BS: All changed, changed utterly.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 25 May 15 - 05:49 PM

Well ed, if you think my Christian faith is unbiblical, and you count yourself as being a Christian who thinks it is, I invite you to present your case. If you are not a Christian, then perhaps you may wish to leave that to someone else who is Christian to put their case as to how I am unfaithful in what I believe the bible says. And that joe, is my bottom line. Jesus clearly defined marriage as one man and one women in gospel texts I am sure you are familiar with. Of secondary importance is the pressure that bible believing Christians are already being put under to conform in their work/business , or leave that employment. Of course the anti Christian bigots here would be only to happy to see the dismissal of those they deem bigots for their adherence to what they consider biblical truth.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 15 - 05:56 PM

Please give me chapter and verse apropos of Jesus's defining of marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 May 15 - 06:43 PM

So Pete, your claim is your emailskewed interpretation of the Christian Bible is infallible.Even the Pope gave up on that claim.

I just see things differently than you do when it comes to that interptetation- a difference from yours shared by millions of global Christians.

Why so smug and insulting?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 May 15 - 06:46 PM

Last guest was Ed T on a new cell phone- sorry about the merged words. Email got in there unintentionaly somehow?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Musket
Date: 25 May 15 - 06:48 PM

Gandalf never said anything against same sex marriage, so that's good enough for me.

The Church of England has a number of vicars who are gay and either are married or have stated their intentions regardless of the wishes of their employer. As they are professional Christians, pete is obviously out of his depth.

Why are you calling people who believe everyone is equal bigots pete? Do you understand what the word means? Even the authors of the bible had their fictitious hero Jesus believe everyone is equal, not to judge others and other nice nonsense for evil old men to disregard when it suits them.

By the way, I understand Mudcat to be a place where reality is discussed. What is this biblical truth? Your delusion is rather embarrassing for real Christians. To bring fantasy into reasoning to hate people and wish to deny them the same rights as you is about as evil, nasty and immoral as you can get.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 May 15 - 07:28 PM

I don't really approve of marriage. All that is necessary is for people to behave decently, and recognise and live up to their responsibilities. Church and state intervention are largely unhelpful.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 May 15 - 07:33 PM

I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

Kinky Friedman

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 May 15 - 07:52 PM

I dunno, Pete. I've studied and taught the Bible all my life, in a variety of languages. Don't think I've ever seen a "definition" of marriage as between a man and a woman, until the people afraid of gay marriage forced such legislation through legislative bodies in the U.S. in recent years.

It's clear that Jesus spoke of men and women getting married, and he apparently considered that to be the usual situation. The issue of gay marriage was not being discussed at his time, so he had no reason to have "clearly defined marriage as one man and one women (sic) in gospel texts." In Matthew 19:5, Jesus says, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' He simply states the usual situation. He does not deny other possibilities - because the question was not an issue at the time. I suppose that one could logically conclude that man-woman marriage was the understanding Jesus had of marriage at the time, but it's clear he wasn't dictating the definition of marriage.

As for myself, I am very happily married to a woman. If my next-door neighbor marries somebody of the same sex, I do not see how that threatens my marriage or changes its definition in any way. The courts recently declared same-sex marriage legal here in California, and that change has not affected my marriage in any way whatsoever.

Legislation allowing gay marriage affects only gay people. Why should anybody else be concerned about it? No matter what the law says, Pete and I can continue to be as "biblically Christian" as we think we ought to be (although our understandings of what is "biblically Christian" are vastly different). To my mind, though, the Bible made very few mentions of homosexuality at all, so it certainly must not have been a very important issue to the bible writers. Christians would be better off focusing on Matthew 25. In that passage, Jesus says we all are obliged to care for those who are "hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison." He repeats that list four times, something that does not happen in any other passage in the Bible - so it seems to me that service to those in need is what Jesus considered to be of utmost importance. Jesus seemed to have a serious disdain for hypocrites, but he didn't say anything at all about homosexuals. Paul had a few words about homosexuality, but just in passing. And I've always thought that Paul had some "issues," despite his good intentions.

