Christianity Today Poll (same-sex marriages)

[Totenkindly]

Bigots!

Hey! How dare you be bigoted about bigots!

 

[usernameredacted]

Bigots!

lolfr

 

[Sahara]

Bigots!

Damn it my sarcasm meter isn't running again, and I'm still caught thinking the world revolves around me lol

Sahara learnt her lesson *read the fine print, control the irrationality*...got it.

 

[usernameredacted]

Damn it my sarcasm meter isn't running again, and I'm still caught thinking the world revolves around me lol

Sahara learnt her lesson *read the fine print, control the irrationality*...got it.

Nah, it's fine. Without your small misunderstanding, I wouldn't have had half the fun I've had here. If you can't tell, religious debate is my thing. I can't help it. I'm a preacher's kid and have gone to Christian school for ten years... This is what I call fun.

 

[Oberon]

...read the fine print, control the irrationality...

What? You got something against irrational people now?

[...snicker snerk giggle...]

 

[Totenkindly]

What? You got something against irrational people now?

Sigh. Now we're irrationally irrational about being bigoted against bigots who think that homosexuals are 100% not heterosexuals?

... my head hurts...

 

[Sahara]

What? You got something against irrational people now?

[...snicker snerk giggle...]

Bigots.

 

[lastrailway]

And what does "bigots" mean?

 

[Totenkindly]

And what does "bigots" mean?

Is there a verse that covers this?

 

[reason]

It refers to people with big 'ots', you do know what an 'ot' is, right?

 

[lastrailway]

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

 

[lastrailway]

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

 

[Sahara]

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

 

[Totenkindly]

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

(In other words, people who are bi-gotual in preference?)

 

[Oberon]

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.)

 

[lastrailway]

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

 

[Sahara]

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

 

[Oberon]

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

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

 

[Totenkindly]

Good two clarifications of the detail.

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.

 

[lastrailway]

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?