Does Jesus Really Inform Christians Political Positions?

[Strider324]

More for discussion than debate -

I've recently been in a number of online discussions about the FRFA. Ostensibly, many Christians base their approval of these laws on their 'deeply held religious beliefs'. In the course of these discussions, I began to ask a simple question to those who feel justified in denying services, benefits, rights, whatever, to the LGBT community:

What does Jesus say about it? And I swear, they absolutely will not answer this question - no matter how many times I have asked it. They talk about the homophobia of Paul. Yeah, I get that. Not my question. They talk about the homophobia of the OT. Again, not the question.

Can anyone explain why Christians have absolutely nothing to say when it comes to what their Lord and Savior says about acceptance, related to the FRFA?

[dianaiad]

On the other hand, He DID address marriage: Mark 10: 2-10:

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said to them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said to them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and join to his wife;
8 And they two shall be one flesh: so then they are no more two, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
11 And he said to them, Whoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commits adultery.

The key point seems obvious, and the rest is dicta.
The central point Jesus makes is that a man should not divorce his wife for trivial reasons, or more particularly because he's tired of her and wants a new, younger one.

I disagree. Had the point been only about divorce, He could have left verse six completely out. However, He made rather a point of the creation of male/female and joining them together.

I guess my problem here is the old 'permission/prohibition' argument. That is, one side, because it helps their argument, claims that anything not specifically forbidden is therefore acceptable. The other side claims that anything not specifically sanctioned is therefore forbidden.

Neither position is logical, really. It is no more logical to assume, as it seems here, that because Jesus did NOT specifically forbid homosexual behavior and marriage, that He had no problem with it (and may even have supported it) as it is to assume that since He didn't mention that it was just dandy, He was against it.

I brought up the preceding verses to show that indeed He DID mention marriage, and specifically tied it to male/female pairings. I think that this provides more support for those who oppose same sex marriage than it does to those who support it, because there is absolutely no indication that Jesus mentioned any solutions to the problems that might come up in same sex marriages.

Of course, none of the above applies to those who aren't Christians in the first place.

[Haven]

I disagree. Had the point been only about divorce, He could have left verse six completely out. However, He made rather a point of the creation of male/female and joining them together.

Verse six is a direct quote from Genesis 2, that's why it's included. I don't think Jesus* was trying to make a heterosexist or homophobic point--he was just quoting scripture.

____
*As reported in the Bible. These words were not necessarily said by any historical Jesus.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 3 by Starman]

Moderator Warning

This post does not conform to the standards of civility. Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Danmark]

I disagree. Had the point been only about divorce, He could have left verse six completely out. However, He made rather a point of the creation of male/female and joining them together.

Verse six is a direct quote from Genesis 2, that's why it's included. I don't think Jesus* was trying to make a heterosexist or homophobic point--he was just quoting scripture.

Exactly. And we know this because the question he answers in this narrative is:
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
Later, privately he expands by making it clear this goes for women as well. As Haven says, he is merely supporting his point by quoting scripture, according to the narrative.

To concentrate on the illustration rather than the answer is to miss the point. This is a great example of the fundamentalist approach which strives to go beyond eternal principles of love and fairness and seize upon the peripheral and temporal.

[dianaiad]

I disagree. Had the point been only about divorce, He could have left verse six completely out. However, He made rather a point of the creation of male/female and joining them together.

Verse six is a direct quote from Genesis 2, that's why it's included. I don't think Jesus* was trying to make a heterosexist or homophobic point--he was just quoting scripture.

Exactly. And we know this because the question he answers in this narrative is:
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
Later, privately he expands by making it clear this goes for women as well. As Haven says, he is merely supporting his point by quoting scripture, according to the narrative.

To concentrate on the illustration rather than the answer is to miss the point. This is a great example of the fundamentalist approach which strives to go beyond eternal principles of love and fairness and seize upon the peripheral and temporal.

So...I'm confused.

The position taken by those who are not what they describe as 'fundamentalist' is that since there is, according to them, no mention in the bible (esp. from Jesus) of homosexuality being especially bad, then a: homosexuality is a good thing, b: homosexual marriage is religiously acceptable and c: the bible proves this by not mentioning it. Finally, d: people who actually find things in the bible that might cause problems for this approach ARE 'fundamentalists,' and thus peripheral nit pickers, who ignore the 'eternal principles of love and fairness?"

Here's the deal, as far as I am concerned: if one is Christian and believes in one's own interpretation of that book, then I don't think that it is the right of anybody else to reinterpret it for them.

By the same token, those who believe in it don't have the right to impose, by force, the religious principles found in it upon those who do not agree with it.

Right now the 'force' is being used by those who advocate, not only same sex marriage, but the forced public acceptance, RELIGIOUSLY, of those marriages by people who disagree, even as those doing the forcing are complaining that the religious are using force upon THEM.

I think I'll just quit, go knit something and listen to a David Weber book. There is as much sturm und drung, lots of explosions....but the good guys win in the end, and everybody knows exactly who the good guys are. That is refreshing.

[Danmark]

I disagree. Had the point been only about divorce, He could have left verse six completely out. However, He made rather a point of the creation of male/female and joining them together.

Verse six is a direct quote from Genesis 2, that's why it's included. I don't think Jesus* was trying to make a heterosexist or homophobic point--he was just quoting scripture.

Exactly. And we know this because the question he answers in this narrative is:
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
Later, privately he expands by making it clear this goes for women as well. As Haven says, he is merely supporting his point by quoting scripture, according to the narrative.

To concentrate on the illustration rather than the answer is to miss the point. This is a great example of the fundamentalist approach which strives to go beyond eternal principles of love and fairness and seize upon the peripheral and temporal.

So...I'm confused.

The position taken by those who are not what they describe as 'fundamentalist' is that since there is, according to them, no mention in the bible (esp. from Jesus) of homosexuality being especially bad, then a: homosexuality is a good thing, b: homosexual marriage is religiously acceptable and c: the bible proves this by not mentioning it. Finally, d: people who actually find things in the bible that might cause problems for this approach ARE 'fundamentalists,' and thus peripheral nit pickers, who ignore the 'eternal principles of love and fairness?"

Here's the deal, as far as I am concerned: if one is Christian and believes in one's own interpretation of that book, then I don't think that it is the right of anybody else to reinterpret it for them.

By the same token, those who believe in it don't have the right to impose, by force, the religious principles found in it upon those who do not agree with it.

Right now the 'force' is being used by those who advocate, not only same sex marriage, but the forced public acceptance, RELIGIOUSLY, of those marriages by people who disagree, even as those doing the forcing are complaining that the religious are using force upon THEM.

I think I'll just quit, go knit something and listen to a David Weber book. There is as much sturm und drung, lots of explosions....but the good guys win in the end, and everybody knows exactly who the good guys are. That is refreshing.

I disagree with some of your assumptions, except the the personal ones of course. Tho' I would never suggest something sexist like "you should tend to your knitting" I suppose that is your prerogative

I cannot speak for others, but I'm not suggesting and never have, that secular marriages be accepted "RELIGIOUSLY."

When it comes to interpreting:
Mark 10: 2-10:

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said to them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said to them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and join to his wife;
8 And they two shall be one flesh: so then they are no more two, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
11 And he said to them, Whoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commits adultery.

I simply look at the passage and analyze it the way I'd analyze a legal statute. To me the answer is obvious, that the core of the passage is about being faithful to one's spouse, and not finding a legalistic excuse to "put him/her away," that divorce is akin to, if not the same as adultery. The rest is surplusage. I do not claim this is the only passage in the Bible that touches on gender issues.

If a church or church member chooses to interpret these words to focus on their own, personal, religious agenda, than that is their own business. But my opinion is that they do violence to the meaning of their own scriptures. It has no political import to me until they attempt to use their interpretation to affect those who are not members of their religious organization.

[dianaiad]

I disagree. Had the point been only about divorce, He could have left verse six completely out. However, He made rather a point of the creation of male/female and joining them together.

Verse six is a direct quote from Genesis 2, that's why it's included. I don't think Jesus* was trying to make a heterosexist or homophobic point--he was just quoting scripture.

Exactly. And we know this because the question he answers in this narrative is:
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
Later, privately he expands by making it clear this goes for women as well. As Haven says, he is merely supporting his point by quoting scripture, according to the narrative.

To concentrate on the illustration rather than the answer is to miss the point. This is a great example of the fundamentalist approach which strives to go beyond eternal principles of love and fairness and seize upon the peripheral and temporal.

So...I'm confused.

The position taken by those who are not what they describe as 'fundamentalist' is that since there is, according to them, no mention in the bible (esp. from Jesus) of homosexuality being especially bad, then a: homosexuality is a good thing, b: homosexual marriage is religiously acceptable and c: the bible proves this by not mentioning it. Finally, d: people who actually find things in the bible that might cause problems for this approach ARE 'fundamentalists,' and thus peripheral nit pickers, who ignore the 'eternal principles of love and fairness?"

Here's the deal, as far as I am concerned: if one is Christian and believes in one's own interpretation of that book, then I don't think that it is the right of anybody else to reinterpret it for them.

By the same token, those who believe in it don't have the right to impose, by force, the religious principles found in it upon those who do not agree with it.

Right now the 'force' is being used by those who advocate, not only same sex marriage, but the forced public acceptance, RELIGIOUSLY, of those marriages by people who disagree, even as those doing the forcing are complaining that the religious are using force upon THEM.

I think I'll just quit, go knit something and listen to a David Weber book. There is as much sturm und drung, lots of explosions....but the good guys win in the end, and everybody knows exactly who the good guys are. That is refreshing.

I disagree with some of your assumptions, except the the personal ones of course. Tho' I would never suggest something sexist like "you should tend to your knitting" I suppose that is your prerogative

I cannot speak for others, but I'm not suggesting and never have, that secular marriages be accepted "RELIGIOUSLY."

When it comes to interpreting:
Mark 10: 2-10:

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said to them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said to them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and join to his wife;
8 And they two shall be one flesh: so then they are no more two, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
11 And he said to them, Whoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commits adultery.

I simply look at the passage and analyze it the way I'd analyze a legal statute. To me the answer is obvious, that the core of the passage is about being faithful to one's spouse, and not finding a legalistic excuse to "put him/her away," that divorce is akin to, if not the same as adultery. The rest is surplusage. I do not claim this is the only passage in the Bible that touches on gender issues.

If a church or church member chooses to interpret these words to focus on their own, personal, religious agenda, than that is their own business. But my opinion is that they do violence to the meaning of their own scriptures. It has no political import to me until they attempt to use their interpretation to affect those who are not members of their religious organization.

Well, doesn't the context of a legal statute also mean something?

That is, in order to regulate something; a behavior or a definition, one must first establish the parameters of that behavior? For instance, a law that is meant to tell fishermen when fishing season is only applies to people who want to go fishing, right?

So first, you establish who the fishermen are, to whom that regulation applies; 'fishermen" are folks who take fishing poles, put hooks on them, bait those hooks with something, and cast those hooks into the water in the hopes that some really stupid finny swimmer will bite. Furthermore, there might be rules as to what to do if the fish is below a certain weight (throw it back to grow up some) or the wrong species for the license (again, toss it back or report it). These regulations only apply to the folks who actually fit the parameters.

people who 'tickle' fish (catch with their bare hands) may have different rules. People who use nets might not be allowed to fish at all, unless they belong to a specific group and are protected. The bait used might be regulated. The sort of tackle might be scrutinized.

Whatever, the population to whom those rules apply are identified before the laws are explained, usually, right?

In normal use, isn't generally accepted that once those parameters are set, it can be assumed that those who don't fit in them are excluded from the law? That is, now that we have defined the set 'fishermen,' the laws applying to the Innuit (who is allowed to use nets during salmon season, though nobody else is) do not apply to an astronaut attempting to fix the Hubble telescope?

So it seems to me that Jesus was establishing the parameters of the population to which His words apply:

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and join to his wife;
8 And they two shall be one flesh: so then they are no more two, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

From the above we see that Jesus defined the population to which His words apply:

God created men and women, together, and a man leaves his parents to cleave to his wife (a woman) and they two become one, a 'one' that 'no man' may put asunder, unless, according to Jesus, adultery is involved.

Population defined,
Rules that apply to that population explained...

Seems reasonable to me.

[Danmark]

Well, doesn't the context of a legal statute also mean something?

That is, in order to regulate something; a behavior or a definition, one must first establish the parameters of that behavior? For instance, a law that is meant to tell fishermen when fishing season is only applies to people who want to go fishing, right?

So first, you establish who the fishermen are, to whom that regulation applies; 'fishermen" are folks who take fishing poles, put hooks on them, bait those hooks with something, and cast those hooks into the water in the hopes that some really stupid finny swimmer will bite. Furthermore, there might be rules as to what to do if the fish is below a certain weight (throw it back to grow up some) or the wrong species for the license (again, toss it back or report it). These regulations only apply to the folks who actually fit the parameters.

people who 'tickle' fish (catch with their bare hands) may have different rules. People who use nets might not be allowed to fish at all, unless they belong to a specific group and are protected. The bait used might be regulated. The sort of tackle might be scrutinized.

Whatever, the population to whom those rules apply are identified before the laws are explained, usually, right?

In normal use, isn't generally accepted that once those parameters are set, it can be assumed that those who don't fit in them are excluded from the law? That is, now that we have defined the set 'fishermen,' the laws applying to the Innuit (who is allowed to use nets during salmon season, though nobody else is) do not apply to an astronaut attempting to fix the Hubble telescope?

So it seems to me that Jesus was establishing the parameters of the population to which His words apply:

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and join to his wife;
8 And they two shall be one flesh: so then they are no more two, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

From the above we see that Jesus defined the population to which His words apply:

God created men and women, together, and a man leaves his parents to cleave to his wife (a woman) and they two become one, a 'one' that 'no man' may put asunder, unless, according to Jesus, adultery is involved.

Population defined,
Rules that apply to that population explained...

Seems reasonable to me.

No, context of a legal statute doesn't mean much at all, except for jurisdiction.
Here, the population is those who have spouses. The purpose of the statute is to prevent divorce or abandonment, at least on general grounds. So it applies to anyone within the jurisdiction of Jewish law who wants to trade in his old wife or husband the way he or she might a used car. The statute has nothing to do with whether the car is a passenger vehicle or a truck. It is the easy replacement that is at issue, not whether it refers to a Ford or a Chevy.

[dianaiad]

No, context of a legal statute doesn't mean much at all, except for jurisdiction.
Here, the population is those who have spouses. The purpose of the statute is to prevent divorce or abandonment, at least on general grounds. So it applies to anyone within the jurisdiction of Jewish law who wants to trade in his old wife or husband the way he or she might a used car. The statute has nothing to do with whether the car is a passenger vehicle or a truck. It is the easy replacement that is at issue, not whether it refers to a Ford or a Chevy.

I don't see the word, OR the concept, "spouse" anywhere in there. The concept...and the question, was about 'wives." There was nothing in there about getting rid of husbands, and that, according to the laws and customs of the time, wasn't done anyway.

[Danmark]

No, context of a legal statute doesn't mean much at all, except for jurisdiction.
Here, the population is those who have spouses. The purpose of the statute is to prevent divorce or abandonment, at least on general grounds. So it applies to anyone within the jurisdiction of Jewish law who wants to trade in his old wife or husband the way he or she might a used car. The statute has nothing to do with whether the car is a passenger vehicle or a truck. It is the easy replacement that is at issue, not whether it refers to a Ford or a Chevy.

I don't see the word, OR the concept, "spouse" anywhere in there. The concept...and the question, was about 'wives." There was nothing in there about getting rid of husbands, and that, according to the laws and customs of the time, wasn't done anyway.

12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commits adultery.