Prop 8 Prevails in California -- Gay Marriage Discussion

[Onacara]

The point they are making is that people are so willing to point out things in the Bible when it applies to their cause...but when it says something to the contrary they ignore it.

[Granite-M]

Originally Posted by Lord Pyre

The laws about stoning your wife and the others things Mr. Black talked about were abolished by Christ's sacrifice. Eating pork was also one of them. I don't remember exactly why God made those rules for His people, but I know that they were done after Jesus died, and rose.

This is just another simple mistake of taking things out of context.

I can look up the reasons later, if I remember, and you guys care. I've gotta go somewhere now, though.

If Christ's sacrifice abolished some of the Leviticus regulations, why not others? In which part of the Bible does it enumerate which ones are in, and which are out? I very much do care about this, because it seems like an important point: if you want our modern secular laws to be taken from the Bible, on what basis can you pick and choose which ones?

Interesting that you should mention the problem of taking a thing out of context. The context of the Bible is that it was written by a nomadic group of herders thousands of years ago, who were at constant war for survival against pretty much all of their neighbors.

They had no refridgeration, so it made sense to forbid eating shellfish, they had no modern cooking methods, so it made sense to forbid eating parasite-laden pork, and there simply weren't enough of them to make up for all the ones they lost in their constant wars, so it made sense to forbid homosexual relations as well as the Sin of Onan.

Things have changed, so it's not exactly necessary to maintain all of their dietary, medical, and reproductive traditions.

The philosophical content of the Bible, on the other hand, is very much still a viable tradition. Concepts such as not killing each other, doing unto others etc., all of these are fine.

But if someone tells me that I can't eat a bacon cheeseburger, or I can't wear polycotton blends, or that I ought to restrict a minority's legal rights, they had better have a better reason than "God commands it."

[jbbnbsmith]

Originally Posted by Onacara

The point they are making is that people are so willing to point out things in the Bible when it applies to their cause...but when it says something to the contrary they ignore it.

I thought the point was that gay marriage will save the economy.

[Onacara]

Originally Posted by jbbnbsmith

I thought the point was that gay marriage will save the economy.

Nothing can save the economy

[Ugly-Caco]

Originally Posted by Onacara

Nothing can save the economy

Maybe...but it'll make the economy fafafabulous!

[HSisforcoolkids]

Originally Posted by Granite-M

The philosophical content of the Bible, on the other hand, is very much still a viable tradition. Concepts such as not killing each other, doing unto others etc., all of these are fine.

Just a quick point--not murdering and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you aren't any more philosophical than anything else written in the Bible. Jesus told his followers to "Do to others as you would have them do to you," and one of the Ten Commanments is, of course, "You shall not murder." To me, if a person only acts on these Biblical commands and leaves behind whatever else they want, then that is just another example of taking what you agree with and leaving the rest behind.

You do make a very valid point, Granite, about looking at the context of when, where, and why the writings of the Bible were written. Taking Scripture out of context can lead to dangerous religious teachings, as well as unfair and hateful criticism of religious people and their beliefs, much like we saw in the video Ted Danson posted.

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by HSisforcoolkids

Just a quick point--not murdering and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you aren't any more philosophical than anything else written in the Bible. Jesus told his followers to "Do to others as you would have them do to you," and one of the Ten Commanments is, of course, "You shall not murder." To me, if a person only acts on these Biblical commands and leaves behind whatever else they want, then that is just another example of taking what you agree with and leaving the rest behind.

You do make a very valid point, Granite, about looking at the context of when, where, and why the writings of the Bible were written. Taking Scripture out of context can lead to dangerous religious teachings, as well as unfair and hateful criticism of religious people and their beliefs, much like we saw in the video Ted Danson posted.

I am so tired of the Bible being 'taken out of context' anytime its believers are asked to own up to some of the nasty stuff in there.

[Ted_Danson]

Taking Scripture out of context can lead to dangerous religious teachings, as well as unfair and hateful criticism of religious people and their beliefs, much like we saw in the video Ted Danson posted.

I thought the video was funny. I didn't catch the "hateful criticism" that you are talking about, but a Catch 22 of what we can and can't do based on the bible. Ignore the things we like, fight the things we don't like.

I stopped reading this page because I thought my head was going to explode, and the only reason I came back was to lighten the mood a little, my mistake.

[Granite-M]

Couldn't actually watch the video due to limitations on the computer I'm on, but I'm assuming that it's making fun of some of the stranger parts of the Bible, apparently in a somehow offensive way, judging from the reactions.

I would say that a valid point to take away from the ensuing melee is the question of scripture in law. Should our laws be based on scripture or not?

It seems to me that our laws aren't our morality codified, they are justice codified, which is not the same thing. For instance, we may find hateful or obscene speech morally repugnant, but we preserve the freedom of speech because we find the justice that freedom ensures to be preferable to the moral objections we have to the speech itself. Where we do limit speech is where it might impinge on others' actual safety-- no yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre is the popular example, or advocating the assassination of the president.

Scripture, on the other hand, is a different matter. It is a codified system of behavior, implied to be handed down from God, that does not preserve people's freedoms, but rather is supposed to improve their souls. There is of course overlap, in the commandments against murder or theft for instance, but there is a much larger focus in scripture on things that you ought not do, not because they are immediately harmful in and of themselves, but because they are (according the scripture) morally wrong.

The question then becomes, how much overlap ought there be? And what is the justification for such overlap? We have laws against murder because it deprives people of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed in the Constitution. But where moral laws are applied to society, there tends to be significantly more trouble and disagreement. The bans on alcohol and interracial marriage were eventually overturned because of those conflicts-- because the damage done to society by the bans themselves proved to be more detrimental than the behaviors they were trying to prevent. Current bans on morally objectionable, but not necessarily harmful, behaviors such as prostitution, gambling, and drug use are in constant flux, all over the country and in other industrialized nations around the world.

My question, again, to those who see scripture as the source of our laws is, "Where do you draw the line?" What is the logical division between outlawing one behavior forbidden by scripture, and outlawing all of them? If you are able to provide other evidence in support of limiting a behavior, apart from scripture, please do so. But if you insist on using scripture as the source of your argument, then you must explain why you can pick and choose which bits of scripture ought to be in, and which ones ought to be out.

[HSisforcoolkids]

Originally Posted by Ted_Danson

I thought the video was funny. I didn't catch the "hateful criticism" that you are talking about, but a Catch 22 of what we can and can't do based on the bible. Ignore the things we like, fight the things we don't like.

I should have clarified--I think the criticism in this particular video was unfair, not hateful.

[Bannister]

Originally Posted by HSisforcoolkids

I should have clarified--I think the criticism in this particular video was unfair, not hateful.

Does being made fun of rank higher or lower on the unfair scale than being denied the right to marry?

I guess it would depend on which scale would you use wouldn't it? The Geoffnet model or the Geschlossen model.

Bannister

[HSisforcoolkids]

Originally Posted by Granite-M

Scripture, on the other hand, is a different matter. It is a codified system of behavior, implied to be handed down from God, that does not preserve people's freedoms, but rather is supposed to improve their souls. There is of course overlap, in the commandments against murder or theft for instance, but there is a much larger focus in scripture on things that you ought not do, not because they are immediately harmful in and of themselves, but because they are (according the scripture) morally wrong.

I more or less agree with everything else you said in your post, but on this point I tend to disagree. The more I study the Bible, the more I see that there are logical reasons for most or all of the prohibitions found in Scripture. Some of these prohibitions, admittedly, don't matter much if don't believe in the God of the Bible (like "do not have any other gods before me"), but in general I find that the prohibitions and commandments found in the Bible have a purpose outside of the religious realm.

You posted earlier about the logical reasons some foods would be prohibited in ancient Israel, so you know where I'm coming from, Granite. Like someone else said, Jesus freed his followers from following dietary laws. That, Gulp, was one of the things I was referring to as being unfairly taken out of context by non-believers in an attempt to make believers look foolish (like in the video). Anyways, my point is that if you look at the prohibitions in the Bible and think about it, you will find a secular reason for most of the things, either in the context it was written or, in many cases, for today's time.

I will also make one comment about your last comments of your post. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that religion cannot influence laws that are passed. Our Constitution was written in such a way as to protect religion from the government, not vice versa. I agree that reasoning for laws based solely on religion can be dangerous, but if there is plenty of secular reasoning to go along with it, then a person's argument shouldn't be discounted just because she is religious. I know that you were not arguing that, but there are plenty of people who attempt to ostracize those whose religion influences their thought.