How does a plain text reading of the Bible work on, say, slavery?
“Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
Interesting that one would choose this translation, instead of the more common “so that we may know them”.
Particularly in light of the fact that the meaning of the story has been the subject of great debate. Here’s the wiki to get ya all started @
So we can just ignore this,
Ezekiel 16 (vv 49-50):
“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”
Help the poor and needy?
Fuck that, we can make it about SEX,
Yeah, lets blame the homos!
I repeat. Have a consistent arguement. Even if you personally don’t believe, if your argument comes from an assumption that the Bible is accurate concerning the quotes about homosexuality then you must assume the quotes attributed to Jesus are accurate. If you disregard those as not the words of Christ then disregard the quotes on homosexuality as well and there’s nothing to discuss.
Are we going to assume for the sake of this discussion that most Christians believe the Bible to the inspired word of God and that is why they believe God says homosexuality is a sin? Those same people believe the words of Christ are indeed the words of Christ. Do you agree?
It’s hardly mentioned at all. That part of the problem. Liberal Christians will consider context and cultural influences while conservative Christians view each verse more literally when looking for moral judgement for todays society. The arguement is does a specific verse apply to all gay sex by anyone or is this verse speaking about certain specifc practices of that day? That’s why I mentioned lesbians previously. The Bible doesn’t specifically condem sex between two women. Conservative Christians do.
If we assume the Bible is the inspired word of God we don’t have to assume that any one verse gives us the complete picture of God’s commands and attitude about certain actions and whether or not they are sinful. There are few verses that deal specifically with the physical act but there are other verses that speak of humanity and God’s love for his creation, which would apply to the gay community as well.
There’s also the relationships of Ruth and Naomi,
David and Jonathan,
More details here There is a honest arguement even for those who accept the Bible as the word of God, that some types of homosexual relationships were acceptable {let’s say sincere heartfelt love} while others were not.
Gee, That sounds remarkably similar to hetero relationships. Do you suppose God is no respecter of persons or something like that?
My own logic is that since God sees the heart and soul of a person then no physical act by itself can be a sin. As with hetero relationships it is what is in the heart that determines whether the physical act is sin. There’s a good arguement that it is the misunderstanding and incorrect interpretation of the scriptures, as well as the plain bigotry and homophobia in our culture, that has kept the gay community from having the equality that God intended and Christianity itself has been the stumbling block.
Please do not put words into the quote box that are not the words of the poster being quoted.
Thank you
[ /Moderator Mode ]
[QUOTE=SteveG1]
Actually that’s not what he said at all. He was refering to it as his sinful behavior before he became a born again Christian.
I agree that we need to point out and make public, hateful behavior by the RR that assumes to speak for God and Jesus, but we need to maintain our own sense of morality and not return hate for hate. It doesn’t do any good for anyone.
There are many good and loving Christians in this country who may be somewhat misguided but have a sense justice, that we can appeal to. If we attack Christianity as a whole we only add fuel to the fire we’re trying to put out. Heaping shame and ridcule on them will only hinder the long term goal, although it might bring some temporary satisfaction.
They had slaves, they sometimes were slaves, and then they had slaves again. So slavery must be a good thing. :eek:
Ruth and Naomi were both married women who bore children. Similarly, David and Jonathan were both married men who produced children. This does not lend credence to the argument that they were lesbians and homosexuals respectively. The best you could say is that they were bi.
Apologies to tomndebb and SteveG1 for the misquote. Won’t happen again.
Yeah. besidse the whole “gays cause Sodom’s destruction” has already been beat to death repeatedly anyway. And, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we may know them” had nothing to do with sex, it was the “who are these strangers-oh let’s just lynch them whoever they are” attitude. Sodom was condemned for arrogance, greed, cruelty and inhospitality. It’s all been translated, retranslated and explained by many many rabbis and priests. The crime was NOT sex of any “variation”.
I hope it doesn’t happen again. It better not. I did not cherry pick. Those are/were genuine news articles and actual quotes. Besides, the one who liked the idea of buildings being blown up by terrorists - that Robertson clown - you DO realize he actually ran for president once, don’t you? You DO realize he still has more power than he should, don’t you? Pretty fucking frightening to think of a fanatic zealot and psycho like that having his hand on the newkewlar button.
Here are Paul’s words as to marriage and stuff:
“It is well for a man not to touch a woman…. It is well … to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” (I Corinthians 7:1, 8-9)
However, even in marriage, the operative word should be NO as much as possible. No sex. If you can’t resist sex, get married. But even then, try not to do IT. Accordint to some churches, the only permissilbe purpose of sex is to procreate. No other allowable purpose. But, no birth control either. That really translates into no sex for most people. However, there is one large group for whom marriage is impossible. They can’t do IT, and they aren’t allowed to marry so they could do IT. They’re screwed, blued, and tattooed. Paul had ISSUES. He had some sort of deep problem with sex I think. In some of his verses he talks about love this and love that, but in others cases he is one of the most close minded and judgemental people around. Issues.
Prejudice against same-sex unions stems from two verses in the writings of Saint Paul. - Only 2 verses. Just TWO. And they have been translated, mistranslated, rewritten, altered,etc (and they HAVE). Even if we knew for a fact what the original text and intent was, it’s nobody’s business. In short, people who want to follow Paul’s teachings can be my guest, but keep your nose out of other people’s lives and your mouth shut.
A sentence early in the body of ONE letter was understood to be a heavy and holy prohibition of same-sex passion and intimacy. (Romans 1:26-27). From that first Christian generation until now, in the long development of our tradition, homosexual activity has been condemned as morally repugnant and fiercely forbidden. These verses still stand as the capital New Testament text that unequivocally prohibit homosexual behaviour. More prohibitively, this text has been taken to mean that even a same sex inclination is reprehensible, so that a type of humanity known as ‘homosexual’ has steadily become the object of contempt and discrimination.
So, even if teh evil gay never ever has sex, and never ever even thinks about it (impoure thoughts) he is like, all doomed and stuff. Just because.
St. Paul never uses the word ‘homosexual’. Instead he uses the terms ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’. The operative term in Paul’s original Greek is ‘phooskos’, meaning ‘in born’, ‘produced by nature’, ‘agreeable to nature’. If it be granted that gay and lesbian identity is ‘natural’, then St. Paul can be scrupulously honoured wherever homosexuality is seen to be rooted in Paul’s own word: phooskos, meaning “agreeable to nature”.
But, why is Paul always the Big Kajuna? I thought The Bible was about God and Jesus and Abraham and Moses (those guys). Paul is just another guy in the Bible. Why is he so special? Did Paul get a big promotion and fire them? Sure he said some good things about love this and love that and be nice, but we never hear about that, all we hear is the “Don’t Do Anything Or You’ll Burn” crap. So who is cherry picking? How about those religions who don’t care about Paul at all? Start with the jews. Should they be forced to obey the dubious teachings of someone they don’t recognize? How about Muslims? Should they have to obey Paul? Religion as the Religious Right would have it, would impose their heresies on entire other separate religions. Not acceptable.
Even the great Billy Graham made a public statement a few years ago to the effect that “all homosexuals should be castrated” - an intemperate and irrational utterance for which he publicly and emphatically apologized soon afterward. Some people credit Graham for apologizing. I say fuck that. Maybe he was saying what he really thought and lost his nerve after - just like that other clown Robertson, who always backpedals after his hateful shit comes back to him.
Billy Graham was supposed to be one of the better ones, or at least he pretended to be. All peace and love and shit. Right? I guess he fooled all of us. He had the ear of how many presidents?
Well I just convinced myself. No making nice nice. I don’t give a damn about the so-called moderate “nice” religious right either. They all want the same thing - to dictate how others will be allowed to live their own lives, with their made up rules for OTHER people to follow, their “I fucked horses in the ass but I repented and you are not allowed to do anything or question me”, and their “I will tell you how to live while I can stangle my wife”, etc etc etc etc etc.
Keep them out of govenment and keep them out of everyone else’s personal business. Better yet, tell them to shut the hell up, quit chery-picking and misquoting THEIR book, and go away.
As for David and Jonathan, or Ruth and Naomi, I don’t accept your argument one iota. I don’t care that they produced children. If they were bi, they were still diddling “wrongly and sinfully”. If they also produced children, then that is no excuse. It only means they played both sides of the fence, doubling the sin (double the potential sex partners, double the sin) by PAUL’S reasoning. You can’t take it up the butt and then say “but I’m not gay, I have kids”. It’s not even an argument at all. It’s horse shit.
I know they are actual articles. But I felt (and still feel) you cherry-picked the most egregious examples you could find to support your hatred of the religious right.
I don’t believe they were bi. No reasonable person does. Those wishing to justify homosexuality hold these bogus examples up as “proof”, when Occam’s Razor cuts the “proof” to shreds. It is laughable to say they were homosexuals.
OK, I’ll let that slide for now. What you or I believe doesn’t matter. What matters is when someone tries to make his view The Law. How about some really bogus things that are being pushed, some of them to the extent that they are actual court cases?
How about Intelligent Design? The religious right is fighting for this. It does not matter that they are wrong, it does not matter that many major religions don’t believe it. The RR is pushing that ID must be taught as “science” or as “alternative scinetific theory”. The RR want it to be The Law. MY church dismisses ID. Is that not forcing a false doctrine on other people?
How about evolution in its entirety? The RR dismisses it. It does not matter that major religons do accept evolution. MY church accepts evolution. The RR want it to be The Law. Is that not forcing a false doctrine on other people?
How about “young earth”? Another falsehood being pushed. It again is based on either a false literal reading, or a deliberate misinterpretation. Yet, these things are being fought in the courts.
How about The Rapture? It has no basis whatsoever, yet it is a cherished belief among the religious right.
Again, how about when issues are deliberately forced into a narrow view - my example about the cancer vaccine - It could work, it could save lives, but the RR is fighting it tooth and nail because someone somewhere might have sex. Pretty fucked up. Their narrow prejudices and agendas take priority over human lives. They are trying to make their view The Law, even if it kills someone.
My position is simple and it still holds… believe whatever you want. I don’t care if it is right or wrong. I don’t care if you make burnt offerings to the flying spaghetti monster. I don’t care. Whatever makes you happy. My big problem is when the RR tries to force their beliefs on other people and tries to influence the courts or legisalture to make it the law. That I have a huge problem with.
Religion (the RR) and its accompanying “values” have no business influencing The Law and have no business intruding where they are not wanted.
I’ve wondered that myself, particulary since Paul was a Giant Douche. The only reason he gets attention is that he was responsible for helping Christinaity become more then a jewish sect, but I don’t think that means that his words should be taken as gospel, since he never even met Jesus.
Why didn’t Peter ever get around to writing a book? He was the guy Jesus actually appointed to be “the rock on which I build my church”.
Egregious? Most egregious? These people, such as Falwell, Robertson, ARE the religious right. They are the leaders and spoksmen. They are the money men. They are the driving force. How did I miss this gem before? I didn’t have to hunt for the most egregious examples. They jump out and yell “here I am”. Even the “moderate and reasonable” one, Graham, said some horrendous things and had more infulence than he sould.
Make up your mind. Let’s use the Razor. The simplest explanation would be that they did love eachother to some extent. Why else all the flowery romantic sounding talk about staying together, dying together? Let’s simplify even more and applya the Razor to the Raozr itself. Why should we even care what they were?
I have made up my mind. I never said they were bi. I said the best you (or anyone) could say is that they were bi. I’m not denying that they loved each other. I have many friends that I love. This doesn’t mean that I want to have sex with them or that I have sexual feelings for them. To extrapolate otherwise is looking for something that isn’t there.
Fair enough. Still, does it matter? Really, who cares? I don’t care if you want a wife, a husband, or a an occasional “whatever”. It’s none of my business. I don’t care if you believe in Paul, or Odin. Again, it’s none of my business. Likewise, whatever my beliefs or “interests”, they are nobody else’s business. The religious right doesn’t see it that way.
My big “thing” is the insistence that one version of one religion might be (with the force of law behind it) be pushed on people who don’t believe it, don’t need it and don’t want it. They want to effectively remove the nonestablishment clause and make their “religion” the law. There are also many more issues than just “the gay question”. It is not “Joe Average” or “Jack LeaveMeAlone” who keeps pushing the issues and trying to dictate, it is the religious right, and they don’t care about anyone else’s beliefs. Finally, if anyone is pushing hate and intolerance, it is the religious right.
Yea, but neither did the people who wrote the gospels.
I agree with you that there should be a clear separation between church and state. I don’t want religion to be established by law and I don’t want religion forced on someone who doesn’t want it. I have a serious problem with the majority of the religious right. They have made hateful comments and they as a group do not speak for me.
You could argue that Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus:
Also, it is generally accepted that Peter wrote I and II Peter.
Well then, in that case, we have something we completely agree on, no matter what differing opinions we have on other things. 