Texan Bigotry

[Lorizael]

None of what you said here is actually in the constitution.

This is funny, because you're the one who claimed freedom of association is explicitly mentioned in the constitution when it is not. But I've gone over my cardiologist's recommended daily limit of discussion with you, so I'm just going to leave it at that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But I do believe the ELCA is better at reading Paul than the Catholic Church has been.

[Felch]

You're free to believe in unicorns and leprechauns if you want. Just don't go around claiming that Paul said things he never said.

[DinoDoc]

Romans 1:18-31

For the record, the people involved in the orgy were former Christians, and were heterosexual. Romans 1 condemns them because they went against their nature -- being straight and all -- and engaged in homosexual behavior. By the same reasoning, lesbians and gays who went against their fundamental nature -- being fabulous -- and engaged in straight behavior would also be sinning.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If Paul was only condemning homosexual acts between grown men and young boys, why wouldn't he have said so? Instead he talks of men committing shameful acts with other men. It wouldn't have made a big difference in word count for him to say, "While sexual acts between consenting adults are fine, fucking little kids is wrong."

Lets see what Paul says right after that in Romans:

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.

Since plenty of gay people are not like this at all (in fact plenty of less evil and greedy than heterosexuals), does that mean Paul was just completely wrong?

I also think it's strange that Paul would have injected so much subtext into a letter he was writing to people he'd never met in person.

Seriously? So when you write that we should do something about Syria - you write in a history of the conflict?

[MikeH]

Who gives a **** what the bible says? We're past that, let's do what's morally right instead.

[DinoDoc]

Who gives a **** what the bible says? We're past that, let's do what's morally right instead.

That's the discussion going on at the moment.

[Felch]

Lets see what Paul says right after that in Romans:

You mean, "32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." Or did you conveniently forget that bit?

Since plenty of gay people are not like this at all (in fact plenty of less evil and greedy than heterosexuals), does that mean Paul was just completely wrong?

It certainly could. Paul was a human being after all.

Seriously? So when you write that we should do something about Syria - you write in a history of the conflict?

WTF? You're literally inventing something Paul never said. This isn't about supplying context, this is about deliberate fabrication. Paul was talking about men with other men. He never mentions men with boys. I'm calling you out for making up some **** that isn't in the Bible. You're defending it on some flimsy bull**** about how he wasn't going to include a history of pederasty in his letter to the Romans?

[Imran Siddiqui]

For the record, the people involved in the orgy were former Christians, and were heterosexual. Romans 1 condemns them because they went against their nature -- being straight and all -- and engaged in homosexual behavior. By the same reasoning, lesbians and gays who went against their fundamental nature -- being fabulous -- and engaged in homosexual behavior would also be sinning.

Do you mean "heterosexual" in the last sentence?

[Imran Siddiqui]

This isn't about supplying context

Yes it is. But that would blow up the 'all gays deserve death' worldview and how tragic would that be. Of course the God who speaks of love and mercy would torture folks who had eros love for their same gender .

[DinoDoc]

Typo on my part.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, for those more interested in Ruden's book, here is an article by Rod Dreher (no liberal at all - I think he'd like being called a Paleoconservative actually, though he self-identifies Crunchy Con). Also, FWIW, Dreher is Eastern Orthodox and Ruden is Quaker:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/02/the-iconoclastic-sarah-ruden.html

It starts like this:

The most exciting book of historical analysis I’ve read in ages — indeed the most exciting book period — is the Classical scholar and translator Sarah Ruden’s “Paul Among the People” (Pantheon) which attempts to defend St. Paul against his modernist critics (e.g. those who consider him an impossible troglodyte for his views on women and homosexuals) by explaining the Greco-Roman social and cultural context in which he composed his letters.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Typo on my part.

No worries... wanted to clear it up before Ben seized on your typo to back his POV .

[Felch]

Yes it is. But that would blow up the 'all gays deserve death' worldview and how tragic would that be. Of course the God who speaks of love and mercy would torture folks who had eros love for their same gender .

I'm not here to talk about God's love and mercy. I'm just setting the record straight. Paul's letter to the Romans did not distinguish between homosexual acts between adults and pederasty. You claimed that it did, and you were wrong. End of discussion.

[Ben Kenobi]

For the record, the people involved in the orgy were former Christians, and were heterosexual. Romans 1 condemns them because they went against their nature -- being straight and all -- and engaged in homosexual behavior. By the same reasoning, lesbians and gays who went against their fundamental nature -- being fabulous -- and engaged in straight behavior would also be sinning.

This appears nowhere in Romans 1. Paul is talking about Gentiles and the 'sins of the Gentiles', among many of which includes sodomy.

Then we go back to what Christ says in Matthew 19. "He made them male and female". Why? Because that's what sex is for. In marriage, with one man and one woman. Everything outside of that is sinful.