Seems like he is a bit too "concerned" about this matter to me!

and that is all that matters.

opinions based on the probable gain for himself. The "God's opinion" to total crap, of course. He knows that. He is a crude version of his father, who himself was also a "huckster", trafficking in the Jesus business.

I entirely agree that he is a crude version of his father. At least his father could muster some veneer of legitimacy at times. Franklin hasn't a hint of it.

skills he showed in the structure of any given sermon. For example, the earlier parts of the sermon were loaded with messages pertaining to what "God" expected you to do, then the guilt trip part of the sermon, i.e. your shame for what a sinner you have been and then the FINALE, but don't despair, because God is going to forgive you right here, today if you will just get out of your seat and kneel at this alter. Come on down now. (As wonderful singers and organ music filled the air) Few could resist that opportunity.

The man knew how to do it. But, in spite of my admiration for his skills, I always doubted his sincerity. (I could have been wrong, of course.)

But, back to the son Franklin, he is close to being a joke.

Whether he was sincere or not, I don't know, but the fact that one might even consider that he was is a testament to his skills.

But, as you say, Franklin is close to being a joke. His political skills are very lame.

I miss her and hope she stays safe.

for daring to criticize cbayer. You surely took her comment about being basically homeless out of context

Here it is, for your convenience
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218165443#post39

Would disqualify anyone from the "basically homeless" category.

But that's my opinion...

Ummm..maybe because the Bible describes it in ways that only a willfully ignorant imbecile would claim not to grasp. Just because the Bible doesn't contain the specific word "homosexuality" doesn't for a minute mean that it's not addressing it.

precipitation or asphyxiation, either.

Hey presto! No flood! No crucifixion!

While the old testament condemns something which might (or might not) be described as homosexuality, it also contains other capital crimes like having sex with a menstruating woman, eating catfish, eating pork, not getting circumcised, working on the sabbath, planting more than one kind of seed in a field, trimming your beard, and lots of other things.

The huckster Paul told 1st century Christians they didn't have to follow the old covenant and gave them a new one. That's why Christians happily eat ham on Easter. For any restrictions on two guys doing the nasty vs a man and a woman doing the nasty, you have to refer to what the huckster Paul said on the subject and the way he describes it is anything but clear and open to a number of different interpretations.

Last edited Mon Jul 20, 2015, 06:14 AM - Edit history (1)

The Bible condemns homosexual sex. Period. As quoted. The fact that it condemns other things as well doesn't change that FACT. And Jesus told everyone that the OT law was staying in place. Do you need that quoted to you as well?

Please don't waste my time with the same "It's complicated" crap. Last resort of those who can't make a real argument.

Your best argument is "period" while claiming I'm not making a real argument.


It's also quite evident from what you write you have a very poor grasp of covenant theology.

The reason Jesus subscribed to the Jewish covenant is because he was a Rabbi and a practicing Jew. As I said, Paul was a huckster. He hijacked what was a minority sect of Judaism and transformed it into a completely different religion. Out with the old and in with the new. Why do you think Christians aren't concerned with getting circumcised when such is a unambiguous requirement in the OT? Or do you even get that far into thought and instead simply put a "period" at the end of your assertions pretending all discussions are over at that point? Seems a bit arrogant, damn arrogant even.

A quote which you continue to avoid addressing. As noted (and also unaddressed by you), the fact that the Bible condemns other things that most if not all Xstians ignore does not in any way change the FACT that the Bible condemns homosexual sex. Nor does anything that Paul did.

Try again.

There wasn't even a Hebrew word for homosexuality at the time both the OT and NT were written, which should be your first clue the bible didn't condemn something it didn't even care enough about to create a word for it. Your next clue should have been that Jesus didn't mention those laws because they no longer were applicable to Jews living under Roman rule, much less Christians or anyone else. Furthermore you obviously don't have a clue about what the OT says on the subject, because it most certainly didn't say or mean "homosexual sex", much less homosexuality in general which was mentioned in the OP.

