Gay Marriage at Cedar Point: Please help us!

Bjames,
I've talked about that previously. That eye for eye thing was a legal thing, and it represented the severity of sin. Israel had a sacrifice system before Christ came. Christ being the ultimate sacrifice eliminated the need for these type of laws in various ways. They had to address sin differently back then because hadn't came yet. Israel was also the vast majority of everybody who believes in the one true God unlike today. Therefore, they did things different then the other nations.

The most important thing to remember is that Jesus fulfilled a lot of the laws in. Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. That's where you're getting your verse, right? Next time, site your verse. This site will help you understand more clearly without me blabbing for 9.4 million paragraphs. A lot about what this guy said is very true:
http://viaemmaus.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/how-to-read-leviticus/

Tyler Boes said:

Israel had a sacrifice system before Christ came. Christ being the ultimate sacrifice eliminated the need for these type of laws in various ways.

Then why is the Old Testament still a part of the Bible? And thus the whole anti-gay section?

Okay, I respectfully take back my Vote up for Tyler's post. lol

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

It is possible that the few places that the Bible mentions homosexuality in a negative way could be misinterpretations. One would need to both read the context in which those passages are placed, and know the culture that they come from. I believe that gay sex is only a sin because it is sex out of wedlock. Perhaps it is possible that if two members of the same sex are married, having sex is not a sin to them?

If polygamous marriage and divorce is allowed by God in the Bible, why can't gay marriage? Why do Christian leaders pick and choose the "sins" to complain about? Why don't they try to make the world a better place by preaching the sins of shoplifting or child abuse, which have actual victims? I say that it is cultural prejudice, and it is a learned belief system, the same way that racism, misogyny, and antisemitism is learned.

The ridiculous teachings that God allows natural disasters and terrorist attacks to occur is done so that the people being taught have a scapegoat for all the world's problems. The world has always had problems. There were wars, famine, rioting, earthquakes, and whatever throughout history, and not just in present times. Our world is not any worse than before.

And to elaborate a point in the paragraph above, being gay is simply not a choice. Ask any gay person when they chose to be gay. Ask any straight person when they chose to be straight. No one remember a time in their life in which they had to make that choice. They just realized one day that they liked either boys or girls. Since it is not a choice, then it is either a curse from God, or a gift from God... Or maybe it just is what it is. Maybe God really doesn't care either way. Plus, it has been proven by science and biology.

bjames said:

Then why is the Old Testament still a part of the Bible? And thus the whole anti-gay section?

I look at the Old Testament as a history lesson.

The old testament is very important. It gives all the context why we are here, why we need a savior, God's opinion on sin, how God deals with sin, prophecy, and it creates a backbone for the new testament. The old testament is indeed required. Leviticus is needed so we know how severe sin is. We don't need to take those severe punishments anymore because of Jesus, but Leviticus show how severe sin is and how God had the Israelites handle it.

Meh. Most of the English bible was made up by medieval monks who weren't able to properly translate hebrew or ancient greek.

If they translated it incorrectly, how are all the old versions of the Bible the same? If they all messed up, they wouldn't have all messed up about the same way. Today, the Bible is translated in different versions for different reading levels and other reasons, but they all still have almost identical meanings.

Tyler Boes said:

If they all messed up, they wouldn't have all messed up about the same way.

I forgot to mention that sometimes, they weren't mistranslations, they were rewritings. That's the medieval Catholic church for you.

Even if that were true, the Bible has been re-translated since then.

As a person who flip-flops between pantheistic mysticism and straight atheism, trying to follow this discussion is a bit like listening to kindergartners arguing about the true nature of Santa--does he really live at the North Pole, and how is that possible since it's just a frozen ocean up there anyway?

I'm reminded of a certain scene from a certain movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9mfZbTFbk

I'm sure my extremely minority position won't win many votes, and that's fine. But it's my perspective, which is just as relevant and authoritative as anybody else's.

Here's my take on life, the universe, and everything: We're all here for a reason. Or maybe we're not. But we might as well act as if we were, as long as it's positive. So let's try to help each other and support and encourage one another. Let's try not to ruin our planet in the process. And maybe, just maybe, we'll come up with something transcendent enough to justify our meager and mean little existences.

Ensign Smith said:

As a person who flip-flops between pantheistic mysticism and straight atheism

Have you tried unitarian universalism? It's like, "I don't know if there is a God, and I assume there isn't, but just in case there is, I'm going to pray to him occasionally in this building specifically designed for this occasional purpose."

Ensign Smith said:

Here's my take on life, the universe, and everything: We're all here for a reason. Or maybe we're not. But we might as well act as if we were, as long as it's positive. So let's try to help each other and support and encourage one another. Let's try not to ruin our planet in the process.

I would hope most atheists think this way. Hopefully we're not all just running around pillaging and burning villages because there's no god to stop us....

Yeah, I've been to a couple Universalist Unitarian services and enjoyed them. If I ever felt the compulsion to label myself under an organized sect, that's what I would probably write.

I think Ensign has it right, and I can virtually guarantee the world is a better place due to his presence. I wouldn't say that about a good number of religious people.

