Even Massachusetts has crazy right-wingers

[mtangelsfan]

I'm uncomfortable with sneaky flutes.

[Angelsjunky]

you have every right to disagree with me, and i appreciate that we can talk about such a difficult issue from different viewpoints. 

 

you are correct when you say that the bible was written by men and not directly by the hand of God Himself. where you and i disagree is your assertion that the bible is simply an assemblage of stories that some council somewhere long ago in time decided should or should not be included. i'll approach it with you as i do with others - i believe that while mortal men wrote it and assembled it, they were very carefully guided by the Holy Spirit. this is God's message of hope and love to us. it reveals Himself to us and what the past was like and what the future holds. i can't and won't believe for a minute that something so important that has gone out in His name as His missive to all mankind was done without His direct involvement, influence, and guidance. if you choose to believe differently, you're within your right to do so, but i'll disagree with you about it 100% of the time.

 

you also wrote "A question: You are putting homosexuals, murderers, thieves, and child molestors in the same box - do you not see this as judgmental? What would your gay friends think of that?"

my gay friends would disagree with me, of this i have no doubt, but i also know that they themselves struggle with that kind of grouping and wondering if indeed their sexuality is wrong. one of them told me several months ago that there are people going back through the bible to see if anything was missed relating to this issue, just as others have done in recent years about the role of women. no final report yet from them, however. because i try not to be judgmental (something i mentioned in my original post as an area where i'm not always successful), and because i value my friendship with them, we haven't gone any further in the discussion, nor do we need to. it is not my job or privilege to condemn people and tell them they're wrong or i disapprove. that is between them and God. my job is to be a witness for God and to love others, especially those who i may disagree with. 

 

I can't seem to separate the paragraphs to reply to them individually, so I'll just have to do it this way. With regards to your first paragraph, I hear that and I'm not going to argue you against your belief. I will ask a question, though. How literally do you take something that was written 2-3,000 years ago and assembled 1,500-2,000 years ago, even if "carefully guided by the Holy Spirit?" In other words, is everything that was relevant 2-3,000 years ago still relevant and true today? And, secondly, do you think that the biases and prejudices of the men involved didn't come into play?

 

If you believe the Bible to have been written under the careful guidance of the Holy Spirit, does it follow that you think that women should be subservient to men? And that adulterers and homosexuals should be stoned to death? How do you reconcile the contrast of Jesus' religion of love and the Old Testament's wrathful deity and rather vindictive guidelines?

 

As for the second paragraph, are you saying that you don't struggle with that kind of grouping? Do you see child molestation and homosexuality as equal in sinfulness?

 

As for your last few sentences, I appreciate this a great deal and even though I'm not Christian, I try to respect and love everyone as human beings, regardless of what they believe. That said, I do feel that there's a subtle (or not-so-subtle) judgment and condemnation in believing that something so intrinsic to a human being as sexual orientation is sinful, so I would argue that "love the sinner, hate the sin" is actually a form of hating the sinner, because to most homosexuals, their sexuality is intrinsic to their being, so if you see their sexuality as wrong and sinful, you are seeing them as wrong and sinful.

 

I assume that you do realize that some Christians don't think that homosexuality is wrong or sinful? The point being, there are many different variations of Christian faith, and in the 21st century I really don't see what is gained by taking a hardline approach. All it does is create more suffering.

 

wow, now i'm a homophobe and a racist? why can't i just simply disagree with something? i don't go out and campaign against people or groups. i don't ask for legislation to outlaw them or put them back in the closet. i'm not afraid of them. i don't say or think hateful things about them. i disagree with them - that's it. 

 

I didn't call you a racist, but I said that homophobia today is not completely different from racism 60 years ago - its the main, or one of the main, contemporary civil rights issues. You seem to be saying that you're not homophobic? How is believing homosexuality to be wrong and sinful not homophobic? Homophobia is not simply "fear of the gay" or outright aggression - its also viewing that homosexuality is sinful or wrong - its pretty much any kind of aversion towards homosexuality.

 

As for legislation, are you for or against gay marriage? That is what I was talking about with regards to gay marriage. The main argument people have against it is a religious one.

[Jay]

It's ok to say some things are creepy, weird and unnatural, but for others it's not ok.  These days you need a scorecard to keep track of what's creepy and what's not.

[St1ck]

It's ok to say some things are creepy, weird and unnatural, but for others it's not ok.  These days you need a scorecard to keep track of what's creepy and what's not.

I'll start the list.

 

 

Creepy

 

Jay L

Grown men that like My Little Pony

Watching Storage Wars

 

 

 

Not Creepy

 

Having a Mike Trout body pillow

[Blarg]

nate, it's a fair question to ask, and there are a number of comments in the bible that don't seem to fit our social values these days. i need to ask someone far more scholarly than i am about this. can i get back to you later?

 

Tank, in Jewish doctrine there are the Kosher laws that were essentially health codes established to protect their community from disease related to proper food handling. It include any swine and shellfish that in ancient times were constantly the causation for food poisoning and having no science that could be used to understand what was happening it was assigned as part of God's divine law to live a healthy life.

 

The quote from Timothy may be interpreted in the same way. A societal guideline for the time period that would establish a cohesive community where roles were established to avoid unnecessary conflict. Almost a communist manifesto from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, the roles were established.

 

It does not mean that society needed to make these rules unalterable as time and circumstances went on, in fact the Bible offers plenty of concessions to previous laws. Just as modern health codes have made the processing and handling of food independent of Kosher food handling to insure society is well feed and free of disease, the roles of women in modern society is just as flexible since much of the housewife responsibilities have been reduced by modern conveniences. It is not as though women need to spend the entire day baking bread, stone washing clothes, slow roasting meat over open fires that they have to tend.

 

These are guidelines, not God's holy law, to establish a smooth running society for the time period. The Bible, like the Constitution is a living document. You draw wisdom from it but temper that with change that progress provides.

 

There is only one instance where God speaks directly to man to establish laws for the tribe of Israel and that was to Moses to create the 10 Commandments. Nothing in those cover homosexuality as a sin.

 

But that is just my opinion and may not be supported by scholars in the field.

[mtangelsfan]

Biblical interpretation is fairly simple.  Poetic language should be interpreted as such.  Cultural language should be interpreted as such.  Wherein as possible, the difficult verses should be interpreted in their own context and also using other verses on the same topic.

 

The Timothy verse was clearly referring to church functionality since both 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus are pastoral letters.  In other words, written to a particular leader of a particular church.  In no way should the verse Nate quoted in Timothy be understood outside of church function.  Now, there is discussion within the church regarding the significance of this verse within the church now regarding women teaching men.  It is understood to be an issue that while some may disagree, it is not something to divide about.

[sneaky_flute]

There's been much debate over whether or not homosexuality is even condemned in the Bible. Many experts think it addresses pederasty which is not synonymous. 

 

At any rate, being selective when it comes to religious doctrine is a cop-out. 

[Angelsjunky]

the roles of women in modern society is just as flexible since much of the housewife responsibilities have been reduced by modern conveniences. It is not as though women need to spend the entire day baking bread, stone washing clothes, slow roasting meat over open fires that they have to tend.

 

I would also add that its also because women have wanted more autonomy and freedom in their choices. We're not yet at complete equality, but as a general rule modern Western culture supports women determining their own fate - whether they want to go the traditional route and be a homemaker, or if they want to have their own career.

 

My wife worked full-time until we had our first child, then when our daughter was about six months old, my wife went back to work part-time. When we had our second child she didn't work for a couple years, but really missed it. Now our two girls are 8 and 5 and both my wife and work full-time; it is a busy life, but given our respective careers (she's a massage therapist, I'm a teacher and counselor), we have enough flexibility to get the house work down together, and to be with our children.

 

I only share my configuration because I think its a good example of a "modern arrangement" and that it has nothing to do with household conveniences, but two things: First and foremost that my wife is driven and enjoys her career, and secondly we simply need the second income.

[mtangelsfan]

There's been much debate over whether or not homosexuality is even condemned in the Bible. Many experts think it addresses pederasty which is not synonymous. 

 

At any rate, being selective when it comes to religious doctrine is a cop-out. 

 

psuedo experts who don't believe telling believers what they should and shouldn't believe are a hoot. 

[sneaky_flute]

Why don't you smite your neighbors for working on Sundays?

[Angelsjunky]

There's been much debate over whether or not homosexuality is even condemned in the Bible. Many experts think it addresses pederasty which is not synonymous. 

 

At any rate, being selective when it comes to religious doctrine is a cop-out. 

Well there certainly are different translations, which lead to different connotations. But the Leviticus clearly says that homosexuality--a man lying with another man--is "abominable" or "detestable." It doesn't say "Do not have sexual relationswith a manboy" ;-)

 

As for your second assertion, I agree that it selectively choosing parts of the Bible to take literally, and then parts to ignore, is kind of odd, but what makes sense to me is looking at the spirit rather than the letter of the law. I mean, take the spirit of what Jesus was saying - most sane, rational, kind people can agree with that. Love your neighbor? The Golden Rule? Good stuff. Add in the Gnostic Gospels of Magdelene and Thomas and things get more interesting and Jesus meets Buddha...

[mtangelsfan]

You two are a hoot.

[Angelsjunky]

Why don't you smite your neighbors for working on Sundays?

 

What about your gay Muslim neighbors? Does that go beyond smiting?

[TobiasFunke]

There's been much debate over whether or not homosexuality is even condemned in the Bible.

 

When it talks about homosexuals going to heaven in the bible, 2 Jonathan 14:21 says "you homo, you no go"

 

That's pretty cut and dry if you ask me

[BaseballMom]

You can believe something is silly and/or bullshit and still provide a more honest account of history. There have been many canonizations and re-canonizations of scripture and those processes were much more complex than you state.

 

If you're so passionate about this issue, I'd expect a better argumentative approach than asking a bunch of hypothetical "gotcha" questions.

 

Tank was very honest about his opinions and beliefs and even vulnerable about it. You should respect that.  

I thought I was very honest and vulnerable as well, but I got ****ing crickets

[mtangelsfan]

Crickets would have been better than what tank got from aj.

[BaseballMom]

So, seriously, nobody cares about my uncle?  Really?  What a bunch of hypocrites some if you are.  My Uncle was a better Christian than a lot of you self-proclaimed Christians are.

[mtangelsfan]

Maybe he was.  I try not to compare.  I'm sure your uncle was a fine man.  

[bakunin]

Christians shouldn't be fighting each other. My general rule is this, you're either a Catholic or a schismatic revolutionary. I don't mind arguing with heretics. Ha ha.

[bakunin]

This debate on fags is hilarious. Most contemporary Christian thought on fags is hilarious. If they're outward about their disgusting lifestyles, they deserve nothing short but a beating. I would argue also killing them is acceptable, as it's better to stamp out what will eventually cause the unraveling of society (what is happening now, and has happened throughout time to all empires) If they behave and shut their mouthes about their disgusting lifestyles, where is the harm?

Edited March 7, 2014 by bakunin

[Angelsjunky]

I thought I was very honest and vulnerable as well, but I got ****ing crickets

 

Maybe that's because you're supposed to be grinding grain and hand washing clothes for us men, at least according to the Bible ;-)

 

Seriously though, I found your uncle's story touching and think I "liked" your post. I can't imagine what it must be like to live one's whole life having to deny something so intrinsic as one's sexuality. Such a shame. But I'm glad he could, later on, embrace his nature.

 

Crickets would have been better than what tank got from aj.

 

Really? Was it so bad? Come now, let's not over-exaggerate. But I think you're evading actually going into this and instead resorting to attacks.

[Angelsjunky]

This debate on fags is hilarious. Most contemporary Christian thought on fags is hilarious. If they're outward about their disgusting lifestyles, they deserve nothing short but a beating. I would argue also killing them is acceptable, as it's better to stamp out what will eventually cause the unraveling of society (what is happening now, and has happened throughout time to all empires) If they behave and shut their mouthes about their disgusting lifestyles, where is the harm?

 

I'm guessing that you're going to get banned for this. This is shameful - even if you're trolling and this is just satire, portraying the worst of the most narrow minded fundamentalism.

 

Either way, you're going way too far. This is hateful and despicable and has absolutely nothing to do with what Jesus taught.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Angelsjunky

[Tank]

Tank, in Jewish doctrine there are the Kosher laws that were essentially health codes established to protect their community from disease related to proper food handling. It include any swine and shellfish that in ancient times were constantly the causation for food poisoning and having no science that could be used to understand what was happening it was assigned as part of God's divine law to live a healthy life.

 

The quote from Timothy may be interpreted in the same way. A societal guideline for the time period that would establish a cohesive community where roles were established to avoid unnecessary conflict. Almost a communist manifesto from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, the roles were established.

 

It does not mean that society needed to make these rules unalterable as time and circumstances went on, in fact the Bible offers plenty of concessions to previous laws. Just as modern health codes have made the processing and handling of food independent of Kosher food handling to insure society is well feed and free of disease, the roles of women in modern society is just as flexible since much of the housewife responsibilities have been reduced by modern conveniences. It is not as though women need to spend the entire day baking bread, stone washing clothes, slow roasting meat over open fires that they have to tend.

 

These are guidelines, not God's holy law, to establish a smooth running society for the time period. The Bible, like the Constitution is a living document. You draw wisdom from it but temper that with change that progress provides.

 

There is only one instance where God speaks directly to man to establish laws for the tribe of Israel and that was to Moses to create the 10 Commandments. Nothing in those cover homosexuality as a sin.

 

But that is just my opinion and may not be supported by scholars in the field.

 

You raise many good points, blarg. we know from the account written by Moses that not only did he receive the ten commandments, but God also gave him a boatload of ceremonial laws to help govern. part of the reason for so many of those laws was that the israelites had been in captivity in egypt for 400 years, and because they had forgotten so much of what they had known about God previously, and because the egyptians wouldn't allow them to worship as they were used to, It was necessary for God to reestablish His relationship and His authority with the israelites. Generally speaking, an awful lot of those ceremonial laws are no longer applicable. It's interesting that you mentioned something about clean vs. unclean meats. our church (seventh day adventists) take leviticus 11 quite seriously about pork and shellfish, which is where chuck and i don't see eye to eye. We believe the principals outlined about what constitutes clean and unclean meat haven't changed so we continue to avoid pork and shellfish, catfish, etc. 

[Jason]

AJ not sure why you feel the need to mock. Your opinion is respected. BaseballMom, Christ looks at an individual's heart and that's all that matters for your Uncle.

[Jason]

I'm guessing that you're going to get banned for this. This is shameful - even if you're trolling and this is just satire, portraying the worst of the most narrow minded fundamentalism.

 

Either way, you're going way too far. This is hateful and despicable and has absolutely nothing to do with what Jesus taught.

This I agree with you on. As do the rest of the Christians on this board.