“But the greatest of these is love.” 1 Cor 13:13

Advertisements

8 thoughts on ““But the greatest of these is love.” 1 Cor 13:13

  1. For the life of me, as I try and explan until I’m blue in the face, it should never, ever be the government that defines marriage, as it is a religious institution and all it is the governments job to do is acknowledge the ceremony and issue the binding civic documents. Period. Whether a faith marries man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman, it is not our governments’ job to protect a religious institution, define it, or be bigoted toward who someone loves. It is asinine to believe it is their job and is fundementalism to the same degree of other theocratically controlled governments on our planet, if it is not right there, it damn well should not be right here.

    This seperate, but equal, crap should have died out when we slayed segregation. If it was inhumane and wrong then, it damn well should be so now, especially when many of the same arguments were used to stop interracial marriage. As I’ve said time and time again, it is easy to protect what you agree with, yet harder to protect what you disagree with, but the later is the sign of a truly benevolent and enlightened society.

    Thanks for sharing the video, Sean. Love truly is the greatest, folk need to remember that and protect it.

    • It’s a complicated matter. If it’s a purely religious issue…then which religion? Religion A says Man and Woman only, but Religion B says Same-Sex is okay.

      Why does religion have an impact at all as siding with any one religion is biased against the others?

      Marriage has been a matter of laws and contracts since the Roman period at the least: a legal binding contract joining two families. This doesn’t necessarily say anything about gender or sexual preference, but it has to do with the division of property and rights for spouses.

      Ultimately it is contract between two people, allowing them rights. Rights should IMO be the same for everyone regardless of gender, religion or sexual preference.

      This law should NOT be influenced by religious terms, beliefs or bias…otherwise it’s not really equal. Not ANY religious beliefs. Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Woodchuckism, or the Force.

      If folks want to have a religious wedding/ marriage, then that is totally cool, but secondary to the legal binding contract, enforceable here on earth by man (the religious part…that’s all up to you and your maker elsewhere).

      That’s a helluva video. I wish more people would take it to heart.

      “it is easy to protect what you agree with, yet harder to protect what you disagree with”
      Absolutely true!

      • Marriage in western culture began as a secular institution in an otherwise extremely religious society (Egypt). In that form it was essentially a legal contract.

        It’s fine that religious groups made marriage sacred for their purposes, but historically its foundations are not religious. From my perspective, the government can either recognize marriage as inherently religious and have absolutely nothing to do with it, or can recognize marriage as having at its core a secular component that they regulate without religious discrimination.

        It’s a nice video, but I have to cringe at anyone quoting Paul. Paul is the sole party responsible for anti-homosexual content in the New Testament. At times Christians cling more to Paul than Christ, and it’s a shame.

      • I agree … people on John Wick’s blog (where I got it) remarked about Paul’s strange contradictory bias, talking so much about love and yet ranting against women and making vague comments that are interpretable as anti-homosexual.

      • Scholarly evidence suggests that Paul’s comments about women were probably edited in a few centuries after he authored 1 Corinthians. It’s also likely that some of his letters (like 2 Thessalonians) are pseudepigraphal. In general, Paul promotes egalitarianism. There is no male or female, no Jew or Gentile, in Christ. Heck, he even addresses 1 Corinthians to Chloe, who is obviously a prominent figure in an early Christian community.

        Also Paul’s comments on love are directed toward the love of God and God’s love for humanity. In his writings to early Christian communities, Paul frequently promotes the selfless love of God and humanity as a whole over love of individuals. He also exhorts people to remain celibate (to be more like Christ), but grudgingly allows that if one cannot be celibate, he or she should be joined in marriage.

        Paul’s comments about homosexuality aren’t vague. They are very clear in Romans. I know a lot of people want to interpret what he says in a more favorable light, but I honestly think there’s not much to debate. That said, Paul isn’t Christ. Paul’s letters in the New Testament are very helpful in understanding the message of the gospel, but Paul’s letters are not the gospel themselves.

        Frankly, I don’t think it’s good to use Paul to defend or detract from Christianity’s stance on homosexuality. Taking just the gospels themselves, there’s not a word written about homosexuality between the four books. Every Christian condemnation of homosexuality is derived from Jewish scriptures or from Paul’s letters.

      • Honestly, I haven’t read Paul’s letters in a long, long time, I was just going off my memories of the pro/anti-homosexuality-in-the-bible section of religioustolerance.org

      • “Paul frequently promotes the selfless love of God and humanity as a whole over love of individuals.”

        His words remain beautiful (especially as rendered by the author of that passage in English, whoever that was). They were one of the readings at my wedding. Like any other set of words they are free to be noted, quoted, used, abused, mistakenly taken out of context or given new meaning.

        I wasn’t going to comment because I don’t live in the state where this referendum is going on, but speaking as someone viewing the video, I thought that it was remarkable. I have never seen a better presentation of 1 Corinthians. It’s one of my favorite passages.

        If swords can be beat into plowshares, can’t the words of someone who voiced opinions both negative and positive give us new ground for discussion and new meaning transcending the negativity?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s