Gay Marriage Discussion

Discuss challenging/controversial issues/ideas here. Petty argumentative jargon will become refuse.

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby Josh_Dead » Tue May 29, 2012 10:48 pm

I did, actually. It's awkwardly obvious. Your avatar is you whenever you think about him.
IT'S NOT MAN MAN OR FIVE IRON FRENZY
JOSH DEAD HAS DUCKS!!!! DUGGA DUGGA DUGGA!!!!
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Josh_Dead
demetrius
 
Posts: 5221
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:10 am
Location: in between my headphones
Custom Title: whistle, chk, chk

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby limework » Wed May 30, 2012 9:07 am

GET OUT OF MY HEAD
I'm a dude, she's a dude.
User avatar
limework
noob
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:45 pm
Location: Branson, MO
Custom Title: Guest

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby rawADAMkills » Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:50 pm

limework wrote:i have a crush on josh dies did you guys know that
JeremySexytime wrote:Confession: I've been trying to be the first person in Adam's sig because I love him.

Image
User avatar
rawADAMkills
death head
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:07 pm
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Custom Title: Jan Beremy

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby HunterBrown » Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:22 pm

limework wrote:i have a crush on josh dies did you guys know that

DO you guys remember those days when Mouth Like A Magazine was Showbread's most popular you tube video, and all the comments on it were like, "OMG Josh is sooooooo sexyyyy".
owl wrote:but i am going to the doctor so he can butts them

Image
User avatar
HunterBrown
death head
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:56 pm
Location: Palmghetto, FL
Custom Title: The Wannabe Ladykiller

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby manicgeodude » Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:04 pm

So, I've looked into the issue of homosexuality a lot and I've come to the point where i no longer believe homosexuality is a sin. i appreciate your points Josh, but as far as all the NT passages go, all of the studying ive done points to a major translation issue.
basically, a lot of the passages translations are debatable. theyre either talking about homosexuality ooor the relationships Greek men had with young Greek boys. which is why in the I Corinthians chapter it refers to male prostitutes and homosexual offenders. everything ive read says that it could easily be the 2 words for the older man and young boy and not actual prostitutes or homosexuals.
anyways, i struggled with this for a loooong time before i came to where im at now and im honestly really content believing theres nothing wrong with homosexuality. due to my conservative upbrining, i still have trouble accepting that gay people can have kids or become pastors, but i no longer see a problem with it
charis wrote:Image
User avatar
manicgeodude
bread head
 
Posts: 932
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:14 pm
Location: Orange County, CA
Custom Title: swag

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby josh_dies » Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:45 am

manicgeodude wrote:So, I've looked into the issue of homosexuality a lot and I've come to the point where i no longer believe homosexuality is a sin. i appreciate your points Josh, but as far as all the NT passages go, all of the studying ive done points to a major translation issue.
basically, a lot of the passages translations are debatable. theyre either talking about homosexuality ooor the relationships Greek men had with young Greek boys. which is why in the I Corinthians chapter it refers to male prostitutes and homosexual offenders. everything ive read says that it could easily be the 2 words for the older man and young boy and not actual prostitutes or homosexuals.
anyways, i struggled with this for a loooong time before i came to where im at now and im honestly really content believing theres nothing wrong with homosexuality. due to my conservative upbrining, i still have trouble accepting that gay people can have kids or become pastors, but i no longer see a problem with it


I think it's awesome that you're taking the time to dig into this issue and to do some research! It's fantastic and refreshing! Too often, we all think "with our hearts" without considering the logical ramifications our conclusions might have on our worldview. That you're working out your conflict of interest with both your heart AND your mind is terribly refreshing, and I encourage you to keep up the great work!

Of course, your conclusions are your own and they never have to line up with mine or anyone elses—it's your worldview. That said, I just want to affirm the research your doing and agree that yes, there is some debate over the NT greek in question. But virtually ALL of the conclusions being made in favor of a questionable translation are happening outside of orthodox Christianity, that is, by non-Christian scholars or by Christians openly operating within the gay and lesbian community. Of course, that doesn't mean that these conclusions are immediately wrong or untrustworthy, but it is food for thought.

Take Greg Boyd for example. Dr. Boyd is one of the foremost theologians in the country right now, reads Greek and Hebrew, has published mammoth volumes on New Testament studies and, for lack of a better way to say it, almost always ends up on the controversial end of evangelical theology. He had this to say just days ago:

I personally grieve over the way the Church has often singled out homosexuality as though it was worse than other sins, when the truth is there are dozens sins that are mentioned far more frequently and emphatically than this one that Christians are typically guilty of! If we want to go on a political crusade, I say we start by crusading against GREED!

Anyway, to respond to (the) point: the reason I feel we have no choice but to say that homosexual relationships miss the bull’s eye of God’s ideal (which is the biblical definition of “sin”) is that I believe the Bible is God’s Word. From beginning to end, the Bible holds up heterosexual marriage as God’s ideal. Also,there are three passages in the NT that most scholars agree teach that homoerotic behavior is not appropriate for Jesus followers (Rom. 1:26-28; I Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:10).

I don’t dispute that a person’s sexual orientation is something they are born with (as well as being influenced by other social factors). But the Bible also teaches that ALL of us are born in a fallen world and in a fallen condition. Whether we’re heterosexual or homosexual, ALL of us are born with a “natural” inclination to “miss the mark.” The fact that something comes “natural” for us DOESN’T mean its God’s ideal. This is the cross we bear.


It seems to me that we will be hard-pressed to find a reputable, Christian NT scholar (not an amateur theologian or blogger) that sides with the "questionable translation" idea. Even if we did, we'd have the problem of the OT.

To reiterate, that doesn't mean that where you're at right now is baloney and that scholars know everything. Just keeping the flow of information alive!

Keep up the great work! Keep learning and growing, you're awesome!
josh_dies
admin
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:44 am
Custom Title: Band Member

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby phyro_gp » Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:49 am

JWat wrote:Homosexuals have just as much right to marry as anybody else. I actually do not believe that being gay is a sin. I know what the bible says, I just think there's no way it's as simple as it looks on the pages. I refuse to believe that someone can be damned for something that is completely not up to them.

All my life I was taught that homosexuality is a sin but now I dont think so much.

Btw manicegodude can you point me to a link to a article or essay that talks about what you've been studying?
User avatar
phyro_gp
zay
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:19 pm
Location: The Magical Land of Georgia.
Custom Title: wok?

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby Josh_Dead » Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:10 pm

josh_dies wrote:That said, I just want to affirm the research your doing and agree that yes, there is some debate over the NT greek in question. But virtually ALL of the conclusions being made in favor of a questionable translation are happening outside of orthodox Christianity, that is, by non-Christian scholars or by Christians openly operating within the gay and lesbian community. Of course, that doesn't mean that these conclusions are immediately wrong or untrustworthy, but it is food for thought.
Makes sense. I mean, would any scholars within the religious community question the bible considering it's the foundation of their belief? It seems that they would naturally ignore some little translation issue just to try to keep the bible's credibility. On the other hand, folks on the other side, I'm sure, are trying to find any little thing to weaken the bible's credibility (or even just find a loop hole or something to okay homosexuality biblically).

Either way, I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are some translation issues. I don't know hebrew at all, but I wouldn't think it can be translated cleanly to english (or other languages) since that's often an issue when translating from one language to another.
IT'S NOT MAN MAN OR FIVE IRON FRENZY
JOSH DEAD HAS DUCKS!!!! DUGGA DUGGA DUGGA!!!!
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Josh_Dead
demetrius
 
Posts: 5221
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:10 am
Location: in between my headphones
Custom Title: whistle, chk, chk

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby manicgeodude » Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:26 pm

phyro_gp wrote:Btw manicegodude can you point me to a link to a article or essay that talks about what you've been studying?

this is the article that kinda started me off
http://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php
he covers a lot of arguments that are kinda stupid but people make, like "our bodies arent made for it" and gets into Scripture at point #4
here's the opposing view too
http://www.gaychristian.net/rons_view.php

and Josh, thanks for the encouragement and all your explanation on this. it's been making me think and pray a lot
charis wrote:Image
User avatar
manicgeodude
bread head
 
Posts: 932
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:14 pm
Location: Orange County, CA
Custom Title: swag

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby phyro_gp » Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:39 pm

manicgeodude wrote:
phyro_gp wrote:Btw manicegodude can you point me to a link to a article or essay that talks about what you've been studying?

this is the article that kinda started me off
http://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php
he covers a lot of arguments that are kinda stupid but people make, like "our bodies arent made for it" and gets into Scripture at point #4
here's the opposing view too
http://www.gaychristian.net/rons_view.php

and Josh, thanks for the encouragement and all your explanation on this. it's been making me think and pray a lot

Wow I applaud that guy big time. If I could meet this guy(Justin) I would give him the biggest hug.
User avatar
phyro_gp
zay
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:19 pm
Location: The Magical Land of Georgia.
Custom Title: wok?

