|
View Poll Results: What's a bigot? | |||
Tony Dungy | 9 | 22.50% | |
Anyone who disagrees with me | 7 | 17.50% | |
The entire South | 11 | 27.50% | |
The entire North | 1 | 2.50% | |
Bisexual ingenue girls on trains? Yes please! | 8 | 20.00% | |
People who are intolerant of trouts | 20 | 50.00% | |
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 40. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
07-26-2014, 01:54 PM | #151 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
So we need to obey all those rants Jesus made against homesexuality. Could you tell me where those were again? |
|
07-26-2014, 02:20 PM | #152 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Last edited by molson : 07-26-2014 at 02:21 PM. |
07-26-2014, 02:22 PM | #153 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Well, let's be fair, Jesus encapsulated His teachings into loving God and loving your neighbors. I think there is wiggle room there.
In addition, what is the point for sending the Holy Spirit to help us, if it was all said back then? One may, if one wanted to, say that ending slavery is 'massag[ing]' His (or at least, St. Paul's) teachings to fit in modern culture, no?
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
07-26-2014, 03:51 PM | #154 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Here and There
|
I strongly believe Tony Dungy and Michael Sam should be allowed to marry.
|
07-26-2014, 05:57 PM | #155 | |||
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
|
Quote:
He certainly did. If someone wants to make an argument that their application of those concepts is better or more accurate than mine, I'm all for that and there are certainly people who better understand what he taught than me. The key thing though is they need to base it on everything he said, not just the parts they like. The statements my last post responded to were instead dismissing parts they don't like(such as the entire OT). that's something else entirely. For example ... Quote:
There aren't any, but he did specifically affirm the marriage institution as described in Genesis and the OT itself, both of which bear significantly on the subject. Those need to be dealt with, as well as the statements of Paul who was Jesus' hand-picked missionary to deliver his gospel to the broader Gentile world. I've seen the picture you posted before, and I'll just say that it raises some questions. I know how I'd answer them, but as mentioned above I'm open to different answers. If someone is a Christian, they need to answer them in some way though. A couple of those questions: ** Shortly after saying 'judge not, lest you be judged', Jesus told the crowd to 'judge with righteous judgement'. Was he contradicting himself? If not, what did he mean? ** How does telling the Pharisees that they are 'sons of hell', a 'brood of vipers', and 'sons of their father the devil', calling them out publicly for things that they had merely thought but not said, etc. fit into the concept of what Jesus meant when he commanded that we are to love others? Is our concept of love and the one he defined in his biblical teachings the same, or does it differ in significant respects? Quote:
Rather than get into a long discussion of this nuanced issue, I'll just say that in any such issue, when someone reaches the point of deciding what the Bible should say or shoehorning in their own meaning to unsupporting texts/ignoring those texts, the religion is no longer Christianity but Humanism. Erecting ourselves as our own God, defining our one moral compass as right and using whatever support from sacred teachings we can find to support it is one thing: allowing the Bible to sit in judgement of our opinions, behaviors, beliefs, and lifestyle is another. |
|||
07-29-2014, 10:18 AM | #156 | ||
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
Stephen Eric Bronner’s The Bigot: Why Prejudice Persists, reviewed.
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Blackadar : 07-29-2014 at 10:19 AM. |
||
07-29-2014, 10:43 AM | #157 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
I actually took a bunch of classes under Professor Bronner at Rutgers. He was quite a friendly and brilliant man (He know I was a Republican and never, ever gave me any gruff for it, though he was a Socialist). Although he was fairly pompous as well - I liked him anyways.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
07-29-2014, 10:45 AM | #158 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
My argument is this: that like in slavery, you had people saying that the new school (abolition) was deciding what the Bible should say based on modern morality, when the Bible was "clear" that slavery was ok and that there was definitely ignoring of those texts by the abolition folks. FWIW, Humanism was actually created under Christianity - Erasmus and all that. I believe in gay marriage not because the culture has told me that's moral, but because I believe that GOD has told me that it is moral and just. I didn't believe in gay marriage until I became a Christian and I became convicted following that.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
07-29-2014, 10:54 AM | #159 |
College Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago
|
Been lurking and just wanted to say thanks to all for trying to provide definition as to why they believe certain things... it has helped me define my stance on the issues as well. Bravo..
__________________
Interactive OOTP 15 Dynasty (Single Season) CHAMPION!! Oh yeah... Happy New York Day everyone! |
07-29-2014, 10:55 AM | #160 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
I wonder if Professor Bronner finds whatever he would identify as "moral bigotry" regarding the opposition of gay marriage as better, worse, or the same as other more failings like committing violent crimes, or stealing.
Because "holding people accountable" is not usually a liberal and/or socialist talking point, at least in the mainstream. It's generally something that is much concern to a more conservative way of thinking. The general liberal mindset is more likely to see those thieves and violent criminals as products of an unjust system. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but from a criminal justice perspective, that's a common tension - between those who want punishment, who see the perpetrators as flawed people who need to be punished v. those who see many criminals as economic victims who are mistreated by the system, etc. It's a good tension, because it keeps either side from going too far. It's just interesting to me that when it comes to "bigotry", suddenly, for that left way of thinking, it's more a black/white good and evil thing. That's what the bigot label is all about, it minimizes people into these caricatures. Last edited by molson : 07-29-2014 at 11:02 AM. |
07-29-2014, 11:00 AM | #161 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
|
07-29-2014, 11:03 AM | #162 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Christian jargon
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
07-29-2014, 11:05 AM | #163 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
You have not met many socialists . They want to hold EVERYONE who contributes to the crimes of capitalism accountable it seems.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
07-29-2014, 11:06 AM | #164 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
Fair enough, I'm more familiar with the "liberal" mindset in the criminal justice system. I'm not sure what socialists generally think about crime. |
|
07-29-2014, 11:07 AM | #165 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
You have heard the half-joking "They'll be first up against the wall", right?
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
07-29-2014, 11:14 AM | #166 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
So, non-mainstream socialists hold people accountable (per ISiddiqui), but mainstream socialists don't (per molson)?
Who are the mainstream socialists, btw? |
07-29-2014, 11:16 AM | #167 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Put more simply, you'd assert there's essentially a sliding scale for bigotry, correct? |
|
07-29-2014, 11:16 AM | #168 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
Shall I include a list of (D) member of Congress or can we just stipulate?
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
07-29-2014, 11:20 AM | #169 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
I don't even know if the term "socialist" is relevant in a criminal justice context. I just know that police and prosecutors and state governments are often attacked by people I perceive to be on the "left", who have much sympathy for those who commit crimes and see many of them as victims of an unjust system, and also attacked by people I perceive to be on the "right", who think those entities are too soft on crime, and that criminals are broken people that we need to be protected from. When it comes to "bigotry" though, particularly in the context of opposing gay marriage - you don't get that same kind of tone from the left. Like, Professor Bronner said, the attitude seems more to be just about a desire to judge and minimize, and that we actively should not see these individuals as people.
Last edited by molson : 07-29-2014 at 11:21 AM. |
07-29-2014, 11:24 AM | #170 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
Nope. I'm just wondering why someone, let's take a specific friend of mine who is high up in the ACLU here, would see a violent criminal as someone who is a product of economic injustice who is being railroaded by the system, but that someone who opposes gay marriage is a nonredeemable bigot who is simply evil to the core and needs to minimized from society. This is what I and Arles were talking about earlier, in trying to promote and encourage moderation, a move away from the extremes. I think there's people that really like the idea of a black and white world, some like to see crime that way, and some like to see morals and bigotry that way. My view of "Christianity" (which was shot down a few posts ago as being un-Christian) would be having compassion for and trying understand both. Last edited by molson : 07-29-2014 at 11:26 AM. |
|
07-29-2014, 11:26 AM | #171 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
If you think you can shed your normal biases and identify members of Congress who are a) actually socialist and b) "mainstream" (however we want to define that), I'd certainly be willing to listen. |
|
07-29-2014, 11:34 AM | #172 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Is this an actual example, or one you're making up? If it's an actual example, then I'd contend a person with such a stark black-and-white view of the world is likely an outlier, and by extrapolating such a caricature (albeit a self-made one) to a group of people as a whole, you minimize that group (in this case "liberals" or "socialists") as, again, a caricature. Which is what I thought you were trying to avoid. |
|
07-29-2014, 11:36 AM | #173 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
I tried, desperately, to avoid this same old attack from you by specifically saying that I didn't think either side was wrong in that tension, and in fact, it was great that that tension existed, because it kept either side from going to far. |
|
07-29-2014, 11:37 AM | #174 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
The same could be said for various closely-held beliefs of the right, would you not agree? |
|
07-29-2014, 11:37 AM | #175 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
|
I'll go with senator Bernie Sanders, probably not as mainstream as you're looking for but he did get 71% of the vote in 2012 as an Independent.
