The bible and homosexuality: Round 3

In the earlier thread, truthlover wrote:

quote:

---

Saying that I had a faulty memory on this subject is accurate, but in my own defense, the reason I didn't remember and the reason I didn't know what you were trying to rebut is that I never intended to assert such a thing, so I didn't realize I had said something that sounded like that.

---

Wow! I wish we had straightened that out sooner. I had originally intended to explore your idea that Paul meant 'cowardice' when he said 'effeminacy' but we could never get beyond this.Before I go any further I want to mention that I don't really hold to any consistent view of the bible. I use whatever polemic is available in refuting whatever passage is being discussed. I'm likely to use different arguments to refute the same passage, depending on the requirements of the discussion at hand. I do this because my overall aim is to refute biblical innerancy. That stupid doctrine is at the root of nearly every argument that takes place on these boards. It is also at the root of almost all intolerance.

quote:

---

I was simply pointing to a pattern, and the thought in my mind for that pattern was mostly Revelations' statement that the cowardly won't enter the holy city. It lists fearfulness first, as a matter of fact (Rev 21:8).

---

We've gone from 'effeminacy' to 'cowardice' to 'fearfullness'. I don't see these three words as synonyms. Are you basing your opinion on translation issues? If so, I'll grant you may be right because, except for a little Latin, English is the only language I know. However, if this is your basis, can you explain precisely what is being interpreted and why you feel justified in equating 'effeminacy' with 'cowardice'?

quote:

---

Since you appear to be saying (I hope I'm getting this right this time) that since the writer of Genesis doesn't condemn Lot for his actions, then the Scriptures don't have a pattern of being against cowardice...

---

Close. I go a little further, though; not only does the writer of Genesis not condemn the blatantly obvious cowardice of Lot, neither does any other passage in scripture, yet in the NT Lot is praised as a just and rightous man. Mind you that this paragon of virtue had not only committed the unconscionable act of offering his virgin daughters to be gang raped, he also got drunk and screwed both of his virgin daughters almost immediately after his wife was struck dead by God for being nosy. How is it that Lot gets to be "just" and "rightous" according to a book that supposedly condemns cowardice? Further, what is it about us homosexuals that makes us so "unjust" and "unrightous"? Who the hell are we hurting? We're not pimps and we don't impregnate young virgin relatives! We're better than Lot, dammit! If God can't see this then what the hell is God worth?

quote:

---

On the other hand, I'm not in any way sure that's what he meant. The Greek theater in his day, according to several of the early fathers, involved teaching boys to live effeminately and homosexually so they could play women in the plays. I've never researched the truth of that...

---

Yes it's true, it was common practice in theatre until the 17th century. All of Shakespeare's female roles were played by boys during his lifetime. The boys weren't necessarily taught to live effeminately, though; I think those that were good actors took male roles once they got beyond puberty.

quote:

---

I don't imagine you'd like our code of morals any better than Paul's, because we believe homosexuality is against God's morals, too...

---

It's okay to believe that, it's not okay to deny rights to others who may feel differently. So long as your neighbor isn't hurting you, it's none of your business how moral he or she is. You have no right to deny to him or her the same rights and privileges you enjoy under the law.I hope we can agree on this much.

Zachariah writes:

quote:

---

If my neighbor is not feeding his cats but I don't see it is it still wrong?

---

Of course it's still wrong; you're quibbling. Perhaps I should have said "so long as your neighbor isn't hurting you or anyone else, including pets and other animals and plants". Would that have been clearer for you?You're deliberately missing the point: so long as your neighbor is not infringing on your rights or anyone else's rights, you have no right to infringe on his or hers.

quote:

---

If they give homosexuals the right to marry that effects everyone.

