Leaving aside testicular cancer, infertility, and a lot of other ailments and malfunctions, the male reproductive anatomy has the same ultimate fate as the female uterus. Eventually we are all dead and in the ground.
But hey I was trying to look at the bright side. If the original design was good perhaps then the designer cared about us in the first place.
"What I meant to say is that we (speaking of those participating in this conversation) can’t seem to discuss it without ridicule and insult. I have no desire to ridicule or insult anyone. "
"I found it so funny and ironic that you chose that as your example, because your uterus is actually front in center in the story (Genesis 3:16). "
"But your reply indicates you didn’t even comprehend the argument "
I respectfully suggest that even if one believes in a literal reading of the Bible, your reading may be incorrect. Even if the Bible is divinely inspired, human understanding is still flawed. Even when one believes in divinely inspired translations, there will still be necessary interpretations of the text. Maybe the one interpreting the text is also divinely inspired. At that point, we are a long ways away from the original text.
ETA: Although I agree with Hunt this is a fruitless argument, I am posting for PG (in case she’s interested) and maybe Bay (in case she’s interested) and maybe young people reading along. Just in case it isn’t something others have read about. It is something I’m a bit interested in myself. I have very little knowledge here.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
We are also a long ways from the original topic; can we get back on track please?
LOUKYDAD, I found it difficult to believe that you were actually making that argument. Wow.
ETA: sorry, skieurope, I posted before seeing you note.
alh - I am always appreciate when someone cares enough to point it out to me if I am being unkind. Thank you. I tried to avoid certain types of expression that I find insulting. Strong convictions that seem strange to me and that I disagree with don’t bother me at all. Other posters have used phrases like backwoods bubba and have suggested anyone from the southern region of the US to be various versions of laughable, backwards and irrelevant. I realize that in many circles being strongly convinced of what you believe and that you can really know anything is a greater offense. I will try to be more conscious of that.
I did take the time to read some of various pages you have linked related to issues with translation and the transmission of the text. I would have preferred not to comment but since you applied it to me directly, I have to respectfully disagree with your point of view. My view is that we have more manuscript evidence supporting the reliability of the text than we do for the Iliad, the Odyssey or any other work of ancient literature. No one questions the reliability of those works. The Dead Sea Scrolls to me have largely settled the issues about the original text.
As for the translation of the text from Hebrew and Greek to our spoken language, in my opinion the assertions you shared are not credible. The various translations have been made by teams of experts in these languages, they thoroughly know and understand the language, and they come from all backgrounds and denominations, liberal and conservative. We have so many English translations of the bible that different teams have given us. They all make clear that the text is dealing with homosexuality and not something else. Not only in one single passage, but in all the multiple passages from Genesis to Leviticus to Romans to Paul’s other letters. It just isn’t credible to think that consistently with consensus each team made the same error in every passage, and we just discovered this now, after the passage of nearly 2000 years in the midst of a cultural shift on this issue. We have the text as strange as it seems to our ears today.
I didn’t want to comment because I doubt anybody wants to listen to you and I go back and forth about the Allepo codex. I’ve discovered it isn’t something a modern person has much patience for.
To bring this back to the original topic of the thread, the real question is will how are we culturally going to relate to each other and to institutions like Erskine, or Boyce Bible College/Southern Seminary right in my own backyard, or hundreds of other institutions like this who believe this text is the Word of God. Erskine may seem small and statistically irrelevant, but collectively they are not. They aren’t going to just fade away.
They believe some things that will seem even stranger to many than their view on homosexuality. Those moderate Muslims we were discussing earlier this week at Duke University, they believe a lot of things that are just as strange too. It has been suggested and perhaps concluded so far that we reluctantly will give religious people their space, but we are free to laugh and ridicule and mock if we want to. We can marginalize all religious people, and make sure that they lose any relevance or any influence they may have once had. They deserve it, they have it coming.
I would humbly suggest that is very unhealthy for our society, and frankly beneath us all. It was acknowledged we desperately need to engage in real dialogue with moderate Muslims, those who may believe strange things but don’t necessarily want to kill us. That will involve being willing to make reasonable accommodations on their behalf. I totally agree with that. But I would also argue as well the need to do that with institutions like Erskine also, or we risk creating the same dangerous situation much closer to home. Despite all of our educational attainment, the discourse to me just seems to be getting more and more coarse and shallow in our country, in the media where we get more spin and sound bites than news, in the political realm where nothing gets done, in schools and colleges where you can’t accommodate any form of religious expression, etc.
Less than the freedom to laugh and ridicule one another, the main thing we all need to do is grow a thicker skin. I could say more but obviously that is plenty for now.
So, ok, I’ll take your word for it that the Bible condemns homosexuality for the sake of argument.
I guess I don’t understand why there is such an assumption on the part of evangelical/conservative Christians that the rest of the country should particularly care what your Bible says about anything. It doesn’t “prove” anything to us other than you’re living by a book that you personally believe strongly in.
I myself am kind of astounded at what some European countries do in the name of secularism (prohibiting the hijab in school for example), things that I, quite frankly, can’t imagine happening in the US, regardless of how many people in the US feel about Islam. I think what many of us feel about Erskine (which of course, has the right to say whatever it likes about anything at all), comes from the bleeding of religious belief into law, which is happening all over the place. No one has to like gay marriage, or allow a church-sponsored gay marriage in your own denomination unless you make that the practice. But letting that belief influence civil law becomes a different thing. My kids both go to what anyone would call “flamboyantly liberal” private colleges. But both those schools have significant numbers of religious students. Yes it is unfortunate that at times conservative viewpoints are derided there, but is not the opposite case true at some very conservative schools?
Exactly. I think the negative feelings towards Erskine aren’t so much of a function of thinking they have no right to hold such a belief / rule (it’s pretty unanimous in this thread that we think they do) - it’s the negative associations with the particular strains of religious belief that are very insistent on writing their beliefs into civil law.
I don’t think most peoples’ reaction to Erskine has anything to do with “bleeding” their biblical views into civil law. Rather, it’s the basic affront to privacy that strikes people the wrong way. In other words, why is it a college administrators business what sex acts it’s adult students engage in? And that applies to Notre Dame U too.
@pizzagirl “I guess I don’t understand why there is such an assumption on the part of evangelical/conservative Christians that the rest of the country should particularly care what your Bible says about anything. It doesn’t “prove” anything to us other than you’re living by a book that you personally believe strongly in.”
And exactly what do you base your belief system on and why should I care? Exactly what is it about your or anyone else’s belief system that makes it any more valid than my belief system. Because somehow, you just know what is right or wrong? Because somehow all other groups’s belief systems are not religiously motivated therefore more valid? Everyone bases their belief system on something.
The idea that evangelical/conservative Christians are the only group in this country that wants their belief system used as a basis for morality/laws/societal standards in this country is false, often politically motivated to push a contrary position, and downright hilarious. Other religions have plenty to say about those things, Atheists and other “non-religious” people have plenty to say about those things. I’m sure many on here will disagree, but secular humanism, which is driving much of our society’s values today, is just as “religious” as any other formal religion.
How does this relate to this particular university or any other which applies behavioral or moral standards to their student body? All universities decide on some set of standards for student conduct. And they all apply those standards based on some set of beliefs. Seems to me the relevant question is - to what extent can those standards be applied by the school and at what point do those standards cross the line of the prerogative of the institution to a violation of the student’s civil rights? IMO, that is a valid and important discussion in line with the original post.
Unfortunately my experience, as primarily a browser of threads like these that work on the fringes or sit at the center of sensitive political or moral topics, is that they always seem to end up going down the same road that this one has. You want to take your shots at evangelical Christians, have at it. For the record, contrary to some of the up thread posts I have seen, all the evangelicals I know believe Romans 3:23.
I am not religious, and I agree with you that we, too, have an agenda (but please don’t call it “religious.”) I am very cognizant of the fact that your ideas are just as valid as mine, and are not “wrong.” The fact that gay marriage has never been a part of US culture since our country’s inception (while traditional marriage has), goes to show that different (not wrong) elements are at play now. I actively acknowledge this, and am making an effort to not take sides in its resolution. Our Constitution is now being called upon to resolve our differences. We will see what that brings.
Or to take a different approach, it’s kind of like the college in that other thread that banned the American flag from a lobby. At a certain point, a college campus is like its own little nation with its own culture and norms. Erskine’s culture just happens to include anti-gay beliefs. I think that’s worthy of scorn but obviously they have the right to do what they want. People choose schools in part because they feel comfortable there and there are enough students who are comfortable with the values espoused by Erskine’s administrators to support the school.
As far as it being a basic affront to privacy, that’s also debatable. Erskine hasn’t actually banned homosexuality, it just published a statement condemning it. It’s not like campus police are going to be going door-to-door making sure that no two people of the same sex are involved with each other.
I may be able to help you understand the other point of view on this. I know you said you are not religious. I can totally see why then you would see the role of college administrators as providing a service to taxpayers in a pluralistic society, some of those taxpayers are religious while some are not, those who are come from a number of different religious backgrounds and aren’t on the same page at all. There is no sense of a moral dimension at all, no covenant or contract that everyone has accepted.
Erskine and places like this are different. Think of a marriage. In a marriage there is a covenant. You are giving up certain rights and freedoms you may have had because you want to be in covenant together. Certainly the right to sleep with whoever you want in the privacy of a bedroom is now off limits. (At least I know my wife sure thinks it is!)
Things at Erskine are very much like that. There is a covenant. They are coming together based on a common worldview, understanding of God and what behavior is pleasing to God. It is very important to them and they are serious about it.
When someone chooses to go to Erskine they are representing that they subscribe to the covenant. They are married so to speak. They are agreeing to be faithful in their marriage. If subsequent to that they are blatantly and unashamedly going against that covenant, they are like a spouse who is not only cheating, but cheating openly and pretending like it shouldn’t even matter.
If you don’t want to follow the tenets of Erskine, then don’t get married to Erskine in the first place! And why in the world would you think you are entitled to the privileges of sharing someone’s home, living life together, and being part of the family if you are not willing to be married in the first place?
Does that make sense at all?
No one is arguing that they don’t understand why Erskine holds the beliefs they do, and we all agree if you don’t share those beliefs, don’t apply to Erskine.
As often happens, the right to freedom of belief and speech is sometimes (wrongly) interpreted as the right to not have anyone comment unfavorably on what is spoken.
I admit the idea of a “chastity” vow for an entire campus of 18-24 year old college students seems unrealistic to the point of being comical to me. But I come from a different place, and I respect peoples’ decisions to live however they want so long as I am not required to live the same way.
Is there any enforcement of the covenant against sex? Or is the idea that a lifetime of guilt is it’s own punishment?
Erskine is a very small college. An online report shows a 511 student body with a 70% acceptance rate and a 37% yield. https://colleges.niche.com/erskine-college/statistics/
In the reports I’m reading, heterosexual students as well as gay students are upset by the statements. Will this affect enrollment? Someone upthread said Erskine has a LGBT group but I can’t find it on the website. It is interesting to me to compare mission statements. Some make a point of diversity and inclusiveness, as well as emphasizing critical thinking and intellectual exploration.
http://www.erskine.edu/erskine/erskine-mission-statements/
http://www.nd.edu/about/mission-statement/
http://www.harvard.edu/faqs/mission-statement
http://hds.harvard.edu/about/history-and-mission
http://divinity.yale.edu/admissions/about-yds
https://divinity.duke.edu/about/mission
http://candler.emory.edu/about/mission.html
and an off topic aside:
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/webexhibits/homerinprint/preprint.html
ETA:http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/6492090-the-open-society-and-its-enemies
I’m Curious to know that if a homosexual couple shared a quick peck onthe quad if they would even get in trouble. It seems to me like this new policy might be an empty threat.
@loukydad just out o curiosity, what freedoms do you believe youw will lose should gas become more accepted in society?
Newsie2015 - it is certainly your choice, but I would cross Erskine off my college list if I were you. You would be really bored reading The City of God (Augustine of Hippo) and listening to lectures on timeless eternal questions. Discussing bodily functions seems more on your level.