__________________
"I am God's prophet, and I need an attorney" |
07-29-2014, 11:42 AM | #176 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
You don't find it interesting that in the examples you habitually use, the actor you choose to describe in detail, to use as illustrative of your argument, tends to be a caricature from the left? BTW, I'm fine with your description of the "tension on both sides" and am in agreement with your conclusion. I just continue to be curious about your predilection for calling out liberal caricatures in your arguments. In this case, for instance, it didn't even seem necessary. If it annoys you, just ignore my line of questioning. |
|
07-29-2014, 11:46 AM | #177 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Sanders would be the obvious candidate, of course, although I rather doubt he'd be considered "mainstream" to the U.S. as a whole and him getting 71% is likely more a factor of longtime incumbency, though I wouldn't argue the point that he's "mainstream" for Vermont. So, with those caveats. That's one "mainstream" socialists. |
|
07-29-2014, 11:46 AM | #178 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Diego via Sausalito via San Jose via San Diego
|
Quote:
There could be some cognitive bias going on with your ACLU friend?
__________________
I'm no longer a Chargers fan, they are dead to me Coming this summer to a movie theater near you: The Adventures of Jedikooter: Part 4 |
|
07-29-2014, 11:46 AM | #179 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
I don't think its a caricature, it's a real tension. I don't find the "left" or the "right" inherently superior. I just find it interesting where those pure political philosophies fall when applied to real-life things, especially where they seem to go in different directions when you switch around the topics. I don't think that's hypocritical, I don't think that's "wrong" in any way, I just find it interesting, and I think there's some understanding that can be gained by trying to sort that stuff out. Edit: Are you different than my "caricature"? How do you see those who oppose gay marriage? As bigots? I know what you think of the hobby lobby. And where do you stand on say, the strength of the 4th amendment when it comes to prosecuting crimes? About the harshness of criminal penalties generally? Where am I so off base with the general observations about tensions? Last edited by molson : 07-29-2014 at 11:50 AM. |
|
07-29-2014, 11:51 AM | #180 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
|
07-29-2014, 11:56 AM | #181 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Anyway, I think what people are looking at as a black-and-white stance (let's say on the use of the word "bigot") is the result rather than the intention of the person making that judgment call.
To me, the intention of people who end up calling anti-gay-rights people "bigots" is to have a particularly low bar for defining someone as a bigot. You seen this with many strongly-held beliefs across the spectrum. Take the right's view of the word "Patriot", for example, neatly encapsulated by Bush's "you're either with us or against us" announcement. The word, then, in common usage, becomes shorthand as a pejorative for the "other side", even if the speaker fully understands there's still a sliding scale involved. Which is why, again, I caution against thinking that the use of the word alone connotes a black-and-white worldview on a particular topic. |
07-29-2014, 12:03 PM | #182 | |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
Quote:
Every one of the acts you described is not voluntary between consenting adults where the activity endangers no one. |
|
07-29-2014, 12:06 PM | #183 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Well, what do you think. Would you call them bigots, and what does that word mean to you?
