Documentary On Homosexuality And Religion

[checkymcfold 0]

Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.President Josiah Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

i know you're just having fun, but this is something near step one of the necessary argument to convince christians that homos ain't going to hell any more than football players (probably less, for obv reasons).i wrote a bit here about where i'm planning on going forward, but i don't wanna blow my load prematurely any more often than i already do.

[Loismustdie 0]

i'm not trying to "arrive" anywhere with regard to discrediting christianity as a whole, which i realize it might sound like regardless, honestly. when it comes to something like homosexuality, which i have strong feelings about, it's of the utmost importance to me to be able to convince christians that it ain't so bad. i just happen to understand that doing so for most christians requires an argument within their own religious context, and i'm trying to get a handle on that context in precise terms before i offer up a perfectly scriptural argument for why christians shouldn't give a **** about who's doing who.if you really push me on it, i do think that on a fundamental level, most organized religion is total bullshit. but i don't care about that, since i as much as anyone else am full of my own sorts of bullshit that i'd prefer no one make fun of or call idiotic. but when it comes to that bullshit becoming manifest in various sorts of social doctrine, i'm going to do my best to make people hate each other less. i suppose that's the ultimate goal, if you really want me to have one. tbh, i think it's entirely impractical to go after achieving that by concocting some sort of alternative bullshit system from which one can assault another bullshit system, since i don't think that the bullshit is really either a problem or avoidable in any general way. we're people, we make shit up for ourselves. that's fine, and part of who we are. i couldn't care less. i'd rather that we learned more about each others' bullshit systems just so that we can hate each other less, and that applies to christians, muslims, buddhists, atheists, agnostics, etc. in precisely the same way.

Christians shouldn't give a shit who is doing whatever. God will be the judge, and if we go biblically, and if it comes up, and you ask me, what does the bible say, I have to be honest and tell you that men lying with men and women with women is an abomination in Gods eyes, just as if you asked me what he thinks of liars. It's just a basic premise. I honestly have no idea why certain factions of christianity get all up in arms about homosexuality, I really don't, and once again I want to make it clear- biblically it ain't special. A homosexual goes to hell just as well as a liar or a fornicator.

[Loismustdie 0]

Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.President Josiah Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

Problem is- and we have covered this ad nauseum- none of that is part of the new law, except for homsexuality, which he continued to speak against in the new. This is a bit dishonest, if you are truly trying to follow the bible with this.

[Loismustdie 0]

really? now I'm honestly not trying to be an ass here, I'm really not, but is what you're saying basically that if you believe in god, it doesn't matter if everything else that you believe doesn't make any sense at all?

Explain how you drew that conclusion. I'm not seeing that.

[speedz99 145]

Problem is- and we have covered this ad nauseum- none of that is part of the new law, except for homsexuality, which he continued to speak against in the new. This is a bit dishonest, if you are truly trying to follow the bible with this.

You've said many times in this thread that a sin is a sin is a sin, regardless of whether it's described in the old or new testament. You're the one being dishonest if you're now saying that you disregard certain things from the old testament...it's funny that you just used the word "abomination" though (unless that specific wording is in the new testament as well).

[checkymcfold 0]

Problem is- and we have covered this ad nauseum- none of that is part of the new law, except for homsexuality, which he continued to speak against in the new. This is a bit dishonest, if you are truly trying to follow the bible with this.

are you getting the new testament stuff about homosexuality from the end of chapter 1 of paul's letter to the church of romans?

[Loismustdie 0]

You've said many times in this thread that a sin is a sin is a sin, regardless of whether it's described in the old or new testament. You're the one being dishonest if you're now saying that you disregard certain things from the old testament...it's funny that you just used the word "abomination" though (unless that specific wording is in the new testament as well).

Yes, that specific wording is used and again, everything in your quote is changed in the new testament except for homosexuality,in that we are not bound by the rigors of the old law where it is addressed in the new. So, I am being quite honest, you just don't know the material well enough.

[Loismustdie 0]

are you getting the new testament stuff about homosexuality from the end of chapter 1 of paul's letter to the church of romans?

