Rant #1: Christians who wish to outlaw gay marriage because "the bible says so" are religious cherry-pickers.

We are all religious cherry pickers. I don't know one person that has strong views on some things and brushes off other religious beliefs. But that's exactly how we are.

We are all religious cherry pickers.

In any other area such "picking" would be called hypocritical.

Put differently, do you think that scientists cherry pick their basic source guides?

I don't want my doctor using a 2000 year old tome to treat me...why would I want the same to guide my life?

Speaking as an anti-theist, if you are going to be religious at least pick one that is consistent.

Put differently, do you think that scientists cherry pick their basic source guides?

Of course they do. It's only human nature to pick the road most beneficial to you.

An old Benny Hill joke:

What do you call a man who marries another man?

A vicar.

levitus 18 : MANKIND refers to man Kin.. your kin are your relatives.. male kin are your male relatives . woman kin are your female relatives... this bans incest and not a referral to gays.

levituc 22 : still talking about mans kin... not gays

Romans 1 .. leaving the natural use of women, gays were never there to leave, this refers to men that go out with the buddys on "hunting trips" or church retreats,.. all alone.. the Christian group "promise keepers" is one such group

corintians.. still talking about abusing man's kin... not gays.. here either

Timothy... still talking about defiling man's kin..

It' appears they not only cherrypicked, but distorted God's word to fit the devils agenda of hate..

If you read the bible with an open HEART, instead of a closed MIND.. God will tell you HE said nothing about gays..

Excellent article. Here's a piece with a similar approach to the issue.

It's worth it, it's a good piece.

Marriage is a contract. It is that simple. Sometimes it can be about love. Sometimes it is about friendship. Sometimes it is about security.

When I went to premarital counseling with my husband, we were asked to define marriage. We were coming up with these long answers and she simply said... "It's a problem solving relationship."

You are right. It is a contract. She is right... it is a problem solving relationship. It isn't about procreation.

Excellent article. Excellent refrences. Excellent rant.

I'm glad that you found it useful. I hesitated to post as I didn't wish to take away for your article here, which is just as wonderful.

While I don't take the bible seriously...

I find it fascinating--and it even strengthens our point--that a reverend who clearly respects the Bible feels the same way as we do, and all the while is able to make his argument using the very text the opponents use against our viewpoint.

Well said Syntactic Tree!!

Now, I am not going to pick these verses apart or correct them because I simply don't care. This isn't about what they say the bible says it is about ignoring what else the bible says.

Jedipunk,

First, as for picking those verses apart, you could not do it if you tried. They say what they say, plain enough for everyone to understand.

Second, by ignoring those first scriptures you just mentioned, you yourself are guilty of cherry picking. So it is hypocritical to charge others with cherry picking, even if that charge were true. Which it is not.

Third, Do you even know what Jesus Christ said about marriage? Whom did He say could be married? Did He say two men could marry each other? Did He say two women could marry each other? Or did He only speak of a man and a woman in relation to marriage?

Jesus Christ was Jewish. There was no need for Jesus to make a statement on homosexual sin, because it was plainly understood by the Jews of that day from the very Scriptures you quoted.

So it is a silly and foolish argument you advance, "well, Jesus never mentioned gay people, so homosexual sin must be alright." That's a lie from Hell. That will take unrepentant gays who believe it right there.

'And he answered and said unto them, "Have you not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

'And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

'Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. - Matthew 19.4-6

God joins together a man and a woman. Not two men and not two women.

you're right jedi it IS nuts. I wonder why I ever fell trap to said BS so long ago :/. Aw well, Im free now! *does backflip*

Jedipunk,

In that quote, Jesus is answering the question: " Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" So obviously his answer is going to be in the context of man and woman when the question was asked as such.

If all you say were so, that would have been the perfect time for Jesus to discuss men marrying each other or women marrying each other. You are really grasping for straws which aren't even really there with this line of argument.

Ancient Judaism provided the death penalty for homosexual acts just as it did for adultery. As for marriage, Jesus said "in the beginning GOD made them male and female". So obviously He didn't think it was a "myth". All of which proves that you yourself are guilty of "cherry picking" the Scriptures.

The woman taken in adultery who was to be stoned could have easily been a man who was found laying with another man. Jesus would have told such a man the same thing He told the woman which is" Go, and sin no more" Christ would not have told the woman to marry the man she committed adultery with, and He wouldn't have told the man in this case to marry the man he was in bed with.

What I want answered is where in the bible does Jesus say to prevent homosexuality or gay marriage?

Jesus Christ was not shy about correcting the Jews of His day where He thought they were wrong. If Christ thought homosexual acts and marriage between two members of the same gender was right, He would have said so.

Any expert on Judaism will tell you that homosexual acts were considered abomination, and same sex marriage would have been as unthinkable then, as it would be today in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Jedipunk,

I never said Jesus thought the creation was a myth, I said many Christians do. Therefore, that god created male and female is an irrelevant point to them.

It makes absolutely no difference if some people, who might call themselves Christians, think creation is a myth or irrelevant. (I don't know ANY real Bible believing Christians who do.) The Bible says what it says.

I am also not cherry picking the scriptures.

That simply isn't true. Remember your own words?

"This isn't about what they say the bible says it is about ignoring what else the bible says. "

You thereby admit the Bible condemns homosexual acts, and then proceed to do exactly what you try to condemn Christians for, which is "ignore what else the Bible says" in your attempt to deliberately misinterpret it.

You are stretching the meaning of the scripture to include something it does not. Jesus was addressing adultery not homosexuality.

Another distortion of the truth. Jesus Christ was addressing 'Marriage'!

The question referred to man and wife and his answer was in kind.

Here's something else you're doing. Taken the what is said out of it context. It is clear that Christ, first by explaining that provision to divorce was not from "the beginning" but given because of the unforgiving nature or hard heartedness of people, and second by saying 'in the beginning GOD made them male and female', He is delineating what marriage is. It therefore cannot be between two members of the same gender.

BUT EVEN IF HE WAS... never does he tell believers to prohibit people from committing their sins.

True. Sin all you want. But don't use the Bible to try and justify what is wrong. You put yourself in the same class as others who have done so in the past.

Ancient Judaism is not Christianity.

Also true. It is not. But Jesus Christ was an ancient Jew. But contrasting Ancient Judaism with Christianity, you thereby concede that what the Christian New Testament says about the sinfulness of homosexual acts is correct.

Well, Jesus said adultery was wrong... yet it is legal.

Are you deliberately trying to be amusing, lol? There is a difference between what is moral and what is legally permissible especially in our society. That doesn't change what the Bible says.

He also said Christians should not pray in public....and they do.

He never said Christians should not pray in public. He said don't pray in public to be seen by men so that can praise you for being religious. It is obvious Jesus Christ approved of believers praying together because He said, in Matthew 18:

'Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, (Christ is clearly here referring to prayer) it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

^'For where two or three are gathered together (together, did you get that?) in My Name, there am I in the midst of them.'

He said wealthy Christians would not likely enter heaven...yet charity is not required by law.

No, He did not. He said it was hard for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Principally, because rich men trust in their riches, rather than in GOD. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with wealth.

So, why pick on gays? Even if he said to prohibit it, why should christians bother? They do so little else that he instructed.

Your misunderstanding of Scripture is no excuse for consciously trying to make the Bible say something it doesn't. Your opinion of whether Christians are obedient to the Word of GOD is quite subjective. Only GOD can judge. I can attest there are more Christians in America who are faithful to the Word of GOD, then you know or give credit for.

Yes, it does seem that some American Christians are picking on gays in the sense that as you pointed out, they pass over adultery and fornication in many cases in our society. Those sins are just as wrong.

Regardless, I think if Jesus (assuming scriptures are real) thought it was wrong, he would have said so explicitly, rather than the other way around, like you think.

It was understood! Did He say stealing was wrong? Or lying? Did He say murder was wrong? He didn't have to. It was clearly understood by the people of that day from the Jewish law. So if there were to be any changes to marriage being between male and female, He would have certainly made it patently clear!

Do we read anywhere in the New Testament that any male couples or female couples got married as a result of Jesus Christ's New Covenant? No, because where marriage is and was concerned nothing changed.

I am sure an expert in Judaism could also explain the rules on opposite sexes touching when they are not married, let alone premarital sex. Are we going to follow all those rules as well? What about the others I mention regarding pork, shellfish, and the sabbath?

As for the dietary laws, only if you happen to be an observant Jew. And as for sexual sins, definitely, if you claim you are a New Testament Christian.

Hell, I already addressed this when quoting the old testament. Unless all the laws of the OT are relevant then none of them are.

Logical fallacy is not a principle of correct Bible interpretation.

either Jesus brought a new covenant and abolished OT laws or he didn't.

Jesus Christ did bring a New Covenant, but He didn't abolish, but He fulfilled the OT. Nowhere in either testament does it say homosexual acts are "okay". Christians are not under the law. But that doesn't mean the moralilty laws of the Old Testament do not apply. But even if they didn't we still have plenty in the NT that closes the door to homosexual activity, as it does to any sex outside of marriage. When you can find Scripture that says adultery and fornication are allowed, then I'll be willing to revisit this topic and say you have a point.

Either Judaism was replaced with Christianity (for those followers) or it wasn't.

This is what I am trying to tell you. Judaism or Christianity both condemn sex outside of marriage. Both prescribe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Jesus' incarnation changed nothing with relation to marriage.

Jesus did not call homosexuality an abomination nor did he call for it to be prohibited.

It was already the Law! He didn't have to. Nor did He grant special dispensation for homosexual marriage in the New Testament which if that was the Will of GOD, He could have done.

At worst, he didn't consider it the norm. Anything more is putting words in the man's mouth.

You're putting words in His mouth by saying Jesus would approve of homosexual acts or same sex marriage.

I sin all I want, I love it. I sin in the morning, sin in the evening sin at supper time. Not that it matters to me, sin does not exist. But hey in the abrahamic religions, everything is a sin, hell yawning the wrong way is a sin. Might as well enjoy it hahahahahahahaha

No, He did not. He said it was hard for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Principally, because rich men trust in their riches, rather than in GOD. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with wealth.

Actually, he said it was harder for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into heaven. He was also a person who had a secure trade, and left it to preach, relatively impoverished.

So, if Jesus meant, grind up a camel, and squeeze it through a needle eye, or use your wealth to build a really, really big needle, then rich people can get into heaven. Otherwise rich people may not go to hell, but they sure as hell are not getting into heaven. If being a carpenter was too worldly, then everybody who is not relatively poor is in risk of missing the boat.

Matthew 6:26 says Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.

So, Jesus says it is impossible for a rich person to get into heaven, and that his people should not worry about accumulation and security, because he will provide. Or are you grinding camels and building 2 story needles yet to save your greedy soul? Maybe the church has some indulgences left for you to buy?