What is Digg?251 Comments
- 7m7uf, on 09/10/2009, -11/+157Still don't see what the big deal is. Please someone tell me how two dudes/chicks loving each other effects others? I'm still unsure how that effects you and your salvation.
- megapartyboy, on 09/10/2009, -9/+78your use of "effect" affects me.
- tgjerusalem, on 09/10/2009, -13/+80A Roman citizen caring that deeply about the health of his slave was really, really rare. Slaves were disposable. To actually torture one for fun might get you charges of hubris, but slaves could be casually, even intentionally worked to death, and to travel out of your way to bring a dying slave to an obscure (to Romans, anyway) healer was rare. A Roman soldier patronizing a Jewish healer for the sake of his slave was unheard of, and probably got the man quite a lot of ***** from other Romans.
This wasn't a pragmatic act, it was an act of love. Whether that love was romantic/sexual or strictly platonic is unknowable, but given both the idealization of love between men (even a master and male slave were closer to "equals" than that same man and his wife), and the level of devotion necessary for this act, the suggestion that they were lovers is not improbable.
Some of the other billboards have cite less ambiguous passages. E.g., II Samuel 1:26 (billboard can be seen at http://cbs11tv.com/local/pro.gay.billboards.2.1171 ... - David's love for Jonathan surpassed that of women. The "love of women" in that context and culture *was* sexual love.
Combined with the rest of their story (their souls said to be knit together, Saul saying upon David's marriage to his daughter that "now you're my son-in-law twice over," the bit where they kiss, profess love, then take off their clothes...), and it gets pretty hard to continue seeing them as just good manly buddies. This was unusual behavior, even in the ancient Mediterranean. This is a male couple, probably lovers, divinely blessed and celebrated.
Ruth and Naomi are another couple whose love is both celebrated and described in terms that make it hard to consider them strictly platonic friends.
The Bible is many things, but it's not consistent, or clear, or obvious in its appropriate interpretation and application. Romans 1 is Paul, and only Paul. While very important and insightful, he was only a man, not God himself, he conflicted with pretty much everyone else, and even contradicts himself (e.g., saying the circumcised are damned, and later saying he circumcised Timothy).
Romans 1 is the only direct reference to same gender sexual activity in the New Testament, and it is described as the result of idolatry, not as the "sin" itself. Paul was probably referencing fertility rites among some mystery cults (esp. Bacchus and Isis) with whom he was competing for converts. Paul had a Roman citizen's prudishness and hostility towards these cults as "foreign," and a Jewish disdain for fertility rites as bizarre.
From his POV it was direct causation - participate in "idolatry" (ie, belong to a religion he disapproved of), participate in fertility rites that freaked him out, including (but not limited to) otherwise heterosexual people having m/m or f/f sex for the sake of the rite.
This is a bit like a hardcore teetotaler Protestant trying to damn Catholicism because wine is consumed during mass. And it has nothing to do with m/m or f/f romantic/sexual relations that aren't part of ancient fertility cult rites. - matticusf1nch, on 09/11/2009, -15/+73This doesn't make God any less make-believe.
- Nubli, on 09/11/2009, -1/+58A lot of Christians already misrepresent bible verses for their gain.
- eastwood24, on 09/10/2009, -8/+53It's not about salvation. It's about never coming to terms with one's own sense of sexuality because because dogmatic religious adherance blocked them from expressing their true feelings.
- WertYui2169, on 09/10/2009, -9/+54Blame is a great thing. It allows people to feel righteous when they are indeed the very reason nobody gets along.
- Dunch, on 09/11/2009, -10/+53The Bible says cleary that homosexuality is a sin; even if David and Jonathan did love like that, it would fall under the "sin" category.
But here's my important point: with the proper perspective (for Christians), homosexuality is a sin just like any other. It's not any worse that lusting for a woman who you're not married to.
A favorite quote of mine, from a Christian like myself to a homosexual:
"I'm sorry the church has normalized my sexual brokenness and ostracized yours." - brianpeiris, on 09/11/2009, -8/+49Using scripture to justify gay love is about as useful as using scripture to condemn it.
- inactive, on 09/11/2009, -13/+48I think religion is an artifact of primitive fear. RAmen.
- SQLDigger, on 09/10/2009, -15/+50If you truly want to engage people who believe the Bible in friendly conversation, then I highly recommend you don't stretch the meaning of passages in the Bible by placing highly speculative interpretations of their "hidden" meaning on billboards. Matthew 8:5-13 is pretty clearly a lesson on the importance of faith. Stretching the meaning of the apostle's words in this way only means that no Christian who studies the Bible is ever going to take you seriously.
