I prefer the "free dictionary" instead of that bound up Miriam, though that could be fun too I suppose.
1.
Given to contention; quarrelsome.
2.
Involving or likely to cause
contention
; controversial:
A central and contentious element of the book...
Since I was referring to what was said, and not eyes as a person, then usage two fits ... when you say the Bible says homosexual acts are not "wrong", then that is controversial. And to say it is wrong with the implied authorities (book, professor), but refusing to engage in further discussion ... leaves it as a wall of contention, so to speak. Then in her threadto say she was attacked before being give a chance is another contentious revision. and here we are ...
I think kimberly and eyes may have used usage one about some people that had disagreed and sought clarification.
I only recall referring to what was said in that other thread. CONTENTION. which only referred to what eyes had said. Their response was a more sweeping judgment about the character of these attacking hateful people.
As to what the author of this book being announced has expounded here so far ...
it seems there is no clear Biblical backing to the title question. Homosexual acts are lumped in with things that are still considered wrong.
Saying they have no choice so it is not sin, seems the same as saying a kleptomaniac has no choice, so theft is not wrong. (I'm not saying the homosexual act is the same as stealing, but saying that using that logic to make either one "right", is wrong) Also that argument does not seem "doctrinal".
My main contention is that it is fine for people to believe what they want, but to try to revise Christianity to coerce Christians to change their beliefs seems intrusive to their freedoms. It seems much more honest to say "I've looked at the Bible and I disagree with it on this subject", than to revise the Bible and to make it say what you want ... and say "see here, you were wrong about your Bible beliefs, you don't even know your own book".
I like most of what Christianity has done ... so this issue seems like a case of an attempt to change a fundamental part of the religion. I doubt eyes is part of some grand conspiracy, but this issue is nationally contentious, and revising the Bible to make it accept homosexual acts as the norm seems a dishonest way to try to change Christians.
Of course some churches are making the changes on their own, but it seems those move away from the more strict interpretation, which is fine, if it is their choice.
I know this thread is an announcement, not a discussion ... but since a negative critique of people that disagreed was introduced, it seems this thread really is open for discussion.
You know I would truly love to know exactly what you want me to say. Jen-o stated that she believed that the verses in Leviticus are a list of abominations. She posted a few verses that seem to support her position. I Stated that the verses in Leviticus are talking about idolotry and idolotrous practices. I asked her to look at the verses in the beginning of the chapter (since she was fairly adament that she had read the "whole book" and indicated that she was familar with the verses) and I pointed out that it seems clear to me that the subject is idolotry not a listing general abominations. We disagree. I am not likely going to change her mind any time soon. Neither is she going to change my mind any time soon. So what is to discuss?
I dont mind having a discussion or a friendly debate but I flat refuse to argue. I do not need to convince anyone of any position, I'm not telling you that the only way to please God is to be gay. I'm not trying to convince anyone that they should change their views. All I did was write a book about what I found and made it available for others if they want to read it. I dont need to justify myself to anyone except God. And I'm sorry Rhino and Jen neither one of you have ascended to the throne.
You know I would truly love to know exactly what you want me to say.
i can't speak for anyone else...
but i would like to know if you really think that you were "attacked" on the "God bless CA" thread?
and if the answer is affirmative, then i would like to know specifically what you deem to be an "attack"...
if i have "attacked" anyone, i most certainly would like to know where, and have the opportunity to apologize for it...
I dont need to justify myself to anyone except God.
eyes, no one has asked you to "justify" yourself...
it was a simple question, i.e. what are your reasons for disagreeing with the plain meaning of the scriptures?
i'm not so sure why you have assumed such a defensive posture about this...
why not just say: i disagree because of xyz...
I Stated that the verses in Leviticus are talking about idolotry and idolotrous practices.
you did state the topic was idolatry, but this is the first i've heard about "practices"... i said the bible called them "abominable customs"... now here you say they are "idolatrous practices"... whichever name you want to use, God still says not to do them (the customs/practices)... maybe, i will take this up on the doctrinal thread...
And I'm sorry Rhino and Jen neither one of you have ascended to the throne.
Thank you everyone for going over the discussion that you all had that led to Eyesopen's response to my request that she share some of what she believes to be true with regards to homosexuality. During the course of the last few days one of my concerns was that I did not know the whole story that led up to Eyesopen's statement concerning having been attacked for sharing her beliefs.
After what I just read in the more recent posts it seems that it was a challenging discussion that Eyesopen refered to, but then homosexuality is a challenging subject that pulls hard on the emotions of people, often in many different directions.
My two cents on the conversation is that homosexualty is one of the things that was punished by death under O.T. law as it was written many centuries ago. So was spiritualism, adultery, bestiality, murder, breaking the sabbath, and on and on. The one that seems to come up the most often IMO here at the greasespot is adultery as it related to the practices of top TWI leadership.
I'm not interested in condemning homosexuality any more than any of these things in general, but how top TWI leadership has behaved has perturbed me very much at times becase I've heard the voices of those who were hurt by them.
But as a Christian, I think that there is a lot more to be said for patience, kindness, prayer, and the like when dealing with an aquaintance that happens to be homosexual.
I think the quote that I think of often goes something like, "I desire mercy and not judgement."
but i would like to know if you really think that you were "attacked" on the "God bless CA" thread?
and if the answer is affirmative, then i would like to know specifically what you deem to be an "attack"...
I already answered that. Rhino was good enough to admit it, of course then he said that he only used the word because I had. Ok...
if i have "attacked" anyone, i most certainly would like to know where, and have the opportunity to apologize for it...
Never said you did, but if you would like to step up to the plate no-one here will stop you.
eyes, no one has asked you to "justify" yourself...
Right...
it was a simple question, i.e. what are your reasons for disagreeing with the plain meaning of the scriptures?
i'm not so sure why you have assumed such a defensive posture about this...
why not just say: i disagree because of xyz...
Already did that but if you want a repeat then ok...the first few verses of Leviticus 18: 1-5
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
"Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord you God.
After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
Ye shall do My judgments, and keep Mine ordinaces, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.
Now what you said about the following scriptures being a list of 'abominations' is not correct, (I think you used that word correct me if I'm wrong) the word 'abomination' does not apply to all of them as God distigueshes between them where they are written. But the fact that they are a list is to me obvious so in that part you are correct. But they must be seen in the context of idolatry. God does not remind them that He is their God on a whim. He tells them three times just in these verses. The number three denotes what....right...completeness.
Furthermore in verse 21 God comes right out and names Molech (king of gods) and reminds them again that He is their God. And finally at the end of the chapter he says it yet again.
He also does not use the word "neither" on a whim...it is a word that connects two different things. This clearly shows that he is not referring to only the ordinances that you spoke of although they are part of it. To gain a full understanding it is clear that God EXPECTS the reader to know what the "doings of the land of Egypt...and...the doings of the land of Canaan" were.
So I do not fully disagree with your conclusion, I only think that there is more to it than what you are seeing. Is that x, y and z enough?
you did state the topic was idolatry, but this is the first i've heard about "practices"... i said the bible called them "abominable customs"... now here you say they are "idolatrous practices"... whichever name you want to use, God still says not to do them (the customs/practices)... maybe, i will take this up on the doctrinal thread...
I'm sorry where does it say 'abominable customs?'
And no that was not a backhanded comment that was a straight forward comment as opposed to using "inuendo or hints".
but i would like to know if you really think that you were "attacked" on the "God bless CA" thread?
and if the answer is affirmative, then i would like to know
specifically
what you deem to be an "attack"...
I already answered that. Rhino was good enough to admit it, of course then he said that he only used the word because I had. Ok...
Of course I used that term because you said it here first, I was replying to you. But it seems we need to review again ...
You "innocently" offered opinion there was simple enough, except you had already said you had written a book on the subject. So you were really throwing your weight around on that thread... yet you refused to respond to questions, as opposed to your claim here that you were attacked without having a chance to expound. That was YOUR false accusation here.
So I just gave you the .. OK, I "attacked" ... BUT ... and it's a big but ...
As we have said and you still don't admit, you had every chance and refused, but dug in deeper about your professors and whatever else ... So in response to the "hey, she wrote a book, she doesn't have to answer" ... I gave my opinion that there was no evidence the book meant you had any credentials ...
I really did not attack ... and you had every chance to respond but refused. I only "attacked" the authority you seemed to imply. You played the author/professor card ... and I played the no evidence of scholarship card. All in the context of questioning the validity of your unfounded opinion.
Then you came back here and "attacked" those people for not giving you a chance ... which you have yet to admit was simple not true. Then you quoted my two words, ignoring the context of my post.
My two cents on the conversation is that homosexualty is one of the things that was punished by death under O.T. law as it was written many centuries ago. So was spiritualism, adultery, bestiality, murder, breaking the sabbath, and on and on. The one that seems to come up the most often IMO here at the greasespot is adultery as it related to the practices of top TWI leadership.
I don't remember if breaking the sabbath had the same penalty, but if you do,
I'll take your word for it at the moment. After all, it's not like that's where the
discussion is going...
The poor practices of top twi leadership-as reflected in their poor "private" doctrines-
were the cause of much hurt and harm to people. They were also quite hypocritical-
lcm was a poor Christian when in charge of twi, and a chronic sinner,
but he railed at length against SOME sins and considered OTHER sins to be perfectly fine.
(And that's only one example from twi.)
I'm not interested in condemning homosexuality any more than any of these things in general, but how top TWI leadership has behaved has perturbed me very much at times becase I've heard the voices of those who were hurt by them.
But as a Christian, I think that there is a lot more to be said for patience, kindness, prayer, and the like when dealing with an aquaintance that happens to be homosexual.
As a Christian, there's a lot to be said for patience, kindness, prayer, and the like when dealing with
all acquaintances, for all sin...
I think the quote that I think of often goes something like, "I desire mercy and not judgement."
Unless you're thinking of an entirely different quote, the one you were thinking of was
"I will have mercy and not SACRIFICE",
and was meant to indicate that mercy, kindness, and so on were far MORE important
than all the rituals to be followed-especially if they were followed without mercy and
As we have said and you still don't admit, you had every chance and refused, but dug in deeper about your professors and whatever else ... So in response to the "hey, she wrote a book, she doesn't have to answer" ... I gave my opinion that there was no evidence the book meant you had any credentials ...
Just a question...since when does someone need a degree to write a book? I never claimed to be any kind of authority on homosexuality or on Biblical Studies or on the connection between so why am I being expected to act like one? I was very clear in both threads I dont want to have a big discussion on this. I have never gone out and said 'buy my book'. I simply made an announcement on this thread and gave you my opinion on another. My right to speak is in the Bill of Rights!
Here are a very few of the links that I used to come to my conclusions. Read them yourselves. There are 25 pages in my book of such links. Some influenced more than others I will put in more later if you want.
Im staying out of this but watching from a distance has been interesting...
since when does someone need a degree to write a book?
Lack of degrees has never stopped the likes of Wierwille --or many christians (and non christians for that matter) from voicing their opinion, or their view of scripture or God. If I remember correctly Peter and John were "ignorant and unlearned men" and they seemed to do OK despite their lack of credentials...even wrote a few books....As far as I know neither of them ever mentioned what has been termed here as a 'foundation' of the faith, that is homosexuality as sin...
had an interesting point that I have been thinking about during the course of this thread
A brochure on the door of the Episcopal Chaplain's office at Stanford University reads, "What did Jesus say about homosexuality?" When the brochure is opened the inside is completely blank. Episcopal Chaplain Penelope Duckworth explains, "For we, as Christians, pay particular attention to the words of our savior. Jesus said nothing regarding homosexuality, and in his ministry spoke more about the sins of the spirit than the sins of the body
Because certain wings of christianity assume certain issues to be central tenets doesnt necessarily make them so--except to themselves. I would think that the central character in Christianity may have talked about it at least once if it were so important, but that is not true --at least in my bible.
Some churches are vehemently against homosexuality, other s not so much, others are very open to all.
The faith is hardly being "changed" or challenged. There have always been different views and methods of processing scripture.
Jesus did spend a great amount of his time commenting about a lot of things (treatment of the poor, how to deal with your enemies etc immediately comes to mind). Its interesting to me how something he never mentioned can hold such precedence over issues that he did speak in depth about...
Eyesopen, you surely know that the more you engage these folks, the more they'll argue with you.
I'm afraid you won't satisfy their question, no matter your response, no matter how logic or correct. You could swear the sky is normally blue during the day and someone would want specifics on "exactly" what hue of blue and 'oh yeah but look, it's a little green over there".
Maybe you can appreciate how great the advertising is for the reading of your book, just from this thread.
They've given you that much, IMO.
Otherwise, your time is being wasted.
Please never make anyone a priority when they only make you an option IF you comply to their demands.
I haven't had read all of the posts in this thread...don't know if I will have the time, but the last post with the quote about the Episcopal church caught my attention:
The Episcopal church has been in great turmoil and conflict since the election of Eugene V. Robinson? as a bishop who openly admitted that he was a homosexual priest and was living with a same sex companion in that particular way. Since they have that particular type of brochure hanging from a professor's door, it should be clear as to which side of that denomination that professor resides, namely the liberal side that agrees with the practice of homosexuality. However, the conservative side has openly decried homosexual practices.
It should also be understood that the Lord Jesus may very well have discussed homosexuality amongst his disciples. One must remember that the NT is a compilation of the events in the life of the Lord Jesus Christ and not a blow-by-blow account of his earthly itinerary. It should also be understood that His primary audience was a Jewish audience and they all knew well the prohibitions of lying sexually with the same sex. If your audience already agrees on a particular subject, why rehash what is already understood? Rather redundant, wouldn't you say?
I think the Bible is very clear on this subject: God said it was not to be condoned.
Big congratulations on writing your book, publishing and selling it.
This is an intriguing thread, and I'm really glad to see what you've done here. It's particularly laudable to me that you've chosen to explore the question, and that you've done so by questioning the core assumptions about the topic at hand... I can't think of any way that questioning is ever a bad thing, especially when you're questioning the status-quo givens, the so-called obvious and already-answered things. Certainly nothing that one should be reviled for (however mildly) though one can expect that from some folks. Too bad, I say. Questioning stuff is never a bad thing.
But, I'm interested, if you care to share it, in how much of this, your research and your writing this book, has been a healing and maybe a reclaiming process for you and what that journey has been (and is probably continuing to be) like?
Certainly nothing that one should be reviled for (however mildly) though one can expect that from some folks. Too bad, I say. Questioning stuff is never a bad thing.
Was she reviled or questioned? Her "stuff" was questioned (which is never a bad thing), and she responded by saying the Bible is a hateful document ...
I would assume that she then finds those that believe the Bible as hateful ... which is reviling their belief. Are you sure you don't have this backwards.
There is a constant disparaging of people that question those that say the God blesses these things ... is that necessary?
But, I'm interested, if you care to share it, in how much of this, your research and your writing this book, has been a healing and maybe a reclaiming process for you and what that journey has been (and is probably continuing to be) like?
Thank you for your kind words, I agree that questioning is not a bad thing...although sometimes my boss would prefer that I do that after I have done what I was told to do.
As for this question, I would like to answer it. During the research part of my book where what I was writing was a jumble of what is actually written (in English) and my personal views (which have changed) and the sheer volume of information on any given piece of the subject matter, it was a time of discovery and inner reflection.
As the project moved forward from one section of verse to another I saw a synergy of the scripture that I had taken as hype from the vicster. I'm not saying that it 'fits like a hand in a glove' or that every section will agree with every other section, but there is a flow and definate connection between the scritures that reflects the common roots of the writers. Because of this I gained a deep respect for the books that are in the Bible that definately influences my thinking and of course my view of life.
Another thing that my research did was open doors of thought and opinion that I otherwise may have overlooked. It is very easy for a researcher or scientist in any field to become narrow minded, and by that I mean that their focus is so accutely on what they are studying that they sometimes inadvertantly put on blinders that 'narrow' ones view. A biblical researcher is no different in that respect. Sometimes it is good to shake up the ole brain and look at views that are at polar opposites to your own. If nothing else you allow yourself to see from a different view the same topic. It's like looking at the Grand Canyon from the West rim and then going over and looking at the same place in the Canyon from the East rim. Its the same thing but you get more depth of understanding.
It is a continuing journey as you said. This topic was I believe the first of many. And as I alluded to in the previous paragraph one of the hardest things to do in science is to not allow your own personal preconclusions to cloud the research. One cannot go in with a conclusion only to work towards the same conclusion. That would not be honest or helpful. I recall in TWI that is exactly what Dr. did and hence taught us how to do. Many times I heard him say something and then when he couldnt find the verse he was looking for to verify what he had just said he would ask Walter to find it in the Bible where it says something to support his comment. That was not honest, but we learned ourselves how to do that by watching him and I saw lots of TC's and above do exactly that. (And just to be clear, I'm not refering to anyone in particular)
This project also took me in a direction that twi would never have approved of. Can you see me presenting this book as my Corps research paper? Me neither! Although I used a lot more research materials and sources than were ever made available to graduating Corps to finish their papers. But to be fair part of that is due to the internet but still.
