And thus a new euphemism is born.
It’s a big problem with the devout.
Try to get a Christian to accept that the idea could even be rationally & honestly held, without a hidden agenda, that Jesus might have meant what he said over & over again about the wealthy being damned. Or that Paul really wanted everyone to be unmarried, & only accepted marriage as a concession to reality. (Try not to insert “rare for him” after the word concession in the latter sentence.) Alternatively, bang your head against a brick wall.
Oh, yeah, I’m agreeing with Loopydude on those who “cherry-pick” their scriptures. It’s not just Xtians, of course.
The thing is, Paul had something like a coherent worldview. I don’t expect it to have been perfectly correct, he was a fallible man, & admitted as much. But other Xtians often disagree with him without wanting to admit that they contradict the Apostle, so they don’t dare call him on it, they just try to explain it away.
I’m glad you’ve made it clear that you’re not a Christian and therefore not constrained to act in a Christian like manner. Nonetheless, your analasys of the text in Romans comes up lacking even from a factual basis. For example…
Loopydude said:
You cited Romans. Cool! I appreciate that you’d actually go to the source. However when you begin to editorialize with comments and statements from the bible, that are not supported in the bible, you do a dis-service to both sides of the issue. Comments that gays are essentially “pure evil”, “haters of God” or “satanic” are not supported in the bible. That language only incites anger and resentment among gays, and portrays Christians who oppose homosexuality from biblical grounds in a most unChristian light.
The passage you cited in indeed pretty clear. Your analasys of that same cite is pure nonsense, and can’t be supported biblically.
There is indeed hypocrosy among many who identify themselves as Christians. That doesn’t make the message of the Christ any less valid. Still my post dealt with your take on the cite you mentioned, and from a Christian POV it was poorly done. Now that you’ve clarified your affiliation let me say this: From a purely factual and/or historical biblical perspective it was poorly done.
Let me digress for just a moment if you will…I am not sure how we have gotten to the point that we use labels as weapons. I’m specifically referring to the term “fundie.” You weren’t refering to me specifically, and I’m not offended. (Even if you were referring to me) More and more it seems we use these labels in the most perjoritive way. All too often they seem to be a surrogate for real intellectual rigor. I’m not sure where this all comes from. I suspect that people like Rush Limbaugh (who I consider to be a buffoon) contribute to this. He’s been so very successful at making the term “liberal” a dirty word that until Howard Dean I’ve haven’t heard a politician accept the label in years. It was like political leprosy. Every time I see “abortionist”, “literalist”, “fundie” and the like there is an almost sneering quality to it. I’m left thinking that those who use those terms frequently use them like the filler in a hotdog; we know that there’s no intellectual nutrients there, but we have to fill up the space somehow.
Rant over, ok?
Believe it or not, we have some common ground, and I agree with you in large part. I find the bible vibrant and useful. I read a few times a week (among many other things)and use it as a guidebook of sorts. And it seems clear that you read the bible. I agree that there are many (read: many) people who cite the bible who never cite the bible. A week doesn’t pass here that I don’t see someone mention a passage in the bible that they haven’t read or absolutely have no clue about. I’m not picking on anyone, really. I’m simply making the point that the amount of biblical ignorance is stunning. For those who reject the bible (atheists for example) cool! But, so many people go on and on about the bible and it is clear that they are not knowedgelable about the bible and essentially “cherry pick” what they wish to believe. I call it faith by ala carte. I agree with that assesment very much. Too often people’s minds are already made up, and when there life course is in conflict with the bible we simply dismiss the bible as being wong or outdated. (Or that Paul was a hater…)
The sad irony is that those who dare to read the bible and espouse it are seen as somehow unenlightened. We even have terms for them like “fundie.” Somewhere between the polar extremes of not reading the bible at all and coming up with poorly constructed applications of misapplied texts, and “slavishly worshipping the book” (another fun term) is a balanced view on the bible and it’s utility for the human experience. That balance IMO, is rare.
You keep saying it’s nonsense, but you don’t explain why. I assert again, the passage is clear: Paul is saying homosexuality is a symptom of an evil syndrome, if you will, that is characteristic of people who hate God. If knowing God but Hating him isn’t evil and Satanic, I don’t know what is.
Again, I repeat, Paul is saying that those who closed their hearts to God were abandoned, and they gave themselves up to all manner of vices, including homosexuality. He’s saying homosexuality is a characteristic of an evil person (though not the only one, certainly, nor essential for a person to be evil). He lists it as one of the telltale signs. He calls homosexual intimacy a “shameless act”. He desribes it as “uncleanliness” and “vile affections.” I mean, how more clear does it need to be? How are any other readings more than tortured revisionism?
I’m sorry, but, again, in my estimation, the only “balanced” (as you call it) reading of the Bible as a guide to Faith is one rife with selectivity, revisionism, willful misreading, and wishful thinking. The Bible says what it says. If some parts aren’t to be taken literally, how are they to be taken then? Answers? Not at all, or the way that makes you feel good (to varying degrees depending on how “liberalized” the follower is). I know you can’t accept that, but it’s an accurate assessment nonetheless.
So… if the Jews had eaten shellfish… Jesus would never have been born?
I swear, the more people explain religion to me, the less I understand it.
Permit me to infer from the verbs used that you experience yourself as victimized by the intellectual snobbery of your non-believing peers.
If you were to choose more precise verbs, you might say with more accuracy:
those who invest the serially translated renderings of oral tradition with specific hortatory and historic authority are seen as beyond the reach of rational discourse.
I don’t think this formulation is unfair, nor is the shorthand “fundie” for fundamentalist any more insulting than any other abbreviated reference which posits a separation between the speaker and the referants.
I submit that a universe of discourse in which the ultimate authority for the major premises in an argument is faith in the divine inspiration of the underlying oral traditions and the divine supervision of the ensuing translations of the written renderings thereof is by definition, not susceptible to rational analysis,
hence
unreasonable.
Whether “enlightenment” is most produced by the application of reason or the application of faith is a legitimate point on which people may differ.
That said, ought one to snivel if, having chosen to rely on faith, s/he isf excluded from debates where reason is the touchstone.
something like that–didn’t you see Annie Hall?
Loopydude said:
Cite this specifically.
Lest you be labeled a revisionist, cite this specifically No personal logic. No,“it must mean…” Show me where Paul said this specifically. While you’re at it, show me specifically that homosexuals must by design hate God. No revisionism, No A=B, and B=C, so C must =A. Show where Paul said these things, not where you say paul said these things. Cites please!
In your zeal to criticize the revisionists (a cause I would probably support) you seem to be engaging in some of it yourself.
The absolute sad irony is that I agree with you more than I disagree.
The bible does say what it says. It’s pretty darn clear throughout. I’m not a revisionist, and don’t engage in wishful thinking. And it condemns homosexaul behavior. On that we agree.
Where I disagree with you is when you say “Paul is saying…” and then go on put words in his mouth. Paul is quite capable of saying what Paul meant! It is you who is practicing revisionism when you go beyond what he says, instead of letting his words stsnd on their own well deserved merits.
He did indeed say that homosexual acts were “shameful acts”, and he did say that they were “unclean”. He also said that they were “vile” acts. He didn’t say that thet were characteristic of an evil person and he didn’ say “gay=satanic.” You’re making a spiritual leap of faith to correctly note that the bible condemns homosexuality and then incorrectly inferring that means that a homosexual is the equivalent of Satan.
(I’m pretty much through with this…)
It might be Satanic, Loopydude, but it isn’t evil. Knowing God and loving him is evil.
This is so typical. To weasel the argument, the level of nitpick that enters into the argument defies belief. OK, fine, if “shameful”, “vile”, and “unclean” can’t be lumped in with “evil”, what can? And if “evil” and Satan don’t go hand-in-hand, are you saying there is a form of evil without Satan? There’s “Satanic evil” and “the other kind”?
Yes, there is. The Lord God of Israel is evil. He is the most evil concept humanity has ever conceived. I hope he doesn’t exist, because if he does we are all well and truly fucked, including the Christians.
alaricthegoth said:
Well, I can’t stop you can I? 
But FTR, I don’t see myself as a victim (and wonder how you came to that conclusion…) and I have no problems or quarrels with non-believers. (even the snobbish ones… ) Where I typically get engaged (here anyway…) is when people (non-believers or not) misquote the bible, or make application where even a cursory reading reveals that the text is being misapplied. It’s a fertile area. But, your inference is incorrect.
My words were mine, and therefore an accurate indication of what I meant and wished to convey. I didn’t choose them randomly. And I would generally disagree with the statement above. (as I perceive it’s “meaning”) And how would you presume to be able to render a more accurate account of my intent than I would? Is this the snobbery you were referring to?
