by The Daily Republic
July 13, 2013 at 7:08 am in The Daily Republic
What has been happening in America over the past several decades is a gradual rejection of God’s revealed truth.
Tags: Gay Marriage, letters, Opinion, Religion, updates 36 Comments »
Do you ever stop to think maybe not everyone feels the need to believe in the sky fairy? What makes you think laws should be written governing my life based on your belief in a fairy tale?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 28 9
“Sky fairy,” huh? Is that the left’s vaunted “tolerance” that we keep hearing about?
Like or Dislike: 3 5
I am not asking to have laws written based on what I do or do not believe in.
Like or Dislike: 1 2
Well, then you apparently never ask for any laws to be written, because ALL laws are asked for based upon what people do or do not believe in.
Like or Dislike: 2 3
Mr. Shaw would be the first to rail against sharia law yet his thought process is exactly the same.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 29 8
Hardly, but I wouldn’t expect those who are ignorant of both to understand either.
Like or Dislike: 3 6
“….they even reject His unwritten revelation in the creation” states Mr. Shaw. How does he explain homosexual behavior in the animal world. Quite awhile back when serving a different congregation, we, the congregation, began the Open and Affirming process. This took my meeting with folks individually over coffee as well as in groups. In one coffee house meeting, an elderly farmer was talking about having cattle and how some bulls WILL NOT mate with cows. Rather they try to mate with other bulls. Not being a farm girl, in fact being from San Diego and having no real farm animal experience, I found this intriguing. If we “look to natural revelation” as also part of God’s witness then how can we dismiss this? Even in the grandest literalism of scripture, there are too gaps.
Hot debate. What do you think? 22 9
Since when have we decided to look to the animal world for what behaviors are acceptable? Years ago I had a rabbit that tried to mount cats of either sex. Does that mean beastiality is okay? Animals of many species mate with multiple partners so I guess that means that is okay to go from partner to partner whenever we feel like It right? Oh and as far as Don’s silly comment about Sharia law I didn’t see Mr. Shaw advocating beheading anyone or chopping off any hands. Get real!!
Like or Dislike: 9 18
But the bible does. Get real.
Like or Dislike: 15 9
“an elderly farmer was talking about having cattle and how some bulls WILL NOT mate with cows. Rather they try to mate with other bulls. Not being a farm girl, in fact being from San Diego and having no real farm animal experience, I found this intriguing.”
Having grown up on a farm, let me make one point:
A male animal that has been raised for the purpose of breeding who will NOT breed (or, if you like, prefers only other males-intact or castrated) will likely face a quick trip to the slaughter yards. If artificial collection is possible, that may delay the trip.
And in the natural world, a homosexual animal’s genetic material will disappear from the species through natural processes (and before everyone has a fit, this is Darwin’s theory of evolution in action.)
And as to, ” If we “look to natural revelation” as also part of God’s witness then how can we dismiss this?”
I’m not nearly as smart as you so I don’t ignore satan’s doctrines.
New research is finding a possible genetic PREDISPOSITION to homosexuality via the X chromosome. From the article: “scientists emphasised that their findings cannot explain all male homosexuality. Dr Hamer said it is likely homosexuality arises from a variety of causes, both genetic and environmental.”
We know some diseases, like alcoholism, have some genetic predisposition in certain individuals for which they are treated. Which raises all sorts of questions, like why aren’t the genetically predisposed alcoholics demanding their right to live life as they choose?
What took you so long to jump in?
“And in the natural world, a homosexual animal’s genetic material will disappear from the species through natural processes (and before everyone has a fit, this is Darwin’s theory of evolution in action.) ”
Like or Dislike: 4 3
How come when one uses the bible against ‘your’ ideology, it becomes wrong?
Over and over again, the bible’s natural revelation has been used as a way to condemn homosexuality. Now that natural revelation reveals homosexuality it is said to be wrong. Can you have it both ways?? Either natural revelation is or isn’t. You decide. But don’t use it in one instance and refute it in another. Biblical literalism seems to breed proof texting.
Lots of animals eat their babies, too. Is that okay for humans to do?
Like or Dislike: 3 4
They only want to pick out certain things that animals do that they agree with Jay. They don’t want to hear about things like Tomcats killing any kittens and sometimes eating them. What a horrible world this would be if humans modeled all their behavior on what animals do!
Like or Dislike: 1 0
Mr. Shaw: Really!!! Some folks just have a fetish over other people’s sex lives. Mr. Shaw goes on and on about what is written in the Bible regarding this topic as if God Himself got out a pencil and paper….or was it a chisel and a hammer? This vendetta against other people who have a different version of peace and happiness from himself is becoming a vendetta in his own mind. The Supreme Court has ruled. Your side lost. Go on with your life and leave these people alone.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 28 7
Just so you know Mr. Shaw, I am an atheist. I am generous to a fault, have been in a committed relationship for 18 years. I fail to see where my morals have eroded and furthermore I would stack my ethics against your morals any day.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 23 8
We already got that Belinda. The thing is WHO CARES!! I sure don’t!.
Like or Dislike: 7 15
In all sincerity, I have to say hurray for your who cares attitude and I wish that more people would adopt it. Unfortunately people like Mr. Shaw seem to have a compulsion to attack and demonize certain groups of people which can make a person feel the need to go on the defensive. While he is completely entitled to his beliefs and opinions I feel it is crossing the line when one denominations beliefs become a part of forming legal and civil rights for all.
Like or Dislike: 16 7
” Unfortunately people … seem to have a compulsion to attack and demonize certain groups of people which can make a person feel the need to go on the defensive”
Yes, which is what is happening to people who literally take the Biblical warning that homosexuality is an abomination. In Canada, pastors can’t even read the parts of scripture dealing with homosexuality for fear they be charged with a hate crime. Coming soon to the US, where the left wants natural law destroyed so we are left with their values. (And one only has to look at Chicago and Detroit for a glimpse at that world.)
I frankly don’t care what you do with/in your life, but how about not sticking it (not “you” specifically) in the face of people who don’t believe in that lifestyle? My brother is gay, and he delighted in disrespecting my parent’s wish he and his SO not stay with them when the SO was along. The disgusting part was, if the SO wasn’t along, my brother stayed a motel 20 miles away because it was closer to a gay bar. But, he’s so generous and in a committed relationship I’m sure he had no problem with his actions.
Like or Dislike: 5 7
“Coming soon to the US, where the left wants natural law destroyed so we are left with their values.” The natural world reveals homosexual behavior that has not become extinct..the Left does not want natural law destroyed, the right does as the right continues to support mass exploitation of the earth (fracking, DRILL BABY DRILL), legal cruelty to animals (pig farms, cattle farms,…) by making them into a commodity rather than as gifts as well as extinguishing basic rights of all God’s creations.
Like or Dislike: 5 3
I’m confused as to who is showing disrespect.
Like or Dislike: 2 2
The letter reflects a very self-centered perspective. To suggest that the United States is in a state of moral decline over the past several decades ignores historical context. I disagree with the notion that this country is more perverse in accepting same-sex marriage than it was when it accepted slavery and denied women the right to vote.
Like or Dislike: 21 8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Is there some place in the Bible where it says women should be denied the right to vote? Didn’t think so. As far as slavery in Biblical times it was nothing like what we think of slavery in more modern times. It was not one race of people enslaving another race of people. It was more like indentured servants. The master was only to have the slaves serve for a few years and at the end of that time was to set the slave up with all the goods needed to make a living on his or her own.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 6 17
oldironsides, so is the point of your post that because denying women the right to vote isn’t mentioned in the Bible it was oaky and because the slavery described in the Bible was different than our concept of slavery it was also okay? I think you missed the point of my post. The writer thinks that the events of this generation are the most significant events to ever face the nation which, in the case of same-sex marriage, I don’t think even comes close to being the cataclysmic event he depicts it to be.
Like or Dislike: 17 5
Yes the slavery as practiced by the Hebrews was okay for that time. Women’s suffrage had nothing to do with this argument. You were the one who brought it up. Seems to me a lot of atheists are trying to brag how good they are all on their own. I’m not about to say how good I am because I’m not good. I do all kinds of bad things all the time but I’m hopeful that Christ can forgive me of my sins. Christ said “So every one who acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven”. (Mathew 10:32-33)
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 6 18
Oldironsides, you are walking down a slippery slope. Your comment states that slavery “was okay for that time” which implies that Biblical morality is not a finite concept but something that changes with the times; slavery was once acceptable but now is not acceptable. If Biblical morality can change than “the times they are a changing, my friend . . .”.
Like or Dislike: 14 5
***sigh***(shaking head)”Yes the slavery as practiced by the Hebrews was okay for that time.” You can’t be serious.
Like or Dislike: 19 7
Slavery as practiced by the Hebrews was mainly a way for people to work off a debt. Considerably better than being a slave in pagan nations like Egypt at the time. Did you even bother to read the link I provided?
Like or Dislike: 8 14
Of course I read it. Good to know you have a basis to rationalize slavery. Working off a debt was 1 form of slavery to the Hebrews according to your link. I would like to point out a couple of things. What is the source of your link? Churchsociety.org so it’s not surprising that they found a “justification” for it just as the Hebrews did with the “Mosaic Law” and the way the South did.
If you are using the “times were different then” defense on your point to agree with Mr. Shaw then wouldn’t your whole argument be false?
Like or Dislike: 17 9
May want to review your defense of Biblical slavery, as the version of slavery you are referring to (the version like indentured servitude) applied only to fellow Israelites. Individuals of other races/ethnicities (see the Canaanites) could be enslaved indefinitely. Check out Leviticus and Deuteronomy or the list of the 613 commandments (the mitzvot) of the Torah.
Kind of odd for someone to bring religious takes on slavery into a discussion on defining marriage, as religions were quite happy to redefine marriage during slave times. See, slaves were commodities and having children could therefore increase wealth, so slave owners wanted to encourage marriage as a way to encourage child production. But, of course, slaves not being full people could not legally marry, so the owners turned to churches, many of which happily obliged. And they didn’t even have to change the marriage vows much, just made it “until death OR DISTANCE do you part.”
Seems like if the Bible can be reinterpreted to support an ugly practice like slavery, perhaps it can also be used for humane purposes — like recognizing the human rights of homosexual individuals.
But hey, maybe my Christianity is different from yours.
Like or Dislike: 19 5
The foreign slaves were primarily taken in war. The alternative to taking slaves was to execute prisoners. There wasn’t such a thing as a Guantanamo Bay in those times. In pre-Christian Israel and Judah there were no churches only temples. No one is saying that homosexuals don’t have human rights. At least not in this country. The laws have always been exactly the same for everyone all along. We have always regulated marriage. We don’t recognize plural marriages of Fundamentalist Mormons as being legal marriages. There are laws in most states regulating how closely related people can be to marry. Gay marriage is a sham. Humans may call it marriage but it’s not a marriage as far as God is concerned. From the start God said what a marriage is. “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife (woman) and they become one flesh”. (Genesis 2:24) Christ later repeated this definition of marriage. Nowhere did God say a man would become one with another man or a woman become one with another woman.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 5 15
oldironsides….you’re making me see Red. You weave a tapestry of double talk that would keep out the coldest winter wind. In biblical time they had no problem killing them all. Men, women and children…..but slaves were money. If you needed the cash you took slaves, if you didn’t care about cash flow you wiped them out.
“No one is saying that homosexuals don’t have human rights. At least not in this country. The laws have always been exactly the same for everyone all along.”- THAT’S THE POINT!!! Marriage is a right!!!
Plural marriage…pretty big in the Old Testament. Multiple wives, concubines, slaves…..it was good to be a man.
So, some thousands of years ago god wrote all these rules down and we have bent them to our own liking (see above) and yet he’s been mute since.
If you come back with how god speaks to you/us all the time……trust me, it’s just the voices in your head.
Like or Dislike: 12 7
Ok. Now I see the problem. You are unaware of the history of marriage going back even a few years.
Lets see. Thumbnail sketch:
* Marriage as an institution predates our known writing and all known religions (this can be seen in the Bible for example, where various religious practices such as the wife having a separate tent are mentioned in the Old Testament)
* Marriage throughout most of our history (in Christianity, largely until the 1500s, the Council of Trent changed this) was a notion recognized by a community and generally entered into with no direction connection to any religion — it was a contractual notion giving legitimacy to the children of the union
* Early marriage included a wide variety of notions, from plural marriage (in many cultures, but notably outlined many times in the Bible), gay marriage (Greek, Roman and Chinese examples), arranged marriage (still a prevalent notion), the Romans even recognized a variety of types of marriage
* In almost every culture, until very recently, women had very few rights in marriage, this change, especially in Western culture during the 19th and 20th centuries is one of the more profound changes in marriage
* The concept of marriage for love is actually a very recent phenomenon
* The notion of an consanguinity varies quite a bit across cultures still, first cousin marriage is still the most prevalent type of marriage, and follows in societies where marriage focuses extensively on property rights
* Marriage in the US has not only seen changes such as the acceptance of marriage for love, the changing of marriage rights for women, the alteration to the marriage vows to protect slavery but also more recent phenomena, such as the outlawing of anti-miscegenation laws (laws not allowing marriages between people of different races) — these laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967, though the last of them disappeared off the books only in 2001 (Alabama)
So, even from this brief sketch, the notion of marriage as an institution that has not changed is pretty silly.
There is a really fascinating book on the topic called Marriage, A History by Stephanie Coontz, which was published in 2006. I recommend checking it out.
Like or Dislike: 14 7
Oldironsides, get used to the left wanting you to slither around in the gutter with them.
Like or Dislike: 7 10
When did the WASPs start embracing the Jews? Throughout most of US history the white religious groups hated the Jews.
Like or Dislike: 2 7
Not sure why it is relevant but more positive relations seem to follow two events, the revelation of the holocaust after WWII and the formation of Israel as a nation in 1948.
Like or Dislike: 2 5
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company