It's like the Pride parade. Corporations trying to cash in on the acceptance of homosexuality in the younger generations. Not saying it's a bad cause, though.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Publicly Comes Out as Gay in Letter Declaring Support for Equality
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
It's like the Pride parade. Corporations trying to cash in on the acceptance of homosexuality in the younger generations. Not saying it's a bad cause, though.
My request is indeed in the same spirit.
The religious tolerance.org article is partially correct. Gaychristian101 at http://www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Arsenokoites.html states, “The Greek Language Thesaurus, UC-Irvine, lists 73 occurrences of the arsenokoit stem from Paul’s first century AD usage beginning in 1 Corinthians 6:9 to AD 1453.” The site goes on to show several examples of the word’s use in Greek literature.
Presently, the pdf at http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj3h.pdf on p5 and 6 is the most complete discussion I have found on the topic outside of GC101. I have admittedly not yet had time to fully review the PDF (over an hour’s worth of reading), but the conservative scholarly paper seems to agree with GC101’s depiction of the history of the usage of the term after its appearance in the NT. So this is one less thing we must argue over.
Of imminent relevance, I found the following from: http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious/#christian-books-2. I’ll quote an excerpt below.
There seems to be a consensus at between GC101 and orthodox bible scholars that the word arsenokoitai was likely either invented by Paul or by one of his contemporaries. Based on this, I conclude that we cannot be sure it was ever used afterward as Paul used it. We are left with attempting to interpret it in light of other Scripture.
Fortunately I found the following plausible explanation for the word’s origin and proper usage at http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious/#christian-books-2. There we read:
“Leviticus18:22 and 20:13 forbid a man lying with another man as one would with a woman. Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew, but Paul was a Greek-educated Jew writing to Gentiles in Greek, the common language of the day, and probably was using the Greek translation of the Old Testament available in that day, the Septuagint, or LXX, for his Scripture quotations.
The Greek translation of these Leviticus passages condemns a man (arseno) lying with (koitai) another man (arseno); these words (excuse the pun) lie side-by-side in these passages in Leviticus. Paul joins these two words together into a neologism, a new word (as we do in saying database or software), and thus he condemns in 1Corinthians and 1Timothy what was condemned in Leviticus.”
As I said above, a more thorough treatment of the word is at: http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj3h.pdf (Days like this I feel I need more hours in the day and lo, tonight is daylight savings!)
Now, before we go further, I’ll note that I took some time to re-familiarize myself with Rick Brentlinger’s Gay Christian 101 website where most of your material seems to ultimately originate. Nothing new there. It is a theological mess to untangle and what we see here is just one relatively small thread from it. Some treatises debunking GC101, can be found at http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2008/04/debunking-gay-christian-apologetics.html?m=1.
I’ll attempt to tackle some of GC101’s arguments pre-emptively.
1. Heterosexual marriage is the only form of marriage ever mentioned in the Bible, beginning with Adam and Eve. Rick argues from silence that since homosexual marriage was never condemned in Scripture, it must be okay. This is a fallacy because Lev 18:22 and 20:13 both condemn the homosexual act which would preclude it being allowed in a same-sex marriage. Thus a specific condemnation of same-sex marriage would be redundant.
2. Rick argues that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 only prohibit male on male sex with shrine prostitutes. Here are the passages.
Lev 18:22 “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”
Lev 20:13 “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
Restricting these commands to prohibitions against sex with male shrine prostitutes is a severe straining of the context. In both chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, the prohibition is set among several other regulations on sexual behaviors (don’t have sex with your mother, sister, daughter, aunt, animal, etc). None of them are in the context of shrine prostitution in so far as I can see. I recommend you read the those chapters. I do not quote them here for the sake of brevity.
3. We have no positive examples of homosexual relations in the Bible. Rick, nevertheless, argues that David and Jonathan were homosexual partners. He cites the following.
