« Legal Bleg | Main | The Wannsee Conference »

January 20, 2005

Comments

Saint Augustine and Dante - these are your examples of *sane* Christians?

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of 'genuinely brilliant people whose religion was a serious thing worthy of respect." I stand by that assessment. It does not imply that I agree with them (I don't, most obviously in not being a Christian.)

heard a long NPR piece on Dobson the other day. they played a clip of him threatening the Republican party to heed the desires of the religious right... or else!!.

well, this is what Bush courted, so let him and the rest of his party deal with it.

In my childhood and adolescence I would describe myself as a Christian. Since then (I'm 32), when forced to pick a category, I have had to go with "agnostic", for lack of any better way to articulate my thoughts. One thing that has never changed is my view that there is a gaping chasm between "regular" American Christianity, esoteric Christianity, and the mysteriously prominent, supposedly populist TV clowns like Dobson. (I guess it's not so mysterious, though, considering that money makes the world go 'round.) I've always felt that these people besmirch the concepts of faith and Christian love every time they open their mouths or pocketbooks. It's shameful, and I'm sure most serious theologians and seminary faculty members would agree. I do wonder sometimes if the televangelists have, through media influence, drawn enough people to their views that they really do represent a majority of Americans who would describe themselves as Christian. I find it disconcerting to consider that I might no longer be correct in seeing a disparity between rhetoric like Dobson's and "real" Christianity. Spooky.

Also, I think Dobson and Augustine, or at least many of his successors, do have some things in common. For example, I'm sure the Dobster would just love to round up some heretics, given the opportunity. Even spookier.

Finally, don't ask me to define or elaborate on "'real' Christianity" or "'regular' American Christianity"... that's as far as I dare go into that can of worms.

I especially loved the letter sent to the President, asking him to have his daughters dress demurely for the inaugural events. As if!

Let's be honest. Is this that much crazier than any number of Bush's policies?

These people don't think (and I mean that in a nearly mechanical sense) the way we do - they have wildly different referrents, and strange methods of conjuction. That they come up with things to obsess over - like worrying about SpongeBob promoting an immoral lifestyle - that strike us as strange should no longer be surprising. At this point, all we can really do is wait for four (maybe two) years and try to change a few votes. But the vast mass of Bush backers aren't going to understand your shock - they think Dobson's right or within the realm of the rational.

SCMTim, we probably agree on many things along these lines. It's futile to have a discussion/argument with anyone who has, as you put it, wildly different referrents. I was trying to keep my comment simple by not including Bush in the equation. I know my avoidance of tying in my comment to politics must seem quite naive. I can only reiterate one word: spooky. Super spooky.

These guys need another hobby besides "knee-jerk outrage." Without these ridiculous bogey-men, where would Dobson and the other whackos be?

Huh. But SpongeBob is obviously in love with Sandy the Squirrel, and Patrick has a huge crush on Mindy Mermaid (in the movie).
A case might be made for Squidward, though, with his refined sensibilities and proclivity for the arts.
:)

Funny, I was just remarking that Squidward was the bitchy queen Dobson et al. are trying so desperately to keep suppressed...

The relevant part of the pledge reads,

"I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own."

Wow. Dobson objects to that? Words fail me.

Pandagon says Dobson is rumored to be on the replacement list for Powell at the FCC...

rilkefan: I took pandagon to be kidding. But then, had someone suggested that Gonzales be nominated as AG after Abu Ghraib, I would have thought that was a joke too.

hilzoy - shhh, I'm trying to give Edward a shock to start his day.

The anti-teletubby campaign happened when walmart was counterfeiting teletubbies under the name "bubbly chubbies." When the copyright owners of the teletubbies (may they be forced to watch their own shows!) told walmart to stop, the "omg! tinky winky has a red handbag! must be queer!" PR campaign started. I suspect this is similar: someone is counterfeiting spongebob and this is the slime and defend campaign to cover up for the defendants.

Being a born again Christain for 30 years i can tell you the Bible teaches there is a clever evil force at work in our universe to destroy us.And this force works over the centuries slowly.Jesus clearly warned us to be "watchful" Thak You Dr Dobson for sensing trouble, and making the attempt to uncover something (that most cannot see) that may be dangerous to us and our children.Those who know GODS Word "THOROUGHLY" know full well what things GOD warned will destroy our civilization. Read your bible folks..ALL of it. You can start at Romans 1. PS think this force is a myth? You will find out soon enough...whether or not you enjoy it when u find out is another question

i can tell you the Bible teaches there is a clever evil force at work in our universe to destroy us

Can you give us the book, chapter & verses so we can do our own research?


