Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,562

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Read more
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1828 Jan 23, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
So, in the story of Noah, we at least agree that something happened, but that something is elided in the modern English Bibles. I wonder what you think that something was?
Bible scholars have studied the language used in the older texts and concluded that the words are consistent with other Biblical references to sexual acts. There's really not much question about this among those who study these things. There is only a popular reluctance to acknowledge.
As for justifying anything: I do not approve of taking advantage of anyone while they are drunk. I do not approve of sex between sons and fathers. What happened between Noah and Ham is wrong on many levels.
As for "abomination," let me give you a few other abominations that were listed in Leviticus: Shrimp and lobster; sowing two crops in the same field; mixed fabrics; disrespecting one's parents; having sex with a woman during her period; masturbation and wet dreams; mules; etc.
When you start taking all the other abominations seriously, I will at least respect your beliefs. But I still won't share them.
In the meantime, you are merely a blowhard.
you refer to "Bible scholars" what you must agree to is that it is only some Bible scholars. you are the one that is making the assumption, perhaps relying on your favorite "Bible scholars" that it must have involved only noah and ham and therefore it must have been some kind of homosexual activity. could it not have been a simple mocking of his father who was uncovered in his sleep and perhaps having a physical reaction to a sexual dream. some would find that funny.
now the phrase is "the nakedness of his father". the Bible also says this;
"The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness." [leviticus 18:18]
so it is possible that what Ham saw was his mother also. therefore if you want to insist that something sexual happened it would also be necessary to consider that it might have involved his mother. or perhaps both mother and father. so you see you grasp at one straw trying to make it more than it was.
my opinion was that he probably saw his very old father having a physical reaction to a dream. but it could be that he saw both of them. there is no biblical support for your interpretation of the story.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1829 Jan 23, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>i didn't realize that that was ever asked. or is that just a patent reply that you fall back on when you are bored?
so, yes i do. i am not jewish.
btw where is the sabbath applied to us in the NT?
WOW. WOW. WOW.

Amazing.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1830 Jan 23, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you serious? Jesus applied all of the old law to His followers. He was quite clear about that.
Some of the old dietary laws were supposedly overturned by a vison that Peter had on the way to Caesarea. It is a far stretch to use that vision to overturn all of Levitican law by that vision. It is an even bigger stretch to imagine that it was all overturned, except for homophobes favorite passages about sex between men.
then why didn't Jesus include the sabbath when he listed the old testment commandments?
John 9:16
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day.

why was he then accused of having a habit of not keeping the sabbath?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1831 Jan 23, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you serious? Jesus applied all of the old law to His followers. He was quite clear about that.
Some of the old dietary laws were supposedly overturned by a vison that Peter had on the way to Caesarea. It is a far stretch to use that vision to overturn all of Levitican law by that vision. It is an even bigger stretch to imagine that it was all overturned, except for homophobes favorite passages about sex between men.
There's this new "modern" strain of evangelical nonsense out there. It justifies whatever they want - breaking the sabbath, seeking wealth, allowing divorce, supporting bigotry, etc.

It's bizarre how they think that has anything to do with God or Jesus. But then people once used the same book to justify slavery.

Where you have willing stupid people, you can make them believe anything.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1832 Jan 23, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>then why didn't Jesus include the sabbath when he listed the old testment commandments?
John 9:16
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day.
why was he then accused of having a habit of not keeping the sabbath?
From what we know, he didn't "keep the sabbath" because he had a nasty habit of healing folks and doing miracles on the Sabbath.

In other words, he was more interested in the intent of the Law, than in the letter of the law. He cared more for people than the appearance of piousness.

That's one of the reasons we follow Him today.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1833 Jan 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that the "day of rest" is a common sense idea. Absolutely. I will never argue that there is not great wisdom and beauty throughout the Bible.
However, I also believe that the Bible was never intended to be a scientific manual or a complete history book, and I think we do it a disservice when we spend waaaay too much time arguing about whether the Creation story was a myth of early people, or a literal historical account.
My faith isn't solely based on whether some OT account or other is a parable, or an historical event.
We seem to spend less time discussing what Jesus intended us to think and to be, then we do on other people's interpretations of specific scriptures.
But, back to Leviticus, no Christian today follows ALL of the Holiness Code. Do they?
Agreed. I take it one step further and call bible fanaticism what it is: idolatry.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1834 Jan 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that the "day of rest" is a common sense idea. Absolutely. I will never argue that there is not great wisdom and beauty throughout the Bible.
However, I also believe that the Bible was never intended to be a scientific manual or a complete history book, and I think we do it a disservice when we spend waaaay too much time arguing about whether the Creation story was a myth of early people, or a literal historical account.
My faith isn't solely based on whether some OT account or other is a parable, or an historical event.
We seem to spend less time discussing what Jesus intended us to think and to be, then we do on other people's interpretations of specific scriptures.
But, back to Leviticus, no Christian today follows ALL of the Holiness Code. Do they?
it was not given to the rest of the world. it was given to those who lived as jews in a time for example when eating such foods was a great health risk. it was never given to those outside of israel. you do realize that god spoke through people that were not jews; other people besides jews worshiped God?

the law saved no one. it only pointed people to God. it did however give us a guideline to understand the will of God.

now as for faith, i appreciate and respect your position. i would say though that if holy men of God were moved by the spirit of God to write the word of God,i would think that God would get it right. so by faith i accept what has been given from God, recorded by men of God, and preserved by the power and will of God for us today. if i can't believe that then i have no sure hope of the promise of salvation from God. after all is it a myth or a true account of God's plan for us?

and you are absolutely right some of us get distracted by the trees and totally miss the forest.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1835 Jan 23, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>then why didn't Jesus include the sabbath when he listed the old testment commandments?
John 9:16
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day.
why was he then accused of having a habit of not keeping the sabbath?
Are you saying that Jesus was not holy on the Sabbath? Was there ever a time when he was preaching that he was not holy? Do not all priests work on Sabbath? Do not other faith healers work on the Sabbath? What better day to perform God's miracles--if you believe the story to which you've alluded.

"As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

Surely the Pharisees were not making hypocritical and false accusations! Surely you are not doing the same right now!

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1836 Jan 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
From what we know, he didn't "keep the sabbath" because he had a nasty habit of healing folks and doing miracles on the Sabbath.
In other words, he was more interested in the intent of the Law, than in the letter of the law. He cared more for people than the appearance of piousness.
That's one of the reasons we follow Him today.
Jesus had a much more relaxed, common sense approach. Follow the rules, but don't be stupid, i.e. if your sheep falls in a ditch on the Sabbath, you don't let it die because getting it out would violate the Sabbath.

Similarly, IMO, in general, men will marry women. But if you are born gay, don't be stupid and marry a woman just to follow rules.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#1837 Jan 23, 2013
barry wrote:
i would say though that if holy men of God were moved by the spirit of God to write the word of God,i would think that God would get it right. so by faith i accept what has been given from God, recorded by men of God, and preserved by the power and will of God for us today. if i can't believe that then i have no sure hope of the promise of salvation from God. after all is it a myth or a true account of God's plan for us?
and you are absolutely right some of us get distracted by the trees and totally miss the forest.
And there it is in a nutshell: if, if, if.

There is no if. We don't have the original texts. If we did, you couldn't understand them anyway.

The best we have is ancient texts, which were translated from the original ancient texts. So, we know there have to be mistranslations in there because no language translates precisely to another. There are words and phrases that don't exist in some languages. Then they were translated again and again, not by men of God, just by people with agendas or whims to do it (like King James, for example. When did God pick him and give him the authority to commission a translation?)

Not to mention, there are many, many versions of bibles in every bookstore.

That fact alone means there is no one accurate translation or even one generally accepted translation.

All that means: God CHOSE NOT TO preserve it. He could have if He wanted, but He did not preserve it intact.

You should pray on what that means.

But your most telling line of all is this:

"if i can't believe that then i have no sure hope of the promise of salvation from God."

That's your deficiency of faith. That's your weakness. That's something you need to work on.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#1838 Jan 23, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
There's this new "modern" strain of evangelical nonsense out there. It justifies whatever they want - breaking the sabbath, seeking wealth, allowing divorce, supporting bigotry, etc.
It's bizarre how they think that has anything to do with God or Jesus. But then people once used the same book to justify slavery.
Where you have willing stupid people, you can make them believe anything.
Amen and hallelujah.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1839 Jan 23, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you refer to "Bible scholars" what you must agree to is that it is only some Bible scholars.
Well, let us restrict it to serious Bible scholars. That leaves out just about anyone who calls themselves an evangelical or fundamentalist preacher.

