my stupid college

[Keller]

College, the land of academic freedom and liberal thought. The one place in America to pursue your own intellectual agenda with minimal administrative criticism. That's all fine and dandy if you're not a school within 50 miles of Lake Michigan in the misplaced Buckle of the Bible Belt.

Recently there has been an intellectual scuffle at Hope College in Holland Michigan, my alma mater. The participants, beyond the handful of community thumpers, were James C. Dobson (of Focus on the Family) and my advisor in the religion department Miguel de la Torre.

In one of his bi-monthly editorials on the issue of choice to the local paper Miguel criticized religious hatred, specifically aimed toward gays. ( link here (http://hollandsentinel.com/stories/020105/opi_020105018.shtml) ) In particular, he critisized James C. Dobson on his soap-box against Sponge-Bob. Through the past few weeks de la Torre, one of two non-eurocentric theologians at Hope, has been forced out by the administration after being thrown to the Religious Right like a leg of lamb to a pack of ravenous wolves. I guess these people like James Dobson, a bit?

Miguel recieved such honors as being refered to as a false prophet, a prophet of hate, and a secular satan, by the response editorials in the paper after Dobson made it his personal interest to see to it that Miguel, Hope's most prolific scholar, was kicked out of the Christian academy.

My wife and I are currently waiting for e-mail responses from a few current profs on the specifics of the situation before writting and delivering a letter to the president of the school notifying him we will not give a cent to the coffers of the college until a public apology has been offered to Miguel for violating the mutual academic trust he should have shared with the institution. What a great recruiting tool it could have been to say to prospective SCHOLARS (which is what any college should be seeking) that one of their own profs had been professionally handled by Focus on the Family and other familiar foes and was still free to focus his scholarship where he saw it best fit. But alas, my school is a bit retarded.

One of the rumors I was alerted to was that Miguel had a better offer and was thinking about taking it even before this whole scandal broke. I'm hoping this is true. For a guy who publishes a book a year and is only in his 30s, his future is very bright. I look forward to the day when he is at Union Seminary or Princeton and I can say that I once studied under him. Perhaps when he is a world renowned scholar in Liberation Theology Hope College will change it's tune and offer an apology. My money's against it, though.

[DeV]

Can you copy and paste the article?

[Keller]

forgot there might be a password/username issue ...

Are you ready, kids? Whoooo lives in a pineapple under the sea? SpongeBob SquarePants! Absorbent and yellow and porous is he. SpongeBob SquarePants!

But wait, this silly frolicking sponge is really a sexual pervert teaching our innocent children to be pro-homosexual -- at least according to James Dobson of Focus on the Family. I always knew there was something fishy about a sponge who openly held hands with a pink starfish. God only knows what illicit acts are taking place at SpongeBob's neighborhood appropriately named Bikini BOTTOM. Thanks to the vigilant eyes of James Dobson, who credits himself for bringing about the president's re-election, we can now shield our children from SpongeBob the sex fiend.

Yes folks, Dobson outed SpongeBob during an inaugural feast held last week for members of Congress. It appears that SpongeBob joined other so-called "gay lovers" like Winnie the Pooh, Kermit the Frog and Barney ton a new video asking children to take a "tolerance pledge" -- a pledge to show dignity and respect for those who are different, whether it be different gender, race, ethnicity, faith and yes, orientation. Heaven forbid we teach our children to demonstrate agape (unconditional) love toward those who are different, when fear and ignorance are more useful tools for winning elections.


Nevertheless, our fear of gays requires we smoke them out and persecute them even if it endangers the security of our nation.

After the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, our intelligence agency revealed the alarming shortage of Arabic-speaking translators. The mountains of data collected concerning possible terrorist attacks remains practically useless because of the backlog of vital information that remains untranslated. Last year's backlog alone encompasses 120,000 hours of potentially vital information concerning possible threats to our security. Of the 279 Arabic translators at the State Department, only five are fluent enough to handle the regional dialects and language subtleties.

Yet, since 1998, 20 Arabic-speaking government translators were discharged from the military for being gay. We had trained and skilled people who could do their job well and help save American lives, but because they are gay we would rather not take advantage of their skills and instead choose to endanger lives? Does sexual orientation really affects someone's ability to do their job well?

But why should we be surprised? Those today who use the Bible to advocate hate, disgust and fear toward homosexuals are the spiritual descendants of those in this nation who have used the Bible to persecute those who are different and have refused to conform to powers and principalities of the privileged social order.

