Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

To all the Fundies:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:03 AM
Original message
To all the Fundies:
Edited on Fri Mar-25-05 03:04 AM by caledesi
Don't you think it is kinda strange that the Bible refers to homosexuality, what? maybe 2 times, while the references to adultery are rampant.

I don't think Jesus really cared about gays. Oh, and he wasn't married, was he? (no implication here...LOL)

Discuss.

Edit: usual stuff
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
4morewars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:05 AM
Response to Original message
1. All his friends were sailors......
or hookers. I'm not implying anything here either. Oh, wait, yes I am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. Correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't counted myself, but...
The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred sixty-two admonishments to heterosexuals.

(read it somewhere, copy pasted to a text file on my hd)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. For corrections..l.go here. (I think u are right)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. Does that mean he felt heterosexuals needed a lot more admonishment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. I don't think Jesus had a "scale" of admonishments. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RevolutionaryActs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
3. Funny, isn't it?
Also the word the bible uses in reference to gays, "abomination", is the same word it uses in reference of shellfish.

Had any good shrimp lately? B-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. all Old Testament provisions
not in the New Testament
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. So, for the Fundies to be right, they have to disregard the
Old Testament? Sounds like "cherry-picking" to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. ???
The fundamentalists take the King James version of the Bible literally, Old and New Testament. You're not going to find anyone on DU who argues they are right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Or slaves? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. read what the Bible says about slavery
it's nothing like the institution we had in the Americas. It discusses a benevolent form of indentured servitude. I'm not saying it's right, obviously not. But it's nothing like what you are thinking of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Did the "slaves" get paid? nuff said nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. yes actually
Edited on Fri Mar-25-05 03:25 AM by imenja
and many Africans did in the Americas as well. That didn't negate the fact it was slavery.

The Bible sets out terms for slavery that requires masters pay slaves a significant sum on the seventh year of their bondage when they are freed. They were to be given land and a specified percentage of goods or money. It was temporary servitude of the sort entered into by my English ancestors who came over on the Mayflower.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Servitude? My ancestors (from Italy and Ireland) did not have
this great experience of "servitude."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 04:13 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Indentured servitude was a 17th and 18th century phenomenon
Edited on Fri Mar-25-05 04:29 AM by imenja
in English America. Those without means who came to America in those years came as indentured servants. Some voluntarily entered into indenture contracts in exchange for their passage. Others woke up after a drunken night in a pub on a boat heading for America.

Some Irish and Scots would have come over as indentured servants, but most Irish immigration was during the 19th century. Italians came largely in the early 20th century. They therefore came long after indentured servitude had been abolished.

Any US history textbook discusses this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #13
22. Well they said they gave them a house, food and clothing.
I may think that is pretty bad but I know some people who would think that is really good pay. Back to the middle ages I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 04:20 AM
Response to Reply #10
21. We had that also, once.
It is sort of interesting to read about it in our history. You need to take pity on the women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 05:29 AM
Response to Reply #3
23. LOL!
"had any good shrimp lately?"

i'm still smiling over that one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:09 AM
Response to Original message
4. all the fundies on DU
I'm sure they are lining up to discuss this here.

By the way, you don't need to be a fundamentalist to answer your question. Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. He devoted his life to spreading the word of love, forgiveness, and ministry to the poor. Pretty offensive stuff, isn't it.

Some say Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, but the gospels in the current version of the Bible do not discuss his marital status. It would, however, have been unusual for a man his age to be unmarried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. Very unusual. Take a look at the Last Supper...you decide
Who is that woman on the right side of Jesus? Hey, I don't want to do a "da vinci code" on you...but



Could that be Mary M?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. some say it's John the Baptist
I don't know though. I read the Da Vinci code too. So I know everything about this subject. :dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. The strange part of the Last Supper (this being Holy Thursday)
is that I never noticed the odd "woman/man" out. Who is this person?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. do you mean Mary Magdalene?
Either she or John the Baptist. You'll have to ask someone smarter than I to know more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-25-05 05:44 AM
Response to Reply #11
24. yeah, mary m. is seated to the right of jesus
(you can tell they're a "couple" because of what they are wearing and how it is draped. mary is sporting a deep rust color material that is draped over her arm that would have gone perfectly with the outfit jesus is wearing of burnt crimson while jesus has that deep blue cloth draped over his left shoulder and arm that would have accentuated the light blue of mary's dress. plus, they are both wearing the draped cloth in a similar fashion, both of them have it covering the left shoulder and arm.)

but who IS that person standing wearing that orangish number, with the flowing blonde locks and no beard? "he" looks like a cross-dresser i used to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » The DU Lounge Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC