|
Author
|
Topic: Condemn gay marriage, or just gay rape?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
Message 49 of 573 (582215)
09-20-2010 11:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by jaywill
09-20-2010 10:47 AM
|
|
jaywill writes: In fact many times stealing happens with the rational that the person from who you are stealing REALLY doesn't need it. Or you need it much more. So both rationals can be made. That does not change the moral wrong of the stealing.
I'd say that stealing from somebody who doesn't need it (and might not even notice it's missing) is not morally wrong. In fact, I'd say that the person who has more than he needs is the one who is really stealing. "Morally wrong" has more to do with harming other people than with blindly following arbitrary rules. Jesus put the spirit of the law above the letter of the law.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by jaywill, posted 09-20-2010 10:47 AM | | jaywill has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by frako, posted 09-20-2010 1:04 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 59 of 573 (582279)
09-20-2010 5:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by jaywill
09-20-2010 4:55 PM
|
|
jaywill writes: And I don't recall having ever met any Christians who held such an extreme view that sex was bad period.
I read a book once that was essentially "The Joy of Fundie Sex". It pontificated that oral sex - a.k.a. "the genital kiss" - is okay (at least when performed by women) but anal sex is unacceptable "because homosexuals do it". 
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by jaywill, posted 09-20-2010 4:55 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 73 of 573 (582341)
09-20-2010 9:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by jaywill
09-20-2010 8:29 PM
|
|
jaywill writes: What do you expect me to do with this kind of passage ? "If there is a man who lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination ..." (Leviticus 20:13)
I think you should treat it like this one:
quote:
Lev 11:10-11 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by jaywill, posted 09-20-2010 8:29 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 77 of 573 (582348)
09-20-2010 9:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 76 by jaywill
09-20-2010 9:32 PM
|
|
jaywill writes: And to Ringo. You have a good point. But there is the morality of the law and the ritual of the law. This seems to be a distinction that the New Testament makes. Ie. all animals are clean to be eaten, says Jesus. Yet He does not nullify the morality related to things like marriage, divorce, fornication, murder. In fact He often made these matters MORE penetrating by touching not just the ourward action but the innermost motive. For this reason it is not so easy just to reject male with male sex as no more or less serious then eating shrimp and lobster. One is a level of morality. The other is more a matter of ritual.
That's just the point though: Leviticus doesn't make a distinction between homosexual activity and eating shellfish. The moral/ritual distinction is one that you're adding to the text. All animals being clean to be eaten refers to all of the arbitrary aspects of the law. The spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 76 by jaywill, posted 09-20-2010 9:32 PM | | jaywill has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 80 of 573 (582354)
09-20-2010 10:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 79 by jaywill
09-20-2010 10:07 PM
|
|
jaywill writes: Secondly, I suspect that you are refering to the "spirit of the law" as a New Testament kind of concept ?
No, not really. Jesus' intention was to clean up Judaism, to get back to the basics. The Ten Commandments never mentioned either homosexuality or shellfish. The Levitical law was an add-on that did more to muddy the waters than anything else. (I've said before that in my personal opinion, it was designed to be impossible to obey, to keep the priests in a steady supply of oxburgers.)
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 79 by jaywill, posted 09-20-2010 10:07 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 95 of 573 (582454)
09-21-2010 12:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 90 by jaywill
09-21-2010 11:41 AM
|
|
jaywill writes: What do you mean "the spirit of the law"?
The spirit of the law is the sense of right and wrong that governed mankind before The Law™ was written down. The first codification of the law, the Ten Commandments, made no mention of homosexuality or shellfish because homosexuality and shellfish are not inherently wrong in God's law.
jaywill writes: Where in the Bible did you derive that concept of a "spirit of the law" ?
Paul used the term explicitly:
quote:
Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Jesus talked about it implicitly. The letter of the law said to do no work on the Sabbath but the spirit of the law allows important things like healing to be done. The letter of the law says that eating shellfish is an abomination but the voice of Jesus told Peter, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." If God has cleansed the homosexual, who are you to condemn him?
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 90 by jaywill, posted 09-21-2010 11:41 AM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 97 by jaywill, posted 09-21-2010 1:20 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 98 of 573 (582468)
09-21-2010 2:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 97 by jaywill
09-21-2010 1:20 PM
|
|
jaywill writes: Did the divine judgment of Sodom occur after the giving of the Ten Commandments or before?
