• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Episcopalians Vote to Allow Gay Marriage in Churches

marriage <> sex

Not according to the bible...As I said there are many passages speaking against homosexuality as "immoral, depraved, and an abomination".... You may not like it, but it's there.
 
The Bible doesn't "actually say" that "sex is marriage" or that "marriage is sex"

I don't think splitting hairs is what the spirit of the passages holds....You may disagree, but that's my opinion.
 
And I will wonder if the "separation of church and state" crowd will be offended that Christian churches are meddling in public policy issues. Many churches support SSM and have for some time yet the only complaining about religious meddling in public policy comes from progressives against only those churches opposed to SSM.
 
I don't think splitting hairs is what the spirit of the passages holds....You may disagree, but that's my opinion.

It was NB who argued about what the Bible "actually says". I merely pointed out that the Bible does not "actually say" anything about same sex marriage.

You are free to interpret biblical passages however you want to. But that doesn't mean the bible "actually says" those things.
 
Which is why the Episcopalians allow SSM :roll:

No - they do that because they decided to forego the text.

Ikari said:

Yes, it is.

Some sects, or at least this one, doesn't seem to agree.

Sure. And there are Americans who swear that the evidence proves that we were secretly attacked by the Mossad on 9/11. The arguments in favor of that are slightly better supported than the claims that the bible isn't clear on homosexual conduct.

Are they not Christian then? Which Christian is the most Christian of all the Christians? Which one speaks the truth about the Bible?

:shrug: the Bible does. There isn't really a "most Christian of all the Christians", though it is possible for some doctrine to be more accurate than others.
 
It was NB who argued about what the Bible "actually says". I merely pointed out that the Bible does not "actually say" anything about same sex marriage.

You are free to interpret biblical passages however you want to. But that doesn't mean the bible "actually says" those things.

Did I say it spoke of Homosexual marriage? No I didn't...In fact in my first post to you I agreed with you that it doesn't...Then we went on to talk of what it does say about homosexuality as a whole, and you are now trying to veer it back, and misrepresent me as though I said something about it speaking to gay marriage....Just remain honest sangha and we will have no problem.
 
The ones that don't omit.

Which are? Whatever ones agree with you? Or is there a list of "correct Christians" out there?
 
:shrug: the Bible does. There isn't really a "most Christian of all the Christians", though it is possible for some doctrine to be more accurate than others.

But then there shouldn't be the wide diversity of Christian sect that we see. If it's just the Bible, there seems, at least you are implying that, there is but one interpretation that is "right". So which sect of Christian is right? Why are the others wrong?
 
Thou shall not kill has traditionally meant murder as there are plenty of passages supporting killing in self defense. What Im talking about is if a group of self proclaimed Christians went out and murdered people in cold blood specifically because they claimed no where in the Bible is murdering/killing condemned. Would your opinion be that they are still Christians who just have a different view of the Bible?

Where the holy wars waged by Christianity un-Christian? The crusaders that marched into Muslim territory and went to war? Or was the Childrens Crusade instituted by Christians? Are people who wear mixed fibers un-Christian? Which parts of the OT matter?

Or is "Christian" just a title you think you get to apply and that all must meet your definition of it? There does appear to be a few here already who act as if they are the final say on who is or isn't Christian (though I would think that to be your god, not any one individual).
 
But then there shouldn't be the wide diversity of Christian sect that we see

1. Just to make sure that you aren't saying this - you are no longer arguing that the position on homosexuality is up for interpretation, nor arguing that the wide variety of Christian sects that we see are due to various beliefs about the meaning of the scriptures regarding homosexuality, correct?

2. It is precisely what we would expect. Once you get beyond the direct words of the text, how to apply them does devolve into a matter of interpretation, which well-meaning people can disagree over. Homosexuality, however, is not one of those issues - it is covered in the direct words of the text.

If it's just the Bible, there seems, at least you are implying that, there is but one interpretation that is "right". So which sect of Christian is right? Why are the others wrong?

