Being Tolerant Oppresses Christians

[wiegie]

I haven't read more than a couple words in this thread, but every time I see the title I think, "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

 

1418112[/snapback]

 

 

 

then you'll like what I posted back on page 13:

 

this thread made me think of this:

 

BRIAN: Larks' tongues. Wrens' livers. Chaffinch brains. Jaguars' earlobes. Wolf nipple chips. Get 'em while they're hot. They're lovely. Dromedary pretzels, only half a denar. Tuscany fried bats.

JUDITH: I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.

REG: Agreed. Francis?

FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man--

STAN: Or woman.

FRANCIS: Or woman... to rid himself--

STAN: Or herself.

FRANCIS: Or herself.

REG: Agreed.

FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.

STAN: Or sister.

FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?

REG: I think you'd finished.

FRANCIS: Oh. Right.

REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--

STAN: Or woman.

REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.

STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.

FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?

STAN: I want to be one. 

REG: What?

STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.

REG: What?!

LORETTA: It's my right as a man.

JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

LORETTA: I want to have babies.

REG: You want to have babies?!

LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG: But... you can't have babies.

LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.

REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

LORETTA: [crying]

JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

REG: What's the point?

FRANCIS: What?

REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!

FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

[Yukon Cornelius]

does anyone know how syphilis spread around europe in the early 1500's?

[spain]

does anyone know how syphilis  spread around europe in the early 1500's?

 

1418245[/snapback]

 

 

 

Dan Pastorini...

[Azazello1313]

the man who gave you all those teachings also claimed to be the son of God.  so either He was indeed the son of God, or He was insane.

 

1417924[/snapback]

 

 

 

well...in some sense i personally agree with that sentiment, though i believe you (or CS lewis) have put it rather crudely. but that doesn't mean a reasonable person absolutely HAS to ascribe to one view (son of god) or the other (completely insane). there are plenty of ways a reasonable person could come to the conclusion he was neither. i would argue against them as best i can, but it's a feeble fantasy to pretend your all-or-nothing notion is the only one logic can support.

[spain]

well...in some sense i personally agree with that sentiment, though i believe you (or CS lewis) have put it rather crudely.  but that doesn't mean a reasonable person absolutely HAS to ascribe to one view (son of god) or the other (completely insane).  there are plenty of ways a reasonable person could come to the conclusion he was neither.  i would argue against them as best i can, but it's a feeble fantasy to pretend your all-or-nothing notion is the only one logic can support.

 

1418368[/snapback]

 

 

 

Crazy or sane, would Christ be this smug?

[Yukon Cornelius]

Dan Pastorini...

 

1418299[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Crazy or sane, would Christ be this smug?

 

1418373[/snapback]

 

 

 

[Azazello1313]

i think it's quite a stretch to argue that matthew 19 condones homosexual practices. the reference to eunuchs who were born that way or whatever probably DOES refer to, well, poofs...but clearly not to ones that actually bugger each other. i mean, "eunuch" means explicitly that their sexuality has been stifled entirely, not diverted toward other men. if they get all randy with another dude, then they're not a eunuch anymore. that's how i'd read it anyway.

 

the new testament is very suspicious of sex IN GENERAL, celibacy being clearly preferred to all else. so of course it's not going to actually be supportive of a practice universally regarded in the first century as sexually deviant. but social contexts have changed, and the question now is different than it was then. so today, we have to weigh the general tenor of the new testament toward sex in general (which i would characterize as universally negative, but accepting) against the more imperative commands contained in the christian message, to be humble, to refrain from judging our neighbor, to elevate love over law.

 

in my opinion, when we accept other "unbiblical" sexual indulgences, like premarital sex, or wanking, or "the other two holes", or bangin your wife within 7 days of her period...then we become hypocrites if we try and single out gays. especially if we try and single out gays who wish only to be bound together in love before god and the law of the land.

[skins]

I also found where an eunuch could be interpreted as an officer, minister of state-chamberlain...obviously not in Matthew. I understand yer point skins as far as trying to show that Jesus cared for every person regardless of their "outcastness". After reading several chapters...it appears that Eunuchs were sort of common among the Religious. What about in Acts when Philip baptises one. Interesting.  

