The Pope on 'Gay Marriage.'

[quakerzen]

I think I explained it well enough. Adam and Eve had no daughters, so God must have provided Cain with a wife. There's nothing OBVIOUS about what you're saying, you're just reading things into the text that aren't there. Your 'logic' about 'defending incest' eludes me btw.
It doesn't matter... the topic of this thread is the pope's stance on homosexuality. So back to the topic, please.

\

I think YOU'RE reading things into the text. It never says God provided him with a wife. It does say that they were the only people... so...

I'm not defending incest in reality. I'm poking holes in your arguments against homosexuality. If Genesis can't be used to defend incest, it can't be used to defend "traditional marriage" because it provides examples of both.

 

[BarlyGurl]

And come on. Cain's wife HAD to be his sister if there were no other people around, only Adam and Eve's kids.

And if we can't use Genesis to defend incest, because Cain obviously married and mated with his sister, you can't use it to defend the fact that God intended it to be one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) since clearly Genesis is not the basis of sexual morality.

False Argument...
God's plain directive Gen. 1:27-28 " male and female he created them...be fruitful and multiply"
From the beginning it was God's design for male and female to mate and procreate in the PERFECT environment of the Garden of Eden. It was not until AFTER sin ravaged the world that it became necessary for God to institute further directives regarding morality... sexual or otherwise.

 

[BarlyGurl]

\

I think YOU'RE reading things into the text. It never says God provided him with a wife. It does say that they were the only people... so...

Also False... Genesis 2:18-25 is exactly the account of God creating for ADAM a WIFE

I'm not defending incest in reality. I'm poking holes in your arguments against homosexuality. If Genesis can't be used to defend incest, it can't be used to defend "traditional marriage" because it provides examples of both.

I don't see anyone here but YOU attempting to defend incest. Claiming to poke holes in an argument against homosexuality just points out to the audience how LACKING you are in scriptural knowledge... maybe you have one of those QUEEN bibles? Genesis is a fundamental scriptural basis for defending traditional marriage as being between a MAN and a WOMAN and the text is there to demonstrate exactly THAT.

 

[Newluke]

\

I think YOU'RE reading things into the text. It never says God provided him with a wife. It does say that they were the only people... so...

I'm not defending incest in reality. I'm poking holes in your arguments against homosexuality. If Genesis can't be used to defend incest, it can't be used to defend "traditional marriage" because it provides examples of both.

I'm not going to repeat myself here, back to the topic, your faulty logic annoys me.

 

[Newluke]

I don't see anyone here but YOU attempting to defend incest. Claiming to poke holes in an argument against homosexuality just points out to the audience how LACKING you are in scriptural knowledge... maybe you have one of those QUEEN bibles? Genesis is a fundamental scriptural basis for defending traditional marriage as being between a MAN and a WOMAN and the text is there to demonstrate exactly THAT.

Hear, hear...!!!

 

[zone]

Except that the majority of Gay Marriage proponents, dont care at all whether or not churches allow it. They just want governmental acknowledgement and benefits...So ive yet to understand why the church is so involved...

because laws are being passed which will force clergy to perform same-sex marriages, if the homosexuals want a church wedding.

mind you, there are enough liberal congregations willing. no force needed.

"John Shelby Spong’s new manifesto is a sign of the times. For the past three decades, Bishop Spong has staked out a theological position that is so far outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy that it defies description. In a succession of notorious publications, Spong has denied virtually every conceivable doctrine and has embraced almost every imaginable heresy. His abandonment of biblical Christianity is both intentional and straightforward — what this bishop demands is nothing less than the total reformulation of the Christian faith. In other words, Bishop Spong would replace Christianity with a new post-Christian religion while continuing to be recognized as a bishop of the Episcopal Church.

An ardent proponent of gay rights and the total normalization of homosexuality, Bishop Spong has long pressed for same-sex unions and the ordination of practicing homosexuals to every office in his church. In his new manifesto, he simply declares victory for his cause."
Al Mohler

 

[resurrection33]

For the best well-balanced assessment on this topic, everyone should read the answers from the Christian Bible Reference organization.

What Does the Bible say about Homosexuality?

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

I just told you what Jesus said. That’s all that matters to me.

 

[quakerzen]

I don't see anyone here but YOU attempting to defend incest. Claiming to poke holes in an argument against homosexuality just points out to the audience how LACKING you are in scriptural knowledge... maybe you have one of those QUEEN bibles? Genesis is a fundamental scriptural basis for defending traditional marriage as being between a MAN and a WOMAN and the text is there to demonstrate exactly THAT.

