Well, are any of the other sex acts condemned ever explained away? Is it just that one right in the middle that might refer to cultic Canaanite practices?
[QUOTE=badchad]
I’ve yet to see a thing, written in the bible, that isn’t arguable by somebody.
I would say the most honest answer is that the NT may not be clear and unambiguous but the safe bet is, that being down on gay sex, is the Christian thing to do.
[/quote]
And this assertion is based on what evidence?
This assertion is based on what evidence?
What is your basis for this assumption? Show your work. Make a linguistic case for how the Greek should be translated. Show the attestations. Try to actually make a scholarly case. Don’t just talk out of your ass.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Well, are any of the other sex acts condemned ever explained away? Is it just that one right in the middle that might refer to cultic Canaanite practices?
[/QUOTE]
It has to do with the location of the verse in a grouping of verses which is concerned with isolating Israel from the Canaanite cults and speaks of other ritual practices. Also because the Hebrew word translated as “abomination” had a religious meaning akin to “heretical.” Also because transvestite male prostitution was common in Canaanite temples and the Bible shows concern with it elsewhere.
Well, that makes some sense considering sacrifices to Molech is mentioned nearby. It’s only a valid argument if the Canaanites had no female temple prostitutes, as well, istm.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
If I had a friend or co-combattant in a moral-political cause who fell so egregiously, even if I’d agreed previously to help in his restoration, I think
it would be natural & could be justified to think twice just because of the
problem in maintaining an objective distance. I’d help to the degree that I
could, but I could rightly regard my closeness to the situation as being more of a
hindrance.
[/QUOTE]
I’m with GLWasteful on this. If memory serves (and perhaps it doesn’t), the good Friar has taken some rather unChristian stances on this board, and I feel that this is yet another of them…
Ted: Uh, sorry, pal, but you’re way too close of a friend for me to help!
Jesus!
[QUOTE=Scotticher]
Perhaps you are right. But I have known a few people who appear to have chosen to become “gay” in order to “stick it to” their parents. Because they were bone deep angry with them and perceived that “being gay” was the thing that would wound said parents the most. Maybe I saw the situation wrong, but it sure seemed that way to me.
[/QUOTE]
It’s certainly possible that an angry heterosexual son would claim to be gay or even engage in some homosexual activity in order to offend or get back at a parent, but the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence tells us that no male ever “became” gay! If you honestly believe that such a thing is genuinely possible, I suggest you do more research on the topic, for Dr. Dobson’s deliberate ignorance might have rubbed off on you.
[QUOTE=Scotticher]
Maybe I saw it that way because two of those people eventually (when they grew up a bit) decided that they weren’t “gay” after all, married and had children and seem blissfully happy being heterosexual.
[/QUOTE]
Implied cheap insult notwithstanding (“grew up a bit”), if the males in those relationships were ever gay, they still are! I know plenty of seemingly “happily married heterosexual” men who regularly have sex with other men all their lives, all the while denying that they’re gay. Do you really need to re-read the OP?
[hijack on]
[QUOTE=Talon Karrde]
I need to clarify my last post. The way I worded it makes it look like Dobson wrote the pamphlet in question, and he didn’t.
I spent some time trying to do a little research so I could find out how much he was affiliated with it. Apparently it was written by Paul Cameron, a notorious anti-gay researcher. He works with the Family Research Council, which was originally part of FOTF. FOTF has also spread some of his lies around.
However, apparently Dobson and Cameron haven’t exactly been getting along lately: http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/archives/2006/02/dr_cameron_resp.php (ignore the opinions of the blog writer, the information itself is interesting).
[/QUOTE]
From that last linked piece:
[QUOTE=Paul Cameron]
"I am puzzled at Jim Dobson’s attacks on my credentials. I have published over 40 articles in refereed scientific journals on homosexuality and have written two books on the subject. I am currently a reviewer for the British Medical Journal on this topic…
[/QUOTE]
As an aside, I’ve often repudiated the alleged scientific legitimacy of the British Medical Journal (BMJ). For an ostensibly peer-reviewed medical journal, they publish a hell of a lot of bullshit. And thanks to Cameron’s comment, I have even more evidence against them!
A comment from my satire of the pseudo-scientific “Society for Scientific Exploration” seems apt:
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Actually, thinking it over the biggest irony is right in the title of this thread. Is there a bigger “Self-Styled Expert on Christianity” than Polycarp? Certainly not on the SDMB. Where precisely did you gain your expertise Poly, to be doling out Bible lessons to a Christian preacher?
[/QUOTE]
In defense of Poly,I would say Poly probably knows as much(or More) about Christianity than many preachers;being a preacher doesn’t make one an expert on the topic either. I have seen little kids preaching. Poly seems to be more in the spirit of the law than the letter.
Like the Bible quotes (or writes about) Jesus,he seemed to stand by the sinners and scold the letter of the law keepers. In this sense I think Poly has it all over the Dobson’s etc..
monavis
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Are you asking for a cite where **Polycarp **specifically proclaims that he knows better how to interpret the bible than fundies? I don’t think that’d be easy to find. However, anyone who is being honest and has actually read Polycarp over the years knows this to be the case. Heck, eleanorrigby says it’s pretty easy to be smarter than the fundies. Even dumb old him has a better grasp.
I guess this was a simulpost with my #64 above yours - It goes quite beyond this one single OP.
[/QUOTE]
Bible interpretation is a life long task, and one that is open to all. If it were as easy as the televangelists or “fundy preachers” claim, there would be no need for the thousands of shades of opinion, sects and “types” of Protestanism–even the Catholics have their shades of gray, as do the Orthodox.
It is easier to be smarter than the fundies-if you take into account the historical aspects of the Bible as part of your faith. From what I’ve seen of the fundamentalists, they insist on belief without thought, without question. That doesn’t fly with most of the Christian world that regards the Bible as polycarp and others do.
As monavis said so well-being a preacher does not automatically infer superior knowledge or depth of understanding on anyone.
The name Eleanor is a feminine one, just so you know.
that should be confer. Need my morning tea.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
[T]here are later attestations (non-Biblical) of the word being applied to heterosexual sex, even to men engaging in the "sin of arsenokoitai with their wives. It might have referred to anal sex or it might have had an evolving definition.
[/QUOTE]
The word even lives on in the cognate “arse-nookie.”
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
And this assertion is based on what evidence?
[/quote]
It’s based on the clear condemnation of homosexuality, adultery, copulating with your children and copulating with farm animals in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, as I already cited. This being part of Jewish law, Jesus did say that not one jot or tittle of the law was to pass away. Jesus later broke part of the law but never advised others to do so with regards to the sexual practices above. Adultery he actually made stronger, such that even looking upon another with lust, became a sin. So regardless of anything Paul said, there is no reason to think that homosexuality, bestiality, sleeping with your parents, children or neighbor is ok. However when Paul talks of sexual immorality or whatever it’s not at all unreasonable to think that he is talking about these above practices.
Also regarding my “safe bet” if one assumes homosexuality is not sinful, and in fact it is, then they will be sinning unrepentantly and that’s really not a good idea. The opposite mistake would have no eternal repercussions.
Regarding what’s written in Leviticus, my assertion is based on reading it.
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Leviticus 18:20
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put do death; their blood shall be upon them.
Duh.
There is no reason to make a linguistic case out of it. The condemnation in the OT is very clear and there is nothing in the OT or the NT that refutes it. Paul (if he was familiar with Leviticus) probably had the OT at least somewhat in mind when he referred to no-specific sexual perversions and even if he didn’t it does not automatically make said perversion ok. I can see absolutely no reason why an agendaless person would argue otherwise.
It’s very nice of you to try and pick up the line of your liberal Christian friends, yet again. I’m sure they appreciate it.
badchad, Diognoses did say “This is a case whre I lean about 60/40 towards a general condemnation of homosexuality but the case for the cultic interpretation is not without merit.” So while that 40% still seems pretty generous (why so specific on no sacrifices to Molech, but then get all fuzzy about transvestite temple prostitutes??) he is not exactly defending the Liberal Christian line.
monavis, I know that being a preacher does not mean automatic knowledge - but I said Poly seems to thinks he knows better than ANY fundy preacher. He tried to pull out some Biblical attack line to say a preacher is contradicting the true faith. Seems pretty presumptious to me. Like I said earlier to eleanorigby*, I wouldn’t have brought up this line of discussion if Poly hadn’t tried to play Biblical “gotcha”.
All you people defending Polycarp, if you thought he agreed with your defence don’t you think he would have replied himself to at least Flying Dutchman or Scotticher? I mean, I could see him ignoring me since I’m a big bad troll, but they called him on his crap early on and he gave up the thread. Seems to me Polycarp agrees that he was out of line and you guys are just defending the concept of Polycarp to make yourselves feel good.
*sorry about the guy thing. I must have gotten you confused with another poster who took a female monicker and had some thread explaining it all. I thought it had a Beatles reference so I thought it was you. Ooops.
[QUOTE=badchad]
It’s based on the clear condemnation of homosexuality, adultery, copulating with your children and copulating with farm animals in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, as I already cited. This being part of Jewish law, Jesus did say that not one jot or tittle of the law was to pass away. Jesus later broke part of the law but never advised others to do so with regards to the sexual practices above. Adultery he actually made stronger, such that even looking upon another with lust, became a sin. So regardless of anything Paul said, there is no reason to think that homosexuality, bestiality, sleeping with your parents, children or neighbor is ok. However when Paul talks of sexual immorality or whatever it’s not at all unreasonable to think that he is talking about these above practices.
