Bishop: Jesus would back gay marriage?

Bishop: Jesus would back gay marriage?

There are 338 comments on the www.seacoastonline.com story from Nov 27, 2012, titled Bishop: Jesus would back gay marriage?. In it, www.seacoastonline.com reports that:

Many may consider it a fact that Christianity bans gay marriage, but at least one bishop begs to differ.

A crowd packed the Congregational Church of Exeter Monday night to listen to a talk and Q&A from Gene Robinson, the openly gay Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.seacoastonline.com.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#169 Dec 13, 2012
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
No thank you sugar
Let us take a look at Jonathan and David's marriage in an original 1611 Bible scan for 1 Samuel chapter 18
(these are scans from the exact, authentic, original 1611 'HE' King James Bible)
1 Samuel 18 :1> And it came to passe when hee made an ende of speaking vnto Saul, that the soule of Ionathan was knit with the soule of Dauid, and Ionathan loued him as his owne soule.
1 Samuel 18:3> Then Ionathan and Dauid made a couenant, because he loued him as his owne soule.
1 Samuel 20:41> And assoone as the ladde was gone, Dauid arose out of a place toward the South, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himselfe three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, vntill Dauid exceeded.
1 Samuel 20:42> And Ionathan said to Dauid, Goe in peace, forasmuch as wee haue sworne both of vs in the Name of the Lord, saying; The Lord be betweene me and thee, and betweene my seede and thy seede for euer. And hee arose, and departed: and Ionathan went into the citie.
2 Samuel 1:25> How are the mightie fallen in the midst of the battell! O Ionathan, thou wast slaine in thine high places.
2 Samuel 1:26> I am distressed for thee, my brother Ionathan, very pleasant hast thou beene vnto mee: thy loue to mee was wonderfull, passing the loue of women.
Everything in the above is a pro-homosexual INTERPRETATION. You do know what an interpretation is correct? It's a opinion formulated with and in this case without evidence.
In Genesis God allowed for the union/marriage of a man to a woman. It's an undisputed fact. The second form of marriage we know that God was involved in (with direct/indirect evidence)is polygamy, a man having two or more wives. The Bible states God gave David Saul's wives. God wouldn't do something evil so that means God approved of polygamy on his terms. Indirect evidence is that most of the prophets/leaders of God's people in the OT had two or more wives and even concubines, referred to as sub-wives.
The above is brought to your attention because no where in any scripture is it recorded that God allowed for a Man to marry a female wife and a male husband. Neither any where in the scriptures does it show God allowing/supporting same sex marriages.
Next, do you know what the covenant was that Jonathan made with David? It had nothing to do with romantic love. Don't believe me? Google it and get educated. Google "What was the covenant Jonathan made with David".
I realize that the story of Jonathan and David can be interpreted to mean what you want it to mean, that Jonathan and David were gay, hated having sex with their wives, married each other while being married to wives and while being called "men of God" because of their righteousness broke the law against sodomy who knows how many times. Me thinks your opinion is an opinion without an credible evidence.
Prove me wrong.
Show me where God allowed for men to sodomize each other though God established a law against the act.
Show me where God allowed for same sex marriage.
Show me where God allowed a man already married to a female to also marry another male.
Waiting....

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#170 Dec 13, 2012
Rainbow Kid wrote:
Your response had absolutely nothing to do with my response to the other poster, you do know that? Of course you don't know that or you would have made a post that had something to do with what I said and, it had nothing to do with historians believing King James was gay or bi or whatever.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#171 Dec 13, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
It really doesn't matter. The bible is not the final word, nor only authority on morality. As we all know. While lessons from the bible can certainly be useful as a guide for how one leads their life, it certainly shouldn't be used as a guide for legislatures to write civil statutes any more than the Hindu religious text, the Sama Veda should be. We live in a republic. Not a theocrcy. If you want to live in a theocracy then go to Afghanistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia.
I'm going to call you what you are in that post, an idiot. This fricking country was based on theism. Theism was used for most laws the first 13 colonies established. In the 1700s when some documents were being written that are the foundation of our country, they used prayer to guide them and used God in those documents. They plastered God all over the buildings they built and put him on our money. And everyone at the time was A O K with it all taking place by and through theistic influences. Other countries for the first three centuries called us/recognized us/saw us as a "CHRISTIAN NATION" because of the CHRISTIAN BIBLE that was used in our courts and churches.
No, we are not a nation based in theism any more I'll very well agree. But for the first three centuries other countries saw us as nothing but a nation based on theocratic laws. And we supplied them with lots of evidence to believe that.
cunune

Masontown, PA

#172 Dec 14, 2012
youtube.com/watch... ………Moral Lucky mabe
I doubted it

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#173 Dec 14, 2012

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#174 Dec 14, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything in the above is a pro-homosexual INTERPRETATION. You do know what an interpretation is correct? It's a opinion formulated with and in this case without evidence..........
So what makes YOUR interpretation correct?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#176 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, miracles never cease so it has the potential to be life giving...
is that true of gays?
has there EVER been an instance two gays had a child TOGETHER?
nope.
So yes, even without the term homosexual, gay sex is wrong under the bible..
I don't believe that stuff, but I do understand it...
If you don't believe the bible, why do you use it as an excuse to harm others?

Yet many people who have studied the bible their entire lives recognize it does not condemn committed same sex relationships built on mutual love and respect:

"What the Bible forbids is acts of lust, rape, idolatry, violation of religious purity obligations, or pederasty, but no condemnation of homosexuality in relationships of mutual respect and love. "On the other hand, the Bible pointedly celebrates instances of same-sex emotional intimacy, a fact often overlooked by fearful homophobic readers." James B. Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, United Theological Seminary

If you believe two sterile straight people can make a baby, using that logic, so could two gay people. And yes, two gay people have made babies and will in the future.(Two gay people of the opposite sex)

But regardless of how the child is created, gay parents are raising children. You provide no legitimate governmental excuse for refusing to treat those families the same as straight families who use the same methods of creating children as well as adoption. All you have is a few questionable misinterpretations of ancient texts, disputed by biblical scholars, to justify your prejudice.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#177 Dec 14, 2012
I Cor 6:9, no way refers to homosexuality. The original Greek word often quoted as sexual immorality, Paul used was "porneia" which means "a harlot for hire". In Corinth in the temples of Venus, the principal deity of Corinth, where Christians went to worship, a thousand public prostitutes were kept at public expense to glorify and act as surrogates for the fertility Gods. This sex with the pagan Gods is what Paul was talking about - fornication is an admitted mistranslation and has nothing to do with gays or singles sex. This rendering reflected the bias of the translators rather than an accurate translation of Paul's words to a culture of 2000 years ago worshipping pagan sex gods.

Romans 1:26-27 mentions homosexual acts performed by people who are clearly described as heterosexual. The men in the NT patriarchal culture exerted dominance not only over women, but over younger males as well. The nature of homosexual acts in the Bible are so very different from what we know as homosexuality today that the passages have no application to today's homosexuality. Such practices as in NT times simply no longer exist.

Alleged references to homosexuality in I Corinthians and I Timothy are the inventions of anti-gay translators. They are not in the original Greek texts." (Rev.Dr. Mel White)

The word "homosexual" wasn't even invented until 1869. When you see it in the bible, you know it is a modern mistranslation and misinterpretation of the original texts.

Yet Jesus told us:

John 13:34: A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

John 15:12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.

John 15:17: This is my command: Love each other.

Matthew 7:1: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

Luke 6:37: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Matthew 7:12: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Meanwhile, a few mistranslated and misinterpreted verses are used by some who claim to be Christians, to ignore the Golden Rule, causing needless suffering and death, here and around the world.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#179 Dec 14, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm going to call you what you are in that post, an idiot. This fricking country was based on theism. Theism was used for most laws the first 13 colonies established. In the 1700s when some documents were being written that are the foundation of our country, they used prayer to guide them and used God in those documents. They plastered God all over the buildings they built and put him on our money. And everyone at the time was A O K with it all taking place by and through theistic influences. Other countries for the first three centuries called us/recognized us/saw us as a "CHRISTIAN NATION" because of the CHRISTIAN BIBLE that was used in our courts and churches.
No, we are not a nation based in theism any more I'll very well agree. But for the first three centuries other countries saw us as nothing but a nation based on theocratic laws. And we supplied them with lots of evidence to believe that.
While many religious groups wanted to insert their religion into the laws, and many have had some success, the founders new the history of suffering and death caused by the imposition of religious beliefs on populations, and they tried to prevent that history from repeating here, by separating religion from the law.

While many were deists, they were not all Christian.

Thomas Jefferson
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find
in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They
are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,
women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been
burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this
coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to
support roguery and error all over the earth."

Jefferson again
"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on
man...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the
teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the
first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus."

More Jefferson
"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for
enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a
contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy in fact,
constitute the real Anti-Christ."

Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."

John Adams
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines
and Oaths, and whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion
encumbered with in these days?"

Also Adams
"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for
absurdity."

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the
Christian religion."

Here's Thomas Paine
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to
that book (the Bible)."

"Among the most detesable villains in history, you could not find one worse
than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to
massacre the mothers, and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not
dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book
(the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Diest to vindicate the moral justice of God
against the evils of the Bible."

"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and
you will have sins in abundance."

And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in
pretend imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#180 Dec 14, 2012
Caleb wrote:
<quoted text>You keep Spamming us with the same tired lie, despite the fact that you can cite positively no Bible translation, ancient Bible text, or Judeo-Christian tradition that places in question the Bible's many commands against all homosexual behavior.
Throughout the history of Christianity, homosexual behavior has been condemned, based on these scriptures. It is revisionist, ludicrous, and idiotic to claim that things now suddenly change.
You keep Spamming us with the same tired lie, using a few mistranslated and misinterpreted texts to justify ignoring the Golden Rule, promoting needless suffering and death rather than love, as Jesus intended.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#181 Dec 14, 2012
And from James Madison:
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on
civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of
political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of
the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty
have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government,
instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote "Religion and government will
both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#184 Dec 14, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't believe the bible, why do you use it as an excuse to harm others?
Easy. I don't.
I merely understand their point of view as I also understand yours...

