Gay Man Files $70M Suit Against Bible Publishers Over Homosexual Verses

[psychoslice]

Seems to me that at least one thing the law suit accomplishes is a tacit admission that the Bible does speak against homosexuality identifying it as a sin.

Yes and people because of this can see how the bible is such a bad book full of hate towards just about anything we do, good on him for bringing this terrible god and his rotten ways to peoples notice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Seems to me that at least one thing the law suit accomplishes is a tacit admission that the Bible does speak against homosexuality identifying it as a sin.

Parts of it do, sure. Other parts imply the opposite, and a boatload of them condemn worrying about whether someone else is sinning or not.

The Bible is the Big Book of Multiple Choice. It has something for everyone!

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I wish it wasn't so easy to sue people in this country. Just another example of someone going too far because "their feelings were hurt." Can't people grow thicker skin? It's beyond absurd.

 

[ether-ore]

Parts of it do, sure. Other parts imply the opposite, and a boatload of them condemn worrying about whether someone else is sinning or not.

The Bible is the Big Book of Multiple Choice. It has something for everyone!

Can you provide an example of where it implies the opposite?

 

[Revoltingest]

I wish it wasn't so easy to sue people in this country. Just another example of someone going too far because "their feelings were hurt." Can't people grow thicker skin? It's beyond absurd.

It'll never change.
We've a country run by lawyers for lawyers.
And most people don't experience costly nuisance suits, so they don't care.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you provide an example of where it implies the opposite?

"God is love", for one. Committing unloving acts against gay people (e.g. condemning them) seems to go against this. There are also the stories of Daniel and Jonathan, which I've heard interpreted as praise for homosexual love.

Colossians 2 can be taken to imply that any OT passages against homosexuality are void for Christians.

Regarding same-sex marriage specifically, 1 Timothy 4 condemns those who forbid marriage... though exactly which group of people who forbid marriage are the ones being condemned is a matter of interpretation.

There are others, but those are the ones that come immediately to mind.

 

[ether-ore]

"God is love", for one. Committing unloving acts against gay people (e.g. condemning them) seems to go against this. There are also the stories of Daniel and Jonathan, which I've heard interpreted as praise for homosexual love.

Colossians 2 can be taken to imply that any OT passages against homosexuality are void for Christians.

Regarding same-sex marriage specifically, 1 Timothy 4 condemns those who forbid marriage... though exactly which group of people who forbid marriage are the ones being condemned is a matter of interpretation.

There are others, but those are the ones that come immediately to mind.

How would you reconcile justice and mercy (love)? Would you say that mercy (love) can rob justice? What do you think would be a way to satisfy justice so that mercy could have its effect? Or, do you believe that justice can be completely disregarded by mercy?

Colossians 2 is instruction on avoiding the philosophies of men and reliance on the merits of Christ's atonement. Where (what verse) do you see as implying such a reversal?

I Timothy 4 's reference to forbidding to marry is (I believe) a reference to the Essenes, who enjoined celibacy on their adherents. To my understanding, the purpose of this erroneous injunction had to do with the idea of remaining pure and undefiled.

I think you are making significant stretches in trying to make these passages fit with SJW thought.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How would you reconcile justice and mercy (love)? Would you say that mercy (love) can rob justice? What do you think would be a way to satisfy justice so that mercy could have its effect? Or, do you believe that justice can be completely disregarded by mercy?

I think that by speaking in these broad terms, you've over-simplified the concepts of justice and mercy to the point where we can't talk about them reasonably.

Colossians 2 is instruction on avoiding the philosophies of men and reliance on the merits of Christ's atonement. Where (what verse) do you see as implying such a reversal?

The bit about Christ "tearing down the written law that once bound us".

I Timothy 4 's reference to forbidding to marry is (I believe) a reference to the Essenes, who enjoined celibacy on their adherents. To my understanding, the purpose of this erroneous injunction had to do with the idea of remaining pure and undefiled.

... which is actually in line with a lot of the stuff in the Pauline epistles, where Paul recommends not marrying and instead becoming a "eunuch for Christ".

