullshit.
I do know so many Christians who have no problem with gay marriage so I know it's not all religious people. It's just the buttheads like the ones in my family who are the most vocal about it.

Sadly, gay people don't yet qualify as a suspect class under the 14th Amendment. The closest we've come are the recent SCOTUS cases like Lawrence that use O'Connor's "rational basis with teeth" standard of review. It's not a very effective form of "heightening" but there does seem to be some small movement toward recognizing LGBT people as a suspect class: history of discrimination, politically powerless relative to the majority, immutable trait, etc. (although that was a somewhat different looking court than the current batch so who knows.) This was indeed the rationale that led to the Loving decision legalizing interracial marriage in 1967 but it's pretty well-established that the 14th protects race and gender and less so about sexual orientation and to some extent gender identity. Sadly.

If we did have good 14th Amendment protections federal legislation like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the law that prevents the federal government from acknowledging the validity of same-sex marriages performed in states and jurisdictions in which it is legal, would not be allowed to stand. More and more lower federal courts and now some of the Circuit Courts of Appeals are ruling that DOMA does violate the 14th Amendment, which is a great step, but none of them have reached the Supreme Court yet. One of them is actually on appeal to SCOTUS from the 1st Circuit this summer, so it's possible that it will be heard this coming year if it's accepted. DOMA is truly evil and pretty much the bane of my existence as a married gay who has to deal with the federal government and occasionally other states that do not recognize same-sex marriage. It's a pretty blatant violation of states rights, which is ironic considering that conservatives are the ones who love states rights so much. It also clearly violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause which normally requires states to honor contracts entered into legally in other states, although it tries to use some morality loophole to allow this. I can't wait for it to be over. So far every single judge in a bunch of different Federal District Courts and at least two Circuit Courts of Appeals (literally, every single case that has ever been decided on the topic) has ruled it unconstitutional to varying degrees, so all hope is not lost that we will be rid of it before too long!

This is somewhat tangential, but your question about how the fuck there even could have been laws against interracial marriage made me think of it. Back when segregation was legally mandated and before interracial marriage was legal in many states some of the most popular arguments against "race mixing" (ugh) were based on religion/the Bible. Now religious folks by and large no longer accept these Biblical interpretations and there is a whole lot less openly hostile racism based on religious teachings. The gay thing is just this generation's version of the same. In fact, some of the most prevalent anti-LGBT religious spokespeople started their hatemongering careers babbling about the evils of interracial marriage.

Sorry to hear your cousin lives in Ohio. It is definitely a tough situation for folks living in states where there is no movement and/or no hope of movement in the near future.

Also, sorry I just totally wrote you a tome on this. I do this work for my job and I kind of find it interesting in case you can't tell.

[marynjoe]

I believe it's time to post this letter. It's been all over the internet since 2000, and the author still hasn't been accurately identified, but it does address this quite well:

"Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality, who dispenses advice to people who call in to her Radio show. On her radio show recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as thought-provoking.


******************************************

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan, "

[KateAggie]

Aug 9, 2012 23:45:19 GMT -5 marynjoe said:

I believe it's time to post this letter. It's been all over the internet since 2000, and the author still hasn't been accurately identified, but it does address this quite well:

"Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality, who dispenses advice to people who call in to her Radio show. On her radio show recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as thought-provoking.


******************************************

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan, "

This is fucking hilarious.

[mominatrix]

Aug 9, 2012 23:51:07 GMT -5 KateAggie said:

Aug 9, 2012 23:45:19 GMT -5 marynjoe said:

I believe it's time to post this letter. It's been all over the internet since 2000, and the author still hasn't been accurately identified, but it does address this quite well:

"Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality, who dispenses advice to people who call in to her Radio show. On her radio show recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination, according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as thought-provoking.


******************************************

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan, "

This is fucking hilarious.

...and shamelessly ripped from The West Wing.


Eta: here... www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs&feature=youtube_gdata_player
...via mobile.