Do you think the Giants should have hired David Tyree? Some didn't. New York Giants drop the ball with David Tyree hire - ESPN Human Rights Campaign blasts New York Giants' hiring of David Tyree - ESPN New York So he gets hired, and is now, at least outwardly, trying to proclaim his tolerance. He says he's changed his mind about a lot of things over the years. He says he'd have no issue with a gay player on the team. Great. I'm sure he had to make those kind of assurances to the Giants, at least on the last part. Still though, once he was labeled as anti-gay, there are some that just wanted him minimized and to never get hired. |
07-29-2014, 12:08 PM | #184 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
Agree, but that has nothing to do with the point I made. Edit: Actually it was a question rather than a point, because I really know nothing about socialism. I just imagined that professor to be like almost every college and law professor that I've ever had, that would see violent crime as a product of economic and racial injustice. He would rant against the government and the system and capitalism - not the individual. And he'd have a lot of great points. But when it comes to bigotry, clearly, he doesn't want any "hand-wringing over whether this or that person is really a bigot deep in his heart." We need to hold those people individually "morally accountable" (whatever that means - I think it's minimizing them ala not hiring David Tyree, etc.). When it comes to opposition to gay marriage, he would not blame any system, he would not blame someone's background, he would not blame broad societal injustice. If someone opposes gay marriage, it's the individual that's the problem. I'm not saying those things are hypocritical, or even inconsistent. But as I've said, being involved in a field that faces many attacks from college professors and others I perceive to be on the "left", to me, it really stands out to me when that "left" seems to go in a totally different direction. Last edited by molson : 07-29-2014 at 12:33 PM. |
|
07-29-2014, 12:33 PM | #185 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Dola, I think we should try to be welcoming and understanding, to see the reasons why people are the way they are, and especially, encourage people to become more moderate. I've seen lots of peoples' views on gay marriage and homosexuality soften just by being around gay people and realizing they're not that scary. When someone has the courage to come out of the closet to their family, sometimes the family casts them off, but sometimes the family gets the hell over it. When the latter happens, we get societal progress. That's harder to to if we label all these people as bigots and try to minimize them and deny them jobs, etc. (And I'm open to the idea that when people use the word "bigot", I hear it as more harsh than they intend it.)
And to tie things in with the last post, I definitely lean on the side of wanting to be more harsh on criminals, so I maybe just want to see all of that liberal feel-good stuff that opposes me in that sphere apply here, when it comes to this other moral failing of being ignorant when it comes to homosexuality. If we can "fix" most of those criminals, we sure as hell can "fix" at least some of this ignorance. (And I actually believe it's much easier to change the latter, just because I've seen it happen more often). Last edited by molson : 07-29-2014 at 12:40 PM. |
07-29-2014, 01:12 PM | #186 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
|
Quote:
I was strictly going for humor there. Carry on.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis |
|
07-29-2014, 03:33 PM | #187 | ||
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
|
Quote:
I understand that, I just don't think it's helpful to this discussion to get into who was right and wrong on the slavery issue. My view on the fundamental point(that the view of/approach to the Bible is what's paramount) stands. Quote:
At this point then I would simply have similar questions to those I asked Molson a bit ago. And as mentioned it's far more important that we have honest answers to these than we have the same answers, since we aren't talking about a non-essential pillar of the faith by any means. ** In what way did God tell you this? ** How does it square with OT teachings on homosexuality, or with those of Paul? ** What did Jesus mean when he affirmed the Genesis model of marriage, or is this irrelevant for some reason? Etc. |
||
07-29-2014, 04:13 PM | #188 | ||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Au contraire - of course its helpful when people speak of adding or changing Scripture. Anti-Slavery readings of Scripture were attacked in the same ways. No wonder it makes the accusers of conforming Scripture to modern mores uncomfortable. Quote:
The Old Testament and New Testament teachings on homosexuality are based upon a different era and understanding of the nature of homosexuality. In that era, it was assumed that homosexuality was simply a product of unchecked lust and in Greek culture, the dominant male was fully within his rights to make a subservient male, whether a boy or slave submit to his sexual lusts. There was absolutely no notion or concept of sexual orientation or monogamous same-sex loving couples based on equality in their relationship. Secondly Jesus's "affirming of the Genesis model" is bogus. Jesus was speaking about divorce. And was answering a question asked about whether or not people of God could divorce. His referencing of Genesis was in that context and spoken to the people of Israel in a way they could understand why Jesus was not allowing of divorce. Nothing was indicated that this was marriage and people who use this example are doing the changing to Scriptures to conform to their own biases. Furthermore, unless you are Catholic, I'm thinking that your church allows for divorced people to worship at the altar? Even though Jesus has forbidden it? Or could it be that He was speaking for a specific era? In the same way, Paul not directly challenging the institution of slavery? Or telling Corinthian women to be silent in Church? These things are based upon a certain context that we realize is not for all people forever (well, unless you are Catholic or some fundamentalist Protestants when it comes to the divorce and women preaching thing). In God telling me or others moral things - have you never been convicted by the Spirit? Has your conscious not gripped you in prayer or worship? Have you never been pushed or shoved by God?