So if you want to "try again" please do so. You obviously don't even have a rudimentary understanding of the subject. So please do keep trying to pluck bible quotes and pretending you know what they mean, because all it does is provide a proof of the same ignorance bigoted Christians demonstrate about their own religion.

In case you hadn't tumbled to it, the fact that a language doesn't have a single, specific word for something does not in any way mean that the people speaking that language have no grasp of the concept or that they can't refer to or describe that concept. To argue that just because there was no single Hebrew word for "homosexuality" that means that they didn't have homosexuality or never talked about it is intellectually bankrupt, to say the least.

But prove me wrong. Let's hear your version of what Leviticus 20:13 actually means:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"

Convince everyone here that the quoted verse has nothing to do with homosexual sex. With the context that Leviticus 20:12 says:

"And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have wrought corruption; their blood shall be upon them."

And please don't waste my time with more empty bluster. Put up or shut up.

Your painfully ignorant interpretation of Leviticus is consistent with haters, not respected theologians.

I'm sure no matter what evidence I provide you are going to insist you are never wrong because that's just what you do. If you had any interest in substantive discussions I'd be glad to explain it to you, but instead I'm quite confident you're going to cling to your simplistic reading of Leviticus. So if I'm given the options of putting up or shutting up, I'll do the latter along with an invitation for you to take your snark and go piss up a rope.

Cheers!

And you're trying desperately to distract from that blatantly obvious fact, in the same way that all of the religionists here do. Everyone reading this can see that you're full of it, dude.

Thanks for playing. We'll have some lovely parting gifts for you.

is part of what helps keep Franklin afloat, a society that accepts that sort of bile from one source while pretending to oppose it from others. At a certain point, criticism of one person for doing things another is given a free pass on is just another bias. '

I am guessing you are talking about the Pope, who gets applause when he does something right and boos when he does something wrong, including his bigoted positions on GLBT rights.

The difference is the ability to see both the good and bad in people when both things are there. While I know some will condemn the entire individual because of some of their positions, others are able to make distinctions and give qualified support for some of what they do.

"Ok, I just watched it and it's really hard not to love him after seeing it. The only I can say is the kind of ego that generally accompanies this kind of surgeon might be a liability when it comes to being POTUS."

Praising Ben Carson, foaming rightwing nutjob, almost without reservation.

He'd rather cherry-pick to support his bias and bigotry.

and I find him to be completely disingenuous.

Does undermine the premise of the OP.

the religious right over and over again to support their bigotry towards GLBT people. This author, like so many before him, systematically addresses those passages and, imo, shows clearly why they don't say what Graham claims they do.

It is not that there is condemnation to pick, but that some pull aphids off the tree and claim that they are cherries.

One would not see these passages as condemnation unless they rejected the analyses put forth by this author, which Franklin Graham will certainly do.

And yes I am well aware of other practices being called abomination.

But somehow the bible doesn't say what it clearly says.

If so, do you disagree with him?

I suspect Rev Graham would ask exactly the same question you just did, but I would hope that you, unlike him, would no reject the analysis offered here.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." KJV

The author of the article says it's not a condemnation of homosexuality. I could be persuaded that it's only a condemnation of homosexual sex, but that's as far as I'll go.

Technicalities, I suppose.

Whether I agree with the Rev. Graham on the interpretation of the Bible or not is irrelevant. I reject the Bible as a document on how to live outright and as a whole. It's interesting as a study, but a disaster as a life manual.

No amount of judicious cherry-picking can disguise the festering hate that lies within.

You are cherry picking the bible, whether you reject or accept it, and you are making the case that there is a section that is anti-GLBT.

You find it to be a disaster as a life manual and that it is festering with hate. Others find it a very good life manual and full of love. That's what cherry picking is all about. You choose the bad cherries. That's your right.

I am not cherry-picking, I don't need to cherry-pick, I don't need the Bible to justify anything to me. It's a book that has an interesting history, that's all it is to me.

I am not making the case that it is "Anti-LGBT", I don't need to, the contention was, that the Bible does not condemn Homosexuality, all I need to dis point out the section or sections that do.

I have pointed out a section that has condemned Homosexual sex. Whilst not explicitly condemning LGBT people (which is not a surprise considering the age of the document.) It clearly condemns people who live other than its strict rules.

I could post more on why I consider justifying your life through contorting messages from the Bible is a difficult and foolish exercise, but that's for another day. All I am saying is the Author of the article is fooling themselves or being disingenuous.

The fact that it is different than the reading of others is a testament to cherry picking. I think cherry picking is not only ok but necessary when reading things like the bible.

It need not mean anything or justify anything for you. That is your unique experience and has no bearing on whether it means something to others.

I think it would be waste of your time to try and convince others to see it your way. That's proselytizing, imo, and I think it's really ineffective.

Whether you agree with the author or not, he presents an excellent argument to use against the fundamentalists who continue to insist that the bible supports their bigotry. Personally, I am interested in doing just that. You may not be, but I would hope you wouldn't support their position.

As a member of the alphabet soup community, I am certainly not interested in letting them get away with their hatred. However I cannot ignore the fact that there are passages of the Bible which support their agenda.

I cannot pussy-foot around them, claiming to lessen their impact. They exist, they are explicit and they condemn people for acts of love.

I cannot tolerate this, which is why I recommend against using the Bible for a guide to life.

It's not about pussy-footing around them or ignoring them, but about challenging the interpretation that they use to justify their bigotry.

There are lots of things in the bible which are clearly objectionable, but being able to challenge those things by looking at alternative interpretations or historical/cultural contexts defangs the haters.

Anyone who reads the bible literally is going to be in a boatload of trouble, as there are so many contradictions. But for every verse that they can throw up that they say condemns people's basic civil rights, I can find 20 that embrace love and acceptance.

There is no book I would use as a guide for life, but there are many that I can draw from.

In Lev 20:13 we have an explicit condemnation in the strongest possible terms, a death sentence, of homosexual acts. Is there one Biblical passage which explicitly states that homosexual acts are acceptable?

Until we have an argument of equal weight, in no uncertain terms, the Anti-LGBT have the stronger claim. I do not like this, but it is the case.

The thing about no uncertain terms is that these are people who are not subtle, are not open, nor are they inclined to see it from the other person's side of view. Yes it can happen, but it requires additional circumstances.

Since you don't believe in it anyway, you can just reject the whole thing.

I think that when it is interpreted in cultural context, it can be seen differently. You don't agree. I think that there are innumerable parts of the bible that talk about loving others and speak strongly about civil rights and social justice. I feel I can apply these to everyone and most especially to groups that are discriminated against. You don't see it that way.

I don't agree with your conclusion about "no uncertain terms" and will challenge those who use their religion to promote bigotry at every opportunity. To do otherwise is to concede to them, imo.

There are some great religious organizations devoted to GLBT equality. I am going to stand with them.

"in cultural context" or otherwise. Do you think people don't notice that you're just flailing, cbayer, and not providing ANY evidence or argument to back up what you say? Simply saying "I disagree" and pretending that that makes your point of view equally valid is just sophistic bullshit.

Try again.

You obviously DO think it's effective or you wouldn't have posted it, and you wouldn't be gushing so effusively about the alleged case the author makes and how people should look at things his way and not Franklin Graham's way.

You really can't get your story straight, can you, cbayer? Does it not bother you to contradict yourself in pretty much every thread?

This entire subthread is a train wreck, and #35 here may just be the prime locomotive.

that condemns homosexuality or homosexual sex, you only need ONE example to show that they and anyone who defends their bigotry are full of shit, cbayer. Citing that example to disprove that case is not "cherry-picking" (whatever that term even means when you use it..it seems to be just your latest way to try to dismiss an argument that you can't counter with facts and reason).

