Randi Rhodes Forums

I think CBB has abandoned his brief effort at hit and run.

In case, he hasn't, or just for others' general edification: the biggest advocate of what CBB claims has now changed his mind.

Exodus International Prez Alan Chambers Declares There’s No “Cure” For Homosexuality
http://www.queerty.com/exodus-internati ... -20120709/

He now says "reparative therapy doesn't work".

(I mean, we knew that, but it's nice to see another person reconnect to the reality-based community.)

I just notice that nobody is telling wall street bankers they can change their lives or that they are in danger of burning in hell even though it says how hard it will be for a rich man to enter heaven. its as if their souls dont matter. never hear about how their financial perversions and impulses can be cured with Gods help or that it is an abomination to treat the least among us the way they do.

I find it strange that bible thumpers focus so much on homosexuality and ignore the specific instructions that their Jesus gave on how to get to heaven.

What I find as passing strange is the fact that these self-professed Christians are themselves incapable of the ONLY Law they are supposed to observe, "Love One Another."

Homophobia is not Love
Greed is not Love
Hate is not Love
Passing Judgement on one another is not Love
Bigotry is not Love
Letting children go hungry is not Love
Letting people go without medical care is not Love
Stealing pensions from old people is not Love
Allowing people to go homeless is not Love

But the people that find every positive social change our government could assist with as "Unconstitutional" have the nerve to call themselves Christians.

Personally, I think your mythical Jesus would slap the crap out of you.

Crickette

This is why I keep ending up in the company of druids

I know, I know, I know, I shouldn't bother. If you're still reading, here are my credentials: I am on the ordination track in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and start classes at Princeton in September. I have done a lot of research on this subject. I also happen to be gay.

Here's a shocker: the Bible wasn't originally written in English. The word "homosexual" didn't exist until the 1800s, so any Bible translation you use that uses that word simply reflects the personal choice of the translator.

To wit, the translation team that came up with the King James Version in 1611 translated that same verse this way:



So is it okay to be a butch gay?

The word in Greek is μαλακοι (malakoi). It actually means "soft" and connotes effeminacy. Why your translator chose to make that particular leap is anyone's guess. So does this mean that the uber-butch bear will inherit (not "enter" BTW) the kingdom of God, but not the vagina-loving metrosexual?

There are better verses with which to make your case, but even with those, it's a weak, weak case. True, it's one that's had legs for quite a while in the western Church, but so did the incredibly weak argument from the Curse of Ham for chattel slavery of Africans.

I'm also curious about your ellipsis. Why do you cut poor Paul off in midsentence? Why do you remove the context that he's talking about church members filing lawsuits against each other? Here's the whole quote:



Context is a bitch, ain't it? The whole point of his argument is "don't sue somebody, no matter how wrong they were. Take comfort in the fact that they probably will get disinherited by God in the end anyway."

*Yes, this was a controversial choice of the NRSV translation committee, a translation that I think otherwise is one of the best available. As Jack Rogerspoints out, the word "sodomite" appears nowhere in the original Hebrew of the OT (not even for a resident of the city itself) or the Greek of the NT. It was coined for use in other verses by the 1611 KJV committee and has attached itself, ticklike, to the English language.




If you come to that conclusion, you haven't been reading your Bible.



No less an authority than Jesus himself says the sin of Sodom was breaking the code of hospitality (crucial to survival in a desert culture):



But hey, what does he know?

This one's easy.

Show me where the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" appears anywhere in the Bible.

I thought so.

It's too bad that one couldn't follow it's own counsel and be bold enough to engage in discussion. Just another cowardly bombthrower.

Congratulations. In service to your anti-religious bias you have just made an argument against teaching literature in schools.

I like to think we've evolved beyond the "ethics" of the bible. We don't think slavery is a good thing for instance.

I agree. On the other hand, we still think murder is wrong, as is stealing. And cheating people in personal transactions. And taking advantage of people with disabilities.

So they're not completely outmoded.

Shrug. People say they don't follow the Bible because it's 3000 years old, then they live their life by Buddhist ethics that are 2500 years old.

Can't see much of the logic in that.

Convergent ethics.

Just because something is in the Bible is no reason to follow it or NOT to follow it. But when creating an ethos for the present, I'd say modern ethics should be discrete, to follow what is right because it is *right, not because it did or did not also show up in an ancient tome.

No one set of ancient writings, whether they be Roman, Greek, Assyrian, Indus Valley, Cathay, Israelite, Persian, Ur or any of any other have a monopoly on Truth. Sure we may get ideas from ancient writings, but in each case, they should be mitigated or emphasized by whether or not they make sense in the current times, not just because they are ancient or even current.

* Now how to define RIGHT.

Unfortunately, there is no empirical way to decide what actions are right or wrong, in the same way of testing whether statements are true or false. The perennial is-ought distinction.

Thus, ethics is a branch of philosophy, not of science.

Religion for many people solves the problem of thinking about what's right or wrong for themselves, simply by looking at a book of scripture that lists everything that's wrong.

I prefer to think about it.

The first question you have to decide is do you want to live in a society or not? If you want to live in a society, chances are you end up arriving at some form of the Golden Rule. If you decide for yourself that it is OK to steal or murder, your neighbors will also reach the same conclusion, and there's a good chance you could end up being murdered - or stolen from. But if we all agree (and enforce the rule) that murder and theft are wrong, then we all end up being happier - and safer.

That's where Kant begins to derive the categorical imperative ...

That's the beginning of just about every worldwide ethical system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

It's in the Bible - and in a lot of ancient texts as well.

But, in any case, I've never heard any good arguments (other than "it's in the Bible!") for why homosexuality is "morally wrong". No one ever has a rational answer for that question. How does consensual sexual behavior between two adults harm anybody? Therefore, I can't see why it would be unethical, so I simply ignore people who say it is.