when homosexuality changed from a sin that could tempt anyone
Oh, Hitdice, you hawt hunk of landshark, take off that carapace and take me here in the Off-Topic Discussions forum!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to the ten commandments on the court house, that isn't there as a reminder of jewish or christian religion, it is a reminder of one of the first recorded written sets of law.
Also note that the image of lady justice is a pagan symbol.
In that case, I'd propose a compromise and put up the Code of Ur-Nammu and see if we get a state-sponsored resurgence of Anu worship because that would be cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
when homosexuality changed from a sin that could tempt anyoneOh, Hitdice, you hawt hunk of landshark, take off that carapace and take me here in the Off-Topic Discussions forum!
Doodle, it's called the love that dare not speak its name; have goblins not heard of the DL?!
A) No, Hitdice, I've never heard of that. Strange.
B) Oh yeah!, first to mention the Code of Ur-Nammu by a good 2 minutes! I rock!
C) I just want to see a resurgence of Mesopotamian god-king cults. Then the whole world would know to fear Tiamat!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Actually I'm incorrect. According to wikipedia: Hundreds of these monuments—including some of those causing dispute—were originally placed by director Cecil B. DeMille as a publicity stunt to promote his 1956 film The Ten Commandments.[82]
So, they're not there for Christianity, they're not there for historical legal purposes, they're there for mass-market advertising?
The USA never fails to amuse.
Look, I'm straight. I'm attracted to women, not guys. I don't have to keep rigid control of my self to keep from succumbing to the lure of other men. I'm not interested. I never was.
Do people really think differently?
I'm into chicks and bulettes, myself.
Also, look, with Christianity and sex, it is a "choice." You can choose to follow your inclinations towards love and happiness and orgasms or you can choose to straitjacket yourself and live in a state of repressed misery.
Me, I'd rather do it in the street.
Go figure, right? I wonder if they'd allow me to advertise a movie I made in such a manner?
Edit: Actually I'm incorrect. According to wikipedia: Hundreds of these monuments—including some of those causing dispute—were originally placed by director Cecil B. DeMille as a publicity stunt to promote his 1956 film The Ten Commandments.[82]
So, they're not there for Christianity, they're not there for historical legal purposes, they're there for mass-market advertising?
The USA never fails to amuse.
It was the fifties. America's crusade against Godless Communism led to many erosions of the separation of church and state (including adding the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance). Add in Hollywood's eagerness to disassociate themselves with all those writers being grilled by HUAC and America's historical track record for wallowing in kitsch manufactured junk and, voila!
This article is hawt!!As to treatment of homosexuals by Christians historically, here is an interesting article about homosexuality in the middle ages written by a professor at Fordham University.
...And should definitely be included in the Detailing Your World section of the GMG!
But seriously, I've said it in other threads and will here: when homosexuality changed from a sin that could tempt anyone (which is pretty well what sins do, definitionally) to a sexual preference exhibited by a segment of the population, the religious conception/treatment of homosexuality must have gone through some changes. Of course, that was also a world where you had to wear a scarlet letter around if you sinned, so I'm not claiming it was better so much as subtly different.
Many of the anti-homosexuals today still seem to treat it the same way. It's a "choice", the "homosexual lifestyle", fears of gays "converting" kids, etc.
Seems like they think it's so tempting that if it's not strictly repressed everyone would switch teams.
Look, I'm straight. I'm attracted to women, not guys. I don't have to keep rigid control of my self to keep from succumbing to the lure of other men. I'm not interested. I never was.
Do people really think differently?
It could be that people who are attracted to their own sex but can't come to terms with said attraction enter "pray the gay away" type churches. It might be an example of self-selection is my point.
The whole choice-or-from-birth alternative seems a bit simplistic to me. It's anecdotal evidence, but I've heard of identical twins, one of whom is gay while the other is straight, which suggests it's not solely genetic; I've also heard from nursing home workers that dementia patients never forget which sex they're attracted to, which suggests that it's so basic that is might as well be genetic.
No, I have no answers, just more and more questions.
Look, I'm straight. I'm attracted to women, not guys. I don't have to keep rigid control of my self to keep from succumbing to the lure of other men. I'm not interested. I never was.
Do people really think differently?I'm into chicks and bulettes, myself.
Also, look, with Christianity and sex, it is a "choice." You can choose to follow your inclinations towards love and happiness and orgasms or you can choose to straitjacket yourself and live in a state of repressed misery.
Me, I'd rather do it in the street.
Doodlebug, please; some of us are trying to get through the day without having to sew any scarlet letters to our shirts, okay?
All right, fine, continue having your sexless discussion of hawt sex.
I can't sit around here all day, typing with one hand, anyway.
All right, fine, continue having your sexless discussion of hawt sex.
I can't sit around here all day, typing with one hand, anyway.
Take off the carapace? After reading that I'm getting two more to wear over the first one!
So, I posted one response, and now I'm posting another. Some of the points I make may be moot now, because as much as I would like to, I don't have the time (nor, in all honesty, the inclination) to read through all 10+ pages since my post, but I have tried to skim them. Here's what I essentially see:
Someone said: "Stuff."
Someone else said: "Other, opposed stuff."
I would like to address some of the points I've seen raised, attacked, defended, or otherwise thrown about. I'd like to say this is because I want to find some common social ground for all of us (which I would), or end the vitriol of the discussion (which I would), but really, this is just my own pride/vanity demanding that I make sure everyone is aware of my own thoughts on the matter, so that those of you who hate me (or those of you who like me) do so for the proper reasons.
1) A review: I am a Christian. I am also a sinner, no better or worse than any other sinner (including homosexuals).
2) I believe that the Christian Church has, at times, committed horrible atrocities in the name of God. I believe that they have committed horrible atrocities in the name of personal or collective self-interest.
3) I believe that the Christian Church has, at times, done very good things, both for individuals and for groups. I believe that this has happened on a spiritual (i.e., ministry to the sick or despondent) and a material (e.g., soup kitchens for the indigent) level.
3a) I believe that all organized religions are capable of, and have likely committed, incredible assninjary. This is because all organized religions are institutions created and/or run by people, who are imperfect and sinful. I don't think any religion "has it right" as far as God's mind is concerned, because none of us are capable of comprehending God's mind. I believe that mine (Missouri Synod Lutheran, if you need to know) is closest to my own personal perception of what is "right" or "wrong," which is no more correct than anyone else's. But at the end of the day, my own sense of what is righteous or not is the only lens I (personally, myself) have to measure my own behavior, the beliefs of my Church, and so on.
4.) I believe that most, possibly even all (though I would not make that assertion) other organized groups, religious or secular, who have achieved even a small and isolated measure of temporal power could also have items 2, 3, and 3a applied to them.
5.) I do NOT believe that any single individual, or even a group of individuals, represents the entirety of any group in which they hold membership, whether by virtue of birth, belief, choice, or any other factor. When an African-American commits a crime, it does not mean "All African-Americans are criminals." When a Christian says "Homosexuals should be taken out and stoned," it does not mean all Christians are murderous homophobes. When a group of Muslims commit an act of terror against Americans (or the British, or Israelis, or whoever), it does not mean all Muslims are terrorists.
5a) Having made the general argument (and forgive me if my formal logic is rusty) that "some A's are B's" does not mean the same thing as "all A's are B's," I do not suggest that saying "not all A's are B's" means "no A's are B's." In other words, observing that one dangerous, bigoted Christian does not make all Christians dangerous and bigoted does not change the fact that the initial Christian under consideration is, in fact, dangerous and bigoted. Furthermore, that Christian may believe that his dangerous bigotry is "right" or "justified." That doesn't make him correct in that belief, no matter how loudly he says it.
6) Some people misuse religion (ANY religion) to do bad things, either intentionally or out of ignorance. This is the fault of the people perpetrating the misuse, not the religion itself. I believe the same statement applies to statistics, bacon, the Internet, firearms, knives, roleplaying games, hard rock music, cell phones with texting capabilities, fast food, prescription drugs, and everything else. Taking it a step further, I do not blame the initial source of faith (which I believe to be God) for the actions of people who misuse faith, any more than I blame the inventor of the Internet (Al Gore) for the actions of child pornographers who use it as a distribution tool. I understand that not everyone may equate the two, possibly because "religion" implies some sort of collective morality (or, if you prefer, collective "moral judgment") that the others do not, but I am speaking only of my own personal belief. (If you happen to agree with me, that would make me happy.)
6a) Citing Hitler as a representative of Christianity is kind of like citing Chris Benoit as a representative of professional wrestling, or Idi Amin as a representative of political leaders. I'm just saying.
7) I do not think it is accurate to say Christians are "persecuted," at least in America. (I know they ARE persecuted in a few other countries, but in most cases, I don't know enough to make a judgment one way or the other.) Honestly, I'm not sure any group is truly "persecuted" in America. That does not mean there is not a bias against them. Despite everyone's best efforts, there is still a bias against African Americans, and homosexuals, and overweight people, and yes, even Christians. The bias against Christians is more subtle than the bias against some other groups, and it probably occurs in fewer places. Academic settings are a good example; not a perfect example, but a good example.
8) I believe, as a Christian (by faith) and as Christian (by name) that ALL bias is wrong. The wrongness comes not in saying "I'm a Christian, and I believe homosexuality is a sin," but in saying, "I'm a Christian, and I believe homosexuality is a sin, AND THAT SIN MAKES YOU WORSE THAN ME." See the difference? Here's another example, this one from my own life, which occurred just a few days ago. In Botany class: "This is how the world evolved--not how it was created. Creationism has been dismissed as a plausible explanation for the existence of life." Not "some scientists" or even "most scientists" have dismissed Creationism. Not "this theory dismisses Creationism," but "Creationism has been dismissed." You may argue that the "most scientists" or "this theory" elements were implied, and maybe you would be right. You could also argue that it's not the same as the "I'm Christian unless you're gay" school of thought which started this whole thread because it does not condone (overtly or implicitly) violence against a group, and you may be right there, too. The bias against homosexuality may be more dangerous than the bias against Christianity. It may be more widespread (in my personal experience, it is not--but I happen to be a student at a fairly liberal university, so my experience is hardly indicative of the norm). However, regardless of degrees of harm or societal penetration, BOTH are wrong. NEITHER should be condoned by reasonable, fair-minded people, and BOTH should offend us.
9) There is no 9.
10) I have already given my thoughts on atheism (which, by the way, I would consider a philosophy or a belief, but not a "religion"), and they have not changed. However, I would like to add this: it hurts me, as a Christian, that my religion is used as a weapon against any group of people--or even any individual people. From a religious standpoint, we are all sinners. From a more worldly standpoint, we are all in this together. I know there are people who say "Oh, you're a Christian" and automatically make assumptions about me and, as a result, think less of me. That makes me sad. I know there are people who look at me and see a fat bastard, and automatically make assumptions about me and think less of me. That makes me sad, too. I know there are other people who say "Oh, you're a Christian," and automatically think highly of me, without even knowing me. This doesn't make me sad...but it is no more justified than thinking less of me for the same (or any other) reason. (I have yet to meet anyone who looks at me and thinks "Oh, you're a fat bastard...I'm physically aroused," but I would like to.)
Sorry for rambling, and sorry for chiming in so erratically and infrequently.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Antimony,
This bias against Christians, where exactly does it manifest?
It's not in politics where almost all politicians at least pretend to be Chritians even if many do a poor job actng like it.
It's not n the law, where, as was discussed earlier, giant monments to the Ten Commandments are erected at many courtouses.
It's not in sports where prayers are said before each match and players regularly attribute their success to God.
It's not in eduction where students have to sue, and ten get death threats, to get a pryer banner removed.
It's not.in the mlitary where atheist has only recently been accepted as a legitimate thing to put on your records.
So, where, exactly, is this bloody bias?
So, where, exactly, is this bloody bias?
Internet message boards?
|
Antimony,
This bias against Christians, where exactly does it manifest?It's not in politics where almost all politicians at least pretend to be Chritians even if many do a poor job actng like it.
It's not n the law, where, as was discussed earlier, giant monments to the Ten Commandments are erected at many courtouses.
It's not in sports where prayers are said before each match and players regularly attribute their success to God.
It's not in eduction where students have to sue, and ten get death threats, to get a pryer banner removed.
It's not.in the mlitary where atheist has only recently been accepted as a legitimate thing to put on your records.So, where, exactly, is this bloody bias?
You are forgetting all the jokes with regard to Tim Tebow and his behavior?
-
If I had to pick the largest source of bias I would say it's both media and entertainment: News, TV, music, Movies, pop culture - which in turn serve as an influencing force in manipulating mass opinion.
I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm not a Christian, but I do have to call it like I see it - the truth on both sides of this seems to be absent or partially presented only if it defends one's cause.