Both Leviticus 18 and 20 refer to pagan temple practices. The pagan god, Moloch is mentioned numerous times. What Leviticus actually condemns is pagan religious practices which involve idolatry and phallic rituals intended to increase the fertility of crops by which the people of the day lived and died by. The very beginnings of both chapters make this quite clear...

Leviticus 20:

11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

Right...an abomination is no big deal. God just says people should be put to death for it. And this is all about "phallic worship" and not sex, as anyone can see...

Keep digging dude...I can go all night.

Those that can only manage to parrot out bible verses while offering opinions consistent with the likes of Franklin Graham are truly funny.

But you're going to have to do it without me, because I'm quite done with your childish and hate filled rhetoric.

Cheers!

I don't think I've anything clearer or more succinct that takes in the cultural and translation aspects.

Thanks so much.

These are highly educated people who dedicate their lives to understanding such things, as opposed to poorly educated charlatans and internet know-it-alls who distort such translations into things they were never intended to imply, often with nefarious purposes grounded in hate. Furthermore many of these mistranslations are through the lens of the Victorian era which deemed virtually all forms of sex as vile and depraved, which certainly wasn't the same attitudes of the time such tomes were written.

What many people fail to realize is Jesus and first century Christians didn't speak English. Everything in the bible is a translation from at least one other language and sometimes two. If one doesn't consider the source languages and historical context, they really can't say they know what the true meaning is.

and culture of the time.

I'm a big believer in cherry picking when it comes to the bible. Those that want to find ways to support their hate and bigotry will find rotten cherries. But those who look for the opposite message will find the sweet one.

And some people can only see one or the other and that suits their agenda.

I again want to thank you for your input here.

Do you agree that " I could be persuaded that it's only a condemnation of homosexual sex" - as if that were somehow not atrocious bigotry?

revolting bigotry. I am playing devil's advocate. The bod in the article says that the Bible doesn't explicitly point out homosexual people, which from memory it doesn't, only acts.

So whilst the premise might be technically true, in spirit it's not. I find the author is fooling themselves or lying if they believe there are no Anti-LGBT sections of the Bible.

She seems to think that the "analysis" she berated you for supposedly not reading is somehow not bigoted nonsense.

'What? Us? Bigoted? Nooooo no not at all. We love gay people and want them as members! They just have to be celibate and deny their own nature so we will condescend to minister to them, because their nature is sin'

That's the shit many main stream churches are doing now, and it's evil. It still maintains the idea that there is something fundamentally sinful about homosexuality.

That, is evil.

who claim to believe it are fully inconsistent with other levitical laws around the specified examples like eating shellfish.

So, yes, the bible does condemn it. People just ignore other passages that condemn other things in the same place.

This is a point that people like me have been using to show religious people who follow some aspect of Abrahamic faith, that they are hypocrites and don't even believe in their own bibles for decades.

That doesn't mean the bible doesn't condemn it. It does. And it should be thrown on the rubbish heap of stupid shit we *used* to believe.

Even the passages that do not condemn homosexual sex explicitly condemn it by definition.

But what do you expect from the Huffington Post...

Claiming that Leviticus is a moral prohibition against homosexual acts is wrong for a number of reasons. For one thing the same sex couplings described in Leviticus 18 and 20 were prohibitions against pagan rituals.

English translations include the word abomination for a number of different Hebrew words. The problem is the source words have different meanings. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, the word abomination translates into the Hebrew to’evah which actually means a ritualistic prohibition, not a moral one. When the word abomination is used to describe moral prohibitions, zimah or other Hebrew words are used. Then you put this into the historical context. Pagan fertility rituals included orgies, child sacrifice, adultery, incest, bestiality, rape, and sex with the same gender. This was to’evah because it was associated with the Egyptian and Canaan fertility rites. The word to’evah is used throughout the Hebrew torah to prohibit cultic rituals, never moral prohibitions because that's not what the word meant.

http://goddidntsaythat.com/tag/toevah/