There is a history of discussion of Ham's transgression preceding the birth of Christ. Rabbinical scholarship generally centered on the possibility of sexual assault or castration.(Personally, I find the latter a bit incredible. But perhaps it would not have been as shocking in those days.) Others have suggested that Ham actually took advantage of his mother (whose nakedness belonged to Noah) as he slept. Frankly, I don't find that version of the story any less distasteful.

Whatever happened, it engendered severe punishment to Ham's offspring. So why don't you embrace the theory that Ham was punished for sexual misconduct with his father? It may well be the clearest example of God punishing homosexuality in the entire book.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#1840 Jan 23, 2013
barry wrote:
so just what exactly has Jesus said?
Well sugar; here's Jesus:
.
++++++++++
Matthew 19:9> "And I say vnto you, Whosoeuer shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery."
.
Matthew 19:10> ¶ His disciples say vnto him, "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marrie."
.
Matthew 19:11> But hee said vnto them, "All men cannot receiue this saying, saue they to whom it is giuen."
.
Matthew 19:12> "For there are some Eunuches, which were so borne from their mothers wombe: and there are some Eunuches, which were made Eunuches of men: and there be Eunuches, which haue made themselues Eunuches for the kingdome of heauens sake. He that is able to receiue it, let him receiue it."
++++++++++
http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1841 Jan 23, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
And there it is in a nutshell: if, if, if.
There is no if. We don't have the original texts. If we did, you couldn't understand them anyway.
The best we have is ancient texts, which were translated from the original ancient texts. So, we know there have to be mistranslations in there because no language translates precisely to another. There are words and phrases that don't exist in some languages. Then they were translated again and again, not by men of God, just by people with agendas or whims to do it (like King James, for example. When did God pick him and give him the authority to commission a translation?)
Not to mention, there are many, many versions of bibles in every bookstore.
That fact alone means there is no one accurate translation or even one generally accepted translation.
All that means: God CHOSE NOT TO preserve it. He could have if He wanted, but He did not preserve it intact.
You should pray on what that means.
But your most telling line of all is this:
"if i can't believe that then i have no sure hope of the promise of salvation from God."
That's your deficiency of faith. That's your weakness. That's something you need to work on.
We also know that whatever early texts exist were hand-copied and they often contradict one another in important ways. Some changes can be attributed to simple mistakes in transcribing such a long document. Others appear to be deliberate political acts, such as the emergence of so much anti-gay sentiment in the King James version.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1842 Jan 23, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that Jesus was not holy on the Sabbath? Was there ever a time when he was preaching that he was not holy? Do not all priests work on Sabbath? Do not other faith healers work on the Sabbath? What better day to perform God's miracles--if you believe the story to which you've alluded.
"As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
Surely the Pharisees were not making hypocritical and false accusations! Surely you are not doing the same right now!
was Jesus a jew by his physical birth and the linage of his parents? of course he kept the sabbath just as the disciples who were also jewish did. it was a perpetual sign to the jews.
however he did not keep it to the approval or the standards of popular opinion of his day.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1843 Jan 23, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
And there it is in a nutshell: if, if, if.
There is no if. We don't have the original texts. If we did, you couldn't understand them anyway.
The best we have is ancient texts, which were translated from the original ancient texts. So, we know there have to be mistranslations in there because no language translates precisely to another. There are words and phrases that don't exist in some languages. Then they were translated again and again, not by men of God, just by people with agendas or whims to do it (like King James, for example. When did God pick him and give him the authority to commission a translation?)
Not to mention, there are many, many versions of bibles in every bookstore.
That fact alone means there is no one accurate translation or even one generally accepted translation.
All that means: God CHOSE NOT TO preserve it. He could have if He wanted, but He did not preserve it intact.
You should pray on what that means.
But your most telling line of all is this:
"if i can't believe that then i have no sure hope of the promise of salvation from God."
That's your deficiency of faith. That's your weakness. That's something you need to work on.
you have no faith. your god apparently is not able to keep his word. you live by your opinion of the opinions of man. your god has been created in the image of your understanding.
the God i believe in has promised to keep, preserve and fulfill his word.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1844 Jan 23, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, let us restrict it to serious Bible scholars. That leaves out just about anyone who calls themselves an evangelical or fundamentalist preacher.
There is a history of discussion of Ham's transgression preceding the birth of Christ. Rabbinical scholarship generally centered on the possibility of sexual assault or castration.(Personally, I find the latter a bit incredible. But perhaps it would not have been as shocking in those days.) Others have suggested that Ham actually took advantage of his mother (whose nakedness belonged to Noah) as he slept. Frankly, I don't find that version of the story any less distasteful.
Whatever happened, it engendered severe punishment to Ham's offspring. So why don't you embrace the theory that Ham was punished for sexual misconduct with his father? It may well be the clearest example of God punishing homosexuality in the entire book.
it may well be. but the problem is that God was not clear on it and the scenarios that i put forth have just as much validity based on what God has told us. probably more so than your insistence on the homosexual interpretation that you embrace. however you just seem to have stated that God was not angry with homosexual activity.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1845 Jan 23, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
We also know that whatever early texts exist were hand-copied and they often contradict one another in important ways. Some changes can be attributed to simple mistakes in transcribing such a long document. Others appear to be deliberate political acts, such as the emergence of so much anti-gay sentiment in the King James version.
you're apparently not familiar with how manuscripts were copied nor are you familiar with how texts are assembled and translated.

