- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why have churches started allowing gay preachers?
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:45 pm to Rust Cohle
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:45 pm to Rust Cohle
quote:
The Bible does not address homosexuality
Have you read it?
It absolutely addresses homosexuality. quote:
And sexual orientation is a modern concept that developed in the 19th century
Wut
quote:
This is not to say there was no such thing as same sex intercourse anciently, but they organized their understanding of humn sexuality and their rationales for what was going on and what was appropriate and inappropriate in much different ways.
Really? So two dudes banging was somehow different then? I’m not following your logic here.
quote:
So when we say homosexuality, we're referring to a conceptual framework that did not exist anciently
No. When we say homosexuality, we’re saying exactly the same thing they were saying- two dudes banging. You can try to “re-imagine” whatever you want, but it doesn’t change anything other than your perception.
quote:
So the Bible does not address homosexuality because the concept didn't exist
That is some serious mental gymnastics there.
quote:
The Bible does address acts of same -sex intercourse and the bible does prohibit and condemn them.
Right. So, the Bible condemns homosexuality. Good night.
2
Posted on 5/11/24 at 11:49 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
So, the Bible condemns homosexuality.
No, you don't understand his analysis. He argues that the Bible condemns some same sex sexual activity, but, not the kind of same- sex sexual activity that exists in a loving Gay Marriage.
If the United Methodist view is the same, then that denomination could declare that the Holy Spirit guided them to this more accurate insight into what the Bible says on these issues.
But, I would be very interested to see whether the Official United Methodist analysis is anywhere near as cogent as our poster here, and, as you point out, our poster's analysis is not by any means irrefutable.
I'm not going to comment on how "Bible Alone" leads to these kinds of problems, because what I'm after here in this thread is to read an Official UMC analysis of this new interpretation of Scripture. We have already discussed "Bible Alone" in a dozen other threads. No need to do so here.
Posted on 5/11/24 at 11:53 pm to Prodigal Son
Champagne, I appreciate the good will! This was a quote from Dan McClellan. I didn’t mention the name because it could cause bias and be dismissive. His slogan is data over dogma, and is points out the difference between scripture and theology. I’m not sure of the Methodist position.
To prodigal- while his delineation of homosexuality and same sex intercourse may seem semantical,(although definitionally one can be homosexual and not engage in same sex acts) his point is that their way of life and culture is alien to us.
I think it’s hard to deny his point about one sin being magnified while others are minimized, and it being due to identity politics, and structuring of power.
Many will quote Levitican prescriptions to support their beliefs, but not only do they cherry pick prescriptions from that book, they only adopt half of a prescription and dont follow trough and support their execution? Or do you? Do you think same sex actors should be executed?
We can’t superimpose this type of culture on our own and create meaning. Sure we can learn from history, but we are modernity washing it if we pretend we were like them.
Women were property back then, premarital sex prescriptions were about tainting the fathers property. That’s why if you raped a woman you could pay dad 50 scheckles, and y’all would be square. And this is how they treated their sisters, daughters. When it came to others outside the tribe and slaves, the laws literally did not apply. It was not seen to be extramarital to have sex with your slave(possibly male slaves also).
There was a system of hierarchy that just isn’t comprehended today, (it was men, then way way down the list it was property-women, children then slaves all grouped together)and some say that same sex acts were forbidden not because it was not fruit bearing, or contradictory to the sanctimony of marriage, but because it wasn’t right for a man to be in a submissive position, and supported by the idea that a woman should not be on top, in a dominant manner.
To prodigal- while his delineation of homosexuality and same sex intercourse may seem semantical,(although definitionally one can be homosexual and not engage in same sex acts) his point is that their way of life and culture is alien to us.
I think it’s hard to deny his point about one sin being magnified while others are minimized, and it being due to identity politics, and structuring of power.
Many will quote Levitican prescriptions to support their beliefs, but not only do they cherry pick prescriptions from that book, they only adopt half of a prescription and dont follow trough and support their execution? Or do you? Do you think same sex actors should be executed?
We can’t superimpose this type of culture on our own and create meaning. Sure we can learn from history, but we are modernity washing it if we pretend we were like them.
Women were property back then, premarital sex prescriptions were about tainting the fathers property. That’s why if you raped a woman you could pay dad 50 scheckles, and y’all would be square. And this is how they treated their sisters, daughters. When it came to others outside the tribe and slaves, the laws literally did not apply. It was not seen to be extramarital to have sex with your slave(possibly male slaves also).
There was a system of hierarchy that just isn’t comprehended today, (it was men, then way way down the list it was property-women, children then slaves all grouped together)and some say that same sex acts were forbidden not because it was not fruit bearing, or contradictory to the sanctimony of marriage, but because it wasn’t right for a man to be in a submissive position, and supported by the idea that a woman should not be on top, in a dominant manner.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News