-
Generally these forums are pretty one sided (very left leaning) and deceptive - then again people have a choice if they want to participate here or contribute to this companies success with their purchasing dollars. (partial ninja by bugleyman)
I personally don't care what it says on our money, and the pledge of Allegiance could end with "And also undying allegiance to Mickey Mouse" and i wouldn't care. If things like that are really on your radar as important social issues...then i would strongly urge you to focus your attention elsewhere, to something that is not completely meaningless. I hate to tell people this but there will be Christian references and influences in our society and in almost every corner of the world until the very last day of human history. There is more than enough seperation of Church and state, only the most anal of attention seeking atheist organisations crusade to have any and all reference to God removed from the public eye. Personally i think it is a giant waste of taxpayer money dealing with such lawsuits and the people that file them should be prosecuted for filing frivolous lawsuits.
Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is fully consistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The words of the Pledge echo the conviction held by the Founders of this Nation that our freedoms come from God. Congress inserted the phrase 'One Nation Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance for the express purpose of reaffirming America's unique understanding of this truth, and to distinguish America from atheistic nations who recognize no higher authority than the State.Don’t get me wrong, I actually support a separation of church and state. Without it we would end up with someone forcing their religious beliefs on the masses and our country could become a theocratic dictatorship.Please explain to me how making me pledging allegiance to your god (I am an atheist, I disavow the existence of God) is not promoting your religion?
Are you saying this as a "historical truth" as in it reflects the beliefs of the founding fathers, or as in "essential truth" as it reflects the fact that the State considers my atheistic views to be patently false?
Antonin Scalia: "The phrase 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance reflect the true tradition of religious freedom in America, a tradition of neutrality among religious faiths. Government will not favor Catholic, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, but the tradition was never that the government had to be neutral between religiousness and non-religiousness."
So the state is expressly saying that religiousness is more important than my non-religiousness. In other words, the 1st amendment does not protect non-religiousness.
The Pledge of Allegiance does not mandate a religious belief in God, establish a religion, or constitute a government endorsement of a religion. Rather, it is an affirmation of allegiance to a nation which describes itself as being 'under God.' If an individual (Iron Tusk) does not believe in God, they can still be a loyal citizen of a republic that does.
Again, our country places high value on being religiously tolerant. That would be enhanced by the state not picking a side on the existence/non-existence of God. By declaring that he officially exists, my views are being diminished as being officially wrong.
Barack Obama:
"A sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation, context matters."
Context does matter. The state has declared that officially God exists, which means that my viewpoints are officially wrong. My religious choice is viewed as being less than Christianity, Judaism and Islam. I find that context to be very offensive.
You feel like Christians are persecuted because people want to call it a "holiday tree". Meanwhile, the State has officially declared my viewpoint to be invalid.
Generally these forums are pretty one sided (very left leaning) and deceptive - then again people have a choice if they want to participate here or contribute to this companies success with their purchasing dollars. (partial ninja by bugleyman)
Not gonna touch this one, other than to point out that I was actually being sarcastic. Apologies for being unclear.
You are forgetting all the jokes with regard to Tim Tebow and his behavior?
No one was making fun of Tim for being Christian -- they were making fun of his extravagant displays and apparent belief that God fixes football games. How many other Christians play in the NFL without anyone mentioning it?
If I had to pick the largest source of bias I would say it's both media and entertainment: News, TV, music, Movies, pop culture - which in turn serve as an influencing force in manipulating mass opinion.
I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm not a Christian, but I do have to call it like I see it - the truth on both sides of this seems to be absent or partially presented only if it defends one's cause.
Clearly the media influences the way people view the world. However, if you're claiming an anti-Christian bias in the media, I think you have your work cut out for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When an African-American commits a crime, it does not mean "All African-Americans are criminals." When a Christian says "Homosexuals should be taken out and stoned," it does not mean all Christians are murderous homophobes.
No, but when the bible says "Take the homosexuals out and stone them" and then you have an obviously anti gay segment of Christianity what are we supposed to conclude... that its just a coincidence?????
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The actually relevant piece of information is not whether the Bible says 'take the homosexual out and stone them', but whether Christians, as a whole, argue for taking the homosexual out and stoning them.
Christians, as a whole, take the bible, hold it up and say "this came from (or is at least inspired by) God. That means you should believe what it says".
Despite your attempts to white wash it according to your preconceptions about what the bible is, it says take the gays out and stone them, meaning that homosexuality is a sin.
The message of the bible is that homosexuality is bad. When a large segment of the christian population starts echoing that who am I supposed to believe? That large segment arguing directly from a book inspired by their deity or a convoluted shoehorning of a text against every rule of reading comprehension? The new testement certainly changes the REACTION to the alleged sin of homosexuality, but not that its a sinful behavior that should be avoided.
Its not my job to declare you the real christian and the other guys the pretenders. If anything they're the ones adhering to the only measurable standard of a religion: a holy text.
In that case, I'd propose a compromise and put up the Code of Ur-Nammu and see if we get a state-sponsored resurgence of Anu worship because that would be cool.As to the ten commandments on the court house, that isn't there as a reminder of jewish or christian religion, it is a reminder of one of the first recorded written sets of law.
Also note that the image of lady justice is a pagan symbol.
The (public) Law School I went to had a frieze of The Ten Commandments; The Justinian Code; The Code of Hammurabi; and one or two others I can't remember in the atrium.
The (public) Law School I went to had a frieze of The Ten Commandments; The Justinian Code; The Code of Hammurabi; and one or two others I can't remember in the atrium.In that case, I'd propose a compromise and put up the Code of Ur-Nammu and see if we get a state-sponsored resurgence of Anu worship because that would be cool.As to the ten commandments on the court house, that isn't there as a reminder of jewish or christian religion, it is a reminder of one of the first recorded written sets of law.
Also note that the image of lady justice is a pagan symbol.
As I recall what the infidels in SCotUS said in the case about the Ten Commandment courthouse display was that depiction of religious law was allowed but can't play favorites among various religions. This was of course called persecution by the christian right.
Your constant efforts to tell us what is in the Bible is like a biologist trying to tell us about anthropology or an art history professor trying to tell us about physics.
Its quaint. But, when a highly respected Greek scholar, doctor of divinity, and retired (after 35 or so years) minister tells me what the Bible says and confirms what I've already told you, guess which of the two (you or him) I'm going to believe.
The Greek scholar sides with me.
Gotta love appeals to authority. Although I suppose that you didn't claim to be a "Greek scholar" yourself is progress.
Well, I trust this guy's point of view on LGBT christians, but he received death threats and decided to wear a bullet proof vest around. It really gives me pause that so many self identified moderate christians argue against secularism rather than fundamentalism.
When an African-American commits a crime, it does not mean "All African-Americans are criminals." When a Christian says "Homosexuals should be taken out and stoned," it does not mean all Christians are murderous homophobes.No, but when the bible says "Take the homosexuals out and stone them" and then you have an obviously anti gay segment of Christianity what are we supposed to conclude... that its just a coincidence?????
Where in the bible does it say that exactly? I missed that on my read through.
Your constant efforts to tell us what is in the Bible is like a biologist trying to tell us about anthropologyDespite your attempts to white wash it according to your preconceptions about what the bible is, it says take the gays out and stone them, meaning that homosexuality is a sin.
And yours are a continual effort at flapping your arms to fly with the assurances that a highly regarded expert in aerodynamics assured you it would work. At least the biologist has a fair bit to add to anthropology.
Its quaint. But, when a highly respected Greek scholar, doctor of divinity, and retired (after 35 or so years) minister tells me what the Bible says and confirms what I've already told you, guess which of the two (you or him) I'm going to believe.
The Greek scholar sides with me.
ANd 8,000 other greek scholars and the plain text staring me in the face disagree. Not to mention the experts on the old testament
I don't know what you've ever done in your life that you expect "Who are you going to believe me or your own eyes" to side with you, but you're not showing it here. Your continued inability to provide an argument based on anything but your own say so and your own cherry picked pool of scholars is not sufficient for deaming anyone that disagrees with you a moron, thus enabling you to discount their arguments.
You pick the scholars you want to listen to. Your entire driving force behind what you think Christianity IS is what YOU want it to be. Other people have different ideas on what christianity is and those ideas are no less valid simply because they disagree with you, even if you've selectively picked a cadre of scholars to reaffirm your preconceptions.
Your ideas---->Pick the scholars----> reinforce your ideas.
Where in the bible does it say that exactly? I missed that on my read through.
Lev 20:13
NIV: 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.
KJV 13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
English Standard: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Well i may have slightly overreached in that it doesn't technically specify stoning , but i can't remember another OT death penalty method.
The point still stands though.