| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/07/2010 01:05:15 PM · #4576 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by David Ey:
tell that to Jeremiah Wright |
Tell him what exactly and in what context?
Ray |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
One would think that tolerance is something we all strive to develop and enhance.
Ray |
|
|
|
|
03/07/2010 01:06:35 PM · #4577 |
| Never mind, neither one of you can be told anything with success. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 01:07:02 PM · #4578 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by alans_world:
Here in Utah, the Mormon Church directs the Public Schools to teach only abstinence, failing that, one becomes a good Mormon.. |
LOL! |
Yep...kinda like here the church strongly suggested couples try the rhythm method.
Do you know what they call couples that practiced this: PARENTS :o)
|
Lol! When I was in Catholic high school, the rhythm method was actually part of the curriculum via religion class, along with how not to masturbate, how to curb homosexual tendencies and ostracize anyone who wouldn't, and how to discriminate based on religion. Tolerance indeed. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 01:14:15 PM · #4579 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Never mind, neither one of you can be told anything with success. |
Not true. I have been told a plethora of things... with varying degrees of success.
Your inability to elucidate your concerns is perhaps the reason why some have difficulties in deciphering the intent of your message.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 01:32:47 PM · #4580 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Context, context, context... |
I would agree with yoou absoolutely. Context is critical.
The context in which you interpret the bible is one where secular society has prohibited slavery and determined a different moral direction. Accordingly, you have grown up believing slavery to be wrong. You therefore interpret your holy book (which *cannot* be wrong) in a way that does not actively promote slavery.
The context in which 18th Century slave owners grew up was one where slavery was normalised - and they interpreted the bible to support their cause.
The context in which your children or grandchildren will grow up is one where homosexuality is normalised, and they will read the bible in a way that does not condemn all homosexual people.
The bible will always be right because the people reading it will always interpret it in a way that reflects their context. There is an inexorable movement towards the fair treatment of gay people and your arguments will be seen in the same light as we now see those of pro-slavers and anti-apartheid campaigners. |
Dude, all that you just said is the exact opposite of what I mean by reading the Bible in context. When you read the Bible, you want to figure out what it is telling you to do. But there is a problem... The Bible doesn't directly tell us 21st century folk what to do. The Bible TOLD people 2,000 years ago what THEY should do. Our job is not to pretend that the Bible was written for 21st century people (like slave owners 300 years ago, or gay rights supporters today). Our job is to read the Bible in its 1st century context, figure out what the Bible said to those people, and then make that message applicable to 21st century people.
Sure, you can pull a bunch of verses out of the Bible that talk about slavery and say, "well, the Bible doesn't openly condemn slavery so that must mean it's okay. Let's go out and get a bunch of people and make them our slaves." BZZZZZ... WRONG! What you've just done is assume that slavery in the 1st century was the same as slavery today. If you read the Bible in context, and actually try to understand the social situation in the 1st century and actually try to understand WHY the Bible doesn't condemn slavery, you come to a different conclusion and find a completely different message to apply to 21st century people.
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Religious people should not be free to break any law. What I'm saying is that the government should not be free to pass laws that restrict free practice of religion as provided by the first amendment. |
So if a religion requires that a community stone an adulterer, you would oppose any law that required due process and prohibited vigilante action?
If a religion required that women be subservient to men, you would oppose any law that prohibited sex-discrimination?
If a religion required that animals be slaughtered in a particular way by an augur, you would oppose any animal cruelty legislation that required animals to be treated/killed humanely?
If an animal was considered holy, you would not allow the government to order it to be culled as part of a disease control program?
Does this hold true for any religion that anyone comes up with? |
Your questions are absolutely ridiculous. The church is still subject to the laws of the state. The church and freedom to worship are at the mercy of the state. The church needs to be protected against state control, not the other way around. However, there is a difference between following the laws of the state, and being controlled by the state. If the state has a law against stoning, then the church should not be allowed to stone anyone. Duh. As for gay rights... If the state has a law forbidding discrimination of gays, then the church should not be allowed to discriminate. If a church has some property that is open to the public, then the state is right in telling the church how it may or may not use that property. That is not forced control, that is enforcing the law. What's open to the public must be open to the public. BUT, if the state tells the church that it is required to perform gay marriage ceremonies, that is forced control, unless the law specifically says "churches must perform gay marriages". If the law just say "a person cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation" and the state uses that to justify forcing a pastor to marry two men, that is far beyond merely enforcing the law.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I don't see how this is a problem. The school is still required to teach all the views. The only difference is that the school is no longer prevented from telling the students which view their faith holds. |
Really? When we as a society make a decision to ban discrimination, religious schools should have a get-out clause? |
Did you read the article? The religious school was not teaching that it is okay to discriminate. They were simply telling the students which view their religion holds.
If I were to tell a bunch of people all the views about the origin of the universe, and then declare that I believe the Big Bang theory is right, does that mean I'm discriminating against everyone who doesn't agree with me? No. Similarly, if the school teaches all the views about sex, and then declares that the school believes that heterosexual monogamous sex is right, does that mean the school is discriminating against everyone who disagrees? I don't think so. If that's true then you're essentially saying that being religious is synonymous with being discriminatory. Simply believing something does not automatically make you prejudiced against people with different beliefs.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
What's the big deal? Why is it so important to the issue of gay rights? Simply put, if the church is adamant on getting involved in political issues then it is only fair that they forgo their tax exemption status... remember that little issue of separation of church and state... that would be the big deal here.
|
I agree. Though, I don't know too many churches that willingly get involved in politics. All the churches I've ever gone to actively and aggressively avoided politics. Politics divide people, which is detrimental to church communities that strive for unity. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 01:38:19 PM · #4581 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Lol! When I was in Catholic high school, the rhythm method was actually part of the curriculum via religion class, along with how not to masturbate, how to curb homosexual tendencies and ostracize anyone who wouldn't, and how to discriminate based on religion. Tolerance indeed. |
Sounds like your Catholic teachers and administrators forgot how to read the Bible. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 01:54:19 PM · #4582 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If a church has some property that is open to the public, then the state is right in telling the church how it may or may not use that property. That is not forced control, that is enforcing the law. What's open to the public must be open to the public. BUT, if the state tells the church that it is required to perform gay marriage ceremonies, that is forced control, unless the law specifically says "churches must perform gay marriages". If the law just say "a person cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation" and the state uses that to justify forcing a pastor to marry two men, that is far beyond merely enforcing the law. |
None of the laws/rulings permitting same-sex marriages require that churches perform any ceremonies. All of the legal cases (so far) refer to discrimination in renting facilities/providing sevices to the general public, which activity, as you say, must conform to state anti-discrimination laws. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 02:28:08 PM · #4583 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If a church has some property that is open to the public, then the state is right in telling the church how it may or may not use that property. That is not forced control, that is enforcing the law. What's open to the public must be open to the public. BUT, if the state tells the church that it is required to perform gay marriage ceremonies, that is forced control, unless the law specifically says "churches must perform gay marriages". If the law just say "a person cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation" and the state uses that to justify forcing a pastor to marry two men, that is far beyond merely enforcing the law. |
None of the laws/rulings permitting same-sex marriages require that churches perform any ceremonies. All of the legal cases (so far) refer to discrimination in renting facilities/providing sevices to the general public, which activity, as you say, must conform to state anti-discrimination laws. |
Yes, I realize that. I don't understand why people keep asking these insane hypothetical questions, like those related to stoning and animal sacrifice. I don't think the government is going to take control of the church any time soon (at least I hope they don't). Obviously the church is required to follow the law just as much as any individual or business.
Message edited by author 2010-03-07 14:28:30. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 03:06:06 PM · #4584 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Yes, I realize that. I don't understand why people keep asking these insane hypothetical questions, like those related to stoning and animal sacrifice. I don't think the government is going to take control of the church any time soon (at least I hope they don't). Obviously the church is required to follow the law just as much as any individual or business. |
So if the state outlaws a type of discrimination, then churchgoers will and should be required to comply with it? Sounds like we are in agreement once again.
Message edited by author 2010-03-07 15:21:55.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2010 03:21:12 PM · #4585 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Dude, all that you just said is the exact opposite of what I mean by reading the Bible in context. When you read the Bible, you want to figure out what it is telling you to do. But there is a problem... The Bible doesn't directly tell us 21st century folk what to do. The Bible TOLD people 2,000 years ago what THEY should do. Our job is not to pretend that the Bible was written for 21st century people (like slave owners 300 years ago, or gay rights supporters today). Our job is to read the Bible in its 1st century context, figure out what the Bible said to those people, and then make that message applicable to 21st century people. |
I agree with you completely once again. Since we now know that homosexuality is not a choice and that it does not pose a threat to society (facts that were not properly understood 2k years ago), we can update the prohibition to refer to anti-social practices of today. Something more relevant - like genetic sex selection.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
BUT, if the state tells the church that it is required to perform gay marriage ceremonies, that is forced control, unless the law specifically says "churches must perform gay marriages". If the law just say "a person cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation" and the state uses that to justify forcing a pastor to marry two men, that is far beyond merely enforcing the law. |
We agree once again. Luckily I don't think that anyone is arguing that churches should be forced to perform gay marriages.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The religious school was not teaching that it is okay to discriminate. They were simply telling the students which view their religion holds.
... Simply believing something does not automatically make you prejudiced against people with different beliefs. |
I am sure you would agree with me that it is something of a contradictory message to require everyone to be taught that all people are equal and about sexuality in a non-discriminatory way, and then allow one group of people then to say "but all gays are going to hell".
|
|
|
|
03/07/2010 04:07:53 PM · #4586 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... people keep asking these insane hypothetical questions, like those related to ... |
churches being forced to perform gay marriages, the inevitability of polygamy/polyandry/pedophilia/bestiality ..., and so forth ...
Message edited by author 2010-03-07 16:08:09. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 04:23:51 PM · #4587 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
So if the state outlaws a type of discrimination, then churchgoers will and should be required to comply with it? Sounds like we are in agreement once again. |
I would say yes. I personally believe that the Bible already condemns discrimination. The government is just playing catch-up :) If churchgoers discriminate against gays, they do so because of their own convictions, not because of what the Bible teaches. The Bible tells us what sins we should avoid, but it doesn't tell us that we should discriminate against sinners because everyone is a sinner. If the Bible did condone discrimination against sinners, we would all have to discriminate against ourselves (that would be weird). But, if the state passed some law requiring churches to marry gays, there might be some problems. If that were to happen the government would be going beyond it's authority to create equality and prevent injustice, and it would be infringing on the first amendment by controlling the church.
Originally posted by Matthew:
I am sure you would agree with me that it is something of a contradictory message to require everyone to be taught that all people are equal and about sexuality in a non-discriminatory way, and then allow one group of people then to say "but all gays are going to hell". |
Yes that is a contradiction, and I believe it's wrong to teach that anyone is going to hell. God is the judge, and it is wrong for people to pretend that they're the judge and get to decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. I don't think God likes it very much when people pretend to be him. I do believe that a Christian school can teach equality AND teach the biblical view of homosexuality in a non-discriminatory way. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 04:25:29 PM · #4588 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... people keep asking these insane hypothetical questions, like those related to ... |
churches being forced to perform gay marriages, the inevitability of polygamy/polyandry/pedophilia/bestiality ..., and so forth ... |
Hey now, I'm not asking any questions. I'm just saying where the line needs to be drawn between church and state. And I never said anything about polygamy, plyandry, pedophilia, etc. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 05:00:06 PM · #4589 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I would say yes. I personally believe that the Bible already condemns discrimination. The government is just playing catch-up :) If churchgoers discriminate against gays, they do so because of their own convictions, not because of what the Bible teaches. The Bible tells us what sins we should avoid, but it doesn't tell us that we should discriminate against sinners because everyone is a sinner. If the Bible did condone discrimination against sinners, we would all have to discriminate against ourselves (that would be weird). But, if the state passed some law requiring churches to marry gays, there might be some problems. If that were to happen the government would be going beyond it's authority to create equality and prevent injustice, and it would be infringing on the first amendment by controlling the church. |
So you would support non-discrimination legislation as proposed in the US and as implemented in the UK. Good.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I do believe that a Christian school can teach equality AND teach the biblical view of homosexuality in a non-discriminatory way. |
Once again I agree. Biblical interpretation could be updated so that gay people are regarded as being truly equal and non-sinners.
However we both know that most will go down the "I'm forced to teach you about this, but gays are going to hell" route.
Why should this be allowed in schools? That kind of thinking should, surely, be reserved for the pulpit?
|
|
|
|
03/07/2010 05:45:40 PM · #4590 |
Originally posted by Louis:
[
Lol! When I was in Catholic high school, the rhythm method was actually part of the curriculum via religion class, along with how not to masturbate, how to curb homosexual tendencies and ostracize anyone who wouldn't, and how to discriminate based on religion. Tolerance indeed. |
Didn't have that in the Catholic high school I went to, but then again I am almost as old as dirt.
The good stuff we learned abut in the seminary. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 06:09:50 PM · #4591 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If you read the Bible in context, and actually try to understand the social situation in the 1st century and actually try to understand WHY the Bible doesn't condemn slavery, you come to a different conclusion and find a completely different message to apply to 21st century people. |
... sort of like a one size fits all approach, eh?
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I don't see how this is a problem. The school is still required to teach all the views. The only difference is that the school is no longer prevented from telling the students which view their faith holds. |
...of course the fact that schools are publicly funded entities, paid for by all tax payers and governed by state laws is NOT something to be overly concerned about either.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... if the school teaches all the views about sex, and then declares that the school believes that heterosexual monogamous sex is right, does that mean the school is discriminating against everyone who disagrees? |
Actually the discriminatory aspect of the argument rests not with the fact that the some people might disagree with the stance of the church, but rather that the church is implying that homosexuality is wrong, and by extension ought to be treated in a different manner... therein lies the discrimination aspect of the argument.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
know too many churches that willingly get involved in politics. All the churches I've ever gone to actively and aggressively avoided politics. Politics divide people, which is detrimental to church communities that strive for unity. |
This is one issue that we could sit around and discuss till doomsday as it all depends on one's interpretation of exactly what constitutes political involvement. By their very nature churches are political animals as they strive to ensure that the mores and morals of their environments and strive thrive and expand. This type of activity, coupled with the numbers of voters churches can summon, can and often are viewed as political machines and it is sheer folly to think otherwise.
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-03-07 20:10:56. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 06:55:32 PM · #4592 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Louis:
Lol! When I was in Catholic high school, the rhythm method was actually part of the curriculum via religion class, along with how not to masturbate, how to curb homosexual tendencies and ostracize anyone who wouldn't, and how to discriminate based on religion. Tolerance indeed. |
Sounds like your Catholic teachers and administrators forgot how to read the Bible. |
Note true. They did exactly like this:
Originally posted by Matthew:
The bible will always be right because the people reading it will always interpret it in a way that reflects their context. |
Which is just another way of saying this:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Our job is to read the Bible in its 1st century context, figure out what the Bible said to those people, and then make that message applicable to 21st century people. |
|
|
|
|
03/07/2010 08:27:33 PM · #4593 |
...and now for the latest advancement in equal rights, feast your eyes on This gem.
I guess all the city need do now is to cut off funding... or would that be discrimination?
Ray |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 08:59:47 PM · #4594 |
| Yeah, I saw that on CNN tonight. I never watch CNN. I happened to catch some Catholic priest being interviewed, performing the most tortured linguistic acrobatics to excuse this shame. It was positively vile. How such people can sleep at night is positively mind boggling. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 09:19:56 PM · #4595 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Louis:
Lol! When I was in Catholic high school, the rhythm method was actually part of the curriculum via religion class, along with how not to masturbate, how to curb homosexual tendencies and ostracize anyone who wouldn't, and how to discriminate based on religion. Tolerance indeed. |
Sounds like your Catholic teachers and administrators forgot how to read the Bible. |
Note true. They did exactly like this:
Originally posted by Matthew:
The bible will always be right because the people reading it will always interpret it in a way that reflects their context. |
Which is just another way of saying this:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Our job is to read the Bible in its 1st century context, figure out what the Bible said to those people, and then make that message applicable to 21st century people. |
|
I gather that you're trying to say that your school understood the Bible as saying that homosexuals are going to hell, and believed that was the correct understanding, correct? If that's the case... then I'm sorry that you were subject to false teaching... |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 09:21:16 PM · #4596 |
| No, that's not what I'm saying. There's a more obvious point to my post. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 09:31:08 PM · #4597 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I gather that you're trying to say that your school understood the Bible as saying that homosexuals are going to hell, and believed that was the correct understanding, correct? |
Actually that is not at all what he is saying. What he is saying is exactly what you said here:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Our job is to read the Bible in its 1st century context, figure out what the Bible said to those people, and then make that message applicable to 21st century people. |
It is only with the passage of time and a critical analysis of the interpretations rendered that society will be able to ascertain which interpretation was right.
Conversely, some skeptics might argue that those doing the interpretation could skew the data provided to ensure that the interpretations rendered are in keeping with their pre-conceived notions.
One last issue of consideration would be to first read the comment made by Matthew, then those made by Louis, and you should be able to clearly understand just exactly what Louis was trying to say...which is nothing close to what you came up with.
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-03-07 21:34:20. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 09:45:31 PM · #4598 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Once again I agree. Biblical interpretation could be updated so that gay people are regarded as being truly equal and non-sinners.
However we both know that most will go down the "I'm forced to teach you about this, but gays are going to hell" route.
Why should this be allowed in schools? That kind of thinking should, surely, be reserved for the pulpit? |
I would actually argue that no person should teach that anywhere. Nobody should be in the business of claiming to know who's going go hell.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... sort of like a one size fits all approach, eh? |
Well, God created all people, Jesus died for all people, and God's revelation in the Bible is for all people. So yeah, it is a one size fits all approach. The Gospel is for all people, it's not exclusive.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...of course the fact that schools are publicly funded entities, paid for by all tax payers and governed by state laws is NOT something to be overly concerned about either. |
I'm not sure about the religious school in question, but in the USA religious schools are privately funded.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Actually the discriminatory aspect of the argument rests not with the fact that the some people might disagree with the stance of the church, but rather that the church is implying that homosexuality is wrong, and by extension ought to be treated in a different manner... therein lies the discrimination aspect of the argument. |
Then you're misunderstanding what the Bible actually says. The Bible tells us that ALL sins are wrong, and ALL people sin. No person escapes sin. All people are sinners that need to repent. If that message is only offensive to gays, then something is tragically wrong. It should be offensive to all people, so that all people will repent. According to your logic, all people face the same discrimination since the Bible teaches that all people are wrong. Unless of course that merely saying someone is wrong is not the same as discriminating against them (which I believe is the case). Can't I believe that abortion is wrong without discriminating against Democrats?
Originally posted by RayEthier:
This is one issue that we could sit around and discuss till doomsday as it all depends on one's interpretation of exactly what constitutes political involvement. By their very nature churches are political animals as they strive to ensure that the mores and morals of their environments and strive thrive and expand. This type of activity, coupled with the numbers of voters churches can summon, can and often are viewed as political machines and it is sheer folly to think otherwise. |
Churches CAN BE political machines. In my experience, many pastors and churches refuse to express their political opinions to avoid offending beloved members of their community. But then again, I mostly attend conservative evangelical churches that are usually referred to as "fundamentalist", which are usually the ones that are most opposed to gay marriage. So, I guess gay rights proponents should be glad that many conservative churches DO NOT utilize their political potential... |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 09:50:22 PM · #4599 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...and now for the latest advancement in equal rights, feast your eyes on This gem.
I guess all the city need do now is to cut off funding... or would that be discrimination?
Ray |
LOOK. the city,state federal and any other publically funded group has no business funding ANY of this BS. It ain't their job... I really won't be too unhappy when they all go broke for funding all this crap. It'll be just what we deserve for letting it go this far down the tube. Gay rights evolving? Who the hell cares. |
|
|
|
03/07/2010 09:54:49 PM · #4600 |
Originally posted by CNN Article:
"Catholic Charities, which receives $22 million from the city for social service programs... including operating homeless shelters and facilitating city-sponsored adoptions." |
Originally posted by David Ey:
LOOK. the city, state, federal and any other publically funded group has no business funding ANY of this BS. It ain't their job... I really won't be too unhappy when they all go broke for funding all this crap. |
?!?! Seek help. |
|
