Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

12/11/2008 12:05:47 AM · #1626

Originally posted by RonB:

Since Jesus obviously did not carry out the Old Testament Law by stoning the adulterous woman, yet was considered sinless, who am I to independently decide that the Old Testament Law is still to be obeyed to the full, in contradiction to the example set by Christ?

Yes, very pretty story. Unfortunately, it's just that, and even if Jesus existed, the story was not in the earliest versions of John that exist. It was an addition by later scribes. This fact is not in doubt by any serious scholar of textual criticism that works in the field today.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

12/11/2008 12:25:12 AM · #1627

Wow, the bible being used to promote both side of an issue. I'm so not surprised.

BeeCee

Nikon D40

12/11/2008 01:48:32 AM · #1628

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by RonB:

Homosexuals are also listed with idolaters, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers - yet none of those are considered sin because they are outside of marriage. Where did you get the idea that that's why homosexuality was considered a sin?

I found no mention of homosexuals in the bible. I did find sodomites which as far as I know, referred to people who lived in Sodom. Now, I may not be completely up on bible text but, as far as I know, the bible only refers to the sins of citizens of both Sodom and Gomorrah as wickedness. I don't recall that it was specifically sexual nor homosexual in nature. Where does that come from?

From the story of Sodom's destruction in Genesis 19, verses 1-6:

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodomâ��both young and oldâ��surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

My first thought was that it sounded like he was referring to rape as "this wicked thing"

excerpt from the United Church of Canada page I linked earlier;

"Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19, cf. Judges 19-21)
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and a very similar story in Judges, has nothing to do with same-sex affection or sexual intimacy. Rather, it is about infringing ancient Near Eastern hospitality codes, and about gang rape as a violent expression of male dominance."

edit to correct typo

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 01:49:02.

FireBird

12/11/2008 04:08:59 AM · #1629

Wow. Louis teaching bible lessons.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/11/2008 07:49:07 AM · #1630

Originally posted by fir3bird:

Wow. Louis teaching bible lessons.

well he does have more experience than most.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/11/2008 08:35:59 AM · #1631

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
Since Jesus obviously did not carry out the Old Testament Law by stoning the adulterous woman, yet was considered sinless, who am I to independently decide that the Old Testament Law is still to be obeyed to the full, in contradiction to the example set by Christ?

Yes, very pretty story. Unfortunately, it's just that, and even if Jesus existed, the story was not in the earliest versions of John that exist. It was an addition by later scribes. This fact is not in doubt by any serious scholar of textual criticism that works in the field today.

Well, then, how about this passage from John, chapter 5 - a passage that is NOT in doubt?

2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.
6 When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?
7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.
9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.
10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.
11 He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk.
12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?
13 And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.
14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.
16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

If the Law was still in full effect, why would Jesus command a man to break the Law and carry his mat on the Sabbath, in violation of the second commandment?
Further, how would Jesus explain working on the Sabbath, himself - which he did in other passages, as well?

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

12/11/2008 08:54:35 AM · #1632

Originally posted by RonB:

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodomâ��both young and oldâ��surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

Interesting. That is not what my bible says. In fact, it doesn't mention sex at all. Do you have more than one reference to show that Sodomites were homosexuals? And which bible are you using?

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

12/11/2008 08:59:20 AM · #1633

New Testament scriptures can be quoted both for and against the following of Old Testament law. Why? Because some New Testament scribes were writing for Jews and others were writing for Gentiles. To attempt to figure out the "intent" of the New Testament as a whole is an inherently impossible task. To attempt to figure out the intent of Jesus, who is covered in the veils of these scribes, is not much easier. Most likely, he was a devout Jew and said nothing against the Law. But of course, Christians claim that something very unlikely happened two thousand years ago.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/11/2008 09:05:52 AM · #1634

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by RonB:

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodomâ��both young and oldâ��surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

Interesting. That is not what my bible says. In fact, it doesn't mention sex at all. Do you have more than one reference to show that Sodomites were homosexuals? And which bible are you using?

1) The passage I posted was from the New International Version. The King James says "Bring them out to us so the we can know them". The interpretation of "know" as being "carnal knowledge" ( have sex with them ) rather than intellectual knowledge is based on the immediately following verses which indicate first, that it would be a wicked thing, and second, by the fact that Lot offered up his daughters as a substitute - neither of which would apply if only intellectual knowledge was intended by the men of Sodom.

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 09:06:20.

citymars

Nikon D700

12/11/2008 09:13:08 AM · #1635

Which again goes to show that it is rather insensible -- if not impossible -- to follow the bible too strictly. The bible says it's preferable to offer your virgin daughters to men, if the circumstances warrant. Who today would condone even a variation on this theme?

eqsite

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

12/11/2008 09:28:01 AM · #1636

Some more intersting fodder. This Daily Show interview with Mike Huckabee sounds like it was taken right out of this forum.