the kj theory is actually funny as the homosexual loving theologians will try to make a case that KJ was actually a homosexual in some way or another.

and i guess now the new niv also must be deliberately political.

The latest version of the popular NIV Bible translation has had its verses on homosexuality reworded, making them clearer in denouncing the practice, a theologian who helped with the translation says.
These clarifications include the verse in 1 Corinthians 6:9, where the 1984 NIV version uses the phrase “homosexual offenders,” while the 2011 translation changes the phrase to "men who have sex with men."

“The updated NIV makes clear that the Greek words here indicate any kind of homosexual activity. The updated NIV also reflects the fact that the key Greek word here refers to males.”
According to Moo, other verses that were altered due to scholarship and to make the message clearer included Romans 1:26-27 and Leviticus 18:22.

In Romans 1:26, the verse “even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones,” was changed to,“even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.” While in Leviticus 18:22, the verse “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman,” was changed to,“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman.”

One verse that appears to have been changed dramatically was 1Timothy 1:10, where the word “perverts” from the 1984 NIV was changed to “those practicing homosexuality.”
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/latest-niv-...

i guess those niv scholars might not be serious scholars?
barry

Rainsville, AL

#1846 Jan 23, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Well sugar; here's Jesus:
.
++++++++++
Matthew 19:9> "And I say vnto you, Whosoeuer shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery."
.
Matthew 19:10> ¶ His disciples say vnto him, "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marrie."
.
Matthew 19:11> But hee said vnto them, "All men cannot receiue this saying, saue they to whom it is giuen."
.
Matthew 19:12> "For there are some Eunuches, which were so borne from their mothers wombe: and there are some Eunuches, which were made Eunuches of men: and there be Eunuches, which haue made themselues Eunuches for the kingdome of heauens sake. He that is able to receiue it, let him receiue it."
++++++++++
http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/
i agree. paul even called it a gift. imagine what a fellow could accomplish f he didn't have the responsibilities of a wife and children.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#1847 Jan 23, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>peter 4:25?
however i accept the list even with the question of that verse and 1Thes 4:11 is out of context.
my point was the Bible also says a lot about the homosexual lifestyle and it is clearly more than 10 verses and the sexual aspect of it is clearly condemned.
please show us the 10 verses... the fact is that it never comes up at all... and before you can misinterpret anything written by saul of tarsus you must realise that he was a flaming homosexual... among other things which even you might think are 100% worse.

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 Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 16 min raider4life 1,605
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 30 min Chris Toal 30,819
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 2 hr nhjeff 1,563
News Indiana lawmakers send religious objection bill... 3 hr Compassion 58
News David v Goliath analogy drawn in gay cake case ... 3 hr Marcavage s Emission 5
News Indiana Gov. Pence set to sign religious object... 4 hr WelbyMD 36
News Colorado Republicans plan to file fetal homicid... 5 hr Elise Gingerich 1
More from around the web