[Lictimind]

Quote, originally posted by Kemble »You make sense...except you forgot one thing. There's a such thing as an "Old Testament".
Nope, didn't forget it. I actually mentioned it in my post (see the Jewish Torah part).
Quote, originally posted by Kemble »If you do know some religious history (it appears you do), Moses lived well before Abraham(root of Judaism) and Islam didn't exist till around 500 A.D.
Correction Abraham lived before Moses (about 500 years before).
Quote, originally posted by Kemble »and Islam didn't exist till around 500 A.D.
And? Is it any less valid because it's a few hundred years younger? Over a billion of the worlds muslims (which BTW, suni are the worlds second largest religious group - second only to catholics) would disagree.
Quote, originally posted by Kemble »"Christianity", while only about 2000yrs old, is just an updated name and only an extension of the pre-Christ religion that dates back to Moses...and further.
Wrong again. Christianity is not an update of judaism. it is a rejection of judaism's rules regulations and (to some degree) philosophy, that borrows heavily from judaism's roots. If you don't believe me, pick up a book on the teachings of Saul/Paul and how they compared to the teachings of Jesus and the actual apostles. It was Paul who created the modern interpretation of Christianity as an all inclusive faith based on love and forgiveness. jesus and the apostles never rejected Judaism.
Quote, originally posted by Kemble »"Christianity"... It IS the worlds oldest belief system.
No it is not. Zoroastrianism is the world's oldest Major religion (dating back to the 6th or 8th centuries BCE - depending on who you ask). Hinduism is also older than Judaism, as is Shintoism (at least is origins - canonical shintosim is younger, but I'm using the same argument as you did by throwing judaism into the christianity mix), Jainism and the many differing forms of buddhism (at least older than christianity - not Judaism). If you include Judaism, the basis for Christianity's beliefs is little more than 3,800 years old, which would make it's origins, not it's philosophy or theology, one of the oldest of the major religions. still age does not make right.
Quote, originally posted by Kemble »Homosexuality was forbidden not just by the New Testament, but also by the Old Testament, which, as I've shown, dates farther back than any other set of beliefs. Therefore, Christianity is, in fact, the root of questions and debate concerning this issue.
See above regarding the age argument. As for christianity being "in fact, the root of questions and debate concerning this issue", your argument does not address or support that conclusion. I will give you that it is one important source in the defense of arguments pro or against, but it is not THE source as you would have us believe.
Quote, originally posted by Kemble »I DO know my facts and I DO mean what I say. I'm not here trying to convince people to believe a certain way, I just present an accurate picture.
YOu seem well versed in protestant christian theology, but you might want to brush up in the theology and history of other christian sects and definitely on how christianity compares (both historically and theologically) against the world's other major religions. As my momma used to say, the most ignorant person is he who stops learning.



Modified by Santeno at 2:47 PM 7/1/2005

[brraverishhh]

Quote, originally posted by Santeno »
1) Correction Abraham lived before Moses (about 500 years before).
2) Wrong again. Christianity is not an update of judaism. it is a rejection of judaism's rules regulations and (to some degree) philosophy, that borrows heavily from judaism's roots. If you don't believe me, pick up a book on the teachings of Saul/Paul and how they compared to the teachings of Jesus and the actual apostles. It was Paul who created the modern interpretation of Christianity as an all inclusive faith based on love and forgiveness. jesus and the apostles never rejected Judaism.
Modified by Santeno at 2:47 PM 7/1/2005
1) Yup. Abraham lived before Moses. He's the father of all Jews, if you believe the Bible, including Moses.
2) Everything in the Old Testament points ahead to the Messiah (who Christians believe was Jesus), and everything in the New Testament points back towards the Messiah. It starts in Genesis, the very first book, where immediately after Adam and Eve sinned God promises/prophesies that the SEED (Messiah) of the woman will crush the head of the Serpant/Satan. The promise to Abraham was that through his SEED (Messiah) all the world will be blessed.
The Law given to Moses (though probably the most difficult part of the Bible to understand) is also a picture of the Messiah; from the Tabernacle to the Scapegoat, the Lamb that carries the sins of the people on the Day of Atonement. When David wanted to build a temple to God, God was pleased and honored David by promising that the Messiah will come from one of his descendents. Seventeen books of prophets weave chapters of judgement on Israel and Judah with prophecy after prophecy of the Messiah's soon coming.
Finally, as continually prophesied in the Old Testament, Christians believe that the Messiah came in the person of Jesus, fulfilling all the prophesies of old. He came to establish a holy, righteous, perfect kingdom here on earth through the Jewish nation, but most of His people rejected Him, as was prophecied. He then began to speak about establishing His church, and prepared His desciples, though initially they didn't understand. And even though Jesus was a fulfillment of Jewish prophecies, His final instructions to His disciples was to take and preach the Gospel in order from "Jesusalem, to Samaria, and to the ENDS OF THE EARTH."
The Appostle Paul didn't invent the universality of Christianity. The desciples followed Christ's instructions and took the Gospel continually to the Jews, and then to Gentiles. Even Paul, whenever he would enter a city like Corinth or Phillipi, he would go straight to the Jewish synagogue and preach the Gospel, then he would also speak to the Gentiles. He invented nothing. He just followed instructions.

[brraverishhh]

Quote, originally posted by Santeno »
1) Check again, while Jesus preached to anyone who would listen and taught that his diciples should do the same, he never told them to go out and establish a new religion apart from judaism.
2) That bit of marketing was strictly Paul's doing - who BTW, appointed himself an apostle. Technically he only turned to the teachings of Jesus 3 years after jesus died. there is no eveidence the the two ever met each other (unless you count paul's claimed visions as evidence).
3) Paul actually encountered not just resistance but outright hostility from jesus' apostles. However, being a roman citizen (something the others weren't) allowed him to travel further and be able to spread jesus teachings to jewish communities (initially) in places not readily accessible by the actual apostles. It was only when Jewish communities in the places he visited rejected paul's teachings that he began to turn toward gentiles - a practice that was initially rejected by the apostles, who saw christianity as the fulfillment of judaic teachings not as a separate religion. It was paul who made the argument (based on jesus' example) that Jesus' intended to spread his teachings to everyone, not just Jews. Jesus' apostles slowly came around to pauls way of thinking over the following years.
I have to tell you, I've missed these sorts of discussions. Haven't really had any for a while now.
1) You're absolutely right. Jesus saw himself, and the appostles saw him, as nothing less than the fulfillment of every teaching and promise of the Old Testament. He came and presented himself as the "fulfillment" of Judaism, the long promised Messiah, the embodiment of God's plan to save all mankind from sin, as He promised from Genesis 3 to Malachi. Like I said above, every Law, regulation and prophecy in the OT points to the Messiah. When He came, some Jews chose to accept Him, while some chose to stick to the Laws and regulations, but still in order to wait for the "real" Messiah to come.
2) Something pretty dramatic had to have happened to Paul to change him from one of the strictest adherents of Judaism, and an active persecutor and murderer of Christians, to one who was willing to die for Jesus Christ himself. By the way, Peter writes about Paul and his teachings in one of his epistles. If Peter thought Paul a fake, or his teachings blasphemous, I'm pretty sure he would have mentioned that and warned other Christians not to follow him, as there were already falese teachers and warnings not to follow them.
3) Read through Acts again (I'm sure you've read it already). Paul calls Peter out and tells him to his face that he's a hypocrite, eating and socializing with Gentiles (against Mosaic Law), but only when other Jews weren't around. Taken together with the dream Peter had about all food being acceptable (again against Mosaic Law), and his preaching to to Roman Centurion (Cornelius?), and it's obvious that Peter was pretty much on the same page about accepting Gentiles and the abbrogation of the Law (but ONLY the customary laws and regulations). Peter knew right and wrong and what Jesus intended, but he was human, weak, and sometimes pigheaded.
And again, you're right. The appostles didn't see themselves establishing a new religion. They were just continuing in the promises of the OT. First God promised Abraham that one of his descendents would be the Messiah, then God gave Moses the Law to teach people about the need for a Messiah, and they were just the followers of that Messiah who had finally come. They didn't call themselves Christians. If all the Jews had accepted Jesus as the Messiah maybe Christianity would be called Judaism today. But they didn't so the name Christianity was coined later on by a Roman official, I believe, to be able to differentiate between those who already accepted the Messiah, and those who were still waiting for the Messiah.

