Christianity and Sexuality

[Keller]

A good friend of mine is the technical director for Christ Community Church in Grand Haven, MI. She forwarded me the link to last Sunday's sermon which I've just now found time to read. I'm sharing it with you guys because it's one of the most profound sermons I've ever read.

For me a sermon is good when I find myself agreeing throughout. I find a sermon excellent when I not only agree but learn something new. I find a sermon profound when not only do I learn from it, but I also find myself at odds with the pastor. This sermon is riveting in its exegetical composition and quite challenging in it's conclusion.

It's about a 15 minute read but well worth your time; I promise. (http://www.christ-community.net/Sermons/sermon10-02-05.htm)

Here is a teaser for those of you still on the fence about clicking over:
"In Sins of Scripture, Spong takes the view that Paul was a repressed gay man. He was prone to extremism and to legalism. Combining these two personality traits, Paul shows up much like a first century Pat Robertson. He had a need for clear and rigid boundaries. He held the belief that his mind and his body were in conflict. He seemed to live according to the pattern that if he kept the boundaries tight, stayed in his mind and immersed himself in Hebrew law, that he could avoid dealing with whatever he was feeling in his body. That’s not unusual. We’ve all met people who live that way. That was Paul’s journey, no doubt a painful one, and worthy of our compassion. But it surely wasn’t the Word of God. It was the word of Paul, a frail and in some ways repressed man.

In Spong’s view, Romans 1 is nothing other than a text of terror. It should be used to illustrate only the danger of living in fear and dogmatism. It offers no model for sexuality in our world."

[Ravenstorm]

This guy has obviously been corrupted by sin and should be burned at the stake like all heretics.

Raven

[Viridian]

That was great, thanks for sharing.

[xtc]

lol Some of these liberal preachers give me a laugh. Paul was many things but a repressed homosexual he wasn't.

[Latrinsorm]

Here's what I don't get: he seems to pretty clearly state that the Bible couldn't even POSSIBLY be talking about homosexuality at all, but he prefaces that by saying "The question for us to ponder is whether the Bible is a collection of homophobic materials dripping with fear, or whether it offers some sort of comprehensive ethic of sexuality. Personally, I suspect it is the former.". :?:

[Renian]

If we assume that Leviticus was speaking about homosexuality as we think of it, then not only was it immoral, but it was punishable by death. While Pat Robertson has recently called for the death of a left wing president, I haven’t yet heard him arguing for the execution of homosexual people. In fact Hebrew law also says that teenagers who are disrespectful to their parents should be executed. I’ve met some exasperated parents, and I’ve had a few bad days myself, but I have never met anyone who argues for the execution of rebellious teenagers. The point is that no one reads the Bible literally. People who say they do are selective in their literalism.
(Above quote from the website)

Well, no shit Sherlock. In any form of writing, the writer can be either literal or not in what they say, and they can flucuate (sp?). You have to look at the context of what you are reading before you can conclude. When it comes to laws though, do you really think they are going to not be literal about them? That could totally fuck up their justice system if they were not.

Also, society was different back in the times these laws were made. Just because you haven't met someone that wants homosexuals to be slain or disrespectful children doesn't mean there weren't people who wanted that and there weren't people that actually carried out these punishments. And they did, because the law came directly from God. Yes, this includes Leviticus 20:13.

Finally, Pat Robertson is a dumbass. Never, ever reference him.

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by Renian]

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by Renian]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Renian
Yes, this includes Leviticus 10:23.
:?:

[Renian]

Er...20:13. Sorry. Edited.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Renian
Also, society was different back in the times these laws were made. Just because you haven't met someone that wants homosexuals to be slain or disrespectful children doesn't mean there weren't people who wanted that and there weren't people that actually carried out these punishments. And they did, because the law came directly from God.Here's the problem with this criticism.
The point is that no one reads the Bible literally.The preacher doesn't state that no one EVER READ the Bible literally. He's suggesting that people nowadays who read the Bible literally do so when it suits them.

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by Latrinsorm]

[ElanthianSiren]

This sermon really does demonstrate that once public opinion shifts in a general sense, the old authority, afraid to lose more power, shifts to accomidate it. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I am saying they're a little late in coming in these new amazing revelations that people are people regardless of their sexuality.

-M

[Renian]

The preacher doesn't state that no one EVER READ the Bible literally. He's suggesting that people nowadays who read the Bible literally do so when it suits them.

Which is funny because he didn't read the Bible literally when making this argument; he twisted laws.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
The preacher doesn't state that no one EVER READ the Bible literally. He's suggesting that people nowadays who read the Bible literally do so when it suits them.


You can read the Bible literally and not execute homosexuals. Christians aren't bound by levitical law (I know we already had a huge debate about this in another thread), the law was fufilled by Christ. That is, he died in place of those who would have been executed/stoned/whipped/whatever. That's also not to say Christians are not supposed to obey the laws of the lands (give to Caesar what is Caesars), but that the old levitcal/old testament laws are fufilled.

[Keller]

Originally posted by xtc
lol Some of these liberal preachers give me a laugh. Paul was many things but a repressed homosexual he wasn't.

You've got impressive gay-dar if you can determine a 2000 year old corpse's sexuality. Impressive indeed.


Originally posted by Renian

The preacher doesn't state that no one EVER READ the Bible literally. He's suggesting that people nowadays who read the Bible literally do so when it suits them.

Which is funny because he didn't read the Bible literally when making this argument; he twisted laws.

Who twisted what laws? You're confusing. He is arguing that people who claim the bible is authoritative (Adam+Eve=Humanity; Talking burning bushes; Noah gathered two of every animal; etc) do so only when it suits their purpose.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Keller
do so only when it suits their purpose. So very true. This is why I have a hard time arguing opinions like this in depth anymore. The picking and choosing of this commandment/law/moral guideline/what have you, as opposed to another is seriously retarded.

[Back]

I agree overall with the author. Big surprise that. Dogmas of the past meant to keep certain people in power and everyone else in line.

But did anyone else wonder if the author himself was gay? Not that it matters, but thats the impression I got.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Backlash
I agree overall with the author. Big surprise that. Dogmas of the past meant to keep certain people in power and everyone else in line.