I wouldn’t disagree if it’s use were limited to making a distinction ‘between a speaker and the referants.’ But often that isn’t the case, and if you are a regular reader you may have noticed it. It’s never been used directly towards me (of course I’m new here…) but I’ve seen it used more than once when a person dared to reference the bible in a discussion about the bible. Imagine that! What’s so perplexing is that the bible is the only document that I know of that has so many adherents and yet who are so willing to look upon it with something akin to derision. (or ambivalence, skepticism etc) More than once I’ve seen it used when there was no reason to use it other than the poster actually used biblical cites. That’s hardly a case for fundamentalism. In the end, I don’t mind either way. It’s just my opinion that people who toss the phrase around are being intellectually lazy. (or lack the intellectual cojones…)
Unreasonable to you? Or can you make a case that the application of faith (and of course by extension the existence of God and other non-trivial matters) can be empirically and scientifically discredited? If there is indeed a God, isn’t that the whole point of faith anyway? I mean, that’s the definition of faith. Look at all the data and choose for yourself whether God exists and whether you buy into his program. Lay down your 2 bucks and choose your life course and see what happens. Isn’t that right? Do you know something we don’t know?
This is an intellectually arrogant statement. I say that with some trepidation as I do not wish to offend you. Nonetheless it is arrogant to presume that a person who has faith has to suspend any inclination to “reason.”
I’m often amazed at the sheer moxy that statements like this must require. More than once I’ve wanted to simply take the opposition POV because the intellectual premise is so faulty that it is equally assailable from either position.
There are many, many thoughtful intensely bright accomplished people throughout history who have looked at all the evidence and have come to a reasoned, rational conclusion that God exists and have demonstrated their faith in ways consistent with the way he/she perceives God. Yet I see comments like this that infer that a person who displays faith is irrational or lacks the ability to reason, or in this case, must be “excluded from debates where reason is the touchstone.” That argument is absurd.
One man’s revisionist is another man’s nitpicking weasel.
Although you’ve presented that clearly, I’m guessing the point may be lost on you.
In the end, I agree with you. But Paul didn’t need your help. He said what he meant and didn’t mince words. It is ironic that you would assail revisionists and than make a comment like “gay=satanic.”
I want to make sure I have this right…
Homosexual behavior is unclean. (Rom 1:26,27 (The only bible cite in the discussion))
So…
Homosexuality = Unclean
Unclean = Evil
Evil = Satan
Satan = Homosexuals
So, we’ve rather “Paulian” people dsicussing this issue than christians (not that I’m surprised, since IMO, “paulinism” would be a better term for the current religion than “christianism”).
Now, if the fact that you can eat lobster but can’t have gay sex is based on Paul’s teaching (Since Jesus stated that not even a dot would be changed in the Law until the end of times, one could assume that he didn’t think one should eat lobsters, but apparently Paul knew better than Jesus, Peter and some others about whether the jewish Law should still apply or not), I can change the original question :
How comes it is not allowed to have gay sex but women are allowed not to obey their husbands since Paul explicitely cleared up things about both issues?
I think you have a slight misconception here. We all are sinners. It is the “out of the closet” gays who choose to identify themselved by their sins, while people who choose to sin by eating scaleless seefood don’t (usually) ID themselves by their sins.
You have to admit it is a little different if God (The God, Lets not fool around here - the creator of the universe, you, and that Nacho and salsa you are eating right now) Said you shall not do X, and you violate it maby a few time and feel sorry for it, as compaired to openly stating I am Do X, and I will continue to do X, even I know God Himself said not to do X, I which to be known as a X-Doer (take that God).
Please reconcile * and **
Applying Rabbinic thought to a “Christian” discussion. Rabbinic Judaism itself makes a distinction between Mosaic Law, the commands specifically given to Israel through Moses (Exodus 12- Deuteronomy 33), and Noahic Law, those laws given to all humanity, specifically in Genesis 9 & also by implication from Gen 1 on.
In Christian thought, the Mosaic Laws covering blood sacrifices, Israel-Gentile distinctions (including kosher diet), & civil penalties for covenantal violations (religious & sexual) have been fulfilled in Christ, while Noahic Law, which forbids idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, adultery (or unlawful sex, depending on the
Rabbinical interpretation), animal cruelty/blood-drinking, and commands establishing courts of justice (and the death penalty for murder), still applies to all humanity (Acts 15:19-29).
Pfeh. In a thread specifically about application of Biblical injunction, asking for specific citations is about as far from weaseling as you can get. Even if your strawman does bear more than a passing resemblance to Paul, it’s still a strawman and you win no kewpie doll for knocking it over.
You might also consider the distinction between an act and the person committing it, which is rather important when considering NT injunctions. According to Paul and/or Jesus (setting aside Paul’s personal foibles for the moment) an act may be evil (homosexual sex, to take the topic under discussion) but the person committing the act not evil (indeed, if we assume that evil or unclean acts make a person evil, we’re ALL evil as we’ve all broken some rule or another in the Bible). The whole “love the sinner, hate the sin” thing is more than a cheap platitude in this regard.
I’m not a fan of Paul by any means, but I hate to see such a sloppy argument against him when there are more justifiable reasons to pick on him.