The divine judgement of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality. The fact that homosexuality is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments should be a further indicator of that.
jaywill writes: This "newness of spirit" in Romans 7:6 refers to the regenerated human spirit which is enlivend from its comatose state in the event of the new birth.
Exactly. The spirit of the law is within us, not in the written words of men.
jaywill writes: The service in newness of spirit not in oldness of the letter is not addressed to people who have not received Jesus Christ.
"Receiving Jesus Christ" is irrelevant to the point:
quote:
Rom 2:12-13 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
The doers of the law are those who have internalized the spirit of the law:
quote:
Rom 2:14-16 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
They have that sense of right and wrong without being told.
jaywill writes: The vision the Peter saw of the clean and unclean animals coming down for his meal relates not to homosexuals verses heterosexuals. It relates to Jews and Gentiles. The meaning of the visions was that Peter should not refrain from sharing the good news of Jesus Christ with Gentiles. It has nothing to do with God approving homosexuality.
It has everything to do with putting the spirit of the law above the letter of the law. The Gentiles already had the spirit of the law, the sense of right and wrong, so Peter was being told that taking the message of neo-Judaism - i.e. Christianity - to the Gentiles wasn't such a big step after all.
jaywill writes: You are twisting the passage to mean God was telling Peter that homosexuality was justified by God.
The passage says without any twisting that the shellfish ban was not an integral part of God's will. It isn't a stretch to conclude that the parallel homosexuality ban is not an integral part of God's will either. The only twisting being done is by those who try to make one abomination different from another.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by jaywill, posted 09-21-2010 1:20 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 101 by jaywill, posted 09-21-2010 2:36 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 106 of 573 (582488)
09-21-2010 3:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by jaywill
09-21-2010 2:36 PM
|
|
jaywill writes: "And having reduced to ashes the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, condemned them to ruin, having set them as an example to those who intend to live an ungodly life, and rescued righteous Lot, who had been oppressed by the licentious manner of life of the lawless (for the righteous man, who settled down among them, in seeing and hearing tormented his righteous soul day after day with their lawless works." (2 Peter 2:6) This relates to the homosexual lust of the people of Sodom.
It says nothing whatsoever about homosexuality.
jaywill writes: "But they [the men of Sodom] said, Stand aside. Then they said; This one [Lot] came here to sojourn, and already he is acting like a judge. Now we will treat you worse than we would have them. And they pressed the man, against Lot, and came near in order to break down the door." (Gen. 19:9) This threat of the men of Sodom, is certainly an indication that the "worse" deed they intended was the sexual "knowing" of Lot which they also intended for Lot's guests.
It says nothing whatsoever about homosexuality. Again, homosexuality is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments either. Greed/selfishness/covetousness are. Even the Levitical law puts homosexuality in the same category as eating shellfish. Maybe the men of Sodom were going to force a lobster dinner on their visitors.
jaywill writes: Where then exactly is the phrase "the spirit of the law" in the Bible ?
Don't be obtuse. The concept is in the Bible even if the exact phrase isn't.
jaywill writes: ringo writes: "Receiving Jesus Christ" is irrelevant to the point: No it is not. Not if you want to talk about the epistle of Paul to the Romans. And it is not irrelevant if you want to study the Bible on what it says about anything regarding "spirit" or the Spirit.
You cut off my quote right where I showed you that it is irrelevant. I quoted the verses where it says that those who have "received Jesus Christ" and those who have not are judged the same way. I quoted the verses where it says that those who have "received Jesus Christ" and those who have not have the same internalized sense of right and wrong. Unfortunately, some who profess to have received Jesus Christ manage to override their internal sense of right and wrong to espouse what is patently wrong. ------------- Added by Edit:
jaywill writes: The "worse" deed is an amplification of the bad deed. And that deed was their intended rape of the men visitors of Lot by all the men in Sodom.
What exactly would be "worse" than homosexual rape? Some form of physical injury, I presume. But that doesn't suggest anything about their original desires. It only suggests that they were angry at Lot for thwarting their original desires, whatever they were.
jaywill writes: Lot was already a inhabitant of the city.
