It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
He is also the author of The Bible in Human Transformation (Fortress, 1973), Transforming Bible Study (Abingdon, second edition, 1990), and other works, including 134 articles.
Some passages that have been advanced as pertinent to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevant. One is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29). That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them "like women," thus demasculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21.) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting adults of the same sex is legitimate or not
In addition, when a man acted like a woman sexually, male dignity was compromised. It was a degradation, not only in regard to himself, but for every other male. The patriarchalism of Hebrew culture shows its hand in the very formulation of the commandment, since no similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual acts between females.
Whatever the rationale for their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command of Scripture. The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts. (That may seem extreme, but there actually are some Christians urging this very thing today.) It is unlikely that any American court will ever again condemn a homosexual to death, even though Scripture clearly commands it.
Originally posted by nuttin4U
. . . evil agenda!
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Here is an introduction to the Reverend on that Soulforce page you posted
And the problem is?
A Humanist Manifesto, also known as Humanist Manifesto I to distinguish it from later Humanist Manifestos, was written in 1933 primarily by Raymond Bragg and was published with thirty-four signatories. Unlike the later ones, the first manifesto talked of a new "religion", and referred to humanism as a religious movement meant to transcend and replace previous, deity-based religions. However, it is careful not to outline a creed or dogma. The document outlines a fifteen-point belief system, which, in addition to a secular outlook, opposes "acquisitive and profit-motivated society" and outlines a worldwide egalitarian society based on voluntary mutual cooperation.
The Fellowship of Humanity was founded in 1935 by Reverend A. D. Faupel as one of a handful of "humanist churches" seeded in the early 20th century as part of the American Religious Humanism movement. It was the only such organization to survive into the 21st century and is the first and oldest affiliate of the American Humanist Association.[3]
In 1961, Webster's Third New International Unabridged Dictionary defined religious humanism as "A modern American movement composed chiefly of non-theistic humanists and humanist churches and dedicated to achieving the ethical goals of religion without beliefs and rites resting upon superstition."
If the older humanism over-emphasized the individual and individualism to the neglect of community, the new religious humanism regards the individual as fully human only within community, a community of caring and responsible people. One of the major differences between secular humanism and religious humanism is that religious humanism emphasizes the importance of the covenanted religious community
Originally posted by Annee
Well my brain is now having brain farts of blasts of ignorance.
And "Two Fat Ladies" can cook is on TV now. So funny. (too bad one died).
Later.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The problem is you did not bother to read most of the article you yourself posted as you clearly are completely ignorant of the entire dialogue in it.
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The problem is you did not bother to read most of the article you yourself posted as you clearly are completely ignorant of the entire dialogue in it.
I did read the entire article. What is your specific complaint?
At 65 - - I have zero tolerance for - - the bigotry - hate - self-righteousness of past generations.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
What past generations? The Old Testament Hebrews? Interestingly, I am not the only person who sees through the mockery of this fake minister. He picks apart the guys mocking of the Bible just as I did. And I guarantee that I read this after I made my post.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee
lol Sounds like you have zero tolerance period!
Originally posted by nuttin4U
Now Anne, you said you have grandkids...therefore i'm to assume you have children of your own, right? Well, here's my question: Did you allow your kids, to live however they chose...in YOUR house??? Did they come in, whenever they CHOSE?
Originally posted by nuttin4U
Walking with God...doesnt come through the tree of KNOWLEDGE. .
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by nuttin4U
Now Anne, you said you have grandkids...therefore i'm to assume you have children of your own, right? Well, here's my question: Did you allow your kids, to live however they chose...in YOUR house??? Did they come in, whenever they CHOSE?
Personal Responsibility and Integrity. Which does not require any outside guru.
My daughter was dating a Jewish man. He was concerned. My daughter told him: "If I showed up at my mom's house with a 300 pound - purple haired - lesbian" - - my mom would ask: "Are you happy" - - does that answer your question?