Thak You Dr Dobson for sensing trouble, and making the attempt to uncover something (that most cannot see)

I thought that "uncovering things that most cannot see" was part of what Dobson was complaining about, at least in regard to SpongeBob's occasional temporary loss of his square pants.

Oh, and:

You can start at Romans 1.

So you're saying that we can skip not only the old testament but also all of the Gospels?? Maybe you should refer to yourself as a "Pauline" instead of a "Christian".

In a similar vein, the Sec. of Education has come out against lesbian cartoon characters. Via Marshall.

Romans is a good book to start with..although I highly reccommend the Old Testament as well. Gospels are also great..i see lots of people quote the Bible to inforce a position. Devil also quotes it..He quoted it to Jesus..although in part.thats part of the deception to the human race. Romans 1 simply explains what happens to a society which rejects Gods idea of right and wrong as defined in the Bible.On any moral issue .GODS Word is the final say on what is right and wrong. GOD..not Dr Dobson...not u not I ..not fox or MTV.

.as far as the force that is at work?
He first appears to us in Biblical History in Genesis 3 .Jesus defeated Him on the Cross (Gospels) but he is still free to decieve mankind until his fianl end comes as outlined in Revelation. according to what Revaltion says most of mankind will fall victim to his influence.It would be great if the masses were going to escape his trickery but according to what God says most will be taken. Ephesians 6 12 explains what we are up against and the gospels expose him as well

John, I find the problem with many Christians who like to cite Bible verses about how people ought to behave are really engaging in bookworship - worshipping a book (even a specific translation, often) as an idol, which is, in fact, what Paul is ranting about in Romans 1.

Here's a quote from a Bible scholar:

As for St Paul, Romans 1:26-27 may mention homosexual behaviour by women - or it might not! Here it is in the RSV:

v26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, (v.27) and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

These verses are part of a polemic against people who deliberately turn from the worship of God to the worship of idols - because of this, Paul says, God allows them to act in "dishonourable" ways. The idolators have spurned the natural order by worshipping created things rather than the creator, and now the natural order turns on them. This is obviously not a modern viewpoint, and again is focused only on acts, not orientation. By "natural relations", Paul means (potentially) procreative sex within marriage, so the women could be using contraceptives, not having penetrative vaginal sex, using sex aids, or sleeping with other women - frankly, I don't think Paul cares all that much; like other Hellenistic writers, he's mainly concerned with men as "normative" humans.

I think the most important word in those verses is "dishonourable" - in the 1st century CE, Mediterranean culture was organised on an intensively competitive honour/shame pattern. There's a limited amount of "honour" going around, and men try to accumulate it by acting as men "should", by defeating other men in arguments, in war, in number of followers etc. Women, on the other hand, try to avoid shame/dishonour, mainly through their sexual conduct. So, Paul is very likely saying that these idolators have got in an honour/shame contest with God, have naturally lost and so their honour is lost, therefore they are shamed, and one of the signs of this is that something/anything is known about the women's sexual conduct, and the men's sexual conduct involves causing some other men to take on the "female" role, thereby dishonouring both parties. (Paul is writing both as a highly educated Jewish scholar and as a writer from the Greek-speaking part of the Roman empire, and as someone who therefore has a doubly dim view of Classical Greek homosexual practices). (cite)

thats a bit over my head. I sure hope he's right and i am misunderstanding what is written..in the end we all must choose what we believe..I am going to hold the position it means just what it says ..although it would be great if I am wrong.

Pandagon says Dobson is rumored to be on the replacement list for Powell at the FCC...

Well, that could wipe out the WB's entire programming...and that's not such a bad thing ;-)

john: I am going to hold the position it means just what it says

...rather than means whatever Paul intended it to mean when he wrote it?

