Di Atribe: Sigh. Not sure if amusing or horribly sad. Is there a single anti-gay marriage argument that isn't just "when you meet your maker, you'll pay?"

There's the "it's icky to me therefore you aren't allowed to do it" argument.

Headline missed the "raised by Dick / in love with Bush" opportunity, but I'll take the Poe's Law reference; it's certainly appropriate here. It was kind of low-hanging fruit anyway.

Di Atribe: Sigh. Not sure if amusing or horribly sad. Is there a single anti-gay marriage argument that isn't just "when you meet your maker, you'll pay?"

No.

Scarier are the ones that want to enshrine being a bully in law as long as you're religious about it.

Di Atribe: Sigh. Not sure if amusing or horribly sad. Is there a single anti-gay marriage argument that isn't just "when you meet your maker, you'll pay?"

Well, 'traditional marriage' is a demand perpetrated by religious bigots, so no.

I_C_Weener: It's amusing how Darth Cheney was for gay marriage before Messiah Obama. Good luck Ms Cheney. Enjoy the same wonderful benefits of marriage as us straights. And when you are tired of it, I can help you find a good divorce lawyer.

It's a common conservative trait to be against something unless you have direct experience with it affecting your life.

From the comments on the site: "There are all sorts of sexual stimulations and eroticisms, but those are not to be confused with marriage or normality."

I snerked.

Gwendolyn: Did someone point out that the lesbian couple in question already has 2 kids?

That was gonna be my question. It's phrased in the article as if it's a natural birth, so is she just really, amazingly bad at being a lesbian? Like the gay female version of the "why do all these homosexuals keep sucking my cock" guy from the Onion article?

meat0918: It's a common conservative trait to be against something unless you have direct experience with it affecting your life.

Cheney's never been particularly anti-gay. He's pretty right-wing on some other issues, but he's actually been fairly consistent there, at least while he's been in office. He's never been particularly overtly religious at all, actually, to the point I don't actually know if he's Christian offhand, I'm just assuming it form his profession and statistics.

//I feel like I'm kind of scrambling for things to comment on since, even when actively trying, I can't seem to make myself give a single fark one way or the other about two random people who aren't public figures getting married without any particular obstacles in their way and the full support of their family and friends. That's not exactly earth-shaking.

Di Atribe: I'm confused. What kind of relationship can homosexuals not have?

The mind-sex from the Demolished Man? Haven't seen any psychic homosexuals around yet.

Gwendolyn: Relatively Obscure: Carlkparsons Collapse

Bunch of religious nuts here.

Folks, homosexuality appears unnatural because Natural Selection has determined that they are DEAD ENDS. It's Darwin 101; it's evolution. It has nothing to do with a god, or personal choices, but with genetics. Nature says they are DONE, finished, like a prehensile tail.

Now that we can do away with false senses of morality, either for or against, can we as a species dispose of these dead ends and move on? They use up valuable resources, contribute nothing, and should be eliminated for the good of the whole of our society. Or are you going to start whining and calling the survival of the fittest "murder," which is another religious term that holds that all life is somehow equal?


Epic Troll is Epic.

Did someone point out that the lesbian couple in question already has 2 kids?

Presumably using the most basic theory of Darwinism, the quote would be correct. Genetically two lesbians can't have kids. Only by introducing good ol manseed can the procreate. over time assuming their kids have the ghey those genes would die out. Of course in reality homosexuality must be a genetic abnormality like being left handed. A relatively small section of the population is this way and there will always be some. So deal with it.

Also, we could have saved ourselves some time and just copy pasta'd Tuckers thread onto here and we could just laugh at the responses.

Di Atribe: I say to those people, "The US belongs to all of us. Not just Christians and not just straight people." They don't really like that idea. And that's pretty scary, too.

Well said.

I'm quite fond of this too:

I_C_Weener: Di Atribe: xynix: Homosexuals cannot have this relationship therefor they are incapable of being married in God's eyes.

I'm confused. What kind of relationship can homosexuals not have?

I double dog dare them to have man on turtle relations.

It wouldn't even be very difficult. Just flip Mitch McConnell over and he won't be able to get up.

xynix: AirForceVet:

If it were the literal Word of God, no one would eat shellfish, having sex with one's daughters is AOK, slavery is cool, having multiple wives as property is better than sliced bread, she bears would rush out of the woods on comma ...

You're talking about the old testament which isn't relevant in modern day Christianity. Which by the way always pisses me off when someone mentions Leviticus as a reason to oppose gay marriage.

In Corinthians: "Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality." That to me is very clear.. it requires no interpretations. If you cheat on your spouse or if you're gay you're not welcome.. The first two parts are open to interpretation.

Wow, there. Corinthians does NOT say homosexuality. Do you need to lie about your own holy book?

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

I'd hit it

Lionel Mandrake: xynix: Some people with Muslim beliefs like to blow shiat up.. Not all of them. Some people with Christian beliefs like to impose Christian law on pagans .. not all of them. Both are misguided and flat out wrong.

Did you just compare suicide bombing with gay marriage? That's pathetic, but I'll play. A suicide bomber involves and does harm to non-consenting individuals. Someone who blows up a structure of some kind is destroying the property of another or others without consent - thus harming other people (people can blow up their own shiat as far as I'm concerned, as long as they're not putting other people or other people's stuff in danger).

If two guys get married, how is anyone harmed? You may not like it, you may think it's immoral, but how is it actually hurting you? If God opposes it, let God deal with it. Heck, I hate rap music, but I'm not going to push for a ban on rap. It may annoy me, but it's not really harming me.

And yes.. from a state and federal level any human of sound mind should be able to marry any other human of sound mind. In fact it's more serious than just being able to be with someone you want on paper. A married couple gets tax breaks and benefits, certain considerations at death, social security and things of that nature. It seems frankly illegal to keep those rights away from a homosexual couple.

Oh...well, hell, it looks like we actually agree.

BTW the reason I mention Adultery is because they are equal sins. There is not a grading curve for sin.. Murder and adultery are equals and we're not talking about "the ten commandments" which are outmoded in the new testament.

You're free to believe that, and I'm free to believe that's F*cking ridiculous.

Actually, he compared Christians trying to make laws against homosexual marriage to suicide bombers. Don't let lack of reading comprehension stop your outrage though.

I'm interested to know what sect xynix is in here, though, which seems to have a much different idea of Christianity than any I know if...

Also, Fark, please make it possible to quote partial posts on mobile so I don't take huge amounts of space when having a political argument while on the can.

Found this on GIS:



Well then.

It's Adam and Eve, not Madam and Eve.

