So it turns out yet another anti-gay Republican turns out to be gay.
Do you think it’s true what they say, that those who shout loudest about how they hate gays are just protesting a wee bit too loudly? Is the hate expressed by Republicans toward gay people really just the projected hate expressed by Republicans toward their gay selves? Would the world be a whole lot better off if Republicans stopped inverting and then projecting their personal insecurities into the public sphere?
And yes, I expect everyone who cites the Bible to tell me when they last ate shellfish.
And then mention where it says “you should therefore tear these couples apart, and shun away their attempts to marry – God”.
The full story is that this anti-gay Republican mayor of Spokane is not only currently sexually active with other adult men, he was found to have sexually molested Boy Scouts years ago, when he was involved with the organization as a Boy Scouts leader. There’s that strange mix of self-righteous Boy Scouts moralism and outrageous immoral abuse again.
I just don’t understand this, you are advocates for homosexual marriage, but then when one of the republicans turns out to be gay you attack him and claim he’s “insecure”. If you’re gonna promote homosexual lifestyles then you should support the homosexual lifestyles of ALL HOMOSEXUALS. I’m not going to say anything about God on this one. No one needs to, you guys have screwed yourselves with this story. Good luck explaining why you all love gays except for republican gays…
Meghan,
It’s easy. We have no problem with the Republican mayor of Spokane being gay. We have a problem with the Republican mayor of Spokane pushing virulently anti-gay policies as a consequence of his own self-hatred.
This guy can do whatever he wants in his private life, as long as he hurts no one else (see jclifford’s comment). But he shouldn’t use public policy as a means for working out his psychological discomfort with his own sexual orientation.
Got it?
Yes, it’s pretty simple. The issue is one of being a hypocrite – using the Republican anti-gay agenda as a way of gaining power, even when it is not consistent with the Republican politician’s actual beliefs and practices.
So, thanks for the wishes for good luck, but what I’d like you to explain, Meghan, is what you think makes God have anything to do with this issue.
Perhaps, also, Meghan, you might explain how promoting the right of people to be homosexual necessitates that we support ALL homosexual options – such as the sexual abuse of boys by men, or homosexual necrophilia, for example.
Doesn’t it logically follow from this claim that YOU would have to support heterosexual rapists because you support heterosexuality?
This was not a matter of what I advocate. You ask me how I think God has a place in this issue, well for one he lied, and for another he’s gay. Two things that object with God’s law. That is how God has something to do with this situation according to my beliefs. After reading the last three posts, I rescind my statement, you were right on this one. But I in no way believe that because it is true for this case that it is automatically true for every other instance where this has happened. Thank you for straightening me out on this issue. Oh, and my apologies for implying that you support ALL homosexual options it was not supposed to be taken the way it was. I’ll be more clear in the future.
OK, Meghan, you’ve triggered it:
When was the last time you ate shellfish?
Ummmm, the relevance please?
You’re the Christian. Don’t you read your Bible?
Meghan, I have read the Bible, even though I’m not a Christian. Even I know that the Bible absolutely forbids eating shellfish.
The Bible also forbids usury. So, are you dealing with sinners like credit card companies and banks? If so, why are you so eager to heap your condemnation on homosexuality, but so eager to ignore the other sins declared by the Bible.
But, then again, you may consider that maybe it is kind of a little bit crazy to call eating shellfish a sin. Then, along the same lines, it may be kind of a little crazy to think that the Creator of the Cosmos, with all of its billions of galaxies burning and super novas exploding and black holes dragging in entire stars to darkness, really cares about the details of the sex lives of a few creatures on one little planet.
Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved” This brought Paul and Branabas into sharp dispute and debate with them so Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed bt rthe church and the apoltles and elders, to whom they reported everything god had done through them. Then some of the believers who belonged to teh party of the Pharisees stood up and said “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses” The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiiles mght hear from my lips the message of teh gospel and believe, God who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neitehr we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.
-Acts 15:1-11
The law of Moses is what forbid the consumption of shell fish and usury.