2 Samuel 1:26 "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."
David’s depiction of Jonathan’s “love” as being “more wonderful than that of women” is not evidence that David had homosexual relations with Jonathan or even the faintest sexual attraction. Such an argument ignores the Jewish penchant for hyperbole in poems (of which this passage is) and eroticizes where no eroticism is indicated. It also begs the question: why does Rick assume this "love … of women" is sexual? Why is it not the emotional love of a sister, mother, grandmother, or daughter? Also, if David and Jonathan were having sex, then there was no evidence that they were married. Sex outside of marriage is either outright condemned throughout the Scriptures or else shown to have seriously bad consequences. A more thorough treatment of this topic can be found here: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/were-david-and-jonathan-lovers
4. Although lesbianism is not specifically addressed in the OT, it is in Rom 1:26. Once is enough to know.
The following linked article does an excellent job of handling various other objections by addressing the Queen James Version of the bible. http://carm.org/queen-james-bible
Like yourself, I’ll have to quote from authorities on the subject. I’m not a greek scholar. The short list of sites I have consulted (in addition to the ones you linked) are as follows should you wish to review them at your leisure.
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj3h.pdf
http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious/#christian-books-5
http://www.johnpiippo.com/2011/12/arsenokoitais-in-1-timothy-110-et-al.html
http://carm.org/queen-james-bible
http://www.gaychristian101.com/what...-if-he-intended-to-condemn-homosexuality.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Arsenokoites.html
http://hipandthigh.blogspot.com/2008/04/debunking-gay-christian-apologetics.html?m=1
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/were-david-and-jonathan-lovers/
Well, it is my birthday now and I’m ready to get some sleep. Night.
Last edited:
Not necessarily. Many of the "founding fathers" (of the United States) were deists, but still referred to God in their writing. Albert Einstein, not strictly an Atheist, said several times he did not believe in a personal god (i.e., the kind who could be referred to as "Him" or "the Father", walk in the Garden of Eden, communicate as a burning bush, care about human sex lives, or impregnate a virgin with a future messiah), though he is also famous for saying "God does not play dice".
*Ahem* The aforementioned "God" was worshiped by the people of Israel long before Christ was even a twinkle in his father's eye.
Last edited:
If you had pigeonhole Einstein into a religious archetype, calling him a pantheist would probably be the best way to put it.
I wonder if Cook's SO is that iMovie dude. Ever since iMovie turned into a pretty nightmare I was wondering if there was some gay romance involved in his rapid promotion.
As an atheist, I consider pantheists to be my favorite kind of theist. They believe in a god that doesn't really matter all that much in day-to-day life. You can pray to a pantheist god, or not. Be thankful to it, or not. Get angry with it, or not. It's not really paying attention to what you do, and if it turns out it doesn't exist, nothing really changes (you can still pray, thank, or get angry with it).
----------
Are you shipping them already?
True. But we know Cook isn't Jewish.
And while everyone who pointed out that "God" doesn't necessarily refer to the Christian God are technically correct, I think, given that Cook is an American from the South, it is highly probable that when he brings up God without specifying which God, he is thinking of the Christian God, or a concept of God that is highly influenced by the Christian concept.
At any rate, his description of his gayness as a gift from God, and how the gift was initially a trial that ultimately helped him develop many strengths seemed very consistent with how the Christians I know think and talk about how God works in their lives.
I don't know any Christians who don't think their God is also the God of Abraham, and the same God who spoke to Moses.
On the other hand, many people raised in Christian traditions retain a belief in God but don't really accept the existence of a Christ.
How? Just because he came out to be gay, he is a role model? Should we all become gay now? If he is only half as much of a bad person as Steve jobs apparently was, he is anything but a role model. But i guess no one here knows him personally.
/edit: a hilarious joke i just saw: why does the iPhone 6 bend? Because the CEO is not straight! Hahaha
Last edited:
Really? That's rather vague. I would certainly be interested to hear how it would go. Possibly ending in enrollment on a "gay conversion therapy course" or some other method that is equally barbaric as it is futile.
Yes, depression and teen suicide linked to bullying and discrimination from people telling them they are sinners and an abomination when in truth there is nothing wrong with them - at the very least nothing they have the power to change.
There's a shed load of research showing that as gay people have become more accepted in society, so has their promiscuity dropped with promiscuity being lower amongst people who came out and were accepted earlier in life. Something I can back up in seeing my younger gay friends being more romantically involved in long term relationships than friends who came out in their 30s.
But yes, a lot of gay people are still very promiscuous (however its only around 2% engaging in 23% of all sexual activity making the rest of us gays look a bit straight laced) making them more exposed to VDs but straight people have no divine immunity from them and in the same physical circumstances are no more or less likely to contract them. Lesbians on the other hand have lower rates of STD incidence than straight or bi women. These diseases are also not isolated to sexual activity and even accidents by health care workers can lead to infection - again, no divine immunity here.
You still don't understand that your position on homosexuality is the very opposite of "help, love and support".
"Venereal diseases"? You know if you're going to claim knowledge of things like medicine and psychology, it's best not to use long outdated terminology.
Last edited:
Well, I think Tim Cook was a good role model even before he came out. But in my view, coming out makes him even more of a role model, because it shows he is willing to stand up for his convictions, and to do what he can to help others facing discrimination because of their sexuality.
And I don't think Steve Jobs was a bad person, either. But even if he was, I've heard no evidence that Tim Cook shares Jobs' bad characteristics. Of course, none of us are perfect. No, we don't know either Cooks or Jobs personally. But there are much to admire about what we do know about them publicly. And that's what role models are -- people who have admirable qualities others can look up to and emulate. Of course, they can also have less admirable qualities, but, for example, we can appreciate Jobs as a visionary without emulating his tendency to verbally harranguing people when they said/did something he considered idiotic.
That is a wild assumption.
----------
I don't think being gay makes him a role model either.
Well, I'd still call that view of God "Chrstian," or "Judeo-Christian" to be more exact. Because it is a concept of God influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition, even if that person doesn't believe in Christ.
Being gay doesn't make him a role model. This makes him a role model:
Quote:
"I dont consider myself an activist, but I realise how much Ive benefited from the sacrifice of others. So if hearing that the CEO of Apple is gay can help someone struggling to come to terms with who he or she is, or bring comfort to anyone who feels alone, or inspire people to insist on their equality, then its worth the trade-off with my own privacy,"
The "ignorance" comment was directed at the "Should we all be gay now".
Note to self: I must sometimes accept logic that is flawed
+1
and the selective quoting by me is to positively broaden the applicability of the statement. The additional emphasis above relates to the last line in this post.
HyperZboy, I'm not smarter for quoting you but I'm certainly smarter for reading your words. My thanks to you and others like you.
There is I believe an instinct that is greater, more widely felt, and observable in infants: the instinct of one sentient being to care for another.
Without obsessing over definitions, in the past I thought of myself as agnostic. At least: if religion came up in conversation, and if the opportunity to discuss was limited, that's how I would describe myself.
Things that many people might consider to be supernatural, I take in my stride. Such things occur whilst I live my natural life, they're not explicable in a 'normal' way; neither are such things 'abnormal'. A few minutes ago I read, in Wikipedia, some of what's associated with the word 'supernatural' and since then, I no longer know how best to describe how I feel about inexplicable occurrences in the midst of an otherwise normal life.
Also I should no longer describe myself as agnostic. I sense, within myself, nothing to support the existence of any single god. In some ways I believe in the existence of a god for my sister, who does believe in a god, so I'm not atheistic.
I'm not pantheistic, but I do believe that multiple things beyond our understanding can and do shape how we perceive existence. Many people may live their lives without any sense of that shaping, but that does not mean that the shaping of their perceptions does not occur. A reader might perceive that last sentence to be somewhat religious, and in that context I might be happy to say to someone "god be with you", but I refrain from doing so because of the likelihood of misunderstanding by the listener.
Until today I assumed that there was truth in the theory that menstruation was somehow related to the moon. Today I glance at writings about lunar effect, about no correlation between the human menstrual cycle and the lunar cycle and so on, which should probably shake my previously held belief. Still, believe that at some point in the past, something in nearby outer space (the moon) helped to shape the reproductive habits of some life on earth. I expect that many people can appreciate the lyrics of Strange Phenomena without appreciating the artist. I understand, but do not have, the instinct to procreate; that instinct may be something other than god-given.
Further into outer space
With emphasis added by me:
To readers who do not recognise the words in the following quote: first contemplate their meaning and then, if you can, refrain from seeking their origin until after you have looked up to the stars on a dark night.
In that 2014 darkness, recall that soliloquy. Open your minds; don't seize upon words such as 'creation' or 'God' to justify a modern-day point of view. In your minds, step outside of your shoes. Imagine a world before spoken language, and so on. Early man, early woman and then early civilisations. In the absence of knowledge about astronomy, how might those people have strived to explain the wondrous things far above them? I'm certain that amongst my distant ancestors, at least one man held another man in his arms whilst stargazing in the dark, and the strange and lovely feeling of being with another human being only added to the wonder of it all.
If that true sense of wonder an unstoppable desire to explain the inexplicable, and then share that limited knowledge is at the roots of some modern godliness, then I have respect for those roots.
Religion, love of Apple devices, and OS X 10.10 Yosemite
Sunday reading thoughts
the connection to religion is not overt within that post. It's at least six clicks beyond, and some translation was involved, so I don't expect anyone to find the original text, where religion was overt, so I could be accused of teasing readers here. Suffice to say that it's a positive connection that emphasises the desire, within an organisation, for good-hearted people make another person's life better; to care.
Back on topic: beliefs
The gamut of things in which I believe regardless of whether I understand those things is a combination that's more than sane enough for me. I also realise that the combination does not add up to a completely logical thesis or thought
+1
and the selective quoting by me is to positively broaden the applicability of the statement. The additional emphasis above relates to the last line in this post.
HyperZboy, I'm not smarter for quoting you but I'm certainly smarter for reading your words. My thanks to you and others like you.
There is I believe an instinct that is greater, more widely felt, and observable in infants: the instinct of one sentient being to care for another.
Without obsessing over definitions, in the past I thought of myself as agnostic. At least: if religion came up in conversation, and if the opportunity to discuss was limited, that's how I would describe myself.
Things that many people might consider to be supernatural, I take in my stride. Such things occur whilst I live my natural life, they're not explicable in a 'normal' way; neither are such things 'abnormal'. A few minutes ago I read, in Wikipedia, some of what's associated with the word 'supernatural' and since then, I no longer know how best to describe how I feel about inexplicable occurrences in the midst of an otherwise normal life.
Also I should no longer describe myself as agnostic. I sense, within myself, nothing to support the existence of any single god. In some ways I believe in the existence of a god for my sister, who does believe in a god, so I'm not atheistic.
I'm not pantheistic, but I do believe that multiple things beyond our understanding can and do shape how we perceive existence. Many people may live their lives without any sense of that shaping, but that does not mean that the shaping of their perceptions does not occur. A reader might perceive that last sentence to be somewhat religious, and in that context I might be happy to say to someone "god be with you", but I refrain from doing so because of the likelihood of misunderstanding by the listener.
Until today I assumed that there was truth in the theory that menstruation was somehow related to the moon. Today I glance at writings about lunar effect, about no correlation between the human menstrual cycle and the lunar cycle and so on, which should probably shake my previously held belief. Still, believe that at some point in the past, something in nearby outer space (the moon) helped to shape the reproductive habits of some life on earth. I expect that many people can appreciate the lyrics of Strange Phenomena without appreciating the artist. I understand, but do not have, the instinct to procreate; that instinct may be something other than god-given.
Further into outer space
"
The gravity of Jupiter affects every planet to one degree or another. It is strong enough to tear asteroids apart and capture 64 moons at least. Some scientist think that Jupiter destroyed many celestial objects in the ancient past as well as prevented other planets from forming. Hows that for a powerful neighbor?"
With emphasis added by me:
"
Jupiter pulls you up 34 million times less than Earth pulls you down. Jupiter's "pull" is utterly feeble.
So it's all in your mind. But don't let that stop you: give in to the pull!"
So it's all in your mind. But don't let that stop you: give in to the pull!"
To readers who do not recognise the words in the following quote: first contemplate their meaning and then, if you can, refrain from seeking their origin until after you have looked up to the stars on a dark night.