The point is that Dr. Dobson said this group was using the image of Sponge Bob and other cartoon characters that appeal to kids to get their attention, and then including curriuculum and a pledge that states sexuality is as unchangeable as race and gender. He never said Sponge Bob was gay. It was the media who twisted his words in order to undermine his credibility. We need to urge the media to report the facts. Dan Rather has set a terrible precedent!!!!

well said. its sad to see someone like Dr Dobson take so much heat. be advised people...there are invisible realities at work in our world..without God and his Word..we are easily decieved and taken. And if you think this force is not active influencing our children..you had bettter think again..Any Christain who has attempted to apply Gods word to their life knows full well the strategy of this force. Only one way out..Thank God for his Word and thank you Dr Dobson.

The United Church of Christ is having a whole lot of fun at Dobson's expense.

United Church of Christ? no wonder they mock Dr Dobson, a little research at thier site reveals what they are about..
The United Church of Christ has added to its list of higher-education scholarships with the first such fund in any church specifically for gay and lesbian seminarians.
"Named for the first openly gay person ordained to the Christian ministry in modern times, the William R. Johnson Scholarship Fund will support openly gay and lesbian persons "in care" of UCC Associations and studying in Master of Divinity programs toward full-time ministry in the UCC."

Sorry the bible is clear about these issues...u canot say you know Christ and not obey His word as stated in First John..God word says all that do such are liars and the truth is not in them...sorry Gods word said it not me..
self Deception...so sad

Sorry to see Christians casting the first stone, worrying about the mote in their brother's eye, insisting people only pray in the closet, blah de blah.

jo: u canot say you know Christ and not obey His word as stated in First John.

Except that the first chapter of John's gospel doesn't say a word about being gay. Or about Sponge Bob Squarepants - I just checked. cite

Jes, you missed "Make straight the way of the Lord", which seems pretty clear.

Rilkefan: Jes, you missed "Make straight the way of the Lord", which seems pretty clear.

Heh. You're right: I missed that.

1 Cor 6:9-11

9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
NIV

1 Cor 6:8-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
NKJV
DO NOT BE DECEIVED>>>(above) a clear biblical warning that folks will get it wrong on these issues..
let me know if you need another reference

jo: a clear biblical warning that folks will get it wrong on these issues.

Problem is, jo, you're going by an English translation of a Greek word that does not mean "homosexual":

Two Greek words are used by Paul in two similar passages. They are malakos and arsenokoitai. These words are used in I Corinthians 6:9 and in I Timothy 1:10. Literally translated, malakos means "soft" and arsenokoitai means "male-bed."

Neither word meant "homosexual" in the Greek used during Paul's time. Unfortunately, Biblical language scholars disagree on what these words really did mean in the context of these two passages or to the people to whom Paul wrote. There were many Greek words for same-sex activity or "homosexuals," but Paul did not select them. Somehow translators have attached various "homosexual" meanings to these two words. cite

It's always worth remembering, too, that Paul's Epistles were letters - written by a man two thousand years ago to local groups facing specific issues. To argue that the English translations of these letters ought to have universal application to all Christians anywhere is... a bit sweeping. ;-)

Why don't you cite one of Jesus Christ's well-known tirades against homosexuality? If it's such a terrible sin, the gospels must be full of them, yes?

FIRST JOHN chp2
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
or how about Jude the half brother of Jesus
Jude 5-10
My answer to them is: Remember this fact-which you know already-that the Lord saved a whole nation of people out of the land of Egypt and then killed every one of them who did not trust and obey him. 6 And I remind you of those angels who were once pure and holy but turned to a life of sin. Now God has them chained up in prisons of darkness, waiting for the judgment day. 7 And don't forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind, including lust of men for other men. Those cities were destroyed by fire and continue to be a warning to us that there is a hell in which sinners are punished.

8 Yet these false teachers carelessly go right on living their evil, immoral lives, degrading their bodies and laughing at those in authority over them, even scoffing at the Glorious Ones. 9 Yet Michael, one of the mightiest of the angels, when he was arguing with Satan about Moses' body, did not dare to accuse even Satan, or jeer at him, but simply said, "The Lord rebuke you." 10 But these men mock and curse at anything they do not understand, and like animals, they do whatever they feel like, thereby ruining their souls.
TLB

According to the Bible ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY GOD"
2 Tim 3:16

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
KJV
ALL Scripture is given BY GOD not MAN
JESUS IS GOD>>

listen we happen to be talking about homosexuality..there are a whole lot of sins that will keep you out of heaven...and I am making the adjustment on many of them in my own life so I can see God for my self....the last thing i want to do is go into eternity and have Jesus say "DEPART FROM ME" which apparently he said he is going to say to MANY (not few) who call him LORD.I am only saying it seems afully risky to me to want to hold the position that the Bible permits homosexualiy although i hope it does for the sakes of many..i just find it hard to get around many verses..and i do not think God intended me to need a Greek hand book.


