“They’re saying people like us deserve to die!”
“Nothing much to see here, this is just normal and ordinary.”
It’s true, but it’s also a typical way to try to derail discussions of things like this which are, and ought to be, outrageous.
Ah yes, the first in long line of “divinely inspired” preachers “elaborating on” the teachings of Christ. May God save us from them all.
Ya, impersonating my cousin is not actually doing a lot for me.
In my humble opinion, Paul was a politician who simply made Christianity more tolerable for the Roman ruling classes. He re-interpreted the gospel, and certainly brought his anti-women point of view to the fore.
Divinely inspired? Right.
Sorry, but that’s not consistent with my simple reading of it.
My take:
The tribe in the adjoining territory is urban and has lost touch with G-d. So G-d punished them by making them gay - how humiliating![sup]1[/sup] The tribe in the adjoining territory also suffers from a long litany of sins, ending with the following:
Emphasis added.
[Subtext: some of those sins seem uncomfortably familiar, no?]
Chapter 2:
So strive to be good, but don’t be a judgmental prick.
Now let’s give the long quote:
Emphasis added. Again. A plain reading indicates that homosexual orientation is God’s punishment, not a sin per se, because sins involve choice. The sins are being “…filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.”
The only thing in that list that’s possibly kinky is, “Inventing ways of doing evil”. And that’s a matter of interpretation. I guess there’s also “Depravity”. Does anybody know the Greek for that?
[sup]1[/sup]Is that homophobic? Sure it is. I’m just saying I don’t see the Fags Must Die interpretation.
Indeed! And it’s a sign that the LORD has abandoned us to hellfire. Hallelujah!
. . . maybe you thought this was, like, news. But it’s emphatically not a new thing to a whole hell of a lot of us whom the LORD has decided to mark by driving us to sinful urges as a mark of His abandonment of us due to our sins against Him.
-
“A sign” is an interpretation not supported by Romans. That’s an extrapolation.
-
Ryan, quoted in the OP, claims that Romans states that gays deserve death. In post 9, mister nyx agreed. I maintain that a plain reading of the text does not support that interpretation.
3a. The passage is homophobic, which surprises nobody. Frankly though, the particular passage and the Bible in general is a lot less homophobic than fundamentalists make out.
3b. Although I trust that greater effort can bend the text in more humane ways. Again though, I’m saying that you don’t have to do that to reject the contention that it calls for the death of gays. If anything, Paul calls for the death of those without mercy, fidelity or love, though actually I think it’s part of dissing his neighbors while simultaneously saying you are our neighbor.
I’m confused, maybe because in Spanish we never refer to it as “Jesus’ gospel” or “God’s gospel”. They’re the gospels of whomever is telling them… Marks’ gospel, Luke’s gospel… and yes, Paul’s gospel. It’s shorthand for “the way Soandso understands/explains it”.
Really?
What do you think it actually means then?
Yet it appears that’s just what they do support.
No.
Calm down, man. The Salvation Army spokesperson said that anyone who’s had gay sex deserves death. As Kimstu rightly said, untwist your panties, because it’s totally ridiculous to get upset about that. “Dial back the shock and horror” because while that may sound shocking and horrible to some, Kimstu is pretty sure that’s just because their panties are in a bunch.
Oh, sorry. I’m so hysterical sometimes.
Wait, let me get this straight. This guy was their official spokesmanon human sexuality?? From the interview I assumed he was some random higher-up who was blindsided by the question and had no authorization to discuss policy. If this is their go to guy for media relations regarding sexuality, they really need to find someone else.
Maybe he made the mistake of telling the truth about their views.
No, they don’t. If this is their “Biblical” belief, they shouldn’t feel any shame sharing it. And every decent human being should be glad that these fuckos are being straightforward. Everything’s better when they’re honest about their opinions.
Yes, they should.
Bibical belief is no excuse. The Bible is wrong.
I think the point is it would better if they didn’t actually hold their vile belief. But as long as they do hold it, it’s better that their spokesperson does not hide it.
Well if Paul of Tarsus was simply trying to make Christianity more popular among the Roman ruling class, he’d probably have tried to get around the whole “no worshipping Emperors” doctrine (which was the primary reason why Christians were persecuted in the Roman Empire). And considering the times, Paul was not a misogynist-he condemned men who did not support their families and believed both husbands and wives had duties to each other.
Noteworthy is in the eye of the beholder. Besides, if you’re going to hold tenants, make sure it’s explicitly allowed in the rental agreement.
Sounds like teenagers.
Paul actually didn’t write the women hating stuff. The earliest copies on hand of Paul’s writings don’t mention hating on women, and he refers to a woman as being “foremost amongst the apostles!” He did write that when a woman prophecizes she should probably have her head covered, but no biggie if she doesn’t. Based on how the woman hating verses first showed up in copies made in a specific region, and also appeared in various places in the passage, scholars think a copyist wrote some women hating in the column of his manuscript and later copyists wrote it down thinking it was actual verse.
All details my less-than-perfect memory can’t provide can be found by reading the works of Bart Ehrman, a biblical scholar who has devoted a lot of effort of making the mountain of research done on the Bible(specifically the New Testament) layman-accessable.
But yeah, what can you expect from any organization who takes its morality cues from a book which demands rapist and rape victim be married, slavery is totaly cool, and a man proves his righteousness before God by offering up his own daughters to mob to be raped in lieu of the total stranger staying in his house for a night? Anyone who calls themselves Christian and isn’t actively antagonized by what their own Bible says is good and just is either sticking their fingers in their ears singing “la la la” or is just a terrible person. Actually, the former is pretty terrible too. I know when I was a believer, my soul was in constant agony until I finally decided I would live by my own morality instead of what my Bible told me. And then I eventually realized I would better myself simply by not believing. And to this day, I constantly find myself doing the right thing for it’s own sake more than any Christian I know.
Incidentally, it should be noted that in Christian theology all men are considered sinners and thus deserving of death and damnation which made the Atonement necessary. I haven’t read the SA book, so I have no idea whether it means this or whether the fellow was arguing that it’d be good to execute homosexuals or its not really “murder”.