Now here's where an admission: I'm terrified of waking up and having one, or all three, of my kids 'come out' when they get older. It means I'm going to have to figure out why same-sex relationships bother me and reconcile that with the fact that I've got a child that's gay. I'd like to think I'll get past it, but knowing who I am, will more than likely take the stance: It's your life, live it the way you want, don't tell me about that part of it, I don't want to know.
Really? Because if one of my children is gay, I won't care in the least. I hope he/she doesn't build it up, because they're going to be disappointed.
Him/her:: "Hey dad...I'm gay."
Me: "And...?"
Actually, it will matter to me in one way -- I'll be sad for the crap they're going to encounter throughout their lives.
As for a letter to a homophobic parent, I think it should be pretty short: "GO F*~% YOURSELF." Life is too short to deal with people's irrational hatred.
It is good to know that at least orthodox fundamentalist jews can condemn homosexuality without anyone criticizing them for it.
*smirk* JK
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's weird to read this thread having posted in it. My parents are quite devout. They belong to the Church of England. To them, loving their children and others no matter how different they are is Jesus' primary lesson to humanity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's weird to read this thread having posted in it. My parents are quite devout. They belong to the Church of England. To them, loving their children and others no matter how different they are is Jesus' primary lesson to humanity.
Religion is a little different on this side of the pond.
You just had to ship us the puritans didn't you. We could have been lucky like the Australians and gotten the prisoners but NoooOooooo we got the stuffed shirts with hats that were buckled on too tight.*
*
Uh, Big Norse Wolf, Australia has had it's fair share of b!%%+@+ crazy evangelicals. That's not to say Australia isn't awesome or that I wouldn't go live there if it weren't for the one major issue I disagree with Australia on that I dare not mention in front of you and Shifty for fear of igniting a debate that I don't feel like having, it's just the fact of the matter.
@Apple - I assure you, that one 'issue' is perfectly ok, and all things are cozy and warm and nothing bad has happened. There are outlets to pursue that hobby safely and securely just with some limitations, so don't feel put that far off.
Crime here is really low :)
@Machaeus - Well paranoia is a mental illness, and to think there's this great big conspiracy being run where the masses are being brainwashed you have to admit sounds a little bit crackers.
When the Gov't opens it's first Church of Governmentology then I reckon I'd need to reassess, however until then I will just have to lump the conspiracy theorists in the tin-foil-hat aisle.
As it is in this Country, the Religious right-wing pushed through to remove Ethics classes from schools and return to religious education only - or rather you have a choice between your child attending Scripture, or sitting in a School Hall for two hours doing nothing. Whilst the kids are in the hall doing nothing, they are not allowed to undertake study or complete homework (actually anything productive) as this would 'disadvantage those children receiving religious guidance'.
Fortunately, due to public outcry, the religious right-wing (conservative) State Govt had to go back on that removal.
The public outcry was heavily backed up by the fact that the people running the Ethics classes was none other than... a Christian organisation.
Go figure.
First, the Bible judges truth. It is not we, Christians or otherwise, who judge the Bible.Oh, really? If that's true, then why did humans have so much debate over which scriptures should be included in the Bible and which shouldn't? That sounds a lot like judging what the Bible should be to me.
Well, if you want to discuss what makes the Bible accurate or authoritative or related matters, I welcome the question. But that's not what this thread is about specifically.
The short answer is that there was precious little debate over which scriptures were canon and which were not. The three main councils that affirmed the Bible as we know it today all used those same scriptures for a considerable amount of time before the issue was basically sealed up at Nicea in 343 (?). If you have heard someone say that there was widespread disagreement over which scriptures were canon and which were fake or not inspired or whatnot, you should ignore that source. They are speaking without knowing the facts. There is disagreement over whether noncanonical documents can be inspired (I believe they can), or whether the apocryphal books are relevant (I believe they are, but are not canonical), but the idea that Christians determine what the Bible says instead of the other way around is wrong. On an individual basis someone might go looking for the Bible to say something they want it to say, but which books should be in the Bible and their actual content is not really contested.
So, Shifty, I could legally buy me an old bolt action Lee-Enfield? That's the sort of thing I want. I'm not looking to get fully automatic weapons or anything, and I'm not looking to buy for self defense. I just want to own some old, obsolete rifles and revolvers, and maybe even some muzzle loaders, out of historical fascination with the devices.
You'll receive my visa application within a fortnight :D
First, the Bible judges truth. It is not we, Christians or otherwise, who judge the Bible.Oh, really? If that's true, then why did humans have so much debate over which scriptures should be included in the Bible and which shouldn't? That sounds a lot like judging what the Bible should be to me.Well, if you want to discuss what makes the Bible accurate or authoritative or related matters, I welcome the question. But that's not what this thread is about specifically.
