OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

[Thrandir]

OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I'm sorry, quickly, one last time.

"I know that there are some people of the other persuasion here in the SPF, so I'm trying to be respectful of their viewpoint as well. Hopefully I'm not stepping on anyone's toes."

"In my opinion, it's just another stepping stone to the further demoralization of society as we know it."

It took about 3 hours for "respectful" to fly out the window. But be that as it may, Thyiad is ofcourse entirely correct. What is acceptable and what is not is not set in stone. It evolves along with the society. In the Dark Ages, it was customary for people to be stoned. Is it still? No. It has changed. People, as Thyiad observed, used to be sold as slaves, and in many parts of the world, still are. We have laws against that now.

I just cannot fathom how people can be so obtuse regarding the process the world has gone through to give them their rights, their rights to freedom of speech, religion, etc.
Just so that they can deny people who are just as human as them things you feel you are entitled to, but they are not.

I'll stop now.

No need to stop!

I think I understand jrlafrance's arguements - mainly because I share his opinion - and feel like trying to clarify the situation.

[highlight][Rules, very quickly: civil discussion is allowed. Non-civil posts are not allowed. Thyiad said so in the American President thread! :tongue:][/highlight]

So, without further adieu...

The points you and and Thyiad raised, Andronicus, are entirely valid. "Social acceptability" does indeed change, and this is a very good thing. Perhaps part of our role in life should be to try as much as possible to veer social acceptability in the correct direction. I'm very tempted to go on a tangent here, but nah, social acceptability isn't the point of this particular thread.

The point is meaning. What does marriage mean? I'm going to avoid the word "definition", because it's too literal; too black-and-white. Anyone can crack open a different dictionary and find a different definition of marriage. The "definition" of marriage might change tomorrow in some country where some law is passed.

But, for the past few millenia, the meaning of marriage has generally been the same:
A sexual relationship between a man and a woman, generally intended to last for life, generally intended to raise a family. And generally, it has held high regard in the eyes of society.
(I say generally because I haven't done any research on this subject, and have no idea what kind of exceptions, or how many, there are to this 'meaning')

In European and North American society, this 'meaning' often also carries Christian - or other religious - implications. Part of this is explicitly religious - such as when two practising Christians get enter into a marriage, for example - but part of it is just welded into the culture. (What are the two most popular places to get married? Outside, and in churches)

This is where things get hazy to me.
Is marriage/should marriage be a religious term?
Should faiths that have a problem with homosexuality simply abandon the term 'marriage', and come up with a new word that exclude homosexual relationships?
What about the meaning that marriage has carried for thousands of years? Why change that? Shouldn't a new term be made for a new concept?
Why is the word so important, that both 'sides' desire to keep it?

I think the reason it's so important is because of the high place it's had, even in secular society.
Neither the secular or religious 'sides' want to let go of that respect people have for the concept of marriage, the concept behind the word. But that concept is abstract. It carries no legal implications.

So, it's not an issue or 'rights' - I am in favor of homosexual people having the same rights as everyone else - but an issue of meaning.

Ok, on a side note:
About the whole "respect" thing. What does it mean to respect someone's opinion? Hard to say. It certainly means "be civil while you talk about it". But it certainly doesn't mean you have to agree with it. So, if someone disagrees with you about something that you think is moralizing (ie. they think it's demoralizing), it's hardly disrespectful to state so. Their tone might be respectful or not (I try to err on the side of caution, personally ), but someone thinking that something is demoralizing is completely unavoidable.

 

[Zefru]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I think it's pretty clear, things change as things become socially acceptable... and in this case the people have spoken, they have voted and they continue to do so and continue to verify that in their society they do not find it socially acceptable. A society is made up by the people in that society and they as a whole should decide what is acceptable and the most basic way to do so is with majority rule. Therefore the people have spoken and they do not find it socially acceptable at this time.

 

[TheNix]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I was married more that twenty years ago in the backyard of my mother-in-law's house, by a civil celebrant. Religion played absolutely no part in it at all, so you can see how high a priority I place in it. To me, the marriage was nothing more than a formalization of the commitment we made it each other. It is the commitment, not the piece of paper or the ceremony, that is important. I cannot understand that when a couple make that commitment, be they homo or heterosexual, they feel they require the ceremony to legitimise it. That being said, I cannot understand why anyone would object to the symbolic joining of two people in love. Frankly, this whole argument baffles me.

