Skip to comments.
Framing religious debates
The Daily Princetonian (Princeton U.) ^
| 12/9/03
| Julie Park
Posted on 12/10/2003 12:56:09 PM PST by NorCoGOP
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
1
posted on
12/10/2003 12:56:09 PM PST
by
NorCoGOP
To: NorCoGOP
>Why not compare one rule about sexual behavior -- >homosexuality -- to others, such as premarital sex, >bestiality, rape, and incest (all prohibited by the >Bible)?
Because homosexuality occurs between two CONSENTING ADULTS, as opposed to the other options above. Major difference and you can't even begin to compare any of them to homosexuality.
2
posted on
12/10/2003 1:01:48 PM PST
by
sunryse
To: sunryse
pre-marital sex and incest can occur between two consenting adults too - do you think it's OK to have sex with your brother or sister or mother or father?
3
posted on
12/10/2003 1:22:58 PM PST
by
trebb
To: sunryse
Because homosexuality occurs between two CONSENTING ADULTS, as opposed to the other options above. Major difference and you can't even begin to compare any of them to homosexuality. Premarital sex and incest can occur between two consenting adults. Bestiality can occur between a consenting adult and property - an animal.
So why again can't they be compared ?
4
posted on
12/10/2003 1:25:41 PM PST
by
jimt
To: NorCoGOP
Many people argue the issues, especially passionate issues like religion, based on emotions. I despair of ever hearing an emotionally-subdued, fact-laden debate on any issue. Even if one side does argue their position based on facts and begins to steamroll their opposition, the losing side will unfailingly launch into vicious personal attacks against their opponents. This seems to be the script of many Left/Right debates. (Guess which side employs which tactic!) As far as this particular issue is concerned, society may decide that consenting behavior can be made legal out of "tolerance," but that does not make it moral. By the way, it seems to me that not only homosexuality is behavior between two consenting adults, but so is premarital sex and incest. Your original point holds up despite the first challenge.
To: jimt
I am spooked by other Christians that take the Bible literally, educated or not. Very disturbing.
6
posted on
12/10/2003 1:42:02 PM PST
by
easytree
To: sunryse
Because homosexuality occurs between two CONSENTING ADULTS, as opposed to the other options above. Major difference and you can't even begin to compare any of them to homosexuality. Thus proving the author's point. The Bible does contain valid prohibitions which we still accept. Does our prohibition of incest unconstitutionally entangle the Church with the State? Does it force religion down someone's throat? NO? Then we can discuss the prohibition of homosexuality without bringing up that stupid nonsense - which was what she was trying to say.
Shalom.
7
posted on
12/10/2003 1:49:59 PM PST
by
ArGee
(Scientific reasoning makes it easier to support gross immorality.)
To: easytree
The only way to take the bible is literally. It is writing. The literal interpretive method is the same method you learned in English class for deciphering something like "Animal Farm."
First, you take the meaning of a particular sentence. Then you see how it fits into it's paragraph; what the argument it. Then you check to see if it's prose, poetry, letter, etc. Then you compare that piece to others things by the same author. Then you compare to other associates of that author in that same time period. Then you compare to religious writers throughout that entire religious tradition.
I take it literally and am proud of it.
Now, if you mean taking certain things out of context, then I'm with you. Generally, that's what people mean when they say "literally."
8
posted on
12/10/2003 2:06:50 PM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army and Proud of It!)
To: sunryse
Because homosexuality occurs between two CONSENTING ADULTSWhy just two? Can't three, four, five, six ad libitum consent? Why don't we institutionalize Roman orgies?
9
posted on
12/10/2003 2:32:01 PM PST
by
Map Kernow
(" 'Hate speech' is just 'speech liberals hate' ")
To: easytree
I am spooked by other Christians that take the Bible literally, educated or not. Very disturbing. What really scares me are all these right-wing kooks who take the Second Amendment literally. What's the point in walking around with a gun? Or these guys who think that "free exercise" of religion means they've got a right to wish me "Merry Christmas," or expose children---children!---to prayers and Nativity scenes. Or these hate groups that think the literal language of the First Amendment allows them to utter hate speech or display offensive symbols. Scary, scary, scary! BRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!
10
posted on
12/10/2003 2:37:15 PM PST
by
Map Kernow
(" 'Hate speech' is just 'speech liberals hate' ")
To: easytree
I am spooked by other Christians that take the Bible literally, educated or not. Very disturbing.If you don't take the bible literally, then how can you be a Christian? In other words, if the bible is not true, why claim to follow Christ? Why not follow Plato, Socrates, or Mohammed? HOw about Budda, or Hari-Krishna. They are all equally legitimate, if none of them can be taken literally.
I am spooked by Christians who don't believe the bible.
11
posted on
12/10/2003 2:55:54 PM PST
by
ibheath
(Born-again and grateful to God for it.)
To: easytree
How else is one supposed to take the Bible? It's not really worth much if you can just pick and choose what parts you will accept for yourself.
I admit there are things that the Bible says are wrong that I wish were acceptable. As a Christian, you don't automatically/magically lose all your desires to do wrong things. There are some bad things that appeal to my human nature, and I have to exercise self-control over these areas of my life. But just because I tend to like certain things that I understand are sinful, doesn't mean I can just say they're right because I really want them to be right.
To: panther33
ping
To: NorCoGOP
Two questions:
While the law's requirements do apply to us, it is only by taking on Christ's righteousness through his death that we are able to fulfill the law. Thus, the laws of the Old Testament (before Christ) are not directly applicable to us as Christians. (However, the New Testament, whose moral teaching is directly applicable to Christians, does talk about sexual morality; see Romans 1.) While the law is no longer the means for salvation, it remains a guide for what God's will is.
What is the Biblical basis for this opinion?
And #2, granted that the above is the case, Jesus made it clear it was nearly impossible for a wealthy man to get into heaven. Surely this disease afflicts more Christians in the US than homosexuality, and yet I never hear US Christians admonishing rich men that camels will be crawling through a needle's eye before they enter the Kingdom. Why is that?
14
posted on
12/10/2003 3:03:02 PM PST
by
Belial
To: NorCoGOP
Julie Park? What do you want to bet the young lady that wrote this is Korean-American?
Asian Christian Bump!!!!
15
posted on
12/10/2003 3:03:39 PM PST
by
Map Kernow
(" 'Hate speech' is just 'speech liberals hate' ")
To: NorCoGOP
read later
To: easytree
I am spooked by other Christians that take the Bible literally, educated or not. Very disturbing. Why?
To: Belial
What is the Biblical basis for this opinion?Have you read Romans or the other Pauline epistles? You wouldn't ask such an ignorant question if you had.
And #2, granted that the above is the case, Jesus made it clear it was nearly impossible for a wealthy man to get into heaven. Surely this disease afflicts more Christians in the US than homosexuality, and yet I never hear US Christians admonishing rich men that camels will be crawling through a needle's eye before they enter the Kingdom. Why is that?
More "b'li ya'al" [Hebrew for "worthless," transcribed in the Bible as "Belial"] ignorance. If you and your fellow liberals put the quote from Jesus in context, instead of cherry picking verses you think fit your agenda, you'd realize that Jesus was speaking about the choice between materialism and spirituality---serving Mammon instead of God. When the disciples misunderstood his comment (as you do) as meaning that the rich were condemned to Hell simply by virtue of being rich---Jesus replied quite aptly (and no doubt with an indulgent sigh): "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Do I need to explain that last part to you, "Satan"? [no, I'm not being abusive---"satan" means "adversary" in Hebrew])
18
posted on
12/10/2003 3:13:30 PM PST
by
Map Kernow
(" 'Hate speech' is just 'speech liberals hate' ")
To: Map Kernow
Well, your post containted a lot of emotion, and very little information.
You didn't answer my first question with a specific Biblical verse. I'll wait for you to Google it or something.
For my second question, you insisted I need context. Jesus didn't really mean it was incredibly difficult for a rich man to get into heaven (although that's exactly what he said). I've also heard it all depends on the meaning of "is", right?
19
posted on
12/10/2003 3:48:21 PM PST
by
Belial
To: NorCoGOP
This is a truly excellent piece. Kudos to Park.
20
posted on
12/10/2003 3:51:22 PM PST
by
k2blader
(Haruspex, beware.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson