Posted                       

quote:

---

So you think that what you term the "pro-gay side" needs to be magnanimous and just suck-up the abuse, name calling, discrimination and unprovoked violence which is meted out - frequently by people who give themselves the label "Christian"?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
Hating isn't in the kingdom of God.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
Hating isn't in the kingdom of God. The disapproval of homosexuality need not be tied to hating it (or, not any longer).

IOW - feeling disaproved of will always inspire hate with someone who is holding hate inside.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Hating isn't in the kingdom of God.

---

quote:

---

The disapproval of homosexuality need not be tied to hating it (or, not any longer).

---

quote:

---

IOW - feeling disaproved of will always inspire hate with someone who is holding hate inside.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
Hating isn't in the kingdom of God. The disapproval of homosexuality need not be tied to hating it (or, not any longer).

IOW - feeling disaproved of will always inspire hate with someone who is holding hate inside.

---

The problem is that many Christians I am aware of seem singularly unable to process living in a secular society where people have different ideas and are blind to how they, personally, are helped by this.

---

quote:

---

If Christians could both say that they thought theologically that gay marriage was a sin but also supported it as something that was good for society there would be less of an issue.

---

quote:

---

So whilst it might or might not be true that gay people are actually hated (I've not come to a firm conclusion about whether people who oppose gay marriage actually hate gay people), the net effect of opposing freedom for gay people and of continually downplaying their full humanity is hatred.

---

I here you on that one.

Pastor recently preached on outreach at church (note this isn't a church I attend for theological reasons, it's just close by) and urged people not to view homosexuals and islamists as "the enemy" but rather the mission field.

This is due to the arch enemy mentality in the conservative church, and even accidentally by trying to be loving, I get now how there is hate in the "net effect". I would have recommended not comparing murdering islamists to homosexuals had I been able to edit the sermon.... Never the less, that is the state of things in many Bible belt churches. Hate the sin and love the sinner - that's one oft used catch phrase. I'm not sure that's even a useful phrase anymore.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Aijalon

quote:

---

Hating isn't in the kingdom of God.

---

And you know this because?

If you read the Bible you'll find there's plenty of hate there, often of whited sepulchres who set themselves up as a arbiter of righteousness and probity in others.

quote:

---

The disapproval of homosexuality need not be tied to hating it (or, not any longer).

---

Goody! I'm so relieved to get your ruling on that, which you're qualified to give because ???

Read your own posts: they bristle with hostility and hatred towards the non-heterosexual.

quote:

---

IOW - feeling disaproved of will always inspire hate with someone who is holding hate inside.

---

Any more of these folksy nostrums? God, you make Patience Strong seem like Heidegger. (BTW get a dictionary and check the spelling of disapproved for yourself.)

In the meantime, are you going to address yourself to the rest of my post, or do you feel unable to answer ? Just curious.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
If you wish waste time critiquing my misspelling and mistyping I think the opportunity for conversation is lost, or should we just focus on every negative thing about a Christian or a church you can think of.....?

Perhaps you would like to bactrack and talk about prophecy or scripture?

We could, rather, just talk about you.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
So you think that what you term the "pro-gay side" needs to be magnanimous and just suck-up the abuse, name calling, discrimination and unprovoked violence which is meted out - frequently by people who give themselves the label "Christian"?

---

quote:

---

And you think this should happen because, if I read you correctly, the "enforcements of the past" - I take it you mean imprisonment and other punishments up to and including death - are no longer acceptable in a modern western society? REALLY???

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
@ last two posts.

In my own defense I really don't believe that critique of my post, brief as it was, is right or fair for the simple reason that it's just jumping the gun. I was not prepared, regrettably, to offer a longer response right then. I merely need more time to respond and I intend to do so. I do see that perhaps a short response is taken on these boards to be a trite dismissive response as a rule. Which I have seen a lot of those.

My remark about "talk about you" was merely a reflection of the offense that is apparently taken by L'Organist at my earlier posts. To read between the lines there, I actually honestly did want to talk about the nature of the offense that is clearly taken by L'organist, at me, and sincerely would welcome them to talk about them - with the discussion being apparently personal.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
If you don't mind (and this is to anyone) is perhaps my abrasive signature part of the reason for the negative reactions to certain things I've said? Is mentioning repentance, or hell bothering a bunch of people?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
So you think that what you term the "pro-gay side" needs to be magnanimous and just suck-up the abuse, name calling, discrimination and unprovoked violence which is meted out - frequently by people who give themselves the label "Christian"?

