Jindal- If SCOTUS strikes down Gay Marriage bans, amend the Constitution-

I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN so I don't need to justify why I don't live by Biblical law. It is the Christians who eat shellfish and wear modern clothes and are ok with homosexuality who are hypocrites.

 

Okay...then please explain why you put so much effort here into the defense of the Christian Bible(s)?

 

I'm not defending the bible. I'm calling out lunchroom Christians.

 

God didn't write the bible people did.

For you to say it isn't open to interpretation is really untrue. Where in the bible does it say that everything that channe says isn't open to interpretation truly isn't?

The old testament isn't clear about this, it was written in Hebrew, do you speak Hebrew?

- - - Updated - - -

Well, your evaluation of Christians that don't believe how you expect they should is noted, and irrelevant.

 

It is, and you don't get to choose what is or is not Christian. Deal with it.

- - - Updated - - -

Than that is about everyone because I know of NO Christians that don't eat shellfish.

 

How about you not claim that your personal views dictate the views of all Christians.

 

The bible was not a part of Christianity until the catholic church decreed that it was and killed anyone who disagreed. To me, the bible is nothing but a book put together by tyrants to force Christians to agree with them.

 

I can claim water is not wet, it does not make it so

gay sex is a sin in the eyes of Christians. For someone to profess that they have gay sex, or accept gay sex, and are Christian, is a person telling an untruth

 

The eyes of Christians? Who cares? Christians aren't God. In the eyes of God is the only place where sin matters.

In the eyes of Christians, but again who cares?

 

It also varies from individual to individual. A functional alcoholic who drinks all day every day is probably safe to drive at a BAC level that would render a college freshman at his/here first frat party unconscious, or even dead.

 

Because you say so? Who died and appointed you God? There is scholarly disagreement concerning what the Bible allegedly says about homosexuality.

In other words, the Bible very much is open to interpretation - every bit of it.

 

Seventh Day Adventists

 

Why so ? I'm an atheist who is for gay marriage. But the Bible is no where approving of it. Please explain how a Christian can believe homosexuality is natural and that gay marriage should be legal and still be following the commands given by the God they claim to believe in.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree - but that doesn't change the fact that those who call themselves Christians but support gay marriage are hypocrites

- - - Updated - - -

Either the Bible is the perfect word of God or it's not. I'm an atheist so you know where I stand on that. But a person who claims to be a Christian but picks and chooses what parts they believe of the Bible are hypocrites. Their faith is lukewarm at best.

 

The bible says absolutely nothing against homosexuality. Just because some people want it to, and even translated a version so it would, doesn't mean that it does.

 

I say this with respect but clearly Jesus defined marriage as a man and a woman, and banned ALL (not just homosexual) sexual relations outside of marriage (Matthew 19:5 and 1 Corinthians 7:2-5). But what often gets misconstrued by non believers, not implying you are (how would I know?), is that ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but through Him can be redeemed (Romans 3:23-24).

http://www.gotquestions.org/sexual-immorality.html

 

That's my favorite verse.

Jesus didn't ban anything. You can't assume that he banned things by only spreading about one. That is called interpretation.

 

So when Jesus said "‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’" that doesn't clearly ban homosexual relationships? But what about the Apostle when he said "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: xneither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality"? Again, clearly everybody has sinned, hence the need for a Savior. What kind of Savior would Jesus be if he didn't give ALL a chance to be redeemed and forgiven?

 

Apostle never said that. They didn't speak English and the translator used a poor translation.

 

From Genesis through Revelations? Before you go with the belief that the Bible was mistranslated and the true interpretation conforms to your lifestyle, why not pray for guidance and ask that God let his will be known? I wish you luck and this will probably be my last topic about this in this thread.

 

He did. Thanks.

 

Are we assuming that when a generalized statement is made about how heterosexual people should conduct themselves, that this implies that it is also a condemnation of homosexuality without having said so directly? In other words, is the bible and all of its stories perfect representation of God's laws, or are they representation of more basic truths that have been generalized based on their audience? I have seen the direct condemnation of burning for lust in Sodom and Gomorrah. I have also seen the support of marriage and the disapproval of divorce, again, to control one's lust. I was also intrigued to see Jesus make mention in Matthew 19 of "eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

While this certainly isn't a direct reference to homosexuality, it seems to me that Jesus is recognizing diversity in this statement, and is making implicit that statements made are not always universal. To me, this leaves much open to debate about whether or not a particular statement made represents a universal law, or whether it is a statement tailored to an audience and has not been fully fleshed out.

That all said, I would say that someone who claims to be a "Christian" is being hypocritical if they are interpreting different parts of the bible in different ways for apparently no good reason... but not taking every statement literally or without questions of interpretation doesn't mean, in and of itself, that the person is being hypocritical.

 

When John F. Kennedy was running for president, he was eyed with suspicion because he was a Catholic. In response, he famously said something to the effect of: I'm not running as a Catholic for president. I'm running for president as a person who happens to be Catholic. The point is, whether Catholic and adherent of any other religion, Kennedy understood that his faith was separate from his public duties.

Unfortunately, Jindal and the others on the religious right lack the intellect and sophistication to understand what Kennedy did. Having said that, can you discuss where you stand on this proposal for an amendment to institutionalize discrimination in the name of religious beliefs?

 

Jesus never said a single word against homosexuality. You are basing things of of the Jewish faith, not the teachings of Christ.

 

Absolutely, and I appreciate you getting me back on track with a question that's not loaded or anything

In all seriousness, I view gay marriage as a way for certain relationships to fully capitalize on certain legal aspects that other married couples do. According to my faith, I can't condone gay marriage anymore than I could any other sin (yes, that includes my own). But I strongly oppose the establishment of religious laws, in a secular modern society, because I think people have to choose to follow God. So the lack of legalized gay marriage isn't going to somehow make the couples "right" in the eyes of God. Now before I go on--this is where I pause to remind all reading that according to my faith all people have fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). This is not a God hates gays statement. On the contrary, God loves the sinner but hates the sin. I also believe that those so called Christians who preach hate, and are therefore hypocrites and intentionally misleading others, are worse off than any other gay, straight, or other sinner. I pray for them. Back to your question, I couldn't support it on a personal level but if it were to pass I believe each person will be judged regardless of the secular law. I typically don't discuss religion when I talk politics but for me it's hard to separate the two here. Did I answer your question?

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but I think your implication is a classic "denying the antecedent fallacy"

If Jesus didn't explicitly forbid homosexuality, then Jesus approved of homosexuality
Jesus didn't explicitly forbid homosexuality
Therefore, Jesus approves of homosexuality

Clearly, that's an invalid argument.

"It is technically true that Jesus did not specifically address homosexuality in the Gospel accounts; however, He did speak clearly about sexuality in general. Concerning marriage, Jesus stated, “At the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh[.]’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matthew 19:4–6). Here Jesus clearly referred to Adam and Eve and affirmed God’s intended design for marriage and sexuality."

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-homosexuality.html#ixzz3T6hEX7jY