- SeekerDarksteel, on 09/11/2009, -5/+37It also clearly states that shellfish and pigs are unclean.
- Jeepinator, on 09/11/2009, -11/+43Christian here. I approve of these billboards and I think many if not most Christians my age also would.
- fredkreuger, on 09/11/2009, -0/+23Whooooosh!
- crombat, on 09/11/2009, -1/+23only heterosexual sex can "effect" others.
- spriggig, on 09/11/2009, -2/+23Buried. There's no such thing as a devil.
- mine4321, on 09/11/2009, -6/+27That's the problem with the Bible, you can cherry pick a couple quotes to support or oppose pretty much any position. For instance, the Bible has passages that say slavery, rape, and incest are perfectly acceptable.
- zip000, on 09/11/2009, -1/+22Uh, what?
- mine4321, on 09/11/2009, -4/+24We do?
- Kelden21, on 09/11/2009, -0/+20He's been replaced by the Superdevil.
- Crimeodial, on 09/11/2009, -1/+20That's pretty much the craziest website I've ever seen...
- densetsu23, on 09/11/2009, -1/+20I'm missing something with this "gay marriage affecting you" concept. Whenever a gay couple is married, does Jesus come and punch you in the face or something?
- zephc, on 09/11/2009, -2/+19' "Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve," the billboards assert...'
This isn't in the NKJ version. Maybe it's OGC version. - deadasdisco, on 09/11/2009, -3/+20tough guy.
- tgjerusalem, on 09/10/2009, -7/+22And a lot of Christians take offense to misrepresenting a particular bible verse such as Romans 1:26-27, Leviticus 18:22, Deuteronomy 23:17, etc, as obvious and universal condemnations of love and sexual/romantic relationships between people of the same gender.
The Bible is many things, but it isn't clear or easily interpreted. It's not misrepresentation, or even that improbable, to suggest that the love of the centurion for his slave may not have been platonic. Other passages used in the billboard campaign are even less ambiguous; it's hard to read of David and Jonathan's relationship without concluding that they were lovers. - ZenPoetry, on 09/11/2009, -5/+20I'm not sure how many Christians actually take the time to read the bible, cover to cover, like I have, but if they did they would know that according to Leviticus; the same book that condemns gays, you also should have killed your children the very first time they gave you any lip, and you are going straight to hell if you ever wore underwear with an elastic waistband. But none of that matters anyway, because Christians who hate gays aren't being good Christians. They are being good Orthodox Jews. You see Jesus created the New Covenant. Which pretty much invalidates the Old Testament in favor of the the New. And even if you want to take the view that gays have fallen to the deadly sin of Lust, succumbing yourself to the deadly sin of Wrath makes you no better. And remember, God is Forgiving and Jesus preached nothing but love for thy fellow man. So try to be more Christ like and don't substitute your own judgment for his. Gods will is his own, and it's ineffable anyway.
- Jeepinator, on 09/11/2009, -2/+17Wow, 27, and you still don't have anything figured out. When will a gay couple in union ever affect you?
- ImYourRealDad, on 09/11/2009, -4/+19Not in the slightest.
- SomeRandomGuy, on 09/11/2009, -2/+16Well, technically, it's 2 sins according to the Bible.
Sex without marriage = Sin.
Homosexuality = Sin.
So, homosexuality falls on the Biblical Double Sin Score tile.
However, there's a pretty big chunk of the Bible that talks about not judging others, so I'm not sure why it's cool to play rules Nazi on one part and then pull a Ray Lewis "Aw, schnap, I didn't see nuthin'" on the other parts. - Choobie, on 09/11/2009, -1/+15I fail to see how the verses referenced on the billboard support the statement, but then I also fail to see how any verse in the bible condemns homosexuality. In all the verses anti-gay marriage people quote, they are cases where one man is raping another to humiliate, not having an actual, loving, sexual intimacy. Source: Young's Literal Translation (not the interpreted ***** where people put their own opinions into it). The word homosexuality didn't exist in any languages when the bible was written, so if translation has that word, be skeptical.
- HEAVYisSPY, on 09/11/2009, -7/+21Here's the real issue...what relevance does an ancient, violent, and often empirically inaccurate book of magic have with any real-world concern among intellectual grown-ups?
- zephc, on 09/11/2009, -1/+14Yup, it's right there in the Greek:
Matthew 8:6
και λεγων κυριε ο παις μου βεβληται εν τη οικια παραλυτικος δεινως βασανιζομενος
"παις" (pais) being the word argued over: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/παῖς
I've found no definition other than the billboard's site that it says it means anything other than child, young person or servant/slave
Not that some Bronze Age noobs should be the ultimate moral authority anyway. - TrevorBelmont, on 09/11/2009, -0/+13You don't have a direct line to God anymore than openly, actively gay Christians do. That's why you and your website don't get to decide who is and is not Christian. You are not God, Sir. Pridefulness is the sin you should be most concerned with.
- Cyberdine, on 09/11/2009, -0/+13i doubt they had already finished the gospels while jesus was still alive.
- spriggig, on 09/11/2009, -8/+20There is no such thing as sin.
- Bulletbillx, on 09/11/2009, -0/+12but there is such a thing as the robot devil. and FYI he wants his hands back.
- 471776, on 09/11/2009, -0/+12This clip from the West Wing summarizes perfectly why you and this website are full of *****:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-zhNiGlogQ
Skip to about 35 seconds in. - jgzman, on 09/11/2009, -0/+11I think you'll find that there was no bible when Jesus walked the earth.
- zephc, on 09/11/2009, -1/+12Oh, there was some tent-pitching going on alright...
- energyx, on 09/11/2009, -7/+18 I'm totally missing the point here. Where's the gayness? Here's the verse:
5When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6"Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering."
7Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him."
8The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."
10When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
13Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour. - mercury4k, on 09/10/2009, -13/+24Wow, all I can say is: owned.
- MWeather, on 09/11/2009, -6/+17The word used for the servant was the greek word "pais", which means young boy. What use would a centurion have for a young boy slave? He can't fight, and he can't work very hard.
Keep in mind at the time, Augustus had banned Roman soldiers from marrying.
So we have a unmarried man who keeps a young boy as his personal slave and cares enough about him to seek out an obscure heretical healer in a desperate attempt to heal him.
Yeah, I'm sure it was totally platonic. - marinist, on 09/11/2009, -3/+13I'm amused how a billboard could so easily arouse a driver's inner sexual conflict.
Christian intolerance is a bigger problem than any supposed "correct" interpretation of scripture.
Somewhere in "the book", Jesus directly addresses this hypocrisy, which no doubt will be lost on the fundies. - CasualReader, on 09/11/2009, -1/+11In the original greek, the word "pais" was used to describe the person the Centurion wanted help for. I did a web search and found that it was often used in ancient greek as slang for a (younger) homosexual lover. Doesn't mean it was used this way in Matthew but doesn't mean it wasn't either. I will bet first century Greeks, upon hearing that a Roman Centurion wanted help for his "pais" badly enough to approach a Jewish faith healer, probably assumed the Centurion was motivated by more than concern for the lost investment of a dead servant. Of course, that means the Centurion had a sex slave, but then this was common in the ancient world and I don't remember Jesus doing any sermons against it.
- inactive, on 09/11/2009, -1/+11In other words, 3 million people dictate their lives by a magic book! (Often times criticizing Muslims who do the same thing.)
- igeoffi, on 09/11/2009, -3/+12"The billboards also offer a scripture reference that is meant to validate the message." It looks like the billboard in the picture references Matthew 8:5-13. Looking that up on Google shows "The Faith of the Centurion.".... Now I'm confused.
- SQLDigger, on 09/11/2009, -7/+16Well, you clearly don't want to engage anyone in friendly conversation, so let's just leave it at that. I was addressing the people who put up the sign, who said they did want to have a friendly dialog.
- Cyberdine, on 09/11/2009, -1/+10/s
- inactive, on 09/11/2009, -3/+12This would be hilarious if it were satire. Sadly, you are probably just an uneducated jackass.
- doubledmateo, on 09/11/2009, -1/+10@cdw1212
No, I don't think we can ALL agree that the statement is out of context. What you're saying is that it doesn't fit your idea of the context. This is the primary issue with using the bible as any sort of authoritative, end all, be all of moral argument. It's way to easy to interpret one way or the other. I wouldn't say that these billboard interpretations (although I agree they may indeed differ from the author's original feelings) can be seen as any more of a stretch then the scripture that says homosexuality is evil. People are in an uproar not because an interpretation is being drawn, but because it's the opposite of the way they feel it should be interpreted. Despite what some wish about the bible, it is anything but straightforward and clear. -
Show 51 - 100 of 257 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is