Yes, here it is copied from an earlier post, with commentary:24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:[25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.[26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:[27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.That's in Romans. Seems pretty clear to me. Vile affections- does that sound like something that is heaven bound? Unseemly, reprobate(unchangeable)- then it says they are worthy of death? That seems pretty serious- then it takes it one step farther, and implicates those that have pleasure in those that do these things are worthy of the same. Wow. Really left no stone unturned there.The question isn't whether or not the bible speaks against the homo gays, it does, the question is whether or not you believe the bible. There is nothing saying that anyone HAS to believe; I am a firm believer in doing what makes you happy and statistically that will leave people outside of Gods graces.All that being said on a personal level I have many gay friends, and love them all. I am as much a sinner as they. I also wonder at times how God will treat those who caused this to happen- like, my friend whos mother used to dress him up in dresses and make him act like a girl. She wanted a girl, she got one, at what price?

[checkymcfold 0]

Yes, here it is copied from an earlier post, with commentary:24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:[25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.[26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:[27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.That's in Romans. Seems pretty clear to me. Vile affections- does that sound like something that is heaven bound? Unseemly, reprobate(unchangeable)- then it says they are worthy of death? That seems pretty serious- then it takes it one step farther, and implicates those that have pleasure in those that do these things are worthy of the same. Wow. Really left no stone unturned there.The question isn't whether or not the bible speaks against the homo gays, it does, the question is whether or not you believe the bible. There is nothing saying that anyone HAS to believe; I am a firm believer in doing what makes you happy and statistically that will leave people outside of Gods graces.All that being said on a personal level I have many gay friends, and love them all. I am as much a sinner as they. I also wonder at times how God will treat those who caused this to happen- like, my friend whos mother used to dress him up in dresses and make him act like a girl. She wanted a girl, she got one, at what price?

the below is horribly written with far too many parentheses, but i'm watching the celtics right now and fairly drunk, i'll edit it tomorrow if it's unclear:yes, that's what i thought. briefly, you're misreading this section entirely. the sentence and grammatical structure of ancient greek (the language in which paul wrote) is quite odd to say the least (as understood by an english speaker, anyhow), and doesn't often translate well into english. you have to key in on words like "therefore" (which i'm assuming is επομένωσ, i hope that appears properly, and i don't have an original greek text handy) that appears in romans 2:1 in order to really understand what's going on. the ENTIRE preceding passage is meant to elucidate what comes after the "therefore" in 2:1, and this sort of structure runs throughout the entirety of the pauline letters. (nb: it's actually a primary point from which scholars argue that some letters are authentically pauline and some pseudo-pauline; romans is generally understood to be the former) the problem with ascribing too much worth to the "pre-therefore" part of this structure is that it entirely detracts from what paul's trying to say in the section of the letter. indeed, the obvious intention of the end of romans 1 is a derision of those who worship gods other than the christian god, and if you read the passage in context, it's clear that (cf "for this reason," rom 1:26) the role of homosexual activity (even if you interpret the passage that way--it's entirely debatable whether "unnatural" intercourse actually refers to buttseks in rom 1:26-27--it's more likely that, in accordance with the common usage of the phrase in paul's time, it meant excessive sexual activity that was understood to weaken the body) isn't a cause, but rather an effect (and sin is never an effect, right?) of the worship of false gods. moreover, in the context of the "therefore" of rom 2:1, the entire section at the end of chapter 1 is meant to articulate the reasons for why one ought not to judge others.in any case, what i'm saying is that even if you take the liberal interpretation of "unnatural" intercourse to mean homosexuality directly, in spite of the linguistic evidence outside the bible proper, the issue of homosexuality is at worst of tertiary importance in this section of paul's letter to the church of romans.edit: i'm guessing you're quoting from the KJV in your post, which is an utterly horrific translation. for instance, most of the sentences you've quoted don't even retain the proper number of clauses that are in the greek.

[brvheart 1,752]

the below is horribly written with far too many parentheses, but i'm watching the celtics right now and fairly drunk, i'll edit it tomorrow if it's unclear:yes, that's what i thought. briefly, you're misreading this section entirely. the sentence and grammatical structure of ancient greek (the language in which paul wrote) is quite odd to say the least (as understood by an english speaker, anyhow), and doesn't often translate well into english. you have to key in on words like "therefore" (which i'm assuming is επομένωσ, i hope that appears properly, and i don't have an original greek text handy) that appears in romans 2:1 in order to really understand what's going on. the ENTIRE preceding passage is meant to elucidate what comes after the "therefore" in 2:1, and this sort of structure runs throughout the entirety of the pauline letters. (nb: it's actually a primary point from which scholars argue that some letters are authentically pauline and some pseudo-pauline; romans is generally understood to be the former) the problem with ascribing too much worth to the "pre-therefore" part of this structure is that it entirely detracts from what paul's trying to say in the section of the letter. indeed, the obvious intention of the end of romans 1 is a derision of those who worship gods other than the christian god, and if you read the passage in context, it's clear that (cf "for this reason," rom 1:26) the role of homosexual activity (even if you interpret the passage that way--it's entirely debatable whether "unnatural" intercourse actually refers to buttseks in rom 1:26-27--it's more likely that, in accordance with the common usage of the phrase in paul's time, it meant excessive sexual activity that was understood to weaken the body) isn't a cause, but rather an effect (and sin is never an effect, right?) of the worship of false gods. moreover, in the context of the "therefore" of rom 2:1, the entire section at the end of chapter 1 is meant to articulate the reasons for why one ought not to judge others.in any case, what i'm saying is that even if you take the liberal interpretation of "unnatural" intercourse to mean homosexuality directly, in spite of the linguistic evidence outside the bible proper, the issue of homosexuality is at worst of tertiary importance in this section of paul's letter to the church of romans.edit: i'm guessing you're quoting from the KJV in your post, which is an utterly horrific translation. for instance, most of the sentences you've quoted don't even retain the proper number of clauses that are in the greek.

You're talking to the wrong people. Lois and I don't think homosexuality is anything special. In the section that Lois just quoted it lists a lot of things that are sins, and they are all equal.

[checkymcfold 0]

You're talking to the wrong people. Lois and I don't think homosexuality is anything special. In the section that Lois just quoted it lists a lot of things that are sins, and they are all equal.

i don't think you got my point. if you're distancing yourself from the laws of leviticus in general, you need to find new testament grounds to call homosexuality a sin at all, and i don't think adequate ground for doing so is present in the end of romans 1.

[brvheart 1,752]

edit: i'm guessing you're quoting from the KJV in your post, which is an utterly horrific translation. for instance, most of the sentences you've quoted don't even retain the proper number of clauses that are in the greek.

Lois' church only uses KJV. Hopefully someday he will realize that no Christian before 1511 had the KJV including but not limited to the first church in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. I have absolutely no idea why he thinks it's important. I would think that he would want to use the most literal translation available.

[checkymcfold 0]

Lois' church only uses KJV. Hopefully someday he will realize that no Christian before 1511 had the KJV including but not limited to the first church in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. I have absolutely no idea why he thinks it's important. I would think that he would want to use the most literal translation available.

that's weird. i agree with you entirely here.

[brvheart 1,752]

i don't think you got my point. if you're distancing yourself from the laws of leviticus in general, you need to find new testament grounds to call homosexuality a sin at all, and i don't think adequate ground for doing so is present in the end of romans 1.

oh ok. I disagree with you, on the basis that homosexuality is still sex... which is sexual impurity, which is clearly denounced throughout the entire New Testament, but you were correct, I didn't get your point.The last sentence was easily the most perfectly configured sentence in the history of the English language.

[checkymcfold 0]

oh ok. I disagree with you, on the basis that homosexuality is still sex... which is sexual impurity, which is clearly denounced throughout the entire New Testament, but you were correct, I didn't get your point.

sure, but then the point becomes: why is homosexuality even a biblical category unto itself, distinct from heterosexual doin it?

The last sentence was easily the most perfectly configured sentence in the history of the English language.

lol, i could hardly criticize that after my parenthetical catacomb-like post before .

[Loismustdie 0]

Lois' church only uses KJV. Hopefully someday he will realize that no Christian before 1511 had the KJV including but not limited to the first church in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. I have absolutely no idea why he thinks it's important. I would think that he would want to use the most literal translation available.