 

[Liquid_Evil]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I missed out on the thread this came from, but I'll throw out some opinions of my own. People themselves can be deserving of respect (though it should be earned), but beliefs and opinions are definitely not innately deserving in my book.

Is marriage/should marriage be a religious term?

Is it? Perhaps to some. Should it be? Absolutely not.

Should faiths that have a problem with homosexuality simply abandon the term 'marriage', and come up with a new word that exclude homosexual relationships?

Any faith that preaches love and compassion shouldn't exclude any of "God's children" for any reason, least of all for sexual orientation. Plus, change is scary, especially for the church, so I doubt very much that a new word for "heterosexual married couples" will ever be coined.

Why change that? Shouldn't a new term be made for a new concept?

Loving your partner and being faithful in a monogomous union is hardly a new concept. Why should it be any different for those that are of the same sex?

Why is the word so important, that both 'sides' desire to keep it?

Because no one (including homosexuals) wants to be treated differently than the rest of the populus. Another word specifically for them just highlights their differences from mainstream instead of looking past them.

If marriage is indeed based on religion like some claim, why can heterosexual atheists/agnostics/etc marry without trouble? Because somehow them being heterosexual makes them more moral than their religious homosexual counterparts? I just don't buy that.

 

[cogline]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I refuse to get married. (My GF isn't particularly tickled about that!) I consider it a religious affair, not required by law. I am extremely non-religious.
By law, my GF and I are defacto, and defacto has the same obligations and rights as married.

If you are married by a civil celebrant, I consider that to be a mockery of the religious practice, although I mean no offense to TheNix or any other person who has done it (including close friends of mine).
The idea is that you feel the need to formalise your commitment. There are other ways to formalise your commitment, by being faithful firstly, but perhaps financially by jointly purchasing a house or other family orientated items. There are probably many other ways but these are definitely the easiest things to consider here. (Raising children together would also apply.)
Purchasing a house is a life-long commitment in our backward society*. Thus, purchasing a house with your significant other, be it male or female, is also a life-long commitment.

Please don't argue that you can break this commitment, by selling your house. You can also get divorced to break your marital commitment.

The *ritual* (and that is what marriage is) is a religious affair, designed and practiced for religious experience, and religious recognition. Thus, my belief that trying to take the religion out of the experience is a shallow mockery.

I hope that made sense, without stepping too harshly on people's beliefs. I realise that I am unique in my opinion here. (Thus, socially, incorrect!)

But what do I think about male-male or female-female marital relations? If they want it, I say go for it. The church may or may not recognise it, but I have no problem with it. Each to their own, as long as it harms nobody else. That's my stance.

* A little OT here, on an OT thread! We commit life-long to our partner and then spend the rest of our committed life to that partner purchasing a home. Imagine a few hundred years ago, where building your own home was what you did early in your marriage, and you spend your life actually *living* with your partner....

 

[Thrandir]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

@ LE:
Well put, about the respecting people vs. opinions. I agree, for the most part.

Any faith that preaches love and compassion shouldn't exclude any of "God's children" for any reason, least of all for sexual orientation.

Hmm, getting into this would be long and tedious, because the short answer is never satisfactory. I'd only want to get into this if you're actually interested in hearing it. If you are, I'll try to lay out my understanding for you.

Plus, change is scary, especially for the church, so I doubt very much that a new word for "heterosexual married couples" will ever be coined.

xD
Agreed there, except it just might end up becoming necessary.

Loving your partner and being faithful in a monogomous union is hardly a new concept. Why should it be any different for those that are of the same sex?

The meaning of marriage is what I'm talking about. I'm not disputing the existence of faithful, monogamous homosexual relationships in any epoch.

If marriage is indeed based on religion like some claim, why can heterosexual atheists/agnostics/etc marry without trouble? Because somehow them being heterosexual makes them more moral than their religious homosexual counterparts? I just don't buy that.

No, it's because they're not changing the meaning of marriage in any obvious way.

