DesignerGal wrote: Courtesy of the St Petersburg Times. I hope you all enjoy:
Column
Be wary of those who claim to speak for God
By DONALD R. EASTMAN III
Published April 29, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The frequent appearance of scribes and Pharisees in the Gospels of the New Testament of the Christian Bible creates an important theme linking the various stories of Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ: The conviction that one is speaking for God, or that one knows God's ways and God's will, or that one knows with certainty what is good and what is not, is foolish, misleading and arrogant. Time after time, Jesus shows up the false certitudes of the scribes and Pharisees - who were representatives of official religion of the day - with his characteristic humility and wisdom.
Perhaps the most chilling words in the Christian Bible are God's stricture on human understanding from Isaiah 55:8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," says the Lord. "For as the heavens are higher than the Earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Man's struggle, so often a failure, to understand God's ways and God's judgments is the constant story of the Bible, from Adam and Eve to Job to Abraham to Paul and the prophets. There is nothing in either the Old or New Testament that excuses man from extreme circumspection regarding God's will.
This is the fallacy behind the attempt by so many ministers and politicians nowadays to speak for or presume to know the will of God with respect to contemporary issues of high moral concern: Neither the actions of judges, nor research on stem cells, nor the putative follies of the liberal media, nor the sad life of Terri Schiavo, nor the use of the filibuster are addressed in the Bible, and no one - no one on this Earth - has been given direct access to God's views on these matters, not to mention so many others. No amount of tub-thumping and high moral indignation should convince us and our fellow citizens otherwise.
"Christian values" do not amount to specific political positions, and they are simply manipulated when such claims are made. Christian values are much less political and much more specific and difficult than "Christian" politics. The values Jesus described in Mathew 25:35-36 are to feed the hungry, visit the imprisoned and clothe the naked. Jesus asks us to forgive our enemies and all others, and to give away all we have to follow him.
Most of the current ranting on behalf of "Christian values" or "people of faith" reminds me of the pompous self-importance of the scribes and Pharisees of the New Testament, whose righteous indignation contrasts so starkly with the values evidenced by Jesus at every turn. I am also reminded of the words of the Texas congressman who was not joking when he said, in rejecting calls for the use of Spanish in local schools, "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me." This is the kind of educational and cultural ignorance that has afflicted our national polity throughout our history. As Abraham Lincoln said of both the North and South in his second inaugural address, "Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes."
Colleges like mine that seek to maintain a historic and on-going conversation with the Christian church make a determined effort to separate defining and advocating the essential values espoused in the Christian Bible from acting as if we know - as if anyone knows - how God would prefer to see those values encoded in contemporary law and civic practice. Even as highly educated teachers and scholars in the disciplines of biblical studies and sacred texts and values, we have no right to act as if we know God's will with respect to current events, and neither do our present-day scribes and Pharisees. The Almighty has his own purposes, and those who would pretend to know his will deserve only our enmity and our scorn.
Donald Eastman is president of Eckerd College, which is related by covenant to the Presbyterian Church, USA.
[Last modified April 29, 2005, 10:59:01]
Jesus and his Apostles frequently quoted the Torah. He called upon the written word to explain the will of God himself and so did the Apostles. God’s ways are much higher than our ways but His ways are also the ways we are to use as our example. We are admonished by Him over and over to seek His ways.
It is impossible to know what God is doing with regard to events of the day. While it is impossible to follow him without a flaw, it is not impossible to know what God expects of those who choose to follow Him. God provided us with the Bible so we will know how to conduct our lives. He didn’t provide it so we can direct or judge the lives of others. People (me included) read God’s word and tell others what we believe God is saying to us through it. Many (me included) tell those who are listening that they need to sift through what we say and let us know if we have misrepresented what is written.
God didn’t create us, then set us adrift without a compass.
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Mrs. Ives would beg to differ with your remark. See her picture below.
who's that? should i know her?
Methinks thou dost protest too much.:wah:
Oh, behave.
who's that? should i know her?
Methinks thou dost protest too much.:wah:
Oh, behave.
Get your mind out of the gutter - it's blocking my view
Mind like a steel trap - Rusty and Illegal in 37 states.
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Jives wrote: I stand corrected. What I found fascinating, though, was the fact that it happens in other mammalian species. For some reason, I always thought it was only humans that could be homosexual.
Bonobos. as far as I know, Humans and Bonobos are the only species that the males partake in "buggering" eachother.
Bonobos. as far as I know, Humans and Bonobos are the only species that the males partake in "buggering" eachother.
Get your mind out of the gutter - it's blocking my view
Mind like a steel trap - Rusty and Illegal in 37 states.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Wolverine wrote: Bonobos. as far as I know, Humans and Bonobos are the only species that the males partake in "buggering" eachother.There's frogs. Know how a boy frog can tell a boy frog from a girl frog?
Trial and error.
Trial and error.
Look what the cat dragged in.
Homosexuality and Leviticus
My view on homosexuality is quite different and positive-and I am "straight" and happily married.
It would appear that honest homosexuality is part of the very ontology of the person-this is medically supported. If this is the case these folks are born this way. They cannot help their orientation and considereing the battering they get from society in general not one they would normally choose.
This means, then from a religious point of view that in a sense God has created them this way. As someone has said the sex drive is one of the most powerful drives in the human being. It is also a pleasurable experience.
Homosexuality is to be found in 10% of the animal population including man. I see absolutely no reason why the homosexual sould be deprived of sexual pleasure then any one else in our society. As for it being unnatural, that is an incorrect statement. It is a completely natureal response how in our society it is not the norm but that does not make it wrong. If it is wrong, and I don't accept that it is then God is th esource of that wrong.
However, I believe the whole issue of homosexuality to be a scientific issue and not a moral issue and it is time for society and the church in particular to get over it. It is science and not moral.
The homosexual folks of our societies simply want their rights to be respected as are the rights of the heterosexual community. If these has been granted as they should have then there would be no such issue today.
Marachi clearly tells us that God requires that we "do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with our God. All these other issues are the clap trap that man has added into the equation.
BabyRider doesn't have to buy the 10%. No one can force her too. However, that does not alter the 10% statistic. It still stands.
Shalom
Ted:-6
It would appear that honest homosexuality is part of the very ontology of the person-this is medically supported. If this is the case these folks are born this way. They cannot help their orientation and considereing the battering they get from society in general not one they would normally choose.
This means, then from a religious point of view that in a sense God has created them this way. As someone has said the sex drive is one of the most powerful drives in the human being. It is also a pleasurable experience.
Homosexuality is to be found in 10% of the animal population including man. I see absolutely no reason why the homosexual sould be deprived of sexual pleasure then any one else in our society. As for it being unnatural, that is an incorrect statement. It is a completely natureal response how in our society it is not the norm but that does not make it wrong. If it is wrong, and I don't accept that it is then God is th esource of that wrong.
However, I believe the whole issue of homosexuality to be a scientific issue and not a moral issue and it is time for society and the church in particular to get over it. It is science and not moral.
The homosexual folks of our societies simply want their rights to be respected as are the rights of the heterosexual community. If these has been granted as they should have then there would be no such issue today.
Marachi clearly tells us that God requires that we "do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with our God. All these other issues are the clap trap that man has added into the equation.
BabyRider doesn't have to buy the 10%. No one can force her too. However, that does not alter the 10% statistic. It still stands.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Thanks for your 'post' Ted.
Like you I am 'straight', married, with children and grandchildren.
I have a few friends and colleagues who are homosexual/lesbian. My nephew is also 'gay'.
ALL of these guys and gals are the nicest people you could meet...in fact a lot nicer than some so called 'normal' people in the world.
People seem to associate homosexuality with perverts etc. This is totally wrong and people are ill informed.
Ted, your post is the most 'balanced' I have read for some time...thanks
Like you I am 'straight', married, with children and grandchildren.
I have a few friends and colleagues who are homosexual/lesbian. My nephew is also 'gay'.
ALL of these guys and gals are the nicest people you could meet...in fact a lot nicer than some so called 'normal' people in the world.
People seem to associate homosexuality with perverts etc. This is totally wrong and people are ill informed.
Ted, your post is the most 'balanced' I have read for some time...thanks
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Bez:-6
Thankyou. "Marachi" should be read "Malachi" as in 6:8.
I have had another retinal haemorrage which has made reading even more difficult. I missed that one.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thankyou. "Marachi" should be read "Malachi" as in 6:8.
I have had another retinal haemorrage which has made reading even more difficult. I missed that one.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Homosexuality and Leviticus
There are a lot of misconceptions about homosexuality, but I have a background as a scientists so I have a few facts.
It is not a "disease", it is not a "perversion" (such as peadophilia, which is a form of psychosis), it has been observed and is relatively common amoung many mamalian species, it has in history been both culturally accepted and completely taboo in various human societies, all men or women are not gay, in that there is not a "degree of gayness" it is a straightforward sexual preference, it does appear to be the sexual preference of between 5 and 7 percent of the population (this not gender specific), with about 20 percent of these people asserting that they are "bi"sexual. You cannot "catch" it from hanging around publc toilets at night (though you may catch various real "diseases" from such an activity). Straight people do not "turn" gay, though some people do hide their orientation (even from themselves) for various and fairly obvious reasons. Gay sexuality is as diverse and varied in its expression as heterosexuality. In short , modern science regards homosexuality as an instictive, genetically programmed, natural behavior pattern and not a cultural "choice". Their are cultural and political issues in terms of gayness, but these are to do with how gay and straight people percieve, define, and treat each other.
There are however interesting questions such as why homosexuality exists from an evolutionary and reproductive standpoint, though there is undoubtledly a sound biological reason as all deep-rooted behaviour such as sexuality is linked directly to biology.
Many of the moral abiguities in Western culture derive from literal interpretations of the bible, which though you may believe to be divinly inspired, was undoubtedly written by ordinary human beings in a patriarchial, peasant society located in what is now Israel, Palestine, Syria, and Jordan, over the course of several hundred years. The value systems that you would expect of such a society are exactly those that are put forth in the bible (particularly the old testament, which is on many such issues self-contradictory). Although I am a catholic (though not a particularly good one), and admire and believe in many christian values, I think we have to be sensible when trying to interpret the many moral concepts forwarded in the bible.
All opinons are valid to ther owners, but facts are facts.
It is not a "disease", it is not a "perversion" (such as peadophilia, which is a form of psychosis), it has been observed and is relatively common amoung many mamalian species, it has in history been both culturally accepted and completely taboo in various human societies, all men or women are not gay, in that there is not a "degree of gayness" it is a straightforward sexual preference, it does appear to be the sexual preference of between 5 and 7 percent of the population (this not gender specific), with about 20 percent of these people asserting that they are "bi"sexual. You cannot "catch" it from hanging around publc toilets at night (though you may catch various real "diseases" from such an activity). Straight people do not "turn" gay, though some people do hide their orientation (even from themselves) for various and fairly obvious reasons. Gay sexuality is as diverse and varied in its expression as heterosexuality. In short , modern science regards homosexuality as an instictive, genetically programmed, natural behavior pattern and not a cultural "choice". Their are cultural and political issues in terms of gayness, but these are to do with how gay and straight people percieve, define, and treat each other.
There are however interesting questions such as why homosexuality exists from an evolutionary and reproductive standpoint, though there is undoubtledly a sound biological reason as all deep-rooted behaviour such as sexuality is linked directly to biology.
Many of the moral abiguities in Western culture derive from literal interpretations of the bible, which though you may believe to be divinly inspired, was undoubtedly written by ordinary human beings in a patriarchial, peasant society located in what is now Israel, Palestine, Syria, and Jordan, over the course of several hundred years. The value systems that you would expect of such a society are exactly those that are put forth in the bible (particularly the old testament, which is on many such issues self-contradictory). Although I am a catholic (though not a particularly good one), and admire and believe in many christian values, I think we have to be sensible when trying to interpret the many moral concepts forwarded in the bible.
All opinons are valid to ther owners, but facts are facts.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Galbally:-6
An excellent post. Thanks for your input. I am in complete agreement as a Christian Pluralist.
It is definitely time the church and society got over it and ended the abuse heaped on those who are of another sexual orientation. If there is a sin in regards to homosexuality it is the abuse to which Christians subject those folks.
Shalom
Ted:-6
An excellent post. Thanks for your input. I am in complete agreement as a Christian Pluralist.
It is definitely time the church and society got over it and ended the abuse heaped on those who are of another sexual orientation. If there is a sin in regards to homosexuality it is the abuse to which Christians subject those folks.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Gallbaldy...thanks for your posts...it's great to read stuff that doesn't smack of ignorance and bigotry.
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Are we to pick and choose, therefore, from the Old Testament, that which we favour and that which we dont. Or is that choice at the mercy of our predjudices
Thank you bez, I do my best to fight my reactionaty instincts. I think the point you made is a very important one. My belief as a christian and a (bad) catholic is that it is the fundamental message of Christ as stated in the new testament that should be heeded. I think the old testament shoud be regarded as an insight into the values of the society that Christ lived in, and which he, in many regards, opposed. To me the message of the New testament is about inner values, about how to respect and love both God, yourself, and the rest of the world. Many people have unfortunatly used the whole bible in a literal sense to justify their society's outer trappings. In many instances this has caused a lot of problems.
P.S. Your not actually the "Bez" are you? Coz if you are, how on earth did you land that job with the Monday's? nice one mate! Ah, I know you're not, but still there's always a chance!
Thank you bez, I do my best to fight my reactionaty instincts. I think the point you made is a very important one. My belief as a christian and a (bad) catholic is that it is the fundamental message of Christ as stated in the new testament that should be heeded. I think the old testament shoud be regarded as an insight into the values of the society that Christ lived in, and which he, in many regards, opposed. To me the message of the New testament is about inner values, about how to respect and love both God, yourself, and the rest of the world. Many people have unfortunatly used the whole bible in a literal sense to justify their society's outer trappings. In many instances this has caused a lot of problems.
P.S. Your not actually the "Bez" are you? Coz if you are, how on earth did you land that job with the Monday's? nice one mate! Ah, I know you're not, but still there's always a chance!
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Galbally wrote: Are we to pick and choose, therefore, from the Old Testament, that which we favour and that which we dont. Or is that choice at the mercy of our predjudices
Thank you bez, I do my best to fight my reactionaty instincts. I think the point you made is a very important one. My belief as a christian and a (bad) catholic is that it is the fundamental message of Christ as stated in the new testament that should be heeded. I think the old testament shoud be regarded as an insight into the values of the society that Christ lived in, and which he, in many regards, opposed. To me the message of the New testament is about inner values, about how to respect and love both God, yourself, and the rest of the world. Many people have unfortunatly used the whole bible in a literal sense to justify their society's outer trappings. In many instances this has caused a lot of problems.
P.S. Your not actually the "Bez" are you? Coz if you are, how on earth did you land that job with the Monday's? nice one mate! Ah, I know you're not, but still there's always a chance!
Sorry ......female middle aged Bez here !
Thank you bez, I do my best to fight my reactionaty instincts. I think the point you made is a very important one. My belief as a christian and a (bad) catholic is that it is the fundamental message of Christ as stated in the new testament that should be heeded. I think the old testament shoud be regarded as an insight into the values of the society that Christ lived in, and which he, in many regards, opposed. To me the message of the New testament is about inner values, about how to respect and love both God, yourself, and the rest of the world. Many people have unfortunatly used the whole bible in a literal sense to justify their society's outer trappings. In many instances this has caused a lot of problems.
P.S. Your not actually the "Bez" are you? Coz if you are, how on earth did you land that job with the Monday's? nice one mate! Ah, I know you're not, but still there's always a chance!
Sorry ......female middle aged Bez here !
A smile is a window on your face to show your heart is home
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Bez:-6
I think you are correct in using caution when reading the OT. The OT must be read in light of the New Testament and the message of Yeshua of Nazareth.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I think you are correct in using caution when reading the OT. The OT must be read in light of the New Testament and the message of Yeshua of Nazareth.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Homosexuality and Leviticus
A wonderful comment on homosexuality and the Bible.
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homose ... alter-wink
Homosexuality and the Bible by Walter Wink
Shalom
Ted:-6
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homose ... alter-wink
Homosexuality and the Bible by Walter Wink
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
actionfigurestepho
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:32 am
Homosexuality and Leviticus
I wish to comment not on homosexuality: good vs. bad, but rather on sociology, and how I found this whole thread entirely amusing.
We have a pattern in FG when someone posts a thread that's "funny" but potentially offensive. Read around, this will apply to dozens of threads on this forum,and I can imagine it would apply to other forums as well.
1. Someone will post something that's obviously satirical. It's about something that most people will find amusing, but that some people will find disgusting. Usually the poster knows it is offensive, and will throw in some sort of comment on whether or not they agree,and also a comment on how it's just meant to be a joke so as not to ruffle feathers.
2. Two or three people post about how it's funny.
3. Someone will post their comment saying it's NOT funny, that controversial satire is NEVER funny, and then list their reasons for thinking that jokes poking fun at serious subjects are really just ways to express hate in disguise. Sometimes the person will bring up freedom of speech as a way to balance out the "I don't like this" vibe of their comment. Sometimes the person is fair and even-tempered, sometimes their words emit a lot of violent anger.
4. Agreements and disagreements abound. Posts are made using multiple quotes. Semantics are called into question. Sometimes quotes get mixed up as to who said them.
5. Arguments break out about the individual issues/semantics/misquoteness or general misunderstanding.
6. Someone posts something light and humorous to bring about levity. Usually it is a lighthearted comment about the original topic. It's meant to be sweet and to say "hey, we still all like each other, and we can all laugh at this, right?"
7. Other people who don't really want to debate will comment on the light post. In the meantime, two people with opposing viewpoints will resume the debate. Usually this will involve the original person who posted their disagreement with the joke. They will repeatedly remark that they appreciate and respect each others' opinion. Anger, if there was any, starts to simmer down.
8. Meanwhile, two other people with concurrent opinions will start to remark on the the opposing viewpoint. Again, these posts are respectful and tame.
9. By this point there will be at least five references to "PC" and why it's bad,
10. Repeat from step 6.
Have you guys noticed this pattern of debate? I swear I see it every time I read a thread from the bottom half of the board.
We have a pattern in FG when someone posts a thread that's "funny" but potentially offensive. Read around, this will apply to dozens of threads on this forum,and I can imagine it would apply to other forums as well.
1. Someone will post something that's obviously satirical. It's about something that most people will find amusing, but that some people will find disgusting. Usually the poster knows it is offensive, and will throw in some sort of comment on whether or not they agree,and also a comment on how it's just meant to be a joke so as not to ruffle feathers.
2. Two or three people post about how it's funny.
3. Someone will post their comment saying it's NOT funny, that controversial satire is NEVER funny, and then list their reasons for thinking that jokes poking fun at serious subjects are really just ways to express hate in disguise. Sometimes the person will bring up freedom of speech as a way to balance out the "I don't like this" vibe of their comment. Sometimes the person is fair and even-tempered, sometimes their words emit a lot of violent anger.
4. Agreements and disagreements abound. Posts are made using multiple quotes. Semantics are called into question. Sometimes quotes get mixed up as to who said them.
5. Arguments break out about the individual issues/semantics/misquoteness or general misunderstanding.
6. Someone posts something light and humorous to bring about levity. Usually it is a lighthearted comment about the original topic. It's meant to be sweet and to say "hey, we still all like each other, and we can all laugh at this, right?"
7. Other people who don't really want to debate will comment on the light post. In the meantime, two people with opposing viewpoints will resume the debate. Usually this will involve the original person who posted their disagreement with the joke. They will repeatedly remark that they appreciate and respect each others' opinion. Anger, if there was any, starts to simmer down.
8. Meanwhile, two other people with concurrent opinions will start to remark on the the opposing viewpoint. Again, these posts are respectful and tame.
9. By this point there will be at least five references to "PC" and why it's bad,
10. Repeat from step 6.
Have you guys noticed this pattern of debate? I swear I see it every time I read a thread from the bottom half of the board.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Homosexuality and Leviticus
actionfigurestepho wrote: I wish to comment not on homosexuality: good vs. bad, but rather on sociology, and how I found this whole thread entirely amusing.
We have a pattern in FG when someone posts a thread that's "funny" but potentially offensive. Read around, this will apply to dozens of threads on this forum,and I can imagine it would apply to other forums as well.
1. Someone will post something that's obviously satirical. It's about something that most people will find amusing, but that some people will find disgusting. Usually the poster knows it is offensive, and will throw in some sort of comment on whether or not they agree,and also a comment on how it's just meant to be a joke so as not to ruffle feathers.
2. Two or three people post about how it's funny.
3. Someone will post their comment saying it's NOT funny, that controversial satire is NEVER funny, and then list their reasons for thinking that jokes poking fun at serious subjects are really just ways to express hate in disguise. Sometimes the person will bring up freedom of speech as a way to balance out the "I don't like this" vibe of their comment. Sometimes the person is fair and even-tempered, sometimes their words emit a lot of violent anger.
4. Agreements and disagreements abound. Posts are made using multiple quotes. Semantics are called into question. Sometimes quotes get mixed up as to who said them.
5. Arguments break out about the individual issues/semantics/misquoteness or general misunderstanding.
6. Someone posts something light and humorous to bring about levity. Usually it is a lighthearted comment about the original topic. It's meant to be sweet and to say "hey, we still all like each other, and we can all laugh at this, right?"
7. Other people who don't really want to debate will comment on the light post. In the meantime, two people with opposing viewpoints will resume the debate. Usually this will involve the original person who posted their disagreement with the joke. They will repeatedly remark that they appreciate and respect each others' opinion. Anger, if there was any, starts to simmer down.
8. Meanwhile, two other people with concurrent opinions will start to remark on the the opposing viewpoint. Again, these posts are respectful and tame.
9. By this point there will be at least five references to "PC" and why it's bad,
10. Repeat from step 6.
Have you guys noticed this pattern of debate? I swear I see it every time I read a thread from the bottom half of the board.Oh sure! Just go ahead and ruin the magic! I suppose now you'll explain how the magician puts the coin behind the kid's ear without ever touching him. :p
I plan to refer and allude to this post often, just to bring forth smiles.
We have a pattern in FG when someone posts a thread that's "funny" but potentially offensive. Read around, this will apply to dozens of threads on this forum,and I can imagine it would apply to other forums as well.
1. Someone will post something that's obviously satirical. It's about something that most people will find amusing, but that some people will find disgusting. Usually the poster knows it is offensive, and will throw in some sort of comment on whether or not they agree,and also a comment on how it's just meant to be a joke so as not to ruffle feathers.
2. Two or three people post about how it's funny.
3. Someone will post their comment saying it's NOT funny, that controversial satire is NEVER funny, and then list their reasons for thinking that jokes poking fun at serious subjects are really just ways to express hate in disguise. Sometimes the person will bring up freedom of speech as a way to balance out the "I don't like this" vibe of their comment. Sometimes the person is fair and even-tempered, sometimes their words emit a lot of violent anger.
4. Agreements and disagreements abound. Posts are made using multiple quotes. Semantics are called into question. Sometimes quotes get mixed up as to who said them.
5. Arguments break out about the individual issues/semantics/misquoteness or general misunderstanding.
6. Someone posts something light and humorous to bring about levity. Usually it is a lighthearted comment about the original topic. It's meant to be sweet and to say "hey, we still all like each other, and we can all laugh at this, right?"
7. Other people who don't really want to debate will comment on the light post. In the meantime, two people with opposing viewpoints will resume the debate. Usually this will involve the original person who posted their disagreement with the joke. They will repeatedly remark that they appreciate and respect each others' opinion. Anger, if there was any, starts to simmer down.
8. Meanwhile, two other people with concurrent opinions will start to remark on the the opposing viewpoint. Again, these posts are respectful and tame.
9. By this point there will be at least five references to "PC" and why it's bad,
10. Repeat from step 6.
Have you guys noticed this pattern of debate? I swear I see it every time I read a thread from the bottom half of the board.Oh sure! Just go ahead and ruin the magic! I suppose now you'll explain how the magician puts the coin behind the kid's ear without ever touching him. :p
I plan to refer and allude to this post often, just to bring forth smiles.
-
actionfigurestepho
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:32 am
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Accountable wrote: Oh sure! Just go ahead and ruin the magic! I suppose now you'll explain how the magician puts the coin behind the kid's ear without ever touching him. :p
I plan to refer and allude to this post often, just to bring forth smiles.
It's like the scientific method---for debate!:-6
I plan to refer and allude to this post often, just to bring forth smiles.
It's like the scientific method---for debate!:-6Homosexuality and Leviticus
action:-6
Let me be clear about a few things. First of all I generally do not post jokes though have been known to post the occasional good story. What I post I have diligently researched in appropriate scholarly works and journals. I do not post to offend. If some find offense in what I post for that I am truly sorry. If only we could deal with the issues instead of the personalities, it wuld help.
