The Bible and Homosexuality

[dan]

It's interesting; for the first 175 or so years of the Constitution there was one governing moral philosophy: divine command. All of the decisions were made according to the Bible. The seperation of church and state was to ensure equal treatment of all religion, not a complete dismissal of religion in and of itself; that has only come in the last 50 years. Atheism is the newest form of idolatry in our nation. Our country has since then changed it's philosophy to that of moral relativism. Whatever society says is right is right.

An interesting decision is going to have to ne made in the coming years. If the Supreme Court upholds same sex "marriages," it's going to have to reverse a decision it made back in 1878 in Reynolds v. The U.S. This was a famous case in which it was decided that polygamous unions were unlawful. The Mormon element in Utah brought this to the surface, and the Supreme Court's ruling reflects only one attitude that lends to their decision: The U.S. is a Christian nation, and plural marriages have no business here. If same sex "marriages" are to be allowed, then that decision will have to be reversed.

Many arguments can be made to the effect that the circumstances are different, but from a legal point of view they are related enough to merit the same classification. I am not a proponent of polygamy by any stretch of the imagination, by the way.

Any thoughts?

 

[Pah]

It's interesting; for the first 175 or so years of the Constitution there was one governing moral philosophy: divine command. All of the decisions were made according to the Bible. The seperation of church and state was to ensure equal treatment of all religion, not a complete dismissal of religion in and of itself; that has only come in the last 50 years.

It is a bit odd that, later in the quoted post, there is mention of Reynolds v US which emphatically established the wall of separation. It quotes from a bill passed by the Virginia legislature one year prior to the Constitutional Convention the following:

'that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,' it is declared 'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.'

The holding in Reynolds then declared that :

In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

Those two sentences were crafted into state law before the Constitution was framed. and reaffirmed in Reynolds.

More from the Reynolds holding:

In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States.' Of this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion (2 Jeff. Works, 355), but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations. [98 U.S. 145, 164] 1 Jeff. Works, 79. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three-New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia-included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

The conclusion: 175 years is a gross exageration if not completely wrong.

Atheism is the newest form of idolatry in our nation. Our country has since then changed it's philosophy to that of moral relativism. Whatever society says is right is right.

Atheism has been around almost as long (175 years), if not longer depending on how it is defined. Atheistic thought was written circa 60 BCE by Lucretius. Spinoza wrote a Theological-political Treatise in 1670. Hume wrote of it in 1757. The 18th century also brought writings by Paul-Henry Thiry and Thomas Paine. Ingersoll wrote of God in the Constitution in 1890.

Only ignorance of these and other works would lead to the suggestion that Atheism is new

I don't have time to go into the "moral relativism" but only to say that it has been around since Biblical days.

An interesting decision is going to have to ne made in the coming years. If the Supreme Court upholds same sex "marriages," it's going to have to reverse a decision it made back in 1878 in Reynolds v. The U.S. This was a famous case in which it was decided that polygamous unions were unlawful. The Mormon element in Utah brought this to the surface, and the Supreme Court's ruling reflects only one attitude that lends to their decision: The U.S. is a Christian nation, and plural marriages have no business here. If same sex "marriages" are to be allowed, then that decision will have to be reversed.

Agreed! It will not be reversed on religious grounds but the laws prohibiting polygamy will be found unconstitutional on the tenents of the individual right to privacy.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

Marriage is an institution rooted in the church not the government. If gay marriage is allowed to occur, then soon the government will force churches to comple with gay couple who want to get married in them. The right personal freedom will overide the right to religious freedom. The governement, by toying with marriage as it trying to do, is infringing upon the rights of the church in this state of freedom of religion. Civil unions are fine, they are a product of the state (should gays not be afforded the same rights as married couples under the constitution in reference to governement benefits, no that is why we have civil unions). By messing with marriage the government is placing itself on a ground it should not be. Many Christian denominations do not accept homosexuality on the grounds of Biblical reference on the topic. The government cannot create gay marriages because they not only infringe upon the beliefs of the church, but will eventually be forced upon the church in time.

 

[Pah]

Marriage is an institution rooted in the church not the government. If gay marriage is allowed to occur, then soon the government will force churches to comple with gay couple who want to get married in them. The right personal freedom will overide the right to religious freedom. The governement, by toying with marriage as it trying to do, is infringing upon the rights of the church in this state of freedom of religion. Civil unions are fine, they are a product of the state (should gays not be afforded the same rights as married couples under the constitution in reference to governement benefits, no that is why we have civil unions). By messing with marriage the government is placing itself on a ground it should not be. Many Christian denominations do not accept homosexuality on the grounds of Biblical reference on the topic. The government cannot create gay marriages because they not only infringe upon the beliefs of the church, but will eventually be forced upon the church in time.

Marriages have been a function of the state ever since Plymouth Colony. The state today grants license to every cleric in it's jusidiction. Nobody marries without the permission of the state in the form of a marriage certificate and ceremony by approved agents of the state. There is no complusion now, nor will there be, for a cleric to perfom any marriage. The state action today changes nothing in any expression of religion regarding marriage. Gays are denied marriage only under the pressure by some religiious and THAT is unconstitutional.

Churches are free to hold whatever belief they choose. Some even hold, by biblical interpretation and prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, views differently from other Christians. The state can, and does, hold some religious practise unconstitutional.

These are lawful facts.

 

[dan]

pah, you misunderstand something fundamental. That whole argument in Reynolds v. U.S. is about why the government has the right to intercede, but it has nothing to do with the reason for their outcome. They say polygamy is inherent in Asiatic and African peoples, and is an offence to society. Why would they say that? Because we live in a Christian nation. The only real logic they provide is the opinion of one professor that polygamy would theoretically lead to passive despotism. What is that? and when are U.S. Supreme Court cases decided on the theories of one college professor? It's all a thinly veiled shield so that they don't have to come out and just say it doesn't jive with Christianity. My point was that religion was what underscored major decision like that. It doesn't say that in the texts, but that's the basis for their conclusions.

As for atheism, I was refering to the mass acceptance of atheism as a new breed of idolatry. It has existed for over two millenia, that is true, but our nation has not embraced it as a beloved value system until recently. It's prevalence is what has shifted the general societal attitude from religion to moral relativism. Fifty years ago the average person said he didn't want to live in a nation where a man had to work on a Sunday to make a living, and now you have a man suing because his daughter has to say the word "God" at the beginning of each day. This shift is because atheism has become acceptable, and it has become the "new idolatry" (in a mass acceptance sort of way).

 

[Pah]

pah, you misunderstand something fundamental. That whole argument in Reynolds v. U.S. is about why the government has the right to intercede, but it has nothing to do with the reason for their outcome. They say polygamy is inherent in Asiatic and African peoples, and is an offence to society. Why would they say that? Because we live in a Christian nation. The only real logic they provide is the opinion of one professor that polygamy would theoretically lead to passive despotism. What is that? and when are U.S. Supreme Court cases decided on the theories of one college professor? It's all a thinly veiled shield so that they don't have to come out and just say it doesn't jive with Christianity. My point was that religion was what underscored major decision like that. It doesn't say that in the texts, but that's the basis for their conclusions.

As for atheism, I was refering to the mass acceptance of atheism as a new breed of idolatry. It has existed for over two millenia, that is true, but our nation has not embraced it as a beloved value system until recently. It's prevalence is what has shifted the general societal attitude from religion to moral relativism. Fifty years ago the average person said he didn't want to live in a nation where a man had to work on a Sunday to make a living, and now you have a man suing because his daughter has to say the word "God" at the beginning of each day. This shift is because atheism has become acceptable, and it has become the "new idolatry" (in a mass acceptance sort of way).

The decision rested upon civil common law (2 Kent, Com 79) and again under James I where it was removed from ecclesiiastical courts.

Religion entered the case by way of the defense of religious belief or duty. The "wall of separation" was reaffirmed in the court defining religion. That is part of the holding and is precedent for every instance where the case raises the expression or establishemnet clauses in the First Amendment.

I am well aware of the "politics" that can and does occur in the back chambers but the holding was sufficent under common law and needed no "shield" or "logic" from Lieber. In my opinion, this statement would have been issued as dictum today or even ignored.

I do not agree that atheism is what has been embraced as a valued system but rather the actualization of the rights and freedoms found in and protected by the Constitution. I am not aware of any moral system that is inherently atheistic - in fact there is no "system" of any kind that defines an atheist. Perhaps it is our vocalization under Constitutional protection with which you find objection. Do not confuse the two.

I don't know that moral relativism is all that new. We have great examples of it from the Bible. It is fine to wage war but wrong to kill an individual It is fine to accept God's command to wreck infanticide and genocide upon a neighboring tribe because it falls under the principle of "Do as I say and not as I do" It was permissible to enslave but we have come to our senses.

I find the freedom from oppression for women, races and homosexuals to be morally direct and not relative.

Moral relativism seems to have eminated from God and not from the absence of God.

 

[anders]

pah,

I have finally, after searching for a long time, found a detail where I slightly disagree with you. You write "I am not aware of any moral system that is inherently atheistic." I propose the ancient Daoism/Taoism and the first Buddhism. Neither has any gods, but both are to a great extent moral systems.

 

[Pah]

pah,

I have finally, after searching for a long time, found a detail where I slightly disagree with you. You write "I am not aware of any moral system that is inherently atheistic." I propose the ancient Daoism/Taoism and the first Buddhism. Neither has any gods, but both are to a great extent moral systems.

We may be dealing with definitions here. (and I may be mistaken too!)

I take Atheism to not only exclude the existence of gods but also some of the facets of other faiths. We do not hold to an afterlife, nor any scriptural writings. There is no model for our "faith" - although many "freethinkers" are appreciated it does not approach reverence. There is very little trapping of organization and what there is does not speak for all of us. We may fellowship but we know there are many diverse thoughts about Atheism and offer respect to those with whom we fellowship. Our morals are generally derived from social rules but not in a sytematic way.

 

[anders]

Definitions it is!

To me, atheism is simply "no gods". That might add Jainism to my quoted examples, but I am not sufficiently acquainted with Jainism (yet) to judge.

 

[KBC1963]

Maize I think as a moderator you have not kept to your position, but have rather taken a side or stand on the gay/lesbian issue which in effect takes away the equality of the forum, but that is just fine with me cause:

I know a guy that loves a sheep more than anything in the world and he swears someday he's gonna marry it, so I think I will show him your post here and give him a little more fuel for his fire because if you can say:

(Author's Note: Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship. )

about theses verses:

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death)

then I'm sure that the following verse also only applies to baal rituals as well, and i'm sure his conscience will be clean when it comes to GOD;

Le 20:15
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.


It also seems that the adultry thing was included as a baal ritual so I guess I am now free to ask other mens wives for a little roll in the hay since that was also part of the baal ritual and I swear I don't know baal and I definitly don't worship he/she/it

oh and now it appears that me and the wife can have intercourse no matter what time of the month it is seeing as how this verse:

Le 20:18
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

must have also been part of the baal ritual thing

And ya know i'm kinda disapointed now because my kids now have a license to curse me and my wife because unfortunatly this verse also is found within the boundries of the baal ritual and I know they don't know baal:

Le 20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

but I suppose I gotta take the bad with the good,so it seems that your views could make alot of what were weird people to me into just your run of the mill types so maybe I should also ignore this verse:

And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.

and go to my local psychic and see if there are any words of wisdom from beyond the grave, maybe I might find more answers there on how to get away with even more things that we thought we weren't supposed to do (according to the bible) and still think your going to heaven.

Now according to your views here:

(Romans 1:26-27:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Author's Note: All of this refers to idolatrous religious practices that were common in the time of Paul.)

I would say what the heck if we can do away with them other verses up above then there should be no problem with these either:

Ro 1:26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Ro 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

so now we can use any part of anyones body to do as we please just as long as we don't do any baal whorship or any other god whorshipping.

I only have one question how do I go about tellin the wife that I want to get familiar with some other parts of her body and not get hurt, cause I really want to believe what your sayin since my conscience would be terribly relieved of tons of guilt.

thx for all your help i'll see ya in heaven after we have some more fun in this life.

 

[Green Gaia]

Maize I think as a moderator you have not kept to your position, but have rather taken a side or stand on the gay/lesbian issue which in effect takes away the equality of the forum, but that is just fine with me cause:

And how is that? As a moderator I'm not allowed an opinion? Well, you see it's awful hard for me not to have an opinion on this subject as I am a lesbian. If you have issue with me being a moderator, I suggest you take it up with the Admin.

Oh, and I couldn't care less what you do with your wife or sheep, so have fun mate. :hi:

 

[Pah]

Maize I think as a moderator you have not kept to your position, but have rather taken a side or stand on the gay/lesbian issue which in effect takes away the equality of the forum,

Maize does not need my defense, but I think it rather odd that someone can not distinguish between a moderator post and an opinion by a member. She is first and foremost a member of Religious Forums and is entitled to speak.

The remainder of your post is but your interpretation of what the Bible says delived as sarcasm. Unless you can claim personal revelation, your opinion of the meaning is just that - opinion. Other Christians with the same standing with God (in thier hearts and souls touched by the Holy Spirit and follwing the example of Christ) believe differently.

 

[Green Gaia]

Ah, I know I shouldn't, but I couldn't help answering some of your "points" :lol:

then I'm sure that the following verse also only applies to baal rituals as well, and i'm sure his conscience will be clean when it comes to GOD;

Why would you assume that? The note was referring to Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, did you not read the whole thing? But if it makes you feel better about you and your sheep....

oh and now it appears that me and the wife can have intercourse no matter what time of the month it is seeing as how this verse

Go for it. But I would suggest using a towel or doing in the shower or something. It can get messy.

And ya know i'm kinda disapointed now because my kids now have a license to curse me and my wife because unfortunatly this verse also is found within the boundries of the baal ritual and I know they don't know baal:

Le 20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

And from that verse how did you come to that conclusion? If read literally, you have God's permission to kill your children when the curse you.

but I suppose I gotta take the bad with the good,so it seems that your views could make alot of what were weird people to me into just your run of the mill types so maybe I should also ignore this verse:
And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.
and go to my local psychic and see if there are any words of wisdom from beyond the grave, maybe I might find more answers there on how to get away with even more things that we thought we weren't supposed to do (according to the bible) and still think your going to heaven.

If this was coherent, I'd answer it, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Perhaps lay off the booze before you post again? Thanks. :goodjob:

 

[Green Gaia]

Maize does not need my defense, but I think it rather odd that someone can not distinguish between a moderator post and an opinion by a member. She is first and foremost a member of Religious Forums and is entitled to speak.

Certainly. There is not a moderator on this board that doesn't give his or her on opinions in the debates and discussions. We're not here to moderate the discussion, but rather to ensure that everything runs smoothly and any offensive or off topic posts are dealt with. When we are posting as a moderator we certainly let everyone know it, otherwise just assume we are a regular member engaging in the discussions like everyone else.

 

[KBC1963]

I notice you had nothing of worth to say about whether it was ok for me to do all those things using your reasoning, hmmm I wonder why?

Satan also believes he is right in what he does and he thinks everyone should do as they please so being that as it is why do you waste your time with CHRIST or GOD
because if GOD loved what you are he would have made them female and female.

I also stand by my thoughts, that if you wish/choose/are driven to be gay then you should not be allowed to have children since from a lesbians view men are not desired then you should try to procreate with just what the 2 of you have between you just as any other married couple does that would make us equal but since a gay couple is biologically incapable of procreation then you would have to have more rights than the average married couple, you would also have to make it a right for yourselves to be able to adopt children (which by the way came from a union of a MAN and a woman) so how equal do you want to be?
One thing I am sure of is this that without the natural union of male and female you would not be here so not only do you deny GOD's nature by your beliefs and actions but you deny the actions of every male/female of your entire ancestral heritage.

Col 3:5
¶ Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry

as long as you are alive you still have a choice

 

[Green Gaia]

KBC1963, are you preaching or debating?

I notice you had nothing of worth to say about whether it was ok for me to do all those things using your reasoning, hmmm I wonder why?

Maybe because I don't care what you do in your bedroom. Have a good day. :hi:

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

pah quote:

"Marriages have been a function of the state ever since Plymouth Colony. The state today grants license to every cleric in it's jusidiction. Nobody marries without the permission of the state in the form of a marriage certificate and ceremony by approved agents of the state. "

You cannot say the state sanctioned marriage before the institution existed. It did not. Marriage is an institution rooted in religion not in the state. Advocates of homosexual marriages would say otherwise, because that throws gay marriage out of the realm of religion into the realm of the state. That is an arena where gay marriage is accepted.

pah goes on to say:

"There is no complusion now, nor will there be, for a cleric to perfom any marriage. The state action today changes nothing in any expression of religion regarding marriage. Gays are denied marriage only under the pressure by some religiious and THAT is unconstitutional."

Your final sentence proves my point. Christians do not accept the gay lifestyle not on the basis of hate, but on religious beliefs firmly rooted in scripture. When you say that is unconstitutional to believe what we believe on basis of faith, then that is infringing upon our constitutional rights of freedom of religion.

 

[Ceridwen018]

LCMS,

"That is an arena where gay marriage is accepted."

It is fortunate that that is also the arena which makes the laws.

"Your final sentence proves my point. Christians do not accept the gay lifestyle on the basis of hate, but on religious beliefs firmly rooted in scripture. When you say that is unconstitutional to believe what we believe on basis of faith, then that is infringing upon our constitutional rights of freedom of religion."

What I think was meant here, is that gays are denied state recognized marriages because of religious pressure, and that is most certainly unconstitutional. The Church has the right to deny marriage to whomever they wish, however.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

Sorry had to make some corrections. I meant to say that "Christians do not accept the gay lifestyle [not] on the basis of hate." [Not] was left out. It is unconstitutional for the government to endorse another religion's values over another's. However, it is trying to force gay marriage down the throat of Americans. I would like to note though that not all government officials are trying to pass gay marriage legislation. In fact, many oppose it. A small minority of activist judges are changing the rules of the country, taking leadership and decision-making power out of everyday American's hands (over 60% of whom are openly against gay marriage). Now, I don't see how that isn't unconstitutional.

 

[Pah]

pah quote:

"Marriages have been a function of the state ever since Plymouth Colony. The state today grants license to every cleric in it's jusidiction. Nobody marries without the permission of the state in the form of a marriage certificate and ceremony by approved agents of the state. "

You cannot say the state sanctioned marriage before the institution existed. It did not. Marriage is an institution rooted in religion not in the state. Advocates of homosexual marriages would say otherwise, because that throws gay marriage out of the realm of religion into the realm of the state. That is an arena where gay marriage is accepted.

Don't confuse sanctity and state function. I only said that the state function in marriage begins in Plymoutyh Colony. That means - it was removed from control of the Church - and became a state function. This country has a long history of civil marriage performed by clerics and it is disengenuous to say marriage is a church function. Baptisms were once recorded but that gave way rather quickly to recording births. The sacremental cermonies were replaced with civil registration to satisfy a state function.

pah goes on to say:

"There is no complusion now, nor will there be, for a cleric to perfom any marriage. The state action today changes nothing in any expression of religion regarding marriage. Gays are denied marriage only under the pressure by some religiious and THAT is unconstitutional."

Your final sentence proves my point. Christians do not accept the gay lifestyle on the basis of hate,

Who said they did?

...but on religious beliefs firmly rooted in scripture.

Again we have only your say so - your opinion - your interpreatation. The other Chriastians who believe differently have every bit of answered prayer and Holy Spirit guidance as you do. It is one of the main contentions in Christianity - who has the true Word. I would expect sometime soon for you to cry heretic

When you say that is unconstitutional to believe what we believe on basis of faith, then that is infringing upon our constitutional rights of freedom of religion.

And the final bit of misunderstanding of my comments. I said no such thing. I said the pressure some Christians bring to bear on homosexual marriage goes against the inclusion of articles of Christian faith in Constitutional law. That is the unconstitutionality of which I speak.