Sorry for all the typos, I meant to go through and fix them after i finished typing it out but I pushed the submit button a bit too hastily.
The law of Moses (Leviticus) is also what forbid gay sex.
And hey, do you wear a hat in church? That’s a New Testament rule.
“He made no distinction between us and them…”
…well, aren’t you making distinctions between classes of people?
You’ve got to watch out for that Bible, Meghan. Tricky thing.
Alright, fair enough. But here’s a website that interprets Paul’s supposed condemnation of homosexuality differently: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm
Are there other reasons that you believe homosexuality is sinful?
If all y’all wanna use your religion to justify your bigotry, then SHAME ON YOU. I count myself to be a lucky guy, to have a wife that loves me very much…almost as much as I love her…We have a host of friends, some straight, some gay/lesbian, a few that are bi. Big whoop… Their sexual preference is none of my business. One, an openly gay guy, is a Log Cabin Republician that I dearly love to argue politics with. For chrissakes, will allayou GET A GRIP? As long as it doesn’t involve dumb animals or small children (like the mayor of Spokane), I couldn’t give a third of a fifth of a fuck who their bedpartner(s) are… and neither should you. And, if you wanna wave the Christian flag, all I can say is what Jesus said: Love thy God with all thy heart, and love thy neighbor as thyself”. Pretty self-explanitory, huh?
You know, it really is a shame that we’re debating this, because it is such a nonissue. Honestly what is the harm? Kids raised in homosexual households do just fine. Increased acceptance of homosexuality in our culture doesn’t seem to be doing any harm. I have plenty of gay and bi friends, and they are all lovely people. I’ve met some GLB assholes, of course, but no more on average than the rest of the population. We have plenty of people, so it can’t be that old-school, you must bear children nonsense. So what’s the big freakin’ deal?
Random,
We’re debating this because Republicans are making it an issue. In some places, like Virginia, they’re passing laws making it illegal to practice sex in ways that Republican Christians don’t approve of.
That’s the big freakin’ deal.
In England, even a lot of the right-wing people seem to be… Well, not pro-gay, but indifferent. Just another difference between some humans, like eye colour, oh the joys of variety.
Also, it lowers the chance of unplanned pregnancy, and same-sex couples, along with infertile couples, can become the perfect parents for children who otherwise wouldn’t have the care and attention that they deserve.
Obviously, they’re just normal relationships, so they too can be detrimental for everyone involved, but hopefully the continuing shift of social values and improved education will mend that.
“The law of Moses is what forbid the consumption of shell fish and usury” – Meghan Malone
“The law of Moses (Leviticus) is also what forbid gay sex.” – Odd Claude
Fingers crossed, that’s going to come bowling across as a great point. [Insert
here]
Personally, though, if I disapprove of something, I don’t need a god to back me up, I’ll use facts and logic to do so.
Ah, yes, religeous law…some people have actually told my wife that she should divorce me because she is christian and I am an atheist. Something about some verse about yoking things unevenly. She told one person, “Why are you wearing clothes which are a blended material?” and pointed out this thing as a biblical no-no.
I’ve performed for several gay unions, some in churches, some not. Children wee present at most of them, and nobody “went queer” from exposure or anything that I’ve heard darkly hinted. Just none of my business what one person of legal age does with another consenting adult.
Oh, yeah. Some of those I’ve heard hold forth on the sanctity of hetro marriage, and that the only permissible sort, well I wonder. Why do most of them have at least one divorce under their belt? I heard one clown prosing on about it, he had some wildly funny joke about how gay marriage was when you tied the bride and groom to the bumper instead of cans and shoes, and dragged THEM. He already had tanked two marriages, and was actually cheating on his wife when he offered that little bon mot.
Pingback: Irregular Times: News Unfit for Print»Blog Archive » God, Facts, Logic and Reason
Sarge,
There was an absolutely appaulling case with one of the anti-gay hate speakers… He was into hiring (female) prostitutes, and one of them quoted him crudely fantasizing about her pre-pubescent daughter.
He gave one of his little speeches in Canada, though. Hate speech is illegal there (as it should be), and so he got in quite a bit of trouble for it. Forget his name, though…
[NOTE: People can express any opinion they like, as far as I'm concerned, but not in the form of hate speech.]
Internalized homophobia brought on by a lifetime of cultural & religous condemnation is the crux of the mayor’s problem. He now admits that he has sex with men, but still refuses to admit to himself or anyone else that he is ‘gay’. Just like the many married black men on the “down-low” or other so called ‘straight’ guys who cruise parks and highway rest-areas for sex. They are in denial of their sexual identity and they hide their ‘activities’ in fear of being ‘outed’ to family, friends, or society. It’s no wonder so many conservative and religous zealots only see the sex and not the person. People like the mayor cower in self hating shame – seeking out secret casual rendevous with other guys like them rather than living their lives to the fullest, openly, and with pride, and developing real, lasting and loving relationships. It is necessary that we move our culture forward and get past society’s ingrained prejudices, hatreds, and ingnorance. We need to value everyone’s diversity and treat all people with respect and dignity. People learn hate – they aren’t born with it.
For anyone interested in knowing that not all Christians are fundamentalists, envangelicals, or otherwise bible-thumping right-wing conservatives, here are a couple of good resources for progressives, moderates, or gay Christians:
Sojourners
http://www.sojo.net/
Soulforce
http://soulforce.org/
And, here’s an interesting quote:
“However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.’” – Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, September 16, 1981.
Quote lifted from:
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/
Too bad there aren’t many Republican politicians like Barry around anymore!
Recommended reading:
http://andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php
Oh, I’m sorry, jclifford, I didn’t mean to imply that I didn’t think we should be debating it. I just don’t understand why it’s an issue with the people who are trying to pass the legislation. Homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone, so I’m failing to see why there should be laws against it. I don’t think we shouldn’t debate it, just that it’s a shame that we have to. Just for the record, I have no problem at all with homosexuality, and rather think that there are more ones and fives on the Kinsey scale than people usually like to admit.
Additional thoughts (definitly not related to the mayor’s situation):
It used to be that social conservatives claimed that gays were promiscuous and couldn’t maintain stable relationships, so we were a threat to society and the family. But, now, as gays have proven the opposite, and are demanding equal civil marriage rights, we are even more a threat to society and the family. The bottom line social policy toward gay people embraced by conservatives is that gay people simply shouldn’t exist. And if they do exist, society has to pretend they don’t.
Sadly, I realize that hard-line political and religous conservatives will continue exherting their efforts, energy, and monies, spreading fear, intolerance, lies, and hate in their crusade to deny GLBT peoples dignity, equality, and fairness. Gays are their best scapegoat to blame all of society’s ills on. As long as there’s someone else they can blame, there’s no need to look within to fix the problems. And, as long as gays are constantly under attack and denied equality, we won’t sit quietly on the sidelines letting our enemies determine our fate.
The only way we can beat the hard-line right-wingers is to stand up and speak out against bigotry, to combat ingorance with education, and to promote tolerance and understanding by living our lives to the fullest – openly, honestly, and equally.
Meghen,
Do you have any personal reasons for hating gay people other than “the bible tells me so�
Hell…dose ANYBODY have ANY personal reason for hating gay people other than what it told to them in the bible?
Pauly
Have many of the people who use Christianity as an excuse actually READ the Bible?
Found an interesting site some months ago… It was a Christian site, firmly set against sex before marriage, and to tackle this recommended and educated about… Masturbation.
Personally, I think marriage is much more than a meeting of the genitalia, and should be more a sign of commitment than the opening of a doorway for socially approved sex, but still…
I think promoting masturbation’s a better way to go about it.
People need to feel more comfortable with themselves, especially sexually; genitalia isn’t immune to disease, and there are a LOT of stupid things people can do to themselves that they really shouldn’t.
Hiring prostitutes isn’t healthy. I don’t see cheating on your partner as being healthy, either (not because it’s a big deal, but more because I think that people should really be able to decide and notice whether or not they have a committed relationship, and if they can’t hold true to what they say then they’re either lying or have a problem they need to solve).
Forcing oneself into a relationship with someone you’d rather just be friends with; I think that’s unhealthy too.
Alright, where to start? Well how about where I’m told that the Law of Moses is also the law that say that homosexuality is wrong. This would contradict my point wouldn’t it? Well it would except that homosexuality is forbidden not only in the Old Testament Law of Moses but also many times in the New Testament. And no, no one wears hats in MY church during the service or in the sanctuary…I wasn’t too sure if that was a serious question or not. Odd Claude, I couldn’t quite grasp what you meant when you were talking about me making distinctions between classes of people, please elaborate.
Random42, If you’d like to talk about the different interpretations of the Bible we could start discussing it now and never be through, the easiest way to avoid controversy with the interpretation of the Bible is to just take what it says literally, and it is my belief that the Bible is literal and when you start saying “well this is what it COULD” you’re probably going to come out wrong. I take the seven days to mean seven days and everything else to mean just what it says.
HareTrinity, I use my God to back me up just like you use your scientists or any other well known educated person to back up your beliefs. Saying that you don’t think someone should use their God to back them up is pretty much the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard because one bases their beliefs on God and then they aren’t supposed to use God to back them up? You don’t even realize the stupidity of saying something like that. Facts and logic are great too and if you’d like some facts and logic just ask, don’t just complain about it the fist time you get a chance.
Pauly, I’ve read a lot of what you’ve written and I’ve got to say that you irritate me just a bit, not because of your frank questions, but because of your assumptions. I don’t hate anyone, I don’t hate liberals, I don’t hate gay people, and I don’t hate people who have abortions. I hate the sins that are involved with these actions and lifestyles. I have gay relatives, I have gay friends and I love them all dearly. Because of my belief in God, I don’t approve of their lifestyle and they know that but I don’t force them to do anything and I don’t hate them for it. All I have expressed on this blog is my disapproval of it. But I have said nothing like “no one can be gay” “I can’t stand gay people”, so the assumption that I hate gay people is wrong and unfair to me. Because I agree with a lot of republican views and disagree with a lot of democratic views there is this presupposition that I receive from all of you that I think gay marriage should be outlawed and BLAH BLAH. I believe that it should not be government regulated at all, just like I don’t think that abortion should be government regulated, I feel this way about a lot of issues, not all issues but a lot. I hope I’ve cleared up a few issues for everyone here. If there is anything that I have left unanswered…I know you’ll let me know.
The point of my post was that the Bible was poorly translated. If you want an exact interpretation of the Bible, the link I gave talked about what the words really mean. It seems that taking a bit about how bad Christians going off and joining pagan fertility cults is as a condemnation of homosexuality is where we’re getting into ‘interpretation’.
Also, if you want to debate something, saying that you believe in it because “God tells you so” immediately ends all discussion. How can anyone argue with that, and how can you learn more about your own beliefs? There are a lot of things that God says, like women covering their heads in church (Paul, right?), that you don’t necessarily heed. That’s a universal you, by the way. Most people make religion personal like that, I think. It’s a lot more fruitful, at least in my opinion, if you actually give thought to why you believe things beyond saying it was God. Also, unfortunately, God is not a good a spokesperson as scientists are. Sorry, but the Bible does have historical inaccuracies and the like, so I’m going to trust someone who studies Middle Eastern history, say, before I’ll trust God.
Meghan,
Check your Bible at I Corinthians 11:4:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head.”
Paul may have been against homosexuality. He was also against women praying in church without hats.
I understand how, as a Christian, you don’t think it necessary to uphold the requirements of the whole Bible (e.g. the dietary rules of Leviticus).
But why do you hold so strongly to one of Paul’s prohibitions (homosexuality), while you ignore another (bare-headed women in church)?
Why not use facts and logic first?
