[QUOTE=Zoe]
Cite for Christian enforced restrictions on teaching science in public schools, please.
[/QUOTE]
You are aware that many local school districts are attempting to limit the teaching of evolution. The objections come from fundamentalist christians. In many cases fundamentalist christians are elected to the school board on a platform of restricting the teaching of evolution. The school board is in charge of enforcing the policy.
What am I missing here?
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I know several priests who would deal with his questions in a quite satisfactiory manner to him, and whose suggestions would probably not give you any pause (beyond any automantic rejection of religious discussion you may harbor). (I know a couple of priests of whom I would suggest he never mention the word “sex” within 100 feet.)
Regardless, your claim was that the RCC used the bible as a medical reference and it does not.
[/QUOTE]
This is apparently a matter of opinion. If you think that birth control, homosexuality, and masturbation are spiritual issues, fine. Practioners of medicine and I find them to be biological matters, and when coupled with dysfunction: medical issues.
Since the church has sanctioned rules and expectations regarding these issues, including cases of dysfunction- then yes, the church is attempting to practice medicine.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
Cite for Christian enforced restrictions on teaching science in public schools, please.
[/QUOTE]
Washington Post.And just to top it all off, a multi-state rundown of legislation passed to ban or restrict the teaching of evolution in our schools from the National Center for Science Education.
[QUOTE=Zoe]
It’s amazing to me to think that you see the Bible as a book of shame and condemnation for a person dealing with issues regarding sexual orientation. I would think that it would be a source of courage!
[/QUOTE]
If you have found something in the Bible that refutes the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, (Kings 14:24) And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel, (Leviticus 18:22) Thou shalt not lie withmankind, as with womankind: it is abomination, and (Leviticus 20:13) *If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them *
… then you should share it with the Christian world. Because I find no hope or support in those passages or the Good Book, but I *do * find condemnation and orders to kill the homosexuals. Both conservative and moderate Christians use these passages to discourage or codemn homosexuality and to support legislation against equal rights. But I feel strongly that you could make a change, if only you shared your courageous and inclusive view with America. Think of all the suicides that could be prevented. You could even help pass legislation that would guarantee equal rights regardless of sexual orientation if only you could demonstrate Biblical precedent that outweighed the anti-gay stuff.
[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
This is apparently a matter of opinion.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but I’m right. 
The church has never cited the bible as a medical reason for its views. That was your claim and my objection. There are views it promotes with which I agree and with which I disagree, but I recognize where the distinctions are and I where I disagree, I do not mischaracterize what they have said.
I also doubt that you could point to a specific place where the RCC has ordered a specific medical action that overrode medical opinion. (The “kill the mother to save the unborn child” theme that is a popular misconception arose from a plot point in the fictional work The Cardinal and is not and has never been church teaching.) Similarly, I doubt that you will find unanimous medical opinion regarding most of the other issues with the church opposing all the medical views. Rather, there are various psychological aspects to many medical situations in which the church wades in on the side of one or another perspective, but there was no unanimous medical view against which the church has spoken.
For example, in the recent issue reagarding Ms. Schiavo, there were church voices raised on both sides–as well as medical voices raised on both sides–of what action to take, with no official pronouncement from the church regarding what medical condition already existed.
[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
I will do no such thing. The word “fundies” is a pejorative, and while I disagree heartily with the path that many Christians take, I refuse to call names just because you have dissension in your ranks. (But if you want to discriminate against your brethren, go ahead.) This subject is touchy enough without making sweeping assumptions about people I cannot see or talk to in real life. “I don’t apply the Bible literally” or “I feel that the Word of God is absolute” will suffice to explain either extreme position.
[/QUOTE]
So, you don’t want to insult gay-bashing, evolution-hating, far right Christians by calling them “fundies,” but you don’t have a problem with insulting liberal Christians by referring to them as “Christian Lite™”?
That’s an interesting double standard you’ve got going for yourself, there.
[QUOTE=Miller]
So, you don’t want to insult gay-bashing, evolution-hating, far right Christians by calling them “fundies,” but you don’t have a problem with insulting liberal Christians by referring to them as “Christian Lite™”?