It's been awhile since I have looked into it, but there are instances in these "literal" translations where it's not so much literal and more about spinning it a certain way. I have found that while the KJV can be weird to deal with in terms of how it sounds at times nothing ever gets lost in the translation, if you take the time to study. It also requires that you pay attention, because you could easily miss something. In short, it requires thought, it requires the ability to get into it.

[Loismustdie 0]

You're talking to the wrong people. Lois and I don't think homosexuality is anything special. In the section that Lois just quoted it lists a lot of things that are sins, and they are all equal.

What he said. No matter how you want to spin it you would have to basically not be able to read to mess this up. It flat out calls men with men and women with women an abomination. Once again, though, who cares? I don't see liars and fornicators all pissed off. They just fornicate and then shut up about it. I say, if you want to be a homosexual then by all means BE SO, and apologize to no man or woman. To be honest it's the only thing I have seen biblically that a group that has been biblically villified is so vocal about- I mean, years ago it was just pretty standard, you don't agree with the bible, don't follow it. Done.

[Loismustdie 0]

sure, but then the point becomes: why is homosexuality even a biblical category unto itself, distinct from heterosexual doin it?lol, i could hardly criticize that after my parenthetical catacomb-like post before .

Wrong question: the question is, why did God give a shit? The answer I believe is pretty simple, because homosexual sex serves no purpose except for pleasure, and that was not Gods design. Sex, while enjoyable, still had a purpose, a natural purpose if you will. This is why the passage in Romans is worded that way.

[checkymcfold 0]

Wrong question: the question is, why did God give a shit? The answer I believe is pretty simple, because homosexual sex serves no purpose except for pleasure, and that was not Gods design. Sex, while enjoyable, still had a purpose, a natural purpose if you will. This is why the passage in Romans is worded that way.

my point with the romans interpretation was that god didn't give a shit by your account.

[checkymcfold 0]

It's been awhile since I have looked into it, but there are instances in these "literal" translations where it's not so much literal and more about spinning it a certain way. I have found that while the KJV can be weird to deal with in terms of how it sounds at times nothing ever gets lost in the translation, if you take the time to study. It also requires that you pay attention, because you could easily miss something. In short, it requires thought, it requires the ability to get into it.

lois, this is total bs, just fyi. there are good translations of ancient greek and bad translations of ancient greek. the KJV is most definitely the latter.

[Balloon guy 158]

lois, this is total bs, just fyi. there are good translations of ancient greek and bad translations of ancient greek. the KJV is most definitely the latter.

Not really a 'bad' translation, just not a good one.They had just received the Greek Bibles from the Constantinople refugees after the muslims kicked them out and they fled to europe. This was all happening while Tyndale and others were just starting to translate the Bible into English. I have a couple pages from some of these Geneva Bibles from the late 1500's written in English.The KJV used many of Tyndale's and other's translations, but once the allowance of an open approach to an english translation was allowed, the fine tuning of the Bible translations began. But you would be hard pressed to find any doctrinal change made in any of these more accurate translations like the NASB or NIV. Just sentence structures.And you're opinion that Greek isn't easy to translate into English is kind of hard for me to understand. I've talked with one of the guys that was on the team translating the NIV and read other books and they all said the Greek was the best language to translate into english. Maybe they were comparing it to Latin, which is a much harder language to translate accurately.And you're liberal stretching of Romans would only work in a Bible made of rubber.And don't forget 1Cor 6:9( which I am guessing you haven't but have been patiently waiting for someone to fall into this trap)I can get behind your argument that anything to make people hate less is good. And as a person who lives in an area that is easily 30% homosexual, which is 15-20 times the national average, I am confronted with homosexuals everyday, and when you strip away thier walk, their lisps, their bronze sculpted bodies, their smooth skin, and type cropped hair, their perchance for Cher and their inability to not look like a victim wherever they go..they're just like us normal people.There, that ought to give people a bunch of ammuniation

[checkymcfold 0]

And you're opinion that Greek isn't easy to translate into English is kind of hard for me to understand. I've talked with one of the guys that was on the team translating the NIV and read other books and they all said the Greek was the best language to translate into english. Maybe they were comparing it to Latin, which is a much harder language to translate accurately.

i'm guessing that he's comparing things with latin. ancient greek is a language where word order is relatively meaningless, and the grammatical role of words is indicated by suffixes, etc. it's odd that your guy would say that, though, because as far as i know, latin is the same in that regard (though i've worked with some greek, i don't know latin for shit).

And you're liberal stretching of Romans would only work in a Bible made of rubber.

not at all. i'm using entirely conventional interpretive techniques there. the key point i wanted to make, although i hid it inside one of my excessive parentheticals, was that there's nothing to indicate directly that paul is talking about buttseks there. the term rendered as "unnatural" intercourse meant, in paul's time, excessive sexual activity that weakened the body, not homosexual sex.

And don't forget 1Cor 6:9( which I am guessing you haven't but have been patiently waiting for someone to fall into this trap)

i'm not waiting for anything, per se, but the corinthians section is a translational issue that i'll address tomorrow when i'm less hammered. i can only do german when drunk (which, coincidentally, is a hell of a lot easier to translate than classical greek, imo).

I can get behind your argument that anything to make people hate less is good. And as a person who lives in an area that is easily 30% homosexual, which is 15-20 times the national average, I am confronted with homosexuals everyday, and when you strip away thier walk, their lisps, their bronze sculpted bodies, their smooth skin, and type cropped hair, their perchance for Cher and their inability to not look like a victim wherever they go..they're just like us normal people.There, that ought to give people a bunch of ammuniation

bazing?

[Balloon guy 158]

i'm guessing that he's comparing things with latin. ancient greek is a language where word order is relatively meaningless, and the grammatical role of words is indicated by suffixes, etc. it's odd that your guy would say that, though, because as far as i know, latin is the same in that regard (though i've worked with some greek, i don't know latin for shit).not at all. i'm using entirely conventional interpretive techniques there. the key point i wanted to make, although i hid it inside one of my excessive parentheticals, was that there's nothing to indicate directly that paul is talking about buttseks there. the term rendered as "unnatural" intercourse meant, in paul's time, excessive sexual activity that weakened the body, not homosexual sex.i'm not waiting for anything, per se, but the corinthians section is a translational issue that i'll address tomorrow when i'm less hammered. i can only do german when drunk (which, coincidentally, is a hell of a lot easier to translate than classical greek, imo).bazing?

Going to miss you at golf in Vegas

[bobbywithani 0]

sure, but then the point becomes: why is homosexuality even a biblical category unto itself, distinct from heterosexual doin it?

I never thought I'd say this but I cannot believe the ignorance of the non-christians in this thread. Seriously why is homo sex pointed out as a sin as opposed to hetero sex? The same reason that killing someone in defence is different than murder. God has a specific purpose for sex and it is to be between married couples. Homosexuality is a sin, hetero sex can be a sin, sex before marriage is a sin, cheating on your wife is a sin, wanting to cheat on your wife is a sin. Brvheart and Lois have shown a true understanding of biblical concepts, and shown that understand that there is no higher degree of sin, yet some people seem to act like they are on some anti-homosexual crusade, which they clearly are not.On a related note, I think that people who like to say to christians something like "so murder is the same as gay sex in god's eyes", really misunderstand what christians are saying. Yes murder is the same as gay sex in god's eyes, but so is every single sin. The reason we punish murders as opposed to homosexuals, is that they are a danger to our society. That's what all the "fags burn in hell" type christians don't get, you might as well have a sign that says "Men who disrespect their wives burn in hell". They have a detrimental misunderstanding of the word of god, and are actually more likely to never realize the error of their ways than a guy who killed 12 people for money, because they will never realize the full extent of their sin.All that said, I still think Christianity is BS, as I do with any other religion.

[checkymcfold 0]

Going to miss you at golf in Vegas

get on scott to arrange a you, me, him, dn foursome later in june. not joking. :)i also can hit that nike sq driver a good 20-30 yards further than my precept. i might have been able to give you a run for your money.