Matt 7:21-23
1 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
KJV

Matt 7:21-23
1 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
KJV

Matt 7:21-23
1 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
KJV

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

This passage tells Christians that scripture was divinely inspired, and that it is profitable. That means that God gave it to us in the form he did so that we might profit from it. It does not mean that everything Paul said must be taken as binding on us, since it is possible to profit from something in other ways. Consider Galatians 5:12, which the NRSV translates: "I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!" ('Those who unsettle you' being people who preach circumcision.) Is it obvious that the best way to profit from this is to decide that we should follow Paul in this, and cultivate in ourselves the sort of character that wishes castration (or some other sort of violence) on our opponents? Not to me, if only because it contradicts Christ's own teaching at other places. If not, then we need to read at least Paul's letters in a different way: not as presenting us with a model that we must follow, but as giving us something reflection on which will be profitable, especially if undertaken in the light of Christ's teachings.

Somehow translators have attached various "homosexual" meanings to these two words. cite
i visited the site you posted..remember this..In the garden when the serpent beguiled Eve..His words to her amt too "Did God really mean that? You should be aware that Satan comes transfigured as an angel of light...and he comes quoting scripture.

jo: suppose we don't ask what God really meant, but go with the first interpretation that pops into our head. Then, it seems to me, we risk being wrong about His will, especially since we are sinful, and thus the first thing that pops into our head might very well be wrong. (It might even be put there by the devil disguised by an angel of light.)

Suppose, on the other hand, that we do ask ourselves what God meant. Then we might also be wrong, especially if we are tempted by self-serving conclusions.

But if we stop to ask ourselves what we think God really meant, we can weigh different answers against everything else we know He has said, and hopefully find the truth. Whereas if we never stop to ask that, we act blindly, and can easily be led astray.

when i first became a Christian I met a young lady who could not believe that "sex out side of marriage was forbidden by the bible" her Bible version replaced the word "fornication" with "sexual immorality" . I guess if one wants to behave a certain way you can find a way to manipulate the scripture to feel comfortable in your behavior..to risky for me...we are talking about ETERNITY here.you only get one chance..i believe the WORD is clear on Homosexuality..

i just find it hard to get around many verses..and i do not think God intended me to need a Greek hand book.

This is the funniest thing I have ever read on Obsidian Wings. Ever.

Remember, if the King's English was good enough for Our Lord Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us!

I promise this will be my only comment on this thread, otherwise I will violate the posting rules in ways they have never been violated before.

I promise this will be my only comment on this thread, otherwise I will violate the posting rules in ways they have never been violated before.

thanks

Phil: This is the funniest thing I have ever read on Obsidian Wings. Ever.

Heh. It is fairly typical, though, of Christians given to bibliolatry who can't read Greek, Hebrew, or Latin, and don't want to learn: and Jo appears to be one of them.

Jo: i believe the WORD is clear on Homosexuality.

And if you believe that, I guess you don't need to know what the Bible actually says in the language it was written in. Where faith is sufficient, knowledge is not required.

wow i am really being enlightened! can u help me. i was wondering if you can research the greek "actual meaning" for me on the topic of pre matital sex.

I promise this will be my only comment on this thread, otherwise I will violate the posting rules in ways they have never been violated before.

But maybe the posting rules would like that! Have you ever thought about asking the posting rules instead of just assuming they're goody-goody-two-shoes? Maybe they want to get wild and crazy! Maybe they want to be violated! It's always you, you, you; you never think about them and their needs...

Jo, since you don't seem to want to pay any attention to what the Bible actually says about homosexuality (not a lot, frankly, and most of that not as clear-cut as you want to believe) I can't imagine that you'd want to pay any attention to what the Bible actually says about pre-marital sex. Or even pre matital sex. ;-) After all, since you have faith that you already know what the Bible says, what use is it going to do you to actually look it up and find out?

" You should be aware that Satan comes transfigured as an angel of light...and he comes quoting scripture."

And who came to this thread quoting scripture, claiming to speak for the will of God?

Jo, since you don't seem to want to pay any attention to what the Bible actually says about homosexuality

what the Bible says

.

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God. He created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18ff). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing.

I understand what it says.

Jo: I understand what it says.

Do you? Is Hebrew your field of study, not Greek?

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

What it says in Hebrew, in a fairly literal and ugly annotated translation, followed by a more idomatic translation.

va-Yikra 18:22
And to (a) male you (2nd person masc sing) will not lie down (euphemistic) from (comparative use) the lying-down (euph.)-of-(a)-woman! (An) improper mixing, it is!

Don't fuck a male like you'd fuck a woman. It's not usual (tm Homer Simpson).

The critical word here (toe-ay-vah) is a ritual word, also used to describe ritually unclean food (Deut 14:3), worshippers of idols (Isa 14:24), marrying an idol worshipper (Mal 2:11), sacrifices offered by a wicked person (Prov 21:27), and various other acts not acceptable in the ritual sphere. This has to do with ritual cleanliness/purity (which has nothing to do with washing) - it is the proper state for someone just about to offer a sacrifice. So if someone starts throwing these verses around, perhaps they should be asked when they last gave a wave-offering. cite

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

What it says in Hebrew, in a fairly literal and ugly annotated translation,
followed by a more idomatic translation.

va-Yikra 20:13
And (a) man who he shall lie down (euphemistic) to (a) male from (comparative use) the lying-down (euph.) -of-(a)-woman (an) improper mixing they did the two of them, they will surely die their blood(s) (is) in/with/by them.

A man who'll fuck a male like he would fuck a woman - kill them, they've both made themselves impure and they deserve it.

The same word is here, and this time there is a death penalty - this isn't singling out intercourse between men, though, it's in a whole big list of ritual no-nos that get death: sacrificing children, following other gods, cursing your parents, committing adultery, committing incest (defined as a man and his father's wife or his daughter-in-law - not actual blood relatives by our ideas - a man who sleeps with his sister, half-sister, his aunt, his uncle's wife, his sister-in-law or any woman having her period has committed a similar but apparently lesser sin, and the guilty parties are thrown out of the community), a man marrying a woman and her mother, and having sex with an animal -this last requirement is the only one of the list addressed to both men and women. And the reason for keeping these laws? To keep the land of Israel ritually clean, i.e., in a fit state to offer sacrifices in. these laws have nothing to do with sexuality, and everything to do with a particular form of religious practice.

There's also the question of logic- what makes these verses applicable to modern Christians (I'm not qualified to say much of anything about modern Judaism)? Why aren't other laws deemed applicable? Eating non-kosher food, wearing mixed-fibre clothing, having a frigging bank account - these are all just as abominable according to the texts, after all. cite

1 Cor. 6:9-10

I dealt with your claims about 1 Corinthians in my comment at January 29, 2005 10:10 AM - the word Paul used in his letter doesn't mean "homosexuals".

Rom. 1:26-28

I dealt with Romans 1 in my comment to John at January 26, 2005 01:34 PM.

I don't think you do know what the Bible says: you've just picked out certain passages in English translations and decided for yourself what they mean.

Whoops. I've just realized that those translations from the Bible violate the posting rules on profanity*. My apologies: can someone edit those comments to suitably bowdlerize out the f-words?

*Not something I get to say very often.

Actually, some other mod might disagree, but I tend to make a quoting exception, which covers this. It's quite interesting.

My apologies: can someone edit those comments to suitably bowdlerize out the f-words?

Fart you! </Meatwad>

Hi, jo. Have you ever gotten a haircut (Lev 19:27)? Do you eat pork (Lev 11:7) or shrimp (Lev 11:9) Do you wear polyester? (Lev 19:19) Are you aware that these are also forbidden by the Mosaic law of Leviticus, or the Holiness Codes? Are you aware that the Holiness Codes do not apply to you?

Do you pick and choose the parts of the Bible you want to believe in based on your preconceived notions? That sounds prideful.

It's quite clear that burning desire is sinful, whether it be for a woman or for a man. Lust turns the heart away from goodwill and holiness. But to suggest that only homosexual lust is a sin is to distract oneself from one's own tribulations by painting targets on someone else.

in no place in the bible when giving instruction on marriage does the bible ever refer to he/he or she/she...ALWAYS it is he/she.(common sense).... Also there are many instructions to females and males as to their behavior and place(whether I like it or not) within the marriage institution. who is the head of the homosexual living arrangemment?As defined by who?can homosexuals refer to the bible for instruction when marriage "issues" arise and understand who God is talking to (M/F)? does the word husband have a meaning to a homosexual? i am sure you think I am the one thats confused on this issue..I and several MILLION other Christians..surely not those posting here

Jo,

As one who writes and posts here, and a homosexual, and a Christian, who is not at all confused on this issue, I take great offense at your views. You're entitled to them, clearly, but you don't have the credentials, at least as far as one can tell from your comment, to speak for anyone other than yourself, regardless of what you feel several MILLION other Christians think.

sorry ed.

Jo, the idea that gay people cannot enter into a Christian marriage is one I unequivocably support. Any religion - any unit in any religion - has a right to say who can and who can't get married under their rules. Your branch of Christianity (whichever that is) has a right I would defend to the last to say that, in your church, no same-sex couple may get married.

You also have a right to argue that, in principle, a same-sex marriage can't be a Christian marriage. (You do not, of course, have the right to tell other branches of Christianity that they can't conduct same-sex marriages: freedom of religion means they don't run your church and you don't run theirs.)

But this has nothing whatsoever to do with the institution of civil marriage, which is open to all people of any religion or none.

And, the reason I came back to this thread: On tolerance - commentary on the thing that started it all...

the idea that gay people cannot enter into a Christian marriage is one I unequivocably support.

I should add, of course, that I also unequivocably support the idea that gay people can enter into a Christian marriage.

I've heard both ideas defended by Christians, and see no reason to pick one over the other.

Jo, the idea that gay people cannot enter into a Christian marriage is one I unequivocably support. Any religion - any unit in any religion - has a right to say who can and who can't get married under their rules. Your branch of Christianity (whichever that is) has a right I would defend to the last to say that, in your church, no same-sex couple may get married.

Bravo, Jesurgislac. I believe I'd have been less temperate in my response, in your place.

Oh, hilzoy, this is so last week.

Er, and that's why the thread started last week. Never mind.

Heh.

Indeed.

RTWT; you'll be glad you did.

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; 4and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths," (2 Tim. 4:3-4).

oooo...sounds fun.

Where can I go to get my ears tickled? Is there a home delivery service?

;-)

Just kidding Jo. I have memorized more Scripture than most people I know in my lifetime, but I see the Bible as a metaphorical spiritual guide, not a "How To" manual.

If you have a more direct point to make, perhaps you should interpret how you read 2 Tim 4:3-2.

Backward, Edward? Not the Bible, too!

Backward, Edward?

In the original Aramaic and Greek, no less...;-)

Jo: Yes, indeed. I assume that you are not being Pharasaical here? Because if you are, do consider Matthew 7:1-5.

Hmmm...Jo is evidently reading something related to the New American Standard Bible, which has the tickly-ears passage. The New International Version has something more like itchy ears:

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

In case anyone's interested. When trying to obtain a more accurate translation of a particular passage, though, I find that asking my pastor works very well. One advantage of belonging to a WELS church is that the pastors all have to be fluent in reading all of the biblical languages.

Is it just me, or does the quote remind anyone else of a certain President's staff and cabinet arrangements?

I bet a lot of things reminds you of that, Edward.

Slarti, I happen to know two Biblical scholars who love providing exact translations of passages from Hebrew or Greek (and have lots of opinions about the available English translations, too). Me, I only read English, but I have read the Bible thoroughly in English - and in more than one translation. I find I can generally outquote most fundamentalist Christians who appear only to have read certain specified passages from the Bible. This tends to disconcert them, rather.

I bet a lot of things reminds you of that, Edward.

touché!

touché!

Tickle!

;-)

Matthew 7:1-5.
Jesrugislac..i am not impressed with your quoting..it is however astonishing to me how one can twist scriptures to fit a cause. When I became saved I adjusted my life to scripture not vise versa .. I am very aware of Matthew 7 1-5.Ever read Mt 15:12-14?
Any way, Jesus did not say never to correct something you see as wrong in ones life. He IS saying be sure you see clearly when u do.
JAMES 5: My brothers and sisters,21 if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone turns him back, 5:20 he should know that the one who turns a sinner back from his wandering path22 will save that person’s23 soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.


I deeply appreciate those who had the courage to correct me. I never viewed those persons who pointed to something they saw wrong in my life as judges but freinds God used to help me along.
since the road to heaven is "narrow" and "few" that find it,i am grateful for all voices that tried to help me. Can i give you a little testimony?hopefully it will not take to much space.
For many years i walked the streets of my town as well as the inner cities of NYC reaching out to the lost. One day i found myself in a police car looking for an individual that i witnessed stealing a pickup truck. When i went to introduce myself to the officer he stopped me and said...I know who you are..He then said these words and I will NEVER forget them."10 years ago when u were on Beekman Ave preaching and everyone was laughing at you,I was in the back listening. I am saved today and You had alot to do with it." i said that to say this...i am not here to get in a scripture quoting duel..cyber soul fishing is new to me and I admit i have been a bit brutal at it,forgive me:( amoung all the scoffers i am searching for the one who maybe crying out to God for help.Although my opinion may not be recieved here by many I am aware that someone may be in the back listening..one never knows.


oh i found this interesting article in the WELS library...http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/S/StarrHomosexuality/StarrHomosexuality.pdf

http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/S/StarrHomosexuality/StarrHomosexuality.pdf

Jo,

with all due respect, please don't. This is not the place for it. People of many varied religions participate here.

Any more "soul fishing" and you will be banned.

Jo: cyber soul fishing is new to me and I admit i have been a bit brutal at it,forgive me

Incompetent, rather than brutal, I'd say. And if incompetence is a sin, it's one for which I freely forgive you.

no need to worry ed i am leaving..it has been interesting. sorry for the intrusion.
Jesurgislac thanks :)

jo: Jesurgislac thanks :)

Oh, you're welcome. I like incompetence in people like you.

Rev 20:11-12
1 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

I think we should get past this first b4 you claim competence.
KJV

Rev 20:11-12
1 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
KJV

er...

yeah.

is this 'jo' creature a pisstake, a spambot or *shudder* posting in earnest?

no matter what, jo is annoying the living f*&k out of me.

a question, jo - isn't disobedience sinful?
you were asked very nicely by edward (who is in a position of authority here @ obwi) to cease your unwanted evangelical overtures, yet here you are, still vainly trying to earn brownie points with the man upstairs in your misguided attempts to convert the 'heathens'.

as someone who firmly rejected christianity in his youth, i can tell you that the inconsideration and intolerence you've exhibited in this thread does little to convince me of your righteousness.

in fact, it reinforces my theory that those who are drawn to aggressive evangelism are only doing so not out of true conviction, but to feed their own egos.

there are much better and more effective ways to exhibit your faith than bible-trolling blog comment threads.


matt,

right message...slightly over-hostile tone...bring it down a notch please.

my apologies, edward.

my past flirtation with fundamentalist christianity can sometimes colour my interaction with 'true believers'.

shall permanently set my snark at 'medium' from now on;)

my past flirtation with fundamentalist christianity can sometimes colour my interaction with 'true believers'.

Amen to that!

my own fault for joining a calvinist/reconstructionist denomination, i suppose.

the main thing i learned from my dance with the darkside: never tell a christian reconstructionist that you're a socialist - doing so will only result in being bombarded with gary north books (trust me on this).

jo: I think we should get past this first b4 you claim competence.

You mistake me, jo - not for the first time. I never claimed competence: I merely pointed out that you are incompetent. I've had evangelicals argue with me about their God and their beliefs whose skills would put you to shame: your knowledge of the Bible is limited, your spelling, grammar, punctuation, and structure is appalling, your idea of arguing is to keep citing texts, as if that proved something, and you have no idea of responding to questions. Nor can you deal with the idea that others hold different beliefs from you. Nor, apparently, can you manage the basic minimum courtesy of arguing on a blog: do what the moderator tells you.

You're incompetent as an evangelist. And believe me, if I believed in God, I'd thank God for it. I prefer incompetence in people who want to believe that God shares their bigotries.

I love Sponge Bob and I think its just wrong critisizing a show when theres no need to. Sponge Bob teaches kids lessons and may even support gay pride but, whats so wrong with that? I think everyone should lay off. Sponge Bob squarepants would have to be one of the best shows made...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad