Not content to vitiate the 14th Amendment...

[Burning Petard]

Gen'l, Apologetics is a highly refined specialty of Judeo-Christian Theology .

"the fact is that Bible declares that God is 100% opposed to sin and homosexual activity is defined there as sin."

The fact is, your statement is NOT a fact. It is your summary of the bible. There are theologians who have developed very extensive arguments based on actual content of that Bible and come to conclusions directly opposed to your statement. The usual rebuttal to such theologians by those who agree with you is that those others are not real Christians.

snailgate

[MajGenl.Meade]

snail - I think the argument is "No it doesn't so there! " (not "you're not a Christian")

Big RR:

How is refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage in any way an expression of "concern"?

I think I've made it clear that while I may not agree, I can understand that Cake Baker A (who believes homosexual marriage to be sin) might not want to gain the reputation of endorsing sin by providing a cake. I would agree that Cake Baker A in the same circumstance should supply the cake as long as he/she was not asked to decorate it in a way that he/she found offensive - i.e. the message is the point - not the medium. The cakiographer is not concerned to alter anything in the life of the people but is concerned for his or her self not to participate in it.

For myself, I'd bake the cake and as long as I didn't have to decorate it with anything I found offensive, let 'em have it and eat it.

I of course don't see that the Bible even once suggests (e.g.) that a black person cannot marry a white person. The same kind of tortuous thinking that goes into that "interpretation" by bigots goes equally into the "Bible doesn't view homosexual activity as sin" argument by libertines.

[Bicycle Bill]

I of course don't see that the Bible even once suggests (e.g.) that a black person cannot marry a white person. The same kind of tortuous thinking that goes into that "interpretation" by bigots goes equally into the "Bible doesn't view homosexual activity as sin" argument by libertines.

Depending on how you want to interpret it, both Deuteronomy 22:10

"Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together."

as well as 2 Corinthians 6:14, in which the apostle Paul reiterates/paraphrases Deuteronomy:

'Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?  And what communion hath light with darkness?"

forbid (or at least counsels against) interaction with unbelievers and/or sinners.  So if someone believes homosexuality to be a sin and an abomination, there's his/her ammo right there.

As for any other black/white or other inter-racial marriage, as well as marrying "outside your religion", I'm sure they would be citing the same scriptural sources.

-"BB"-

[Big RR]

And both of those biblical verses have been used to support anti-miscegenation laws for centuries. Certainly there are other interpretations that are not related to interracial marriages, but then through even the 70s and 80s some white churches prohibited blacks from becoming members for ostensibly the same reasons.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I of course don't see that the Bible even once suggests (e.g.) that a black person cannot marry a white person. The same kind of tortuous thinking that goes into that "interpretation" by bigots goes equally into the "Bible doesn't view homosexual activity as sin" argument by libertines.

Depending on how you want to interpret it, both Deuteronomy 22:10

"Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together."

as well as 2 Corinthians 6:14, in which the apostle Paul reiterates/paraphrases Deuteronomy:

'Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?  And what communion hath light with darkness?"

forbid (or at least counsels against) interaction with unbelievers and/or sinners.  So if someone believes homosexuality to be a sin and an abomination, there's his/her ammo right there.

As for any other black/white or other inter-racial marriage, as well as marrying "outside your religion", I'm sure they would be citing the same scriptural sources.

-"BB"-

I don't think you really have got that right (nor Big RR either. Paul's advice is that a believer should not choose to marry an unbeliever (2Cor 6:14). Paul also says that if there is an already existing marriage and one person becomes a believer but the spouse does not, then they should stay married (1Cor 7:12-14). That has nothing to do with black/white. Neither does Deuteronomy. These are matters of both practicality and religious observance

My point is that the Bible gives absolutely zero instruction on marriage (or any other relationship) between people of different colors. Zero.

Perhaps neither of you comprehended this sentence: "The same kind of tortuous thinking that goes into that "interpretation" by bigots goes equally into the "Bible doesn't view homosexual activity as sin" argument by libertines"

Of course, any asshole can say "Be not unequally yoked with an unbeliever" means "White people should have nothing to do with black people". But that isn't what it says and it never has been what it means.

[Lord Jim]

If one thinks about it logically, it would have made absolutely zero sense for the authors of the Bible (Old Testament or New) to have been writing prohibitions against "interracial marriage" since, (as has been thoroughly discussed and documented on this board in an earlier discussion) the whole concept of different "races" as we understand it today was first developed about 400 years ago by early Enlightenment Era "scientists"...

The concept did not exist in antiquity. It would make no more sense for the biblical writers to prohibit interracial marriage then it would for them to have prohibited people from riding in steam locomotives or talking on a telephone...

They couldn't possibly have prohibited something they had no acquaintance with or frame of reference for...

[Big RR]

Meade--don't get me wrong; I'm not defending it or even saying the interpretation has any validity whatsoever (I maintain it does not), but those verses have been used. Also, I recall hearing a televangelist once saying that because Noah cursed his son Ham, he cursed the entire Hamitic race (the blacks) which is why whites should nto marry them. BS? Of course, but then it shows how the biblical verses can be distorted to prove a point.

