OT: Jason Collins Announcement

[blueboss]

OT: if there are any UNC-CH students who read this entire thread you will receive full credit (4 credit hrs) which you can apply to your required credit hours for the degree you are seeking. Athletes will receive only two credit hours so there will be no presumption of special benefits, however if the aforementioned athletes are actually capable of reading the entire thread you can apply for extra credit.

To receive accreditation for the course just PM...........lets go with badrose, eh hmm that's Professor badrose and be prepared to answer a few short questions concerning the topic.

[bigsky]

Re: amateurs. Good thing the reformation happened, eh?

[elicat]

Stanley Hauerwas has been saying lately that the work of the Reformation was to put the Bible in the hands of the people, and the work of our time is to take it away from them (because now everyone thinks they're experts, and all interpretations are equal, which is utter nonsense).

[Krank]

Originally Posted by Krank:
"BTW, I would be very curious to know how the Biblical literalists who claim their knowledge and understanding of Judeo-Christian gospels is unassailable would identify hermaphroditic folks and who THEY choose to be with on a sexual/relationship level.

Any takers on that?"

Not a literalist. Context is everything. Probably would get chastized from my brethren, but I would say go with the way you lean, or check out both ways, pray about it, and pick one.

Appreciate the reply, badrose, and I tend to agree (and props to puma, who has been EXCELLENT on this thread, not saying that because I tend to agree with him, but because I feel his thoughts are extremely logical and organized, as well as attempting to buffer the typical "either with us or against us" political BULLSPIT that ALWAYS garbles these sorts of discussions, i.e. he is trying to bring real life experience AND his religious beliefs into the fray).

The reason I asked the question about hermaphroditic individuals is that such an example, IMO, perfectly shows that the issue of GLBT rights is not as simple as many would like to make it out to be. If a person has BOTH sets of genitalia, then the answer to "what is natural?" becomes not so easy and certainly not definable by a religious doctrine (or at least any that I am familiar with).

So I ask, again, this time pointing a further fleshed out question towards the most conservative biblical literalists on this thread...

If a hermaphroditic individual, allegedly loved every bit as much by your deity of choice as any other human being would be, chooses to have sexual relationships with someone who is NOT hermaphroditic, then are they gay when they use their male genitalia with a male?

or are they lesbian if they use their female genitalia with a female?

or are they "gay sinners" simply because they are NEITHER completely male or female, thus dooming their partners AND themselves to "everlasting hellfire" by simply being involved with a uni-gendered partner (how does one check on that, BTW, should the government/church of your choice appoint a secret service agent for god that hides in the closets of hermaphrodites so as to guide them once they sin with each and every sexual act that is not the missionary position between individuals who are clearly ONE gender or "the OTHER"?)?

or are they given a pass because the human writers of the bible forgot to mention them, thus NOT being divinely inspired by a perfect "creator/god"?

or do you concede that biological reality on an issue such as this trumps unprovable mythology that insists that all words in a bible are directly inspired by "god"?

One might assume that I am attempting to embarrass the folks that this question is pointed toward, but I consider it a completely rational question that deals with real life individuals, folks you would NEVER know are hermaphroditic, thus it is NOT my attempt to bait or embarrass anyone. I am just curious to see if any of said folks have the guts to think about it and give a rational response.

Thanks in advance.

Peace.

[ukpumacat]

Puma, that is from the New Testament and I am pretty sure it is very explicit and maybe your church doesn't teach that nor believes that part of the Bible.

Jazy, I apologize for not taking the time to respond to your entire post. I obviously know those verses are there and what they say. As I said earlier, I believe the whole Bible. I just don't believe it teaches what you are using those passages to teach. I just don't have the energy or the desire to go down that road. I would never be able to fully explain my viewpoint in a thread, so won't try. I disagree with how you are using them, but I will just keep it at that. I certainly understand why you believe what you do, and I certainly understand why you used those passages. I used to as well. There are other passages by the way that support your viewpoint, and I could list them if it helped.
To your comment about rape: First, rape is condemned in the BIble (several times...and ironically enough one is a time that people misunderstand as being about homosexuality). Secondly, if you re-read my post, I made it very clear that Jesus not mentioning it does not mean its not a sin. I said I think its significant historically. And it is. Culturally and historically. But, not theologically. In other words, Him not mentioning it doesn't mean its not a sin (we agree), but Him not mentioning it is very significant to why I believe what I do about what the Bible has to say about being gay (I know that doesn't make sense, but I promise it does to me). Again, I just don't have the time or the bandwidth to fully explain that.

All of that to get to your comment above. I just wanted to be clear about one thing. My church does not have a viewpoint on being gay. Some in my church believe exactly like you do. Many believe like I do. We don't have ones views on homosexuality on our litmus test. Most churches do in an unwritten way. Our church is what most would consider a standard, evangelical church. We are certainly not a UCC or anything close to it (an "amateur" guess?). My church is distinctly not a political church by choice, and we focus on loving as Jesus loves and serving the needy as Jesus taught (as well as a slew of other things I'm sure your church teaches). I just didn't want to paint a picture that said my church's viewpoint is________. We don't have one. I do. As do many of my friends, and people in my community group, etc.

[ukpumacat]

It's amateur hour on the theology board, apparently.

I know I really should not respond to your post (I know better), but I will. Just a couple of things: It would be nice if instead of making critical comments toward everyone else and yelling from the cheap seats, you actually made a significant comment either way. You have added nothing to this thread except for insults and barbs. What is your opinion? Why? Since you call others amateurs, let's hear your viewpoint (I know, you are "above" this discussion, right?).
Secondly, I am not sure what you qualify as "amateur hour on the theology board", but I am guessing I am the only one here with the degree I have. Maybe that doesn't make me an expert by any means, but I spent a lot of years studying to become an "amateur" then.

[ukpumacat]

Stanley Hauerwas

The Dukie is something we have common ground on. I don't agree with everything he has written, but do like much of what he teaches. A little odd that you use his name based on your viewpoint in this thread, but I digress.

[badrose]

Originally Posted by Krank:
"BTW, I would be very curious to know how the Biblical literalists who claim their knowledge and understanding of Judeo-Christian gospels is unassailable would identify hermaphroditic folks and who THEY choose to be with on a sexual/relationship level.

Any takers on that?"



Appreciate the reply, badrose, and I tend to agree (and props to puma, who has been EXCELLENT on this thread, not saying that because I tend to agree with him, but because I feel his thoughts are extremely logical and organized, as well as attempting to buffer the typical "either with us or against us" political BULLSPIT that ALWAYS garbles these sorts of discussions, i.e. he is trying to bring real life experience AND his religious beliefs into the fray).

The reason I asked the question about hermaphroditic individuals is that such an example, IMO, perfectly shows that the issue of GLBT rights is not as simple as many would like to make it out to be. If a person has BOTH sets of genitalia, then the answer to "what is natural?" becomes not so easy and certainly not definable by a religious doctrine (or at least any that I am familiar with).

So I ask, again, this time pointing a further fleshed out question towards the most conservative biblical literalists on this thread...

If a hermaphroditic individual, allegedly loved every bit as much by your deity of choice as any other human being would be, chooses to have sexual relationships with someone who is NOT hermaphroditic, then are they gay when they use their male genitalia with a male?

or are they lesbian if they use their female genitalia with a female?

or are they "gay sinners" simply because they are NEITHER completely male or female, thus dooming their partners AND themselves to "everlasting hellfire" by simply being involved with a uni-gendered partner (how does one check on that, BTW, should the government/church of your choice appoint a secret service agent for god that hides in the closets of hermaphrodites so as to guide them once they sin with each and every sexual act that is not the missionary position between individuals who are clearly ONE gender or "the OTHER"?)?

or are they given a pass because the human writers of the bible forgot to mention them, thus NOT being divinely inspired by a perfect "creator/god"?

or do you concede that biological reality on an issue such as this trumps unprovable mythology that insists that all words in a bible are directly inspired by "god"?

One might assume that I am attempting to embarrass the folks that this question is pointed toward, but I consider it a completely rational question that deals with real life individuals, folks you would NEVER know are hermaphroditic, thus it is NOT my attempt to bait or embarrass anyone. I am just curious to see if any of said folks have the guts to think about it and give a rational response.

Thanks in advance.

Peace.

Krank, it's a legitimate question. I used to be a real B&W guy, had it all figured out and not without considerable thought. I don't know why God brought the hammer down on MY head instead of someone whom I could have read and came to the same readjusted conclusions but I think He did it because of my nature and knew I wouldn't waste it.

I believe God created a perfect world with two physically perfect humans, male and female, with the freedom to make moral choices. He knew ahead of time that no one would score 100% on those choices so He gave us laws that included those that would not allow us to forget Him in the process of trying to follow the rest. Being human, we broke them, bringing about changes in our DNA and and an imperfect environment. Our inability to keep the Law necessitated grace, a perfect sacrifice, his own perfect Son, who knew our brokenness and was full of compassion, not willing that any of us would perish. All of that to say that physical abnormalities are a result of human behavior but none of us have been forgotten by our creator Who desires our fellowship so long as we desire His based on our obedience to His instruction even knowing we will stumble in trying to do so.

I think the Bible is unique in all of literature in that it provides the most beneficial instruction on human behavior and survival. Others have come to the same conclusion. Of course the world is full of those who would try to reinvent the wheel whether it be those who would stone a woman who shows her ankles, those who would seek holiness by isolating themselves on top of a mountain, etc. It makes the most sense of who we are and our experiences. Grace with a code; can't beat it. I would go further here to say that our Constitution is the closest thing to an inspired document that exists outside of the Bible. (For another discussion and hopefully no time soon. I'm sooo ready for the Silly Season.)

Oops, I forgot the main purpose of my response. I would say that the question addresses legalistic tendencies of many who follow the bible while being legalistic in its own purpose. My answer would be to those considered here, Congratulations on having someone with whom you can share intimacy. Knock your socks off! All of this assuming they seek a relationship with their Creator, otherwise none of it really matters.

[elicat]

I know I really should not respond to your post (I know better), but I will. Just a couple of things: It would be nice if instead of making critical comments toward everyone else and yelling from the cheap seats, you actually made a significant comment either way. You have added nothing to this thread except for insults and barbs. What is your opinion? Why? Since you call others amateurs, let's hear your viewpoint (I know, you are "above" this discussion, right?).
Secondly, I am not sure what you qualify as "amateur hour on the theology board", but I am guessing I am the only one here with the degree I have. Maybe that doesn't make me an expert by any means, but I spent a lot of years studying to become an "amateur" then.

I responded to this backchannel, and I don't know what degree you have, but just going by what seems probable I doubt very much that you are the only one.

[ukpumacat]

I responded to this backchannel, and I don't know what degree you have, but just going by what seems probable I doubt very much that you are the only one.

Dang dude...I stand corrected. I'm actually cracking up after reading your PM. Thanks for sending it.
I love this community of people on here. We all may have different viewpoints, but I would down a beer with anyone and talk UK all night long.

[Edward100]

I’ve been gone a few days and just finished reading your comments. I must “Come out” admit that I am a “Born Again” Christian and am proud to make that statement. As I tried to say; whether you believe homosexuality is right, wrong or indifferent has nothing to do with my statements. I am not saying you have to agree with me or anyone else on this board about anything on this board. I am saying we all have to account for our choices. Each of us made our choice on this subject, did we not? Then, so be it.

IMHO, when we get to the “End of days” there will be only two groups of people left, those who KNOW Jesus and those with NO Jesus. There is no door number three. And…we will all account for our choices.

[jazyd]

Edward see you in the BLUE room in heaven, glad you are a brother

I’ve been gone a few days and just finished reading your comments. I must “Come out” admit that I am a “Born Again” Christian and am proud to make that statement. As I tried to say; whether you believe homosexuality is right, wrong or indifferent has nothing to do with my statements. I am not saying you have to agree with me or anyone else on this board about anything on this board. I am saying we all have to account for our choices. Each of us made our choice on this subject, did we not? Then, so be it.

IMHO, when we get to the “End of days” there will be only two groups of people left, those who KNOW Jesus and those with NO Jesus. There is no door number three. And…we will all account for our choices.

[Edward100]

Thank you brother, jazyd

[BigBluePappy]

Mark 12:31

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Enough for me. (A Baptist by the way)

Just thankful we live in a country where these things can be openly debated and the sides presented don't have to be in lock-step.
I have a beloved family member who is a homosexual and it never has been an issue with us; he is how he is just like a beagle chases rabbits or a retriever loves the water, and it doesn't make a bit of difference, and I love him harder than thunder can bump a stump, but it has never an issue with me, he is my family. Period.