Yeah, annoying, ain’t it? But the fact is that I am not a Bible literalist, nor do I believe it is the unerring Word of God. I am therefore able and even required to use my head in interpreting it. If this makes it harder for you to misrepresent my faith or attacked – well, it would be disengenous to say I regret that, wouldn’t it?
I believe the Bible is a holy text. I do not believe it is the verbatim word of God. I have several problems with it, chief among them what I perceive as Paul’s sometimes indefensible ‘spin’ on the scriptures of Jesus. I believe even the scriptures themselves, though divinely inspired, were written by fallible men who inevitably reflected the times in which they lived. Having said that, however, there is NOTHING in the gospels that you could point to that I would say “yep, it says that, all right, but I don’t believe it.” But that’s just me.
No, actually, it doesn’t. By it’s terms the NT outweighs the OT for Christians; that is why we don’t follow the OT dietary laws, among other things.
Because I AM a Christian; I am a person who ascribes to a Christ-centered religion and who on a good day follows the teaching of Christ (albeit imperfectly).
Which actually is a pretty good example of why your generalizations are useless. I have not in this thread evinced a desire to ignore my own sins, nor have I even disclosed or had pointed out to me any sin of mine. So though I manifestly don’t[ fit in one of your indefensible categories, you nevertheless try to shoe-horn me in because it suits your preconceptions to put us all in neat little boxes. This, of course, is not my problem.
Sure. I use my head. I read it and then I as myself what I think it means. I engage occasionally (though not currently) in Bible study to engage in dialogue about what a passage means. I read books and articles that I hope might shed light on the issue. In other words, I attack a Biblical question in exactly the same way I attack a question that arises in any other sphere. But I ignore none of it. Some of it I reject (Paul’s pronouncements being the chief example) for reasons I’d be happy to go into if you want to get that detailed, but none of it is ignored.
[quoteIs it really arbitrary? If not, you and other christians everywhere can rest easier knowing that there is one less stereotype to fight.[/quote]
No, it’s not arbitrary, but I unfortunately don’t see that as resulting in one less stereotype to fight, since people such as you will continue to lump us all together, as if we all believed the same things, and, even worse, will continue to try to inform us of what we must believe, just as you have attempted here.
For the rest of it, I agree with what Poly said (which actually ought to my sig: “I agree with Polycarp.”).
FREYR asks:
In addition to the above (“I agree with Polycarp”), I will only say that the Methodist conference’s stance on homosexuality (which remains “love the sinner, hate the sin”) is ONE belief. I weigh against that belief all of the OTHER Methodist beliefs that I agree with. In addition, few if any denominations can claim that their leadership on the national level reflects the beliefs of all their individual churches; this is an example of a situation where that is manifestly not true. There are numerous individual churches that believe the Methodist Convention was in error on this point, including mine. As Polycarp said, I am not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
As DANIEL said, there is not “Christian Church.” There is no set of beliefs that you can say all Christians hold in common beyond the belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as part of the Triune God. (And you might even get some argument about that.) I can truly understand your frustration with some Christian denominations. All I am asking is for the recognition that these problems cannot be attributed to all Christian denominations, and maybe a little less talk about “[all] Christians do this” or “[all] Christians do that” as if you didn’t know that profound differences exist under the enormous canopy of Christianity.
Regarding Christians who oppose discrimination against gays, FREYR said:
Actually, the Methodist Conventions pronouncement that it would continue to adhere to “love the sinner, hate the sin” lead to near-rioting at the convention (imagine that – Methodists rioting!); shouting matches; the forced removal of several individuals from the convention floor; and the arrest (yes, arrest) of over 200 people, included two bishops. At one point, pro-homosexuality (for lack of a better term) delegates even blocked the entrances to the convention center. It was an acrimonious debate and a decision that was by no means received quietly by everyone, and to say that the people involved (on both sides) were either quiet or apathetic is simply inaccurate. If you’re interested, you might look at these links from the Methodist News Service:
Envisioning rioting Methodists somehow reminds me of Garrison Keillor and his caricatures of Minnesota Lutherans.
And your comments about the Bible and Paul, and how you try to deal with things religious as with things secular (poorly paraphrased) reminded me of a halfway decent analogy from another thread you’ve been embroiled in, a pseudo-quote of your position there being:
For Constitution and Supremes, read Gospel and Paul.
