Forums
On-Topic Conversations: LGBT Rights and Religion
|
Must be Monday. New podcast! Just click on the fancy logo below.
|
Total posts: [12,111] 1 ... 203 204 205 206 207 209 210 211 212 213 ... 485
LGBT Rights and Religion:  Indecisive pumpkin
That's not what I said at all. Listen this time.
The old laws also say that eating shrimp and wearing mixed fiber clothing are "abominations". And you know why those aren't still taken seriously, either? Same reason: They're only mentioned once.
‽‽‽‽
^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.
 The Razruchityel
![[up]](http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon} What does the original text say?
You left out getting tattoos.
Unless various groups start proposing constitutional bans on those they need to shut up.
edited 26th Nov '12 1:01:25 PM by Kostya  It says that they are cultural taboos that mark the tribes of Israel and distinguish them from the other tribes.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
The Razruchityel
So it says taboo instead of abomination? That certainly puts a different spin on things.
 NCC - 1701
Shima, the problem with you and all the people that have been running that line is this...you still, to this day, cannot find a single copy of the book known as the Holy Bible that has "cultural taboo" in place of 'abomination' or 'great sin'.
There was never any question of what the words on the page were; not even during the times when homosexuality was accepted.
This calling into question the translation is directly the result of certain people trying to bolster their position.
And beyond that, Paul condemned it in the New Testament. Like I said, it seems pretty straightforward to me. When someone can show me a copy of the Bible with these allegedly new definitions we'll discuss this again.
edited 26th Nov '12 2:08:35 PM by TheStarshipMaxima They're just jealous of our swag - kay4today
When read in context, yes.
Really? I can find plenty of online translations. Maybe not major dead tree translations, but getting those fixed even on minor errors takes decades. People expect the bible to be written the way they remember it even if that way doesn't turn out to be right.
Never mind that most modern translations are based on bad translations of the past rather than the original documents.
As for Paul, he condemned changing yourself from what you know to be true. And he was a sexist, sexphobic, bigoted misogynist. He's probably the last person you should be looking towards to advice on that front. He even admits that he doesn't understand anything sexual.
That and he's about four people most of which, including the passage you're talking about, were editted in long after his death.
edited 26th Nov '12 1:11:14 PM by shimaspawn Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
NCC - 1701
Really? I can find plenty of online translations. Maybe not major dead tree translations, but getting those fixed even on minor errors takes decades. People expect the bible to be written the way they remember it even if that way doesn't turn out to be right.
Never mind that most modern translations are based on bad translations of the past rather than the original documents.
I respect that, for you, that amounts to evidence. To me, it's a serious reach.
They're just jealous of our swag - kay4today
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
Indecisive pumpkin
Paul was creating a general image of chaos with several things that changed themselves from their true selves. He brought up homosexuality because back in his time, it was commonly believed that homosexuality happens when someone has so much lust they become gay — Which we now know is ludicrous. He was making an uninformed judgement based on the extremely limited knowledge his people had of homosexuality.
edited 26th Nov '12 1:16:50 PM by Haldo ‽‽‽‽
^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.
 Fox Princess
This calling into question the translation is directly the result of the gay lobby trying to bolster their position.
The gay lobby...-rolls eyes-
I thought making generalizations was wrong, Max. You accuse us of doing it all the time, but then you turn around and talk about this "gay lobby" crap.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
NCC - 1701
I thought making generalizations was wrong, Max. You accuse us of doing it all the time, but then you turn around and talk about this "gay lobby" crap.
I'm sorry. My mistake. Honestly, I was rushing out a post and totally forgot about that one. Fixed.
They're just jealous of our swag - kay4today
5188 Hilarity Ensues, Mon, 26th Nov '12 2:49:24 PM from Standing between Sho'Nuff and total supremacy.
 A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about that.
Indecisive pumpkin
Well, I'm a gay Christian, so that's why this topic is relevant to me.
‽‽‽‽
^These are interrobangs. Love them. Learn them. Use them.
Fox Princess
Christians have a lot of influence where I live, so it's a topic that concerns me.
 Beautiful White Princess
A little late, but... demons?
What?
"I have self-diagnosed Aspergers, which means I can pretty much say whatever I want." - Sugar Motta
Fox Princess
Is it really that shocking what homophobes...some homophobes will say at this point? Homosexuals cause earthquakes, hurricanes and terrorist attacks. Homosexuals control the media and want to put religious people in prison. Hitler was the most flaming homo alive because why the hell not, we've accused them of everything else.
Beautiful White Princess
says Adams, who claims she was once possessed by sexual demons.
Wait, so she had filthy demon-induced sex with another woman?
Slut.
edited 27th Nov '12 7:49:26 AM by kay4today "I have self-diagnosed Aspergers, which means I can pretty much say whatever I want." - Sugar Motta
 Citizen
Is it just me, or does that sound like the setup for an Erotic Horror movie?
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
Beautiful White Princess
About a million times, really.
"I have self-diagnosed Aspergers, which means I can pretty much say whatever I want." - Sugar Motta
NCC - 1701
Honestly, I don't think arguing over whether or not the Bible really supports homosexuality due to some mistranslations/misunderstood parables is very productive, unless you happen to be a theologian or something.
It concerns me because as Shima points out, there are good and loyal people who think they're doing the right thing in questioning things that have been more or less self-evident for a millenia.
As Christians, really..as people of conscience, it's important to resist the temptation to seem progressive and liberal and call things what they are.
With that said, I've come to agree that our Book shouldn't be the basis by which everyone is forced to live. They should live by choice, or not at all.
They're just jealous of our swag - kay4today
 Honestly, I don't think arguing over whether or not the Bible really supports homosexuality due to some mistranslations/misunderstood parables is very productive, unless you happen to be a theologian or something.
The real question should be this: why should a book that requires so much selective reading and outright dismissal of certain passages due to Values Dissonance still be treated as a moral guide in the 21st century? I just don't think that even entertaining the concept of biblical morality is a good idea, especially if the only real point is so we can say, "HA! Even your book agrees with us". At least, that's how it appears to me. If people are just really concerned about the veracity of Biblical translations for it's own sake and aren't trying to strengthen an argument, um, more power to you I suppose. It just seems rather unlikely to me that that's all that's going on here.
Because, H.E., if one happens to be a Christian, the Bible's take on various subjects is inherently relevant. Also, rigorous hermeneutics/textual analysis involves a tad more than simple "selective reading." And theology, at its core, is simply the application of intellect to religious issues—in that sense, no religious person ought to be a non-theologian!
(Not to mention that non-religious folks often ask questions of us whose answers require theological reasoning—would a dumb stare be preferable?)
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
That you actually think most christians actually read the bible in any theological study sense is cute if naive.
But at least my personal experience says that at least where I live, most christians cant be bothered with it past quoting highly known by everyone passages to beat down on you for not being as moral as them.
edited 27th Nov '12 10:37:46 AM by Midgetsnowman MMHHMRMMMMFMM!
NCC - 1701
@Midget - I agree that too few Christians actually bother to actively study the Book and know what is truly written.
But then, I too can potshot several gay rights supporters who quote dated, out-of-context, or just plain wrong factoids. Not to mention the number of people on this site who talk authoritatively about Christianity and yet the basis of their views are so wrong as to be laughable. I imagine it's the same with any group of people.
Like I said, people of all stripes and causes need to become better critical thinkers. People of all causes need to actually learn their position and their opponent's positions better.
edited 27th Nov '12 10:52:34 AM by TheStarshipMaxima They're just jealous of our swag - kay4today
TV Tropes by
TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org. Privacy Policy |