If another religious person comes to different conclusions from yours, you feel PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE in telling her that she is “in spiritual danger.” You feel pretty comfortable with yourself saying that, don’t you? You even feel “godly,” and I bet you get a little tingle from that.

So let’s analyze:
“Um, there’s a difference between loving and liking an individual gay person and IGNORING the fact that yes, the rabid gay movement is not Godly or reasonable.”

Anybody who starts with “um” already thinks they have superior facts or standing to the other person. That little “um” is an expression for “Hey dummy. You’re so wrong. But I have all the answers.”

And anybody who has the cajones to state what is “godly” thinks they have moral superiority.

“the rabid gay movement is not Godly or reasonable.”

That makes me laugh out loud. ‘The rabid gay movement???’ Where? Oh look! There’s one under a bush! Oh no–behind the big rock! Oh mercy me–behind the tree! Run away! Run away!

Give me a break. The most the Gays will do is point at your shoes and laugh. The Lesbians will have sussed out your attitude and give you the cold shoulder. They will find you completely unattractive.

“Check out San Francisco if you don’t believe that, and try not to define the world based on one individual.”

So now you are telling Latebloomer that she is so stupid, she is defining the world on one individual?!? You really believe that the women here sharing their lives are that dumb? That’s malicious all by itself. And you’re trying to show off your supposed intellectual superiority. Not to mention, your “superior” worldy experiences.

Too bad for you Latebloomer lives in Cali and knows what she’s talking about. Makes you look dumb, but you missed that because you’re so full of yourself.

“And of course, in order to make yourself feel better about liking a gay person,”

WTH? Why does anybody have to make themselves feel better about liking a gay person? Why does Latebloomer have to “feel better” about liking a gay person? If she has to feel better, then implicit in your statement is: “You are a sick person.” You know what? You are just–icky.

“you decided to tear apart the Bible and say it’s just a bunch of contradictions. Have you ever really studied it and the root of the context?”

OMG. How can I break this to you–this site is packed with women who are serious Bible scholars. Just because they are females doesn’t make their analyses wrong. Yeah, they’ve studied. Sounds like you haven’t, and you’re jealous. Or you believe that only men can study and be right. But the ladies here can take on the Patriarchy right where the Patriarchy lives and demolish their narrow little worlds. For example, part of temple worship at the time was “gay sex.” The Levites were not supposed to do that in Yahweh’s temple. So what is wrong for Levites is not necessarily wrong for the laity.

And yeah, the Bible has contradictions. If Adam and Eve were the first man and the first woman–who did Seth marry? One Gospel said there were 3 under the Cross. Another said 4. One says Jesus appeared to Peter first after the Resurrection. Another says to Mary Magdalen first.

“That’s far more dangerous to you spiritually than befriending a gay person could ever be.”

Oh well. Goodness gracious. Latebloomer has been told! Surely now, with your instruction, she will put on sackcloth and ashes and repent!

I will tell who this country is in danger from: The rabid Christian ‘Right.’ They are as dangerous as the Taliban, because people like you rabid Christians want to tell the rest of the country how to live. And I find that to be a problem.

on youtube /watch?v=2XhouNA_hfQ

“The more I thought about it, the more I realized that I had no idea what was inherently wrong with gay sex and gay love!”

Biology alone deems the entire thing as unnatural: the anus was not created for intercourse, while male and female bodies were designed to fit. Men and women complement each other in so many ways, and this shows even in the most common type of homosexual couples, in which one is usually masculine and the other feminine. As for rabidness, you’ve seen firsthand in CA homosexuals walking around naked, sodomizing on cars, storming churches, and threatening a pastor’s family? Because THAT is what I consider rabid.

oooh, now that’s weird. The link is fine in the full article but wrong in the extract on the front page. You may want to fix that.

And of course, it was never explained to me in cultural context as you just did.

And of course, the men who refer to that verse today mean it as “obey me” and don’t put it in culural context, either.

Sadly, even if one tries to explain this to many women, they just stop listening–as though one is trying to ‘wiggle out’ of something.

And lastly, nobody ever refers to Peter. It’s always Paul.

Thank you very much for sharing your scholarship.
M~

It’s too easy to hide behind a computer screen.

I sense a whole lot of judgement being passed.

In any event, I don’t think love or respect can exist without the other.

‘ “Sorry, something went wrong there! The phrase was supposed to read, “It is very difficult to continue to love someone whom you have ceased to respect.” ‘

You are exactly right. This is why I always thought St. Paul was incorrect about “Husbands must love their wives … wives must respect their husbands.”

I often wonder if anything would have been different if men were told to RESPECT their wives, and women were told to LOVE their husbands.

Probably not.