Bible Is Inclusive But Insistent

This comment is directed to the editors of On Faith. How do you determine whether or not a religious voice is credible? Hopefully that decision is not based on more than popularity and the ability to generate web traffic. Mr. Colson may have provided a good benchmark.

"Christ's invitation to sinners to come and find salvation truly does go out to all. But this invitation is not to stay as we are."

If Colson remains the hatchet man he was when he served as President Nixon's counsel then he has not changed, and he is not a reputable voice. He is merely a hatchet man for a new politics of exclusion and control, a politics that masquerades as exceptionalism and piety.

The editors offered a link to Mr. Colson's Breakpoint commentary. Have you read his December 15 column "The Attack on Civil Democracy". In that piece, he takes the same premise that he introduces here - that a gay person is marked by sin and cannot be a respectable member of society - and twists it to condemn the entire GLBT community. He referred to us as "rioters" and compared us to "roving gangs of Nazi brownshirts". He also repeated the unsubstantiated accusation that the GLBT community "mail[ed] white powder to terrorize a place of worship".

Is that a voice that you would like to promote? I don't believe it is.

Hmm -

"Matt. 19:3 ¶ And Pharisees came up to him and rtested him by asking, s“Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”
Matt. 19:4 He answered, t“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Matt. 19:5 and said, u‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and vthe two shall become one flesh’?
Matt. 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. wWhat therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Matt. 19:7 They said to him, x“Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”
Matt. 19:8 He said to them, “Because of your yhardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
Matt. 19:9 zAnd I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”*
Matt. 19:10 ¶ The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

Someone should think carefully before desiring to cast the first stone about marriage, Mr Second-Wife Colson. But, I'm sure you have been forgiven...funny thing, that.

According to Matthew, quoting Jesus, the ones that abandon their families shall be blessed:

"19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

According to Paul, it is better to not even be married, but if you can't contain yourself, then get married: (1 Corinthians):

"7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

Gee - it is funny to find scriptural passages that speak out against marriage and divorce. All in one book that supposedly (to many) is the unified word of their god. I wonder why it is possible to argue just about any position from it.

I further wonder why those of us who aren't Christians should care what that book says about the marriages of non-Christians. Do the bible-thumpers here keep kosher? Fast during Ramadan? Avoid eating meat (or even just meat from cows)? Why not?

I assume the answer will be the tyranny of the majority, or the old "this is a Christian nation" canard, but let's leave appeals to force or fraud out of this. Fortunately, the government was set up to be neutral and not suffer the interference of religion as was the tradition in Europe at the time. Unfortunately, many people don't believe this, and try to force others to follow their religious beliefs. It's a shame that more and more young people are accepting of gays and lesbians, so the shift will happen. It's just up to us to try to limit the damage that bigots like Chuck can do as they go down.

Salvo:
"The Question - Is there a religious and/or scriptural case for gay marriage?"

Depends on your religion and what writings you consider scripture.
According to MY religion, which has no set of agreed-upon scrptures, same-sex marriage is as holy as heterosexual marriage.

A BIG part of the problem is that one religion (fundamentalist Christianity) wants to make one anthology (the Bible) and its prohibitions the basis for secular law, and up to now, have been in large part, successful in doing so. The time for changing that is long overdue.
Why should those of us who don't practice Christianity have to live according to its definitions of "sin?"

Chuck, if your daughter were raped, would you alaccept a payment of 50 shekels from her attacker and then insist that she marry him? According to the same collection of OT rules that prohibit sexual activity, a rapist must pay the victim's father for the damaged goods (you break it, you buy it), marry her, and is not allowed to ever divorce her.

THE NEO-ATHEISTS and their “innocent” quest for religious knowledge. (EXPOSED)

The neo-atheist which is a new “religion” is a form of “militant atheism” which is against all the religions. There questions to you on this forum are not as innocent and they seem to be. They come here with a mission to create doubts about all religions may it be Islam, Christianity or Judaism.