If anyone things that allowing gay marriage is going to heal the world, they are completely out of their mind. That is bad and it doesn't matter if someone says that they like the way you make me feel... traditional families aren't based on how good you feel. It's time to look at the man in the mirror and point the finger at what is dangerous to our society! I know some of the gay persuasion might think that giving in to their urges is a real thriller, but say say say it ain't true that you really want our society to embrace these people. Instead we shoud tell them to beat it and leave our great country to real Americans. Keep up the fight to keep America great and don't stop 'til you get enough of the change that we REALLY need. All this pro Adam and Steve marriage stuff is just off the wall. I'll take my girlfriend over some guy any day of the week.

Relatively Obscure: Sabyen91: Wow, there. Corinthians does NOT say homosexuality. Do you need to lie about your own holy book?

I don't think he's lying, really. I found at least one translation that lists homosexuals (New King James does, since he said "King James" above).

Not that I'm taking his side. I just don't see that as a willful lie.

I think this is evidence it was willful. King James though the verse has not changed in 2000 years except for a few altercations not relevant to the content.. Yes, he would have to be reading the NKJ version. This quote looks like he is heading off any argument that the change from KJ to NKJ is "not relevant to the content".

lockers: It's Adam and Eve, not Madam and Eve.

God didn't make Madam and Eve? Then how do they exist?

/I know, I know. You are a novelty account.

TsarTom: Making some popcorn.


/if you watch it backwards it's her pulling popcorn out of her throat
//jesus was homosexual that's why they crucified him for it

Mike Chewbacca: Corinthians also says: 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

My question is, why is following the rule about homosexuals so important, but those same people don't care about forcing women to shut the hell up in church?

It is a veritable cafeteria.

Sabyen91: lockers: It's Adam and Eve, not Madam and Eve.

God didn't make Madam and Eve? Then how do they exist?

/I know, I know. You are a novelty account.

No, i just liked the word play instead of the steve thing. Really, I honestly think two people who love each other deserve equal protection under the law. And i probably should have made a novelty account because my lame trolling for giggles probably takes me out of the serious discussions i mostly like to have.

lockers: Sabyen91: lockers: It's Adam and Eve, not Madam and Eve.

God didn't make Madam and Eve? Then how do they exist?

/I know, I know. You are a novelty account.

No, i just liked the word play instead of the steve thing. Really, I honestly think two people who love each other deserve equal protection under the law. And i probably should have made a novelty account because my lame trolling for giggles probably takes me out of the serious discussions i mostly like to have.

Point taken and understood.

Sabyen91: xynix: AirForceVet:

If it were the literal Word of God, no one would eat shellfish, having sex with one's daughters is AOK, slavery is cool, having multiple wives as property is better than sliced bread, she bears would rush out of the woods on comma ...

You're talking about the old testament which isn't relevant in modern day Christianity. Which by the way always pisses me off when someone mentions Leviticus as a reason to oppose gay marriage.

In Corinthians: "Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality." That to me is very clear.. it requires no interpretations. If you cheat on your spouse or if you're gay you're not welcome.. The first two parts are open to interpretation.

Wow, there. Corinthians does NOT say homosexuality. Do you need to lie about your own holy book?

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

THIS.....the funny thing is that he could have said that the homosexuality quote was from one of several versions of the bible, but he went with New King James version, which it clearly is not.

Mike Chewbacca: theknuckler_33: If anyone things that allowing gay marriage is going to heal the world, they are completely out of their mind. That is bad and it doesn't matter if someone says that they like the way you make me feel... traditional families aren't based on how good you feel. It's time to look at the man in the mirror and point the finger at what is dangerous to our society! I know some of the gay persuasion might think that giving in to their urges is a real thriller, but say say say it ain't true that you really want our society to embrace these people. Instead we shoud tell them to beat it and leave our great country to real Americans. Keep up the fight to keep America great and don't stop 'til you get enough of the change that we REALLY need. All this pro Adam and Steve marriage stuff is just off the wall. I'll take my girlfriend over some guy any day of the week.

Eh, you're no Stop Arresting Me. I miss that guy. Sniff.

I guess I should have picked someone more obscure for my first attempt.

/I don't think there'll be a second
//I just had to do it one time
///like saying I love you
////*SOB*

Relatively Obscure: Mike Chewbacca: And that's the problem with the Bible.

I would change the first "the" to "a." Otherwise, no argument here.

Sabyen91: I think this is evidence it was willful. King James though the verse has not changed in 2000 years except for a few altercations not relevant to the content.. Yes, he would have to be reading the NKJ version. This quote looks like he is heading off any argument that the change from KJ to NKJ is "not relevant to the content".

Meh, maybe. I don't feel comfortable calling him a liar unless I see something a bit more. I don't know what the author's intent with the words he chose was, either, so I can't say much about the relevance of changes like effeminate/homosexual/sodomite/abuser of self with man (or some such)/etc. found in varying combinations depending on the translation.

I agree. Translation is tricky. I just don't consider the difference in translation "not relevant". So maybe he isn't a liar but it appears he asserted opinion as fact so not entirely honest, either.

Approves.

Di Atribe: Sigh. Not sure if amusing or horribly sad. Is there a single anti-gay marriage argument that isn't just "when you meet your maker, you'll pay?"

"It's icky and makes me feel funny in my pants when I think about it."

xynix: Somewhere along the way someone decided that we had to shove our ideals down other peoples throats
I blame both Paul (and those who claimed to be Paul for the majority of "his" writings) (for farking up Jesus' message) and whoever was claiming to be Matthew (for giving you freaks that "Great Commission".

AirForceVet: I'll just stick with the best parts of Christianity, i.e. love thy
neighbor and God.
FTFY

xynix: You're talking about the old testament which isn't relevant in modern day Christianity.
See, this is what I blame Paul for, mostly: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

[emphasis mine]

Y'see, back in the EARLYEARLY church, it was more a jewish splinter group. Then Paul comes along, and, because he can't seem to convert more of his fellow jews, he attempts to convert the gentiles. Of course, the gentiles don't want to have to adhere to all the strange weirdness in the OT, so Paul makes the excuse that "Oh, no, you don't have to: Jesus death [even though he didn't REALLY die, so how was it a sacrifice?] "fulfils" the law, so it no longer applies. Those that still follow those silly rules aren't really following Jesus."
Now, can you see what's wrong with what Paul did there?
That's right, kiddies; he "relaxe[d]...these commandments and [taught] others to do the same". Very un-Jesus-y of him.

This shiat is actually pretty well documented in the historical literature, if you bother to go to the damned library and not just look at the "inspirational" bullshiat. I'd recommend you read...aw, damn...what was the title of that one...? Shiat...I hate when that happens...it'll come to me..._{I hope...}

/you should be able to find a good one in the "history" section, rather than the "religion" section
//of course, if you want to accuse me of lying about how forged the bible is, I'd suggest you get your lazy ass to to your library and find some of Bart Ehrman's books.

xynix: In Corinthians: "Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality." That to me is very clear.. it requires no interpretations. If you cheat on your spouse or if you're gay you're not welcome.. The first two parts are open to interpretation.

Well, considering that Paul twisted Jesus' message, I'd say he's "impure and[/or] immoral".

xynix: Homosexuals cannot have this relationship
Why not? No, seriously, without a single goddamn bible reference or "because it's gross", explain why homosexuals cannot have a dedicated monogamous relationship.

You know what? Good for them.

Last Man on Earth: Approves.

Dammit, pic didn't take.

Mike Chewbacca: I'd like to point out that you either go to Hell or you don't go to Hell. There is no "not quite as sucky as Hell, Hell." Sin is sin, end of story. That's why he says there's no grading curve for sin. To God, murder is just as deplorable as adultery, and both with put you in Hell.

Which means "God's justice" isn't.Mike Chewbacca: Corinthians also says: 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

My question is, why is following the rule about homosexuals so important, but those same people don't care about forcing women to shut the hell up in church?

Because that. actually, is one of the many lines that was added in by later scribes, and not actually written by Paul. I know, it's strange for some of them to actually being even partially honest about what is and isn't actually part of the original text...It doesn't seem to stop them from quoting Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessolonians, Hebrews, or the Pastoral Epistles.

Relatively Obscure: Relatively Obscure: Ah. Apparently xynix's quote was from the Amplified Bible.

Also, I assume it goes to 11.

Yeah, it does. I find it harder to read than "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, Unannotated".

/Note: that may not be a real book, but it is possible to find unannotated Shakespeare plays.

Relatively Obscure: dlp211: THIS.....the funny thing is that he could have said that the homosexuality quote was from one of several versions of the bible, but he went with New King James version, which it clearly is not.

The reference to homosexuality is present in New King James. What he wrote is not a direct quote from New King James, though.

Yea, I just realized that my wife's bible is the King James bible, not the New King James.

friday13: Y'see, back in the EARLYEARLY church, it was more a jewish splinter group. Then Paul comes along, and, because he can't seem to convert more of his fellow jews, he attempts to convert the gentiles. Of course, the gentiles don't want to have to adhere to all the strange weirdness in the OT, so Paul makes the excuse that "Oh, no, you don't have to: Jesus death [even though he didn't REALLY die, so how was it a sacrifice?] "fulfils" the law, so it no longer applies. Those that still follow those silly rules aren't really following Jesus."
Now, can you see what's wrong with what Paul did there?

Actually, Paul was specifically given a mission to convert Gentiles.

And the Council of Jerusalem decided that Gentile converts to Christianity were not obligated to keep most of the Mosaic law, including the rules concerning circumcision of males.

I think it started with a vision Peter had received involving "unclean animals."

I really wish these people would get it through their heads that based on the very texts they cite, they have no business judging others. They are responsible for nobody's soul but their own (or lack thereof).

Last Man on Earth: Last Man on Earth: Approves.

Dammit, pic didn't take.

[lparchive.org image 640x480]

Goddamn Sabbat, those bastards.

I was raised Catholic and 'converted' to UCC to marry in the church of my wife, but have come to accept the fact that the doubts I have had my whole live are in fact atheism. I can't get past accepting that "god" spoke to people so frequently in the bible and now the only people god speaks to are people that are farking lunatics. Sorry, I've prayed for years, through good times and bad. BEGGED to be 'reborn' to experience what my creationist evangelical good friend swears happened to him and... nothing. I went to church for years, prayed for years, prayed to be saved, healed, and spoken to for years.

Nothing.

and I'm a damned good person.

there is no god.

dlp211: Relatively Obscure: dlp211: THIS.....the funny thing is that he could have said that the homosexuality quote was from one of several versions of the bible, but he went with New King James version, which it clearly is not.

The reference to homosexuality is present in New King James. What he wrote is not a direct quote from New King James, though.

Yea, I just realized that my wife's bible is the King James bible, not the New King James.

Don't worry. The poster claimed it was from the regular old KJV anyway.

theknuckler_33: I was raised Catholic and 'converted' to UCC to marry in the church of my wife, but have come to accept the fact that the doubts I have had my whole live are in fact atheism. I can't get past accepting that "god" spoke to people so frequently in the bible and now the only people god speaks to are people that are farking lunatics. Sorry, I've prayed for years, through good times and bad. BEGGED to be 'reborn' to experience what my creationist evangelical good friend swears happened to him and... nothing. I went to church for years, prayed for years, prayed to be saved, healed, and spoken to for years.

Nothing.

and I'm a damned good person.

there is no god.

You are a bad person and you should feel bad.

Relatively Obscure: Carlkparsons Collapse

Bunch of religious nuts here.

Folks, homosexuality appears unnatural because Natural Selection has determined that they are DEAD ENDS. It's Darwin 101; it's evolution. It has nothing to do with a god, or personal choices, but with genetics. Nature says they are DONE, finished, like a prehensile tail.

Now that we can do away with false senses of morality, either for or against, can we as a species dispose of these dead ends and move on? They use up valuable resources, contribute nothing, and should be eliminated for the good of the whole of our society. Or are you going to start whining and calling the survival of the fittest "murder," which is another religious term that holds that all life is somehow equal?


Epic Troll is Epic.

You know who else thought that way?

ole prophet: At least they don't have to worry about gifts.

Why didn't you just link to the Fark thread about it?

Lesbianism is a sin against God!

That's what the GOP told me...

Sabyen91: ole prophet: At least they don't have to worry about gifts.

Why didn't you just link to the Fark thread about it?

Meh, that was Weasel Zippers. Way better to link to the source.

xynix: ... [Paul said] The man treats the woman as he would himself (actually better than he does himself)...

lolwut

Ephesians 5
22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church

xynix: Lionel Mandrake: xynix: In Corinthians: "Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality." That to me is very clear.. it requires no interpretations. If you cheat on your spouse or if you're gay you're not welcome.. The first two parts are open to interpretation.

Sounds like Paul's opinion to me.

Paul was a homophobe so that makes it a good Christian value?

He was also against adultery.. Did you miss that part? It's pretty simple.. A man and woman is the partnership. The man treats the woman as he would himself (actually better than he does himself) and he treats his kids in the same fashion. If he or she cheats the marriage is over in God's eyes. Homosexuals cannot have this relationship therefor they are incapable of being married in God's eyes.

I would be happy to say if you're not a Christian what do you care about my beliefs but non-Christians are overloaded by bible-thumping idiots that have no idea what the bible or Christ's message is trying to convey. In fact Christ himself would welcome homosexuals as friends and would even baptize them but they still couldn't be married.

What's so disturbing is young kids (the 14 year old youtuber for example) that are being fed non-Christian ideals in His name.

But all of this is irrelevant because of church/state separation. There is absolutely no reason why a homosexual couple shouldn't be able to legally live as anyone else in this country. It's not a Theocracy (which I would abhor).

um, the reason why so many (and growing numbers) of us don't believe this nonsense is bc we were raised in religion, have read the bible and know exactly what it's and jesus' messages are (a plurality of insane, sadistic and conflicting messages)

why do you worship a demon?

have you ever read the bible?

Too bad their marriage isn't recognized at the national level, unlike the marriages of gay Canadians and gay citizens of some other countries.

Congrats, Mrs. and Mrs. Cheney-Poe (Poe-Cheney?). I'll be rooting for you to get equal rights soon.

Lucky ol' Heather.

She gets all the Cheney with none of the Dick.

HighOnCraic: friday13: Y'see, back in the EARLYEARLY church, it was more a jewish splinter group. Then Paul comes along, and, because he can't seem to convert more of his fellow jews, he attempts to convert the gentiles. Of course, the gentiles don't want to have to adhere to all the strange weirdness in the OT, so Paul makes the excuse that "Oh, no, you don't have to: Jesus death [even though he didn't REALLY die, so how was it a sacrifice?] "fulfils" the law, so it no longer applies. Those that still follow those silly rules aren't really following Jesus."
Now, can you see what's wrong with what Paul did there?

Actually, Paul was specifically given a mission to convert Gentiles.

And the Council of Jerusalem decided that Gentile converts to Christianity were not obligated to keep most of the Mosaic law, including the rules concerning circumcision of males.

I think it started with a vision Peter had received involving "unclean animals."

Which only means I can't ONLY blame it on Paul. The rest of my point still stands.

Calmamity: You know, I try and be agnostic, but the shiat I see Christians pull over and over makes it pretty hard to even believe in the possibility of a God.

Eh, that grants Christianity a place in a false dichotomy - that there's either no god or Christianity is right. I disagree with pretty much every Christian sect about some fairly major stuff, but that doesn't preclude the existence of god. But with all the crap his follower's pull, if he's there I don't think he's paying attention. Otherwise you'd have to assume we'd have a lot more bigots getting turned into pillars of salt.

xynix: spongeboob: xynix: In Corinthians: "Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality

What version of the Bible are you quoting from?

King James though the verse has not changed in 2000 years except for a few altercations not relevant to the content.

I'm sorry, when do we think the King James version of the Bible was written? In the year 12? Jesus must have had a shiatstorm when he read what was going to happen to him when he grew up.

i bet ole' dick is so proud!

taxandspend: xynix: spongeboob: xynix: In Corinthians: "Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality

What version of the Bible are you quoting from?

King James though the verse has not changed in 2000 years except for a few altercations not relevant to the content.

I'm sorry, when do we think the King James version of the Bible was written? In the year 12? Jesus must have had a shiatstorm when he read what was going to happen to him when he grew up.

how the fark did I miss THAT tidbit...?

xynix: AirForceVet:

If it were the literal Word of God, no one would eat shellfish, having sex with one's daughters is AOK, slavery is cool, having multiple wives as property is better than sliced bread, she bears would rush out of the woods on comma ...

You're talking about the old testament which isn't relevant in modern day Christianity. Which by the way always pisses me off when someone mentions Leviticus as a reason to oppose gay marriage.

In Corinthians: "Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality." That to me is very clear.. it requires no interpretations. If you cheat on your spouse or if you're gay you're not welcome.. The first two parts are open to interpretation.

If you are quoting KJV then no.

I Corinthians 6:9:
King James Version of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

There are literally 25 versions of this in English.

25 English versions of the word

The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (malakoi). -- some sources quote "malakee" -- and "arsenokoitai" (arsenokoitai). These are interpreted differently in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards.

So to use the Corinthians as your stance against homosexual marriage is flawed in so many ways. It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation.

So this is just silly. To use a book that has 25 interpretations in English alone is blatant ignorance.

Linux_Yes: i bet ole' dick is so proud!

He is. He always has been, and he's told the press the same. For decades. What now, moron?

I just wonder whether Christians are for self-mutilation because they have probably looked at a woman "lustfully", are for divorce ONLY in cases of sexual immorality or are against swearing an oath on anything.

27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

I'm sure there are some Christian FARKers here who need to get busy cutting off their hands and gouging out their eyes. For Jesus.

31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

So THAT'S why divorce is illega- oh wait.

33 "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.' 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g]"

This makes me laugh every time I see a Christian testifying or swearing to hold office holding a bible.

Lionel Mandrake: xynix: In Corinthians: "Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality." That to me is very clear.. it requires no interpretations. If you cheat on your spouse or if you're gay you're not welcome.. The first two parts are open to interpretation.

Sounds like Paul's opinion to me.

Paul was a homophobe so that makes it a good Christian value?

Eh, it wasn't really that. Homosexual behavior was pretty common back then, if you were a man in a Hellenistic society you probably had sex with other men. Homosexuality or Heterosexuality as orientations basically did not exist, instead people were divided into dominate and submissive partners. Women were by definition submissive. Men could be either, but if you were submissive you were seen as weak or lesser (which is why submissive men were usually slaves or young men). They didn't have a word for homosexuality back then, so any translation that uses it is inaccurate at best. Most of the "homophobic" stuff was actually aimed at those "weaker" men, rather than men who had sex with men in general. Paul was really just saying "don't be a weakling", and was being used as a rhetorical strategy to emphasize that Gentiles weren't really all that no matter how much they thought they were. In general the dominant men were considered totally normal. Actual homophobia would have been pretty weird back then, like irrationally hating men who were going bald or wore togas.

BTW, a lot of the stuff that is attributed to Paul probably wasn't actually written by him, such as the Pastoral Epistles. Ancient writers in general liked to put words in the mouths of their favorite people and as a result liked to write letters and histories etc as if they were that person in order to use that person's perceived authority to bolster their point. This is how you get both the Pastoral Epistles and the Acts of Paul and Thecla attributed to Paul despite the vastly differing views of women presented.

Short version: it's pretty wrong to attribute modern attitudes toward sexuality to ancient figures such as Paul.

xynix: You can't -not- live in sin because being homosexual is considered an abomination in God's eyes.

So's eating shrimp. Shut the fark up and listen to Christ.

notShryke: Linux_Yes: i bet ole' dick is so proud!

He is. He always has been, and he's told the press the same. For decades. What now, moron?

It would be nice if the people he panders to (those leaving comments on the site, for example) felt the same way. It would be REALLY nice if the Republican Party followed his example.

xynix: In Corinthians: "Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality." That to me is very clear.. it requires no interpretations. If you cheat on your spouse or if you're gay you're not welcome.. The first two parts are open to interpretation.

Actually, there ARE many interpretations. Also, you aren't quoting Jesus.

If you are going to quote Corinthians, do you also believe women shouldn't be allowed to speak in church? Do you pray with your head covered?

notShryke: Linux_Yes: i bet ole' dick is so proud!

He is. He always has been, and he's told the press the same. For decades. What now, moron?

It is cute how conservatives change their views when reality happens to them.

Bearwhale: So THAT'S why divorce is illega- oh wait.

33 "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.' 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g]"

This makes me laugh every time I see a Christian testifying or swearing to hold office holding a bible.

To be fair he wasn't using it to bash homos. He apparently thinks it is a sin but he is pro-gay marriage.

Sabyen91: It is cute how conservatives change their views when reality happens to them.

Except that Cheney, again, was never really big on the social conservatism angle. Remember that that's only been the dominant issue set with the GOP for about five or six years. Cheney is a career guy from the early 90s when the religious nuts were a fairly small fringe group within the GOP.

He didn't go from being anti-gay to pro-gay, he went from being apathetic and vaguely puzzled that gay rights were even a question to pro-gay. If you're curious, this is probably why you're seeing so much puzzlement over this being a story among the people in the thread older than 21 or so who remember the 1990s GOP platform. Cheney hasn't once in his entire life thought that Gay civil rights issues were particularly worth opposing.

Jim_Callahan: Except that Cheney, again, was never really big on the social conservatism angle.

I suppose. His giant sin is neoconservatism. However, Republicans don't like gay people...even the neo-cons. I am guessing he has known his daughter was gay for at least the last 20 years so...

rynthetyn: downpaymentblues: xynix: In Corinthians: "Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality." That to me is very clear.. it requires no interpretations. If you cheat on your spouse or if you're gay you're not welcome.. The first two parts are open to interpretation.

Actually, there ARE many interpretations. Also, you aren't quoting Jesus.

If you are going to quote Corinthians, do you also believe women shouldn't be allowed to speak in church? Do you pray with your head covered?

xynix has clearly demonstrated that he's no Bible scholar when he doesn't even know that the translation he's quoting isn't the KJV. He's also demonstrated that he doesn't understand basic Christian theology in the post where he claimed that only Christians are capable of sinning. He's quite willing to tell me that I'm a sinner since I'm a Christian who's gay, but where he's willing to quote scripture to condemn people like me, he's apparently unaware of Romans 8:28 which says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Someone who doesn't understand the basic doctrine of original sin really shouldn't be telling other people whether they're sinners or not, particularly when digging up translations that use a word that represents a concept that didn't even exist 2000 years ago.

Stop sinning!

Wow, the only thing on is "According to Jim". How did that show last so long? It is a step above Full House. Brutal.

rynthetyn: Sabyen91: Wow, the only thing on is "According to Jim". How did that show last so long? It is a step above Full House. Brutal.

Hey, at least you have TV in English you can watch, I haven't seen any English-language television that I didn't pirate in the last month.

I would rather watch Mexican TV than According to Jim. I want to burst my eardrums and dig my eyeballs out with spoons.

rynthetyn: Sabyen91: rynthetyn: Sabyen91: Wow, the only thing on is "According to Jim". How did that show last so long? It is a step above Full House. Brutal.

Hey, at least you have TV in English you can watch, I haven't seen any English-language television that I didn't pirate in the last month.

I would rather watch Mexican TV than According to Jim. I want to burst my eardrums and dig my eyeballs out with spoons.

At least I can understand what's happening on Mexican TV. I can't understand but about 5 words of Chinese, which is kind of a problem when watching TV in China--even the NBA finals were all in Chinese.

Damn, you are in China now? You live in Turkey, right?

rynthetyn: Sabyen91: rynthetyn: Sabyen91: rynthetyn: Sabyen91: Wow, the only thing on is "According to Jim". How did that show last so long? It is a step above Full House. Brutal.

Hey, at least you have TV in English you can watch, I haven't seen any English-language television that I didn't pirate in the last month.

I would rather watch Mexican TV than According to Jim. I want to burst my eardrums and dig my eyeballs out with spoons.

At least I can understand what's happening on Mexican TV. I can't understand but about 5 words of Chinese, which is kind of a problem when watching TV in China--even the NBA finals were all in Chinese.

Damn, you are in China now? You live in Turkey, right?

Yeah, I've been in Beijing for the last month taking Chinese law classes. I wish I lived in Turkey, but nope, I'm in Fark's favorite state, so at least I'm away from the political ads that are probably running 24/7 in Florida right now. I figured with plane tickets to Asia costing so much I might as well make the most of it while I'm at it so I head to Vietnam tomorrow and on to Cambodia in a few weeks.

Huh, I thought you lived in Turkey, not sure why. As a Wisconsinite I don't know about other states but I haven't seen a political ad in a couple of weeks and it is beautiful. I appreciate Ronald freaking McDonald these days. He isn't assassinating Mayor McCheese's character.

rynthetyn: I can't understand but about 5 words of Chinese

All you need is "wo yao pijiu" "xiexie" and "gan bei." Everything after that is just bonus points

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: rynthetyn: I can't understand but about 5 words of Chinese

All you need is "wo yao pijiu" "xiexie" and "gan bei." Everything after that is just bonus points

I only know "Me love you long time". Oh...that isn't Chinese?

rynthetyn: Sabyen91: rynthetyn: Sabyen91: rynthetyn: Sabyen91: rynthetyn: Sabyen91: Wow, the only thing on is "According to Jim". How did that show last so long? It is a step above Full House. Brutal.

Hey, at least you have TV in English you can watch, I haven't seen any English-language television that I didn't pirate in the last month.

I would rather watch Mexican TV than According to Jim. I want to burst my eardrums and dig my eyeballs out with spoons.

At least I can understand what's happening on Mexican TV. I can't understand but about 5 words of Chinese, which is kind of a problem when watching TV in China--even the NBA finals were all in Chinese.

Damn, you are in China now? You live in Turkey, right?

Yeah, I've been in Beijing for the last month taking Chinese law classes. I wish I lived in Turkey, but nope, I'm in Fark's favorite state, so at least I'm away from the political ads that are probably running 24/7 in Florida right now. I figured with plane tickets to Asia costing so much I might as well make the most of it while I'm at it so I head to Vietnam tomorrow and on to Cambodia in a few weeks.

Huh, I thought you lived in Turkey, not sure why. As a Wisconsinite I don't know about other states but I haven't seen a political ad in a couple of weeks and it is beautiful. I appreciate Ronald freaking McDonald these days. He isn't assassinating Mayor McCheese's character.

Hmm, I dunno. I've been to Turkey before, but it was Vietnam where I used to live. I probably have zero chance at the presidency because of the Vietnam thing--I taught at the university run by the Vietnamese ministry of foreign affairs, and I don't think being on the Vietnamese government payroll is going to go over so well with the tea party, if they're still around a few decades from now.

Heh, depends. Were you in best Vietnam?

Sabyen91: I only know "Me love you long time". Oh...that isn't Chinese?

I'm pretty sure that's Thai.

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Sabyen91: I only know "Me love you long time". Oh...that isn't Chinese?

I'm pretty sure that's Thai.

Heh, these days it would be Thai and likely full of penis. :)

Jim_Callahan: Remember that that's only been the dominant issue set with the GOP for about five or six years.

Five or six years? Are we talking Earth years?

The Why Not Guy: Jim_Callahan: Remember that that's only been the dominant issue set with the GOP for about five or six years.

Five or six years? Are we talking Earth years?

Republicans only started hating gays exactly 6 years ago and that is only because gays starting being all...visible.

rynthetyn: Yep, I was in best Vietnam. And the recommendation that got me into law school was written by the assistant dean of my department, who is apparently highly connected to the point that she can pull strings to get the Hanoi People's Committee to do whatever she needs, which means she's got to have loads of high ranking Party connections. There's no way I could ever authorize my university to release my files with that letter on record, especially if some of my former students continue their rapid rise in government.

You have a really cool life. :)

rynthetyn: "I think you have it wrong - its the Liberals who hate gays - the Religious right just do not believe they should have "SPECIAL" rights - We love gays, just not their deeds perhaps :)"

Wow. That is a whole load of lack of self-awareness.

Di Atribe: Sigh. Not sure if amusing or horribly sad. Is there a single anti-gay marriage argument that isn't just "when you meet your maker, you'll pay?"

I'll answer this honestly, because I used to be a born again Christian who was rabidly anti gay rights. I'm trying to reconnect with the feelings I had in my head at that point.

The best way I can describe it was the sense of not wanting to live in a society that condoned immoral behavior. We witnessed all around us this irresistible, constant, steady march of society over ground that we saw as a buffer against sin and vice. We did genuinely want everyone to be saved, and we saw the legislation of morality to be a kind of institutional help to that end, in that there is likely a swath of people that would get to go to heaven if only they were scared to commit acts that were not sanctioned by law.

It comes across today as "hate" to people who aren't religious conservatives, but I promise you that most of these people genuinely do feel that they are operating out of a desperate love. They see homosexuals and drunks and infidels and gamblers as people standing in the road while a truck is barreling toward them, and they see themselves as diving into the road and tackling these people out of the way.

The only reason I don't still feel this way is because I no longer believe that hell is a real place or that Jesus is the only path to salvation. If Jesus were the only path to salvation and homosexuals really, truly were going to hell, then it absolutely would be our moral obligation to try to prevent homosexual behavior at all costs, as nothing would be more important that preventing someone from going to hell, even if you had to chain them up... Even if you had to kill them! Death is nothing compared to endless scorching darkness with worms eating through your skull.

It's pretty hard to be wrong about "what the Bible says".

AirForceVet: xynix: As to #1 .. quite a few actually. I can cite various new testament verses that clarify homosexuality as wrong from a biblical perspective. However with this said a properly studious Christian knows that you can only live in sin if you're a Christian. People who are not should not be chastised or looked down upon. They can't sin because they have not accepted Christ Jesus as their savior. Unfortunately only a handful of Christians like me exist. Many Christians think that people who are not saved can sin when in fact they cannot. Many Christians feel that they themselves are saved when in fact they are probably not.

#2 is where most Christians fail in argument. The bible clearly tells us that we must follow our government and respect that institution. If the government has dictated a separation of church and state then it's clear to me that a state/federal marriage has nothing to do with me. A church marriage however does and it's a catch 22. You're living in sin as a homosexual therefor you can't be married. You can't -not- live in sin because being homosexual is considered an abomination in God's eyes. You can't get married in a Christian church unless you're Christian and work hard to give up a life of sin. In other words yes.. we all sin but by working through Christ we work to create as sin-free of a life as we can. Living in a homosexual lifestyle does not allow for this. Unfortunately I doubt we're going to get any code revisions in the bible to adjust for current social aspects.

#3 agreed

#4 agreed

According to my church's understanding of the Bible, homosexuality is not a sin. Likewise, my church does not believe the Bible is the literal Word of God but the best men (and I mean only men) could come up with as the Bible.

If it were the literal Word of God, no one would eat shellfish, having sex with one's daughters is AOK, slavery is cool, having multiple wives as property is better than sliced bread, she bears would rush out of the woods on command to kill scores of children. etc.

I'll just stick with the best parts of Christianity, i.e. love thy neighbor and God. Simple, easy, uncomplicated. I'll chat with Jesus and recommend an early Second Coming to knock off a Bible rewrite when I see Him on the other side. Too many "Christians" are living for the Rapture to happen instead of living as Jesus wanted us to. Revelations is the most misunderstood book and left too many salivating for the End of the World disaster movie.

/Oh, congratulations to the happy couple.

And favourited. Nicely said

They live together in Virginia Vagina.

Tee-hee. I'm so mature and things.

It's kinda funny how the comments in TFA spiral into slippery slope arguments about multiple spouses.

Lot of good biblical dudes had multiple wives. So actually... God would be totally okay with that, if we're doing Old Testament sins.

Tommy Moo: Di Atribe: Sigh. Not sure if amusing or horribly sad. Is there a single anti-gay marriage argument that isn't just "when you meet your maker, you'll pay?"

I'll answer this honestly, because I used to be a born again Christian who was rabidly anti gay rights. I'm trying to reconnect with the feelings I had in my head at that point.

The best way I can describe it was the sense of not wanting to live in a society that condoned immoral behavior. We witnessed all around us this irresistible, constant, steady march of society over ground that we saw as a buffer against sin and vice. We did genuinely want everyone to be saved, and we saw the legislation of morality to be a kind of institutional help to that end, in that there is likely a swath of people that would get to go to heaven if only they were scared to commit acts that were not sanctioned by law.

It comes across today as "hate" to people who aren't religious conservatives, but I promise you that most of these people genuinely do feel that they are operating out of a desperate love. They see homosexuals and drunks and infidels and gamblers as people standing in the road while a truck is barreling toward them, and they see themselves as diving into the road and tackling these people out of the way.

The only reason I don't still feel this way is because I no longer believe that hell is a real place or that Jesus is the only path to salvation. If Jesus were the only path to salvation and homosexuals really, truly were going to hell, then it absolutely would be our moral obligation to try to prevent homosexual behavior at all costs, as nothing would be more important that preventing someone from going to hell, even if you had to chain them up... Even if you had to kill them! Death is nothing compared to endless scorching darkness with worms eating through your skull.

Did you used to beat up all drunks as they left the bar, or only at the gay bar?
Well maybe not *you*, but the crowd you formerly called your own. Why aren't your former homeboys trying to outlaw casinos?

xynix: King James though the verse has not changed in 2000 years except for a few altercations not relevant to the content.

The King James Bible was created in 1611 and like all Bibles is based on copies of copies of copies of copies of manuscripts in which the verse and text HAS changed due to errors in the translation or the personal bias of the translator.

nobodyUwannaknow: Tommy Moo: Di Atribe: Sigh. Not sure if amusing or horribly sad. Is there a single anti-gay marriage argument that isn't just "when you meet your maker, you'll pay?"