As for the sinfulness of homosexuality, I'll leave it alone for the present.

think I've made it clear that while I may not agree, I can understand that Cake Baker A (who believes homosexual marriage to be sin) might not want to gain the reputation of endorsing sin by providing a cake. I would agree that Cake Baker A in the same circumstance should supply the cake as long as he/she was not asked to decorate it in a way that he/she found offensive

But that's the point, isn't it? You said the bible call us to express concern for sinners, not to express offense about what they do. SO if a baker doesn't like to bake a cake to deliver to a gay wedding reception, or to put "Congratulations Bill and Jim", should (s)he express contempt in refusing to serve the people or should (s)he serve them and lead by example that all are loved and welcomed by god? Of course, there is no requirement for the baker to extend his/her personal congratulations, anymore than to deliver a sermon on the evils of what they are doing, unless perhaps they are asked. But baking a cake or issuing a license as the town/county clerk is morally neutral and is neither an endorsement or a condemnation of the marriage by the person doing that act. I fully agree clergy cannot and should not be made to perform weddings they find run counter to the beliefs of their church, because that may signal an endorsement; but acts like providing a cake or coffee or napkins do not.

Jim--

the whole concept of different "races" as we understand it today was first developed about 400 years ago by early Enlightenment Era "scientists"...

True, but even ancient people understood that there were people like us and people not like us in faraway (say 80 or more miles away) lands. And people generally did marry within their own people and culture. Indeed, it was seen more or less as an imperative to keep their people alive; this was as true for OT jews as any other group. Now there are examples where the mixing of people worked out and others where it did not, and I even recall a story where a sister of a man who married an "outsider" complained bitterly and was eventually stricken with leprosy as a punishment (if I get a chance I will google it, or maybe someone else will know more), so the prejudice against the other has been deeply ingrained (although intermarriage is maybe not seen as bad by god). Not interracial, per se, but I don't see all that much of a difference.

[Econoline]

OTOH, there's the Book of Ruth...in which a Moabite convert is shown to be the ancestor of David, and, eventually, of Jesus.

[Econoline]

They couldn't possibly have prohibited something they had no acquaintance with or frame of reference for...

...something like a committed, monogamous homosexual marriage...

[MajGenl.Meade]

They couldn't possibly have prohibited something they had no acquaintance with or frame of reference for...

...something like a committed, monogamous homosexual marriage...

... which is as meaningful as pointing out that duck strawberry Antarctica.

[Big RR]

Duck strawberry Antarctica? I know I'm going to hate myself for it, but please explain.

[MajGenl.Meade]

er... nonsense. Meaningless. Drivel. Non sequitur. Value-negative. Words without anything other than sound.

Don't hate yourself, Big RR.

[Burning Petard]

'Perhaps neither of you comprehended this sentence: "The same kind of tortuous thinking that goes into that "interpretation" by bigots goes equally into the "Bible doesn't view homosexual activity as sin" argument by libertines'

But the argument I was suggesting does not come from libertines, unless you define libertine as one who disagrees with your religious morality. It includes, among other data points, that homosexuality as understood by Western civilization of the 21st century, is totally outside the knowledge, experience, even imagination, of the authors of the bible., just as modern marriage is. Marriage of the bible is a strictly contractual arrangement; modersn would regard it as a contract of adhesion. This 'interpretation" by your libertines includes, among other data points, that many of the particular verses cited as anti-homosexuality, are when taken in the context of the times in which they were written, admonitions against participating in the activities of other religions. With all the relevance to today as the admonitions against eating meat that had been used in sacrificial rituals in a Roman temple, no matter how cheap it might be.

If this is 'tortuous thinking' perhaps we can both stick with the simple but so difficult admonition to just love God and love our neighbor.

snailgate

[Joe Guy]

yrs,
Meadato

[Econoline]

er... nonsense. Meaningless. Drivel. Non sequitur. Value-negative. Words without anything other than sound.

Exactly. The authors of Leviticus would have found the type of legal marital relationships that present-day "fundamentalist" "Christians" quote Leviticus to justify their prejudice against just as incomprehensible and meaningless as the concept of sexting, or in-vitreo fertilization, or death-metal rock.

Strawberry Fields Forever!

[MajGenl.Meade]

homosexuality as understood by Western civilization of the 21st century, is totally outside the knowledge, experience, even imagination, of the authors of the bible

Snail - I'm not sure what to make of that. Homosexual acts are er.... acts of sex conducted by two (at least) members of the same sex with each other. Further description on my part is not necessary.

You are stating that between (say) 4000 BC and (say) AD 80, people living in the middle east (including what is present-day Greece and Turkey) did not know, experience or imagine that?

...and adding Econo... why do you people so enjoy bringing up Leviticus as if homosexual acts are only condemned there (and of course pretending by tortuous self-serving scholarship that the plain meaning of words is not actually the plain meaning)?

I constantly remind myself that all of us are sinners - and there is no excuse to pick on homosexual acts as "worse than" other sins routinely committed by Christians (genuine and so-called) and non-christians alike. They are not at all "worse than". That should never be any ground for discussion.

Loving God and loving our neighbor - absolutely. But to a Christian that does not mean "sin" doesn't exist and that one should not scrupulously avoid indulging in (yeah, not so easy), commending or encouraging sin.

I'm not sure that efforts to have the Bible named as the "state book" are not in themselves a form of blasphemy but in view of the law, such an effort is sin. Obedience to lawful authority is enjoined upon us. In the same way, I believe it wrong for (e.g.) a clerk of courts to refuse to issue a marriage license to a homosexual couple when the law is otherwise. A person confronted by a personal dilemma of faith like that should resign from the business of conducting state business. Or issue the paper.

The same goes for decorating cakes if to refuse to decorate 'em violates the law. Get out of the business, if the matter is one of personal morality.