Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: The pathetically DISHONEST and false analogy with pork and shellfish
|
brodavid
Shipmate
# 460
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Siegfried: [qb]The issue of whether or not homosexuality is sinful is quite relevant to me, even though I am quite heterosexual.How is your orientation relevant? I'm not so concerned with what consenting adults do in private, unless they choose to discuss their spiritual life with me, but I am VERY concerned with those who militantly set out to alter the culture so that their sinful lifestyle will be readily accepted. To refer here to a lifestyle is both dismissive and insulting. It is my life. To refer to it as a lifestyle implies one choses to be homosexual. Rather than being on a par with heterosexuality, it instead drops it to the level of other lifestyle choices such as vegetarianism, smoking, or (and this will be expanded on later) Christianity. And damn right but we demand acceptance. We demand to be treated equally. We shouldn't be at risk of losing our jobs because our preferred partner is of the same gender. We shouldn't be barred from military service if that is our choice of career. We shouldn't be prevented from making medical decisions should our partners be unable to make those decisions themselves. We shouldn't be barred from seeing our partners as they are dying, because only heterosexual spouses and biological relatives are admitted. We shoulnd't have to risk being tied to a fence and beaten and abused and left to die in the cold, dark night--just because we aren't straight. The only way for them to do that is to desensitze the culture to sin in general, which in turn weakens the culture as a whole. I just double checked. You're from the US also. So you should also be aware that the US is Constitutionally a secular nation. And in actuality, although Christians are still the majority, there are an awful lot of folks here these days who aren't Christian. And whose views on sin are very different from yours. And yet here you are imposing your personal religious values on the culture as a whole. In fact, you are imposing your very own lifestyle (ie Christianity) on the rest of the culture. And, btw, how about some evidence for these two assertions please? You're making claims--back them up. In Christian circles, there is also the issue of biblical authority. If Christians as a whole approve of something which the Bible so clearly denounces, then where do we stop rejecting biblical standards, and what truth do we have to stand upon? 5 verses, I believe it is. Only 5. Less if we discard Leviticus--which we do for the rest of modern Christian life. And the remainder are contained in Paul's letters to particular groups about particular situations they were dealing with. And bear in mind, we no longer accept Paul's views on slavery. Nor, for the most part, do most Christians accept his views on the role of women in the church or family life. I'd planned on staying out of this particular discussion. But when I see this kind of crap posted, I can't help but respond. This is exactly the mindset that cries "No special rights" whenever an attempt is made to require equal treatment for all... gay or straight. If being spit on, beaten up, fired, etc are special rights too, I'll gladly share them with you. Sieg[/QB]
[Sigh] I was afraid this would happen.
I mentioned my orientation because the post to which I was responding implied that the question of whether homosexuality was wrong applied only to homosexuals. As far as the term "lifestyle' implying that homosexuals choose their homosexuality, I firmly believe that they do. Don't give me that old "gay gene' garbage. For one thing, the researcher who published that was a gay-rights activist, and no one has ever been able to reproduce his research. (I'll look that up if you insist.) For another, even if their is some physical reason that some people have homosexual inclinations, the presence of those desires does not justify acting upon them. Apply the same logic to a non-sexual situation: I have always struggled with a bad temper, therefore I am a naturally violent person. I did not choose to be violent; it's just the way I am. Therefore, if I fly off the handle and pound someone, I am just expressing the way God made me. If the logic is valid and the conclusion is wrong, then one or more premises must be faulty. In this case, the faulty premise is that we cannot help but act on our impulses, no matter what Scripture says about the moral implications. As for America being established as a purely secular nation, consider the following: "We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions ubridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."John Adams, address to the militia of Massachusetts, 1798. If you want more quotes that show that the framers of the U.S. Constitution were interested in religious freedom rather than secularism, there are some at www.thekingsnetwork.com/heritage At any rate, I would never dream of trying to "impose" my morality on others. For one thing, it's impossible. For another, it's immoral to try to force another to believe in a certain way. At most, I try to persuade. I agree that homosexuals deserve equal rights. If they are spit on, assaulted, fired for reasons that have nothing to do with job performance, or otherwised deprived of their lawful rights, then those responsible should be prosecuted. Personally, I do accept you as a fellow human being, created in God's image, worth the dying for (as demonstrated by Christ on the cross), and deserving of love and respect. Just don't insist that that acceptance of you as a person requires approval of actions which the Bible clearly condemns. How many times must the Bible speak clearly inorder to establish that something is immoral? The reason that Paul addressed homosexuality more than Jesus is that Jesus spoke to a Jewish audience, who all knew perfectly well that homosexuality was a stoning offense under the Mosaic Law. (Another reason to be glad we are under grace.) Therefore, homosexuality was a settled issue for them. Paul, on the other hand wrote mostly to Gentiles, for homosexuality was an open question that needed to be addressed. As for Paul's views on slavery, he taught that a Christian slave owner was to treat his slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ. I can think of nothing more certain of ending slavery.
