Streak's blog misses Streak, but less sad.
Someone else trying to justify their sin. Happens all the time. And always with bad results.
What are you referring to?
The writer of the blog dismisses or distorts everything the Bible says regarding homosexuality. She does not want to seriously consider what the Bible has to say on the subject. She dismisses Leviticus because since we don't observe many of the Jewish customs and ceremonies, everything in Leviticus must therefore be dismissed. Well, Leviticus, in addition to prohibiting homosexuality, also prohibits incest, adultery, sex with animals, and idolatry. I wonder if she would say those things should not be considered immoral as well?I could go on, but I think I made my point. The writer simply does not want to accept what the Bible has to say about homosexuality because she does not want it to be wrong.
Actually, I think she would say that those things have external reinforcement--in that we have addressed those in our broader negotiation on morality. Your critique is overly-simplistic. I would suggest, and I don't know you, that you want the Bible to be true, but have not certainly adhered to everything that it asks--as she notes on the poor or on wealth. But on gays, it is clear cut. On wealth? Not so much. Most of my conservative evangelical friends then decide that the Bible didn't mean upper-middle class wealth in America.
Morality is not negotiable. Not to God it isn't. Misunderstanding that is one of the things that gets people into trouble.No, you don't know me. And you have no idea either the level of my material possessions, or my willingness to share them.If you would care to, could you reference any scripture in the New Testament which instructs the civil government to redistribute the income of its citizens?
It is a curious point to me how clear the totality of Scripture is on financial matters, Christ's command in Luke 6:35 clearly says not to lend and expect interest for example, yet for the most part those Scriptures are ignored by American Christians. God calls taking interest and mistreating the poor the EXACT same abomination as any sex act in Ezekiel 18. But then I digress..I find the prophecy of Isaiah in the 56th chapter to be very interesting in this discussion, which normally turns inflammatory and vitriolic before anything of importance can be said.It is also curious to me how rapidly divorced and remarried persons are accepted in the Church, yet Gays are despised. Regardless of how one feels about a particular sin, Christ has modeled the way of love for us, to engage those considered despised by the religious establishment and to love them, unconditionally. He did tell us to love our neighbors as ourselves.
I think Monk speaks on this better than me. And D., you misunderstood (I suspect on purpose) my point on negotiation. But then again, I get the sense that you believe your version of God is THE version. Perhaps you should take your comments to a blog where fundies rule?
could you reference any scripture in the New Testament which instructs the civil government to redistribute the income of its citizens???? Point being??If it's not in the bible, then we can't do it? If it's not in the bible we can? Does it say in the bible we can't? There's that parable in the bible about the guy who left 3 servants some money to manage. 2, as I recall, made it grow. The 3rd must have been ancestor to AIG, and his money didn't grow. So the guy ordered the "loser's" money be taken from him and...REDISTIBUTED to the other two! W00t! Do I win?Monk...was that in Matthew?Then, I went and asked The Google about redistribution of wealth in the bible. The Google answered, thus saying:"Divertith thy attention to Acts 1, Chapter 4, verses 32-35: All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.Hey! The Apostles redistributed wealth! And it was SPECIFICALLY HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS to do so!And one final point: She dismisses Leviticus because since we don't observe many of the Jewish customs and ceremonies, everything in Leviticus must therefore be dismissed.No, I think the point is that in the real world, we pick and choose what to follow based on a range of positive values. Using Leviticus, then, as the total justification for bashing gays is way off. We can all agree that incest and murder are pretty rotten, but in the same way, we can also say, as a society, that making a woman camp in the back yard alone during her period is also pretty damn bad. Where do we draw the line? We can't draw it at a single biblical chapter like Leviticus...we ignore half of that anyway. Instead, we ought to draw the line on the bible as a whole document...and in the end, God just wants us to love.
"Divertith thy attention to Acts?" Do I win?Hell yes. For that line alone. Made my damn morning. Or afternoon. Whatever the hell it is.
There is no doubt that in the Bible, what we now call homosexuality is condemned as sin. Those who disagree can't prove their disagreement is correct from the Bible. The Bible does not say both that homosexuality is right and wrong.For me, and many others, that settles it. Objections are but opinions without authority.
Actually there is doubt since Paul would not have conceived of monogamous realties with adults.
There is no doubt that in the Bible, what we now call homosexuality is condemned as sin.Yeah, there is some doubt. The Greek words that have been translated as homosexuality, in context, are proving to be more in concern with pedophilia and screwing hookers than homosexuality in terms of monogamous gay relationships. But that minutiae aside, we all looooove to grab single bible verses to support our causes. Hell, we love just as much to find something brought up 3 or 4 times in the course of the 66 book (73 if you are a Catholic, but who's counting...), thousands-page tome as some sort of incontrovertible evidence for shit we agree or don't agree with.But every time we do so, we take that quote out of context. The bible is an entire journey, and it includes, as I understand it, God's journey from God the Devourer to God the Father and Mother. Sins!! Punish!! Fire!! Bwahahahaha!!! All the way to love, plain and simple.Thus, being gay as being a sin is a moot point. It's not for us to hate or ridicule or even treat as second-class those people, as God the Devourer would have us do. With His son, love became our task. God'll take care of the dirtywork His Own Self afterwards. We got to leave The Devourer behind when He sent Himself as His kid to give us a heavy dose of love and sacrifice.So be MAAADD at Teh Gay all you want. But to deny them civil rights? To deny them what the rest of us get because of who they choose to LOVE? That's not up to us. They're people and sinners just like us. So unless you're equally willing to, say, deny civil rights to evil sinners who don't tithe until it hurts (or 10%, whichever sucks more), then maybe we let them be, as they let us be, and we'll let Him figger it out.How'm I doing, Monk?
No, there is no doubt that God condemns homosexuals. If you read Romans 1, Paul talks about homosexuality very intelligently. He understood that God had condemned homosex in Leviticus, and not just homosex related to idolatry, but all homosex.This argument is useless anyway. Bible believers are never going to accept homosexuals anymore than God is. And wicked people will continue to try to find Biblical loopholes to justfify what they want to do. But they will fail, as they always have.
And wicked people will continue to try to find Biblical loopholes to justfify what they want to doRing ring...Hello?Hi, pot?Yeah...Hey, this is the kettle. You're black.[click]
God had condemned homosexI am using the phrase "homosex" at least once a day from now on. Hilarious.
"This argument is useless anyway. Bible believers are never going to accept homosexuals anymore than God is."Oh man, you really missed the whole point of that Jesus dude didn't you?No wonder "Christians" score so poorly when tested about religion.
God's journey from God the Devourer to God the Father and Mother. Clarification: it's our perception of the path of God. We needed and believed that Devourer first, then came to realize that what he wanted was love.Because to suggest that God was imperfect and also evolved and grew would mean SIN AND FIRE!!!
Bob,I scored very well, but thanks for the sterotype anyway. You think I missed it on "that Jesus dude"? Well, opinions vary.
I scored very well...Well, opinions vary.Pride! A deadly sin!! You can't get married, Curtis! Or if you are, your marriage threatens non-prideful marriages!I see what you're doing, though. You are insidiously trying to RECRUIT me into your PRIDEFUL AGENDA! But I won't stand for it. I stand against your sneaky attempts to push a Prideful agenda on us non-Prideful Americans.
Smitty, I normally appreciate your posts, but in this thread you are being unfairly discriminatory toward Asshat-Americans. It is everyone's Jesus-given right, should they so choose, to become the most obtuse assholes possible, "...[E]ven though the reek of their self-righteousness reacheth to the highest heaven" (Fundangelical 3:16). You can do what you like, but I will follow the Beatitude: "Judge not the arrogant, lest they identify you as less prideful than themselves and therefore deliver unto thee a sound thrashing for thy virtue."
Just amazing. As the original post suggests, the Bible is incredibly clear on several things. Jesus, himself, is clear on the issues of wealth and even says that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. Yet, show me a conservative fundy who is critical of wealth? More likely they will call me a socialist for raising the issue. Just as clear are the calls to tend to the poor and the orphaned. Yet, I have NEVER heard a fundangelical (great term) so much as criticize a fellow conservative for being dismissive of the poor, to say nothing of taking actions that harm the poor. Corporations are making great money off the poor through what the Bible would call usury, yet Christian evangelicals support who? Those who defend the corporations. But they are clearly anti-Gay and proud to point to some passages in the Bible to support their homophobia. They can ignore and parse the shit out of any verse that costs them, but are adamant that gays are going to hell. Fuck that.
I think we all pick and choose to some extent, but this particular issue is a firebrand. Clearly Divorce and remarriage (thereby continuous adultery) was condemned by the lips of the Master Himself, but hey at least it done by 'normal' people...Women having anesthesia in childbirth? Forbidden by the Curse, and by FAR more verses than same gender issues, yet.. we would call them barbaric who refused a woman a painkiller.None of us fully follow the Scriptures, none of us. We have to understand that God calls us to love, not a checklist of dos or do nots.Law is easy, but grace and love is hard, yet that is what He has called us to.Galatians 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.
"Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it."Deuteronomy 23: 20Now you unbelievers can show your ignorance about who is a stranger and who is a brother. Bet you can't get that right either.Besides that, none of you have the LORD as your God, so there's another problem for you to deal with.
Honestly, Curtis, fuck you for suggesting that we are not Christians. I would suggest that if you actually read your Bible you might find that it is not your place to determine that. Only an arrogant fundy would do that, or a Philistine. Regardless, be gone. I am done with you.
Streak,LOL! If you're a Christian, then everyone is. The Pope, Obama, Charles Manson, Bin Laden, Jesse Jackson, Madonna, Christopher Hitchens, Lady Gaga, the 9-11 bombers, Bill Clinton, Hugh Hefner,..........................
Like I said, Curtis, fuck you, and be gone. You don't know our hearts, and you have no way of knowing. Your arrogance is amazing. Be gone, because I will now delete your next comment. You are a Christian idiot.
Hysterical. So Madonna likes to wear tight clothes and sing about sex. Can't be a Christian. I mean, I know she's now into whateverthefuck. But she was raised catholic.The funniest in his list of shame: The Pope. He's not Christian? Really?? That one made me laugh out loud.And wait, Jesse Jackson is a preacher, right? Ohhhhh, I forgot. He's black. Blacks can't be Christians.I almost wish you hadn't banned him. I was just warming up. I didn't have a chance to unleash my really offensive shit yet! But notice, I said almost. Ultimately, you're right. We'd have grown tired of the game. He was gonna get boring fast.
Smitty, I have a feeling that in Curtis's theology, the population of heaven will eventually consist of God, the Holy Ghost, and Curtis. This is of course after Curtis convinces God to tell Jesus to go on an extended vacation for not having denounced gay people in his earthly life.This isn't as exclusionary as it sounds--when you take into account that all his manifold internet personas will be in heaven too, it's actually a populous vision.
Curtis,I know who is my brother, all men, women and children, or perhaps closer to the Master's verbage, they are my neighbor.I hope and pray that the divisions that you see between us fall, and we all can stand before Christ as the family He wants us to be.Br. James Patrick
MIT is the greatest.
Thank you Bob, but I am just a soul on a journey, rarely if ever, good! :)
Post a Comment