To be precise, homosexual behavior is a sin according to the Bible. There is a difference.

Thanks for the warning.

The Bible interpreted through Lego shttp://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html

Yes, they illustrate the punishment for inappropriate food consumption and inappropriate bedroom behavior through plastic bricks.

Do we REALLY have to get into a discussion here about how people interpret the Bible??? Seriously?

You can't force someone to interpret a Biblical passage the same way you do. That's why there are different denominations of Christianity. Get over it, move along.

Yep. People are real sometimey when it comes to religion and religious texts. If you are going to be a literal stickler about something like homosexuality, why not be a literal stickler about everything else? That's why it's annoying when these types of discussions turn into "hellfire and damnation" discussions.

Great name, btw.

Yep and different interpretations and opinions within the same denomination. That's why I'm nondenominational but attend denominational churches. It allows me to dismiss everyone. :p

I don't interpret the Bible literally and I don't trust anyone's Scriptural interpretations. My pastor's sermons are equivalent to Bible as Literature sermons that are tied to life lessons and spirituality. He doesn't try to tell us how we should interpret texts as they relate to issues like homosexuality--we don't even discuss stuff like that thank God.

People are so obsessed with "religion as text" and need to move toward a spiritual relationship in which how you live your life is based on YOUR relationship with God.

Genesis, Romans, Corinthians, and Leviticus all speak about homosexuality.

That's besides the point though.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm not sitting here saying "you're wrong for being a homosexual because my King James pocket bible says so". I didn't say that at all actually, nor did I try to "pick and choose" a certain text from the bible to rationalize my beliefs. My statement had nothing to do with my beliefs as a Christian.

I simply stated that you can't call a bunch of people fools or hypocrites because they consider themselves Christians and are not accepting of homosexuality. You could certainly argue the Bible's stance on homosexuality if you wanted too but that's another discussion entirely.

AMEN.

As he noted, he's referring to more than the levitical law.

But as for shellfish, c'mon. The church has, say for about 2000 years, distinguished between the ritual law (such as the levitical laws regarding food or clothing materials) and the ethical law (such as laws governing moral, including sexual, behavior). There's actually some discussion about it in Acts, including the decision of the council in Jerusalem that Gentile converts did not have to be circumcised and the revelation to Peter that all foods were permissible. Paul discusses this as well, along with his not infrequent discussions about the degree to which the Law is binding in general. (And his condemnation of homosexual behavior in Romans.)

As for slavery, yes many did use Scripture to condone slavery. Unlike the passages regarding homosexuality, though, I don't think anyone has ever plausibly contended that Scripture affirmatively sanctions or commands slavery, just that it seems to accept it as a fact of the ancient world and does not condemn it. Using this lack of condemnation as justification for slavery is really not the same thing as relying on passages that expressly disapprove of homosexual conduct.

Granted, many Christians of good faith disagree on exectly how the relevant passages in Genesis, Leviticus, Romans and elsewhere should be interpreted and applied today. And perhaps you find the church's long-standing distinction between the ritual law and the ethical law one that misses the mark.

But to argue that anyone is picking and choosing which rules to follow bases one's argument on ignorance and a very shallow understanding of the totality of Scripture -- it sounds catchy, but it doesn't hold up to any close examination, IMHO.

And, now I am coming to the conclustions, who really gives a damn?:rolleyes:

This Poster had become a thorn. He is an independent think as it were and no matter what he thinks or says will not change anything.

You mean, it doesn't hold up in a Biblical Court of Law? LOL.

A lot of people don't understand the "totality of Scripture" so they do pick and choose. That may not be what's going on in this thread but, as always, the things being typed here are said everyday off of the internet.

I personally know several people who were openly gay or lesbian when they were collegiate in their respective fraternities or sororities. They were true to themselves and that is all their brothers and sisters expected of them. Even though some may not condone homosexual behavior, they were never rude nor disrespectful toward their brothers or sisters.

We understand each other well. :D

Yeah, I'll agree that too mqny people do pick and choose, on and off the internet every day. And a lot of others think that the theologians and others who have actually studied all of these things must have been picking and choosing.

Education is a wonderful thing.

http://www.businessinnovationinsider...6/02/Troll.jpg=jlenoconel

hahahahahha!!!

Please enlighten me on my contemptuous view of brotherhood. If you don't feel like it then you can keep your shitty comments to yourself. Your remark about who I consider to be my brothers in SAE is completely idiotic and wrong. Try again smart guy.

By the way, your original post was completely off base considering the quoted post of mine that you referenced.

This is was my response to you:

Oh the irony.

:D

That's because they do not know what it means to be a theologian and to have studied religious text.

It's funny because my family member and friends who are theologians and in divinity school do not debate interpretations of text or discuss homosexuality according to the Bible. We discuss historical context and the connection and disconnection between texts for every religion. Kind of like social scientists do when gender, sexual orientation, and other classifications are traced through historical events and text from all religions.

I agree.
Has anyone else wondered about this:
Signed up Feb 2005
First posting today, April 28, 2008

I didn't wonder - I knew. Sockpuppet.

Or a realllllly patient person.

Oh ya-I agree;):D

I wouldn't have thought that someone who doesn't need an education in Pauline theology would need to have any further identification. It's pretty much right there.

Meanwhile, it runs through many of the writings of the Church fathers and other theologians of the early Church, including Justin in his Dialogue. The concept is found in one form or another in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Classical Protestantism -- and, I would suggest, pretty much any church that doesn't practice (as a religious matter) circumcision, abstinance from pork or shellfish or observance of a Seventh-day Sabbath rather than Sunday (the Lord's Day). But you knew that, of course.

I always did think that was a stupid phrase.

No.

ugh:mad:
i dont know what a sockpuppet is but i am not troll dity or sockpuppet good grief!:rolleyes:

*pats the troll*

You don't even serve your purpose anymore... it's just time to let go.

I find it interesting that you stood up-I can not speak for any other but I was thinking more of:
GreekChatObserv

her name makes sense.

I'm surprised she hasn't been banned yet. One can hope.

why would she be banned?

You've not had the pleasure of getting to know RushLeader08? She is a pleasure indeed. Which is why her posting the picture of the troll is so ironic.

she must have said some really bad stuff. i don't see why a screen name would ever be banned from a message board, unless like some sensitive stuff comes out.

Nothing bad or offensive, just blatantly stupid.

and aren't people entitled to be stupid? or what people think are stupid?

She said she was surprised, not that she thought the poster should be banned specifically. If the poster is who she pretends to be she's a perp anyway.


(At least I think so, I missed her the first time around)

That's a good post. Pretty much sums up how I feel about my chapter. I don't know if we've ever had a gay brother, but i wouldn't be opposed to it. Unless he was ultra-closteted, like that one guy (non frat). He was all uptight and creepy untill he came out.

As long as you've been around here, you've missed some of the blatantly offensive stuff that has been posted and resulted in a name being banned? Stupid isn't a reason to be banned - but insulting others, being offensive and just generally trolling are, imho, sufficient reason.

Which is why she probably hasn't been banned.

Gays in Frats
 

I go to a school with a great Greek community and there are gay guys in all of the biggest fraternities and it is never a big deal. They are not flamboyant feminine type but if they were a frat wouldnt be their thing anyway. I totally agree with whoever said just because they are gay doesnt mean they dont have the same interests as you or same beliefs. A lot of gays come from the same religious backgrounds that you do even though they condemn them, it doesnt mean their not religious. Why even be in college in your not open to meeting new people from all types of lifestyles and learning from them. You dont have to be best friends with everyone but why spend any of your time on this Earth making someone else's life miserable? I dont get that.

no, IMO unless you're posting personal info, just calling someone stupid or calling names isn't reason to ban someone. i'm sure people think i'm stupid, ignorant, ect. and have said such on here, but i don't see a point in banning them.

so? and i asked why she thought she would be banned.

Don't get banned. :eek:

i'm a pillar in the GC community.

LOL

Until you get banned. :eek:

LOL, I EXPECT THERE TO BE A "FREE STARANG21" IN BIG ASS BROWN LETTERS IN YOUR SIGGY.