| Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | |
| Jeff Wigand |
| ||
Isn't the whole point moot? |
| playsfortheotherteam |
| ||
|
Clueless. First of all, your statement that homosexuality was "rarely even mentioned, except as an abomination in Leviticus" is off base because you didn't live back then and you didn't write the bible and have no clue how taboo it may have been. Without pulling out your concordance, how many times was homosexuality mentioned? Let's not argue Leviticus or any of the old testament for that mattter, as there is no way that anyone, even those against homosexuality, still follow those laws, nor should we. Of course, all this is predicated on whether or not things that happened in the Bible were actually real, which is really questionable...animals in an arc, Jonah living in a whale, Elijah being taken from earth alive by God, talking serpents, incest in Adam and Eve's family, ugh...I could go on and on. I am not getting how Jeff's arguments were against mine.
That's the standard interpretation of Genesis 19 given by the LBGT community. But it's disingenuous as if loving, committed homosexuality was acceptable to the Hebrew god, which is nothing more than a gross anachronism. Homosexuality was so abhorrent in the ancient Hebrew community that it was rarely even mentioned, except as an abomination in Leviticus. Homosexuality was not up for discussion.[/quote] How about polygamy? Slavery?[/quote] Thanks for helping out the argument against playsfortheotherteam. Yes, polygamy and slavery are in the bible and it would be disingenuous to argue that they aren't. In the same way, homosexuality is taboo in the bible and it would be disingenuous to argue that loving, committed homosexuality was ok in the old testament. But I guess you saw the bible referenced and jumped to the conclusion that someone was arguing against homosexuality based on the bible. Please try to read before responding. Playsfortheotherteam was trying to argue for gay rights in that Sodom was about rape and violence, not homosexuality.[/quote] |
| Jeff Wigand |
| ||
I don't think that most are asking for the government to make things equal between everyone but to treat everyone as equal. I'm sure some aren't, though. |
| motzart |
| ||
|
Look folks, you realize you're being played here. Listen to Obama with Robyn Roberts and he says Joe "got a little out over his skis", that he wanted to roll this out on his own timetable (ie... closer to the convention). So, flashback to Carney just a day or two earlier, and we hear him saying the "evolution" is still ongoing. Really? A check back to Bamster's position in his Ill senate runs shows support, yet his Senate run and Presidential run show him as supporting traditional marriage. Further, the Washington Post comes out the next day with the hit piece on Romney 45 yrs ago? This is just silly! Much like Stephanopolous with the Fluke nonsense (and then the creepy "Julia"...not too Orwellian), now this orchestrated play. He's a a political shapeshifter and the leftist lemmings swoon. |
| judge not lest ye be a moron |
| ||
|
No, why is that "ironic"? Do those black leaders have a dog in this fight? Do black people as a whole stand to lose any of their rights if gay marriage is legalized? Perhaps if those "black civil rights leaders" (who are they anyway?) were truly that, they should side with gay blacks and fight for their civil rights. Unfortunately, many of the black leaders have that "Rev." in front of their name which means they are afflicted with the same homophobic belief system as the Republicans. We saw that in 2008 with the Prop 8 referendum in California. The Yes % was higher among blacks than any other racial group, according to exit polls. |
| Whoa there |
| ||
|
[quote]playsfortheotherteam wrote: Clueless. First of all, your statement that homosexuality was "rarely even mentioned, except as an abomination in Leviticus" is off base because you didn't live back then and you didn't write the bible and have no clue how taboo it may have been. Without pulling out your concordance, how many times was homosexuality mentioned? Let's not argue Leviticus or any of the old testament for that mattter, as there is no way that anyone, even those against homosexuality, still follow those laws, nor should we. Of course, all this is predicated on whether or not things that happened in the Bible were actually real, which is really questionable...animals in an arc, Jonah living in a whale, Elijah being taken from earth alive by God, talking serpents, incest in Adam and Eve's family, ugh...I could go on and on. Which is it for you? Do you believe the Bible is God's words or do you believe it's just good literature, good stories, folklore? You can't really cite it as an authority if you don't really believe it's true. I believe those things happened because who can limit God? There's only a few reasons all the events are listed in the OT. One was to point men to salvation. The other was to bring glory to God. A Christian's main purpose is to bring glory to God. If you're gay & you can bring glory to God, great! Just some food for thought... |
| judge not lest ye be a moron |
| ||
Dude, if you're going to advance some grand conspiracy theory you really need to get your shit straight and be concise. Rambling isn't going to do the trick. |
| judge not lest ye be a moron |
| ||
And there goes the whole field of literature down the drain. Apparently it's impossible to be an authority on fiction. |
| playsfortheotherteam |
| ||
|
I don't believe the Bible is the literal word of God. I understand the mirror aspect between the new and old testaments. I don't believe the world was created in 6 days. I don't believe Jonah lived in a whale, I don't believe Gentiles have to follow the 10 commandments that were given to the Israelites, I don't believe in a talking serpent, I don't believe in the flood, etc... I think these were stories used to illustrate points. That said, the new testament holds more credibility with me. I don't believe I cited it as an authority, but will battle back when someone else misuses it. While many people say a Christian's main purpose is to bring glory to God, many don't share your sentiment about being gay and bringing glory to God, and many wouldn't say gays can be Christians because we continue to sin and choose to sin. But what the hell, its all opinions anyway. |
| authority on things |
| ||
|
Then let me clear it up for you: IT'S ALL MADE UP! Word of God, my ass. Come on, seriously? "I'm the big invisible Santa Claus in the sky and I'm keeping track of whether you've been naughty or nice. Only I'm not putting anything in your stocking one way or another, but I'll wait till you're dead and then your ass is mine forever." Yeah, that really happened. Sure. |
| Brick Top |
| ||
Look you dopey f*cking tw*t, all one needs to do is look at the history of marriage and see how it has changed over time. So it has nothing to do with right or wrong as if those were absolute terms in some sense you gratuitously stupid c*nt. So pull your head out of your goddamn arsehole and spend a good bit of time educating yourself on the history of marriage before posting such bloody nonsense. http://i.imgur.com/8EkCM.jpg |
| TLW |
| ||
|
First it was women, then it was blacks, now it's gays. In 50 years when gay people are allowed to marry we will look back in disgust at this period in our country. |
| ignoscere intermissione |
| ||
How is my statement that homosexuality was rarely mentioned off base? Please show me all the places where it was mentioned, and especially in a positive light. That's a list I want to see. In fact, let's expand. Go ahead and include all the citations regarding homosexuality in other Jewish texts like the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, Qumran literature, mishnah, talmud. And please don't twist the whole David and Jonathan story into a homosexual encounter. There's no evidence that anyone in the ancient world ever read it that way like the LBGT people try to. And yes, I agree about Leviticus. It should not be the basis for modern Christian (or Jewish) disdain for homosexuality unless those same interpreters are willing to shun poly-cotton suits and not plant their beans with their corn or not sell the daughters into slavery. I mentioned Leviticus as only one of the few places in the Hebrew bible that actually mentions homosexuality (and does so in abhorrence) which helps shed light on the historical context of Genesis 19 since the Torah was probably compiled and edited as a whole work of literature. Wigand's comment misunderstood your point. He simply said, "How about polygamy? Slavery?" which is the classic response for rejecting the Hebrew bible as being relevant for modern discussion of homosexuality. But you weren't arguing against homosexuality, but for it, and that Genesis 19 was not discrediting homosexuality in general, just violent abusive rape of any kind. Some religionists have tried to take a revisionist view on slavery and polygamy in the Hebrew bible to soften those passages and try to prevent them from causing interpretive problems, which was exactly what you were trying to do with your revisionist take on Genesis 19. But Wigand was arguing that polygamy and slavery are literally there in the Hebrew bible which is what you are denying about passages against homosexuality like Genesis 19. There is zero evidence in any Jewish or Christian literature (whether canonical or extra-canonical) that Genesis 19 was ever understood as anything but a statement against homosexuality. It's an anachronism to try and read modern homosexual perspectives back into those ancient texts just like it would be anachronistic to try and read modern democratic or communist political theory back into those ancient texts or even modern trinitarian theology back into them for that matter. Democracy, communism, trinitarianism, and acceptance of homosexuality was not part of their ancient worldview. Those texts have a historical context and should be understood in light of it, unless you're advocating reader response approaches (cf. Fish, Is there a text in this class?), then anything goes. But Fish's weakness is that people don't actually treat authoritative texts with such openness, whether their mortgage contract, an employee contract, the civil code or even the U.S. Constitution (at least the way the Supreme Court tries to interpret it in light of what the founding fathers intended in their historical context). Back to Genesis 19 though. Basically, the chapter is an etiology explaining the massive destruction of at least 2 cities and the weird salt formation at the Dead Sea. And in those times, they thought things like that had theological causes. And in this instance, the destruction was blamed on homosexuality just like in Genesis 6 Noah's flood was blamed on sex with angels/gods. The thinking was that blatant disobedience caused massive destruction as punishment. Did that happen? Well, do women turn into salt pillars? (And technically, the story in Genesis 19 is actually part of a larger etiology explaining why the Ammonites and Moabites were considered cursed, because they originated Lot's incestuous relationship with his own daughters.) Well, I didn't intend to go on this long, but it's annoying to see people twist ancient texts with revisionist, modern readings that completely run counter to the historical context. You wouldn't want your words twisted out of their historical context. So let's not do that to ancient texts either and try to treat them with respect. |
| What the heck |
| ||
A non-human animal is not capable of consenting or marriage with a human. As such it is difficult to take your opinion seriously. |
| playsfortheotherteam |
| ||
|
I am only going to address the parts of this that warrant consideration as it is a lot jibberish. 1) How many times homosexuality is mentioned in a positive light is 0 I would bet. This is meaningless however, since the Jewish texts are insignificant to Gentiles, including the 10 commandments, and these are still documents written by man anyway. 2)Many biblical interpretations show that Sodom and Gomorrah were about rape and lust and dominance, and not homosexuality. If Sodom and Gomorrah were about homosexuality, Lot would have known not to offer up his daughters in exchange as he would have know that they would not be interested. 3) How can people have sex with angels and gods. Angels are not material what other gods were there? If the flood was for this reason, God was way way off base. I am not twisting anything out of context. Scholars cannot all agree on the meaning of scripture so why do you think that the information you have read is the be all and end all to all interpretations? Certainly you haven't read everyone's interpretations, and you aren't reading these texts in the time they were written so why do you think you have this grand understanding of what they meant for that time? I could have launched the good year blimp with all the hot air in that last post.
How is my statement that homosexuality was rarely mentioned off base? Please show me all the places where it was mentioned, and especially in a positive light. That's a list I want to see. In fact, let's expand. Go ahead and include all the citations regarding homosexuality in other Jewish texts like the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, Qumran literature, mishnah, talmud. And please don't twist the whole David and Jonathan story into a homosexual encounter. There's no evidence that anyone in the ancient world ever read it that way like the LBGT people try to. And yes, I agree about Leviticus. It should not be the basis for modern Christian (or Jewish) disdain for homosexuality unless those same interpreters are willing to shun poly-cotton suits and not plant their beans with their corn or not sell the daughters into slavery. I mentioned Leviticus as only one of the few places in the Hebrew bible that actually mentions homosexuality (and does so in abhorrence) which helps shed light on the historical context of Genesis 19 since the Torah was probably compiled and edited as a whole work of literature. Wigand's comment misunderstood your point. He simply said, "How about polygamy? Slavery?" which is the classic response for rejecting the Hebrew bible as being relevant for modern discussion of homosexuality. But you weren't arguing against homosexuality, but for it, and that Genesis 19 was not discrediting homosexuality in general, just violent abusive rape of any kind. Some religionists have tried to take a revisionist view on slavery and polygamy in the Hebrew bible to soften those passages and try to prevent them from causing interpretive problems, which was exactly what you were trying to do with your revisionist take on Genesis 19. But Wigand was arguing that polygamy and slavery are literally there in the Hebrew bible which is what you are denying about passages against homosexuality like Genesis 19. There is zero evidence in any Jewish or Christian literature (whether canonical or extra-canonical) that Genesis 19 was ever understood as anything but a statement against homosexuality. It's an anachronism to try and read modern homosexual perspectives back into those ancient texts just like it would be anachronistic to try and read modern democratic or communist political theory back into those ancient texts or even modern trinitarian theology back into them for that matter. Democracy, communism, trinitarianism, and acceptance of homosexuality was not part of their ancient worldview. Those texts have a historical context and should be understood in light of it, unless you're advocating reader response approaches (cf. Fish, Is there a text in this class?), then anything goes. But Fish's weakness is that people don't actually treat authoritative texts with such openness, whether their mortgage contract, an employee contract, the civil code or even the U.S. Constitution (at least the way the Supreme Court tries to interpret it in light of what the founding fathers intended in their historical context). Back to Genesis 19 though. Basically, the chapter is an etiology explaining the massive destruction of at least 2 cities and the weird salt formation at the Dead Sea. And in those times, they thought things like that had theological causes. And in this instance, the destruction was blamed on homosexuality just like in Genesis 6 Noah's flood was blamed on sex with angels/gods. The thinking was that blatant disobedience caused massive destruction as punishment. Did that happen? Well, do women turn into salt pillars? (And technically, the story in Genesis 19 is actually part of a larger etiology explaining why the Ammonites and Moabites were considered cursed, because they originated Lot's incestuous relationship with his own daughters.) Well, I didn't intend to go on this long, but it's annoying to see people twist ancient texts with revisionist, modern readings that completely run counter to the historical context. You wouldn't want your words twisted out of their historical context. So let's not do that to ancient texts either and try to treat them with respect.[/quote] |
| Brick Top |
| ||
How is my statement that homosexuality was rarely mentioned off base? Please show me all the places where it was mentioned, and especially in a positive light. That's a list I want to see. In fact, let's expand. Go ahead and include all the citations regarding homosexuality in other Jewish texts like the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, Qumran literature, mishnah, talmud. And please don't twist the whole David and Jonathan story into a homosexual encounter. There's no evidence that anyone in the ancient world ever read it that way like the LBGT people try to. And yes, I agree about Leviticus. It should not be the basis for modern Christian (or Jewish) disdain for homosexuality unless those same interpreters are willing to shun poly-cotton suits and not plant their beans with their corn or not sell the daughters into slavery. I mentioned Leviticus as only one of the few places in the Hebrew bible that actually mentions homosexuality (and does so in abhorrence) which helps shed light on the historical context of Genesis 19 since the Torah was probably compiled and edited as a whole work of literature. [/quote] Actually, it doesn't you pathetic excuse for a human being. This underscores meaning lost in transcription: the references to homosexuality there are described with words like "toevah" which mean more like "unclean" and as less of a pejorative than what most 'Mericans take it to mean. Blah blah blah, etc, blah blah blah. These misunderstandings get pretty old after a while. Nothing new, really. You can either start paying more attention to detail and hold yourself up to a more honest standard for seeking understanding or just kill yourself. Because it has to suck to go through life without a functioning brain. |
| can we all just be friends |
| ||
This is truly disturbing. Peace, dude or dudette. |
| get back on your meds |
| ||
You've talked to God? If so, you're probably schizophrenic. |
| homophobe |
| ||
Yeh, I used to think the same thing when gays called me a homophobe as if it really bothers me. It makes me realize that the person is filled with such loathing and hatred that they can no longer argue rationally. They too are in essence hard-core intolerants against anyone who doesn't agree with their perspective and that they themselves are not truly open-minded like they claim. |
| playsfortheotherteam |
| ||
|
There is a difference. I don't hate homphobes so i don't fit the self loathing figure you try to make me out to be. And unlike being gay, homophobia is a choice...as in i was born gay but you choose to be an ignoramous. |