Dale Martin:
Education:
Abilene Christian University B.S. (Music Education) 1976
Princeton Theological Seminary M.Div. 1982
Yale University M.A. 1986
Yale University M.Phil. 1986
Yale University Ph.D. 1988
Thesis: “Slave of Christ, Slave of All; Paul's Metaphor of Slavery and 1
Corinthians 9”
Advisor: Wayne A. Meeks
Professional Positions:
1983-1987 Teaching Fellow, Yale Divinity School and Yale College
1987-1988 Instructor, Department of Religion, Rhodes College
1988-1995 Assistant Professor of Religion, Duke University
1995-1999 Associate Professor of Religion, Duke University
1999-2005 Professor of Religious Studies, Yale University
2002-2005 Chair, Department of Religious Studies, Yale University
2003-2007 Fellow, Whitney Humanities Center, Yale University
2005- Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies, Yale University
Richard Hays:
Educational History
Yale University B.A. (English Literature), 1970
Yale Divinity School M.Div., 1977
Emory University Ph.D. (New Testament), 1981
Honorary Degrees
Doctor of Divinity, honoris causa. St. Mary’s Seminary and University, Baltimore, MD,
2007
Dr. theol. honoris causa, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität, Frankfurt am Main, Germany,
2009
Professional Experience
1971-73 English teacher, Longmeadow High School, Longmeadow, Massachusetts
1974-76 Pastor, West Springfield, Massachusetts
1978-80 Instructor, Candler School of Theology, Emory University
1981-91 Yale Divinity School
Assistant Professor of New Testament 1981-84
Associate Professor of New Testament 1984-91
1991- The Divinity School, Duke University
Associate Professor of New Testament 1991-95
Professor of New Testament 1995-2001
George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament 2002-
Dean of the Divinity School, 2010-
Yes, I'm gay myself. Hell, I was even suicidal while in that cult. But, that still doesn't mean that I want to be guilty of the exact same thing I condemn in those people (namely being painting an entire group of people with one broad single color brush of paint).The difference is in consequences. Telling religious people to stop being bigots and use their religion to prop up their stance most likely isn't going to make them suicidal. What they are doing obviously has that effect on those affected.However, gay affirming churches have played and continue to play a vital role in the gay community as a source for social connection and support.
So, to promote the view that the entire body of religion (or Christianity) is to be painted with one single color brush is to risk hindering people who need such support (noting the high suicide rates, homelessness, and mental health issues of the gay community) from finding that support.
However, people have been arguing that the overarching trend within Christianity is anti-homosexual, not that each and every Christian or denomination is strictly anti-homosexual.
You seem to be building a strawman that I don't remember anyone arguing for. Are there gay-friendly Christians and denominations? Yes, obviously there are. You and your own church can attest to that.Are you guys in the majority or even close to being the majority, worldwide? Not by a long shot. Thus it's fair to paint Christianity as basically anti-gay when the vast majority of it is.
That Christianity has historically been anti-gay? That The Bible has anti-gay passages? The meaning of arsenokios?
My argument:
Christianity gets part of its anti gay bias from a legitimate interpretation of its source material. This feeds on itself because of conservatism: people look to the past for answers and in the mythicaly perfect 1950's America everyone was christian and no one was gay.
The bible has anti gay passages in both the old testament and new testament. The old testament has the story of sodom which paints it in a bad light as well as a passage saying to stone them to death. The new testament (in the form of paul) , while having a for the time admirable "hate the sin, love the sinner, you are no better" approach , still has homosexual acts listed as something bad rather than the loving expression of two peoples feelings for each other.
Darkwings argument:
None of that is in the bible because all of the translations are wrong. Only translations done by a scholar from recent secular university count. Scholars are concerned with the truth. If you do not arrive at darkwing ducks truth you are not scholar, and therefore your translation doesn't count.
I am waiting for someone to post a reference to a prominent scholar from a secular University who agrees with BNW's position.
Big Norse Wolf, what exactly is your position?
Woops, ninja'd!
That Christianity has historically been anti-gay? That The Bible has anti-gay passages? The meaning of arsenokios?
My argument:
Christianity gets part of its anti gay bias from a legitimate interpretation of its source material. This feeds on itself because of conservatism: people look to the past for answers and in the mythicaly perfect 1950's America everyone was christian and no one was gay.
The bible has anti gay passages in both the old testament and new testament. The old testament has the story of sodom which paints it in a bad light as well as a passage saying to stone them to death. The new testament (in the form of paul) , while having a for the time admirable "hate the sin, love the sinner, you are no better" approach , still has homosexual acts listed as something bad rather than the loving expression of two peoples feelings for each other.
Darkwings argument:
None of that is in the bible because all of the translations are wrong. Only translations done by a scholar from recent secular university count. Scholars are concerned with the truth. If you do not arrive at darkwing ducks truth you are not scholar, and therefore your translation doesn't count.
Yeah, I found the Martin paper pretty weak in its defense of The Bible. Argument #2) Leviticus doesn't count because it would make Christians hypocrites (like that's never happened before); Argument #3) We don't know what those words mean (ignores possible/probable derivation of Paul's term from Greek translation of Leviticus; doesn't go into what other qualities would make an ancient Roman/Greek effiminate other than taking it up the bunghole); Argument #4) It doesn't really matter what Paul thought of homosexuality, our understanding should evolve with love towards all as our main criterion (fair enough, but not really saying that Paul was not anti-gay).
Oh yeah, and Argument #1: The Bible doesn't "say" anything, it needs to be interpreted. Hmmm.
No, it's never fair to make unfavorable generalizations about any group. If the group in general is bad, then you must break it down into smaller divisions and speak about them separately. Presumably, this same process would apply to the smaller groups and therefore you will eventually reach individuals.Of course, this process seems to only apply to certain groups. It's quite alright to attack atheists. Or paint the media as reverse-racist. Only traditionally dominant groups have to defended in this way.
One that has been tickling me pink this entire conversation is dismissing women's studies (or whatever term it was) as driven by politics rather than scholarship and then dropping John Boswell (who, after a 5-second google search had the words "advocacy scholar" around his name in bright, blinking lights) as if he were universally accepted.
Agreed. (Well, kind of. I assume you mean "political" rather than "unpolitical.") But it's still funny.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Duke Divinity School is not a secular University.
I am waiting for someone to post a reference to a prominent scholar from a secular University who agrees with BNW's position.
How is it possible for you to maintain the position that the only way to defeat your argument is through this one criteria?
You really don't want to become better at debate. Improving at something requires examining your own faults, something you seem incapable of doing.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, get him, Littlehewy!
No, but srly:
BNW said:
My argument:
Christianity gets part of its anti gay bias from a legitimate interpretation of its source material. This feeds on itself because of conservatism: people look to the past for answers and in the mythicaly perfect 1950's America everyone was christian and no one was gay.
--
I guess I think that if it requires the amount of scholarship that it does to prove that The Bible is, in fact, not anti-gay then the message must not be very clear.
Given that the vast majority of humans who have followed the Christian religion for the past 2,000 years have not had access to that scholarship, I can't see how you cany deny the bolded part above.
Maybe it's incorrect, but it's a legitimate reading.
people have been arguing that the overarching trend within Christianity is anti-homosexual, not that each and every Christian or denomination is strictly anti-homosexual.These two statements above are not compatible.
Thus it's fair to paint Christianity as basically anti-gay when the vast majority of it is.
Of course they are. When the vast majority of a religion is anti-gay, whether through policy, actions or both, then it's fair to say that X religion is anti-gay.
When being pro-gay is the exception (as you have admitted yourself by saying that there are a few pro-gay denominations/churches), then it goes to reason that the norm is anti-gay.Would you deny that Islam is primarily anti-gay too, despite there being individuals who have no problem with gays?
Christianity is not 'basically anti-gay'. Are there significant percentages that are? Yes. How many? Who can say? Are more Catholics like this or like Sister Margaret Farley? Or are they more like the Pope and his band of pedophiles? I don't know and you don't either.
I have eyes and can read and watch pictures/movies. Anyone not delusional would come to the conclusion that the vast majority of Christianity is anti-gay. Didn't you read the reports that among those who left the faith they all consider the religion being anti-gay as one of the top reasons for their disagreement?
The video example you posted yourself is a clear example of this too. If it was only a minority who were anti-gay, then we'd see very few examples of such vile indoctrination. But examples like this are rampant!That's not to say that there aren't anti-gay Christians or that such anti-gay Christians aren't actively working against gay interests. Don't make a straw man out of what I'm saying. I'm well aware, maybe more than most in this thread, of those Christians.
