Need help - response to friend about Desmond Tutu quote

[quiversR4hunting]

I need some help with what Bible verse to refute my friends response.

I posted this on my f/b:

My friend responded with: " Read Romans 1:18-32" I want to be just as simple and say: "Read blank"

If you have read the bible we know that Romans was written by Paul. I would like a quote from Jesus. I have several sermons swirling around in my head but none are great and I don't know my Bible like many of you. I have never memorized whole passages, etc. keep in mind, when I quote the Bible I will be using the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition. Since I am Catholic, I always quote a Catholic Bible and she knows it. We went to Catholic school together; she decided to leave the Catholic faith in elementary and look for greener pastures.

A little back ground, she is someone I have never not known. She has been (that I know of) a member of the Church of God, Free Methodist and currently home churches. She knows where I stand on gays, she knows we don't agree on things like girl scouts, etc. I purposely don't comment on many of her posts because I know we are polar opposites. Last year she posted false information about girl scouts and I stuck up for girl scouts and at the end of our (private) discussion, I said "You are right, we don't see eye to eye on several issues, but we have known that for years!" I wanted to say yeah, I am surprised you still consider me a friend, but I stopped myself. Like evangelicals and fundies that prophesize to others, I hope I am her gut check every once in awhile and remind her of social justice.

Thanks in advance for all your help :)

[Terrie]

Acts 1: 28. "And he said to them, ‘You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean."

[julie paradox]

1 John 4:16b

God is love; and those who live in love live in God, and God lives in them.

[quiversR4hunting]

Thank you both! I would have never thought of those passages. I was thinking of the greatest commandment and along those lines.

I should have added to my first post, if there is a passage where Paul contradicts himself, that would be awesome also.

[Terrie]

Thank you both! I would have never thought of those passages. I was thinking of the greatest commandment and along those lines.

I should have added to my first post, if there is a passage where Paul contradicts himself, that would be awesome also.

I should correct mine. It's Acts 10:28, not 1:28.

[quiversR4hunting]

Thank you both! I went with 1 John 4:7-21. Depends on if she responds if I will go back with Acts 10:28-29 and if she responds again I will end with Matthew 7:1:5

[FoxyMoxie]

Not quite sure why you want a verse where Paul contradicts himself? The Gospels contradict themselves too, because they're written by different people and are hagiographical in nature, not strictly factual accounts. That is how history was written then. Paul's letters are to different churches talking about different, specific situations - of course he's going to advise different things to different churches, it would be weird if he treated all the churches' needs exactly the same. Proof-texting is poor Biblical scholarship.

The problem isn't Paul, the problem is how Paul's words are being used. The Romans verses are not talking about monogamous same-gender couples because they did not exist in a visible way then - yes, there was a level of acceptable same-gender genital activity in Roman society, but it was strictly dictated by social status. Effectively, it was about social dominance, and in some cases part of religious ritual (mostly involving slaves). Often it involved deeply unequal relationships between boys and older men. Truly equal romantic relationships between men, and all sexual/romantic activity between women, was condemned and was not part of socially-approved same-gender relations. So what Paul is talking about is God condemning the abuse of young boys and slaves by older men, which has nothing to do with what Tutu is talking about.

[quiversR4hunting]

Not quite sure why you want a verse where Paul contradicts himself? The Gospels contradict themselves too, because they're written by different people and are hagiographical in nature, not strictly factual accounts. That is how history was written then. Paul's letters are to different churches talking about different, specific situations - of course he's going to advise different things to different churches, it would be weird if he treated all the churches' needs exactly the same. Proof-texting is poor Biblical scholarship.

The problem isn't Paul, the problem is how Paul's words are being used. The Romans verses are not talking about monogamous same-gender couples because they did not exist in a visible way then - yes, there was a level of acceptable same-gender genital activity in Roman society, but it was strictly dictated by social status. Effectively, it was about social dominance, and in some cases part of religious ritual (mostly involving slaves). Often it involved deeply unequal relationships between boys and older men. Truly equal romantic relationships between men, and all sexual/romantic activity between women, was condemned and was not part of socially-approved same-gender relations. So what Paul is talking about is God condemning the abuse of young boys and slaves by older men, which has nothing to do with what Tutu is talking about.

FoxyMoxie, you are much to practical and you are looking too much into the historical differences between then and no! Sadly, like many fundies on here, my fundie-lite friend is not that logical nor has that type of critical skills to think of the Bible in the context of what was happening way back then and keeping her faith. So I was thinking finding Paul contradict himself to a different group (because you are absolutely right the apostles directed their speech towards what was happening in the community they were visiting) to show her Paul said different things to different people.

To me some of the most interesting sermons are when the priest teaches us about the difference between then and now, it makes more sense to me when put into context. Sadly, for some of these people it causes them to think too much and short circuit.

Thanks for the historical context of her quote, I loved it!!

[punkiepie]

1 Peter 4:8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

[FoxyMoxie]

FoxyMoxie, you are much to practical and you are looking too much into the historical differences between then and no! Sadly, like many fundies on here, my fundie-lite friend is not that logical nor has that type of critical skills to think of the Bible in the context of what was happening way back then and keeping her faith. So I was thinking finding Paul contradict himself to a different group (because you are absolutely right the apostles directed their speech towards what was happening in the community they were visiting) to show her Paul said different things to different people.

To me some of the most interesting sermons are when the priest teaches us about the difference between then and now, it makes more sense to me when put into context. Sadly, for some of these people it causes them to think too much and short circuit.

Thanks for the historical context of her quote, I loved it!!

Ah thanks for more context!

[punkiepie]

Ah thanks for more context![/

You can always ask your Fundie-lite friend to explain Paul's "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." Titus 1:12. Because I grew up in an IFB church and I know that no one ever spoke about this as a currently true statement!

[FoxyMoxie]

Ahahaha punkiepie, that's hilarious.

[quiversR4hunting]

Ahahaha punkiepie, that's hilarious.

I googled punkiepie's suggestion on titus and found this

clarksons.org/spiritleads/shrable/cretans.html

very interesting- he writes

Rather than engaging in attempts to utilize restrictive rules appropriate to the first century world and very inappropriate for our contemporary culture, why can we not recognize a cultural given in that just as "Cretans are always liars" can become untrue by social change, so likewise can the injunctions about women which reflected a realistic cultural role restriction due to the way women were regarded and treated in a prior historical epoch become untrue in a changed social world?

This MAN with a Phd would make Lori, Ken, PP, cabinetman, Gil, Jimboob, Benboob, Doug the Tool and many, many other's heads role. :) Dr. Sharable is from Pepperdine U which is Christian. ;)