Yes, he was. What sense does it make for Lot to settle his family in a city that was 100% homosexual? (For that matter, what sense does it make for a 100% homosexual city to even exist?) What sense does it make for Lot to offer his daughters to the men of the city if he knew they were all homosexuals? The homosexual interpretation seems pretty ludicrous. And the only distinction between Lot and the other men of the city that is specified is the fact that Lot invited the strangers into his home. Edited by ringo, : Added more thoughts.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by jaywill, posted 09-21-2010 2:36 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 111 by jaywill, posted 09-21-2010 7:22 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 112 of 573 (582525)
09-21-2010 7:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 111 by jaywill
09-21-2010 7:22 PM
|
|
jaywill writes: ringo writes: It says nothing whatsoever about homosexuality.
"Lincentious manner of life" write the Apostle Peter.
And your own definitions of "licentious" say nothing about homosexuality either.
jaywill writes: What do you think Jude means about them going after different flesh in the giving themelves over to fornication ?
Different from their spouses? We still have the expression "a bit of strange" which has nothing to do with homosexuality.
jaywill writes: You are saying that I am ignoring my internal sense of right and wrong because I do not agree with your explanation that "newness of spirit" in which the audience of Paul is to serve includes Christ receiving as well as Christ rejecting people ?
No. I'm saying that you're twisting your inner sense of right and wrong to try to make it conform to your twisted reading of the Bible. Your conscience ought to be telling you to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you want to marry the person of your choice, your conscience ought to be telling you not to take the same choice away from somebody else. But you keep preaching at it to shut it up.
jaywill writes: Ahtiests cannot serve in newness of spirit. Agnostics cannot servein newness of spirit.
Of course they can.
jaywill writes: ringo writes: What sense does it make for Lot to offer his daughters to the men of the city if he knew they were all homosexuals?
That one is still a puzzle to me.
If you could solve that puzzle, your version might have some merit. Clearly, Lot didn't think they were homosexuals.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 111 by jaywill, posted 09-21-2010 7:22 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 117 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2010 7:20 AM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 134 of 573 (582614)
09-22-2010 11:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 117 by jaywill
09-22-2010 7:20 AM
|
|
jaywill writes: "That CAN'T be homosexuality" is your feeble argument.
I have said no such thing. It's possible that homosexuality is included in the licentious behaviour in 2 Peter 2:7 but it is not explicitly mentioned and definitely not the focus. It's also possible that homosexuality was among the iniquities that the Sodomites were guilty of but it's a stretch to think it was a major factor in their destruction.
jaywill writes: What do you think Jude means about them going after different flesh in the giving themelves over to fornication ?
ringo writes: Different from their spouses? We still have the expression "a bit of strange" which has nothing to do with homosexuality.
You answer with a question mark. You do take flights of free license when it serves your prefered interpretation. Don't ask me to confirm you.
I'm not asking you to confirm anything. I'm asking you to use your head instead of always rushing to homosexulaity as if it was the main subject of the bible. The question mark basically means, "Have you thought of the obvious answer?"
jaywill writes: The problem of the daughters is far less of a problem to me then your problem of trying to prove homosexuaity had nothing to do with God's judging of Sodom.
I don't have to "prove" anything. It's pretty clear that homosexuality was not the focus of the Sodom story. Your argument is with Lot, not me. He clearly didn't think the men of Sodom were homosexuals.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 117 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2010 7:20 AM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 136 of 573 (582620)
09-22-2010 11:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 126 by jaywill
09-22-2010 8:59 AM
|
|
jaywill writes: I interpret the chapter is talking about homosexuality because of the men wanted to have sexual union with the men. The Hebrew word yahdah (English know) means sexual intercourse: "And they called to Lot and said to him, Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out that we may know them." (Gen. 19:5)
The Hebrew yada doesn't "mean" sexual intercourse. It has a wide variety of meanings. In Gen. 18:19, the same story, God says He "knows" ( yada) Abraham. In Gen. 18:21, God says that He will "know" ( yada) whether the complaints about Sodom are true. In Gen 19:33 and Gen. 19:35, Lot was drunk and didn't "perceive" ( yada) when his daughter lay down with him. And on and on. Lot said that his daughters had not "known" ( yada) men, which probably does mean sexually as well as in the broader sense, but it's a real stretch to conclude that the men of Sodom wanted sexual intercourse with the visitors. That clearly wasn't Lot's interpretation.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 126 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2010 8:59 AM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 137 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2010 12:27 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 139 of 573 (582637)
09-22-2010 12:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 137 by jaywill
09-22-2010 12:27 PM
|
|
jaywill writes: Don't waste your breath trying to convince me the mob meant something else.
