Megachurch wants choir to sign anti-gay covenant
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2011, 10:36 AM
RE: Megachurch wants choir to sign anti-gay covenant
Hey, Condition Yellow.

Quote:No, it's pretty accurate. Because the Christian "policy" (as in, The Bible) is pretty anti-homosexual. Unless of course you provide a passage from the bible that says Homosexuality is okay. Still waiting on that.

So, basically, you're saying that you're ignoring everything else I wrote? Whatever floats your boat.

I have no passage for you. I'm not a Biblical scholar nor am I a Christian. I do know that Jesus didn't preach to hate and kill so there's that, but I guess that that and the fact that multiple Christian denominations have active pro-gay policies doesn't do it for you. So be it.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2011, 11:35 AM
RE: Megachurch wants choir to sign anti-gay covenant
(23-03-2011 10:36 AM)Ghost Wrote:  So, basically, you're saying that you're ignoring everything else I wrote?

Not ignoring it. But it's irrelevant. Any Christian that condones homosexuality is a bad Christian. Period. Just as is any Christian that steals or takes the Lord's name in vein.

Again, the Bible is quite clear on this. Just as the Bible condones slavery. You can't cherry-pick. If you do, then who gets to decide what you can and can't follow?

All too often we hear Christians tells us that our "morality" comes from the Bible. So, there it is. That's the Judeo-Christian morality. Don't blame me. I didn't write the bloody thing- and I sure as poop don't follow it.

(23-03-2011 10:36 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I have no passage for you. I'm not a Biblical scholar nor am I a Christian.

If God's word is so perfect, why do you need to be a Biblical scholar to understand it? If you're not Christian, then why do you have a dog in this debate?

Be polite.
Be efficient.
Have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2011, 01:06 PM
RE: Megachurch wants choir to sign anti-gay covenant
Hey, Condition Yellow.

Quote:If you're not Christian, then why do you have a dog in this debate?

Well now this is significant.

I believe in cultural diversity. I believe that I have an understanding of how cultures interact. I believe that often, hatred and prejudice enter the equation and entire groups of people are dismissed and, worse, dehumanised. This leads inexorably to death. I see no place for prejudice in (I will not say civilised society because I think that prejudice is a nasty feature of the civilsation that Our culture has created [the definition of Our culture being an entirely different kettle of fish, believe me]) a world that desires diversity, shall we say.

A very wise ex-girlfriend of mine once said that she could see the good in everything. It was best to ignore those who cannot. If people have issue with religion, I can grok it. I do too. I once had a conversation with a Suffi roommate of mine about whether or not the good parts of religion can be extruded from the bad parts. I don’t know that they can, but I do acknowledge that the good parts are there. But there is a massive difference between having issues with certain cultural practices and heaping condemnation on an entire cultural group. The former is reasonable and to be encouraged, the latter ignores reality. Whenever, and I mean whenever, I encounter this, I speak in the defence of those that are being treated fairly by being dismissed.

If someone tells me that all Christians are homophobes, I'll take that person to task because it simply is untrue. If someone tells me that all Atheists are immoral and evil, I'll take that person to task because that is equally untrue. If someone tells me that men like Dawkins and Hitchens represent the feelings of all Atheists, that is to say, the position that all religion should be wiped from the face of the earth, I'll take that person to task because it is simply untrue.

I don't have to be a Christian, or an Atheist, or black, or white, or Mohawk, a man, or a woman to do this. As far as I'm concerned, I only have to be a human being.

The dehumanisation of rival groups is one of the many scourges of our planet. It, and I use no hyperbole here, threatens the extinction of the human species. It must be fought against stridently in my view.

Quote:If God's word is so perfect, why do you need to be a Biblical scholar to understand it?

My personal opinion is that many people on this board have close encounters with Evangelical Christians because most people here (except for a handful of Canucks and some Finns and other Europeans) are American. Roughly 1 in 4 Americans are Evangelical. And the Evangelical movement in the US is about as right wing as you can get. My feeling is that their very extreme views taint people's perceptions of Christianity as a whole.

