be fruitful and multiply

[Guest guest]

To separate Christianity from it's roots is a mistake. Jesus is

Jewish...not a white Christian But I realize not many understand the

Jewishness of Christianity. Yes, Jews oppose it like Christians. And were

you Jewish wanting to be married under a chuppah it wouldn't happen and

would be very offensive. And the verse I quoted it not a tradition...it is

a commandment taken very seriously. And can not be fulfilled by two men or

two women (unless the women choose to utilize the system G-d has set

up....egg and sperm. Fortunately all of our parents choose to follow the

system set up or none of us would be here.

Why take something that is so important and try to so radically change it?

Why not come up with something new? Just because you want to redefine a

word doesn't mean the meaning changes.

One a talk radio show the host was saying since the mayors has been defying

the law and giving out marriage certificates that the number of people

opposing gay marriage has gone up in the US. So I don't think the mayor has

done these couples and others like them a real favor. It sounds like Bush

is going to legislate this issue to end this for now.

As far as dominating fish...that seems a bit silly. There are several

points being made in that reference.

1. We are told to be fruitful and increase in number.

2. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every

living creature that moves on the ground.

28 God blessed them and said to them, " Be fruitful and increase in number;

fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of

the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground. "

So I don't see your point.

Re: POLITICS - I'm out (was: Disturbing article)

In a message dated 2/24/04 1:59:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,

kayte@...

writes:

> Actually, the first Biblical commandment is to be fruitful and multiply

> (from a Jewish perspective)

Kayte,

While I'm arguing from a Christian perspective, which is, in my view, the

relevant perspective, since it is Christians, not Jews, who actively oppose

gay

marriage, and because Fern is arguing from a Christian perspective, there is

no

possible way, Jewish or Christian, to read that commandment as a moral

requisite to marriage. Perhaps it is Jewish tradition to believe that

procreation

is the justification for sex or marriage, but, as I already pointed out, the

commandment to be fruitful and multiply is not found in even remote

proximity to

the marital references in Genesis, (in the scope of the creation account),

and it is also found in the same exact sentence as the commandment to

dominate

fish and mammals.

So, if you employ the logic you are employing consistently, the purpose of

marriage is to dominate fish.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> Yes, Jews oppose it like Christians. And were

you Jewish wanting to be married under a chuppah it wouldn't happen and

would be very offensive. <<

I have attended weddings, officiated at by rabbis, where the same sex couples

were married under chuppas. So it would and DOES happen. And far from finding it

offensive, all those in attendance found it intensely joyous and moving -

including elderly grandparents!

It's really not right to generalize that " ALL " Jews, or " ALL " Christians, have a

single viewpoint on this. That is simply untrue. Nor is this just individuals

who have diverse opinions. There are Christian and Jewish denominations that do

not share your position against same-sex marriage.

Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish denomination in America, " has called for

civil same-sex marriage for many years. The Central Conference of American

Rabbis (CCAR), the professional association of Reform rabbis, passed a

resolution in 1996 opposing 'governmental efforts to ban gay and lesbian

marriage.' The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the congregational arm of

the Reform movement, followed suit in 1997, resolving to, 'support secular

efforts to promote legislation which would provide civil marriage equal

opportunity for gay men and lesbians'. " (Amber Powers, rabbi of Temple Menorah

Keneseth Chai in Northeast Philadelphia)

She also has written that even " the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly has

endorsed civil rights for gay men and lesbians, without specifically endorsing

civil same-sex marriage. There is a small minority of Conservative rabbis who

perform same-sex Jewish weddings, indicating widespread ambivalence on this

issue. "

Many congregations of the Episcopal Church, and the Presbyterian Church, and to

a lesser extent the Methodist Church, do not object to same-sex marriage and/or

ordain gay clergy. Congregations of other major Christian denominations also do

so. The Presbyterian Church considered an amendment to its constitution in 2001

that would have banned same-sex unions, and while the vote was extremely close,

it WAS defeated.

And yes, there are huge, huge differences of opinion on this issue within these

Christian and Jewish denominations. That is the whole point, that to suggest

that there is not roiling disagreement on these issues among Christians and

Jews, and in Christian and Jewish theology, is simply incorrect. It's very, very

wrong to say that all Judaism and all Christianity stand united on this

question, as you have done.

Christie

[Guest guest]

<<<<Many congregations of the Episcopal Church, and the Presbyterian Church, and

to a lesser extent the Methodist Church, do not object to same-sex marriage

and/or ordain gay clergy. Congregations of other major Christian denominations

also do so. The Presbyterian Church considered an amendment to its constitution

in 2001 that would have banned same-sex unions, and while the vote was extremely

close, it WAS defeated.

Well I do not know the stand of the Jewish community on homosexuality. I do

however, know more about the situation with the Episcopal Church than any other

church in particular since it was my church and the church of my family for many

generations preceeding me. The above statements are a bit misleading as is

typical of the propaganda put out. It is true the Episcopal Church Of America

(please note the distinction from the rest of the Anglican Churches in the

world), not only ordains homosexuals and recognize their marraiges, they

ordained a Bishop last year who was homosexual, had left his wife and children

to marry his true love.

The more to the story is that the Episcopal church was one of the most accepting

of churches to all people. It was the only church to my knowledge that did not

split in the civil war. Women were brought into the ministry in 1976 with

debates but no loss of membership. Homosexuals began being ordained in the

70's with the understanding they led celibate lives. They subsequently took over

politics of the church in America and that policy was changed. As doctrines of

the church transgressed away from scripture, the church lost over 2/3's of its

members in number. Considering the new homosexuals who joined the church, the

true numbers are probably closer to 75% of its members.

The bishops ordination was in June. In July, " an assembly of mainstream

Anglican Primates, priests and laypeople issued a statement from Fairfax,

Virginia, stating that the confirmation of Canon as bishop would

" separate [the Episcopal Church] from historic Christian faith and teaching

[and] Alienate it from the fellowship and accountability of the worldwide

Anglican family "

The Anglican Church of America has since been renounced throughout the world by

members of the global Anglican Communion for its departure from scripture, not

only on the issue of homosexuality, but other departures as well. Of remaining

members of the church upset over what has happened and still fighting for its

survival, the " Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes has been

formed chosing at the moment to stay affliated with the American Diocese but the

network is asking these other global churches to acknowledge them as the true

Episcopal Church of America. The end result could possibly be church trials in

which network bishops are accused of breaking canon law " . Lovely mess of a

church.

So much to open welcome arms to gays to join your church. The church has been

ripped apart and nearly destroyed at this point.

And now Americans are going to be pitted against each other because a small

minority " wants " life in American to be their way.

[Guest guest]

Please include the POLITICS tag, thank you.

Michele

>From: " " <mhysmith@...>

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: Re: be fruitful and multiply

>Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:14:09 -0600

>

><<<<Many congregations of the Episcopal Church, and the Presbyterian

>Church, and to a lesser extent the Methodist Church, do not object to

>same-sex marriage and/or ordain gay clergy. Congregations of other major

>Christian denominations also do so. The Presbyterian Church considered an

>amendment to its constitution in 2001 that would have banned same-sex

>unions, and while the vote was extremely close, it WAS defeated.

>

>Well I do not know the stand of the Jewish community on homosexuality. I

>do however, know more about the situation with the Episcopal Church than

>any other church in particular since it was my church and the church of my

>family for many generations preceeding me. The above statements are a bit

>misleading as is typical of the propaganda put out. It is true the

>Episcopal Church Of America (please note the distinction from the rest of

>the Anglican Churches in the world), not only ordains homosexuals and

>recognize their marraiges, they ordained a Bishop last year who was

>homosexual, had left his wife and children to marry his true love.

>

>The more to the story is that the Episcopal church was one of the most

>accepting of churches to all people. It was the only church to my knowledge

>that did not split in the civil war. Women were brought into the ministry

>in 1976 with debates but no loss of membership. Homosexuals began being

>ordained in the 70's with the understanding they led celibate lives. They

>subsequently took over politics of the church in America and that policy

>was changed. As doctrines of the church transgressed away from scripture,

>the church lost over 2/3's of its members in number. Considering the new

>homosexuals who joined the church, the true numbers are probably closer to

>75% of its members.

>

>The bishops ordination was in June. In July, " an assembly of mainstream

>Anglican Primates, priests and laypeople issued a statement from Fairfax,

>Virginia, stating that the confirmation of Canon as bishop would

> " separate [the Episcopal Church] from historic Christian faith and teaching

>[and] Alienate it from the fellowship and accountability of the worldwide

>Anglican family "

>

>The Anglican Church of America has since been renounced throughout the

>world by members of the global Anglican Communion for its departure from

>scripture, not only on the issue of homosexuality, but other departures as

>well. Of remaining members of the church upset over what has happened and

>still fighting for its survival, the " Network of Anglican Communion

>Dioceses and Parishes has been formed chosing at the moment to stay

>affliated with the American Diocese but the network is asking these other

>global churches to acknowledge them as the true Episcopal Church of

>America. The end result could possibly be church trials in which network

>bishops are accused of breaking canon law " . Lovely mess of a church.

>

>So much to open welcome arms to gays to join your church. The church has

>been ripped apart and nearly destroyed at this point.

>

>And now Americans are going to be pitted against each other because a small

>minority " wants " life in American to be their way.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/04 6:00:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, kayte@...

writes:

> To separate Christianity from it's roots is a mistake. Jesus is

> Jewish...not a white Christian

I didn't separate Christianity from its roots in any way whatsoever. But to

say that those roots should be understood by Christians from a modern Jewish

perspective is a much larger mistake, and would require Christians to, well,

not be Christians.

But I realize not many understand the

> Jewishness of Christianity.

I think I understand it reasonably well.

Yes, Jews oppose it like Christians. And were

> you Jewish wanting to be married under a chuppah it wouldn't happen and

> would be very offensive. And the verse I quoted it not a tradition...it is

> a commandment taken very seriously. And can not be fulfilled by two men or

> two women (unless the women choose to utilize the system G-d has set

> up....egg and sperm. Fortunately all of our parents choose to follow the

> system set up or none of us would be here.

This command was given to the generic humans created in the first creation

account. The reference to the marital union of Adam and Eve is in the second

chapter. Thus, if this is a command that is considered unfulfilled, it is not

conditional upon marriage, and marriage is not conditional upon it. Further,

someone who doesn't marry would be, for that reason violating the commandment

as much as someone who does marry and doesn't have children.

> Why take something that is so important and try to so radically change it?

> Why not come up with something new?

I don't. And if it isn't clear, I'm not arguing that the Bible condones gay

marriage. That would be absurd. But the reason that would be absurd is

because the Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality. But the Bible does NOT

define

marriage as a union with the intent to bear children, and Christianity does

NOT consider procreation the primary purpose of marriage, traditionally.

Further, the Bible does NOT give a basis for Christians or Jews to advocate

civil

government forcing their morals on other people.

Thus, the Bible does NOT provide a basis for the opposition of gay marriage

given by the state.

Just because you want to redefine a > word doesn't mean the meaning

> changes.

Civil government does not define " marriage " as inherently constituting a

couple with the intent to procreate. Thus, it is not being redefined in that

respect. It defines marriage in legal terms, and homosexuals want access to

this

legal construction. Redefining marriage to include homosexuals would be a

redefinition, but not of the sort you and Fern are arguing. More importantly,

it

wouldn't be a redefinition of *purpose* or *function* but would be a

redefinition of who had the right to engage in it.

> As far as dominating fish...that seems a bit silly. There are several

> points being made in that reference.

It does, doesn't it? That's my point.

> 1. We are told to be fruitful and increase in number.

> 2. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every

> living creature that moves on the ground.

They are part of the same sentence, by the Oxford Annotated, and are clearly

the same command. The command is either given to humans in general as humans,

or is given specifically to married humans as part of the definition of

marriage. If it's the former, than you can't claim it " defines " marriage, and

if

it's the latter, consistency requires you to adopt the " silly " notion that the

purpose of marriage is dominating fish.

Chris