[sydney02]

llama that was very interesting! Don't apologize.

It's a pretty blatant violation of states rights, which is ironic considering that conservatives are the ones who love states rights so much.

As I was reading I was just starting to think, isn't this a violation of states rights and there it is. Amazing. Of course there are people today who are still chapped over losing the war on interracial marriage.

MaryNJoe, I love it.

[basilosaurus]

Actually, I think that email predates WW. It's been around for a really long time.

Even more hilarious is a christian website's "rebuttal." It includes a defense of slavery for good fun.
www.equip.org/articles/president-bartlets-fallacious-diatribe/

[2vermont]

Aug 9, 2012 23:06:00 GMT -5 llama said:

This is somewhat tangential, but your question about how the fuck there even could have been laws against interracial marriage made me think of it. Back when segregation was legally mandated and before interracial marriage was legal in many states some of the most popular arguments against "race mixing" (ugh) were based on religion/the Bible. Now religious folks by and large no longer accept these Biblical interpretations and there is a whole lot less openly hostile racism based on religious teachings. The gay thing is just this generation's version of the same. In fact, some of the most prevalent anti-LGBT religious spokespeople started their hatemongering careers babbling about the evils of interracial marriage.

llama, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe the Catholic Church ever subscribed to that line of thinking/Bible interpretation (as in Church teaching). There may have been individual Catholics who were racist and felt this way, but it was never Church teaching.

[Deleted]

yeah I think WW ripped it from the letter I remember thinking that at the time. That is my favorite episode ever!

[Deleted]

That letter is fucking amazing.

[llama]

Aug 10, 2012 7:01:42 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Aug 9, 2012 23:06:00 GMT -5 llama said:

This is somewhat tangential, but your question about how the fuck there even could have been laws against interracial marriage made me think of it. Back when segregation was legally mandated and before interracial marriage was legal in many states some of the most popular arguments against "race mixing" (ugh) were based on religion/the Bible. Now religious folks by and large no longer accept these Biblical interpretations and there is a whole lot less openly hostile racism based on religious teachings. The gay thing is just this generation's version of the same. In fact, some of the most prevalent anti-LGBT religious spokespeople started their hatemongering careers babbling about the evils of interracial marriage.

llama, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe the Catholic Church ever subscribed to that line of thinking/Bible interpretation (as in Church teaching). There may have been individual Catholics who were racist and felt this way, but it was never Church teaching.

I am pretty sure you are right, 2V. The leaders I am thinking of are all Protestants and mostly all Evangelicals. They remain some of the loudest (and richest) opponents of same-sex marriage today... not that the Catholic church is really clean on this count either. Catholics in general do seem to be a whole lot less literal in most of their Biblical interpretations, but I certainly am not an expert. I also think on the racist count that a lot of the drama was in Southern states where it is possible there were more Protestants (is this true? I think of Catholicism as being somewhat more prevalent in the Northern states? At least during certain time periods?) and a less favorable public opinion in those areas about integration. But that is kind of conjecture, so who knows.

For what it's worth, I have worked with a huge number of faith leaders and individuals representing congregations (mostly Jewish and Protestant, not that it really matters but just because my post earlier wasn't specific) who are LGBT-friendly to varying degrees and have had really awesome experiences. It's not that I think religion in general is bad or evil, but more pointing out that throughout history the Bible has been used in service of oppression and as an excuse for the logic of the oppression of the time period. This isn't really anything new. It just kind of sucks extra when it becomes about you and your rights or when we think we may have all gone through this civil rights song and dance enough times that bigots would give up. Of course I also know better.

[aw]

The only problem with the letter is that it doesn't have much to do with this debate. All of the Biblical laws that are cited in the letter come from the OT. Most Christians don't believe they are bound by Jewish law, which is why they don't follow those commands. The concept of marriage, however, is defined in the New Testament, both by Jesus and by the early church fathers. Because of that, marriage is something that Christians feel strongly about.

