B
BigBadWlf
Guest
And by extension those whose faith indicate that people of color are social inferiors to whites should not have to honor the civil rights laws correct?
Upvote
0
Biblical Response to the Rise of Homosexuality
- Thread starter Bondservant
- Start date
B
BigBadWlf
Guest
I addressed these passages elsewhere. I will repeat them as several posters here have alleged that his personal interpretations are correct and any other is wrong.
At issue here is the translation of the Greek word arsenokoites to mean homosexual. It is only in recent history that this word has been translated to mean homosexual. For centuries it was translated as masturbation and that translation continued in some bibles until the late 1960s. There is no reason or evidence to believe that arsenokoites translates as homosexual at all.
Various attempts have been made to defend the interpretation of arsenokoites as a reference to male-male or homosexual sex in 1 Corinthians and the denial that there are translation issues with that word appears to be political rather than anything else. This defense is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is generally a more sound strategy in Greek than English. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to either a man or a chair, even if it originally did. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy.
The most damming evidence that arsenokoites does not means homosexual is the fact that arsenokoites because of the meanings of its root words the that fact that it is a plural first declension noun. The word koitai, without the arseno- prefix, is feminine. Thus referring to a man in a womans bed, not in the bed of another man.
Some have tried to claim that Paul was using words from the Septuagint to illustrate his point and that he really did mean homosexual. Transitionally trouble arises from the fact thatarsen and koite ALSO appear in Leviticus 20:11: And if a man(arsen) lieth with(koites) his father's wife...Leviticus 20:12 if a man(arsen) lieth with(koites) his daugther-in-law...Leviticus 20:15 if a man(arsen) lay (koites) with a beast... and so on and so forth. If you're going to use that justification to "prove" Paul fabricated this new word out of words from a separate language in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (because arsen and koite appear in Leviticus 20:13) then one must pretend that somehow Lev 20:11 refers to a specifically heterosexual act
The only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible. The word "means" according to its function, according to how particular people use the word in different situations. However writings contemporary to Paul that also use the word arsenokoites do not use it to mean homosexual, rather they use the word to refer to men who use women sexually in exchange for money IE men who employ prostiutes.
The various letters of Paul have historically been used to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, religious reformers, and the mentally ill. Currently the popular target of this discrimination are homosexuals and sadly the motivation remains exactly the same.
Of interest is the translation of the words natural and lust
In the original Greek, the phrase for lust used in Romans translates as ecstatic or ecstasy, the original meaning was not in reference to passion or the street drug but rather referred to ecstatic trance states described by anthropologists (Ref: Mircea Eliade). These ecstatic trances were part of pretty much every religion, such states were generally achieved by religious leaders but lay people could engage in them as well, the process was to connect to the spirit world for healing and blessing. The Modern Christian version would be speaking in tongues and the meditative state achieved in ritualistic prayer. Originally the condemnation was against any religion but the one Paul was founding, but like so many other non-Christian traditions, ecstasy found their way into Christianity.
As for the reference to natural. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexuality be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural for Pauls audience would have been to force oneself to go against ones own nature, to pretend to be something one is not. Such relationships are referred to as being unnatural by many writers of the era.
Paul specifically used the Greek word paraphysi here. Paraphysi does not mean "to go against the law(s) of nature", as those promoting discrimination against homosexuals often claim, but rather it means to engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person or more simply an individual denying his/her true nature. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. And what Paul is condemning is the unnaturalness of going against ones nature. In the verse you cite God punishes individuals engaging in ecstatic trance work by forcing them to be something they are not.
The sin here (aside form ecstasy trance work) is pretending to be something you are not.
Romans 1:26-27 is not a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of trying to change or lying about ones sexual oriention. Thus it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.
At issue here is the translation of the Greek word arsenokoites to mean homosexual. It is only in recent history that this word has been translated to mean homosexual. For centuries it was translated as masturbation and that translation continued in some bibles until the late 1960s. There is no reason or evidence to believe that arsenokoites translates as homosexual at all.
Various attempts have been made to defend the interpretation of arsenokoites as a reference to male-male or homosexual sex in 1 Corinthians and the denial that there are translation issues with that word appears to be political rather than anything else. This defense is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is generally a more sound strategy in Greek than English. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to either a man or a chair, even if it originally did. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy.
The most damming evidence that arsenokoites does not means homosexual is the fact that arsenokoites because of the meanings of its root words the that fact that it is a plural first declension noun. The word koitai, without the arseno- prefix, is feminine. Thus referring to a man in a womans bed, not in the bed of another man.
Some have tried to claim that Paul was using words from the Septuagint to illustrate his point and that he really did mean homosexual. Transitionally trouble arises from the fact thatarsen and koite ALSO appear in Leviticus 20:11: And if a man(arsen) lieth with(koites) his father's wife...Leviticus 20:12 if a man(arsen) lieth with(koites) his daugther-in-law...Leviticus 20:15 if a man(arsen) lay (koites) with a beast... and so on and so forth. If you're going to use that justification to "prove" Paul fabricated this new word out of words from a separate language in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (because arsen and koite appear in Leviticus 20:13) then one must pretend that somehow Lev 20:11 refers to a specifically heterosexual act
The only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible. The word "means" according to its function, according to how particular people use the word in different situations. However writings contemporary to Paul that also use the word arsenokoites do not use it to mean homosexual, rather they use the word to refer to men who use women sexually in exchange for money IE men who employ prostiutes.
The various letters of Paul have historically been used to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, religious reformers, and the mentally ill. Currently the popular target of this discrimination are homosexuals and sadly the motivation remains exactly the same.
Of interest is the translation of the words natural and lust
In the original Greek, the phrase for lust used in Romans translates as ecstatic or ecstasy, the original meaning was not in reference to passion or the street drug but rather referred to ecstatic trance states described by anthropologists (Ref: Mircea Eliade). These ecstatic trances were part of pretty much every religion, such states were generally achieved by religious leaders but lay people could engage in them as well, the process was to connect to the spirit world for healing and blessing. The Modern Christian version would be speaking in tongues and the meditative state achieved in ritualistic prayer. Originally the condemnation was against any religion but the one Paul was founding, but like so many other non-Christian traditions, ecstasy found their way into Christianity.
As for the reference to natural. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexuality be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural for Pauls audience would have been to force oneself to go against ones own nature, to pretend to be something one is not. Such relationships are referred to as being unnatural by many writers of the era.
Paul specifically used the Greek word paraphysi here. Paraphysi does not mean "to go against the law(s) of nature", as those promoting discrimination against homosexuals often claim, but rather it means to engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person or more simply an individual denying his/her true nature. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. And what Paul is condemning is the unnaturalness of going against ones nature. In the verse you cite God punishes individuals engaging in ecstatic trance work by forcing them to be something they are not.
The sin here (aside form ecstasy trance work) is pretending to be something you are not.
Romans 1:26-27 is not a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of trying to change or lying about ones sexual oriention. Thus it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.
Upvote
0
B
BigBadWlf
Guest
CONTINUED
what pro-discrimination rant is complete without misusing the story of Sodom and Ghamorah?
Considering the many problems with this particular story I find it amazing that Christians wishing to justify personal prejudice would actually use this. Of course this may also be an indication of just how desperate some Christians are to justify their own prejudice….but anyway…
The first thing to note is that the decision to destroy Sodom has been made prior to this chapter and whatever actions the story claims took place after the decision was made has no bearing at all on its destruction.
Now lets break this down:
According to the story Lot is the ONLY moral man in Sodom (notice how God doesn’t seem to care about moral women or children) and that is why Lot gets his ticket out of town before the city is destroyed. God sends a pair of Angels to warn Lot of the impending disaster. It is a mystery as to why God just didn’t do the warning himself…after all God was talking to just about everyone and his brother during that time. Anyway, after the angels arrive to warn Lot every man in town (and those trying to use this myth to prop up their own personal prejudices make the ridiculous claim that all the men of the city supposedly all gay) suddenly becomes horny and they all start banging on Lots door demanding that the angles come out for an either an orgy or a pampered chef party. For some reason that is never explained Lot (the only moral man around remember) offers all these supposedly gay men his virgin DAUGHTERS for their sexual pleasure. Meanwhile the angles, messengers of God remember, just sort of hang around not doing much. Despite the fact that they did their job and delivered the message to be on the next coach our of Dodge, they continue to hang around even though it is obviously causing problems. Strangely, these messengers of God don’t seem to think anything is wrong with Lot pimping his own daughters. Despite trying desperately to get his daughters gang raped, Lot still gets his ‘moral people only’ ticket out of town.
