I suppose it depends on your stance on homosexuality. If you agree with the bible that it's sin, then he had hatred for that sin. Substitute adultery or murder in lieu of homosexuality and what would be your opinion of the quote?

It also sounds scarily similar to how the mainstream viewed miscegenation just a few decades ago (even some still today). I can see groups thinking the solution would be to "pray that away" as well.

 

In regards to your question, that is apples and pianos...you would struggle greatly to find a pro-murder movement in this country. :ohbrother:

Well for the record, there's not a chance that I'll be voting for Michelle Bachmann. I'm just pointing out a good ole double standards in the world of politics.

Not saying that one doesn't exist. Though, if one looks they can probably find the same doube standard across the aisle as well.

It also sounds scarily similar to how the mainstream viewed miscegenation just a few decades ago (even some still today). I can see groups thinking the solution would be to "pray that away" as well.

 

In regards to your question, that is apples and pianos...you would struggle greatly to find a pro-murder movement in this country. :ohbrother:

I'm not talking about a "movement" in this country. I'm talking about the black and white address of sin. He said he hated the sin, not the sinner. And you find that reprehensible.

 

And while there may not be a movement for murder, it's all categorized socially anyway. Murderers have prisons, adulterers and alcoholics have support groups. Would that constitute a movement?

I'm not talking about a "movement" in this country. I'm talking about the black and white address of sin. He said he hated the sin, not the sinner. And you find that reprehensible.

 

And while there may not be a movement for murder, it's all categorized socially anyway. Murderers have prisons, adulterers and alcoholics have support groups. Would that constitute a movement?

Sorry but the following is directly talking about the sinner:

 

homosexuals as "'barbarians' who 'need to be educated, need to be disciplined.

I'm not talking about a "movement" in this country. I'm talking about the black and white address of sin. He said he hated the sin, not the sinner. And you find that reprehensible.

 

And while there may not be a movement for murder, it's all categorized socially anyway. Murderers have prisons, adulterers and alcoholics have support groups. Would that constitute a movement?

Also, no response to the comparisons of Bachmann's treatment of homosexuality today with miscegenation a few decades ago?

I'm not talking about a "movement" in this country. I'm talking about the black and white address of sin. He said he hated the sin, not the sinner. And you find that reprehensible.

 

And while there may not be a movement for murder, it's all categorized socially anyway. Murderers have prisons, adulterers and alcoholics have support groups. Would that constitute a movement?

I don't see prisons or support groups as a movement. Both of those are punishments or "ways to get better". Which ironically enough is exactly how Bachmann thinks homosexuality should be "taken care of".

 

Do you share those beliefs?

I don't see prisons or support groups as a movement. Both of those are punishments or "ways to get better". Which ironically enough is exactly how Bachmann thinks homosexuality should be "taken care of".

 

Do you share those beliefs?

I don't think he meant "taken care of" as eliminated. And I'd like to have been there to hear the quote, I would like to have been privy to the whole conversation. Do I think homosexuality is a sin? If that what you're asking, absolutely. The bible declares it so. And it's my opinion that either you believe all of God's word cover to cover as truth or none at all. So, it's clear God's stance, Paul's warning, the treatment of Sodom and Gomorrah. If indeed he was talking about taking care of homosexuality as a means of changing behavior, then I'm all for it.

 

And if you want to discuss the differences or similarities in miscegenation and homosexuality, my perspective is purely scriptural here, I don't think we'll be seeing from the same angle. Let's not pretend the media hasn't influenced both entirely differently either.

As for this guy and his quotes, I often wonder if what was quoted is verbatim or simply spin. If he indeed meant it with the venom that you perceive then he deserves the scrutiny.

I don't think he meant "taken care of" as eliminated. And I'd like to have been there to hear the quote, I would like to have been privy to the whole conversation. Do I think homosexuality is a sin? If that what you're asking, absolutely. The bible declares it so. And it's my opinion that either you believe all of God's word cover to cover as truth or none at all. So, it's clear God's stance, Paul's warning, the treatment of Sodom and Gomorrah. If indeed he was talking about taking care of homosexuality as a means of changing behavior, then I'm all for it.

 

And if you want to discuss the differences or similarities in miscegenation and homosexuality, my perspective is purely scriptural here, I don't think we'll be seeing from the same angle. Let's not pretend the media hasn't influenced both entirely differently either.

I think he without a doubt meant he wanted homosexuality "eliminated". So how do you propose "changing behavior" of homosexuals?

 

I'm positive that scripture was (is) used to defend those who were (are) opposed to misegenation just as it is with homosexuality. But I was mainly talking about the similarities in how they are viewed which shouldn't require a purely scriptural perspective. This desire to punish and "fix" homosexuality is just how interracial relationships were viewed.

 

I'm not sure I get where you are going with the last sentence. Further explanation please.

As for this guy and his quotes, I often wonder if what was quoted is verbatim or simply spin. If he indeed meant it with the venom that you perceive then he deserves the scrutiny.

In total agreement on wanting to see the full text of the interview where the quotes came from.

 

Regardless of his internal intent, I definitely feel that there is venom there.

I am not surprised yet still disappointed in some of the knee jerk reactions and assumptions being made in regards to my question. This term "submissive" has such a negative connotation in today's world and now we have a female running for President. If we do not fully understand the context and examples of its manifestation it certainly is worth discussion. I truly have never understood the verse so that plus my initial point makes it seem legit.

 

So, UKMustang, either jump in with your understanding or move onto another thread. RTS, your understanding and explanation is eagerly awaited.

 

Larry, I appreciate the response.

I am not surprised yet still disappointed in some of the knee jerk reactions and assumptions being made in regards to my question. This term "submissive" has such a negative connotation in today's world and now we have a female running for President. If we do not fully understand the context and examples of its manifestation it certainly is worth discussion. I truly have never understood the verse so that plus my initial point makes it seem legit.

 

So, UKMustang, either jump in with your understanding or move onto another thread. RTS, your understanding and explanation is eagerly awaited.

 

Larry, I appreciate the response.

 

For the record, I was not speaking of you, I was referring to Westsider's typical comments as I presumed was obvious. I apologize if you took I was speaking of you.

 

As far as my understanding, I don't pretend to know or care what the bible's interpretation is of the "submissive wife" comment. Just from the statement itself I'd say it was a pretty ridiculous comment, as I'm not sure the best way for her to win support from the voting public is to refer to herself as "submissive". Doesn't sound too Presidential or much like a quality a "leader" would possess.

I am not surprised yet still disappointed in some of the knee jerk reactions and assumptions being made in regards to my question. This term "submissive" has such a negative connotation in today's world and now we have a female running for President. If we do not fully understand the context and examples of its manifestation it certainly is worth discussion. I truly have never understood the verse so that plus my initial point makes it seem legit.

 

So, UKMustang, either jump in with your understanding or move onto another thread. RTS, your understanding and explanation is eagerly awaited.

 

Larry, I appreciate the response.

Sorry for steering the thread off track. I'll attempt to address the original intent of the thread better. It definitely doesn't seem like something a candidate for POTUS should be proud of.

 

I'm going to use the scripture provided by Hatz (because I don't feel like looking it up):

 

(AV)Wives, (AW)be subject to your own husbands,

I struggle to see how this does not mean that a wife is totally submissive towards her husband. When I think of subjects, especially during biblical times the subject is usually someone who is being "ruled upon" by another...generally a king.

 

(AX)as to the Lord. 23 For (AY)the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the (AZ)head of the church,

This comes off as demeaning towards women from my perspective. I do not want to be the head of my wife but instead an equal. You can use "as Christ also is the head of the church" as a way to soften the blow, but it still promotes the husband as the member in power.

 

 

He Himself (BA)being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

And here we are with the wife as a subject again.

For the record, I was not speaking of you, I was referring to Westsider's typical comments as I presumed was obvious. I apologize if you took I was speaking of you.

 

As far as my understanding, I don't pretend to know or care what the bible's interpretation is of the "submissive wife" comment. Just from the statement itself I'd say it was a pretty ridiculous comment, as I'm not sure the best way for her to win support from the voting public is to refer to herself as "submissive". Doesn't sound too Presidential or much like a quality a "leader" would possess.

:thumb: :thumb:

I think he without a doubt meant he wanted homosexuality "eliminated". So how do you propose "changing behavior" of homosexuals?

 

I'm positive that scripture was (is) used to defend those who were (are) opposed to misegenation just as it is with homosexuality. But I was mainly talking about the similarities in how they are viewed which shouldn't require a purely scriptural perspective. This desire to punish and "fix" homosexuality is just how interracial relationships were viewed.

 

I'm not sure I get where you are going with the last sentence. Further explanation please.

I don't claim to be an ace bible scholar, however, I can't see where anyone could have used scripture as argument in the issue of miscegenation. If so, I'd like to see that one. Homosexuality is a totally different animal.

 

And my comment about media scrutiny, can you even imagine how the media would have portrayed that issue decades ago if all things were as they are now? Good grief, imagine if Limbaugh or Olberman had those issues to make rearends of themselves over. Media portrayal of issues today has major influence over how we feel socially. I don't think we will argue over that one will we?