Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

There are 16103 comments on the news.yahoo.com story from Apr 27, 2009, titled Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?. In it, news.yahoo.com reports that:

The trouble they see is not just an America where general support for gay marriage will have driven a wedge between churches and the world, but between churches themselves.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at news.yahoo.com.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#5336 Feb 11, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =i8IJOgMVE1QXX&feature=rel ated
Very interesting and enlightening. People seem to have this erroneous way of thinking that a single language was spoken 2000 years ago without any variances/differences in how it was spoken.
Neil Andblowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5337 Feb 11, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =i8IJOgMVE1QXX&feature=rel ated
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing. I learned something today. Thank you.
Neil Andblowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5338 Feb 11, 2013
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
Please stop pretending to be a Christian. A REAL Christian studies, reads, believes, and follows the Word of God........they don't make up their own "religion" to defend perverted lifestyles and sin.
I pray that some day you come to the Lord, I'm here if you ever want to ask questions or learn about Jesus.
"How to Go to Heaven"
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_save...
Translation: A "real" christian believes exactly the same as I do. Everyone else is wrong.

“Jesus=only way into Heaven”

Since: Nov 12

saved by grace through faith

#5339 Feb 11, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
In my peculiar roundabout way I just told you there is no original Bible and took advantage of the opportunity to poke fun at the End Timers. If God actually wrote the Bible there would be no need for translations and as anyone with a familiarty with more than one language knows, translation is pretty much a guessing game.
No one cares what an "atheist who plays Catholic on Topix" thinks about Christianity. You've proven time and time again to know absolutely nothing about the Word of God.
Neil Andblowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5340 Feb 11, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again you're being one sided to show a one sided opinion.
There are Jewish rabbis that believe Isaiah 7:14 referred to a virgin birth.
There are Jewish rabbis that have converted to Christianity and who also believed Isaiah 7:14 was interpreted to mean a virgin birth.
There are also Jewish rabbis that don't interpret Isaiah 7:14 to mean a virgin birth and that the prophecy happened already.
So how do you tell who has the right interpretation?
The fact remains that the word 'almah' when used for a young girl/female about to be married, was used to denote her also being a virgin, meaning she had never known carnal intercourse.
See, you leave out the fact about Israelite society that happened long ago. That a Israelite male that wed a girl/female who was suppose to be a virgin because she had never been married before, if there was no blood from her on the wedding night, it meant to Israelites than that she wasn't a virgin. That she had had intercourse and thus would have been judged committing adultery and in most cased was stoned to death unless she could flee the village to places where she wasn't known.
So most of the time where 'almah' was used in the context of a young unmarried girl/female that was about to be married, it was also used to describe her state as a 'virgin'. Not tough to understand.
Well unless you wish to show proof that in the Israelite culture 2000 plus years ago, a young unwed girl/female that was about to be married, that it was normal and okay for that girl/female NOT TO BE A VIRGIN on her wedding night? Do you wish to show evidence that young never before wed girls/females about to be married, do you wish to show it wasn't important to that husband that she was a virgin?
Almah referencing an young, unmarried girl/female about to be married, almah referred to the virgin state of a young girl/female that had never been married and (supposedly) had never had intercourse because for a female to have intercourse without being married was a death sentence by stoning in the Israelite society 2000 plus years ago.
The fact is, if they meant virgin, they would have used betulah. You can spin 'almah' into any nebulous thing you wish, but there is a word that means virgin: betulah

Most people realize that pregnancy, 2000 yrs ago, inferred sexual relations. Women didn't get pregnant without it back then.

“Jesus=only way into Heaven”

Since: Nov 12

saved by grace through faith

#5341 Feb 11, 2013
Neil Andblowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: A "real" christian believes exactly the same as I do. Everyone else is wrong.
I'm tired of play "Christians" making a mockery out of the sacrificial BLOOD of Jesus. They think it's funny to get *giggles and high-fives and tee hees and laughs* on a discussion forum.........but they are a complete disgusting disgrace.

They are not Christians at all!

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#5342 Feb 11, 2013
Neil Andblowme wrote:
<quoted text>That's nice, dear. If this "virgin" birth was to be SO IMPORTANT, then why wasn't the word betulah used?
Funny how it's a Jewish prophecy, written in Hebrew by Jews for Jews, and yet christians reject the Jewish explanation.
Who is to say when this prophecy was written between the end of the 7th century BCE and the beginning of the 6th century BCE the word betulah wasn't first used?
Almah is also used to describe the state of a young girl/female that is still in the state of virginity, never having known intercourse.
By the way, a generalized interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 from the Jewish perspective is as follows...
"therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: a maiden is with child and she will bear a son, and will call his name Immanuel."
This rendition states neither the Jewish version nor the Christian version. It's a matter of interpretation. Do note the rendition says nothing of "how" the 'maiden' became with child. Thus the reason for the two different translations.
Neil Andblowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5343 Feb 11, 2013
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm tired of play "Christians" making a mockery out of the sacrificial BLOOD of Jesus. They think it's funny to get *giggles and high-fives and tee hees and laughs* on a discussion forum.........but they are a complete disgusting disgrace.
They are not Christians at all!
You mean swallow the leader? I think you call it communion.

“Only Biblical methods will”

Since: Apr 10

bring others to Christ

#5344 Feb 11, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, with you always.
Thanks for being real and thoughtful. A mindful Christian. What a novel idea.
Thank you and I will look forward to us giving this a try some day.

Have a great week!

“Only Biblical methods will”

Since: Apr 10

bring others to Christ

#5345 Feb 11, 2013
Neil Andblowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: A "real" christian believes exactly the same as I do. Everyone else is wrong.
A Christian obeys all Christ's commandments to the best of their ability every day. A Christian believes the Nicene Creed. A Christian should only concern themselves with if they are in agreement with Christ, not who is in agreement with them. Only Christ's opinion of them is what is important to a Christian.

Have a great week.
Neil Andblowme

Hoboken, NJ

#5346 Feb 11, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is to say when this prophecy was written between the end of the 7th century BCE and the beginning of the 6th century BCE the word betulah wasn't first used?
Almah is also used to describe the state of a young girl/female that is still in the state of virginity, never having known intercourse.
By the way, a generalized interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 from the Jewish perspective is as follows...
"therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: a maiden is with child and she will bear a son, and will call his name Immanuel."
This rendition states neither the Jewish version nor the Christian version. It's a matter of interpretation. Do note the rendition says nothing of "how" the 'maiden' became with child. Thus the reason for the two different translations.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php...

“Jesus=only way into Heaven”

Since: Nov 12

saved by grace through faith

#5347 Feb 11, 2013
Neil Andblowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: A "real" christian believes exactly the same as I do. Everyone else is wrong.
A REAL Christian stands for and defends the Word of God. SIN is SIN and will be called SIN. And Jesus Christ is the only way into Heaven!

Real Christians don't play footsies and kisses with Christ-hating trolls. That's the ultimate give-a-away.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#5348 Feb 11, 2013
Neil Andblowme wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is, if they meant virgin, they would have used betulah. You can spin 'almah' into any nebulous thing you wish, but there is a word that means virgin: betulah
Most people realize that pregnancy, 2000 yrs ago, inferred sexual relations. Women didn't get pregnant without it back then.
I'm pasting some information from some people that have really studied this out. It doesn't mean there correct or incorrect. It just means they have information you may or may not have considered.

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/is7-1...

Price 5/15
Here Dr. Bob parrots the standard argument that the Hebrew word *'almah* does not mean virgin, but rather that the word *bethulah* has that meaning. In what follows I first demonstrate that the word *bethulah* does not always refer to a virgin, and next I demonstrate that in the Bible the word *'almah* always refers to a virgin.

*Bethulah* not always a Virgin
Although the word *bethulah* usually refers to a virgin, a number of passages in the Bible indicate that the word *bethulah* does not necessarily always mean a virgin in the technical sense of the term:
(1) Genesis 24:16 "Now the young woman [*na'arah*] was very beautiful to behold, a virgin [*bethulah*]; no man had known her. And she went down to the well, filled her pitcher, and came up."

In this verse Rebekah is referred to as a *bethulah*, but the text adds the qualifying clause "no man had known her." Such a qualifying clause would be unnecessary if *bethulah* unambiguously meant "virgin." Later in the same story, Rebekah is referred to as an *'almah*(vs. 43) with no qualifying clause.

(2) At least once the word is used of a married woman:
Joel 1:8 Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth
For the husband of her youth.

(3) At times the word *bethulah* is used as an epithet for various pagan nations known for their idolatry and immorality:
the virgin daughter of Sidon (Isa 23:12)
the virgin daughter of Babylon (Isa 47:1)
the virgin daughter of Egypt (Jer 46:11)

(4) The word *bethulah* is used at times in the literature of the Semitic people as an epithet for their pagan goddesses known for their immoral behavior.

(5) The Jewish Hebrew-English Dictionary by Reuben Alcalay defines the word *bethulah* as "virgin, young woman, girl, maid." Obviously the meaning does not focus exclusively on virginity.

*'Almah* always a Virgin in the Bible
Although the opponents of the virgin birth insist on translating *'Almah* as "maiden" or "young woman" rather than "virgin," the word is never used in the Bible where it necessarily means anything other than virgin.

(1) The word occurs seven times in the Hebrew Bible:
Gen 24:43--where the word refers to the virgin Rebekah (see above discussion).
Exod 2:8--where the word refers to Moses' sister Miriam. Who would question that she was a virgin at the time Moses was born?
Psa 68:25--where the word refers to the female musicians in the procession escorting the king into the sanctuary. There is no reason to question the virginity of these choice young women?
Song 1:3; 6:8--where the word refers to the attendants of Solomon's queens and concubines. There is no reason to question the virginity of these choice young women.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#5349 Feb 11, 2013
Neil Andblowme wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is, if they meant virgin, they would have used betulah. You can spin 'almah' into any nebulous thing you wish, but there is a word that means virgin: betulah
Most people realize that pregnancy, 2000 yrs ago, inferred sexual relations. Women didn't get pregnant without it back then.
Not to get lost in the pasting, the following explains the usages of almah and betulah as being used interchangeably...

(1) Genesis 24:16 "Now the young woman [*na'arah*] was very beautiful to behold, a virgin [*bethulah*]; no man had known her. And she went down to the well, filled her pitcher, and came up."

In this verse Rebekah is referred to as a *bethulah*, but the text adds the qualifying clause "no man had known her." Such a qualifying clause would be unnecessary if *bethulah* unambiguously meant "virgin." Later in the same story, Rebekah is referred to as an *'almah*(vs. 43) with no qualifying clause.

Thus it would be unwise to claim that if this maiden was a virgin, betulah WOULD have been used to describe her as such when almah was also used to describe a state of virginity.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#5350 Feb 11, 2013
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
No one cares what an "atheist who plays Catholic on Topix" thinks about Christianity. You've proven time and time again to know absolutely nothing about the Word of God.
Rotten liar.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#5351 Feb 11, 2013
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
A REAL Christian stands for and defends the Word of God. SIN is SIN and will be called SIN. And Jesus Christ is the only way into Heaven!
Real Christians don't play footsies and kisses with Christ-hating trolls. That's the ultimate give-a-away.
How many times a day must you be reminded you're not God and neither is the Bible?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#5352 Feb 11, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Scrooge.
whatever.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#5353 Feb 11, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
In my peculiar roundabout way I just told you there is no original Bible and took advantage of the opportunity to poke fun at the End Timers. If God actually wrote the Bible there would be no need for translations and as anyone with a familiarty with more than one language knows, translation is pretty much a guessing game.
Thank you for making a point I make often.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#5354 Feb 11, 2013
Seriously__ wrote:
<quoted text>
IMO, the denial comes from a two fold issue:
1. They would never post in the GLBT forum because they may somehow become associated as such.
2. They want to continually state the mantra "you came to the Christian section so we have the right to repeatedly post scripture to you."
God bless you and yours.
bingo bango!

“Mystical Atheism for everyone!”

Since: Nov 08

El Cerrito California

#5355 Feb 11, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
For an atheist you sure have a persucution complex. Disagreement is not hate, but much like the gay left, anyone who disagree's with you is hatefull..
Your mirtha thesis is prety common and easily debunked. What is far more probable is that as Mithraism developed, it started to adopt Christian concepts.What is more probable is that with the explosive nature of the Christian church in the 1st and 2nd century, other cult groups started to adapt themselves to take advantage of some of the teachings found in Christianity. This is certainly the case with what are called the Gnostic "gospels" and is well noted by serious historians. even though there are similarities between Christianity and Mithraism, it is up to the critics to prove that one borrowed from the other. But, considering that the writers of the New Testament were Jews who shunned pagan philosophies and that the Old Testament has all of the themes found in Christianity, it is far more probable that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagan religions that wanted to emulate the success of Christianity..
You have the cart before the horse
I totally disagree with you and so does secular history based on actual archeological research.

The Mithra cult has not left much in written records but several of their temples have been found and to claim that Christianity preceded Mithraism is contradicted by the hard evidence that has been found:

http://suite101.com/article/archaeology-and-t...

This is not the only site that discusses the findings but it should be helpful in considering the reality of how ancient the Mithra myth is and what the implications of this is for the Roman version of Christianity.

Here is what another site says about the origins of Mithraism:

"The earliest written reference to Mithras comes in the form of a treaty between the
Hittites and the Mitanni about 1375 B.C.E. When the Aryan tribes came down from the
Russian steppes, sometime between 2000 and 1500 B.C.E., they brought their gods with
them. These people were called the Mitanni and entered India and Iran (Persia). Mithras
was a redeemer god and also was the epitome of morality."

http://www.okbns.org/Articles/Mithras%20as%20...

Some use this obvious ancient Mithra connection to the Roman form of patriarchal hierarchical Christianity to dismiss the relevance of anything the historical Jesus said altogether.

Your defense of your church is understandable but consider if you accepted the Church and find it does not match the historical Jesus as I have been maintaining here on topix for the last four years, who do you accept, Jesus, or the Church?

Historical evidence shows you do have a real choice, there was a real Jesus, He just isn't the one people today would recognize.

If you strip away all of the baggage of the church, you find a simple experiential truth that can be confirmed on an individual basis and is the good news that the historical Jesus shared, the truth that sets you free!

GOD is LOVE. WE are ALL ONE WITH GOD, even the unloving!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 4 min Jonah1 4,494
News LGBTs have moved into the mainstream 6 min aramingo winners 6
News 'Sister Wives' family humbled by polygamy ruling (Jan '14) 8 min Tazo 28
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 18 min SHADOW 33,197
News Ireland same-sex marriage 47 min yup 118
News Obama to 5-Year-Old Gay Marriage Advocate: 'Cou... 48 min Fa-Foxy 38
News How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... (Nov '14) 1 hr Maravilla 1,327
More from around the web