 

1418108[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Right, there were lots of different uses and definititions and interpretations of the word. In the first centuries after Jesus dies, eunuchs and women played a far more prominent role in the early church. It was not until the fourth century, with the solidification of orthodox power in Rome and a church power struggle, that patriarchal Platonic sexual behavior began to be strictly enforced in the early church.

 

OK, but let me get back to the start and make sure we have clearly defined what the main question of debate is:  Did Jesus condone homosexual practices?

 

You are arguing that the answer is yes, because Jesus had no problem with eunuchs and you are arguing that eunuch is another way of saying practicing homosexual.

 

To question the idea that this is how eunuch was meant to be interpreted I will give a few quotes from early church leaders

 

well, I will start with this from one of your own links:

another quote you put forth had this:

Interestingly, Athenagoras also had this to say:

here are a few others:

and of course there is what Paul wrote in Corinthians.

 

I just don't see any evidence to suggest that the earliest Christians agreed with your notion that homosexual practices had been sanctioned by Jesus. 

 

The argument provided in the links you gave (from such an objective website as one "dedicated to born gays, lesbians, transgenders and other holy ones") do not give any real evidence that homosexual practices were condones other than to suggest that homosexuals weren't really men and therefore were free to have sex with one-another since the prohibitions of male on male sex didn't apply to these non-males.  So basically your argument comes down to the suggestion that the only people who were prohibited from engaging in homosexual acts were the heterosexuals.  This is an interesting argument to say the least and the links you give provide no evidence that the early Christian church held such views.

 

1418160[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Yer assuming a lot here I never wrote.

 

Show me where I said Jesus condoned homosexual behavior, please. My first comments were that he never spoke directly about it all, and that at most, and it is unclear, he spoke indirectly about it in Matthew 19:12. My primary points to tonormanondog were that excluding gays from participation in God's "plan" were contrary to the message of forgiveness and inclusion which Jesus taught. I have no idea what he actually thought about homosexuality itself, but suspect that he probably viewed it as other Jews did. The difference is that unlike his contemporary Jewsh peers, he moved beyond their exclusionary thinking in a revolutionary manner and taught that all were part of the kingdon of heaven.

 

That is my only point.

Edited April 13, 2006 by skins

[tonorator]

My primary points to tonorator were that excluding gays from participation in God's "plan" were contrary to the message of forgiveness and inclusion which Jesus taught.

1418418[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

i've never argued against this. the debate was whether homosexuality is a sin and does it require the forgiveness you speak of. i say yes, and believe the bible supports that. you disagreed and started bringing up eunuchs, which have no sex at all and matthew 19:12. now, when presented with overwhelming evidence to disprove your point, you are refocusing your primary points. the bible is not vague about homosexuality, it is pretty clear throughout. you are relying on "modern interpretations" from gay groups to back up your points, which are what is truly vague here, not the bible.

[Codwagon]

Right, there were lots of different uses and definititions and interpretations of the word. In the first centuries after Jesus dies, eunuchs and women played a far more prominent role in the early church. It was not until the fourth century, with the solidification of orthodox power in Rome and a church power struggle, that patriarchal Platonic sexual behavior began to be strictly enforced in the early church.

Yer assuming a lot here I never wrote.

 

Show me where I said Jesus condoned homosexual behavior, please. My first comments were that he never spoke directly about it all, and that at most, and it is unclear, he spoke indirectly about it in Matthew 19:12. My primary points to tonormanondog were that excluding gays from participation in God's "plan" were contrary to the message of forgiveness and inclusion which Jesus taught. I have no idea what he actually thought about homosexuality itself, but suspect that he probably viewed it as other Jews did. The difference is that unlike his contemporary Jewsh peers, he moved beyond their exclusionary thinking in a revolutionary manner and taught that all were part of the kingdon of heaven.

 

That is my only point.

 

1418418[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Enjoy your eternity in hell. I hear it is even more unbearable what with global warming and everything. I suggest a battery operated pith helmet with an integrated fan.

[tonorator]

well...in some sense i personally agree with that sentiment, though i believe you (or CS lewis) have put it rather crudely.  but that doesn't mean a reasonable person absolutely HAS to ascribe to one view (son of god) or the other (completely insane).  there are plenty of ways a reasonable person could come to the conclusion he was neither.  i would argue against them as best i can, but it's a feeble fantasy to pretend your all-or-nothing notion is the only one logic can support.

 

1418368[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

the only way to come up with another alternative is to decide to only focus on the specific sections and teachings in the NT that you like, and ignore the others. you have the right to do that if you like, no one is stopping you. if you are searching for the truth, however, you do end up either accepting the NT as authentic or as flawed. i won't go through all the logic, because 'the case for christ' does it wonderfully if you would like to understand it. it really is quite this simple.

[tonorator]

Not true.

 

If Jesus was not divine, but rather just a very extraordinary man, then the New Testament writings are not the word of God, but rather the word of man.  If the New Testament writings are the word of man, then it is impossible to verify what was actually in the original text.

 

Have you ever played telephone?  Take 25 people, make up a complicated paragraph, tell it to the first, then they tell it to the second, and so on.  When it gets to the end of the line, the paragraph will have virtually no similarity to the beginning.  The New Testament writings were oral tradition for anywhere from 20 to 70 years.  They were not widely distributed and held as authoritative for almost 200 years.  During that time, they would have been distributed over a geographic region the size of the US, hand copied thousands of time in dozens of languages.  Now we enter the 1800 year period of the organized church.  Keep in mind that for the first 1400 years, we have no printing press.  During this 1800 years the church is as much a political entity as anything else, struggling for power and control like every other political entity (keep in mind that in this world, the new testament is nothing more than the word of man).  Would you not agree that if Jesus was not divine, that we have absolutely no idea what he said?

 

 

1418063[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

i'm not going to go through all of the data for you, but the NT passes every rigorous standard we have in place today to verify any historical document, translations included, as authentic. it is quite an amazing thing.

[Yukon Cornelius]

i'm not going to go through all of the data for you, but the NT passes every rigorous standard we have in place today to verify any historical document, translations included, as authentic.  it is quite an amazing thing.

 

1418529[/snapback]

 

 

 

[Azazello1313]

the only way to come up with another alternative is to decide to only focus on the specific sections and teachings in the NT that you like, and ignore the others.  you have the right to do that if you like, no one is stopping you.  if you are searching for the truth, however, you do end up either accepting the NT as authentic or as flawed. 

1418517[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

hogwash.

 

"authentic"? meaning it was written by first century christians? yeah. "authentic" meaning it was written by god and every word of every book must be given equal weight as the absolute, inerrant word of god? uhh, no.

 

and you're gonna point me to that hack lee strobel as "proof"? ugh.

[skins]

i've never argued against this.  the debate was whether homosexuality is a sin and does it require the forgiveness you speak of.  i say yes, and believe the bible supports that.  you disagreed and started bringing up eunuchs, which have no sex at all and matthew 19:12.  now, when presented with overwhelming evidence to disprove your point, you are refocusing your primary points.  the bible is not vague about homosexuality, it is pretty clear throughout.  you are relying on "modern interpretations" from gay groups to back up your points, which are what is truly vague here, not the bible.

 

1418487[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

tonormandog, now yer just lying. The bolded statements above are completely fabricated. I never said the bible was "vague" about homosexuality, I started my participation in this thread by noting that you were an idiot, and you have done nothing to dispel that fact except add dishonest to the mix. And my cites were to early church writers and historical studies on sexual ethics of the time. You dont even know what a eunuch is and show it by claiming they were sexless. Some eunuchs could reproduce, some had sex with women, some had sex with men, some had no sex. You have no idea what yer talking about.

 

Go do some reading and get back to me in a couple years.

 

Enjoy your eternity in hell. I hear it is even more unbearable what with global warming and everything. I suggest a battery operated pith helmet with an integrated fan.

 

1418492[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I have a freezer full of frozen peas to stuff in my pants. Im ready.

 

the only way to come up with another alternative is to decide to only focus on the specific sections and teachings in the NT that you like, and ignore the others.  you have the right to do that if you like, no one is stopping you.  if you are searching for the truth, however, you do end up either accepting the NT as authentic or as flawed.  i won't go through all the logic, because 'the case for christ' does it wonderfully if you would like to understand it.  it really is quite this simple.

 

1418517[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

The "case for christ" is for simpletons. Why do you only think in black and white? I think Asz has been very patient with you in trying to graciously show that there are many grey areas and nuances and that being rigid and too literal in yer viewpoint is limiting and ends up being what you are: exclusionary.

 

i'm not going to go through all of the data for you, but the NT passes every rigorous standard we have in place today to verify any historical document, translations included, as authentic.  it is quite an amazing thing.

 

1418529[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

What? Yer kidding, right.

 

Look, tonormanondog, I have had a lot of fun with this thread because it is clearly an issue I enjoy. But you need to think about what really happened here: it was clearly pointed out to you that yer interpretation and position of the message of Jesus, and yer expression of it in yer political and social views, is, in fact, the opposite of the true message of Jesus. As someone calling themselves a "Christian" I would think that might concern you. Maybe not.

Edited April 13, 2006 by skins

[spain]

Tormenator: Dude I give you credit for keeping up this charade for this long! Bravo my friend, bravo! It was obvious to me that nobody is as stupid and more cleverly, ignorant, as you pretended to be in this thread. And no matter who ignorant your comment, those with bloated perceptions of their own intellects couldnt help but strike the bait. Those who think that they are the only ones who live in the real world, those with sophisticated minds, and the morbidly smug, just cant help themselves.

[Azazello1313]

Tormenator:  Dude I give you credit for keeping up this charade for this long!   Bravo my friend, bravo!  It was obvious to me that nobody is as stupid and more cleverly, ignorant, as you pretended to be in this thread.  And no matter who ignorant your comment, those with bloated perceptions of their own intellects couldnt help but strike the bait.  Those who think that they are the only ones who live in the real world, those with sophisticated minds, and the morbidly smug, just cant help themselves.

 

1418668[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

did i accidentally fart last time you nuzzled up to my nutsack or something?

[Brewer]

pad

 

 

Do padders have a place in the kingdom, or are we left out with the Eunichs?

[spain]

pad

Do padders have a place in the kingdom, or are we left out with the Eunichs?

 

1418691[/snapback]

 

 

 

Well, if you go back to the Septugent, the ancient greek for "padder" was the word eunuch...

[skins]

Tormenator:  Dude I give you credit for keeping up this charade for this long!   Bravo my friend, bravo!  It was obvious to me that nobody is as stupid and more cleverly, ignorant, as you pretended to be in this thread.  And no matter who ignorant your comment, those with bloated perceptions of their own intellects couldnt help but strike the bait.  Those who think that they are the only ones who live in the real world, those with sophisticated minds, and the morbidly smug, just cant help themselves.

 

1418668[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Dan Pastorini!

[Squeegiebo]

Do padders have a place in the kingdom, or are we left out with the Eunichs?

 

1418691[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

According to Article 3 - yes.

[tonorator]

hogwash.

 

"authentic"?  meaning it was written by first century christians?  yeah.  "authentic" meaning it was written by god and every word of every book must be given equal weight as the absolute, inerrant word of god?  uhh, no. 

 

and you're gonna point me to that hack lee strobel as "proof"?  ugh.

 

1418572[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

i meant your first kind of authentic. we are in agreement.

 

lee is quite good.

[AtomicCEO]

I love fags.

[Yukon Cornelius]

I love fags.

 

1418804[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

i thought u quite

[tonorator]

Look, tonormanondog, I have had a lot of fun with this thread because it is clearly an issue I enjoy. But you need to think about what really happened here: it was clearly pointed out to you that yer interpretation and position of the message of Jesus, and yer expression of it in yer political and social views, is, in fact, the opposite of the true message of Jesus. As someone calling themselves a "Christian" I would think that might concern you. Maybe not.

 

1418614[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

which would lump me into the millions of others who are in the same fog, i assume? the most i can gather from your rantings is that Jesus was a good guy who liked to forgive others and that he went ahead and died as a symbol of forgiveness for future generations. he may or may not have been divine. so to be a true "christian" in your eyes, vs. what i am doing, is to be a nice, forgiving person. is that it in a nutshell?

 

if you dig a little, you might find that "christians" subscribe to a whole lot more, and there are a bunch of them out there. are you skins, today on the 13th of april, in the year 2006, proclaiming your enlightenment beyond the masses who worship Jesus Christ as the son of God?