Blacks, gays, dead fetuses, and God

[SineSwiper]

Let's start by getting out all of the hot topics and roll it up into one ball of wax.

Prop 8: It's God's Fault. Good article. Here's some excerpts:

And yes, it must be said: Sad indeed to imagine many of those black pastors up there, cheering Obama's win and deeming this a new dawn for blacks after so many years of struggle for basic civil rights, while in the next breath talking up the wrath of God that will strike parishioners should they allow homosexuals to register for stemware at Crate & Barrel. Talk about disingenuous.

Let me suggest it outright: The vast majority of Yes on 8 voters seem to have been motivated, at least in part, by this sad misunderstanding of God, this harsh spiritual slant that supports a discriminatory, micromanager Almighty who fully endorses marital bliss, but only for some.

(Interestingly, I believe this is the same God who, until recently, didn't allow whites to marry blacks. Or women to vote. Or slaves to be free. Or people to get divorced. Or women to become priests. Or humans to wear condoms. Hmm.)

(As a aside, exit polls in Calif said that 70% of blacks voted for Prop 8.)

Seriously, it really makes me want to talk to these people and figure out why they honor this hypocrisy. Or the so-called "Christians" that support this anti-gay bullshit. Where in the bible does it say that gays can't LEGALLY marry, which is totally different than religious marriage? (Or what about religious marriage? And if you start quoting the Old Testament, then I'm going to start calling you a Jew and asking why you don't honor the hundreds of other harsh punishments in Leviticus and Exodus.)

Is there anybody out here that wants to debate it? Maybe I'm trying to pick a fight or maybe I'm just trying to understand the reasoning. I don't know myself. All I know is that between this and the now 40 years of battle on abortion has worn me down. Religion wears me down. Bigotry and hypocrisy wears me down. That extremist view that commie liberals are going to steal your money and legalize bestiality wears me down.

If we live in a democracy that votes on the majority, why does the majority have to be some fucking uneducated, hillbilly, racist, sexist, bigoted, and downright lazy individuals? Honestly, with my exposure to the city, I don't seem to talk to those kind of people much, but when I do, I quickly realize just how brainwashed these people are. Trying to reason with a racist just doesn't seem to work, especially when they live to be right and be smug about it. I've learned over the years that it's better to be educated and informed than it is to be right. Many people, by their very instincts and defensive mechanisms, don't follow this and cradle their own ignorance, because it is human nature to do so.

Obviously, the rural vs urban nature of the vote still bothers me, but it strikes me as another nightmarish reminder of what this country is really composed of, and just how far down our lowest common denominator goes. I've always hated the predictability of human nature...

[Eric]

Black folk and religion are....annoying...to say the very least.

[Julius Seeker]

Anti-homosexuality isn't a Bible thing, most Christians don't follow the bible; they follow a priest. It is something that existed in the culture hundreds of years later that was injected into the religion, just like priests not being able to engage in sex.

[Lox]

Actually, I'll say this:

I agree that religious marriage is different from legal marriage. Gay legal marriage is not something I worry about. If homosexuals want to legally get married, I'm inclined to let them as a civil right. I don't think most Christians see it like this however and they don't see the distinction and thus feel the need to fight it. There are much bigger battles, imo, than gay marriage. If Ellen wants to marry Portia, fine. It doesn't really affect me.

Also, Sine, you really need to forget this whole "using the Old Testament means you're a Jew" idea. You always say that, but you don't understand what you're talking about. The laws you are referencing were put in place as the first covenant (another word for testament) between God and the Jewish people. The idea of a man/woman being the combination that God wants is prior to the institution of said covenant. Those strict rules got thrown out and replaced with the new covenant that Christ brought. The new "rules" are the ones in the NT, but if you study the Bible you can see where certain themes are consistent between the OT and NT that weren't necessarily Jewish law. The NT even says that the old law was just in place just to show that we can't adhere to it on our own. So, in summary, it's ok to quote OT scripture IF you understand what you're quoting and are using it within the light of the NT. Have you ever studied the Bible other than reading those websites that claim to point out contradictions? I'm guessing not, in which case I can't really blame you for not knowing any of that. But now you know and knowing's half the battle. (Someone finish it, please! )

And Seeker, you are correct that "anti-homosexuality" isn't biblical though consideration of homosexuality as sin IS biblical. There's a difference that, again, many Christians (or "Christians") don't see and think they need to attack. Sadly, many people who profess a Christian faith are as ill-informed on the Bible as Sine.

[Zeus]

Black folk and religion are....annoying...to say the very least.

Replace the word "black" with "any" and I'd completely agree

[Lox]

Black folk and religion are....annoying...to say the very least.

Replace the word "black" with "any" and I'd completely agree

Replace the words "black folk" with "Zeus" and the words "paying for Xbox Live" and I'd completely agree.

[Julius Seeker]

Just an observation: I am seeing far greater intolerance among the non-religious people here than I do the religious people.

[Lox]

Just an observation: I am seeing far greater intolerance among the non-religious people here than I do the religious people.

Well...I am pretty sure I'm the only religious person here. I actually understand why a lot of the guys here have a negative view of religion. Heck, I was right there with them a few years ago. The kinds of "Christians" that get media coverage are usually the ones that are promoting hate or violence because, frankly, that's more interesting. I promise you guys there are a TON of Christians out there who practice neighborly love the way the Bible teaches it and who actually read/study the Bible and know what they are talking about. You all don't like that "religious" people stereotype and generalize, but I see it here in the reverse all the time.

[Mully]

Just an observation: I am seeing far greater intolerance among the non-religious people here than I do the religious people.

Well...I am pretty sure I'm the only religious person here. I actually understand why a lot of the guys here have a negative view of religion. Heck, I was right there with them a few years ago. The kinds of "Christians" that get media coverage are usually the ones that are promoting hate or violence because, frankly, that's more interesting. I promise you guys there are a TON of Christians out there who practice neighborly love the way the Bible teaches it and who actually read/study the Bible and know what they are talking about. You all don't like that "religious" people stereotype and generalize, but I see it here in the reverse all the time.

Lox, you are not alone. I don't speak up much here on this forum and stray away from the heated argument topics (still pretty new). I am an active, practicing Christian as well.

[Lox]

Lox, you are not alone. I don't speak up much here on this forum and stray away from the heated argument topics (still pretty new). I am an active, practicing Christian as well.

Ah! Very cool!

Around here, pretty much anything can turn into a heated argument (even discussing games) just because most of us know how to push each other's buttons and we enjoy it. We're a big dysfunctional group of friends, but we're still friends in the end. haha

[SineSwiper]

Also, Sine, you really need to forget this whole "using the Old Testament means you're a Jew" idea. You always say that, but you don't understand what you're talking about. The laws you are referencing were put in place as the first covenant (another word for testament) between God and the Jewish people. The idea of a man/woman being the combination that God wants is prior to the institution of said covenant. Those strict rules got thrown out and replaced with the new covenant that Christ brought. The new "rules" are the ones in the NT, but if you study the Bible you can see where certain themes are consistent between the OT and NT that weren't necessarily Jewish law. The NT even says that the old law was just in place just to show that we can't adhere to it on our own. So, in summary, it's ok to quote OT scripture IF you understand what you're quoting and are using it within the light of the NT.

Well, that's exactly my point. The OT was basically put into the bible as a guide for the strictest of Jews (even Jews have trouble adhering to all of the OT), and as a history lesson for Christians. Jesus Christ and his followers all but invalidated the OT as being too harsh. He was a Jew that thought that God should be brought up in a more loving light than what the OT taught. Sure, there are themes that are consistent, but let's jump into Leviticus for a minute:

The first seven chapters are a Guide to Animal Sacrifice, which Jews no longer practice, and Christians never did. Leviticus 19:28 condemns getting a tattoo. Chapter 11 condemned the eating of pork (which Peter later "repealed" in Acts 11:4-10). Chapter 13 talks all about skin diseases. Chapter 17 condemns the drinking/eating of blood (even in a rare steak). In fact, the more you dive into Leviticus, the more you think that this guy is a hypochondriac who is obsessed with "impurities".

And well, there's your answer. The whole book of Leviticus really wasn't a moral code (for the most part). It was a practical code to keep from dying. People used unclean needles for tattoos, so that could kill you. Pigs run around in their own shit, so that could kill you. A undercooked steak could kill you. Lepers could kill you. And worse of all, for anybody to even think about putting their wand into the pooper chute just really freaks this guy out, so that's HAS to be dangerous and would DEFINITELY kill you.

It's all a matter of the context and the time period that the bible was written in. This is the problem in following a moral code that was written 2000 years ago. Not only are some of the laws overly strict and unnecessary, but the language used is misunderstood with how the time period was back then.

Finally, the main "God Hates Fags" verse (Leviticus 18:22) is likely a mistranslated and out-of-context statement, anyway. (Yes, I do read more than just the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.) Nevermind that Leviticus was a crazy mofo that seemed to want to ban everything. No wonder Jesus Christ read this stuff and said "Jesus Christ! This stuff really needs to be re-written!"

The best thing the Muslims did in creating their religion was making the Qur'an a separate book. But, then again, they have their own translation and interpretation problems.

Well...I am pretty sure I'm the only religious person here. :) I actually understand why a lot of the guys here have a negative view of religion. Heck, I was right there with them a few years ago. The kinds of "Christians" that get media coverage are usually the ones that are promoting hate or violence because, frankly, that's more interesting. I promise you guys there are a TON of Christians out there who practice neighborly love the way the Bible teaches it and who actually read/study the Bible and know what they are talking about. You all don't like that "religious" people stereotype and generalize, but I see it here in the reverse all the time.

Actually, Mully still lurks out here.

And really, I know that most Christians are really trying to be good, and not be about the fire and brimstone. The problem is when people get too caught up on the book, and not the ideas. The book is not infallible. It was written by men, even if they were inspired by God.

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -- Gandhi

[Julius Seeker]

Before the modern era people had no concept of homosexuality; it was labelled as queer along with sexual relations with animals, children, and other things. In contemporary terms: people had no concept of sexuality, so it was more or less just another kinky sexual act that people performed. The jewish people didn't like these kinds of perversions; most likely the Christian viewpoint isn't inherited from that though, it is inherited from the Roman culture that came to ridicule it sometime in the Julli-Claudian era... If you look at a lot of Roman texts from the Imperial era, when they ridicule a politician they always accuse him of incest, homosexuality, beastiality, and other such things. It is only recently that these arguements using the bible to justify anti-homosexuality stances came into effect: read Foucault's History of Sexuality.