Now, I'm not talking about the Christians who quote Jewish law as a way to condemn homosexuality, because in that case, the letter makes sense. But most Christians I know that believe marriage is between a man and a woman cite NT sources. Some may discuss how the topic has a history of being condemned by God and use the OT to show that, but the NT is clear enough on this issue that Leviticus doesn't even need to be brought up.

And I'm not saying I think gay marriage should be illegal. I'm actually all for the government staying out of the issue of marriage completely. It's really none of their (or my) business who someone wants to marry and my faith isn't affected by gay marriage at all. Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's right? My marriage has nothing to do with them.

Christians who are inconsistent about the concept of marriage (those that are very anti-gay marriage but remain silent on the topic of divorce) really bother me. If you're so worried about the sanctity of marriage and the threat that you feel homosexuality poses to it, you should be equally concerned about the epidemic of divorce in our country.

[2vermont]

Aug 10, 2012 12:30:08 GMT -5 aw said:

The only problem with the letter is that it doesn't have much to do with this debate. All of the Biblical laws that are cited in the letter come from the OT.

True..but it is addressed to Dr. Laura who is an Orthodox Jew.

[aw]

Aug 10, 2012 12:42:45 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Aug 10, 2012 12:30:08 GMT -5 aw said:

The only problem with the letter is that it doesn't have much to do with this debate. All of the Biblical laws that are cited in the letter come from the OT.

True..but it is addressed to Dr. Laura who is an Orthodox Jew.

Yeah, I saw that after I posted. I guess since the OP was about Christians I glossed over that part initially.

[Michelle]

Aug 10, 2012 12:44:42 GMT -5 aw said:

Aug 10, 2012 12:42:45 GMT -5 2vermont said:

True..but it is addressed to Dr. Laura who is an Orthodox Jew.

Yeah, I saw that after I posted. I guess since the OP was about Christians I glossed over that part initially.

And it is in Leviticus that we get the most specific doctrine on whether homosexuality is a sin or not.

When you throw out the OT, I think there is a lot of room for question on where Jesus and therefore God felt about the issue.

Jesus makes his position on marriage most clear in Matthew 19:3-10 BUT it was in answer to the question about divorce. It wasn't in answer to a question about homosexuality. If I am talking about marriage in the simplest terms with my daughter I will use the example of man and woman because it is the most common she knows - it is simple, but not exhaustive. It is very possible Jesus was doing the same thing. If only 5% of humans are gay (hypothetically) one gives the example of the other 95% for one's explanation.


Paul makes the clearest claim in the NT about homosexuality, but I still think it is suspect:

I Corinthians 6:9-10
www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

Depending on the translation, Paul could have meant a few things and it's so easy to forget that over thousands of years and transational changes, it's hard to know precisely what was meant. He could have meant gay men are wrong but lesbians are ok; he could have meant that homosexual acts are all wrong, even when committed between heterosexuals (ahem - oral and for those who like anal... um you'd be in this boat); he could have meant it's ok to be the giver but not the taker (as in Juvenile's 16 satires, which was kind of a common belief in Greek life then); or he could have meant wild orgies. Abusing one's self sexually could also mean masturbation.

Also included is not just homosexuals but all kinds of acts including adulters which is in line with this thread because marriage lasts until one of you is dead.

Jesus was never asked, "Lord, what sayeth you about men who commit their life to other men and women who commit their life to other women, keeping their sexuality between them two alone, until the day death parts them?" I wish someone had, but they hadn't.

We do know Jesus said divorce is forbidden. So if divorce can be legal and we base legality on religious interpretation, then so should gay marriage because Jesus never spoke on the topic, nor did Paul for that matter.

[Deleted]

Its a common reply to say "but thats old testament" as if that makes it fine. However, it is a rare christian that rejects all of the old testament. So on the one hand "not bound by jewish law" but on the other hand "everything else the jews wrote in that book counts"*. That always strikes me as picking the bits you like based on whatever you like, but there it is.