Poly, you were right earlier, and see what i get when I break my own rules? It is the Southern Baptist Convention, which has completely ignored, nay even flouted, JCs rule of “Do not be Intolerant”, altho the individual Churches do bear some responsiblity.
My only response is: the next time a politician or religious leader makes proclaimations about how homosexuality is against “Christian” values or pro-GLBT legistion is an affront to “Christianity” (without the qualifying modifier), you all will be writing letters to him/her taking him/her to task on this issue just as you’ve done with me.
“No, its not arbitrary.” Well, that clears everything up!
See, I have not claimed to be a member of any group, so it is clearly more difficult to stereotype me. From reading my name, one can assume that I am some sort of follower of ayn rand; that would be incorrect, but none-the-less I did chose that name to be identified with her. If my name could be 1000 characters long there’s a whole lot of other people as well.
Anyway. As a Christian, you want to be identified with Christ, or a group of people who try to follow the teachings of Christ. Chrsit himself refers to the OT, to his father’s teachings, etc etc. It is not off-the-wall to assume that you need to take the old testament into account. It isn’t even wrong. Anyone who is not christian and has read the NT would find that to be obvious.
Now, onto your personal beliefs. I don’t know what they are, apart from seemingly arbitrary. Perhaps this would best be placed in another thread, “The Lego Parable of creating Religion.” It isn’t much different from many scientists liking quantum physics over relativity, chaos theory over matrix mechanics, whatever. I would not expect them to be as offended however, as some here have clearly been by the assumption that the people they chose to associate with bear on their character.
Allow me to elaborate as everyone is so fond of me for.
Nothing is stopping you from creating a name for your personal religion based on your personal interpretation of the bible. This is where many of the different branches of religion come from, and that is fine. What I wonder is HOW you came to those conclusions; how did you decide that this particular interpretation was right for you? Was it because it already agreed with what you felt? That is arbitrary, unless you have a cause for your feelings in the first place. Do you see what I am trying to say?
By saying, “The christian church blah blah” you automatically take offense. “But not all Christians are like that!” So why be identified with them? It is your contention that the voices of a few tend to cast a shadow over the rest of the meek. I hardly think this is the case, especially in my personal opinion AND in the evidence I’ve given you. You are suggesting then that were I to meet a Methodist my opinion would be swayed, or that my opinion should be swayed merely by meeting you? You can shout at the top of your lungs from rooftop to rooftop, “I am not against homosexuals!” I believe you. I am not contesting your feelings on the matter. I am contesting the “stance” of the church, the manner of interpretation used by the people you chose to associate with, your use of generalizations in trying to refute the use of generalizations, etc etc.
As much as you do not want peoples’ opinion of you to be a reflection of a stereotype, you should not expect our opinion of you to reflect on the rest of humanity. I am glad that we agree that homosexuality isn’t “wrong” or so on and so forth. It still seems that the practice is wrong, as you’ve stated it is the act not the thought, but again that depends on how you interpret the bible, and I find that interpretation arbitrary, chosen to fit to a preconceived standard of morality.
I do not want to offend you, and I have not used my stereotypes as an outright attack. In fact, if I applied my stereotypes as suggested I wouldn’t even be involved in this thread. However, I am also not going to apologize for trying to get you to clearly state why you feel the way you do, why at once you want to be identified (“my” church) with a group and another you don’t. Why you read one passage of the bible and interpret it, and another and take it literally. By what standard?? I don’t find it to be a difficult question and you have demonstrated an ability to say what you think. Don’t stop now.
We’re not talking about smoking, we’re talking about love. To say, “You’re ok - it’s the very core of your being that I don’t like,” sounds just as stupid when someone says it as when I type it.
One of the things that I know you don’t believe, but something that should be addressed, is that the “LTS/HTS” attitude includes a subtext of, “You could change if you really wanted to,” and we both know there are plenty of Christian congregations, denominations and individuals who believe this is so. That, to me, is the most condescending of them all - “We know we’re right, and isn’t it a pity you’re too stupid to realize it? Eventually God will show you the way, poor sinner…” Again, we’re not talking about some vice, we’re talking about the essential core of one’s being, one’s self-identity. How can sexuality, and therefore sexual expression, be removed from a person? Does every gay person have to become a priest in order to “get right with God?”
Again, they’re disagreeing with rain, which makes them smug and self-righteous - it’s a cop-out and lacks taking responsibility, IMHO.