:shrug: my bet would be that no sect has it perfectly right, and that many have some parts more right and others more wrong relative to each other (Catholics are likely better about sticking to Jesus' teachings on divorce, Calvinists perhaps on rejecting implicit faith). Once you leave exactly what the New Testament says, you have to pray and faithfully try to apply it to questions it does not address. Heroin, for example, isn't directly addressed, but a Christian could faithfully apply the verses to treat your body as a temple, obey the laws of the land, and avoid alcohol (which is a drug) abuse to the point of drunkenness. The Bible doesn't "say" whether or not to do heroin, but Christians can say with some degree of surety what its' authors would say about whether or not to do heroin, while recognizing that they don't have the full surety because it remains an interpretation of the guidance of the Scriptures.

That is not the case with homosexuality. The Bible there is direct and clear. For our example, it is as if the text were to say - in multiple places - "Don't do Heroin". "God doesn't want heroin in your body". "People who do heroin are screwing up, don't follow that path." It's a direct rejection. The extent to which you are interpreting the meaning of the text is pretty much shrunk to nigh-nonexistent. You really can't look at the verse that says "Do not do heroin" and "interpret" it to mean "oh, this says it's okay if we do heroin", and yet claim to be faithful to the text.
 
Last edited:
there is no text in the Bible that says they should forbid SSM

That is not fully correct - the Bible says instead that they should forbid active and unrepentant homosexuals, of which those seeking SSM arrangements would be a subset, and the Bible instead tells them what they should accept as far as Marriage is concerned - same sex couples not being on that list.
 
That is not fully correct - the Bible says instead that they should forbid active and unrepentant homosexuals, of which those seeking SSM arrangements would be a subset, and the Bible instead tells them what they should accept as far as Marriage is concerned - same sex couples not being on that list.

No, the biblical text does not actually say any of that
 
Old Testament clearly does not see abortion as murder

That is incorrect. The Old Testament does not have a word for Abortion, but it does have a word for Miscarry. There is no instance of someone willfully miscarrying their own child, in the OT, and so nothing is listed for or against it. The closest we have is that the OT states that if a man harms a pregnant woman so as to cause a premature birth, and lasting harm (the death of the child or the death of the woman) comes from it, he would pay for that with his life.

Throughout the Old Testament the text continually affirms that our life begins in the womb, that we have souls in the womb, and the New Testament states that we can even be touched by the Holy Spirit in the womb.

So you could say that that form of partial-birth abortion is considered a sin (a capital one) in the Old Testament, and you can say that there may be room for ambiguity about willful miscarriage in the OT, but you definitely cannot say that "The Old Testament clearly does not see abortion as murder".
 
No, the biblical text does not actually say any of that

You think that the Biblical text does not forbid homosexual conduct, or describe what marriage is supposed to be?
 
Anything for good PR, I guess.

I was all for the right to SSM, but this is pathetic.
 
That is incorrect. The Old Testament does not have a word for Abortion, but it does have a word for Miscarry. There is no instance of someone willfully miscarrying their own child, in the OT, and so nothing is listed for or against it. The closest we have is that the OT states that if a man harms a pregnant woman so as to cause a premature birth, and lasting harm (the death of the child or the death of the woman) comes from it, he would pay for that with his life.

No, if the mother dies, the penalty is death. But if the unborn child dies, the penalty is a fine.
 
The Bible does not actually say what you claim it says.

:shrug: in fact it does. The OT and the NT both describe marriage and how it is to function, and the OT and the NT both forbid homosexual activity.
 
:shrug: in fact it does. The OT and the NT both describe marriage and how it is to function, and the OT and the NT both forbid homosexual activity.

In fact, the Bible does not actually say what you claim it says.
 
No, if the mother dies, the penalty is death. But if the unborn child dies, the penalty is a fine.

Exodus 21:22-25 If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no lasting harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.


It doesn't say you pay a fine if you only kill a child. It says you pay a fine for the premature birth - if any lasting harm follows the premature birth, then you answer accordingly, life for life, eye for eye, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom