KnightWhoSaysNi

Scigirl,

In your debate with GeoTheo, you wrote:

I believe he's referring to the <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm" target="_blank">Christian Reconstruction</a> movement. Not only do they want discrimination of homosexuals, they want to see their heads on a platter! (and our heads too if they can)

Perchance

Excellent point, scigirl!

I don't mind if people talk about their partners, spouses, boyfriends, girlfriends, or whatever term you want to use (and actually, the number of gay and lesbian people I've met who do this, compared to heterosexuals, is vanishingly small). There are some kinds of talk I'm uncomfortable with- I had an officemate this past year who thought everyone wanted to hear all about the "kinky" stuff she did with her boyfriend- but I would never require someone to stop talking about that altogether. I merely asked her not to talk about it to me, and although she seemed surprised, she cheerfully did as asked.

As for kissing, making out in the halls, and so on, I can always turn my eyes away. But actually, I''ve only seen heterosexual couples doing that, or having lovers' quarrels where everyone can hear them, or doing other things that are usually private in public. I think I'll always feel uncomfortable with that, whether it's two guys, two girls, or a guy and a girl. Perhaps I'm just a prude...

-Perchance.

rudolk

Society wasn't ready for integration of schools back in the 1960's either. While I realize that you're not saying that everyone should have to admit that they're ready for equality before it can happen, equal rights and equal protection under law, (the right to be married, etc.) is the first crucial step to be taken whether society is "ready" or not.

</strong>

What did that mean?
Do you mean that neither is being debated?

-Kurt

oneofshibumi

In response to GeoTheo,

a. Tolerant of the practice of homosexuality.
b. Unopposed to the inclusion or participation of those who practice homosexuality.
c. willing to support the practice of homosexuality.

d. Tolerant of those who are not part of their particular Church or denomination to do as they will, unless they violate some ethical law (different from morality, which is culturally specific).

According to this definition the Church would have to support every practice it disagrees with in order to avoid being intolerant or bigoted. It would be unable to take a moral stance on anything and would have to allow participation of all other religious groups and opposing viewpoints within the Church. Not only that but it would have to support all of them also.

I do not think that any person in this forum believes that a church should have to support every practice it disagrees with. I think the point is many of these Churches go beyond their Church, by means of radio, TV, newspapers, websites, etc. They attempt to create an oppressive environment toward homosexuals. I believe that a Church has the right to believe what they want. They do not have the right to oppress others.

Diachronically (through time) speaking, I believe that oppression is a normal pattern of many Christian groups. This does not mean all Christian groups. For example, Quakers, Amish, or Monks of the Assissi order show a spiritual maturity. Christian groups that I have classified as Christian Identity Hate groups (ex. Ku Klux Klan) or Conservative Christians (ex. Southern Baptists) both oppresses not only homosexuals but also other religions, races, women, science, history and other groups and ideas; both diachronically and synchronically (present time).

How should the Church support those of opposing religious viewpoints? Pay tithes to Islam? Embrace all sexual practices it opposes?

I don’t think anyone has requested that your Church change its interpretation of the Bible. What is being said, is if that you have every right to disagree. What some of us in this forum consider ethically deplorable is that most of these groups (Christian Identity Hate groups and Conservative Christians) speak untruths. An example, Jerry Falwall and Pat Robertson blamed liberal civil liberties groups, feminists, homosexuals and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. This was before any official information had come out.
1. John F. Harris. (2001). God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says. Washington Post.
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/advertisers/popunders/carrot_ink_july02_v2.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/advertisers/popunders/carrot_ink_july02_v2.html</a>


Falwell and Robertson are the most infamous television evangelists at the present time. When confronted with his statement, did Falwell or Robertson a) apologize (recognition that the statements were unfounded). b) Try to justify their statements (meaning they felt that their statements were correct and gave reasons why). c) Blame the liberal civil liberties, feminists, homosexuals and abortion rights supporters for spreading lies.
The answer is c. My conclusion is that these religious leaders are (speakers of untruths) and provoking hate in their audience (oppression). Now clearly this violates one of the ten commandments, Exodus 20:16 “thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor.” King James Version (KJV).