---

I don't think you have heard me correctly. I am not saying to accept unprovoked violence. I am talking about bland old Christiani homophobia, the kind that says gay people are creepy, not the kind that says "I have to murder you know".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm really only saying that vitriol is against Christians for holding their views and speaking up for their beliefs is wrong. It's hate speech against Christians who really have never done anything wrong to a gay person, ever. Saying homosexuality is immoral is not hateful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
Do you say it is? I believe it is, but I'm not a homophone as I was raised to be. I didn't flush the Bible down the toilet when I realized the interpretations I was spoon fed were wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

And you think this should happen because, if I read you correctly, the "enforcements of the past" - I take it you mean imprisonment and other punishments up to and including death - are no longer acceptable in a modern western society? REALLY???

---

I don't know a lot of detail about how the various church or state laws have been enforced, so enforcement might have been the wrong word. Laws prohibiting sexual activity are not he same thing as calling for executions - that's a penal code question (or maybe sociopathic serial killing??).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm really not talking about medieval forms of torture here, I'm concentrating on a definition of demonization as it has been expressed religiously in the West, in the Modern/Post-Modern era within living memory. Why people might have the audacity to oppose it ideologically, philosophically, morally, spiritually, medically, or any reason at all.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm really only saying that vitriol is against Christians for holding their views and speaking up for their beliefs is wrong.

<snip>

Saying homosexuality is immoral is not hateful.

---

quote:

---

Judge others, that ye shall be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye must not be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall not be measured to you again.

---

Or something like that. I guess it depends on which translation you use.

Part of the problem is that Christians and Christianity seem to expect a certain amount of deference to their own moral superiority. When that superiority is questioned they seem equal parts flummoxed and offended. An example from a few years back from Fred Clark:

quote:

---

For decades, the religious right has been pre-occupied with two issues above all else: abortion and homosexuality. And on both of those issues, they have wielded power and influence by claiming the moral high ground — claiming to represent the godly, “biblical” truth of right and wrong. Anyone who disagreed with them on these issues was portrayed as less moral, less godly, less good.

That claim — that framing of these issues as right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, biblical vs. unbiblical, moral vs. immoral — was asserted and accepted for most of the religious right’s 30-year run.

But not any more. That claim is still being asserted, but it is no longer being accepted.

<snip>

For decades, the religious right has been arguing that their purchase on the moral high ground ought to result in their political triumph. The political opposition to that used to be a form of “yes, but …” — yes, these political preachers are correct about morality and immorality, but other factors need to be considered, or other complications have to be accounted for, etc.

Opposition to the religious right’s agenda on Tuesday [November 6, 2012] did not take the form of this “yes, but …” argument. It was simply, “No.”

It was not a disagreement about the political implications of the preachers’ righteous moral claims, but a denial of those claims, of their righteousness and of their morality. No, these political preachers are incorrect about morality and immorality. No, pretending that some “biblical definition of marriage” is a pretext for denying people their rights or delegitimizing their families is not good or decent or right.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
While I'm not so fond of Mousethief's intervening

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

I most often rely on the consistency of Young's Literal Translation, which has similarities with the KJV.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
I really don't share the political mindset, just don't. So you may gloat all you like, this will terribly irritate many a Christian, doesn't really bother me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
I really don't share the political mindset, just don't. So you may gloat all you like, this will terribly irritate many a Christian, doesn't really bother me.

---

This would be more believable if you didn't consider pointing out that homosexuals have equal rights under law to be "gloating". That interpretation implies a lot of discontent with the political fact that the state now treats homosexuals a lot closer to on par with heterosexuals than it has in the past.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
... You also stated upwards I think twice about my use of the term "detestable". I had thought we had an academic discussion about the use of that word as far as its impetus to create socio-political will power in the Hebrews to enforce the code.

The following link shows that's the word in use in various translations

http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20.htm

Out of the three listed translations on the default page, detestable is used by three.

I most often rely on the consistency of Young's Literal Translation, which has similarities with the KJV.

Young's uses the term "abomination". That seems pretty straightforward, I don't think that sounds any better to you than detestable though.
http://biblehub.com/ylt/leviticus/20.htm ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
... Hi Soror, what method would you suggest we use to come up with the right word. ....

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

My point in this thread I suppose, was, that it's obvious where demonization comes from. Perhaps the simple way to put it is - bad combination of Christianity and Politics.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
ETA And there's really no such thing as a "literal" translation. Of anything. Perhaps you mean "word for word", but that is still choosing a word - among other words of similar meaning - from another language.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
ETA And there's really no such thing as a "literal" translation. Of anything. Perhaps you mean "word for word", but that is still choosing a word - among other words of similar meaning - from another language.

---

And meaning can actually sometimes be lost or obscured in a word for word translation, as with idioms.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
I meant to say that out of five translations 3 agreed with the same word. I am merely pointing out that I'm not pulling this out of the air.

Hi Soror, what method would you suggest we use to come up with the right word. I don't think mocking the process or the scholar for giving us tools to work with is very helpful.

No one is worshiping a thesaurus here just for using one.

The point about Young's literal translation, if you care to know, is that Robert Young insisted on translation consistency, whereas the KJV was made in favor of artistic readability in some ways, and it has many different words in place of a single Hebrew one.

If anything, Young was probably agreeing with you that we should not need to consult a thesaurus constantly when we're reading the text.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
I meant to say that out of five translations 3 agreed with the same word. I am merely pointing out that I'm not pulling this out of the air.

Hi Soror, what method would you suggest we use to come up with the right word. I don't think mocking the process or the scholar for giving us tools to work with is very helpful.

No one is worshiping a thesaurus here just for using one.

The point about Young's literal translation, if you care to know, is that Robert Young insisted on translation consistency, whereas the KJV was made in favor of artistic readability in some ways, and it has many different words in place of a single Hebrew one.

If anything, Young was probably agreeing with you that we should not need to consult a thesaurus constantly when we're reading the text.

---

You're locked in an ancient prison of distorting mirrors. The way out is over them.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
... Hi Soror, what method would you suggest we use to come up with the right word. ....

---

I suggest worrying less about words, and worrying more about human beings. Human beings are so much more than just words someone may choose to describe them.

ETA And there's really no such thing as a "literal" translation. Of anything. Perhaps you mean "word for word", but that is still choosing a word - among other words of similar meaning - from another language.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
... Hi Soror, what method would you suggest we use to come up with the right word. ....

---

I suggest worrying less about words, and worrying more about human beings. Human beings are so much more than just words someone may choose to describe them.

ETA And there's really no such thing as a "literal" translation. Of anything. Perhaps you mean "word for word", but that is still choosing a word - among other words of similar meaning - from another language.

---

The Bible is an ancient document, full of words. The words mean something. Scholars often think too much of words, I'm not a scholar, but without them we would know nothing at all about the meaning of ancient words, it would all be forgotten.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dude,
You need to try smoking a different strain or hit it with less enthusiasm.
If you are trying to be funny, you failed.
If your were attempting to communicate anything significant; massive fail.
Did you not understand what Soror Magna said? Because you didn't address it. Perhaps we can find a more simple way to explain the concept.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dude,
You need to try smoking a different strain or hit it with less enthusiasm.
If you are trying to be funny, you failed.
If your were attempting to communicate anything significant; massive fail.
Did you not understand what Soror Magna said? Because you didn't address it. Perhaps we can find a more simple way to explain the concept.

---

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
Maybe you would do well to refrain from only trying to inflame everything with inane characterizations of me as a drug abuser, it's lame bro. Or is this all about you looking like the comedian?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
... Maybe Soror will come along and give us some more good advice about interpretation. Or maybe he only wishes to disqualify all Biblical interpretations on said subject so no discussion can go on. ...

---

"Soror Magna" is crappy Latin for "big sister". Carry on translating. And assuming.


--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
I meant to say that out of five translations 3 agreed with the same word. I am merely pointing out that I'm not pulling this out of the air.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
*yoda voice* how very wise you sound, yes!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
... Maybe Soror will come along and give us some more good advice about interpretation. Or maybe he only wishes to disqualify all Biblical interpretations on said subject so no discussion can go on. ...

---

"Soror Magna" is crappy Latin for "big sister". Carry on translating. And assuming.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
Ok, sister (Sorry, I don't know Latin) tell me how one should approach translation of this verse, I'm wide open to discussion. ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
Ok, sister (Sorry, I don't know Latin) tell me how one should approach translation of this verse, I'm wide open to discussion. ...

---

Well, if you know English, you know some Latin. Magnanimous. Sorority. You know lots of other words that have Latin roots. Question. Discussion. Vacuous. Specious.

My point is that you failed to notice linguistic details like foreign root words and gender when reading material written by a contemporary in your own language. Maybe this translating thing isn't as simple as you think it is.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dude,
You need to try smoking a different strain or hit it with less enthusiasm.
If you are trying to be funny, you failed.
If your were attempting to communicate anything significant; massive fail.
Did you not understand what Soror Magna said? Because you didn't address it. Perhaps we can find a more simple way to explain the concept.

---

---

Maybe you would do well to refrain from only trying to inflame everything with inane characterizations of me as a drug abuser, it's lame bro. Or is this all about you looking like the comedian?

Maybe Soror will come along and give us some more good advice about interpretation. Or maybe he only wishes to disqualify all Biblical interpretations on said subject so no discussion can go on.

Leviticus is often mentioned by rarely quoted, though people seem to be familiar with it, the discussion is always glancing off the actual subject at hand.

In the American Standard:

LEV 20:13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

If abomination is not good, then what fits? I don't think anyone is going to find anything favorable. Perhaps a scholar has?

Point being, this is the source of where the demonization comes from, I'm not saying that demonization is the right thing, simply for this thread anyway that it hasn't come from nowhere, and I don't think it will just go away either, that is, unless we just stop caring about interpretation completely.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

What's that 3500 year old Bronze Age homophobia got to do with anything? Apart from showing glacial cultural evolution to date?

---

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet