• 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

In fact, 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.
 
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.

The proper translation of the Hebrew text is not "so that she gives birth prematurely"; It's "so that she gives birth prematurely or miscarries"
 
The proper translation of the Hebrew text is not "so that she gives birth prematurely"; It's "so that she gives birth prematurely or miscarries"

That is incorrect. There is a word explicitly for miscarry in the Hebrew (shachol) that is found nowhere in this section. Another word which might have demonstrated your point, but does not due to its' lack is the word for stillborn (instead of a living) child, which is nephel. To add the verbiage "or miscarries" is an eisegetical attempt to input a term that the author had access to, but clearly did not intend to use.
 
Christians in name only. If you don't adhere to scripture, you're a fake.
The Bible wasn't meant to be redefined or rewritten...only reread.



"Man has created God in his own image: Intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent." ~ Marie

Read all about it in the Old Testament. Lots of intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent scripture there. If you try doing some of the things that it advocates in the USA you'll get locked up.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Last edited:
That is incorrect. There is a word explicitly for miscarry in the Hebrew (shachol) that is found nowhere in this section. Another word which might have demonstrated your point, but does not due to its' lack is the word for stillborn (instead of a living) child, which is nephel. To add the verbiage "or miscarries" is an eisegetical attempt to input a term that the author had access to, but clearly did not intend to use.

The word is "yatsa" which literally means to "lose her offspring" - it obviously includes miscarriages. It does not use shacho because miscarriage is not the only possible consequence of an assault on a pregnant woman
 
Lots of intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent scripture there.

How is the Bible "homophobic?" You have no way of knowing that its prohibition of homosexual acts as sinful, thousands of years ago, was any more the product of irrational fear than the Bible's prohibition of many other acts as sinful was. I think you are just using that neologism to slander people who refuse to lead cheers for pseudo-liberals' pet grievance groups, just as "Islamophobic," "xenophobic," etc are used for that same purpose.

The goal is to spread the belief, by repeating a catchy word, that homosexual conduct is so clearly virtuous that opposition to it can only be the result of irrational animosity--that it cannot simply arise from a religious conviction that that conduct is wrong. But anyone could just as easily try to make opposition to adult incest or polygamy illegitimate, by branding people who oppose those activities as "incestophobes," or "polygaphobes," and repeating it ad infinitum.
 
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.

This is true....

But it is also true that there are a long list of other passages supporting other ideas that we find deplorable in modern society as well. You want to own the idea that Homosexuality is immoral depraved and an abomination, you can own the bible passages that are deplorable in other areas as well.
 
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.

If a particular religion supports freedom of the individual than it is fine.

If a particular religion seeks to prevent legal freedoms of the individual based upon its own doctrine, then that is wrong.
 
If a particular religion supports freedom of the individual than it is fine.

If a particular religion seeks to prevent legal freedoms of the individual based upon its own doctrine, then that is wrong.

If a particular religion support the freedom of the individual to steal and murder, a la ISIS, it is fine. And if a particular religion seeks to prevent legal freedom of thief and murder based upon it's own doctrine, it is wrong.

If a particular religion support the freedom of the individual to destroy the environment it is fine. And if a particular religion seeks to prevent legal freedom to destroy the environment based upon it's own doctrine, it is wrong.
 
This is true....

But it is also true that there are a long list of other passages supporting other ideas that we find deplorable in modern society as well. You want to own the idea that Homosexuality is immoral depraved and an abomination, you can own the bible passages that are deplorable in other areas as well.

Well, I have many times on these boards said over, and over that I don't have a problem with Homosexuals, so you can stop trying that very dishonest path of calling me homophobic....Second, you must understand that the OT, is separated from the NT, in that the OT while for our learning, is NOT what is literally doctrinal law of the Church, post the death of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins..We now are in the era of the NT which calls for 2 commandments. 1. Love thy God, and 2. Love thy neighbor....So, your snarky attempt to do little more than call me a name fails miserably.
 
The one who sticks to what the Bible actually says?

Just a guess.

Despite some beliefs, it is not required for a person to follow the Bible or believe it is the absolute truth or even inspired by God to be a Christian. All that is required is to follow the teachings of Christ.
 
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?

Murder is based on laws. So then if there are no laws against killing someone, then you aren't breaking that Commandment.
 
If a particular religion support the freedom of the individual to steal and murder, a la ISIS, it is fine. And if a particular religion seeks to prevent legal freedom of thief and murder based upon it's own doctrine, it is wrong.

If a particular religion support the freedom of the individual to destroy the environment it is fine. And if a particular religion seeks to prevent legal freedom to destroy the environment based upon it's own doctrine, it is wrong.

I didn't realize I was going to have to give a civics lesson today.

Anyone's freedom ends at the point that it causes harm to another. Therefore, those are not "Freedoms".

I guess I will have to go back to writing a god damned novel of "Disclaimers" on all posts in order for people to stop being so god damned nit picky and pathetic.
 
Well, I have many times on these boards said over, and over that I don't have a problem with Homosexuals, so you can stop trying that very dishonest path of calling me homophobic....Second, you must understand that the OT, is separated from the NT, in that the OT while for our learning, is NOT what is literally doctrinal law of the Church, post the death of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins..We now are in the era of the NT which calls for 2 commandments. 1. Love thy God, and 2. Love thy neighbor....So, your snarky attempt to do little more than call me a name fails miserably.

Well, then history has proven that virtually all forms of Christianity have failed.

Because they have been some of the most hateful people on the planet.

Inquisitions and Wars to spread Christianity by the sword have plagued nearly a millenia of the last two.

Every time someone was to be denied a civil right in the country, those supporting that denial have used.... their Christian faith to support their reason for denial.
 
Murder is based on laws. So then if there are no laws against killing someone, then you aren't breaking that Commandment.

So your think that if there is no law against something then it is not a sin in the Bible?
 
So your think that if there is no law against something then it is not a sin in the Bible?

Not what I said. I was saying that "thou shalt not kill/murder" can be interpreted many different ways since it is so broad and does not give us any indication of where the lines are drawn. Murder is relative to each society. Even within societies, people cannot agree on what should or should not be murder. Killing is even more broad, since the vast majority of people might have an issue with killing people for certain reasons, they almost all make exceptions for things like self defense. And very few people use that Commandment as justification for being a vegetarian, or for being against killing animals, either big or very small. So then that brings us back to it being a Commandment against murder. However, there are huge differences in what is or isn't murder, killing that is against the law, between societies, even within some societies. Castle doctrines are used to justify what would be seen as murder in other places. (Just to preempt, I'm not commenting on my feelings on Castle doctrines, only using them as an example of our inconsistencies in murder laws.)
 
I didn't realize I was going to have to give a civics lesson today.

Anyone's freedom ends at the point that it causes harm to another. Therefore, those are not "Freedoms".

I guess I will have to go back to writing a god damned novel of "Disclaimers" on all posts in order for people to stop being so god damned nit picky and pathetic.
No, that is not it at all. Contrary to what many seem to think, there are costs involved in the government issued special benefits given to marriage. The 2013 Supreme Court case on DOMA was largely based on the idea that there is a benefit in estate planning for married couples, and a corresponding costs to all of us who pay taxes at some point to cover government spending. No man is an island.
One can not simultaneously argue that marriage laws affect only the people getting married AND demand the government benefits that cost money.
Perhaps if you started out with a more tolerant, less self righteous, condescending attitude you might have considered that.
 
No, that is not it at all. Contrary to what many seem to think, there are costs involved in the government issued special benefits given to marriage. The 2013 Supreme Court case on DOMA was largely based on the idea that there is a benefit in estate planning for married couples, and a corresponding costs to all of us who pay taxes at some point to cover government spending. No man is an island.
One can not simultaneously argue that marriage laws affect only the people getting married AND demand the government benefits that cost money.
Perhaps if you started out with a more tolerant, less self righteous, condescending attitude you might have considered that.

Affecting society is not the same as harming society. While there are benefits given to couples for getting married, there are also benefits to society for them being married. Government economics just isn't as simple as if you give someone a tax break here, then that means they are costing the government money. There are other benefits that come to government from giving that tax benefit or exemption. There are also other places within our laws that would become so complicated that removing government from marriage would likely cause so many negative consequences on our society and economy that it would counter any benefits that any couple gets from marriage.
 
Despite some beliefs, it is not required for a person to follow the Bible or believe it is the absolute truth or even inspired by God to be a Christian. All that is required is to follow the teachings of Christ.

Which would mean they have to follow the bible. Oh and before anyone says it, Jesus said all of Gods laws still apply, so Christians can not get out of following the old testament.
 
Not what I said. I was saying that "thou shalt not kill/murder" can be interpreted many different ways since it is so broad and does not give us any indication of where the lines are drawn. Murder is relative to each society. Even within societies, people cannot agree on what should or should not be murder. Killing is even more broad, since the vast majority of people might have an issue with killing people for certain reasons, they almost all make exceptions for things like self defense. And very few people use that Commandment as justification for being a vegetarian, or for being against killing animals, either big or very small. So then that brings us back to it being a Commandment against murder. However, there are huge differences in what is or isn't murder, killing that is against the law, between societies, even within some societies. Castle doctrines are used to justify what would be seen as murder in other places. (Just to preempt, I'm not commenting on my feelings on Castle doctrines, only using them as an example of our inconsistencies in murder laws.)

You are using mans laws to decide what God's law means that is an exercise in futility

and about the vegetarian thing,

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. -Genesis 9:3
 
Which would mean they have to follow the bible. Oh and before anyone says it, Jesus said all of Gods laws still apply, so Christians can not get out of following the old testament.

No, it doesn't mean that. They don't have to believe that the Bible is the end all, be all of who Jesus was, what his teachings were about. They don't even have to believe it accurately describes his teachings. They just have to believe in following Jesus's teachings.
 
Yeah, seems there is plenty of room for interpretation and practice within the many Christian sects.

Just like there is plenty of room for politicians do debate the meaning of "is", but only the morally bankrupt ones will do it. Its very clear in the Bible that marriage is between a man and a woman. If you dont like that fine, but its not following the Bible under any stretch of the imagination.
 
No, it doesn't mean that. They don't have to believe that the Bible is the end all, be all of who Jesus was, what his teachings were about. They don't even have to believe it accurately describes his teachings. They just have to believe in following Jesus's teachings.

His teachings are in the bible. How do you follow the teachings of Jesus without following the bible? Is there some other source of his teachings that I don't know about that somehow trumps the bible?
 
Back
Top Bottom