Doctor Fate wrote:
Homosexuals can get married in churches too, just not in those that care about what Jesus said.

Just what did Jesus say about gay marriage? I know what Paul wrote and what was in the OT, but not what the Christ actually said on the mater.

danivon

Just what did Jesus say about gay marriage?

Apparently the closest he came, if one believes the quotations have inerrantly come to us through the last 2,000 years, are the following.
The first is the verse from Matthew that opponents always quote.
The second is the verse from Matthew that opponents never quote.

Verse 4,5: “Jesus answered, 'Have you not read that the One who made them at the beginning made them male and female,' and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh”? Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate'.”

Verse 11,12: “Jesus replied, 'Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it'.

”

Also Luke 4:18 is pretty clear approval of a same sex relationship...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ashford03.htm

Context and explanation at the link. I'm sure Fate will explain why the Ashford has this wrong...
But never the less..

Luke 4:18New International Version (NIV)

18
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,

I am unsure what portion of Luke 4:18 is pertaining to Gay Marriage. Are they blind, poor, prisoners or oppressed?

I am sure if you are able to transfer the meaning of oppressed to gay marriage, you could do that with prisoner, blind or poor just as easily.

Matthew 8: 5-13: “Jesus Heals the Roman Soldier's Servant:”

Sorry. I cut and paste the wrong verse that Ashford claims matters
See Matthew ....

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
Homosexuals can get married in churches too, just not in those that care about what Jesus said.

Just what did Jesus say about gay marriage? I know what Paul wrote and what was in the OT, but not what the Christ actually said on the mater.

No one in the Bible spoke of "gay marriage." Why not? Because it never existed. There's no such thing.

I have previously cited what Jesus said about marriage. Others have too.

rickyp wrote:Matthew 8: 5-13: “Jesus Heals the Roman Soldier's Servant:”

Sorry. I cut and paste the wrong verse that Ashford claims matters
See Matthew ....

Can I get a drum roll? I think an eye roll is more appropriate.

(Matt. 8:5-13) When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him,
6 "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly."
7 And he said to him, "I will come and heal him."
8 But the centurion replied, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed.
9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."
10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith.
11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,
12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
13 And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; let it be done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed at that very moment.

I just read Ashford's "explanation."

In reality, it is all supposition. He makes no appeal to the context, explains no nuance of the Greek, he just presumes that if one man cares for another, they must be homosexuals.

That is quite a reach, RickyP. Then again, you haven't been much of a literalist when it came to the US Constitution either.

Keep it coming with the verses. The more scripture you read, the better!

As a historical figure, Jesus along with Confucius and Siddartha pointed the way to a less selfish, more other directed morality. Gay marriage is simply in line with that. We do not need to control what others do, how they define themselves when their behavior does not harm us. The set of religious guides for behavior created in frankly a more primitive age should not dictate how we should organize our society now. Those biblical verses were written 2,000 years ago by men; we don't have to let them impede progress which means people defining themselves, living lives as they see fit--as long as they are productive people and what they do does not harm others, why should it matter how they decide to live? This is true freedom--individuals deciding how to live without their lives being controlled by the state or religion as long as they don't infringe on others.

I don't buy the idea that those Christians that are so upset about gay marriage are concerned about loss of religious freedom. They just want society to be made according to their values. The slippery slope argument that their religious freedom is at stake is not what they are mad about-- they know that is not going to happen. They just think it is an argument that non-Christians might buy into.

In another forum:

rickyp wrote:

fate

The Supreme Court interprets the Law. They don't make law--or at least they're not supposed to

yes. But that interpretation can change as society changes..

Again, that is not their role. You may think whatever you like, but that is not "interpreting the law." it is "interpreting the culture."

If the culture changes, the laws will change. BUT, the courts don't MAKE laws, the legislatures (and the people through referendums do). When they make law, they exceed their authority. When they exceed their authority and are not checked, they threaten our democracy.

Reading Kennedy's opinion, he says the authors of the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment did not "presume to know the extent of freedom in all its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. (emphasis added)"

In other words, the original intent is that there was no original intent. The framers and authors intended someone down the road to expand this beyond anything they ever could have imagined. Kennedy writes of a "right to dignity" and other such ill-defined terms so that he can justify using the 14th Amendment like this.

It's all rubbish. Basically, Kennedy says anything he says is a right is a right.

How is that not the foundation for a non-democratic state?

I'm way past the "is homosexual marriage the law of the land" question. I'm more concerned about the rule of law--and with good reason. When justices sound more like Oprah than a judicial law review when issuing their opinions, our nation is in trouble.

freeman3 wrote:As a historical figure, Jesus along with Confucius and Siddartha pointed the way to a less selfish, more other directed morality.

Jesus is nothing like these men.

He said He was God. He said He was the ONLY way to heaven.

He never encouraged or condoned homosexuality. Furthermore, given that He lived under the OT Law, He never once rebutted what it said about homosexuality. He often said, "You have heard it said . . " when the Jews had something erroneous in their teaching of the Law. However, He never corrected their teaching or modified the Law regarding homosexuality.

There is no "Christian" basis for homosexual marriage.

As a civil matter, it should be left up to the States. If the USSC had said that, even if it said a marriage in one State MUST be honored in another, I'd be fine with that as a civil matter.

What they did was far more disturbing.

Again, I ask this: suppose they ruled homosexual marriage was unconstitutional, period. No exception. What would liberals think of that?

I don't buy the idea that those Christians that are so upset about gay marriage are concerned about loss of religious freedom. They just want society to be made according to their values. The slippery slope argument that their religious freedom is at stake is not what they are mad about-- they know that is not going to happen. They just think it is an argument that non-Christians might buy into.

Actually, we don't know that. Jeff Toobin has already said religious liberty will be limited by the liberty to marry. There have been calls to eliminate the tax-exempt status of churches that do not conform. This pressure will increase, not decrease.

Well, that is the crux of the matter, isn't it? We don't know what Jesus said. What we know came from writers who came along at least 25-30 years after his death. They did not source any of their material so we don't have any eyewitness statements. Non-Chrisitan sources are almost non-existent. So we have Christian sources who provide literally no sourcing for their descriptions of Jesus and who would have had motivation to mythologize the person who gave rise to their religion. There is also the fact that an extremely unsophisticated society--not literate, not educated, scientifically primitive-- compared to our own would have been more suspectible to belief in miracles. So the evidence that Jesus is God is extremely weak. It would be a entirely different matter if we had videotaped evidence of his doing impossible things. Too bad he did not come around today where such things could be verified...

The evidence against organized religion is so overwhelming that I find it hard to understand how so many very intelligent people still belong to such religions. Are we atheists/agnostics supposed to continue to say well we don't believe but what you guys believe is reasonable? I certainly don't care that people get care together to worship God. And we have a Constitution that protects that. But even if we didn't why would I care what people do to deal with all the difficulties of life? It's a good way to socialize with people with like views in any case. But of course where the rubber meets the road is when Christians venture into public and they don't people doing stuff that offends them, or they want societal values to reflect Christian values, or they want to discriminate against those they think are sinning. So, yes, there will be a fight about what constitutes private exercise of religion and what is public conduct.

freeman3 wrote:Well, that is the crux of the matter, isn't it? We don't know what Jesus said. What we know came from writers who came along at least 25-30 years after his death. They did not source any of their material so we don't have any eyewitness statements.

Actually, the "we don't have any eyewitness statements" thing is wrong.

Matthew was an eyewitness.

Mark relied on Peter for his information.

John was an eyewitness.

Luke the physician claims to be working from eyewitness accounts.

So the evidence that Jesus is God is extremely weak.

Not at all. It depends on your view of God and your view of the Bible. If you discount them, then . . . okay, fine. However, if you discount the Bible, then you have absolutely NO IDEA what Jesus said, so . . . why even bring Him up?

So, yes, there will be a fight about what constitutes private exercise of religion and what is public conduct.

I appreciate your candor. I think there are many who will not be satisfied until "freedom of religion" is virtually without meaning.

I notice you don't have anything to say on the legal merits of the decision? I emphasize "legal merits" because we are not going to agree re morality and my concern, as an American, is not the morality. I believe this is a legally unjustifiable opinion.

Again, there are many ways they could have "approved" of homosexual marriage without making it a "right." That is where I draw the line. To get there, they had to virtually ignore the 10th Amendment, import some unintended meaning to the 14th, and risk restricting the 1st.

I think this is exactly the kind of ruling that can (emphasize "can") lead to eventual civil unrest. More likely, I think it is the kind of ruling that civil libertarians will one day come to rue.

bbauska

That is quite a reach, RickyP. Then again, you haven't been much of a literalist when it came to the US Constitution either

well, I didn't refer to the bible as a justification for any view I have. I referred to it to illustrate that there are Christians who use three NT verses to illustrate Jesus acceptance of Homosexuals and homosexual relationships.
I think the Bible offers enough ambiguity and enough variety that it has been used to support great evils, Slavery, racial discrimination and the subjagation of women... War too.
Apparently even the NT.


I note that Fate didn't respond to this. A strong indication that Jesus, if he is quoted correctly, was all for acceptance of homosexuals.. Said acceptance, if carried to its logical conclusion would include the acceptance of homosexual unions. But then, there is no clear word on it ..is there? So it serves everyone's need for divine guidance , depending on what you think the "literal truth" is...

Verse 11,12: “Jesus replied, 'Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it'

rickyp wrote:bbauska

That is quite a reach, RickyP. Then again, you haven't been much of a literalist when it came to the US Constitution either

well, I didn't refer to the bible as a justification for any view I have. I referred to it to illustrate that there are Christians who use three NT verses to illustrate Jesus acceptance of Homosexuals and homosexual relationships.
I think the Bible offers enough ambiguity and enough variety that it has been used to support great evils, Slavery, racial discrimination and the subjagation of women... War too.
Apparently even the NT.

No. Wrong. It is not ambiguous IF one takes the time to study it. Of course, if one is satisfied to merely reference some guy as claiming the Bible says something, then anything goes.

I note that Fate didn't respond to this.

Actually, I did. Let me help you. I cut and pasted all the verses. Then I wrote:

I just read Ashford's "explanation."

In reality, it is all supposition. He makes no appeal to the context, explains no nuance of the Greek, he just presumes that if one man cares for another, they must be homosexuals.

So, I suppose to Ashford, when a good friend of mine died last year after I spent a good deal of time with him in the hospital, even helping as he was being rolled over to alleviate some of his pain, that must have meant we were homosexuals. See, I cared about him and he was a man, therefore . . .

Ashford is making stuff up out of whole cloth.

A strong indication that Jesus, if he is quoted correctly, was all for acceptance of homosexuals.

Dude, you're killing it. The word "homosexual" isn't present. Nor is there any indication of homosexuality. It's all in Ashford's fertile imagination.

Verse 11,12: “Jesus replied, 'Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it'

Oh brother. Let's put it in context:

(Matt. 19:3-12) And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?"
4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?"
8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
10 The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
11 But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.
12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."

So, what is the context? Oh, it's about heterosexual marriage (i.e. the only marriage that exists). The disciples said if they could not divorce except if a wife committed adultery, they thought it better not to marry--in other words, this seemed a high standard to them. Why? Because they had become accustomed to divorcing for ANY cause and this raised the bar substantially.

Verse 12, upon which you appear to be, ahem, hanging your hat, is about celibacy, not homosexuality.

Stick to what you do know--whatever that may be.

oooohhhhhh kayyyyy. Dr. Fate, you and I agree on quite a bit politically (or at least equally disagree politically at times with Sassenach, Danivon, rickyp, freeman, and others to put it more accurately) but this is one area on which I'm going to have to strongly disagree. Though at least I'm putting it a little less....absolutely. Ken Burns' series on Prohibition quoted a 19th century Protestant (not sure which denomination) preacher as saying "very little good has been done by the 'absolute shall.'"

Your points are very interesting. But how can you reconcile your interpretation (and yes, I said "interpretation") of the Bible, both old and new testaments, with the fact that I know more homosexuals who go to Church than heterosexuals? I know a dozen who go to church, including one couple (who were one of the couples that were the driving force behind the bill O'Malley signed into law legalizing same-sex marriage, and were standing right behind him at the ceremony in the State House in Annapolis as he physically signed the bill into law, before it was petitioned into a referendum) and another couple of lesbian mothers who have a daughter...who they had baptized in a protestant (Methodist) Church, with full knowledge of their homosexuality.

Out of my heterosexual friends and married couples I know....like....one couple and one or two other people, who go to Church (several different denominations).

I refuse, however, to get into a petty little "Bible Fight". You can quote it all you want, but how also do you reconcile the fact that your interpretation is apparently the "right" one, with the fact that there are, in existence, approximately 22,000 distinct sects of Christianity? That's an awful lot of different interpretations of the Bible for any of them to know, with any great certainly, that they are "right" about this or that, and that includes Jesus' opinions (whatever they reallywere) on homosexuality.

And is anybody SERIOUSLY going to quote the O.T. when it comes to homosexuality, who is not actually Jewish? Reminds me of a comedy routine by Lewis Black, who is Jewish, and spoke of this exact matter in the routine. And also, of an episode of the West Wing that even my father, as conservative as he is, says is one of the best scenes out of the whole show. The one where the woman talk show host, who rails against homosexuality, is being torn apart by Pres. Bartlett (who apparently knew the Bible, both parts, better than she did....did you ever see that one or know what I am talking about?)

Thank God the supreme court had a bit of sense this time.