A number of letter writers have clashed over the issue of gay marriage using Bible scripture as their battleground. Some say the Old Testament no longer holds sway, and that for instance Leviticus proclaiming the eating of shellfish as an abomination has been superseded by the New Testament.
I am confused. If that is true, than the same book calling homosexuality an abomination should no longer pertain either. After all, as far as I know, Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality.
Actually I am more concerned that The News Tribune is giving so much space to letter writers invoking any biblical scripture at all. As a non-Christian, I wonder why the editorial page is filled with arguments over the interpretation of mythology.
The issue of gay marriage is a legal one, and as such their chosen God’s law has no applicability, particularly as no one can even agree what it is.
“The News Tribune is giving so much space to letter writers invoking any biblical scripture at all. As a non-Christian, I wonder why the editorial page is filled with arguments over the interpretation of mythology.”
Well it would appear the trib still holds to the notion of free speech.
One man’s myth is another man’s reality. Christian principles have informed and shaped the ethos of this country for many years. Newsweek did a survey that showed something like 90% of Americans believe in God, so perhaps you are simply in the minority in your desire to dismiss scriptural studies in matters of great significance.
Regardless, the real question would be why the Trib would waste any time on YOUR letter.
sozo – free speech has nothing to do with newspaper decisions as to what letters they decide to publish. It has more to do with what they think will provoke interest.
“One man’s myth is another man’s reality”
No. Reality is….well….REALITY.
No one’s myth is my reality.
“Christian principles have informed and shaped the ethos of this country for many years.”
Yeah. Slavery is one that we are particularly proud of. Making women second class citizens for many years is another.
The biggest problem with religion is that those who practice it, rarely listen to what they say.
I don’t know about not giving space to mythology. Seems that I have seen lots of column inches devoted to the virtues and abilities of economic stimuli and other Keynesian nocturnal emissions.
Besides, the Trib’s obligation is report what is in the news, and the religious issue certainly is that right now, courtesy of Obama’s mandates…
Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s and to God that which is God’s.
aislander is writing about wet dreams….so mature, so wise.
“One man’s myth is another man’s reality”
That’s the problem. We’ve been trying to explain to you that there is a reality common to all of us, supported by evidence, but you refuse to understand and even listen, and run away and hide back in your (particular) mythology. On top of that, you request respect.
To the original letter auther: often, we try to use bible believers’ own references in order to demonstrate the internal conflicts and absurdities, hoping for a break through. Sometimes, it works.
I am reposting the following here from another thread, because it seems more appropriate here.
My basic question is: When religion is brought up in the “Marriage Debate” why is it ONLY Christian marriage rules that count? That’s kind of bigoted isn’t it?
————————————————————–
When it comes to religious marriage, is Christian marriage the ONLY religious standard that all people must abide by? From reading these blogs one would certainly get that impression.
What about Muslim marriage, or Hindu marriage. Should those be considered?
Or perhaps Jewish marriage? Mazel tov!
Maybe we should set the Shinto marriage as the religious standard. I hear it’s a very beautiful ceremony.
There are also Bahai, and Sikh religious marriages. Better consider those too, right?
How many religions are there anyway? How many of them have marriage ceremonies and rules about marriage?
What the heck are we supposed to do when a Hindu wants to marry a Jew? Which religious marriage laws rule that combination?
You see, there are basically only two categories or marriage.
1. Religious Marriage, (See above).
and
2. Civil Marriage (Non-religious government recognized for legal purposes only.)
The Washington state Same-Sex Marriage Law falls only under category 2. You don’t have to keep religion out of it, because there is NO religion in it. It is simply state law. So, what’s the problem with that?
or,
Perhaps we can simply adopt The Buddhist view of marriage for everyone, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, because Buddhists consider marriage to be a secular affair and as such, it is not considered a sacrament. Buddhists are expected to follow the civil laws regarding marriage laid out by their respective governments. And that should include same-sex marriage in Washington state.
Namaste!
I seem to remember a protracted bashing session for the crime of re-posting comments that were thought to pertain to the new thread…
aislander, you do remember correctly. And, I do apologize for being part of that. I am sorry. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me for past transgressions.
I reposted the comment above here, after screwing-up on the original thread where I had originally created this comment. I just thought it more appropriate here in this topic, and perhaps also in the one a few topics down the line previous to this one.