Reading over our respective posts in this thread, I cannot find a single one where I might be characterized as screaming (please quote me otherwise); you, on the other hand, have several times communicated very clearly that your veins are standind out on your neck as you type.
And listen, sister: the only reason I weighed in here is because you (and Brutus) had the giant quivering sweaty nerve to tell Kirkland to shut up because you didn’t approve of the way he defended his humanity against a hate-cultist.
You can respond to the lunatic fringe and its attack on your humanity (or not, as it turns out) any way you choose. But what gives you the right to tell Kirkland, or me, how we must respond? Absofuckinglootly nothing.
You make your case however you feel you must, but make any attempt whatsoever to define for me (or one of my “sisters”) how we must react to an attack, and expect to get called on it. Your way is your way (and those who do not learn from history, Neville, are condemned to repeat it), and telling Kirkland it’s the only way is utterly unacceptable to me.
Do you realize, gobear the plot of the little scene that’s been acted out here? Fringe pseudochristian denies the humanity of homosexuals; a homosexual human being stands up for his own dignity and humanity; and then another homosexual human being–who insists on yelling the loudest and having the last word–comes in and defends the pseudochristian from the indignant homosexual human being? Shame on you, gobear (and I mean this in all sincerity). You give Uncle Tomism a bad name.
This subject is about the role that God has given to the man and to the women. We are to respect those roles. Men should be men, and women should be women. You must read the entire passage carefully to understand; preferably, all of Corinthians.
A woman’s hair is her covering. It doesn’t stop there though, her hair identifies her. It makes her different from the men. Ok, calm down. That’s not to say that a woman with shorter hair is blasphemous. God just wants for women to be women and men to be men. Not for women to look like men and men like women.
Lissener, read Homebrew’s posts and then get over yourself. I don’t think you are understanding one word I’ve written–the shouting was a rhetorical device to show you how silly you were being,and the only veins bulging are yours. anyway, I’m done with you.
Jersey Diamond, please define how a man and woman should look. And where do transgendered folk fit into your scheme?
I just want to make it clear that I have never discussed my view of homosexuality on these boards to anyone. I have gay friends whom I am very close with. Heck musicguy who is openly gay here on the SD is the drummer for my band and I love and respect him and we are very close friends.
Yes, thank you, I have read the entirety of Corinthians. But this particular passage does not say only that women should have hair (how many women do not?) but that their hair should be covered. There is no other reasonable way to interpret the passage. It says (with my comments in italics):
To say that this passage just means that a woman ought to have hair, short or long makes no difference, is ridiculous. All women have hair, and it’s not a covering any class of women have historically chosen to remove. This passage means exactly what it says: Women, cover your head when you pray or when you go to church. Note as well that it says “pray or prophesy,” even though Paul later says “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Tim. 2) Back in Corinthians he again says that women must be silent in church and ask their husbands if they have questions, for a woman speaking in church is – again – a disgrace. (1 Cor. 14) Oh, and if you want to be saved, you evil women, then have some babies; that’s a female’s road to salvation. (Timothy again.) Ol’ Paul was quite the ladies man, wasn’t he?
To say that Paul means “cover your hair with hair” (as if it isn’t always, and naturally, covered with hair) is precisely the sort of tortured reading of the Bible that fundamentalists so frequently accuse more liberal Christians of making. The reality, of course, is that fundamentalists “pick and choose” what they will follow in the Bible just the same as liberals do – only with a heck of a lot less justification, because at least my Christian faith does not require me to be a Biblical literalist. Instead, I am allowed to interpret Paul’s letters – not part of the Gospels – as specific instructions to specific people or groups of people at specific times, which were never intended to be anything more than general instructions to the recipients and, at most, exemplars to Christians other than the recipients. So there’s my justification for gaily (ha!) praying with my head bare, and even – gasp! – speaking in church, if the Spirit moves me to do so. What’s your rationale for picking and choosing which of the dictates of Paul you wll follow, and which you will “misinterpret” or disregard?
Not only did I get feedback from SMU students, but from around the country, as the article got picked up by an email list specializing in gay and lesbian issues, and shipped around the world. You can find links to it at the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association:
My dad taught physics at SMU in like '68-'72 or so. I was a faculty brat and took a lot of art and theatre classes. My mom, a faculty wife, took art classes, discovered drugs and sex (note the dates), and was the first one on her block to get a divorce. Total memory rush seeing the name of your school.
You guys aren’t listening. I don’t have the ability to answer all your questions to your satisfaction. Even if I could you’d always find more. Just because I don’t agree with you on this doesn’t make me a hate filled “fundie cultist”. I do not hate homosexuals. But I won’t lie to them and tell them their lifestyle is okay either. Somone above said something about a gay person being left on a cold Wyoming night or something like that? If you’re speaking of Matthew Shepherd, my understanding is the motive in that incident was robbery, not his sexual preference. But, of course, if someone is robbed and killed (the perpretrator may not even have known he was gay) and just happens to be a homosexual, the gay population is going to jump right on that and use it to their advantage. I don’t appreciate being called homophobic or any other name just because I disagree with you and subscribe to the biblical teachings that it’s a sin. Someone above also wanted to know the Christian’s duty to the homosexual. I see it as treating them decent , not beating them up and leaving them to die on the street or whatever. I also see it as telling them the truth about their lifestyle in a loving manner, not sugarcoating it to make them feel comfortable in their sin. Our duty to them is the same as it is to everyone, bring them to Christ if they’ll come. As to the matter of so called gay “Christians”, I don’t wish to discuss it any more, you know my position. When a person comes to Christ, he’s to leave his old sinful lifestyle, that includes homosexuality, adultery, fornication, or any other sinful lifestyle. Jesus forgave the woman taken in adultery but also told her to go and sin no more. Can’t we just agree to disagree and leave it at that? I won’t change my mind on this. I’ve tried to share my views nicely. I’m not the only one who holds these views. I’ve read the Scriptures over and over on this issue and sorry, I just can’t see it your way.
Yes, H4E, you don’t hate gays, your religion [sub]as you and many others see it[/sub] hates gays.
I’m with you so far. Couldn’t agree more.
Now here’s the problem. Modern conservative evangelicals, fundamentalists, whatever - feel this overwhelming need to tell others how sinful they are. Trust me on this, gay people know very, very, very well how sinful you all think they are.. Why don’t you try instead, to simply be kind and compassionate, and if your Holy Spirit is such the “convictor of sin” that He is purported to be, then maybe these folks will find themselves compelled to become Christians.
What I am saying is that I KNOW you can’t bring yourself to call homosexuality OK, so fine - don’t. Just STOP making such a big deal of that, and [literally]for Christ’s sake[/literally] just start being nice for a change.
I thought I would throw in a drop of reason before others come along to flame away.
—You guys aren’t listening. I don’t have the ability to answer all your questions to your satisfaction. Even if I could you’d always find more.—
Look, you’ve raised the Bible as the justification for your views. But once people disagree about your reading (as I pointed out, I don’t think the Romans passage CAN be read to include lesbians), you respond that your interpretation cannot be questioned: that you cannot answer questions, that questions are simply an evil trick to justify sin, etc. Maybe you feel that you just don’t WANT to defend your position. But you can hardly blame people for responding to your claimed evidence.
You’re trying to win some award for irony aren’t you.
You are the one not listening. You cite the Leviticus verses and some statements by Paul. When we ask if you follow all of the Leviticus rules and all of Paul’s edicits, you said you don’t have to follow the Leviticus verses because we’re under Grace through Christ. Yet you still insist that others must follow the Leviticus prohibitions. Why do you get to choose and others don’t.
You try to say that Paul reinforces the Leviticus prohibitions and therefore they’re still in place. Yet when we question what Paul really said and discuss the actual Greek terms he used, somehow you ignore the points and reiterate your own biased point of view. Yet at the same time, as Jodi pointed out, you don’t even follow all of Paul’s rules. You pick and choose, and at the same time condemn others for doing the same. This is highly ironic since you claim to follow the “plain meaning” of the words but, for instance, the rule about covering a woman’s head is surely a plain meaning and yet you reject that. His words on homosexual sex are less plain and in fact are interpreted as “effeminate” in your perfered translation - not homosexual. But somehow you insist that it somehow is a blanket prohibition on homosexuality.
All we’re asking is for you to think logically about your position. You presented a case and we showed you clearly how we believe your interpretation is wrong. Yet instead of addressing our rebuttal, you restate your original position while ignoring the fact that we’ve already addressed it. That doesn’t fly on the Straight Dope. If you want to post here, then you need to present some arguements and respond to our rebuttals. Simply repeating the same mantra is tiresome and makes you look uninformed.
Now to address your latest post.
I’m going to skip the sheer idiotic statements about Matthew Shephard.
That is incorrect. Your duty, as given to you by Christ, is to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” And to “love thy neighbour as thyself.”
That is your duty, Jesus said. “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
In fact, as I’ve pointed out before but you continue to ignore, Jesus specifically warned against judging others.
And since Fundamentalists seem to really like Paul, let’s see what he says about it:
Until you start addressing our comments with more than restating your position and reguritating what your preacher told you and you read in a Chick Tract, you’ll get no respect here and you’re wasting your time and our time.
You are wrong. Matt Shephard was picked by by two men who made him beleive they were gay and wanted to go off with him. They lured him out to a deserted field and beat him to death. He was killed because he was gay. From ABCnews.com rperinted on this Web [url=“http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/lgbta/mattnews.htm”]
His sexuality was the reason for his death, not an incidental fact. It’s this kind of dishonesty that makes me believe that fundamentalists are actually less moral than most gay folk.
His4ever, you need to understand that while your beliefs are your own you won’t get any respect here if you don’t apply critical thinking to your own argument. You try to make a logical argument using parts of the bible but when others point out the gross contradictions in your own arguments you ignore or dismiss them. That kind of hypocrisy puts the worst possible face on Christianity. Are you really doing the lords work if you cling to convenient passages in the old testament while professing belief in the new covenant?
I understand that as a bible literalist you are in a small minority here and feel besieged. I don’t believe in personally attacking you for your beliefs but I’ll hold your feet to the fire on what you claim to believe in. If you are going to be a literalist and be consistent in your own beliefs you’ll have a lot of serious ramifications to face.
There is more than one way to understand the bible. I’m not trying to sway your belief or faith, far from it, but I think you owe it to yourself to completely understand what you claim to believ in. Don’t just parrot what your sunday school teacher told you what the bible means. I’ve known a few sunday school teachers and pastors that were completely full of crap. Understand it yourself, understand the whole word of God, not just the parts that Jack Chick likes to reference in his tracts.
Well, it appears you don’t have the ability to answer them at all. Which is unfortunate. Let’s face it: You come from a different religious and philosophical perspective so it’s unlikely you’d ever answer the questions “to [our] satisfaction” – especially to the satisfaction of the gay posters.
But I suggest to you that it ought to be a red flag to you if you cannot answer the questions at all.
As I said before: God gave you a brain and He expects you to use it. Why then would He ask you to do something, or believe something, that does not make sense? Why would He give you commands that are inconsistent? He would not. So either you are misunderstanding the commands, or (and this is my belief) they don’t come from God. (They come from Paul, who though a godly man, was a fallible man nonetheless, and a product of his time and circumstances.)
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, you should be able to explain to yourself, if not to us, why you believe as you do, and how you reconcile the various statements in the Bible – the very text your faith is based upon. If you want to cite the Bible as reason for your beliefs, you ought to be able to explain how you have thought out what the Bible says, and why you accept it. Don’t worry about being straight (ha!) with us; make sure you’ve got it straight yourself, not just in your heart but in your mind. Ask yourself: Does this make sense? Think, my sister. Think.
It may be in the end that you must admit the Bible is not to only source of your discomfort, and that you must say “I think homosexual activity is immoral and wrong because that is what God tells me in my heart of hearts.” No one will be able to argue with that. But surely you must then admit that God can and does tell other people something very different in their heart of hearts. Since you cannot show that the voice whispering in your heart is any more correct or true than the voice whispering in mine, you should not take it upon yourself to declare or to judge – which, of course, you are told not to do, anyway.
I hope you will read this post with an open heart and pray over it. I wish you nothing but good, but I believe that we all must use not just our hearts but our minds and our brains, if we are truly to live for the glory of God.
Kirkland, I’ve had about enough of your insults. If I see one more direct personal insult from you anytime soon, YOU WILL BE BANNED. No matter how pissed you are, no matter how wrong and harmful you think someone is, while you are in this forum you will obey the rules or you will be forcibly removed.