*by "everything else" I mean that yes the world was built in six days, but no, not normal length days, we are talking magical millions of years long days to account for evolution - but not dinosaurs because the devil put them there to trick evangelicals, and Noah's ark was an allegory because obviously you cant make a boat big enough to sustain the 40,000 types of beetle in existence, let alone every other animal, but moses really existed and did part the red sea, and jesus did rise from the dead in the NT and that proves he is the son of god, whereas lazarus did that as well in the OT...but that's a coincidence, and well, make it up as you go along really. If anything doesn't make sense, just throw some even more bizarre explanation to cover it while insisting that the rest is indisputably gods law and has to be obeyed.

YWIA lol

[aw]

reeve - You seem to pretend to know a lot about what Christians think without really understanding the basics of the faith. I would recommend learning a little about the OT vs. NT and how both Covenants apply to Christians.

The law of the OT was a Covenant between the people of Israel and God. Christians don't believe that it applies to them because, well, we aren't Jews. I don't know Christians who reject the entire OT. They just know that the laws do not apply to Gentiles. But that doesn't make the rest of the OT invalid to us - we still believe in the same God, who created everything in the same way and has the same Nature. We find value in learning about the history of our faith. The OT is also full of information about Jesus and what will happen one day when He returns. It is valuable information for Christians and is just as important to us as what we study in the NT.

Christianity is based on a new Covenant created for both Jews AND Gentiles, that replaces for us the Law of the OT. This is why we don't follow that part. WE aren't picking and choosing, we believe we're listening to what Jesus and the early church fathers told us to choose.

I'm sorry that you have come in contact with Christians that don't read their Bible or have led you to believe that they are just picking what is convenient for them. I'm sure those people exist, but can you please stop pretending that they represent all of us. I say this as a fellow "know-it-all", but even I know that I cannot speak for all Christians because there is such a wide range of beliefs about these things. We're all just trying to do our best to understand what God wants from us in a culture that is very different from the one in which the Bible was written.

[2vermont]

Aug 10, 2012 15:05:11 GMT -5 Michelle said:

When you throw out the OT, I think there is a lot of room for question on where Jesus and therefore God felt about the issue.

Jesus makes his position on marriage most clear in Matthew 19:3-10 BUT it was in answer to the question about divorce. It wasn't in answer to a question about homosexuality. If I am talking about marriage in the simplest terms with my daughter I will use the example of man and woman because it is the most common she knows - it is simple, but not exhaustive. It is very possible Jesus was doing the same thing. If only 5% of humans are gay (hypothetically) one gives the example of the other 95% for one's explanation.


Jesus was never asked, "Lord, what sayeth you about men who commit their life to other men and women who commit their life to other women, keeping their sexuality between them two alone, until the day death parts them?" I wish someone had, but they hadn't.

Well, considering Jesus was Jewish and so was his audience, I'm not sure you can "throw out" the OT (although I do understand what you are trying to do here).

I think the main reason why no one asked Jesus about 2 men marrying or 2 women marrying is because no one would have asked that question. Jews of that time would have already understood that homosexual acts were against God's Will per Leviticus. Typically, Jesus clarified things that needed to be clarified (ie. divorce)...or superceded.

Since Jewish belief was that homosexual acts were wrong, Jesus most definitely would have made a point of mentioning that they were okay if that was His belief/new teachings. He had no issue saying things that ruffled feathers before...why not now? He had the perfect opportunity to talk about it when discussing marriage....and he did not. Rather, he reiterates OT teaching from Genesis....man and woman.

Of course the dissection of the Bible doesn't fly with me because I am Catholic...and Catholic teaching doesn't just rely on the Bible (and especially not just the "red lettering" (ie. what Jesus said) in the Bible). It is also based on Sacred Tradition (which may or may not be mentioned in the Bible) which includes writings of the apostles, early church fathers, etc,etc handed down throughout the ages.