About Jesus and gay marriage :)

[The Straight Story]

I grew up in a baptist home, I went pentecostal for a spell, atheist, agnostic, new age, lutheran, buddhist, and so on.

The bible is pretty male centric (given the period in which it was written, one can grok that).

The New Testament speaks of the church (mainly seen as male) being Jesus' bride, with the church taking the role of the feminine in the traditional view of it all.

But all in all - we see a male dominated institution being married to Jesus in a wonderful celebration and dinner in heaven.

I am not knocking my fellow christians here btw - I am merely noting that Jesus did not care if you were a man or a woman in the marriage feast (noted in the book of Revelation, etc). Being one with someone was more than whether or not you have the same body parts below the neck.

It means commitment, dedication, and love to one another.

Jesus has that love for me, enough that as part of his church I am considered his bride and am entitled to all the benefits of such a relationship.

Jesus is progressive, fundies are oppressive.

[Sapphocrat]

1. YOU are a Bride of Christ?

Try telling that to a couple of hundred thousand Catholic nuns, and see what they say.

[The Straight Story]

2. They are just jealous cause I dress better

I get my black robes and habits from Ambercrombie!

[Liberal Veteran]

5. I thought the church frowned on polygamy.

:shrug:

[RevCheesehead]

3. Amen!

If I may add: We're also seeing females emerge in leadership roles, and seeing the fruit which the church has missed since the time of Jesus. I am proud to say that in our conference of the United Methodist Church, we are now under the leadership of our THIRD female bishop.
It has also been a joy, since returning to Wisconsin, to not have to wear the mantle of being the first woman pastor for the congregations I have served.

Progress IS happening! O8)

Thanks for a wonderful post! :hug:

[bobbolink]

9. All of that would, indeed, be wonderful

(I was married by a woman Lutheran pastor, lo, those many years ago...), if the church would take seriously Matthew 25!!

We poor folk have no place, either in church, or in the Democratic party.

However, it's more maddening (and hurtful!) in the church, since the church has a MANDATE to accept and care for us, and the Dem party doesn't.

So, we shake the dust of both of them from our feet......

[JVS]

4. The Church collectively is the "Bride of Christ" but individuals are not.

Also, the matter of the Bride of Christ being in a sexual relationship with Christ is problematic as we can see the example of the Holy Family (Jesus, Mary, and Joseph) as a family that unlike that of all others does not have its basis in a sexual relationship. Jesus does indeed love you, as the Father loves the world, but to sexualize the relationship is outside the bounds of orthodox thought. In fact, among female mystics a sexualization of this relationship occured frequently and the Church looked upon it with a leery eye.

[The Straight Story]

6. I get that :)

Was having fun with it though...If we use that as an example, and we went to the extreme, we could even tell people no to have sex when married.

The point being - one can twist scripture in all sorts of ways, and maybe the rw'ers should take note of such when bringing down the boom.

*I* am, in some sense of it all, the bride of Christ - and I am male. marriage is about more than sexualization in this case - it is about being devoted to someone/something.

Would most christians sanction gay marriage even if sex was not part of it? No. But they see themselves as being married to a human male (Jesus) and have no issue with it (even without the sex part).

It redefines marriage to some extent, from a one to one mapping of individuals to a shared experience without regards to whether or not is male or female (though, as noted, the church is seen in the feminine). The core idea communicated is that we can become 'one' with an ideal and with an individual (Jesus) regardless of our genitals.

[and-justice-for-all]

7. Jesus is irrelevant

to my Gay Marriage. I do not observe religion in anyway shape or form, it sickens me. Yet, I have to abide by stupid an irrational religious dogma, enforced upon me and a large number of others, simply because they seem to think that they need to meddle into my affairs!

[The Straight Story]

8. Indeed - here is my core take on it all:

top Level:
We are a free country, and should make laws based on that. Inclusive.

Next Level:
Personal/Organizational - you agree to be part of a group (like a church) and abide by it's rules - if your group says X is bad, you don't do X. It is a choice YOU make to stay a member of said group.

Last Level:
Personal: You think X is wrong, for whatever reason, so YOU don't do it.

The last two levels should not interfere with the first level. If someone thinks something is wrong they should not do it, but they should not restrict others from doing so (obviously within reason - like killing others, stealing, et al).

The RW tries to equate some common sense issues (like murder, rape, robbery, etc) with other issues by showing how those things hurt the whole - and when they can't, they yell 'god says it is bad' because they have no logic to base their claims on.