Exegete or Eisegete …. which is gay?

Friends,

Alex visited us and tried to imply I read into the text.

And he used those big words, which mean read out from or read into.

Then he tried to obscure Church history and say that all historians and theologians before him did that.

Well, they did not and I do not if we AGREE WITH THE BIBLE.

Paul. Moses. Jesus. And all the other prophets agree with GOD. And they were clear.

Homosexuality is an abomination to God.

Paul went so far as to say that when you see rampant homosexuality, the homosexual behavior is because GOD is removing HIS protection of people and allowing THEIR desires to become corrupted.

That explains WHY homosexuality is more rampant today than in 1950.

Or, was Alex right? Is there less homosex today than in 1950?

As for me and my house, we will follow the Bible.

Whose side are you on? Alex? Or the Bible?

Wayne

About Wayne

First, I blogged on blogger, then Myspace - soon I was consistently ranked. Next, I quit. Then the blogging addiction came back .... Comments are appreciated. Not nice comments are edited. You can follow me at the top right.
This entry was posted in Christianity, Culture, God, People, Politics, Religion, Sex, Society, TV. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Exegete or Eisegete …. which is gay?

  1. joesix says:

    Moses and Jesus never said a single word about homosexuality. But we’ve danced this dance before. I’m curious to see your reaction to this article by a Roman ordained priest, theologian, and psychotherapist: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/my-take-what-the-bible-really-says-about-homosexuality/

    • Wayne says:

      He twists the Bible to make it say something it DID NOT SAY.

      The Bible has ALWAYS been clear about un-natural sexual behavior. Yes, un-natural. And it clearly stated that this behavior would become the result of people REJECTING GOD.

      And then they want that same God to accept them, and re-write his Bible ….

      Second, it was Roman Ordained Priests who used other men as their play toys.

      And when they got caught, those same homosexuals BLAMED the Catholic Church and not themselves.

      IMHO.

      Wayne

      • joesix says:

        I figured you’d probably say that. The instant accusation of pedophilia is shocking, of course, and one of the big reasons I keep coming back here. I’m curious to see the passages where Moses and Jesus talked about homosexuality, if you can find them.

      • Wayne says:

        From Biblegateway:

        Matthew 18: 6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

      • Wayne says:

        And

        Leviticus 18: 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

      • Wayne says:

        Joe

        I appreciate your willingness to discuss.

        The Bible has been clear for a very long time.

        All cultures throughout the world, save maybe the Navaho, have been clear.

        Homosex is STRANGE at best.

        It is a cultural and religious taboo.

        But, for some reason the gay agenda felt that the islamic fundamentalist attacks on American freedom were a great time to push their agenda from civil courts into changing the definition of marriage.

        Why? Why the massive shift? Just 10 years ago, they were talking about just wanting to visit their loved ones in the ‘hospital’ as they died.

        Why the shift in the agenda?

        Wayne

  2. joesix says:

    That passage from Matthew doesn’t refer to homosexuality, and instead uses that vaguest of vague words “sin.” The Leviticus passage isn’t from Moses or Jesus, and if you want to start upholding Leviticus you’re going to have to start offering animal sacrifices and stoning people to death who swear at their mother or father.

    Our culture has been clear about this for a long time, but culture changes. Interracial marriage was a taboo. Women voting was a taboo. The Netherlands has had legalized gay marriage since 2001, and as you probably know, God has not yet smote them. Belgium legalized gay marriage in 2003, and straight couples there continue to marry and raise children all the same.

    Ten years ago, gays were talking about hospital visitation rights, and marriage rights, and adoption rights. There still being denied these in too many parts of the land of the free.

    • Wayne says:

      This is NOT about culture, it IS about God, Religious freedom, AND the CHILDREN.

      And if the gays want some support in their quest for the rest of us to discriminate for FOR them and against traditional culture

      Then they need to quit twisting the Bible.

      Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Jesus was against Gays harming children.

      And all Men of God believe the WHOLE Bible. Not just the part they want. If they pick and choose, they are not Prophets, Priests, or Kings of God’s Kingdom.

      All true men of God are against the Gay agenda.

      I am one of those godly men.

      • joesix says:

        It’s definitely about religious freedom, but also freedom from religion. I think talking to an invisible man in the sky is utterly idiotic and the main cause of humanity’s global conflicts and societal bigotry — but I would never deny you the right to practice your ridiculous beliefs. That’s what America is, freedom. If you think homosexuality is icky and gross, you have complete freedom to try to share that message in your churches and blogs. I’d defend your right to do so with everything but my own life. But when you have to make a law that hurts a number of people, just to prove your morals or faith, then you have no true morals or faith to prove.

        And now you’ll start your self-righteous Maude Flanders routine, “But what about the children? Won’t someone please think about the children?” Of course I care about the children, as most non-sociopaths do. But after having the same circular argument with you for about a month now, I’ve yet to see any evidence from a non-religious study that shows homosexuals abuse children significantly more than heterosexuals. Again, I care about the children — I care about the molested children and I care about the millions of gay children out there who will continue to be told that they are abominable predators because of the disgusting myths still perpetuated by our country’s most self-righteous bigots. Though again, I respect your freedom to spread those beliefs.