12/11/2008 09:40:52 AM · #1637

Originally posted by RonB:

Well, then, how about this passage from John, chapter 5 - a passage that is NOT in doubt?

Sure, pick and choose whichever passage you like (like the law).

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

12/11/2008 09:53:11 AM · #1638

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
Well, then, how about this passage from John, chapter 5 - a passage that is NOT in doubt?

Sure, pick and choose whichever passage you like (like the law).

That's the only way to get the bible to support anything, pick and choose the verses that support whatever you want to support.

Flash

Nikon D700

12/11/2008 09:53:50 AM · #1639

With all the picking and choosing going on - perhaps someone could post a few passages that explicitly condone or sanction man on man sex as beneficial in God's eyes. I must have missed those and would appreciate the help.

12/11/2008 10:22:28 AM · #1640

Originally posted by Flash:

David and Jonathan seem to be getting it on in the first book of Samuel, but like most good literature, the good bits are left to our imagination. So, none. But there sure is a lot of neolithic bloodletting, which you'd expect from a millenia-old tribal cult, concerned, as they would have to be, with maintaining their vice-like grip on the tribe, and which makes the whole thing a fairly odd and anachronistic component in our world. It makes sense that they'd be more concerned with proscribing things rather than guaranteeing liberties. Like all that kind of nonsense, the lack of any particular sanction for homosexual acts is irrelevant to us.

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 10:23:18.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

12/11/2008 10:48:55 AM · #1641

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
Well, then, how about this passage from John, chapter 5 - a passage that is NOT in doubt?

Sure, pick and choose whichever passage you like (like the law).

Did you not "pick and choose" passages to TRY to support your position?
How about addressing the actual point that the passage ( and others ) make - that Christ, himself, by His example and words, makes it obvious that ALL of the Law was no longer applicable?
I do not "pick and choose" what parts of the law are applicable based on my own whim or rationalization. I do so in accordance with the teachings of scripture - and in particular the teachings of the New Testament.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

12/11/2008 11:16:05 AM · #1642

Originally posted by Louis:

But there sure is a lot of neolithic bloodletting, which you'd expect from a millenia-old tribal cult, concerned, as they would have to be, with maintaining their vice-like grip on the tribe, and which makes the whole thing a fairly odd and anachronistic component in our world.

If that (bolded) was intentional, that's REALLY funny!

VISE:
1. any of various devices, usually having two jaws that may be brought together or separated by means of a screw, lever, or the like, used to hold an object firmly.

VICE:
1. an immoral or evil habit or practice.
2. immoral conduct; depraved or degrading behavior: a life of vice.
3. sexual immorality, esp. prostitution.
4. a particular form of depravity.
5. a fault, defect, or shortcoming: a minor vice in his literary style.
6. a physical defect, flaw, or infirmity: a constitutional vice.

12/11/2008 11:20:52 AM · #1643

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
Well, then, how about this passage from John, chapter 5 - a passage that is NOT in doubt?

Sure, pick and choose whichever passage you like (like the law).

Did you not "pick and choose" passages to TRY to support your position?

Naturally I did. Rather the point. I don't need to address any of the points that seem to make Christ "replace" the law (a likely invention by later Western scribes who were uncomfortable with the Semitic roots of their faith) when there are salient points to be made about his upholding of the law -- and thus its inherent atrocities.

And of course you pick and choose, like it or not. You have to. Unless you want to be seen as a radicalized fundamentalist, you must pick and choose what to obey and what not to obey. The question of whether or not you yourself made that choice, or whether it was made for you by your particular tradition, is irrelevant.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

12/11/2008 12:20:56 PM · #1644

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
Well, then, how about this passage from John, chapter 5 - a passage that is NOT in doubt?

Sure, pick and choose whichever passage you like (like the law).

Did you not "pick and choose" passages to TRY to support your position?

Naturally I did. Rather the point. I don't need to address any of the points that seem to make Christ "replace" the law (a likely invention by later Western scribes who were uncomfortable with the Semitic roots of their faith) when there are salient points to be made about his upholding of the law -- and thus its inherent atrocities.

I might actually agree with you, had you actually made "salient" points. However, as I pointed out, quoting Moses to the Pharasee's to demonstrate their hypocrisy regarding "obeying the law" does not qualify, in my opinion, as being "salient". My dictionary defines "salient' as "strikingly conspicuous". Your point was anything but.

Originally posted by Louis:

And of course you pick and choose, like it or not. You have to. Unless you want to be seen as a radicalized fundamentalist, you must pick and choose what to obey and what not to obey. The question of whether or not you yourself made that choice, or whether it was made for you by your particular tradition, is irrelevant.

