Michael Sam, Missouri DE, Is Gay

#378
#378
ABQduck said:
Why didn't the bible figure out slavery was wrong till the 19th century. Or that women and minorities should have equal rights till the 20th century? Some book of ethics you have there.
Click to expand...

I'm going to admit I haven't done much study of Slavery in the bible. It's something to be looked into though.

As for women rights, that's a completely different subject. I wouldn't mind getting into that topic if this wasn't an already long thread. People (you seem to be one) seem to take the ideas to the extreme and don't look at the context.

That being said, again I will admit I'm not the person to answer these good questions.
 
#379
#379
Ernest T. Vol said:
Oh I'm sorry there Lawrence. Didn't mean to ignore you. I was waiting on bamawriter's infinite reference material. I forget, what was the question or what was the question you are trying to assign to me?
Click to expand...

It wasn't a question as much as seeking to understand your position, and the opinions that support it.

So since it's your position that locker rooms should be segregated based on sexual preference, please share with us...in your opinion...the midset of gay men (not the straight teammates) that leads you to that conclusion.
 
#380
#380
gcbvol said:
I think the issue is you can't pick and choose. If you take anything from the OT, you must take it all.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I told my opinion on the father/daughter issue.

I will say this. Clearly the OT isn't our guide to the present. We are obviously under NT law. But I believe we can all learn lessons from the OT books.
 
#381
#381
LittleCat said:
I don't think the word of God will ever be archaic. At least to Christians. It's teachings will always be relevant in this kind of society and people will still find joy learning God's Word.



The bible has a very clear picture of homosexuality. Leviticus says you shouldn't lie with a man as one would lie with a woman. How much clearer do you need it?


It's a story about an event what happened. That doesn't mean God was condoning it. It's in there to show how Lot made a mistake and the daughters equally sinned. I don't see anywhere approval is shown for the actions taken. It's simply an account of what happened in mu opinion.
Click to expand...

It also says you shouldn't work on the sabbath, not to get tattoos, not to wear clothing made from two different cloths, that your daughters are property to be bartered with and that slavery is A-OK! Why, please tell me, WHY do people insist upon selectively interpretating the bible? Why is one OK and not the other? This behavior has literally been going on for thousands of years, people use the bible to justify prejudice and I'm not saying you are but enough people have that I find it very difficult to take anyone seriously when they use the bible as an example for anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#383
#383
NickZ4UT said:
It also says you shouldn't work on the sabbath, not to get tattoos, not to wear clothing made from two different cloths, that your daughters are property to be bartered with and that slavery is A-OK! Why, please tell me, WHY do people insist upon selectively interpretating the bible? Why is one OK and not the other? This behavior has literally been going on for thousands of years, people use the bible to justify prejudice and I'm not saying you are but enough people have that I find it very difficult to take anyone seriously when they use the bible as an example for anything.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from.

This is completely my opinion. I would suggest certain things are applicable in both books. Things like homosexuality, murder, incest, etc are clearly outlawed in both books. On the other hand, we don't have to sacrifice animals, don't have to observe the Sabbath, etc etc.

Parts of the OT are applicable in the NT. Some aren't. If you want to call anyone "selective", call God that, not me lol.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not. It's something I haven't considered a lot before.
 
#384
#384
Volstylexx said:
"because of a lot of types of joking around that goes on" .. like running around naked slapping each other with towels and 'playing around'

bc that's clearly STRAIGHT behavior... lol
Click to expand...



or texts to teammates about exploding on their faces? As Espn reported Martin did?
 
#385
#385
bamawriter said:
The entire book of Philemon is dedicated to the subject. It's only 1 chapter of 25 verses, so it shouldn't take you long to read:

Philemon
Click to expand...

I'd suggest that at the end of the passage Paul is indirectly suggesting the release of the slave.

Let's also keep this passage in mind: It's clearly saying everyone is equal.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
 
#386
#386
Lawrence Wright said:
It wasn't a question as much as seeking to understand your position, and the opinions that support it.

