Nope, that as aimed at that [del]troll[/del] poster.
I saw this the other day and am still cracking up at one of the YouTube comments that said, "Let’s put her and people like her in a big maze that you have to use logic to escape. We’ll call it… “The end of religion.”
And Dems are just as happy to accept votes from people who think that Romney will repeal Social Security and Medicare, and outlaw contraception. Each side does this, so I don’t know why posters are criticizing you thinking that the Dems are above this.
Possibly a hijack, but I’m constantly amazed by how common this perception is, given how little homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible. A verse in Leviticus, buried in the middle of a bunch of insanity about adulterers being put to death and the participants in a mother-daughter threesome being burned alive, and a mention in Paul of homosexuals in the middle of a list of various fornicators. Clearly not God’s highest priority – it didn’t even make the top ten list he carved into stone and gave to Moses.
Speaking of which, God is much more black and white that killing people is a sin, yet Christians the world over fight in wars, are pro-death penalty, etc. Which is fine: people can interpret their religious texts however they like. But they should at least be honest about what it actually says and doesn’t say.
Hmm, I thought it was clearly something God didn’t condone. I only read the bible once, and didn’t follow a lot of it… so.
If God doesn’t make a big deal about it, what’s the reason for all the hate? I guess I’m curious as to why people are so homophobic? Which could be a ‘hijack’ question.
Any number of reasons. Some people just hate what they aren’t. Some have homosexual feelings and are self loathing and over compensating. Some learned it from their parents. It all boils down to petty, mindless ignorance.
There’s a whole mess of Bible passages that are enthusiastically in favor of killing people, specifically in the context of waging wars and carrying out the death penalty for an assortment of crimes.
It gives me no small pleasure to exult in the realization that I share neither a country nor a religion with that creature in the video.
No, a partisan hack is someone “who cares more about supporting a particular party or ideology than supporting what is morally right, or factually true.”
You fit that definition, and admitted to being that kind of person in the post that Fear Itself quoted:
You are, in fact, a partisan hack.
It really depends a lot on your interpretation and even on your preferred translation.
This page has a pretty good summary of the most significant passages on the subject, and the vastly divergent interpretations of them between liberal Christians versus fundamentalists.
Actually that page just covers the New Testament. There’s also the quote in Leviticus that describes men lying with men as [word sometimes translated as “abomination”], but as has been frequently pointed out that’s the same word used in reference to eating shellfish. So for a Christian that’s not much of an argument unless they also see the anti-gay stuff reaffirmed by the New Testament.
I’m not Happy Lendervedder, but I do go to church every Sunday and consider myself a pretty religious guy.
That being said, not all Christian churches interpret the Bible the same way, and fundamentalism/literalism is hardly the only or even most common way to read scripture.
My church belongs to the United Church of Christ, which (although descended directly from the Puritans) happens to have been the first denomination to ordain gay people, way back in the 70s, and the first to officially support same-sex marriage. While we operate on a congregational polity (meaning that every congregation has the right to determine matters of doctrine and belief), relatively few congregations in the UCC (and most mainline denominations, for that matter- including Presbyterians, Evangelical Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc.) read the Bible “literally”.
Most of our seminaries and ministers who graduate from them read and teach the Bible from a theologically “liberal” viewpoint (this is NOT necessarily the same thing as politically liberal), which means that they take the historical context of the verses very seriously, and go with what secular scholars have discovered.
For example, in my church, we have regular Bible studies where we talk about the Documentary hypothesis. You’re not going to hear about how “Moses” wrote the Torah, except as a historical curiosity. We discuss the Q Gospel and aren’t shy about mentioning the letters of Paul that were forged under his name. Bart Erhman, and other “secular” scholars, are often quoted and read in book studies, and we don’t really have any problem with things that might challenge our preconceived notions of what we believe.
Essentially, we think that if we really are to take received scripture seriously, then we should understand it from a historically-literate, informed perspective.
So when it comes to the verses on LGBT issues (which my church does NOT believe to be a sin), we recognize that, when the Bible was written, there was very little to no understanding of homosexuality in the same way we do today. While we have a concept of sexual orientation, the ancients did not, or at least in a comparable fashion. And so, like verses dealing with slavery, subjection of women, etc., we simply don’t believe that we can take those verses literally.
It might sound like picking and choosing, but in reality, it isn’t any different than what the lady in the video probably does with verses on eating kosher, or verses like this one.
On the other hand, we recognize that very little of scripture should be taken “literally” as opposed to being stories that tell something about the nature of God, and our relationship to God. We also recognize that our ancestors got it wrong in a lot of ways, and that scripture is just one of the many ways we cultivate a spiritual experience. We don’t read the Bible as a “rule-book” on how to live a sinless life, but as a starting point for conversations on spiritual matters, including sexuality, but not limited to it.
I should also add that when it comes to how we read the whole of scripture, we take the teachings of Jesus most seriously (which makes sense, since we’re, you know, Christians). In that regard, the Great Commandment is probably the best way for us to read the rest of the Bible: love God, love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus had, after all, a history of putting people over religious laws, and if there are people who are hurting and being oppressed, then Christians have an obligation to stand up for them, regardless of what a few verses in the Bible might say.
Incredible. Is it a memory problem, where you forget what you have previously written down the instant your fingers leave the keyboard? Or maybe you have dissociative identity disorder and you think “Rand Rover” is somebody else entirely? This isn’t like talking out loud, where you can just say “You can’t prove I said anything of the sort!”-this is the internet, and your entire posting history is our cite.
Sorry, but this is sheer fantasizing. Obama won in 2008, in a record turnout year, and it wasn’t especially close. Right wing wackos existed then, too, and in much the same numbers.
If Obama loses, it will because the people who supported him in 2008 either switch or else just stay home. Blaming the fringe right for any decline in his popularity is a refusal to engage in reality.
I know people who wont vote for Obama again because of this very issue. I’m not saying he’ll lose… I’m just saying I know at least three people who voted for Obama that wont now. All three are black, and very religious.
Hi baronsabato, speaking as an atheist who frequently gets mighty tired of some fellow atheists’ undifferentiated broad-brush religion-bashing, I’d just like to thank you for presenting such a nuanced and morally thoughtful religious perspective. This is how to use a sacred text for enhancing and informing spirituality without sabotaging rationality. Okay, now I’ll stop, and apologies for being polite in the Pit.
I kinda think it was meant as humorous hyperbole.
So dirty tricks and advertising play no part in how people vote?
Beginning at 1:32 in the video the woman clarifies that the plan is to keep gay men behind one electrified fence, and gay women behind another so that “they can’t reproduce.” In other words, the goal is to ensure homosexuals do not have heterosexual sex. :dubious:
“Well, duh! Where’d ja think all dem gay babies comes from? Normal people don’t have gay babies!”
I’d love to ask one of these whackjobs what they do in the bedroom. Then when they got all offended I can ask why they are so worried about what other people do in the bedroom.
I think you’ve hit upon a possible solution: Gay people should have sex in the bathroom!