Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The bible and homosexuality
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 316 of 323 (117782)
06-23-2004 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by truthlover
06-22-2004 10:38 PM


truthlover writes:
quote:
I couldn't even find this quote by me.
Yes, you do seem to keep forgetting it. You'll find it in your post 118 upthread.
My point in bringing the story of Lot from Genesis 19 into the discussion was to rebut your assertion that the bible (or scripture, if you prefer) condemns cowardice. If it did, it should certainly say something about what is probably the most disgusting act of cowardice ever conceived. It does not, and in fact in 2 Peter 2 it refers to Lot as being just and rightous.
quote:
I cannot imagine what that has to do with anything at all...
Not surprising when you consider that your memory is rather faulty. It has to do with your assertion that the bible (er, scripture) condemns cowardice.
quote:
Because of his constant references to Paul as "homophobic," I made an assumption that he agreed. It seems bizarre to call someone homophobic and then to suggest he approved of loving, monogamous homosexual relationships, but if that's what he says he's doing, then I'll grant that.
My bad; perhaps I didn't state my case as well as I should have, but I think you're carrying the point a little too far. I consider Paul homophobic if we are to take the Romans passage as condemning homosexuality in all its forms. I don't take it that way because the passage doesn't seem to condemn homosexual activity. If anything, it seems to condemn lying about God. God's punishment for doing so, as described by Paul, consisted of forcing straight men and women to perform gay sex acts. This must have been revolting to the people who apparently lied about God; I know I would be revolted if forced to perform a heterosexual act, or even a homosexual act for that matter.
By the way, I never said that Paul approved of loving, committed homosexual relationships, only that he doesn't appear to have condemned them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by truthlover, posted 06-22-2004 10:38 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by truthlover, posted 06-23-2004 9:28 AM berberry has not replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 317 of 323 (117783)
06-23-2004 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Zachariah
06-22-2004 8:41 PM


You really haven't studied much history, have you Zach?
quote:
Tell me about all the nasty conservatives that tried to get in the way of the civilrights and womens movements.
Okay, where were the conservative Christians when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on that bus in Montgomery? Where were the conservative Christians when Emmit Till was brutally murdered? Where were the conservative Christians when Goodman, Cheney and Schwerner were murdered? Where were the conservative Christians when MLK gave his historic I Have A Dream speech on the Washington mall? Where were the conservative Christians when the firehoses and attack dogs were loosed on peaceful protesters in Birmingham? Where were the conservative Christians when the Little Rock 9 were being persecuted for the simple act of registering for classes at Central High School?
I'll tell you where they were: They arrested Rosa Parks, they killed Till, Goodman, Cheney and Schwerner, they arrested MLK and tried for all they were worth to paint him as a communist, they loosed the atttack dogs on the Birmingham protesters and they issued death threats against the Little Rock 9!
The Southern Baptist church, the largest of all protestant faiths in the US, was founded for the purpose of defending slavery (the national Baptists had taken a position opposing slavery). To this day, the Southern Baptists insist that women not be allowed to preach and that they submit to their husbands. This disgusting faith only got round to condemning slavery in 1996! My, what brave soles they were for doing that, huh?
Why don't you show me where, at any point in our history, conservative Christians have ever once stood up for any socially progressive movement?
There are other points in your post that beg a response, but I see that Rrhain has beat me to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Zachariah, posted 06-22-2004 8:41 PM Zachariah has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Zachariah, posted 06-23-2004 11:46 AM berberry has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 318 of 323 (117869)
06-23-2004 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by berberry
06-23-2004 3:05 AM


My point in bringing the story of Lot from Genesis 19 into the discussion was to rebut your assertion that the bible (or scripture, if you prefer) condemns cowardice.
Well, this doesn't seem to have turned out too bad in the end.
Sorry. Saying that I had a faulty memory on this subject is accurate, but in my own defense, the reason I didn't remember and the reason I didn't know what you were trying to rebut is that I never intended to assert such a thing, so I didn't realize I had said something that sounded like that. I was simply pointing to a pattern, and the thought in my mind for that pattern was mostly Revelations' statement that the cowardly won't enter the holy city. It lists fearfulness first, as a matter of fact (Rev 21:8).
There is such a pattern, with the Psalms full of statements not to fear and statements like "The righteous are as bold as a lion."
Since you appear to be saying (I hope I'm getting this right this time) that since the writer of Genesis doesn't condemn Lot for his actions, then the Scriptures don't have a pattern of being against cowardice, I'll answer that differently. I think it does have that pattern, and I think the story of Lot fails to be analyzed in that way, because it's a very old story. The story seems awful to us nowadays--including me--, but my answer to why it's not condemned by Genesis is because the story apparently didn't seem immoral or cowardly 3,000 years ago. That strikes me as being as terrible as it strikes you, but I don't think it makes my point invalid as far as there being a pattern of "anti-cowardice" to interpret Paul by.
On the other hand, I'm not in any way sure that's what he meant. The Greek theater in his day, according to several of the early fathers, involved teaching boys to live effeminately and homosexually so they could play women in the plays. I've never researched the truth of that, although I've no reason to question it at this point, but it was something the early Christian communities believed. Maybe that's what Paul was referring to.
I'm sorry this is long, but now I'm trying to backpedal a bit, because in my eyes, there are several possible interpretations of 1 Cor 6 other than "Paul was just a homophobe who condemned anyone who carried their wrist too accutely or spoke with a soft voice."
I was, and am, strongly saying your characterization of Paul is a characterization of Paul, and I don't believe it's an accurate one nor your vehemence toward him justified. I'm not trying to strongly back up an interpretation of 1 Cor 6 concerning effeminacy, because I can't.
I want to stand solely on the argument I was trying to make, not on others I might have seemed to have been making. You said something along the lines of "the Bible is not a valid code of morality for today." I'm not even disagreeing with that. I believe there is a God, that God wants and has a people for himself, and that God makes his will known in that people. I believe Paul was a part of that people in his time, and so I chose, and am choosing, to defend him.
I hope that's clearer. I don't imagine you'd like our code of morals any better than Paul's, because we believe homosexuality is against God's morals, too, but I am not trying to promote applying Genesis' morals to the United States today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by berberry, posted 06-23-2004 3:05 AM berberry has not replied

Nasa
Inactive Member


Message 319 of 323 (117871)
06-23-2004 9:55 AM


Reason why.
Design.
To go against the flow of life. To become dark.
To not allow God to bless you, with such as your own children, an eternal life made by you. One of the greatest blessings, above what the angels behold.
All sin is, -is not letting God bless you.
He knows best, we think we do.
We think we can see the greater blessing.
Wicked-ness is the blessing of self.
I believe homosexuals are involved in this selfish blessing, as we all are. Only there lust for self, becomes sexual. Some have it in money, power, knowledge, and so on, they find it in them selves in a sexual lust.
Hence: Man and Man, or Woman and Woman.

Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 320 of 323 (117882)
06-23-2004 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by coffee_addict
06-22-2004 11:27 PM


I consider the, as you call them, "straight pedophiles" to be as gay as the others since they are raping young boys 80% of the time. Your logic would go to say if they are a pedophile it doesn't count as homosexuality. Brilliant. Please explain how that works. A man with a boy is different than a man with a man? They are all males therefore gay. -Z
This message has been edited by Zachariah, 06-23-2004 10:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by coffee_addict, posted 06-22-2004 11:27 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-23-2004 12:07 PM Zachariah has not replied

Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 321 of 323 (117886)
06-23-2004 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by berberry
06-23-2004 3:27 AM


Typical. Are you really going to try to tell me that just because some southern Baptist did things wrong or against what you beleive that they all represent the entire christian body. What about Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin. What about the entire governing body that started the United States? It was religion based and good. And yes, they didn't treat the Natives very well did they? NO. They killed them because they were afraid and thought of them as heathens. But, not all did. There were missions at that time also. I know enough history to know you are taking a few examples and making a blanketed statement. So who is more wrong you or me? I'm man enough to say that Christians aren't perfect and some who claim faith are evil in acuality which makes the entire faith look bad. Just like a few bad gays make the entire group look bad. I'll say it again. I love every person, don't care what they believe or who they sleep with. That doesn't mean I'm going to agree with them. I argue with friends and disagree with them and my wife and parents about alot of things that doesn't mean that I hate them or fear them and their beliefs. It means I disagree with them. You think because I don't agree or because I speak out against your lifestyle CHOICE that I don't like you. Wrong again. -Z
This message has been edited by Zachariah, 06-23-2004 10:46 AM
This message has been edited by Zachariah, 06-23-2004 10:47 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by berberry, posted 06-23-2004 3:27 AM berberry has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 322 of 323 (117891)
06-23-2004 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Zachariah
06-23-2004 11:35 AM


I consider the, as you call them, "straight pedophiles" to be as gay as the others since they are raping young boys 80% of the time.
Where, exactly, is this "80%" statistic coming from?
I ask because, for someone so against people putting things into their asses, you sure seem to be pulling quite a bit out of yours.
A man with a boy is different than a man with a man?
Yes, in the same way that a man with a girl is different than a man with a woman. Pretty simple, when you think about it.
What about Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin. What about the entire governing body that started the United States? It was religion based and good.
One of these days, Zombie Jefferson is going to get up out of his grave, and bitch slap half the country for proclaiming that he favored a religion-based government.
This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 06-23-2004 11:11 AM

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river the infidels shiver in the stench of belief.
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late; I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw are ringing in my ears"
-Beck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Zachariah, posted 06-23-2004 11:35 AM Zachariah has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 323 of 323 (117915)
06-23-2004 2:01 PM


closing down..take it to the new topic
http://EvC Forum: Information

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024