The only Christians that believe the word of the Bible is infallible are Biblical literalists. Every one else, every Christian individual and every Christian denomination, interprets the Bible. Some of them might say that their interpretations are infallible, but they are interpretations none the less. So yes, there are certainly Christians that believe that the word of God via the Bible is an absolute. But they are not all Christians. I have no idea what the split is. 1% or 99% or anywhere in between, but I do know that the split is there and I will take anyone to task that claims that it isn`t. This absolutist notion that all Christians believe the word of the Bible is infallible is just unsupportable. By that logic, all of the denominations I listed above are not actually Christian organisations. They can't exist. But they do. So either them existing is wrong, or the logic is wrong. I'm going to go with the logic being wrong.

I'll say it this way. I disagree with the premise that if you do not follow the letter of the Bible then you are not a Christian. If you disagree, then anything beyond that divergence represents a different and incompatible view. We must understand them as separate.

Quote:You can't cherry-pick. If you do, then who gets to decide what you can and can't follow?

And yet people do cherry-pick (to use that particular frame) and do decide what you can and can't follow. So we must understand two things. One, there is a reasonable argument that if mortals are deciding what the will of God is then perhaps they are wrong about what the will of God is and if there even is one. I'm sure someone else can phrase that better, but it's a pretty standard Atheist point against religious truth. Two, religious organisations DO make decisions about what is asked of them by God. So while the argument that it's a bad practice may have validity, it doesn't take away from the fact that it happens. The idea does not negate reality.

Quote:All too often we hear Christians tells us that our "morality" comes from the Bible. So, there it is. That's the Judeo-Christian morality. Don't blame me. I didn't write the bloody thing- and I sure as poop don't follow it.

Ironically, this stems from a literal interpretation of what these Christians are telling you. Just because morality, in their view, comes from the Bible, does not mean that it does in a literal sense. To Biblical literalists, of course it does. But to everyone else, their morality comes from their denominational and personal interpretation of the Bible. So yes, if you take what they say literally (or if a Biblical literalist is saying it) you absolutely have a case. But if you are speaking to a Christian that interprets the Bible, all you are doing is telling them what their interpretation is. And you're wrong. Because that's ain`t it.

Hey, BnW.

Quote:As for the "attacking people" comment, you should really go back and check out your own writing style and how you approach people. Feel free to look at posts that don't involve me. As much as it pains me to say this, we're more alike than you wish to admit. The actual difference is I don't deny it, but you do.

I've been pondering this.

I owe you a sincere apology. What I said was by far too harsh. You did not deserve to be spoken to in that manner. Please accept my apology as sincere. If my apology means nothing to you, I can accept that. I hope that it does.

Crazy. Stupid. Idiot. Dumbass. Fool. Ignoramus. These are all words that I struggle with. It's very easy to paint someone as one of these things as a state of being. But it converts the human into that thing, stripping them of their humanity. I am guilty of that. In my head, I branded you... something bad, I'm not sure what. Once I did, I was free to tear you apart as a human being, because you no longer were one. It is, in my view, unacceptable.

No one is something as a state of being. No one IS a jerk, or a shithead, or evil, or selfish, or anything else. People can DO things that one might find jerky or assholish or hurtful, but there is a significant difference between doing those things and being those things.

You have, on several occasions, said (by writing) things to me that I have absolutely felt are assholish and jerky and intentionally hurtful things to say and worse than anything else, attempts to dismiss what I was saying by dismissing me as a human being. I feel that if you go back through our conversations, you will never find a time where you have said something and I, having not commented before, have swooped in and launched an ad hom attack on you. I think it's fair to say that I have always responded. I make no apologies for responding. I am a man with dignity and I will not allow myself to be trampled on. That being said, I diminish my dignity by my own hand when in responding I treat you as a sub-human.

I must admit. You have attacked me so frequently that my patience for it is razor-thin. The slightest transgression will illicit a massive retaliation on my part. It's unfortunate because when we do treat each other with respect, I always come out of our exchanges with something good, above average even. I must endeavour to not view you as any thing as a state of being and to respect your humanity. That is a challenge for me. I challenge you to understand what is meant when it is said that you are attacking me and to curb those attacks. I will say this, I will not stop defending myself. But I shall endeavour to do it in a more respectful way.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2011, 03:19 PM
RE: Megachurch wants choir to sign anti-gay covenant
I really don't have much more to add. I would like the emphasize, again, that I'm not attacking people. I would say very many, if not most, of my friends are church-going Christians. I respect them deeply. What I'm criticizing, is an idea.