I do agree, but the mainstream Christian denominations still ascribe the “sin” of gay sex to the gay community, just like some would ascribe the “sin” of bigotry to the entire Christian community. Either way, it’s unfair to both groups.
You are. But if the “LTS/HTS” Christian hates the gay sex act, which is one small part of being gay, and not necessarily hate the whole thing, then surely a gay person could “LTC/HC” because they hate their intolerance of others, and not necessarily hate the whole thing. (Playing Devil’s Advocate myself, there…)
Again, playing Devil’s Advocate, if any Christian wields “the gay community” as a weapon, why is it then unfair for the gay community to refer collectively to “the Christian community?” There are as many different stripes of gay men and women as there are Christians, with just as many differing viewpoints. If you’re going to allow that gay sex is what allows people to whitewash the entire community, then a belief in Jesus Christ would surely be enough to whitewash another.
Now, not playing Devil’s Advocate, I agree with you, and I acknowledge that many, many Christians do not subscribe to the “LTS/HTS” bullhockey, and that they truly live by Jesus’ first law - love. As I pointed out, though, don’t be too upset if, when I find out someone is a faithful Christian, I get a little defensive - it’s a knee-jerk, and it takes time to get past that.
Well, first, go back to my implication of “You could change if you really wanted to” in that statement. But, beyond that, you’re right - I’m not asking a Christian to change their stance if that’s what they believe. I do, however, reserve the right to think them bigoted, foolish, and condescending. So nyeh.
Honey, who’s to say I don’t have friends like that already? I’m not stupid.
Just because I see it as foolish doesn’t mean it is. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong.
Which, again, seems awfully self-righteous. Isn’t it up to God to decide what he does or doesn’t condemn, despite having books to “prove” it (especially considering no one can agree on what the “right” interpretation of the Bible is)? I know you don’t feel this way, but it seems we’re all playing Satan’s handmaidens today.
And from the actor’s point of view, I don’t see how to extract one from the other, or how it could not be taken personally. I see it no differently than, “I sure do hate them niggers… except you, of course.”
Take it into account, yes. Absolutely abide by its dictates, no. And you didn’t say “take it into account,” you said “follow it.” As a Christian I am not required to “follow” it in the sense of abiding by its dictates. Note the enormous room between “ignore” and “absolutely abide by.”
Meaning, of course, you don’t know anything about them at all.
Except, of course, that I do not “choose to associate with them.” If they are people who profess to follow Christ and believe in His divinity, I can hardly stop them from using the label “Christian” just because their Christian beliefs do not strictly or even broadly accord with my own.
But, despite your odd insistence to the contrary, this is NOT my own religion. It is garden-variety Methodism, with only slight variation. I am under no obligation to declare my own religion just to highlight those variations, anymore than I am obliged create my own political party just because I don’t exactly follow the party line of the political party I presently am affiliated with, or to declare my own family just because I don’t agree with every action or opinion held by my relations.
Actually, different denominations of religions arise when an existing denomination reaches such an impasse over an issue of particular importance that a schism is caused. Homosexuality has not yet caused a schism in Methodism, though the increasing acrimony of the debate indicates that possibly someday it might.
I have already explained how I came to those conclusions; I see no need to explain again.
Because, obviously, the title “Christian” is one we all hold in common and are entitled to use. It is also not a title I feel obliged to surrender. If you are an American, but you do not agree with views of the government, much less every other American, do you think you have an obligation to say “not ALL Americans believe that!” or to surrender the title “American” altoghter?
I am suggesting that you “opinion” about “[all] Christians” is indefensible to the extent that you continue to assert that all Christians hold the same beliefs – a statement manifestly not true.
There is no “church.” There is no body of beliefs that are held in common by all Christians, beyond a belief in the divinity of Christ and an obligation to try to follow Him. Your insistence on alluding to a unified church where none exists only serves to throw into indefensible prejudices into sharper relief.
I do not associate with every person who claims the title “Christian,” which I in fact have no right, let alone method, to prevent others from using. If you choose to assert that I associate with them all simply because we bear the same title, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary submitted in this thread, then I can only conclude that your continuing ignorance in the matter is willful.
I doubt very much that you know enough about me to have an opinion either way. All I am asking is for the recognition that in a society where more people are moderate or liberal Christians than fundamentalist Christians, it is inaccurate to speak of all Christians as holding the beliefs of fundamentalists.
