I agree with this guy.
http://news.yahoo.com/first-person-christian-pastors-perspective-gay-marriage-230600463.html;_ylt=As5MWggbGcesktBxOvD0CESECu9_;_ylu=X3oDMTVkaWo3cDd2BGNjb2RlA25uNHVnbXByZHVwBG1pdANBcnRpY2xlIE1peGVkIExpc3QgTmV3cyBmb3IgWW91IHdpdGggTW9yZSBMaW5rBHBrZwNkYjk3NTgzZi0wNzAwLTM4ZjEtYTQ3NS05NzI4YTQ4MjkzOTcEcG9zAzYEc2VjA25ld3NfZm9yX3lvdQR2ZXIDMGM2ZWFmZTEtOTM1NS0xMWUyLWI1ZmYtNDA3NmVhZGM4YjJi;_ylg=X3oDMTNsMHNtcmwyBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDMzBlNGQ2ZjMtOTQ1Mi0zNDZhLWI3ZmYtMmM0OTc0ZWUzNDI2BHBzdGNhdANidXNpbmVzc3x0YXhlcwRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2UEdGVzdANONFVfaG9tZXJ1bmFwaQ--;_ylv=3
And this right here is one of the two most important points in his letter: "I have studied the Bible nearly every day for the last 17 years, and I take great care to study from scientific, historical, cultural and geographical perspectives. These components are crucial because there are some very hard sayings and teachings in the Bible that can be understood only if all the aspects are applied when studying."
One of the things that annoys me about Christians quoting the bible to make some point is they fail utterly to see the _meaning_ of what they are reading as it applied to the time, culture, and scientific understanding of the time. They presume to understand what it means now without ever understanding what it meant in the first place.
Let me give a little background on my own theological stance. I consider myself vaguely Christian. I believe in Jesus. By that I mean I think he really lived, I think he had some really radical ideas about the way human beings were meant to treat each other, and he chose to die horribly to ensure his message lived on. I think the Bible is a fascinating collection of stories and fables. Some are likely based in historical fact, many are likely not. Either way, they are stories meant to illustrate the fundamental human truths that bind us together as a society. This goes for all the great religious works. And this is why there are both similarities and differences from one book to another. While "fundamental human truths" are pretty universal across all cultures, each book is written from the perspective of the culture of the people it was written for. Each one was the glue that held any given society together in a coherent and agreeable way. Only when cultures began butting up against each other did the differences become a problem. People had to look at the book they were raised with, and the book being thrust at them, and decide which one made sense to them. When our country was founded, it was because people were looking for a place where they would be free to practice whatever religion they chose. Or no religion at all. Our founding fathers recognized that while they all more or less believed in a God, they didn't all agree on what that meant. So they set up a government under one inarguable tenet: the laws of our new country will not be decided by any one religion.
Getting back to the point of the legality of gay marriage. If you want to tell me you think homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so, I won't argue with you. If you want to tell me you think same-sex marriage is against the laws of this country because the Bible says so, I'm gonna have an issue with it. Do we allow Jews to marry? Buddhists? Hindus? Athiests? The Bible has nothing to do with those marriages either. Of course we do, because our laws are not based on the Bible, even though many of the laws are shared between the two. So if you want to argue the legality of same-sex marriage, go ahead. But remove the Bible from the argument. The Bible has no more place in a discussion of modern American law than the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Vetas, the Sutras, or the Book of Mormon. Which is not to say they aren't relevant to the history of law, they certainly are. Morever, they're all really neat books, full of those "fundamental human truths" I mentioned earlier. I seriously think at least bits and pieces of them should be required reading for everyone. Including the Bible. But once the Bible has been removed from the same-sex marriage argument, what's left to argue? I have yet to hear anything compelling. Please, I open this to discussion. Really.
And this right here is one of the two most important points in his letter: "I have studied the Bible nearly every day for the last 17 years, and I take great care to study from scientific, historical, cultural and geographical perspectives. These components are crucial because there are some very hard sayings and teachings in the Bible that can be understood only if all the aspects are applied when studying."
One of the things that annoys me about Christians quoting the bible to make some point is they fail utterly to see the _meaning_ of what they are reading as it applied to the time, culture, and scientific understanding of the time. They presume to understand what it means now without ever understanding what it meant in the first place.
Let me give a little background on my own theological stance. I consider myself vaguely Christian. I believe in Jesus. By that I mean I think he really lived, I think he had some really radical ideas about the way human beings were meant to treat each other, and he chose to die horribly to ensure his message lived on. I think the Bible is a fascinating collection of stories and fables. Some are likely based in historical fact, many are likely not. Either way, they are stories meant to illustrate the fundamental human truths that bind us together as a society. This goes for all the great religious works. And this is why there are both similarities and differences from one book to another. While "fundamental human truths" are pretty universal across all cultures, each book is written from the perspective of the culture of the people it was written for. Each one was the glue that held any given society together in a coherent and agreeable way. Only when cultures began butting up against each other did the differences become a problem. People had to look at the book they were raised with, and the book being thrust at them, and decide which one made sense to them. When our country was founded, it was because people were looking for a place where they would be free to practice whatever religion they chose. Or no religion at all. Our founding fathers recognized that while they all more or less believed in a God, they didn't all agree on what that meant. So they set up a government under one inarguable tenet: the laws of our new country will not be decided by any one religion.
Getting back to the point of the legality of gay marriage. If you want to tell me you think homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so, I won't argue with you. If you want to tell me you think same-sex marriage is against the laws of this country because the Bible says so, I'm gonna have an issue with it. Do we allow Jews to marry? Buddhists? Hindus? Athiests? The Bible has nothing to do with those marriages either. Of course we do, because our laws are not based on the Bible, even though many of the laws are shared between the two. So if you want to argue the legality of same-sex marriage, go ahead. But remove the Bible from the argument. The Bible has no more place in a discussion of modern American law than the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Vetas, the Sutras, or the Book of Mormon. Which is not to say they aren't relevant to the history of law, they certainly are. Morever, they're all really neat books, full of those "fundamental human truths" I mentioned earlier. I seriously think at least bits and pieces of them should be required reading for everyone. Including the Bible. But once the Bible has been removed from the same-sex marriage argument, what's left to argue? I have yet to hear anything compelling. Please, I open this to discussion. Really.