They didn't do their research - Prop 8: The Musical (2008) Discussion

Well said algrani-1 and in a very loving way. Thanks!

reply

I don't see how what you said means that "Jesus wouldn't support prop 8."

I don't think that Prop 8 has anything to do about "love" or "hate". People who try to inject those terms into the debate are mistaken in doing so.

My history forum @http://www.westerncivforum.com

reply

[–] MavLamb11 15 years ago

I don't think you're quite grasping the message. Technically, they didn't say Jesus would or would not support prop 8 (He only failed to support their reasoning), and I don't understand were you got that they were calling Him "evil and a bigot".

They only used Him as a respected figure to point out the hypocrisy of saying that gay marriage should be banned because it is against the Bible's teachings when they no longer follow other teachings. He also pointed out that because of our separation of church and state, if someone wants to propose something like prop 8 they shouldn't use religion as the reason it should be law.

reply

[–] justinamills 15 years ago

Well for one, the old testament was written thousands of years ago by desert tribal people who endured much more suffering than people such as those living in America do today. They had reasons for their laws. It worked for them. Keeping marriage between a man and a woman they probably thought was necessary to keep the Jewish people alive. The bible although many of its lessons are still followed today, is outdated.

IT is OAKY to eat pigs. It is OKAY to eat shellfish. Back then it was a threat to their health, but the world has changed. How many of you live in accordance with the rituals involving menstruation that are described in the book of Leviticus? (I have been educated in Christian teachings my entire life, so do not believe I am ignorant of the bible.) There are countless rules and rituals described in the bible that practically NO ONE obeys, but that simply makes sense! We live in a different time and place! If we're going to pick and choose what we should follow from the bible, why NOT choose "love instead of hate?" considering that's what Jesus preached above all else. Jesus did not speak about homosexuality to any large extent as far as I know.

Christianity and the bible should not be forced on all citizens of the United States (imo at least), therefore why not let gays marry if they so choose? Show me the evidence that gay relationships are damaging our society. If anything it would make it better, because it could help create more happy pairs of people that can share their lives with each regardless of what your religion might say. I am not going to ever marry another man, but if it works for someone else, why not let them? Since I highly doubt it is going to negatively affect the lives of other people and maybe even animals, why shouldn't it be allowed!?

reply

[–] alefl01 15 years ago

I agree with you completely justinamills. It really doesn't affect us at all, so why fight over it? Personally, I believe that gay mariage should be allowed any where because it affects no one negatively except those who have a prejudice against gays and really I don't give a crap if there happy or not. I believe that Jesus would have been a supporter of gay rights because his teachings told of a love for all living creatures which includes the gays whether people like it or not.

reply

[–] Ivorywyne 15 years ago

I'll admit, I've read the bible but not studied it much. Could you tell me, where exactly, are the rules for "Holy Matrimony"? I do not recall seeing the rules that create "holy matrimony".

There seems to be confusion over what a marriage is. In this day and age, a marriage is a contract approved by the government that two people are bound financially. It also creates a legal family where blood family doesn't exist (giving the right for one spouse to make medical decisions for the other, for example). Hate to break it to you, but that's it. A church does not issue a marriage license. A church does not oversee divorce actions. The state does. (BTW, in early biblical times, the marriage was a property transaction, the female being the property. How nice that we've come to where the property isn't a person, but it's legally shared)

If a church chooses to be the instrument of that legal proceeding, more power too them. But to imply that a marriage only exists through the power of god is wrong. A marriage can be officiated by a judge, a ships captain, or anyone ordained by a religion, be they christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, even atheist (I know, I'm an atheist minister, believe it or not, and can legally perform weddings).

There is no reason a religion that does not approve of homosexuality should be forced to perform that type of ceremony. BUT, it is also wrong that the state does not provide for some kind of legal partnership for same sex couples, to not do so is discrimination, pure and simple.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ivorywyne 15 years ago

Great list! Thanks for this.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] matthew-r-taylor 15 years ago

To Quote: "There's so much nonsense being spread by ignorant people who have no clue what the Bible really says..."

You are very correct, and by posting that message you are labeling yourself as "ignorant," because you have clearly taken your whole erroneous argument from this Vaughn Roste and have done no research of your own.

Over 90% of your cited verses are quoted from what are known as the narrative books of the Bible. Narrative books are just that: Narrative. They recount how things happened. This might include actions or laws ordained or done directly by God, as well as any number of actions done by individuals, not ordered by God.
To dissect each point:

Points 1,2,7, and 9: Whatever the case may be, just because the Bible says, for example, that a man had a large number of wives DOES NOT mean this is an action prescribed by God (In fact, since the beginning of time, God has ordained marriage to be between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN (Gen. 2:24) and never contradicts itself on this point.) The examples you have cited are just recounting of events, none of which are ones where God said to take multiple wives.

Point 3: Most people will agree that you don't marry your sister, mother, mother-in-law, etc. Right? And as far as the concept of a consent being foreign in the biblical mindset, you must realize that these were cultural norms of the time, set in the midst of cultures which often didn't value women as they should have, but no where does God undervalue women. If you read the New Testament and Old Testament women are often spoken of very highly (ex. Ruth, Esther, the Judge Deborah, and just look at how Jesus related to women throughout the Gospels).

Points 4,5, 6, and 8 concern the Law given to the nation of Israel, which no longer applies in the form as prescribed in the Old Testament. The only laws that carry over from the Old Testament to the New Testament are those that are affirmed by God, Jesus, or through God via the apostles. These laws served as pratical and spiritual purpose (The book of Romans clarifies this, if you are interested).

To agree with you, yes, you are completely right on points 10 and 11, but as far as point 12 is concerned, the apostle Paul was stating his own opinion and states this explictly (1 Cor.7:8).

That is a very basic explanation of your points. I honestly do not want to just bash your opinion, but the basis of your post stems from a misinterpretation of the biblical text. I would encourage you to check the facts for yourself before pledging your allegiance to them.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bigd92223 15 years ago

To sum up your last post:
1) You believe the Jews were ignorant bigots... I'm sure practicing Jews would loves how you have taken their history as bigoted and ignorant.
2) You admit that you've never studied the Bible or types of ancient literature, so you don't understand how to read it. Therefore, it needs an editor. My suggestion is to prove yourself to be an educated person, as you seem to be, so that you can understand the text correctly, even if you don't agree with it. This applies to all literature and not just the Bible.
3) You believe that just because there are people who tout one action as being worse than another (i.e. homosexuality vs. adultery) that that is what the Bible teaches. That is very bad logic.
4) "Speaking of the Jewish tribe, though, it's amazing and insulting to see the way Christians try to brush off whatever is written in the Old Testament, as if it's all been replaced by the New and Improved Edition, and the supposed words of Jesus." What "Christians" are you referring to? It is a very closed-minded argument to claim that all Christians "brush off...the Old Testament." I encourage you to read the book of Romans in the New Testament (which was written by Paul...a Jew), specifically chapters 2, 3, and 11, in which the connection of the Old Testament Law to the New Testament is explained. In Fact, Christians believe in something known as dispensations, in which God acts differently at different points in time to bring his ultimate plans to fruition (the term "dispensation" is never used. It is a term used to describe a concept that weaves its way through scripture).

My suggestion to you is twofold: 1) forget what everyone says. Go to the Bible an read and STUDY it for yourself, like any student would have to do in a college literature class. 2) Don't manipulate the text of a piece of literature to conform to your argumentation.

Even liberal Bible scholars will agree with the points I have made. They would disagree with me on different grounds, such as saying that the Bible is not inerrant, written by God, etc. But that is a separate discussion.
Good luck in your quest for truth.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] matthew-r-taylor 15 years ago

If you haven't gleaned it from my past posts, I am a Christian and believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God.

Now, I am going to speak from an academic standpoint for a moment concerning your style of argumentation.
1) You are a very hostile debater. This does not lend credence to your claims, nor does it cause people to be receptive.
2) You whole argument is based on conjecture. You have cited no true facts. Instead, you have very flippantly thrown out words such as "ignorant" and "backwords" and blanket terms such as "Christians" (inferring all Christians) to bolster your obvious predjudice, assuming that you are right all along; in reality, you have done nothing but affirm your own erroneous beliefs by stating "facts" and opinions that are the result of faulty (or non-existent) research and a desire to be right, not a desire to understand.
3) In terms of OUR discussion and God's relation to the Bible, whether he exists or not is a non-point (though I do believe that God exists). The Bible, as what you might call "mythology," is purported to be the word of God. I might be completely right in believing this, or may might be completely right in believing the opposite. Either way, in terms of literature and faith, one must approach and seek to understand the text from the viewpoint of the one who wrote it (someone who believed in God and believed he was writing the words of God) and the genre of literature they were writing in (narrative, apocolypitic, poetry, etc.). If you don't seek to study the text as a whole, understanding that the author believed VERY strongly in God and that they were writing in a genre that had certain conventions in style, you WILL interpret the text incorrectly, as you have... I mean that strictly from the standpoint of understanding the Bible as literature, though it is equally true when viewing the Bible as the word of God.

Referencing you: "The "bad logic" is not mine -- it belongs to the people who claim that verse 13 is vitally important, but that verses 9 and 10 can be simply ignored."
-You have done the exact same thing that you claim others do. You are very true that some do as you say above, but in reverse you have accepted these three verses and ignored everything that doesn't support your argument (i.e. most of the Bible).

"We're not discussing the Bible as literature. I have no problem if you read the Bible like you read Shakespeare -- just don't try to tell me it's what "God thinks". It's no such thing."
-If you read the Bible as literature, it should be read as a book that people believe to be the word of God, and even if it turned out to be completely false, whatever the Bible says about its version of "god" is completely true, because that is the point of reference from which it was written. Simply put, the text is what it is; it is self-attesting that it believes it is the word of God and that it is telling you about him. As literature, everything the Bible says about "god" is true. It's the same as saying that everything that Bram Stoker's "Dracula" says about Dracula is true.

Referencing my quote: 'You admit that you've never studied the Bible or types of ancient literature', you said, "When did I do that? You're making things up now."
-I am making nothing up. I am simply inferring. You argument is based on no solid evidence, and you exhibit no knowledge of of the Bible or literature genres. Given, for all I know, you may have your Ph.D. in Ancient Near East literature, but you have done nothing to show it.

To your other claims concerning the Bible: The text must be studied as a whole. Different, equally true, messages can be gained from each seperate book, but in order to have a holistic comprehension of God's word, you must view the text holistically. In short, the Bible is a story of your and my Creator's great love for us, his creation, where he created us and loves us, and even though we metaphorically spit in his face (over and over and over), he still loved us so much that he sent himself to earth as a child to die for our sins, so that we could have a relationship with him.
-Whether you accept this or not, it is true, and that IS the message of the Bible. The Bible is the greatest love story ever told. Amen.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] matthew-r-taylor 15 years ago

I would suggest to you a book by Lee Strobel "The Case for Christ." Read it, then try to dispute me.
Also, you still have yet to accurately cite any sources. You have based your arguments on conjecture, personal bias, and verses taken out of context (don't just limit your argument to one book or a few verse from the Bible; look at the whole Bible, especially the New Testament, if you are going to pass judgment. Don't condemn Christianity based on verses from Leviticus, if you don't understand Leviticus, as well as how it fits in with the New Testament).

Moreover, you advocate being accepting of homosexuals and believe others to be bigots, while you yourself prove to be a bigot by deriding my beliefs.

Finally, in regards to the Bible and Dracula, notice how I said "as literature"...not "the word of God." You have simultaneously called God nonexistent and claimed that people were skewing his words. I was simply arguing from your standpoint: That the Bible is nothing more than the works of men trying to control and manipulate people by creating a being who doesn't exist, so if the latter sentence were correct, you would still have to accept what they said about God as being a fictional being, because they made him up. You couldn't say the people were skewing his words, because he doesn't exist anyway (according to you).