As for interpretation, since you can’t read Hebrew or Greek, probably don’t know that “seven days” could probably have been better translated as “seven ages”, that the “a man may not lay with a man as if he were a woman” thing could have mean men couldn’t procreate together or start a family together and so on.
Do you even know who Lilith was? She was the first woman on Earth, according to Genesis. THE FIRST WOMAN ON EARTH was EDITTED OUT of the Bible! Doesn’t this concern you?
Or do you think that the Bible got more correct as it was altered further and further away from its original meaning?
Not at all worried that who wrote the Bible is pretty much unknown?
Not worried about the Dead Sea Scrolls; that a bunch of priests threw aside all of the potential New Testament material, and, oddly enough, only kept the ones that said he’d been the son of God?
Hey, don’t you feel at all odd knowing that “Jesus” was probably named Joshua, and the name “Jesus” only used due to translation?
No I don’t feel a little odd knowing any of that because none of that is true, I’m sorry HareTrinity but I must insist that you don’t have any idea of what you are talking about. I believe what is in the Bible and not anything that someone THINKS might have been taken out, left out, or supposed to be a part of it. Your first paragraph is exactly what I was saying when I said the Bible is literal. We do not explore what it COULD mean because there is no question about it, it means what it simply means and twisting it around to making it say what you want it to say makes it completely meaningless!!!!!!!!!! And furthermore the writers of the Bible are not unknown, are you really that afraid of the Bible that you go through bit by bit and find something to discredit it, for something you say is so unbelievable and not true you sure are defensive and fearsome of it.
Well, what about the mistranslations? I can give you links to a minister, I believe he was, who says the same thing about that passage, but still believes homosexuality is sinful. And as for there being no question about what the Bible says- it’s hardly a manual. It uses plenty of metaphors and allegories and other things that require interpretation. It’s none too clear what it means even some of the time. From what I understand of the Jewish tradition, there’s insane amounts of commentary for many of the verses in the first five books. If it were so easy to understand, why bother? Jesus doesn’t make things much clearer, with his love of allegory and fables. Paul neglected to include the other half of the conversation in his letters, so he can be a bit difficult at points. I’m not bashing the Bible’s complexity; it wouldn’t speak to so many people if it weren’t complex. You’re kind of selling it short to claim that it’s so easy to understand.
So you ARE saying that the Bible you own is superior to the older versions of it? Edging on racism there…
And I have a good idea what I’m talking about, though I’m wondering if you do.
http://www.hranajanto.com/goddessgallery/lilith.html
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/l/lilith.html
And I’m not being “insecure”; I just don’t trust books that don’t state their sources.
Oh, here’s a Bible quote; “spare the rod and spoil the child”.
For some reason the above is often taken as sarcasm, though it plainly states that children should be spoilt.
I think you should read though this site:
http://www.elroy.net/ehr/fighttheright.html
You get very uppity about people pointing out that old texts are a little hard to understand, y’know. Archaic English is odd enough, but muchly translated through multiple languages, I’d want to do my own research before taking the Bible as a given truth.
Or was it God himself who translated the Bible and sorted out the Dead Sea scrolls?
Sources point to that being done by priests and such, and we all know how much they and Jesus got along…
Meghan, I think you owe everyone here an explanation of you selective following of the Bible. Why don’t you wear a hat on Sunday in church?
The Bible very literally says women should wear hats in church, and you say that you interpret the Bible literally, so how come you’re choosing to sin in this way?
It’s a serious question, very serious given that you have promoted the idea of Bible-based morality. If you can’t live it, why preach it to the rest of us? If Biblical moral rules against bare heads in church are silly, then why aren’t Biblical moral rules against certain kinds of sex?
Okay…
“No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” – Taken from Meghan’s quote.
Okay, that bit there clearly states that they are saved because of what they believe, in other words; because of THEIR interpretation.
This was not God stepping in and saying “forget about Moses”, it’s clearly some humans interpretting the Bible to mean that they’re already saved, and thus getting out of being circumcized.