---

No it doesn't. The lives of heterosexuals will not be changed in any way. How are the marriages of heterosexuals endangered by the prospect of gay marriage? Are you scared that you might be seduced by a man if gay marriage is legalized? Do you feel that a law preventing you from marrying a member of your own sex is the only thing sustaining your manhood?If you'll take a look at your arguments, you'll find that they are purely ad hominem. This begs the question: why do you get so emotional when the topic of homosexuality is raised? Is this a very personal subject for you?

quote:

---

People that believe it to be wrong won't get a choice anymore.

---

What? This is senseless. What "choice"? "People who believe it to be wrong" don't have to do anything they feel is wrong and they will continue to not have to do anything they feel is wrong if gay marriage is legalized. They can continue to "choose" to live their lives as heterosexuals for as long as they wish, right up until the day they die even. Where's the problem?

Zach, if you expect anyone to take you seriously you simply must quit saying things like "I don't agree with you or homosexuality...". Saying you don't "agree with" homosexuality makes no sense. What is there to agree with? It exists! There's nothing you can do to make it go away.It's quite clear you are opposed to gay rights. It's also clear that you want us to believe that your opposition to gay rights comes from your interpretation of scripture (based on the tone of your rhetoric I suspect there's much more to it in your case, but we'll leave that alone for now).As is typical of bigoted, reactionary conservatives, you seem to be trying to make the case that you are not prejudiced. Do you not understand what prejudice is? It is to pre-judge. You have passed judgement on all homosexuals as sinful people simply because of something you believe, not something you can demonstrate to be true. No matter how you interpret the bible, you have no more than the bible to back up your beliefs. This is the very essence of prejudice; you, sir, are therefore quite prejudiced! Stop trying to make the absurd case that you aren't.

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

If being a slave was a consensual thing, then it would be ok, right?

---

If it's consensual, it isn't slavery. Slavery involves the ownership of one human being by another, whether it happened yesterday or thousands of years ago. It's as bad as immorality gets short of murder or genocide (which are also condoned in the bible, by the way). Any book that condones slavery or lays down rules for slavery without condemning it is worthless as a moral guide. Therefore the book of Leviticus not only can but absolutely must be ignored by decent people and societies. It is indeed ignored by all decent people and only revered by people who have no sense of right and wrong and thus can only follow what they are told is right and wrong.

I agree, Lam, and I said so in that last sentence.

It might help to understand where riVeRraT is coming from by understanding just what a river rat is. The term refers to people who work on tugboats that ply the rivers. I once worked on one and thus I was a river rat myself.These guys go to work for 30 days straight, then have 15 days off. During the 30 days on, they work 6 hours on, 6 hours off every day, including weekends and holidays. There are seldom any women on these boats unless they are cooks. These women are almost always excellent cooks (the food is like what you'd find at the best restaurants) but they are usually not very attractive and show only the mildest affection for the men they feed.Thus, the men spend all that time with only other men. Homosexuality is rampant on the boats; I was hit on by every other member of my crew except for the captain and pilot. It could be that the rat is disgusted by the thought of gay sex (as you and I might be disgusted at the thought of straight sex) and, in reaction to the experience of being hit on by other men, looks for any possible means by which to condemn gay sex. He probably would never admit this, but knowing what I know about river rats in general I suspect it's true.Of course, it's possible that it isn't true. If that's the case then, by the tone of his posts, I could only imagine that the rat is trying to convince himself more than anyone else. In other words, he may have homosexual feelings but is terrified by the prospect of acting on them.

Lam muses:

quote:

---

30 days without sex ain't that bad...

---

I dunno, you gotta consider these are mostly young, hard-working men who are in great health.Things may have changed since I worked on the boat, but at that time there was a complete ban on alcohol. No one would break that rule because the penalty was very high; it didn't take more than one or two violations to get fired. Pot was everywhere, though, it was easy to buy in Wood River and in Chicago, and captains seemed to look the other way so long as you didn't blow the smoke in their faces. I guess the kind of straight guy who can live a life away from home 30 days at the stretch for years and years is the kind of straight guy who's really a bisexual.I can't remember an experience that was more shocking than being hit on by so many straight guys. And they thought I was straight! They hit on me anyway!I talked about the experience to several people in Wood River IL (a major hub in river traffic, the town exists almost solely to serve the river trade). I also told a few lock tenders (people who operate the river locks). Everyone had heard my story before. Apparently it's fairly common on the boats.

Lam writes:

quote:

---

By definition, a slave is a slave is a slave...

---

Not exactly. The words the bible uses (at least in the oldest extant versions) could mean slave or indentured servant. The important point to remember is that indentured servitude is no more a voluntary state than is chattel slavery. No one "chooses" to be an indentured servant. One would only "choose" such a thing when no other options are available.Many of the early settlers of America came here as indentured servants. They wanted to escape a repressive society and make a better life for their children. They did not "choose" servitude as one might choose a career; they saw that there were no other viable options open to them and thus they were forced to make this devil's choice.Therefore you are technically incorrect. riVeRraT is patently dishonest.

Lam writes:

quote:

---

There's no historical references of Jesus's existence. Also, christianity is considered the center of history by only people in Europe back then.

---

Yes and no. You're correct in that you seem to be saying that there is no reliable historic record of Jesus' existence. However, the bible itself does provide historical reference to the existence of Jesus; the question is whether or not the bible is accurate.Whether real or imagined, the life of Jesus was most definitely a turning point in history, not only of virtually all western nations but of many eastern ones as well. Had it not been for Jesus and the advent of Christianity world history would have been quite different than it has turned out to be.Please understand, I'm not correcting so much as I am clarifying. God forbid I should be seen as endorsing anything RraT has said.

I find it curious, Phatboy, that you quote the commandment "Love thy neighbor as thyself" in your post. One wonders precisely which of those five words you have difficulty understanding.This message has been edited by berberry, 11-09-2004 12:01 AM

---

Dog is my copilot.

For what it's worth, I agree with Lam. This issue is perpetual because the bible continues to be used to condemn gays. There needs to be some place where bigotry against gays is allowed to be challenged because it is NOT going to go away.I don't see this as any different than other perpetual topics like the flood and the big bang. This issue is front and center in our culture today. Why does it weary you so?

---

Dog is my copilot.

You know, Phatboy, there were a lot of "tolerant" types like you around during the civil rights movement. I can still remember this argument from way back then: "If black people would just pay more attention to God's word and keep Jesus first in their lives, they'd be satisfied with things the way they are and wouldn't waste so much time worrying about their rights."In other words, it's ungodly to insist on equal protection under the law if it is you yourself who feels the need for protection.Can you please point to the bible passage that supports this nonsense?

---

Dog is my copilot.

I'm still wondering why it is that certain admins are getting tired of hearing about homosexuality. One has even warned against starting another homosexuality topic after this one dies. I want to know why it is that they feel this topic is done with when in fact it's just getting started. Our nation is taking steps to marginalize us and it seems that some admins feel that we shouldn't even be allowed to complain about it. The idea seems to be that when some eristic, ignorant fundie brings up more sophistry against gays, we gays are supposed to keep our mouths shut. I'm not willing to accept that.If it's only because the issue keeps resurfacing with the same pro and con arguments, then fairness should dictate that the same standard be applied to all other recurring topics, of which there are dozens on these boards.

---

Dog is my copilot.

A cursory glance at the list of forum titles shows that it goes far beyond that. I've always thought that any topic related to the bible was fair game here. Am I wrong?

---

Dog is my copilot.

So are you saying that any topic related to the bible will be allowed here in future except for homosexuality, abortion and racism? I hope not.If homosexuality topics are banned, will any mention of homosexuality also be banned? Will a fundie be banned if he or she brings up homosexuality in a thread about, for instance, the recent election? Or is it only gays who are expected to show restraint?

---

Dog is my copilot.