Like I said, there are a number of interpretations. It's a typical Biblical prophecy in that it's vague enough to point to many groups or time periods, but not so clear that anyone could ever conclusively say that the prophecy had failed.

I think you are making significant stretches in trying to make these passages fit with SJW thought.

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm definitely not saying that the Bible is progressive; I'm saying that it's an echo chamber or a mirror. Anyone of any persuasion can look at it and find passages that support their position.

If you'd prefer, I can pull out the verses that support the other extreme: genocide, slavery, subjugation of women, anti-semitism, etc. That's all there, too. There are horrible things in the Bible that no "SJW" or even right-wing conservative Evangelical would think are good or just.

As I said, it has something for everyone.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think you are making significant stretches in trying to make these passages fit with SJW thought.

How about "love thy neighbor as thyself," and "judge not, least ye be judged of the same accord." Those two verses seem imply Jesus does not want his followers condemning homosexuals or judging them (or anyone else, for that matter).

 

[columbus]

I think you are making significant stretches in trying to make these passages fit with SJW thought.

I notice conservative Christians doing this quite a bit.

The Bible clearly supports monarchy and slavery and doesn't say a thing about abortion or capitalism. But Christian leaders can find reasons to hold solid opinions on the subjects anyway. They sort of vaguely allude to scripture, without ever quoting anything substantial.
Tom

 

[Sundance]

I notice conservative Christians doing this quite a bit.

The Bible clearly supports monarchy and slavery and doesn't say a thing about abortion or capitalism.

Well, it talks about it slavery, but it doesn't condone it explicitly.

 

[Quagmire]

That's it. I'm suing the dictionary:

Definition Quagmire

1
: soft miry land that shakes or yields under the foot

I have never shaken nor yielded under the foot.

2
: a situation that is hard to deal with or get out of : a situation that is full of problems — usually singular

Ok that parts true.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, it talks about it slavery, but it doesn't condone it explicitly.

Establishing rules regarding your slaves is condoning. The Bible says it is perfectly OK to have slaves, so as long as you follow a handful of laws regarding them.

 

[ether-ore]

I think that by speaking in these broad terms, you've over-simplified the concepts of justice and mercy to the point where we can't talk about them reasonably.

They were valid questions, or don't you believe there is a relationship between justice and mercy?

The bit about Christ "tearing down the written law that once bound us".

That is real stretch to make that specific to homosexuality.

... which is actually in line with a lot of the stuff in the Pauline epistles, where Paul recommends not marrying and instead becoming a "eunuch for Christ".

Paul was cautioning those who were having a difficult time restraining themselves sexually. Nevertheless, Paul said concerning his comments: "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment."

Like I said, there are a number of interpretations. It's a typical Biblical prophecy in that it's vague enough to point to many groups or time periods, but not so clear that anyone could ever conclusively say that the prophecy had failed.

It really is only not clear to those of wishful thinking.

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm definitely not saying that the Bible is progressive; I'm saying that it's an echo chamber or a mirror. Anyone of any persuasion can look at it and find passages that support their position.

Oh, I agree that people can and will impress interpretations on it that aren't there.

If you'd prefer, I can pull out the verses that support the other extreme: genocide, slavery, subjugation of women, anti-semitism, etc. That's all there, too. There are horrible things in the Bible that no "SJW" or even right-wing conservative Evangelical would think are good or just.

If you like. I've no objection discussing it. We may even agree on a couple of points. Though I find the antisemitism a bit odd since the scriptures were revealed to Semites by Semites.

As I said, it has something for everyone.

Interpretation and intent are not synonymous.

 

[Seeker of Ka]

(Hey I'm only posting a news article.)

Gay Man Files $70M Suit Against Bible Publishers Over ‘Homosexual’ Verses

A homosexual man has filed a $70 million lawsuit against Bible publishers Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, alleging that their version of the Bible that refers to homosexuality as a sin violates his constitutional rights and has caused him emotional distress.

Thoughts from RF members?
Link for those who wish to read entire article.

Coming from me who is pro-marriage equality and anti-Abrahamic. This is completely absurd you should not be able to sue someone becuase their ideas or books offend you, you can only do so if they slander you specifically.

 

[Seeker of Ka]

Somehow I don't think witches are going to attend Christian churches. Gays do.

I have and depending on your defination of the word I am a witch. However the word witch does not appear in accurate translations of the bible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They were valid questions, or don't you believe there is a relationship between justice and mercy?

It depends: justice and mercy for who? And what do you mean by "justice" and "mercy"?

That is real stretch to make that specific to homosexuality.

For you, based on your preconceptions.

Paul was cautioning those who were having a difficult time restraining themselves sexually. Nevertheless, Paul said concerning his comments: "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment."

Just the sort of thing I'm talking about:

- if you support the idea, you can point to Paul as an example to follow.
- if you don't support the idea, you can say that it was only a suggestion.

The Bible supports both sides, as it often does.

It really is only not clear to those of wishful thinking.

I think it's unreasonable to say that anyone who doesn't ascribe to a less-than-common explanation for the passage that you offer only as an unsupported claim is guilty of "wishful thinking".

Oh, I agree that people can and will impress interpretations on it that aren't there.

And we can be sure that YOU got the interpretation right and it's all those other countless denominations that got it wrong?

If you like. I've no objection discussing it. We may even agree on a couple of points. Though I find the antisemitism a bit odd since the scriptures were revealed to Semites by Semites.

You haven't heard of this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_deicide

Strange, but okay.

Your religion has a 2,000-year-long history of antisemitism. Strange that you never heard about it. You should read some of Martin Luther's deconstructions of what the Gospels say about the Jews - they were heavily cited in Mein Kampf.

Interpretation and intent are not synonymous.

Neither are intent and your inference of intent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, it talks about it slavery, but it doesn't condone it explicitly.

That isn't true.

Slavery is explicitly condoned in Leviticus 25:

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance."

Slavery is not only condoned but commanded in certain situations (e.g. Deuteronomy 20, which instructs the Israelites that when they capture a city in battle, they should enslave its inhabitants).

 

[ether-ore]

It depends: justice and mercy for who? And what do you mean by "justice" and "mercy"?

For who? For anyone... it's universal. Justice and mercy have to do with the existence of law. If one does something contrary to law, justice demands the punishment which is associated with the breaking of that law be applied. Mercy can only be applied to a repentant soul, but justice still has to be satisfied. Christ's atonement satisfies justice so that His mercy can be applied. God does love us, but He does not break His own law. So, He provided a way that He could be a just God and a merciful God also, and that is the atonement of Jesus Christ,

For you, based on your preconceptions.

I actually believe you have that backwards.

Just the sort of thing I'm talking about:

- if you support the idea, you can point to Paul as an example to follow.
- if you don't support the idea, you can say that it was only a suggestion. [/QUOTE]
You just did a very clever thing there. We were talking specifically about homosexuality (or any extra marital sex for that matter) with reference to Paul's suggestion of celibacy and you turn it into a general statement about everything not having to do with sex... very slick... nicely done.

The Bible supports both sides, as it often does.

I maintain that is still based on wishful thinking

I think it's unreasonable to say that anyone who doesn't ascribe to a less-than-common explanation for the passage that you offer only as an unsupported claim is guilty of "wishful thinking".

ok... I don't

And we can be sure that YOU got the interpretation right and it's all those other countless denominations that got it wrong?

Of course I am sure or I wouldn't believe it would I?

You haven't heard of this?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_deicide
Strange, but okay.
Your religion has a 2,000-year-long history of antisemitism. Strange that you never heard about it. You should read some of Martin Luther's deconstructions of what the Gospels say about the Jews - they were heavily cited in Mein Kampf.

You were talking about antisemitism being in scripture and now you're talking about things that have taken place after the close of Biblical canon. Nice switch-up. You're very good at misdirection and obfuscation. I do not and never have ascribed to antisemitism, so it is not my religion.

Neither are intent and your inference of intent.

We shall see.

 

[Sundance]

That isn't true.

Slavery is explicitly condoned in Leviticus 25:

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance."

Slavery is not only condoned but commanded in certain situations (e.g. Deuteronomy 20, which instructs the Israelites that when they capture a city in battle, they should enslave its inhabitants).

You are correct, dear sir. Would you care to explain the context in which those passages were written?