Gays in fraternites (pt. 2) - Page 7

MysticCat · #91 04-28-2008, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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

We understand each other well.

Quote:

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.

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.

RushLeader08 · #92 04-28-2008, 06:20 PM

=jlenoconel

hahahahahha!!!

macallan25 · #93 04-28-2008, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreekChatObserv

My original post was intended to point out some of macallen25's often contemptuous views of brotherhood. For example, he picks and chooses who he considers to be his brothers, simply because they initiated in a different chapter. See a theme here?

But hey, that's his right.

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.

Quote:

Are you referring to Levitical law? Your bible has also been used to justify slavery. It also advocates the stoning of disobedient children and adulterous wives.

It is interesting how people pick and choose from religious texts that may or may not govern other people.

Do you eat shellfish?

Funny, that plank in your eye.

This is was my response to you:

Quote:

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.

violetpretty · #94 04-28-2008, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RushLeader08

=jlenoconel

hahahahahha!!!

Oh the irony.

DSTCHAOS · #95 04-28-2008, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat

We understand each other well.

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.

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.

jon1856 · #96 04-28-2008, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by violetpretty

Oh the irony.

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

SWTXBelle · #97 04-28-2008, 08:36 PM

I didn't wonder - I knew. Sockpuppet.

Or a realllllly patient person.

jon1856 · #98 04-28-2008, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I didn't wonder - I knew. Sockpuppet.

Or a realllllly patient person.

Oh ya-I agree

MysticCat · #99 04-28-2008, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreekChatObserv

I don't really need an education in Paulist theology, but thanks anyway. You could have identified exactly which church this "long-standing" distinction between ritual and ethical law comes from, because the last time I checked, many different churches believed many different things.

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.

Quote:

To borrow a phrase, your dogma ran over my karma.

I always did think that was a stupid phrase.

Quote:

My original post was intended to point out some of macallen25's often contemptuous views of brotherhood. For example, he picks and chooses who he considers to be his brothers, simply because they initiated in a different chapter. See a theme here?

No.