I'm not trying to convince you or anybody else. I'm just pointing out what the Bible says as opposed to what you say.
jaywill writes: ringo writes: but it's a real stretch to conclude that the men of Sodom wanted sexual intercourse with the visitors. That clearly wasn't Lot's interpretation.
Of course that was Lot's interpretation. And why? Because he offered them his two daughters instead.
Now you're just claiming that black is white. If the men of Sodom wanted men, it makes no sense whatsoever to offer them women. If Lot thought the men of Sodom wanted men, he could have offered himself. It's clear that Lot was offering sex as a substitute for something else, not offering one gender as a substitute for the other. I should also point out that even if your interpretation was correct, you're talking about homosexual rape. Notice the topic title. Even if the story of Sodom and Gomorrah had anything to do with homosexuality, wheich seems pretty unlikely, it's about homosexual rape and says nothing about consensual homosexual relationships or marriage. Edited by ringo, : Sbelling.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 137 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2010 12:27 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 148 of 573 (582755)
09-23-2010 11:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 146 by jaywill
09-23-2010 10:13 AM
|
|
jaywill writes: I have submitted that the marriage that God ordained from the beginning of humanity was the joining of a man with a woman. That is the yoking which God ordained.
"Mentioned" isn't the same as "ordained". Jesus mentioned one example of marriage. He didn't prohibit any other kind. He had no reason to prohibit same-sex marriage unless sex and marriage are only for procreation.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 146 by jaywill, posted 09-23-2010 10:13 AM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 151 by jaywill, posted 09-23-2010 4:21 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 154 of 573 (582841)
09-23-2010 4:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 151 by jaywill
09-23-2010 4:21 PM
|
|
jaywill writes: That is the Creator's oridination - one male joined to one female for marriage.
As I said, that's a mention, not an ordination of one kind of marriage or a condemnation of another kind.
jaywill writes: Your idea of joining a male with male or a female with a female in marriage is your experimental attempt to improve upon God's ordination. Or at least it is an attempt to invent a make believe rival arrangement.
I've never suggested any such thing. It's a simple expression of "do unto others as you would have others do unto you". If you want to marry the person of your choice, give Joe the same privilege.
jaywill writes: But nature itself shows that the male and the female physiology are designed to be coupled together.
On the contrary, nature itself shows that homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom. Your narrow view shows your misunderstanding, not somebody else's. As I said, the only reason for God to prohibit homosexual unions is if He intended sex only for procreation. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 151 by jaywill, posted 09-23-2010 4:21 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 156 by jaywill, posted 09-23-2010 4:53 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 158 of 573 (582870)
09-23-2010 5:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 156 by jaywill
09-23-2010 4:53 PM
|
|
jaywill writes: Christ's speaking in Mark 10:6-8 is much stronger then a casual inconclusive "mention".
Sez you. The focus of Jesus words' was on divorce/adultery/fidelity. He barely mentioned male and female in passing.
jaywill writes: Are you suggesting that we humans should conform to cannibalizing our children to be more in step with the animal kingdom ?
I haven't said a word about conforming to the (rest of the) animal kingdom. You can add things to what the Bible says to suit your purpose but don't think you can get away with adding to what I say. I was refuting your claim that homosexuality is "unnatural". We should do what our own consciences and society allow. We should not allow the misreading of a book to pervert those two sources.
jaywill writes: The physiology of the male body and the female body shows they compliment one another and were designed to be coupled together.
Any homosexual will tell you exactly the same thing about two male bodies. Any lesbian will tell you the same thing about two female bodies. If the human body was designed, it was designed to work both ways quite well.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 156 by jaywill, posted 09-23-2010 4:53 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 160 by jaywill, posted 09-23-2010 7:34 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2