Subject:
|
Re: Sex Scandal: U.S. President had sex with Intern!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 May 2003 01:14:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
262 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes:
> > > No kidding, I'm LDS...
> >
> > This explains a lot.
> >
> > > Why must religious people be tolerant of the lifestyles of others, while they
> > > are intollerant of our lifestyles? How about this for a novel concept, keep
> > > private things private. You don't discuss what happens in your bedroom, and I
> > > will afford you the same courtesy.
> >
> > I am not seeing the intolerance directed at the religious members of our
> > community. Maybe if you were Jewish or Muslim. That thing about Mormon
> > persecution so many years ago is starting to grow mold on it...
>
> The intolerance I was refering to is that of those who take issue with
> religions or religionists for their beliefs, basically telling someone that
> they must unconditionally accept your chosen lifestyle. One of my best
> friends has recently moved in with his girlfriend, I have expressed to him
> that I personally believe that this is wrong, but it is his decision to
> make. His choice in no way makes me fell less about him, and I still spend a
> great deal of time at his new house. I am tolerant of his lifestyle, even
> though I disagree with it, he is tolerant of my postition, even though he
> disagrees with it. My beef is with those who would try to force me to
> completely accept their arangement, rather than simply tolerate it.
The point I was trying to make with John, and seems to be pushed to the
wayside, is that mayhaps the church, and doctroines thereof, need to be
revisited--whether you personally accomodate homosexuals in your life is
nice and all, but irrelevant--the church doesn't.. Why? Because the Bible
says so. And I'm saying, well, no. Not really. The Bible doesn't say
homosexuality is a sin. It says 'forced sex' is a sin and it says that sex
b/w men and boys is a sin. But it does not say that homosexuality is a
sin. Today's english versions that say the word 'homosexuality' *may* have
been misinterpreted. Perhaps, as some Biblical redactor scholars propose,
it's time to revisit these 'interpretations' of the original souce text (or
as close to the original as we can get) and come to a better understanding
of what was said.
Much like "Honour your mother and father" as one of the commandments. Face
value it looks pretty straight forward. Would it surprise you to know that
this was a very big concern of the Israelites coming out of Egypt? It seems
that those nasty Egyptians had no such policy and if you were old, you wer
'cast out of the city' where there 'would be weeping and gnashing of
teeth'--old folks were left out in the desert to die--the young Egyptians
didn't want to take care of them.
And the Israelites lived in Egypt for generations. On leaving, this became
an issue. Not saying that Moses added the commandment--but it is there, and
it was a contradiction to the lifestyle the Israelites were exposed to and
living with for a few generations.
Likewise, some scholars say that in Rome, adult males had 'sexual relations'
with young boys. It is an historical thing--we know this to be true--not
just from 'Biblical history'--and, again as some would suggest, the word for
that type of sexual relations is the same, or similar to, the words used in
old manuscripts.
So, again, in order to better understand what is actually meant in Biblical
texts, it may be prudent to re-examine them, in context with the time they
were originally written, and see in what conditions the Israelites were living.
Don't you agree that the Bible should be subject to the same 'critical
thought' that we appear to want to scrutinize everytihng else with? or are
todays "revised editions" infallible?
> And by the way, I do not know a single LDS person who uses age old
> persecution as a crutch for any reason, I never do. I merely brought it up
> as a funny side note to the polygamy reference.
Was funny.
>
> > I'd just like to remind you that the LDS are not exactly observing the
> > Golden Rule in the way I think of it: "Do not unto others as you would have
> > others not do unto you." Instead, they send their annoying missionaries
> > around periodically to bang on my door, as if I needed spiritual guidance
> > from a door to door, overzealous salesman!
> >
> > Take thy Urim and Thummim from out my heart, and take tha form from off my door!
>
> We are taking something that brings us happiness and offering to share it,
> how is that not following the golden rule? If you are not interested simply
> state that and they will leave you alone. Don't want them to knock in the
> first place, put up a no soliciting sign.
Agreed--I am very polite, but firm to the Jehovah's Witnesses that come around.
> > Now I am not in favor of overtly sexual acts in public, but I think that
> > holding hands, embracing, and kissing in public should be allowed for
> > everyone. I certainly see heterosexual couples doing it, it would therefore
> > be most unfair to deny such practices to gays, bis, etc.
> >
> > I have this funny feeling that you can't actually let it go at that --
> > that's too much to bear, to see same sex couples engaged romantic touching.
> > You're supposed to persecute people that do that. It would be like allowing
> > a growing evil to fester within your community.
> >
> > "God told me to skin you alive..."
> >
> > -- Hop-Frog
>
> I know you are called the hop-frog, but your legs must be tired from jumping
> to so many conclusions. When one of my inner-circle of friends confessed to
> all of us that he was gay, he expected, because of my faith, that I would be
> the least accepting and tolerant, in fact he told me that I was the most
> understanding. I have no problem with homosexual couples displaying
> affection in public. If it was a bit over zealous I am sure it would make me
> uncomfortable, but that is true of heterosexual affection too. Do
> homosexuals harm communities? Should the be rooted out? Absolutely not. Why
> must you make such assumptions?
How did you come by your faith? Was it thru careful examination of the
Bible, or are you just reciting what the grown ups around you taught you
when you were a kid? This is my problem--nowhere in the Bible does it say
that it shouldn't be re-examined. Perhaps the church has got it wrong after
all these years. Perhaps not, but I think it's worth having a boo.
Martin Luther was heretical. His 97 "new" ideas were considered blasphemous
and absolutely contrary to the Bible. Well, looking back today, not so much.
> Scott C.
I always like using this example (to bring science into it)--
Up until 1967, the inert gasses (the atoms in the last row of the Periodic
Table) could not actively partake in a chemical reaction--they had their
electron 'orbitals' all full-up. These inert gasses would not react, that
is, until a couple cocky kids in some university didn't believe the
professor, and actually got some of them to react!
The atoms didn't change. The Periodic Table didn't change, but our
perception changed because someone dared to challenge convention. Martin
Luther challenged convention. So did MLK.
So there you are.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
37 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
