Bible's words become instrument in gay-marriage debate

By Janet I. Tu
Seattle Times staff reporter


STEVE RINGMAN / THE SEATTLE TIMES
The Revs. Peter Ilgenfritz, left and David Shull were among six same-sex
couples who sued King County in March after being denied marriage licenses.
Shull says the Bible's words about homosexuality must be understood in
historical context.

For Pastor Wayne Taylor of Calvary Fellowship Church in Mountlake Terrace, the Bible's teachings on homosexuality couldn't be any clearer.

He points to the six passages that mention it and to the Book of Genesis, which, he says, makes it obvious that marriage between a man and a woman is how God wants humans to use the gift of sexuality.

"The Bible is real clear that homosexuality is not a natural way of relating sexually" and is a sin, he says.

But the Rev. David Shull of Seattle's University Congregational United Church of Christ believes it's more complicated than that.

More at the Seattle Times

"... is not a natural way of relating sexually and is a sin"

So what? I don't mean to offend Christians or anyone else, but since when is American law determined by what the Bible says? I really don't care what the Bible says about it one way or the other, it's a civil rights issue. If we used the Bible to determine our civil rights, we wouldn't have any.

Church <------------ ------------> State

Get it now? :eyes:

THAT, my friend, is the WHOLE issue! (Or at least it should be!)

:kick:

:shrug:

and does NONE of the things it forbids

hell I'd even settle for seeing one person who obeys all of Leveticus.

good luck finding one, they simply do not exist

prison. Lev. tells you to stone your children when they dishonor you.

to the Taliban.

Was listening to NPR "talk of The Nation" today to several sides weighing in on the Iraqi detainee torturing. It was mentioned that many of the MPs were from Tennessee, and I wondered...how many of those military people consider themselves "Christian"?

So...
WWJT?
Who Would Jesus Torture?
And can this apply to those who take the stance that laws for same-sex attracted people have to enacted to protect (Christian) religious freedom? Seems the fundamentalist right would love to see gays and lesbians suffer...would love to see the use of expounding of "Bible Law" into actual civil law to torture those who simply want some of 1,038 civil rights denied them by not being able to enter into a civil union of marriage.
...it's all so totally bizarre, and more so everyday.

The issue about gay rights is a civil rights issue. In conversation recently with a friend we pretty much decided that there will not be concensus re: civil rights for all Americans, which would include the gays and lesbians, during our lifetime; recent decisions will need to be challenged and overturned, and there will have to be a ratification added to our Constitution to make this issue a non-issue.

Sometimes I think I live in the most bigoted nation in the world, and even though it makes me angry at times, I feel so much hopelessness when it comes to the existence of groups of people who wrap themselves in the flag and religous beliefs all at once.

It's just Nuckin' Futz

Let me qualify this by saying that I am a Catholic and attend Mass every Sunday morning and help with my church website and play in the instrumental ensemble at mass, if that helps at all.

However trying to use the Bible as some kind of law or precedent in making a case is just plain stupid. There is some pretty stupid shit in the bible.

We've all seen the "Questions for Dr. Laura" that basically challenged her opinion on a number of other biblical edicts. A copy of this can be found at http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/5465291.html . Another fun examle is http://www.godhatesshrimp.com . Pretty much anything in Leviticus looks stupid nowadays. I really have to look at the Old Testament and think it is just fantastic fiction, or I'll have burn my eyes out with pokers.

A great button I bought at the DC march. I have it pinned to my purse so anyone who stands next to me can see it.

I've gotten some annoyed squints from twits out in our area.

Indeed the word used for all three acts is the same.

But there are a lot of folks that do not read into the old testament rules a required path to God via diet.

And for the record the New Testament, while honoring and continuing with the Old Testament, says the summary of the OT is love your god and love your neighbor, and goes on to say that these new Jews - later called Christians - were not bound by the specifics of the OT - they were only bound by the summary -

namely love your god

and love your neighbor.

LOL so true!

Or is it the South Park diet (you know, the one with all the vomiting)? ;-)

for instance.

Should a Christian Wear Clothing of Mixed Fibers

Leviticus 19:19
'You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.

Deuteronomy 22:11
" You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.

Christian advise on mixed fibers ... buy nothing but the best.
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.showResource/CT/BQA/k/125
snip
A wise principle to follow in selecting either a pure or mixed garment is to purchase the best quality one can afford—it will last longer and fit better than inferior, less expensive clothes. The primary reason to do this is to honor and glorify God in what we wear, especially if the clothing is to be worn primarily for church services. However, it is not wise to go into debt buying better quality than one can afford.
/snip

Speechless in Kemptville

That women are to be silent in church, that women have to prove their virginity with the bloody sheets on the day after their wedding night, and that the physically handicapped can't be priests. We won't even get into the whole menstruation phobia.

We don't do these things anymore. The handicapped are allowed to be ministers/priests, we don't execute rape victims anymore, and women are not expected to hang their bloody wedding night sheets up to both make their parents proud and to avoid be stoned. Women don't have to be sequestered during their periods. So why not accept gays? It doesn't affect me any.

A side note-I am a greeter at my very liberal church. Yesterday I noticed two young white men bringing in two black girls, who looked like they were about 10. I assumed they are foster parents and thought, how fun for those girls, to have two young guys as parents.
They seemed like such nice guys who were totally into being dads. The girls were dressed nicely, appeared very happy and it appeared to be a much happier family unit than many that I see in public. Although I could be wrong, I did assume they were gay from their physical closeness with each other, and their co-parenting of the girls.


According to Paul, we are set free from the (Old Testament) law by the blood of Jesus. According to Jesus, he didn't come to change the law, but to fulfill it. I'll stick with the Sermon on the Mountain, and to loving my neighbor as my self.

Personally, I could care less what the Bible says on the subject. I'm perfectly fine with it condemning homosexuality uncategorically because it's nothing more than a horrid piece of fiction anyway. But a graduate student in Greek and Classics once insisted on explaining it all to me and he made a pretty good case that those passages are entirely taken out of context and don't mean what fundamentalist christians insist that it does.

So why is it so imporant to consider context when wondering whether rich people will get into heaven, whether christians should give away all of their possessions, whether it's a sin to lend or borrow money, whether the Earth is flat, has four corners, and whether the sun revolves around it, whether the death penalty is something Jesus Would Do, whether christians should ever remarry, etc., but suddenly when it concerns homosexuality or the submissive role of women, how old the Earth is, whether christians should always uncategorically support the decisions of our nation's leaders ... why is it suddenly that context is so unimportant?

Any fundamentalists reading this? I'd be amused by any logical contortions you might go through to explain that to me.

Not surprising in a book cobbled together from various writings and writers over a period of hundreds of years. Heck, right off the bat in Genesis are two (count 'em!) creation stories. They differ markedly in form, narrative and even in how they refer to God. And yet, in all these centuries, no one has decided to eliminate one story or the other for the sake of "clarity."

Likewise, in opposition to the two "clobber" verses in Leviticus (which prescribe different punishments) and the ambiguous statement of Paul in Romans, we have whole chapters and books dedicated to the care and nurturing of the community, how a body of disparate folks are ordered (there's very little uncertainty in these proscriptions) to learn to live together, and that our first duty after loving God is to love our neighbors. The story of the Good Samaritan might just as well be called the story of the Good Homosexual or the story of the Good Right Winger for folks to learn the original thrust of a very controversial parable.

To claim that the United States, which prohibits the establishment of a state religion, should somehow write its laws based on certain passages of the Bible is against the constitution and against the very Bible its supporters claim to revere.

...and they are all the creations of men.

And we all know how peaceful men are...right...

It is not just the "literal interpretation" of fundamentalists that is dangerous to our culture, it is the much more widely believed myth that the bible is "The Word of God."

Given the sloppiness of its writing, its internal contradiction, and its portrait of God as a lecherous, bloodthirsty, racist old fool, to say the God of creation actually wrote it or inspired it is the equivalent of blasphemy. Good Christ! Don't people understand that if the real God wanted to write something, they wouldn't need interpreters to understand what it means. Hello! Check out a sunset, for example!

Belief in the divine origin of the bible is perhaps the most dangerous notion in the world. For example, it alone is at the core of the intractibility of the Middle East problem. The Zionist notion that God Almighty actually gave a piece of land to one group of people, and authorized them to utterly destroy its present inhabitants is unfathomably vile and reprehensible.

God Damn the Bible!

polygamy would be legal, and women would have only the rights their husbands gave them.

I think we should base our laws on the Constitution. Seems to have worked all these years, so why change now?

Slave Quotes

Psalm 123:2
As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1
Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

1 Timothy 6:1
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.

Titus 2:9
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.



Any religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment to codify marriage, as they enjoin, on biblical principals:


A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one
or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)


B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his
wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)


C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a
virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num

25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)



E. Since marriage is for life, neither this constitution nor the constitution of any
State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)


F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he
refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen. 38:6- 10; Deut 25:5-10)


Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.”