You're making it out as if it's only a very small minority who are actually anti-gay and are just commandeering all the media attention... if true, I'd say that this is evidence of two things. Either people are apathetic about being labeled as anti-gay because of this supposed minority or they agree with them. Both makes them complicit in anti-gay policies, either directly or indirectly.
But this Boswell guy's got my interest piqued.
What happened in the 1300s that made the Church become anti-gay? Anyone know?
And there we go. Once we break Christianity up into Catholic and other parts and establish that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is anti-gay, we now must deal with individuals.
Of course, anti-gay sentiment is not limited to Catholicism. There are a number of non-catholic denominations who take it further even.
I'm gonna head in the other direction entirely and assert that the vast majority of all religions are anti-gay — certainly the Abrahimic faiths. It's probably pragmatic. A religion is nothing without followers, and healthy same-sex relationships do nothing to increase their number. Marital policy in religion is the long-con, hence the nonsensical prohibitions on birth control that all religions had at one point or another.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Christianity is not 'basically anti-gay'. Are there significant percentages that are? Yes. How many? Who can say? Are more Catholics like this or like Sister Margaret Farley? Or are they more like the Pope and his band of pedophiles? I don't know and you don't either.
The thing is Duck, when there's a secular movement to recognize gay marriage which the Church doesn't support at all, I do know, and so do you. We both know, because it's obvious.
The Church is a repressive entity. It's so obvious that at this point we're arguing about the color of the sky. No, the sky isn't blue on rainy days, but that doesn't mean the sky isn't blue, it just means it's raining.
And there we go. Once we break Christianity up into Catholic and other parts and establish that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is anti-gay, we now must deal with individuals.Of course, anti-gay sentiment is not limited to Catholicism. There are a number of non-catholic denominations who take it further even.
Which is kind of the point. If you try to excuse this kind of behaviour, you have to make distinctions further and further down the "ranks" (Christianity -> Catholics vs. Protestants -> this denomination vs. that denomination -> this church within a specific denomination vs. that church within the same denomination etc.)
But this Boswell guy's got my interest piqued.
What happened in the 1300s that made the Church become anti-gay? Anyone know?
Around that time the church started consolidating its authority around rome. Whereas before the local bishops were more or less popes unto themselves, after that time da pope was dictating their opinions for everyone. How anti homosexual "the church" was was much before then was rather like asking what direction a herd of cats was moving in.
[I am waiting for someone to post a reference to a prominent scholar from a secular University who agrees with BNW's position.
Any chance you could wait quietly?
Yeah, get him, Littlehewy!
Yeah I know, it's too easy. I actually feel kind of bad now, like I kicked an annoying puppy.
It's alright, I'm going to hell anyway.
But this Boswell guy's got my interest piqued.
What happened in the 1300s that made the Church become anti-gay? Anyone know?
Around that time the church started consolidating its authority around rome. Whereas before the local bishops were more or less popes unto themselves, after that time da pope was dictating their opinions for everyone. How anti homosexual "the church" was was much before then was rather like asking what direction a herd of cats was moving in.
...Incoming big government rant.
3...
2...
1...
Which is kind of the point. If you try to excuse this kind of behaviour, you have to make distinctions further and further down the "ranks" (Christianity -> Catholics vs. Protestants -> this denomination vs. that denomination -> this church within a specific denomination vs. that church within the same denomination etc.)And there we go. Once we break Christianity up into Catholic and other parts and establish that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is anti-gay, we now must deal with individuals.Of course, anti-gay sentiment is not limited to Catholicism. There are a number of non-catholic denominations who take it further even.
Have kilt, have caber, will travel!
Darkwings argument:None of that is in the bible because all of the translations are wrong. Only translations done by a scholar from recent secular university count. Scholars are concerned with the truth. If you do not arrive at darkwing ducks truth you are not scholar, and therefore your translation doesn't count.
Yet realizing this, you continue the debate?
Cut
It
Out
!
Darkwings argument:None of that is in the bible because all of the translations are wrong. Only translations done by a scholar from recent secular university count. Scholars are concerned with the truth. If you do not arrive at darkwing ducks truth you are not scholar, and therefore your translation doesn't count.
Yet realizing this, you continue the debate?
Cut
It
Out
!
Sorry, My leg isn't working and i'm bored.
Sorry, My leg isn't working and i'm bored.
Uh-oh...what's wrong with the leg?