So.. Because I poke a hole in someone's argument, I'm lacking in scriptural knowledge?

So because I actually read the Bible and interpret it the way that seems the most logical using Hebrew and Greek vocabulary, I'm "lacking" in scriptural knowledge? haha

I don't just accept the interpretation that I'm force fed by the church. I actually read and it decide what it's saying for myself, instead of being TOLD what it says by people that were also force fed it as a kid.

 

[BarlyGurl]

So.. Because I poke a hole in someone's argument, I'm lacking in scriptural knowledge?

So because I actually read the Bible and interpret it the way that seems the most logical using Hebrew and Greek vocabulary, I'm "lacking" in scriptural knowledge? haha

I don't just accept the interpretation that I'm force fed by the church. I actually read and it decide what it's saying for myself, instead of being TOLD what it says by people that were also force fed it as a kid.

OOOOOOOHHH... see you are one of THOSE who believe in "individual personal interpretation" of the bible, perhaps then you can give us a bible lesson on exactly what Gen 1:27-28 and Gen. 2:18-25 are actuall accounts of... HMMMMM???? feel free to use a hebrew dictionary... you won't need any Greek as Genesis is the first book of the Old Testament. Go ahead... knock your self out... we are all waiting on the edge of our seats to be properly instructed by you.

 

[Newluke]

So.. Because I poke a hole in someone's argument, I'm lacking in scriptural knowledge?

So because I actually read the Bible and interpret it the way that seems the most logical using Hebrew and Greek vocabulary, I'm "lacking" in scriptural knowledge? haha

I don't just accept the interpretation that I'm force fed by the church. I actually read and it decide what it's saying for myself, instead of being TOLD what it says by people that were also force fed it as a kid.

You didn't poke any holes in it, don't flatter yourself. You're still reading things into the text that aren't there, like Abel having a wife and Adam and Eve having daugthers, so much for scriptural knowledge. And dude, you really don't need greek to understand the Old Testament. (haha)

You may call it 'the interpretation that I'm force fed by the church,' I on the other hand call it 'the interpretation that's true to the Bible,' and I willingly accept it .' That you can only accept it if it has been inspired by the liberal agenda is your problem. I guess some more force feeding would do you good.

Stop derailing my thread already.

 

[HoldingOn2013]

wow... hot topic! I believe that homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. Until it is pointed out as otherwise in the bible, this is what I believe. But let me add that I have enough sin in my life and enough battles going on of my own to take on another problem such as "hatred" or a "God like" persona of trying to pass judgement on someone. Share your faith and do so in a loving and caring way because you can't force feed the word of God to someone who is not ready to receive it. Change comes from within and it takes work and dedication. A willingness, determination and steadfastness to do the right thing in God's eyes no matter what you/people/society wants.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

OOOOOOOHHH... see you are one of THOSE who believe in "individual personal interpretation" of the bible, perhaps then you can give us a bible lesson on exactly what Gen 1:27-28 and Gen. 2:18-25 are actuall accounts of... HMMMMM???? feel free to use a hebrew dictionary... you won't need any Greek as Genesis is the first book of the Old Testament. Go ahead... knock your self out... we are all waiting on the edge of our seats to be properly instructed by you.

I'm sure quakerzen is capable of this as well (in fact, I haven't read forward yet ... he may very well have already done so) ... I thought I'd provide some, too. And BarlyGurl, if your understanding of this differs, I welcome you to discuss why, and where your understanding comes from. I don't think anyone has to be able to read Hebrew to read the Bible. I have found it enlightening, but I certainly don't consider it necessary.

So, you wanted Gen 1:27-28 and Gen 2:18-24. Let's do one verse at a time. I'll give the Hebrew, then a straight word-for-word Hebrew-to-English (without respect to English grammar or understanding), then English in the correct grammar.

1:27 VAYIBRA ELOHIYM ET-HA'ADAM B'ZALMO B'ZELEM ELOHIYM BARA ATO ZACAR UNQEBAH BARA OTAM
and-he-created gods the-human in-image-his in-image-of gods he-created him male and-female he-created them
So God created humankind in his image; in the image of God, he created them male and female

1:28 VAYBAREK OTAM ELOHIYM VAYOMER LAHEM ELOHIYM PRU URBU UMILAU ET-HA'AREZ V'KIBSHAH URDU BIDGAT HAYAM UB'OPH HASHAMAYIM UBCAL-KAYAH HAROMESET AL-HA'AREZ
and-he-blessed them gods and-he-says to-them gods fruit-being and-you-increase and-you-fill the-earth and-you-subdue-her and-you-sway of-fishes the-sea and-of-fliers the-heavens and-in-all the-living the-moving-ones on-the-earth
And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish in the sea, and the birds in the air, and everything that lives and moves on the earth.


2:18 VAYOMER YHVH ELOHIYM LO-TOB HEYOT HA'ADAM L'BADO E'ESEH LU EZER C'NEGDO
and-he-sais YHWH gods not - good for-to-be the-human for-alone-him i-will-make - for-him mate as-before-him
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the human to be alone. I will make a mate suitable for him."

2:19 VAYIZER YHVH ELOHIYM MIN-HA'ADAMAH CAL-KAYAT HASADEH V'ET CAL-OP HASHAMAYIM VAYABE EL-HA'ADAM LIROT MA-YIQRA-LU V'CAL ASHER YIQRA-LU HA'ADAM NEFESH KAYAH HU SHMU
and-he-formed YHVH gods from - the-earth all - life the-field and all - flying the-heavens and-he-brings before - the-human for-seeing-him what - he-calls to-him and-all that he-called to-him the-human soul living he his-name
So the LORD God formed out of the earth all creatures of the field and all things that fly in the air, and he brought them before the human, to see what he would call them; and everything that the human called them, that was it's name.

2:20 VAYIQRA HA'ADAM SHEMOT L'CAL-HAB'HEMAH ULI'OF HASHAMAYIM ULICOL KAYAT HASADEH UL'ADAM LO-MAZA EZER C'NEGDO
and-he-called the-human names to-all - the-beasts and-to-flyers-of the-heavens and-to-all living of-field and-to-human not-he-found mate as-before-him
The human gave names to all of the beasts, and all that flies in the air, and all that lives in the fields, but the human could not find a mate suitable for him.

2:21 VAYAFEL YHVH ELOHIYM TARDEMAH AL-HA'ADAM VAYIYSHAN VAYIQAT AKAT MITZALOTAYV VAYISGOR BASHAR TAKTENAH
and-he-caused-to-fall YHVH gods deep-sleep on - the-human and-he-slept and-he-took one from-curved-organs-his and-he-closed flesh beneath-her
So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the human, and as he slept, God took a piece from the human, and formed flesh around her.

2:22 VAYIBEN YHVH ELOHIYM ET-HATZELA' ASHER LAQAK MIN-HA'ADAM L'ISHA VAYBI'HA EL-HA'ADAM
and-he-built YHVH gods the-curved-organ-his which he-took from - the-human for-woman and-he-brought to - the-human
Then, out of the piece which he took from the human, the LORD God built a woman, and he brought her to the human.

2:23 VAYOMER HA'ADAM ZOT HAFA'AM ETZEM ME'ATZAMAY UBASAR MIBSARIY L'ZOT YIQARE ISHAH CIY ME'IYSH LEQAKAH ZOT
and-he-said the-human this the-once bone from-bones-my and-flesh from-flesh-my for-this he-is-called woman because from-man she-was-taken this
And the human said, "This one, bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, shall be called woman, because she was taken from man."

2:24 AL-CEN YA'AZAB-ISH ET-ABIYV VET-IMO V'DABAQ B'ISHTO V'HAYU L'BASHAR EKAD
on-so he-leaves - man father-his and - mother-his and-he-clings in-woman-his and-were-they of-flesh one
And from that day on, a man may leave his father and mother and cling to a woman, and they will be of one flesh.

Hey, thanks for letting me do that. I need to keep my Hebrew skills up, or I'll forget!

 

[Ritter]

Okay, I don't like doing this, but circumstances and general mood today have forced me to the following.

OOOOOOOHHH... see you are one of THOSE who believe in "individual personal interpretation" of the bible, perhaps then you can give us a bible lesson on exactly what Gen 1:27-28 and Gen. 2:18-25 are actuall accounts of... HMMMMM???? feel free to use a hebrew dictionary... you won't need any Greek as Genesis is the first book of the Old Testament. Go ahead... knock your self out... we are all waiting on the edge of our seats to be properly instructed by you.

Here is something very few people understand these days: winning an argument is not only about appealing to the head, but also appealing to the heart. Laying the seeds of mutual respect is a key component of this.

Our ultimate goal in a discussion should be to bring people to our side by illuminating the truth, not have them dig their trenches further inward. Is it okay to challenge? Yes. Is saracasm a viable tool at times? Double yes, but playing fast and loose will get you nowhere if your goal is to have something productive come out of this.

That and if one is civil, their opponents will be more likely not only return the civility, but also give you more information than you would have otherwise bargained for.

Something I had to say while lurking. Carry on.

 

[quakerzen]

OOOOOOOHHH... see you are one of THOSE who believe in "individual personal interpretation" of the bible, perhaps then you can give us a bible lesson on exactly what Gen 1:27-28 and Gen. 2:18-25 are actuall accounts of... HMMMMM???? feel free to use a hebrew dictionary... you won't need any Greek as Genesis is the first book of the Old Testament. Go ahead... knock your self out... we are all waiting on the edge of our seats to be properly instructed by you.

Really? You're gonna use two beautiful passages to defend your hatred?

*Sigh* Okay, time to pull out my religion major boots.

Genesis 1:27 and 28 are saying that God created people and that we are the masters of this Earth. That's it.
If you want me to be a jerk and talk about what other people have interpreted from this, it's saying that Adam and Eve weren't the first people, and that these "men and women" came before them, because it's saying He created them at the SAME time, unlike when he created Eve AFTER Adam. I can go all day. But, since this topic is about homosexuality, it's not saying homosexuality is wrong. It's saying be fruitful and multiply, and they did. You have to read things in CONTEXT! The Bible isn't just a sweeping generalization. The 2 Books of Romans were letters from Paul to specific churches in Rome, not to everyone. It's the same thing here. God is telling the original people to be fruitful and multiply. Believe me, we as modern humans don't need to be told that.

2:18-25 is, again, not saying anything against homosexuality. If you wanna be literal, it's saying Adam needed a companion and Adam, being a straight man, clearly would have wanted a woman companion. Hence Eve.

If you wanna combine both groupings of passages, this is where the Jewish idea for Lilith comes in; Adam's "first wife" according to Rabbinic tradition. Men who studied the Old Testament all of their lives read those two passages and a stray passages in Isaiah and came up with Adam having a first wife, Eve only being created after Lilith went all demon-y on Adam.

Do you want me to go on telling you different interpretations of passages (by scholars and experts on scripture) or do you wanna just accept that these passages are making direct statements about Adam for Adam?

 

[quakerzen]

You didn't poke any holes in it, don't flatter yourself. You're still reading things into the text that aren't there, like Abel having a wife and Adam and Eve having daugthers, so much for scriptural knowledge. And dude, you really don't need greek to understand the Old Testament. (haha)

You may call it 'the interpretation that I'm force fed by the church,' I on the other hand call it 'the interpretation that's true to the Bible,' and I willingly accept it .' That you can only accept it if it has been inspired by the liberal agenda is your problem. I guess some more force feeding would do you good.

Stop derailing my thread already.

Liberal agenda? Haha. Go back to highschool, kid. There's no "liberal agenda" in the Quaker congregation. We just know how to interpret the Bible for ourselves instead of being taught things that are interpreted, pretty much from translations of the Bible.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Do you want me to go on telling you different interpretations of passages (by scholars and experts on scripture) or do you wanna just accept that these passages are making direct statements about Adam for Adam?

Interesting take, quakerzen.

One thing I note in reading this, is that in Hebrew, the name "Adam" means "human," and in Genesis, it is almost always preceded by "the" ("ha"). Replace every occurrence of "Adam" with "the human" and you're getting closer to what the original says.

Second, "adam" means "human" as opposed to "man." In other words, a female human is also "ha-adam." In Hebrew, if you want to make a distinction between male and female, you would use "ish" and "ishah," which Genesis does after the 2nd human is created.

Finally, it's important to recognize that the word "ha-adam" or "the human" is very similar to "ha-adamah," or "the earth." In Hebrew, a human comes from the earth. If it weren't so weird, a better translation of "ha-adam" might be "the earthling," just to show that strong relationship.

Reading Genesis 1 in Hebrew, it becomes much more clear that it was always intended by the writer (whom I believe to be God at least indirectly) to be myth. You've got a story about a person named "human" or better yet "earthling" who was created out of the earth. This human was made in the image of God, male and female. It's very clear that this first ha-adam was both male and female, and that God is also both male and female.

Here's another interesting tid-bit. The first story, Genesis 1 has ha-adam being the crowning glory achievement of his creation. Obviously, God has to make the planet before he can make anything that lives on the planet. But note that he makes the plants and animals first, and then, after all the animals, the best creature is ha-adam.

The second story, Genesis 2, is a completely different story, also inspired by God, but told by a different tribe. In this story, ha-adam is created first, and is all alone. It is very clear that there are no animals yet when ha-adam is created, according to Genesis 2, proving that both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 cannot possibly be literally true. If you believe both to be literal, one or the other (or both) are wrong. You're far better off understanding that both are not intended to be taken literally, but as a story, told by God, through two different tribes of God's people, to tell two different morals about God, and God's relationship with us. But I digress.

So ha-adam (who is both male and female) is all alone, and YHWH God says "lo tov." No good. So YHWH God then creates all the animals. All the beasts of the field and fishes of the sea and birds of the air. And ha-adam gets to name each one. Whatever ha-adam names them, that is their name. But none of them quite makes a good match for ha-adam. That's when YHWH God realizes the only good fit for ha-adam is going to be another ha-adam, another creature out of the earth (ha-adamah). So YHWH God sends his anesthesiologist down, puts ha-adam under the knife, removes a piece -- in Hebrew, it's "the curved organ," often translated as "rib" but I think the Hebrew word is more fleshy, and "kidney" might be a better translation. Whichever, it doesn't really matter which, the important thing is that he takes a piece of ha-adam and creates another ha-adam. That is when ha-adam becomes ish (man) and his partner ishah (woman), and they are true partners, because she is "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh." He calls here "life."

And yes, this is a myth, and speaks to all humans, not just about one human who lived long ago. Most humans, I think it's fair to say, do find their perfect mate in a person of the opposite gender. There's debate about what % of the population may be gay, but the highest percentage I've heard is 10%. I have argued before, and will argue again, that I believe homosexuality is "outside the garden." I do not believe that God ever intended humans to be gay. I also don't believe God intended humans to be blind, or physically deformed, or mentally retarded. And yet, some humans are. I believe that these things are in our population not as punishments from God, but as symptoms of our fallen nature, imperfections in our DNA caused by us humans being so far removed from God. I think all sexuality (homo- hetero- and bi-) will be replace with something else in the afterlife, whereby all humans will not need carnal sex, because our union with each other and with God in "heaven" or whatever you want to call God's kingdom will be so fabulous.

And I've gone way off topic. But I wanted to talk about what those two stories meant, how they were originally written, etc.

 

[Newluke]

Liberal agenda? Haha. Go back to highschool, kid. There's no "liberal agenda" in the Quaker congregation. We just know how to interpret the Bible for ourselves instead of being taught things that are interpreted, pretty much from translations of the Bible.

Yeah, you're so special. They must have a liberal agenda... because you're the living proof of it.

You're quick too draw conclusions btw, not only when it comes to interpreting your Bible, but also regarding other CC-members. I attend gymnasium, thank you very much, so at least for my understanding of the New Testament I'm not dependent on translations. I'm learning hebrew as we speak. So don't you tell me to go back to highschool, I've never been there in the first place. Apparently you HAVE been to highschool, and a lousy one too, judging from the faulty logic you're using.

 

[quakerzen]

Yeah, you're so special. They must have a liberal agenda... because you're the living proof of it.

You're quick too draw conclusions btw, not only when it comes to interpreting your Bible, but also regarding other CC-members. I attend gymnasium, thank you very much, so at least for my understanding of the New Testament I'm not dependent on translations. I'm learning hebrew as we speak. So don't you tell me to go back to highschool, I've never been there in the first place. Apparently you HAVE been to highschool, and a lousy one too, judging from the faulty logic you're using.

You just cannot read at all. huh?

I'm saying the hateful interpretations usually come from translations that aren't perfect, as Hebrew and Greek don't translate well into English or German, like Diva pointed out.

So before you go all high and mighty, get a clue. There's no liberal agenda. You're paranoid.

And yes, I HAVE been to high school. And college. I'm studying religious studies and theology. So let's try again. Hi, I'm Quaker, I do this for a living, nice to meet you

 

[Newluke]

You just cannot read at all. huh?

I'm saying the hateful interpretations usually come from translations that aren't perfect, as Hebrew and Greek don't translate well into English or German, like Diva pointed out.

So before you go all high and mighty, get a clue. There's no liberal agenda. You're paranoid.

And yes, I HAVE been to high school. And college. I'm studying religious studies and theology. So let's try again. Hi, I'm Quaker, I do this for a living, nice to meet you

Better than you apparently, especially when it comes to reading to scripture.

Your post was still a comment on my post, and as such directed at me personally and at other people who's try to take God's word seriously.

I don't need to get high and mighty, I know what I'm worth. So let's try again:
Hi, I'm Lucas, I do this OUT OF CONVICTION...

maybe that's the main difference between us both...

Oh, and I'm not at all impressed by the Quackers, from what I've read about them they are freethinkers and their theology comes dangerously close to that of the gnosis. So I wouldn't be suprised if they had sympathy for the liberal agenda too.

 

[Nautilus]

there is nothing wrong with the liberal agenda in the first place.