Following that logic, it’s fine to interpret the Bible to mean that we’re already saved from all negative effects of sin, isn’t it?
Also, I’d like a quote on Jesus saying ANYTHING about homosexuality.
I mean, if he didn’t mention it, doesn’t it imply that it’s not as important as the things he DID mention?
[Edit: ...out of being circumcised.]
Of course not. Everyone knows that homosexuals are far more harmful to a good Christian society than are hypocrites, money-grubbers, people who live in glass houses and yet throw stones, bigots of all sorts, uptight people, people who are mean to orphans and widows, and on and on. I mean, my god, they live their lives like me, and yet… the boys kiss _boys_!!! EWWWW! Or something.
Meghan,
I agree with Jclifford and Michael. Please explain your selective obedience of the rules laid out in the Bible.
Why do you call on others to follow the rules of the Bible, while you yourself defy I Corintians 11:4?
Please answer the question.
jeeeeeeeepers, you people. some of your arguments are frankly laughable. i cannot speak for Meghan’s beliefs–there is no denying that faith is involved in Christianity, although it can be backed up. i will however rebut some of the more ridiculous arguments used on this thread.
someone, michael i believe it was, brought up Paul’s mentioning of hair coverings for women. michael (and haretrinity and anyone else latched onto this ridiculous argument), if you read the book (1 Corinthians) properly, you will see it was addressed to the early church in Corinth. Jewish culture then considered any woman without a hair coverning sexually promiscuous, thus, wearing a head covering signified respectability (much like a woman who walked down the streets today topless would be considered morally loose). and another thing, all of you, your argument seems designed to undermine the Bible’s commands. If Meghan does not obey a certain Biblical command that is her own failing, not the Bible’s. And another thing, you people. In the same passage it is said ‘for long hair is given to her as a covering.’ It says ‘hair’, not ‘hat’. With that passage, your argument is blown away completely. I happen to know Meghan personally (in fact, she introduced me to this charming and stimulating little website), and her head is covered with a nice long covering of black hair. I wish I had such nice hair. Of course I cannot back up those above statements, you will have to just take my word for it.
Meghan mentioned the New Testament condemning homosexuality. Here’s the passage: ‘Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator…Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty of their perversion.’
Hoo boy! Once again, your ignorant claim that the NEW Testament does not condemn homosexuality is blown away.
haretrinity, please actually read the Bible and not just assume things about by reading others’ comments. Jesus mentioned in Matthew 5:17: ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law..I have not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill them.’ Circumsicion was instituted in the Old Test. by God to set apart his people (Israel) from the rest of the world, both theologically and physically. When Jesus arrived on the scene, however, this ‘setting apart’ was fulfilled (MAtthew 5:14: You are the light of the world) in belief in him; when God looks at a born-again Christian, he does not see sin, but Jesus paying the price for the world’s sins on the cross. Thus through Jesus, the need for circumsicion was filled.
This is not to say ‘everbody is saved’. In the new testament Jesus says the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the holy spirit. Blasphemy of the holy spirit comes in the form of rejecting the forgiveness of Jesus, and Jesus himself. The Christian philosophy is ‘Jesus did it for you, all you need to do is love Jesus’. And if you love Jesus, naturally you’ll do your utmost to obey his commands. So if you willingly, time and time again, disobey, it shows you do not really love JEsus.
if you all want my advice, drop these silly arguments and go back to the original topic. you’ll just continue looking hateful…not to mention the shrill, illogical diatribes (that means you random42)
oh, and haretrinity, the idea that because Jesus does not mention (and perhaps he does, i’ll look and get back to you later) something directly MUST mean he thinks its okay is a laughable argument. One of the basic principles of Christianity is that God is ‘three-in-one’, i.e., God, Son, and Holy Spirit. If GOD says homosexuality is wrong, it stands to reason that the Son would agree. Otherwise God would be contradicting himself. Don’t display your ignorance by engaging in such foolish arguments.
‘An argument is the exchange of ignorance, a debate is an exchange of ideas’
–E. C. Riggins
please forgive words written LIke THis. was in a hurry.
So, BenRig, ’cause we’re equal now the guys don’t need genital mutilation?
Or should that be that ALL men get it? And are you admitting that the Bible in that respect is sexist as the women apparently didn’t get set apart in any way?
Okay, now I want YOU to read this site I recommended to Meghan:
http://www.elroy.net/ehr/fighttheright.html
“God is not like men, who lie; He is not a human who changes his mind. Whatever he promises, he does; He speaks and it is done.” – Numbers 23:19
“So the Lord changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he threatened.” – Exodus 32:14
Shrill and illogical? Coming from you, I’ll take that as a compliment.
What do you think of the links I provided indicating that the passage you quote, BenRig, is mistranslated? Here it is again: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
If you go about 3/4 of the way down the page, it has links about several New Testament passages. And here’s a site that’s not gay-friendly that says much the same thing: http://www.thelutheran.org/0105/page56.html
The gentleman who wrote that piece says the same thing about the translations, but he does interpret it differently.
Rig, I do hope Meghan will answer for herself, but I’ll be happy to respond to your comments.
I Corinthians 11:5-6 reads:
“5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishohoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
The point is, a woman should cover her head when praying, unless her head is shaved or her hair is cut short. Long hair covered=OK. Short hair or shaved head uncovered=OK. Long hair uncovered=NOT OK.
I Corintians 11:14-15 does, puzzlingly enough, refer to a woman’s hair as a “covering,” but this is in the context of explaining why it is good for men to have short hair and women to have long hair:
“14. Doth not even nature itself teach you that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15. But if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”
In any case, Paul says in the next passage, “we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”
You do have one very good point. Paul was talking to certain people, at a certain place, at a certain time, and therefore his general pronouncements should be understood relative to the place and time they were made, and not imposed generally onto all people in all places at all times.
So the rules set out in the Bible (even the New Testament) do not necessarily apply to us now, but should instead be interpreted through a socially relativistic lense to see if they make sense in contemporary society? Is that what you’re saying?
You say the women’s head-covering issue is about dishonoring God by engaging in behavior deemed socially inappropriate at a certain place and time. If bare-headed women are socially acceptable in our place and time, they do not dishonor God. Fair enough.
What if we read the homosexuality issue the same way. If we accept homosexuality socially, it doesn’t dishonor God anymore. Right?
Your example of the New Testament’s condemnation of homosexuality (include chapter and verse, please) is also about certain people, in a certain place, at a certain time, incurring the wrath of God. Right?
I imagine you’ll object somehow or another, in which case my question for you is this: Which parts of the Bible proclaim universal truths for all people at all times, which should be dismissed through socially relativist judgement, and how do you go about telling the difference?
Hang on here, BenRig — hang on! Michael’s right. Let me frame the issue in a similar way:
1. Clearly, if you’re going to go by the Old Testament, you’ve got to slaughter bulls when you sin and not eat lobster. Oh, shit…
2. To avoid this inconvenience, modern Christians say the moral codes of the Old Testament are old hat. God changed his mind! It’s the NEW Testament stuff you’ve got to refer to. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
3. So they then quote a passage from Paul (they’re Paulists, not Christians, really) which says something about bad gay people, and say, “AHA!”
4. Problem is, the passages also say stuff about women having to cover their heads in Church.
5. But YOU say, Oh, Gosh, Paul was just speaking to people in one place and time, to the church in Corinth. It wasn’t a UNIVERSAL or anything…
6. But, of course, that’s all Paul was doing in the New Testament: writing to particular churches in particular places and times and telling them what to do.
7. Which, if you’re going to be parallel, means that there’s no longer ANY reason for Christians to give gays and lesbians a hard time.
8. Unless you really think that what Paul said was universally applicable, in which case I expect Christians to start persecuting hatless and short-haired women in Church.
Note on 1; it’s slaughter goats, actually. Young female goats without blemish.