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]

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.

For any reason? Indeed, this nails it down even further; a man could 'put away' his WIFE for adultery only. However, a wife can't do it at all, because even if she leaves him, she commits adultery if she marries someone else. This doesn't apply to the husband, so....we can't use 'spouse' as a word meaning 'married partner of either sex," can we?

This stuff is, then, only about husbands and wives, and marriage...which by Jesus' definition meant male/female, evidently.

I don't see how one could interpret that passage as including same sex pairings.

..............disclaimer..........

Of course, this applies, religiously, only to those who follow the bible and interpret in in this way.

(grin)

[Danmark]

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

For any reason? Indeed, this nails it down even further; a man could 'put away' his WIFE for adultery only. However, a wife can't do it at all, because even if she leaves him, she commits adultery if she marries someone else. This doesn't apply to the husband, so....we can't use 'spouse' as a word meaning 'married partner of either sex," can we?

This stuff is, then, only about husbands and wives, and marriage...which by Jesus' definition meant male/female, evidently.


I don't see how one could interpret that passage as including same sex pairings.

..............disclaimer..........

Of course, this applies, religiously, only to those who follow the bible and interpret in in this way.

(grin)

I really don't understand how you come up with this. To me it is clear Jesus [assuming these are the words of Jesus] is making what may be an unprecedented statement of equality, that husbands and wives should be treated equally; that neither husbands nor wives should divorce each other. The implication is that if they do so they are committing adultery, that the only grounds for divorce is adultery. This applies equally to husbands and wives.

Naturally Paul must be manservant to his culture and backpedals from this revolutionary stance and insists wives take a subservient role.

One of the most significant records in the entire Bible is that Jesus stands out as perhaps the lone figure who champions women, who declares them equal, who stands up to male dominated Priesthood, a cultural artifact of a patriarchal society.

Even tho' I don't think him divine, I respect this image of Jesus. Yay Jesus!

[dianaiad]

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

For any reason? Indeed, this nails it down even further; a man could 'put away' his WIFE for adultery only. However, a wife can't do it at all, because even if she leaves him, she commits adultery if she marries someone else. This doesn't apply to the husband, so....we can't use 'spouse' as a word meaning 'married partner of either sex," can we?

This stuff is, then, only about husbands and wives, and marriage...which by Jesus' definition meant male/female, evidently.


I don't see how one could interpret that passage as including same sex pairings.

..............disclaimer..........

Of course, this applies, religiously, only to those who follow the bible and interpret in in this way.

(grin)

I really don't understand how you come up with this. To me it is clear Jesus [assuming these are the words of Jesus] is making what may be an unprecedented statement of equality, that husbands and wives should be treated equally; that neither husbands nor wives should divorce each other. The implication is that if they do so they are committing adultery, that the only grounds for divorce is adultery. This applies equally to husbands and wives.

Naturally Paul must be manservant to his culture and backpedals from this revolutionary stance and insists wives take a subservient role.

One of the most significant records in the entire Bible is that Jesus stands out as perhaps the lone figure who champions women, who declares them equal, who stands up to male dominated Priesthood, a cultural artifact of a patriarchal society.

Even tho' I don't think him divine, I respect this image of Jesus. Yay Jesus!

How do you figure that this means equal treatment for spouses? The section clearly states that the MAN can divorce his wife if she commits adultery, and HE may marry again (of course he could; polygamy was still acceptable, though not routinely practiced.)

A WOMAN who 'puts away her husband may not marry. Not 'puts away her husband for anything but him doing some fooling around," but simply "puts' him 'away' is committing adultery if she marries again.

That was his answer to the Pharisees, according to the Law...though Jesus was certainly more strict here than the Law itself was.

One must read the words that are actually there, not the ones we wish were there.

As for me, I'm all for kicking the adulterous partner out on his/her ear, either way. For me, that would have been an utter deal breaker; as in, zero tolerance...for many reasons.