Before you answer their questions about your religion is it not befitting to have the introduction of the person i.e. what he himself believes in. Internet do not mean you hide a dagger to attack other religions while you hide yourself.

Atheism is a rejection of all religion, or at least of all theistic religion, and since Islam is usually considered a theistic religion, atheism is in principle opposed to it. However, as a phenomenon with its roots in Europe, atheism has concentrated its opposition to religion on Christianity. The new atheism, by contrast, emphasizes Islam as a particularly virulent form of religion that must be opposed. Often, the new atheists claim that because of the events of 9/11, they feel compelled to take a strong stand against religion in general and Islam in particular. Because of this, atheists who focus primarily on Islam, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, may also be considered to be a part of, or at least allied with, the neo-atheists.

Atheists do not have anything new to offer. The neo atheists tend to show no interest in professional philosophy, religion, or theology and target the mass market. The arguments against the existence of God are generally versions of scientism, the view that all of life's problems may be solved by appeal to the natural sciences, and the moral argument against religion, that religion brings out the worst in people. They hide under humanism and pretend to be kinder species. There aim is just to confuse those who have faith in God and religion.

Peace and regards.

Greetings.

I'm wondering if everyone read the question, asking if there is scriptural support for gay marriage. Chuck Colson provided an argument based on the question. It seems like others have ignored the question to ride their own hobbie horses.

SPENCER1 and ASODERS22, for example, you ignored the question, the context for Colson's comments. You attack the Bible when he was just responding to the question of whether there is scriptural support for gay marriage.

Meanwhile, his argument that the Bible is inclusive in that it offers salvation to everyone, remains true. Any of us can turn from a life independent of God and accept Jesus' invitation into His life. And as we follow Jesus, we leave some things behind (including, as this subject, suggests, sexual sin).

It is worth considering.
Much grace,
StephenS2S

How is it possible to spend any effort at all analyzing what appears in the Bible, when it is universally known that the bible is but a collection of ancient myths, written by men and sold by publishers? If the Bible were the word of (a non-existent) god, it would be written in the sky in 1000 foot high letters of fire, and probably not in English.

volkmare:

"markinirvine :
On your "good Germans" comment:
You are wrong.
We/they are only following gods words in the bible.
If you truly believe in God, you cannot allow yourself practice homosexuality.
It is as simple as that."

Glad you cleared all that up about the Nazi 'good Germans' who killed gays and non-Christians somehow having something to do with queer Pagans today.

Spectacular.

Now.

*cracking neck with d***ish bravado.*

Wanna go, or should we call this America and make nice?

volkmare wrote:

If you truly believe in God, you cannot allow yourself practice homosexuality.
It is as simple as that.

------------------------

God bless you. Good for you, but don't tell the rest of us what to do as if it's your special right in "die Regeln" Germans are no ones to judge homosexuals after what they did to them under Hitler.

markinirvine :
On your "good Germans" comment:
You are wrong.
We/they are only following gods words in the bible.
If you truly believe in God, you cannot allow yourself practice homosexuality.
It is as simple as that.

Mark

globalone

"Pagan,

""except that poly people also are subjected to the same kinds of defamations you subject gay people to, as well, and certain people like to get a rise out of the moralistic titillation at the 'depravities' they like to imagine poly groups get up to.""

"----> When you say "you" people,"

I didn't say that. I said *you.* You keep trying to claim there's some connection between my marriage and other things. One that does not exist.

" you understand that you are including the likes of Abraham Lincoln, who wrote into law the prohibition of polygamy in "all territories of the United States."

If you weren't spamming all threads, you'd see that was answered. Biblical-style polygamy a la the Momroms of the time, was based on a notion of women as property and according men in such marriages more rights over the women than they enjoyed as regarded him, or each other.

That's an inequality the United States government cannon support or enforce.

""Stop with the lies about same-sex relationships being the same as incest, for one thing""

"----> By "incest", I'm talking about related adults, not children."

Then specify before you repeat the smears. 'Incest' rarely relates to adult siblings marrying, and by definition, pretty much doesn't start with adults. Whatever the Hel is up with the exceptions to this doesn't relate to my civil rights in the manner you imply.

" So, if two men or two women wish to marry, and, as you say, the Constitution blesses such an arrangement, then I'm assuming the Constitution would also bless a man and a woman who happen to be first cousins?"

Are you under some misapprehension that civil contract law is, by some odd convolution, a religious blessing?

Pardon if someone up in the hills wanting to marry their first cousin isn't my concern right now, and, frankly, has nothing to do with the prejudices you promote. 'Being fruitful and multiplying' would be a *bad idea* and there would be a lot of complications about 'keeping wealth in the family' and other stuff that went out with feudalism the law might have to start worrying about, but as regards this argument, *who cares?*

Nothing to do with it. Is not-inbreeding a compelling state interest? I lean toward yes.

But someone could make a case. On another day.

Sparrow,

Why is polygamy a violation of FEDERAL law when it clears goes against the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Thanks.

the more i think about it, the more it seems to me that the "good people" in favor of prohibiting m/m and f/f couples to marry are like the "good germans" who turned a blind eye to the anti-semitism surrounding them in the late 1800's and early 1900's ...

Pagan,

"except that poly people also are subjected to the same kinds of defamations you subject gay people to, as well, and certain people like to get a rise out of the moralistic titillation at the 'depravities' they like to imagine poly groups get up to."

----> When you say "you" people, you understand that you are including the likes of Abraham Lincoln, who wrote into law the prohibition of polygamy in "all territories of the United States."

"Stop with the lies about same-sex relationships being the same as incest, for one thing"

----> By "incest", I'm talking about related adults, not children. So, if two men or two women wish to marry, and, as you say, the Constitution blesses such an arrangement, then I'm assuming the Constitution would also bless a man and a woman who happen to be first cousins?

coloradodog

"The fundamental problem here is Colson and his evangelical ilk won't admit that God made some people (and animals) gay. As long as this persists (I think forever), it is pointless to debate any of this with them."

Well, a lot of the stupidity of this is that conservative Christians *rely* on the thin, and generally discreditable notion that being queer is merely a 'sinful choice' and neither what science *and* the experience of queer people *and* the obvious fact that we're discriminated against *as a kind of people, regardless of the 'love the sinner' whitewash on the hateful actions.

They want us to suffer a *lot* on the thinnest assertions that somehow we aren't born as we are if only we can be hurt enough.

Whereas the queer rights argument under the law *does not* rely on the fact we're born as we are. This simple fact *does* however, discredit the only reason people can come up with to deny us our rights and equality in America.

This is just like he conservative Christian arguments to keep encouraging US automakers to keep trying to concentrate on SUVs, despite what we *all* knew was the reality of the matter.

Like somehow the thinnest possibility that the effects of pollution are *not* our fault are a good reason to keep breathing exhaust and making vehicles we *knew* people wouldn't be able to afford to fuel.

This is the mentality. There's no limit to what they want *others* to suffer on the thinnest possibility that they're "ultimately right" in the face of all evidence, human experience, and common decency.

Standards of proof are awfully stringent when it comes to convincing them to do the *right* thing, ...quite the opposite when someone wants them to stop doing the *wrong* thing.

I don't know how many people have to tell them about the realities queer people have to endure before they figure maybe they shouldn't be hurting people so much cause they want to cling to a shred of doubt that they aren't being 'righteous' by making others suffer.

I've said it before... How much more real hardship and injustice does your Jesus want you to perpetrate on my life so *you* can feel "comfortable" ...With a "Definition?"

How many decimal places do you want the "proof" to go to?

The fundamental problem here is Colson and his evangelical ilk won't admit that God made some people (and animals) gay. As long as this persists (I think forever), it is pointless to debate any of this with them.

Let them go primp, pose, posture, pretend, pontificate and pray with their own on Sundays but never again give them the power to bully us like they did to America the last eight years.

Thank God for the ACLU - not only for protecting our freedoms but also by the fact that their very existence raises the blood pressure (which hopefully increases heart attacks) of old, intolerant right-wing neochristian as well.

Ladies and gentlmen, I present to you, the first section of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution:

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This is the founding document of this country, not the Bible. I can respect the fact that you're entitled to your own religious beliefs. And if you want to give more importance to the Bible than you do to the Constitution, that's your business, but don't expect the rest of us to join you. Bottom line for me is that denying marriage to homosexuals is relegating them to a secondary class of citizens and denying them something they're entitled to as citizens. If you're okay with doing that, that's your business and frankly I don't care what religious text you cite in doing so--you're wrong.

globalone

"Pagan,I'm assuming then, that you also believe that it is a miscarriage of justice that polygamy is prohibited by federal law? And that the same would be true for incestuous arrangements?"

Stop with the lies about same-sex relationships being the same as incest, for one thing. Frankly, I think too many Christians are convinced homosexuality is so bad that it's no worse to take out their frustrations on kids.

As for polygamy, that'd require new laws about division of property. And the government couldn't enforce the inequalities in *Biblical-style* polygamy, cause that effectively gives one man rights over a bunch of women they don't enjoy as regards him or each other.

I have no objection to groups of consenting adults marrying, though, no. For reasons of the structure of the laws, you'd have to write new laws, rather than simply stop discriminating against same-sex couples.

But as long as equality and justice are maintained, it's in the interest of society for consenting adults to form stable groups, so in principle, there's nothing wrong with it.

Doesn't have much to do with same-sex couples, except that poly people also are subjected to the same kinds of defamations you subject gay people to, as well, and certain people like to get a rise out of the moralistic titillation at the 'depravities' they like to imagine poly groups get up to. As always, the reality of daily life for them is really just as prosaic as anyone's.

These 'slippery slope' arguments are entirely dependent on your religious-based prejudices. The practicalities of polyamory are another matter, and there are key differences in the law which are generally glossed-over by those who try to make them every time some group they don't like, like interracial or interfaith or same-sex couples want to get married.

That's funny. When I got married I don't remember either of us placing our hand on a Bible and saying "So help me god".
I think what Chuck and every other religious person needs to do is read a REALLY "good book"--on comparative religion. With an open mind (a miracle in itself?), they'll have to come to the conclusion that there's is not the only god; not the only religion.
What makes your god so special is the message they should come away with. But I realize after having spent a lifetime around zealots that the reading of this particular material falls on deaf minds.
Which, I think, is the curx (Latin for "cross", excuse me) of the matter in this argument.
Throw in hypocrisy on a grand scale, cherry-picking of the Koran as well as the Bible and one ends up with an opinion about as relevant as Bush's religiosity.
Your days are numbered, Chucky & Company. There will come a day when the pursuit of happiness includes all of us.

"God loves us enough that he won't leave us as he finds us."

This, like almost everything else you write, is so shallow and stupid, although you think it SOUNDS smart. As he finds us? He supposedly created us, for Pete's sake.

Like every Christian you pick and choose what you like in the Bible and to h*ll with the rest.

Now listen: The Bible contradicts itself over and over, so there is no way anyone can follow it (or when are you going to allow parents to stone to death children who don't obey them?). Every Christian knows this, but turns a blind eye, since some of it comes in so very handy when you want to be nasty to other people. You can blame it on God!

But most importantly: It doesn't matter what the Bible says. It's a book, Chuck. Nothing is holy or true simply because someone wrote it down. (Furthermore, it's heavily edited by COMMITTEES.)

Yep Nevermore, gays exist, and they can marry. They can marry people of the OPPOSITE SEX, which has been the definition of marriage for quite some time.

Don't ask society to put it stamp of approval on something antithetical to the true definition of the union of people that are the most perfect fabric of american society.

Pagan,

I'm assuming then, that you also believe that it is a miscarriage of justice that polygamy is prohibited by federal law? And that the same would be true for incestuous arrangements?

I'm writing this after having read all seven previous comments. How sad, indeed, that not one of them indicates an interest in what the Word of God has to say on the matter -- probably because it's quite clear where God stands, and that's too restrictive for those who desire to call all of their own shots. Yes, very sad indeed.

Re: dcnyhunter's comment that begins "For Christians, there must be a hierarchy for interpretation of conflicting messages,"

This may be the smartest thing I've read in any Post forum in a long, long time. I don't agree with all of it [although I agree with most of it], but if even half the people could write this intelligently, this would be a much better forum.

Fortunately, the US Constitution forbids legislation that would impose religious requirements on civil status. The Bible belongs in the Church and not in the Legislature. Maybe we just need to wait for all the people with these old prejudices to go the the great bigot-prejudice club in the sky ... and then those of us left will be free to continue with our pursuit of happiness.

Just cause you make the case you think your religion should be bigoted, Rev. Colson, doesn't mean the United States government gets to.

Just because you want to associate my marriage, not with a making of a 'covenant' but with oath*breaking* just for being, doesn't mean it's true, and it doesn't mean you get to use the government to try and force people to act or suffer as though it was.

I have both a birthright to equal protection and treatment under the law as an American citizen, regardless of what self-proclaimed religious authorities demand, and also, I have freedom of religion of my own.

So, on both counts. Butt out.

So ... how about the inclusion of divorced people who are now remarried? (check your congregation, I'm sure there are many). Are you encouraging these adulterers (Jesus' words, not mine), to restore their original marriage covenants? And if they don't, do you advocate their dismissal from your congregation? Are they not perpetuating a sin in full consciousness and implicitly endorsed by their welcoming church?
The double standard that (many/most) churches maintain for such questions indicate that, rather than the bible informing their positions, culture and phobias do.
Give me a break.

For Christians, there must be a hierarchy for interpretation of conflicting messages, and that hierarchy ought to start with the Gospels and their undiputed and unconflicting attribution to Jesus of the two Great Commandments, love God above all, and love your neighbor, on which hang all the Law and the Prophets. All of Paul's moralizing, or that of the Pentateuch, must be construed consistently with the Great Commandments. The struggle in the time of Paul of Tarsus to reconcile Jewish "cleanliness" practices and traditions with "conversion" of the 90%+ of the world who were Gentiles was just that, a struggle, and Ms. Jacoby is right to see the flaws of humanity in some of the teachings, perhaps, or in the human (and war) councils that settled disputes about the content of the Bible. Sobeit, they must all answer the two Great Commandments. I don't hear any religious person opposed to Gay Marriage speaking in those terms, and that reveals a fundamental (fundamentalist?) weakness. In any event, Ms. Jacoby is also righht that it is futile to seek an answer to a question unasked at the time, and also to seek a Biblical answer to the lay question: the civil law creates a status of marriage with rights and benefits with no pre-condition (no test, no qualification), open to all, sinner and saint. There is no requirement to procreate or parent, much less to do so better than anyone else. Artificial means of insemination are lawful, as is single-parenting. This may strike some as less than ideal (I disagree, as many marriage "traps" are much less healthy for the trapped children and the marital partners). But so long as the institution is open to the wife-beater, the deadbeat dad, the sex offender, the geriatric, the infirm, the infertile, the angry, the unwilling to parent, then it is beneath contemptuousness to argue it should be denied to the loving, committed, same-sex couple.

"Modern homosexual"??? Comments such as this remind me why religion appears to have lost touch with the world today. Society changes. Just as we no longer support slavery or many of the other practices the Bible supports, homosexual marriage should be accepted as a fact of life today.

Your bigotry is showing, Chuck!

Marriage maybe a religious rite, but it most certainly is a secular right! Whether or not religious zealots like youself sanction homosexuality is beside the point!

Gays exist, that is a fact! It is also a fact that marriage is a constitutional right!

So I would suggest that you get of your high horse and concede that gays should be able to marry at townhall, and if the religious rite is important to them they can seek out a church that is not as narrow-minded as you and your ilk!