@cogline:
Thanks for your input. Personally, I agree that marriage should remain religious.

 

[Caly]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I just find it a bit odd that allowing a loving and committed same-sex couple of 20 years with an adopted child to marry is somehow a mockery of the "sacred tradition of marriage," but meanwhile I can fly to Vegas tomorrow, get absolutely hammered, meet some random guy on the street, and have Elvis marry us without anyone blinking an eye, let alone proposing constitutional amendments to prevent Elvis impersonators from marrying drunken strangers.

We straight people have been making a mockery of the institution of marriage pretty well on our own, I'd say. :crazyeyes:

 

[sirpoopsalot]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

For those that may not be aware, marriage has traditionally been conducted for a variety of reasons.

Particularly, I believe it was first instituted to help provide a legal precedent for economic rights... i.e. when average life expectancy was ~35 years old, it was obviously common for people to die young. What happened 3500 years ago, if some guy in a male-dominated society died with a living 'wife' and 3 young kids? I think in cases where certain people (women, slaves, serfs, etc.) had restricted rights of "owning" property, marriage was a common-sense solution to avoiding impoverishing an entire family upon one single persons death.

Over time, the reasons for marriage have multiplied, and are more numerous than I can think to enumerate. Religion may be one of the most common reasons in many societies, but it still remains one of many. And I'm certain religion wasn't the original reason (thereby, religions should not have any 'special right' to define what the term 'marriage' constitutes).

And along those lines, I think it's silly for a government to prohibit any consenting adults from marrying each other. Perhaps your religious beliefs are against homosexual marriages, and I can live with that... your church should be able to choose for itself if it will or will not condone/conduct homosexual marriages. But in a country with (alleged) freedom of religion, I don't think allowing religious beliefs to influence government policy is ethical (or constitutional).

 

[Liquid_Evil]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Hmm, getting into this would be long and tedious, because the short answer is never satisfactory. I'd only want to get into this if you're actually interested in hearing it. If you are, I'll try to lay out my understanding for you.

By all means, post it and I'll read it with an open mind.

The meaning of marriage is what I'm talking about. I'm not disputing the existence of faithful, monogamous homosexual relationships in any epoch.

What then, is the meaning of marriage to you? I didn't see a clear definition outlined in your first post. To me, it simply symbolizes a lifelong commitment that is recognized by the government (in terms of tax breaks, visiting rights in hospitals, etc) as well as society (simply because the terms "wife" and "husband" are just so much more culturally significant than "girlfriend" and "boyfriend.")

So based on personal preference, you could infuse religion into a marriage ceremony or neglect it completely; it wouldn't make a difference in how I view it. It's just a hoop you have to jump through to "legitamize" your pledge to one another in the eyes of the government and society. If two people are in love and committed to each other, I don't see any problem with allowing them the same rights that are handed out so freely to hetero couples.

 

[Cygnus]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Personally, I'm for same sex couples calling their unions a "marriage" but that's only partly the issue. The US constitution is clear on the separation between church and state.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Am1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Emphasis mine. The point is that if marriage is considered a religious issue, government has no business regulating it. Leave aside the legality of marriage between homosexual couples ... marriage crops up in the freaking income tax code. One set of rules for married couples, another for singles and unmarried couples. And religious institutions are considered charities, so donations to them are tax-deductible.

I don't consider the constitution sacred (full disclosure: I'm not American. I just live here) and I'm not opposed to changing it. But if you want the government meddling with religion, go ahead and amend the constitution. Until then, all these laws deserve to be struck down by the Supreme Court (unfortunately, all too often they don't do that)

 

[jrlafrance]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Emphasis mine. The point is that if marriage is considered a religious issue, government has no business regulating it. Leave aside the legality of marriage between homosexual couples ... marriage crops up in the freaking income tax code. One set of rules for married couples, another for singles and unmarried couples. And religious institutions are considered charities, so donations to them are tax-deductible.

That is one of the beauties of a democratic government. Your statement is completely correct. And for the most part, the government hasn't regulated it. In California's most recent election, Proposition 8 was voted on by people, not the government. The people spoke, and NOW the government must carry out the decision by the people.

I don't consider the constitution sacred (full disclosure: I'm not American. I just live here) and I'm not opposed to changing it. But if you want the government meddling with religion, go ahead and amend the constitution. Until then, all these laws deserve to be struck down by the Supreme Court (unfortunately, all too often they don't do that)

That is exactly what Prop. 8 did, changed the wording of the California Constitution. 14 words is all it is: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Any faith that preaches love and compassion shouldn't exclude any of "God's children" for any reason, least of all for sexual orientation.

Ahah! A long argued point. Let me try to clear this up LE (BTW, I really enjoy reading your posts, and the thought that comes very clearly through them). I can't speak for all churches, but none that I've attended exclude and of God's children (I didn't put it in quotes on purpose) from attending. The thing that the church does not do is support their actions or lifestyles. A couple of passages to firm this up:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

"But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted." (1 Tim. 1:8-11)

Basically saying that homosexuality (along with other sins) is wrong.

Thanks to Thrandir for starting this thread!

 

[Kanonfutter]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I am religious and married myself, but marriage is both a religious and legal function. Any church may mean whatever it wants to about homosexuals, marrying them or not.

However, the legal matters are a completely different thing. Now we are talking tax deductions, pensions, insurance and a host of other things. In fact, one of the reasons I got married at the time I got married was that we where about to have a child, and insurance and inheritance rights would be a downright nightmare if we were not married.

So legal marriage between people of the same sex - opposed to religious marriage - is a definite must to me, judging from an equal rights standpoint. The primary function of society is to make sure that people are safe and happy, and opposing same-sex marriage is demitrial to the happiness of a large group of people, the homosexuals.

@the Las Vegas wedding: I am perfectly confident that such an action is not permissible on a closer reading of the Bible. Two wrongs does not make a right.

 

[stephan]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

That is one of the beauties of a democratic government. Your statement is completely correct. And for the most part, the government hasn't regulated it. In California's most recent election, Proposition 8 was voted on by people, not the government. The people spoke, and NOW the government must carry out the decision by the people.

This is not the beauty of democracy. That a majority of people can dictate how a minority should behave in their *private life* is absolutely horrific. The day this proposal gets accepted is the day democracy died in your state.

You are using the constitution to prevent you from feeling uncomfortable, because you read something in book somewhere that does not by any means have any legal authority in your state. The constitution is/was/should never be intended for that.

 

[EmperorMoo]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

"But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted." (1 Tim. 1:8-11)

Basically saying that homosexuality (along with other sins) is wrong.

Thanks to Thrandir for starting this thread!

Other sins therefore include:

Drinking beer etc:
Leviticus 10 v8Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations


Not muzzling oxen ( a common 21st Century problem):

Deuteronomy 25 V 4: 4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

Even the choice of character class in Diablo is restricted:

From Deuteronomy Ch 18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

That's one character class out, then.


Although this is a very facetious take, the point I wish to make is a serious one:

The rules of the bible are an all or nothing deal, surely. As the whole bible is considered the word of God, do you have to obey it all or are there some points that God "didn't really mean"?

In other words, surely you can't just choose which bits you want to believe, as if God "didn't really mean it" how can you (or anyone) really know which bits he didn't mean?

Therefore, if saying that homosexuality is a "sin", so is drinking beer and not having appropriately muzzled oxen.

 

[Trim]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I can't speak for all churches, but none that I've attended exclude and of God's children (I didn't put it in quotes on purpose) from attending. The thing that the church does not do is support their actions or lifestyles.
*clip*
Basically saying that homosexuality (along with other sins) is wrong.

TOTALLY IMO: Having been raised Catholic, I've learned that no one is without sin. So if we're all sinners, we're all the same. I feel that if, say, a murderer is allowed to marry a thief, a homosexual shouldn't be denied that same ceremony.

Then again, this comes from an institution that says birth control is evil. I know I'm a jaded individual, but it seems kind of silly and behind the times. And if you inspect it a little more closely, besides abstainence, homosexuality is the ultimate form of birth control. Therefore, it's wrong. Meh. I'm tired and making random abstract observations.

 

[Timjl]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Mutter mutter mutter. I tried to stay away from this - I'm here for the gaming, not the theology.

"The Bible is the Word of God".

Yes? How, exactly? Did God dictate to the writers what to write? Did the Divine write down the stuff personally? No? Then what IS meant by "the Bible is Divinely inspired"?

The idea that the Bible is the exact literal word of God is a very modern idea, started in the 1850s as a reaction against liberal Protestantism in the USA, with the publication of a series of tracts called "The Funadamentals" (of the Christian Faith), and is an idea that is distinctively American and Evangelical. Catholics don't believe it. Nor do Orthodox Christians, nor do Armenian Protestants. In fact, the vast majority of Christians do not believe it.

Furthermore, people are very choosy about eactly which parts of the Bible are "literally true" and which parts are not. In Theology, this is called "manufacturing meaning", and everyone does it. We read texts and we understand one thing by those texts (we manufacture our own meaning) and the meaning of the original author may be - and quite often is - very different. In the case of the Ancient world, we have only a very dim understanding of the context and world view in which those authors wrote, and it is very difficult - if not impossible - to glean what they originally may have meant.

Many people give the Bible the properties of a "magic book". They imbue it with God - like properties - it is infallible, it is all - knowing, it is everlasting - properties which, to a Christian, properly belong to the Divine, and not to any book. We are not Muslims (and I mean no disrespect to Muslims here at all) who believe that the Holy Q'ran is an exact copy (in Arabic, that is) of the Holy Book in Heaven.

On top of this, believing that the Bible is literally true falls foul of several parts of Scripture itself. There are places in the Gospels where Christ is very obviously NOT treating the holy books as literally true; and this is mirrored in other parts of both the New Testament and the Old Testament. It also approaches very closely to what Paul, in Romans chapters 5 - 9, terms "The Law", where he shows in a sophisticated theological discourse (which is best understood in terms of the ancient art of rhetoric and oratory) how as Christians we are no longer subject to the law, but live in the Spirit. It is not "all or nothing". The Bible is the story of how people have experienced the Divine in the past. We believe that it authentically reflects experiences of the Divine in many different times and contexts. None of these contexts exist today. But the story itself is real and true - but not in the way that maths or science is "true".

The problem is that we, as humans, like to have things neatly and clearly laid out. "This is wrong" and "This is right" - a neat little package of rules to live by, easy to follow and guaranteed to get us in to heaven. When we read the Gospels, however, we are challenged more deeply than this. We are challenged to live our lives in a completely different way.

Which, to my mind, is as it should be. The Divine is SUPPOSED to be beyond us. An experience of the Divine is SUPPOSED to be scary and dangerous and out of this world. I don't want a God I can understand, with rules that are (relatively) easy to follow.

So what I am saying is yes - I agree - "if homosexuality is a sin, then so is drinking beer and not muzzling your oxen". But the idea that the Bible - or new Testament - "lays down the law" is based on a minority understanding of what the Bible is; an understanding that is by no means common in global Christianity.

The question of homosexuality is very difficult. The widest used condemnation is the one from Paul, early in Romans. The problem with using this scripture (and with others in the Old Testament) is that it found in the context of condemning all sexual immorality. What this means, if applied in the same way as it is applied to homnosexuals, is that NO ONE who has been sexually promiscuos at all - including homosexuals - is going anywhere near heaven. Jimmy Swaggert, are you listening?

And this is what gets my goat: We'll condemn homosexuals for their behaviour, and apply strictly "Biblical Principles", without applying those exact same principles and rules to people who are explicitly included in the same text. So, for example, anyone who has ever slept with a woman not his wife is also not going to heaven, and should also be refused marriage. The Old Testament is even worse. There are, IIRC, 613 commandments which have to be followed .... many Christians will say that "we are no longer under the law" (In other words, it doesn't apply to "me"), and immidiately apply those very same rules to "other people".

Western Christianity has been based, for more than a thousand years, on theologies of salvation and redemption and everlasting damnation. What this has led to is a form of Christianity that excludes people based on doctrine and lifestyle, rather than on an internal experience of the Divine and the consequent metanoia that this experience inevitably brings.

My belief - and I can give quite extensive scriptural backing for this - is that we will not be "judged" (how I hate that word) on what we do, nor on what we believe, but on who we are as people. The question we will be asked, I believe, will be (in computer or forum speak ) "Were you a troll or not?". And we won't be able to lie about it ...

Sorry for going off a bit. My apologies in advance if I have offended anyone.

<edit>

I am, of course, aware that many Christians - particularly Evangelicals - would disagree with much of what I have said. That doesn't bother me. But I would like readers to be aware that there are many Christian points of view on these matters ...

 

[Andronicus]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

Mutter mutter mutter. I tried to stay away from this - I'm here for the gaming, not the theology.

"The Bible is the Word of God".

Yes? How, exactly? Did God dictate to the writers what to write? Did the Divine write down the stuff personally? No? Then what IS meant by "the Bible is Divinely inspired"?

The idea that the Bible is the exact literal word of God is a very modern idea, started in the 1850s as a reaction against liberal Protestantism in the USA, with the publication of a series of tracts called "The Funadamentals" (of the Christian Faith), and is an idea that is distinctively American and Evangelical. Catholics don't believe it. Nor do Orthodox Christians, nor do Armenian Protestants. In fact, the vast majority of Christians do not believe it.

Furthermore, people are very choosy about eactly which parts of the Bible are "literally true" and which parts are not. In Theology, this is called "manufacturing meaning", and everyone does it. We read texts and we understand one thing by those texts (we manufacture our own meaning) and the meaning of the original author may be - and quite often is - very different. In the case of the Ancient world, we have only a very dim understanding of the context and world view in which those authors wrote, and it is very difficult - if not impossible - to glean what they originally may have meant.

Many people give the Bible the properties of a "magic book". They imbue it with God - like properties - it is infallible, it is all - knowing, it is everlasting - properties which, to a Christian, properly belong to the Divine, and not to any book. We are not Muslims (and I mean no disrespect to Muslims here at all) who believe that the Holy Q'ran is an exact copy (in Arabic, that is) of the Holy Book in Heaven.

On top of this, believing that the Bible is literally true falls foul of several parts of Scripture itself. There are places in the Gospels where Christ is very obviously NOT treating the holy books as literally true; and this is mirrored in other parts of both the New Testament and the Old Testament. It also approaches very closely to what Paul, in Romans chapters 5 - 9, terms "The Law", where he shows in a sophisticated theological discourse (which is best understood in terms of the ancient art of rhetoric and oratory) how as Christians we are no longer subject to the law, but live in the Spirit. It is not "all or nothing". The Bible is the story of how people have experienced the Divine in the past. We believe that it authentically reflects experiences of the Divine in many different times and contexts. None of these contexts exist today. But the story itself is real and true - but not in the way that maths or science is "true".

The problem is that we, as humans, like to have things neatly and clearly laid out. "This is wrong" and "This is right" - a neat little package of rules to live by, easy to follow and guaranteed to get us in to heaven. When we read the Gospels, however, we are challenged more deeply than this. We are challenged to live our lives in a completely different way.

Which, to my mind, is as it should be. The Divine is SUPPOSED to be beyond us. An experience of the Divine is SUPPOSED to be scary and dangerous and out of this world. I don't want a God I can understand, with rules that are (relatively) easy to follow.

So what I am saying is yes - I agree - "if homosexuality is a sin, then so is drinking beer and not muzzling your oxen". But the idea that the Bible - or new Testament - "lays down the law" is based on a minority understanding of what the Bible is; an understanding that is by no means common in global Christianity.

The question of homosexuality is very difficult. The widest used condemnation is the one from Paul, early in Romans. The problem with using this scripture (and with others in the Old Testament) is that it found in the context of condemning all sexual immorality. What this means, if applied in the same way as it is applied to homnosexuals, is that NO ONE who has been sexually promiscuos at all - including homosexuals - is going anywhere near heaven. Jimmy Swaggert, are you listening?

And this is what gets my goat: We'll condemn homosexuals for their behaviour, and apply strictly "Biblical Principles", without applying those exact same principles and rules to people who are explicitly included in the same text. So, for example, anyone who has ever slept with a woman not his wife is also not going to heaven, and should also be refused marriage. The Old Testament is even worse. There are, IIRC, 613 commandments which have to be followed .... many Christians will say that "we are no longer under the law" (In other words, it doesn't apply to "me"), and immidiately apply those very same rules to "other people".

Western Christianity has been based, for more than a thousand years, on theologies of salvation and redemption and everlasting damnation. What this has led to is a form of Christianity that excludes people based on doctrine and lifestyle, rather than on an internal experience of the Divine and the consequent metanoia that this experience inevitably brings.

My belief - and I can give quite extensive scriptural backing for this - is that we will not be "judged" (how I hate that word) on what we do, nor on what we believe, but on who we are as people. The question we will be asked, I believe, will be (in computer or forum speak ) "Were you a troll or not?". And we won't be able to lie about it ...

Sorry for going off a bit. My apologies in advance if I have offended anyone. But as a second year Theology student at University, it grates me when I read views expressed as if they reflect "what everyone believes" .....

Thank the Lord! (Ho ho ho, pardon the pun ) Someone who actually thinks about theology from a more objective and distant point of view.

Fundamentalism is like you say, a term derived from the "Fundamentals of Christianity." Going off memory, it might be slightly hazy, these Fundamentals are the following

The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth of Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

These principles came as a reaction to the movements of that time; Darwinism and liberal theology.


They thought they were interpreting the Bible like it was meant to be interpreted, but ofcourse, they were not. Do you really think that God grabbed hold of a scribe's arm and wrote things down?
These are books written by people, for people (In the case of the Old Testament, they were written for the sake of the Jews who were banished from Israel). The story of Mozes escaping from Egypt with God's chosen people, splitting the sea? That never really happened. It is just a motivational text so to speak.
"Belief in God will pull you through hard times."

I can go on and on, but the gist of it is: The Bible was never meant as a set of rules by which to lead your life in California, AD 2008. Or Belgium, 2008.

If you want to live your life by the Bible, I'd pick the part that had the carpenter's son who spoke to and forgave people who were considered unforgivable in their time.

"A lot of people showed up for the execution, actually supporting the death penalty. A lot of people I know found that quite ironic, particularly people who... y'know... know the words of Christ."
- Bill Hicks

 

[Timjl]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

If you want to live your life by the Bible, I'd pick the part that had the carpenter's son who spoke to and forgave people who were considered unforgivable in their time.

Yep, 100%. The Gospels are very interesting because so little of the text deals with "you must believe like this". In fact, quite a large part of the text deals with "stop trying to live by rules". They are even more interesting because so much of the text deals with "what kind of a person are you? How do you treat others? How do you live your life?"

The stories about Moses and the Red Sea and Jesus' miracles may be true. We don't know. But that's not the point. Talking about "truth" in relation to religion is like talking about "truth" in relation to ballet, or classical music, or art. Is "Swan Lake" true? It is one of the major mistakes of modern Christianity that it attempts to "prove" religious experience by means and methods that have nothing to do with experiencing the Divine. Scientific Method has its' place and role in our world, and a very important role and place it is. But it is the "wrong tool" to use for religious experience - as any Christian scientist (and there are many) will tell you.

 

[John Remedy]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I'm here for the gaming, not the theology

This made me laugh, as it's my opinion too. However, because of the community aspect of the SPF and the people and (gaming) personalities I have got to know, I have read this and the Presidential thread with not only great personal interest, but as a way to flesh out and perhaps further complete the personalities of my friends here at the SPF.

I have just begun a course in Social Science, and at 24 it's the first time in my life I have even thought about, let alone studied (among other subjects) theology, philosophy, Greek history, Marxism, British political history, educational theory and critical theory. I've found it so interesting, and used to think I considered myself a (partially) cultured individual, until I started the course.

In a nutshell, even as a (supposed) student of life, I'm not going to embarrass myself by stating my opinions here. But it's nice to hear all of yours.

 

[Timjl]

Re: OT - Marriage (spawned from page 4 of "American President" thread)

I have just begun a course in Social Science, and at 24 it's the first time in my life I have even thought about, let alone studied (among other subjects) theology, philosophy, Greek history, Marxism, British political history, educational theory and critical theory. I've found it so interesting, and used to think I considered myself a (partially) cultured individual, until I started the course.

Excellent! A classical education! Now all you need to learn is Greek ...