Thompson makes a very good point above. Within the Catholic Church, the strongest opposition to gay marriage (and to abortion) comes from organizations of wealthy, conservative Catholic men who often have ties to Opus Dei. In this media age, a very small group can make a lot of noise and cause a lot of trouble. I wonder how large the Iona Institute might be. I find it highly offensive that the news media tend to anoint such organizations as spokespersons for the Catholic Church, instead of going to official organizations. American media often like to consult a similar extremist organization, the Catholic League. I work with a nonprofit funded primarily by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), and we are under direct and relentless attack from the Lepanto Institute, an organization trying to destroy Catholic charities like CCHD and Catholic Relief Services - we suspect that the Lepanto Institute may be just one man, but he's very good at running Websites and using smear tactics.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 May 15 - 08:27 PM

My little bit of biblical research this evening (an occasional pastime of mine, believe it or not) has failed to reveal that Jesus ever defined marriage as having to be between a man and a woman. I did find several references on websites to people taking bits of biblical quotes and attempting to interpret them in, shall we charitably say, a very stretched manner. Perhaps I've missed something here. I would expect a bible literalist such as pete to be able to provide a clear reference from scripture which nails his assertion. Or shall I not hold my breath?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 25 May 15 - 08:47 PM

Somewhat related to this subject... UK laws on Bigamy and Polygamy ???

Not that either me or the mrs are looking to expand our 'family' for the moment..

but why in the 21st century, should this still be a matter to concern the police and prison service..??? 😕

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 May 15 - 09:29 PM

Yep, you got it, Steve. S-T-R-E-T-C-H-E-D is the word. I wish all those people who worry about such things, would worry that much about caring for those who are "hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison."

If they would actually live the gospel they think they preach, maybe Christians would build the reputation they think they deserve.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 26 May 15 - 03:05 AM

Aaaaaand we're back to the Bible.

Mudcat at the moment is like one of those parties you go to where every room you enter, no matter what the conversation, you keep encountering the same couple of people wanting to buttonhole you to tell you about the time they broke their leg or how their husband left them.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Musket not bonking
Date: 26 May 15 - 03:25 AM

I look at it this way. We have less need for superstition these days. The answers we naturally crave to describe the reality we experience are slowly but surely being provided through scientific research, so ascribing it to a man made deity is rather insulting to those who strive to give us understanding.

The "jam tomorrow" and be poor here so you can be rich in the next life always was seen as a tool of those in charge and what with day time television and YouTube pictures of kittens being cute, we don't need the mind control to keep us happy either. Soap operas have replaced sermons.

Now that isn't good news for the few percent who get a lot out of their faith but just think on. It's the petes of this world who are making the concept of religion irrelevant to normal people. The Irish rejection of bigotry last week had an interesting angle. Priests telling people how to vote and their congregations making it clear that tradition and ceremony, even comfort at vulnerable times is not the same as adherence, a rather old fashioned value from the days of poor education and priests being seen as leaders of society rather than pariahs, as many in Ireland see them after the sexual abuse and influence that led to a woman dying because the bishop leant on the health services to prevent a life saving abortion.

The rise of abusing Islam to force through more temporal aims is perhaps the largest factor in people questioning what religion can offer. Christian leaders speaking of a holy war don't exactly help matters with their inflammatory rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,Me
Date: 26 May 15 - 03:30 AM

Mm. Some of the post is there but a paragraph in the middle has disappeared.

Getting clever these Jesus filters...

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 15 - 03:34 AM

"The Catholic bishops said little during most of the campaign."
Irish Times today
"What was " particularly sad was to see the bishops in total opposition to a mass movement of the younger generation"
This is the dull text of what the article says - sums up the situation the Church has got itself into perfectly
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 15 - 03:36 AM

Sorry - didn't give the link
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/same-sex-marriage-vote-an-unmitigated-disaster-for-church-1.2225680
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 26 May 15 - 04:27 AM

I don't know, Jim - I just read a few papers, mostly online, don't listen to Irish radio much, but watch the TV news the odd time. Keep an eye on social media. But normally people would be talking about what bishops said, as they would about what politicians and 'celebs' said. I didn't see or hear any of that.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 26 May 15 - 04:48 AM

This piece by Miriam Lord gives an idea of one approach that was taken. (If the link hits a paywall, try searching Google News for "Miriam Lord" and "Averil" - this will only work for the next couple of days (from May 26, 2015), due to The Irish Times' paywall policy.)
In her piece, Miriam Lord, the Times' lemony eye on politics, describes the Fianna Fail politician Averil Power trying to get local Fianna Fail people to canvass for the referendum their party officially backed, while also canvassing for their local candidate in a by-election. She was laughed out of it. She has now left Fianna Fail.
"The lads were highly amused," she writes. "Sure they couldn't be doing that. There's a general election coming up, and you wouldn't want to be upsetting anyone on the doorsteps by talking about the gays, and the way they might look at you."
("The way they might look at you" is a reference to this ad.)
Fianna Fail is the party founded by Eamon de Valera, which has always positioned itself as espousing the ideals of 1916, such as decent homes, respect for the old, good Catholic families, etc; rather ignoring the fact that some of the 1916 leaders and fighters had ideals that included equality and didn't include religion.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 15 - 04:49 AM

The whole thrust of the 'No' campaign was based on the line peddled by the church and it was the "effect the changes would have on the traditional family" which started many of the arguments here in Clare, which, I admit, tends to be very 'traditional' in its views.
Whichever is right, I don't think there can e any argument of the direct effect on the church that the result had - as my mate Fergie said "All changed, changed utterly."
Never thought I'd live to see the day - just wish my old man (whose life was ruined by the combined efforts of the church and the State) was around to appreciate the feeling.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 15 - 05:08 AM

"Back to the Bible" - well, there is a fair bit of name-calling, etc., around here at times, but, if we're having a discussion, and someone makes an assertion that appears to need challenging, what is one to do? I didn't shout at pete (this time); I merely asked him to support his statement Jesus clearly defined marriage as one man and one women [sic]. It's hardly surprising that the Bible gets invoked in this topic, and your kneejerk is unwarranted.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 26 May 15 - 05:13 AM

Steve, I'd be happier if there were a "Bible" thread, and any time the Bible were invoked in any thread the moderator jumped in and moved that post to the "Bible" thread, and left a marker message "Bible message moved to Bible thread". Then the Bible fanatics could all fight with each other on the same thread, instead of dragging their obsession into other threads.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 15 - 06:00 AM

Thompson, a thread on gay marriage in Ireland, which involved campaigning by religious interests, is hardly going to go on for long devoid of scriptural references. I wish it were otherwise, but their inclusion is now integral to the discussion. It would be a bit artificial to shift posts mentioning the Bible to other threads. I am trying to avoid gratuitous disrespect to religion on this occasion, you know. I'm just asking a question and I have, after all, done a bit of biblical homework.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 06:15 AM

Richard made an interesting point.
Marriage is not the key institution it once was anyway.
Many couples do not bother with it anymore.
It is just a word.

Civil partnership already delivered equality in all the rights that go with marriage.
This whole issue is just about redefining the word marriage really.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 May 15 - 06:31 AM

In many countries marriage has legalities that civil partnerships do.

Regardless, while the institution does not matter to some, it clearly does to others from various viewpoints. That is the reason for "all the fuss".

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 15 - 07:43 AM

That is quite clearly not the issue at all. The issue is about getting equality and fair play for human beings regardless of their gender and sexuality, not redefining a word.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 08:12 AM

Civil Partnership already provided equal rights.
Only the word "marriage" was missing.

Look at online dictionary definitions of marriage.
They are being changed.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 08:20 AM

marriage
ˈmarɪdʒ/Submit
noun
1.
the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.

Full Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

marriage
Also found in: Medical, Legal, Financial, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
mar·riage (măr′ĭj)
n.
1.
a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.
b. A similar union of more than two people; a polygamous marriage.
c. A union between persons that is recognized by custom or religious tradition as a marriage.
d. A common-law marriage.
e. The state or relationship of two adults who are married:

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 15 - 08:37 AM

If you think that "equal rights" means the same thing as "equality and fair play", then I'm afraid we are not on the same page.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 09:41 AM

I did think that "equal rights" means the same thing as "equality and fair play."

What am I missing?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 May 15 - 10:29 AM

Humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 May 15 - 10:44 AM

So, if marriage, civil partnerships (and common law relationsips) are interchangable-why all the fuss from the right wing religious folks, when a gay person prefers a marriage? Why not just insist that all your "straight" family members enter into civil partnerships in the future?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Bill D
Date: 26 May 15 - 10:50 AM

Keith A....

A dictionary editor can print anything he chooses... that doesn't mean he is speaking for the rest of the world.
What are you missing? Go ask partners who are limited to "civil partnership". Then ask people who are legally married why THEY didn't just limit themselves to civil partnership. I'm sure they feel that full marriage rights are preferable. In many places civil partnership does NOT allow full legal rights on inheritance and various other rights.

The ONLY reason to restrict legal marriage to those YOU approve of is to make your own situation seem superior... and to hang on to religious beliefs that are relics of a different age.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Bill D
Date: 26 May 15 - 10:55 AM

Do note... some (many?) churches will perform marriages for any couples... gay or straight. When opinion is that divided, even in the religious communities, isn't it obvious that more conservative attitudes are just that... attitudes & opinions, not binding 'truths' upon everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 26 May 15 - 11:01 AM

...and in the positive light of this debate on equality of valid legal marriage, I ask again..

why in the UK in the 21st Century
Bigamy and Polygamy
should still be classified as a crime punishable by imprisonment...???

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 11:24 AM

I'm sure they feel that full marriage rights are preferable.

Full marriage rights are no different to Civil Partnership rights.
In terms of rights, nothing has been gained.

"All changed, changed utterly" is merely the right for gay couples to use the word married.
The meaning of one word has been altered.
That is all.

I know they do feel that is "preferable."
I know two couples who have made the change (my sister in law, our Methodist minister and their partners).

It is surprising how much emotional baggage is involved in obtaining just a word, and one which is going out of fashion generally anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jeri
Date: 26 May 15 - 11:28 AM

The US Supreme Court long ago established that "separate but equal" is not equal. While you may be happy calling your marriage a "civil union", others want the complete thing, the real thing, the WORD.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 11:29 AM

why in the UK in the 21st Century Bigamy and Polygamy should still be classified as a crime punishable by imprisonment...???

Good question.
Likewise the restrictions against siblings and parent and child.
Whose business is it what they do?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 11:34 AM

So, if marriage, civil partnerships (and common law relationsips) are interchangable-why all the fuss from the right wing religious folks,

I do not know.
Church marriage was not up for change anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: frogprince
Date: 26 May 15 - 11:39 AM

Bigamy and Polygamy probably were outlawed for a combination of at least two reasons: the prevailing mindset of the time that they were by definition sinful, and the realization that bigamy commonly involves deceit, each wife being unaware of the other, and that polygamy commonly involved coercion and subjugation of some of the wives, commonly very young vulnerable women.

If all involved are fully responsible, freely consenting, adults, the validity of legal prohibition is indeed questionable at best.

i

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 May 15 - 11:49 AM

""I do not know.
Church marriage was not up for change anyway.""

Marriage has been a legal government institution for many years. No "church or religious" involvement is required for marriages between a man and and a woman in most countries. For equality purposes, this has merely been extended (by governments) to the institution for all gender mixes in many countries, including Ireland.

What "churches" require for their internal marriage services would be up to them to decide.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Thompson
Date: 26 May 15 - 12:30 PM

Marriage law in Ireland may be different from where Keith lives. Lawyers went through the provisions for marriage and civil partnership in Ireland and found 160 differences - things like right to be next-of-kin, inheritance rights, important stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Fergie
Date: 26 May 15 - 12:56 PM

In Ireland we have a Constitution and no article in it can be changed by legislation, but only through agreement by the majority of the citizens who vote in a referendum.

"Marriage" was included in the constitution and therefore had constitutional protection, but "civil partnership" was enacted through legislation and that clearly means that the two are NOT equal.

This inequality between marriage and civil partnership was the reason that we had a referendum and the outcome is that there is only one institution of marriage and all married people (be they of opposite-sex or same-sex couples) will have equal rights and protection under the constitution and civil law.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Musket
Date: 26 May 15 - 01:18 PM

This "civil partnership is the same so why give them a word?" is interesting. In The USA a couple of hundred years ago, blacks jumped over the broomstick. It was recognised in the same way a church wedding was for whites.

Instead of saying what is good enough for "them" just remember there is no "them." Just us. Adults in love and wishing to make a commitment that is recognised in law in terms of sharing assets and recognised by those in the marriage as a wonderful day with what is hoped at the time as a lifetime afterwards. We call it marriage by the way.

Dictionaries eh? Read Dr Johnson's? Bang on about the Scots and animals.....

Dictionaries are descriptors in an arbitrary manner, they are not definitive in law and they certainly do not take precedence over peoples' own experience. If someone calls their contract a marriage and that is recognised in law, it is incumbent upon the dictionary to catch up, not the other way around. The one quoted above has a totally superfluous second section that needs editing out. It possibly says more about the compiling editors than it does reality.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: GUEST
Date: 26 May 15 - 01:28 PM

""Dictionaries are descriptors in an arbitrary manner, they are not definitive in law and they certainly do not take precedence over peoples' own experience. ""

Additionally, there are a variety of dictionaries found online, with variations in quality, purpose and reliability. The Urban dictonary is one such example.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 01:46 PM

Dictionaries provide the current usage of words.
My only point about the dictionaries is that they are changing the definition.
The changed definition of marriage is what we have achieved.

This "civil partnership is the same so why give them a word?"

This civil partnership is the same so why not give them a word?
We agree Musket.
And why not the other currently excluded groups?

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 15 - 02:04 PM

Marriage law in Ireland may be different from where Keith lives. Lawyers went through the provisions for marriage and civil partnership in Ireland and found 160 differences

It was very badly drafted then.
It would have been much easier to just correct that.
You would not have needed a referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jack Campin
Date: 26 May 15 - 02:06 PM

One surprising difference between civil partnership and marriage (in Scotland): adultery is not a ground for dissolution of a civil partnership.

I have seen the standard legal text on dissolution of civil partnerships in Scotland. I can read some legalese, but not that. You would need to be an experienced lawyer to make any sense of it.

In some ways civil partnership is an institution closer to what a Catholic traditionalist would want than modern marriage is. Perhaps the old-guard of the Church in Ireland might consider going for it and leaving marriage for the gays.

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 15 - 02:21 PM

Nice letter from a Dublin woman in the Irish Times regarding the claim that a yes vote wouls undermine the the traditional cooncept of marriage:
"I looked out of the window and I swear I saw a shoal ofred herrings swimming out to sea".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Ed T
Date: 26 May 15 - 02:35 PM

And, odf course, while we are "at it, we need to explore the concept of "uncivil partnerships" (not ruling out that quite a few marriages wind up being "uncivil").


uncivil partnerships 

Subject: RE: BS: All changed, changed utterly.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 May 15 - 03:43 PM

Thompson, I was a little surprised that you wanted any reference to the Bible suppressed. It exists, it is a document that has been part of history and tradition for a long time, and it's something that people try to use to support their views without ever consulting it. So-called "bible-believing" Christians often tell how the Bible condemns homosexuality. It's important for them to be confronted with the fact that the Bible does not make much reference to homosexuality at all.

I have a degree in Theology and I work in the Catholic Church, but yet I am one of many Catholics who support the right of gays to marry. I've been here at Mudcat since three months after it opened in 1996, and people here can tell you that I don't preach my religion at Mudcat. But when Pete say the Bible says thus-and-such and even implies that I can back him up, I would certainly think it proper to post information from the Bible to refute that. To my mind, homosexuality was not an issue among Jews and Christians at the time the Bible was written. The Bible makes some minor references to homosexuality, but it really doesn't discuss the matter with any level of thoroughness. Using the Bible to condemn homosexuality, requires a high level of conjecture about what the Bible writers meant to say. And same thing with Jesus giving a "definition of marriage" - he just plain didn't, but "bible-believing" Christians like to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the Bible to support their pre-conceived notions (which, of course, they deny that they do).

You seem to be an open-minded person, so I was surprised that you woud want discussion of the Bible to be pigeonholed somewhere out of public view on Mudcat. The Bible is a document of great historical significance, even for people who don't profess religious faith. It is a chronicle of two ancient groups in the context of the beliefs that were at the center of their lives. It is the best-preserved, most-used, and most widely available ancient document in existence. Even if you don't use it as a basis for your belief system, it can help you understand the many people who do.

Conservative Christians, particularly fundamentalist American evangelical Christians, take a particular view of the Bible that I think is invalid. Their rigid, strangely literal, legalistic use of the Bible to support their preconceived notions, gives Christianity and the Bible a bad name. I don't think the Bible writers intended the strange, judgmental interpretation that these fundamentalists have come up with, an interpretation that ignores the cultural, historical, and literary context in which the Bible was written. Heck, most of them can't see the creation story and the story of Jonah and the fish (not whale) as literary devices.

I don't think these pages are a proper platform for preaching, but the purpose of our BS section is for factual, civil discussion of all issues other than music. There are some Mudcatters who think we should delete posts that are distasteful to them, particularly conservative opinions - but if we didn't allow dissenting opinions, what would we have to discuss? The one thing we can't allow, is combat. When the combat gets too heated, discussion is impossible, and then we have to shut things down.

-Joe-