Teabow anti-gay?

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by spdirty

I don't know how you can call yourself a christian with a basic understanding of the bible and not be anti-gay. 1 Corintians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11.

Same goes for slavery.

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly
Leviticus 25:44-46

Or adultery.

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

How about some genocide?

Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

Being a Christian should never be a justification for bigotry.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by SleepingTiger

its about the individual and not about the religion itself. you can say the same regarding many religions.

And i would.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Same goes for slavery.

"Slavery" in the age of monarchy was a different animal than our modern perspective allows us to comprehend. If you owned nothing, in many cases there were no better alternatives to you than being the servant of a man who did.

I'm intrigued by this new idea though that speaking at a place makes you responsible for it's positions. Seems like a few years back we were told even regularly attending a church didn't necessarily mean you agreed with what it said.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

"Slavery" in the age of monarchy was a different animal than our modern perspective allows us to comprehend. If you owned nothing, in many cases there were no better alternatives to you than being the servant of a man who did.

I'm intrigued by this new idea though that speaking at a place makes you responsible for it's positions. Seems like a few years back we were told even regularly attending a church didn't necessarily mean you agreed with what it said.

So are many attitudes....we no longer burn heretics or witches.

Yet here we are, still picking and choosing which Bible passages to use for our respective agendas.

If we have decided slavery is now wrong, why isn't homophobia?

BTW, servant and slave are not the same.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

If we have decided slavery is now wrong, why isn't homophobia?

Well, it's obviously a different animal entirely to leave behind a practice that was once allowed (though not necessarily encouraged) than it is to start allowing a practice forbidden. And that's not even getting into the whole Christian Handbook 1.0/2.0 OT/NT paradigm. Many things were left behind when Christians believe the law became fulfilled. Were it not for Acts 15:29 (edit, sorry), you could even maybe use that line of argument.

BTW, servant and slave are not the same.

It's really not as simple as you make it sound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery

The laws governing Jewish slaves were more lenient than laws governing non-Jewish slaves, but a single Hebrew word, ebed (meaning slave or servant) is used for both situations. In English translations of the Bible, the distinction is sometimes emphasized by translating the word as "slave" in the context of non-Jewish slaves, and "servant" or "bondman" for Jewish slaves.

And in the passage of Leviticus you cited, some English translations use the word "bondman" in place of "slave." In any case there was little practical difference between the two.

[Agamemnon]

By the way, I'm as far from being a Christian conservative as possible (not even a Christian and definitely not a conservative), but really, believing a sexual behavior is sinful is not necessarily the same thing as being "anti-gay" or hating homosexuals. A lot of christians honestly see it as loving homosexuals and wanting to save them from their sexual immorality and the damnation that comes along with it. It may be misguided, but it isn't hateful. Admittedly there are some Christian conservatives who are definitely hateful towards gay people, but it certainly isn't all of them.

[Blart]

Not news.

He supported Focus on the Family before he came to Denver.


Leviticus 11:9-12

9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

“We don’t hate people who eat shellfish—God does.”
~ Rev. Michael Fordworth, 1984

“As a mother, I know that people who eat shellfish are all inherently evil for some reason.”
~ Anita Bryant, 1982


“Christianity stands for freedom; we don’t want to impose our religion on everyone else. We just don’t want shellfish or shellfish-eater values to be forced upon us….”
~ David Limbaugh, 1994

“It’s about time we faced up to the truth. If we accept the radical notion that shellfish can be consumed—be it in the kitchen or in a restaurant or in anywhere else—we are utterly destroying the concept of dinner.”

~ Alan Keyes, 2002

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Well, it's obviously a different animal entirely to leave behind a practice that was once allowed (though not necessarily encouraged) than it is to start allowing a practice forbidden. And that's not even getting into the whole Christian Handbook 1.0/2.0 OT/NT paradigm. Many things were left behind when Christians believe the law became fulfilled. Were it not for Acts 15:29 (edit, sorry), you could even maybe use that line of argument.



It's really not as simple as you make it sound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_slavery



And in the passage of Leviticus you cited, some English translations use the word "bondman" in place of "slave." In any case there was little practical difference between the two.

Now that's cherry picking the bible to suit one's agenda.

Incest was commanded, killing adulterers was commanded, genocide was commanded, killing homosexuals was commanded. There is an endless list of barbaric practices within the Bible, so who gets to choose what to obey and what to ignore? Much of the homophobia comes from Fundamentalists who interpret the Bible literally.

We all see the Bible differently, and for many it is God's word. I live in a different millennium.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Now that's cherry picking the bible to suit one's agenda.

Incest was commanded, killing adulterers was commanded, genocide was commanded, killing homosexuals was commanded. There is an endless list of barbaric practices within the Bible, so who gets to choose what to obey and what to ignore? Much of the homophobia comes from Fundamentalists who interpret the Bible literally.)

There's much popular confusion between what was commanded in the Bible vs simply documented (or even predicted) So I won't get too far into any of your points unless you want to get more specific. The Old Testament was admittedly brutal to the modern conscience. Probably less so to people who lived in those times. I'm glad that a Christian is allowed to believe that that page in history has been turned.

I agree that many of the people that like to hammer others with the OT are hypocritical to their faith. If you're not keeping the old law, how can you hold others to it?

Better to keep the two greatest commandments yourself than worry about whether others keep all 10.

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

"Slavery" in the age of monarchy was a different animal than our modern perspective allows us to comprehend. If you owned nothing, in many cases there were no better alternatives to you than being the servant of a man who did.

I'm intrigued by this new idea though that speaking at a place makes you responsible for it's positions. Seems like a few years back we were told even regularly attending a church didn't necessarily mean you agreed with what it said.

Being a serf although bad was not being a slave where you worked for no pay until you died. Serf's although they got paid little were still basically free men.

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by Blart

Not news.

He supported Focus on the Family before he came to Denver.


Leviticus 11:9-12

“We don’t hate people who eat shellfish—God does.”
~ Rev. Michael Fordworth, 1984

“As a mother, I know that people who eat shellfish are all inherently evil for some reason.”
~ Anita Bryant, 1982

“Christianity stands for freedom; we don’t want to impose our religion on everyone else. We just don’t want shellfish or shellfish-eater values to be forced upon us….”
~ David Limbaugh, 1994

“It’s about time we faced up to the truth. If we accept the radical notion that shellfish can be consumed—be it in the kitchen or in a restaurant or in anywhere else—we are utterly destroying the concept of dinner.”

~ Alan Keyes, 2002

WTF?? I have never heard that about shellfish. Utterly makes no sense whatsoever. What is the logic behind this?

[Heyneck]

yeah... but... do you like fish sticks?

[errand]

Leviticus was Hebrew Law.....you know the ones who didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah

Christians believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Anyone using Leviticus to blast Christians is ignorant, and pushing an agenda

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

Being a serf although bad was not being a slave where you worked for no pay until you died. Serf's although they got paid little were still basically free men.

In most cases it was definitely a form of slavery and to call serfs "basically free men" would be incorrect (aside from a small minority who were actually free men). That said it definitely was not as onerous as most forms of slavery.

[Dr. Broncenstein]

Most gays are anti-Tebow.

[Inkana7]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

Being a serf although bad was not being a slave where you worked for no pay until you died. Serf's although they got paid little were still basically free men.

Ahahahaha no

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by errand

Leviticus was Hebrew Law.....you know the ones who didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah

Christians believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Anyone using Leviticus to blast Christians is ignorant, and pushing an agenda

And he loved all mankind equally.

So where does the homophobia come from? Paul's letters in Romans?

No, it's origins and veracity come from the Old Testament....specifically Leviticus. The 'agenda' is being factual.

[rugbythug]

Christians and indeed Christ himself separated the sinner from the sin. The bible is very clear homosexuality is a sin. Just like any other sin one can be forgiven of it.

Currently homosexuals want there life style to be unalterable and a genetic program they can not help. Soon this will change, If homosexuality is really a genetic disorder. Then we will see a crescendo of homosexuality, followed by a very small ongoing population. This would render the gay agenda a small splinter group in 2 generations. At that point gays will want homosexuality to become a free expression and something anyone can aspire to. Otherwise they will be breed out of existence.

Disorder-Used in a classical sense any gene that prevents the carrier from reproducing is not good for the population at large.

[Rohirrim]

I sent in my application for the Pope opening.

Haven't heard anything, yet.

[ChrisToker]

Gonna laugh my ass off when Teblow gets busted w/ a little boy in the Philippines

[ChrisToker]

Originally Posted by Heyneck

Anybody who is Catholic or at least understands the bible should not be surprised by this. There is a reason God created Eve for and from Adam.

Hellz yeah so we could watch that fat bottomed girl bounce her ass cheeks on a boat like you profile pic.

[Connecticut Bronco Fan]

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by ChrisToker

Gonna laugh my ass off when Teblow gets busted w/ a little boy in the Philippines

I think he is a gay virgin

[broncosteven]

Originally Posted by Heyneck

Anybody who is Catholic or at least understands the bible should not be surprised by this. There is a reason God created Eve for and from Adam.

Didn't one of Noah's son have sex with him after they all got liquored up after the flood when Noah and his lineage were biblicly all that was left of man kind?

Apparently God created gayness for a reason because it happened after both Adam and Noah...

[sirhcyennek81]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

I think he is a gay virgin

Indeed.