The degrading anal sex rant was hysterical! I wonder if the author is impervious to irony; oblivious that his essay degrades those who partake and would otherwise not feel degraded? Or that it may be degrading to women, since it is so blatantly misogynist?
Probably not. Almost definitely not.
Oh yeah, there were about 50 things hideously wrong with that rant. I would tear it apart piece by piece but no one here was actually claiming they believed it(although actually even if they did I might just let it go as at that point the misunderstandings are so deep it prolly isn’t worth the effort.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yeah, there were about 50 things hideously wrong with that rant. I would tear it apart piece by piece but no one here was actually claiming they believed it(although actually even if they did I might just let it go as at that point the misunderstandings are so deep it prolly isn’t worth the effort.)
Let's just imagine the several posts of agreement we would have had.
... and the Catholic Church just got a little more anti-gay.
... and the Catholic Church just got a little more anti-gay.
The underlying problem, as I see it, is inherent in religion. Not the anti-gay thing, the fact that religion is part of personal, community, and ethnic identity. You would think that people that don't like this sort of thing, this anti-gay agenda, and who were catholic would up and leave the church. But they don't. Instead they take the presentation of information that the church IS anti-gay as IN ITSELF an attack on their religion, their community, and their person.
It's f!**ing absurd.
It's a choice, just like choosing what business to deal with or what to eat for breakfast. People just have no capacity for rational thought.
Oh great...now chicks can't flip the bean either!?! I never took Catholicism seriously before, but wow...
* Headsplode *
* Headsplode *
*spits out a piece of horn*
Cleanup in isle 2
Pro-masturbation nuns are hawt!!!
Pro-masturbation nuns are hawt!!!
As long as they're not giving demonstrations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the title of this thread humorous. Seeing as how its several pages of DD and BNW not agreeing :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I once had a very interesting conversation with a christian who was almost certainly trying to convert me. This was back in, like, '99 or something and they found me on ICQ by my listing of atheist as a religion (none wasn't an option, though I suppose I could have left it blank).
We had a rather long conversation, pretty surprisingly pleasant and respectful overall, with more than a few shared laughs.
At some point I asked if she ever had any doubts about the existence of god, and she said yes, she did, but she knew that doubt was just satan trying to take hold of her spirit. Or some nonsense. So, satan makes you doubt your beliefs? I ask. Yes, she replied. So, when I have doubts in my belief that god exists, in other words periodically giving into the possibility that he does, that's satan convincing me that god exists?
She started cursing at me, calling me a tempter and a satanist and lucifer's spawn itself, said they knew in their heart that I'd burn in the deepest pits of hell but that, being a good christian, she'd pray for my salvation anyway. And then "blocked" me.
I think I gave her an aneurism.
Meat, there oughtta be a medal for that. :P
Wow Meatrace. Christians who have thin skin shouldn't evangelize. Wow.
There was also a Jehovah's Witness that tried to convince me that fossils were just put there because god created the world with age.
My mother is a paleontologist. I was participating in digs as a toddler. And I was at least a C science student. I'm like, pull the other one.
... and the Catholic Church just got a little more anti-gay.
LOL! The Catholic Church thinks masturbation is a "gravely disordered action"?!
Wow. I think that when you’ve reached the point that idly touching yourself has become a “grave” matter you have officially sucked all the fun outta life ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... and the Catholic Church just got a little more anti-gay.LOL! The Catholic Church thinks masturbation is a "gravely disordered action"?!
Wow. I think that when you’ve reached the point that idly touching yourself has become a “grave” matter you have officially sucked all the fun outta life ;)
That's working as designed. If you have plenty of fun in this life, what good is the next one? They're trying to keep people away from the competition.
That's working as designed. If you have plenty of fun in this life, what good is the next one? They're trying to keep people away from the competition.... and the Catholic Church just got a little more anti-gay.LOL! The Catholic Church thinks masturbation is a "gravely disordered action"?!
Wow. I think that when you’ve reached the point that idly touching yourself has become a “grave” matter you have officially sucked all the fun outta life ;)
If that's true I guess I find that reasoning silly. Why could you not have a good time here and a great time hereafter?
Yeah, so apparently this has made me learn something about myself. I am capable of politely listening to almost any opinion just this side of hate speech and the semi incoherent reasoning behind it while remaining logical and rational but talk about someone rubbing one out in a tone of it being a dire threat to humanity’s well being and I just lose it and collapse into gales of laughter. Apparently there is actually a point where the absurd just breaks me, who knew?