So since it's your position that locker rooms should be segregated based on sexual preference, please share with us...in your opinion...the midset of gay men (not the straight teammates) that leads you to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Not so fast there Lawrence. When did I say locker rooms should be segregated based on preference. I ask the question, should they be? and will they be? My question about the wife in the shower is rhetorical of course to point out that not everyone is as progressive as you are. We live in a society where the most offended seem to win arguments no matter the merits. How are we to proceed when heterosexuals may be offended based on modesty. I have presented no opinions on the mindset of gay men. However you seem ready to educate on the subject.
 
#387
#387
Ernest T. Vol said:
Not so fast there Lawrence. When did I say locker rooms should be segregated based on preference. I ask the question, should they be? and will they be? My question about the wife in the shower is rhetorical of course to point out that not everyone is as progressive as you are. We live in a society where the most offended seem to win arguments no matter the merits. How are we to proceed when heterosexuals may be offended based on modesty. I have presented no opinions on the mindset of gay men. However you seem ready to educate on the subject.
Click to expand...

What does this even mean?
 
#388
#388
LittleCat said:
I'd suggest that at the end of the passage Paul is indirectly suggesting the release of the slave.
Click to expand...

I would agree with that interpretation. But why is Paul suggesting that Onesimus be freed? Paul does not, in any way, say that slavery is wrong. He does not cite any scripture that says Philemon has a duty to free his slave(s). Paul does not recommend that freeing of a slaves, by Philemon or any other master. Nor does he suggest that slavery is wrong.

What Paul actually says is that Onesimus would be put to the better use of the Gospel as a free man than as a slave.
 
#389
#389
so an example for a few:

--Steve considers himself a Christian. He hates gays, rock music and alcohol. He gossips and judges. He believes in God to the point of actually turning people from God due to his beliefs and actions. He also likes porn, especially watching late teen girls. He's not friendly, and seldom does much to help others. He hates dogs and hasn't been a good teaching and patient father to his children
--Fred considers himself a Christian. He prayed for God's forgiveness for being gay because he was told God hates him for what he is since he was little, but is comfortable with his relationship now. He prays, attends church, and brings people closer to God. He likes dogs. Likes wine. Likes movie dramas. Is a good dude, friendly and volunteers weekly.

Do you think your/our God lets Steve in the gate over Fred because of what happens in his bedroom with another person? Jesus died on the cross for everyone, except homosexuals?
That seems illogical to me, and that's coming from a strict Baptist Church background. One that I look at from a distance now and most of the people's lives seem to be in shambles one way or another. Drugs, marriage problems, kid issues...no one is immune.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#391
#391
LittleCat said:
I understand where you're coming from.

This is completely my opinion. I would suggest certain things are applicable in both books. Things like homosexuality, murder, incest, etc are clearly outlawed in both books. On the other hand, we don't have to sacrifice animals, don't have to observe the Sabbath, etc etc.

Parts of the OT are applicable in the NT. Some aren't. If you want to call anyone "selective", call God that, not me lol.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not. It's something I haven't considered a lot before.
Click to expand...

My problem has always been that alittle was taken from this book and a little from that book. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just think that if parts of one book are going to be taken literally with no room for interpretation, you have to be prepared to accept the whole thing as literal.
 
#392
#392
bamawriter said:
I would agree with that interpretation. But why is Paul suggesting that Onesimus be freed? Paul does not, in any way, say that slavery is wrong. He does not cite any scripture that says Philemon has a duty to free his slave(s). Paul does not recommend that freeing of a slaves, by Philemon or any other master. Nor does he suggest that slavery is wrong.

What Paul actually says is that Onesimus would be put to the better use of the Gospel as a free man than as a slave.
Click to expand...

I agree, it doesn't directly say Paul ordered it because slavery is wrong. However, he does say he has confidence Philemon will do the right thing. Whether that refers to release because it's proper, or because Paul thinks it's more convenient, is up to the readers interpretation.

It's a confusing chapter for being so short. I can see a few ways a reader can take it.
 
#393
#393
Ernest T. Vol said:
Not so fast there Lawrence. When did I say locker rooms should be segregated based on preference. I ask the question, should they be? and will they be? My question about the wife in the shower is rhetorical of course to point out that not everyone is as progressive as you are. We live in a society where the most offended seem to win arguments no matter the merits. How are we to proceed when heterosexuals may be offended based on modesty. I have presented no opinions on the mindset of gay men. However you seem ready to educate on the subject.
Click to expand...

Whether you realize it or not, you equated the motives of gay football players in the locker room to a peeping Tom staring at a woman taking a shower...and stated you think showers should be segregated, yet provide no insight or offer proof as to why you think it's necessary.

You ask bamawriter for proof on the rape stats, he gave it to you.

You think showers should be segregated based on sexual preference, yet you're unable to provide proof as to why it's necessary. Where's the data supporting your opinion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#395
#395
Ernest T. Vol said:
Yes, again? You left out my original question about locker rooms being separated? Some people may be offended...What then?
Click to expand...

Anyone who is worried about simply being oggled can where swim trunks into the shower. That does not call for segregating showers based on sexual preference. There is a massive difference between that and safety.
 
#396
#396
Spartacavolus said:
so an example for a few:

--Steve considers himself a Christian. He hates gays, rock music and alcohol. He gossips and judges. He believes in God to the point of actually turning people from God due to his beliefs and actions. He also likes porn, especially watching late teen girls. He's not friendly, and seldom does much to help others. He hates dogs and hasn't been a good teaching and patient father to his children
--Fred considers himself a Christian. He prayed for God's forgiveness for being gay because he was told God hates him for what he is since he was little, but is comfortable with his relationship now. He prays, attends church, and brings people closer to God. He likes dogs. Likes wine. Likes movie dramas. Is a good dude, friendly and volunteers weekly.

Do you think your/our God lets Steve in the gate over Fred because of what happens in his bedroom with another person? Jesus died on the cross for everyone, except homosexuals?
That seems illogical to me, and that's coming from a strict Baptist Church background. One that I look at from a distance now and most of the people's lives seem to be in shambles one way or another. Drugs, marriage problems, kid issues...no one is immune.
Click to expand...

I guess this is missing the point in your eyes but to me it's obvious both are doing wrong and both wouldn't be allowed in by God.

The term Christian is a very loose term in today's culture.

NickZ4UT said:
My problem has always been that alittle was taken from this book and a little from that book. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just think that if parts of one book are going to be taken literally with no room for interpretation, you have to be prepared to accept the whole thing as literal.
Click to expand...

I can see how one can view it as that way. Can't really find an answer for that other than to study for yourself and try to compare the OT/NT law and how they relate.
 
#398
#398
Lawrence Wright said:
Whether you realize it or not, you equated the motives of gay football players in the locker room to a peeping Tom staring at a woman taking a shower...and stated you think showers should be segregated, yet provide no insight or offer proof as to why you think it's necessary.

You ask bamawriter for proof on the rape stats, he gave it to you.

You think showers should be segregated based on sexual preference, yet you're unable to provide proof as to why it's necessary. Where's the data supporting your opinion?
Click to expand...

end open bay showers = ends homophobes arguments
 
#399
#399
Lawrence Wright said:
Whether you realize it or not, you equated the motives of gay football players in the locker room to a peeping Tom staring at a woman taking a shower...and stated you think showers should be segregated, yet provide no insight or offer proof as to why you think it's necessary.

You ask bamawriter for proof on the rape stats, he gave it to you.

You think showers should be segregated based on sexual preference, yet you're unable to provide proof as to why it's necessary. Where's the data supporting your opinion?
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, the focal point is showers and locker rooms, where nudity is involved. The assertion is that gay people can't control themselves sexually and that viewpoint is probably reinforced by bad information. The crux of the issue is that gay people aren't different, no matter how much people try to convince you otherwise, they are regular folk like anyone else. That is the gods honest truth and a lot of folks are uncomfortable with gay people, I get it, but they aren't going away and life is going to go on as normal as more of them decide to come out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#400
#400
NickZ4UT said:
As I said earlier, the focal point is showers and locker rooms, where nudity is involved. The assertion is that gay people can't control themselves sexually and that viewpoint is probably reinforced by bad information. The crux of the issue is that gay people aren't different, no matter how much people try to convince you otherwise, they are regular folk like anyone else. That is the gods honest truth and a lot of folks are uncomfortable with gay people, I get it, but they aren't going away and life is going to go on as normal as more of them decide to come out.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top