The short answer is that there was precious little debate over which scriptures were canon and which were not. The three main councils that affirmed the Bible as we know it today all used those same scriptures for a considerable amount of time before the issue was basically sealed up at Nicea in 343 (?). If you have heard someone say that there was widespread disagreement over which scriptures were canon and which were fake or not inspired or whatnot, you should ignore that source. They are speaking without knowing the facts. There is disagreement over whether noncanonical documents can be inspired (I believe they can), or whether the apocryphal books are relevant (I believe they are, but are not canonical), but the idea that Christians determine what the Bible says instead of the other way around is wrong. On an individual basis someone might go looking for the Bible to say something they want it to say, but which books should be in the Bible and their actual content is not really contested.
There may have been a consensus by the 4th century, but that consensus took time to reach.
You'll receive my visa application within a fortnight :D
You would have to apply for a Licence to purchase and own firearms, and be a member of a local shooting club (or be in rural areas), and would be required to keep it in an authorised gun safe.
Semi-auto rifles (and auto) are pretty much off the table though.
Pistols tend to be a bit more troublesome, but I'm not across the fine details of that, however I am fairly sure those collecting historical firearms are given a bit more flexibility (yes, historical collectors are recognised by law).
My great uncle still has a bunch of his SMLE's from WW2 after fighting the Japanese. He was kind enough to send me a couple of the bayonets for them (more like short swords) - however he sold off the captured Katanas, which made me a bit sad.
You'll receive my visa application within a fortnight :DYou would have to apply for a Licence to purchase and own firearms, and be a member of a local shooting club (or be in rural areas), and would be required to keep it in an authorised gun safe.
Semi-auto rifles (and auto) are pretty much off the table though.
Pistols tend to be a bit more troublesome, but I'm not across the fine details of that, however I am fairly sure those collecting historical firearms are given a bit more flexibility (yes, historical collectors are recognised by law).
My great uncle still has a bunch of his SMLE's from WW2 after fighting the Japanese. He was kind enough to send me a couple of the bayonets for them (more like short swords) - however he sold off the captured Katanas, which made me a bit sad.
I don't have a problem licensing them or keeping them in a safe. My one question is whether, as a collector of historical firearms, I could fire them at a range.
As for the encounter, you'd never believe me, but I'll tell you anyways.
I wasn't there, I didn't see it. If you say thats what happened then who am I to say it didn't?.
Lots of 'odd stuff' happens, not all of it can be explained, I have no issue with the odd and the unusual.
Its only when someone tells me how I should be running my life, or worse, mandates how I have to live because of their belief that I will argue the toss.
If that happened to you, and that gives you comfort etc then fill your boots, and I am glad you found that bit of peace.
I don't have a problem licensing them or keeping them in a safe. My one question is whether, as a collector of historical firearms, I could fire them at a range.
Sure.
Or on rural private property with the landowners permission (ie on a farm).
Technically, everyone does. So, I'd assume yes. Remember, Wrath is a sin (God knows how many times I've succumbed to it since I was 5). Lust is a sin (and what is sex, but acting on love and lust)? Pride is a sin (and oh my GOD are our politicians prideful, and just about everyone else).
Is my point made yet?
Up until the alienists named us as "homosexual" the term of choice was "sodomite."
The weird thing about that is, sodomy is a sin, and anyone can be tempted by a sin, but "types" can and should be rounded up and put somewhere...
As always, I'm speaking with tongue-in-cheek; the simple truth is, i'm straight, and if anyone comes into my house and tries to sin against me, I'll charge him with rape, not homosexuality.
That said, I just wish the whole wasn't an issue. You like dudes? Have fun :)
That said, I just wish the whole wasn't an issue. You like dudes? Have fun :)
Yeah thats kinda how I feel - 'Have fun guys!'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
sigh. here we go. but it's important, so I'll stay.
Does it ever strike you the absurdity of comparing cheeseburgers in 2011 to behavior explicitly judged by the Old and New Testaments? You and I have gone round on this concept before. The Bible, like any document, exists in context. It says what it said when it was written, and the principles therein are timeless. So the fact it doesn't have the word 'cheeseburger' in it mean you probably ought not stretch your argument so thin as to eisogetically use whatever example seems handy to get the Bible to say something you'd like it to. Your suggestion a few months ago that Paul implies that some are born gay and should not try to be straight is completely without evidence or foundation, and I'd hope you'd let go of the temptation to add your meaning to the Bible, much less slander Christians who are trying to just stick by the Word without making things up. I hope we don't ahve a repeat of that.
1.) The story of Sodom is commonly claimed to be against homosexuality. But, as Ezekiel shows, the story of Sodom wasn't condemning homosexuality. It was condemning failure to care for the poor.
This and other attempts to revise Scripture into some kind of 'Jesus was a socialist' doctrine are uniformly in error. Sodom was destroyed for being a cesspool of perversion, arrogance, cruelty and vice. Nothing wasn't going on in Sodom. No one should make the claim that Sodom was singly destroyed for homosexuality, but then no one should make the argument that wasn't a big part of the formula. In the above post where I nuked this argument, I noted that the catalyst - the last straw while Abraham was praying for mercy on Sodom - was that the men of the city demanded Lot allow them to rape his male visitors. While angels aren't really male or female as we get it, they were described as 'men of God' and the sodomites certainly thought of them as men. Now, you could say the attempt to rape female angels would be just as guilty. Sure. We aren't talking about what we think the Bible meant to imply in order to serve our theological needs. We're only talking about what it says.
What? Is this really the quality of argument you wish to maintain in the discussion?
This is the most unworthy of your arguments, LT. There is no evidence that people are born gay. There is absolutely no evidence that Paul would ever have conceived that some are born gay and it's a sin for them to be attracted to a woman. You are absolutely making something up here, and then repeating it as if it were never challenged. It stings me that you maintain this kind of reasoning. Such an untenable positions smacks of "I believe it because I want to, and will twist anything to defend it'. If you just want to choose to believe there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, you've got lots of company here and elsewhere. Just stop perverting the Bible to do it. Say to yourself "I'm not to concerned about what the Bible says about it", and not "I'll just rewrite it to say what I want it to".
This is a straw man. This verse very clearly says sexual sin of all kinds is judged by God. It is therefore about homosexuality as much as any other, because the Bible clearly bans homosexuality. In fact, the Bible says men can't marry, and forbids sex outside of marriage. That would seem a pretty airtight case.
There are a whole lot of scriptures that don't reference being gay. That doesn't mitigate the significance or clarity of verses that do. You could also say that John 11:35 (my favorite verse) doesn't mention homosexuality. So? Other verses do, in both testaments.
And I'm not sure the authors of the Biblical texts ever consulted Philo to determine what a Sodomite is. Rather, they probably used the word in the same sense as everyone around them.
Finally, the often-used term transliterated as 'Sodomite' is malakos, which most literally refers to the receiving end of the exchange, but means any homosexual. Context and usage, specifically in light of the perverse practices in Corinth at the time of the early church, does mean some translations use the term 'male prostitutes', but the term refers broadly to all homosexuality. If you're going to go representing Scripture and telling other people what it says, while slandering other believers as hateful just because they don't share your employment of eisogesis, please just do a few word studies, devote yourself to the character of the scriptures, and approach the Word with a little humility. It is God's tool to communicate to us, not our tool to reinvent God.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A.P.P.L.E.:
It took considerably less time to reach that consensus that you seem to think. The Old Testament was already a done deal, with the churches relying on the Latin Vulgate, which was the exact same as the Hebrew texts from before it. The New Testament came together quickly and agreeably for the most part. The reason it took a while to establish a canon is because early church fathers didn't feel a need to establish a canon at all until the church got to be a certain size and practitioners in remote churches started to exercise control of the gospel at the expense of said gospel. Then, leaders at regional churches discussed the issue. If there was large disagreement in which books were canon and which documents were authentic, it would seem the larger three among those ecumenical councils would have had even a slight disparity. But they didn't.
And once more, this does nothing to challenge that the Bible judges other parts of life as true. It is clear the Bible makes that claim, and the principles of the Bible have rang plenty true for me and throughout history. Certainly abandoning those principles in order to rewrite God's message for our own purposes ends in disaster.
And to prevent that is my only motivation. I'm certainly not on Paizo to denounce this or that behavior. It's only to oppose folk who use Scripture to imply principles the Bible clearly does not. When I was an atheist, I abused Scripture for all manner of things without taking the time to study it. Probably my guilt in those days is what gives me a passion for debating folk who do the same thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I attempted to clean up this thread, but realized it had gotten beyond that point. Name-calling is not a good way to make your point, and neither is stepping on somebody else's lifestyle.
Do not use profanity or vulgar speech;
Do not make bigoted, hateful, or racially insensitive statements;
Do not defame, abuse, stalk, harass, or threaten others;
Do not advocate illegal activities or discuss them with intent to commit them;
Do not post any content that infringes and/or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right of any third party.
Locking thread.