Why is Bob proud about being homophobic?

[Jefferson]

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Originally posted by Lord Vader
The so called Dr.Laura has dealth with this problem by refining her anti-homo stance. She accepts that they're born that way but that this is still not a reason to practice it just as some people are born with a sexual attraction only for children, yet they still shouldn't act on it realizing that it is wrong.

I've considered this possibility as well. The Bible says we are all born with a sin nature. But that does not mean we are all born with the same sin proclivities. You can observe this with children. A mother is pushing a shopping cart down an aisle and she's got a little 2 year old "kleptomaniac" in the seat trying to steal something every time mommy isn't looking. Another mother also has a 2 year old in the shopping cart seat who couldn't care less about stealing anything.

I'm not convinced about this "proclivity" view but it's something I'm looking into.

But whatever the truth is, Dr. Laura is right. Just because a person is born with a proclivity towards kleptomania does not mean that it should be legal for that person to steal.

Jeff

P.S. Welcome to T.O.L. Lord Vader

 

[.Ant]

Homosexuality is unnatural. Think about it.

Homosexuality is unnatural. Think about it.

Originally posted by Jefferson
I'm not convinced about this "proclivity" view but it's something I'm looking into.

Proclivity is obviously true - we are all born with different personalities and tendencies. We all have strengths and weaknesses, but we can't blame them for doing something wrong.

Hi Lord Vader!

Homos are not produced by nature - a baby is not born homosexual. It may have an increased risk of becoming homosexual, due to genetics, but it won't grow up to become a homosexual, without a bunch of sin in the picture (sin done to the person, and sinful reactions by the person).

 

[Lord Vader]

Someone can be attracted to the same gender and not be a homo? Not following that too well...

 

[.Ant]

"Being a homo" is a habit, not an essential attribute

"Being a homo" is a habit, not an essential attribute

Originally posted by Lord Vader
Someone can be attracted to the same gender and not be a homo?

Of course. It is possible to feel like killing someone without being a murderer.

Even if you are attracted to the same gender, the real sin is when you start actually thinking about sexual activities with them. Kindof like how you can look at girl without being guilty of adultery ("whoever looks at a woman lustfully...")

 

[Zakath]

What's that old saw about the difference between letting the birds fly about one's head and letting them nest in one's beard???

 

[Lord Vader]

BTW, is there anything more gay than that little, "go Bob"! thing in Bob Enyarts radio theme tune? I crack up when I hear that!

 

[.Ant]

Okay then. I'm homophobic

Okay then. I'm homophobic

Originally said by God, in Jude 22-23
Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear--hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

 

[.Ant]

Go Bob go, you big man you

Go Bob go, you big man you

Originally posted by Lord Vader
BTW, is there anything more gay than that little, "go Bob"! thing in Bob Enyarts radio theme tune? I crack up when I hear that!

It's very poncy isn't it?

 

[Candide1202]

Has anyone touched on Eva the EVIL Lesbian?

Just wondering...

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Candide1202
Has anyone touched on Eva the EVIL Lesbian?

Not with a 10 foot pole. :chuckle:

 

[Candide1202]

and i am sure that is a good thing, eh?

:nod:

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Not with a 10 foot pole. :chuckle:

:crackup:
Yeah, just the name makes me want to run and hide! opup:

 

[Candide1202]

I actually think that it is a good interview!

:thumb:

PS: this is the COOLEST ICON -> :box:

 

[aikido7]

Enyart mugged on the road to Jericho and the Good Queer

Enyart mugged on the road to Jericho and the Good Queer

Jesus preached the coming of the Kingdom of God in everyday images that his first-century listeners could understand, but if he taught everything (and Matthew's account tells us that he taught everything in parables), then we have a problem.

As any careful reader of the gospel knows, the parables are NOT dogmatic, rational theology but puzzling stories that are calculated to upset our conventional wisdom. Unlike a proverb which distills a familiar human truth (look at the wisdom tradition in Proverbs), a parable is a story which turns the agreed-upon truth on its head. Theologians and pastors have also tried to "domesticate" the bite of Jesus' parables by turning them into allegory but that goes only so far (the wheat represents the church, the woman represents the flock, etc.).

The Kingdom of God is compared to a measure of flour contaminated by a woman who hid the corruption of leaven until the measure became unmanageable. The tiny mustard seed becomes a weed with dangerous take-over properties which lampoons the traditional image of mighty Israel. None of these conclusions would be possible without the knowledge that, one, elsewhere in the Old Testament and in Paul, "leaven" is clearly shown to be corruption and two, the mustard plant was a lowly weed that--when left unchecked--could ruin a Mediterranean farmer's crop and attract birds who would eat his good seed. The mustard seed parable is also an echo of the Old Testament reference to Israel as the "mighty cedar" which protects the Jewish nation and attracts birds of the air to nest in its branches.

Clearly Jesus was saying something else about God.

And what of the Parable of the Good Samaritan? As any Jew well knew, the Samaritans were the marginalized "untouchable" Jews--seen as the bastard, illegitimate heirs of God's favor. No one at that time could imagine a Samaraitan being "good" any more than they could imagine "loving one's enemies."

Jesus was then, and people could not get the message.

Jesus is still here, and people still don't get it.

How would Bob Enyart react to Jesus' story of the Parable of the Good Queer?

 

[Zakath]

Re: Enyart mugged on the road to Jericho and the Good Queer

Re: Enyart mugged on the road to Jericho and the Good Queer

Originally posted by aikido7
How would Bob Enyart react to Jesus' story of the Parable of the Good Queer?

Interesting question. I wonder... :think:

 

[Jefferson]

Re: Enyart mugged on the road to Jericho and the Good Queer

Re: Enyart mugged on the road to Jericho and the Good Queer

Originally posted by aikido7
How would Bob Enyart react to Jesus' story of the Parable of the Good Queer?

Apples and oranges. Samaritans were born that way. Queers choose to be queers. Hence, "good queer" is an oxymoron.

 

[aikido7]

Ah--some may choose their "gayness"--others are stuck with it. The Samaritans "chose" their way of worship and the site of thier temple rites.

One thing about fundamentalist thought is that it cannot tolerate ambiguities--everything has to be in black and white. And the chaos has to be somehow "controlled." The chaos of sex has ALWAYS been a big control issue in religion. But that's not the only thing that's feared. Jesus was so feared by some he was killed. And today's Christianity? Thus we have the allegoric and dogmatic overlay on Jesus' renegade, radical parabolic vision.

Remember, "oxymoron" is one "rational" way to "approach" a parable. I don't think the rational mind is meant to be invited to the Kingdom...

Apples and oranges are part of a larger class of nomenclature called "food." This is WAY[\b] beyond the "either / or" thinking of "apples or oranges" or even "fruit." It's all food, gay or straight, Pharisee or Roman centurion, leper or loser. There's a party going on and the host is instructed to go out to the streets and invite everyone over.

Love God and your neighbor--that's Jesus in a nutshell, Jeffy.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by aikido7
Love God and your neighbor--that's Jesus in a nutshell, Jeffy.

Good point... but love should not be hypocritical...

Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. - Romans 12:9

In other words.... it is hateful to not rebuke your neighbors sin.

'You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. - Leviticus 19:17

 

[aikido7]

Originally posted by Knight
Good point... but love should not be hypocritical...

Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. - Romans 12:9

---------------------------------------------

Love isn't love if it is hypocritical. Love is patient, kind, does not boast, etc. It's a love from God, open to anyone. And it's open for all of us to pass that love on.

Good point--"abhor what is evil." In this case, the evil comes from ignorance on the social level and the biblical level. Bob Enyart and others like him are really doing the best they can with the information and beliefs that they have. They truly do not know any other way. They have "an exclusive relationship with Jesus" (the modern term) but they haven't realized that Jesus demands them to be inclusive. Ironic, isn't it?

"In other words.... it is hateful to not rebuke your neighbors sin."
This sounds like pretzel logic to me. The "in other words" show that the original words weren't good enough. The same thing happened to Jesus' words as time went on.

Cling to what is good, whether gay or straight.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by aikido7
Love isn't love if it is hypocritical. Love is patient, kind, does not boast, etc. It's a love from God, open to anyone. And it's open for all of us to pass that love on.

Open to anyone???

Really??

How far do you take your own train of thought? Do you love pedophiles, rapists, murderers? And if so... how do you demonstrate that love? Curious minds want to know.

You continue...

Good point--"abhor what is evil." In this case, the evil comes from ignorance on the social level and the biblical level. Bob Enyart and others like him are really doing the best they can with the information and beliefs that they have. They truly do not know any other way. They have "an exclusive relationship with Jesus" (the modern term) but they haven't realized that Jesus demands them to be inclusive. Ironic, isn't it?

How "inclusive" do you assert that Jesus wants us to be? Again... should our love and acceptance include pedophiles, rapists and murderers? Or were you simply using "inclusive" in regard to homosexuals? If you were... how to you determine just what Jesus wanted us to be "inclusive" about?