NC Amendment 1 Passes (Constitutionally Prevents Gay Marriage)

if jesus existed i'm not convinced even he'd give a shit about gay marriage.

 

I could see Jesus going a few different ways, but I would think it'd be a "Caesar's choice" type answer. Jesus was never planning a theocracy or monarchy, much to the disappointment of his followers then. Funny how many of his followers today even say that, then go about trying to create governments in the image of their admittedly false interpretation of scripture.

 

I kind of agree with you, especially as far as adhering too closely to ancient systems that don't really work in modern society. However, I think people do use the Bible (or any religious text) as they see fit and then disregard other parts that don't fit their particular cultural constructs. This also means they discard beliefs and attitudes as they see fit, as well. Many people used the Bible to justify slavery until that fell out of favor socially and the passages that were so clear to them on the subject became irrelvant or reinterpreted. I see much of the same with the gay issue. I mean, hell, Leviticus is full of stuff directly ordering you to do stuff that will get you put on death row today.

 

I agree and it's funny to me that those people who think homosexuality is the greatest danger to our society don't realize that Jesus never really mentioned it. That would seem odd in the face of some fire and brimstone types these days.

 

jesus never said he was god or god's son either. that part didn't come around till well after his death.

 

Fun fact: the last time North Carolina amended their constitution, it was to ban inter-racial marriage. This was also done allegedly due to "Biblical teachings."

I'm sure that in 30 years, this amendment will be looked at with the same shame and the "infallible word of God" will again be interpreted "correctly" in a new, original way for the millionth time in two thousand years.

 

He never mentioned child molestation and rape either. I guess I should say those are ok, Jimmy Carter?

Disagree, but that is a topic do a different day.

Disagree.

 

I picked up on that when I was 12 and asked about it. Never got a very coherent answer. One trained minister said something along the lines of "Well, he referred to God as father or the Hebrew equivalent of daddy." I replied that he said we should all view him as our heavenly father, and pray like "Our father..."

Then I was told I was just young and a child, I would understand when I was older. To which I replied with the occasion where Jesus praised children for being closest to the kingdom of heaven, and the minister's own interpretation that we should all be like children.

He told me to pray about it, and he would pray for me to be given wisdom. I got that a lot.

 

Disagree with gay marriage being looked at the same way as inter-racial marriage? Okay, good luck with that.

 

Referring to Himself as "I am" pretty much summed up that He was saying He was God.

 

the priests at my school gave some convoluted answer that basically was that somehow this proved he WAS the son of god.

 

I am, that who posts too much on 8th maxim.

Did I just say I was god? No sir. This is a matter of reading into ONE phrase what was not explicitly ever said anywhere else by him. Conveniently reading into an ambiguous sentence exactly what one is missing from the narrative.

 

there is ample evidence that the bible was written right around the same time that jesus' divinity started being talked about (i.e. maybe the same people who wrote teh bible are the ones that turned him into god). but as cardinal says this is way off topic.

 

Analogy is specious at best. "Biblical" arguments against interracial marriage attack the very core of what the Bible actually says about personhood. That someone thinks marriage, by definition, is a biological union certainly reconciles with scripture's unequivocal condemnation of homosexuality.

 

John 8:58 - "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

Odd sentence structure unless he was trying to clearly trying to identify Himself as God. Nevermind the Greek/Hebrew and such translations pretty much all get at the same point - He was saying He was God.

It was obviously meant to be perceived that way or he was really misunderstood, considering the next verse they were picking up stones to stone him.

And if you read the section (John 8:48-58), He is clearly making the point he is God, and not a demon-possessed as the people around him were accusing him of.

 

There is also ample evidence that the entire NT was finished before 100 as well.

 

the scripture also says you can't sleep in the same house with a woman on her period.

 

As for the topic at hand, I am against gay marriage, but I also think the church as a whole has gone about the debate entirely the wrong way as it has waded too deep into the political sphere of things. Not even the governmental aspect, just the politics.

 

I'm unclear about what evidence you're referring to. What evidence suggests that Jesus' divinity was not discussed before the biblical accounts were written?

And before we get too sidetracked, i'm very familiar with arguments for various dates of the biblical books. Don't really need them rehashed here. What I'm curious about is your suggestion that there is evidence that links the dating of the books and the discussion of Jesus' divinity.

 

and? pope john paul has been dead for what 10 years and people are already asking for sainthood and declaring multiple miracles he performed. it's only natural for a groups followers to inflate their founders accomplishments.