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
||
07-29-2014, 11:24 PM | #189 | |||||
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
|
Quote:
The only people I 'accused' of doing that were people who overtly stated that was their approach. I try to avoid accusing people of conforming Scripture based soley on what their doctrinal position is simply because due to our human frailties different people see the same text differently, and I'm not comfortable claiming I'm more pious or knowledgeable than someone else. Regardless I still fail to see how the debate over who was right or wrong in abolition has anything to do with the subject of this thread: people have made scriptural arguments back and forth on a variety of issues and will continue to do so, but whether the issue is slavery or indulgences or the papacy or whatever, one issue is not necessary related to the others. Quote:
I'm glad you've put a lot of consideration into these things. At this point you are overreaching however, and I'll just point out that I don't see any way Mark 10:6 fits into your description of this text, and Jesus' blanket endorsement of the OT including the Genesis model makes the specifics of Mark 10 merely redundant. Even if you think it does, you might want to consider the possibility that your description here of people taking a contrary view is inaccurate and unfair. I'll also mention briefly that re: homosexuality there are many other concepts complete contrary to culture that the Bible not only mentions but overtly teaches, so because of that I find that explanation of Paul's writings completely unconvincing. Quote:
We don't have an altar to worship at, but yes we do allow it. Those who divorce willfully without being willing to reconcile are removed from membership. Quote:
It could be, but I'd say the burden of proof decidedly is upon those claiming it's only era-specific, absent any biblical evidence to the contrary. Quote:
Of course, but by definition he never does so by contradicting Scripture, so fidelity to the Bible is how we must test the spirits in this case. I have also been deceived in thinking I was being convicted by the Spirit on something when in fact I was merely being neurotic or emotional, and of course people over history have felt led in completely opposite directions. Diametrically opposed propositions cannot both simultaneously be true, revealing the need for a standard by which such things must be judged. FWIW I have tried to get to the point of being pro-gay marriage etc. as I think there are times when it becomes an obstacle to the gospel, particularly in our cultural environment. I certainly don't want to add anything human into the way. I can't get there, I think the Bible is quite unambiguous on the subject, but I do view it as definitely a non-essential, so not something I wish to be contentious about in terms of saying someone is being unchristian simply because they believe differently than I do. Last edited by Brian Swartz : 07-29-2014 at 11:26 PM. |
|||||
07-29-2014, 11:53 PM | #190 | |||||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
I find this to be ironic. FWIW, I also find it cherry picking a verse out from its context. The slavery discussion matters a great deal here. Because it is quite clearly a case where the interpretive viewpoint quite clearly indicated that slavery was ok under Biblical reading at some point. And then people decided, no, slavery was NOT ok to God. Interestingly, the first Christians who decided this were Catholics, who also had their Tradition to fall back upon. Protestants were the ones who rejected an anti-slavery reading to Scripture until forced to in the 1800s. And even then, you had Protestants vs. Protestants. And the ones dedicated to the status quo kept saying the abolitionists were conforming to the times rather than to what Scripture plainly says. How do you get around "slaves obey your masters" (the abolitionist retort, of course, was... interesting for this discussion... read further in the Epistle and think deeper about what that means) In addition, no one is denying that God made men and women . Quote:
As indicated, you are cherry picking a verse out of its context. What, you thought that conservatives didn't do such things? I find Biblical conservatives to be some of the worst at cherry picking (even worse than Biblical liberals, who are fairly bad at it as well). As the famous quote goes: "I take the Bible too seriously to take it all literally" - the way to take the Bible to is to take it all seriously and struggle with all the passages and find out what God is trying to do - not say, ok, this jives with what I want and ignore what doesn't (which, once again both Biblical conservatives and liberals do in spades). Also Jesus's "blanket endorsement" also included violating the Sabbath (at least under the view of the Pharisees) - a complete no-no under the Old Testament. Quote:
Why do you allow something which is quite clearly against the words of Jesus? Quote:
The Scripture text was written 2000 years ago in a completely different time and era than we have at current. We need context for books written 100 years ago because they lived in a completely different time and took different things for granted. Why do Christians eat pork and shellfish? Is it because those proscriptions in the Law for a specific era, prior to the coming to the Messiah? Why is the NT, on only sex issues, so different? Quote:
Of course and my reading of the Bible tells me that loving others is the highest aim of being a disciple of Christ. That when people wanted to follow the Law to the letter, Jesus came and preached love. The Pharisees were CORRECT in their reading of the Law that an adulteress should be stoned to death (there is no other way to read the Torah on this matter). But Jesus said God's love and charity supersedes the Law's proscriptions. There is plenty that was stated should be done in the Old Testament or even the New Testament that we believe was for that era - not eating pork, not eating shellfish, killing adulterers, mandating the rapists should marry their rapees (mandated for a very good reason in that time, mind), forbidden divorce except in cases of adultery, etc. Not only am I sure that God's love and charity is for homosexual men and women to be embraced by the Church, but that His loving desire is for homosexual men and women to be able to be bound together in Holy matrimony in front of Him.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams Last edited by ISiddiqui : 07-30-2014 at 12:11 AM. |
|||||
07-30-2014, 12:14 AM | #191 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Quote:
There are specific passages in the NT that seem to say the OT still applies. Matthew 5:17 being one of many. And a few of the things I listed were from the NT. Adultery and pre-marital sex being just two. That's why it feels like cherry-picking to me. The pre-martial stuff is much more prominent in the NT than homosexuality and yet there is little focus on it. I think even drunkeness is talked about more. So from an outside observer, it seems like people turn a blind eye to the stuff they like but stuff they don't like, well the Bible says it's bad! |
|
07-30-2014, 12:18 AM | #192 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Don't forget that revilers won't inherit the Kingdom as well . Seems to me a lot of anti-homosexual Christians do a whole lot of reviling...
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
07-30-2014, 12:22 AM | #193 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
How many young Christian men would turn down a 3-some because orgies are specifically mentioned in the NT?
|
07-30-2014, 03:11 AM | #194 | ||||||||||
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
|
Quote:
There's multiple things going on here. One is that there are hypocrites. Another is that people object more to certain beliefs, those on homosexuality being among them. For example, in my experience the unbelievers that I know personally don't particularly object to drunkenness or premarital sex being called a sin. Sex for marriage only? They obviously don't agree but don't object to us calling it wrong. Homosexuality is different(as are things like abortion). I've experienced this within my own family, people at work, pretty much everywhere I've had occasion to discuss the biblically informed worldview. Suffice to say I think the controversy is due at least as much to the reaction of those outside the church to the doctrine as it is to those inside the church putting improper focus on it, but there certainly is more than enough blame to go around. As for the OT it applies generally but some matters were clearly fulfilled/superseded by Jesus. An obvious one is the blood sacrifice system, other elements of the ceremonial law were specifically stated to be superseded by Jesus himself in the gospels, in Acts, there's a lot of discussion in Hebrews -- in general I'd just say it's a mistake to presume a hypocritical approach without knowing the person in question. Quote:
That's very presumptive of you, and inaccurate. I'll note that this accusation, made twice in your post, has zero foundation. One can disagree with you on a passage without doing so from ulterior motives. Quote:
First, I still think slavery is ok to God in some forms. No, you didn't misread that. Go ahead and reread it as many times as is necessary to be properly offended -- and hopefully be willing to read the explanation. Personal autonomy/freedom/independence is a lie, a false hope, as demonstrated by Paul in Romans 6. There are two kinds of people: slaves to sin and slaves to righteousness. There is no third category. And of course the NT constantly uses the word doulos to refer to believers, and there's no other meaning for the word than slave. This is why my facebook profile lists my religion not as a denomination but simply as 'slave of Jesus Christ'. It would be good to reflect on the fact that this language was not significantly more acceptable in that day, considered a great insult -- but it was taught anyway. This does not mean that Christians should not argue for more just and loving societal institutions(indeed we must, let justice roll down as the prophets declared). I would say both sides has flaws in their arguments in the abolition debate. The fact that Paul instructed slaves to obey their masters has nothing to do with whether God is ok with the institution of slavery. I still see no relevance at all. Quote:
There is no-one I've ever read or heard of -- completely literally -- who takes everything in the Bible literally. Moreover, I'm not a 'biblical conservative' in many ways. Quote:
I'm not on the board, nor should I be, ergo it's not my decision to make but the decision of those the Lord appointed to lead our congregation. What is this line of questioning all about? Do I need to somehow establish bonafides somehow by defending what my church does even when(as I do on a fair number of issues) I disagree with it? I'm a 'big-tent' guy, I don't have to agree with people on everything to fellowship or I'd be worshiping alone. All that matters are the core tenets of the faith, what the gospel is, etc. Quote:
There's a difference between 'we need context' and 'the moral law has changed'. Quote:
Because Jesus specifically declared it to be ok. Quote:
First, it's not on only sex issues. It's on things you've mentioned, like women in leadership. It's on things you haven't, like the sacraments of baptism and communion. It's on every aspect of the Christian life basically where we don't have clear revelation of a new command. The NT is so different because it is the testimony of both Jesus and the early church that with it the canon closed. And to repeat, most of the OT is still in force. Quote:
I really think this is a very, very bad example. To begin with, that passage is not in the best and earliest manuscripts: the best evidence indicates it was added after the fact. But on the general point, I would simply ask again for you to contrast your definition of love and that defined by Jesus. Jesus did love everyone. He did offer grace to everyone, but always with clarity on the cost involved -- indeed he urged that the cost be considered! It has been said, accurately, that Jesus would fail personal evangelism in virtually every seminary in America. He told would-be followers to be willing to die and deny themselves. He told them to 'let the dead bury their own dead'. He loved the rich young ruler but didn't say 'your materialism is ok and accepted in the kingdom'. In other words, love to Jesus means obedience: those who love obey, and if you don't obey you don't love, as he stated repeatedly in gospel of John. His love was not universal acceptance of any and all behavior. If we follow his behavior, ours cannot be either -- we must love everyone but not everything they do, ourselves included. . Quote:
This part I enthusiastically and wholeheartedly agree with. They absolutely must be embraced(and it might surprise you that I've invited gay people to attend the fairly conservative church I attend, and bothered some of the members when they did come, and enjoyed themselves there). But they must be embraced in the same way we all are -- with the understanding that as children of God, we are to put to death those sins, those deeds of the flesh, that trouble us. Homosexual relations being among them. Hopefully these words will be received in the graceful spirit they are intended. Last edited by Brian Swartz : 07-30-2014 at 03:51 AM. |
||||||||||
07-30-2014, 06:18 PM | #195 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
A couple of things I'll note as I'm regretfully very late to the thread.
I don't have a problem with what Dungy said. He didn't comment on Sam himself, he just pointed out that from the perspective of a football organization there was a lot of baggage associated with selecting him. I think it is a valid perspective to say "My team doesn't need that media circus as a distraction". I could say that as a GM, and it wouldn't have any reflection of my personal point of view on the subject. So it doesn't necessarily follow that Dungy is a bigot. I'll also add that I have more than a few problems with the church's cherry picking of homosexuality as the sin to end all sin. My understanding is that sin is sin. One is not greater than another. All sin is separation from God. So there is no difference in God's eye between a devout virgin Sunday school teacher and your run of the mill homosexual. Sin is sin. There is no sliding scale. So Christians that target homosexuality appear to me to be just as correct and upstanding as the pharisees that Jesus referred to as white washed tombs. One can point at scripture all they want to, but none of us are equipped to throw that first stone. Last edited by Glengoyne : 07-30-2014 at 09:16 PM. |
07-30-2014, 11:36 PM | #196 | |||||||||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
You LITERALLY cherry picked a verse from its context. It's 100% accurate. Quote:
So, word games meant to try to offend, but you really mean you have chosen to submit to the Lord? Furthermore, there aren't two people - slaves to sin and slaves to righteousness. We are both, as Martin Luther says, simultaneously sinners and saints - therefore we are slaves to both. But, we are forgiven for the sin part. While we may say sin has no hold over us, we still sin - all except for Christ Jesus. Quote:
Yet, you can't see how you are doing the exact thing with homosexuality by cherry picking verses on abortion to declare the God is anti-homosexuality? Quote:
This is pure evasion. What is your view on divorce? If you are against, why do you go to a church that allows for remarried people to attend worship when they did something directly against God's own word? Quote:
Not nearly as much you think there is. The moral law of 2000 years will not nearly apply to now, because society is vastly different. Quote:
Not quite - God the Father did, in a dream to Peter. Interestingly enough, I'd like to point out what God said to Peter: "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean" Right after that Peter went to eat with Gentiles, implying that it applies not just to food, but to people as well. This applies quite interestingly to the homosexuality debate, considering what we know of genetic sexual orientation. Quote:
You mean things that have changed? Women in leadership, the sacraments being baptism and communion rather than the 7 in the Catholic Church - all have changed. But sex issues apparently must remain static for all time? Why the difference? Regardless, this is going to be like one of those things like miscegenation. There were definitely more than a handful of people who thumped the Bible and said marrying people of different races was against Scripture (stuff like Curse of Ham). This is seen as a hopelessly antiquated and embarrassing position by churches today. Homosexuality will be the same. His truth is marching on (as the song says) on this issue as more and more churches embrace homosexuals into the community. Quote:
Did He love those who will killing him? Did He yell to forgive them because they were unaware of what they were doing? What obedience were they offering? As for the adulterae pericope was added later charge, the story was referenced as early as 125 AD (by Papius) and other early references before the Codex Bezae. Quote:
I reject the idea that old notions of lustful homosexual relationships have any application to modern knowledge of homosexual orientation and loving monogamous relationships. Sin is a turning away from God - God does not merely say random crazy stuff just to see if we are being obedient (well, in the OT is may seemed like He did at times). He is not Simon Says. Obedience to God is found in the self-giving love and charity to our neighbors and our constant struggle to break our selfishness to help others. This is not merely social gospel - it goes far beyond that.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams Last edited by ISiddiqui : 07-30-2014 at 11:54 PM. |
|||||||||
07-31-2014, 12:20 AM | #197 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
I know Dungy has tried to walk back his statement and make it more benign by saying he was talking about media distractions, but I'm not buying it. His earlier comment of "things will happen" is not talking about a reality show or extra attention from the media.
You can always find reasons to do the wrong thing. What really disappoints me about Dungy (a coach I've always liked in the past) is that he found reasons to do the wrong thing instead of finding reasons to do the right thing. When I think about character and values, the person who does the latter wins out in my book.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
07-31-2014, 03:12 AM | #198 | ||
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2006
|
Quote:
Quote:
No I didn't -- the context in my opinion supports my opinion of what the verse means, as I stated when I first brought it up. Aside from that, go in peace. These comments make it clear to me that further discussion can serve no productive purpose. |
||
07-31-2014, 08:51 AM | #199 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
The context is about divorce. Of course he's going to use Genesis language to try to convince His listeners that this supersedes what Moses allowed (there are very few things that would trump Moses to the ancient Israelites). It makes no further statement as to what is the only true form of marriage forever and ever. Not to mention that Jesus, as God, probably knows that the Creation narrative (well, Creation narrative #2) was a mythopoetic explanation of how humans evolved, through God's plan, to current state. He is doing a Jesus thing - using a story to illustrate a point and only using it for that point.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
03-23-2016, 09:48 PM | #200 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|