Doesn’t answer the questions. I think at one stage the bible could have answered them. It’s incomplete, so I very much doubt it can or ever will. If one part is false/incomplete then I have no reason to believe any of it contains the original message.
As for the Wikipedia quip, it’s just like the bible, I don’t know who wrote the text. Funny, that.[/quote]
What question have you actually answered? How did citing the gospel of judas and the council of trent answer my post about what differences are there between the hebrew mss and the Bible version of gen 19?
The torah is a jewish holy book. The first five books make up the torah. If you can’t find any difference between the jewish torah gen 19, and the biblical gen 19.(two seperately controlled documents for which we have tons of early mss for) then you have no case.
once again how did christians and hebrews codify this one story?
…women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If 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.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
That is incorrect. The reference to the Law (note the capitalization which denotes the Law of God) is repeated in other scriptures that make it clear Paul is referring to God’s will regarding the role of women:
Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
Yet, how many contemporary Christians follow God’s will regarding women speaking in church and having their heads covered?
I don’t see the bible as “God’s will” at all. I think it is a mirror for the evolving cultural norms of a particular tribe of people, just like the Qu’ran and other holy books. It is obvious as you observe how the conception of “God” evolves from the old to the new testament. Over the millenia, people have always made “God(s)” in their own image, which is fine until they try to impose their view on others by claiming it is the only valid perception of truth.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
That being the case it is very reasonable to assume the whole town was being punished for a whole array of sins, not just homosexuality. The point of that being in the story most likely was to communicate to what level of Biblical debautchery(sp?) they had stooped to. I.E. raping visitors they came to town.[/quote]
That seems reasonable to me. My intent was not to declare that the mob must have been bisexual, but to challenge the declaration that the mob must have been gay.
[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
Actually, I don’t know of any Mormon Literature, which has an anti gay theme. Stop trying to create a conflict that is not there. In fact, I think the Mormon Church teaches a principle called free agency. People are free to worship how, where, and what they may. This does not mean that we will sit idly by and allow changes to traditional marriage. You have domestic partnerships.[/quote]
Ever hear about a little gem called “Miracle of Forgiveness” by Spencer W. Kimball? Or how about Boyd K. Packer’s infamous pamphlet wherein he justifies violence against gays?
What about the constant message that homosexuality is a perversion and that gays should try to change their orientation, which often has tragic consequences? Ever hear about Stuart Matis, who committed suicide on the steps of an LDS chapel?
[quote]forlife wrote: …women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If 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.
haney1 wrote:
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.
That is incorrect. The reference to the Law (note the capitalization which denotes the Law of God) is repeated in other scriptures that make it clear Paul is referring to God’s will regarding the role of women:
Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
Yet, how many contemporary Christians follow God’s will regarding women speaking in church and having their heads covered?
I don’t see the bible as “God’s will” at all. I think it is a mirror for the evolving cultural norms of a particular tribe of people, just like the Qu’ran and other holy books. It is obvious as you observe how the conception of “God” evolves from the old to the new testament. Over the millenia, people have always made “God(s)” in their own image, which is fine until they try to impose their view on others by claiming it is the only valid perception of truth.[/quote]
Where is that law in the old testament? After all that is the only recognized law. Also note that Paul is sending that letter to a greek church one that does not follow jewish law and is not required to follow jewish law (i.e. paul’s letters concerning greek’s being free from the law). So what law of God is it referencing?
[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
That being the case it is very reasonable to assume the whole town was being punished for a whole array of sins, not just homosexuality. The point of that being in the story most likely was to communicate to what level of Biblical debautchery(sp?) they had stooped to. I.E. raping visitors they came to town.
That seems reasonable to me. My intent was not to declare that the mob must have been bisexual, but to challenge the declaration that the mob must have been gay.
[/quote]
Fair enough. I just don’t like it when christians and non christians try to imply something from the text that can’t be implied.
To be fair though I don’t like it when people do that with any piece of ancient literature\culture.
modern day norms can’t be applied to ancient civilization.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Since 80%+ of all homosexual men have sex with both men and women I guess it really doesn’t matter does it forlife?[/quote]
And of course, there are no social or religious pressures to conform with the heterosexual model despite the underlying orientation a person may have. Also, having sex with someone or something is exactly the same as having a romantic relationship. That is a little complex for you to understand, I know…but maybe some day.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
Where is that law in the old testament? After all that is the only recognized law. Also note that Paul is sending that letter to a greek church one that does not follow jewish law and is not required to follow jewish law (i.e. paul’s letters concerning greek’s being free from the law). So what law of God is it referencing?
[/quote]
If it were only Jewish law rather than God’s law, why would Paul have told the Greek churches to follow it? He said the same thing in Ephesians, Colossians, and Corinthians. In every case, he makes it perfectly clear that it is God’s will.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
That being the case it is very reasonable to assume the whole town was being punished for a whole array of sins, not just homosexuality. The point of that being in the story most likely was to communicate to what level of Biblical debautchery(sp?) they had stooped to. I.E. raping visitors they came to town.
That seems reasonable to me. My intent was not to declare that the mob must have been bisexual, but to challenge the declaration that the mob must have been gay.
Fair enough. I just don’t like it when christians and non christians try to imply something from the text that can’t be implied.
To be fair though I don’t like it when people do that with any piece of ancient literature\culture.
modern day norms can’t be applied to ancient civilization.[/quote]
how so, what do you classify as ancient?
is the constitution ancient?
And since when is having sex with men not homosexual?
I believe the premise was more the morality of the action of the town and homosexuality being one of those actions.
And if you are a christian you believe the bible is wholly true, god breathed. Not some ancient piece of literature.
[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Where is that law in the old testament? After all that is the only recognized law. Also note that Paul is sending that letter to a greek church one that does not follow jewish law and is not required to follow jewish law (i.e. paul’s letters concerning greek’s being free from the law). So what law of God is it referencing?
If it were only Jewish law rather than God’s law, why would Paul have told the Greek churches to follow it? He said the same thing in Ephesians, Colossians, and Corinthians. In every case, he makes it perfectly clear that it is God’s will.
[/quote]
look if you are so certain it is there than you can link to it? It would be in the the Old testament right? where is it?
only once does he tell women to be silent in church and surprise it is when he is giving rules for orderly conduct in church not when he is giving commands from God.
Now for submission to men that is a different subject all together and you can’t equate them.
Sent the web article to a gay friend here in San Francisco. Here is his response:
<<Sounds like a provocation… and by the way, no one got hurt… not like the many Prop 8 opponents assaulted by religious freaks during the campaign… including one where 3 big guys kicked and spat on a 17 year old girl. They must be really proud Christians. Not to mention regular hate crimes fueled by religious vitriolic rhetoric… including one yesterday:
I.e. they were punished for a whole array of sins, and the point of them wanting to have sex with the angels was to illustrate the level too which it had progressed.
You seem to equate what I beleive about something to be the same as the premise I am trying to set for the discussion.
You also forget that forlife and mak don’t see the book that way so why debate from that stance? Instead I am choosing to use a common ground stance that would be applied to all literature that is not from a present generation.
This is a common practice for studying the Bible as well.
Take a Bible study methods class at any Christian college and they will point out that you have to understand that the author was not writing to you as the intended audience (present day man) but an ancient society as the intended audience, and then later you can work on present day life application. problem is most people do application first
[quote]haney1 wrote:
look if you are so certain it is there than you can link to it? It would be in the the Old testament right? where is it?
only once does he tell women to be silent in church and surprise it is when he is giving rules for orderly conduct in church not when he is giving commands from God.
[/quote]
Ephesians 5:22-24
You wives will submit to your husbands as you do to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; He gave His life to be her Savior. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything.
Colossians 3:18
You wives must submit to your husbands, as is fitting for those who belong to the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11: 8-9
For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
And since when is having sex with men not homosexual?
Never said it wasn’t.
I believe the premise was more the morality of the action of the town and homosexuality being one of those actions.
I believe I said that same thing.
I.e. they were punished for a whole array of sins, and the point of them wanting to have sex with the angels was to illustrate the level too which it had progressed.
And if you are a christian you believe the bible is wholly true, god breathed. Not some ancient piece of literature.
You seem to equate what I beleive about something to be the same as the premise I am trying to set for the discussion.
You also forget that forlife and mak don’t see the book that way so why debate from that stance? Instead I am choosing to use a common ground stance that would be applied to all literature that is not from a present generation.
This is a common practice for studying the Bible as well.
Take a Bible study methods class at any Christian college and they will point out that you have to understand that the author was not writing to you as the intended audience (present day man) but an ancient society as the intended audience, and then later you can work on present day life application. problem is most people do application first
[/quote]
I have graduated from jesuit institute.
sorry didn’t read enough of your posts.
I get aggrevated with how they say this has nothing to do with religion or faith or it being a sin. And then throw bible passages at you out of context or try to use your own faith or religion against you,
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Interestign you seem to have all sorts of understanding regarding the mormons. I wonder why you are not that gracious with the rest of society that wants nothing to do with “gayness” and especially gay marriage. According to you everyone else is homophobic.
[/quote]
Mormons are homophobic too. What you don’t get is that homophobia doesn’t always imply hatred toward gays. It can also imply discrimination, hurt, or significant damage regardless of the person’s intent.
I don’t think most homophobes dislike gays, but they do ignorantly advocate policies which hurt gays.
[quote]forlife wrote:
haney1 wrote:
look if you are so certain it is there than you can link to it? It would be in the the Old testament right? where is it?
only once does he tell women to be silent in church and surprise it is when he is giving rules for orderly conduct in church not when he is giving commands from God.
Ephesians 5:22-24
You wives will submit to your husbands as you do to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; He gave His life to be her Savior. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything.
Colossians 3:18
You wives must submit to your husbands, as is fitting for those who belong to the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11: 8-9
For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
[/quote]
wow your a genious, where does it say anything about being silent, submitting is not being silent.
And why don’t you put the next verse in ephesians.
new covenant, don’t have to follow jewish laws,
but again you don’t believe in the bible or anything it stands for so who cares.