I post that we might share thoughts and ideas as well as to make it clear that there is more then one valid interpretation of things written. I do not post what I do not believe. Hopefully we can all learn from the exchange of ideas and throughts.
May the peace of Christ be with you.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Let me be clear about a few things. First of all I generally do not post jokes though have been known to post the occasional good story. What I post I have diligently researched in appropriate scholarly works and journals. I do not post to offend. If some find offense in what I post for that I am truly sorry. If only we could deal with the issues instead of the personalities, it wuld help.
I post that we might share thoughts and ideas as well as to make it clear that there is more then one valid interpretation of things written. I do not post what I do not believe. Hopefully we can all learn from the exchange of ideas and throughts.
May the peace of Christ be with you.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Yup. That was the point of her post. It's all about you, Ted.
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Accountable:-6
Personal attacks are hardly appropriate here. Perhaps you find it hard to deal with the issues. However, in light of her post I was simply stating what I expected out of a good discussion.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Personal attacks are hardly appropriate here. Perhaps you find it hard to deal with the issues. However, in light of her post I was simply stating what I expected out of a good discussion.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Hardly an attack, Ted. That was a good-natured tease. Rule 7.
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Accountable:-6
Ok. LOL I accept.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ok. LOL I accept.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
actionfigurestepho
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:32 am
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Ted, we were most certainly not criticizing you in any manner! It was an affectionate look at how debates tend to run on this particular forum, regardless of who posted what. It was posted with love! Please try reading it again and seeing how many of any of our posts can match up with one of the numbers! I think you'll be smiling too.
We like you.
We like you.
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Action:-6
Re-read I did. I apologize and thanks.
May the peace of Christ be with you and yours at this season of the year.
Shalom
Ted
Re-read I did. I apologize and thanks.
May the peace of Christ be with you and yours at this season of the year.
Shalom
Ted
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Just bum them all
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Hi everyone new to the forum. This thread actually inspired me to sign up.
People who think... posting? Nooooo!
Dr. Laura - Friggin Hillarious.
Although the comment on posting trends was also really interesting.
I suppose the debate part has died down by now, but I still want to toss in my two cents because in this discussion of homosexuality I don't think we've actually heard from one yet... or at least no one has stated it as their perspective.
So as a Queer, I think I should just say that while this is an interesting topic... it's a little insulting listening to people discussing weather or not you are legitemate... even when they're on your side. The truth of the matter that hasn't quite dawned on the majority of people in this country IMHO is that it's not up to you/straight people/anyone but us.
We decide weather or not there is a problem with who we're attracted to. We decide weather or not to act on the attraction... we don't decide to have it, but we do have the last say on weather or not it is legitemate. Not the religious right, not politicians, and not the Bible... written primarily by straight people I'll point out.
The only place this is not true is with science. If science could prove a reasonable theorey on why homosexuality is at all detrimental to ANYONE, then we could open the discussion. But science has proven (not through activism just actual facts and statistics) that there is no detriment inherant to a homosexual orientation or act, other then persecution from a society that doesn't approve.
"Stop it, your making me sick"... etc...
So thank you for finding my personal attractions SOOOO interesting... but get off it ok. The discussion is closed, it's been closed. If you want to have a discussion about homosexuality could you at least try a different tune? A new topic? Anything but "Gay: Good or Bad?". Possible ideas.... gay relationships compared to hetero. The differences and similarities besides sex. What was the evolutionary path to homosexuality. How many times did Jesus christ have sex with his disciples (who he coerted into leaving their wives to fallow him around the dessert... to praaay...)
Anyway just wanted to say that. You guys did a good job of keeping it thoughtfull and not just yelling at each other, and I really do appreciate all the people who stood up for my right to do what I inherently have the right to do weather or not someone has a problem with it.
As a last note I just wanted to say, to the people talking about the possibility of having gay kids. Don't be naive. If your child is gay there is going to be no debate in the end. You have no say, you can't make them change, you can't fix them.
In the end the only thing that is going to be up to you is how well you know them, and how often you see them. You can't say "you can be here but not as a homo". Because it's as much a part of us as being straight is a part of you.
Thanks for letting me rant. Great forum.
=)
People who think... posting? Nooooo!
Dr. Laura - Friggin Hillarious.
Although the comment on posting trends was also really interesting.
I suppose the debate part has died down by now, but I still want to toss in my two cents because in this discussion of homosexuality I don't think we've actually heard from one yet... or at least no one has stated it as their perspective.
So as a Queer, I think I should just say that while this is an interesting topic... it's a little insulting listening to people discussing weather or not you are legitemate... even when they're on your side. The truth of the matter that hasn't quite dawned on the majority of people in this country IMHO is that it's not up to you/straight people/anyone but us.
We decide weather or not there is a problem with who we're attracted to. We decide weather or not to act on the attraction... we don't decide to have it, but we do have the last say on weather or not it is legitemate. Not the religious right, not politicians, and not the Bible... written primarily by straight people I'll point out.
The only place this is not true is with science. If science could prove a reasonable theorey on why homosexuality is at all detrimental to ANYONE, then we could open the discussion. But science has proven (not through activism just actual facts and statistics) that there is no detriment inherant to a homosexual orientation or act, other then persecution from a society that doesn't approve.
"Stop it, your making me sick"... etc...
So thank you for finding my personal attractions SOOOO interesting... but get off it ok. The discussion is closed, it's been closed. If you want to have a discussion about homosexuality could you at least try a different tune? A new topic? Anything but "Gay: Good or Bad?". Possible ideas.... gay relationships compared to hetero. The differences and similarities besides sex. What was the evolutionary path to homosexuality. How many times did Jesus christ have sex with his disciples (who he coerted into leaving their wives to fallow him around the dessert... to praaay...)
Anyway just wanted to say that. You guys did a good job of keeping it thoughtfull and not just yelling at each other, and I really do appreciate all the people who stood up for my right to do what I inherently have the right to do weather or not someone has a problem with it.
As a last note I just wanted to say, to the people talking about the possibility of having gay kids. Don't be naive. If your child is gay there is going to be no debate in the end. You have no say, you can't make them change, you can't fix them.
In the end the only thing that is going to be up to you is how well you know them, and how often you see them. You can't say "you can be here but not as a homo". Because it's as much a part of us as being straight is a part of you.
Thanks for letting me rant. Great forum.
=)
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Wyrd:-6
Welcome.
An excellent post. Thanks.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Welcome.
An excellent post. Thanks.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Thanks Ted!
I guess here's my disclaimer to my riduculously long introduction.
A) I'm not assuming the sexual orientation of anyone, other than Jesus.
I just wanted to say something acknowledging it's source.
B) Thank you for supporting gay people, I can't stress that enough.
I just think the conversation is as old hat as weather or not women have the right to work. Well... yeah. Have you been around for the last fifty years?
We have the right to exist and have sex as ourselves. The Jury's not out on that.
We have the right to assign our own morale system within the law.
Ergo... it's not up to anyone but us.
Gay marriage is a legal and therefore still debateable subject. But not our inherent goodness or badness or naturalness.
I mean honestly if you were at a bar with your black friend and someone said "You know I think black people are a dirty, savage race that won't go to the same heaven as us even if they're christians." Would you really get into a debate about it? Isn't that kind of obviously not coming from a place of reason?
I guess here's my disclaimer to my riduculously long introduction.
A) I'm not assuming the sexual orientation of anyone, other than Jesus.
I just wanted to say something acknowledging it's source.
B) Thank you for supporting gay people, I can't stress that enough.
I just think the conversation is as old hat as weather or not women have the right to work. Well... yeah. Have you been around for the last fifty years?
We have the right to exist and have sex as ourselves. The Jury's not out on that.
We have the right to assign our own morale system within the law.
Ergo... it's not up to anyone but us.
Gay marriage is a legal and therefore still debateable subject. But not our inherent goodness or badness or naturalness.
I mean honestly if you were at a bar with your black friend and someone said "You know I think black people are a dirty, savage race that won't go to the same heaven as us even if they're christians." Would you really get into a debate about it? Isn't that kind of obviously not coming from a place of reason?
Homosexuality and Leviticus
WyrdJesan;465302 wrote:
I mean honestly if you were at a bar with your black friend and someone said "You know I think black people are a dirty, savage race that won't go to the same heaven as us even if they're christians." Would you really get into a debate about it? Isn't that kind of obviously not coming from a place of reason?
Being homosexual and being black and two entirely different ballparks, It's like talking apples and oranges. You can't make a worthwhile comparison there. You'll have to try something different than that. And people have a right to argue the right and wrong of homosexualy the same as you have a right to be it or not.
I mean honestly if you were at a bar with your black friend and someone said "You know I think black people are a dirty, savage race that won't go to the same heaven as us even if they're christians." Would you really get into a debate about it? Isn't that kind of obviously not coming from a place of reason?
Being homosexual and being black and two entirely different ballparks, It's like talking apples and oranges. You can't make a worthwhile comparison there. You'll have to try something different than that. And people have a right to argue the right and wrong of homosexualy the same as you have a right to be it or not.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Wlcome to the garden wyrd. hope you like it and decide to stay awhile and get to know some of us. :-6
Homosexuality and Leviticus
guppy;465306 wrote: Wlcome to the garden wyrd. hope you like it and decide to stay awhile and get to know some of us. :-6
That too:)
That too:)
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Wyrd:-6
Personally I have two friends who are gay. I am not.
That being said I will stand up against injustice wherever I see it.
I don't even believe that sexual orientation ought to be an issue. But it is and as such it creates injustices. When injustice is at an end I will be able to take a rest. This I presume will never happen.
I do welcome you and hope that you will stay. You have much to contribute not only to this particular issue but others as well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Personally I have two friends who are gay. I am not.
That being said I will stand up against injustice wherever I see it.
I don't even believe that sexual orientation ought to be an issue. But it is and as such it creates injustices. When injustice is at an end I will be able to take a rest. This I presume will never happen.
I do welcome you and hope that you will stay. You have much to contribute not only to this particular issue but others as well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Wow everyone here is so cordial. 
Ok there's a good topic for another thread, differences among minorities etc...
It fits the analogy. People don't choose to be black, people don't choose to be gay, people can act typically black or act typically gay, or choose not to; it doesn't change who/what you are. The real difference is that one is more superficial which leads to all sorts of other differences, but the fundamental sitch is still similar enough for that little analog. But I digress. Another thread.
Thanks for the welcomes all!
I enjoy the conversation even when it doesn't swing to my vote so I'll definately stop by again and check out other threads.
Also. I never meant to imply that people cannot discuss weather or not I am fundamentally good or bad. I simply wanted to point out that the person who actually gets to make the descission on that, providing for law, is me.
Discuss away... if you must, it's going to seem a little silly to any gay person reading it but, knock yourselves out.
But if your not gay... why do you care so much about it's fundamental rightness or not. That one always stumped me. I mean, it's not like we chase around evangelical christians pining for sex or anything. Why gay? Why not.... adultures or something. Or, like the Dr. Laura letter pointed out... any of the other number of abominations in Leviticus.
Also I've read the bible a couple of times and, there's the whole vision thing if I remember correctly, but that doesn't cover everything... mostly just food.
Ok there's a good topic for another thread, differences among minorities etc...
It fits the analogy. People don't choose to be black, people don't choose to be gay, people can act typically black or act typically gay, or choose not to; it doesn't change who/what you are. The real difference is that one is more superficial which leads to all sorts of other differences, but the fundamental sitch is still similar enough for that little analog. But I digress. Another thread.
Thanks for the welcomes all!
I enjoy the conversation even when it doesn't swing to my vote so I'll definately stop by again and check out other threads.
Also. I never meant to imply that people cannot discuss weather or not I am fundamentally good or bad. I simply wanted to point out that the person who actually gets to make the descission on that, providing for law, is me.
Discuss away... if you must, it's going to seem a little silly to any gay person reading it but, knock yourselves out.
But if your not gay... why do you care so much about it's fundamental rightness or not. That one always stumped me. I mean, it's not like we chase around evangelical christians pining for sex or anything. Why gay? Why not.... adultures or something. Or, like the Dr. Laura letter pointed out... any of the other number of abominations in Leviticus.
Also I've read the bible a couple of times and, there's the whole vision thing if I remember correctly, but that doesn't cover everything... mostly just food.
Homosexuality and Leviticus
WyrdJesan;465349 wrote: Also I've read the bible a couple of times and, there's the whole vision thing if I remember correctly, but that doesn't cover everything... mostly just food.And a very indigestible meal it sounded, too.
When you say it "hasn't quite dawned on the majority of people in this country", where are you refering to? There's a lot of difference between a thriving go-ahead country like New Zealand and a moribund backwater like England.