And living here in the south, while most Christians tolerate homosexuality, they do not condone it. And quietly (and more importantly, in election booths) they think homosexuality is evil. The Christians that do support gay marriage (or are homosexuals themselves) are the vast minority.

Be polite.
Be efficient.
Have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2011, 07:03 PM
RE: Megachurch wants choir to sign anti-gay covenant
Quote:I don't have to be a Christian, or an Atheist, or black, or white, or Mohawk,

Totally OT here. Ghost, do you mind if I ask what part of the world you're from? It caught my eye that you picked "Mohawk".

Sorry, please carry on.

My reason for being is to serve as a cat cushion. That is good enough for me. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2011, 03:11 AM
RE: Megachurch wants choir to sign anti-gay covenant
I've already stated my position on this, so the following is a bit off-topic.

(22-03-2011 05:53 AM)BnW Wrote:  As for your last line, I could not have said it better myself (and I've certainly tried).

Btw, you're not by chance a fan of the "music" of Robbie Dupree, are you? If so, well, we will just have to try to find a way to coexist anyway.

BnW- First, thanks for the compliment. Second- who is Robbie Dupree? Never heard of him or his music.

The way to see by Faith, is to shut the eye of Reason. - Ben Franklin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2011, 03:25 PM
RE: Megachurch wants choir to sign anti-gay covenant
Ok, been off line for a few days and just overwhelmed with work. Came up for air just now and thought I'd check in and boy did I miss a lot.

Ghost - after reading the last 2 responses to me, I think I'm just going to do everyone else a favor and just leave it at that. I've got other thoughts on the matter and I'm sure the opportunity will come when I can put forth my positions (and defend myself against the accusation that I hate religious folks or would be some kind of tyrant) and you can respond, but I agree this has become too charged and personal between us and agree it's best to just step away.

CY - Robbie Dupree is guilty of recording the song "Hotrod Hearts", circa 1980 or so.

Worst.
Song.
Ever.

When it came out, my older sister decided this was the bees knees of music, bought the 45, and tortured me with it for several months, until the record (yes, I remember records and 45s) "accidentally" got a long scratch that made it skip so bad it could no longer be played. It was a tragic day, let me tell you, complete with wild accusations and death threats (and then there were the things my sister said to me). The horror of this song still haunts me. I have nightmares about Robbie Dupree and his cheesy beard chasing me down the street singing this awful song. I once heard it in an elevator and ripped the doors open and climbed out between the floors. I almost lost a leg, but it was worth it if only to escape that song.

So, anyway, when I saw your name was "hotrodmike", I thought I'd ask. And then I started to twitch .... a lot .......

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2011, 03:27 PM
 
RE: Megachurch wants choir to sign anti-gay covenant
(21-03-2011 05:12 PM)gaglamesh731 Wrote:  I've just remembered something.
Why is it that most religions have a problem with gay men rather than gay women ?
One word answer. Patriarchy.
Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2011, 03:29 PM
RE: Megachurch wants choir to sign anti-gay covenant
(25-03-2011 03:27 PM)GassyKitten Wrote:  
(21-03-2011 05:12 PM)gaglamesh731 Wrote:  I've just remembered something.
Why is it that most religions have a problem with gay men rather than gay women ?
One word answer. Patriarchy.

and because lesbians are hot.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2011, 03:42 PM
RE: Megachurch wants choir to sign anti-gay covenant
Hey, BnW.

Quote:Ghost - after reading the last 2 responses to me, I think I'm just going to do everyone else a favor and just leave it at that.

I dig.

Quote:When it came out, my older sister decided this was the bees knees of music, bought the 45, and tortured me with it for several months, until the record (yes, I remember records and 45s) "accidentally" got a long scratch that made it skip so bad it could no longer be played.

Peep dis. Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: