Is homophobia misogyny in disguise?

Robear, so people are entitled to believe whatever they want, as long as it is what you tell them is acceptable otherwise they are "intolerant"? The way I see the world everyone is entitled to their opinion even if I disagree with it, for instance I don't use drugs, including both tobacco and alcohol. I personally find them to be horrible habits, but I don't care if someone else decides to snoke or drink up to the point that they endanger others (i.e. driving drunk), then I will directly interevene
I fully support Rubb Eds right to have sex with any willing male, I also fully support the Westboro Baptists folks right to believe that homosexuality is wrong. It's not my place to judge other people by my persoanl sense of right and wrong.

I think anyone who says homosexuality is a sin because Levitican laws still stand, and the Old Testament still applies, need to carefully check their clothing to make sure they have no linen/wool blends, only eat animals with cloven hooves that chew a cud, refrain from trimming the edges of their beards, not use fire or cook on the Sabbath... and double-check the other 609 while they're at it.

It's also hard to debate the finer points of the written law if you don't read Hebrew.

John seems to say that Jesus is actually the same God that created the Universe - that is, his divinity comes before his birth. That's the point of using the phrase "I AM". So in the passages you chose to support your interpretation - quite a usual one for the Trinitarian position, which is dominant these days - we are told that Jesus and God are one and the same.

This conflicts with other accounts that have Jesus referring to God and the Holy Spirit as separate from him, or accounts that assign him divinity because of the resurrection or other criteria than John uses. Wikipedia summarizes the usual resulting beliefs pretty well (and frankly, I could get behind these, I think.

I'm really missing your point here I guess. Jesus is the same God that created the universe. I'm not sure where you think I said that His divinity began at birth.

Nope. The Gnostic Gospels were what the Council of Nicaea rejected when they codified Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the only "real" gospels.

The gospels you read and believe in today were pretty much not written by who you think wrote them and by people who never even knew JC. The closest you get is Mark and he got his story from Peter.

-- Gospel of Matthew: attributed to "anonymous Christian writing towards the end of the first century."

-- Gospel of Mark: maybe anonymous, maybe Mark, but written about 70 AD. That means our best record of what JC may have said (and widely believed to be the major source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke) comes secondhand (from Peter) and decades after his death.

-- Gospel of Luke: anonymous author, 80-90 AD, based on Mark and a now lost document.

-- Gospel of John: penned anonymously around 90-100 AD.

OG, this has been discussed at great length on these boards already so let me link some posts.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/2...

Nomad wrote:

Here are some throrough discussions on the authorship of the gospels.

Matthew

Here is an excerpt:
Quote:

Although there are some difficulties with Matthean authorship, none of them presents major obstacles, in spite of some scholars calling Matthean authorship "impossible." On the positive side, the universal external evidence which seems to lack motivation for the choice of Matthew (as opposed to any other apostle), coupled with the subtle internal evidence, makes the traditional view still the most plausible one.

Mark
Here is an excerpt:
Quote:

As with Matthew's Gospel, no manuscripts which contain Mark affirm authorship by anyone other than Mark.1 As with Matthew, this is short of proof of Markan authorship, but the unbroken stream suggests recognition of Markan authorship as early as the first quarter of the second century.

Luke
Here is an excerpt:
Quote:

As with the other gospels, no MSS which contain Luke affirm authorship by anyone other than Luke.1 Once again, as with the others, this is short of proof of Lukan authorship, but the unbroken stream suggests recognition of Lukan authorship as early as the first quarter of the second century.

John
Here is an exerpt:
Quote:

In conclusion, although John's Gospel is, as one author put it, "a maverick gospel," the traditional view of Johannine authorship is still the most reasonable hypothesis. The four strongest reasons, it seems, are (1) the strong external evidence, (2) the most plausible identification of the beloved disciple (coupled with the absence of John's name in this gospel), (3) the authoritative independence from the synoptic tradition, and (4) the amazing pre-70 topographical accuracy. Perhaps the reasons for fighting so hard against authenticity have to do with the theological import that must be wrestled with if this gospel is indeed a historically reliable document.

This is for the most part the concensus among Biblical scholars.

Pale, you have raised those objections before and they have been refuted, but it might take some time in finding the threads with my answers.

Clover wrote:

I think anyone who says homosexuality is a sin because Levitican laws still stand, and the Old Testament still applies, need to carefully check their clothing to make sure they have no linen/wool blends, only eat animals with cloven hooves that chew a cud, refrain from trimming the edges of their beards, not use fire or cook on the Sabbath... and double-check the other 609 while they're at it.

It's also hard to debate the finer points of the written law if you don't read Hebrew.

Romans 1:26-32

26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

It's not just the Old Testament.

Notice that there are many things that are mentioned here, and we all have done some of them. Romans isn't just singling out one.

clover wrote:

I think anyone who says homosexuality is a sin because Levitican laws still stand, and the Old Testament still applies, need to carefully check their...

Exactly. This is what I can't stand about this debate. If Jesus is fulfilling the Old Testament then none of us are following it save Mennonites. It's absurdity.

Nosferatu wrote:

Robear, so people are entitled to believe whatever they want, as long as it is what you tell them is acceptable otherwise they are "intolerant"?

If you believe that how someone conducts their private affairs is your business then I would say you are intolerant, anti-freedom and don't respect the Constitution, actually (assuming you're an American). Of course, because I love freedom, I respect your right to be intolerant and anti-freedom. I just don't respect your right to legally impinge on the rights of others.

Who wrote Romans? Jesus?

Nosferatu wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

wuh?

To put it simply, Jayhawker is showing the same Moral Superiority that he is accusing those that believe homsexuality is wrong show. To me he's just as intolerant of others as those that he is denouncing.

Not sure Jayhawker is trying to show moral superiority, but he does have the superior moral position here, so I guess he could just go with that.

I am actually kind of shocked at some of the attitudes on this thread. Trying to equate the position of equality for all with the position of second class status for some? Seriously? Some people need to get the hell over their childish hangups (and homophobia is just that).

Way off topic. Start a new thread if you like.