An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to dinner for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard he grew on vacation. His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they both feel comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts. But, as always, she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day her divorce decree was final. They're laughing over their menus because they know he always ends up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she won't be talked into anything more fattening than shrimp. Quiz: How many biblical prohibitions are they violating? Well, wives are supposed to be 'submissive' to their husbands (I Peter 3:1). And all women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) or dress in clothing that 'pertains to a man' (Deuteronomy 22:5). Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury (Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19). And since the Bible rarely recognizes divorce, they're committing adultery, which carries the rather harsh penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:22). So why are they having such a good time? Probably because they wouldn't think of worrying about rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or - at best - unrealistic. Yet this same modern-day couple could easily be among the millions of Americans who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their own anti-gay attitudes. ~Deb Price, And Say Hi To Joyce
ok I don't want to sound like I'm stickin up for christians but as I understand it all those references come from the old testament which christians don't believe they have to follow anymore (they sometimes call it the old convenat i think) because 'the rules changed' in the new testament (the new convenant) when jesus died etc.....that's why a christian with more understanding of christianity usually only makes anti-gay arguments from the new testament. ok i probably didn't explain thaty exactly right but it's something that bugs me when i read something like that cuz I always think it's stooping to a (homophobic) christians level and throwing back quotes with no context. The quotes from the old testament sound good when your trying to spread hatred of homosexuality....or of hypocritical christians :icon_wink
But that's precisely the point made by the person who wrote the original article... the less tolerant (read anti-gay) Christians are the ones who *do* quote the Old Testament to justify their bigotry. And while they freely quote the portions about how awful it is to be a homosexual, they conveniently ignore the parts that say a child who talks back to his parents should be stoned to death and so forth. Fundamentally, I am in agreement that there are a lot of very openminded and loving Christians who have no issues at all with gay people (or any other groups that the fundies don't like.) And I get really annoyed when people paint with a wide brush and condemn all Christians, because when we do that, we're doing to them exactly what we're asking them *not* to do to us. As with so many other things, it's an issue of fear, usually brought about by ignorance. The film "Prayers for Bobby" did an amazing job of conveying that story, and I wish everyone had the opportunity to see it. I don't expect it would change the minds of the most closedminded, but it might just make them think a little.
Similarly though, the "anti-gay" statements in the bible are all in the old testament, and the ones in the new testament, none of which were said by Jesus himself, were all translated from the Greek word "arsenokoites", which could mean "special gay friend", "male temple prostitute" or "gigolo for rich women". A solid bedrock for bigotry :dry:
There are also passages in the new testament that contradict the old ... so it would appear that Christians are no longer expected to follow the law completely. That quote says the law won't disappear but does that mean it must be followed to the letter? I have yet to meet a christian that follows old testament law completely or who thinks they should so i think my point is still correct.
I just thought the quote was interesting. So what is the difference betweeen the old testiment and the new one?
But that's the thing. The vast majority of the time, any Christian literature I see denouncing Homosexuality usually only quotes the old testament. Usually Leviticus. Yet within a couple of lines of those citations, are the other ones dealing with practices that aren't normally followed by Christians (eg: Shellfish, etc, etc). Therein lies the rub. As far as homosexuality and the new testament goes, the quotes are vague at best, and many from the "Letters" section (and thus, could be argued, are not the 'true word of god'). That I know of, absolutely nowhere does Jesus himself say anything about homosexuality. Not to mention all the contextual importance required to fully understand a passage's meaning, and the fact that a lot of these are nth generation translations, and in some cases key words do not have a true equivalent in another language, so the meaning can be distorted by drawing alternate meanings from a mis-translation. Yet more reasons why I distance myself from organized religion. The nasty seems to overshadow the good. "Old Testament" Predates Jesus, and is the basis of the Jewish faith, where it's commonly referred to as the Torah. "New testament" is the "books" dealing with Jesus and his disciples, and post-Jesus stuff in the Christian bible. Check it out on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament Of the original quote, I believe IIRC: Old Testement: Deuteronomy Leviticus New Testement: I Timothy
