Christians FOR Gay Marriage... they are and always have been

a reply to: Septimus

I simply take issue with your assertion that US law is derived from biblical morality, which I believe is an oxymoron. The bible teaches obedience equals morality, and that free will results in sin.

The trickiness is, though the state may recognize the marriage, that doesn't mean a religious institution has to and the government cannot force them to without abandoning our founding principles. It will be interesting to see if any such rulings appear in the future.

The state has no need for the church to recognize marriages, gay or otherwise. Marriage ceremonies performed in a church for the purpose of some religious ritual are no more valid, in the state's eyes, than some random agnostic couple's pot luck wedding, held in the forest at midnight under a full moon while the Greatful Dead were playing "Stella Blues".

originally posted by: windword

I simply take issue with your assertion that US law is derived from biblical morality, which I believe is an oxymoron. The bible teaches obedience equals morality, and that free will results in sin.

It is to the extent that the golden rule and basic human principles of equality and fair treatment are applied. There once was a time when people didn't view the Bible as a negative, and reading it didn't immediately doom oneself to a labeling as a closed-minded bigot. Times were simpler back then, and the Bible just happened to be at the forefront of how to treat your fellow man with kindness and dignity.

originally posted by: windword
The state has no need for the church to recognize marriages, gay or otherwise. Marriage ceremonies performed in a church for the purpose of some religious ritual are no more valid, in the state's eyes, than some random agnostic couple's pot luck wedding, held in the forest at midnight under a full moon while the Greatful Dead were playing "Stella Blues".

So long as the individual doing the marrying possesses the legal authority to do so, the state is happy. Marriage licenses are quite simple to obtain. The big issue for the religious institutions however, was and still is the potential threat of government interference in their beliefs. If ever a day comes when such legislature does pass however, I fear we we begin to see the true destabilization of the US.

originally posted by: windword
The state has no need for the church to recognize marriages, gay or otherwise. Marriage ceremonies performed in a church for the purpose of some religious ritual are no more valid, in the state's eyes, than some random agnostic couple's pot luck wedding, held in the forest at midnight under a full moon while the Greatful Dead were playing "Stella Blues".

OMG! I just had a flashback to my buddy's wedding which... uh... took place at a campground, involved music (performed by the attendees of course and included the Dead), and was catered by Chipotle.

originally posted by: Septimus
The state has no need for the church to recognize marriages, gay or otherwise. Marriage ceremonies performed in a church for the purpose of some religious ritual are no more valid, in the state's eyes, than some random agnostic couple's pot luck wedding, held in the forest at midnight under a full moon while the Greatful Dead were playing "Stella Blues".

So long as the individual doing the marrying possesses the legal authority to do so, the state is happy. Marriage licenses are quite simple to obtain. The big issue for the religious institutions however, was and still is the potential threat of government interference in their beliefs. If ever a day comes when such legislature does pass however, I fear we we begin to see the true destabilization of the US.

This is a non-existent threat invented by the Religious right. There is no chance whatsoever that anyone is going to try to force churches to marry anyone the church doesn't want to marry. It didn't happen after interracial couple bans were overturned and it won't happen now. Look, it still happens:
Interracial Couple Spurned

And even IF a group decided to pursue this course of action, it wouldn't go anywhere because the idea of it is so Constitutionally unsound that even the majority of the left would back down on it, but certainly, no one on the right would EVER support it.

a reply to: Septimus

It is to the extent that the golden rule and basic human principles of equality and fair treatment are applied.

The Golden Rule, also known as the "Law of Reciprocity", is found in nearly every social structure. It's not unique to the Bible. Early American were elitists, who thought that they had certain rights, as white Christians, but did not extend basic human principles of equality and fair treatment to native Indians, black slaves, etc.,

If ever a day comes when such legislature does pass however, I fear we we begin to see the true destabilization of the US.