        Most scholars now believe the Pentateuch to be a compilation of texts from the 9th to 5th centuries BC, and I’m inclined to believe them given how hard it would be to find a deer skin and quill pen after forty years in the desert (and the unlikelihood that the figure we know as “Moses” existed at all). Jesus was probably against all people harming children, and I still haven’t seen any passages where he refers to homosexuality or even the act of sodomy. If you believe every single part of the Bible you believe in not trimming your beard, stoning to death a child who swore at his parents, and getting away with rape by marrying the victim and paying off the father.

      • Wayne says:

        Joe,

        I gave you passages where God does refer to homosexuality.

        You choose to believe Liberal non-Christian ‘Scholars’ and their agenda to discredit the Bible. True Christian Scholars have NEVER doubted the passages I have presented from God’s Bible.

        To twist the Bible is a serious crime. And that should be punished by death. That is in the Bible, and I believe that part of the Bible should be practiced today. Not practicing that part of the Bible takes away my religious liberty.

        But, Islamic extremists are given that liberty and much more …. how ironic.

        Well we can agree protect the children. Although you seem to agree and then go into your Maude routine. Comedy shouldn’t be our agenda, the safety of millions of children should be. Don’t you agree?

        That should be a greater importance than discriminating against me, to discriminate for a gay man. If he is a man, he shouldn’t need to be discriminated for…..

        IMHO.

        Wayne

      • joesix says:

        Wayne, just when I think you can’t get any crazier, you go ahead and say your religious liberty is being denied because you can’t kill people. Let’s just chew on that one for awhile. Let’s ignore the irony when you lamented that those crazy Muslims have more freedom than you, and you want to kill people. Let’s ignore that you haven’t denied believing in trimming your beard, stoning to death a child who swore at his parents, and getting away with rape by marrying the victim and paying off the father — because you want to kill people. Let’s ignore that you apparently don’t want any humor in these discussions, but you said you want to kill people. Let’s ignore the undeniable fact that Jesus never said the word “gay” and that the perhaps only law that religious and secular people can agree on is “Thou shalt not kill,” an idea you have now completely shattered by expressing your strong desire to kill people who have interpreted an ancient book differently from you.

        That’s my humble opinion. Please don’t kill me.

      • Wayne says:

        Let us ignore all of your excellent rhetoric that was merely FALSE.

        And let us go back to the children, God, and what is good for our country.

        Fancy Rhetoric has been used for decades to lead America astray …..

        And that is a fact.

        Wayne

    • joesix says:

      Alright, I’ll try not to use any o’ dem big fancy words and instead ask you these simple yes or no questions:

      Do you believe in not trimming your beard?
      Do you believe in stoning to death a child who swore at his parents?
      Do you believe in getting away with rape by marrying the victim and paying off the father?
      Do you believe in killing people who interpret the Bible differently than you do?

      • Wayne says:

        I do believe children should not be sacrificed today to the homosexual agenda.

        You seem to have difficulty with that ….

        Yes. But, I am not a Jew. You see several of the same cultural problems in Arab countries today.

        You did not get away with rape so easily ….

        The last one, is of course another straw man ….

        But, I do believe children should not be sacrificed today to the homosexual agenda.

        Can we agree on that?

      • joesix says:

        Wayne, I have news for you — you don’t believe the WHOLE Bible, as you once unflinchingly claimed. This is a good thing, as even you can see some of the ridiculous and barbaric things in that book.

      • Wayne says:

        Joe.

        I do believe the whole Bible. I just won’t let you force the Bible to say something God did not mean it to say.
        ;)

        Wayne

  3. joesix says:

    So, the Bible never talks about not trimming your beard, stoning to death a child who swore at his parents, and getting away with rape by marrying the victim and paying off the father? Or are you interpreting (some may say “twisting”) those passages differently?

    • Wayne says:

      No. The Bible speaks about many cultural issues.

      The New Testament removed most of those issues from the Christian Church. I am NOT Jewish, so those passaged speaking to the cultural Jew have never applied to me.

      Even if twisted.

      Wayne

      • joesix says:

        I am Jewish, and those passages have never applied to me. Even Orthodox Jews don’t follow all the laws of the Testament. You ever notice how you never see any Jews fighting to put “traditional marriage” laws on ballots or protesting soldiers’ funerals? It’s because we recognize that the Testament was written by the fallible creature of man. So, why are you so intent on preserving its passages condemning homosexuality?

      • Wayne says:

        Actually …. many of the active progressives have a lot in common with secular judaism ….

        I was called by God to help family in America.

      • joesix says:

        That’s awesome for you. Why not wait for God to call me and my fellow progressives before trying to pass laws based on your personal religious beliefs? When you have to make a law that hurts a number of people, just to prove your morals or faith, then you have no true morals or faith to prove — or as your guy put it:

        “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

      • Wayne says:

        And he was right.

        ALL belongs to God.

        Laws passed to hurt families have hurt everyone.

        Just to prove the experiment doesn’t work. Thousands of years of what works should not be thrown out just to experiment …

        IMHO.

      • joesix says:

        Thousands of years of sexism didn’t work. Thousands of years of racism didn’t work. Thousands of years of homophobia didn’t work. If you’re so sure there’s some great “experiment” being carried out on us by some shadowy gay coven, I again tell you that you have the absolute right to preach that message in your churches, blogs, or clan meetings. God gave us free will, so why not let us use that to make our own decisions? Before you go back to your Maude Flanders routine, you have to show me one recent study from a non-religious institute that undoubtedly proves homosexuals are more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals.

      • Wayne says:

        Ironic, you would claim that appealing to God is an appeal to authority.

        Yet, he is the real authority.

        And all you have is the fallacy of a weak appeal to authority.

        No study would change your mind. Or, you would already follow God and his ways. IMHO

        The studies were always there.

        Wayne

      • joesix says:

        Look who’s using fancy rhetoric to twist the Bible now. Since I’m still here, I’m apparently open to any study that exemplifies your points. The lack of such a study seems like a pretty compelling case that you’re wrong and making dangerous assumptions based on your personal anecdotal evidence.

        But let’s get out of this circular argument and try a new approach. Let’s pretend you’re in charge now and able to experiment however you want with society. How would President Wayne stop the rapid deterioration of American culture? What specific things would he do to enforce the moral laws (many of which are already on the books in some states) condemning homosexuality, divorce, and Disney propaganda?

      • Wayne says:

        Joe,

        You keep things interesting. However, I was set free from the extreme bonds found in Judaism. The advantages of Christianity are many. That is not fancy rhetoric to twist the Bible. That is just the rhetoric of following Jesus ….
        ;)

        I had a long answer for the rest, but a screen-swipe swiped it. The disadvantages of my apple magic mouse ….

        Bring our troops home. Iraq second, Afghanistan first. Korea third. Reduce foreign troop levels 30%.

        Reduce senior level government pay …. over 100k reduce it 30%, over 50k reduce it 20%.

        OK,

        Term limits on Congressmen and Senators.

        Spending caps on political campaigns.

        Unions MAY not lobby against the wishes of their constituencies – they must be democratic, not dictatorships. They must have a four-fifths mandate from their constituents. Union leaders must have term limits of not more than six years.

        Tax lobbyists at 80% effective no deductions. Term limits on lobbyists, and cap the number of lobbyists in a firm and their yearly spending.

        Consider legalizing pot. Tax it. Use that money to help rehabilitate drug users.

        Move drug lords from illegal business into legal farming. License their operations.

        Issue shoot on sight orders for any ‘farmers’ not moving all production into legal drug production from illegal production.

        Since hollywood has forced their homosexual content upon America without regard to decency, pass laws taxing all R and X rated movies and TV shows cable and satellite TV are included – constitutional amendment might be necessary.

        Use that tax money to encourage family friendly media content.

        Protect the children. Give strong sentences to all abusers. After a certain number of offenses, the death penalty becomes mandatory.

        Reduce the power of the courts and the police …. too many convictions are forced.

        Quit using the news as a propaganda arm of the neo-fascist state.

        Shut down the advantages given multi-national corporations doing business here in the USA.

        Push through a law for homosexual couples. Give them civil status. But, not go so far as the desired marriage status they seek. Marriage status is about money, not about equality. Adoptive parents get paid tax credits for adoption.

        Reduce the tax credits paid for adoptive and foster parents. Children should not be big business. Nor should welfare be big business. Reduce welfare by 10 to 15%. Reduce food stamp allocations by 20%.

        BAN food-stamp usage at fast-food restaurants.

        Ban immigrants from the welfare system. It used to be that immigrants came here to work. Now they come to work the system.

        The state department CANNOT import aliens without a specific vote of the American People. Their job is not protecting foreigners. It is protecting America.

        All state department communication is made un-classified in 1 year.

        Did I mention bring our troops home and protect the kids?

        Oh yeah, bring back DADT. The reason homosexuals want in the military is two fold, they want to enjoy the increased dating opportunities, and they want the benefits.

        Remove AIDS from the list of automatic 100% disabling conditions if it was acquired from drug or homosexual contact.

        Shut down the programs of research which caused drug resistant super bugs. Can you say, AIDS? Move funding from AIDS to the more deadly and dangerous Hepatitis.

        It is ironic how quiet they have been about the public danger of their research ….

        Is that a short list?

        What should I add?

        Wayne

      • joesix says:

        Now we’re getting somewhere. Of course, even if you only follow the WHOLE Bible in the New Testament, that still means you condone the subjugation of women and abuse of slaves. You also seem to believe that God dictated the laws of the Old Testament and then changed his mind once JC came along?

        As for your campaign platform, I actually agree with about half of what you wrote. Cutting defense, legalizing marijuana, and restricting the influence of lobbyists and corporations fulfills a lot of America’s promise of liberty and justice for all.

        And then you ruin all that by proposing measures that infringe on everyone’s personal freedom. The MPAA already bars children from viewing PG-13, R, and X (if those even existed nowadays) rated movies. Taxing them would be unnecessary and possibly even stifle the art form. And I hate to make Nazi Germany comparisons, but one of the first things they did was control their art to show positive messages based on their “righteous ideology.”

        Despite what Fox News and AM radio is saying, we don’t live in a neo-fascist state and there are no news outlets supplying government-friendly propaganda. If anything, I’ve seen the news present more negative voices against the government in recent years.

        If you really want to keep marriage a religious institution, you should be advocating for banning all government-sanctioned marriages. Let all couples have civil unions for the tax credits you think are necessary for raising families and make the churches argue about who gets to marry who.

        We’ve had the welfare argument before, and I’m still convinced abuse of the system isn’t a serious problem until our social spending is at least more than half of the defense budget. This is also a good time to ask WWJD? Did Your Guy only feed poor and heal lepers who he knew weren’t lazy? Did he purposefully only aid legal Israelites?

        That flows smoothly into the immigrant problem. The vast majority of people on welfare are still white. Illegal immigration is significantly declining, and this is only leading to negative effects for small businesses unable to find a workforce willing to do degrading jobs for minimum wage.

        It’s absolutely absurd to suggest gays are joining the military for “dating opportunities.” There’s easier ways to get lucky than risking your life on a day to day basis. And I know for a fact that even Obama’s-a-Muslim-Texas has gay clubs. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell excluded countless talented servicemen devoted to putting their lives on the line for yours. Every branch of the military but the Marines recognized it for the archaic, bigoted policy it was.

        Your AIDS argument seems overtly anti-science. We may make mistakes in the pursuit of scientific breakthroughs, but we also find cures and treatments for polio, tuberculosis, hepatitis, and cancer. I’m resisting another Nazi Germany comparison when they decided what scientists were supposed to research.

        I do feel like we’re making some progress here though, if only exemplified by your now expressed desire to not kill homosexuals (now replaced by a desire to kill child molesters and farmers).

      • Wayne says:

        Joe,

        Thank you again, we must be getting somewhere.

        WWJD?

        When asked about taxation, Jesus said to pay Caesar less than 5% tax ….

        As a Christian, it is sinful to ask me to pay more than my God authorized.

        Especially for social experiments.

        And yes, the Nazi comparison is a good one. Glad you brought that up. Many of our advances of the last 70 years were due to Nazi research upon Jews and Christians (half of the people he had exterminated were Christian – why is that never pointed out?).

        Personally, I think advances based upon the experimentation and murder of human guinea pigs is not the wisest use of Science.

        Don’t you agree?

        Wayne

      • joesix says:

        5% is an oddly specific number for an all-knowing deity, and doesn’t take into account inflation or the changing geopolitical climate of the past 2,000 years. At any rate, if you think your religion allows you to pay less taxes, your Christian law would also let you keep and abuse slaves. My Jewish law would let me stone to death a child who swore at his parents. Muslims’ Sharia law would allow them to honor kill those who have shamed their families. The United States of America is a democracy that protects and enforces the liberty of all citizens, not a theocracy based on specific concepts of a single religion.

        Millions of Christians, Poles, Roma, communists, homosexuals, and POWs were slaughtered in concentration camps, but the vast majority of them were Jews. I’m not sure where you’re hearing otherwise or how it affects this argument at all. We’re not executing millions of people in the name of science; we’re not even killing that many actual guinea pigs and monkeys nowadays. Your point (if there is one) still comes off as overtly anti-science and anti-intellectualism.

      • Wayne says:

        Joe,

        Bad logic may sound good to you, but not to me.

        Study history a little. The taxation of the Romans is a matter of history. And it was NOT 55% so fascists could wast more money.

        Christianity does not ever call for the abuse of slaves.

        About half of those murdered were Christians. Just visit Ukraine some time. Yes, the Jews were brutalized. But, so were Christians.

        Wayne

  4. joesix says:

    Luckily, the United States of America is a democracy that protects and enforces the liberty of all citizens, not a theocracy based on specific concepts of a single religion.

    “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” Luke 12:47-48

    That’s Christianity calling for the abuse of slaves, and would coincidentally seem to support a proportional tax system for rich people who have been “entrusted with much.”

    • Wayne says:

      You sure did try …. that was a reference to Roman practices of the day.

      He was stating what happened (fact). Not what should happen (morality).

      Following your logic, a lot of people should be dead today.

      :)

      Wayne

      • joesix says:

        That passage I quoted was one of the many used by Christians to justify America’s use of slavery less than 200 years ago, but now they claim it’s void and not part of the WHOLE Bible they have to believe. Couldn’t the killing of homosexuals merely be a reference to Roman practices of the day? How can you determine what is prescription and what is description from a 2,000 year old book that’s been translated countless times? Following your logic, are these passages just more unnecessary filler in the most holy, perfect text of all time?:

        “Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.” (1 Peter 2:18 NAB)

        “As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:33-35 NAB)

        “Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to bring peace upon earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household’”. (Matthew 10:34-36 NAB)

        “But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart. So if your eye – even if it is your good eye – causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your hand – even if it is your stronger hand – causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” (Matthew 5:28-30 NLT)

      • Wayne says:

        In my family there were many abolitionists. Christians fought to end slavery. And a bunch of Christians died on both sides to settle it.

        Homosexuality is clearly prohibited throughout the Bible. There is no disagreement about that from Christian scholars.

        If you want to go to liberal Christian, or other scholars you may.

        But, I am an historic Christian. Practicing my historic faith.

        The same religious faith which founded this country and wrote the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Amendments.

        And George Washington’s call for prayer …. Amongst others.

        It is only recently that this has become an ‘issue.’

      • joesix says:

        That’s a creative way to avoid answering any of my questions and refuting abhorrent Bible verses. I’m going to avoid going back into our same circular argument about the separation of church and state and the evolution of culture, and instead implore you to give a real response to my original questions:

        Couldn’t the killing of homosexuals merely be a reference to Roman practices of the day? How can you determine what is prescription and what is description from a 2,000 year old book that’s been translated countless times? Following your logic, are these passages just more unnecessary filler in the most holy, perfect text of all time?:

        “Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.” (1 Peter 2:18 NAB)

        “As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:33-35 NAB)

        “Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to bring peace upon earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household’”. (Matthew 10:34-36 NAB)

        “But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart. So if your eye – even if it is your good eye – causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your hand – even if it is your stronger hand – causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” (Matthew 5:28-30 NLT)

      • Wayne says:

        Accept that the Scriptures you refer to were during the Hebrew reign, not Roman.

        As for Slaves being subject, Christians submitted even to Adolf.

        Submission is giving responsibility for sin to some one else.

        It is not abhorrent – abhorrent is your RE-definition.

      • joesix says:

        Jesus. The WHOLE Bible that you believe in — only from the New Testament — keeps getting smaller and smaller. Could you help me out a little and just say what parts of the WHOLE Bible you believe in and which parts you’re allowed to twist?

        Follow up questions:
        Do you think beating (let alone owning slaves) is not abhorrent?
        Do you think forbidding women from speaking in church or expressing opinions at home is not abhorrent?
        Do you think encouraging family feuds because of religious differences is not abhorrent?
        Do you think suggesting a person gouge out his eye for having a “lustful” glance or cutting off his hand for doing something “sinful” is not abhorrent?

      • Wayne says:

        Joe,

        Is there anything you do not consider abhorrent?

        What do you think when you look in the mirror?

        NO, most of the Bible is not abhorrent.

        Yes, there were some grizzly practices in the ANE. They sacrificed children on a regular basis. And I have read reports that they ate kids ….

        Disgusting and abhorrent.

        But, you have to focus on other bad behavior and then you call good, abhorrent.

        Isn’t that abhorrent?

      • joesix says:

        There’s quite a few things I don’t consider abhorrent, among them, civil rights, feminism, family, and imagination. By contrast, I’d say beating (let alone owning) slaves, forbidding women from speaking in church or expressing opinions at home, encouraging family feuds because of religious differences, and suggesting a person gouge out his eye for having a “lustful” glance or cutting off his hand for doing something “sinful” are undoubtedly abhorrent behaviors. Based on your impassioned response, I’ll have to assume you agree.

        I’m still very interested in understanding how you claim to believe the WHOLE Bible even though it has become apparent that you only believe certain parts of the New Testament.

      • Wayne says:

        Joe,

        Thanks again.

        It is easy to have problems with the Bible if you read too much through the lens of liberal scholarship. I found in Seminary that many liberal scholars are busy trying to prove themselves so they don’t get fired. So, they come up with some outlandish things.

        On the other hand, the Roman era, the Greek era, the Egyptian era, and the Hebrew era were filled with some pretty beastly things.

        Not to mention some of the other people groups ….

        Just because Paul or Jesus lived in those times does not make what they wrote suspect.

        Take the hair coverings. Ironically, Muslims adopted that cultural aspect. Orthodox still practice that.

        It does not bother me if women wear or do not wear a scarf. But, it was cultural.

        However, submitting to a husband is NOT cultural. It is NATURAL.

        Just watch Hilary sometime when Bill is giving a speech. She beams. She turns red. She revels in seeing her man in a public position of leadership.

        And she is VERY progressive and feminist.

        So, why would it become wrong for traditional women to practice what feminists practice?

        Wayne

      • joesix says:

        So, without the Roman era, the Greek era, the Egyptian era, and the Hebrew era, what do you have left? Are there any parts of the Bible you consider prescriptive? If not, then why try to legislate your personal ideas of morality on the rest of us?

        This isn’t the first time you’ve mentioned how “natural” it is for women to submit to men, but I’m still just as dumbfounded. Even with the sometimes stark differences between the sexes, physically and mentally, it’s incredibly offensive (even to a man like me) to suggest women must be content with their oppression. What you’re seeing on Hillary’s face is respect and pride for the man she loves. You’ll see the same thing on Bill’s face whenever the roles are reversed. My girlfriend is a bra-burning football player with three college degrees, but even she shows enthusiastic pride in my small achievements in professional and personal matters. I strive to show her just as much support everyday. The strongest, healthiest relationships are ones built on equal partnerships where both people understand and respect each other’s opinions, not male-centric subservience where honest discussions are considered “untraditional.” There certainly are plenty of women out there who want to be submissive mates, but it’s absurd to say that kind of relationship is natural for all women.

      • Wayne says:

        Joe,

        I consider all eras legitimate. I just do not consider sin to be legitimate.

        There has been rebellion against God during all eras, in all cultures, in all Religions. It is just that some things are worse than others.

        Don’t you consider murder worse than a ‘white lie?’

      • Wayne says:

        Wow …. you are starting to sound traditional.

      • joesix says:

        Sin stinks, but as we’ve already discussed, our idea of what “sin” is has drastically changed over the past 2,000 years. We both seem to agree that beating slaves is sinful and women speaking in church isn’t, which directly contradicts the New Testament. So, I am forced to ask once more, are there any passages of the Bible you consider prescriptive?

      • joesix says:

        You’re sounding more and more like one of those liberal Biblical scholars.

      • Wayne says:

        That was a good shot, cheap, but good.

        NO. I sound like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul, and the countless conservative scholars over the years.

        When you read allegory as literal, you might fall into a trap set by the author.

        Since God is the Biblical author behind the prophets, it is especially important not to mistake allegory for the literal. As in “if you eye offends thee, …. ”
        ;)

        But, still a good try.

        Wayne

      • joesix says:

        You’re picking and choosing what is allegory and what is metaphor, just like the Alex who started this discussion and the Rev. Helminiak I directed you to. How can you be completely sure that a passage that suggests you tear out your own eye is an allegory? How can you be completely sure that any passage seeming to condemn homosexuality isn’t an allegory about something totally unrelated? We don’t know how poetic God really is or the countless prophets who interpreted His message from countless languages over countless generations.

        Less than 200 years ago, some Christians used the Bible to justify the abolition of slavery while another group of Christians used the Bible to condone slavery. Even today, some Christians are interpreting the Bible to justify the idea of putting all gays behind electrified fences and prohibiting women from speaking in church. What makes them wrong and you right?

        The scholar Jesus Christ advocated new groundbreaking ideas that went against the traditional teachings of religion. 2,000 years ago, you would have called him a liberal. And I might be wrong here (crazier things have happened), but I still haven’t seen a single passage from him where he talks about homosexuality.

      • Wayne says:

        Joe,

        You are a good debater.

        Nowhere does the Prophet Jesus Christ disagree with the Old Testament prohibition against homosexuality.

        He did not disagree with previous prophets, he did disagree with the fake prophets of his era.

        When I agree with Moses, I do not need to mention homosexuality directly. And since it was not a major practice amongst the Jews of that era, and Jesus was sent to the Jews first, I would not expect Jesus to focus upon a prohibited act which was not in practice.

        Now.

        If Jesus came to America today? I would expect he might mention the actions of homosexuality.

        But, when he comes this time, it will be in glory.

        Wayne

      • joesix says:

        So, we have to assume Jesus agreed with the Old Testament’s view on homosexuality just because he didn’t say otherwise? You honestly don’t see yourself twisting anything here? Does that mean he agreed with everything from the Old Testament if he didn’t mention it? Did he believe in stoning to death a child who swore at his parents?
        Did he believe in getting away with rape by marrying the victim and paying off the father?

        The homosexuality thing is a pretty hot-button topic today and was just as prevalent in ancient Rome (if not more so). I would think an all-knowing deity with powers linked to all space and time would want to mention it if it’s such a big deal.

      • Wayne says:

        Joe,

        I have been called a prophet. Why?

        Because I understand what it means.

        There is ONE GOD. One Bible. One prophecy.

        The Bible does not change because man changes. Why?

        Because God does not change. Man does.

        So? Men change and they try to justify their change by changing the Bible.

        But, men of God do NOT change. We understand the SAME message across the centuries, across millennia.

        It is not that I assume Jesus agreed with Moses.

        I know.

        Because I follow the same tradition with one difference. I am not THE Son of God. I am A son of God.

      • joesix says:

        Well, I have no idea how to respond to that. This is a whole other level of crazy I’ve never witnessed before. Do you really think you’re a prophet?

      • Wayne says:

        Joe,

        My answer is consistent with those before me.

        No.

        Other people do.

        If you notice Scripture, you will notice that consistently.

        One of the reasons those around me attribute that to me is that I consistently interpret Scripture the way it has been interpreted for thousands of years.

        ALL of my ‘modern readings’ are interpretation based readings. And they are based upon modern changes. I have found NO Scripture to be false, or falsifiable. I have found Scripture which can have a modern meaning. A modern meaning would have been unavailable 2,000 or 3,500 years ago.

        Now you can slander someone over the internet, or commit adultery over the internet. Those were not available thousands of years ago.

        Wayne

      • joesix says:

        I guess that sounds a little less crazy. But your own devotion and self-righteousness is all just anecdotal evidence. You still sound just as sure of yourself as Alex, Rev. Helminiak, and countless other Biblical scholars who all proclaim to have a similar bond with God and the hidden knowledge of how to interpret His ancient book of hidden facts and allegories. How can you prove you’re right and they’re all wrong? How can you justify legislating a kind of morality that a growing majority of citizens can’t see?

      • Wayne says:

        Joe,

        I cannot ‘justify’ to those who choose to change what has worked for thousands of years.

        Neither can they justify that what they are doing is justified.

        And I believe most neutral people would side with me based upon the evidence.

        Wayne

      • joesix says:

        I think you’re saying, more or less, that this is all just your opinion. That’s fine. That’s great. Like I mentioned before, you’re absolutely entitled to your right to spread the Good Word about specific parts of the WHOLE Bible on your blogs, in your churches, or at your clan meetings. And the gay Hollywood Satanists are entitled to spread their violent, anti-family messages wherever they want. That’s freedom. That’s America. But when you have to make a law that hurts a number of people, just to prove your morals or faith, then you have no true morals or faith to prove.

      • Wayne says:

        Joe,

        I have never been a racist. Nor am I a ‘homophobe.’

        Hate metaphor is reminiscent of previous fascist administrations.

        And that is part of the problem today, every dissident is attacked.

        But, those causing decades of overspending and hate speech stay in control.

      • joesix says:

        I’m not calling you a racist or a homophobe, I’m implying you’re close-minded. I’m not seeing any hate speech or physical violence coming from the progressive “agenda.” Religious zealots on the other hand are protesting soldiers’ funerals, advocating hitting children for not following their gender roles, and suggesting locking up all homosexuals in a concentration camp.

        http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-02/us/scotus.westboro.church_1_anti-gay-protests-albert-snyder-westboro-baptist-church?_s=PM:US

        http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/08/pastor-who-sparked-outrage-over-hitting-gay-children-speaks-out/

        http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/22/video-of-north-carolina-pastors-plan-to-get-rid-of-gays-goes-viral/

      • Wayne says:

        Joe,

        You implied the assertions. And I foiled your use of metaphor.

        You then come back with my being close-minded.

        OK, so I am a SKEPTIC …. since when is being a skeptic dubious. I merely want you to support reality.

        Can you guarantee that the progressive agenda will NOT lead to more children being raped?

        Millions of children have been raped by progressive supporters of homosexuality. A similar number have been assaulted by what you would call zealots – heterosexual based offenders.

        The problem in the math is simple. It is not a matter of equality. There are many heterosexual pedophiles …. there are not very many homosexual offenders. But, they make up for their small numbers in their hideous crimes.

        So, you bring up a smaller number of zealots who are genuinely offended by the crimes of the homosexual population. And you imply they are using hate speech in attacking the OFFENDERS.

        It does get old being an honest skeptic.

        But, I HAVE EXPERIENCED homosexual assault …. I thank God to this day that it stopped at that level. I have seen what happened to an Army unit (500 to 600 men) when they experienced homosexuality. And that was DEVASTATING. When I saw the result of their experience, I had an epiphany.

        It is NOT my religious background which makes homosexuality un-natural. Homosexuality is what makes homosexuality un-natural. It turns the stomach of normal people.

        IRONICALLY, normal people do not want to go out and beat up homosexuals. It just makes us sick.

        So, why is it that we are supposed to accept them, but they REFUSE to accept us? And they want to take our rights from us? And from our children?

        Can you guarantee that the progressive agenda will NOT lead to more children being raped?

        Wayne

      • joesix says:

        Wow, there’s a lot going on here. Let me start by saying that I humbly consider myself to be a “normal” person. It makes me sick to see any minority treated like monsters. I would never infringe on anyone’s right to spread their (what I consider) bigoted beliefs. Normal people such as myself do not want to go out and beat up religious zealots. I “accept” you even though I may never understand you. Normal people such as myself are not trying to pass laws to prevent zealots from getting married or adopting children. I still don’t understand what rights you think normal people such as myself are taking away from you. You mentioned before that you’re being denied the Biblical right to kill homosexuals, but I refuse to believe you’re crazy enough to advocate killing random people.

        You’re channeling Maude Flanders again with your self-righteous defense of all abused children. I’ll give you one more chance to find any non-religious study from the past 20 years that shows homosexuals are significantly more likely to molest or “indoctrinate” children. I’ll make it even easier for you. Ask one of those gay friends you claim to have about why he feels the incessant need to abuse children, and let me know the conversation that follows.

        I can’t guarantee anything if the “progressive agenda” continues. War, murder, and rape will likely be a part of humanity’s history until our final days. Devoutly Christian cultures don’t have the best track record of preventing these misfortunes. The Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials are the first things that come to mind.

      • Wayne says:

        Joe,

        I do not think that ‘normal’ people want homosexuals to be ‘married.’ Civil protections? I might believe that.

        Protect our children? I know they want that.

        I do believe that normal people are surprised at how quickly the discussion has moved from civil protection of a ‘gay’ person’s status to forcing pastors to marry homosexuals.

        And yes. That is what marriage has ALWAYS been considered.

        Lenin and Stalin implemented civil ceremonies in the Soviet Union because marriage WAS A RELIGIOUS ceremony.

        But, you want me to accept that all of a sudden what was normal for the last 5,000 years is no longer normal.

        As for studies in the last 20 years. Show me ANY modern study (which is not homosexual biased) which supports homosexuality being normal ….

        I have studied this off and on for 30 years. And I know of NO non-biased studies in support of the homosexual agenda. Even the studies biased for homosexuality have said some pretty strong things against their own subject.

        Wayne

      • joesix says:

        Your repeated use of the phrase “normal people” is bordering on offensive. I’m a straight white male between the ages of 18 to 55 with a college degree and stable employment. I was raised by two loving parents and studied religious texts during much of my adolescence. Tell me, how am I not “normal”? How am I much different from you?

        No one is forcing pastors to marry homosexuals. Many priests, rabbis, and imams are performing these ceremonies today of their own free will. If the zealots were really so concerned about government butting into this religious institution, they should be trying to pass legislation to ban all government recognized marriages.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8433527/First-homosexual-caveman-found.html

        http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201006/25-year-long-study-finds-children-lesbian-parents-may-be-better-adj

        http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetics.and.environmental.factors

        http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/15/have-scientists-found-gay-gene/

        What did your gay friend say to you?

      • Wayne says:

        Which gay friend are you talking about?

        And again, can you find any non-biased studies? I have not, and I have studied this for 30 years.

        As a ‘normal’ person, why are you so against Marriage? If you had a ‘normal’ family, why are you intent upon seeing it broken up for other people?

        Those are not ‘centrist’ beliefs, even if the radical liberal establishment encourages the media to publish false reports indicating that. IMHO.

        I am tired, so I hope I didn’t write anything offensive, but Americans did live like ‘Leave it to Beaver’ lives. And it is sad to watch an agenda destroy the good lives so many children HAD.

        Wayne

  5. joesix says:

    Find me any reason why those studies are biased aside from the fact that you don’t agree with them. Better yet, find me your own study or how one of your supposed gay friends responded when you asked him why he feels the incessant need to abuse and indoctrinate young children.

    I have nothing against marriage. I even plan to have one myself someday. Plenty of normal gay people want to have their own families too. I can thus ask you the same question: Why are you so against marriage?

    My normal beliefs are becoming centrist beliefs with each new day. I already directed you to the latest national poll that showed support for same-sex marriage over 50% and you already said it was biased because you didn’t agree with it.

    Upper-class white men lived like the main characters in “Leave it to Beaver.” Blacks, women, gays, and the poor lived like extras in “Mad Men.”

    • Wayne says:

      Not true.

      Black men are very opposed to gay marriage.

      But, they are dismissed from the studies, so are middle aged so-called white men.

      But, when I talk to twenty somethings, they tell me they are scared. Scared of what?

      Of exactly what you tell me is working so well.

      They do not feel it is normal, nor do I.

      Genetic links to homosexuality were pretty much dismissed after the bad results from the twins study. I supported that study. And like I wrote, many of the current, if not all of the current studies are biased.

      Why?

      Because we are looking to ‘re-invent’ family and society.

      Progressives have done that for over a hundred years. I do not like their results.

      I remember the arguments of ‘we only want beer in our local restaurants. We only want gambling sometimes. The lottery will balance our budget, and it will ALL go to schools.”

      The progressive push has not stopped after any ‘goal.’

      And it will not stop at civil arrangements. It will not stop until Christians are forced to hire openly gay people and give them special benefits.

      Benefits which deny my Religion.

      I am not a cranky old guy trying to justify my 100 million dollars in slave stock. Which btw was not very many slaves. I have often wondered why we value our employees at a lessor cash value than most slave owners valued slavery …..

      But, that would be a different argument.

      Again, I am not going against 3500 years of established interpretation to justify my disgust of homosexual marriage.

      Ironically, married people are overwhelmingly against homosexual marriage. And most first time marriages make it. Both of those are seldom covered by any modern studies.

      I am against giving special benefits to homosexuals. Especially benefits which violate my Religion.

      And even if only 10% of homosexuals abuse children that is a higher rate than the rest of society. And it is too much to earn a special benefit.

      I NEED protections which protect children and my Religion.

      Wayne

  6. Pingback: What do MY readers want to read? | luvsiesous

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s