User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 68

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Is there a verse that covers this?
    I asked because I don't understand the meaning. English is not my first language and sometimes I have a hard time understanding various things

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturne View Post
    It refers to people with big 'ots', you do know what an 'ot' is, right?
    A, ok. I suspected that would be the meaning

    edit: Ok, I looked it on the dictionary and now I am perfectly able to follow this inspired discussion

  3. #33
    Senior Member Sahara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lastrailway View Post
    A, ok. I suspected that would be the meaning

    edit: Ok, I looked it on the dictionary and now I am perfectly able to follow this inspired discussion
    Damn just before you did your edit I was all prepared with the dictionary meaning. Now my post is useless, like all the other ones (of mine) on this thread lol
    "No one can be free of the chains that surround them"

  4. #34
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Huh... How are we sure it's "Big Ots" and not actually "Bi-Gots" ?

    (In other words, people who are bi-gotual in preference?)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #35
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Well, if I were to argue....

    You can count the number of verses dealing with homosexuality on one hand.

    Then you get into what "homosexuality" meant at that time, which dealt more with prostitution and pederasty and religious paganism (when you look at the OT, for the latter) -- those were the images conjured by that word. I think in the text you mention, it specifically referred to the "top" and the "bottom" in religious prostitution, as the connotation went.

    The Sodom and Gamorah incident was about inhospitality and gang-rape of innocent strangers, not homosexuals, as per a reference to inhospitality in the NT as well. (Similar to how homosexuality in prison is more about violence and control.)

    And you could look at the OT law as developed by Israel to be a contrast to the pagan nations and as part of sexual indulgence and also joining two things that are not alike. Note that lesbianism is not addressed in the myriad of examples. And many other things that are "unlike" are now indulged in by Christians and others without regard to the text.

    Paul makes an argument based on what is "natural" but assumes homosexuality in nature as to be what is unnatural. He appeals to the "common sense" of what people might see as natural, when talking to the Romans.

    I don't know, but those are the sort of arguments I've seen.

    So, along with somewhat of what Oberon is saying, I suppose the final arbitrator here to be how exactly one views the Bible.
    Is it God writing supernaturally through people?
    Is it a book compiling people's experiences with God?
    Is it a book that details one nation's view of what it meant to follow God, in their time and place?

    Many of the debates seem to occur because the two sides arguing have a different view of the origin and evolution of the Bible as a document.

    Note that this makes things even more heated, because both sides are claiming the Bible as "their own" and saying other interpretations are invalid. The sides are wrestling over ownership of the text and disenfranchising people who disagree. No wonder it gets so heated.
    You're right, J, but it occurs to me that it's difficult to get around Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

    This was part of the Mosaic Law, given to the Hebrews while they were still wandering in the desert and would be for the next 40 years, so shrine prostitution was not an issue (unless it had been so in Egypt, and you don't consider the source of the law divine, and Moses was just making sure). It doesn't pertain to inhospitality, either, as it's in the context of a whole list of thou-shalt-nots with regard to whom one may sleep with.

    I suppose that a reasonable person could consider this provision of the Law to be rather like the prohibition on eating lobster; there's no prima facie reason to consider it part of the moral law rather than the ceremonial law, except for the custom of our culture.

    Doing so also requires a doctrinal reason to discard Romans 1:26 and 27, which says "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

    Because this is in a New Testament book it can't be dispensed with as a legal requirement rendered moot by grace; still, to get around it one would have to decide that Paul wasn't speaking literally, or wasn't inspired, or wasn't speaking generally (but only meant to address this to the Romans). Personally I have orthodoxy problems with all three of those options, but that's just me.

    (Well, actually no, it's not just me, it's a whole lot of people.)

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahara View Post
    Damn just before you did your edit I was all prepared with the dictionary meaning. Now my post is useless, like all the other ones (of mine) on this thread lol
    Funny thing is, I imagined it would be or somebody with a mustache or a kind of sheep. Dunno why, I had related this word in my mind with these

  7. #37
    Senior Member Sahara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lastrailway View Post
    Funny thing is, I imagined it would be or somebody with a mustache or a kind of sheep. Dunno why, I had related this word in my mind with these

    I can imagine the visuals in your head as you tried to fit those meanings into the conversation "why is she calling them people with moustaches"? lol
    "No one can be free of the chains that surround them"

  8. #38
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Oho! Now it's people with moustaches that you hate!

    Boy, I never knew all this about you, Sahara.

  9. #39
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Good two clarifications of the detail.

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon67 View Post
    Because this is in a New Testament book it can't be dispensed with as a legal requirement rendered moot by grace; still, to get around it one would have to decide that Paul wasn't speaking literally, or wasn't inspired, or wasn't speaking generally (but only meant to address this to the Romans). Personally I have orthodoxy problems with all three of those options, but that's just me. (Well, actually no, it's not just me, it's a whole lot of people.)
    That is probably why I brought up my final point in my last post -- the argument seems to be more about the nature of Biblical composition and authority. (i.e., what sort of weight is given to scripture?)

    It's an interesting point in terms of the nature of faith -- since the Bible merely claims itself as an authority, just as the Koran does, and one has to take a particular application of it on faith.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahara View Post
    I can imagine the visuals in your head as you tried to fit those meanings into the conversation "why is she calling them people with moustaches"? lol


    edit: Sorry, Jennifer, I realise you are trying to do a serious discussion, but I was just looking at the "Bigots" and was like, wtf?

Similar Threads

  1. Same Sex Marriage
    By Riva in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 590
    Last Post: 06-06-2012, 02:43 PM
  2. Support for Same-Sex Marriage Climbs to New High
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 299
    Last Post: 06-26-2011, 10:43 PM
  3. Question for those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds:
    By Brendan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 05-05-2010, 09:32 PM
  4. Same-Sex Marriage
    By metaphours in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 08-04-2009, 07:52 AM
  5. Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal?
    By ez78705 in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 257
    Last Post: 05-22-2009, 05:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO