The Repulsiveness of Anti-Gay Bigotry

Oh and read to you in the manner and interpretation his particular brand of nuttery endorses.

Your correct Ed, the hatred is immoral and frankly I simply can't understand why people are so concerned with another persons private sex life.

It's repugnant.

I'd also point out that all the anti-homosexual bigotry in the New Testament comes from Paul. As does most of the anti-women bigotry. No wonder he's so popular with the fundies.

"I'd also point out that all the anti-homosexual bigotry in the New Testament comes from Paul. As does most of the anti-women bigotry. No wonder he's so popular with the fundies."

That is correct, Ginger.

The Gospel of Paul was written by one who never met Jesus in the flesh, which makes me wonder why anybody thinks his understanding of the teachings of Jesus is any more valid than those disciples who were actually there with him.

'the teachings of Jesus is any more valid than those disciples who were actually there with him'

Just a quick note, the gospels are not considered to have been written by the disciples, but rather people assigning their names at a later date.

So Pauls take is as valid as the disciples.

"As for your reference to Jesus, you need to read the New Testament again (or, more appropriately, have it read to you); homosexuality is expressly forbidden therein."

It is so irritating to read this assertion again and again. Homosexuality is not expressly forbidden by Paul's words in the NT. It's time to stop letting fundamentalists make untrue claims about the bible. As a matter of fact, I would suggest to any fundies who are about to contradict me that you pick up an actual bible and actually read the NT, (starting with the gospels!) Then when you get to Romans, calmly try to read all the words in the first chapter and try to convince yourself Paul's point is to ban homosexuality.

I don't make a habit of defending the apostle Paul, but I believe that all of the anti-women material laid at Paul's feet actually comes from books that scholars judge not to have been written by Paul himself, but by later writers trying to use his name to give authority to their arguments. I think the genuine Pauline epistles show a rather different, and better, attitude toward women.

the world needs more passionate people like you.

"Just a quick note, the gospels are not considered to have been written by the disciples, but rather people assigning their names at a later date.

So Pauls take is as valid as the disciples."

DC,

In other words, you're saying that the Gospels were written by third parties?

'In other words, you're saying that the Gospels were written by third parties? '

That is the view of the vast majority of biblical scholars, so yes. It is also the only one that really makes any sense.

It was a common practice to assign writings a name during that time period to give them revelancy and importance.

One of the things that you might ask yourselves is why this O'Brien cretin has such a fetish for homosex. There's something very strange about his interest.

Paul in many ways was one of the early neo-cons. Be that as it may, there is something so clearly wrong(evil) with the view that one's book is the law, and another's life is subservient to it.

Paul mentions homosexuality only a few times, each time using very specific terms that, from the Koine Greek, make divining his meaning somewhat problematic. (Paul was extremely well-educated in both the Greek and Jewish worlds -- he studied under Gamaliel in Hillel's school before his later association with the Sadducean powers -- and his Greek is very cultured and refined, with constant use of philosophical terms of art and wordplay upon terms of art. Paul *always* mean precisely what he said, but our understanding rarely has that same clarity.)

It is clear that Paul, like the Jews of the OT, associated homosexuality with cultic practices, and that, more particularly, Paul sees homosexuality as the result of cultism rather than as an orientation (see Romans). In early Christianity, Justin Martyr condemns homosexuality as a cultic practice, while Athenagoras mentions it once in passing in a more general condemnation of sexual promiscuity in culture. I have no been able to find any other references in early Christian writings save that of Polycarp which, as usual with his writings, is simply a reference without discussion to Paul, and thus adds nothing to our knowledge.

I believe that there exists no independent Biblical basis for condemning homosexuality apart from idolatry. Certainly, there is less Biblical invective against homosexuality than there is against divorce, and all mainstream Protestant traditions have made their peace with that activity long ago. Many disagree with that stance quite honestly, and I respect their positions. However, more disagree with it out of parochial prejudice, which is something quite different.

Who wants to pitch in and get Robert O'Brien a copy of this: What God Has Joined Together? : A Christian Case for Gay Marriage?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060774614/qid=1117205331/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-9602765-3440716?v=glance&s=books&n=507846