Also regarding my “safe bet” if one assumes homosexuality is not sinful, and in fact it is, then they will be sinning unrepentantly and that’s really not a good idea. The opposite mistake would have no eternal repercussions.
Regarding what’s written in Leviticus, my assertion is based on reading it.
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Leviticus 18:20
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put do death; their blood shall be upon them.
Duh.
There is no reason to make a linguistic case out of it. The condemnation in the OT is very clear and there is nothing in the OT or the NT that refutes it. Paul (if he was familiar with Leviticus) probably had the OT at least somewhat in mind when he referred to no-specific sexual perversions and even if he didn’t it does not automatically make said perversion ok. I can see absolutely no reason why an agendaless person would argue otherwise.
It’s very nice of you to try and pick up the line of your liberal Christian friends, yet again. I’m sure they appreciate it.
[/QUOTE]
You seem to be putting all your eggs in the Leviticus basket but what I asked for was a case that PAUL intended to condemn homosexuality. All you’re saying is "I think Leviticus condemns it and Paul knew about Leviticus, therefore Paul must not have liked it either. You have not actually shown that Paul said anything like that and we know that Paul went out of his way to teach that the old purity laws were null and void. You also haven’t shown that the Leviticus verse must be read as part of a code of sexual morality rather than part of the ritual proscriptions with which it is grouped. As a matter of fact, in Romans 1, a passage where Paul does seem to be talking about homosexuality, he explicitly claims that it happened as a result of idolotrous practices.
I don’t have an “agenda,” by the way. I don’t care what the Bible says. I have no vested interest in defending it. If I thought it contained any clear condemnations of homosexuality I would say so. It doesn’t matter to me. There is plenty in the Bible – including in the NT – that I think shows stunted cultural thinking. Both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament approve of slavery, for instance. Both show instances of appalling sexism. It doesn’t show any clear condemnation of homosexuality as we understand it, though.
[QUOTE=ambushed]
It’s certainly possible that an angry heterosexual son would claim to be gay or even engage in some homosexual activity in order to offend or get back at a parent, but the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence tells us that no male ever “became” gay! If you honestly believe that such a thing is genuinely possible, I suggest you do more research on the topic, for Dr. Dobson’s deliberate ignorance might have rubbed off on you.
Implied cheap insult notwithstanding (“grew up a bit”), if the males in those relationships were ever gay, they still are! I know plenty of seemingly “happily married heterosexual” men who regularly have sex with other men all their lives, all the while denying that they’re gay. Do you really need to re-read the OP?
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear, although I thought I clarified later in that post.
I do not think those people “became” gay, I think they “decided” that they were gay to spite their parents. (Thus the quote marks around gay in that post, but obviously I should have worded that differently.) And then later, after they “grew up a bit” and didn’t feel the need to “be” or do anything JUST TO WOUND THEIR PARENTS? The went back to being heterosexual, which they always were. And BTW, the two who are now married and so forth are women, should I not call women gay ever? Anyway. I believe that if you are genuinely gay, you are born gay.
You can “decide” to be a unicorn and gallop gracefully around meadows…but if you are actually a fairly clumsy giantess? Sooner or later it is going to take too much energy to maintain the fiction and you’ll most likely go back to being a fairly clumsy giantess.
And I have to go to work, so if that doesn’t explain my position I’m sorry.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would change sexual orientation just to muff their parents.
I’m sorry, I meant miff. I don’t know what I was thinking.
[QUOTE=Scotticher]
I do not think those people “became” gay, I think they “decided” that they were gay to spite their parents. (Thus the quote marks around gay in that post, but obviously I should have worded that differently.) And then later, after they “grew up a bit” and didn’t feel the need to “be” or do anything JUST TO WOUND THEIR PARENTS? The went back to being heterosexual, which they always were. And BTW, the two who are now married and so forth are women, should I not call women gay ever? Anyway. I believe that if you are genuinely gay, you are born gay.
[/QUOTE]
I would suggest that these people were actually bisexual, rather than “becoming” gay for whatever reason, then later “deciding” to go back to being straight. If someone is truly heterosexual, they’re simply not going to be interested in having sex with people of the same gender–there are those who experiment with gay sex, and I know a couple people who have and realized it’s not for them, but to have an ongoing sexual relationship with someone not of your preferred gender is generally not going to happen. I have several bi female friends who have been in relationships with women but are now married or in long-term relationships with men, because they find it to be easier that way, since so much of society is still disapproving of homosexuality.
For the record:
[ul][li]I have not been feeling well for several days. And I’ve categorically said that I don’t accept the “bound by every word of Scripture” premise that seems to underlie a lot of these arguments.[/li][li]Flying Dutchman has a point. As it happens, I did express some sympathy for Haggard, but in private to Barb, not on this board, so for purposes of this discussion that clearly doesn’t count.[/li][li]A fundamentalist, atheist, or Rastafarian for that matter, who is inclined to adopt a live and let live attitude, i.e., “I know the truth, but you’re entitled to think as you choose,” is not the target of my ire. It’s the ones who are convinced that they have the God-given (or self-given) right to insult, impugn, and generally castigate the motives of others who have the temerity to disagree with them, who piss me off.[/li][li]The issue here is not whether my brand of Christianity is better or worse than Dobson’s or whether homosexuality is a sin. Those have both already been done to death over in GD. The issue as defined by my OP is whether Dobson was acting hypocritically by his own principles. I believe he was – certainly the Priest and the Levite in Jesus’s parable thought they were engaged in important parts of God’s business. Dobson may have had the right to make his own judgment on whether he was too busy to help Haggard – personally, I think that too might have been a bit hypocritical, but it’s certainly something that one can accept as within his own private judgment. What was in fact very much hypocritical, by his own standards, was for him to agree to be one of the “overseers” of Haggard’s “restoration” and then bow out on the basis of being too busy, as the facts behind the story emerged.[/li][li]IMO, without false modesty or stroking my own ego, I’ve accumulated a breadth (not depth) of knowledge about Christianity, the Bible, etc., over the years. And as a liberal Christian, it helps to guide my own life. Where I know something pertinent to the topic at hand in a GQ or GD, I interject that, as factual data, with cite if possible and as description of “fact” [which may include restatement of what some group’s views are, for informational purposes, regardless of whether I agree with them], so stated. I also [used to] enjoy arguing my own point of view. What I’m doing when I do a “factual” post, in my own intent at least, is providing information towards a more informed debate. I may very well elide from “factual” to “opinion” in the same post from time to time, and I try to draw the distinction when doing so. I don’t consider myself an authority, just a quite well read layman. Diogenes knows Biblical scholarship infinitely better than me, as I think also does Tom~; Tom~ has expertise in Catholic theology far greater than anything I know. But I do seem to have a fair store of useful information when the general subject is Christianity and/or Bible, and I try to share it. If that seems to the Bullshit Brigade like I’m setting myself up as the ultimate authority, that quite frankly is their own perceptual problem.[/li][li]I used to share with Scotticher the perception that Dobson was a compassionate and scholarly teacher, back when Barb and I enjoyed his radio program in the mid-80s. Since then he has marked out the stance you all know and despise on the particular issues that divide the Religious Right from most other people. And I’m quite disappointed in seeing him do what he did here; I’d thought, despite his homophobia, he was above that sort of hypocrisy. That’s what moved me to pit him.[/li]Anything I missed? Aside from snipes at me for daring to hold my own opinions and express them, that is?[/ul]
[QUOTE=GLWasteful]
Except that stepping away and distancing yourself makes you something less than a friend. Closeness to the situation? The situation, in this case anyway, seems to be Haggard’s penchant for nailing and/or being nailed by his prostitute/crank dealer boyfriend. Trying to equate this to a physician deferring treatment to a family member/close friend is nonsense. Dobson isn’t a doctor. Hell, as far as I’m concerned he’s not even a human being.
Or, y’know, someone who sees the writing on the wall and desperately wants to put as much distance between his (allegedly) oh-so-pure-and-holy self and the impending trainwreck that he sees unfolding before his eyes.
[/QUOTE]
My guess, given the take these people have on homosexuality, is that he no longer considers Haggard a friend. He’s backing away for political reasons, certainly. But I also think he simply wants nothing to do with him. But it wouldn’t sound very christian-like to actually come out and say that, so…what’s one more lie?
Polycarp, I never thought you were setting yourself as the ultimate authority, just that you really seem to look down your nose at the beliefs of fundamentalists.
You do have real knowledge of the Bible, seemingly brought about by self-guided study and you are not shy about bringing it into discussions. Why you and your supporters feel that this ISN’T a self-styled expert or why it’s different from Dobson (in this aspect) is beyond me. If you think I sniped because you hold an opinion and expressed it, then as usual you failed to actually read pointed criticism. If you had responded to Flying Dutchman’s post I probably would never have entered this thread.
To be perfectly honest, this 3 man team to save Haggard sounds like a white wash anyway. In 3 months Haggard would likely say he’s “cured” and Dobson would have another converted homosexual under his belt. Is that what the Dobson detractors really want?