Homophobia is un-Christian

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Spiny, keep in mind that OT is also God's words according to Christians. It makes no sense to allow homosexuality in NT while banning that in OT.

 

[sojourner]

Wait... you expect me to go through all the publications of a professor with a 40+ year career to find the citation for one specific claim? Really?

At least throw me a bone by giving me the title of a paper he made it in.

It's one of his books (here: http://www.cpt.org/files/BN - Jesus' Third Way.pdf), and I believe it's referenced in the video. The fact that he had a 40+ year career should tell you something about his not-quack status.

... which makes it all the more odd that he seems to be the only one selling this particular set of claims. For the purposes of this forum, I think a good rule of thumb is that if a claim has only one source, it's probably not accepted by the mainstream.

Lots of people reference his work. When Westinghouse invented alternating current, only he and Tesla were working on it. Where would we be today, if everyone took your view? Somebody has to be first. Again, his long list of impressive appointments is, I think, validation enough that people take him seriously.

Of course, you realize that Fallingwater had to be structurally rehabilitated because Frank Lloyd Wright didn't put enough rebar in his balconies, and the flagship gas station he designed never pumped even a gallon of gas because it couldn't meet code, right?

yeah, and he was working with early 20th century materials. The Wright Flyer isn't a very good airplane by today's standards, either, but nobody dismisses the Wright Brothers as innovators in their field. The Edison phonograph isn't a very good recording/playing device by today's standards. Same observation. Hippocrates was a bad doctor by today's standards. Same observation. These people are all widely-accepted as experts in their fields. Like Wink.

You would be wise to question the people you elevate to the status of prophet. Nobody is infallible.

No one's infallible, but the standards of this forum clearly aren't as exacting as would necessitate a thorough background check of Wink's pedigree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Spiny, keep in mind that OT is also God's words according to Christians. It makes no sense to allow homosexuality in NT while banning that in OT.

... or shrimp.
... or leaving the edges of your field unreaped.
... or wearing mixed fabrics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's one of his books (here: http://www.cpt.org/files/BN - Jesus' Third Way.pdf), and I believe it's referenced in the video. The fact that he had a 40+ year career should tell you something about his not-quack status.

If you recall, the reason I asked for a title was so that I could check his citations. The passage in that PDF has no citations. In fact, it makes no reference at all to a source for his claims.

Lots of people reference his work. When Westinghouse invented alternating current, only he and Tesla were working on it. Where would we be today, if everyone took your view?

Exactly where we are: in a world where people corroborate and check evidence.

Somebody has to be first. Again, his long list of impressive appointments is, I think, validation enough that people take him seriously.

Presumably he talked about a wide range of things over his career. Do you think that we can assume that every single opinion he had was accepted by the mainstream?

yeah, and he was working with early 20th century materials. The Wright Flyer isn't a very good airplane by today's standards, either, but nobody dismisses the Wright Brothers as innovators in their field. The Edison phonograph isn't a very good recording/playing device by today's standards. Same observation. Hippocrates was a bad doctor by today's standards. Same observation. These people are all widely-accepted as experts in their fields. Like Wink.

In those two examples, Frank Lloyd Wright failed to meet the codes that were in place at the time the buildings were built.

No one's infallible, but the standards of this forum clearly aren't as exacting as would necessitate a thorough background check of Wink's pedigree.

I'm not asking for a background check of Walter Wink; all I've ever asked for here is evidence of your claim, but instead of evidence, you just keep pointing at Walter Wink and insisting that his reputation is as good as evidence. This isn't how evidence works.

 

[sojourner]

If you recall, the reason I asked for a title was so that I could check his citations. The passage in that PDF has no citations. In fact, it makes no reference at all to a source for his claims.

The book title is listed at the top. I included the PDF so you could read the excerpt for yourself.

You're welcome.

Exactly where we are: in a world where people corroborate and check evidence.

Over checking and over analyzation aren't needed, however -- unless you're flying the space shuttle.

Presumably he talked about a wide range of things over his career. Do you think that we can assume that every single opinion he had was accepted by the mainstream?

I didn't say that. he challenged the mainstream, but did so in a way that had enough validity that it caused people to sit up and take notice.

In those two examples, Frank Lloyd Wright failed to meet the codes that were in place at the time the buildings were built.

So? We're not building gas stations here. Were we talking about architecture, I'm sure you'd be the first to point out that FLW was a complete hack because he made a mistake, and take pages wasting everyone's time making sure that everyone who mentioned his name included a pedigree so that FLK's status as a great architect could be aptly corroborated by a third source.

I'm not asking for a background check of Walter Wink; all I've ever asked for here is evidence of your claim, but instead of evidence, you just keep pointing at Walter Wink and insisting that his reputation is as good as evidence. This isn't how evidence works.

If I told you that the Wright Brothers had said thus-and-such about wing-twisting as a means of flight control, you'd probably be dogging me for "evidence" that they knew what they were talking about, instead of merely going, "OK, the Wrights knew what they were talking about." That should be good enough for a forum such as this. I provided a link to something Wink said. That's all I need to do here. If you want more, Look. It. Up.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The book title is listed at the top. I included the PDF so you could read the excerpt for yourself.

You're welcome.

As I said: I'm looking for a source for this claim. Your article - which didn't include any sources or citations - doesn't do anything to support your argument that this claim is based on something real.

Over checking and over analyzation aren't needed, however -- unless you're flying the space shuttle.

That's right, they aren't. We're well past the point where I would be perfectly justified in dismissing your claims.

Nevertheless, since I have access to scholarly databases (and am a bit masochistic, apparently), I searched the online databases of peer-reviewed journals I have access to:

- Walter Wink had a few papers listed, but he didn't make those particular claims about slapping, cloaks, or Roman soldiers and their packs in any of them.
- Wink did make the claim in a few non-peer-reviewed publications (magazine articles and the like), but didn't give a source for those claims in any of them.
- I could find no peer-reviewed papers by other authors who made these claims.
- I could find plenty of peer-reviewed papers that did state that these verses really do refer to non-resistance.

Based on all this, I have no confidence whatsoever in the claims you're making. I don't care how highly you regard Walter Wink; I give his opinion - and your assurances that he's wonderful - no weight at all.

 

[bmk2416]

It is not your place to make a judgment about sin when it comes to those outside of your immediate family or your congregation - full stop. The bible tells you how to deal with family and those in your congregation who do such things (put them away from you) but it also tells you to leave "those others" to god. In the modern vernacular in the part of California where I live, this sounds like "Mind your business and suck it up, buttercup". Yes, that is hard on the human ego, but human ego does you no favors when your holy book is full of examples of how you fail when you don't surrender human ego to god's will - a will which you ultimately do not know, because you can't know and god has told you to mind your business and suck it up.

When it comes to those within the wider society who are not in your family or congregation, Christ already modeled proper behavior for you. When the Roman Centurion approached him and asked him to heal his gay sex slave that he loved, Christ himself did not judge. Was Christ too stupid to realize that Pagans, most being polytheist, generally accept all deities and their representatives that display some degree of power and ability unless they have a good reason not to do so? I doubt it. Did he simply forget to make the Roman repent and promise to never, ever have the gay sexy time with his slave that "he loved" again? Nope. Doubt that, too. Both Matthew and Luke (where the story is found) would have mentioned the repentance. Christ himself did not even point out any sin - and this is the same man who chased people around the temple with whips and threw a tantrum of epic proportions over sin! So why did he not do ANY of that? Did he not love the Roman and his purchased boyfriend?

You may think perhaps Christ didn't love them, and that's why he didn't "warn" them. Combined with the repeated "suck it up, buttercup. I got this, you don't even touch it" when it comes to dealing with others throughout the bible, it's obvious to me that Christ himself was aware of the line between those in his faith and those outside of it when it came to his interactions with them. If Christ himself did not judge them enough to tell them they were sinning, let alone demand repentance before rendering aid, what makes you think that you not only have that right, but that you have that duty? It is clear that when it comes to those outside of your own, or "those others" as the bible calls us, you do not have that right and that "duty" you have given yourself is contrary to not just the instructions given by your own god, but is harmful to its reputation. You do not win any friends for your faith path when you turn it into one driven by an "us vs them" or "sinners vs righteous" mentality with humans as arbiters of decency and righteousness.

Or to put it another way when it comes to judging the 'sin' of those outside your congregation - failing to follow the example modeled you by Christ himself when it comes to behavior toward those in the wider society has produced nothing but bad fruit. That right there is, biblically speaking, more than enough evidence of the wrongness of that sort of behavior.

Disclaimer: all instances of "you" are the general "you", not YOU personally (unless they fit, but you're the one who knows that, not me).

So then the real question is how can you go about judging those who are judgemental, do you not see where the logic has failed you here?