But did anyone else wonder if the author himself was gay? Not that it matters, but thats the impression I got.

He is definately not gay. He was raised by very progressive parents in Australia. He's got a wife and two kids.

He does drive a purple-top PT Cruiser though. :)

[HarmNone]

What an uplifting sermon! Thanks so much for sharing it. That was a most enjoyable read! :)

[luxinterna]

interesting discussion- if you read the sermon closely, the author doesnt argue that Paul was gay. That was Spong's view. He is more in line with Elliott who thinks Paul was writing about Nero's sexual perversion. Maybe Paul was just a repressed human being.

[Rainy Day]

From the site:

"Most of us who have grown up in traditional religious contexts have received our biblical morality more from Paul, than from Jesus."

This is probably one of the central reasons that prompted my feeling that mainstream Christianity wasn't compatible with my views. Christianity does heavily teach Paul over just about everything else.

All I have to go by on Spong is what the preacher quoted, but what I read seems to closely match my feelings. Even as a teenager who was very much into Christian spirituality and the concept of being born again, I felt that Paul was uptight and had passed on his own personal predjudices and narrow minded views into the religion. I never felt they were the true word of God but rather the very personal thoughts and beliefs of a flawed mortal. Yet mainstream Christianity doesn't draw that distinction at all.


Originally posted by Drew
You can read the Bible literally and not execute homosexuals. Christians aren't bound by levitical law (I know we already had a huge debate about this in another thread), the law was fufilled by Christ. That is, he died in place of those who would have been executed/stoned/whipped/whatever. That's also not to say Christians are not supposed to obey the laws of the lands (give to Caesar what is Caesars), but that the old levitcal/old testament laws are fufilled.

The problem is, fundamentalist Christians claim the above, but then turn right back around and use passages from Leviticus or other sections of the old testament to "prove" their statements on what is right and wrong. They try to have it both ways. Selective reading and selective enforcement.

RD

[Killer Kitten]

I always felt very sorry for Paul. He abandoned his home and his job to follow a traveling teacher, doubtless incurring the wrath of his parents and the ridicule of everybody else he ever knew.

He followed the guy for three years, then had to watch the hated Romans execute him. He saw and spoke to his leader after the whole resurrection thing, but Christ was distant and strange, and only showed himself to a small number of trusted followers.

So there he was, left pretty much high and dry, unable to return to what he had been, bereft of family, friendless except for 11 other guys (they named Matthias as an apostle after the whole Judas thing). Leader gone, movement floundering, menaced by those in authority... most people would have changed their name, moved someplace distant and picked up the threads of their life.

Instead Paul and his fellows threw themselves into ministry, going out among those who despised them and telling other people of their experiences. Did they get it wrong sometimes? I'm sure they did. Unlike Christ, Paul and the rest of the guys were only human.

You have to admire their courage and ability to stay the course, though. Particularly since the earthly reward for most of them was a premature, violent death at the hands of the authorities.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Killer Kitten
I always felt very sorry for Paul. He abandoned his home and his job to follow a traveling teacher, doubtless incurring the wrath of his parents and the ridicule of everybody else he ever knew.

He followed the guy for three years, then had to watch the hated Romans execute him. He saw and spoke to his leader after the whole resurrection thing, but Christ was distant and strange, and only showed himself to a small number of trusted followers.

So there he was, left pretty much high and dry, unable to return to what he had been, bereft of family, friendless except for 11 other guys (they named Matthias as an apostle after the whole Judas thing). Leader gone, movement floundering, menaced by those in authority... most people would have changed their name, moved someplace distant and picked up the threads of their life.

Instead Paul and his fellows threw themselves into ministry, going out among those who despised them and telling other people of their experiences. Did they get it wrong sometimes? I'm sure they did. Unlike Christ, Paul and the rest of the guys were only human.

You have to admire their courage and ability to stay the course, though. Particularly since the earthly reward for most of them was a premature, violent death at the hands of the authorities.

Unfortunately Paul only met Jesus once, on the road to Damascus. He was an apostle in the "I've seen the physical image of Jesus" sort of way; not in the "I followed Jesus as my Rabbi" sort of way.

[OreoElf]

:yeah that:

Seriously a positive message IMO. I enjoyed it a lot. Thanks Keller!

[Latrinsorm]

Paul wasn't an apostle (one of the 12, I've heard people claim he was the 15th). Paul was (before Damascus) a persecutor of Christians, and I'm pretty sure he was even involved in the martyrdom of St. Stephen.

[Edited on 10-8-2005 by Latrinsorm]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by xtc
lol Some of these liberal preachers give me a laugh. Paul was many things but a repressed homosexual he wasn't.

You've got impressive gay-dar if you can determine a 2000 year old corpse's sexuality. Impressive indeed.


Thanks I'll take that as a compliment.

I studied religion as an auditor at The University of Toronto. I had atheist, Christian & Jewish Profs. I didn’t take a degree in it and although I was only an auditor the courses were regular Bachelor level courses in religion. Not once did anyone put forth such an asinine proposal. Paul certainly was one of the central figures in Christianity that we looked at, however the idea of Paul being a repressed homosexual is laughable. It is so obvious your preacher has an agenda; if he is looking for repressed homosexuals my guess is his own closet would be a good place to start.


[Edited on 10-8-2005 by xtc]

[Keller]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by xtc
lol Some of these liberal preachers give me a laugh. Paul was many things but a repressed homosexual he wasn't.

You've got impressive gay-dar if you can determine a 2000 year old corpse's sexuality. Impressive indeed.


Thanks I'll take that as a compliment.

I studied religion as an auditor at The University of Toronto. I had atheist, Christian & Jewish Profs. I didn’t take a degree in it and although I was only an auditor the courses were regular Bachelor level courses in religion. Not once did anyone put forth such an asinine proposal. Paul certainly was one of the central figures in Christianity that we looked at, however the idea of Paul being a repressed homosexual is laughable. It is so obvious your preacher has an agenda; if he is looking for repressed homosexuals my guess is his own closet would be a good place to start.


[Edited on 10-8-2005 by xtc]

The "asinine" proposition was Dr. Sprong's; and I also think it is unlikely. My point was that you've an awefully strong conviction for having absolutely no support other than, "I've never heard anyone say it." My paster does have an agenda; but it has nothing to do with coming out of the closet. But maybe you could find some sort of personal info of his to post on these forums in order to prove you're "right."

Sometimes you need to take a step back and appriciate the proposition for what it is: a proposition. If viewing Paul as a repressed homosexual who created a homophobic institution serves to teach us all a lesson in the effects of societal pressure, then let's learn the lesson.

[Edited on 10-8-2005 by Keller]

[Drew2]

Originally posted by Keller
Unfortunately Paul only met Jesus once, on the road to Damascus.

Lmao I was reading too fast and thought you said Darnassus.

I was like PAUL WAS A NIGHT ELF?!

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc
lol Some of these liberal preachers give me a laugh. Paul was many things but a repressed homosexual he wasn't.

So you knew Paul?


Originally posted by Renian
And they did, because the law came directly from God. Yes, this includes Leviticus 20:13.

Finally, Pat Robertson is a dumbass. Never, ever reference him.


While it is generally agreed upon that Robertson is a gimp, do not assume that because your Sunday school teacher said that god gave us the law, that everyone accepts it as such.

It's called the law of Moses by Jews because we believe it was Moses who interpreted God's will and did the best he could with his feeble understanding ... and guess what, it was that way before Christ, it was that way during Christ's time, and it's still the same 2000 some odd years later according to the Gregorian calendar.

In fact, the only part of the "bible" that Jews accept as the words of god are the commandments, unless of course you're a Noahide.

It's an oral tradition based on faith and faith alone. If that faith is blind, which I'm assuming by your statement that it is, you ignore fact and common sense for whatever makes you sleep better at night.


Originally posted by Renian
Which is funny because he didn't read the Bible literally when making this argument; he twisted laws.

No, law twisting has been around since the founding of Christianity, and honestly before then as well.

After all, King James twisted the laws when he couldn't get a divorce or annulment.

This hard lined law twisting that we see steeped so heavily in today's homophobic crowd began with the Victorian type movements in the US 50-70 years ago.

To an Orthodox Jew, a Christian is nothing more than someone who uses "the law" when it suites them and is not something they live by. Christians have been breaking the Law of Moses for centuries now.


Originally posted by Drew
You can read the Bible literally and not execute homosexuals. Christians aren't bound by levitical law (I know we already had a huge debate about this in another thread), the law was fufilled by Christ. That is, he died in place of those who would have been executed/stoned/whipped/whatever. That's also not to say Christians are not supposed to obey the laws of the lands (give to Caesar what is Caesars), but that the old levitcal/old testament laws are fufilled.

We can get into that debate if you want, but it will leave me asking the same question that hasn't been answered the last 20 times I've asked and ultimately makes the bible crowd flee from the thread.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by xtc
lol Some of these liberal preachers give me a laugh. Paul was many things but a repressed homosexual he wasn't.

You've got impressive gay-dar if you can determine a 2000 year old corpse's sexuality. Impressive indeed.


Thanks I'll take that as a compliment.

I studied religion as an auditor at The University of Toronto. I had atheist, Christian & Jewish Profs. I didn’t take a degree in it and although I was only an auditor the courses were regular Bachelor level courses in religion. Not once did anyone put forth such an asinine proposal. Paul certainly was one of the central figures in Christianity that we looked at, however the idea of Paul being a repressed homosexual is laughable. It is so obvious your preacher has an agenda; if he is looking for repressed homosexuals my guess is his own closet would be a good place to start.


[Edited on 10-8-2005 by xtc]

The "asinine" proposition was Dr. Sprong's; and I also think it is unlikely. My point was that you've an awefully strong conviction for having absolutely no support other than, "I've never heard anyone say it." My paster does have an agenda; but it has nothing to do with coming out of the closet. But maybe you could find some sort of personal info of his to post on these forums in order to prove you're "right."

Sometimes you need to take a step back and appriciate the proposition for what it is: a proposition. If viewing Paul as a repressed homosexual who created a homophobic institution serves to teach us all a lesson in the effects of societal pressure, then let's learn the lesson.

[Edited on 10-8-2005 by Keller]

Your preacher has an obvious agenda. To deem Paul as a homosexual is laughable and totally without foundation. If one wants to discuss Paul and his role in Christianity, his influence on the early church, his split with Peter fine. You can argue that much of his letters were influenced by his belief that the world was going to end very soon, again fine. But putting Dr. before your name doesn't give one permission to create bullshit.

Paul is the one area those in the church haven't been able to get around when promoting their homsexual agenda within the church. So now they say Paul is gay. Again laughable and asinine.

The fact that no reputable scholar in 2000 years regardless of faith has said Paul is gay is evidence enough. When one puts a theory forth, it is incumbent upon that person to prove it not for the rest of society to disprove it.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by xtc
lol Some of these liberal preachers give me a laugh. Paul was many things but a repressed homosexual he wasn't.

So you knew Paul?



Better than Dr. Sprong. Again, a ridiculous proposal and a man with an obvious agenda. So funny it is ludicrous. Those in the church who want to ordain homosexual Priests and Ministers always come up against Paul. They can argue that Christians are free from Judaic law now that Christ has fulfilled the law (as they see it) but they can't get around Paul. So now they try and smear him with a pink brush, a cheap tactic without foundation, asinine and laughable.


I am sure that Dr. Sprong could argue every Orthodox Jew throughout history must be gay for his/her views on homosexuality and their strict lifestyle.

[Keller]

Originally posted by xtc
Your preacher has an obvious agenda. To deem Paul as a homosexual is laughable and totally without foundation. If one wants to discuss Paul and his role in Christianity, his influence on the early church, his split with Peter fine. You can argue that much of his letters were influenced by his belief that the world was going to end very soon, again fine. But putting Dr. before your name doesn't give one permission to create bullshit.

Dr. Spong put forth a hypothetical. He posited Paul as a homosexual, applied modern psychological theory, and let his behavior explain itself. He’s not saying definitively that Paul was a repressed homosexual. He is understanding Paul’s fundamentalist behavior as a result of repressed homosexuality. It’s an intentional proposition meant to help the reader understand the effects of sexual repression.

Further, John Spong has a masters and phd from Virginia. He taught at Harvard. He’s been in and around the theological community for 55 years. In short, he wasn’t claiming complete knowledge of Paul’s sexuality based on a couple of audited courses back in ’94. In fact, he wasn’t claiming complete knowledge of Paul’s sexuality, period.


Originally posted by xtc
Paul is the one area those in the church haven't been able to get around when promoting their homsexual agenda within the church. So now they say Paul is gay. Again laughable and asinine.

I’d call it a Christian agenda, actually. But that’s beside the point. Paul is one of those areas that scholars have “gotten around” when “promoting their homosexual agenda within the church.” You’ll find that Paul had no conception of consensual monogamous homosexual relationships if you accurately exegete the scripture. None. Those relationships just didn’t exist; there are only a handful of references to them in Roman literature. When Paul used the words arsenokoitai and malakoi, he was referencing the “man lying with man” which was common in child molestation, orgies, and extramarital soirées. Paul was not meaning to condemn the prevalent form of arsenokoitai in today’s society; he was, rhetorically, referring to the arsenokoitai which he could reasonably foresee in his culture.

Edited to clarify: This is important because Spong could have easily used this exegetical argument if he wished to argue for homosexual clergy. His book had nothing to do with promoting homosexual clergy. His intention was to show what close-minded bigots can do to a message of inclussivity, support, and, overall, community.


Originally posted by xtc
The fact that no reputable scholar in 2000 years regardless of faith has said Paul is gay is evidence enough. When one puts a theory forth, it is incumbent upon that person to prove it not for the rest of society to disprove it.

How can you take yourself seriously when you write, “When one puts a theory forth, it is incumbent . . .”

[Edited on 10-9-2005 by Keller]

[Drew]

Originally posted by Keller
Further, John Spong has a masters and phd from Virginia. He taught at Harvard. He’s been in and around the theological community for 55 years. In short, he wasn’t claiming complete knowledge of Paul’s sexuality based on a couple of audited courses back in ’94. In fact, he wasn’t claiming complete knowledge of Paul’s sexuality, period.



This seems to presuppose that being involved in the teaching community somehow brings greater insight (not knowledge) into a subject.




Originally posted by Keller
I’d call it a Christian agenda, actually.


Call it what you will, there has always been a scholarly class that has felt that they were superior to mainstream Christianity and were somehow granted greater incisiveness when interpreting the Bible. You can pull any phantoms you like from the text to support whatever the vogue trend of the day is but it doesn't alter the meaning of the actual text. The current fad in new-age biblical circles is to try and paint the Bible as supporting of homosexuality or biblical figures as homosexuals. This is merely imitating pop-culture; you can stroll to any bookstore and find a number of books "outing" almost every historical figure you care to read about. Eventually this homosexual fad will die out to carry some new torch that is the liberal social issue of the day and go the way of unitarians, pentecostals, Quakers, etc.




Originally posted by Keller
Those relationships just didn’t exist; there are only a handful of references to them in Roman literature.


Did these kind of relationships exist in the 17th century? What percentage of our literature that remains from that time actually references it? If we had lost as much literature from the 17th century as we did from Roman times, would we have a great many references to it?




Originally posted by Keller
How can you take yourself seriously when you write, “When one puts a theory forth, it is incumbent . . .”




How can you take yourself seriously when you use the word "exegete" which is a noun like it was some sort of verb. It's almost comical how far you were off with that. Wow, see how easy that is?

[Rainy Day]

Originally posted by Drew
Call it what you will, there has always been a scholarly class that has felt that they were superior to mainstream Christianity and were somehow granted greater incisiveness when interpreting the Bible. You can pull any phantoms you like from the text to support whatever the vogue trend of the day is but it doesn't alter the meaning of the actual text. The current fad in new-age biblical circles is to try and paint the Bible as supporting of homosexuality or biblical figures as homosexuals. This is merely imitating pop-culture; you can stroll to any bookstore and find a number of books "outing" almost every historical figure you care to read about. Eventually this homosexual fad will die out to carry some new torch that is the liberal social issue of the day and go the way of unitarians, pentecostals, Quakers, etc.

I'll agree that there is a tendency by some to allow pop culture or whatever else to heavily influence their interpretations to a rather ridiculous degree. Their interpretations should be critiqued and unveiled.

But there is an even stronger tendency for traditional Christians, especially among the fundamentalists, to totally disreguard the time period and context within which the Bible was written, both old and new testaments.

This is a huge mistake. By studying the history and cultures of the time in which passages were written it doesn't devalue the words or meaning, but it does place them in their proper context so that we can attempt to apply them meaningfully to modern times.

RD

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Drew
This seems to presuppose that being involved in the teaching community somehow brings greater insight (not knowledge) into a subject.

Actually no, his reference was only pointing out that the source actually put time (read years) into studying not only Paul, but modern psychology, sociology, and the social history of Paul's era. Where as those posting in protest of Paul's alleged sexual hang ups have only "nuh uh" as their counter to the argument.


Call it what you will, there has always been a scholarly class that has felt that they were superior to mainstream Christianity and were somehow granted greater incisiveness when interpreting the Bible. You can pull any phantoms you like from the text to support whatever the vogue trend of the day is but it doesn't alter the meaning of the actual text.

While completely true, it's only the Christians of the day that argue against interpretations they don't accept. After all, modern Christianity is nothing but altered meanings at this point in it's illustrious history.

But I am most interested in hearing your examples of this ever present scholarly class. In rebuttal however, who's word do you think is going to be accepted ... the theologist with multiple degrees under the belt who has spent the better portion of his/her life studying the texts, history, and social structures around those texts? Or do we trust that the bible belt minister with a 2 year degree from the Oral Roberts Institute?

Seriously, never trust the person who has every vested interest in the product they're selling, trust the person who has researched the product, similar products and has been doing so longer than the salesman.


The current fad in new-age biblical circles is to try and paint the Bible as supporting of homosexuality or biblical figures as homosexuals. This is merely imitating pop-culture; you can stroll to any bookstore and find a number of books "outing" almost every historical figure you care to read about. Eventually this homosexual fad will die out to carry some new torch that is the liberal social issue of the day and go the way of unitarians, pentecostals, Quakers, etc.

Your ignorance ceased to be entertaining months ago.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that biblical texts support homosexuality. In fact the assertions have been that you fucks that are stuck on 50's "Christian" conservatism need to learn that you've had it wrong and refuse to admit it. The bible at face value only condemns male homosexuality via Moses ... and you don't even know why.

Quakers and Pentecostals liberal? That must mean modern Christians are the ultra left that will bring down modern society and erode the family unit .... oh wait, you're on to something there.

Never fret however, Quakers and Pentecostals are still around today.


Did these kind of relationships exist in the 17th century? What percentage of our literature that remains from that time actually references it?

There are more records supporting the findings than there are historical records that give the bible a grain of support.


If we had lost as much literature from the 17th century as we did from Roman times, would we have a great many references to it?

Considering that unearthed city runes have walls covered from one end to the other in "vulgar graffiti", as Christians would consider it, I would say yes.


How can you take yourself seriously when you use the word "exegete" which is a noun like it was some sort of verb. It's almost comical how far you were off with that. Wow, see how easy that is?

How can we take you seriously when your argument is "nuh uh" and the best you can do to disprove the poster is "point" out a grammatical error?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
After all, King James twisted the laws when he couldn't get a divorce or annulment.I don't know if it's fair to say he twisted the laws, considering he was inventing a new (sort of) Church.
Originally posted by Drew
You can pull any phantoms you like from the text to support whatever the vogue trend of the day is but it doesn't alter the meaning of the actual text.I think this might be the most ironic statement ever.
Originally posted by Tsa`ah
but it will leave me asking the same question that hasn't been answered the last 20 times I've asked and ultimately makes the bible crowd flee from the thread.Yeah, why wouldn't anyone try to rebut the accusation that the early Church was composed of liars and/or idiots? :rolleyes:

[Keller]

Tsa'ah covered it pretty well.

Two notes about the word "exegete"
1) It is most commonly used as a noun. It is, however, accepted as a verb because it carries a unique set of procedures which can be understoof only though the transformation from noun to verb.
2) It is quite obvious my intended use of "exegete" was appropriate as it furthered your understand of what I was attempting to articulate. The purpose of langauge is to convey messages; even messages harping on irrelevant gramatical errors.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Keller

Dr. Spong put forth a hypothetical. He posited Paul as a homosexual, applied modern psychological theory, and let his behavior explain itself. He’s not saying definitively that Paul was a repressed homosexual. He is understanding Paul’s fundamentalist behavior as a result of repressed homosexuality. It’s an intentional proposition meant to help the reader understand the effects of sexual repression.

A pathetic attempt using psycho babble to slander Paul and put forth the gay agenda in the Church. As I posted before, using Dr. Sprong's logic, every Orthodox Jew's fundamental behaviour could be seen as a result of their repressed homosexuality. It is a new spin on an old tactic. If you question homosexuality in anyway than you must be gay.


Further, John Spong has a masters and phd from Virginia. He taught at Harvard. He’s been in and around the theological community for 55 years.

An Ivy league Prof atttacking Paul, there is a first...not. Teaching at Harvard doesn't disqualify him from having an obvious agenda.


I’d call it a Christian agenda, actually.

No it is a gay agenda. The vast majority of those in the Church object to such notions.


You’ll find that Paul had no conception of consensual monogamous homosexual relationships

Exactly, Paul isn't gay


if you accurately exegete the scripture. None. Those relationships just didn’t exist; there are only a handful of references to them in Roman literature. When Paul used the words arsenokoitai and malakoi, he was referencing the “man lying with man” which was common in child molestation, orgies, and extramarital soirées. Paul was not meaning to condemn the prevalent form of arsenokoitai in today’s society; he was, rhetorically, referring to the arsenokoitai which he could reasonably foresee in his culture.

So in other words Paul was making reference to promisicous male sexual relationships and that if he met Adam and Steve who have been living together for five years he would have been fine with it.......yeah right.......Your post here is hilarious.



How can you take yourself seriously when you write, “When one puts a theory forth, it is incumbent . . .”

Incumbent as in obligatory, imposed as a duty, not as in holder of an office or ecclesiastical benefice.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Actually no, his reference was only pointing out that the source actually put time (read years) into studying not only Paul, but modern psychology, sociology, and the social history of Paul's era. Where as those posting in protest of Paul's alleged sexual hang ups have only "nuh uh" as their counter to the argument.

When you put forth a theory it is obligatory to prove that theory not for the rest of us to disprove it.

Almost every Biblical scholar Christian, Jew or Atheist believes Paul was straight. Sprong is out is in left field without a glove. He is a joke in the church community. He is constantly pushes the gay agenda. He is a retired Episcopalian minister. This is the same church that wanted to confirm a openly gay Bishop. Sprong doesn't believe in what most Christians would consider to be central to Christian beliefs.



it's only the Christians of the day that argue against interpretations they don't accept. After all, modern Christianity is nothing but altered meanings at this point in it's illustrious history.

Tsa'ah's 100th cheap shot at Christianity. I don't consider myself a Christian yet I can see through cheap agendas. This isn't interpretation, it is conjecture without foundation.


But I am most interested in hearing your examples of this ever present scholarly class. In rebuttal however, who's word do you think is going to be accepted ... the theologist with multiple degrees under the belt who has spent the better portion of his/her life studying the texts, history, and social structures around those texts? Or do we trust that the bible belt minister with a 2 year degree from the Oral Roberts Institute?


I am going to go with the vast majority opinion of Biblical scholars on this one. Paul is straight. I choose to believe those who look at the Bible academically, neither Roberts nor closet homo Sprong.



Seriously, never trust the person who has every vested interest in the product they're selling, trust the person who has researched the product, similar products and has been doing so longer than the salesman.

Exactly I trust the majority of Religious scholars. Sprong is the man with a vested interest in the product he is selling.



No one, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that biblical texts support homosexuality. In fact the assertions have been that you fucks that are stuck on 50's "Christian" conservatism need to learn that you've had it wrong and refuse to admit it. The bible at face value only condemns male homosexuality via Moses ... and you don't even know why.

I think Christianity held the same view of homosexuality long before the 50's. One of the condemnations of homosexuality was that one man had to play the female part. Of course there are others.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by xtc
I choose to believe those who look at the Bible academically, neither Roberts nor closet homo Sprong.