That type of legislation hasn't even been proposed, but when and if it is, I'll be right beside you fighting to keep the state out of religion and religion out of state governance.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
And even IF a group decided to pursue this course of action, it wouldn't go anywhere because the idea of it is so Constitutionally unsound that even the majority of the left would back down on it, but certainly, no one on the right would EVER support it.

Amendments are always possible, though thankfully unrealistic.

originally posted by: windword
The Golden Rule, also known as the "Law of Reciprocity", is found in nearly every social structure. It's not unique to the Bible. Early American were elitists, who thought that they had certain rights, as white Christians, but did not extend basic human principles of equality and fair treatment to native Indians, black slaves, etc.,

Never said it was, just that the Bible was the obvious choice to help spread the message at the time. It would have been easier for European immigrants to relate to than say... a lecture from Aristotle or Plato.

originally posted by: windword
That type of legislation hasn't even been proposed, but when and if it is, I'll be right beside you fighting to keep the state of religion and religion out of state governance.

Glad to hear it!

a reply to: Septimus

........ the Bible was the obvious choice to help spread the message at the time.

Spread the message? What message? The founding fathers weren't evangelists or missionaries. However, later missionaries were used by the USA to make the natives compliant, offering them salvation or Hell and giving them blankets infected with Small Pox.....Don't get me started!

The Christian message hasn't been very "Good News" for most of the native populations unlucky enough to have been on receiving end of "The Message".

I have no real knowledge of Religion, or Religions History so could someone authenticate this?

io9.com...

a reply to: Darth_Prime

I guess its possible... it really would depend on how "romanized" the early church was...

I could see it happening during Constantine's reign... but I don't really know of any records from the first century which would detail such things considering we really don't have much info about Christianity in that time

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Boadicea

Okay... after one more false start, here goes!

My apologies. I thought it was clear from the context of the article; I obviously presumed too much and my snark was unwarranted and deserved. Shame on me.

You also have my apology in being suspicious of baiting me into another bash.

Thank you -- I'm glad we could get past that.

Let me start with identifying myself. My perspective is from the fact that I am old school first century belief. My church is the first Synagogue of James the brother of Christ Jesus. That is if it still existed today. I am not of the Roman organizations or what they have spawned. I use the KJV only as a comparative bible but my book is the Eth Cepher which contains your NT and Masoretic OT and the Apocrypha plus many other books such as Enoch, Jublilees, Jasher etc.- All of my dates are from the Jewish time line encyclopedia and I depend upon Me’Am Loez for the oral Torah. I think that this is important to identify myself as being very prejudiced as a Christian with Orthodox Jewish roots.

Thank you for sharing -- I'm intrigued. I love reading and studying old manuscripts and documents -- especially Biblical. I was raised in the Unity School of Christianity, considered "New Age" by some, and perhaps sometimes rightfully so, as I have heard of a couple that have gone rogue. But I share this because what was always stressed was the love of Jesus for us, the less than perfect, and because He loves us -- first and always -- we love others. We were also encouraged to live our faith... to prove the truths in the Bible for ourselves. I'm not sure they expected that would lead to my fascination with studying the historical manuscripts and documents, but it did! My faith in Jesus is absolute; but not so much what has come down to us as truth.

The very first section of the Gospel of Paul states that Saul/Paul did not ever meet Jesus. I do not accept this whatsoever. Saul/Paul sat under Gamaliel the elder son of Hillel who in turn was the president (Nasi) of the Sanhedrin. In Jewish tradition Paul was the most admired and intelligent pupil of Gamaliel and was appointed by Gamaliel to the Sanhedrin./quote]

I tend to agree.

This would have placed Saul/Paul on the board of Justice as a young man in his late twenties or early thirties. Our tradition cites that Paul was in authority to oversee an execution that was approved by Roman law to its subjects. That is why the execution of St. Stephen was overseen by Saul/Paul as the executioners laid the garments at Saul/Paul’s feet. A member of the Sanhedrin must witness an execution and verify that it was carried out in the manner as prescribed. That is also sent to Rome because Roman Courts must always write a warrant for any death of their charge and receive a verification of that sentence. That is recorded by Luke as a scribe for Paul in your NT.

This also tells us that Saul/Paul was very familiar with the trial of Jesus and probably as a member of the Sanhedrin voted Jesus guilty. The Entire Sanhedrin of seventy one members was involved in this trial so if Saul/Paul was a member it is almost certain that he wanted Jesus dead by stoning, Jesus was acquitted from this trial by the Sanhedrin.

I have read that Saul of Tarsus was, in fact, the "prosecutor" at the crucifixion trial of Jesus. I'm going to look for a reference when I have time.

So if one denies this, then that one must also deny Luke who was the author of Acts. Was it Paul who lied or was it the scribe Luke who lied. You see Paul did not record his own merits. It was Luke who either lied or recorded the truth. Now if Paul was a scoundrel then Luke was also a scoundrel.

Perhaps neither lied... perhaps it was those who came after and put their words and deeds to paper... or papyrus,

You wrote -
"No, not the entire NT. The four gospels, presumably written by or at the very least taught by -- those apostles hand-picked by Jesus, who personally learned from Jesus, spoke to Jesus, and witnessed his earthly ministry, are not subject to the same doubts, questions and skepticism as Saul of Tarsus and his self-proclaimed apostleship. Though they have their own doubts, questions and skepticism."

That is exactly my point. If you destroy Paul then you must destroy the liar Luke also because Luke is the witness and author of Paul. Paul did not write Acts. Luke wrote Acts and Luke was the third Apostle who you just said was hand picked by Jesus. Luke was Paul’s companion and if you destroy Paul you must destroy Luke for lying. You see my point very clearly. If you destroy Luke then you have destroyed the Gospels of Christianity. If Satan used Paul then Satan had to also have used Luke.

I agree in practice... but not in theory. Neither you nor I know just what the apostles did or did not teach or write. We cannot be sure of the authors of most of the gospels. Some believe the author was not the apostle, but is named for teachings of the apostle. Others believe there is a Gospel Q, a master document so to speak that the authors of the gospels used. So yes, if the gospels were discredited to whatever extent, it would have a profound effect on the institution of Christianity, and therefore the practice of Christianity. But the faith... the love... the heart that truly loves Jesus, will want the truth and will grow in their faith and their love.

In terms of the OP -- let's not forget that! -- when I speak of the love of Jesus, no true Christian will doubt that Jesus loves the homosexual as much as the heterosexual, even if He knows without a doubt that homosexuality is an abomination to His Father in Heaven. But Jesus also made it clear that it is not our job to judge or condemn... our job is to love everyone. Whatever Jesus will or will not do is up to Jesus -- not us. We have to mind our own Ps and Qs. If we believe that homosexuality is wrong, then we must not act on any homosexual urges... others must exercise their own God-given free will as they see fit. Likewise, Constitutionally, we cannot impose our religion on others, and when/if we deny marriage rights to others based on our religious beliefs, then WE are wrong.

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
Hey OP,

This came up on my Facebook feed and I thought you might like it. An interesting read for sure. (Title is misleading, you'll understand after the first point)

Thank you so very much for that!!! It touched me to my soul... and is making my screen a little blurry. I wish I could have said it so well. He is 100% right here:

Regardless of our feelings about the Supreme Court’s decision, it’s clear that Christians lost far more valuable things than a 5 to 4 vote this week; things that we better fight like Hell to get back.

I'm trying.

originally posted by: Septimus

originally posted by: buster2010
There many quotes by the founders themselves that says America was founded in no way on Christianity or any other religion. Also if you pay attention to Israel they aren't following the laws of their faith either.

The Fathers understood government differently than we do today and possessed varying beliefs at the time of their discussions assuming the founding of our country is defined as the signing of the Constitution. Though they were divided religiously, they all seem to agree that biblical morality takes precedence over governmental institution....

[snip]...

Admittedly, these principles were 'adjusted' at times to compensate for the difficulty of governing such a new nation. You see examples of this in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. This can perhaps explain the circumstances in which quotes arise denying religious based foundation. It seems faith was taken up and abandoned whenever convenient at the time for our leaders. Governin' ain't easy.

I'm not sure I disagree; but I believe we also need to understand that Britain -- and all of Europe -- had been suffering for a few hundred years because of religious wars and the Roman Catholic Inquisition. The Founders knew full well the Christian blood which had been shed by other Christians.

But yes, faith -- and its inherent morals and principles -- were appreciated for the value they gave to society, and thus the founders guaranteed the people the right to worship freely in the Bill of Rights, but tying the hands of government, and denying them the ability to rule under the guise of religion.

originally posted by: Septimus

originally posted by: windword

I simply take issue with your assertion that US law is derived from biblical morality, which I believe is an oxymoron. The bible teaches obedience equals morality, and that free will results in sin.

It is to the extent that the golden rule and basic human principles of equality and fair treatment are applied.

The Constitution and U.S. law was based on the philosophy of Natural Law, in the tradition of -- but not exclusively based on -- the writings of John Locke.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
I have no real knowledge of Religion, or Religions History so could someone authenticate this?

io9.com...

I believe it is. This is what I posted in the OP:

originally posted by: Boadicea

Finally, there is a precedent in the early church -- those closest to Jesus and His teachings. /and we do KNOW there were gay marriages in the early centuries of Christianity, because --

Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law specifically outlaws marriages between men and reads as follows:

When a man “marries” in the manner of a woman, a “woman” about to renounce men, what does he wish, when sex has lost its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed into another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)

Source: Wikipedia

One such gay wedding ceremony practiced in the early church is Adelphopoiesis, literally translated "brother making."

Such ceremonies can be found in the history of the Catholic Church up until the 14th century and in the Eastern Orthodox Church up until the 18th century. Documented in Byzantine manuscripts from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries, prayers established participants as "'spiritual brothers' (pneumatikous adelphous) and contained references to sainted pairs, including most notably SS Sergius and Bacchus, who were famous for their friendship."

And there is this:

In late medieval France, it is possible the practice of entering a legal contract of "enbrotherment" (affrèrement) provided a vehicle for civil unions between unrelated male adults who pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one purse. This legal category may represent one of the earliest forms of sanctioned same-sex unions

I suspect such practices were among the heresies found unacceptable and subject to the cruel and murderous Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church during the middle ages and well into the Renaissance Age -- aka "the burning times". An evil and very un-Christian example of Christians (in name only?) being oppressive, abusive, and even murderous, to other Christians who don't think and act according to their will.

If the links aren't clickable here, you can find them in my OP.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
Hey OP,

This came up on my Facebook feed and I thought you might like it. An interesting read for sure. (Title is misleading, you'll understand after the first point)

Thank you so very much for that!!! It touched me to my soul... and is making my screen a little blurry. I wish I could have said it so well. He is 100% right here:

Regardless of our feelings about the Supreme Court’s decision, it’s clear that Christians lost far more valuable things than a 5 to 4 vote this week; things that we better fight like Hell to get back.

I'm trying.

I will admit that majority of my posts on this board in regards to Christianity is largely negative but I'm glad to know there are good ones out there and I have to remind myself that they are more numerous than I think. It is the fringe that are screaming and hating the loudest.

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog

I will admit that majority of my posts on this board in regards to Christianity is largely negative but I'm glad to know there are good ones out there and I have to remind myself that they are more numerous than I think. It is the fringe that are screaming and hating the loudest.

When it is the most hateful ones getting all the attention, it's easy to speak -- and think -- negatively of Christianity. I can't help but cringe at much of what I hear/read that Christians say. Not all of us are like that. I do wish I could speak as eloquently as the author... but alas! I can only give it my best shot and hope that the love in my heart somehow shines through. I am happy that you saw this article and could see a different side to Christianity and Christians.

Have you considered making it your own separate post? If not, do you mind if I do? It deserves it.

a reply to: Boadicea

No please go ahead. We need more positivity on the website.