[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, I was mostly agreeing and just adding to the topic.[/quote]
good deal then. I am glad I added the if statement.
my apologies.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
what is there to ignore. No where does it say it is a sin for women to speak in church. It just says don’t do it. Why would that be? Possibly because it was cultural taboo.
[/quote]
If the bible is the word of God and it says not to do something, would it not be contrary to the will of God to do it?
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
You were married to a woman, for crying out loud. It’s beyond absurd that you would make a statement like that.
Maybe some day you will understand how social and religious mores can drive people into damaging relationships which inherently conflict with their sexual orientation.
Maybe, but I doubt it.[/quote]
LOL. Well, can I start calling you “bisexual” now, or are you strictly “gay?”
[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
You can’t make the connection that they were bi. They didn’t take lot up on the offer so they could have been gay.
On the other hand, you certainly don’t know that they were gay. At minimum, Lot thought they were bi or he wouldn’t have tantalized them with his two daughters.
[/quote]
No you are adding that to the text. All that either one of us can say is we don’t know for sure. You are assuming that you know what lot was thinking. Which is intellectually dishonest. You don’t know if he was thinking “these men swing both ways so I will offer my daughters” “or maybe he was thinking these guys are so sick they would screw anything, too bad we ate the last sheep”, or I know these guys only like other men, but maybe they will settle for my daughters".
neither of us know that so nethier of us can assume.
they could of been gay, they could have been bi, they could have just gone for anything that moved.
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Way to lump Genesis 19 in the same category as women being quiet in church and covering their heads.
If the old testament was fulfilled in Christ and the new testament is the proper touchstone for morality, why would Genesis 19 even be relevant? The proscriptions against women would actually have precedence over the proscriptions against angry bisexual mobs.[/quote]
Interesting categories you have there. We’re having a discussion about male rape and homosexual behavior, and you drag women covering their heads into church to fill out your “argument by outrage.” “The Bible condemns homosexuality!” “Yeah, well, it also says women should be quiet in church!” You sure showed me on that one.
But to answer your point, the practice of homosexuality is condemned as much in the New Testament as it is in the Old.
[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
what is there to ignore. No where does it say it is a sin for women to speak in church. It just says don’t do it. Why would that be? Possibly because it was cultural taboo.
If the bible is the word of God and it says not to do something, would it not be contrary to the will of God to do it?[/quote]
Why do people always forget context? It depends on what point is trying to be conveyed.
when paul was talking about women not speaking in church he was setting up guidelines not a list of sins God forgot to mention in the old testament. It also depends on why the author says it.
So to answer your question no it is not contrary considering context and the society\norms that the author was speaking too.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
haney1 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I think you made a mistake here. Sounds homo to me.
I was referring to his “motherfucking” comment, but since you brought it up:
Genesis 19:8 Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.
So Lot was willing to let the mob fuck his two daughters, in order to protect his guests from the mob. Sounds like they were bisexual to me, but doesn’t it warm the cockles of your heart to hear such an example of fatherly love?
It was an example of an extreme sacrifice for something he believed in. Like Abraham and Isaac. The funny thing you have to remember in both of those stories is that both lots daughters and Isaac were most likely willing participants in the sacrifices.
Abysmal exegesis.
Please state logically conflicts and reasons.
it isn’t a logical conflict. It is the fact that you are adding your thoughts and interpretation to the text and they are unwarrented and unfounded. that is the exegesis problem. You are committing isagesis.
First off, I wasn’t so much directly interpreting the text as pointing out there were other issues in that story I feel are more important.
Yes it was an interpretation the same as any other person who has commented on that text, so point to some reasons mine opinion was somehow less worthy.
you see my interpretation as expresing my beliefs and not statements like this?
“So Lot was willing to let the mob fuck his two daughters, in order to protect his guests from the mob. Sounds like they were bisexual to me, but doesn’t it warm the cockles of your heart to hear such an example of fatherly love?”
If you really want to know…
the problem is
1.you are one not letting text first speak for itself.
2. Abraham was commanded to “test his faith” Lots act was not a test of faith, so they can’t be equal
3. Abraham’s sacrifice with lot was also a sign point to God’s sacrifice of Jesus
4. There are cultural norms that come into play that you didn’t include in your interpretation.
5. you are adding your opinion to the text which is by definition an isagesis
[/quote]
You can’t do anything other than read the text in that case. A person’s life and experience shape their interpretation of anything. Even study of the text and time it was written can be seen a reflecting your own experience and opinion.
Even you saying that his refusal was based on cultural traditions is an extrapolation of the text as it isn’t expressly written.
It is also impossible to offer a complete cultural perspective unless you were there and lived it.
I never said they were equal, but only similarly themed as previously stated.
I do agree I did a crappy job illustrating my point in the original post though.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
LOL. Well, can I start calling you “bisexual” now, or are you strictly “gay?” [/quote]
I’m gay. You might start your education by learning what sexual orientation actually is:
[b]Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person?s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.
However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one?s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women).
This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.[/b]
[quote]haney1 wrote:
they could of been gay, they could have been bi, they could have just gone for anything that moved.[/quote]
If they were exclusively gay or straight, they wouldn’t have gone for anything that moved.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
“The Bible condemns homosexuality!” “Yeah, well, it also says women should be quiet in church!” [/quote]
I’m pointing out the ala carte approach to Christianity that most fundamentalists use. They pick and choose the doctrines that appeal to them while ignoring others, failing to realize that doing so only invalidates their beliefs by calling into question the source of those beliefs.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
when paul was talking about women not speaking in church he was setting up guidelines not a list of sins God forgot to mention in the old testament. It also depends on why the author says it.
So to answer your question no it is not contrary considering context and the society\norms that the author was speaking too.
[/quote]
Where is your proof that Paul was only discussing guidelines? Nowhere does he qualify the commandments against women in that way.
Furthermore, where is your proof that Paul wasn’t discussing guidelines when he talked about homosexuality? How do you know he wasn’t speaking to the society/norms of the time?
Hint: in both cases he was influenced by social norms, since the bible and other holy books are essentially a history of the evolution of those norms.
[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
they could of been gay, they could have been bi, they could have just gone for anything that moved.
If they were exclusively gay or straight, they wouldn’t have gone for anything that moved.
[/quote]
I have to ask and???
what is your point?
you still can’t know if they were gay or bi. It is obvious they are not straight though.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
what is your point?
[/quote]
The point is that Lot clearly believed they were not exclusively straight or gay.
[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
when paul was talking about women not speaking in church he was setting up guidelines not a list of sins God forgot to mention in the old testament. It also depends on why the author says it.
So to answer your question no it is not contrary considering context and the society\norms that the author was speaking too.
Where is your proof that Paul was only discussing guidelines? Nowhere does he qualify the commandments against women in that way.
Furthermore, where is your proof that Paul wasn’t discussing guidelines when he talked about homosexuality? How do you know he wasn’t speaking to the society/norms of the time?
Hint: in both cases he was influenced by social norms, since the bible and other holy books are essentially a history of the evolution of those norms.[/quote]
And your proof of the influence of social norms is? I’m not disagreeing, but you seem to demand prof only for what hurts your case.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Again with the militant.
When is this rainbow army attacking?
Your ignorance is astounding. Sit down and shut the fuck up.
Thanks. [/quote]
How about an actual explanation about why you feel it’s necessary to label them as militant. Are all protesters militant now? Or just the gays.
Thanks.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Where is your proof that Paul was only discussing guidelines? Nowhere does he qualify the commandments against women in that way.
Furthermore, where is your proof that Paul wasn’t discussing guidelines when he talked about homosexuality? How do you know he wasn’t speaking to the society/norms of the time?[/quote]
Homosexuality
here is where it states that it is a sin.
Romans 1
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator?who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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.
women speaking in church. If you read the whole text it is rules for orderly worship.
26What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has(Y) a hymn,(Z) a lesson,(AA) a revelation,(AB) a tongue, or(AC) an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27If any speak in(AD) a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others(AE) weigh what is said. 30If a revelation is made to another sitting there,(AF) let the first be silent. 31For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33For God is not a God of(AG) confusion but of peace.
As in(AH) all the churches of the saints, 34(AI) the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but(AJ) should be in submission, as(AK) the Law also says. 35If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
Now you can say that at the bottom it says law but it doesn’t say which law. It certainly isn’t written in the old testament law. so that rules out paul referring to it. It could be the law the jewish leaders of the day followed, but Corinth was a greek church so that is in doubt as well. It could be the law of the land as well. I would go with the last two as the strongest candidates. No where is this listed as a sin outside of it breaking a law, but what law? so if we can’t even duplicate the law and we know it isn’t a biblical law from the OT the we can assume it was a law of that day and culture.
Now since these are rules for worship if a church doesn’t follow these are you saying they are sins?
[quote]
Hint: in both cases he was influenced by social norms, since the bible and holy books are essentially a history of the evolution of those norms.[/quote]
do you see me shying away from that point?
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
“The Bible condemns homosexuality!” “Yeah, well, it also says women should be quiet in church!”
I’m pointing out the ala carte approach to Christianity that most fundamentalists use. They pick and choose the doctrines that appeal to them while ignoring others, failing to realize that doing so only invalidates their beliefs by calling into question the source of those beliefs.
[/quote]
I hope you’re planning on excluding me from the “pick and choose” category.
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
LOL. Well, can I start calling you “bisexual” now, or are you strictly “gay?”
I’m gay. You might start your education by learning what sexual orientation actually is:
[b]Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person?s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.
However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one?s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women).
This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.[/b]
[/quote]
Thank you for quoting the APA’s pamphlet on homosexuality for me, forlife, even though I’ve linked it numerous times already. All the text says is that the men wanted to have sex with male angels, Lot offered his women, and the men insisted on the (male) angels again. If they were bi, you’d think they would have been fine with the women. But they weren’t:
[quote]6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. [/quote]
You see, they insisted upon the men. That indicates strictly homosexuality to me.
[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
They do have a house across the street from the state capital and it is an eye sore. The people hanging out there and I mean literally hanging out, do shout at anyone who has the misfortune of having to walk by. Really a nuisance.[/quote]
Mental illness and being gay are much more correlated in this sub-population.
[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
what is your point?
The point is that Lot clearly believed they were not exclusively straight or gay.[/quote]
No he doesn’t, and you can’t claim that. To do so is to interject your opinion upon the text. You have no clue what lot thought.
I tell you what though. I will play devil’s advocate for you.
Let’s say that is what the text implies. The text then must imply that what lot thought was incorrect because they had no interest in the women. So the men of the town must have been full all out gay. lot is not the judge of righteous acts in the story but God is so God must be judging them for being gay.
don’t you like how that worked?
now you can keep up with your silly argument of forcing your opinion upon the text, or you can admit the truth it doesn’t say they are bi or gay.