Following God's biblical call to missionize the heathens and fulfill our Manifest Destiny, we committed genocide upon the indigenous nations of this land. Based of the Word of God, we burned independent-thinking women at the stake in Salem on the charges of being witches. Following God's ordained order for the universe as laid out in the Bible, we kidnapped, raped, enslaved and murdered Africans.

Maintaining God's scriptural command that men are to rule over women, we denied them the right to vote, and even today, pay them 75 cents on the dollar for the same work they do as men. And when the Rev. King voiced the call for freedom and liberation to flow like living water, most of our white churches stood against what was seen at the time as a communist wolf in sheep's clothing, because the desegregation he advocated contradicted how we've been taught to read the Bible.

Sadly, today the Bible is being used to oppress, dishonor, and persecute our queer brothers and sisters, who like the rest of us, are also created in the image of God. I am repulsed by politicians who have fanned the flames of hatred and fear toward gays in order to score votes with evangelical Christians. I am dismayed that the universal church of Jesus Christ has changed the message of salvation as an act of unconditional love to one where gays cannot be included among the saved. But does not Christ call us to love our (white, black, Latino/a, Native American, and yes gay) neighbor as ourselves?

No doubt some alert reader will respond to this column quoting the four or five biblical passages normally used to justify their continuous oppression and condemnation of homosexuality. I'll wait till then to show how the dominant heterosexual community has been taught by their homophobic culture to read fear and bias into God's Word, as did their spiritual ancestors.

Meanwhile, if you excuse me, my favorite TV show comes on in 10 minutes -- "SpongeBob SquarePants."

The Rev. Miguel de la Torre is a religion professor who has published several books dealing with issues concerning race, class and gender.

[Tsa`ah]

I've said it before and I'll say it again ... live by the whole of your religious text or shut the fuck up.

Selective reading and historical ignorance tend to set me off.

Though I loved my trips to Holland MI (Brook's Beverage/ABC Holland), the wife and I ruled out moving to the area based on the religious climate.

Rather pathetic they would toss this guy out for such a level headed editorial. Any institution of learning that will dismiss an educator because of a conflicting point of view is not worth attending.

[Back]

Great article. How sad is it that he was fired over it. Its not only sad. Its fucking scary.

Its really hard to believe we are actually moving backwards instead of forwards.

[Latrinsorm]

We didn't burn anyone at the stake in Salem. People were hanged or crushed.

Otherwise, neat article! :) Bummer that he's getting the elbow.

[HarmNone]

What happened to Rev. de la Torre is inconscionable. We can only hope he finds a more accepting environment in which to share his knowledge and to teach tolerance of those who differ.

As for Dobson and his ilk, may they reap what they sow. Sooner or later, the tides will turn. They always do. Then, people like Dobson will fade back into the oblivion from whence they crawled.

[Back]

Originally posted by HarmNone
What happened to Rev. de la Torre is inconscionable. We can only hope he finds a more accepting environment in which to share his knowledge and to teach tolerance of those who differ.

As for Dobson and his ilk, may they reap what they sow. Sooner or later, the tides will turn. They always do. Then, people like Dobson will fade back into the oblivion from whence they crawled.

Guys like this need to be kept in check. Otherwise they might burn cool people like Harmnone.

[HarmNone]

Heh. These closed-minded people don't affect me in the least, Backlash. I consider them the dregs of humanity, and pointedly ignore every utterance that oozes from them.

From what I know of the Christian bible, their God is probably shuddering each time his name is mentioned in support of one of their deluded notions. Talk about making the baby Jesus cry! These folks surely must do that.

One is as one lives. If you live in tolerance and understanding, you will receive the same in return, in most cases. If you live in hatred and misanthropy, well...your ideas may just come back to bite you in the arse. ;)

You studied religion?

[HarmNone]

I've done my share of reading, RangerD, on several religions. It doesn't pay to be ignorant when your beliefs differ drastically from the accepted "norms". However, I've never studied religion formally, no. :)

*Edited to add that growing up as an "international brat", I was exposed to many different beliefs. It gave me a lot of opportunity to learn.*

[Edited on 4-21-2005 by HarmNone]

Well, I was asking keller. I don't take you for an ignorant person by any means.

[HarmNone]

Ahh. Sorry. I thought your question was directed to me. :blush:

It's because you secretly want me.

[HarmNone]

Whadaya mean secretly! Half the women on these boards would jump your bones in a New York minute! :D

[ElanthianSiren]

Ugh... what a shame.

I used to go to school at Grand Valley State, so I feel you :(

Eventually, quite a few things drove me back to the east coast, but part of the reason that I refused to stay in Michigan was exactly the close-mindedness of the WM area.

I'm sorry that had to happen to someone -- what a blow to your career.

"Why were you fired?"
"I wrote an article that wasn't relgiously acceptable in the bible belt."
"Uh....right."

-Melissa

[Apotheosis]

western michigan sucks.. and there's very few parts of michigan that aren't conservative minded, so to speak.. fortunately I am in the detroit/metro detroit area, so alot more progressive thinking types about.

[longshot]

This is not surprising.

There are more churches per capita in the G. Rapids area than anywhere else in the country. It's easily the worst place in the world.

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by longshot
This is not surprising.

There are more churches per capita in the G. Rapids area than anywhere else in the country. It's easily the worst place in the world.

that is so true

[Keller]

Originally posted by RangerD1
You studied religion?

It was one of my majors, yes.

I'd say it was Christianity with one semester of Studies in Islam and one semester in Asian Philosophy.

[Keller]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Ugh... what a shame.

I used to go to school at Grand Valley State, so I feel you :(

Eventually, quite a few things drove me back to the east coast, but part of the reason that I refused to stay in Michigan was exactly the close-mindedness of the WM area.

I'm sorry that had to happen to someone -- what a blow to your career.

"Why were you fired?"
"I wrote an article that wasn't relgiously acceptable in the bible belt."
"Uh....right."

-Melissa

Kiera?

[Keller]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I've said it before and I'll say it again ... live by the whole of your religious text or shut the fuck up.

Selective reading and historical ignorance tend to set me off.


What happens when the interpretations contradict each other? Afterall, we all have opinions and we all isogete selectively to fulfill our own needs and wishes for the text.

[Back]

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I've said it before and I'll say it again ... live by the whole of your religious text or shut the fuck up.

Selective reading and historical ignorance tend to set me off.


What happens when the interpretations contradict each other? Afterall, we all have opinions and we all isogete selectively to fulfill our own needs and wishes for the text.

Only those who claim to have a hot-line to God try to keep humble men enslaved.

The meek shall inherit the Earth (http://www.bartleby.com/59/1/meekshallinh.html)?

People before profits.

[Azul]

So...Barney isn't gay?

[Drew]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I've said it before and I'll say it again ... live by the whole of your religious text or shut the fuck up.



Please clarify what you mean, I'm hoping you aren't going to pull out some verse of Leviticus, Exodus (insert any old testement book here) that says something crazy like "Don't cut your hair in the summer months." If I may just head that argument off at the pass, Christians are not Jews, and are free from laws that were intended to make a person cermonially clean, or absolve them of sins.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Backlash

Only those who claim to have a hot-line to God try to keep humble men enslaved.

The meek shall inherit the Earth (http://www.bartleby.com/59/1/meekshallinh.html)?



In the same sermon Jesus said the meek shall inherit the earth it also says:

"Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. "


It also says to be the salt of the earth. So the meek will inherit the earth but I don't think this exactly means "Christians should STFU about what they believe."

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Ugh... what a shame.

I used to go to school at Grand Valley State, so I feel you :(

Eventually, quite a few things drove me back to the east coast, but part of the reason that I refused to stay in Michigan was exactly the close-mindedness of the WM area.

I'm sorry that had to happen to someone -- what a blow to your career.

"Why were you fired?"
"I wrote an article that wasn't relgiously acceptable in the bible belt."
"Uh....right."

-Melissa

Kiera?

::Wavewave::

I don't post by my character name.

-Melissa

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Keller
What happens when the interpretations contradict each other? Afterall, we all have opinions and we all isogete selectively to fulfill our own needs and wishes for the text.

This isn't about interpretation, although interpreting the word "know" in passages pertaining to Sodom and Gomorra as homosexual in nature is about as ignorant as claiming Christ wasn't a Jew.


Originally posted by Drew

Please clarify what you mean, I'm hoping you aren't going to pull out some verse of Leviticus, Exodus (insert any old testement book here) that says something crazy like "Don't cut your hair in the summer months." If I may just head that argument off at the pass.

You can try to head the argument off, but you will fall miserably short.

When a Christian pulls the only verse condemning homosexuality(male) out of Leviticus, I'm going to ask that Christian to schedule an appointment for his/her stoning. You take it all and live by it ... or you STFU about it. It's really that simple. I really get tired of hearing "Jesus changed the law". Christ was a Jew, a Jew who in all of my reading never once said don't live by the law, but rather said ... use your head when it comes to the law. If you're about to die of thirst and there's only enough water to wash your hands or drink ... drink the water dumb ass. Christ's message was one of practicality. Don't spend your lives as slaves to the law, that wasn't the intent. Obey the law, but don't spend your days cleaning yourselves, your bedding, your clothes, and home while not leaving enough time to actually live and enjoy the day.


Christians are not Jews, and are free from laws that were intended to make a person cermonially clean, or absolve them of sins.

I really find this funny. Christ, the man deified by Christianity, was a law abiding Jew. By today's standards he would probably be an extremely Orthodox Jew. Yet a religion was created in his name that doesn't resemble anything remotely close to what he preached or practiced. If Christ were alive today ... would he recognize Christianity? I'm guessing he would be horrified.

People spend way too much time delving into interpretation when the message is pretty clear in either monodiest religion.

In short, don't use Leviticus as your example against Homosexuality if you don't live by it. Christ never said "Everything in the Torah has to go ... except this".

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I really get tired of hearing "Jesus changed the law". ... Don't spend your lives as slaves to the law, that wasn't the intent.While I agree with that, there were instances where Christ specifically went against the law for non-practical reasons. Divorce (Mark 10) and punishment for adultery (John 8) come to mind.

As for Jesus showing up today, I'm pretty sure he'd find Christianity just about where he left it, and the same with Christians. It's not like the apostles were some kind of dream team. Thomas doubts, Peter denies, Judas betrays, and they all manage to get the message wrong when he's right there saying it to them. Then there's the people of Jerusalem, who in a week go from welcoming Jesus as a savior to spitting on him as he goes to be crucified. Then there are the Pharisees, morally decent folks who can't get past their own egos. All in all, I doubt Jesus would be even a little surprised if for some reason he decided not to pay attention for a couple millenia.

Not that any of that has anything to do with this guy that got booted. :)

[Drew]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

When a Christian pulls the only verse condemning homosexuality(male) out of Leviticus, I'm going to ask that Christian to schedule an appointment for his/her stoning.


What "only verse"?


'Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers not male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God'. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)



'For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God not gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. .. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another... Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion'. (Romans 1:21-27)



So, there you have it Tsa'ah, even us "misguided" Christian who don't follow Jewish law (pretty much, all of us) have non-Torah verses to back up our anachronistic belief.

[Latrinsorm]

That's the funny thing, though. It only says "homosexual offenders" or "indecent acts", which doesn't necessarily imply that homosexuality itself is an offense. What I mean is, if I say that a man committed a sexual offense upon a woman, I'm not saying heterosexual sex is in and of itself bad. Keller actually posted something about this awhile back (I forget in which topic), something to do with "arsenekotoi" or a word close to that.

[Warriorbird]

Aren't Republicans great?

[DeV]

Originally posted by Drew
'Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers not male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God'. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
'I think that about covers everyone.

But on serious note... If the word "homosexual" appears in your Bible then you're holding a version that was written after 1946, since the word "homosexual" didn't even reach common usage until the late 1800's. Just an FYI that I read somewhere.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakoi), nor abusers of themselves (arsenokoitai) with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6: 9-10

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Drew

So, there you have it Tsa'ah, even us "misguided" Christian who don't follow Jewish law (pretty much, all of us) have non-Torah verses to back up our anachronistic belief.

No one suggested Christians were misguided, not even me.

I have suggested that the "interpretation" of your bible, my torah/talmud/midrash are often twisted to fit a mindset.

People delve so deep to find an interpretation that fits their view and completely discard the original intent and message in doing so.

Dev pointed out translation and nailed that sucker in with one stroke. In doing so she put an exclamation point on the gist of my post. People pull from religious texts selectively. Gays are bad evil wicked sinners, the Bible says so! Forget about my slandering, lies, cheating, fornication, and anything else that the bible condemns "me" for ... burn the gays!

Religion is nothing more than a simple tool. The tool's intent is to build, to be productive. Yet anyone can pick up a hammer and be counter productive. A person can put a skylight in their roof with the right tools, or they can bludgeon the fuck out of a complete stranger. Which is more productive? Which is the intended use?

Then there are the more insidious types that try to force their skylight installation addiction on home owners that don't want skylights.

If you want to use the tools religion offers, by all means do so. Use them for your own personal growth; stop beating the fuck out of strangers with it though.

[Drew]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Drew
'Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers not male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God'. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
'I think that about covers everyone.


Correct, it says elsewhere in the Bible that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I don't view homo-sexuality as any worse or greater a sin than any number of others, but I do see it as a sin. I'm not in the business of condemning anyone but I call it as I see it. In the end the Bible is a story of grace and I know that the things I do that are wrong are just as forgiven as a murderer or rapist, because all of us have failed.



Originally posted by DeV
But on serious note... If the word "homosexual" appears in your Bible then you're holding a version that was written after 1946, since the word "homosexual" didn't even reach common usage until the late 1800's. Just an FYI that I read somewhere.

Just because we use a new word for what we now call homosexuality doesn't mean it didn't exist before that word or it wasn't called out in the Bible. For as long as the Bible has been held as an authoratative text apologists have tried to interpret it to clear them of their own base mores. The King of England started the Anglican Church (Church of England) so that he could divorce his wife which was forbidden in the Bible (with some exceptions, none which were met in his case). I'm sure that sometime in the future when a large enough group of people consider adultery to be ok they'll start arguing that the Bible really didn't mean adultery when it said adultery.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Gays are bad evil wicked sinners, the Bible says so! Forget about my slandering, lies, cheating, fornication, and anything else that the bible condemns "me" for ... burn the gays!

...

If you want to use the tools religion offers, by all means do so. Use them for your own personal growth; stop beating the fuck out of strangers with it though.


Well, like I said before, I'm no better than a gay person, because I do all sorts of things that are also wrong. I am thankful for the grace of God because I'm well aware that I have many flaws. I'm not for some secret strike-force that goes around in search of buggery and imprisons who they find. Even when there were sodomy laws (there pretty much were in every state for 200 years) how often were they used? How often did you hear Christian preachers and ministers demanding the authorities apply them? Never.

It's one thing to not go around condemning people, but another to actively support what is wrong. That's why people are against gay-marriage. It's not a matter of turning a blind eye and of letting people have their privacy, it's a matter of legitimizing the immoral.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Drew
Well, like I said before, I'm no better than a gay person, because I do all sorts of things that are also wrong. I am thankful for the grace of God because I'm well aware that I have many flaws. I'm not for some secret strike-force that goes around in search of buggery and imprisons who they find. Even when there were sodomy laws (there pretty much were in every state for 200 years) how often were they used? How often did you hear Christian preachers and ministers demanding the authorities apply them? Never.

Ok ... this astounds me.

Sodomy laws were never enforced because:

1. It's no one's business what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.

2. Unenforceable.

Just because there are laws prohibiting women from skydiving on a Sunday does not mean the law is in anyway justified, especially if that law was put into place for moral reasons inspired by a religious text.


It's one thing to not go around condemning people, but another to actively support what is wrong.

Oye ... back up sparky. Homosexuality is wrong?


That's why people are against gay-marriage. It's not a matter of turning a blind eye and of letting people have their privacy, it's a matter of legitimizing the immoral.

Take another step back and view the hypocrisy posted by you.

Support what is wrong ... homosexuality is wrong?

Says who? You? Your Bible?

We sell alcohol in the nation. We sell pornography, pornography where the participants are married people having sex with people that aren't their spouses, divorce is legal, we put people to death, we have interracial marriages and couplings, our farmers harvest their fields completely, people get paid weekly/bi-weekly/monthly, our government gives aid to pork farmers, and shell-fishermen ... but we can't have gay marriage because it will support something immoral and wrong?

Here's the thing ... you're using a religious text, the bible, as a measuring stick for right and wrong. More to the point, you're using the NT while refusing to accept arguments from the Torah/Talmud/Midrash. One is built upon, and rather haphazardly, on the other.

There are only two logical conclusions, accept your book and live by it to the letter ... stop selling alcohol, buying pork, supporting the unkosher market, ban porn ... the whole nine yards, or accept that you are indeed misguided.

Now I just flat out said it.

It's that very same mindset, that very same interpretive logic, which was used to fire an educator for laying the ugly truth plainly on the table.

[Back]

Its suppression in our supposed free society. How can anyone not see that?

[Drew]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
We sell alcohol in the nation. We sell pornography, pornography where the participants are married people having sex with people that aren't their spouses, divorce is legal, we put people to death, we have interracial marriages and couplings, our farmers harvest their fields completely, people get paid weekly/bi-weekly/monthly, our government gives aid to pork farmers, and shell-fishermen ... but we can't have gay marriage because it will support something immoral and wrong?


You sound like one of those people who argued that we shouldn't invade Iraq because we hadn't invaded N. Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, etc. Just because we allow things that are wrong it does not mean that we should go ahead and allow new ones. What are we here, teenage drug users (apologies in advance to ChadJ), it's ok because everyone else is doing it?





Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Here's the thing ... you're using a religious text, the bible, as a measuring stick for right and wrong. More to the point, you're using the NT while refusing to accept arguments from the Torah/Talmud/Midrash. One is built upon, and rather haphazardly, on the other.


In fact I do not have to accept levitical law because I believe in Jesus, quite the opposite really. The New Testement is built on the teachings of Jesus. The Old Testement predicts his coming. I follow Jesus. Simple as that.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Backlash
Its suppression in our supposed free society. How can anyone not see that?


We've always made distinctions in our society as to right and wrong. We are not anarchists, not even libertarians (as much as I'd prefer that). America is just a country that is less-authoritarian than China, the difference is that in America the majority makes the choice about the rules. In this case the majority disagrees with homosexual marriage.

[Back]

Originally posted by Drew

Originally posted by Backlash
Its suppression in our supposed free society. How can anyone not see that?


We've always made distinctions in our society as to right and wrong. We are not anarchists, not even libertarians (as much as I'd prefer that). America is just a country that is less-authoritarian than China, the difference is that in America the majority makes the choice about the rules. In this case the majority disagrees with homosexual marriage.

Granted. But when does the line get crossed between disagreement and action? Because last I heard, we aren’t China.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Backlash
Granted. But when does the line get crossed between disagreement and action? Because last I heard, we aren’t China.


Right, so do we go against 300 years of American history, not to mention world history and legalize something that was has not been legal in any country in the past 2000 years?

[Back]

Its been barely 200 champ. And fucking-a right. ITS CALLED PROGRESS.

You have not read the Kama Sutra have you?

William Randolph Hearst was a Capitalist. He wasn’t Jesus.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Drew
I don't view homo-sexuality as any worse or greater a sin than any number of others, but I do see it as a sin. That's great, because Jesus died for our sins, not our sexuality.



Just because we use a new word for what we now call homosexuality doesn't mean it didn't exist before that word or it wasn't called out in the Bible. if you are referring to the Greek words "arsenokoitai" and "malakoi" I can understand your missinterpretation of my post.

p.s. Paul pretty much didn't want anyone to have any kind of sex, and remained single all his life. He saw marriage as a last resort.

[Drew]

Righto on the 200, wasn't trying to be hyperbolic, just bad head math.




As far as progress, it's not always good, ask the Romans. Hell, ask France.

[Drew]

Originally posted by DeV
That's great, because Jesus died for our sins, not our sexuality.


Sometimes they are one and the same. Look, there are several examples of homosexuality being called wrong in the Bible, and as far as I'm aware, none condoning it. There are some things in the Bible I'd like to forget too, but you just can't reason your way out of it. Sometimes a word is just a word and a phrase means what it says.

[Back]

And as Tsa’ah said, live by the letter or stfu.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Drew
You sound like one of those people who argued that we shouldn't invade Iraq because we hadn't invaded N. Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, etc. Just because we allow things that are wrong it does not mean that we should go ahead and allow new ones.

No, that's completely twisted. Indicative of interpretative license. You are still standing on the "Gay is wrong" box with the only proof of this being the bible.


What are we here, teenage drug users (apologies in advance to ChadJ), it's ok because everyone else is doing it?

No, it's ok because at the end of the day it affects you in no way. Where as alcohol affects you both directly and indirectly.

It's rather absurd to suggest that homosexuality is wrong while at the same time you ignore everything else, pertaining to you, that is equally "wrong".


In fact I do not have to accept levitical law because I believe in Jesus, quite the opposite really. The New Testement is built on the teachings of Jesus. The Old Testement predicts his coming. I follow Jesus. Simple as that.

And here is interpretive creation at it's finest.

Christ was never predicted. Rather his "coming" was largely interpreted to fit the times ... based primarily on passages from the Ketuvim (moral fiction before Christ, moral fiction during the life of Christ, and with the exception of Christians ... moral fiction today), and the Nevi'im (prophets and prophecies, prophesized in the Nevi'im, fulfilled in the Nevi'im).

This is neither here nor there. What is here is the problem of selective passages using interpretive twists to obtain a goal that is completely against the message delivered by the whole of the texts. Gays are bad and shouldn't be allowed to wed isn't that message. In fact ... it's completely opposite of the message.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Drew
Right, so do we go against 300 years of American history, not to mention world history and legalize something that was has not been legal in any country in the past 2000 years?

300 years of American History where only the last 50-60 years has the Christian right had a hand in imposing their will.

I chalk the previous 250 years to homophobic and social unacceptance as a bi-product of hell fire and brimstone sermons.

We can start the argument back up if you would like. The US was not founded upon Christianity. Some laws have definitely been influenced by it. Small communities have definitely lived by some warped interpretation of it, but the US as whole was not built upon or modeled after it. Rather modeled after the notion that a person was free to believe what they wanted and the State had no right to endorse any religion, nor force a theological view upon any citizen.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
What is here is the problem of selective passages using interpretive twists to obtain a goal that is completely against the message delivered by the whole of the texts. Gays are bad and shouldn't be allowed to wed isn't that message.No, no it isn't.
Originally posted by Mark
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. Jesus doesn't say "I DON'T LOVE TEH GAYZ" Jesus says "Marriage = Man + Woman". There is no comparative judgment of worth, there is simply a definition. Are you going to harangue Jesus for quoting the OT and not following every law in the Pentatouch, out of curiousity?

[Back]

Jesus was the one who said turn the other cheek, wasn’t he? Love thy neighbor?

[Drew]

Tsa'ah, your argument about following the letter of the laws falls flat. You say that Christians who were specifically freed from the Law should still follow the law. Isn't that somewhat like saying that Jews, who were at one time forbidden from eating ANY meat shouldn't eat any meat even though they were later freed from that paticular law? I mean, at one point in the Bible it says it, so it must be true through all time, correct?

[Drew]

Originally posted by Backlash
Jesus was the one who said turn the other cheek, wasn’t he? Love thy neighbor?


Right, love the sinner hate the sin. He never said anything about accepting sin. In fact, after he saved the prostitute from being stoned he told her to go and sin no more. Not, "go ahead and keep on being a prostitute."

[Tsa`ah]

Yet we come back to square between you and I Lat.

The divinity of Christ.

Why do I care what Christ said? He wasn't predicted and as of today at the very moment in time, NO ONE ... and I mean ABSOLUTELY NO ONE has ever explained why Christians accept the Ketuvim as prophetic when no one did before Christ ... literally no one over the span of a few thousand years.

Why is it that Christ's coming and divinity (if you really really stretch it) are explained in the Nevi'im ... only if you don't read the portions of prophecy that were fulfilled in the Nevi'im.

Heck, let's just get down and dirty and look at how Matthew draws genealogical lines from Christ to Jeconiah in the book of Jeremiah as his lineage to David. Yet let's completely overlook why this little line goes against even Christian views of prophecy.

[Back]

Originally posted by Drew

Originally posted by Backlash
Jesus was the one who said turn the other cheek, wasn’t he? Love thy neighbor?


Right, love the sinner hate the sin. He never said anything about accepting sin. In fact, after he saved the prostitute from being stoned he told her to go and sin no more. Not, "go ahead and keep on being a prostitute."

Exactly. Jesus did not preach hate.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Drew

Originally posted by Backlash
Jesus was the one who said turn the other cheek, wasn’t he? Love thy neighbor?


Right, love the sinner hate the sin. He never said anything about accepting sin. In fact, after he saved the prostitute from being stoned he told her to go and sin no more. Not, "go ahead and keep on being a prostitute."

Exactly. Jesus did not preach hate.


Agreed.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Drew
Tsa'ah, your argument about following the letter of the laws falls flat. You say that Christians who were specifically freed from the Law should still follow the law. Isn't that somewhat like saying that Jews, who were at one time forbidden from eating ANY meat shouldn't eat any meat even though they were later freed from that paticular law? I mean, at one point in the Bible it says it, so it must be true through all time, correct?

Who freed you from the law? Certainly not the man you chose as a messiah. He followed the law. His message was to not be a slave to it. Don't spend your days fretting over it because it's not feasible to drag your bed across town and wash it, drag it back and then spend the rest of your day staying as clean as can be. He said live and let live. If you slip, if you're sincerely repentive about slipping ... it's forgivable.

I think Christianity was formed out of a desire to live outside of the restriction of Judaism. In truth there's nothing wrong with that. I observes some of the constraints of Judaism out of respect for my heritage. That's me. If two men want to get hitched, how is that wrong? I don't live to the letter of the law ... why should I expect anyone else to do the same? It's not my place, nor yours, to call something wrong.

Certainly there are exceptions. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Theft is wrong. There are many things we can agree are wrong. Acts of malice, acts damaging to society as a whole. Homosexuality? It affects now one but the homosexual. Why is it wrong? Because the bible says so? Because Jesus said so? I'm sorry, but Christian texts can't even agree on what Christ was charged with, or what crimes "Barabus" committed. As pointed out, they ignore the whole of two books in the Tanach to selectively pull verses that fit their belief of your savior’s divinity.

We cut people apart on these forums when they're selective in the quoting simply because the intent is so transparent. Why be accepting of the same thing in regards to Christ?

[Warriorbird]

""I DON'T LOVE TEH GAYZ" "

Your Republican friends sure seem to think so, Latrin.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Your Republican friends sure seem to think so, Latrin. I endeavor to relieve all my friends of this misunderstanding.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by DeV
But on serious note... If the word "homosexual" appears in your Bible then you're holding a version that was written after 1946, since the word "homosexual" didn't even reach common usage until the late 1800's.

This article (http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=63e399c0015a0f89) talks about that and what the original Hebrew states. Rather interesting and it should be something for every single person who tries to quote the Bible to look into.

Raven

[Warriorbird]

The Old Testament is a damn lurid tale.

[Tsa`ah]

Excellent article ... wonder finding a job after that article will be more difficult. Shouldn't be, so long as he stays away from Michigan ... although Texas is a rough one in it's own right.

[Keller]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Drew
I don't view homo-sexuality as any worse or greater a sin than any number of others, but I do see it as a sin. That's great, because Jesus died for our sins, not our sexuality.



Just because we use a new word for what we now call homosexuality doesn't mean it didn't exist before that word or it wasn't called out in the Bible. if you are referring to the Greek words "arsenokoitai" and "malakoi" I can understand your missinterpretation of my post.

p.s. Paul pretty much didn't want anyone to have any kind of sex, and remained single all his life. He saw marriage as a last resort.

I didn't see this when it was originally posted so I apologize for my untimely response. Any good Biblical scholar who exegetes Paul with historical context as well at liturgical context will come to the same conclussion that arsenokotai does not refer to same sex relationships, but instead same sex molestation. Even if you want to shame the teachings of Jesus and say that Sodom and Gomorrah was all about same-sex intercourse -- it was still molestation (rape) and not a relationship. As Tsa'ah said, you have to go to Leviticus to get a plain reproach of anal sex, and that just opens up a new can of worms.

[Caiylania]

I like that this thread has remained fairly civil. I'm for gay marriage, and agree with many of the points brought up about comparing those fighting against gay marriage yet probably not living by the rest of the laws listed along with that.

Also, I must admit when I read the bible, the term they use struck me more as molestation not homosexual relationships.

I knew one guy that bitched and ranted about homosexuality being a sin yet I knew he looked at porn (we'd been to his house, damn mags were stuffed under computer desk *ick*), he cursed, had sex outside of marriage, and so on.

So who was he to say crap about someone not following the bible?

[Keller]

For those interested in the original storyline from the thread (I am in no way upset we've gone off topic, I just wanted to update), the professor was fired for inappropriate intellectual conduct. In a nut shell he mis-quoted Dobson and Dobson called him on it. I'm sure that the divide between he and the administration was deep, but at least it was over something substantial. Most of the liberal faculty are also upset at de la Torre for the behavior. There was enough legitimate Dobson homophobia to quote, he was just lazy. That's poor scholarship.

[HarmNone]

Ish. I'd agree there, Keller. In a situation like this, if you're going to quote someone to prove your point, be sure and do your homework first. It's too bad that little point was overlooked, in this case.

[Keller]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Ish. I'd agree there, Keller. In a situation like this, if you're going to quote someone to prove your point, be sure and do your homework first. It's too bad that little point was overlooked, in this case.

It kinda sucks because he was my advisor and I did a full semester of research for him. It makes me wonder how he used the materials I gathered for him.

Oh well. All I got was a shout out in the acknoledgements, so I'm not too worried I guess.

[HarmNone]

Hey, Keller. You lived up to your end of the bargain, I'm sure. You provided the data. It's just a shame he didn't have the dedication, and the integrity, to use the information in a way that would have made the efforts of both of you more worthwhile.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Keller
As Tsa'ah said, you have to go to Leviticus to get a plain reproach of anal sex, and that just opens up a new can of worms.


I'm afraid not mate.



'For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God not gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened... Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another... Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion'. (Romans 1:21-27)

[Warriorbird]

That's...Romans. Again, another can of worms. Still doesn't talk about lesbians as bad either. That's Parkbanditian.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Drew
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men,We already talked about this. Arsenokoitai. There are folks who disagree with the interpretation presented here, but the disagreement isn't exactly compelling.

[Keller]

Look into 45 AD Roman culture. See the forms lust took shape. Understand the history to understand the text.

Don't read the text from our vantage point because that's not when it was written. To do so is irresponsible. Period.

[ElanthianSiren]

Also, if you're going to read and quote the bible, learn to read it in the original language. It's been my teaching/experience or what have you that much of the words are changed/lost to the translation based on when they were translated/under which regime etc.


-Melissa