And arguably Exodus 20:17 “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant nor his maidservant nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s. Covet in general means to desire, covet, take pleasure in, or delight in something. Depending on the word used: a) (Qal) to desire, b) (Niphal) to be desirable and c) (Piel) to delight greatly, desire greatly. Less frequent meanings include preciousness. It could be argued that by taking such a great interest in homosexuality practice of others, these christians are trying to “take” the homosexuality of others, a violating the Bible.

While the second exegesis paragraph, is a stretch. The first, is clear cut. As two of the most prominent voices of the religious right, a person would presume that they would be consistent to their proclaimed understanding of the Bible. Lying, and then blaming the people you lied about is not the type of religion I would follow. If Falwell and Robertson were engineers (no offense to any engineers who are reading this) I wouldn’t mind, it’s a personal opinion. However, Falwell and Robertson claim to be spiritual leaders. This statement is supported by 40 million viewers who consider them leaders of their faith. In my view, they fail their own standard as moral leaders. Unless of course, someone believes that Conservative Christianity is suppose to teach its followers to lie. Interesting enough, the outcry against these lies didn’t come from Falwell and Robertson’s ministries, it came from the secular environment. This reaction may lead one to believe that the followers of Falwell and Robertson cannot tell right from wrong (in accord with the morality of their interpretation of the Bible). It also is a small step, to not be able to distinguish right and wrong, and acting oppressively to others.

This is not the only example of many committed by the most renown speakers of Christianity in the US. In the wake of the horrific shooting at Forth Worth's Wedgwood Baptist Church, pundit-evangelist Jerry Falwell assumed his usual position in the center of the media story and offered this assertion: "Most hate crimes in America today are not directed toward African-Americans or Jewish people or gays or lesbians," he told Time magazine. "They are directed at evangelical Christians."

Falwell's role in the massacre story symbolizes much of what passes for mainstream news coverage of religion and religious debates: it's loud, divisive, simplistic and full of unchallenged falsehoods. According to the FBI's most recent hate crime statistics, in 1997 there were 3,838 bias-motivated offenses against African-Americans, 1,159 against Jews and 1,351 against gays and lesbians. Bias-motivated offenses against all Protestants totaled 59. Dang it!!! What’s that, Gods spokesperson lies.
<a href="http://www.fair.org/articles/media-religion.html" target="_blank">http://www.fair.org/articles/media-religion.html</a>

Homosexuality is merely seen as being symptomatic of a larger more important problem, that of being without God.

Then your interpretation of God, allows you to know who is in God's favor and who is not? As I have stated, homosexuality has existed within Church for over 1,800 years. This is a diachronic problem. Your statement refers to a very recent belief. While, I could argue that the belief held by all the Christians for 1,800 years is more valid than your statements that are a little over 100 years old. I think the reasonable person would reasoned that 1,800 years of a belief is more in line with that religion, rather than a very recent belief that was add.

Furthermore, The Christian view of sex is that it must be between a Man and a woman bound together in marriage for life. This is the standard. If it can be called discriminatory, it is no more descriminatory towards people who practice homosexuality than it towards adulterers or fornicators (unmarried people who have sex outside of marriage)
There is also no command in the New Testament for the Church to establish Civil authority such as was the case in the Old Testament with Israel. Therfore I will argue that any Christians using Civil authority for the furtherance of Christianity are unauthorized by the Bible to do so. Christians may act in a way that is inconsistant with the Bible, but that is not to say that is the fault of the Bible.

The custom of marriage started around the 12 century. Is it your opinion, that 97% of Europe, between Constantine to the 15 century (1563) were all living in sin? And since these people consider that their behavior of living together without marriage, was permisible in the eyes of God and the Church agreed. Until the Council of Trent, when it became canon to be married by a priest (minister) with at least two witness. Therefore, sex without marriage became a sin in 1563.<a href="http://marriage.about.com/library/weekly/aa070198.htm?once=true&rnk=r6&terms=Polygamy" target="_blank">http://marriage.about.com/library/weekly/aa070198.htm?once=true&rnk=r6&terms=Polygamy</a>

The concept of Canon requires that all parts of the Bible must be applied, (the word). Your decision to discount the first part of the Bible (Old Testament) actuality invalidates the second part of the Bible (New Testament). The purpose of the New Testament was to usurp the God of the Jews, and make the Jewish God compatible with Roman customs and traditions. The Christ myth is built on the first testament.