So to make a short answer long, this project has allowed me to heal some of what I did not percieve as broken from my twi days and has opened my eyes, heart and mind to the actual words of God that are nestled inside of the Bible. It has helped me in immesurable ways from a research point of view and has I believe made me a more flexable person. I really cant wait to see what tomorrow will bring.
Bump is sitting here in Bretagne after a perfectly sunny day of golf and beach weather, watching the latest Euro Cup match and the markets... wondering if maybe it's TIME for a GAY FOOD FIGHT on GS!
That's right folks, EVERYONE comes out of the CLOSET at the same time, with a GAY PIE...in the EYE!!
Who's going to be FIRST?? Don't be SHY...or you get the FIRST PIE!!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
9
30
7
Popular Days
Jun 11
15
Jun 6
11
Jun 7
8
Mar 26
8
Top Posters In This Topic
jen-o 13 posts
rhino 9 posts
Eyesopen 30 posts
Bumpy 7 posts
Popular Days
Jun 11 2008
15 posts
Jun 6 2008
11 posts
Jun 7 2008
8 posts
Mar 26 2008
8 posts
rhino
I prefer the "free dictionary" instead of that bound up Miriam, though that could be fun too I suppose.
Since I was referring to what was said, and not eyes as a person, then usage two fits ... when you say the Bible says homosexual acts are not "wrong", then that is controversial. And to say it is wrong with the implied authorities (book, professor), but refusing to engage in further discussion ... leaves it as a wall of contention, so to speak. Then in her threadto say she was attacked before being give a chance is another contentious revision. and here we are ...
I think kimberly and eyes may have used usage one about some people that had disagreed and sought clarification.
I only recall referring to what was said in that other thread. CONTENTION. which only referred to what eyes had said. Their response was a more sweeping judgment about the character of these attacking hateful people.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
As to what the author of this book being announced has expounded here so far ...
it seems there is no clear Biblical backing to the title question. Homosexual acts are lumped in with things that are still considered wrong.
Saying they have no choice so it is not sin, seems the same as saying a kleptomaniac has no choice, so theft is not wrong. (I'm not saying the homosexual act is the same as stealing, but saying that using that logic to make either one "right", is wrong) Also that argument does not seem "doctrinal".
My main contention is that it is fine for people to believe what they want, but to try to revise Christianity to coerce Christians to change their beliefs seems intrusive to their freedoms. It seems much more honest to say "I've looked at the Bible and I disagree with it on this subject", than to revise the Bible and to make it say what you want ... and say "see here, you were wrong about your Bible beliefs, you don't even know your own book".
I like most of what Christianity has done ... so this issue seems like a case of an attempt to change a fundamental part of the religion. I doubt eyes is part of some grand conspiracy, but this issue is nationally contentious, and revising the Bible to make it accept homosexual acts as the norm seems a dishonest way to try to change Christians.
Of course some churches are making the changes on their own, but it seems those move away from the more strict interpretation, which is fine, if it is their choice.
I know this thread is an announcement, not a discussion ... but since a negative critique of people that disagreed was introduced, it seems this thread really is open for discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
You know I would truly love to know exactly what you want me to say. Jen-o stated that she believed that the verses in Leviticus are a list of abominations. She posted a few verses that seem to support her position. I Stated that the verses in Leviticus are talking about idolotry and idolotrous practices. I asked her to look at the verses in the beginning of the chapter (since she was fairly adament that she had read the "whole book" and indicated that she was familar with the verses) and I pointed out that it seems clear to me that the subject is idolotry not a listing general abominations. We disagree. I am not likely going to change her mind any time soon. Neither is she going to change my mind any time soon. So what is to discuss?
I dont mind having a discussion or a friendly debate but I flat refuse to argue. I do not need to convince anyone of any position, I'm not telling you that the only way to please God is to be gay. I'm not trying to convince anyone that they should change their views. All I did was write a book about what I found and made it available for others if they want to read it. I dont need to justify myself to anyone except God. And I'm sorry Rhino and Jen neither one of you have ascended to the throne.
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
but i would like to know if you really think that you were "attacked" on the "God bless CA" thread?
and if the answer is affirmative, then i would like to know specifically what you deem to be an "attack"...
if i have "attacked" anyone, i most certainly would like to know where, and have the opportunity to apologize for it...
eyes, no one has asked you to "justify" yourself...it was a simple question, i.e. what are your reasons for disagreeing with the plain meaning of the scriptures?
i'm not so sure why you have assumed such a defensive posture about this...
why not just say: i disagree because of xyz...
you did state the topic was idolatry, but this is the first i've heard about "practices"... i said the bible called them "abominable customs"... now here you say they are "idolatrous practices"... whichever name you want to use, God still says not to do them (the customs/practices)... maybe, i will take this up on the doctrinal thread... eyes, this is a backhanded comment...why do you so freely dish these out?
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimberly
Nehvuh ehvuh have I claimed to be a "Christian." And I nehvuh ehvuh will considering how "Christians" have given that word a really bad name.
We have post police on here? Well somebody forgot to read me my rights.
I don't call anybody out in these or any other posts. I am a master in overall observation.
I forgot to include the word pharisee(s) in my previous infamous post. If the flip flop fits.....we all know the rest of that story.
Life is just too darn good...........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Eyes
Not keeping with the current flo
pls pm me about how with amazon or LULU
I have books sitting here finished
Thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
(and i'm actually a bit relieved by this)
i would consider this an arrogant delusion...it appears you have mastered judgemental and critical backhanded generalization...
you seem rather proud of your finger pointing...you continue to do the very thing that you accuse others of...
it's very hypocritical... the pharisees did the same...
i'm glad you clarified that you are not a christian...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Thank you everyone for going over the discussion that you all had that led to Eyesopen's response to my request that she share some of what she believes to be true with regards to homosexuality. During the course of the last few days one of my concerns was that I did not know the whole story that led up to Eyesopen's statement concerning having been attacked for sharing her beliefs.
After what I just read in the more recent posts it seems that it was a challenging discussion that Eyesopen refered to, but then homosexuality is a challenging subject that pulls hard on the emotions of people, often in many different directions.
My two cents on the conversation is that homosexualty is one of the things that was punished by death under O.T. law as it was written many centuries ago. So was spiritualism, adultery, bestiality, murder, breaking the sabbath, and on and on. The one that seems to come up the most often IMO here at the greasespot is adultery as it related to the practices of top TWI leadership.
I'm not interested in condemning homosexuality any more than any of these things in general, but how top TWI leadership has behaved has perturbed me very much at times becase I've heard the voices of those who were hurt by them.
But as a Christian, I think that there is a lot more to be said for patience, kindness, prayer, and the like when dealing with an aquaintance that happens to be homosexual.
I think the quote that I think of often goes something like, "I desire mercy and not judgement."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Of course I used that term because you said it here first, I was replying to you. But it seems we need to review again ...
You "innocently" offered opinion there was simple enough, except you had already said you had written a book on the subject. So you were really throwing your weight around on that thread... yet you refused to respond to questions, as opposed to your claim here that you were attacked without having a chance to expound. That was YOUR false accusation here.
So I just gave you the .. OK, I "attacked" ... BUT ... and it's a big but ...
As we have said and you still don't admit, you had every chance and refused, but dug in deeper about your professors and whatever else ... So in response to the "hey, she wrote a book, she doesn't have to answer" ... I gave my opinion that there was no evidence the book meant you had any credentials ...
I really did not attack ... and you had every chance to respond but refused. I only "attacked" the authority you seemed to imply. You played the author/professor card ... and I played the no evidence of scholarship card. All in the context of questioning the validity of your unfounded opinion.
Then you came back here and "attacked" those people for not giving you a chance ... which you have yet to admit was simple not true. Then you quoted my two words, ignoring the context of my post.
But thanks for once again bringing it up ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I don't remember if breaking the sabbath had the same penalty, but if you do,
I'll take your word for it at the moment. After all, it's not like that's where the
discussion is going...
The poor practices of top twi leadership-as reflected in their poor "private" doctrines-
were the cause of much hurt and harm to people. They were also quite hypocritical-
lcm was a poor Christian when in charge of twi, and a chronic sinner,
but he railed at length against SOME sins and considered OTHER sins to be perfectly fine.
(And that's only one example from twi.)
As a Christian, there's a lot to be said for patience, kindness, prayer, and the like when dealing withall acquaintances, for all sin...
Unless you're thinking of an entirely different quote, the one you were thinking of was
"I will have mercy and not SACRIFICE",
and was meant to indicate that mercy, kindness, and so on were far MORE important
than all the rituals to be followed-especially if they were followed without mercy and
kindness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Just a question...since when does someone need a degree to write a book? I never claimed to be any kind of authority on homosexuality or on Biblical Studies or on the connection between so why am I being expected to act like one? I was very clear in both threads I dont want to have a big discussion on this. I have never gone out and said 'buy my book'. I simply made an announcement on this thread and gave you my opinion on another. My right to speak is in the Bill of Rights!
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-med.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/Homo.shtml
http://www.gladventist.org/isa/inge-faq.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm
http://glow.cc/index.htm
http://www.pflagdetroit.org/BibleandHomosexuality.html
http://www.religioustolerance.com
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/religion.htm
Here are a very few of the links that I used to come to my conclusions. Read them yourselves. There are 25 pages in my book of such links. Some influenced more than others I will put in more later if you want.
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
First sentence from the first link:
Uhhhh... you think?
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Im staying out of this but watching from a distance has been interesting...
Lack of degrees has never stopped the likes of Wierwille --or many christians (and non christians for that matter) from voicing their opinion, or their view of scripture or God. If I remember correctly Peter and John were "ignorant and unlearned men" and they seemed to do OK despite their lack of credentials...even wrote a few books....As far as I know neither of them ever mentioned what has been termed here as a 'foundation' of the faith, that is homosexuality as sin...This link you provided,
had an interesting point that I have been thinking about during the course of this threadBecause certain wings of christianity assume certain issues to be central tenets doesnt necessarily make them so--except to themselves. I would think that the central character in Christianity may have talked about it at least once if it were so important, but that is not true --at least in my bible.
Some churches are vehemently against homosexuality, other s not so much, others are very open to all.
The faith is hardly being "changed" or challenged. There have always been different views and methods of processing scripture.
Jesus did spend a great amount of his time commenting about a lot of things (treatment of the poor, how to deal with your enemies etc immediately comes to mind). Its interesting to me how something he never mentioned can hold such precedence over issues that he did speak in depth about...
Its curious thats all..
anyway--carry on...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
Eyesopen, you surely know that the more you engage these folks, the more they'll argue with you.
I'm afraid you won't satisfy their question, no matter your response, no matter how logic or correct. You could swear the sky is normally blue during the day and someone would want specifics on "exactly" what hue of blue and 'oh yeah but look, it's a little green over there".
Maybe you can appreciate how great the advertising is for the reading of your book, just from this thread.
They've given you that much, IMO.
Otherwise, your time is being wasted.
Please never make anyone a priority when they only make you an option IF you comply to their demands.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
I haven't had read all of the posts in this thread...don't know if I will have the time, but the last post with the quote about the Episcopal church caught my attention:
The Episcopal church has been in great turmoil and conflict since the election of Eugene V. Robinson? as a bishop who openly admitted that he was a homosexual priest and was living with a same sex companion in that particular way. Since they have that particular type of brochure hanging from a professor's door, it should be clear as to which side of that denomination that professor resides, namely the liberal side that agrees with the practice of homosexuality. However, the conservative side has openly decried homosexual practices.
It should also be understood that the Lord Jesus may very well have discussed homosexuality amongst his disciples. One must remember that the NT is a compilation of the events in the life of the Lord Jesus Christ and not a blow-by-blow account of his earthly itinerary. It should also be understood that His primary audience was a Jewish audience and they all knew well the prohibitions of lying sexually with the same sex. If your audience already agrees on a particular subject, why rehash what is already understood? Rather redundant, wouldn't you say?
I think the Bible is very clear on this subject: God said it was not to be condoned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Ya Shellon I gotta agree with you on that one. I was 'hoping' but I dont think it will be getting me anywhere fast. But it was worth a shot.
Bride, that's an interesting piece of information. Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cake
Eyesopen,
Big congratulations on writing your book, publishing and selling it.
This is an intriguing thread, and I'm really glad to see what you've done here. It's particularly laudable to me that you've chosen to explore the question, and that you've done so by questioning the core assumptions about the topic at hand... I can't think of any way that questioning is ever a bad thing, especially when you're questioning the status-quo givens, the so-called obvious and already-answered things. Certainly nothing that one should be reviled for (however mildly) though one can expect that from some folks. Too bad, I say. Questioning stuff is never a bad thing.
But, I'm interested, if you care to share it, in how much of this, your research and your writing this book, has been a healing and maybe a reclaiming process for you and what that journey has been (and is probably continuing to be) like?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Was she reviled or questioned? Her "stuff" was questioned (which is never a bad thing), and she responded by saying the Bible is a hateful document ...
I would assume that she then finds those that believe the Bible as hateful ... which is reviling their belief. Are you sure you don't have this backwards.
There is a constant disparaging of people that question those that say the God blesses these things ... is that necessary?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Thank you for your kind words, I agree that questioning is not a bad thing...although sometimes my boss would prefer that I do that after I have done what I was told to do.
As for this question, I would like to answer it. During the research part of my book where what I was writing was a jumble of what is actually written (in English) and my personal views (which have changed) and the sheer volume of information on any given piece of the subject matter, it was a time of discovery and inner reflection.
As the project moved forward from one section of verse to another I saw a synergy of the scripture that I had taken as hype from the vicster. I'm not saying that it 'fits like a hand in a glove' or that every section will agree with every other section, but there is a flow and definate connection between the scritures that reflects the common roots of the writers. Because of this I gained a deep respect for the books that are in the Bible that definately influences my thinking and of course my view of life.
Another thing that my research did was open doors of thought and opinion that I otherwise may have overlooked. It is very easy for a researcher or scientist in any field to become narrow minded, and by that I mean that their focus is so accutely on what they are studying that they sometimes inadvertantly put on blinders that 'narrow' ones view. A biblical researcher is no different in that respect. Sometimes it is good to shake up the ole brain and look at views that are at polar opposites to your own. If nothing else you allow yourself to see from a different view the same topic. It's like looking at the Grand Canyon from the West rim and then going over and looking at the same place in the Canyon from the East rim. Its the same thing but you get more depth of understanding.
It is a continuing journey as you said. This topic was I believe the first of many. And as I alluded to in the previous paragraph one of the hardest things to do in science is to not allow your own personal preconclusions to cloud the research. One cannot go in with a conclusion only to work towards the same conclusion. That would not be honest or helpful. I recall in TWI that is exactly what Dr. did and hence taught us how to do. Many times I heard him say something and then when he couldnt find the verse he was looking for to verify what he had just said he would ask Walter to find it in the Bible where it says something to support his comment. That was not honest, but we learned ourselves how to do that by watching him and I saw lots of TC's and above do exactly that. (And just to be clear, I'm not refering to anyone in particular)
This project also took me in a direction that twi would never have approved of. Can you see me presenting this book as my Corps research paper? Me neither!
Although I used a lot more research materials and sources than were ever made available to graduating Corps to finish their papers. But to be fair part of that is due to the internet but still.
So to make a short answer long, this project has allowed me to heal some of what I did not percieve as broken from my twi days and has opened my eyes, heart and mind to the actual words of God that are nestled inside of the Bible. It has helped me in immesurable ways from a research point of view and has I believe made me a more flexable person. I really cant wait to see what tomorrow will bring.
I hope that answers your question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Bump is sitting here in Bretagne after a perfectly sunny day of golf and beach weather, watching the latest Euro Cup match and the markets... wondering if maybe it's TIME for a GAY FOOD FIGHT on GS!
That's right folks, EVERYONE comes out of the CLOSET at the same time, with a GAY PIE...in the EYE!!
Who's going to be FIRST??
Don't be SHY...or you get the FIRST PIE!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
IS THAT DOOJ HOLDING A TEXAS HOMEMADE PIE!? I WISH SHE HAD TAKEN HER CLOTHES OFF BEFORE THE SHOT!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
NO, BUMP, THAT'S NOT DOOJ. IT'S A FEMALE IMPERSONATOR.
STILL WANT THE CLOTHES TO COME OFF??????
Edited by waterbuffaloLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.