As for me, I've strived to distill a basic, simple life philosophy that could replace archaic theological beliefs, and have whittled it down to two principles:

1. Pursue those things in life that give you pleasure, and chief among these is loving others and being loved yourself. Do not act with the assumption that there is an afterlife, because life on earth isn't enhanced by that.

2. Treat others the way you would wish to be treated.

I try to live my life according to the above, and admittedly, I don't always measure up. However, were I to discover that the universe was indeed created by some sort of omnipotent, just deity, I think I would still be on his/her/its good side.

And Tyler, the wonderful thing about the beliefs that all of us have, that I'm sure damn us all to eternal hellfire from your perspective, is that we support your choice to have your beliefs. There's room for everyone. Believers, non-believers, Buddhists, seventh-day-whatevers, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Christians, you name it...we can all co-exist.

I think it's great. I'm mildly entertained, even.

You know you're in a quackery, though, when those around start saying things like "ours is the only way". That's when the bull**** really starts flying, and sometimes people get hurt. So tread carefully, and may the Schwartz be with you. Even the Pope, for Christ's sake, is lightening up on the gay issue. Slightly.

And you really could beef up on a history lesson the bible. David Cross explains it well in about a minute. (Yes, I know I had that linked in here previously...sorry).

But seriously, when you go to college, take a theological course on the bible. It can be eye opening. Of course, some would see taking such a course as heresy, but I highly recommend it.

ApolloAndy said:

Oddly, it seems like the left (which I count myself a member of, for the most part) is against intolerance in all forms except against the "right/majority/republicans/rich white Christian males." For some reason it seems okay to vilify them and generalize about them.

I just don't buy that this is happening. Ever. What is happening is a reality check to this dominant subclass that being the most entitled of the bunch hardly puts it in any danger of being discriminated against, ever. As I implied earlier, history keeps repeating itself. We went through this when slavery ended and when women could vote. As a white, straight, middle class, quasi-Christian male, I've had zero barriers in life. I'm not going to cry boo-hoo when gay folks are being marginalized or people are hating on immigrants because they want the jobs "my people" don't want.

Ensign Smith said:

...trying to follow this discussion is a bit like listening to kindergartners arguing about the true nature of Santa--does he really live at the North Pole, and how is that possible since it's just a frozen ocean up there anyway?

This. It's precisely what I was getting at in my last post. Trying to validate or discount any interpretation of the Bible (or any holy scripture for any religion) is pointless if not everyone believes it to begin with. And did I mention that's why you don't legislate it?

Jeff said:
What is happening is a reality check to this dominant subclass that being the most entitled of the bunch hardly puts it in any danger of being discriminated against, ever.

Oh, I'm not talking about being discriminated against in any material way. I totally agree that the privileged class (which I am part of in spite of having grown up non-white, non-Christian) still has a lot more to give before we can start complaining.

I'm more referring to the attitude of the "left" being tolerant of everything and making room for all kinds of viewpoints except those coming from the "right" which are dismissed as ignorant, hateful, and/or discriminatory.

And I still don't buy that the trajectory of history is the measure of morality.

Tyler Boes said:

If they translated it incorrectly, how are all the old versions of the Bible the same?

This is a factually incorrect statement. A quick study of the number of the beast, for instance, will show that some manuscripts attest to 666 while other attest to 616.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_beast#Revelation_13:17-18

In fact, any check of the notes in a half decent scholarly bible will show hundreds, if not thousands of places where the footnote reads "other manuscripts attest <different word>."

Edit: Heck, the ending of Mark is disputed even within the body of the text in most bibles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Mark_16:9.E2.80.9320_in_the_manuscripts_and_patristic_evidence

ApolloAndy said:

Jeff said:

I'm more referring to the attitude of the "left" being tolerant of everything and making room for all kinds of viewpoints except those coming from the "right" which are dismissed as ignorant, hateful, and/or discriminatory.
.

What everyone seems to forget is that originally, being a Republican (Conservative) originally meant that you didn't want government involved in too many aspects of state and civil rights. You wanted to apply government law CONSERVATIVELY. The opposite of that was being a Democrat (Liberal). Democrats wanted government much more involved. The political system in that respect has completely devolved into something different, and I think that is where we have run into so much trouble.

Also, while I agree with you that the "tolerant" people on the left discriminate against most people on the right while preaching tolerance, there seems to truly be a plethora of racist, sexist, bigoted rich white boys on the Republican side, and most seem pretty stupid as well. They probably have plenty of great people in their party, but it seems as though they just pick the most polarizing, backwards thinking people they have as their public representatives. I think they honestly need an image overhaul.

I also think people on both sides need to remember that one of many reasons the United States was founded was to escape religious persecution of ALL sorts, and that as Jeff said, we as a free people cannot legislate religion or make laws based on a religion that not everyone follows. A decision on whether gay people should be allowed to marry and have the same rights as every other person should only be made with the word "people" in mind.

for instance, will show that some manuscripts attest to 666 while other attest to 616.

That's a Michigan area code. I knew it.

Timber-Rider is the antichrist.

bjames said:

I would hope most atheists think this way. Hopefully we're not all just running around pillaging and burning villages because there's no god to stop us....

Nope, sorry. Too busy eating babies and worshipping satan to even start with the pillaging, here.