A more descriptively accurate statement would state, Christians can interpret the Bible in many different ways. According to my interpretation, Christianity is unauthorized by the Bible to form a civil authority. I also find amazing that you are going to disregard 1,500 of European history and make the statement that the Bible did not allow the establishment of a civil authority. Why do you think that period of time is called the Dark Ages, in Spain it is called the Black History? Not the exact terms a reasonable person would call spiritual. To be accurate, according to the interpretation of the Bible, at that time, the Church had the right to control any and all aspects of civil authority.

Diachronically I think I have proven that the Church was oppressive. I am the first person to admitted that the oppression is different in the modern era.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: oneofshibumi ]</p>

rudolk

Was going to post on GeoTheo trying to hide behind the word "support" in the great definition scigirl gave of bigotry, but oneofshibumi said it all.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Kurt

FreeToThink

Are you saying that marriage did not exist before the 12th century? The <a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN+2&language=english&version=NIV&s howfn=on&showxref=on" target="_blank">Hebrew Creation Myth</a>, written some thousands of years ago says (bolding mine)

There must be some point I am missing here. Help me out.

oneofshibumi

Free to Think

The point I was trying to make was common law wives have existed for well over 3,000 years. Common law wife means that a man and a woman live together. However, the act of having a ceremony performed by a institution, specifically the Christian Church is not. The act of marriage having to be done in a presence of a “holy man” (there may be some denominations that permit women to perform the rite also) and witnesses did not start until the Council of Trent, in the 1500s. Some historians argue that this was an attempt by the Catholic Church to get the common people distracted from blasphemers, for example Martin Luther. Others believe it was a psychological ploy to make couples stay loyal to the Catholic Church, by telling them if you change religion, your marriage would become invalid.

Presentism is a common flaw in interpretation of historical documents. Presentism means that when you read a historical document you interpret it as if it was written in the present time. This is easy to observe in children. For example, if you tell a young child that on the frontier a family stored their meat. The child is going to think that they put the meat into a freezer. While the statement true meaning is they salted and dried the meat. Another example, if a person told you, “That is a hard drive.” In the present you would assume the person is talking about a computer. One hundred years ago, you would assume that the person is talking about a difficult trip of moving live stock from one geographical location to another.

In the present, when people read the word wife in the Bible, you presume that it meant a institutional marriage (a social contract) when in reality it means that this wife was living with a man.

The term marriage is a recent term (1250-1300) that reached Europe through the Muslims in Spain. Marriage meaning the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. From the 13th century until the Council of Trent, the only people who married in Europe were Kings, usually arranged, and for the purpose of land acquisition (dowry). After the Council of Trent the Catholic Church reduced its price to marry a couple, and it was only then that the act of marriage as we understand it came into being.

I hope this clarifies my statements. If not, please post questions.

Bree

The only difference between a "married" couple and an "unmarried couple" living together is the fact that the "married" couple has a piece of paper that says they are "married."

The church doesn't even figure in.

oneofshibumi

Bree,

The United States was the first country to permit marriage outside of the Church (I am talking about Western Civilization). The Church now does not matter. But two hundred and fifty years ago you could only have marriage by the Church anywhere in Europe or the American colonies.

Much of my posting is referring to the laws of the past, not the present.

rudolk

I know that stories from The Onion shouldn't be considered ammunition for arguments, but I can't resist posting this one (I'm sure it's been up plenty of times in the past)

<a href="http://www.theonion.com/onion3407/churchhomosexual.html" target="_blank">http://www.theonion.com/onion3407/churchhomosexual.html</a>

Too funny.

-Kurt