Cite?
Romans 1:24-32 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Since there isn’t anything specifically about lesbians, then are we to assume that llesbians are okay but gay men are hell bound. Biblically speaking of course.
???
First, as I am not personally a Christian the old “Because the Bible tells me so” argument isn’t compelling to me. And most gays I’ve met certainly thought over the years Christianity has handed them a raw deal. It’s only certain gays who want to edit the Bible so they don’t have to abandon Christianity who think otherwise. Most of the rabidly anti-gay folks I’ve met have been regular church goes. And these devout Christians are the most politically effective in opposing gay rights. Non-religious types don’t form orgnizations just because they don’t approve much of homosexuality. They instead organize politically to advance their own political self-interests. Such as lower taxes and such.
Pure unadulterated horse droppings.
While Christianity has for most of its existence considered homosexual activity as condemned by Scripture, it is not “certain gays who want to edit the Bible” who have questioned that concept. Decent people are sitting down with what the Bible passages said in the context in which they were written, and coming up with quite different ideas about what was condemned.
I doubt any gay person has the slightest problem with the Christian God having condemned people worshipping false gods by anal-sex fertility rites. And the idea that one should not pimp or patronize enslaved boy prostitutes probably would go over big with everyone, no matter his sexual orientation. Finally, the conclusion that the Sodomites were condemned for engaging in, well, sodomy, is refuted by the Bible itself.
Second, it’s all about power. Any successful politician plays to his “base.” And if it’s convenient to band together people who are rabidly against abortion and homosexuality because it’s against their religious beliefs along with those who want government to keep hands off the money their businesses make, and perhaps throw some their way by way of favoritism contracts, then the politician will come up with a platform that cloaks them as “the traditional values that made our country great.”
Pfui.
And if for most of the history of Christianity it considered homosexual activity as condemned by Scripture imply that a plain text reading is that is what the Bible says? Now if it was just recently people were “discovering” in the Bible it actually did say homosexuality was wrong, then I’d suspect this was historical revisionism by people with an Agenda. It looks to me like it is the pro-gay side who has an agenda.
Although I will concede that many Christians have made too big a thing about being gay being condemned in the Bible. While homosexuality is a Bad Thing, it ain’t like it is the worst of sins. Note it never made the 10 Commandments, even though back then people sure were aware their were homosexuals around.
Although is this true so much for Christian countries outside the US? I remember in the late 1970s watching a French language Canadian station at night. They’d even air uncut films with homosexuals fully naked in a sexual context no less. Unthinkable in the US at the time, and probably still today. I could only conclude that Canada lacked any religious right groups with any political power.
Considering that the word “homosexuality” itself wasn’t coined until 1849, there’s actually more than a grain of truth in the concept of historical revisionism. There’s also quite a bit of translating that the Bible has gone through, so even a “plain reading” is quite impossible unless one is a complete literalist, and there are few educated theologians who are. Additionally, that text cited is from Paul, not Jesus. This has always mystified me about Christianity-- Jesus says that “men and women are equal in the eyes of God” but Paulist doctrine insists that man is the head of the woman. Since when did Paul trump Jesus?
NOTHING in the Bible was written by Jesus. And anything that appears to be a direct quote could just be a paraphrase, or a vague memory of what the witness seems to recall Jesus said. Portable tape recorders that could capture every exact word didn’t exist in Judea 2,000 years ago. Christians just have to take it on faith that the early followers were trying to be as faithful to the words of Jesus as possible.
Also, the notion that man is the head of the woman on Earth isn’t incompatible with men and women being equal in the eyes of God. The first applies to this world, and the latter the afterlife. Note the early Christians were expecting the second coming to be sometime in the lives of people alive when Jesus was crucified. Any sort of women’s lib focus would have been thought counter-productive. The Bible also says slaves should obey their masters. Not an endorsement of slavery. But instead better a slave focus his attention on the Second Coming, rather than some sort of violent slave revolt.
I see, when Christians interpert certain passages non traditionally they are revising rather than a reading of the plain text, but when we try to seperate Jesus and Paul its important to remember that it could be a paraphrase. So the standard chamges depending on whether it supports or detracts from your arguement.
Are you sure you’re not a fundamentalist?
It seems to me if someone is going to use an passage to condem gays then they likely believe the words credited to Jesus are actually his.
and isn’t this off the OP?
It isn’t a matter of finding an interpertation that is pro gay and ignoring the plain text. It’s about looking at the Bible from a more complete and honest perspective. It’s also about reconciling the different statements to form a clearer understanding of Jesus’ message.
Not true. You appear to be referring to the commentary in Ezekiel 16 (vv 49-50):
Complementary to the passage from Ezekiel, which refers to Sodom being destroyed for among other things pride, selfishness and doing detestable things, is the passage from Jude, which refers to sexual aspect of the sin of Sodom, originally referenced in the source text in Genesis 18-19. Here is part of the passage in Genesis 19 (verses 1-6) that all the later authors (including the authors or Ezekiel and Jude) are referencing:
The Jude passage (vv 4-7) is best rendered literally (so as to avoid the interpretative flavouring of words such as “perversion” that are used in many versions of the Bible to paraphrase or summarise the Greek). Jude is concerned about bad elements who have infiltrated the church.
It isn’t entirely clear whether the sexual aspect of the sin of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah was wanting to have sex with angels (who were male, of course), with male humans, or with female humans, specifically Lot’s daughters, or a general depravity whereby they had lost all self control and nothing was off limits.
In respect of Sodom and Gomorrah, it should be kept in mind that God was already angry with the inhabitants of this region for their appalling behaviour before the incident involving the angles happened. It will be recalled that Lot’s brother Abraham had been bargaining with God, progressively lowering the threshold for saving the cities from 50 good people to ten.
Ah, good old Paul who was against ever form of sex, including marriage. SOme of the crimes listed definitely come from “the other side of the aisle” - strife, deceipt, malice, slander, insolence, arrogance, boastfulness, heartlessness, ruthlessness.
I guess according to Paul’s teachings in their entirety, you have to be
- Born straight.
- Never have sex - never, no sex at all of any kind.
- Not get married, except as a last ditch effort to avoid burning forever.
I’m not making this shit up, Paul said all this.
There was some keep women silent and in their place stuff too.
Then there is still all that strife, deceipt, malice, slander, insolence, arrogance, boastfulness, heartlessness, ruthlessness you still have to deal with. It looks like no matter what, you’ll all find SOME way to go to hell according to him.
I wonder how much of all this is The Word Of God and how much was just “winging it”. I think Paul had “issues”.
You can’t seperate Jesus from any of the disciples in there is no book in the Bible where authorship is even claimed to be direct by Jesus. The only way this would be an issue is if other books in the Bible gave an exact opposite meaning. Say perhaps Jesus said that gays should be allowed to marry the same as heterosexuals. In that case, figuring out which is most likely accurate becomes an issue.
But when homosexuality is mentioned anywhere in the Bible, the message isn’t “it’s OK to engage in gay sex.”
Well, enough about just gays, or just Paul. The real hardcore “values” thumpers ignore him too when it applies to them.
The best way to counter them is to keep every slimy thing they say like a treasure, and them bury them with it at the most appropriate (destructive and “vengeance productive” times).
Deliberate anti-family Attitudes and Gay/Lesbian/Black/Etc Baiting For Votes
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784261177&path=!news&s=1045855934842
The Virginia Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group, were incensed at Marrs’ blatant attempt to stoke anti-gay sentiment in a July 6 campaign fundraising letter. …
“The Brad Marrs letter demonizes gays – demonizes me,” Pence, who lives in Marrs’ district, told The Times-Dispatch. “And George Allen, by appearing with him, is implying his approval of that.” … But the point of the letter clearly was to fire up the party’s conservative base.
More recently, gays and lesbians have become a favorite GOP bogeyman in the party’s zeal to placate the religious fundamentalists and social conservatives who are the party’s base. ,Moral authority?
The Allen that Lampo beseeched is the same guy who, as governor 11 years ago, used his call-in radio show to go off on an anti-gay tirade in response to a question about a high-profile custody case involving a lesbian mom.
Allen called such gay relationships “unnatural,” adding that it is “not in the best interests of a child to be raised in that environment.” Society shouldn’t condone such relationships, he said.
Virginia GOP gays: This is your shining beacon of hope?
While governor, Allen was widely viewed as hostile toward African-Americans as well as gays and lesbians. The possible candidate for president in 2008 has recently sought to moderate his image. But reinvention has limits. While saying that Marrs’ letter “went too far,” Allen declined to withdraw from his kickoff.
Marrs has no such presidential aspirations to temper his behavior. He wasn’t apologizing or saying much of anything about his letter.
He is simply doing what Republicans of his ilk do in the heat of a campaign: find someone to scare or to demonize. This has been a winning formula for some time now.
http://www.washblade.com/2005/7-29/news/localnews/primary.cfm
Republican challenger defends anti-gay primary
GOP nominee says ‘Christians and gays despise each other’
Asked how he thought his religious values would affect his work as a delegate, Craddock said, “I am a Christian.” (my comment: Oh really)
“Christians and gays hate and despise each other,” Craddock said in a follow-up phone interview.
Asked about his position on gay rights issues, Craddock told the Blade, “The healthiest situation is for a child to have a mother and a father. The state has an interest in promoting the healthiest situations.”
“The state shouldn’t subsidize unmarried couples,” Craddock said, “and unmarried people shouldn’t have the ability to share health insurance.”
“Famil” is the basis for most planks in Craddock’s platform - reduce traffic so people can have more time with their families, lower taxes to reduce financial burdens on families - and he opposes marriage rights for gays.
The Religious Right and Gross Hypocrisy
Broadcasting Network’s The 700 Club, host Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America, blurred the distinction between radical Islamists and the Muslim community at large, claiming that Islam instructs its followers to commit acts of terrorism:
ROBERTSON: Don’t you feel it rather interesting that every time you have a story about terrorism, it is linked to Muslim extremists? You don’t hear somebody, “Christian extremist killing film producers, Christian extremists blowing up trains.” It just doesn’t happen. But it’s Muslim extremists and, ladies and gentlemen, Islam, at least at its core, teaches violence. It’s there in the Quran in clear, bold statements. Well over 100 verses dealing with violence against infidels, and that is what they’re taught.
However Christian Violence is Ummm Like Cool Huh Huh
Robertson, host of Christian Broadcasting Network’s The 700 Club and founder of the Christian Coalition of America, called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
From the August 22 broadcast of The 700 Club:
You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.
The Religious Right and Family Values Hypocrisy
Bishop Eugene Ward Jr. of Cleveland’s Greater Love Missionary Full Gospel Baptist Church, who was so full of the spirit (or something else) to say gay marriage was a bigger threat than bin Laden.
“If we allow same-sex marriage, it will be the beginning of the fall of the nation,” said Bishop Eugene Ward Jr. of Greater Love Missionary Full Gospel Baptist Church. “It’s important to the future of humanity.”
…
“It’s not that I say it’s wrong. It’s that the Bible says it’s wrong,” Ward said of same-sex marriage. “I’m a firm believer if we’re going to save our society, I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden coming in and attacking Cleveland. But I’m concerned about the enemy that is already within.”
Comment: It’s official, we are the Enemy. Cool. What a frickin’ rush. I always wanted to be a supervillain. Mmmmm. Yeah.
Later in the story…
“Police chaplain jailed on charges of domestic violence”
Friday, November 04, 2005
Gabriel Baird
Plain Dealer Reporter
A Cleveland minister who is also a Police Department chaplain was jailed Thursday, accused of beating his wife.
Bishop Eugene Ward Jr., the 51-year-old pastor of Greater Love Missionary Full Gospel Baptist Church, was charged Wednesday with domestic violence and aggravated menacing.
Antoinette Sims-Ward told police that the couple were at home about 9:30 p.m. Tuesday when they began to quarrel. She said she was on the phone and he was upset by her conversation.
“I’m tired of you and your mouth,” he said, according to her statement. He told her to get out and “go see your boyfriend.”
Ward declined to comment on the charges, but in a police report he said he was attacked by his wife. He told police his wife started the fight.
Both told police that during the tussle, her nightgown and panties were ripped off.
She said he choked her with the phone cord until she saw white dots and nearly passed out.
Officers said her neck was slightly bruised and red. Ward denied choking her. He told police he accidentally knocked her down some stairs.
Naked except for an overcoat, she ran to a neighbor’s home.
She told police Ward had assaulted her three times in the past 12 months.
They married about 10 years ago and have an 8-year-old son.
Ward filed for divorce in December 2002, but the case was dismissed in 2004 when the couple didn’t attend a hearing, a court official said.
Comment: Now that’s some real fucking family values right there.
The Religious Right and Stupidity
A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates who want to use the shots aggressively to prevent thousands of malignancies and social conservatives who say immunizing teen-agers could encourage sexual activity.
Although the vaccine will not become available until next year at the earliest, activists on both sides have begun maneuvering to influence how widely the immunizations will be employed.
Groups working to reduce the toll of the cancer are eagerly awaiting the vaccine and want it to become part of the standard roster of shots that children, especially girls, receive just before puberty.
Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage. Several leading groups that promote abstinence are meeting this week to formulate official policies on the vaccine. …
The vaccine appears to be virtually 100 percent effective against two of the most common cancer-causing HPV strains. Merck, whose vaccine is further along, plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration by the end of the year for approval to sell the shots.
Comment: Unnecessary death by cancer is OK, nooky isn’t, and THEY want to make the decision for you
Comment: However, they want to control your death too. Terry Schiavo. Nuff Said.
The Religious Right as Being AGAINST Family Values
Articles of faith: Biblical values for American families
If we have any intention of preserving marriage or protecting families, we must base our support on values that are unchangeable: faith, hope, and love. The greatest among these whether the couple is same-sex or heterosexual is love
By The Reverend Jay Emerson Johnson, Ph.D.
Religious opponents of equal marriage frequently use the Bible for justification of their stance. In March the Southern Baptist Convention released the Nashville Declaration on Same-Sex Marriage, in which it based its opposition to equality on the biblical teaching that God designed marriage as a lifetime union of one man and one woman. For biblical literalists they don’t know much about the Bible. Biblical families and American families share the word family in common but not much more. But if we look beyond the radically different structure of biblical marriage, modern families can still find timeless values in the Scriptures to guide them.
The structures of biblical families are rooted in ancient cultural practices far removed from the sensibilities of Western society; the authors of the Bible would scarcely recognize the partnership of equals that marks a contemporary American marriage. But this doesn’t mean we should abandon the Bible as a guide to family values. As the mutable institution of marriage evolves with shifting cultural norms, the Bible continually calls us back to what truly matters in human relationships.
Societal definitions of marriage and family will inevitably change over the course of history. It’s clear that what is important in the Bible is not a family structure based on biology, or even heterosexuality, but the quality of love exhibited in the relationships. And if same-sex couples exhibit such spiritual values, they deserve the legal protection and civil recognition of marriage.
If we have any intention of preserving marriage or protecting families, we must base our support on values that are unchangeable: values such as faith, hope, and love. But the greatest among these–whether the couple is same-sex or heterosexual–is love.
Abortion Bombings - More Death and Mayhem, But It’s Christians So What The Heck
Just as Congress responded to the 1963 bombing, among other events, by passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a more recent Congress responded to rising anti-abortion militancy with the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. But, while access to clinics has been aided, violence against them has increased.
Since the anti-abortion movement turned violent, five people, including two doctors have been shot to death in front of abortion clinics, according to the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.
There also have been 47 bombings and 151 arsons at clinics since 1982, according to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. They include 13 in 1997, twice the number of the previous year.
They include two bombs that exploded within an hour of each other in January of last year, destroying a clinic in suburban Atlanta and injuring seven people. Authorities received a hand-written letter signed by “The Army of God” claiming the blame for that double bombing.
“Anyone in and around facilities that murder children may become victims of retribution,” it warned. “The next facility targeted may not be empty.”
But the anti-choice movement has no time for debates. They would rather take the issue into their own hands.
With that, they forfeit moral authority, the most powerful weapon civil rights advocates and other movements had on their side. The militant anti-choice movement apparently doesn’t think it needs moral authority. Not when it has bombs.
That’s their message: They’re pro-life, as long as they get what they want.
That’s not pro-life. That’s just anti-choice.
The Religious Right On Terror - We Deserve To Be Blown Up
JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we’ve been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters – the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats – what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact – if, in fact – God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.
PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that’s my feeling. I think we’ve just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven’t even begun to see what they can do to the major population.
JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU’s got to take a lot of blame for this.
PAT ROBERTSON: Well yes.
JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I’ll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way – all of them who have tried to secularize America – I point the finger in their face and say “you helped this happen.”
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we’re responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system…
The Religious Right On Horse Fucking Really!!!
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/06/bizarre_sex_habits_of_the_extreme_rightwing.php
Bizarre Sex Habits of The Extreme Right-Wing
Last night, anti-abortion extremist Neal Horsley was a guest on The Alan Colmes Show, a FOX News radio program. The topic was an interesting one - whether or not an internet service provider should allow Horsley to post the names of abortion doctors on his website. Horsley does that as a way of targeting them and one doctor has been killed. In the course of the interview, however, Colmes asked Horsley about his background, including a statement that he had admitted to engaging in homosexual and bestiality sex.
“Is it true?” Colmes asked.
“Hey, Alan, if you want to accuse me of having sex when I was a fool, I did everything that crossed my mind that looked like I…”
AC: “You had sex with animals?”
NH: “Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule.”
AC: “I’m not so sure that that is so.”
NH: “You didn’t grow up on a farm in Georgia, did you?”
AC: “Are you suggesting that everybody who grows up on a farm in Georgia has a mule as a girlfriend?”
NH: It has historically been the case. You people are so far removed from the reality… Welcome to domestic life on the farm…"
Comment: I wonder what the Bible says about mule fuckers. How about Paul. e’d probably have a massive embolism.
Girls can’t have girlfriends, boys can’t have boyfriends, and abortions are right out. But animal sex is like uh cool and stuff.
It’s all true. I couldn’t make this shit up if I tried.
Now that’s scary.
Keep it in the public awareness, Keep repeating it louder and louder, and heap shame and ridicule on them at every opportunity. And if that other slimebucket Phelp shows up in your town, I’ll give you a nickel to kick the shit out of him.
And your point is…some on the religious right are nuts. Right? Well, true. Some of them are. You certainly aren’t saying that all on the religious right are nuts, and these are just some representative samples, are you? That would be like me pointing to Joshua Macave Brown and David Don Carpenter as your typical homosexuals. But that would be foolish and wrong of me.
No, not all of them are. There are those who are honest and sincere. But We’re not talking about them. They aren’t the ones pandering to bigotry, ignorance, hate and fear for votes. They aren’t the ones trying to insinuate themselves into areas where they don’t belong. They aren’t the ones trying to create a Jesusland - with themselves in charge. They aren’t the ones trying to subvert the constitution or the workings of government. They aren’t the ones making all the noise. On the other hand, I would not mind seeing the “religio-fascists”, dominionists, wingnuts, hypocrites and scumbags taken down. After all, they are the ones causing the problems. It’s simple - follow your religion however you please. Believe whatever you please. But leave the rest of us alone.
But this thread really is not about the non-crazy or non-dangerous ones. Keep to the Constitution, and KEEP the nonestablishment clause. Keep a separation of church and state. Nobody should be told what to believe or what “brand” of God to follow. Laws should be written according to public good, security, control of interstate commerce, making treaties etc - just like the constitution says. The government has no business in religious affairs, and religious affairs have no business in givernment - no matter what the wingnuts say.
Debating homophobic bible-literalists = feeding trolls = negotiating with terrorists = trying to teach a pig to sing = something else about pigs and pearls.
As long as you even bother to engage them, the battle remains unwon. Until they’re standing out in the dark going, “Hello? isn’t anybody gonna argue with me? Hello?” you’re still playing by their rules.
They built the closet, let them live in it.
Sheesh. I meant to post this in the Pit thread that has branched off from here. Sorry.