That’s an interesting double standard you’ve got going for yourself, there.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, my statement was meant to be a rip on QG’s Christian double standard. Some liberal Christians are guilty of segregation, name calling, and derogatory remarks about conservative Christians. How can a person who labels herself as a kinder, more forgiving Christian justify calling pejorative names? Quiddity apparently finds the word fundie acceptable to describe a conservative Christian. Because of the history of the word and the manner in which it is used: I do not.
Look- I have no guarantee of a consistent debate with any group of Christians. There is so much dissension and variance in styles of worship and belief that I cannot expect the same answer even from two Christians from the same church. One Christian may consider homosexuality protected under the umbrella of Jesus’ teachings, while her sister may consider homosexuality a purposeful defiance of God. I thought we were trying to clear up misunderstandings about contradictory intrepretations of the Bible among Christians, and I would like to explore this topic without offending. So how do I determine with whom I am speaking?
Have you considered a taxonomic classification?
Phylum: Christian
Subphylum: New Testament
Class: Sermon on the Mount
Subclass: Liberal intrepretation
Superorder: Jesus fan
Order: Equality among men
Infraorder: Gay friendly
Family: Benevolent Father
Subfamily: Free will
Infrafamily: Forgiven
Phylum: Christian
Subphylum: Old Testament
Class: Proverbs
Subclass: Literal interpretation
Superoder: Omnipotent, jealous God
Order: Original sin
Infraorder: Race and gender ranked, heterocentric
Family: One True Religion
Subfamily: Conversion for all
Infrafamily: Repentant
[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
If you have found something in the Bible that refutes the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, (Kings 14:24) And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel, (Leviticus 18:22) Thou shalt not lie withmankind, as with womankind: it is abomination, and (Leviticus 20:13) *If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them *
… then you should share it with the Christian world. Because I find no hope or support in those passages or the Good Book, but I *do * find condemnation and orders to kill the homosexuals. Both conservative and moderate Christians use these passages to discourage or codemn homosexuality and to support legislation against equal rights. But I feel strongly that you could make a change, if only you shared your courageous and inclusive view with America. Think of all the suicides that could be prevented. You could even help pass legislation that would guarantee equal rights regardless of sexual orientation if only you could demonstrate Biblical precedent that outweighed the anti-gay stuff.
[/QUOTE]
Well, for one thing… that passage from 1 Kings is not usually used as a condemnation of homosexuality except from the very conservative who still use the KJV as their primary resource, since virtually all modern translations correctly translate the Hebrew “qadesh” as “male temple prostitute”, not “sodomite”. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, by the way, has never been a very convincing condemnation of homosexuality since it portrays a mob trying to gang rape some angels- something that all Christians, liberal and conservative, don’t support!
There’s plenty of stuff out there on the net that provides a positive Christian interpretation of these passages. Perhaps you have read them and found them unconvincing. I think that some of the interpretations are very convicing; others are not so much. I don’t really think it matters, however. As a gay Christian, I read the Bible very seriously, and I find incredible support from the scripture. As a progressive Christian (I am not “Christian Lite”, my confessional faith in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, is anything but “Lite” as I think most of my friends and my boyfriend will tell you), I don’t read the Bible literally. I do try to read it contextually, and scholars like John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Bart Ehrman, and others help me understand the context.
My own denomination, the United Church of Christ has passed many resolutions supporting GLBT rights and inclusion in both the church and society; just a few years ago, we passed a resolution supporting equal marriage rights for GLBT couples. This was not a universally popular opinion. We’ve lost many churches, and one entire conference, because of it. The Episcopal Church has taken a very inclusive stance as well, and as a consequence is facing possible schism. Other mainline Protestant churches, such as the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, are struggling to find a middle ground between the conservative and liberal sides on this issue.
My point is that Christians do not read these passages uniformally. If we did, the schisms and debates would not even occur.
You ask us to share our inclusive view with America; we are trying. Unfortunately, moderate and liberal Christianity usually does not make for interesting headlines. The likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson do. Hopefully we can change this without resorting to the scare tactics of the religious right, but it’s definitely an uphill battle.
[QUOTE=baronsabato]
You ask us to share our inclusive view with America; we are trying. Unfortunately, moderate and liberal Christianity usually does not make for interesting headlines. The likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson do. Hopefully we can change this without resorting to the scare tactics of the religious right, but it’s definitely an uphill battle.
[/QUOTE]
Though I don’t share your belief in God, I agree with your philosophy completely. Unfortunately political and Christian history has proven that it is to manage large groups of people with fear and intimidation, and as long as our political and spiritual leaders feel the need to control the thoughts and acts of the people, fear and intimidation will continue to be employed. And the Bible is an excellent source for fear and intimidation for those who prefer to apply it thusly.
I find your entire post to be a beautiful and kind affirmation. If all Christians shared your belief system, there would be no argument, and no reason for this discussion. If your church had branches in the deep South and Midwest, and available to Smalltown, USA, many lives would be saved, and much grief, anguish, and self doubt alleviated. But as you said, your numbers are few. So please continue to contribute to these discussions. I hope that you change minds and lives.
[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
Actually, my statement was meant to be a rip on QG’s Christian double standard. Some liberal Christians are guilty of segregation, name calling, and derogatory remarks about conservative Christians. How can a person who labels herself as a kinder, more forgiving Christian justify calling pejorative names? Quiddity apparently finds the word fundie acceptable to describe a conservative Christian. Because of the history of the word and the manner in which it is used: I do not.
[/quote]
Was it? That’s sort of funny, because I don’t see any reference to Quiddity Glomfuster in that post, or to “hypocritical” liberal Christians who attack fundamentalist Christians.. You were responding to pool, you listed a bunch of ways in which Christianity is harming us as a society (with a hefty hunk of misinformation and misdirection in a fair few of your examples) and then closed with a paranthetical jab at any Christian who doesn’t behave in the manner you’ve just condemned.
Even accepting your (astonishingly flimsy) excuse at face value, we’re still left with the problem of your own double standard. You refuse to insult conservative Christians by calling them “fundies,” but you are willing to insult liberal Christians by calling them “Christian Lite.” Even if Quiddity Glomfuster has been displaying a double standard of her own, that doesn’t excuse your own behavior. “She did it first,” is seldom considered an acceptable excuse.
Yeah, it’s a real pain in the ass, having to deal with people as individuals. Nothing pisses me off more than people acting in ways contrary to the pigeonholes I’m trying to stuff them into.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Was it? That’s sort of funny, because I don’t see any reference to Quiddity Glomfuster in that post, or to “hypocritical” liberal Christians who attack fundamentalist Christians.. You were responding to pool, you listed a bunch of ways in which Christianity is harming us as a society (with a hefty hunk of misinformation and misdirection in a fair few of your examples) and then closed with a paranthetical jab at any Christian who doesn’t behave in the manner you’ve just condemned.
Even accepting your (astonishingly flimsy) excuse at face value, we’re still left with the problem of your own double standard. You refuse to insult conservative Christians by calling them “fundies,” but you are willing to insult liberal Christians by calling them “Christian Lite.” Even if Quiddity Glomfuster has been displaying a double standard of her own, that doesn’t excuse your own behavior. “She did it first,” is seldom considered an acceptable excuse.
Yeah, it’s a real pain in the ass, having to deal with people as individuals. Nothing pisses me off more than people acting in ways contrary to the pigeonholes I’m trying to stuff them into.
[/QUOTE]
If you are the double standard police, then I suggest you complain bitterly about Quiddity’s use of the pejorative. Why am I getting both barrels? Wouldn’t it be fair and equal to chastise your sister in Christ as well? Pardon me, Miller, but your bias is showing.
But if you demanding either an apology or clarity, I will gladly do both. I am sorry for using a facetious phrase to describe ultra-liberal Christians. The purpose of the comment *Christian Lite™*was to explain that I was not making sweeping accusations of bigotry and discrimination against all Christians. I don’t want open-minded and inclusive Christians (like Jodi) to feel that I was accusing them of the Bible sanctioned bigotry and hate that is causing modern America to stagnate. I am obviously aware of the dissension in the Christian ranks, and apparently, you are quite sensitive to the disparity as well.
Having said that, I still don’t have any answer about how or why some Christians choose to champion the loving passages in the Bible, and some choose to espouse the strict and narrow-minded verses. And you haven’t helped illuminate this conundrum, either.
[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
If you are the double standard police, then I suggest you complain bitterly about Quiddity’s use of the pejorative. Why am I getting both barrels? Wouldn’t it be fair and equal to chastise your sister in Christ as well? Pardon me, Miller, but your bias is showing.
[/quote]
I’m not a Christian. I’m an atheist. If you’re going to apologize to me for anything, it would be for deigning to speak for atheists in general. You are not my spokesperson, and I’d appreciate it if you kept your statements of personal preference personal, rather than applying them broadly to everyone who shares our philosophy.
As for QG’s alleged double standard, I haven’t seen evidence of one, but I confess I haven’t been reading her posts all that closely. If all you’ve got is that she uses the term “fundie” to refer to far-right Christians, well… color me unimpressed.
Oh, that one’s easy: people are different.
Any other questions?
[QUOTE=Snipe1978]
If I refuse to believe parts of the bible, why should I believe any of it?
[/QUOTE]
BINGO! Here’s the irony of my atheism: Over a decade ago, a fire-breathing Baptist minister pounded on my desk and declared in full roar that you either take all of the Bible literally or you throw it away, but you do not pick it apart. I gave that some serious, deep thought and realized he was absolutely right. The truth dawned on me like a 500-watt light bulb – it is nothing more than myth and legend. Suddenly, thanks to that pastor’s unyielding faith, I understood the Bible! What a wonderful breakthrough it was.
[QUOTE=Miller]
I’m not a Christian. I’m an atheist. If you’re going to apologize to me for anything, it would be for deigning to speak for atheists in general. You are not my spokesperson, and I’d appreciate it if you kept your statements of personal preference personal, rather than applying them broadly to everyone who shares our philosophy.
As for QG’s alleged double standard, I haven’t seen evidence of one, but I confess I haven’t been reading her posts all that closely. If all you’ve got is that she uses the term “fundie” to refer to far-right Christians, well… color me unimpressed.
[/QUOTE]
I believe you may have misunderstood. I was referring to your double standard. You spanked me for using the phrase Christian Lite™ and let Quiddity slide on the “fundie” comment.
[QUOTE=Miller]
I’m not a Christian. I’m an atheist. If you’re going to apologize to me for anything, it would be for deigning to speak for atheists in general. You are not my spokesperson, and I’d appreciate it if you kept your statements of personal preference personal, rather than applying them broadly to everyone who shares our philosophy.
[/QUOTE]
Show me where I have been speaking for you. A quick review of my posts shows an abundance of personal possessive pronouns. I have no recollection of ever having had a conversation with you in the past, nor have I intentionally insulted you. I have no idea why you are derailing this thread and attacking me. If you have some personal grudge against me for some reason, pit me.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Oh, that one’s easy: people are different.
Any other questions?
[/QUOTE]
Do you feel that you solved a 2000 year old philosophical conundrum with that pat answer?
[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
I believe you may have misunderstood. I was referring to your double standard. You spanked me for using the phrase Christian Lite™ and let Quiddity slide on the “fundie” comment.
[/QUOTE]
No, I spanked you for being hypocritical. Has QG also been a hypocrite? I haven’t seen it, but I’m open to evidence to the contrary.
[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
Show me where I have been speaking for you. A quick review of my posts shows an abundance of personal possessive pronouns.
[/quote]
Allow me to refresh your memory:
As an atheist, I feel neither resentment nor contempt for other people using the Bible as their moral compass. If that’s how you feel, fine, although your examples could use some work. But that’s not how all atheists feel. Not even most atheists, going by my personal experiences.
Attacking you? No, this is just disagreeing with you, which is something you should get used to if you plan on spending a lot of time in GD. If I were attacking you, I’d be using a lot more compound nouns.
No, but only because I don’t think the question you posed falls into the category of, “2000 year old conundrum.” I’d put it more in the category of, “Questions that are so easy I’m surprised anyone had to ask about them in the first place.”
[QUOTE=Miller]
No, but only because I don’t think the question you posed falls into the category of, “2000 year old conundrum.” I’d put it more in the category of, “Questions that are so easy I’m surprised anyone had to ask about them in the first place.”
[/QUOTE]
Good Heavens, Miller- you have solved it! I want to thank you for your well thought out and carefully crafted contribution to this discussion. (Sigh- if only you had been the second poster of this thread.) Expect your nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize in the mail this week.
[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
Good Heavens, Miller- you have solved it! I want to thank you for your well thought out and carefully crafted contribution to this discussion. (Sigh- if only you had been the second poster of this thread.) Expect your nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize in the mail this week.
[/QUOTE]
You haven’t actually read anything I’ve posted to this thread that wasn’t directly addressed to you, have you?
[QUOTE=Miller]
You haven’t actually read anything I’ve posted to this thread that wasn’t directly addressed to you, have you?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I did read your contributions, and took note of **Quiddity Glomfusters ** gushing praise of your opinions. And this helped me to understand why you jumped me for using the phrase **Christian Lite™ ** but let Quid get away with the pejorative fundie.
I have some questions about your many assertions in this thread.
[QUOTE=Miller]
By that same standard, I think the part in the Bible where Jesus says, “I give you a new commandment: that you love one another,” is pretty cool. That sounds like a good idea to me. I don’t see any point in ignoring that advice, just because another part of the same book says that homosexuality is an abomination. I can take “love one another” as a valuable idea about how to live my life while ignoring the parts that I disagree with.
[/QUOTE]
Do you feel that all Christians are using exactly the same approach?
[QUOTE=Miller]
I suspect that there are very few non-literalist Christians who rely solely on the Bible as their spiritual/ethical/moral guidebook, so I don’t think your question is really relevant to this particular discussion. Christians who are willing to look at the Bible critically are not likely to have that obsessive focus with the Bible.
[/QUOTE]
Cite? How do you know how many Christians rely solely on the Bible? Most of our politicians use the Bible as reference and ultimate authority when proposing legislation regarding equal rights for gays, abortion, and the teaching of science in public schools. Did your citeless sweeping generalization purposely exclude those conservatives in power?
Snipped:
[QUOTE=Miller]
You do whatever you think shows the most love towards God and the most love towards your fellow man. Not everyone is going to come to the same conclusion about what that means in each of those situations, but that’s pretty much the whole point of the exercise.
[/QUOTE]
Are you implying that discrimination and bigotry is excusable because Biblical text is prone to misinterpretation? Ignorance of the law does not excuse the crime.
[QUOTE=Miller]
“Attributed to God?” The only people I know who attribute the Bible to God are the Biblical literalists, and I thought we weren’t talking about them. Liberal Christians attribute the Bible to a variety of men across several centuries who recorded their own experiences with what they perceived as God, their interpretations of those experiences, and how those experiences fit into the over all history of their people.
[/QUOTE]
You are incorrect. We are talking about a wide variety of Biblical interpretation and application, and this includes conservatives, liberals, and everything in between.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Apples and oranges. The Bible is a work of literature, not a science text. Even the parts of it that aren’t acceptable by todays moral standards are still interesting as historical/cultural artifacts. Additionally, as a work of literature, you’re dealing with personal interpretation, not absolute fact. You can’t say that one portion of the Bible is objectively wrong the way you could with a defective science textbook.
[/QUOTE]
Then the Bible should not be used as reference when deciding what should be taught in science class, whether or not birth control is allowable, and to determine what sexual acts and feelings are allowed.
[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
BINGO! Here’s the irony of my atheism: Over a decade ago, a fire-breathing Baptist minister pounded on my desk and declared in full roar that you either take all of the Bible literally or you throw it away, but you do not pick it apart. I gave that some serious, deep thought and realized he was absolutely right. The truth dawned on me like a 500-watt light bulb – it is nothing more than myth and legend. Suddenly, thanks to that pastor’s unyielding faith, I understood the Bible! What a wonderful breakthrough it was.
[/QUOTE]
And did said pastor cry Amen and Praise Jesus upon the news of your epiphany? 