I'll answer this honestly, because I used to be a born again Christian who was rabidly anti gay rights. I'm trying to reconnect with the feelings I had in my head at that point.

The best way I can describe it was the sense of not wanting to live in a society that condoned immoral behavior. We witnessed all around us this irresistible, constant, steady march of society over ground that we saw as a buffer against sin and vice. We did genuinely want everyone to be saved, and we saw the legislation of morality to be a kind of institutional help to that end, in that there is likely a swath of people that would get to go to heaven if only they were scared to commit acts that were not sanctioned by law.

It comes across today as "hate" to people who aren't religious conservatives, but I promise you that most of these people genuinely do feel that they are operating out of a desperate love. They see homosexuals and drunks and infidels and gamblers as people standing in the road while a truck is barreling toward them, and they see themselves as diving into the road and tackling these people out of the way.

The only reason I don't still feel this way is because I no longer believe that hell is a real place or that Jesus is the only path to salvation. If Jesus were the only path to salvation and homosexuals really, truly were going to hell, then it absolutely would be our moral obligation to try to prevent homosexual behavior at all costs, as nothing would be more important that preventing someone from going to hell, even if you had to chain them up... Even if you had to kill them! Death is nothing compared to endless scorching darkness with worms eating through your skull.

Did you used to beat up all drunks as they left the bar, or only at the gay bar?
Well maybe not *you*, but the crowd you formerly called your own. Why aren't your former homeboys trying to outlaw casinos?

Maybe i am just reading your response as overly antagonistic, so if i am, i apologize.

You have here a guy who is trying to explain the mentality he used to have, and seems repentant about that mentality.

No need to be accusatory

xynix: spongeboob: xynix: In Corinthians: "Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality

What version of the Bible are you quoting from?

King James

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA any and all of your arguments about biblical meanings are therefore invalid. Good day.

Jim_Callahan: Sabyen91: It is cute how conservatives change their views when reality happens to them.

Except that Cheney, again, was never really big on the social conservatism angle. Remember that that's only been the dominant issue set with the GOP for about five or six years. Cheney is a career guy from the early 90s when the religious nuts were a fairly small fringe group within the GOP.

He didn't go from being anti-gay to pro-gay, he went from being apathetic and vaguely puzzled that gay rights were even a question to pro-gay. If you're curious, this is probably why you're seeing so much puzzlement over this being a story among the people in the thread older than 21 or so who remember the 1990s GOP platform. Cheney hasn't once in his entire life thought that Gay civil rights issues were particularly worth opposing.

Nor did he ever while in power consider supporting them.

Those rising thought Hitler's ranks are no less detestable, perhaps even more so, for not being true believers.

In 2004, Mary's father's boss (who she campaigned vigorously for) won the election in part because he swore to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. In 2008, Mary campaigned again for a party vehemently against gay marriage. If her party had won the election in 2008, gay marriage would not be legal in DC.

If you fought tooth and nail to elect the people who sneer at your union, you damn sure don't deserve to reap the benefits, Mary.

nobodyUwannaknow: Did you used to beat up all drunks as they left the bar, or only at the gay bar?
Well maybe not *you*, but the crowd you formerly called your own. Why aren't your former homeboys trying to outlaw casinos?


The short answer to that is that we would pick whatever battles were current and most likely to return an impact. If someone wanted to change the laws in our state to allow casinos off of Indian reservations, we probably would have fought that too.

The long answer has something to do with that we all hold sexuality in a particularly sensitive spot in our psychologies (not because of Christian dogma, but because of evolution). So the tendency was for us to have particularly emotional responses to any form of sin in society that was related to sexuality. It actually would make a really interesting academic psychology paper for someone to show how different pieces of religious canon are emphasized or ignored in ways that are consistent with how we'd expect an evolved species to behave.

No, believe it or not, this does not just deal with homosexuality. I know it doesn't get as much attention outside of the church, and so it is often cited as a source of hypocrisy, but the truth is that we really did get just as up in arms about adultery. People were horrified in my church about any form of sex other than between a married man and wife.

friday13: HighOnCraic: friday13: Y'see, back in the EARLYEARLY church, it was more a jewish splinter group. Then Paul comes along, and, because he can't seem to convert more of his fellow jews, he attempts to convert the gentiles. Of course, the gentiles don't want to have to adhere to all the strange weirdness in the OT, so Paul makes the excuse that "Oh, no, you don't have to: Jesus death [even though he didn't REALLY die, so how was it a sacrifice?] "fulfils" the law, so it no longer applies. Those that still follow those silly rules aren't really following Jesus."
Now, can you see what's wrong with what Paul did there?

Actually, Paul was specifically given a mission to convert Gentiles.

And the Council of Jerusalem decided that Gentile converts to Christianity were not obligated to keep most of the Mosaic law, including the rules concerning circumcision of males.

I think it started with a vision Peter had received involving "unclean animals."

Which only means I can't ONLY blame it on Paul. The rest of my point still stands.

Well, you're wrong about Paul seeking to convert Gentiles just because he had trouble converting his fellow Jews; he was given specific instructions to preach to Gentiles.

I guess you could blame God for giving Peter a vision that led him to believe that changing dietary laws was acceptable. Paul offered a pretty good argument in one of the epistles, in which he refers to Abraham's "circumcision of the heart." James should get some credit as well.

At the Council, following advice said to have been offered by Simon Peter (Acts 15:7-11), James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, gave his decision (later known as the "Apostolic Decree"):

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.[2] For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day" (Acts 15:19-21).

Link

LaViergeNoire: I just want to point out that xynix's misspelling of "alterations" as "altercations" is exactly the kind of thing that has changed biblical language throughout the centuries.

Wow. That's a stark example right there. Thanks for pointing that out.

/Likes language, but too lazy busy doing other things to actually study it.

*lazy busy

rynthetyn: gingerjet: xynix: King James though the verse has not changed in 2000 years except for a few altercations not relevant to the content.

The King James Bible was created in 1611 and like all Bibles is based on copies of copies of copies of copies of manuscripts in which the verse and text HAS changed due to errors in the translation or the personal bias of the translator.

And wasn't King James probably a massive homo? Nothing like sneaking something into the translation to condemn a king that you're not very fond of anyway.

Actually, King James COMMISSIONED the translation, and, according to some stories I've heard, actually worked on some of it himslf.

Oh, interesting story about the New King James. When my brother was an undergrad he took New Testament Greek from a guy who was on the NKJV translation committee. Not only did my brother (who started teaching himself ancient Greek when he was 13) get the impression that he'd actually done more reading in ancient Greek texts than the professor, there were several times where the professor marked my brother wrong on tests only to have my brother prove to him that his interpretation of the Greek was right and the professor's was wrong. I think the only thing my brother learned from the class was some formal grammar, and the guy left my brother, who was an undergrad taking his first formal class in ancient Greek, mind you, to teach the class on more than one occasion. Oh, and the cherry on top is that the guy told the class that when they were working on the NKJV translation they deliberately left in translations that they knew the KJV translators got wrong because keeping a similar feel to the KJV was more important than accuracy.

/Won't even go into how the English Standard Version translators deliberately translated to reinforce their views on male headship
//Modern Bible translation is ridiculously political and ideologically driven, KJV probably was too

Yes, KJV was VERY ideologically driven

HighOnCraic: At the Council, following advice said to have been offered by Simon Peter (Acts 15:7-11), James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, gave his decision (later known as the "Apostolic Decree"):

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.[2] For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day" (Acts 15:19-21).

Why does that look like telling them to follow the old laws to me?

friday13: HighOnCraic: At the Council, following advice said to have been offered by Simon Peter (Acts 15:7-11), James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, gave his decision (later known as the "Apostolic Decree"):

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.[2] For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day" (Acts 15:19-21).

Why does that look like telling them to follow the old laws to me?

In answer to my own question: Those last two specifically are kashrut (kosher) laws. Laws that, other than maybe the "Jews for Jesus" and Seventh Day Adventists, no christian today follows. Hmmm, I, who can't even smell coffee being brewed, smell the pungent stench of hypocracy.

*hypocrisy

rynthetyn: Oh, interesting story about the New King James. When my brother was an undergrad he took New Testament Greek from a guy who was on the NKJV translation committee. Not only did my brother (who started teaching himself ancient Greek when he was 13) get the impression that he'd actually done more reading in ancient Greek texts than the professor, there were several times where the professor marked my brother wrong on tests only to have my brother prove to him that his interpretation of the Greek was right and the professor's was wrong. I think the only thing my brother learned from the class was some formal grammar, and the guy left my brother, who was an undergrad taking his first formal class in ancient Greek, mind you, to teach the class on more than one occasion. Oh, and the cherry on top is that the guy told the class that when they were working on the NKJV translation they deliberately left in translations that they knew the KJV translators got wrong because keeping a similar feel to the KJV was more important than accuracy.

follow-up csb:

My religious aunt, who isn't bilingual, gets me involved in religious discussions from time to time. She insists its impossible to mis-translate something unless you do it on purpose. That there is a word for everything in one language that there is in another, and that connotations don't change over time. I point out the word "gay" to her and ask her if we should read something from the 18th century as "homosexual" instead of "happy" and she changes the subject. Yet, she's still blind enough to bring up the point in later conversations. Its kinda sad.

rynthetyn: Give it a couple of decades and they'll have decided that gay is fine and will have found a new topic to think is proof of the end of everything.

By then turtle-dog-human trio marriages should be in play I imagine.

Calmamity: You know, I try and be agnostic, but the shiat I see Christians pull over and over makes it pretty hard to even believe in the possibility of a God.

I can accept the existence of a supreme being, but I have little faith in a Personal one.

Sabyen91: Bearwhale: So THAT'S why divorce is illega- oh wait.

33 "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.' 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g]"

This makes me laugh every time I see a Christian testifying or swearing to hold office holding a bible.

To be fair he wasn't using it to bash homos. He apparently thinks it is a sin but he is pro-gay marriage.

That was more of a "Christians being against gay marriage is laughable" post... it wasn't targeted toward any specific person.

If Jesus said this in Matthew 5, why don't the Christians in the article's comment section and this comment section want these to be laws as well (or object as strongly to them)?

It really annoys me that something like this is considered fodder for the Politics tab in the US.

So, I'll just say "Congrats to the happy couple," and move on.

Relatively Obscure: Relatively Obscure: Ah. Apparently xynix's quote was from the Amplified Bible.

Also, I assume it goes to 11.

20% more damnation.

Linux_Yes: i bet ole' dick is so proud!

Linux_Yes: i bet ole' dick is so proud!

I bet he is, I have never heard Dick Cheney discuss this social issue in a negative light. Look you may not agree with what he has done or what he believes in I certainly do not all the time, but he has from my knowledge never said anything about his daughter to the press that was negative. I think it is hard for some people who don't agree with his policies to see him as a person with children. That would show a human side to him and that goes against everything they have been told in the liberal press.

Di Atribe: Republicans hate gay marriage
Dick Cheney is a Republican
Therefore, Dick Cheney hates gay marriage

Wow, how delightfully facile. All Republicans are feel exactly the same on every issue, everyone knows that. It's not like they're human beings or anything.

You and the guy complaining about the non-existent "liberal press" have a lot in common.

friday13: friday13: HighOnCraic: At the Council, following advice said to have been offered by Simon Peter (Acts 15:7-11), James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, gave his decision (later known as the "Apostolic Decree"):

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.[2] For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day" (Acts 15:19-21).

Why does that look like telling them to follow the old laws to me?

In answer to my own question: Those last two specifically are kashrut (kosher) laws. Laws that, other than maybe the "Jews for Jesus" and Seventh Day Adventists, no christian today follows. Hmmm, I, who can't even smell coffee being brewed, smell the pungent stench of hypocracy.


It looks more like telling them to follow some but not all of the old laws to me.

I'd say the dietary (for the most part) and circumcision were meant to be ways for the followers of Yawweh to keep themselves separate and distinct from other faiths; if you couldn't eat with people of other faiths, if lessened opportunities to mingle together (at least that's my vague recollection from my OT class. Circumcision was a sign of the contract between Yahweh and Abraham. [from wiki: "The initiation rite was that in order to be part of this "great nation", whether by bloodline or inducted, every male must be circumcised otherwise it was a breach of contract.]

Initially, the apostles were (for the most part) sent out to preach specifically to the Israelites (see "The Little Commission" in Matthew 10), but later after Jesus' resurrection, they were sent to spread his teachings to all the nations of the world. You're correct about Gentile converts having to follow some of the old laws, but the most significant issue was circumcision (that was the part referred to in bold above). Sure, you could view it as hypocrisy, or you could view circumcision as part of the Old Covenant with Israel and things like communion as part of the New Covenant with all nations.

As far as the actual topic of the thread goes, I'm part of a church that has a gay reverend, so I'm getting a kick.....

lesbians? getting married?
the must be commulibtards.

Di Atribe: eddiesocket: Di Atribe: Republicans hate gay marriage
Dick Cheney is a Republican
Therefore, Dick Cheney hates gay marriage

Wow, how delightfully facile. All Republicans are feel exactly the same on every issue, everyone knows that. It's not like they're human beings or anything.

You and the guy complaining about the non-existent "liberal press" have a lot in common.

No. I didn't say that's what I believed. I said that it was an easy connection to make. So your assumptions about me are pretty lame. Reading comprehension... it's for winners.

It's an "easy connection to make" but one you don't believe? So why did you say it?

Trolls are farking idiots.
Di Atribe is a farking troll.
Therefore, Di Atribe is a farking idiot.

Easy connection to make.