JimHackerMP wrote: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.

1. I don't know more homosexuals who go to church than heterosexuals. I think I know one. I also know he's quite a smart individual. In fact, he's smart enough to talk himself into believing something contrary to the Bible.

2. Not going to church on a regular basis is evidence one is not saved (via Heb. 10:25). However, going to church does not make one a Christian. Adulterers, drunks, thieves, all manner of unrepentant sinners go to church. That does not make any of them a Christian. The Bible says they must be born-again. Once someone is saved, the Holy Spirit continues to work in them (sanctification). God does not leave His children unchanged.

3. It is not opinion that homosexuality is condemned as sinful. It is the Bible. Now, I can't force anyone to believe the Bible, but it is clear.

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).

Heterosexual marriage is not evidence of saving faith.

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.

First, thank you for not wanting to get into a petty fight.

Second, that seems like a Catholic-borne exaggeration.

Third, any "sect" that holds to certain fundamentals, like the Gospel (but not limited to it), is actually Christian. There are far fewer of those than I'd like to admit.

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.

As far as I know, only unbelieving liberals like to quote the OT on homosexuality. It was the law of Israel when it was a theocratic society. Those days are long gone.

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

Erm, okay.

Look, one can agree with the Court on the principle but disagree with the means by which they arrived. I see no "sense" in going beyond Constitutional bounds to do what they did. They had easier routes to take which would have still affirmed homosexual marriage. Instead, they went ballistic.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most extreme, they went for the 10.

They could have simply left it to the States, which no conservative could squawk at, and noted the reciprocity of States demands that, for example, Alabama recognize a marriage performed in Massachusetts. To say this is a "right" guaranteed IN the Constitution is, frankly, a crock.

fate

To say this is a "right" guaranteed IN the Constitution is, frankly, a crock.

Nevertheless ... 6 Justices think so and so it is...

You made a point before about the Constituion's language and meaning ...
Here's something that can inform you ..

In 1824, in retirement 37 years after serving as the Constitutional Convention’s prime mover, James Madison, 73, noted that the 1787 “language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders.” He knew that the purport of the text would evolve “with the changeable meaning of the words composing it.”

Now, 147 years since ratification of the 14th Amendment, its guarantees of “equal protection of the laws” and “due process of law” mean that states, which hitherto controlled marriage law, must recognize same-sex marriages. Anthony Kennedy’s opinion for the court said: “The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of 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.)

Madison agrees with Kennedy.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z2

hacker

I refuse, however, to get into a petty little "Bible Fight". You can quote it all you want,

But you have to when the Bible quotes start flying... And each side of the multi sided argument have their own facts concerning the text.
There is no agreement about who wrote it, and little evidence that any of the authors were contemporaries of Jesus. The siege of Jerusalem having ended the community that stayed in Israel.
Some of Paul's epistles may have been written by him , but Paul never met Jesus.
There are contradictions and noted editorial changes ... And according to Fate one needs to understand the original Greek to be able to comprehensively understand the text.
Little wonder there are so many sects and so much disagreement.
Compared to the slow handful of changing interpretations of the Constitution by Scotus, the number of interpretations of the NT are vast.

rickyp wrote:fate

To say this is a "right" guaranteed IN the Constitution is, frankly, a crock.

Nevertheless ... 6 Justices think so and so it is...

You made a point before about the Constituion's language and meaning ...
Here's something that can inform you ..

In 1824, in retirement 37 years after serving as the Constitutional Convention’s prime mover, James Madison, 73, noted that the 1787 “language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders.” He knew that the purport of the text would evolve “with the changeable meaning of the words composing it.”

Now, 147 years since ratification of the 14th Amendment, its guarantees of “equal protection of the laws” and “due process of law” mean that states, which hitherto controlled marriage law, must recognize same-sex marriages. Anthony Kennedy’s opinion for the court said: “The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of 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.)

Madison agrees with Kennedy.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z2

Oh brother. That kind of conclusion would get you an 'F' in any decent writing class.

Fate

Oh brother. That kind of conclusion would get you an 'F' in any decent writing class

Tell it to George Will. Its his conclusion.

rickyp wrote:hacker

I refuse, however, to get into a petty little "Bible Fight". You can quote it all you want,

But you have to when the Bible quotes start flying... And each side of the multi sided argument have their own facts concerning the text.
There is no agreement about who wrote it, and little evidence that any of the authors were contemporaries of Jesus. The siege of Jerusalem having ended the community that stayed in Israel.
Some of Paul's epistles may have been written by him , but Paul never met Jesus.

This is just the kind of foolishness one might expect from you, rickyp. What did you do: read a wiki entry or "The Bible for Idiots?"

If your brush was any broader, it could cover the Earth in one coat.

There are contradictions and noted editorial changes ...

Sigh. Just stop. The next thing you'll do is google a list of "contradictions in the Bible," post it, and then dare anyone to debunk them. After you do, I'll google a list of answers, paste it . . . and we'll be back where we are.

Just shut it down.

And according to Fate one needs to understand the original Greek to be able to comprehensively understand the text.

Not what I said. However, your so-called "expert" gave no reason for his interpretation, other than his opinion. Given that he was looking for evidence of homosexuality being approved by Jesus, it's not surprising he "found" it. Anyone can find anything if they have suitable motivation and sufficient prejudice.

If you want to debate the Greek text, I'd be happy to do so. Otherwise, stick to what you know . . . whatever that may be.

Little wonder there are so many sects and so much disagreement.
Compared to the slow handful of changing interpretations of the Constitution by Scotus, the number of interpretations of the NT are vast.

Nice of you to put a second coat on the planet.

"Interpretations" of the NT are not as varied as you believe. It's the hoops people jump through AFTER they've interpreted the text to justify their presuppositions that accounts for most of the variety (and it's nowhere near as varied as Mr. Hacker's statement). A keen example: the number of "Christian" churches who have female pastors. There are all manner of explanations for it, but none that can be reconciled with 1 Tim 2 and 3, and Titus 1. But, if someone is determined to put a woman in charge, they will find a way to do it.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Oh brother. That kind of conclusion would get you an 'F' in any decent writing class

Tell it to George Will. Its his conclusion.

Actually, Will did not write that he believed homosexual marriage was a right, nor that Madison agreed with Kennedy.

Still, I will email Mr. Will and let you know if he responds.

He's not God you know.

Fate

Actually, Will did not write that he believed homosexual marriage was a right, nor that Madison agreed with Kennedy

Actually he did. And that the right was granted because society had evolved... He went on to write.

Many conservatives detect in those five words a dismaying intimation of a “living Constitution” too malleable to limit government because it conforms to whatever shape serves transitory political and cultural impulses. Conservative wariness is wise. So too, however, is recognition that Chief Justice Warren was not wrong when, in a 1958 case concerning the Eighth Amendment’s proscriptions of “cruel and unusual punishments,” he said: “The amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

Such evolution is real and relevant. No one today thinks that branding and ear cropping, which were punishments practiced when the Eighth Amendment was ratified, are today compatible with this amendment.
During April’s oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts said that people seeking same-sex marriage are “not seeking to join the institution” but are “seeking to change what the institution is.” But this institution has been changed by American attitudes and behavior. Marriage in America will be, over time, what Americans say it is, and last week’s decision came with almost three in four Americans already living in states where same-sex marriage is legal..

He may not be God, but you've quoted him almost as much as the Bible...

rickyp wrote:Fate

Actually, Will did not write that he believed homosexual marriage was a right, nor that Madison agreed with Kennedy

Actually he did. And that the right was granted because society had evolved... He went on to write.

Many conservatives detect in those five words a dismaying intimation of a “living Constitution” too malleable to limit government because it conforms to whatever shape serves transitory political and cultural impulses. Conservative wariness is wise. So too, however, is recognition that Chief Justice Warren was not wrong when, in a 1958 case concerning the Eighth Amendment’s proscriptions of “cruel and unusual punishments,” he said: “The amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

Such evolution is real and relevant. No one today thinks that branding and ear cropping, which were punishments practiced when the Eighth Amendment was ratified, are today compatible with this amendment.
During April’s oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts said that people seeking same-sex marriage are “not seeking to join the institution” but are “seeking to change what the institution is.” But this institution has been changed by American attitudes and behavior. Marriage in America will be, over time, what Americans say it is, and last week’s decision came with almost three in four Americans already living in states where same-sex marriage is legal..

He may not be God, but you've quoted him almost as much as the Bible...

Actually, no, HE DID NOT SAY IT.

Saying that "almost three in four Americans already . . ." is not saying the Constitution guarantees a right to homosexuals to marry each other.

Will acknowledges the legal practice of marriage has changed in "almost three in four (states)." That does NOT mean "there is a Constitutional right."

But, as promised, I emailed him.

As you may have noticed, I've never said homosexual marriage had to remain illegal. I believe this is clearly a 10th Amendment issue--one reserved to the States. I think the USSC would have been well within its rights to say the "full faith and credit" clause must be enforced, etc. However, it was a reach to say this is a "right." Actually, it was a fabrication.

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:It is unseemly to answer a question with a question. I am sure it is just an oversight. Lets start again:

What is the next discrimination of marriage that needs to be changed going to be?

In about 30 years it may seem odd that you cannot marry more than 1 person if everyone consents.

http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

Or 30 days...

bbauska wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:It is unseemly to answer a question with a question. I am sure it is just an oversight. Lets start again:

What is the next discrimination of marriage that needs to be changed going to be?

In about 30 years it may seem odd that you cannot marry more than 1 person if everyone consents.

http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

Or 30 days...

It's an interesting issue which will involve different legal constructs than those permitting gay marriage. On the flip side, although the Hebrew Bible holds a negative view on male male relations it accepts polygamy as normal..

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:It is unseemly to answer a question with a question. I am sure it is just an oversight. Lets start again:

What is the next discrimination of marriage that needs to be changed going to be?

In about 30 years it may seem odd that you cannot marry more than 1 person if everyone consents.

http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

Or 30 days...

It's an interesting issue which will involve different legal constructs than those permitting gay marriage. On the flip side, although the Hebrew Bible holds a negative view on male male relations it accepts polygamy as normal..

Normal?

Not really sure about that. It often led to adverse circumstances, including idolatry.

And, if it was really "normal," why did the Jews stop it? I think "normal" is a tricky word. Was it God's ideal? I think not. Certainly, Adam was not given many wives in Eden.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:It is unseemly to answer a question with a question. I am sure it is just an oversight. Lets start again:

What is the next discrimination of marriage that needs to be changed going to be?

In about 30 years it may seem odd that you cannot marry more than 1 person if everyone consents.

http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

Or 30 days...

It's an interesting issue which will involve different legal constructs than those permitting gay marriage. On the flip side, although the Hebrew Bible holds a negative view on male male relations it accepts polygamy as normal..

Normal?

Not really sure about that. It often led to adverse circumstances, including idolatry.

And, if it was really "normal," why did the Jews stop it? I think "normal" is a tricky word. Was it God's ideal? I think not. Certainly, Adam was not given many wives in Eden.

It certainly makes for a good research topic. For every Adam I can name a Jacob. The Jews stopped it post Hebrew Bible, but certainly Solomon had many wives as did King David

Ray Jay wrote:It certainly makes for a good research topic. For every Adam I can name a Jacob. The Jews stopped it post Hebrew Bible, but certainly Solomon had many wives as did King David

I agree. I'm not suggesting men did not do this. I am questioning whether it was God's design. It might be "normal," but then many sins are "normal."

Ray Jay wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Normal?

Not really sure about that. It often led to adverse circumstances, including idolatry.

And, if it was really "normal," why did the Jews stop it? I think "normal" is a tricky word. Was it God's ideal? I think not. Certainly, Adam was not given many wives in Eden.

It certainly makes for a good research topic. For every Adam I can name a Jacob. The Jews stopped it post Hebrew Bible, but certainly Solomon had many wives as did King David

Jacob, of course is also Israel. Abraham did not only have two wives, but his first, Sarah, was his half-sister. God told Abimlech (who took offense at such incestral relations) that Abraham was righteous and had a blameless heart.

So one of the most important Biblical marriages was between siblings, and God still chose them to be the parents of a nation.

That's without going back to working out how Adam and Eve got to be grandparents - clearly Cain and Seth married a sister or a neice - and as long as we assume God did not create other people, the only way to get to the third generation was (by design) incest.