The problems of trying to use this as a means of justify personal prejudice are far to many to even begin to discuss in depth. The biggest problems:
Problem 1: if we pretend that ridiculous notion that all the men of the city were homosexual is true and if we pretend they were all out on the prowl for nothing but sex why would they need these angels to have it? Were the Angels just so totally gorgious that the men of Sodom couldn’t help themselves? After all there was a crowd of them around it would have been far easier to pair (or triple) up and go their merry way rather than go knocking on Lot’s door and have to listen to Lot try to get his little girls raped.
Problem 2: if all these men of Sodom were gay…why would Lot offer his DAUGHTERS to them for sex? Why would gay men bent on some between the sheet fun with a couple of sexy angles want Lots little girls at all? It would seem that if all the men of Sodom were gay and if Lot really did want to spare the angles Lot would have offered himself up for the orgy. Of course, if Lot were a good father he would have done anything to protect his children….I guess being a good father or protecting small children isn’t part of being moral.
Problem 3. if we pretend that all the men of Sodom are gay…why would God bother to destroy the city in the first place? If all the men there really were gay that means that there would be no babies coming in. Given the life expectancy of the time it wouldn’t take many years before there was no one left in Sodom and presto…goal achieved and God saves on the fire and brimstone bill.
Problem 4: If Sodom was indeed a lecherous haven for man love... Why, exactly, was Lot not only staying around there, but why did he own real estate there?
Problem 5: if Lot truly was the only moral man then his actions must have been considered moral by what the very God who declared him to be so. But just how can we justify the turning over of one’s children to be gang raped as moral? And since even though Lot did offer to turn over his daughter’s to be raped he still got his ticket out of town we have to assume that God feels that the sexual abuse of children is morally acceptable. If you want to use of the Sodom as a means to justify prejudice then you are left with the fact that this same passage justifies the sexual abuse of children. Do you think the sexual abuse of children is moral?
And finally problem 6
To try to use the story of Sodom as a means of justifying personal prejudice you have to ignore other parts of the bible. (But then if your trying to justify personal prejudice your already ignoring huge chunks of the bible already…
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did hateful things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”
Ezekiel 16: 49-50
and you also get to ignore Jesus (but then if you are using the bible to justify personal prejudice you are already ignoring Jesus) and the fact that Jesus talks about the sin of Sodom being inhospitality:
“When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you. Heal the sick who are there and tell them, 'The kingdom of God is near you.' But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.” Luke 10: 8-12
Also on the conveniently ignored list:
Deuteronomy 29:22- 28 which says Sodom was destroyed not for anyone sex life but because the people of Sodom were serving false Gods
Deuteronomy 32:15-33 which says the sin of Sodom was apathy, sacrifice to demons, idolatry and gluttony. But nothing here about gays and lesbians.
Isaiah 1:2-4 says the same thing, that Sodom was destroyed because its people forsook God.
Isaiah 3:5-9 is interesting as it delves into the sin of Sodom bit deeper and comes up with …prejudice and discrimination as the sins of Sodom…
Matthew 10:14-15 Rejecting God
Matthew 11:23-24 Rejecting God
Mark 6:11 Rejecting God
what pro-discrimination rant is complete without misusing the story of Sodom and Ghamorah?
Considering the many problems with this particular story I find it amazing that Christians wishing to justify personal prejudice would actually use this. Of course this may also be an indication of just how desperate some Christians are to justify their own prejudice….but anyway…
The first thing to note is that the decision to destroy Sodom has been made prior to this chapter and whatever actions the story claims took place after the decision was made has no bearing at all on its destruction.
Now lets break this down:
According to the story Lot is the ONLY moral man in Sodom (notice how God doesn’t seem to care about moral women or children) and that is why Lot gets his ticket out of town before the city is destroyed. God sends a pair of Angels to warn Lot of the impending disaster. It is a mystery as to why God just didn’t do the warning himself…after all God was talking to just about everyone and his brother during that time. Anyway, after the angels arrive to warn Lot every man in town (and those trying to use this myth to prop up their own personal prejudices make the ridiculous claim that all the men of the city supposedly all gay) suddenly becomes horny and they all start banging on Lots door demanding that the angles come out for an either an orgy or a pampered chef party. For some reason that is never explained Lot (the only moral man around remember) offers all these supposedly gay men his virgin DAUGHTERS for their sexual pleasure. Meanwhile the angles, messengers of God remember, just sort of hang around not doing much. Despite the fact that they did their job and delivered the message to be on the next coach our of Dodge, they continue to hang around even though it is obviously causing problems. Strangely, these messengers of God don’t seem to think anything is wrong with Lot pimping his own daughters. Despite trying desperately to get his daughters gang raped, Lot still gets his ‘moral people only’ ticket out of town.
The problems of trying to use this as a means of justify personal prejudice are far to many to even begin to discuss in depth. The biggest problems:
Problem 1: if we pretend that ridiculous notion that all the men of the city were homosexual is true and if we pretend they were all out on the prowl for nothing but sex why would they need these angels to have it? Were the Angels just so totally gorgious that the men of Sodom couldn’t help themselves? After all there was a crowd of them around it would have been far easier to pair (or triple) up and go their merry way rather than go knocking on Lot’s door and have to listen to Lot try to get his little girls raped.
Problem 2: if all these men of Sodom were gay…why would Lot offer his DAUGHTERS to them for sex? Why would gay men bent on some between the sheet fun with a couple of sexy angles want Lots little girls at all? It would seem that if all the men of Sodom were gay and if Lot really did want to spare the angles Lot would have offered himself up for the orgy. Of course, if Lot were a good father he would have done anything to protect his children….I guess being a good father or protecting small children isn’t part of being moral.
Problem 3. if we pretend that all the men of Sodom are gay…why would God bother to destroy the city in the first place? If all the men there really were gay that means that there would be no babies coming in. Given the life expectancy of the time it wouldn’t take many years before there was no one left in Sodom and presto…goal achieved and God saves on the fire and brimstone bill.
Problem 4: If Sodom was indeed a lecherous haven for man love... Why, exactly, was Lot not only staying around there, but why did he own real estate there?
Problem 5: if Lot truly was the only moral man then his actions must have been considered moral by what the very God who declared him to be so. But just how can we justify the turning over of one’s children to be gang raped as moral? And since even though Lot did offer to turn over his daughter’s to be raped he still got his ticket out of town we have to assume that God feels that the sexual abuse of children is morally acceptable. If you want to use of the Sodom as a means to justify prejudice then you are left with the fact that this same passage justifies the sexual abuse of children. Do you think the sexual abuse of children is moral?
And finally problem 6
To try to use the story of Sodom as a means of justifying personal prejudice you have to ignore other parts of the bible. (But then if your trying to justify personal prejudice your already ignoring huge chunks of the bible already…
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did hateful things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”
Ezekiel 16: 49-50
and you also get to ignore Jesus (but then if you are using the bible to justify personal prejudice you are already ignoring Jesus) and the fact that Jesus talks about the sin of Sodom being inhospitality:
“When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you. Heal the sick who are there and tell them, 'The kingdom of God is near you.' But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.” Luke 10: 8-12
Also on the conveniently ignored list:
Deuteronomy 29:22- 28 which says Sodom was destroyed not for anyone sex life but because the people of Sodom were serving false Gods
Deuteronomy 32:15-33 which says the sin of Sodom was apathy, sacrifice to demons, idolatry and gluttony. But nothing here about gays and lesbians.
Isaiah 1:2-4 says the same thing, that Sodom was destroyed because its people forsook God.
Isaiah 3:5-9 is interesting as it delves into the sin of Sodom bit deeper and comes up with …prejudice and discrimination as the sins of Sodom…
Matthew 10:14-15 Rejecting God
Matthew 11:23-24 Rejecting God
Mark 6:11 Rejecting God
Upvote
0
cantata
Queer non-theist, with added jam.
- Feb 20, 2007
- 6,215
- 683
- 37
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
I should think that he has a strong conviction that doing business with people who discriminate on the basis of sexuality is immoral, and so, just as someone who is against animal testing will tell others to boycott products tested on animals, Trevorocity is completely within his rights to tell others to boycott those who refuse to offer business to gay couples. Why are Polycarp's convictions acceptable bases for discrimination, but Trevorocity's aren't?
Upvote
0
you clearly do not understand scripture, this is one clear abuse - study Hermeneutics and then perhaps we can talk scripture - your use of this text is so badly out of context - this command is too the church, to members of the body of christ - to love one another as he loved us - in a self sacrificial way - if you were to quote love your enemy of something like that then perhaps it would be in context - and loving your enemy does not mean accepting their practices, or believing that they do not need to repent or need a savior
Upvote
0
this is so full of hot air, and hypocritical - you criticise and claim first amendment rights when it suits you, but believe that others sould be punished for holding ideas you view as punishable
Upvote
0
after talking with bondservant - that is precisely the kind of rise being referred to here - rise in general acceptance - read the entire thread and you will see that has been answered several times
Upvote
0
you can not lump these together
- killing an unborn child
- racial discrimination
- homosexual sex acts
2 - racial discrimination is one that is based on
being born of a specific race - you can not
control that
3 - homosexual sex - invisible, by choice
(btw - i reject the notion that it is biological
any proof you may cite has been heavily
criticised by professionals on both sides
of the fence)
discrimination in front of the law is very different to discrimination in private practice
i can freely discriminate on (choose) who i let in my home, who i congregate with, what business i support, my friends
Upvote
0
So you also find Christian groups, such as the American Family Association, who have boycotted Ford and other companies for advertising in gay magazines? Or the Southern Baptists who boycotted (or are they still boycotting?) Disney?
Upvote
0
bigbadwlf -
i am not even going to take the time to address your attempt at greek exegesis at this time, it will take far too long and i am at work - i will look at your text more closely and address, but i can tell you that you are so far off, and so blind
i will pray for you, that your heart and mind are opened to the truth of God's word, and that you are convicted of your sin and repent and trust in Jesus, the only life raft. Seek the Lord while he may be found, for as in the time of Noah, the judgement of the lord is near and the door to the ark will be closed and all shall perish, repent!
i am not even going to take the time to address your attempt at greek exegesis at this time, it will take far too long and i am at work - i will look at your text more closely and address, but i can tell you that you are so far off, and so blind
i will pray for you, that your heart and mind are opened to the truth of God's word, and that you are convicted of your sin and repent and trust in Jesus, the only life raft. Seek the Lord while he may be found, for as in the time of Noah, the judgement of the lord is near and the door to the ark will be closed and all shall perish, repent!
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
you asume things - i do not participate in such boycots, but if they want to do so that is their right, next i suppose you are going to say that people can not discriminate on the businesses they choose
i have never condoned this type of behavior if the other poster wants to seek to ruin a christian photog, then that is his right, i think it sucks, he could simple just not use their services, i would rather not see groups like you mentioned do what they do simply on a companies advertising choices, but if they do it - oh well
btw - i am not afraid of being listed as anti-gay
Upvote
0
Lisa0315
Respect Catholics and the Mother Church!
- Jul 17, 2005
- 21,367
- 1,650
- 56
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I will tell you why Poly is right and Trevor is wrong.
It is because the world is calling evil good and good evil. What Poly is doing is right. What Trevor is doing is wrong. The world has it all backwards.
Lisa
Upvote
0
cantata
Queer non-theist, with added jam.
- Feb 20, 2007
- 6,215
- 683
- 37
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Ahhh so discrimination is okay when you agree with it! Now I get it.
I like your argument here.
Why is Poly right and Trevor wrong?
Because Poly is doing the right thing and Trevor is doing the wrong thing.
QED.
Upvote
0
cantata
Queer non-theist, with added jam.
- Feb 20, 2007
- 6,215
- 683
- 37
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Would you say it was reasonable for Trevor to boycott a photographer, and encourage others to boycott him or her, who refused to photograph mixed race marriages?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
wanderingone
I'm not lost I'm just wandering
- Jul 6, 2005
- 11,090
- 932
- 57
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
1st Most nurses are not in a public service job (serving at the expense of the taxpayers) 2nd,.. a nurse who works in a facility that provides abortions yet is unwilling to serve those patients getting them is a hypocrite. His or her refusal is purely for show, it requires no sacrifice and no ethics, her or she gets a paycheck from the abortion provider--
My brother in law once worked in a Catholic hospital thinking he could abide their rules, he left after a few days in their clinic of having to send new mothers who had delivered at the hospital and had returned for aftercare elsewhere for birth control- knowing most did not have transportation and even the somewhat small cost of a taxi might mean they wouldn't go. This entailed a sudden move and quite a large financial sacrifice for my sister's family. At the same time he also started a fund that provides for transportation to and from the family planning service in the county. Action over noise...
Upvote
0
wanderingone
I'm not lost I'm just wandering
- Jul 6, 2005
- 11,090
- 932
- 57
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It only gives the appearance of sin to the knuckleheads who are too busy speculating over other people's lives to remove the log from their vision.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
wanderingone
I'm not lost I'm just wandering
- Jul 6, 2005
- 11,090
- 932
- 57
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
That's logic people make up when they want to compare a committed relationship they don't approve of to something that disrespects committed relationships.
That's fine, glad to hear it, makes the hypocrisy a little less obvious until people get on a public forum and only have fits about homosexuality and don't start posts about adultery, divorce and not forgiving others their debts.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