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby josh_dies » Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:55 pm

Josh_Dead wrote:
josh_dies wrote:That said, I just want to affirm the research your doing and agree that yes, there is some debate over the NT greek in question. But virtually ALL of the conclusions being made in favor of a questionable translation are happening outside of orthodox Christianity, that is, by non-Christian scholars or by Christians openly operating within the gay and lesbian community. Of course, that doesn't mean that these conclusions are immediately wrong or untrustworthy, but it is food for thought.
Makes sense. I mean, would any scholars within the religious community question the bible considering it's the foundation of their belief? It seems that they would naturally ignore some little translation issue just to try to keep the bible's credibility. On the other hand, folks on the other side, I'm sure, are trying to find any little thing to weaken the bible's credibility (or even just find a loop hole or something to okay homosexuality biblically).

Either way, I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are some translation issues. I don't know hebrew at all, but I wouldn't think it can be translated cleanly to english (or other languages) since that's often an issue when translating from one language to another.


Excellent point Josh, and I think you're completely right in that either side can be affected by a personal agenda.
Of course, just as every non-Christian scholar is not bent by a sinister motive, not everyone on the Christian side of scholarship "protects" their scholarly findings based on a fear of robbing the scripture of its credibility. For all we know, some (or many?) Christian scholars with the same credentials as non-Christian scholars arrive at their views because they genuinely feel that that is where the evidence leads. Take Boyd himself for example, he got his PhD at Princeton Theological Seminary, which is a famously non-orthodox, non-evangelical education, and Boyd left with an evangelical understanding of theology because that's where he felt the information led.
Some begin with the historical dilemma of the resurrection of Jesus and find no other way to explain the rise of the Christian faith, so they work backward to the gospels and apply the same historical scrutiny to them that they would any other historical document and discover that they stand up to the criticism—and tons of volumes are being published on these findings inside and outside of Christian scholarship (The Resurrection of Jesus by Mike Licona, Christian Origins and The Son of God by N.T. Wright, The Jesus Legend by Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy to name a select few). Once you have a historically sound document and a historical case for the origin of the Christian faith, you have, at its center, a dude who endorses the Old testament and claims that scripture is authoritative/inspired by God. So for some of us, the evidence leads backward to faith, as opposed to blind faith leading forward into scholarship, if that makes sense.
I wish that could be said of all of us, but as you rightly pointed out, many of us have our agendas. I know that when I let myself fall victim to my own pride, this is the case for me! It's wise of you to remind us of this, because we easily forget and are misled. A healthy amount of skepticism is crucial, and a critical examination of all the information we have even more so. I applaud the way you think, keep it up!

Speaking for myself, I accept Jesus based on a critical examination of history and personal experience, not just one or the other. I believe in Biblical teachings because I think that there are very good reasons for doing so, not because I've been brainwashed, indoctrinated, or because I'm afraid of hell. The idea that non-Christians are the only free-thinkers brave enough to reject religion is absurd, as every human has a religious worldview/a belief system that they hold over and against other belief systems. I have absolutely no agenda against any people group and no ill-will or aversion to my gay brothers and sisters. I don't need or even want the bible to condemn homosexual behavior. I side with the vast majority of scholars in concluding that the bible teaches that homosexual behavior "misses the mark" because it seems to me, based on the evidence and research, that this is the case. This conclusion is not steered by any sinister motive, as it would not, in my mind, devalue scripture on any level if this were indeed a discrepancy of translation. As it is, the majority of scholars conclude that it is not, and those that disagree (Christian or otherwise) are a small sect indeed. I am not reluctantly taking up a view I dislike out of obligation, my view is based on logic, scrutiny and a critical examination of the data.

Let's keep digging, stay critical, stay open-minded and test everything!
josh_dies
admin
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:44 am
Custom Title: Band Member

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby limework » Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:03 am

couldn't have said it better myself, and i'm glad i didn't try.
I'm a dude, she's a dude.
User avatar
limework
noob
 
Posts: 7483
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:45 pm
Location: Branson, MO
Custom Title: Guest

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby rawADAMkills » Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:12 pm

limework wrote:couldn't have said it better myself, and i'm glad i didn't try.
JeremySexytime wrote:Confession: I've been trying to be the first person in Adam's sig because I love him.

Image
User avatar
rawADAMkills
death head
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:07 pm
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Custom Title: Jan Beremy

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby hummingbird_mywill » Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:14 am

rawADAMkills wrote:
limework wrote:couldn't have said it better myself, and i'm glad i didn't try.
}elisa{
What good is just one string when you can strum the guitar?
monstersforyou wrote:Any man who loves Batman is a GOOD man.

vertebrae wrote:I really have no plans to record anything in particular other than me and friends and our kitty displaying strange antics.
User avatar
hummingbird_mywill
death head
 
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:03 am
Location: Ontario, CANADA
Custom Title: theoretician of a new paradigm

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby Josh_Dead » Thu Jun 07, 2012 1:59 am

hummingbird_mywill wrote:
rawADAMkills wrote:
limework wrote:i like to touch butts.
IT'S NOT MAN MAN OR FIVE IRON FRENZY
JOSH DEAD HAS DUCKS!!!! DUGGA DUGGA DUGGA!!!!
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Josh_Dead
demetrius
 
Posts: 5221
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:10 am
Location: in between my headphones
Custom Title: whistle, chk, chk

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby rambo_zombie » Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:48 am

Josh_Dead wrote:
hummingbird_mywill wrote:
rawADAMkills wrote:
limework wrote:i like to touch butts.
Image
User avatar
rambo_zombie
death head
 
Posts: 3079
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:09 am
Location: in your head... GA
Custom Title: Forum Elder

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby The_Fedora » Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:45 am

Josh, I have a question for you, as one who is still not sure what I believe in this issue, I'm looking for evidence on both sides.
There are two verses in Leviticus that mention homosexuality.
18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

However, you once put forth your take on why tattoos and piercings ect, aren't sinful, and used a passage from Leviticus, describing laws in the old testament in 3 categories.
This is what you typed,

The bible talks about tattoos in Leviticus 19, in which it forbids cutting oneself in mourning of the dead or marking one’s body with tattoos.
there are three types of old testament law: ceremonial, civil and moral. the Ceremonial Law specified requirements for the people of Israel to maintain their ritual purity, by forbidding such things as the eating of certain foods such as pork and shellfish, wearing clothing of mixed fabric, trimming of the beard, or being tattooed.
As Christians we are no longer bound by old testament ceremonial law, meaning we can trim our beards, we can eat bacon, we don’t have to make animal sacrifices to atone for sins and we can get tattoos if we wish. The argument that tattoos “defile” one’s temple is a very flimsy one. who is to say that art or decorations “defile” one’s body? By this logic, painting a mural on a church wall defiles the church. no, this issue is a matter of opinion.

So why are tattoos aligned with ceremonial, and homosexuality not?
limework wrote:
it's all good dude. i know this is super cliche but it's not the size of the boat, but the motion of the ocean.
User avatar
The_Fedora
fetus
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:13 pm
Location: York, Pa
Custom Title: Zac (Zinny)

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby ThePageStaysBlank » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:05 am

If I had to guess (and I am guessing because I haven't looked into this at all) it's that homosexuality falls under the moral laws. However, I don't know how Leviticus is set up. I don't know if it breaks them up into sections (Ceremonial, civil, and moral) or if it skips around and this matter is more open to interpenetration.
Josh_Dead wrote:This forum is like a used junkpiece from Goodwill. As-is, no refunds.
User avatar
ThePageStaysBlank
admin
 
Posts: 6330
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:27 pm
Location: Duluth, MN (My Desk)
Custom Title: Pseudo-artsy

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby hummingbird_mywill » Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:11 pm

Hey Izzi... I'm thinking you might want to edit the last word of your post there...


I am a little bit confused on how its broken up as well, although I do know that as a Christian (Gentile) who was living among Jewish believers, there were lots of rules that they followed but didn't expect me to, and the ones that they did expect me to and those are summarized in Acts: [1] no sexual immorality (as defined by Paul, including homosexuality among other things) [2] no drinking blood [3] no sacrificing to idols and [4] no eating food sacrificed to idols. They weren't crazy about my tattoo, but I don't think they thought worse of me for it... I think it was just a generally more visually conservative thing since a lot of the girls there wear super high necklines and long skirts.
}elisa{
What good is just one string when you can strum the guitar?
monstersforyou wrote:Any man who loves Batman is a GOOD man.

vertebrae wrote:I really have no plans to record anything in particular other than me and friends and our kitty displaying strange antics.
User avatar
hummingbird_mywill
death head
 
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:03 am
Location: Ontario, CANADA
Custom Title: theoretician of a new paradigm

Re: Gay Marriage Discussion

Postby Zinja#2 » Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:20 pm

ThePageStaysBlank wrote:interpenetration.

This is how I feel about gay marriage as well.
Zinja#2
zay
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:58 pm
Custom Title: Dramatic Pancakes

PreviousNext

Return to challenge.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron