Message Boards Team Forums LSU Sites |
|
| Posted by | Message | Python
Prairieville, La.
Member since May 2008
3836 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/1/12 at 2:23 pm to BeeFense5)
Well in Toddy's defense, I think he was defending his right to bully which makes Toddy a hypocrite. But we all knew that already.
| | Back to top | | BeeFense5 
Notre Dame Fan
New Orleans
Member since Jul 2010
15793 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/1/12 at 2:25 pm to Python)
Yeah, I don't think I will ever take any anti bullying post seriously by toddy ever again after reading this thread.
Total hypocrisy on the issue of bullying. Apparently bullying everyone else but gays is okay in his world.
Can't wait till the next thread started by him blaming Mormons for kids killing themselves. 
| | Back to top | | AlaTiger 
LSU Fan
Alabama
Member since Aug 2006
9987 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/1/12 at 2:26 pm to DCRebel)
quote:
shite man I don't read his columns. I don't know his style. I'm just assuming that, when they hired him or asked him to speak or whatever, that they didn't expect him to call somebody a "pansy ass" on stage. That's all.
So, you pretty much just assume and work off of your own opinions about stuff without really seeking to understand it, it seems. Gotcha.
As for what I have said about the Bible, my views are mainstream.
Where do you see Christians using the Bible to justify slavery, stone adulterers, or keep people from eating shellfish? Yes, those things happened in the past, but were either directly confronted by Jesus, the early church, or other Christians who used the Bible to say that such actions were an aberration.
Savage sets up a perfect straw man attack. His objections to ALL that the Bible says because Christians either used the Bible wrong in the past or because of the shift in emphasis in the old and new covenant are what make him wrong.
Just because you don't like that you can't pin shellfish on Christians as they say that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin is more of a you problem.
Yes, there is sin. The Bible says there is sin. Homosexuality is one of the sins as is adultery and same sex lust. Jesus died to forgive everyone of their sins. Violence or oppression against sinners is also wrong. Jesus died to forgive that too.
If Savage doesn't want to have a discussion on the Bible, then he shouldn't bring it up. But, I guess he didn't want to have a discussion, did he? He wanted to blast high school kids and then make fun of them when they silently protested - at an anti-bullying conference. Nice.
| | Back to top | | mizzoukills
Member since Aug 2011
9610 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/1/12 at 3:55 pm to AlaTiger)
| | Back to top | | DCRebel
Northwestern Fan
Dan's Cafe
Member since Aug 2009
13233 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/2/12 at 10:31 am to AlaTiger)
quote:
So, you pretty much just assume and work off of your own opinions about stuff without really seeking to understand it, it seems. Gotcha.
I'm talking about his use of the word "pansy-ass". I think it's a fair assumption to make that the people who hired him didn't think he'd use such language. If they did think he'd use such language, they wouldn't have hired him. That's the assumption I'm making. It's very simple and specific. Stop trying to extrapolate it into some grand understanding or criticism of my worldview.
quote:
Where do you see Christians using the Bible to justify slavery, stone adulterers
Africa
quote:
Yes, those things happened in the past, but were either directly confronted by Jesus, the early church, or other Christians who used the Bible to say that such actions were an aberration.
So? That doesn't mean that such things still weren't done under the banner of Christianity.
And, in the case of American slavery, it sure as shite took several centuries for enough Christians to realize that "such actions were an aberration", don't you think? If it were so readily apparent that slavery wasn't a Christian practice, it certainly wouldn't have been legal all the way through the middle of the nineteenth century, don't you think?
quote:
Savage sets up a perfect straw man attack
He was trying to point out hypocrisy. Christians today (you yourself have done it in this thread dozens of times) cherry pick what they want to adhere to in the Bible. It is not a text of enduring moral codes, because if it were you wouldn't have to contextualize everything it says in order for it to fit a modern narrative.
quote:
His objections to ALL that the Bible says because Christians either used the Bible wrong in the past or because of the shift in emphasis in the old and new covenant are what make him wrong.
Would you stop with this "using the Bible wrong" bullshite? It smacks of arrogance ("I, AlaTiger, am a true Christian who understands how the Bible is supposed to be interpreted.") and relies on the assumption that you're one to tell people what they should and shouldn't interpret from an incredibly vague text.
Where's the Bible's instruction manual? If it's so obvious that there's a "right" and "wrong" way to use it, then that must be spelled out somewhere, right?
quote:
Yes, there is sin. The Bible says there is sin.
Circular reasoning
quote:
But, I guess he didn't want to have a discussion, did he?
Savage was giving a speech, wasn't he? That's not a discussion by definition.
quote:
He wanted to blast high school kids and then make fun of them when they silently protested - at an anti-bullying conference.
Red herring. I haven't once defended Savage's language or actions. While I do agree with the point he was trying to make, he went way over the line by calling people out like he did.
| | Back to top | | Tom288 
Florida Fan
Member since Apr 2009
16744 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/2/12 at 10:34 am to L.A.)
quote:
I went from doorknob to doorknob. They were filthy, no doubt, but there wasn't time to find a rag to spit on. My immune system wasn't all it should be -- I was in the grip of the worst flu I had ever had -- but I was on a mission. If for some reason I didn't manage to get a pen from my mouth to Gary's hands, I wanted to seed his office with germs, get as many of his people sick as I could, and hopefully one of them would infect the candidate.
Sounds like someone needs some bullying.
| | Back to top | | L.A. 
New Orleans Saints Fan
Los Angeles
Member since Aug 2003
34640 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/2/12 at 10:50 am to Tom288)
quote:
Sounds like someone needs some bullying.
I was thinking more along the lines of a lobotomy. 
Seriously, those are not the actions of a mentally stable human being.
| | Back to top | | Rex
LSU Fan
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
47425 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/2/12 at 11:28 am to AlaTiger)
quote:
Philippians 2:5-8 says that Jesus took on the form of a servant. The word there is doulos, which means slave.
You see... this is why apologists of your type can't be taken seriously. You think you can just toss out Bible verse numbers and that automatically makes them mean what you hope them to say?
For the curious, here is Philippians 2:5-8:
quote:
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature[a] God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[b] of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death — even death on a cross!
As anybody who can read and think can clearly see, there is NOT ONE SPECK of prohibition or admonition there against slavery. If anything, it beseeches people to accept their lot as underling servants. If apologists take it from there to state that Jesus became like a slave in order to instruct against slavery then that's merely a fanciful construct from their own desperate imaginations, not anything that can be supported by actual verse.
quote:
So, Jesus became a slave to set captives free (Luke 4:18-19). He became a slave for us.
That may or may not be so, but once again that's a position that can't be supported by the actual verse. Setting aside the fact that Luke is a copycat but embellished version of Mark who makes no mention of that episode and therefore that it's highly doubtful Jesus spoke it in the first place, those verses don't condemn or address slavery as a practice AT ALL. If anything, if Jesus willingly parabalizes himself as a slave there, and then later in Luke proclaims that "the servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows" without a smidgeon of condemnation, he can be justifiably seen as lending implicit concurrence to the practice.
Like I've already acknowledged, yes, the anti-slavery movement certainly involved many Christians, but those were people who, just as you do now, had the good sense to ignore or liberally interpret the Bible where doing so fit the decent moral and humanitarian course. All of which confirms Dan Savage's thesis: if you have the decency and good sense to do so against one bull shite unfairness you should have the same attitude in another.
| | Back to top | | AlaTiger
LSU Fan
Alabama
Member since Aug 2006
9987 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/2/12 at 11:32 am to DCRebel)
quote:
Would you stop with this "using the Bible wrong" bullshitee? It smacks of arrogance ("I, AlaTiger, am a true Christian who understands how the Bible is supposed to be interpreted.") and relies on the assumption that you're one to tell people what they should and shouldn't interpret from an incredibly vague text.
Where's the Bible's instruction manual? If it's so obvious that there's a "right" and "wrong" way to use it, then that must be spelled out somewhere, right?
Almost everything else you wrote has already been addressed, but you don't like my answers. That's fine. I think that your approach is ridiculous as well. So, we can agree to disagree and not keep going round the mulberry bush.
On this last one, I want to say a few things. I have never claimed to be the "only" authority on what the Bible says. I am saying that people got the Bible wrong on the issue of slavery and have repented. There has been universal repentance in every branch of Christianity for using the Bible to defend slavery. It is all over the place. I have a book that lists in the appendix the repentance of literally hundreds of Christian groups over the issue of defending slavery as well as other forms of oppression over the past hundred years. It is as mainstream a view as mainstream gets and it does not rest with me, Alatiger. So, can we get off trying to pin what I am saying as just my particular view? It clearly is not.
People were wrong about things in the past. That is a fact. Savage is right about that. I imagine that a lot of people, to fit in with the cultural trend of saying that sexuality doesn't matter, will also agree with him and say that we are wrong about homosexuality and that we need to abandon such antiquated beliefs. But, there is a difference between throwing out slavery and throwing out prohibitions to homosexuality. Slavery is not commanded in the Bible nor is it authorized or approved of. It is understood that it exists in some cultures, so there were regulations attached to it to make it humane so that people would not be destroyed or taken advantage of. By the New Testament, the system was being completely undermined. Even Philemon undermines the Roman system of slavery and reestablishes the relationship according to a Christian context. Under Roman Law, Onesimus should have been executed for running away. So, he was headed for death. But, Paul writes Philemon and asks him to take Onesimus back as a Christian brother. He offers to pay back anything that Onesimus might have stolen from Philemon and he puts himself in the way of having to pay. Verses 15-16 moves Onesimus from the realm of a slave of Philemon to the realm of a brother because he is now a Christian, just as Philemon is. Paul, using persuasion, is effectively telling Philemon to treat Onesimus not according to the law or as a slave, even though Roman law requires it, but as a brother in Christ. You can't see it now because you sit in America in 2012, but this type of writing was revolutionary to the social/economic system of the Roman Empire.
Using Philemon and the teachings of Christ, among other New Testament writings, a rock solid case against slavery can be made. The fact that some don't want to see it and take a different approach is because human nature wants to keep its state of privilege and oppression of others.
The fact that neither Dan Savage nor you can see what the Scriptures really say on slavery or homosexuality is because you have another agenda entirely. For Christians, it is an open and shut case.
One last thing: The reason that homosexuality is completely different from racism or slavery is because prohibitions against homosexuality, adultery, and all sexual impurity are rock solid in the Bible in both Old and New Testaments. There is no getting around them. Savage knows this - that is why he says that we should just ignore them. For slavery, its advocates had to build a case from stringing verses together taken out of context. It was a house of cards that fell apart.
| | Back to top | | Rex
LSU Fan
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
47425 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/2/12 at 11:41 am to AlaTiger)
Let's skip all your tortured apologetics for just a moment and indulge me by answering a simple question:
Was it morally right for Moses and the Israelis to slaughter all the Midianite men, women, and children except the virgins?
| | Back to top | | AlaTiger
LSU Fan
Alabama
Member since Aug 2006
9987 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/2/12 at 11:46 am to Rex)
Rex,
Ok.
quote:
For the curious, here is Philippians 2:5-8:
quote:
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature[a] God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[b] of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death — even death on a cross!
As anybody who can read and think can clearly see, there is NOT ONE SPECK of prohibition or admonition there against slavery. If anything, it beseeches people to accept their lot as underling servants. If apologists take it from there to state that Jesus became like a slave in order to instruct against slavery then that's merely a fanciful construct from their own desperate imaginations, not anything that can be supported by actual verse.
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, became a slave. He came to serve, not be served. He washed feet. He went to a cross. We should be LIKE HIM - Have the same mindset as Him. We, all who are Christians, should humble ourselves. If Christ, who being in very nature GOD, did not grasp his position but instead became a SLAVE - then who are we to think that we can have a position over others? That is what it means to HAVE THE SAME MINDSET AS CHRIST JESUS. If you are a slave to God and others, then how can you have slaves yourself? How can you have people under you if you are supposed to be serving them? His position as slave undermines human slavery because Christ, being greater, humbled himself and became less than all of us. Then, He calls us to do the same. If Christ, being greater did it, then how much more are we, who are less than him, supposed to do it. If I try to assert myself over someone else, then I am not like Christ. I have abandoned following Him.
You say that Luke has no authority because he was copying Mark? I disagree, but let's look at Mark 10:35-45:
quote:
35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”
36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.
37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”
38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”
39 “We can,” they answered.
Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”
41 When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
The followers of Jesus are not to be like the world and its value system, which is about competition, power, and who is over who. Jesus' Kingdom turns all of that upside down. If you want to be great in the Kingdom of God, you serve others. If you want to be first, you become a slave. Jesus was a slave. He calls his followers to be slaves. At whatever point you try to rise up over someone else, you are no longer like Jesus - you are no longer following Him.
How can this be more clear? He turns the whole system upside down and tells his followers to be slaves, just like him, and to not lord over others?
Maybe Jesus didn't speak against slavery the way that you would have liked him to - but it isn't about what you want to see, Rex. It is about what was actually said. The way that it is said here applies to all situations everywhere. Any time anyone uses oppression or power to force someone else to submit to them, they are no longer following Jesus. We are supposed to serve one another in sacrificial love. That is what Scripture prescribes. You cannot possibly do that in a slavery-system, which is why the American South during the time of slavery and segregation was anything but a Biblical society, even though it claimed to be with churches on every corner.
According to the words of Jesus, they were not following him in this situation.
| | Back to top | | AlaTiger
LSU Fan
Alabama
Member since Aug 2006
9987 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/2/12 at 12:01 pm to Rex)
quote:
Let's skip all your tortured apologetics for just a moment and indulge me by answering a simple question:
Was it morally right for Moses and the Israelis to slaughter all the Midianite men, women, and children except the virgins?
So, let's skip every argument that Rex doesn't like and get to a point that he can clearly understand and try to win - because to actually say something that you don't want to hear or have no interest in understanding is beneath you? My argument is actually completely straightforward in Christian theology.
Old Covenant.
New Covenant.
The Law can make no one righteous, but reveals sin.
Christ is the fulfillment of the Law and righteousness comes through Him.
Christ establishes His Kingdom in our hearts.
As for Numbers 31:7-18, if that is what you are referring to, the Midianites were an obstacle to Israel. They had cursed them and their women enticed the Israelites to worship idols - which God disciplined them for. As Israel went through the desert, the people around them were threatened by them, plotted against them, enticed them to worship idols and engage in sorcery, human sacrifice, sexual impurity, and a host of other sins that God forbid. If the children lived, then they would grow up and come back (you ever see Godfather II? Same type of thing). If the women lived, they would subvert the purity of Israel and entice them to forsake the one true God. So, God told them to put them all to the sword. The same thing happened as Joshua led the Israelites through Canaan to take the Promised Land. If they left their enemies in the land, their enemies would come back, make war against them, engage in idolatry, and lead Israel astray over time. It was a way of purifying the land. Plus, the practices of the Canaanite people were horrendous - child sacrifice, temple prostitution, Sodom and Gomorrah where they were wanting to rape angelic beings (see Lot) and young girls. It went on and on. Killing them all purified the land of their idolatry.
BUT, this was only done once at a specific place and time. Never again was this commanded by any people of God. The Church was not commanded to go into Corinth or Thessalonica and put everyone to the sword because they were idol worshipers. This command was given to Israel so they could inhabit the land in peace and worship God in holiness.
After Jesus came and His commission was given to the Church to spread the Kingdom of God everywhere, it was not to advance by the sword but through sacrificial love. That is very clear and there is a very clear shift in what the Bible tells us to do. There are no more Theocracies, Rex. That time has past. Now, the Church is to spread the Kingdom in the hearts of men.
No physical violence.
Do not take the life of another.
Love, not hate.
Serve, not be served.
It goes on and on. This is not tortured apologetics. It is basic Christian theology and it is why Dan Savage was totally wrong. Now, if he wanted to address Jews on the Torah, he might have a case, but even they understand that since Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in AD 70, they are to act in a different way. Plus, he would be condemned as an anti-semite. And, he would also be wrong.
Go to go.
| | Back to top | | DCRebel
Northwestern Fan
Dan's Cafe
Member since Aug 2009
13233 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/2/12 at 12:46 pm to AlaTiger)
quote:
So, we can agree to disagree and not keep going round the mulberry bush.
Okay.
quote:
But, there is a difference between throwing out slavery and throwing out prohibitions to homosexuality. Slavery is not commanded in the Bible nor is it authorized or approved of.
Okay, but you have GOT to realize that the reason that the lot of the irreligious do not take the anti-homosexuality stance very seriously is because the only reason offered up to legislate or condemn homosexuality is rooted in religion.
With things like slavery, you don't need a religious justification to understand why it's wrong. It's on its face morally reprehensible in our modern society. Homosexuality isn't like that. Aside from "well it's condemned in the Bible," nobody can offer any reason as to why it should be legislated or frowned upon. Being that the case, then there isn't a solid reason to legislate against it.
quote:
The fact that neither Dan Savage nor you can see what the Scriptures really say on slavery or homosexuality is because you have another agenda entirely.
Not this again...
Look, you have acknowledged several times in this thread that even CHRISTIANS can't all agree as to what the Bible says! Considering the fact that certain Christian sects say "God hates Fags," while others ordain gay bishops, for you to say...
quote:
For Christians, it is an open and shut case
...is patently laughable. It is NOT an open and shut case, and the lot of Christendom has largely proven that true. You have this idea that Christians think and act monolithically because they all adhere to the Bible and interpret it a particular (or "correct") way. If Christian actions are any evidence, then that idea is blatantly false.
Again, the "well some Christians aren't doing it right" argument is a ridiculous logical fallacy. You aren't in a position to tell anyone they're doing something right or wrong, nor are you the person who defines who is and isn't a Christian. Read up on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
| | Back to top | | Rex
LSU Fan
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
47425 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/2/12 at 12:48 pm to AlaTiger)
quote:
So, let's skip every argument that Rex doesn't like and get to a point that he can clearly understand and try to win
Sorry, but you've already been defeated in every argument whether you're willing to admit or not.
I asked you for a simple answer to a simple question. The fact that you refuse to answer it but instead substituted some long-winded discourse about the primacy of the NT speaks volumes about your integrity, really.
I'll give you another chance: was it morally right for Moses and Israelis to slaughter all the Midianite men, women, and children but save the virgins for themselves?
| | Back to top | | AlaTiger
LSU Fan
Alabama
Member since Aug 2006
9987 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/2/12 at 2:38 pm to DCRebel)
quote:
Okay, but you have GOT to realize that the reason that the lot of the irreligious do not take the anti-homosexuality stance very seriously is because the only reason offered up to legislate or condemn homosexuality is rooted in religion.
There is a pretty obvious reason rooted in biology and a lot of anthropological/sociological weight against normalizing homosexuality as well. You can make a strong argument against homosexuality without appealing to religion at all - if you will agree that biology serves a reproductive purpose and that there is right and wrong. The problem is, without transcendent values, everything falls apart - including your argument against slavery.
What basis does a humanistic argument against slavery have if there is not some transcendent good that exists beyond us? If evolutionary theory is true, then slavery is absolutely fine (survival of the fittest) and homosexuality should be eliminated (it is an aberration that does not propogate the species).
quote:
Look, you have acknowledged several times in this thread that even CHRISTIANS can't all agree as to what the Bible says! Considering the fact that certain Christian sects say "God hates Fags," while others ordain gay bishops, for you to say...
quote:
For Christians, it is an open and shut case
...is patently laughable. It is NOT an open and shut case, and the lot of Christendom has largely proven that true. You have this idea that Christians think and act monolithically because they all adhere to the Bible and interpret it a particular (or "correct") way. If Christian actions are any evidence, then that idea is blatantly false.
Understood. There are many who call themselves Christians who are trying to make a case for the affirmation of homosexuality as normative. But, to do so, they are altering Scripture and its understanding, or just throwing it out entirely by disregarding Paul's writings or making some other maneuver. Sure, you can do it. But, you are just dismissing the text. Scripture clearly forbids it. You have to ignore that to make your case, and you are right, there are multiple Christian groups who are doing just that. Dan Savage is happy with them, most likely, at least on that point.
quote:
Again, the "well some Christians aren't doing it right" argument is a ridiculous logical fallacy. You aren't in a position to tell anyone they're doing something right or wrong, nor are you the person who defines who is and isn't a Christian. Read up on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
I am not claiming my own authority here, DCRebel. What I am saying is not something that I just made up. It is fairly standard:
Christians prohibit slavery. This is true.
Christians, for the most part, agree that the Bible prohibits homosexuality. This is also true. Now, I will grant you that there are multiple Christian groups that are debating this and are changing their views. Episcopalians have done so. Methodists are debating it this week. But, when they do so, they are doing it on grounds other than just appealing to what Scripture says. They are appealing to God's love and tolerance and diversity and things like that.
| | Back to top | | AlaTiger
LSU Fan
Alabama
Member since Aug 2006
9987 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/2/12 at 2:50 pm to Rex)
quote:
Sorry, but you've already been defeated in every argument whether you're willing to admit or not.
Okay, Rex. Because you say so.
quote:
I asked you for a simple answer to a simple question. The fact that you refuse to answer it but instead substituted some long-winded discourse about the primacy of the NT speaks volumes about your integrity, really.
You asked me for a simple answer to a VERY complicated question so you could try and pin me to the wall with a "yes" or "no." It was a classic gotcha question that a 3 year old could see through. Because I was trying to engage with you, I took the time to explain what was actually going on - information that actually informs why it WAS MORALLY RIGHT at that time for the Hebrews to slaughter the Midianites but IT IS NOT MORALLY RIGHT to do so at all times and places. This kind of activity was acceptable and proscribed as Israel was leaving Egypt and was later entering the Promised Land and was trying to establish itself as a Kingdom during the times of the Judges and the Kings. It was related to Israel as a Theocracy and political kingdom and the people of God in that geography. It was also Old Covenant.
All of this was superseded with the coming of Christ. Jesus' coming was a complete gamechanger. I keep telling you that but you don't care. I am a Christian and the New Testament explains and supersedes the Old. This is what Christians believe and this is basic to Christian theology. But, it doesn't work for Dan Savage's argument nor does it work for yours - so you just disregard it.
You can either accept my answer and the answer of millions of Christians on the same topic about what we actually believe, or you can keep pulling out these examples to try and win your point. But, you will be wrong just as Savage is wrong. If you persist in ignoring the answer I give you by just calling it a quote:
long-winded discourse about the primacy of the NT
, then you are the one who lacks integrity.
You asked me a question. I answered it. The answer to your incredibly complex question actually does matter.
Was God morally right to command the slaughter of the Midianites by Moses and the Hebrew people? For His purposes and that time, yes.
If someone slaughtered a bunch of people now and claimed that God told them to do it, they would be morally wrong because all of God's wrath against sin was poured out on Christ and God does not command that activity anymore. Ever.
Theology does matter. Just because you don't want to take the time to understand or aren't interested in what Christians believe (which is your right) does not mean that there is not a Biblical understanding on this issue held by millions and millions of Christians all around the world.
Again, Dan Savage was completely wrong.
| | Back to top | | los angeles tiger
LSU Fan
1,601 miles from Tiger Stadium
Member since Oct 2003
54242 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/2/12 at 3:41 pm to DCRebel)
quote:
Where do you see Christians using the Bible to justify slavery, stone adulterers
Africa
It's not Christians that are enslaving the masses in Africa. It's Muslims.
| | Back to top | | DCRebel
Northwestern Fan
Dan's Cafe
Member since Aug 2009
13233 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/2/12 at 4:57 pm to AlaTiger)
quote:
There is a pretty obvious reason rooted in biology
Such as?
Homosexuality occurs in nature, you know. And there are a lot of things about us which aren't "natural." Vaccines, eyeglasses, the deliberate regulation of our body's chemistry (pills), clothing, etc.
quote:
anthropological/sociological weight against normalizing homosexuality as well
Also not a good argument. I do realize that much of humanity is anti-homosexual and has been throughout history. That itself isn't a good reason to maintain such a status quo.
quote:
You can make a strong argument against homosexuality without appealing to religion at all - if you will agree that biology serves a reproductive purpose and that there is right and wrong.
You would have to argue that deliberately going against that reproductive purpose is something ammoral, something which is tough to do outside of a religious context.
There is no RATIONAL or REASONABLE argument to suggests that going against a biological reproductive norm is amoral.
quote:
The problem is, without transcendent values, everything falls apart - including your argument against slavery.
I don't have time for this one right now, but maybe later we can discuss transcendent values. I argue that they do not exist and, even if they did, they themselves wouldn't be a rational moral system.
quote:
What basis does a humanistic argument against slavery have if there is not some transcendent good that exists beyond us?
I could write hundreds, if not thousands of words on this. Basically, the allowance of the institution of slavery doesn't secure human rights and dignity for all people. My freedom and liberty is intrinsically tied to the freedom and liberty of all people. This isn't something that one must need a god to understand, and to believe that we DO need a god to understand this suggests that we humans are fully incapable of taking care of ourselves.
| | Back to top | | DCRebel
Northwestern Fan
Dan's Cafe
Member since Aug 2009
13233 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/2/12 at 4:58 pm to los angeles tiger)
quote:
It's not Christians that are enslaving the masses in Africa. It's Muslims.
You think Joseph Kony's a Muslim?
| | Back to top | | Rex
LSU Fan
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
47425 posts
| re: Why Dan Savage Was 1000% WRONG in His Pro-Gay, Anti-Christian Rant (Posted on 5/2/12 at 5:26 pm to AlaTiger)
quote:
Was God morally right to command the slaughter of the Midianites by Moses and the Hebrew people? For His purposes and that time, yes.
Let's review the purported incident and participants, shall we? (Now, I say "purported" because archaeologists and historians pretty much agree that Exodus and Numbers is all unhistorical bull, but I'll go on...)
Moses and his people fled from Egypt when THE LORD hardened the Pharaoh's heart against the Israelis, remember?
So, as they wandered out of Sinai, the Israelis came to infringe on Moab, Amalekite, and Midianite homelands, and not vice versa. Considering the previous Israeli slaughters and treacheries and takeovers of the other resident peoples as they invaded the area, it was quite understandable that the Midianites would have been circumspect and natural enemies. Even then, though, it appears that the Midianites' greatest offense against the Israelis was their willingness to mingle with them. It's pretty dishonest to hold the Midianites responsible and punishable for moral shortcomings when the Israelis were tangoing with them.
Be that as it may...
So, while it would have been easy for an omnipotent LORD, who had already hardened the hearts of the Pharaoh and his Egyptians, to SOFTEN the hearts of the Midianites to be welcoming, peaceful, and accommodating, your God chose instead to slaughter children and farm animals. Your defense that those children needed to be killed because they could come back to be enemies, especially considering that the virgins were kept alive, is pretty sick bullshite, the type of which Mr. Savage was correct in saying should be ignored.
Face it... what we're left with is you asserting that it's OK for god to change faces, making genocide OK in the same age that eating shellfish was sinful, and then reversing that later... for no legitimate reason except that if it's in the Bible it MUST be good. Mr. Savage is wrong to you because your rule is that the Bible can never contain bull shite. As for Mr. Savage and objective people, it was ALWAYS bull shite that eating shellfish was sinful, or that stoning was OK, or that the slaughter of children was moral, so your claims about Jesus changing any of that are pretty much beside the point.
eta: I'll leave you with one last thought because I don't think I emphasized it greatly enough: ANY religion that forces you to believe that genocides of children while keeping their virgin sisters alive for selfish uses is moral is a BULL shite religion. How can you even have the temerity to speak of "transcendant morals" when genocide and stoning is OK for you in one age but not in the next?
This post was edited on 5/2 at 5:36 pm
| | Back to top | |
Back to top
|
|