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] matthew-r-taylor 15 years ago

You haven't even used the Bible to contradict itself. All you are saying is that it is. I suggest that you stop blowing fire, calm down, and realize that you have become a irrational in your argumentation. Take it back to square one and compose a credible argument before you spout off. It is the intelligent thing to do...and you seem to be intelligent.

Concerning Lee Strobel: No, he was not alive with Jesus. He knows much more than most people, but his is not an esoteric knowledge. He has done research and compiled the EVIDENCE for Jesus into the most layman-accessible book that I have read on the subject. And yes, he makes an incredibly credible case for everything you spoke of. You see, more than just using the Bible, he uses the hundreds of extra-biblical Jewish and secular ancient historians and archaeological evidence to make his argument. It's an easy read, and it is quite enjoyable, even if you think it is a "work of fiction."

"The Last Tomb of Jesus"! Ha! It was one of the least credible documentaries on the subject of Jesus ever produced. It was written with a bias, and credible scholars, even liberals from the ivy leagues, laughed at it.

I apologize for my sarcasm, but you saw "with your own eyes" a fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls! Oh, my! Do you read ancient Hebrew? If you don't, then it means nothing! By the way, the phrase "SONS of God" was a typical Hebrew phrase. It was used to refer to the Messiah, angels, and certain kings. That IS what it means. Not to rub it in, but one more strike against your knowing next to nothing about ancient near eastern literature.

As an "intelligent, law-abiding citizen" you feel that your rights have been violated, so you think that makes it okay for you to be a bigot also?
And in terms of free speech, you are completely right in it being your right. And I commend you for using that right, and in the same sense, free speech is the right of everyone else too. And the fact is, the majority of Californians, used their free speech and passed Prop 8. I am sorry that this offends you, but using God as your object of wrath is not fair.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JLThom88 14 years ago

Jesus never said anything about Gay Marriage. The Anti-Gay comes from The Old Testament.

reply

[–] Pegasys9 14 years ago

I don't remember the Savior specifically decrying those who were changing money on the Temple grounds, yet he turned over their their tables over and threw them out!

Somehow, I doubt if he would stand still for Gay Marriage!

reply

[–] Loves-Bitch 13 years ago

Exactly the anti homosexual points come from the old testament. Along with the gods word that it is also not right to wear blended fabrics. Hope you aren't wearing any cotton wool blends, or you're going to hell with the homosexuals. It is also a sin to not recognize the sabbath. It is perfectly acceptable to punish those who don't with death. So anyone that practices a different religion that doesn't recognize the Sunday sabbath or anyone who works on Sunday can be killed according to the old testament. So feel free to go into Mcdees on Sunday and kill all the employees working. On the other side though it is fine to sell your daughter into slavery. Remember though that as a female she will have even less rights than the male slaves though. So sell your daughter into slavery fine, work on Sunday, die and burn in hell. So if you are going to use the bible to push the idea that homosexuals shouldn't marry, then you also need to push for the right to sell your daughters into slavery. You can't just pick and choose which of 'god's words' to follow or fight for.

To Love and win is the best thing. To Love and lose, the next best.

reply

[–] rgcustomer 13 years ago

There's plenty of anti-gay material in the New Testament.

Various anti-gay (and -lesbian) passages include:
Romans 1
1 Corinthians 6
1 Timothy 1
Jude

reply

[–] averagejoeman2013 13 years ago

I think the OP is right. Jesus would be embracing the love for all sinners... which we all are! If you believe homosexuality is wrong.. fine.. most would agree with you. But lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, adultery is wrong, and a host of other things. In all reality homosexuality is about the least of the problems. If one holds true that it is wrong, then make sure you still keep the right priority and realize that there are worse things....many worse things.

While I do not think as a whole that people who oppose homosexuality are bigots... we have to recognize there are some. However, the hate is apparent on the extreme on both sides so we do not want to deny that fact merely for our own benefit or risk hypocrisy.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

reply