Welcome to the site. We leave threads like this as baited hooks drifting in the Internet stream to see who we can hook out of the water, you know. I hope you'll give us a bit more of your time now and then.
When you say it "hasn't quite dawned on the majority of people in this country", where are you refering to? There's a lot of difference between a thriving go-ahead country like New Zealand and a moribund backwater like England.
Welcome to the site. We leave threads like this as baited hooks drifting in the Internet stream to see who we can hook out of the water, you know. I hope you'll give us a bit more of your time now and then.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Homosexuality and Leviticus
WyrdJesan,
Your responding to this thread was great. It was like an employee walking in the door of a board meeting where he is being discussed. If you ever were to read the archives here, you would find that there have always been posters who defend the lifestyle of homosexuals. And straight contributors who have made many of the same comments that you have stated here. For many people, discussing the subject, is something that wouldnt cross their minds. However, when the topic does present itself, they will contribute an outlook. Your input could be valuable, not only here in this thread, but in every area. You will find here, people from all parts of the US as well as the UK and Europe. As you well know opinions, and feelings are often influenced by upbringing, as well as by life experiences. I have often stated that much of the compulsion to discuss the subject, has roots stemming from fear. And that if humans even consider the possibility that boundaries regarding the choices we make to love others are defined by laws, too much of the population would become " unlabeled" and we would get to the place where there arent any catagories anymore. Then there wouldnt even be anything to discuss. In another thread, just last week I admitted with shame that I just found out about the law slipped by the people of Virginia, in July of 1994. This law takes away the right not only of homosexual couples.. but of all couples of the same sex to be part of any legal contract with each other. Wills. medical documents, bank accounts etc........ I live here. This law is a violation of all constitutional rights. Perhaps it will be the eye opener that people need to finally stand up not only for themselves, but for others also. I know that I am finally going to find a place to have a voice. I must or I will not be able to live with myself.
Your responding to this thread was great. It was like an employee walking in the door of a board meeting where he is being discussed. If you ever were to read the archives here, you would find that there have always been posters who defend the lifestyle of homosexuals. And straight contributors who have made many of the same comments that you have stated here. For many people, discussing the subject, is something that wouldnt cross their minds. However, when the topic does present itself, they will contribute an outlook. Your input could be valuable, not only here in this thread, but in every area. You will find here, people from all parts of the US as well as the UK and Europe. As you well know opinions, and feelings are often influenced by upbringing, as well as by life experiences. I have often stated that much of the compulsion to discuss the subject, has roots stemming from fear. And that if humans even consider the possibility that boundaries regarding the choices we make to love others are defined by laws, too much of the population would become " unlabeled" and we would get to the place where there arent any catagories anymore. Then there wouldnt even be anything to discuss. In another thread, just last week I admitted with shame that I just found out about the law slipped by the people of Virginia, in July of 1994. This law takes away the right not only of homosexual couples.. but of all couples of the same sex to be part of any legal contract with each other. Wills. medical documents, bank accounts etc........ I live here. This law is a violation of all constitutional rights. Perhaps it will be the eye opener that people need to finally stand up not only for themselves, but for others also. I know that I am finally going to find a place to have a voice. I must or I will not be able to live with myself.
[FONT=Microsoft Sans Serif][/FONT]
Homosexuality and Leviticus
I think this whole thing is why I have so many issues with organized religions. The words in the bible can be interpreted in so may ways. Plus, they were written for the times then. Not for NOW.
I mean, I have no issues with some things..like dietary restrictions, and the like. Because these do not call for the hatred of another group of people, simply for who they are.
I mean, I have no issues with some things..like dietary restrictions, and the like. Because these do not call for the hatred of another group of people, simply for who they are.
Homosexuality and Leviticus
A couple things.
Sorry I havn't gotten my profile up so I forgot it's not implicit where I live.
I am in the United States. And by "this country" I mean "this really backward country that places more importance on your ability to kill then your ability to love"
Digression... a new scent by WyrdJesan.
"In another thread, just last week I admitted with shame that I just found out about the law slipped by the people of Virginia, in July of 1994. "
See... U.S. Sucks... but if someone wanted to get on your case for trying to have marital rights in virginia, they'd have something to stand on.
I look forward to looking at other forums.
It's funny because my first reaction to the Dr. Laura letter is to discuss the fundamentalist perspective on leviticus. How religious decide what to use as doctrine and what not to from any religious text.
I think if there's a controversy it's more about that, and it's amongst people who believe the bible is an authority of some kind.
Sorry I havn't gotten my profile up so I forgot it's not implicit where I live.
I am in the United States. And by "this country" I mean "this really backward country that places more importance on your ability to kill then your ability to love"
Digression... a new scent by WyrdJesan.
"In another thread, just last week I admitted with shame that I just found out about the law slipped by the people of Virginia, in July of 1994. "
See... U.S. Sucks... but if someone wanted to get on your case for trying to have marital rights in virginia, they'd have something to stand on.
I look forward to looking at other forums.
It's funny because my first reaction to the Dr. Laura letter is to discuss the fundamentalist perspective on leviticus. How religious decide what to use as doctrine and what not to from any religious text.
I think if there's a controversy it's more about that, and it's amongst people who believe the bible is an authority of some kind.
Homosexuality and Leviticus
That was 2004. And I said it violates the constitutional rights of all people. Which are just the circumstances that may prode people of all persuasions to sit up and take notice.
[FONT=Microsoft Sans Serif][/FONT]
Homosexuality and Leviticus
I've only just arrived at this thread. I love the original post. I believe the Bible contains writings by people (mostly men), with very varying levels of inspiration. Which writings to include was also decided by people (mostly men), again with very varying levels of inspiration. And that's before you even get to translation. You are dealing with ancient mythology, history, poetry, letters, dreams, memories passed down.. It is always several stages removed from Source. Which isn't to say, at all, that there's not some valuable, helpful and holy things in the Bible.
I'm Christian, but I honestly can't comprehend the people who believe that God literally took up a pen and wrote every single word of the Bible. Or dictated it to some faithful scribe who got it totally right. Come on!!
The Bible can be - and has been - pretty much used by people (mostly men) to prove whatever reinforced their own power bases, suited their agendas, or personal preferences.
I think I posted in another thread, that a Professor I knew well at University - for the sake of argument - set out, with no difficulty whatever, to prove that the Bible should be banned, under the Australian obscenity laws of the time (since repealed).
I'm Christian, but I honestly can't comprehend the people who believe that God literally took up a pen and wrote every single word of the Bible. Or dictated it to some faithful scribe who got it totally right. Come on!!
The Bible can be - and has been - pretty much used by people (mostly men) to prove whatever reinforced their own power bases, suited their agendas, or personal preferences.
I think I posted in another thread, that a Professor I knew well at University - for the sake of argument - set out, with no difficulty whatever, to prove that the Bible should be banned, under the Australian obscenity laws of the time (since repealed).
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Homosexuality and Leviticus
WyrdJesan;465730 wrote:
It's funny because my first reaction to the Dr. Laura letter is to discuss the fundamentalist perspective on leviticus. How religious decide what to use as doctrine and what not to from any religious text.
I think if there's a controversy it's more about that, and it's amongst people who believe the bible is an authority of some kind.
The controversy does not always have to do with religion. Some Christians follow the bible exactly as is. Some do not do that. I am one that does not do that. For me the controvesy is personal opinion as I believe it is for many. I have no problem with people being homosexual but I feel no need to support it any more than you feel a need to support me as heterosexual. When homosexuals start shoving their stuff down my throat, I get a little testy(all puns intended)cuz I don't shove my stuff down their throat. I have no intention of stepping aside so homosexuals can have their own way. I learned a long time ago to fight my own battles.
It's funny because my first reaction to the Dr. Laura letter is to discuss the fundamentalist perspective on leviticus. How religious decide what to use as doctrine and what not to from any religious text.
I think if there's a controversy it's more about that, and it's amongst people who believe the bible is an authority of some kind.
The controversy does not always have to do with religion. Some Christians follow the bible exactly as is. Some do not do that. I am one that does not do that. For me the controvesy is personal opinion as I believe it is for many. I have no problem with people being homosexual but I feel no need to support it any more than you feel a need to support me as heterosexual. When homosexuals start shoving their stuff down my throat, I get a little testy(all puns intended)cuz I don't shove my stuff down their throat. I have no intention of stepping aside so homosexuals can have their own way. I learned a long time ago to fight my own battles.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Homosexuality and Leviticus
"The Bible can be - and has been - pretty much used by people (mostly men) to prove whatever reinforced their own power bases, suited their agendas, or personal preferences."
Well yes. Those men were also straight. And probably white, or whatever the racial majority.
Well yes. Those men were also straight. And probably white, or whatever the racial majority.
Homosexuality and Leviticus
WyrdJesan;465940 wrote: "The Bible can be - and has been - pretty much used by people (mostly men) to prove whatever reinforced their own power bases, suited their agendas, or personal preferences."
Well yes. Those men were also straight. And probably white, or whatever the racial majority.
You don't get it do you. Too bad. You can't lump everybody other than yourself into one little pile of people who all think the same. You are individual and so is everybody else so stop crapping at the one box and putting everyone in it. Get a life.
Well yes. Those men were also straight. And probably white, or whatever the racial majority.
You don't get it do you. Too bad. You can't lump everybody other than yourself into one little pile of people who all think the same. You are individual and so is everybody else so stop crapping at the one box and putting everyone in it. Get a life.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Homosexuality and Leviticus
weber;465955 wrote: You don't get it do you. Too bad. You can't lump everybody other than yourself into one little pile of people who all think the same. You are individual and so is everybody else so stop crapping at the one box and putting everyone in it. Get a life.
Ok.... what????.... What??? That makes no sense and has nothing to do with what I said. :-2
I was just elaborating on the origional idea that the bible was written by people in a majority, and has typically been used by a very similar majority throughout history to push that majorities agenda. Which I don't think is a coincidence.
She said "Men", I just wanted to point out that the majority included sexual orientation and racial privilage. Though if I'm right I think a lot of the contributers weren't incredibly rich. But I'd have to check that.
You can't have an accurate perspective if you don't aknowledge where something is coming from. It doesn't necessarily make it valid or invalid, but if a book by a man is teaching sexism against women... well isn't that kind of an important aspect to look at?
If I really grouped everyone into a box... or shoved my sexual orientation down other peoples throats *(ahem)* I wouldn't be talking to people on this forum. I would just assume they were all straight and post graphic homosexual pornography to **** you off.
The attitude of gay people somehow invading or being rude and closed minded just for speaking from our perspective... in which there's pleanty reasons to look around and feel like the straight world is being shoved down OUR throats... is why a lot of gay people just pull away from everyone who isn't queer. Why we don't always say what we think in public. etc...
PS: I know you didn't say *I* was shoving gayness down ur throat I just wanted to make a point because I've heard it before.
Ok.... what????.... What??? That makes no sense and has nothing to do with what I said. :-2
I was just elaborating on the origional idea that the bible was written by people in a majority, and has typically been used by a very similar majority throughout history to push that majorities agenda. Which I don't think is a coincidence.
She said "Men", I just wanted to point out that the majority included sexual orientation and racial privilage. Though if I'm right I think a lot of the contributers weren't incredibly rich. But I'd have to check that.
You can't have an accurate perspective if you don't aknowledge where something is coming from. It doesn't necessarily make it valid or invalid, but if a book by a man is teaching sexism against women... well isn't that kind of an important aspect to look at?
If I really grouped everyone into a box... or shoved my sexual orientation down other peoples throats *(ahem)* I wouldn't be talking to people on this forum. I would just assume they were all straight and post graphic homosexual pornography to **** you off.
The attitude of gay people somehow invading or being rude and closed minded just for speaking from our perspective... in which there's pleanty reasons to look around and feel like the straight world is being shoved down OUR throats... is why a lot of gay people just pull away from everyone who isn't queer. Why we don't always say what we think in public. etc...
PS: I know you didn't say *I* was shoving gayness down ur throat I just wanted to make a point because I've heard it before.
Homosexuality and Leviticus
Why does the Bible have to be brought into evidence for any moral issue ever introduced for discussion? Is that like bringing out the big guns? There will always be those who believe it is the word of God. And those who dont. Those who arent sure.... and those who really dont care. Whoever is right.. who knows if we will ever find out? Why cant man just be good to his fellow man? Live and let live. Choose who you want to fratenize with... what " Club you want to belong to. All the while... leaving others to do the same. But treating each other with respect, and dignity?
[FONT=Microsoft Sans Serif][/FONT]