[Tnzxovoz]

regardless of the "religious connotation" that still shouldn't have anything to do with law...people seem to forget there is a little thing called separation of church and state...

[Pjayjukr]

I don't have any problems with it. I also think the law should work for them as well like life insurance, death rights, etc.
The law should have no control over who you want to spend the rest of you life with.

[Pjayjukr]

CalinG7, I see your views but gay marriage has it's problems within court itself. Not many care for the religious deal.

[Tnzxovoz]

No, I think a state allowed it for a short time but then it got changed? I don't know...I mean, if people are so worried about the institution of marriage and religion, then just make another institution which allows marriage without having anything to do with religion...it would be like any other marriage, except it wouldn't be conducted by a priest/rabbi/whatever and it wouldn't be in a church/temple/whatever (yes I know not all weddings are on religious grounds but whatever)...so you would still have the marriage liscense, you would still have the ceremony, you would still have everything...just like any normal wedding, just without religion involved...sure, you'd have people *****ing and complaining, but there are always people *****ing and complaining about something...

[Lictimind]

Quote, originally posted by CalinG7 »The Appostle Paul didn't invent the universality of Christianity. The desciples followed Christ's instructions and took the Gospel continually to the Jews, and then to Gentiles. Even Paul, whenever he would enter a city like Corinth or Phillipi, he would go straight to the Jewish synagogue and preach the Gospel, then he would also speak to the Gentiles. He invented nothing. He just followed instructions.
Check again, while Jesus preached to anyone who would listen and taught that his diciples should do the same, he never told them to go out and establish a new religion apart from judaism. That bit of marketing was strictly Paul's doing - who BTW, appointed himself an apostle. Technically he only turned to the teachings of Jesus 3 years after jesus died. there is no eveidence the the two ever met each other (unless you count paul's claimed visions as evidence). Paul actually encountered not just resistance but outright hostility from jesus' apostles. However, being a roman citizen (something the others weren't) allowed him to travel further and be able to spread jesus teachings to jewish communities (initially) in places not readily accessible by the actual apostles. It was only when Jewish communities in the places he visited rejected paul's teachings that he began to turn toward gentiles - a practice that was initially rejected by the apostles, who saw christianity as the fulfillment of judaic teachings not as a separate religion. It was paul who made the argument (based on jesus' example) that Jesus' intended to spread his teachings to everyone, not just Jews. Jesus' apostles slowly came around to pauls way of thinking over the following years.

[Axxflcaj]

Nor do I.....

[WXQMQFIr]

Quote, originally posted by Santeno »
Actually varying forms of the bible have only existed for less than 2,000 years.
Absolute falsehood. There are many cultures who have similar views on gay people or their relationships. Several of those cultures are considerably older (both as a culture and in their religious institutions) than christianity.

You make sense...except you forgot one thing. There's a such thing as an "Old Testament". "Christianity" has existed since Christ' death (33 A.D.) but the Old Testament has existed since Moses (the author of the first 5 Books of the Bible). If you do know some religious history (it appears you do), Moses lived well before Abraham(root of Judaism) and Islam didn't exist till around 500 A.D. "Christianity", while only about 2000yrs old, is just an updated name and only an extension of the pre-Christ religion that dates back to Moses...and further. It IS the worlds oldest belief system. Homosexuality was forbidden not just by the New Testament, but also by the Old Testament, which, as I've shown, dates farther back than any other set of beliefs. Therefore, Christianity is, in fact, the root of questions and debate concerning this issue.
I DO know my facts and I DO mean what I say. I'm not here trying to convince people to believe a certain way, I just present an accurate picture.

[giturbewan]

well put bro. Very well put.

[larentont]

i have no problem with it ..

[Tnzxovoz]

I have absolutely nothing against gays...just as long as they don't flautn it too much, but I view them like I would view any other person...

[dHXaE2h9]

I had a dream last night someone put a question on gay people in the lounge, it turned into a massive argument...
I see no problem with it...overall i have no problem with gays, but seing a lesbian couple or a gay couple down the street feelin each other or kissing, well its a bit too much...
But i see no reason why gay marrige shouldnt be accepted. Is it true there is a state where gay people can get married?

[griddle]

Nick, I agree with you completely. If a certain religion doesn't allow for a same sex marriage, then I don't think its anyone's place to tell them to change that policy. The solution is simply to have weddings without the religious foundation. I understand that marriage used to be a holy ceremony. In my mind, though, this ended when governments started making different tax structures for married couples. If the law has special provisions for married couples, then anyone should be able to marry. Maybe in time, religions will adapt, but most are based on ideals that are much older than us. The law, however, can be changed now.
And yes, people always ***** and complain about something, especially in the USA. They'll get over it.

[giturbewan]

werd. See, I am deeply affected by it. My mom has a partner of almost 5 years. I treat my mom's partner as a second mom. I am almost as close to her as I am my mom. I have absolutley nothing against. Reason number 19840864 that I hate Bush.

[LeviBrawn]

I think the problem, unfortunately, is a bit more complicated than that...
There are benefits and economic advantages given to married people (among others, the right to adopt kids, housing, inheritance matters, assistance and power of decision in case of sickness - see Terry Schiavo -, joint ownership of property, transfer of pension, etc... It's all stuff that as a straight couiple one does give for granted, but that is denied to a gay couple). Also, there is a protection in divorce law (for the "wekaest spouse", that is) that is much stronger in marriage than in civil unions, as far as I know.
Religion, as you all rightly pointed out, should not have a say as far as citizens' rights are concerned... But the point of view of many religious people is a bit like the one you all [presumably] would have if a group came up tomorrow with the idea of getting married to their dogs! It sounds like they view homosexuality like something weird, that can be tolerated, but not accepted.
Furthermore, once the idea of marriage is separated from the function of reproduction - yep, this is the "thing" that actually marriage protects in origin - than, really, anything is possbile as far as there are enough people to ask for it!
Before getting criticised, I am in favour to some kind of civil union, which would allow homosexual people [I have a gay friend that once pointed out to me that the words gay and homosexual are adjectives, not nouns: it's the "man" and "woman" or "person" that comes after them that's important, not the adjective in itself I like that...], which would allow, I was saying, homosexual people to have the same rights as those who have the option of marriage, as far as their relationship goes. I am not sure about adoption, or other family-related rights, frankly....
Ultimately, the "battle" is between a "favourable" view that sees the extension of a right to citizens that do not have these rights (right to care for their partner, to have a relationship recognised, to get protection from the law within this relationship, etc...) and those who see gay marriage just as the fullfillment of a "sexual" caprice, since - as far as I can understand - they do not accept homosexuality as a "status" of a person, but as a deviance...
Any thoughts on this?

[BodeOmissemia]

i'm not against it, since it's a free country and i have nothing against homosexuals anyway. my mom said a while back that kids raised by gay couples apparently do well in society too, but of course there's no way to prove that.

[omaculer]

don't care, people do what they want anyways regardless of laws, it's not like this is hurting anybody, or really like jacking up peoples health, most likely it'll be done, and it's not hurting me, or helping me any...
so i'm coo with it

[Gozmand]

The thing is, the law does not have special provsions for married couples. When a straight couple enters into marraige, they also enter into a civil union from the governmental standpoint. The law has special provisions for couples in a civil union. The marraige part is only in the eyes of the church. The government could care less about that aspect. That is why I believe the arguement about how people do not have equal rights in a civil union, that it must be marraige, is a weak arguement.
Religion is not trying to impose its beilefs upon people to ban gays from marraige, it is trying to protect their laws from their holy text from being altered by the government, which too,would be a violation of church and state.
I believe strongly in my religion, but also have several friends who are homosexual, so I can see both sides of the arguement, and in the end believe that civil unions are a good neutral ground for both in this issue.