Find it however you wish; I would submit, however, that since the Bible by its terms speaks solely of acts and not of motivations, it is your insistence on including the orientation in the rubric of the sin that is arbitrary. Y’know, assuming hypothetically that it’s a sin, and assuming the Bible is the sole authority on the issue.
Which, of course, I technically have no obligation to do. The point here made is only that it is unfair to portray all Christians as holding the beliefs held by fundamentalist Christians when you know or ought to know that such a portrayal is inaccurate, and further know that the non-fundamentalist position is held not by a statistically meaningless few, but by many. This devolves not at all to what my personal beliefs are. Frankly, I would be a little more interested in sharing my personal beliefs if I felt you were a person liable to treat them respectfully. Since I doubt you are, however, based on your postings here and in the thread dealing with respect of beliefs), I think we’ll leave the further specifics of my personal beliefs out of it.
Quickie comment on Freyr’s question of “Well, if you disagree with yer church, why don’t you leave.”
Well, I see two responses.
One, where would people GO? Not many churches OFFICIAL opinions on homosexuality are positive. (Yes, I realize that the official position may not be what a majority believes in. But bear with me for a sec.) So Jodi leaves the Methodist church because she disagrees with their stance on homosexuality. Where can she go? It’s an annoying little logistical nitpick, but kinda true.
Two, if all of the people such as Poly, Daniel, and Jodi leave their churches, doesn’t that mean that the ultra-conservatives win? Jodi’s example of hte recent Methodist convention is a good example. If all those people had just left the church, then ther would be NO ONE to speak for the other side.
(Admittedly, I left my church. But for a HELL of a lot of reasons other than their stance on homosexuality.)
Finally, a general comment on the ability to change things…it will take a long time to changeany religious body’s stance on issues. As an example. I used to be Catholic. Now, the majority of Catholics I knew disagree with the church’s stance on a number of issues, homosexuality being just one. What are the odds we’re going to change the Church’s position? NONE. Did I refrain from speaking up, then? Nope…I just redirected my efforts. The diocese I went to college in has a wonderful Gay and Lesbian outreach program. I know the people that run it. They do not condemn anyone for who or what they are. And I give whatever I can to help them out. If the diocese I live in now has a similar program, I’ll do the same, even though I left the church. Perhaps a lot of moderate Christians do the same…focusing on local/smaller changes rather than tackling the larger organization.
So now you want to argue that people have no right to believe that homosexual sex is immoral? Okay, but it strikes me as a fight you have little chance of winning. And it’s certainly not one that I feel the need to get into.
The point, since I think you missed it, is that IF you accept that some people DO think homosexual sex is immoral – which I’m afraid you must do, even if you don’t like it and think it’s indefensible and stupid – then the best you can hope for from THOSE PEOPLE is “love the sinner, hate the sin.”
There are SOME. But not all. I would even say not many, since even some fundamentalist churches recognize that sexual orientation cannot be changed. (If I’m not mistaken, this is the Catholic party line as well – that it’s too bad you’re gay, but you better not act on it.) So to say there are “plenty” of Christians who believe this depends on your definition of “plenty.” There are “plenty” who think it’s a load of hooey.
No, unfortunately, just people who are not straight. Again, these are not my beliefs, but they ARE beliefs held by some Christians, who IN LIGHT OF THOSE BELIEFS, think they are doing all they can to “love the sinner, hate the sin.”
Surely you can see that this is an inapposite comparison. Rain is an event that simply occurs, without human volition or intervention. The expression of your sexuality is entirely under your control. People may disagree on whether you ought to exercise that control – and certainly I personally see no reason that you should have to – but you cannot deny that you could. You could be celibate; you just choose not to.
No, actually it’s not. Why? Because the “sin” of gay sex CAN be legitimately ascribed to the ENTIRE gay community – or at least to all of them having sex, which I hope we can agree is probably pretty close to statistically all of them. In contrarst, you cannot ascribe the “sin” of bigotry to the entire Christian community unless you TRULY BELIEVE that the ENTIRE Christian community is bigoted. I submit yet again that all of you – but you in particular --ought to know better than this.
Sure. If you want to say “I hate the discrimination against gays that I think is implicit in the fundamentalist version of Christianity” you’d get no argument from me. But I don’t hear this from you. What I hear is “I hate Christianity because Christianity hates gay people and discriminates against them.” In the end, I agree with the first statement because it’s true – and I object to the second because it is not.
Are you kidding me? Whose cause do you think is advanced by you hearing that a fundamentalist Christian called you all “a bunch of fairies” and deciding that’s grounds enough to call all Christians “a bunch of bigots”? This seems to me to be a singularly poor idea, unless your intention is to perpetuate ignorance and intolerance, not fight it.
I understand this. But if you KNOW that merely being a Christian is not enough to make someone a bigot, then it seems to me to be unfair to ASSUME the person is a bigot just because you discover he or she is a Christian. And it seems to me to be unfair for you to speak in gross generalizations about Christianity when you know those generalizations are not true. I feel confident you would object in turn if someone was trying to do that to homosexuals.
You may read that into it because you’ve been unfortunate enough to meet people who think that, but there is really no implication of an ability to change in “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Many Christians acknowledge that sexual orientation cannot be changed, but that homosexual acts are nonetheless wrong. (The Catholics and the Methodists among them.)
“So nyeh?” Look, don’t get me wrong. It is bigoted. It is foolish. It is condescending. But A LOT OF US (and I mean a whole lot) DON’T BELIEVE THAT ANYWAY.
So saying something – anything – is morally wrong is in turn self-righteous? Huh. I don’t know what to say to that, except that it appears on its face to advocate amorality.
Well, sure it is. But since He has proven so reticent in coming down and telling us for certain what is right and wrong, we all have to muddle along as best we can. The result is that some people will believe that an act which you consider an act of love is in reality an act of immorality? Who is to say that you are right, either, for that matter?
Again, an inapposite example since color is not an action – not something we can control – and therefore not a sin. Some might say it’s a reason to keep people enslaved (and they have dubious Biblical authority for that, too), but it’s not a sin. I obviously can agree that it must be very difficult to hear “I like you but I hate this thing you do,” and not take it personally but, again, I don’t see what more you can ask of people who truly believe that homosexual sex is a sin.
Again, my only point throughout has been that if you know that not all Christians ascribe to beliefs you consider abhorrent, then you do a disservice – not just to Christians but to tolerance and knowledge – in speaking as if you think all Christians do. Again, I’m fairly confident you wouldn’t want people doing that to the gay community. (And, yes, I’m well aware that some people DO do that to the gay community. But I bet you don’t like it.) That’s the bottom line for me.
Quickie comment on Freyr’s question of “Well, if you disagree with yer church, why don’t you leave.”
Well, I see two responses.
One, where would people GO? Not many churches OFFICIAL opinions on homosexuality are positive. (Yes, I realize that the official position may not be what a majority believes in. But bear with me for a sec.) So Jodi leaves the Methodist church because she disagrees with their stance on homosexuality. Where can she go? It’s an annoying little logistical nitpick, but kinda true.**
There are other faiths besides (the many denominations of) Christianity. Or investigate Atheism/agnosticism. I belong to Wicca, which has a very positive attitude toward sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular.
Jodi implied there was a LOT of fighting over this issue, so much, that if I were in here place, I would seriously consider leaving the organized Church. In that situation, I would wonder how much I really had in common with the rest of the Church. But, I feel strongly about the issue, she may not.
One point I need to make again; I’m not interested in changing the theology (of the many denominations) of Christianity. What I’m against is the various denominations using their political and financial strength to pass into secular law their own brand of dogma, especially regarding homosexuality. Witness what the LDS and Catholic Church did with the referendum in California, outlawing same-sex marriage. They did the same thing in the November elections in Oklahoma and Nevada.
Yet, when this happens, the moderate and liberal voices of (the various denominations) Christianity are hardly heard. These groups often speak as if they represent all of Christianity but no moderate or liberal voices are heard in opposition. When the Catholic Pope condemned the German same-sex marriage laws, did anyone raise a voice in opposition to him?
Now can you see how the preception of (the various denominations of) Christianity can be considered is homophobic?
Raising a voice and being heard are 2 different things. As has been pointed out earlier…typical press coverage of issues tends to be in a bi-polar paradigm…with moderate (or even a 4th or 5th ) viewpoints getting little coverage. I doubt, for example, in reference to your point about the Pope and same-sex relationships, most Americans have heard about Dignity through the mainstream media.
First of all, the fact that I am asking you to explain your belief CONFIRMS the fact that I both:
1)recognize it as existing and
2)consider it worth understanding.
I am sorry if asking you to explain yourself pisses you off.
[quote]
As a Christian I am not required to “follow” it in the sense of abiding by its dictates. Note the enormous room between “ignore” and “absolutely abide by.”
[quote]
As a who? Be careful, you don’t speak for all Christians!
I would be happy to note the enormous room between those two quoted words. Ignore is obvious and requires no explaination. Similarly with “absolutely abide by.” Its that “room” in the middle, somewhere, where you live and I am wondering where that is and how you got there that it makes you believe you can use generalizations in arguing against generalizations, or how you can find it OK that only heterosexuals can have sex in the eyes of Jesus even though anyone can think about it, or how you can tell which passages to accept literally and which ones to interpret. I would specifically like to address the quote from Matthew in which Jesus mentions adultery in the mind is the same as adultery in deed. What is your critereon for not interpreting this to mean thinking of sin is a sin in itself? If the answer is “because.” then you win; I cannot discuss the matter with you, and I will never agree with you.
Let me get this staight, I suggest that the term Christian is meaningless and suggest you make a new name. “No.” OK, then you assert the name is meaningless in the above quote because Christinas don’t even agree broadly on things. Then, clearly, when we generalize about Christians we aren’t talking about you, right? No problem. We’re talking about those other Christians, which you can plainly see. Or is because you call yourself a Christian that you are allowed to discuss it?
And I am under no obligation to even listen to any arguments you put forth. Oh, wait, that’s what I’m doing already, right? By asking you to clarify your stance and support it with the bible?
But If I were to say that Methodists don’t support homosexuality, would I be wrong?
Here’s an important distinction: I am not quick to cry out that statement. The notion of stereotypes–ready?–is that they are a general case and do not apply to any one specific person. I know its hard to NOT take stereotypes personally, and some USE them that way, but I do it every day. I’ve done it in this very thread, and millions of others where people make a general case. I know it doesn’t apply to me, no one is specifically accusing me of anything, the end.
I truly don’t know what Christians think at all, apart from their apparent inability to use the bible to defend themselves. Which is what I’m asking for. I am expected in every other thread in the world to back up my assertations, cite cite cite. I give you a cite, and you disregard it. OK, its OT, I knew that would cause a problem. So I quote the NT. Now we resort to interpreting that passage literally, not figuratively, in that it LITERALLY is the act, not the desire, which is bad. But you say yourself you are not a bible literalist. Can you, perhaps for a moment, see my frustration in trying to understand this? Perhaps???
There’s nothing inherently wrong with going to a building, muddling around for a few hours or so (my neighbor is a Greek Orthodox Church so I’m not sure how long the standard shindig is for the rest these day) with people you don’t entire agree with. But – if she’s giving them money, and they use some of that money spread a message she disagrees with, there might be a conflict of interest there. Then she’s a collaborator.
[/quote]
It was the loveliest party I've ever attended
If anything was broken
I'm sure it can be mended
My head is tired from bobbing and pretending
Listen to some bullet-head
and the madness that he's saying
This is where the party ends
I'll just sit here wondering how you
can stand by your racist friend
Out from the kitchen
to the bedroom to the hallway
Your friend apologizes, he could see it my way
He let the contents of the bottle do the thinking
Can't shake the devil's hand
and say you're only kidding
So Poly, Jodi, et al should become atheists? Or Pagans? Not likely, since they both believe that Jesus was the son of God. I maintain that there are not many places that they WOULD feel comfortable.
And come on…what Catholic is going to stand up to the POPE. Not me, and I was one of the MOST liberal Catholics I knew. For good or bad, he is the head of teh Catholic Church. What can I, as one person, do. What I am doing. Supporting my brothers and sisters. I felt strongly about the issue myself. I’ve had several friends in tears over it. But in the end, that was NOT why I left.
I guess I understand your frustration, but fail to see what any remedy is.
If you take that too literally it almost says all men should be gay… But it still says “if you look” at a woman with lust in your heart you have sinned. That is still a deed, if you want to be legalistic about it.
My gloss would have to be – just don’t treat people like objects. Sex shouldn’t be about domination. But I ain’t throwing any stones on this one! Well, I’m off to Hooters…
“And according to this I’m supposed to get a pig each year… and a comely lass… of virtue true” – Chief Wiggum while parusing the Springfield Town Charter
