Being Tolerant Oppresses Christians

[skins]

there certainly are people who are born without proper organs for sexual use, albeit that probably is fairly uncommon.  granted, there are also those who do not seem to have a desire or need for a marital relationship, but the passage you referred to does not have anything to do with homosexuality which seemed to be the point of your argument. 

 

the whole reason those in that passage remain celibate was for "the kingdom of heaven's sake" not to fool around with other dudes.

 

1414515[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I disagree with yer interpretation completely. I find it highly implausible that Jesus was talking about Ken dolls when he referenced people born without the desire or inclination to enter into a traditional man-woman relationship. I didnt say it was necessarily about homosexuality, but that is one lgical conclusion. But that's the fun of this--you spin it to support yer ideology, and I'll do the same. But for the record, that passage cannot logically be interpreted like you claim, as a warning against homosexuality. That is plain silly. The disciples were asking whether they should NOT take wives and Jesus said no, others may not take wives for a variety of reasons like they are castrates, celibates ("for the kingdom off heaven's sake"), or "born eunuchs" (I cant believe you think he meant people born with Ken doll genitalia ) but that doesnt mean everyone shouldnt take wives. He was specifically saying that while there is nothing wrong with these other people, you dont have to do as they do, you can marry.

 

The passage again:

 

19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

 

Think about it.

[skins]

uh, if your logical interpretation about eunuchs is correct, why would "thousands and thousands" of early Christians have castrated themselves instead of just not entering into a traditional man-woman union?

1414532[/snapback]

 

Because they were reading it pretty dang literally, which is what the orthodox Church later said was a mistake.

[wiegie]

Exactly... forget illegal immigration... what about Gay Immigration?  Do we really want those people sneaking in under the border?  They're gonna take all of our interior decorating jobs people!   

1414533[/snapback]

I would actually bet that if homosexual marriages are legalized that there will be a rise in gay immigrants into the US (as US men marry foreign men).

[billay]

could be referring to men who were born with undescended testicles

1414523[/snapback]

 

Aren't all men born with undescended testicles?

Edited April 11, 2006 by billay

[wiegie]

Aren't all men born with undescended testicles?  :shrug"

1414550[/snapback]

uh, no

 

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000973.htm

[billay]

uh, no

 

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000973.htm

1414554[/snapback]

thanks wieg

 

[junebugz]

I disagree with yer interpretation completely. I find it highly implausible that Jesus was talking about Ken dolls when he referenced people born without the desire or inclination to enter into a traditional man-woman relationship. I didnt say it was necessarily about homosexuality, but that is one lgical conclusion. But that's the fun of this--you spin it to support yer ideology, and I'll do the same. But for the record, that passage cannot logically be interpreted like you claim, as a warning against homosexuality. That is plain silly. The disciples were asking whether they should NOT take wives and Jesus said no, others may not take wives for a variety of reasons like they are castrates, celibates ("for the kingdom off heaven's sake"), or "born eunuchs" (I cant believe you think he meant people born with Ken doll genitalia  ) but that doesnt mean everyone shouldnt take wives. He was specifically saying that while there is nothing wrong with these other people, you dont have to do as they do, you can marry.

 

The passage again:

 

19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

 

Think about it.

1414534[/snapback]

yer "spin" is exactly "spin" ... i was reading it word for word ... how can you change the meaning of the word eunuch each time it appears the word does not change meaning ... He is speaking of eunuchs and he gives a variety of ways a person could be a eunuch ... to say that homosexuality is a conclusion of this passage is ignorant because then you would have to say that they are becoming a homosexual for the kingdom of heaven's sake which is not possible since I Cor 6:9-10 says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God (I do not say this to bring up debate but simply to show your "spin" on the passage is only "spin" and not correct.)

 

i did not say the verse had a warning against homosexuality, i said it had nothing to do with homosexuality ... you can find plenty of verses in the Bible about homosexuality and they do not portray it in a good light in any of them

[Egret]

I know that getting into a religious debate on a football message board is about as productive as explaining how an engine works to Puddy. Religion as a whole, is more than the sum of its parts to its believers. Religion is more than dissecting passages from ancient text. Most major religions show that religion is about faith and becoming a better person. You can interepret passages from many different religious texts to conform to many different views, that's what makes religion a difficult topic. It's not something that is easily transcribed to paper or debated.

[junebugz]

I know that getting into a religious debate on a football message board is about as productive as explaining how an engine works to Puddy.  Religion as a whole, is more than the sum of its parts to its believers.  Religion is more than dissecting passages from ancient text.  Most major religions show that religion is about faith and becoming a better person.  You can interepret passages from many different religious texts to conform to many different views, that's what makes religion a difficult topic.  It's not something that is easily transcribed to paper or debated.

1414566[/snapback]

yup ... and if you are going to use a religious writing to support something you cannot take it out of context, you have to use the Bible to interpret the Bible ... the koran to interpret the koran ... etc ... etc

 

you cannot interpret it according to your feelings or modern day thought

[wiegie]

thanks wieg

 

1414562[/snapback]

I posted that link mostly for skins benefit

[skins]

I know that getting into a religious debate on a football message board is about as productive as explaining how an engine works to Puddy.  Religion as a whole, is more than the sum of its parts to its believers.  Religion is more than dissecting passages from ancient text.  Most major religions show that religion is about faith and becoming a better person.  You can interepret passages from many different religious texts to conform to many different views, that's what makes religion a difficult topic.  It's not something that is easily transcribed to paper or debated.

1414566[/snapback]

 

Actually, most religions are about acts, not faith. That is really where Christianity originally diverged from Judaism. Modern Christianity is more about Paul than Jesus, in my opinion.

[skins]

uh, if your logical interpretation about eunuchs is correct, why would "thousands and thousands" of early Christians have castrated themselves instead of just deciding not to enter into a traditional man-woman union?  The fact that they cut their balls off shows that they weren't interpreting what Jesus said in the way that you are saying it could be interpreted.  Do you have any contemporaneous evidence that anyone interpreted the use of the word eunuch in the way that you are suggesting it could be interpreted?

1414532[/snapback]

 

This is an interesting essay on the passage.

 

Excerpt: Among the apologetic writers, Athenagoras calls the unmarried state eunouchía, and the unmarried man eunuoûchos (Suppl. 33-34) - a use of language that is not otherwise infrequent (Polycrates to Victor about Melito of Sardes in Eusebius, Church History 5.24.5; Julius Cassian in Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 3.13.91; Clement himself in Stromateis 3.1.4; Pseudo-Cyprian in De singularitate clericorum 31, 37 and much more frequently). However, whether he is inspired by Matthew 19:12 cannot be determined. On the other hand, Justin cited our saying, in Apol. 1.15. He does not go into its content. But by his assigning it to a group of similarly directed sayings that all call for soofrosúne,1 he shows clearly that in his view those "who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" are those who live chastely.

 

The heretic Basilides had occupied himself with Matthew 19:12 a bit earlier still. For what Clement of Alexandria relates about the Basilidians in Stromateis 3.1.1 is probably derived from [basilides'] Exegetica.2 According to his interpretation, only the first class of eunuchs are predetermined toward their behavior by their constitutional make-up: they are those who by nature have an aversion to the female. Those mentioned second in the gospel - Basilides calls them eunoûchoi ex anágkees for short - are the showy ascetics who practice abstention for the sake of vainglory. Finally, those who emasculate themselves for the sake of the eternal kingdom avoid marriage in order not to be distracted from higher things by worries about making a living. - While Basilides refrains from all unhealthy hyperbole, and in fact uses words of blame against them, other heretics of the 2nd century have used Matthew 19:12 as a basis of their demand for absolute sexual abstention.

 

So, many contemporaneous uses of the greek form of the word for "eunuch" actually meant just an unmarried man or bachelor. And some at the time interpreted it and this passage as including those who were born averse to women. That could mean asexual, or that could mean homosexual.

 

Here is the passage and a good nterpretation. See the footnote.

 

This is an interesting commentary.

[Caveman_Nick]

A legal right, yes.  A moral right, no. 

 

There are a lot of Kate Middletons well within their legal right.

 

They're still Kate Middletons though.

 

1414481[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Lots of them. This we can agree on!!

[tonorator]

skins, your position seems to be that the laws we make as men and the legal rights we grant should go on without regard/accountability to any faith/religious beliefs. when you view marriage, you view a legal contract with government benefits that should be able to be extended to any two people who want to enter into it.

 

for me, and i think most christians (although i only speak for me), it symbolizes something much more, and i cannot support any legal acts that diminish what it represents. i cannot separate my spiritual beliefs from the decisions and judgements i make. they are actually the basis for those things.

 

in your opinion, from your research, the new testament is a random collection of letters, tacked on to the OT, put in place by a government for political reasons. in my opinion, they tell the story of the son of the living God who died on a cross as payment for all of our sins.

 

i respect your thoughts and opinions and the research you have done to support them. i honor your right as an american to speak your views and draw support for those legal matters you see as right and just. i don't agree, and i love the debate to try an drill down between two opposing views to hopefully some/any common ground on which we can agree. i'm not the bad guy and i'm not seeking to impose/condemn. i'm going on what my heart and soul tells me is right, which is all i can do.

 

and ...

 

what a glorious day it was when Paul and Jesus met on that road! wouldn't you agree?

[Pope Flick]

skins, your position seems to be that the laws we make as men and the legal rights we grant should go on without regard/accountability to any faith/religious beliefs.  when you view marriage, you view a legal contract with government benefits that should be able to be extended to any two people who want to enter into it.

1414827[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

No one is asking your church to sanction 'gay marriages' but rather extending the benefits given all other couples in civil proceedings.

 

This has much to do with the fact that gay lifetime partners don't have the same civil rights as heteros do: they cannot make medical decisions for each other in the event of incapciatation, enjoy the same tax beneifts others do, etc.

[Yukon Cornelius]

 

This has much to do with the fact that gay lifetime partners don't have the same civil rights as heteros do: they cannot make medical decisions for each other in the event of incapciatation, enjoy the same tax beneifts others do, etc.

 

1414835[/snapback]

 

 

 

but it says in the bible that medical decisions should be made buy the parents of 50 year old gay men

[Pope Flick]

but it says in the bible that medical decisions should be made buy the parents of 50 year old gay men

 

1414848[/snapback]

 

 

 

Really. What passage?

[Yukon Cornelius]

Really. What passage?

 

1414854[/snapback]

 

 

 

YUKON 5:13

[skins]

skins, your position seems to be that the laws we make as men and the legal rights we grant should go on without regard/accountability to any faith/religious beliefs.  when you view marriage, you view a legal contract with government benefits that should be able to be extended to any two people who want to enter into it.

 

for me, and i think most christians (although i only speak for me), it symbolizes something much more, and i cannot support any legal acts that diminish what it represents.  i cannot separate my spiritual beliefs from the decisions and judgements i make.  they are actually the basis for those things.

 

in your opinion, from your research, the new testament is a random collection of letters, tacked on to the OT, put in place by a government for political reasons.  in my opinion, they tell the story of the son of the living God who died on a cross as payment for all of our sins.

 

i respect your thoughts and opinions and the research you have done to support them.  i honor your right as an american to speak your views and draw support for those legal matters you see as right and just.  i don't agree, and i love the debate to try an drill down between two opposing views to hopefully some/any common ground on which we can agree.  i'm not the bad guy and i'm not seeking to impose/condemn.  i'm going on what my heart and soul tells me is right, which is all i can do.

 

and ...

 

what a glorious day it was when Paul and Jesus met on that road!  wouldn't you agree?

 

1414827[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Yes, I believe that the law and rights under it have almost nothing to do with religious belief.

 

Legally, marriage is just a contract. Obviously, it is much more than that, one would hope, between the two people choosing a lifetime together. But that has nothing to do with the law. I respect yer beliefs but think they should not be reflected in US law. You should certainly live yer life how you choose.

 

And I dont know how you draw those conclusions about what I think of the New Testament from what I posted here. I think the Bible is probably the greatest single expression of spiritual belief and moral values compiled in one source. There are others of course. If I were stranded on a desert island, it would be my one choice of book to bring.

 

I just dont like to see it used for political purposes. And let's face it, how gay marriage is treated under US law is a political issue and not a religious one. Noone is saying you cant have yer marriage and legal benefits, you are saying that other Americans cant have the same thing because you disapprove of their gender and sexual preference.

 

That is you favoring unequal treatment of other Americans under the law and you cant wriggle around it. Call it what you want, that is the truth.

Edited April 11, 2006 by skins

[tonorator]

That is you favoring unequal treatment of other Americans under the law and you cant wriggle around it. Call it what you want, that is the truth.

 

1414861[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

interesting phrasing. i do favor unequal treatment for a man/woman relationship vs. a man/man relationship. you are correct on that point. this is because i do not view a man/woman relationship the same as i view a man/man relationship.

 

i do favor all man/woman relationships getting equal treatment, because they are indeed, man/woman relationships. in that sense, i'm real big on equality.

 

you are equating the two kinds of relationships which is at the heart of the matter here. they are not the same. one can bring new life into the world, a new life that is the composite of the two individuals, to form a family. one is consistent with how we were designed. the other is a companionship partnered with an abnormal sexual preference. no way i believe our law should treat these two situations as equal.

[Azazello1313]

oh man, look what i missed

 

first of all, who the f*ck is this skins guy bringing so much negativity into our midst?

 

tonorator...i really feel like the anti-gay attitudes you're expressing here are wrong and truly anti-christian. hostility to gays, simply because they are attracted to the same sex and not the other, in the name of christ, sickens and depresses me.

 

you might think about reading this book to reconsider just how strong the "scriptural" argument against tolerating homosexuality really is.

[Azazello1313]

evangelical gay-hatin' christians have one of the highest divorce rates of any religious affiliation in the US. so for all of this talk of the sanctity of marriage and such, perhaps we should remember the old saying about the speck in your neighbor's eye and the log in your own.

[rbmcdonald]

I do not care if anyone reads this or not, I enjoyed the h*ll out of writing it.

i'm not aware of any direct quotes from him on the topic, but the bible clearly speaks out against it.

 

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman;it is an abomination.... Do not defile yourselves by any of these things”(Lev.18:22,24) and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them

have committed an abomination...”(Lev.20:13).

 

accepting Jesus as the son of God comes with accepting the above statements, and many others in the bible that show us how to live our lives. 

1414104[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Genesis 19 30-38 The story of Lott and his two daughters, after the distruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

30And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: 32Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 33And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 35And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 36Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. 37And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. 38And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

 

Since God blessed the product of not one but two incestuous relationships by making them founders of nations, I assume that followers of Christ would be supportive of marriages between Fathers and Daughters or Mothers and Sons?

 

Any discussion about if the bible should be taken literally or interpretive, is ridiculous.

 

The writings that comprise the New Testament were written down, over a period of some 50 years, this process did not even begin until some 20 years after the death of Jesus. Therefore, you have writings that were an interpretation of oral history anywhere from 20 to 70 years later. You have no printing press, so anything that is distributed from person to person is hand copied. There was no organized structure to insure accurate or faithful renditions, and at the time the writing would have been viewed more as family history, than religious or historical text. It was not until some 200 years later, that the texts were wide spread and recognized as some type of authoritative documents. The roman church did not start the fifty year process of determining exactly what was and was not part of the “New Testament”, until 300 years after the death of Jesus. By this time, they would have been working with documents that are who knows what generation of text 10th, 20th, 50th? The documents were not all originally written in the same language and how many language translations would they have gone through in that 300 year period?

 

Printed version of the Bible? 1445, some One Thousand Four Hundred years after the death of Jesus. First authorized English version of the bible? 1538, authorized by none other than King Henry the VIII. At least we can be certain that he would never play politics with religion!

 

So, if you tell me that you do not believe in “interpreting” the bible, then my response to you is that you are well over 1000 years, numerous languages and 1000s of people too late.

 

However, this whole thread started about if christians should be allowed to denounce gays in public schools, public universities and in the work place. If you say yes, then you have to agree that muslems should be allowed to do the same to christians, or baptists to do they same to catholics, or members of the church of scientology to denounce anyone that does not believe in giving money to a dead science fiction writer. Man what a great place school would be then. Are you going to send your kids to that place?

Edited April 11, 2006 by rbmcdonald

[tonorator]

hostility to gays, simply because they are attracted to the same sex and not the other, in the name of christ, sickens and depresses me.

 

1414985[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

hostility?

 

it is a differing view, that's all.

[tonorator]

evangelical gay-hatin' christians have one of the highest divorce rates of any religious affiliation in the US.  so for all of this talk of the sanctity of marriage and such, perhaps we should remember the old saying about the speck in your neighbor's eye and the log in your own.

 

1414988[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

doesn't mean you abandon what you believe is right. it just means you work harder to make it work and support it.