"
to become
what? The infinitesimal? What was I? Still a human being? Or was I the man of the future? If there were other bursts of radiation, other clouds drifting across seas and continents, would other beings follow me into this vast new world? So close the infinitesimal and the infinite. But suddenly, I knew they were really the two ends of the same concept. The unbelievably small and the unbelievably vast eventually meet like the closing of a gigantic circle. I looked up, as if somehow I would grasp the heavens. The universe, worlds beyond number, God's silver tapestry spread across the night. And in that moment, I knew the answer to the riddle of the infinite. I had thought in terms of man's own limited dimension. I had presumed upon nature. That existence begins and ends in man's conception, not nature's. And I felt my body dwindling, melting, becoming nothing. My fears melted away. And in their place came acceptance. All this vast majesty of creation, it had to mean something. And then I meant something, too. Yes, smaller than the smallest, I meant something, too. To God, there is no zero. I still exist!"
In that 2014 darkness, recall that soliloquy. Open your minds; don't seize upon words such as 'creation' or 'God' to justify a modern-day point of view. In your minds, step outside of your shoes. Imagine a world before spoken language, and so on. Early man, early woman and then early civilisations. In the absence of knowledge about astronomy, how might those people have strived to explain the wondrous things far above them? I'm certain that amongst my distant ancestors, at least one man held another man in his arms whilst stargazing in the dark, and the strange and lovely feeling of being with another human being only added to the wonder of it all.
If that true sense of wonder an unstoppable desire to explain the inexplicable, and then share that limited knowledge is at the roots of some modern godliness, then I have respect for those roots.
Religion, love of Apple devices, and OS X 10.10 Yosemite
Sunday reading thoughts
the connection to religion is not overt within that post. It's at least six clicks beyond, and some translation was involved, so I don't expect anyone to find the original text, where religion was overt, so I could be accused of teasing readers here. Suffice to say that it's a positive connection that emphasises the desire, within an organisation, for good-hearted people make another person's life better; to care.
Back on topic: beliefs
The gamut of things in which I believe regardless of whether I understand those things is a combination that's more than sane enough for me. I also realise that the combination does not add up to a completely logical thesis or thought
I always wanted to ask her "why are you against gay marriage? Your husband's gay, and he got married."
Call me old fashioned. Would you prefer STI's? Or is STD's the hip term nowaways for the same old family of afflictions that have been plaguing humanity for centuries?
And Christ (reportedly) was'nt even campaigning for a new religion, just trying to improve Judism. We need a God identity check, and I'd really appreciate some first hand rules and expectations from the almighty, but won't be holding my breath.
Yep, it is vague because I haven't come to that bridge. I only have so much time in life to prepare for problems that I have yet to personally encounter.
If I ever have to do it, perhaps then you will. I'd rather not borrower trouble.
Among the first things I would express is that my love for my child wouldn't change no matter what. I would still be there: still want to see my child's dreams come true wherever they were honorable. And before you ask, no, I haven't decided if I would attend a child's gay wedding. I very much, at present, doubt that I would. It is not a topic I have thoroughly researched and thought through.
Would it surprise you to find out that people can benefit from such courses even if they never change their orientation? Alcoholics go through AAA without ever ceasing to crave alcohol. A Christian brother of mine who has been dry for years recently lamented, "Some days, I can still taste the alcohol in my mouth". I can only imagine how hard it is for him to continue to abstain. Likewise, I have read of people who, after gender orientation therapy, find they can at least enjoy sex with the opposite gender.
Bullying is a sin and I strongly condemn it. Discrimination is likewise of limited value in our current social context.
I'm glad they are happier, but sad that they are that much more desperately lost as souls.
Source?
Health care workers, unwitting spouses and babies can get the STDs through no fault of their own. People having sex with the wrong people are very much to blame for an STD's spread. Those who approve of their sexual activities share part of the blame. This is why the relatively disease-free lesbians get lumped into the pack of those responsible.
Patients often don't like the discomfort of their treatment regimen.
Last edited:
I mean, you can keep tell yourself that if it makes your sleep better at night. But maybe, just maybe they aren't lost at all and are more "found" than the likes of you will ever be. And maybe they will live happier and more fulfilling lives than you will ever live. Maybe everything you believe is a complete crock of bs. Maybe....
- Status