It isn't their behaviors that are at issue. It's the re-defining of marriage as between any two people --regardless of sex. It's an absurdity we never thought possible when I was growing up.
Homosexual behaviors have always been with us --just like adultery, pedophilia, pre-marital sex and pregnancy, sex-slavery, incest, rape, bigamy, polygamy, the desire to transgender, transvestitism, prostitution, porn --and a very few "shacked up" without marriage. There really used to be a lot of shame on losing virginity and pre-marital pregnancy and living together "without benefit of clergy," which is how they described "shacking up." Most rare of all in American society, I trust, was bestiality. All of these are forbidden in the Bible and many have been frowned upon and discouraged in every HUMANE civilization and culture since the dawn of time. Wherever these behaviors were prevalent, the culture has not been admired by history today.
None of these other deviations from the preferred ideal of hetero-marriage have sponsored pride parades in America or asked for legal sanction through the institution called "marriage."
Why should hetero marriage be favored? Simple. It's the institution that brings children into the world with a father and mother who are married to each other, stay together to be the grandparents together, provide male and female role modeling for their sons and daughters. Hetero marriage provides a stable, emotional and economic support system in which to bear, raise, nurture, protect, supervise and educate the next generation. Thus, we will have a future --future military and workers and family members to support the older generations --future married parents to bring on the future generations.
Homosexual relationships are comparatively the end of the road --they don't make children and just don't need the perks of the hetero married who volunteer to take on the burdens of bearing and rearing kids. If they have kids, they didn't make them as a gay couple. There is a father in the case of lesbian parents who needs to pay child support. When two men adopt a child, they both work and afford a nanny. And that mother figure typically changes through the years. The child truly has no mother.
We are crazy to tamper with the definition of marriage to include people of the same sex.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
54 comments:
You forgot beastiality.
BAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!
... That was a bleating sheep, in case you were wondering ...
... Not that I have personal experience with bleating sheep... I have spent meany a childhood evening with a "See and Say".
Me wonders if thou dost protest too much! BAA HA!
But I didn't forget it. It's in the article, too.
The gays will be stopped. Through eugenics and selective birth measures they can be eradicated.
johnny- why not just collect them all and hang them like the Iranians do. You fundamentalists are so close in thoughts that you ought to join together with these radical Islamists to make a Super Bigoted and Righteous Church of God.
Idiot.
I believe Johnny was joking, Mudrake --suggesting that since gays think they are genetically gay, we can see it as a defect to prevent and simply abort the defective --as pro-aborts recommend for other children found to have defective genes in the womb. No more Downs Syndrome babies, pro-aborts say; no more gays either.
But homosexual orientation is not genetically caused.
I didn't realize you were a scientist Barb. Actually, I didn't realize hard-core bible thumpers like yourself tolerated Science as it often contradicts your bible (Which, FYI, was written by a bunch of humans). Also, just so you know, the Greeks and the Romans were both alright with homosexuality and we very much look up to those societies in this day and age. Pederasty was a Greek invention in which older men would instruct and teach younger males the ways of life, and in return the young men would grant the older male 'sexual favors' if they so wished. Also, just to let you know about this myth you perpetrate about the so-called 'sanctity of marriage': more then half the married couple i n the US are divorced within a few years, and a lot more then that don't stay together 'until death do we part'.
And what happened to Greece and Rome, Agraing 1? Collapse due to their debauchery. Historians said that for centuries about the fall of these great civilizations. Paul told them the truth in the Book of Romans, ch. 1: 18-32.
As for science, I read, and my husband is current on the scientific findings about the topic as an MD--there were announcements of gay gene/gay difference in the brain --by gay researchers --and their work has been debunked.
National newsmagazine, Newsweek, said not long ago, "no gay gene so far." They also decried the continued or escalating promiscuity and carelessness of young gays in the wake of the initial HIV epidemic.
Even if they found a gay genetic marker, it would be no more desireable than a gene for obesity or addiction tendencies, etc. --or any other undesireable trait.
Thanks for confirming my view of pederasty. Someone tried to tell me that it wasn't real homosexuality if underaged boys were desired. It surely isn't heterosex.
I have acknowledged that the rise of homosexuality is one result of the failure of heterosexuals to live morally and chaste --and failures to make their marriages work --failures to stay together and affirm their children in their God-given sexuallity --by the application of Christian principles, Christian role modeling and submitting to the Lordship of Christ--and making happy marriages and happy homes.
However, parents are sometimes blameless, in my view. It's our culture, the media, and the educators --who popularize gayness. Also it's man's sinful nature to indulge in temptation --for some to ponder the abnormal when they know they ought not.
However, today, that's the big problem --kids don't know the barriers to abnormal sexual behaviors which I listed in the topic here. Some of them feel free to do anything they can think of for sexual outlet. After so many years of being told that whatever is right to them, is right --as in our public school life skills courses that said, "No one can decide what is right for you except you." that surely opened the door to all possibilities and no need to heed ancient taboos or follow healthy traditions.
She's no scientist: he's just an old fashioned, ignorant bigot.
Thank you again, Mudly, for making an intelligent substantive contribution to our discussions --as usual.
I am old-fashioned and not bigoted and wouldn't recommend homosex to my worst enemy--for it is high risk for diseases and misery and childlessness and addiction --and promiscuity ....and so on and on .
But what about those that swing both ways? AC/DC's?
... Bottles and Cans just clap your hands...
Well, Steve, "a merry heart doeth good like a medicine."
But God has told us clearly not to swing both ways --or any other way than the way for which we are designed --the way that provides both family and future. Each multiplying after its own kind WITH its own kind--that is human males with females. Eve was made for adam --we cut short our satisfaction, families and sometimes our lives by choosing a different way --wallowing in the first thought of any kind of illicit sex.
Then why does God allow the genetic or epigenetic anomolies that creates homosexuals? Not only in mankind, but in lower animals who act purely on instinct? Researchers have not found a direct genetic smoking gun in DNA yet, but they have only began scratching the surface as far as Epigenetic factors in human behaviour and physical processes. I imagine they will find concrete epigenetic causality to homosexualness in the not too distant future.
BUT..... Suppose they do find an epigenetic switch in a gene that turns homosexualness on or off? Should they then develop a drug that could manipulate this epigenetic switch and turn it off or on, changing a persons sexual identity with a few pills a day?
Man oh man! When I take medical ethics at Mercy next year, I think I'm going to make that the topic of any papers I have to write.
... Or maybe not... That is a catholic school isn't it?
mud rake. You are quick to declare that Barb's arguments are moot because she does not hold a doctorate in any field of science. What is your doctorate in? What makes you an authority?
The hypothesis that homosexuality is so far unproven. Belief in the theory is either bad science or good faith, take your pick.
For those of us who hold to the theory of evolution, homosexuality would be a self destructive gene if it existed. It is a trait that very severely detracts from the continuance of the genetic material of the host organism. Thus it makes sense that if homosexuality were genetic it would have ceased to exist long ago.
Just think, if homosexuality is, as the majority in the genetic field hold, genetic, then all of your fundamentalists are stuck with a gross error in the 'word of God.'
That's what really frightens you, isn't it? You are scared to death that, once proven that homosexuality is genetic, your rock, your bible, all of your beliefs based on that book become invalid.
Which is precicely why you are in total denial of the science.
Don't try to fool us with your hypocritical nonsense and continual denial-- you are scared to death that science will once and for all drive a nail into your 'word of God' bible.
Here's some food for thought:
What if homosexuality is actually caused by Satan?
It's easy to blame God for everything but remember He allowed Satan to do whatever he wished with Job except to touch a hair on his head.
Since homosexuality is a sin why would God create it? Satan has great powers in this world also and even has access to God daily.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it for awhile.
You know, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. As I understand it, it means attributing to Satan things of God (Holy Spirit) and attributing to God (Holy Spirit) things of Satan.
So when you, Mudrake, good Catholic that you are, blame God for this abomination are you sure you are actually blaming the right Being? I don't know the answer so I won't attempt to post the blame.
Mudrake,
Since all the prophecy in the Old Testament has come true except Daniel's last week, I'll believe God's Inspired word before I believe anything you have to say.
You're a proven liar. I could have said it more politely, but you don't like polite.
Now, about the "ceremony" to be born again, the more than half right wing blogs moderating comments and the hundreds of commenters on your site? See what I mean about you being a liar?
You make statements as though they are facts and when challenged can't back them up.
What a nincompoop.
spinning....and spinning...and spinning.......
Mudrake, find me any recent articles on genetic cause for homosexuality. I've not heard of any --but conversation with gays will verify a lot that I say about how they get started into the life.
Latest articles in secular publications I've seen, say "no genetic cause found." If it were genetic, then every time a twin is gay, his twin should also be gay --and this is just not the case.
But if scientists did prove it had a genetic cause, it would still be a defect to fix or ameliorate --and I would speculate that God caused it because of their worship of creature over Creator--being tempted and mulling the idea over in one's head until thought becomes action. The Bible does say that God gives them up to their immorality --because they choose creature over Creator. --as tempted to do by Satan, the temptor.
As for any brain features unique to homosexuals (also not replicated after LaVey's claims), we do now know that addictive behaviors or substances change brain structure.
As for the psycho-social explanations for homosexuality, they make perfectly good sense and ARE born out by many examples. We know fatherlessness plays a role; we know a mother can femininze a son making him so close to her he thinks like a she and wants to be one; we know that much of what we do to cultivate boyness or girlness in children --IS done by parenting. We know that seduction and molestation of young people can affect orientation and self-image.
I saw a Law and Order story recently where a man was questioning his own sexual identity because he had an erotic response to homosexual molestation/experience --and Olivia said, something to the effect that, " we all have the buttons to push --it doesn't mean your gay to have erotic response to touch, etc."
And that's pretty much the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned --and explains bisexuality or married men who "live on the downlow." They come to crave abnormal experiences even when their primary attraction is for the opposite sex.
This is simply evil --no worse than other sins as far as needing to be repented of, turned away from, --needing God's forgiveness and help to overcome it.
But it is worse today than other sins in that we are having pride parades for it --and confusing future generations into thinking there is nothing wrong with smooching, etc. with your own sex on the way to adulthood --swinging both ways--"sex-perimentation"--heedless of the high risks inherent in sexual sin of all kinds.
There are no STD's with hetero, monogamous marriage. I suspect that if a homosexual couple were ever virginal until they got with each other and then remained faithful--as in the "marriage" ideal, the men, in particular, would still get diseased from anal sex, introducing fecal matter into the blood stream.
I just don't want to see children thinking it's a worthy goal to grow up and marry and have sexual activity with their best friends of the same sex. Given no teaching to the contrary, given the push to think homosexuality is normal and desirable as through sex ed in our schools --and through tv entertainment --some children will be thusly misled to that faulty conclusion. And they will short-circuit their potential for happiness and fulfillment as spouses, parents, and grandparents.
Meanwhile they will want to adopt and compete with infertile couples who also want to raise children--and the adoption authorities won't have any power or sense to prefer hetero couples over same-sex ones--as they should --for the children's sake.
Every child wants a mom and a dad.
These are their first family bonds and they crave and need both.
Your anti-gay heroine
[e]That's what really frightens you, isn't it? You are scared to death that, once proven that homosexuality is genetic, your rock, your bible, all of your beliefs based on that book become invalid.[/e]
real faith involves taking risks. So yes, there is an epistemic risk here that science would conflict with scripture. The fact is, holding anything to be sacred involves the risk that it could be demonstrated otherwise. Anything worth anything is worth some degree of risk. Risk is a reason for fear, but we aren't afraid, we are confident in what we believe to be true.
The science has already spoken except for the most wishful. Even several of my secular psychology books say the same thing. homosexuality is not genetically determined. Sure there is reason to see a genetic influence but genetic determination is not there. But neither would such a fact prove that homosexuality is ethical conduct.
[e]mud rake. You are quick to declare that Barb's arguments are moot because she does not hold a doctorate in any field of science. What is your doctorate in? What makes you an authority?[/e]
Christianapologist,
this is not the first time it's been pointed out to mudrake that he isn't getting this concept of reasoned discussion and hopefully it won't be the last.
He used to describe himself in his blog as one "filled with wisdom and despair". He's a proverbs 26:12 kind of guy.
Steve,
[e]Then why does God allow the genetic or epigenetic anomolies that creates homosexuals? Not only in mankind, but in lower animals who act purely on instinct?[/e]
one might ask why God allows genetic predispositions towards violence, alcoholism and homosexuality, and any other vice we can find a genetic predisposition towards. The thinhg is, the world we live in is not the world God intended. The world we live in is rebellious, broken and at war. There's alot wrong with it that God doesn't exactly allow, but he doesn't put an end to it because his plan of redemption is not complete. God is working these things out in his own time in consistency with his purposes.
As for animals, they are amoral creatures (amoral, morally neutral, not immoral). They eat there own young but it's not some sinful travesty. At most they reflect of our sinful and broken world.
Deep stuff, Rob. I'll use that in the future --Just because animals may exhibit gay behavior --or hump a leg --or eat their feces or their kids --doesn't mean we should!
If God and the Bible are so great, as you claim, then tell me why, In Exodus, God told the Jews to commit genocide? I'm sure, as an avid fan of the Bible you remember reading about God placing cities under the ban (ie. on the list for every man, woman and child to be slaughtered). What sort of lesson is that? I'm sure whatever you come up will amuse me greatly...
Barb,
Reading the comment above this one proves even Satan knows the Word.
I get a charge out of atheists trying to use God's Word against Him.
Except for the fact it would mean you are going to hell, agraing1, I would enjoy the spectacle of you and Mudrake and all others like you bowing your knee and confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord.
So instead of answering the question (because you know there isn't really any way to do it without endorsing Genocide) you tell me I'm going to hell. Quite comical. If there really is a benevolent all-powerful being out there, and not the spiteful warmongering God written about in the Bible, then I believe it will be the self-righteous, intolerant and arrogant such as yourself who experience hell.
God told the Israelites to wipe those people out because they already lived in hell. Archaeologists for example have found children sealed in the walls of the houses of those sorts of people as sacrifices.
This was not a time when grace and the holy spirit were freely available. For these cultures, redemption was not viable.
As for the children, it was the parents responsibility to keep them safe. They are the ones who failed when they let their cultures turn into such cess pits that they deserved to be wiped off the face of the earth.
This is a reasonable inference, because besides the archaeological evidence I mentioned, there were other peoples in the region whom God did not command the israelites to wipe out.
Archaeologists and Historians also believe that the Hebrews were actually descendants of the Canaanites, despite what the Bible claims. There is also no proof of the Great Empires of Solomon or David. Or a lot of other things in the Old Testament. In the New Testament there is a lot of contradictory works, many of which were completely left out by the Catholic Church and their Councils which decided upon the current version of the Bible that everyone now reads.
Your just all over the place with no focus agraying.
There is historical evidence of both the reins of King David and Solomon. It's the scriptures which contain the histories and traditions of the Jews. I'm sorry, but what is historical evidence if it isn't the written records of ancient civilizations.
You could probably say the same thing about Plato, Socrates and Aristotle. But no one questions their existence. No doubt, these are people are not the exceptions. If there are historians who still deny that David or Solomon existed, they most certainly don't represent a consensus.
If memory serves me though, I seem to recall that there was a discovery perhaps more than a decade ago of a statue with an inscription of King David on it. It was not a statue of David but had a reference to him. I don't remember much else, but it's not like your presenting evidence either, only claims.
Historians are all over the place with scripture. There are some who's assumption is that Scripture is a reliable record of events (and they aren't necessarily orthodox Christians either) and there are others who seem to think the best policy is to suspect everything in scripture until there is outside evidence to corroborate. Either way, for these scholars, it is a matter of choosing what they will put there faith in. Either way IT IS FAITH.
Of course there were contradictory works left out by the church from scripture. They contradicted what the church fathers believed to be the most faithful record to what was handed down through the church by the disciples and the disciples of the disciples and so on. Of course contradictory works were left out because when you have contradictions, something must be wrong with one or both claims. When there are contradictions, choices have to be made. That is the way rationality and it shouldn't be any other way.
Just a note, the above comment was deleted by me because I'm posting from mom's computer and I neglected to sign in on my account.
Here is a link to the inscription of David. It's from a non-jewish culture. This is more evidence in addition to the biblical evidence.
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/the-house-of-david-inscription-faq.htm
Oh, one more thing. These archaeologists would be right to believe that the Jews were descendants of the Canaanites... NOT in spite of the biblical claims where many of the Israelites intermarried with the Canaanites, sometimes due to unfaithful intermarriage, and sometimes because some Canaanite became Jewish.
Okay, Blogger is not user friendly with links. if you do a yahoo search of David Inscription it's one of the first links.
Besides --what are Canaanites --except middle-eastern folks?
Where do we think Abraham was when God made a covenant with him? That was the start of the Jews. They are a family. We think Abraham was from the Iraq area --and the great grandson Joseph went to Egypt and all his brothers (patriarchs of the 12 tribes) joined him there to escape the effects of the famine --so that's how the Jews came to be in Egypt before they were liberated by God and headed for Canaan, the Promised Land. There are nomadic tribes -family groups ---all over.
So what's your point A-graying?
The Canaanites were the ones who the Jews slaughtered. Jericho. Read your Bible and you will understand my point. They slaughtered there own people. Also, there is little historical evidence that all the Jews came from bondage under the Egyptians. More then likely it was the Levites (only one of the tribes).
By the way, animals are no excuse for homosexuality. Animals eat their young sometimes, too --and hump your leg, and sniff people indiscriminately, anywere, anytime, anyplace --and I think some eat feces --or at least wallow in it--and some are very promiscuous and abandon their offspring or drive away the mate. So I don't think animals are good models for what we should legitimate in humans.
From where is YOUR evidence, Agraying? All the Jews were in Egypt at the time of Moses --because all the brothers had gone there --they are the fathers of all the Israelites. They may have had relatives in different parts of the middle-east --but the biblical family of God with the covenant is Abraham's family, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his 12 sons whose descendents become the 12 tribes. They all ended up in Egypt because they sold Joseph into slavery. The slavers took him to Egypt where he became powerful as an aide to the king of Egypt. They went to Egypt for help and Joseph knew who they were though they did not recognize him. Anyway, they stayed there to avoid famine --as I said before.
It may reasonably be said that the canaanites were their brethren, however, in that all of mankind is related through the pair who had the genes to pass on for all the races, the first couple.
Not everything the Jews did in the Old Testament by God's command is a license for the same actions today --except perhaps our concept of a "just war" --when we are fighting for survival against rapacious and cruel enemies, fighting to preserve liberty as we have it in the U.S., (which liberty was never a license to be wicked or immoral, by the way) --and western civ's wars were fought by the men in open battlefields, largely. protective of women and children. Not that all wars of the west were "just" -obviously each side thought they were right in some way. But some sides are motivated by hatred -not unlike the hatred that liberals show toward social conservatives today. I believe some social liberals would justify murder --at least censorship of the religious right, to stop them.
Jesus gave us what He called a new commandment to return good for evil and love the enemy. However, He also said somewhere to liberate the oppressed --and he showed forceful, demonstration against the money-changers in the temple --so He does believe in a rightful show of force, to right wrongs, obviously.
But we take from the New Testament our belief in equal rights for all --that no one is intrinsically better than another person, more worthy of God's love and salvation. But we are also all equal at the foot of the cross as sinners who need to repent and be saved. As Christians, we aren't called to kill people just because they are sinners. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay," saith the Lord."
4 comments in a row. Now that's grand OCD for ya!
By the way, agraing, this mother-son team is quite the act as you will discover as you get deeper and deeper into this family.
The Canaanites were the ones who the Jews slaughtered. Jericho. Read your Bible and you will understand my point. They slaughtered there own people.
You just made claims of myth and inaccuracy. If these unsupported suggestions you made were true, why even assume that the stories of the Jews wiping out various towns were true at all. Your arguments aren't consistent between each other.
Furthermore, you called these acts genocide. Well, if they are all the same people, it's not genocide. Which is it? Civil war or genocide?
Now I'll take your argument seriously here as if it weren't preceded by your other arguments (which I did take seriously apart from the fact that they undermine this one).
My point stands. They did vial things. They brought hell on earth and the nature of grace that was available was not sufficient to redeem people that were so far gone. Their influence was best eradicated at this time in history. In other words, God's judgment was for for good reason and moral.
Also, there is little historical evidence that all the Jews came from bondage under the Egyptians. More then likely it was the Levites (only one of the tribes).
so what?
We have scripture and for the faithful, this is epistemically sufficient. For the rational, this is enough. For the rational, lack of further evidence doesn't make a positive case against it. If you disagree, please explain your reasoning.
It's not simply that the bible says so. It's that the bible, a record of ancient middle eastern history among other things says so and there's no proof to the contrary. Again, you make claim after claim with no support. I'm sure you are repeating something you heard that was suggested by some scholar who interpreted historical and archaeological evidence in one way, but you know, for a lot of that, it's just one man's opinion which isn't universally held amongst scholars and is ultimately an educated guess.
Mudly said, By the way, agraing, this mother-son team is quite the act as you will discover as you get deeper and deeper into this family.
ROFLOL! Good grief! Are you "deeper and deeper" into our family, Mud-rake??"I had no idea!
Sounds like we're some snake-handlin', kool-aid drinkin', hillbilly mafia clan that marries their cousins, don't you think, Rob?
And there's more of us, where we come from, let me tell ya! Biff, Bob,Barney, Sparky and Jimmy Joe, Y'all git yo' shotguns --we's gonna get some Mudrake for supper, y'heah!???
Vile things, son, they did VILE things --not vial. I think pills come in a vial.
Good posts, by the way!
You say tomato, I say tomato.
Barb,
Liberals like mudrake don't want us to be involved in discussing if homosexuality is right or wrong. But, they have no problem taking our tax dollars to pay for the rising healthcare costs to treat HIV/AIDS, Syphillis, etc.
I'd rather be close minded and disease free...
Kooz,did you see that I dedicated a blog to wondering where you were? and why you closed your blog again. Your comment is right on.
O hello mudly --nice you could drop by from your muck-pile and drop a few mudballs here. I should delete you for lack of civility and irrelevance.
The Gay Life in the Bible
Yeah, nothing new in that article. Lots of wishful thinking from pro homosexual groups. It covers a bit of ground so what did you want to discus from it? if you don't want to discuss it, why post it? (remember, I know you, you just want to dictate truth from on high and not be questioned and challenged. That's how you act) like I said it's got nothing we haven't heard before so it doesn't benefit us any.
I'll tell you what's most important here from the list though and what is left out which is even more important.
The discussion on the law of Moses, on the passage in Leviticus is quite lacking. What I've heard that is a great argument for a pro-gay interpretation is that like the prohibition of sex with a woman in her period and like the prohibition against eating shrimp which like homosexuality is called an abomination, homosexuality should be grouped under the notion of purity laws and purity laws have more to do with the old Jewish covenant and are no longer relevant to Christians who are under a new covenant. As a purity law and distinctive of the old covenant, it does not represent a universal moral principal. The problem with this is that homosexuality is grouped with a whole list of other sins that receive capital punishment. Violations of purity laws do not lead to the death penalty but many actions that are a particular affront to the sanctity of the image of God do (not that this means that we should still use the death penalty which for most capital sins is an aspect of the old covenant which does not apply to the new. The exception to that is murder, the capital nature of which precedes Moses). And that's what leads us to the most important verse about the issue, one that doesn't even mention homosexuality but does indicate the importance of the issue. In Genesis, we read that God made man in his image and made man male and female. This aspect of gender, that it reflects the divine indicates why matters of sexuality are so important, why marriage is sacred and why homosexuality and adultery were made capital crimes. Since this is a matter that reaches to the very fundamentals of our creation, it can not be simply cast as a purity issue that is distinctive to the law of Moses.
It's interesting how at the end, the author makes the claim that the difference between the two approaches is that one group is literalistic while the other is not. And yet, neither set of interpretations utilizes such a distinction. It just goes to show how unthinking and simple minded the knee jerk claims of literalism and metaphor really are when someone doesn't like what scripture says. To say that for one set of scriptures, that this is about a cultural distinction for example actually doesn't tell us enough about why it doesn't apply to us or why it should have been stated at all, but it absolutely is not to say that the key to interpretation for that particular passage is metaphor and avoidance of literalism. It still treats the passage as literal.
Neither does the pro-gay set of interpretations simply use the claim that scripture has flaws and isn't the word of God. It tries to give a pro-gay interpretation. To suggest that there is a flaw would lead to the interpretation along the lines of "yep, that verse leads to an anti-gay interpretation thus it's simply wrong." we didn't see that, accept that some of the pro-gay interpretations were along the lines that such and such was culutural, but utilizing cultural limitations for understanding the scope of a scripture is not necessarilyt a claim of a flaw. It could be but it absolutely doesn't need to be that way.
It's quite odd that that conclusion had almost nothing to do with the rest of the article.
That was insightful--brilliantly stated, in my unbiased opinion.
dis thred needs some L. Casei Immunitas.
Between Mudrake's psychiatric diagnosis and your forays into gastro-enterology, I'd say we'd have the fixins for a juicy malpractice suit.
If God and the Bible are so great, as you claim, then tell me why, In Exodus, God told the Jews to commit genocide? I'm sure, as an avid fan of the Bible you remember reading about God placing cities under the ban (ie. on the list for every man, woman and child to be slaughtered). What sort of lesson is that? I'm sure whatever you come up will amuse me greatly...
I'm quite sure that, like every other instance of God dictated 'genocide', the residents of Jericho had plenty of warning and oportunity to repent. We simply dont have a record of it because they didn't repent. Besides, the destruction of 1 little city is not nearly the best example in the old testament of God sponsored genocide. God actually slaughtered the majority of the Isrealites throught the hands of the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Enslaving those few who survived. God did this because of their idolotry and disobedience. He gave them ample warnings but in the end they stubbornly refused to listen and they were slaughtered wholesale. The purpose of this is no doubt to teach future generations the value of obedience to their God and the consequences of rebellion. I hope your amused. Think about this next time you are contemplating rebellion against the creator of the universe. Every action has consequences and unless we repent God shall not withhold his justice.
good answer, C.A.
Post a Comment