-------------------- Brodavid
"Prayer can do anything that God can do." - E.M. Bounds
Posts: 702 | From: Mississippi, USA | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
BoDavid,You have asserted: "As for Paul's views on slavery, he taught that a Christian slave owner was to treat his slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ. I can think of nothing more certain of ending slavery." Well it certainly didn't work in Mississippi did it? All those Bible-believing plantation owners, and their 20th century heirs, the segregationists (many, many, many a good fundamentalist among them) interpreted scripture a bit differently than you do, and they didn't have the slightest doubt about scriptural clarity. Greta
----
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
brodavid
Shipmate
# 460
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Reason: I don't understand how you can say that you would never dream of imposing your morality on others, and then turn around and proclaim that the Bible (and therefore God) clearly eschews homosexuality (and therefore homosexuals.)"I'm not a bigot, I LOVE Egyptians. I would NEVER judge them. But the Bible clearly shows that they are evil and should be destroyed." It's disingenuous. It's making the Bible do the dirty-work of your own bigotry.
impose: a : to establish or apply by authority <impose a tax> <impose new restrictions> <impose penalties> b : to establish or bring about as if by force <those limits imposed by our own inadequacies Again, I never would dream of imposing (as defined above) my values on others. I attempt to persuade, and I appeal to the authority of Scripture in my efforts to persuade. Unless you are implying that it is inappropriate to refer to the Bible on a Christian web site... As for bigotry, I deny that it is bigotry to evaluate a person's morality based on their actions. (Note that I said "morality' rather than "value" or "worth".) After all, how else do you evaluate someone's character, except by observing what they do? Bigotry is evaluating someone's worth or value according to one's own preconceived ideas, refusing to consider their character or actions.
-------------------- Brodavid
"Prayer can do anything that God can do." - E.M. Bounds
Posts: 702 | From: Mississippi, USA | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
brodavid
Shipmate
# 460
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by CorgiGreta: BoDavid,You have asserted: "As for Paul's views on slavery, he taught that a Christian slave owner was to treat his slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ. I can think of nothing more certain of ending slavery." Well it certainly didn't work in Mississippi did it? All those Bible-believing plantation owners, and their 20th century heirs, the segregationists (many, many, many a good fundamentalist among them) interpreted scripture a bit differently than you do, and they didn't have the slightest doubt about scriptural clarity. Greta ----
Regretably, no, it didn't. In fact, you point out one reason why we must be careful about being dogmatic, even when we appeal to Scripture. The Bible can be, and has been, interpretted in light of preconceived ideas (bigotry, see my exchange with Reason) instead of allowing it to say what its writers, and the God who inspired them, intended. That is why I am willing to discuss this topic, rather than simply dismiss the whole bunch of you as hopeless liberals. There is the chance that I have misinterpretted Scripture on this topic. I don't think so, but it is possible. If you (meaning anyone on the Ship) believe that this is the case, you are welcome to point out to me my misinterpretations, or ask me to for my take on passages you think relevant.
-------------------- Brodavid
"Prayer can do anything that God can do." - E.M. Bounds
Posts: 702 | From: Mississippi, USA | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
H.T.,Prior to pubication of the R.S.V. in 1946, no English translation of the Bible contained the word 'homosexual'. Parenthetically, this may be one of the reasons fundamentalists were outraged at the R.S.V., and it may be instructive to note that they (and some other Christians) have even to this day debated the "accuracy" of various translations (yet another debate that's clear as mud). Ironically, the version that even today is considered to be closest to the original is the one authorized by a king who is widely believed by historians to have been homosexual. The word 'homosexual' did not exist in Hebrew, Greek, Latin. Syrian, or Aramaic and did to appear in English until the late 19th century. Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Posted 06 July 2001 17:10 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by CorgiGreta: BoDavid, You have asserted: "As for Paul's views on slavery, he taught that a Christian slave owner was to treat his slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ. I can think of nothing more certain of ending slavery." Well it certainly didn't work in Mississippi did it? All those Bible-believing plantation owners, and their 20th century heirs, the segregationists (many, many, many a good fundamentalist among them) interpreted scripture a bit differently than you do, and they didn't have the slightest doubt about scriptural clarity. Greta ----
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BroDavid, In your last post you stated: "In fact, you point out one reason why we must be careful about being dogmatic, even when we appeal to Scripture. The Bible can be, and has been, interpretted in light of preconceived ideas (bigotry, see my exchange with Reason) instead of allowing it to say what its writers, and the God who inspired them, intended." Amen and amen. That's all I want. I would commend to you, me, and all of us the following portion of Scripture: "Judge not that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye measured it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stowaway
Ship's scavenger
# 139
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Hooker's Trick: Ooh. Lascivious wonderings.I'm confused about the actual Biblical prohibition. Does the Big Book say that homosexuality is sinful, or that sodomy is sinful? I know I could go look it up but maybe someone knows?
This question was too good HT. You made me do your dirty work for you. Or some of it anyway. My NKJV Interlinear NT says of the two words in 1 Cor 6:9 quote: malakos Adjective meaning soft...Here it is used substantively to mean effeminate ones, the passive partners in homosexual intercourse.arsenokoites (not as self explanitary as it looks - stowaway)Only used here and in 1 Tim 1:10 From the adjective arsen - male and koite - bed, coitus thus meaning a male homosexual. Specifically it refers to the male homosexual partner who takes the active role
So yes, from that it appears to be the act that is focussed on. Both the giving and receiving. Two more things to say. Someone referred to the New Testament as teaching in keeping with 1st Century morals, but this is not true. The greeks would have had no problems with male homosexuality (though female homosexuality was unacceptable, which might be why it wasn't mentioned). Also comparisons were made with womens status and slavery. These don't stand up. Paul really does discuss slavery and sets up the foundations for it's elimination (another thread anyone?) and he makes some radical statements about women's status. There is another thread that discussed womens ministry that casts serious doubt on Paul as misogynist. The message of Jesus and Paul actually did modify the sexual options of their day. They introduced as a fully whole sexual identity, another category - celibacy. But they did not go on to uphold homosexuality.
-------------------- Warning: Mid-life crisis in progress
Posts: 610 | From: Back down North | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SteveWal
Shipmate
# 307
|
Posted
Just a small point about "arsenokoites" - it is, linguistically, both a neologism and a portmanteau word. That is, it appears nowhere else except in the NT (although it might be in the Septuagint). Portmanteau words (words made up of more than one word) do not mean the sum of the two words of which they are made. An example is the Greek word for "to have compassion" used in the NT. It consists of the words "to give" and "bowels". Literally, "to give one's bowels". Hence, the KGV "bowels of compassion"; but it doesn't mean, as they used to say, that the ancient Greeks thought that the seat of compassion is in the intestines! Similarly with phrases like "rent boy", which doesn't mean a young male offspring who collects rents! It is likely, therefore, that arsenokoites refers to something more specific. Some have suggested that it refers to the clients of rent boys (who could be the malakoi's refered to in the same verse.) The fact that Paul used a word that isn't seen anywhere else in Greek literature - when there are plenty of other terms to use - also could indicate that he is using a locally specific word. Even possibly a slang word. Again, this would more than likely be a specific rather a general usage. Just a few thoughts. We all of course know that using prostitutes is sinful.
-------------------- If they give you lined paper to write on, write across the lines. (Russian anarchist saying)
Posts: 208 | From: Manchester | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
TheMightyTonewheel
Shipmate
# 4730
|
Posted
quote: So I just don't get why sexual sins are so much emphasized over other sins. To my mind, theft in all its hideous forms, and various ways of killing one another (violent words and violent acts) are much more damaging on both an individual and societal level.
Agreed. I think the obsession with sex is sometimes a subconscious habit people get into when they don't want to think about their own sin. Or, possibly, when they adopt puritanism and start believing that all sin is carnal or sensory. I think if we paid as much attention to pride as we do to sex, alot of our us-them thinking would disappear. How easy it is to look at your neighbour, and think yourself superior.
It was a critical moment in my understanding of Christianity when I came to realize that no matter how "good" I make myself to be through human effort, I am still a rebel. And no matter how "bad" I become through human failure, I am still saved by grace no matter what.
Now if that I've learned it, if I could only remember it.
-------------------- "I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where." -- Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Posts: 57 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Stowaway:
Someone referred to the New Testament as teaching in keeping with 1st Century morals, but this is not true. The greeks would have had no problems with male homosexuality (though female homosexuality was unacceptable, which might be why it wasn't mentioned).
Well, condemning homsexuality may not have been the norm in the hellenic world, but it was certainly what one would expect from a Pharisaic Jew, such as Paul. Talking about 'the first century view' is misleading.
Do Jesus and Paul provide us with 'resources' for a positive estimation of homosexual relationships? I am less sure than you that the answer is negative. I would point to the emphasis on 'agape', self-giving love, as being something that will be fundamental to any worked out theology of sexual relationships, gay or straight.
-------------------- insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eripeme
Apprentice
# 4584
|
Posted
quote: TheMightyTonewheel: Agreed. I think the obsession with sex is sometimes a subconscious habit people get into when they don't want to think about their own sin. Or, possibly, when they adopt puritanism and start believing that all sin is carnal or sensory. I think if we paid as much attention to pride as we do to sex, alot of our us-them thinking would disappear. How easy it is to look at your neighbour, and think yourself superior.
I'm sure those are all actual reasons in many cases. But there is another reason why people might feel called to endlessly get mixed up in these arguments: that they have personally experienced the freedom of release from sinful patterns of behaviour and would like to share that freedom with others...
Posts: 9 | From: West Oxfordshire | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dursley Pedersen
Shipmate
# 5685
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by RuthW: Originally posted by Pyx_e: the thing that really pisses me off about this is that homophobes/fundies use this as an excuse to be nasty to gays. neither loving the sinner or gauging their own sinfulness
quote: posted by RuthW As host I really must object to the linking of homophobes and fundamentalists in this way -- it amounts to overgeneralization and a blanket accusation. Not all fundamentalists are homophobes, and not all homophobes are fundamentalists.
I've yet to meet any fundies who weren't homophobes. Of course, they often begin sentences with "I'm not a homophobe but...", just as racists often start them with "I'm not a racist but...", but that doesn't prove much if they immediately follow it with a blatantly homophobic / racist statement.
[Edited to fix UBB code] [ 27. March 2004, 16:06: Message edited by: TonyK ]
-------------------- London-Brighton Bike Ride - my sponsorship page (or p.m. me with your details. Thanks.) My poetry.
Posts: 79 | From: Hemel Hempstead | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Then you need to get out and meet more fundamentalists.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
I notice that Pyx_e's quote was made almost 3 years ago. I would hope that today he might reach a slightly different conclusion.
-------------------- Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|