|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 631
Veteran CEG\'er
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 631 |
I find it interesting that this thread is about a law and rights (state) yet we are talking about bible translations (church). Seems to me that they are two unrelated topics.
If we look at it this way......Next time I get caught for speeding I am going get a ticket from the police and second one from the local church for sinning... but it would be pretty sweet if I went to confession and could get both dropped.
05 Legacy GT Turbo 5speed
99 SVT GRN/TAN (sold)
06 Ford Explorer EBv8
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307 |
Originally posted by neelnug:
I find it interesting that this thread is about a law and rights (state) yet we are talking about bible translations (church). Seems to me that they are two unrelated topics.
The reason being that a lot of people who see being gay as being "wrong" or "immoral" or a sin are basing their feelings off of a predominantly christian upbringing
1998 SVT Contour Silver Frost for sale in Classifieds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
So let me understand you correctly, all bible translations are bull, and the one website you're copying and pasting from is right? Essentially, 1 website > all bible translations.
Are all Bible translations 'bull'? Not necessarily. No one translation has it all right. There's no way to know which is more right than another because no one knows what Paul really meant. People read a passage in Greek or Hebrew and translate it as they see fit. I'm not neccessarily saying that one is more right than another -- just that you don't know which is more right, yet you proclaim that your Bible is so cut-and-dry. Your Bible may be, but as one goes further and further back in history and closer and closer to the original langauge and text, the answer isn't nearly as clear.
My opinion is also not a copy and paste. Don't try to denegrate those that apparently know more about your base of belief than you do simply because they disagree. I've received a rather extensive amount of relgious education in my day. My opinion is based on that of countless other theologians and religious scholars, far more educated than you are on the topic, that simply read things differently than you do. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that there are other interpretations out there than what you may have been preached.
Quote:
I'll stick to what the bible says. Any one of the many translations.
Any one of them? Even the ones in Hebrew or in Paul's original Greek? Let's avoid translations altogether and stick with the originals (or at least closer to it). Because they disagree with you -- or are at least significantly less clear as to the meaning.
Quote:
Where in the bible does Paul say you can't wear a hat? Or that women can't speak? I think somethings are being taken out of context or misapplied; and before you say the same of me, tell me how you can misapply or how removing those verses on homosexuality out of context has any change on what they say?
I already gave specific explanations to you how the misapplication and translation of the verses you quoted could be altered to significantly alter what they 'say'.
Now, for your question:
Corinthians 14:33 -- "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."
In Corinthians Paul declared that a man should not wear a hat because it is a sign of submission, and that women are supposed to wear a head covering because women should at all times be submissive to men. Paul says that women are to be submissive to their husbands throughout Genesis, Ephesians, and Corinthians. Do you believe that? He also says that a woman must have long hair as a mark of her submission. Do you think that short-haired women are sinful? In Deuterotomy the lengths of one's hair is said to be an important distinction to God? Do you think men with long hair are going to Hell?
Now, again, these things could be interpreted to mean any number of things. We interpret them in a manner which fits our time. We cannot expect women to not speak in Church, so we interpret that passage in a more favorful manner. Eventually, homosexuality in the Bible will be interpreted in a more favorful manner as well as times change. It's just the way the Bible has worked throughout history. It's a dynamic text and the literal translation changes as popular opinion does.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Originally posted by DrGonzo:
FWIW, I have no problem with civil unions. I see "marriage" more as a cultural religious act. Perhaps we need civil unions for hetero's as well.
Originally posted by Sandman333:
Just to be clear, I pretty much agree with Jato on this one. Call it whatever you want. Allow them their equal rights. But do NOT, under any circumstances, allow them to invade and defile the institution of marriage.
No offense to the authors here â?¦ but I found the first quote on page 40, and the second on page 42 of this thread. Now I know that I and others have mentioned this a number of times before â?¦ but here goes.
There currently does not exist any other legal term for what most of us here agree should be called â??civil unionâ?, except for the word â??marriage.â? You cannot go to city hall and apply for a civil union license â??? it simply doesnâ??t exist.
To DrGonzo's point, civil unions do certainly already exist for heteros â??? thousands of civil ceremonies in city halls across the nation every day attest to that fact â??? not to mention casinos, ships and God knows where else. (Sorry, couldnâ??t help myself.)
But, and here it is again, our civil authorities and every statute concerning the issue, insist on calling it â??marriageâ? even when no church or religion is involved. And there is a significant history and heritage to this definitiion of marriage, as there is with the religious one.
And to Sandmanâ??s point, I think you are at the point where most informed citizens are about this issue right now; at least those who are trying to reconcile the civil rights issues with their religious beliefs. And thatâ??s where I have a big problem with the amendments.
They have the effect of forcing the religious definition of â??marriageâ? onto the not-so-similar meaning and intent of the civil definition of â??marriageâ? which really should be called â??civil unionâ? for everybody, IMO.
Moreover, to further exacerbate the debate, many amendments also made civil unions illegal â??? and that to me is the wedge thatâ??s going to crack this whole thing open in the courts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 8,143
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 8,143 |
There are so many discussions in here referring back to the bible. What about the people who are NOT christian? Why should they have your beliefs pushed upon them? Who cares what it says in the bible if you are not religious? Should I have to follow the beliefs of the bible if I don't believe in the bible itself? Why should a certain religion be forced upon me? Why should a decision be made based on a certain groups religious beliefs?
Religion should have absolutely no play in this decision, not everyone in this country is christian. What happened to freedom of religion (or the choice not to choose one)? Equal rights? Seperation of church and state? <---does this only apply in the schools?
In my opinion I feel that the bible has many outdated and old ways of thinking and I do not see how any human could possibly live their lives based on what the bible deems as acceptable/unacceptable. If that is the case, the way of life in Afghanistan doesn't seem so far fetched after all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676 |
yeah,
what does the Koran have to say about gays?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 682 |
Originally posted by ssmumich00:
yeah,
what does the Koran have to say about gays?
Why do you, ZetecNinja or I care?
I doubt anyone us is one that follows it.
98.5 Contour SVT
"Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country"
--US President George W Bush
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
I've read English translations of the Koran and I can't remember any mentioning of homosexuality at all.
I wouldn't rely on my memory, though.
Edit: That's not to say Islam doesn't address it. I remember reading something on executions of homosexuals in Arab countries. Don't know if this is the norm or not, though.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Originally posted by DrGonzo:
FWIW, I have no problem with civil unions. I see "marriage" more as a cultural religious act. Perhaps we need civil unions for hetero's as well.
Originally posted by Sandman333:
Just to be clear, I pretty much agree with Jato on this one. Call it whatever you want. Allow them their equal rights. But do NOT, under any circumstances, allow them to invade and defile the institution of marriage.
No offense to the authors here â?¦ but I found the first quote on page 40, and the second on page 42 of this thread. Now I know that I and others have mentioned this a number of times before â?¦ but here goes.
There currently does not exist any other legal term for what most of us here agree should be called â??civil unionâ?, except for the word â??marriage.â? You cannot go to city hall and apply for a civil union license â??? it simply doesnâ??t exist.
To DrGonzo's point, civil unions do certainly already exist for heteros â??? thousands of civil ceremonies in city halls across the nation every day attest to that fact â??? not to mention casinos, ships and God knows where else. (Sorry, couldnâ??t help myself.)
But, and here it is again, our civil authorities and every statute concerning the issue, insist on calling it â??marriageâ? even when no church or religion is involved. And there is a significant history and heritage to this definitiion of marriage, as there is with the religious one.
And to Sandmanâ??s point, I think you are at the point where most informed citizens are about this issue right now; at least those who are trying to reconcile the civil rights issues with their religious beliefs. And thatâ??s where I have a big problem with the amendments.
They have the effect of forcing the religious definition of â??marriageâ? onto the not-so-similar meaning and intent of the civil definition of â??marriageâ? which really should be called â??civil unionâ? for everybody, IMO.
Moreover, to further exacerbate the debate, many amendments also made civil unions illegal â??? and that to me is the wedge thatâ??s going to crack this whole thing open in the courts.
Hmm.... let me ask the forum this:
How do you feel about public nudity? Certainly, we could and should categorize those who are members of nudist camps as a minority. However, we are enforcing our morals and values on them by requiring them to wear clothes in public. It would not harm me any more to see a nudist practicing their philosophy than it would to allow gay marriage, but I am against both because I believe both to be detrimental to a society based upon family cohesion. We, as a society, hold to certain values. Any and every law could be considered discrimination if we want to take it to ridiculous levels. However, I don't think we want to take it there. I think we, as a society, have every right to have our voice heard by popular vote as to what we do and do not find acceptable. The people have spoken.
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,840
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,840 |
Originally posted by Sandman333:
Hmm.... let me ask the forum this:
How do you feel about public nudity? Certainly, we could and should categorize those who are members of nudist camps as a minority. However, we are enforcing our morals and values on them by requiring them to wear clothes in public. It would not harm me any more to see a nudist practicing their philosophy than it would to allow gay marriage, but I am against both because I believe both to be detrimental to a society based upon family cohesion. We, as a society, hold to certain values. Any and every law could be considered discrimination if we want to take it to ridiculous levels. However, I don't think we want to take it there. I think we, as a society, have every right to have our voice heard by popular vote as to what we do and do not find acceptable. The people have spoken.
And that, my friends, rates an A+. 
Troll. 1997 VW Jetta MkIII GLS 5spd
All hail my appearance on CEG!
|
|
|
|
|