I do not pick and choose what to obey and what not to obey. I examine scripture to determine what Jesus would have me do or not do. It is not a matter of obedience, it is a matter of conscience. WHAT I do does not ultimately matter, but WHY I do what I do, does. Scripture says "That which is not from faith, is sin". If I do something "bad" but for righteous reasons, it is not a sin. If I do something "good" but for unrighteous reasons, it is sin. The determining factor is whether what I do is from faith, and faith is dependent on knowing what is expected by the one to whom I am being faithful, and one of the ways to know Him is to read scripture.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

12/11/2008 12:23:29 PM · #1645

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
Well, then, how about this passage from John, chapter 5 - a passage that is NOT in doubt?

Sure, pick and choose whichever passage you like (like the law).

Did you not "pick and choose" passages to TRY to support your position?

Naturally I did. Rather the point. I don't need to address any of the points that seem to make Christ "replace" the law (a likely invention by later Western scribes who were uncomfortable with the Semitic roots of their faith) when there are salient points to be made about his upholding of the law -- and thus its inherent atrocities.

I might actually agree with you, had you actually made "salient" points. However, as I pointed out, quoting Moses to the Pharasee's to demonstrate their hypocrisy regarding "obeying the law" does not qualify, in my opinion, as being "salient". My dictionary defines "salient' as "strikingly conspicuous". Your point was anything but.

Originally posted by Louis:
And of course you pick and choose, like it or not. You have to. Unless you want to be seen as a radicalized fundamentalist, you must pick and choose what to obey and what not to obey. The question of whether or not you yourself made that choice, or whether it was made for you by your particular tradition, is irrelevant.

I do not pick and choose what to obey and what not to obey. I examine scripture to determine what Jesus would have me do or not do. It is not a matter of obedience, it is a matter of conscience. WHAT I do does not ultimately matter, but WHY I do what I do, does. Scripture says "That which is not from faith, is sin". If I do something "bad" but for righteous reasons, it is not a sin. If I do something "good" but for unrighteous reasons, it is sin. The determining factor is whether what I do is from faith, and faith is dependent on knowing what is expected by the one to whom I am being faithful, and one of the ways to know Him is to read scripture.

That, right there, is some scary, scary stuff.

12/11/2008 12:28:23 PM · #1646

Originally posted by RonB:

Scripture says "That which is not from faith, is sin". If I do something "bad" but for righteous reasons, it is not a sin. If I do something "good" but for unrighteous reasons, it is sin.

Sooo pretty much any atrocity commited in the name of God is okey dokey with you.

12/11/2008 01:08:43 PM · #1647

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:
Scripture says "That which is not from faith, is sin". If I do something "bad" but for righteous reasons, it is not a sin. If I do something "good" but for unrighteous reasons, it is sin.

Sooo pretty much any atrocity commited in the name of God is okey dokey with you.

Of course not. You only serve to demonstrate ignorance by drawing such inferences. Just because something is done "in the name of" some entity does NOT automatically make it an act condoned by that entity - whether the entity is God, father, country, or anything else.

12/11/2008 01:17:16 PM · #1648

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by RonB:

I do not pick and choose what to obey and what not to obey. I examine scripture to determine what Jesus would have me do or not do. It is not a matter of obedience, it is a matter of conscience. WHAT I do does not ultimately matter, but WHY I do what I do, does. Scripture says "That which is not from faith, is sin". If I do something "bad" but for righteous reasons, it is not a sin. If I do something "good" but for unrighteous reasons, it is sin. The determining factor is whether what I do is from faith, and faith is dependent on knowing what is expected by the one to whom I am being faithful, and one of the ways to know Him is to read scripture.

That, right there, is some scary, scary stuff.

It shouldn't be. For example, if you had a 2 year old and s/he decided to show you how much they love you by washing your car one Saturday morning while you slept in, but innocently used a dirty rag and scratched the finish, would you punish him/her? Or would you consider his/her intent and forgive them, while taking the opportunity to show them the error of their way so they wouldn't repeat the mistake? Or should your children be very, very afraid of you because you judge only on results, and not intent?

12/11/2008 01:26:31 PM · #1649

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:
Scripture says "That which is not from faith, is sin". If I do something "bad" but for righteous reasons, it is not a sin. If I do something "good" but for unrighteous reasons, it is sin.

Sooo pretty much any atrocity commited in the name of God is okey dokey with you.

Of course not. You only serve to demonstrate ignorance by drawing such inferences. Just because something is done "in the name of" some entity does NOT automatically make it an act condoned by that entity - whether the entity is God, father, country, or anything else.

I'm sure that those who commit such atrocities do so "from faith" and do it for "righteous reasons".