In fact, I am the only one of us that doesn't completely dismiss the other side...

I think we need more of that....
It boils down to simple things, if you want respect give it...
both sides are guilty on this one...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#185 Dec 14, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You are ignoring that people who are sterile due to age, operation, etc, get married and have sex all the time. There is no potential for "life giving".
It may not happen, but its nevertheless POSSIBLE...
but not for you...

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#186 Dec 14, 2012
Caleb wrote:
<quoted text>You have yet again been proven a liar this morning with the false quotes you plagiarized and Spammed us with. If you felt good about your choices, you wouldn't be here 24/7 posting ridiculous lies!
Calling the kettle black aren't you! Just a couple of things YOU forget..It's YOUR choice to follow a religion. It is NOT a choice to be gay! AND NO ONE APPOINTED YOU OR ANY OTHER RELIGIOUS BIGOT TO BE A MORAL POLICEMAN OR JUDGE! BTW Your hypocrisy is showing...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#187 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy. I don't.
I merely understand their point of view as I also understand yours...
In fact, I am the only one of us that doesn't completely dismiss the other side...
I think we need more of that....
It boils down to simple things, if you want respect give it...
both sides are guilty on this one...
Promoting anti-gay prejudice results in needless suffering and death here and around the world, while treating all persons equally under the law as required by the constitution harms no one.

Promotion of needless suffering and death deserves respect from no one.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#188 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
It may not happen, but its nevertheless POSSIBLE...
but not for you...
Again, regardless of how the child is created, gay parents are raising children. You provide no legitimate governmental excuse for refusing to treat those families the same as straight families who use the same methods of creating children as well as adoption. All you have is a few questionable misinterpretations of ancient texts, disputed by biblical scholars, to justify your prejudice.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#189 Dec 14, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Promoting anti-gay prejudice results in needless suffering
okay, but that has NOTHING to do with marriage or why its not he right vehicle for gays...
and please, you are seeking merely tax breaks and inheritance laws...
this is a purely FINANCIAL issue...
you are already free to love, live with, and boink anyone you want...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#190 Dec 14, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, regardless of how the child is created, gay parents are raising children.
single people are raising children WOLVES raise children...
all true, and that suffices, but having both a mom and dad would be OPTIMUM so that's what we as a society decided to encourage via marriage laws...

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#191 Dec 14, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
So what makes YOUR interpretation correct?
Ahh, good question!
My opinion isn't correct/incorrect. But my opinion is established on more actual scriptural evidence then the other opinion has been based on.
For example. When Jonathan was taking his things off and giving them to David in front of God and everyone, Saul wasn't offended. Why wasn't Saul offended if it is true that Jonathan was pledging his homosexual love and affections for David in front of God and everyone? Seem's Saul would have been highly offended. Saul wasn't offended because his son was making a covenant with David, in which he was giving to David a portion of the kingdom and it's services for having killed Goliath and thus saving the kingdom from being conquered by the Philistines. Unfortunately the other opinion wants this situation to be strictly about Jonathan pledging his homosexual love for David and that's a stretch those verses don't support.
The pro-homosexual crowd calls Jonathan and David gay and homosexuals. The Bible verses prove that opinion to be an out right lie. Jonathan and David weren't homosexuals nor gay. By tearing apart the verses word by word, letter by letter, they can show weak evidence for the possibility that Jonathan and David "may of had" a romantic relationship for a period of time. But their claim these two "men of God", "righteous men of God", men who lived the laws of Moses were homosexuals that had sex who knows how many times, committing sodomy as any two gay/homosexual males engage in, breaking the laws against sodomy and still being referred to as men of God because of their faith and righteousness, there seems to be a bit of a contradiction there they don't explain.
The Bible doesn't say a lot of Jonathan's sex life. So that's up for opinion. But the Bible well establishes that David was a severe a heterosexual as a guy can be. David was never a homosexual by our definition of the word and certainly not gay as we define gay.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#192 Dec 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
single people are raising children WOLVES raise children...
all true, and that suffices, but having both a mom and dad would be OPTIMUM so that's what we as a society decided to encourage via marriage laws...
And again, you fail to show how denial of equal rights for gay families encourages straight families.

There is no legal requirement to meet you "optimal" prejudice, or even to have children. All your denial of equal rights accomplishes it to harm gay families while providing nothing to straight families. Denial of equality fails to provide any legitimate governmental interest.

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 Gay Cakes Are Not a Constitutional Right 1 hr Wondering 988
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr dollarsbill 17,639
News Minister Sparks Outrage After Asking People To ... 12 hr Jehovahcordell 3
News Winnipeg men trying to get their 1974 marriage ... 20 hr Rainbow Kid 21
News Egos hindering Indian LGBTQ movement, says quee... Sun Cath League of Du... 2
News Connecticut sees - gay baby boom' Sat Robby Rob 43
News Landlord Caught Having Sex In Tenants's Bed (Dec '16) Jan 19 ThomasA 14
More from around the web