Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Ryanderman]

Originally Posted by Archbio

Ryanderman,

Now, keeping in mind the rest of your post, this is only a question of theological interest for me, and not a very argumentative one at that (in the sense that I'm not going for a bigger point*): are you sure both of those two propositions are actually, explicitely, in a text included in the Bible? I seem to recall instances in which monogamy and marriage is even overridden by the need to produce heirs or something like that. And then there's Solomon (not Grundy.)

Just checking.

*Except perhaps to see if my opinion that present day religious beliefs or rationales are often retroactively projected onto ancient text applies here.

I think your belief is acurate in a a lot of cases, and it is something that those studying said ancient texts have to keep in mind all the time.
You're right that the covenant of marriage wasn't always followed exactly. A lot of the Biblical Patriarchs had multiple wives (Abraham, & Jacob are the two I can think of off hand) and Abraham had sex with his wife's handmaiden to produce an heir, Ishmael, before he had a son, Isaac with his wife. But I don't believe God ever approves of it. Ishmael, specifically, was a result of Abraham not trust God, and deciding to take the problem of producing and heir into his own hands, when Sarah did not seem capable of having children. That was going directly against God, and he was chastised for it.

Jacob had children with at least four different women, two of which were his wives. But again, God never said it was right. Solomon's many wives was portrayed as his main weakness, and the one blind-spot in his legendary wisdom. The Bible provides evidence time and again of God using flawed, sinful people to accomplish His goals.

Though it's also true that having multiple wives & sleeping with slaves was pretty common practice among rich men at the time of Abraham & Jacob I believe. To them it wouldn't have seemed as wrong as it does today, and they did not have Scripture to refer to. We do, and in the New Testament the Bible paints marriage as a pretty clear symbol for the relationship between God & the Church, though that's going into another topic.
Anyways, to answer the question, I am sure that what I said is explicitly described in the Bible, and is not just taking present day beliefs and projecting them onto the ancient texts.

[Archbio]

Ryanderman,

That was going directly against God, and he was chastised for it.

I can't seem to find that part of the story in my copy. God seems to put some emphasis on Isaac as being the legitimate child, but not in a negative manner.
That seems to put the God of the Old Testament as pro-monogamy and 'monogamous procreation', but God seems to stay out of the sex part of that particular story.

Anyways, to answer the question, I am sure that what I said is explicitly described in the Bible, and is not just taking present day beliefs and projecting them onto the ancient texts.

Can you recall a specific passage for each? Again, this is purely a matter of theological curiosity for me, and I'm not implying that it's not there. I think the object of one of the propositions was extramarital sex in general, and not just (for example) adultery, which seem to be covered by Moses and the Ten Commandments (which is a good band name), among other things.

As for the other proposition it was that there was a specific prescription for heterosexual marriage (clear enough to count as a prescription against same sex marriage), notion which kind of surprised me at first, because it must have seemed redundant to specify in ancient times.

POS,

Yeah, but they can have it, for all I care. I just want everyone to be able to get all the benefits they should have and if that means a further distinction regarding the separation of church and state, then I'm all for it.

It's not that I think this type of reforms are necessarily a bad idea; on the contrary I personally feel that, in theory, it might be better to go even further, altough that's another topic.

It's the context that bothers me. Where this issue has been solved in less radical manners there's no impulse for reforms of this type. It might be a case of doing a good thing for the wrong reasons, if that makes sense.

[Roy_D_Mylote]

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Well, then God sounds like a spoiled brat in that situation. It's Lot's daughters, who didn't deserve any of that. God is perfect, right? God is love, yes? Then God's motherfucking angelic representatives should be expected to save their own hides, not kick back while the teenage girls get horribly brutalized.

Thing is, God wasn't going to let the girls get raped. He was testing Lot. The girls were never in any significant danger, because God was there to protect them. He was going to stop the crowd, if the crowd did anything, which they didn't. Like I said, he just wanted to see if Lot would sacrifice for strangers, which is actually what the Sin of Sodom was: Not homosexuality, but inhospitality towards outsiders.

[POS Industries]

You know, if God wanted to test hospitality, the angels could have just asked for some tea, or whatever the going beverage of the era was.

[Fifthfiend]

On the gay marriage thing - really, New Testament-wise the bible is pretty much mum on the subject of homosexual relationships. Sure Jesus describes marriage as being between a man and a woman, but by the same token he describes adultery as a man being with a woman to whom he is not married, so technically the passage could be read as go Man-sex it up to your heart's content. As far as what Jesus would have said if someone had asked "verily Lord, what if two dudes wish to live as one, and yea proceeding to do in the butt, but be faithful to each other and generally lead blame-free lives in every other respect?" really we just don't know.

In any case I don't know about this --

Do my opinions on this make me a homophobe or a bigot?

-- but I do kind of figure it seems pretty shabby to condemn people to Hell on what amounts to a technicality.

[Ryanderman]

[QUOTE=Archbio]
I can't seem to find that part of the story in my copy. God seems to put some emphasis on Isaac as being the legitimate child, but not in a negative manner.
That seems to put the God of the Old Testament as pro-monogamy and 'monogamous procreation', but God seems to stay out of the sex part of that particular story.[\QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure it was in one of the letters of the New Testament that Paul, or one of the other writers mentions Abraham's sin of impatience, or not trusting God in having a child with Sarah's slave. I don't remember where exactly it is. I'll try to find it tomorrow when I have time.

Originally Posted by Archbio

As for the other proposition it was that there was a specific prescription for heterosexual marriage (clear enough to count as a prescription against same sex marriage), notion which kind of surprised me at first, because it must have seemed redundant to specify in ancient times.

I think the clearest "prescription" for heterosexual marriage is in Genesis, where God creates woman. Whether or not the first chapters of Genesis are intended to be literal, or merely a myth used as a metaphor, it was written and included specifically to convey certain ideas.

Originally Posted by Genesis 2:18-25

18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." 19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 22 and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." 24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

That right there describes a marriage. It doesn't say there is no other type of marriage, but neither does it say there are other forms. I guess it's like defining... I don't know, cake. Say I defined cake. You can then call pie cake, because I never said that pie wasn't cake, and I never said cake couldn't be something else as well. It's implied that cake is cake, to the exclusion of pie. It's a stupid analogy, so I'll stop now.

I actually think that if anyone is guilty of applying present day beliefs and preconceptions and trying to retroactively apply them to the Bible, it's those that say the Bible has nothing against homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Fiftfiend

-- but I do kind of figure it seems pretty shabby to condemn people to Hell on what amounts to a technicality.

Yah, it would be... except that's not why people are condemned to Hell. I thought I said that. People aren't condemned to Hell for being gay. The Bible says they go to Hell, because they refused to accept the gift of salvation Christ offers. What sins they happen to commit along the way are irrelevant. And Christian are not condemned to Hell if they happen to be gay. Once you're saved you're saved, and no amount of sin will unsave you. But Christians are nonetheless commanded to work to avoid a lifestyle characterized by sin.

[Archbio]

Ryanderman,

I'm pretty sure it was in one of the letters of the New Testament that Paul, or one of the other writers mentions Abraham's sin of impatience, or not trusting God in having a child with Sarah's slave. I don't remember where exactly it is. I'll try to find it tomorrow when I have time.

I thought you meant chastised by God, in the story, and not criticized by latter theologians, which is what you seem to refer to. There's a difference there.

That right there describes a marriage. It doesn't say there is no other type of marriage, but neither does it say there are other forms.

The writer placed, in his allegory or mythical description, heterosexual marriage as a cosmogonical point. It's a pretty strong prescription, but by itself it's not a condemnation of 'other forms'.

That would depend on if 'going against the order of creation' is considered a fault or sin automatically, and how big a sin it is. I know theologically there's a tendency, among many Christian traditions, to conclude one from the other. But at the time, I don't know. It's even possible the writer was explaining things as they were through allegory and wasn't concerned with how things should be.

Yah, it would be... except that's not why people are condemned to Hell.

That depends on which tradition or Church you consult, really. I've heard the explanation you give, but it's far from the only one, and I really don't think the Bible itself leans toward one or the other in a very unambiguous manner*. So yes, it seems pretty shabby to condemn people to Hell on what amounts to a technicality, even if it's not what every Christian believes.

And my personal feelings on what is shabby is that even the school of christianity that preaches ironclad, no-refunds salvation still make condemnation to Hell something that's pretty shabby, considering that the large number of people who don't 'accept the gift of salvation' isn't exactly abnormal, things being what they are, and an Omniscient creator with unlimited means should have put more thought into the whole thing.

But that's not the same question at all, and a dead horse to boot. So, what about the undead?

*Not that I'm asking for a demonstration of either conception of salvation or of any other. It seems superfluous, somehow.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

but I do kind of figure it seems pretty shabby to condemn people to Hell on what amounts to a technicality.

You know something? If it turns out that nobody goes to hell except for the really bad people (murderers, rapists and the like), I will have absolutely no problem with that. I'll be ecstatic. Delighted.

But the thing is, who goes to hell is not my say. We don't get to condemn anybody to hell, or say who's going to hell. We can give our best guess, but that doesn't mean we all want to be right. I can say what I think and what I believe. It's not meant to be condescending or judgemental, its just how I think the world is. Maybe I'm wrong. If I am, I don't consider it a particularly big deal if I'm wrong or not, I just want to live my life that way in case I'm right. And since I actually like most people, gay included, I'd like for them to go to heaven with me if I can.

In Acts a lot of people were questioning whether Paul's teachings were sin or not. One very wise guy said "If it is from God, then we shouldn't stand in its way. If it is not from God, then God will deal with it in his own time."

And so in lies the stance I take. I think something is not from God, and I am totally allowed to think that, but if thats the life somebody else wants to lead thats between them and God. If it sends them to hell, then I feel bad but I also realize their lifestyle was their choice and my lifestyle was mine. If they go to heaven too, kudos and I hope to see them there.

When it comes down to it, people are going to do what they're going to do whether it might be against the Rules or not simply because humanity as a whole hates being given a rule they aren't willing to follow.

[Fifthfiend]

People aren't condemned to Hell for being gay. The Bible says they go to Hell, because they refused to accept the gift of salvation Christ offers.

Except the only reason they're "refusing" to accept the gift of salvation Christ offers is that said gift of salvation comes with a precondition of no dude-on-dude sex, and only at that probably, and because none of the pharisees or whoever ever got around to asking Jesus "okay, so what if two dudes or alternately, two ladies want to get together etc etc?".

So like I said, technicality.

[Bob The Mercenary]

I'll just step in for a sec.

In the Bible, homosexuality's really just another sin. Just like any other. Come to think of it, all sins are exactly the same in the Bible and carry an identical amount of damning weight. The point is that you know what you're doing is wrong. You do one thing wrong, you have one lustful thought, you're headed for hell unless you accept that what you did was wrong and are truly sorry.

Notice I have not gone back to read previous pages, just peered in because I saw fifth posted and thought maybe he closed it for some reason.