When you put forth a theory it is obligatory to prove that theory not for the rest of us to disprove it.

So go ahead and prove that he is in fact a closeted homomsexual instead of just trying to insult him to defend your position. You certainly do find his hypothesis offensive to the extreme to harp on it so much.

Does it hit a little too close to home with you perhaps? Does it threaten you in some way that you find a need to sling insults? Or are you just an idiot?

...

Oh. Forgot who I was responding to. No need to answer that. Unless of course the answer is D) All of the above. Have a nice day.

Raven

[DeV]

To add to that, Jesus never spoke on the issue of homosexuality at all. He did, however, address the issue of marriage and its sanctity. I wish people would argue as vehemently about the abuse of this holy union as they do regarding same-sex love.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Keller
Two notes about the word "exegete"


I knew exactly what you meant, I was just pointing out how easy it was to pick on someone's mistakes and ignore their meaning.





Originally posted by Rainy Day
But there is an even stronger tendency for traditional Christians, especially among the fundamentalists, to totally disreguard the time period and context within which the Bible was written, both old and new testaments.


Every group has there uninformeds, just because Billy Bob believes in the bible but can't support his beliefs doesn't make him any different than Lance and Bruce who are for gay marriage only because banning it "is mean".

I look to my mom as a good example of this. She was an archeaologist before becoming a believer and while not active in the field anymore because of age spends an enormous amount of time reading up on biblical archeology, attending seminars relating to archeology, etc. When I hear 99.99% of people talking about the historical evidence of the Bible I know that they are grossly underinformed, but on the other hand, I try to take what I can from their views and help that expand my own.





Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Where as those posting in protest of Paul's alleged sexual hang ups have only "nuh uh" as their counter to the argument.


Theory: Paul was an alien from Xalaopotca. Please rebutt.




Originally posted by Tsa`ah
In rebuttal however, who's word do you think is going to be accepted ... the theologist with multiple degrees under the belt who has spent the better portion of his/her life studying the texts, history, and social structures around those texts? Or do we trust that the bible belt minister with a 2 year degree from the Oral Roberts Institute?


I know many many ministers with advanced degrees from theological schools and from various universities around America. They spend most likely more time in the Bible than this guy did. Irregardless you would disregard their interpratation's just as quickly as I'm likely to not offer any regard to someone with clearly quirky ideas solely based on where he went to school. Or are we all gonna start believing the Unibomber soon?




Originally posted by Tsa`ah
In fact the assertions have been that you fucks that are stuck on 50's "Christian" conservatism need to learn that you've had it wrong and refuse to admit it. The bible at face value only condemns male homosexuality via Moses ... and you don't even know why.


Please don't assume what I do and do not know and I will offer you the same courtesy.





Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Quakers and Pentecostals liberal? That must mean modern Christians are the ultra left that will bring down modern society and erode the family unit .... oh wait, you're on to something there.

Never fret however, Quakers and Pentecostals are still around today.

I never claimed that they were out to destroy the family units. Just that they took what was accepted mainstream Christianity and altered it or left the mainstream. I know they are still around, so are Unitarians. Do you hear a whole lot about them posted on message boards and other sources for what people are talking about?




Originally posted by Tsa`ah
There are more records supporting the findings than there are historical records that give the bible a grain of support.


I wholly disagree with you here. In anticipation of your response, if you really want to duke it out on this subject, start a new thread.





Originally posted by Tsa`ah
After all, King James twisted the laws when he couldn't get a divorce or annulment.


As Latrinsorm pointed out, your example was already not very good to begin with, but what if it was? The fact that one man twisted a law to suit his will proves what? There will always be men that attempt to pervert whatever authority they think people hold dear (The Bible, The US Constitution, etc) to suit their own needs. That's just the nature of the beast. The fact that men attempt to do so does not change actually change anything about the actual authority. If the KKK started using the words of Abe Lincoln as a justification to lynch black people would Abe Lincoln suddenly become a poor president? The whole argument is a red herring and you often bring up this type of argument in the threads I read that you participate in. I think you would do better to avoid them.




Originally posted by DeV
He did, however, address the issue of marriage and its sanctity. I wish people would argue as vehemently about the abuse of this holy union as they do regarding same-sex love.


If this was a thread about divorce or adultery you can be sure I would share my views on that then.





Originally posted by Tsa`ah
We can get into that debate if you want, but it will leave me asking the same question that hasn't been answered the last 20 times I've asked and ultimately makes the bible crowd flee from the thread.


I try to remain respectful of the people I argue with no matter how much I disagree with them. Perhaps you should consider if it's your actual thoughts on the matter or your attitude and demeanor that drive people to not want to argue with you.

[Edited on 10-10-2005 by Drew]

[Keller]

Originally posted by xtc
A pathetic attempt using psycho babble to slander Paul and put forth the gay agenda in the Church. As I posted before, using Dr. Sprong's logic, every Orthodox Jew's fundamental behaviour could be seen as a result of their repressed homosexuality. It is a new spin on an old tactic. If you question homosexuality in anyway than you must be gay.


Please reread my post. When you do, drop the automatic defense mode. Take a lesson from Drew and Latrin on how to respectfully disagree without sounding Pat Robertson himself.

[quote]Originally posted by xtc
An Ivy league Prof atttacking Paul, there is a first...not. Teaching at Harvard doesn't disqualify him from having an obvious agenda.

It does, however, give his opinion infinitely more credibility than yours. That was the point. I’m not saying he is right; I am saying your “nah unh!” response will not be cited in scholarly discourse anytime soon.


Originally posted by Keller
I’d call it a Christian agenda, actually.

[quote]Originally posted by xtc
No it is a gay agenda. The vast majority of those in the Church object to such notions.

It’s pretty obvious you’re not a Christian as you’re completely out of touch with contemporary theological position within the Christian church. Spend a few minutes googling around to different statements from the major American demoninations. Familiarize yourself with their opinions on homosexuality before you make ignorant statements such as this.


Originally posted by KellerYou’ll find that Paul had no conception of consensual monogamous homosexual relationships


Originally posted by xtc
Exactly, Paul isn't gay

Way to miss the point. Entirely. Way to ignore the merit of the argument. Completely.


Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Keller if you accurately exegete the scripture. None. Those relationships just didn’t exist; there are only a handful of references to them in Roman literature. When Paul used the words arsenokoitai and malakoi, he was referencing the “man lying with man” which was common in child molestation, orgies, and extramarital soirées. Paul was not meaning to condemn the prevalent form of arsenokoitai in today’s society; he was, rhetorically, referring to the arsenokoitai which he could reasonably foresee in his culture.

So in other words Paul was making reference to promisicous male sexual relationships and that if he met Adam and Steve who have been living together for five years he would have been fine with it.......yeah right.......Your post here is hilarious.

I don’t intend to get into a discourse on theology with you. It would be a foray in futility. Suffice to say that Jesus’ purpose was to help Jews realize that they followed rules to create community and not divide it. If you think Paul missed that point and would have opposed community building relationships like Adam and Steve’s, then that is a reflection on Paul’s theology as you understand it.
I don’t contend that you’re wrong about how Paul would have come down on Adam and Steve’s relationship. In fact, I think Paul would have hated cohabiting homosexuals. That is, again, a reflection on Paul. My purpose in putting forth the argument I did was to show that there has been a more cogent attack on Paul’s opposition to homosexuality that Spong could have made good use of if his purpose was merely to attack Paul. Fortunately, that was not his intent.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Drew

Originally posted by Keller
Two notes about the word "exegete"


I knew exactly what you meant, I was just pointing out how easy it was to pick on someone's mistakes and ignore their meaning.


There was no meaning to the section of text I pulled the word "incumbant" from. I was really just shocked how seriously he took himself.

It actually jumped out at me because a girl in my law, language, and ethics class used the phrase, "It is incumbant upon us as a society . . ." and you could see the class roll their eyes in unison at her self-importance.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I don't know if it's fair to say he twisted the laws, considering he was inventing a new (sort of) Church.

You can mince words all you like, what he did was break away in order to commission scholars to interpret the bible in a way that allowed him to do what he wanted.

I would call that twisting.


Yeah, why wouldn't anyone try to rebut the accusation that the early Church was composed of liars and/or idiots? :rolleyes:

Just the response I expected from someone who has never attempted to answer the question and thought it better to just not touch the thread again due to the circular nature of his arguments.

Of course you like to take what someone posts and take it in the most negative fashion, then repost out of context to justify the bruises to your ego.

Enquirer much?


Originally posted by xtc
When you put forth a theory it is obligatory to prove that theory not for the rest of us to disprove it.

Not at all. That statement defies basic scientific method. If you do not agree it falls upon you to disprove it as much as anyone it falls upon the originator to prove.

Proving someone's sexuality has never been attempted. That is where your logic takes a nose dive, the assumption that someone is trying to prove Paul was a close homosexual. The only suggested asserted was that with the social atmosphere, history, and Paul's reaction is that he fits the bill. It is merely a possibility.

The hard liners take offence to the mere "possibility" that one of the original brain children of Christianity could have been gay. It disturbs me more that people care so much about the public perception of a man dead, buried, and long returned to dust than they do about their faith.

Shake a pillar and it all falls it seems. So hung up on sexuality that every logical thought process is thrown out the window for "nuh uh ... because I said".


Almost every Biblical scholar Christian, Jew or Atheist believes Paul was straight.

That is an asinine statement as you don't know 1/100000000 of every Biblical scholar, let alone 1/100000000 of those claiming they are scholars but lack the time devotion or degree to validate the claim.


Sprong is out is in left field without a glove. He is a joke in the church community.

Who gives a fuck about the church community? Really? ANYONE who asserts something contradictory to the sheep in that community are out in left field.


He is constantly pushes the gay agenda. He is a retired Episcopalian minister. This is the same church that wanted to confirm a openly gay Bishop. Sprong doesn't believe in what most Christians would consider to be central to Christian beliefs.

Everything that has to do with the truth is ear marked as an "agenda" by those who don't want to hear it. At one time I believed you may know your head from your ass, but given enough time and enough posts it has become clear that you're really just a close minded sheep for slaughter. Then again, it gets you to sleep at night.


Tsa'ah's 100th cheap shot at Christianity. I don't consider myself a Christian yet I can see through cheap agendas. This isn't interpretation, it is conjecture without foundation.

It's not a cheap shot, it's fact that no one supporting the "Christian" agenda wishes to address. It's a circular argument that the bible crowd wishes not to revisit because they're tired of running the same circle.

"The bible says fags are wrong"

"Really? Where does it say that?"

"Leviticus"

"But you eat pork, work on the sabath, sleep in the same bed with your spouse after sex or when the woman of the relationship gets that monthly visit ... we could go on but you don't abide by a single law laid down by Moses but expect gays to stop being gay?"

"Well Jesus completed the law so we don't have to follow Leviticus."

"Really"

"Oh yes, even your bible proves that he's the Messiah"

"Really?"

"Oh yes, his mother was a virgin when she birthed him and he was resurrected from the dead"

"Really?"

"Don't you read Psalms? It's all in there."

"Psalms is considered moral fiction and has never been considered historical. Before, during, or after Christ."

"....."

"So how is he the Messiah again when just about everything used to justify the diefication of a mortal man comes from works of moral fiction?"

"....."

"Well?"

"......"

At this point it becomes apparent that a logical answer isn't available and the subject is ignored.


I am going to go with the vast majority opinion of Biblical scholars on this one. Paul is straight. I choose to believe those who look at the Bible academically, neither Roberts nor closet homo Sprong.

So what you're saying is "I got nothing"?

As pointed out, you lack examples of the "vast majority".


Exactly I trust the majority of Religious scholars. Sprong is the man with a vested interest in the product he is selling.

He has no vested interest, it's not a "gay agenda", it's his response to the "anti-gay agenda" that has festered for the better part of a century.

Think about it, what does Spong have to gain? Acceptance and that's it.

What does the Christian community at large have to lose? Face, and lots of it. You guys have been beating this homophobic horse to death and then some. When you don't have your faith to hide behind, you become bigoted homophobic pieces of shit. Guess what, we already know you are so drop the Jesus and back away slowly already.


I think Christianity held the same view of homosexuality long before the 50's. One of the condemnations of homosexuality was that one man had to play the female part. Of course there are others.

The rebuttal lacks substance. You would be completely wrong as stances against homosexuality prior to the 50's was purely secular in occurrence.


Originally posted by Drew
Theory: Paul was an alien from Xalaopotca. Please rebutt.

You can't be this Klaive like in logic can you?

First prove the existence of such a planet and we'll go from there, until then it's a retarded reply and lame ass attempt at side stepping someone's pointed remarks about your lacking intelligence.


I know many many ministers with advanced degrees from theological schools and from various universities around America. They spend most likely more time in the Bible than this guy did.

Who Spong? I highly doubt that. On this side of the argument the credentials are concrete, on your side we have the "phantoms" backing up your logic.

"They say"

"They? Who they?"

"Them"

"Who ARE they?"

".... nuh uh!'


Irregardless you would disregard their interpratation's just as quickly as I'm likely to not offer any regard to someone with clearly quirky ideas solely based on where he went to school. Or are we all gonna start believing the Unibomber soon?

See, this is exactly what everyone who encounters a blind faith idgit such as yourself is talking about.

YOU ARE NOT SAYING ANYTHING!

You are relying on "phantoms" with more credentials for justification of your stance.

It doesn't work that way!

Just stop right now, admit that you hate fags and they're everything wrong with the world and stop using theology as a shield.

You're nothing more than a bigoted piece of shit who doesn't want people believing he's a bigoted piece of shit.


Please don't assume what I do and do not know and I will offer you the same courtesy.

That's just it, you don't offer that courtesy. Gay is wrong because the bible tells me so! GAY AGENDA GAY AGENDA!

It's old and it's bullshit. You, and pretty much the rest of the homophobic crowd just won't accept that you've got it wrong. It can be laid out in easy to understand graphs and you would call it an agenda because it disputes what you were raised to believe.

It's rather convenient when you think about it. Nothing is going to change your mind, logic, study, scientific reasoning ... nothing short of God coming down out of the clouds and saying "Look dumb fuck, stop using me as a reason to hate. Stop using me as a reason to discriminate, and above all, stop using me as a reason for being so pathetic ... I'm sick of it".

Since we know that's not going to happen, you get to live out your little life with your bible over your head in complete self delusion that somehow your phobias to anyone different are justified.


I never claimed that they were out to destroy the family units. Just that they took what was accepted mainstream Christianity and altered it or left the mainstream. I know they are still around, so are Unitarians. Do you hear a whole lot about them posted on message boards and other sources for what people are talking about?

So because they're secular, because they chose to "swim against the stream" (doesn't that sound familiar), they're out there in the left?

As I pointed out, any thought that does not agree with the main stream Christian base, anything that challenges their delusional belief structure is "out there".


I wholly disagree with you here. In anticipation of your response, if you really want to duke it out on this subject, start a new thread.

Not happening spanky. You're disagreeing with historical finding. Things you can touch and see. They have physical form. You can disagree with me all you want, but you asked, I answered.

If you don't like the answer, you can open your bible and refuse to believe it ... it doesn't make the runes and "graffiti" go away.

[Drew]

Allow me to quote myself and then you:

Me:


Originally posted by Drew
I try to remain respectful of the people I argue with no matter how much I disagree with them. Perhaps you should consider if it's your actual thoughts on the matter or your attitude and demeanor that drive people to not want to argue with you.



You:



Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Your ignorance ceased to be entertaining months ago.



Originally posted by Tsa`ah
In fact the assertions have been that you fucks that are stuck on 50's "Christian" conservatism need to learn



Originally posted by Tsa`ah
At one time I believed you may know your head from your ass, but given enough time and enough posts it has become clear that you're really just a close minded sheep for slaughter. Then again, it gets you to sleep at night.



Originally posted by Tsa`ah
First prove the existence of such a planet and we'll go from there, until then it's a retarded reply and lame ass attempt at side stepping someone's pointed remarks about your lacking intelligence.



Originally posted by Tsa`ah
See, this is exactly what everyone who encounters a blind faith idgit such as yourself is talking about.



Originally posted by Tsa`ah
You're nothing more than a bigoted piece of shit who doesn't want people believing he's a bigoted piece of shit.









I think that no matter what position you take, it can be agreed that the issue evokes strong feelings on both sides and if you allow yourself you can delve into hate very easily. Whether you use the word "bigot" or "sinner" both sides can easily condemn the other side and feel totally justified. I think it's rather clear who has lost control of their emotions here. If you want to have a reasoned debate, we can. If you want to attack me, hey, it's the internet. I can't stop you. But until you can learn to control youself I'm going to sit it out.

[Tisket]

Y'all are attempting to take Latrinsorm's splinter quotation crown away. Jesus.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Drew

Originally posted by DeV
He did, however, address the issue of marriage and its sanctity. I wish people would argue as vehemently about the abuse of this holy union as they do regarding same-sex love.

If this was a thread about divorce or adultery you can be sure I would share my views on that then.
I can almost imagine them already.

In any case, my miniscule point is mainly intended to contrast sharply with those that continually use Leviticus to prove a point or a notion of what God intended regarding male homosexuality. And what of the 700 other directives? I should have made myself more clear initially. One cannot weigh one bible verse more importantly than another. It's ridiculous and creates an air of artificial importance.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tisket
Y'all are attempting to take Latrinsorm's splinter quotation crown away.No offense to either of them, but they aren't doing a very good job of it. Too much space.
Originally posted by DeV
I wish people would argue as vehemently about the abuse of this holy union as they do regarding same-sex love. I used to, but then Caiylania said she was going to fly to America and beat me up. :(
Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Just the response I expected from someone who has never attempted to answer the questionThere's no need to answer it. Your claim that the prophecies Jesus fulfilled weren't real prophecies is refuted both by the current practices of Judaism and the fact that Peter and Paul knew a hell of a lot more about the Judaism of Jesus' day than you do. For future reference, I also won't bother refuting the claims that Jesus was in fact a badger or Mary Magdelene was the first Green Lantern of earth.
and thought it better to just not touch the thread again due to the circular nature of his arguments.Oh boy, the circular argument attack again. You forgot to say... oh wait!
out of context Yup, 2 for 2. Nice. No need to back up either of those, of course. Unfounded claims with no basis in reality, jeez,
Enquirer much?