The rainbow-colored halo

President Clinton was hailed by the liberal media as “the first black president”–on the basis of his soulfulness, sexual appetites, and other racist stereotypes–even though there would be an actual black president a few years later.  Now Newsweek is hailing President Obama as “the first gay president” with a cover story by Andrew Sullivan about alleged affinities between being biracial and being gay.  (Never mind that gays had been disillusioned with the president for not doing anything for them until his recent announcement that he support gay marriage.)

I think this is ridiculous journalism and unfair to President Obama.  What gets me, though, is the cover.  In an extreme version of media hagiography, both of Obama and of gays, the president is adorned with a halo.  A rainbow-colored halo.

Andrew Sullivan on Barack Obama’s Gay Marriage Evolution – The Daily Beast.

We have recently discussed homosexuality and gay marriage, to the point of exhaustion, so let’s not talk about those subjects as such.  Let’s talk about the halo.

In what has to be one of the  most dramatic turnarounds in moral and cultural history, gays have acquired the status of sainthood, while those who oppose homosexuality have acquired the status of evil villain.  Homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness; now homophobia is considered the mental illness.  Gay sex used to be considered a vice; now it is assuming the status of a virtue, while disapproving of gay sex is considered a vice.  Conservative Christians have liked to think of themselves as “good” (despite their own theology); but now they (or we) are demonized.  Gays, though, wear a halo.  Not that everyone believes this, but this is the projection of both the elite and the popular cultures, whose influence is permeating everywhere.

How do you account for this turn-around?  How did it happen?  Why? Are there lessons that Christians can learn from this before the persecutions begin in earnest?  And, to play the Newsweek game, might Christians someday become the “new gays”?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    The Devil (and we humans) sure have a way of turning things around.

    Up is down, black is white, bad is good, god is us.

    What a world.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    The Devil (and we humans) sure have a way of turning things around.

    Up is down, black is white, bad is good, god is us.

    What a world.

  • Michael B.

    “How do you account for this turn-around?”

    What has happened is called “conscious raising”. A good example is how the feminists did it with the use of gendered pronouns. If I write something like “the good will of man” or “one man one vote” in a sentence, there is this wince. The feminists have made us knowledgeable that we are excluding half the population when we use this kind of language. Now, I can still do it just to rile the feminists, or perhaps I’m taking a stand for traditional language. But there’s still this flinch when I do it.

    The same thing has been done with gays. One can still make statements against gays, but now one can’t really do it without knowing it. Perhaps you’re taking a stand for traditional Christianity. But if you make a statement against gays, you have this slight wince, even if you’re extremely conservative. People’s consciousness have been raised about gays people ordinary people just like us. Fifty years ago, people would have made an anti-gay comment and thought nothing of it.

  • Michael B.

    “How do you account for this turn-around?”

    What has happened is called “conscious raising”. A good example is how the feminists did it with the use of gendered pronouns. If I write something like “the good will of man” or “one man one vote” in a sentence, there is this wince. The feminists have made us knowledgeable that we are excluding half the population when we use this kind of language. Now, I can still do it just to rile the feminists, or perhaps I’m taking a stand for traditional language. But there’s still this flinch when I do it.

    The same thing has been done with gays. One can still make statements against gays, but now one can’t really do it without knowing it. Perhaps you’re taking a stand for traditional Christianity. But if you make a statement against gays, you have this slight wince, even if you’re extremely conservative. People’s consciousness have been raised about gays people ordinary people just like us. Fifty years ago, people would have made an anti-gay comment and thought nothing of it.

  • steve

    Television. For years now, producers of television and movies have been pushing a specific agenda designed to make homosexuality mainstream, the bolster the apparent numbers of the population, and to make them look unrealistically well-adjusted… “not that there’s anything wrong with that.” There have been many examples, from American Beauty to Modern Family and many others wherein the more loving, caring, and charismatic characters are the gay. When people are raised on certain messages their minds are changed–for good or ill. However, if the promotion of the underdog is based on lies and exaggerations, I don’t think Christians ever want to be the “new gays”.

  • steve

    Television. For years now, producers of television and movies have been pushing a specific agenda designed to make homosexuality mainstream, the bolster the apparent numbers of the population, and to make them look unrealistically well-adjusted… “not that there’s anything wrong with that.” There have been many examples, from American Beauty to Modern Family and many others wherein the more loving, caring, and charismatic characters are the gay. When people are raised on certain messages their minds are changed–for good or ill. However, if the promotion of the underdog is based on lies and exaggerations, I don’t think Christians ever want to be the “new gays”.

  • trotk

    steve, this is way older than television. The seeds for this were planted by 19th century philosophy. This is nothing more than another fruit born by a tree planted long ago. For a decent treatment of the philosophical and cultural movement that has brought us to where we are, read “Sex and the iWorld.”

    I wouldn’t call this a turn around, because that assumes that we had a healthy understanding of sex and marriage prior to this shift. All we have done is apply the thinking that we had concerning heterosexual relationships to gays – namely that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they pleased, provided it didn’t visibly harm others, without being judged by others. We long since elevated the sex drive to be mankind’s greatest pleasure, thus making the denial of its fulfillment the greatest sin you can commit against someone.

  • trotk

    steve, this is way older than television. The seeds for this were planted by 19th century philosophy. This is nothing more than another fruit born by a tree planted long ago. For a decent treatment of the philosophical and cultural movement that has brought us to where we are, read “Sex and the iWorld.”

    I wouldn’t call this a turn around, because that assumes that we had a healthy understanding of sex and marriage prior to this shift. All we have done is apply the thinking that we had concerning heterosexual relationships to gays – namely that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they pleased, provided it didn’t visibly harm others, without being judged by others. We long since elevated the sex drive to be mankind’s greatest pleasure, thus making the denial of its fulfillment the greatest sin you can commit against someone.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    That’s the one good thing about persecution and living in a society openly hostile to Christianity: we will soon see who are real Christians vs. who just warms pews on Sundays.

    Isaiah 5:20 is just as applicable today as it was then, and the one thing about all of this “out of the closet” (pun somewhat intended) anti-Christianity is that we’re going to see the men separated from the boys regarding who is and is not faithful to the word of God.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    That’s the one good thing about persecution and living in a society openly hostile to Christianity: we will soon see who are real Christians vs. who just warms pews on Sundays.

    Isaiah 5:20 is just as applicable today as it was then, and the one thing about all of this “out of the closet” (pun somewhat intended) anti-Christianity is that we’re going to see the men separated from the boys regarding who is and is not faithful to the word of God.

  • Edward Bryant

    An illuminating book on the question:
    The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom, by David Kupelian.

  • Edward Bryant

    An illuminating book on the question:
    The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom, by David Kupelian.

  • Carl Vehse

    Taiwanese animators have produced an animation video about the Newsweek cover of the rainbow-haloed Barry along with last week’s Time magazine cover showing a mother breast-feeding her kindergarten-aged son. Subtitles are provided. The Taiwan video indicates the provocative covers are attempts to revive a dying industry. The same low standards of Time and Newsweek are seen on local news shows during ratings “sweeps week”. Expect even lower standards and more explicit covers if such attempts appear successful.

  • Carl Vehse

    Taiwanese animators have produced an animation video about the Newsweek cover of the rainbow-haloed Barry along with last week’s Time magazine cover showing a mother breast-feeding her kindergarten-aged son. Subtitles are provided. The Taiwan video indicates the provocative covers are attempts to revive a dying industry. The same low standards of Time and Newsweek are seen on local news shows during ratings “sweeps week”. Expect even lower standards and more explicit covers if such attempts appear successful.

  • #4 Kitty

    “Queers” at one time were those debauched people that lived far away in places like Sodom, Gomorrah, and San Francisco. Now they are our nieces, sons, friends, and co-workers. They, like us, strive for happy relationships and we are happy for them. Conservative Christians, on the other hand, insist that these relationships are evil based on a few lines from an old magic book; a book which also, by the way, extols the virtues of slavery and genocide. Because of the internet, we now live in a world open to free exchanges of ideas and culture. Thinking people are no longer persuaded by religious arguments.

  • #4 Kitty

    “Queers” at one time were those debauched people that lived far away in places like Sodom, Gomorrah, and San Francisco. Now they are our nieces, sons, friends, and co-workers. They, like us, strive for happy relationships and we are happy for them. Conservative Christians, on the other hand, insist that these relationships are evil based on a few lines from an old magic book; a book which also, by the way, extols the virtues of slavery and genocide. Because of the internet, we now live in a world open to free exchanges of ideas and culture. Thinking people are no longer persuaded by religious arguments.

  • George

    Dear #4 Kitty,

    Let’s be cool now.
    I think it’s a little bit of a mistake when people talk about “conservative christians” insisting that homosexuality is evil. It’s not Christians really. Its…. almost everyone ever in history. Whether it be the Romans or the Greeks or the Ancient Chinese or the Modern Chinese or what have you, its been denied and stigmatized. Some might say “but the Greeks practiced homosexuality!” Yes… but pederasty. Homosexuality as we know it today has always been viewed as a disgusting vice. So when you stand up for the Gays and rail against the homophobes, do so kindly, lest you hate your own parents.

    Christians merely think what nearly everyone everywhere has always thought, it is an oddity that in this little corner of the world we are singled out for blame.

    But the reason is simple. The modern man can not understand why anyone would think homosexuality wrong. It feels good doesn’t it? If it feels good and makes them happy, how can it be bad?

    What mankind has always denied isn’t so much “homosexuality” as such, but hedonism.

    Anyway, I’m just a silly boy though. But also, the Bible doesn’t extol the virtues of slavery or genocide. Don’t be ignorant, its not becoming.

  • George

    Dear #4 Kitty,

    Let’s be cool now.
    I think it’s a little bit of a mistake when people talk about “conservative christians” insisting that homosexuality is evil. It’s not Christians really. Its…. almost everyone ever in history. Whether it be the Romans or the Greeks or the Ancient Chinese or the Modern Chinese or what have you, its been denied and stigmatized. Some might say “but the Greeks practiced homosexuality!” Yes… but pederasty. Homosexuality as we know it today has always been viewed as a disgusting vice. So when you stand up for the Gays and rail against the homophobes, do so kindly, lest you hate your own parents.

    Christians merely think what nearly everyone everywhere has always thought, it is an oddity that in this little corner of the world we are singled out for blame.

    But the reason is simple. The modern man can not understand why anyone would think homosexuality wrong. It feels good doesn’t it? If it feels good and makes them happy, how can it be bad?

    What mankind has always denied isn’t so much “homosexuality” as such, but hedonism.

    Anyway, I’m just a silly boy though. But also, the Bible doesn’t extol the virtues of slavery or genocide. Don’t be ignorant, its not becoming.

  • #4 Kitty

    @George #9
    The Bible does encourage slavery and genocide. Please don’t be ignorant of (Deuteronomy 2:34; 3:6,Josh 6:21) (Leviticus 25:44-46). It’s even ok to sell your own daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7-11). It’s not becoming.

  • #4 Kitty

    @George #9
    The Bible does encourage slavery and genocide. Please don’t be ignorant of (Deuteronomy 2:34; 3:6,Josh 6:21) (Leviticus 25:44-46). It’s even ok to sell your own daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7-11). It’s not becoming.

  • Morgan

    @Kitty:

    Nobody cares about who “strives for happy relationships.” This has absolutely nothing to do with anything. At all. Let’s agree that everyone wants to be happy and be done with the silly YOU JUST DON’T WANT PEOPLE TO BE HAPPY ‘CAUSE YOU’RE MEAN schtick.

    And look, I don’t think anyone cares (on a purely intellectual level) that you don’t believe the Bible as we all believe it. You mock it as a “magic book,” ignoring that you obviously will have books and ideas and texts that are incredibly precious to you, nigh on to “magical.” Ahem.

    But don’t mischaracterize what it says. Fine, don’t believe it. Don’t use it as your guide. But don’t try to imagine that there’s only “a few lines” in there that we fools are misunderstanding.

    This gets to my real question: Why are you trolling (and rather poorly) on a Lutheran blog? Slumming with the unwashed, are we? You don’t even have enough basic understanding of the Bible to critique it. More sadly, you don’t even realize it.

  • Morgan

    @Kitty:

    Nobody cares about who “strives for happy relationships.” This has absolutely nothing to do with anything. At all. Let’s agree that everyone wants to be happy and be done with the silly YOU JUST DON’T WANT PEOPLE TO BE HAPPY ‘CAUSE YOU’RE MEAN schtick.

    And look, I don’t think anyone cares (on a purely intellectual level) that you don’t believe the Bible as we all believe it. You mock it as a “magic book,” ignoring that you obviously will have books and ideas and texts that are incredibly precious to you, nigh on to “magical.” Ahem.

    But don’t mischaracterize what it says. Fine, don’t believe it. Don’t use it as your guide. But don’t try to imagine that there’s only “a few lines” in there that we fools are misunderstanding.

    This gets to my real question: Why are you trolling (and rather poorly) on a Lutheran blog? Slumming with the unwashed, are we? You don’t even have enough basic understanding of the Bible to critique it. More sadly, you don’t even realize it.

  • Jon

    Rather, merely the regulation of “slavery” (bonded servitude) which was a man-made institution. Nowhere, however, does God establish/institute slavery. If you are going to have this man-made institution, God is going to regulate it so that it is not unbecoming and totally depraved.

  • Jon

    Rather, merely the regulation of “slavery” (bonded servitude) which was a man-made institution. Nowhere, however, does God establish/institute slavery. If you are going to have this man-made institution, God is going to regulate it so that it is not unbecoming and totally depraved.

  • Morgan

    @George #9:
    Plus 1000.

    But don’t try to talk sense to this troll, it only confuses it, pushing it even more off-topic (i.e. slavery and genocide).

  • Morgan

    @George #9:
    Plus 1000.

    But don’t try to talk sense to this troll, it only confuses it, pushing it even more off-topic (i.e. slavery and genocide).

  • Pingback: America as a Shining Drone Upon a Hill by Tom Engelhardt « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL

  • Pingback: America as a Shining Drone Upon a Hill by Tom Engelhardt « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL

  • George

    Dear #4 Kitty,

    I know that there is much killing and slaving in the Bible. But it is one thing to mention that it happens or exists, and encouraging it as you say. The verses from Deuteronomy and Joshua say they killed people; but did it then add “and let this be good advice concerning political action for all my progeny.” If a mention of history is an admonition, then my high school history textbook encourages dropping nuclear bombs on the Japanese and burning Jews. To hell with history textbooks! From them, people find all sorts of evils!

    But you may have a more interesting point with the “selling daughter into slavery” and “taking slaves from foreign nations” parts. Then again, Bible itself insists that these are merely legalities of the Israelites and not part of the eternal divine law. It even says that these Laws were given to Israel due to their “hardness of heart.” And in the New Testiment, they are in no way made a model for Christian behavior. Afterall, can one commit genocide and “love thy neighbor?” No, one would not think so. Biblically, God is the God of the slave, the oppressed, the weak etc. “He has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich empty away.”

    So if, by noting the murders and such of the bible, you intend to insinuate that Christians find their morality in this, you are very mistaken. Christians, after all, follow Christ, one would think. At best, you have incriminated only the Orthodox Jews, who still follow as valid the Mosaic Law.

    Either way, it is something that bothers me as well, that, even if God does not encourage genocide and slavery, he does seem to allow it, at least for a short period of conquest in the Old Testament. But I believe your assertion that the first five books of the Bible are somehow highly influential on Christian theology is rather false.

    Also, Forgive me for the “its not becoming” quip. To say such a thing is unbecoming. I haven’t had my morning cup of tea yet.

  • George

    Dear #4 Kitty,

    I know that there is much killing and slaving in the Bible. But it is one thing to mention that it happens or exists, and encouraging it as you say. The verses from Deuteronomy and Joshua say they killed people; but did it then add “and let this be good advice concerning political action for all my progeny.” If a mention of history is an admonition, then my high school history textbook encourages dropping nuclear bombs on the Japanese and burning Jews. To hell with history textbooks! From them, people find all sorts of evils!

    But you may have a more interesting point with the “selling daughter into slavery” and “taking slaves from foreign nations” parts. Then again, Bible itself insists that these are merely legalities of the Israelites and not part of the eternal divine law. It even says that these Laws were given to Israel due to their “hardness of heart.” And in the New Testiment, they are in no way made a model for Christian behavior. Afterall, can one commit genocide and “love thy neighbor?” No, one would not think so. Biblically, God is the God of the slave, the oppressed, the weak etc. “He has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich empty away.”

    So if, by noting the murders and such of the bible, you intend to insinuate that Christians find their morality in this, you are very mistaken. Christians, after all, follow Christ, one would think. At best, you have incriminated only the Orthodox Jews, who still follow as valid the Mosaic Law.

    Either way, it is something that bothers me as well, that, even if God does not encourage genocide and slavery, he does seem to allow it, at least for a short period of conquest in the Old Testament. But I believe your assertion that the first five books of the Bible are somehow highly influential on Christian theology is rather false.

    Also, Forgive me for the “its not becoming” quip. To say such a thing is unbecoming. I haven’t had my morning cup of tea yet.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    @Kitty #10,
    Perhaps you should actually read those passages regarding slavery and genocide in context and detail before passing such rash judgments and making a fool out of yourself as you have done.

    “Slavery” as described in the Old Testament was more akin to employment or indentured servitude. It involved people who owed a debt or could not afford to provide for their own living and therefore needed to seek gainful employment as a result. It was not the “chains and whips” slavery as portrayed in the movie Roots. Furthermore, upon reading the Old Testament law, it is worthy to note that slaves are given rights and protections. For example, in Exodus 21:26, we see that if a slave’s master mistreats him in any way (i.e., injures him), that slave is permitted to go free. A man was not permitted to mistreat a slave.

    As for your tired, old “genocide” argument, let’s remember that it was a specific judgment rendered at a specific time for a specific purpose, and not an open-ended “jihad” like Islam. God ordained His people to execute judgment upon the Canaanites for their wickedness, and it is also made clear that the subsequent giving of the land was not because of Israel’s righteousness but because of the Canaanite’s wickedness. But that was the extent of it; there was never any justification for Israel to wage an all-out war for all time against the rest of the world, and that some professing Christians have misused the texts in conjunction with this for the purpose of their own selfish ends does not mean that the account itself is invalid.

    So, tell me again how often you read and study the Scriptures?

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    @Kitty #10,
    Perhaps you should actually read those passages regarding slavery and genocide in context and detail before passing such rash judgments and making a fool out of yourself as you have done.

    “Slavery” as described in the Old Testament was more akin to employment or indentured servitude. It involved people who owed a debt or could not afford to provide for their own living and therefore needed to seek gainful employment as a result. It was not the “chains and whips” slavery as portrayed in the movie Roots. Furthermore, upon reading the Old Testament law, it is worthy to note that slaves are given rights and protections. For example, in Exodus 21:26, we see that if a slave’s master mistreats him in any way (i.e., injures him), that slave is permitted to go free. A man was not permitted to mistreat a slave.

    As for your tired, old “genocide” argument, let’s remember that it was a specific judgment rendered at a specific time for a specific purpose, and not an open-ended “jihad” like Islam. God ordained His people to execute judgment upon the Canaanites for their wickedness, and it is also made clear that the subsequent giving of the land was not because of Israel’s righteousness but because of the Canaanite’s wickedness. But that was the extent of it; there was never any justification for Israel to wage an all-out war for all time against the rest of the world, and that some professing Christians have misused the texts in conjunction with this for the purpose of their own selfish ends does not mean that the account itself is invalid.

    So, tell me again how often you read and study the Scriptures?

  • Jon

    And, to play the Newsweek game, might Christians someday become the “new gays”?

    Well, anyways, I like to think of myself as the new brand of “counter culture.”

    Peace, man!

  • Jon

    And, to play the Newsweek game, might Christians someday become the “new gays”?

    Well, anyways, I like to think of myself as the new brand of “counter culture.”

    Peace, man!

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    It doesn’t remind me of a halo as much as it does of space aliens coming to take him away. Nano Nano!

    But to the subject of his hagiography, what we’re getting is the ill fruit of nearly 70 years (or more?) of treating family law as a reason for conferring benefits instead of its original purpose; to protect the rights of weaker vessels (women and children) vis a vis the possibility that the “stronger vessel” will be absent or neglectful.

    And so we do get to a point where people can (and of course do) point out that there are over 1000 places in federal law, code, and regulations that are “benefits” by virtue of treating married people differently than unmarried, and hence we find ourselves arguing about how unfair it is.

    And apart from quibbles like “I don’t consider the marriage penalty in the income tax to be a benefit”, they’ve got a point. It is unfair, and we’ve got to take a serious look at how we do things and how we define family law. Once we recover the notion–if we can–that family law is about protecting the helpless, we’ve largely won. If we don’t, we’ve lost.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    It doesn’t remind me of a halo as much as it does of space aliens coming to take him away. Nano Nano!

    But to the subject of his hagiography, what we’re getting is the ill fruit of nearly 70 years (or more?) of treating family law as a reason for conferring benefits instead of its original purpose; to protect the rights of weaker vessels (women and children) vis a vis the possibility that the “stronger vessel” will be absent or neglectful.

    And so we do get to a point where people can (and of course do) point out that there are over 1000 places in federal law, code, and regulations that are “benefits” by virtue of treating married people differently than unmarried, and hence we find ourselves arguing about how unfair it is.

    And apart from quibbles like “I don’t consider the marriage penalty in the income tax to be a benefit”, they’ve got a point. It is unfair, and we’ve got to take a serious look at how we do things and how we define family law. Once we recover the notion–if we can–that family law is about protecting the helpless, we’ve largely won. If we don’t, we’ve lost.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I see the Time cover as depicting what Time editors believe that gays should now think of President Obama. Perhaps Time editors just want President Obama to be St. Obama, patron saint of gays.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I see the Time cover as depicting what Time editors believe that gays should now think of President Obama. Perhaps Time editors just want President Obama to be St. Obama, patron saint of gays.

  • Susan

    It seems fairly easy to trace the history of the deconstruction of the acceptance of godly sexual mores in America. We have been watching the truth being exchanged for one lie after another for a long time and we have increasingly seen the commensurate societal consequences. In general, the deconstruction of sexual mores seems to be commensurate with the acceptance and ascendancy of any ideology that would have us be our own gods and create our own utopias.

    I think numerous Christians are aware that the deconstruction of godly sexual mores will not end with any laws that make gender irrelevant via the redefinition marriage. There are more personal preferences waiting in the wings that will appear with demands to be accommodated – like polygamy. The case for making pedophilia a norm is also making inroads through supposedly well-respected academic journals and on May 8, 2012, the court of appeals of New York (New York State’s highest court) found that viewing child pornography is not a crime in New York.

    We are also facing the bioethical nightmare of creating children via donated eggs/sperm that are brought to term in surrogate “moms” – children have become a consumer product and in more ways than one. There are the hideous practices of children being aborted for being imperfect or the undesired sex, and China using the remains of aborted children to make “health” pills or Pepsi using them for taste testing…

    I don’t see how Christians cannot help but see that there will be increasing persecution ahead for attempting to confess the truth. Though I am pessimistic regarding turning our culture around, I hope we can slow things down, promote realistic discussions, and save some from this madness. May God have mercy upon us all – our future lies in God’s hands, not ours.

  • Susan

    It seems fairly easy to trace the history of the deconstruction of the acceptance of godly sexual mores in America. We have been watching the truth being exchanged for one lie after another for a long time and we have increasingly seen the commensurate societal consequences. In general, the deconstruction of sexual mores seems to be commensurate with the acceptance and ascendancy of any ideology that would have us be our own gods and create our own utopias.

    I think numerous Christians are aware that the deconstruction of godly sexual mores will not end with any laws that make gender irrelevant via the redefinition marriage. There are more personal preferences waiting in the wings that will appear with demands to be accommodated – like polygamy. The case for making pedophilia a norm is also making inroads through supposedly well-respected academic journals and on May 8, 2012, the court of appeals of New York (New York State’s highest court) found that viewing child pornography is not a crime in New York.

    We are also facing the bioethical nightmare of creating children via donated eggs/sperm that are brought to term in surrogate “moms” – children have become a consumer product and in more ways than one. There are the hideous practices of children being aborted for being imperfect or the undesired sex, and China using the remains of aborted children to make “health” pills or Pepsi using them for taste testing…

    I don’t see how Christians cannot help but see that there will be increasing persecution ahead for attempting to confess the truth. Though I am pessimistic regarding turning our culture around, I hope we can slow things down, promote realistic discussions, and save some from this madness. May God have mercy upon us all – our future lies in God’s hands, not ours.

  • rlewer

    No one is going to convince scoffers like Kitty of their ignorance.

    On the topic:
    1. Perhaps we as Christians need to separate immorality from illegality. There are lots of things that are immoral that are legal especially in the sexual realm. The Bible is clear that the practice of homosexuality is immoral. In the political realm, we would have to make the case that the practice of homosexuality harmful to society.

    2.I think most Christians have tried to make the point that we hate the sin and not our fellow sinners, but this point is deliberately ignored.

    3. Christians are also ridiculed because the last few generations have done away with the idea of sin. Modern man does not want anyone saying that anything they are doing is wrong.

  • rlewer

    No one is going to convince scoffers like Kitty of their ignorance.

    On the topic:
    1. Perhaps we as Christians need to separate immorality from illegality. There are lots of things that are immoral that are legal especially in the sexual realm. The Bible is clear that the practice of homosexuality is immoral. In the political realm, we would have to make the case that the practice of homosexuality harmful to society.

    2.I think most Christians have tried to make the point that we hate the sin and not our fellow sinners, but this point is deliberately ignored.

    3. Christians are also ridiculed because the last few generations have done away with the idea of sin. Modern man does not want anyone saying that anything they are doing is wrong.

  • #4 Kitty

    @11

    You mock it as a “magic book,” ignoring that you obviously will have books and ideas and texts that are incredibly precious to you, nigh on to “magical.” Ahem.

    It contains a ritual for turning a piece of bread into a first century Jew. That’s not magic?

    This gets to my real question: Why are you trolling (and rather poorly) on a Lutheran blog?

    I was baptized into the LCMS. I attended LCMS schooling for ten years. I’m a member of an LCMS church. Why shouldn’t I contribute to this blog?

    @J. Dean

    “Slavery” as described in the Old Testament was more akin to employment or indentured servitude. It involved people who owed a debt or could not afford to provide for their own living and therefore needed to seek gainful employment as a result. It was not the “chains and whips” slavery as portrayed in the movie Roots.

    Wrong. According to (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
    When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
    So, yeah, it is that kind of slavery.

    As for your tired, old “genocide” argument, let’s remember that it was a specific judgment rendered at a specific time for a specific purpose, and not an open-ended “jihad” like Islam.

    No, let’s remember that God commanded soldiers to kill children and infants.

    Bottom line. The Bible gets slavery and genocide wrong. Why then should it be consulted concerning other matters of morality?

  • #4 Kitty

    @11

    You mock it as a “magic book,” ignoring that you obviously will have books and ideas and texts that are incredibly precious to you, nigh on to “magical.” Ahem.

    It contains a ritual for turning a piece of bread into a first century Jew. That’s not magic?

    This gets to my real question: Why are you trolling (and rather poorly) on a Lutheran blog?

    I was baptized into the LCMS. I attended LCMS schooling for ten years. I’m a member of an LCMS church. Why shouldn’t I contribute to this blog?

    @J. Dean

    “Slavery” as described in the Old Testament was more akin to employment or indentured servitude. It involved people who owed a debt or could not afford to provide for their own living and therefore needed to seek gainful employment as a result. It was not the “chains and whips” slavery as portrayed in the movie Roots.

    Wrong. According to (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
    When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
    So, yeah, it is that kind of slavery.

    As for your tired, old “genocide” argument, let’s remember that it was a specific judgment rendered at a specific time for a specific purpose, and not an open-ended “jihad” like Islam.

    No, let’s remember that God commanded soldiers to kill children and infants.

    Bottom line. The Bible gets slavery and genocide wrong. Why then should it be consulted concerning other matters of morality?

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com John

    I honestly thought this was a parody, so I googled Newsweek. Oh. My. Word. I know that Newsweek has been irrelevant for a few dozen years, but this…words fail me.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com John

    I honestly thought this was a parody, so I googled Newsweek. Oh. My. Word. I know that Newsweek has been irrelevant for a few dozen years, but this…words fail me.

  • #4 Kitty

    @rlewer

    No one is going to convince scoffers like Kitty of their ignorance.

    rlewer, these are not my ideas. If you fail to convince scoffers like me then you fail to convince those (outside this echo chamber) who live in the 21st century.

  • #4 Kitty

    @rlewer

    No one is going to convince scoffers like Kitty of their ignorance.

    rlewer, these are not my ideas. If you fail to convince scoffers like me then you fail to convince those (outside this echo chamber) who live in the 21st century.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Bottom line. The Bible gets slavery and genocide wrong. Why then should it be consulted concerning other matters of morality?”

    Can you explain this? I hear it often, but I am not sure what it refers to specifically.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Bottom line. The Bible gets slavery and genocide wrong. Why then should it be consulted concerning other matters of morality?”

    Can you explain this? I hear it often, but I am not sure what it refers to specifically.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    rlewer, these are not my ideas. If you fail to convince scoffers like me then you fail to convince those (outside this echo chamber) who live in the 21st century.”

    We have been told that nothing will convince some. We tell the truth to all, and the elect will believe.

    Luke 16:31

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    rlewer, these are not my ideas. If you fail to convince scoffers like me then you fail to convince those (outside this echo chamber) who live in the 21st century.”

    We have been told that nothing will convince some. We tell the truth to all, and the elect will believe.

    Luke 16:31

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @18, Duh, Newsweek not Time.

    Okay, that is humbling!
    :D

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @18, Duh, Newsweek not Time.

    Okay, that is humbling!
    :D

  • #4 Kitty

    @sg
    The Bible does not condemn slavery but instead seems to promote it.
    Owning people as property is immoral. If the Bible gets this issue wrong then why should we expect it to be right concerning moral issues involving sexuality?

  • #4 Kitty

    @sg
    The Bible does not condemn slavery but instead seems to promote it.
    Owning people as property is immoral. If the Bible gets this issue wrong then why should we expect it to be right concerning moral issues involving sexuality?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    It’s even ok to sell your own daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7-11). It’s not becoming.

    Isn’t this just a matter of getting the girl a job? If nobody wants to marry her and you can’t afford to feed her, then getting her a job seems like a pretty obvious alternative. What other choices do you have? I guess she could be a prostitute, but that is even worse than being a nanny or servant girl.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    It’s even ok to sell your own daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7-11). It’s not becoming.

    Isn’t this just a matter of getting the girl a job? If nobody wants to marry her and you can’t afford to feed her, then getting her a job seems like a pretty obvious alternative. What other choices do you have? I guess she could be a prostitute, but that is even worse than being a nanny or servant girl.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @27 Who are you to judge? What is your basis for saying owning human beings is immoral? Popular sentiment? Cuz that can change and very often does.

    There is still slavery in plenty of places in the world. People tend to prefer it to starvation and constant warfare. It is not ideal, but this is a fallen world. Not everyone lives in a nice neighborhood with all the modern conveniences. Plenty of people are struggling just to stay alive.

    We should absolutely work towards a more just world, but the self righteous (not to mention historical fallacies relating to the references to slavery in the Bible) seem not very thoroughly considered.

    The conditions at the time of writing are the appropriate context for understanding what is stated, not the conditions in contemporary suburban America.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @27 Who are you to judge? What is your basis for saying owning human beings is immoral? Popular sentiment? Cuz that can change and very often does.

    There is still slavery in plenty of places in the world. People tend to prefer it to starvation and constant warfare. It is not ideal, but this is a fallen world. Not everyone lives in a nice neighborhood with all the modern conveniences. Plenty of people are struggling just to stay alive.

    We should absolutely work towards a more just world, but the self righteous (not to mention historical fallacies relating to the references to slavery in the Bible) seem not very thoroughly considered.

    The conditions at the time of writing are the appropriate context for understanding what is stated, not the conditions in contemporary suburban America.

  • #4 Kitty

    @sg #28

    Selling a child into slavery = getting them a job?
    LOL SRSLY???
    Who are you? I mean pardon my incredulity but who hacked into sg’s account?

  • #4 Kitty

    @sg #28

    Selling a child into slavery = getting them a job?
    LOL SRSLY???
    Who are you? I mean pardon my incredulity but who hacked into sg’s account?

  • rlewer

    Kitty is just repeating the standard on-line scoffing. She claims to be an LCMS member and considers Holy Communion “magic”?

    Why don’t we just stay on the topic?

  • rlewer

    Kitty is just repeating the standard on-line scoffing. She claims to be an LCMS member and considers Holy Communion “magic”?

    Why don’t we just stay on the topic?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Selling a child into slavery = getting them a job?
    LOL SRSLY???”

    Yup. Dead serious. Tell us, Kitty, what would you do if you were a laborer literally living a hand to mouth existence, and your daughter were marrying age and there was no one to marry her and you couldn’t support her, and you had other kids to feed and no property to farm or to sell? Well? Your neighbor offers you fifty bucks and says she can work as a nanny at his house and she will be safe and have a roof over her head and meals etc. He also isn’t prosperous enough to pay her, but he can at least take her in, so she won’t have to be a prostitute just to have a piece of bread to eat.

    These weren’t prosperous folks selling off their college educated daughters in the 21st century. They were desperate.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Selling a child into slavery = getting them a job?
    LOL SRSLY???”

    Yup. Dead serious. Tell us, Kitty, what would you do if you were a laborer literally living a hand to mouth existence, and your daughter were marrying age and there was no one to marry her and you couldn’t support her, and you had other kids to feed and no property to farm or to sell? Well? Your neighbor offers you fifty bucks and says she can work as a nanny at his house and she will be safe and have a roof over her head and meals etc. He also isn’t prosperous enough to pay her, but he can at least take her in, so she won’t have to be a prostitute just to have a piece of bread to eat.

    These weren’t prosperous folks selling off their college educated daughters in the 21st century. They were desperate.

  • Robin

    I teach high school and being gay is all the craze. I notice that amongst some groups the gay male is a saint i.e. amidst all of the girls that want to be his friend. I hear girls talking about how they want a gay best guy friend. In general the gay gregarious guy is pretty well liked.
    However, among the lesbian population no one seems to be including them in saint hood. In fact, lots of teenagers seem to be disturbed by the female homosexual especially if she seems to be gender confused and dresses like a male.
    It really is a strange world.

  • Robin

    I teach high school and being gay is all the craze. I notice that amongst some groups the gay male is a saint i.e. amidst all of the girls that want to be his friend. I hear girls talking about how they want a gay best guy friend. In general the gay gregarious guy is pretty well liked.
    However, among the lesbian population no one seems to be including them in saint hood. In fact, lots of teenagers seem to be disturbed by the female homosexual especially if she seems to be gender confused and dresses like a male.
    It really is a strange world.

  • #4 Kitty

    @sg #35
    Yep, I would get her a job as a nanny. But I’d never consider selling her into slavery.

  • #4 Kitty

    @sg #35
    Yep, I would get her a job as a nanny. But I’d never consider selling her into slavery.

  • moallen

    Why didn’t Jesus abolish slavery? How come he did not condemn the atrocities of war and political injustice in his time?
    That’s not what he was here for. That’s what everyone expected – that he would establish a kingdom of this world – which is exactly what would have had to happen for Jesus to wade into the middle of politics and the order of society.
    God regulated many things which He calls wrong. Divorce for example is regulated – Scripture does not condone it.
    God gives us sexual prohibitions – incest, beastiality, marrying two sisters – He even regulates polygamy, but that does not mean He condones it. Neither does God condone 19th century U.S. slavery and the British slave trade. God regulated slavery and gave guidelines for man. If Scripture described what happened in U.S. history and said this is how society should be ordered – with a class of people forever treated as animals – set-up your government and order your society this way – then Kitty would have a point. It doesn’t say that though.
    If what Scripture says about homosexuality can be discarded, why not every other moral law regarding sexuality? There is nothing to stand on then – no standard – it’s get what you can and enjoy yourself! (which is generally how people behave regardless – we’re sinners afterall).

  • moallen

    Why didn’t Jesus abolish slavery? How come he did not condemn the atrocities of war and political injustice in his time?
    That’s not what he was here for. That’s what everyone expected – that he would establish a kingdom of this world – which is exactly what would have had to happen for Jesus to wade into the middle of politics and the order of society.
    God regulated many things which He calls wrong. Divorce for example is regulated – Scripture does not condone it.
    God gives us sexual prohibitions – incest, beastiality, marrying two sisters – He even regulates polygamy, but that does not mean He condones it. Neither does God condone 19th century U.S. slavery and the British slave trade. God regulated slavery and gave guidelines for man. If Scripture described what happened in U.S. history and said this is how society should be ordered – with a class of people forever treated as animals – set-up your government and order your society this way – then Kitty would have a point. It doesn’t say that though.
    If what Scripture says about homosexuality can be discarded, why not every other moral law regarding sexuality? There is nothing to stand on then – no standard – it’s get what you can and enjoy yourself! (which is generally how people behave regardless – we’re sinners afterall).

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @31 rlewer, I counter the statements of scoffers because lots of people read but don’t comment and when scoffers make outrageous defamatory comments and no one counters them, it appears to readers that they may be true when those who should know better just sit silent. Kitty’s statements misrepresent the facts first at the historical level but also on questions of morality. It really isn’t more moral to set your daughter “free” to fend for herself under those circumstances than it is to set her up with dignity in the household of someone who can actually put her to work honorably and provide for her.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @31 rlewer, I counter the statements of scoffers because lots of people read but don’t comment and when scoffers make outrageous defamatory comments and no one counters them, it appears to readers that they may be true when those who should know better just sit silent. Kitty’s statements misrepresent the facts first at the historical level but also on questions of morality. It really isn’t more moral to set your daughter “free” to fend for herself under those circumstances than it is to set her up with dignity in the household of someone who can actually put her to work honorably and provide for her.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Yep, I would get her a job as a nanny. But I’d never consider selling her into slavery.”

    Same thing back then and you know it. Also, you wouldn’t take the money from the guy who took in your daughter, even though you have other kids to feed and no other way to get money? BS

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Yep, I would get her a job as a nanny. But I’d never consider selling her into slavery.”

    Same thing back then and you know it. Also, you wouldn’t take the money from the guy who took in your daughter, even though you have other kids to feed and no other way to get money? BS

  • Morgan

    @21, 27:
    Oh, I bet you’re a real treat at church.

    Certainly not saying you don’t have a right to comment; I just wondered as to why you bother.

    If you believe the Bible promotes all these terrible things, say it can’t be relied on to arbitrate morality, and you (apparently) reject major tenets of your chosen religion… then logically you must reject the Bible (and your religion) completely. Right?

    And why the heck would you bother with church membership? Free coffee and doughnuts?

    I wouldn’t be Muslim if I rejected the Koran, or Muslim teachings in general. I’d be something else entirely.

  • Morgan

    @21, 27:
    Oh, I bet you’re a real treat at church.

    Certainly not saying you don’t have a right to comment; I just wondered as to why you bother.

    If you believe the Bible promotes all these terrible things, say it can’t be relied on to arbitrate morality, and you (apparently) reject major tenets of your chosen religion… then logically you must reject the Bible (and your religion) completely. Right?

    And why the heck would you bother with church membership? Free coffee and doughnuts?

    I wouldn’t be Muslim if I rejected the Koran, or Muslim teachings in general. I’d be something else entirely.

  • George

    Why is slavery wrong?

  • George

    Why is slavery wrong?

  • #4 Kitty

    @ Morgan

    Certainly not saying you don’t have a right to comment; I just wondered as to why you bother.

    Because I want to see my church honestly address the issues of the day.
    Dr Veith asks:

    How do you account for this turn-around? How did it happen? Why? Are there lessons that Christians can learn from this before the persecutions begin in earnest? And, to play the Newsweek game, might Christians someday become the “new gays”?

    It seems to me, and remember I’m ignorant, a fool, a troll, etc., etc., is that we are completely out of touch with a world that looks on religious fundamentalism and institutionalized religion with suspicion. We cannot simply retreat into a posture of “because my bible tells me so” and expect to be seated any where other than the children’s table.

  • #4 Kitty

    @ Morgan

    Certainly not saying you don’t have a right to comment; I just wondered as to why you bother.

    Because I want to see my church honestly address the issues of the day.
    Dr Veith asks:

    How do you account for this turn-around? How did it happen? Why? Are there lessons that Christians can learn from this before the persecutions begin in earnest? And, to play the Newsweek game, might Christians someday become the “new gays”?

    It seems to me, and remember I’m ignorant, a fool, a troll, etc., etc., is that we are completely out of touch with a world that looks on religious fundamentalism and institutionalized religion with suspicion. We cannot simply retreat into a posture of “because my bible tells me so” and expect to be seated any where other than the children’s table.

  • helen

    sg @ 18
    I see the Time cover as depicting what Time editors believe that gays should now think of President Obama. Perhaps Time editors just want President Obama to be St. Obama, patron saint of gays.

    Don’t blame it on Time. That one was Newsweek.
    Neither are worth picking up from the shelf anymore, and Time was a staple of my distant youth! :(
    Readers Digest used to be good, too. Now it is a collection of multipage ads for medicines that should never have been marketed. The side effects are worse than the ailment!

  • helen

    sg @ 18
    I see the Time cover as depicting what Time editors believe that gays should now think of President Obama. Perhaps Time editors just want President Obama to be St. Obama, patron saint of gays.

    Don’t blame it on Time. That one was Newsweek.
    Neither are worth picking up from the shelf anymore, and Time was a staple of my distant youth! :(
    Readers Digest used to be good, too. Now it is a collection of multipage ads for medicines that should never have been marketed. The side effects are worse than the ailment!

  • helen

    Sorry. I should read to the end before adding 2 cents!

  • helen

    Sorry. I should read to the end before adding 2 cents!

  • Susan

    @Kitty,

    Do you regularly attend church and/or Sunday school? Have you discussed your disagreement regarding the real presence in the Lord’s Supper with your pastor? I would think that he would be glad to discuss it with you.

    Your comments do make one wonder if you understand the way the NT interprets the OT and the theology of the cross? Have you ever considered that you might be misled by popular misconceptions that seek to discredit the bible? Christ did not become incarnate to set the world right, but to redeem us from sin. He will set the world right when he returns for Judgment Day.

    As far as I know, God has not condemned human institutions (including slavery), he has clearly addressed what is good or evil in our treatment or interactions with one another which seems to cover all human institutions. Check out the OT passages where it shows the years of Jubilee where lands/debts/slaves are redeemed. Another example would be Jesus’ clarifying Moses and divorce. There are numerous examples that explain why the views you express are mistaken.

    Check out this section from 1 Peter 2 that addresses the reality we see within all human institutions:

    Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when,mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.

    For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

  • Susan

    @Kitty,

    Do you regularly attend church and/or Sunday school? Have you discussed your disagreement regarding the real presence in the Lord’s Supper with your pastor? I would think that he would be glad to discuss it with you.

    Your comments do make one wonder if you understand the way the NT interprets the OT and the theology of the cross? Have you ever considered that you might be misled by popular misconceptions that seek to discredit the bible? Christ did not become incarnate to set the world right, but to redeem us from sin. He will set the world right when he returns for Judgment Day.

    As far as I know, God has not condemned human institutions (including slavery), he has clearly addressed what is good or evil in our treatment or interactions with one another which seems to cover all human institutions. Check out the OT passages where it shows the years of Jubilee where lands/debts/slaves are redeemed. Another example would be Jesus’ clarifying Moses and divorce. There are numerous examples that explain why the views you express are mistaken.

    Check out this section from 1 Peter 2 that addresses the reality we see within all human institutions:

    Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when,mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.

    For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

  • Bob

    I think it would help the Church if they avoid a combative, “we vs. them” stance. I’m not optimistic. I think the large majority of Americans see it as a strictly equal rights under the law issue.

    I think the halo means the Time editors believe that President Obama did a righteous thing by openly stating his support for equal footing for gay couples vis-a-vis marriage.

  • Bob

    I think it would help the Church if they avoid a combative, “we vs. them” stance. I’m not optimistic. I think the large majority of Americans see it as a strictly equal rights under the law issue.

    I think the halo means the Time editors believe that President Obama did a righteous thing by openly stating his support for equal footing for gay couples vis-a-vis marriage.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Because I want to see my church honestly address the issues of the day.”

    Yes, of course. The Bible actually tells us to do so.

    “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,”
    1 Peter 3:15

    Now if Kitty expects the church to make such a defense on the front page of the NYTimes, well that probably won’t happen. No matter how many times we state our position correctly and give a good defense, those who reject it will mischaracterize it and mock it. Jesus told us this would happen.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Because I want to see my church honestly address the issues of the day.”

    Yes, of course. The Bible actually tells us to do so.

    “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,”
    1 Peter 3:15

    Now if Kitty expects the church to make such a defense on the front page of the NYTimes, well that probably won’t happen. No matter how many times we state our position correctly and give a good defense, those who reject it will mischaracterize it and mock it. Jesus told us this would happen.

  • DonS

    The weekly newsmagazine was an important resource in decades past, as an adjunct providing depth and background to what was being reported in the daily newspapers and on the evening news broadcasts. Of course, as with almost all mainstream media, they had a liberal skew, some worse than others (Time and Newsweek were worse than U.S. News & World Report, for example), but there was at least a veneer of objectivity about them that gave them credibility to a broad cross-section of the public.

    Now they are an utter anachronism. There is no compelling reason to read a news weekly unless it is oriented to a particular sliver of the reading public, such as World Magazine, and you are interested in reading and understanding the news from that particular perspective, or you are not on the Internet, you like your news digested and organized for you, and you don’t mind waiting for it. Time and Newsweek, in order to survive, aim themselves specifically at low information readers (I mean, by this, those readers who are not particularly attuned to politics), who tend to be left-skewing, and sensationalize their covers to attract attention.

    This is the kind of garbage those readers respond to, at least in the view of the editorial staff of Newsweek Magazine, apparently. Andrew Sullivan is particularly sensationalized in the world of gay politics, as a self-professed gay, and also, for some odd reason, claims to be conservative, though I have never seen him utter or write a conservative thought.

  • DonS

    The weekly newsmagazine was an important resource in decades past, as an adjunct providing depth and background to what was being reported in the daily newspapers and on the evening news broadcasts. Of course, as with almost all mainstream media, they had a liberal skew, some worse than others (Time and Newsweek were worse than U.S. News & World Report, for example), but there was at least a veneer of objectivity about them that gave them credibility to a broad cross-section of the public.

    Now they are an utter anachronism. There is no compelling reason to read a news weekly unless it is oriented to a particular sliver of the reading public, such as World Magazine, and you are interested in reading and understanding the news from that particular perspective, or you are not on the Internet, you like your news digested and organized for you, and you don’t mind waiting for it. Time and Newsweek, in order to survive, aim themselves specifically at low information readers (I mean, by this, those readers who are not particularly attuned to politics), who tend to be left-skewing, and sensationalize their covers to attract attention.

    This is the kind of garbage those readers respond to, at least in the view of the editorial staff of Newsweek Magazine, apparently. Andrew Sullivan is particularly sensationalized in the world of gay politics, as a self-professed gay, and also, for some odd reason, claims to be conservative, though I have never seen him utter or write a conservative thought.

  • helen

    Since Christ told us we must become as little children to enter the Kingdom of God, the “children’s table” will do quite nicely, thank you.

    But for your own sake, Kitty, (assuming you are just making rash statements to provoke a response, as I believe you intimated once) be careful how you speak of holy things like the bread and wine/Body and Blood of the Lord. He was a great deal more than “a 1st century Jew”, remember, and you may be called to account for such statements.

    Perhaps you have joined the elca now, and got the notion that we must impress the rest of the world.
    Nothing could be further from the truth. We are told, “when asked, make a good defense of the faith”.
    Most aren’t going to ask and many of those will not believe. Some who apparently don’t believe will haunt the Lutheran/Christian lists to see what it is they “don’t get”. The inhabitants of those lists are occasionally more charitable than you deserve.

  • helen

    Since Christ told us we must become as little children to enter the Kingdom of God, the “children’s table” will do quite nicely, thank you.

    But for your own sake, Kitty, (assuming you are just making rash statements to provoke a response, as I believe you intimated once) be careful how you speak of holy things like the bread and wine/Body and Blood of the Lord. He was a great deal more than “a 1st century Jew”, remember, and you may be called to account for such statements.

    Perhaps you have joined the elca now, and got the notion that we must impress the rest of the world.
    Nothing could be further from the truth. We are told, “when asked, make a good defense of the faith”.
    Most aren’t going to ask and many of those will not believe. Some who apparently don’t believe will haunt the Lutheran/Christian lists to see what it is they “don’t get”. The inhabitants of those lists are occasionally more charitable than you deserve.

  • DonS

    By the way, the public polls have all reflected a sharp break for Romney this week, to the point that he is leading most of them, both nationally and in the swing states. While I don’t give early polls like this any credibility as indicators regarding the November elections, other than confirming that they will most likely be very competitive, I do think they represent the public’s awareness that Obama’s “evolution” in the area of gay rights was a cynical play for campaign cash, rather than a heartfelt change of mind. They also represent the fact that the public is not on board with sanctioning gay marriage at this point in time. Obama is going to find this voracious greed for cash to be very expensive to his political ambitions, I believe.

  • DonS

    By the way, the public polls have all reflected a sharp break for Romney this week, to the point that he is leading most of them, both nationally and in the swing states. While I don’t give early polls like this any credibility as indicators regarding the November elections, other than confirming that they will most likely be very competitive, I do think they represent the public’s awareness that Obama’s “evolution” in the area of gay rights was a cynical play for campaign cash, rather than a heartfelt change of mind. They also represent the fact that the public is not on board with sanctioning gay marriage at this point in time. Obama is going to find this voracious greed for cash to be very expensive to his political ambitions, I believe.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “But I’d never consider selling her into slavery.”

    Would you look the other way as she prostituted herself? Would that be kinder, more responsible and more moral?
    Would you refuse the honorable offer of your neighbor to bring her into his household and feed her? Would you further refuse his money which would feed your other kids?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “But I’d never consider selling her into slavery.”

    Would you look the other way as she prostituted herself? Would that be kinder, more responsible and more moral?
    Would you refuse the honorable offer of your neighbor to bring her into his household and feed her? Would you further refuse his money which would feed your other kids?

  • Jonathan

    Does anyone care what effect the anti-gay culture war is having on membership in your synods and denominations?

  • Jonathan

    Does anyone care what effect the anti-gay culture war is having on membership in your synods and denominations?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @50

    There is no anti gay culture. Therefore it can’t have an effect on anything.

    There is pro gay media cheerleading and activism, and there is the natural resistance to it by healthy folks, but in general people who aren’t gay never think of such stuff. It just doesn’t occur to them. When they see it, they reject it, just like people reject drinking gasoline. It is just a natural reflex.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @50

    There is no anti gay culture. Therefore it can’t have an effect on anything.

    There is pro gay media cheerleading and activism, and there is the natural resistance to it by healthy folks, but in general people who aren’t gay never think of such stuff. It just doesn’t occur to them. When they see it, they reject it, just like people reject drinking gasoline. It is just a natural reflex.

  • Grace

    Jonathan

    It isn’t a “culture war” it isn’t even a war. It’s an evil, which those who don’t care about God (no matter how they say the opposite) live in, and promote darkness for light.

    Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
    Isaiah 5:20

    Even those in Middle Eastern countries, Africa, and Asia are shocked. They abhor homosexuality, their religions don’t make room for such behavior. That doesn’t mean there aren’t homosexuals in their midst, there are, but it certainly isn’t condoned.

    The rainbow doesn’t represent sin, it represents a promise God made after the flood. Those who use the “rainbow” to hide their their sin, or exploit it, are ignorant of it’s true meaning.

  • Grace

    Jonathan

    It isn’t a “culture war” it isn’t even a war. It’s an evil, which those who don’t care about God (no matter how they say the opposite) live in, and promote darkness for light.

    Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
    Isaiah 5:20

    Even those in Middle Eastern countries, Africa, and Asia are shocked. They abhor homosexuality, their religions don’t make room for such behavior. That doesn’t mean there aren’t homosexuals in their midst, there are, but it certainly isn’t condoned.

    The rainbow doesn’t represent sin, it represents a promise God made after the flood. Those who use the “rainbow” to hide their their sin, or exploit it, are ignorant of it’s true meaning.

  • Jacob

    The gay “marriage” project is all about post-modernism deconstructing traditional forms. Now there is a critical mass of people of a relativistic, post-modern mindset and gayness is seen as something good suddenly because it is not traditional. I recently heard a gay activist say that gay marriage was an important part of the struggle for “our right to sexual identity.” In post-modernism, nothing has its own “nature” as such – it is all about what you subjectively “identify” something to be.

    But even here some identities are more equal than others so it is not an issue of pure subjectivism. If a person desides he is really gay after all, that person will become a secular saint in the post-modernist pantheon. But if a gay person desides maybe he is straight after all, that person will be shunned and demonized. The former is supporting a traditional form while the latter is opposing it. Post-modernism seeks to destroy (deconstruct) anything that represents the idea that there is an objective reality and that things have a nature unto themselves outside of how we might subjectively define them. So really Newsweek is proclaiming Obama as the first post-modernist president (although I think Bill Clinton was really the first).

  • Jacob

    The gay “marriage” project is all about post-modernism deconstructing traditional forms. Now there is a critical mass of people of a relativistic, post-modern mindset and gayness is seen as something good suddenly because it is not traditional. I recently heard a gay activist say that gay marriage was an important part of the struggle for “our right to sexual identity.” In post-modernism, nothing has its own “nature” as such – it is all about what you subjectively “identify” something to be.

    But even here some identities are more equal than others so it is not an issue of pure subjectivism. If a person desides he is really gay after all, that person will become a secular saint in the post-modernist pantheon. But if a gay person desides maybe he is straight after all, that person will be shunned and demonized. The former is supporting a traditional form while the latter is opposing it. Post-modernism seeks to destroy (deconstruct) anything that represents the idea that there is an objective reality and that things have a nature unto themselves outside of how we might subjectively define them. So really Newsweek is proclaiming Obama as the first post-modernist president (although I think Bill Clinton was really the first).

  • Jacob

    I got things mixed up. The person who proclaims he is gay will be praised because he is going against a traditional form, while the person who decides he is not gay will be condemned because he is supporting a traditional form. This in spite of the claim that people should be free to self-identify as anything they want without being judged. It only works when it is in the direction of deconstructing traditional forms.

  • Jacob

    I got things mixed up. The person who proclaims he is gay will be praised because he is going against a traditional form, while the person who decides he is not gay will be condemned because he is supporting a traditional form. This in spite of the claim that people should be free to self-identify as anything they want without being judged. It only works when it is in the direction of deconstructing traditional forms.

  • formerly just steve

    It seems to me, and remember I’m ignorant, a fool, a troll, etc., etc.,

    In case that’s you about to get offended, please remember how you started this conversation.

    … is that we are completely out of touch with a world that looks on religious fundamentalism and institutionalized religion with suspicion. We cannot simply retreat into a posture of “because my bible tells me so” and expect to be seated any where other than the children’s table.

    So you’re defending the religion by claiming that it’s sole source book was misinterpreted or its anachronistic passages should be disregarded? What, if so, would remain? And why would/should any of it remain?

  • formerly just steve

    It seems to me, and remember I’m ignorant, a fool, a troll, etc., etc.,

    In case that’s you about to get offended, please remember how you started this conversation.

    … is that we are completely out of touch with a world that looks on religious fundamentalism and institutionalized religion with suspicion. We cannot simply retreat into a posture of “because my bible tells me so” and expect to be seated any where other than the children’s table.

    So you’re defending the religion by claiming that it’s sole source book was misinterpreted or its anachronistic passages should be disregarded? What, if so, would remain? And why would/should any of it remain?

  • #4 Kitty

    @formerly just Steve #55
    I’m just saying that some of it (especially the Old Testament) shouldn’t be used for lessons in morality. However, Jesus’ love & pray for your enemies style of morality inspires me.

    What, if so, would remain? And why would/should any of it remain?

    I don’t know, I’m partial to the Gospels and to the Song of Songs. You?

  • #4 Kitty

    @formerly just Steve #55
    I’m just saying that some of it (especially the Old Testament) shouldn’t be used for lessons in morality. However, Jesus’ love & pray for your enemies style of morality inspires me.

    What, if so, would remain? And why would/should any of it remain?

    I don’t know, I’m partial to the Gospels and to the Song of Songs. You?

  • formerly just steve

    Kitty, aren’t there more up to date books that are as inspiring that you can build your religion around? Why draw your lessons of love from a first century Jew who believed in the Law and Prophets and all the apparently horrific things they justified?

  • formerly just steve

    Kitty, aren’t there more up to date books that are as inspiring that you can build your religion around? Why draw your lessons of love from a first century Jew who believed in the Law and Prophets and all the apparently horrific things they justified?

  • Grace

    Kitty @ 40

    → → “It seems to me, and remember I’m ignorant, a fool, a troll, etc., etc., is that we are completely out of touch with a world that looks on religious fundamentalism and institutionalized religion with suspicion. We cannot simply retreat into a posture of “because my bible tells me so” and expect to be seated any where other than the children’s table.

    The world is out of touch with God, for the most part. My Bible means everything to me, just as it does to other Christian Believers. We are children as Believers, “children of God” we will, when resurrected be like the angels. That’s something to ponder, bring great joy and solace to every single Believer in Jesus Christ.

    Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
    Luke 20:36

    We as Believers are different than the world, we know Christ, they don’t -

    Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
    1 John 3:1

  • Grace

    Kitty @ 40

    → → “It seems to me, and remember I’m ignorant, a fool, a troll, etc., etc., is that we are completely out of touch with a world that looks on religious fundamentalism and institutionalized religion with suspicion. We cannot simply retreat into a posture of “because my bible tells me so” and expect to be seated any where other than the children’s table.

    The world is out of touch with God, for the most part. My Bible means everything to me, just as it does to other Christian Believers. We are children as Believers, “children of God” we will, when resurrected be like the angels. That’s something to ponder, bring great joy and solace to every single Believer in Jesus Christ.

    Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
    Luke 20:36

    We as Believers are different than the world, we know Christ, they don’t -

    Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
    1 John 3:1

  • #4 Kitty

    @Susan #43

    Do you regularly attend church and/or Sunday school? Have you discussed your disagreement regarding the real presence in the Lord’s Supper with your pastor?

    I attend church regularly with my spouse but do not speak with my pastor. He’s been having a very hard time for more than a few years and I don’t want to burden him. I don’t reject the real presence or any of the Lutheran doctrines. However, instead of merely accepting them as truth™ shouldn’t they be grappled with throughout one’s life?

  • #4 Kitty

    @Susan #43

    Do you regularly attend church and/or Sunday school? Have you discussed your disagreement regarding the real presence in the Lord’s Supper with your pastor?

    I attend church regularly with my spouse but do not speak with my pastor. He’s been having a very hard time for more than a few years and I don’t want to burden him. I don’t reject the real presence or any of the Lutheran doctrines. However, instead of merely accepting them as truth™ shouldn’t they be grappled with throughout one’s life?

  • Grace

    Kitty

    → → “However, instead of merely accepting them as truth shouldn’t they be grappled with throughout one’s life?”

    Why USE TM above, what’s that all about. Everyone knows it “Trade mark” but how does that find it’s way into your comment?

  • Grace

    Kitty

    → → “However, instead of merely accepting them as truth shouldn’t they be grappled with throughout one’s life?”

    Why USE TM above, what’s that all about. Everyone knows it “Trade mark” but how does that find it’s way into your comment?

  • #4 Kitty

    @ formerly just steve #57
    Yes, there are.
    I mentioned Song of Songs but the best American source (IMHO) is Whitman’s Leaves of Grass.
    However, I read Rumi more than any of the others.

  • #4 Kitty

    @ formerly just steve #57
    Yes, there are.
    I mentioned Song of Songs but the best American source (IMHO) is Whitman’s Leaves of Grass.
    However, I read Rumi more than any of the others.

  • Grace

    Kitty,

    Do you read the Word of God? If so, which books of the Bible do you read, or study?

  • Grace

    Kitty,

    Do you read the Word of God? If so, which books of the Bible do you read, or study?

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Kitty, regarding the issue of slavery, it ought to be noted that the Bible actually puts limits on it. Slaves were protected from being killed by their masters (Exodus 21), significant injuries resulted in the slave’s freedom (Exodus 21:26-7), and they got a day of rest. Captive women taken as wives (Deuteronomy 21) were to be given a month to mourn and had all the rights of native Israelite women.

    Regarding genocide, yes, the Bible clearly does mention God commanding the annihilation of entire nations, but not because of who they were–that is genocide. Rather, they were to be annihilated because of what they did–this would be “justice.”

    I pray that you can see the difference here. Yes, the Scriptures contain many things that grate against our modern sensibilities, but if we slow down enough to figure out what the ancients were actually doing, we can learn a lot–and maybe even figure out ourselves a bit.

    Praying, again, that you can find and enjoy the full counsel of Scripture.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    Kitty, regarding the issue of slavery, it ought to be noted that the Bible actually puts limits on it. Slaves were protected from being killed by their masters (Exodus 21), significant injuries resulted in the slave’s freedom (Exodus 21:26-7), and they got a day of rest. Captive women taken as wives (Deuteronomy 21) were to be given a month to mourn and had all the rights of native Israelite women.

    Regarding genocide, yes, the Bible clearly does mention God commanding the annihilation of entire nations, but not because of who they were–that is genocide. Rather, they were to be annihilated because of what they did–this would be “justice.”

    I pray that you can see the difference here. Yes, the Scriptures contain many things that grate against our modern sensibilities, but if we slow down enough to figure out what the ancients were actually doing, we can learn a lot–and maybe even figure out ourselves a bit.

    Praying, again, that you can find and enjoy the full counsel of Scripture.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Grace 60
    Because every disparate system of faith claims a trade mark on truth.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Grace 60
    Because every disparate system of faith claims a trade mark on truth.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    However, instead of merely accepting them as truth™ shouldn’t they be grappled with throughout one’s life?”

    eh, not everyone is so inclined to wrestle with stuff like that. It is okay to look deeply into stuff, but I would stop short of criticizing those who don’t. A lot of people have very pressing issues in their lives and are busy wrestling with those while taking comfort in God’s word. Those of us with the time and inclination to ponder these things aren’t necessarily better or more faithful. Think of all the poor and uneducated Christians around the world working hard just to keep body and soul together and feed their kids.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    However, instead of merely accepting them as truth™ shouldn’t they be grappled with throughout one’s life?”

    eh, not everyone is so inclined to wrestle with stuff like that. It is okay to look deeply into stuff, but I would stop short of criticizing those who don’t. A lot of people have very pressing issues in their lives and are busy wrestling with those while taking comfort in God’s word. Those of us with the time and inclination to ponder these things aren’t necessarily better or more faithful. Think of all the poor and uneducated Christians around the world working hard just to keep body and soul together and feed their kids.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    BTW, +100 to Helen for her comment about the children’s table. Yes, if I am to love Him, I’ll be–with Helen and a ton of others–right there. He did choose the foolish to shame the wise, did He not?

    That said, a humble (I hope) attempt to bring this back to the topic; what if re-defining marriage to include homosexuals (or whatever relationship besides that modeled by Adam and Eve) is not in fact a good thing for people? If we look at history’s other attempts to redefine marriage, like polygamy, what do we see?

    Well, polygamous societies feature a small minority of men with harems, accompanied by a larger portion of women in harems squabbling for the attentions of their shared husband and another portion of men who have either been sent off to the wars (to rape someone else’s women) or castrated to serve as harem attendants. Not exactly a good deal for anyone–look at how Jacob’s wives and concubines fought.

    And with this? Well, it’s more evidence that large portions of our society are more interested in “getting what’s coming to them” than in building a society, and….well, we will “get what’s coming to us”, won’t we?

    And in commending Obama for talking out of both sides of his mouth–endorsing homosexual “marriage” and the repeal of the DOMA while mouthing adherence to the 10th Amendment and states as the laboratories of democracy–Newsweak shows itself to be profoundly unserious about its business, and not even worth the dollar paid for it not too long back.

    We’ll say “hi” to you at the childrens’ table, Newsweak and Mr. Sullivan.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    BTW, +100 to Helen for her comment about the children’s table. Yes, if I am to love Him, I’ll be–with Helen and a ton of others–right there. He did choose the foolish to shame the wise, did He not?

    That said, a humble (I hope) attempt to bring this back to the topic; what if re-defining marriage to include homosexuals (or whatever relationship besides that modeled by Adam and Eve) is not in fact a good thing for people? If we look at history’s other attempts to redefine marriage, like polygamy, what do we see?

    Well, polygamous societies feature a small minority of men with harems, accompanied by a larger portion of women in harems squabbling for the attentions of their shared husband and another portion of men who have either been sent off to the wars (to rape someone else’s women) or castrated to serve as harem attendants. Not exactly a good deal for anyone–look at how Jacob’s wives and concubines fought.

    And with this? Well, it’s more evidence that large portions of our society are more interested in “getting what’s coming to them” than in building a society, and….well, we will “get what’s coming to us”, won’t we?

    And in commending Obama for talking out of both sides of his mouth–endorsing homosexual “marriage” and the repeal of the DOMA while mouthing adherence to the 10th Amendment and states as the laboratories of democracy–Newsweak shows itself to be profoundly unserious about its business, and not even worth the dollar paid for it not too long back.

    We’ll say “hi” to you at the childrens’ table, Newsweak and Mr. Sullivan.

  • formerly just steve

    Kitty, #61, it might be noted that Rumi’s path and Jesus’ path are not running the same direction. May you choose your path wisely.

  • formerly just steve

    Kitty, #61, it might be noted that Rumi’s path and Jesus’ path are not running the same direction. May you choose your path wisely.

  • Rose

    My nephew Pastor Joe mentioned to me that narcissism has been removed as a personality disorder in the DSM V. “It’s so common, it’s normal.”
    Charles Krauthammer continues to call Obama narcissistic; he’s dreadfully behind times. Good thing it’s not a hate crime yet.
    This is the pattern: a vice or mental disorder (e.g. homosexuality) is removed from the DSM on the basis of widespread occurence. Then objectors are labeled phobic. Narcissphobic, anyone?
    Finally, it’s a hate crime to hold a view that was the enlightened medical standard a decade ago.

  • Rose

    My nephew Pastor Joe mentioned to me that narcissism has been removed as a personality disorder in the DSM V. “It’s so common, it’s normal.”
    Charles Krauthammer continues to call Obama narcissistic; he’s dreadfully behind times. Good thing it’s not a hate crime yet.
    This is the pattern: a vice or mental disorder (e.g. homosexuality) is removed from the DSM on the basis of widespread occurence. Then objectors are labeled phobic. Narcissphobic, anyone?
    Finally, it’s a hate crime to hold a view that was the enlightened medical standard a decade ago.

  • mikeb

    bike bubba @ 66

    And in commending Obama … Newsweak shows itself to be profoundly unserious …

    And it shouldn’t even be called Newsweek anymore because its about 42 issues per year. But I digress….

  • mikeb

    bike bubba @ 66

    And in commending Obama … Newsweak shows itself to be profoundly unserious …

    And it shouldn’t even be called Newsweek anymore because its about 42 issues per year. But I digress….

  • formerly just steve

    #69 Newsweak

  • formerly just steve

    #69 Newsweak

  • formerly just steve

    #70 should have said Newswreak. It’s probably funnier when you don’t have to repeat it.

  • formerly just steve

    #70 should have said Newswreak. It’s probably funnier when you don’t have to repeat it.

  • #4 Kitty

    @helen #47

    Since Christ told us we must become as little children to enter the Kingdom of God, the “children’s table” will do quite nicely, thank you.,

    +1 Nice

  • #4 Kitty

    @helen #47

    Since Christ told us we must become as little children to enter the Kingdom of God, the “children’s table” will do quite nicely, thank you.,

    +1 Nice

  • mikeb

    Kitty wades into the weeds too much so I’ll sum up her comments: ‘What is truth?’ As I recall, it was a 1st century Jew who claimed to be The Truth. Kitty seems inclined to ask ‘did God really say?’ …

    Please forgive me if I’m picking on you, but I think your comments generally serve as an example of how we got to where we are with the President supporting gay marriage which is actually representative of the decline of western civilization. In our culture of freedom, we’ve valued and protected everyone’s right to speak that this has been taken to mean everyone has something profound and important to say. Unfortunately, so few do…

  • mikeb

    Kitty wades into the weeds too much so I’ll sum up her comments: ‘What is truth?’ As I recall, it was a 1st century Jew who claimed to be The Truth. Kitty seems inclined to ask ‘did God really say?’ …

    Please forgive me if I’m picking on you, but I think your comments generally serve as an example of how we got to where we are with the President supporting gay marriage which is actually representative of the decline of western civilization. In our culture of freedom, we’ve valued and protected everyone’s right to speak that this has been taken to mean everyone has something profound and important to say. Unfortunately, so few do…

  • formerly just steve

    Rose, the prevalence of narcissistic personality disorder is about 1% while the prevalence of autism is about 1.1 %. Though I don’t expect autism will be removed from the DSM anytime soon.

  • formerly just steve

    Rose, the prevalence of narcissistic personality disorder is about 1% while the prevalence of autism is about 1.1 %. Though I don’t expect autism will be removed from the DSM anytime soon.

  • Michael B.

    “Kitty, regarding the issue of slavery, it ought to be noted that the Bible actually puts limits on it. Slaves were protected from being killed by their masters (Exodus 21), significant injuries resulted in the slave’s freedom (Exodus 21:26-7), and they got a day of rest. Captive women taken as wives (Deuteronomy 21) were to be given a month to mourn and had all the rights of native Israelite women. ”

    The confederacy put limits on slavery. The Roman empire put limits on slavery. Name a legal institution where there aren’t some limits. Wouldn’t one expect God to declare, however, “thou shall not own slaves? Owning a human is an abomination?”. Clearly the Bible is okay with slavery under certain regulations. And there’s not a single one of us who will defend it. We neuter the Bible in our own way on this topic. The 4th Kitty calls the Bible fairy tells. SG tries to find some contrived circumstance from another time where slavery might be the lesser of two evils. Other people change the topic by asking “Well if not the Bible, where do we get our morality from”. In any event, everyone on here, from fundamentalist to liberal, does not consult the Bible when it comes to slavery. Kitty just goes a step further and refuses to consult the Bible on homosexuality.

  • Michael B.

    “Kitty, regarding the issue of slavery, it ought to be noted that the Bible actually puts limits on it. Slaves were protected from being killed by their masters (Exodus 21), significant injuries resulted in the slave’s freedom (Exodus 21:26-7), and they got a day of rest. Captive women taken as wives (Deuteronomy 21) were to be given a month to mourn and had all the rights of native Israelite women. ”

    The confederacy put limits on slavery. The Roman empire put limits on slavery. Name a legal institution where there aren’t some limits. Wouldn’t one expect God to declare, however, “thou shall not own slaves? Owning a human is an abomination?”. Clearly the Bible is okay with slavery under certain regulations. And there’s not a single one of us who will defend it. We neuter the Bible in our own way on this topic. The 4th Kitty calls the Bible fairy tells. SG tries to find some contrived circumstance from another time where slavery might be the lesser of two evils. Other people change the topic by asking “Well if not the Bible, where do we get our morality from”. In any event, everyone on here, from fundamentalist to liberal, does not consult the Bible when it comes to slavery. Kitty just goes a step further and refuses to consult the Bible on homosexuality.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “SG tries to find some contrived circumstance from another time where slavery might be the lesser of two evils.”

    You wish. I got those examples from an issue of the Scientific American back in the ’90′s that was devoted to the problem of contemporary slavery. The only part I added was to assume the current conditions in the third world are very likely similar to those 2500 years ago when people had even fewer technological resources to mitigate the harshness of life.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “SG tries to find some contrived circumstance from another time where slavery might be the lesser of two evils.”

    You wish. I got those examples from an issue of the Scientific American back in the ’90′s that was devoted to the problem of contemporary slavery. The only part I added was to assume the current conditions in the third world are very likely similar to those 2500 years ago when people had even fewer technological resources to mitigate the harshness of life.

  • Michael B.

    @sg

    Do you think slavery should be legal in some parts of the world?

  • Michael B.

    @sg

    Do you think slavery should be legal in some parts of the world?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Just a point on the DSM, prevalence isn’t really the criteria, rather how much it interferes with the person’s function. Autism significantly impacts function, therefore it would still be abnormal even if it were 5% or 10%. Homosexuality has less impact on function with the exception of sexual function of course. Given that this society doesn’t value the procreative aspect as highly as in former times, it makes sense that those who publish the DSM would therefore see that as less significant. Perhaps now sexual dysfunction is less literally defined and more based on the individual’s self evaluation of whether it is a problem. If the person enjoys his uh, behavior, then it may not be considered dysfunction even though it is not really sexual function in the literal sense.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Just a point on the DSM, prevalence isn’t really the criteria, rather how much it interferes with the person’s function. Autism significantly impacts function, therefore it would still be abnormal even if it were 5% or 10%. Homosexuality has less impact on function with the exception of sexual function of course. Given that this society doesn’t value the procreative aspect as highly as in former times, it makes sense that those who publish the DSM would therefore see that as less significant. Perhaps now sexual dysfunction is less literally defined and more based on the individual’s self evaluation of whether it is a problem. If the person enjoys his uh, behavior, then it may not be considered dysfunction even though it is not really sexual function in the literal sense.

  • Susan

    @Kitty,

    Thanks for the answer. Who is Rumi? The Sufi Persian poet/mystic of the 13th century?

    I can appreciate that you would want to know whether you are being taught the truth, especially if you believe there are valid competing truth claims. C. S. Lewis spent a long time wrestling with God. He became a reluctant convert based on the truth of scripture and then one the great apologists. And I can appreciate wrestling with some passages of scripture (who doesn’t?). I do not understand why you make disparaging comments like “a first century Jew” or communion being “magic” or the bible being “fairy tales” if you do not reject the real presence and Lutheran doctrines?

    I can appreciate your respect for the difficult time your pastor is experiencing, but I do not think it wise to let your questions go unanswered. Since you are a life-long Lutheran, it would most likely be helpful to join a prospective members classes where the basics of the Lutheran faith are addressed and ask questions. An option would be to seek out another LCMS pastor or trustworthy elder to help you with a comparative study. There is a vast difference between Christianity and all other religions.

  • Susan

    @Kitty,

    Thanks for the answer. Who is Rumi? The Sufi Persian poet/mystic of the 13th century?

    I can appreciate that you would want to know whether you are being taught the truth, especially if you believe there are valid competing truth claims. C. S. Lewis spent a long time wrestling with God. He became a reluctant convert based on the truth of scripture and then one the great apologists. And I can appreciate wrestling with some passages of scripture (who doesn’t?). I do not understand why you make disparaging comments like “a first century Jew” or communion being “magic” or the bible being “fairy tales” if you do not reject the real presence and Lutheran doctrines?

    I can appreciate your respect for the difficult time your pastor is experiencing, but I do not think it wise to let your questions go unanswered. Since you are a life-long Lutheran, it would most likely be helpful to join a prospective members classes where the basics of the Lutheran faith are addressed and ask questions. An option would be to seek out another LCMS pastor or trustworthy elder to help you with a comparative study. There is a vast difference between Christianity and all other religions.

  • Grace

    Kitty @ 8

    → →“Conservative Christians, on the other hand, insist that these relationships are evil based on a few lines from an old magic book; a book which also, by the way, extols the virtues of slavery and genocide.”

    You’ve stated you are a Lutheran, if so, do you consider the Bible an “old magic book” ?

  • Grace

    Kitty @ 8

    → →“Conservative Christians, on the other hand, insist that these relationships are evil based on a few lines from an old magic book; a book which also, by the way, extols the virtues of slavery and genocide.”

    You’ve stated you are a Lutheran, if so, do you consider the Bible an “old magic book” ?

  • formerly just steve

    sg, I take no issue with anything you said. I was actually only referring to the justification given to Rose that NPD is “so common, it’s normal.””

  • formerly just steve

    sg, I take no issue with anything you said. I was actually only referring to the justification given to Rose that NPD is “so common, it’s normal.””

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Do you think slavery should be legal in some parts of the world?”

    Have you stopped beating your girlfriend yet?

    What is the other choice? Prostitution? Starvation?

    Define the slavery. Define the conditions. Define the alternatives.

    If you want to be all self-righteous because you say absolutely not, I think that is pretty cruel considering that some of the other choices are even worse. Are you going to feed those people and their kids? Plenty of women from Africa work as slaves as nannies and servants in Arabia because life in their home country is even worse. So, would you cut them off from that opportunity and have them starve or prostitute themselves in Africa where women get HIV at a higher rate than men? And even if you would, who are you to decide for her? Yeah, it is all so easy to sit here in the air conditioning and pronounce our absolutes. It is a whole lot harder for those who are actually facing these situations.

    That said, slavery seems to break several commandments and ideally, no it shouldn’t be done anywhere.

    I was reading about the UN International Day for the Abolition of Slavery:

    http://www.un.org/en/events/slaveryabolitionday/

    It celebrates the 200 year anniversary of the end of the Atlantic slave trade, and exhorts the world to follow Europe’s lead and do the same.

    Is 200 years a short or long time to wait for the rest of the world to catch up morally and abolish slavery?

    I doubt I will get an answer. I answer questions but trolls never do.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Do you think slavery should be legal in some parts of the world?”

    Have you stopped beating your girlfriend yet?

    What is the other choice? Prostitution? Starvation?

    Define the slavery. Define the conditions. Define the alternatives.

    If you want to be all self-righteous because you say absolutely not, I think that is pretty cruel considering that some of the other choices are even worse. Are you going to feed those people and their kids? Plenty of women from Africa work as slaves as nannies and servants in Arabia because life in their home country is even worse. So, would you cut them off from that opportunity and have them starve or prostitute themselves in Africa where women get HIV at a higher rate than men? And even if you would, who are you to decide for her? Yeah, it is all so easy to sit here in the air conditioning and pronounce our absolutes. It is a whole lot harder for those who are actually facing these situations.

    That said, slavery seems to break several commandments and ideally, no it shouldn’t be done anywhere.

    I was reading about the UN International Day for the Abolition of Slavery:

    http://www.un.org/en/events/slaveryabolitionday/

    It celebrates the 200 year anniversary of the end of the Atlantic slave trade, and exhorts the world to follow Europe’s lead and do the same.

    Is 200 years a short or long time to wait for the rest of the world to catch up morally and abolish slavery?

    I doubt I will get an answer. I answer questions but trolls never do.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Susan #79
    Yes, Rumi is that 13th century Sufi poet. Very interesting in that he is Muslim and (as I am told) the number one selling poet in the U.S. (citation?)

    . I do not understand why you make disparaging comments like “a first century Jew” or communion being “magic” or the bible being “fairy tales” if you do not reject the real presence and Lutheran doctrines?

    Because unless the Eucharist, the Bible, our cherished doctrines, and even Jesus himself are seen from these other perspectives they become literalized and objects of idolatry. The danger in “absolutizing” an established practice is that it becomes irrelevant for the experiences of those not included within the canonized tradition.
    Dr Veith asks “How do you account for this turn-around? How did it happen?” My answer is that we’ve become irrelevant.
    I attempt to bring unlikes together, overturn conventions, introduce tension, and seek a reorientation of perspective. You’ll note that Jesus did this in his parables.

  • #4 Kitty

    @Susan #79
    Yes, Rumi is that 13th century Sufi poet. Very interesting in that he is Muslim and (as I am told) the number one selling poet in the U.S. (citation?)

    . I do not understand why you make disparaging comments like “a first century Jew” or communion being “magic” or the bible being “fairy tales” if you do not reject the real presence and Lutheran doctrines?

    Because unless the Eucharist, the Bible, our cherished doctrines, and even Jesus himself are seen from these other perspectives they become literalized and objects of idolatry. The danger in “absolutizing” an established practice is that it becomes irrelevant for the experiences of those not included within the canonized tradition.
    Dr Veith asks “How do you account for this turn-around? How did it happen?” My answer is that we’ve become irrelevant.
    I attempt to bring unlikes together, overturn conventions, introduce tension, and seek a reorientation of perspective. You’ll note that Jesus did this in his parables.

  • Michael B.

    @sg@82

    ““Do you think slavery should be legal in some parts of the world?””

    sg writes: “Define the slavery. Define the conditions. Define the alternatives.”

    So it’s a “yes”, then, although it’s at least an apologetic “yes”.

    So there are places in the world where legalized slavery is okay. I bet your views on homosexuals and women are just as informed and enlightened.

  • Michael B.

    @sg@82

    ““Do you think slavery should be legal in some parts of the world?””

    sg writes: “Define the slavery. Define the conditions. Define the alternatives.”

    So it’s a “yes”, then, although it’s at least an apologetic “yes”.

    So there are places in the world where legalized slavery is okay. I bet your views on homosexuals and women are just as informed and enlightened.

  • Grace

    Kitty @ 83

    YOU WROTE: “I attempt to bring unlikes together, overturn conventions, introduce tension, and seek a reorientation of perspective. You’ll note that Jesus did this in his parables.”

    If you believe yourself to be capable of overturning conventions, or teach Christian Believers some sort of “reorientation of perspective” you’ve FAILED. You might think yourself clever, while trying to “introduce tension” you FAILED again.

    The most important point .. You are not Jesus, nor do you have the ability to do what HE did. What you’re doing is a counterfeit, it shows and a poor one at that.

  • Grace

    Kitty @ 83

    YOU WROTE: “I attempt to bring unlikes together, overturn conventions, introduce tension, and seek a reorientation of perspective. You’ll note that Jesus did this in his parables.”

    If you believe yourself to be capable of overturning conventions, or teach Christian Believers some sort of “reorientation of perspective” you’ve FAILED. You might think yourself clever, while trying to “introduce tension” you FAILED again.

    The most important point .. You are not Jesus, nor do you have the ability to do what HE did. What you’re doing is a counterfeit, it shows and a poor one at that.

  • Gary

    @Jonathon–Despite what Grace says, the LC-MS is trying to continue/support an anti-gay culture. No, there’s virtually no one in this synod who’s the least bit concerned whether this is wise or not.

    @Jacob–Your way of sizing up post-modernism strikes me as very superficial. You just know you’re against it, so to you it can be neatly summed up as merely efforts to deconstruct absolute truth and traditional morals.

  • Gary

    @Jonathon–Despite what Grace says, the LC-MS is trying to continue/support an anti-gay culture. No, there’s virtually no one in this synod who’s the least bit concerned whether this is wise or not.

    @Jacob–Your way of sizing up post-modernism strikes me as very superficial. You just know you’re against it, so to you it can be neatly summed up as merely efforts to deconstruct absolute truth and traditional morals.

  • Grace

    Gary @ 86

    YOU WROTE: “@Jonathon–Despite what Grace says, the LC-MS is trying to continue/support an anti-gay culture. No, there’s virtually no one in this synod who’s the least bit concerned whether this is wise or not. “

    What have I posted, which has anything to do with your statement above?

  • Grace

    Gary @ 86

    YOU WROTE: “@Jonathon–Despite what Grace says, the LC-MS is trying to continue/support an anti-gay culture. No, there’s virtually no one in this synod who’s the least bit concerned whether this is wise or not. “

    What have I posted, which has anything to do with your statement above?

  • #4 Kitty

    @Grace 85
    I could have wrote “I enjoy how Rumi does this in his poetry” but she doesn’t read Rumi. And “FAILED”? That’s a bit shrill don’t you think?

  • #4 Kitty

    @Grace 85
    I could have wrote “I enjoy how Rumi does this in his poetry” but she doesn’t read Rumi. And “FAILED”? That’s a bit shrill don’t you think?

  • Grace

    Kitty,

    You’re talking in circles now -

  • Grace

    Kitty,

    You’re talking in circles now -

  • Susan

    @Kitty,

    Interesting indeed. Best sellers come and go, especially in an era where ‘spiritual but not religious’ and ‘moralistic therapeutic deism’ are in vogue. They are dead ends along with Rumi and Mohammed’s bastardization of the Bible via the Koran, if one is seeking the Truth.

    Sadly, your points are less enlightened than you may recognize. That people distort the truth is part of the reality in man’s fallen nature. That people can be blind to the truth and think the truth is irrelevant, old fashioned, literalized, absolutized, or an object of idolatry doesn’t make the truth any less true. Established practices do not need updating or changing because someone doesn’t understand them. It means that person needs to be educated to understand the truth contained in and expressed by the practices. The truth is that you are irrelevant because you do not understand and cannot offer an orthodox understanding of Christ or the practices and doctrines in Lutheranism. If you are willing, you can rectify your state of irrelevant and erroneous understanding of Christ and his life.

  • Susan

    @Kitty,

    Interesting indeed. Best sellers come and go, especially in an era where ‘spiritual but not religious’ and ‘moralistic therapeutic deism’ are in vogue. They are dead ends along with Rumi and Mohammed’s bastardization of the Bible via the Koran, if one is seeking the Truth.

    Sadly, your points are less enlightened than you may recognize. That people distort the truth is part of the reality in man’s fallen nature. That people can be blind to the truth and think the truth is irrelevant, old fashioned, literalized, absolutized, or an object of idolatry doesn’t make the truth any less true. Established practices do not need updating or changing because someone doesn’t understand them. It means that person needs to be educated to understand the truth contained in and expressed by the practices. The truth is that you are irrelevant because you do not understand and cannot offer an orthodox understanding of Christ or the practices and doctrines in Lutheranism. If you are willing, you can rectify your state of irrelevant and erroneous understanding of Christ and his life.

  • Gary

    Grace (@87), please accept my sincerest apologies. I read SG’s response to Jonathon’s question and your response (to something different) was the next one. Sorry about my mix up.

  • Gary

    Grace (@87), please accept my sincerest apologies. I read SG’s response to Jonathon’s question and your response (to something different) was the next one. Sorry about my mix up.

  • Grace

    Gary – thanks for letting me know. I’ve mixed up a few posts on the blog too, it’s easy to do. ;)

  • Grace

    Gary – thanks for letting me know. I’ve mixed up a few posts on the blog too, it’s easy to do. ;)

  • Grace

    Susan, very good advice. Your kindess and thoughtful approach, although straightforward, was superb. :) I hope Kitty takes it, and seeks to understand.

  • Grace

    Susan, very good advice. Your kindess and thoughtful approach, although straightforward, was superb. :) I hope Kitty takes it, and seeks to understand.

  • Trey

    Sg said, “I doubt I will get an answer. I answer questions but trolls never do.”

    After reading the exchanges with Kiddy, you are dead on. Kiddy clearly is reading the Scripture by imposing a modern standard and understanding on the text. Essentially it is chronological snobbery and historical chauvinism. As some astutely pointed out that the commands regarding indentured slavery, polygamy, and divorce were due to the hardness of man’s heart unlike homosexuality which violates the order of creation.

  • Trey

    Sg said, “I doubt I will get an answer. I answer questions but trolls never do.”

    After reading the exchanges with Kiddy, you are dead on. Kiddy clearly is reading the Scripture by imposing a modern standard and understanding on the text. Essentially it is chronological snobbery and historical chauvinism. As some astutely pointed out that the commands regarding indentured slavery, polygamy, and divorce were due to the hardness of man’s heart unlike homosexuality which violates the order of creation.

  • Abby

    What the Bible really still says about homosexuality:

    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/

  • Abby

    What the Bible really still says about homosexuality:

    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/

  • formerly just steve

    Because unless the Eucharist, the Bible, our cherished doctrines, and even Jesus himself are seen from these other perspectives they become literalized and objects of idolatry.

    Am I the only one having difficulty understanding this? If so, I apologize for being dense. If not, maybe you could explain.

    Dr Veith asks “How do you account for this turn-around? How did it happen?” My answer is that we’ve become irrelevant. I attempt to bring unlikes together, overturn conventions, introduce tension, and seek a reorientation of perspective. You’ll note that Jesus did this in his parables.

    Do you think the message of the Gospel is irrelevant? Or just Christians (presuming this is the “we” of whom you were speaking).

  • formerly just steve

    Because unless the Eucharist, the Bible, our cherished doctrines, and even Jesus himself are seen from these other perspectives they become literalized and objects of idolatry.

    Am I the only one having difficulty understanding this? If so, I apologize for being dense. If not, maybe you could explain.

    Dr Veith asks “How do you account for this turn-around? How did it happen?” My answer is that we’ve become irrelevant. I attempt to bring unlikes together, overturn conventions, introduce tension, and seek a reorientation of perspective. You’ll note that Jesus did this in his parables.

    Do you think the message of the Gospel is irrelevant? Or just Christians (presuming this is the “we” of whom you were speaking).

  • Grace

    formerly just Steve @ 96

    Below is a comment Dr. Veith made in his opening statement, last paragraph:

    Dr. Veith wrote:→ → “How do you account for this turn-around? How did it happen? Why? Are there lessons that Christians can learn from this before the persecutions begin in earnest? And, to play the Newsweek game, might Christians someday become the “new gays”?

    Steve you CLAIM Dr. Veith stated: → → “Dr Veith asks “How do you account for this turn-around? How did it happen?” My answer is that we’ve become irrelevant. I attempt to bring unlikes together, overturn conventions, introduce tension, and seek a reorientation of perspective. You’ll note that Jesus did this in his parables.”

    Steve you’re mixing the first sentence from Dr. Veith, then adding the Kittty remark @ 83 BOLDED (last paragraph together, as though they are Dr. Veith’s words) they are not. Two different comments, one from Dr. Veith, another from Kitty.

  • Grace

    formerly just Steve @ 96

    Below is a comment Dr. Veith made in his opening statement, last paragraph:

    Dr. Veith wrote:→ → “How do you account for this turn-around? How did it happen? Why? Are there lessons that Christians can learn from this before the persecutions begin in earnest? And, to play the Newsweek game, might Christians someday become the “new gays”?

    Steve you CLAIM Dr. Veith stated: → → “Dr Veith asks “How do you account for this turn-around? How did it happen?” My answer is that we’ve become irrelevant. I attempt to bring unlikes together, overturn conventions, introduce tension, and seek a reorientation of perspective. You’ll note that Jesus did this in his parables.”

    Steve you’re mixing the first sentence from Dr. Veith, then adding the Kittty remark @ 83 BOLDED (last paragraph together, as though they are Dr. Veith’s words) they are not. Two different comments, one from Dr. Veith, another from Kitty.

  • Michael B.

    @Trey@94

    “After reading the exchanges with Kiddy, you are dead on. Kiddy clearly is reading the Scripture by imposing a modern standard and understanding on the text. Essentially it is chronological snobbery and historical chauvinism. As some astutely pointed out that the commands regarding indentured slavery, polygamy, and divorce were due to the hardness of man’s heart unlike homosexuality which violates the order of creation.”

    You bring up an interesting point on historical chauvinism. I very much agree with you that we have to tread lightly when judging our ancestors morally. I’ve remember growing up that my great grand mother was just blatantly racist. She believed blacks should live in a segregated area. I don’t think it was a result of her being mean or dumb, but just a result of the time period and where she grew up. Having said that, we can still condemn segregation, just as we can condemn legalized slavery.

  • Michael B.

    @Trey@94

    “After reading the exchanges with Kiddy, you are dead on. Kiddy clearly is reading the Scripture by imposing a modern standard and understanding on the text. Essentially it is chronological snobbery and historical chauvinism. As some astutely pointed out that the commands regarding indentured slavery, polygamy, and divorce were due to the hardness of man’s heart unlike homosexuality which violates the order of creation.”

    You bring up an interesting point on historical chauvinism. I very much agree with you that we have to tread lightly when judging our ancestors morally. I’ve remember growing up that my great grand mother was just blatantly racist. She believed blacks should live in a segregated area. I don’t think it was a result of her being mean or dumb, but just a result of the time period and where she grew up. Having said that, we can still condemn segregation, just as we can condemn legalized slavery.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I bet your views on homosexuals and women are just as informed and enlightened.”

    I bet my views are more enlightened than yours. Enlightened means that you are considering actually information in the formulation of your opinions rather than just going along with what is popular at the time. Since you so religiously tow the PC line, I would say you have no opinion but Caesar’s.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I bet your views on homosexuals and women are just as informed and enlightened.”

    I bet my views are more enlightened than yours. Enlightened means that you are considering actually information in the formulation of your opinions rather than just going along with what is popular at the time. Since you so religiously tow the PC line, I would say you have no opinion but Caesar’s.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    100

    LOL,

    Well at least Michael B comes by it honestly!

    Great grandma B also was committed to following the herd.

    “She believed blacks should live in a segregated area. I don’t think it was a result of her being mean or dumb, but just a result of the time period and where she grew up. Having said that, we can still condemn segregation, just as we can condemn legalized slavery.”

    Right, because if it is popular, it must be right!

    What kind of segregation are you condemning anyway? Everyone else’s, but not yours?

    So, Michael B, are you going to answer my question? Why don’t you share some of your alleged enlightenment? Is it time for Africa, India, and Asia to join Europe and America and end slavery? I am guessing you wouldn’t condemn them for anything including eating one another. You save all your criticism for those who are actually trying to fix miserable situations rather than those who perpetuate them. So, let’s hear it, Michael. Go ahead, praise the moral superiority of Europeans and Americans who abolished slavery and condemn the moral inferiority of Africans, Indians, and Asians who persist in it. Because that is what this discussion is all about anyway.

    I was reading about the UN International Day for the Abolition of Slavery:

    http://www.un.org/en/events/slaveryabolitionday/

    It celebrates the 200 year anniversary of the end of the Atlantic slave trade, and exhorts the world to follow Europe’s lead and do the same.

    Is 200 years a short or long time to wait for the rest of the world to catch up morally and abolish slavery?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    100

    LOL,

    Well at least Michael B comes by it honestly!

    Great grandma B also was committed to following the herd.

    “She believed blacks should live in a segregated area. I don’t think it was a result of her being mean or dumb, but just a result of the time period and where she grew up. Having said that, we can still condemn segregation, just as we can condemn legalized slavery.”

    Right, because if it is popular, it must be right!

    What kind of segregation are you condemning anyway? Everyone else’s, but not yours?

    So, Michael B, are you going to answer my question? Why don’t you share some of your alleged enlightenment? Is it time for Africa, India, and Asia to join Europe and America and end slavery? I am guessing you wouldn’t condemn them for anything including eating one another. You save all your criticism for those who are actually trying to fix miserable situations rather than those who perpetuate them. So, let’s hear it, Michael. Go ahead, praise the moral superiority of Europeans and Americans who abolished slavery and condemn the moral inferiority of Africans, Indians, and Asians who persist in it. Because that is what this discussion is all about anyway.

    I was reading about the UN International Day for the Abolition of Slavery:

    http://www.un.org/en/events/slaveryabolitionday/

    It celebrates the 200 year anniversary of the end of the Atlantic slave trade, and exhorts the world to follow Europe’s lead and do the same.

    Is 200 years a short or long time to wait for the rest of the world to catch up morally and abolish slavery?

  • Michael B.

    @sg

    I’m intrigued by your claim that legalized slavery could be moral. Specifically, can you name a single country in the world in which having legalized slavery would be a good idea? Don’t just state a hypothetical contrived situation. Actually name a single place.

  • Michael B.

    @sg

    I’m intrigued by your claim that legalized slavery could be moral. Specifically, can you name a single country in the world in which having legalized slavery would be a good idea? Don’t just state a hypothetical contrived situation. Actually name a single place.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Can you answer a question, Michael B?

    I have already answered plenty of yours.

    Are you going to take care of and feed marginally productive unskilled workers and their kids?

    Are you asserting that European morality is superior to everyone else’s? Because the only population where the elites and middle class worked together and argued fought and struggle to free the poor from bondage were Europeans.

    I answered your questions.

    Now you can answer mine.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Can you answer a question, Michael B?

    I have already answered plenty of yours.

    Are you going to take care of and feed marginally productive unskilled workers and their kids?

    Are you asserting that European morality is superior to everyone else’s? Because the only population where the elites and middle class worked together and argued fought and struggle to free the poor from bondage were Europeans.

    I answered your questions.

    Now you can answer mine.

  • formerly just steve

    Grace, you may want to take a closer look at that.

  • formerly just steve

    Grace, you may want to take a closer look at that.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I’m intrigued by your claim that legalized slavery could be moral. Specifically, can you name a single country in the world in which having legalized slavery would be a good idea? Don’t just state a hypothetical contrived situation. Actually name a single place.”

    How about you name the place? Define the conditions. Define the alternatives. Define the slavery. And tell us how you would eradicate slavery not just in law but in fact in those places.

    Plenty of countries with lots of slaves actually have laws against slavery because westerners pressured them to write the laws. Of course, the people there just ignore the laws because it isn’t their culture. The whole anti slavery thing comes out of European thinking. Non European populations may not wish to be enslaved, but they have no problem enslaving others.

    Slavery is a broad term that includes a lot of practices from involuntary servitude, to prostitution, to just work for food without pay or economic ability to leave the situation. So, some of it is egregiously immoral, while other arrangements are just doing what they can to survive.

    I offer these statements as an honest look at real conditions, something many aren’t interested in engaging.

    This discussion of slavery seems more to revolve around your desire to use shaming language to embarrass people into conformity, which is why you offer nothing of substance to the discussion.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I’m intrigued by your claim that legalized slavery could be moral. Specifically, can you name a single country in the world in which having legalized slavery would be a good idea? Don’t just state a hypothetical contrived situation. Actually name a single place.”

    How about you name the place? Define the conditions. Define the alternatives. Define the slavery. And tell us how you would eradicate slavery not just in law but in fact in those places.

    Plenty of countries with lots of slaves actually have laws against slavery because westerners pressured them to write the laws. Of course, the people there just ignore the laws because it isn’t their culture. The whole anti slavery thing comes out of European thinking. Non European populations may not wish to be enslaved, but they have no problem enslaving others.

    Slavery is a broad term that includes a lot of practices from involuntary servitude, to prostitution, to just work for food without pay or economic ability to leave the situation. So, some of it is egregiously immoral, while other arrangements are just doing what they can to survive.

    I offer these statements as an honest look at real conditions, something many aren’t interested in engaging.

    This discussion of slavery seems more to revolve around your desire to use shaming language to embarrass people into conformity, which is why you offer nothing of substance to the discussion.

  • Jon

    sg, the troll just wants to be fed. You know how it goes.

  • Jon

    sg, the troll just wants to be fed. You know how it goes.

  • Jon

    This discussion of slavery seems more to revolve around your desire to use shaming language to embarrass people into conformity…

    Yes, this is the way that the change to the halo has come about, really.

    It started very small but persistently, shaming people who pick on the harmless non-conformists. And it grew to sainthood for them.

    It’s the same way that heresies become the norm in stages, really.

  • Jon

    This discussion of slavery seems more to revolve around your desire to use shaming language to embarrass people into conformity…

    Yes, this is the way that the change to the halo has come about, really.

    It started very small but persistently, shaming people who pick on the harmless non-conformists. And it grew to sainthood for them.

    It’s the same way that heresies become the norm in stages, really.

  • Jon

    I predict that Christian morals and values will return eventually, if our Lord doesn’t return first, by the same methods that brought rise and acceptance back in ancient times. By Christians continuing to practice their beliefs in spite of sword, caring for the sick and taking in the unwanted baby girls. The shame thing works both ways once the other side sees how morally bankrupt it has become and begins to value what the Christian community offers.

  • Jon

    I predict that Christian morals and values will return eventually, if our Lord doesn’t return first, by the same methods that brought rise and acceptance back in ancient times. By Christians continuing to practice their beliefs in spite of sword, caring for the sick and taking in the unwanted baby girls. The shame thing works both ways once the other side sees how morally bankrupt it has become and begins to value what the Christian community offers.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Say “Joe” takes in a foster kid from the county protective services agency. Say, he is 14, big and strong. They give “Joe” enough money to feed and clothe him and he gets Medicaid, so he costs “Joe” nothing. He cuts the grass, helps fix a leaky sink, cleans up around the house, helps “Joe’s” friend move to a new apartment and lots of other work. He isn’t family and can’t lay any claim on Joe. He cannot leave. Joe pays him nothing. He costs Joe nothing, yet provides significant value to Joe who would have to pay someone else if he wanted him to do all that work. Is the kid a slave?

    Slavery is legal everywhere it is not prohibited, and is practiced in many places where it is prohibited. So the whole “legal” thing is just a game, kind of like prostitution. I would say just on principle that prostitution should always be illegal as should rape. Slavery is too broad to make such generalizations. Because some would say the above foster child is a slave, but others wouldn’t, so the definition matters.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Say “Joe” takes in a foster kid from the county protective services agency. Say, he is 14, big and strong. They give “Joe” enough money to feed and clothe him and he gets Medicaid, so he costs “Joe” nothing. He cuts the grass, helps fix a leaky sink, cleans up around the house, helps “Joe’s” friend move to a new apartment and lots of other work. He isn’t family and can’t lay any claim on Joe. He cannot leave. Joe pays him nothing. He costs Joe nothing, yet provides significant value to Joe who would have to pay someone else if he wanted him to do all that work. Is the kid a slave?

    Slavery is legal everywhere it is not prohibited, and is practiced in many places where it is prohibited. So the whole “legal” thing is just a game, kind of like prostitution. I would say just on principle that prostitution should always be illegal as should rape. Slavery is too broad to make such generalizations. Because some would say the above foster child is a slave, but others wouldn’t, so the definition matters.

  • formerly just steve

    sg, #108,

    According to labor laws, he or she can be as young as 10 if there is parental consent and the job is on a farm not covered by minimum wage requirements. Sound a little like selling your daughter as a servant, anyone?

  • formerly just steve

    sg, #108,

    According to labor laws, he or she can be as young as 10 if there is parental consent and the job is on a farm not covered by minimum wage requirements. Sound a little like selling your daughter as a servant, anyone?

  • Grace

    formerly just steve @ 103

    REGARDING my post @ 97

    Steve, you took two different comments, put them together as though Dr. Veith made it. Why not show me what why you did that?

  • Grace

    formerly just steve @ 103

    REGARDING my post @ 97

    Steve, you took two different comments, put them together as though Dr. Veith made it. Why not show me what why you did that?

  • Grace

    My family came here long before 1833. They did not believe in slavery. They did not live in the south as did those who believed slavery to be right.

    Those who were taken from Africa, were abducted, by force. They were rounded up as free men, and sold by those who sold them to the U.S., Brazil and the Caribbean Islands. It was nothing short of kidnapping.

    The British and Canadians knew it was wrong, and abolished the practice long before the Civil War. The saddest part of this story is; there are still many in the south who believe in slavery.

    British Parliament in 1833 abolished slavery for the entire British Empire. They must have known it was wrong. The Civil War in the USA didn’t start until 1861, it took them 28 years longer to figure it out. The war ended in 1865.

    Our neighbors to the north in 1819, would not allow the US to purse slaves who had escaped to Canada, they wouldn’t cooperate with our government. They must have known it was wrong. That was 42 years before the Civil War.

    I’m glad slavery ended. I’m grateful for Lincoln who had the back bone to stand against those who supported such an evil.

  • Grace

    My family came here long before 1833. They did not believe in slavery. They did not live in the south as did those who believed slavery to be right.

    Those who were taken from Africa, were abducted, by force. They were rounded up as free men, and sold by those who sold them to the U.S., Brazil and the Caribbean Islands. It was nothing short of kidnapping.

    The British and Canadians knew it was wrong, and abolished the practice long before the Civil War. The saddest part of this story is; there are still many in the south who believe in slavery.

    British Parliament in 1833 abolished slavery for the entire British Empire. They must have known it was wrong. The Civil War in the USA didn’t start until 1861, it took them 28 years longer to figure it out. The war ended in 1865.

    Our neighbors to the north in 1819, would not allow the US to purse slaves who had escaped to Canada, they wouldn’t cooperate with our government. They must have known it was wrong. That was 42 years before the Civil War.

    I’m glad slavery ended. I’m grateful for Lincoln who had the back bone to stand against those who supported such an evil.

  • Grace

    U.S. Department of Labor

    Basic Provisions/Requirements
    The child labor provisions of the Act include restrictions on hours of work and occupations for youths under age 16. These provisions also set forth 17 hazardous occupations orders for jobs that the Secretary has declared too dangerous for those under age 18 to perform.

    The permissible jobs and hours of work, by age, in nonfarm work are as follows:

    Minors age 18 or older are not subject to restrictions on jobs or hours
    Minors age 16 and 17 may perform any job not declared hazardous by the Secretary, and are not subject to restrictions on hours
    Minors age 14 and 15 may work outside school hours in various nonmanufacturing, non-mining, nonhazardous jobs listed by the Secretary in regulations published at 29 CFR Part 570 under the following conditions: no more than three hours on a school day, 18 hours in a school week, eight hours on a non-school day, or 40 hours in a non-school week. In addition, they may not begin work before 7 a.m. or work after 7 p.m., except from June 1 through Labor Day, when evening hours are extended until 9 p.m. The permissible work for 14 and 15 year olds is limited to those jobs in the retail, food service, and gasoline service establishments specifically listed in the Secretary’s regulations. Those enrolled in an approved Work Experience and Career Exploration Program (WECEP) may work up to 23 hours in school weeks and three hours on school days (including during school hours)
    Detailed information on the occupations determined to be hazardous by the Secretary is available from a local Wage and Hour Division office(http://www.dol.gov/whd/america2.htm) and in 29 CFR Part 570(http://www.dol.gov/dol/cfr/Title_29/).

    By regulation, employers must keep records of the dates of birth of employees under age 19, their daily starting and quitting times, their daily and weekly hours of work, and their occupations. Employers may protect themselves from unintentional violation of the child labor provisions by keeping on file an officially-issued employment or age certificate for each young worker to show that the minor has the minimum age for the job. Age or employment certificates issued under most state laws are generally acceptable for this purpose. See 29 CFR 570.5(http://www.dol.gov/cgi-bin/leave-dol.asp?exiturl=http://s.dol.gov/87&exitTitle=www.gpoaccess.gov&fedpage=yes).

    http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/childlbr.htm

  • Grace

    U.S. Department of Labor

    Basic Provisions/Requirements
    The child labor provisions of the Act include restrictions on hours of work and occupations for youths under age 16. These provisions also set forth 17 hazardous occupations orders for jobs that the Secretary has declared too dangerous for those under age 18 to perform.

    The permissible jobs and hours of work, by age, in nonfarm work are as follows:

    Minors age 18 or older are not subject to restrictions on jobs or hours
    Minors age 16 and 17 may perform any job not declared hazardous by the Secretary, and are not subject to restrictions on hours
    Minors age 14 and 15 may work outside school hours in various nonmanufacturing, non-mining, nonhazardous jobs listed by the Secretary in regulations published at 29 CFR Part 570 under the following conditions: no more than three hours on a school day, 18 hours in a school week, eight hours on a non-school day, or 40 hours in a non-school week. In addition, they may not begin work before 7 a.m. or work after 7 p.m., except from June 1 through Labor Day, when evening hours are extended until 9 p.m. The permissible work for 14 and 15 year olds is limited to those jobs in the retail, food service, and gasoline service establishments specifically listed in the Secretary’s regulations. Those enrolled in an approved Work Experience and Career Exploration Program (WECEP) may work up to 23 hours in school weeks and three hours on school days (including during school hours)
    Detailed information on the occupations determined to be hazardous by the Secretary is available from a local Wage and Hour Division office(http://www.dol.gov/whd/america2.htm) and in 29 CFR Part 570(http://www.dol.gov/dol/cfr/Title_29/).

    By regulation, employers must keep records of the dates of birth of employees under age 19, their daily starting and quitting times, their daily and weekly hours of work, and their occupations. Employers may protect themselves from unintentional violation of the child labor provisions by keeping on file an officially-issued employment or age certificate for each young worker to show that the minor has the minimum age for the job. Age or employment certificates issued under most state laws are generally acceptable for this purpose. See 29 CFR 570.5(http://www.dol.gov/cgi-bin/leave-dol.asp?exiturl=http://s.dol.gov/87&exitTitle=www.gpoaccess.gov&fedpage=yes).

    http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/childlbr.htm

  • formerly just steve

    Grace, I don’t know why I’m doing this but… my post at 96 is quoting Kitty’s post at 83. I didn’t misquote anyone. You need to re-read it.

  • formerly just steve

    Grace, I don’t know why I’m doing this but… my post at 96 is quoting Kitty’s post at 83. I didn’t misquote anyone. You need to re-read it.

  • Grace

    Steve,

    The way you posted the remark, it looked as if Dr. Veith wrote it all himself, as you quoted it in 96. It’s scambled together. No doubt the other individual found it amusing. ;)

  • Grace

    Steve,

    The way you posted the remark, it looked as if Dr. Veith wrote it all himself, as you quoted it in 96. It’s scambled together. No doubt the other individual found it amusing. ;)

  • helen

    I have a colleague who reads Rumi, the Koran, and similar stuff in a search for “truth”.

    His “schtick” is to bash infant baptism (i.e., his mother; he was baptized at 12) and he’s particularly down on “professional Christians (i.e., clergy). (But he thinks he might like to try being one; “it would be nice to be paid to be a Christian.” I told him that Joel Osteen inherited his job and the rest weren’t paid as much as he’d like to think.) Then he says, “I certainly hope I haven’t hurt your feelings!”
    ["No, Steve, you've just insulted me six ways to Sunday, since my son (was) and most of my best friends are clergy; I was baptized as an infant and think it's a good idea, etc. etc."] But no hard feelings! Anyone who looks for “truth” in a ‘plagiarism mixed with falsehood’ , when he owns a Bible, has got more problems than I can fix.

    So has Kiddy!

  • helen

    I have a colleague who reads Rumi, the Koran, and similar stuff in a search for “truth”.

    His “schtick” is to bash infant baptism (i.e., his mother; he was baptized at 12) and he’s particularly down on “professional Christians (i.e., clergy). (But he thinks he might like to try being one; “it would be nice to be paid to be a Christian.” I told him that Joel Osteen inherited his job and the rest weren’t paid as much as he’d like to think.) Then he says, “I certainly hope I haven’t hurt your feelings!”
    ["No, Steve, you've just insulted me six ways to Sunday, since my son (was) and most of my best friends are clergy; I was baptized as an infant and think it's a good idea, etc. etc."] But no hard feelings! Anyone who looks for “truth” in a ‘plagiarism mixed with falsehood’ , when he owns a Bible, has got more problems than I can fix.

    So has Kiddy!

  • helen

    Steve, that quote does need sorting out. It’s one sentence Vieth and the rest Kiddy, hard on Veith, if you don’t go back to the original.

  • helen

    Steve, that quote does need sorting out. It’s one sentence Vieth and the rest Kiddy, hard on Veith, if you don’t go back to the original.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “They did not live in the south as did those who believed slavery to be right.”

    First, most people in the south did not own any slaves. Second, these poor farmers and others who held no slaves didn’t particularly favor slavery necessarily but they were very afraid of the Africans both for their own personal safety and because they didn’t want them to depress their own wages or compete with them for resources. They would not have objected to the Africans being sent back to Africa. This is not a comment on what I think should have been done. I am just saying that it is not really true that everyone in the south was fully supportive of slavery per se. If you wish to malign the southerners most of whom didn’t even own slaves, it would be more accurate to say that they didn’t like Africans than it is to say they believed slavery to be right.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “They did not live in the south as did those who believed slavery to be right.”

    First, most people in the south did not own any slaves. Second, these poor farmers and others who held no slaves didn’t particularly favor slavery necessarily but they were very afraid of the Africans both for their own personal safety and because they didn’t want them to depress their own wages or compete with them for resources. They would not have objected to the Africans being sent back to Africa. This is not a comment on what I think should have been done. I am just saying that it is not really true that everyone in the south was fully supportive of slavery per se. If you wish to malign the southerners most of whom didn’t even own slaves, it would be more accurate to say that they didn’t like Africans than it is to say they believed slavery to be right.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I’m glad slavery ended. I’m grateful for Lincoln who had the back bone to stand against those who supported such an evil.”

    Problem is that slavery did not end. It only ended in places ruled by Europeans. There is still slavery today. That is why the UN has an International Day for the Abolition of Slavery.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I’m glad slavery ended. I’m grateful for Lincoln who had the back bone to stand against those who supported such an evil.”

    Problem is that slavery did not end. It only ended in places ruled by Europeans. There is still slavery today. That is why the UN has an International Day for the Abolition of Slavery.

  • Grace

    sg @ 118

    “Problem is that slavery did not end. It only ended in places ruled by Europeans.”

    NO, you are wrong. The United States was not ruled by Europeans before or after the Civil War. Slavery ended after the Civil War.

    “Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man’s nature — opposition to it is in his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the Missouri Compromise — repeal all compromises — repeal the declaration of independence — repeal all past history, you still can not repeal human nature. It still will be the abundance of man’s heart, that slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth will continue to speak.”

    Abraham Lincoln – October 16, 1854 Speech at Peoria

  • Grace

    sg @ 118

    “Problem is that slavery did not end. It only ended in places ruled by Europeans.”

    NO, you are wrong. The United States was not ruled by Europeans before or after the Civil War. Slavery ended after the Civil War.

    “Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man’s nature — opposition to it is in his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the Missouri Compromise — repeal all compromises — repeal the declaration of independence — repeal all past history, you still can not repeal human nature. It still will be the abundance of man’s heart, that slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth will continue to speak.”

    Abraham Lincoln – October 16, 1854 Speech at Peoria

  • Grace

    sg,

    YOU WROTE: . . . . . Problem is that slavery did not end. It only ended in places ruled by Europeans.

    Really?

    You forget, England and Canada were much more thoughtful, regarding slavery.

    You must have missed this in post 111:

    Great Britain abolished slave trade in 1807 (54 years before the Civil War) – British Parliament in 1833 abolished slavery for the entire British Empire. They must have known it was wrong. The Civil War in the USA didn’t start until 1861, it took them 28 years longer to figure it out. The war ended in 1865.

    Our neighbors to the north in 1819 would not allow the US to purse slaves who had escaped to Canada, they wouldn’t cooperate with our government. They must have known it was wrong. That was 42 years before the Civil War.

    England abolished the practice, obviously there was nothing to have a slave war over. “

    British Parliament in 1833 abolished slavery for the entire British Empire.”

  • Grace

    sg,

    YOU WROTE: . . . . . Problem is that slavery did not end. It only ended in places ruled by Europeans.

    Really?

    You forget, England and Canada were much more thoughtful, regarding slavery.

    You must have missed this in post 111:

    Great Britain abolished slave trade in 1807 (54 years before the Civil War) – British Parliament in 1833 abolished slavery for the entire British Empire. They must have known it was wrong. The Civil War in the USA didn’t start until 1861, it took them 28 years longer to figure it out. The war ended in 1865.

    Our neighbors to the north in 1819 would not allow the US to purse slaves who had escaped to Canada, they wouldn’t cooperate with our government. They must have known it was wrong. That was 42 years before the Civil War.

    England abolished the practice, obviously there was nothing to have a slave war over. “

    British Parliament in 1833 abolished slavery for the entire British Empire.”

  • Grace

    Texas State Library and Archives Commission

    Slavery

    “The enslavement of African Americans was the curse of early American life, and Texas was no exception. The Mexican government was opposed to slavery, but even so, there were 5000 slaves in Texas by the time of the Texas Revolution in 1836. By the time of annexation a decade later, there were 30,000; by 1860, the census found 182,566 slaves — over 30% of the total population of the state.

    ____another excerpt

    The slave system in Texas, as elsewhere, was held in place by brute force. Some slaves managed to run away to Mexico, but most recognized that an unsuccessful escape would mean a severe beating or being sold away from their families. For most slaves, no matter what they did or how hard they worked, there was simply no way out of slavery for themselves or for their children. In many important areas of life, they were robbed of their basic human rights. They could not plan for the future or even decide for themselves what to do in the course of a day.

    ____another excerpt

    When the Civil War came, Texas was not invaded, and the slaves continued to live and work as they had before. They realized that a Union victory would mean their liberation, and they listened for news as best they could and passed the word of any developments. It was not until June 19, 1865, that Union forces occupied Texas and officially freed the slaves. The day would be celebrated in the years to come as “Juneteenth.“”

    https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/earlystate/slavery-01.html

  • Grace

    Texas State Library and Archives Commission

    Slavery

    “The enslavement of African Americans was the curse of early American life, and Texas was no exception. The Mexican government was opposed to slavery, but even so, there were 5000 slaves in Texas by the time of the Texas Revolution in 1836. By the time of annexation a decade later, there were 30,000; by 1860, the census found 182,566 slaves — over 30% of the total population of the state.

    ____another excerpt

    The slave system in Texas, as elsewhere, was held in place by brute force. Some slaves managed to run away to Mexico, but most recognized that an unsuccessful escape would mean a severe beating or being sold away from their families. For most slaves, no matter what they did or how hard they worked, there was simply no way out of slavery for themselves or for their children. In many important areas of life, they were robbed of their basic human rights. They could not plan for the future or even decide for themselves what to do in the course of a day.

    ____another excerpt

    When the Civil War came, Texas was not invaded, and the slaves continued to live and work as they had before. They realized that a Union victory would mean their liberation, and they listened for news as best they could and passed the word of any developments. It was not until June 19, 1865, that Union forces occupied Texas and officially freed the slaves. The day would be celebrated in the years to come as “Juneteenth.“”

    https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/earlystate/slavery-01.html

  • mikeb

    Grace,

    North America was colonized by Europeans. That’s where most of our ideas and philosophies are rooted. To say we (at least ancestorally) were ruled by Europeans is an honest and acurate academic description.

    And slavery does exist. Mostly in the third world countries but right here in America, too. But unlike elsewhere it is neither norm nor accepted in the U. S.

  • mikeb

    Grace,

    North America was colonized by Europeans. That’s where most of our ideas and philosophies are rooted. To say we (at least ancestorally) were ruled by Europeans is an honest and acurate academic description.

    And slavery does exist. Mostly in the third world countries but right here in America, too. But unlike elsewhere it is neither norm nor accepted in the U. S.

  • mikeb

    I might add that the British ilses are most certainly in Europe and thus King George was certainly a “European” ruler of the English Colonies in North America. Add the Dutch and French colonies and you’ll find more than a few Europeans ruling the Americas…

  • mikeb

    I might add that the British ilses are most certainly in Europe and thus King George was certainly a “European” ruler of the English Colonies in North America. Add the Dutch and French colonies and you’ll find more than a few Europeans ruling the Americas…

  • mikeb
  • mikeb
  • Grace

    mikeb @ 124

    There are many cases of people being bringing people to enslave, including women and young girls. When they are apprehended, tried and found guilty, they go to prison.

  • Grace

    mikeb @ 124

    There are many cases of people being bringing people to enslave, including women and young girls. When they are apprehended, tried and found guilty, they go to prison.

  • Grace

    Europe has many countries, they all have cultural differences, they have all made their mark on the American landscape, and its combined culture.

    Part of my family came to the U.S. in or around 1820 plus, they were in no way in favor of slavery. They left their country of origin to find freedom, to enjoy a better life. Those passages from Europe weren’t easy, they were long and hard. Many of the women were expecting little ones, it must have been a very difficult voyage.

    I am fortunate to have many photos of many of my ancestors. When I see them, I am humbled and grateful for their coming here, for sacrificing just so their children, grandchildren, great, great great granchildren, on and on could have a better life.

    My family was not from the South, they abhored slavery.

  • Grace

    Europe has many countries, they all have cultural differences, they have all made their mark on the American landscape, and its combined culture.

    Part of my family came to the U.S. in or around 1820 plus, they were in no way in favor of slavery. They left their country of origin to find freedom, to enjoy a better life. Those passages from Europe weren’t easy, they were long and hard. Many of the women were expecting little ones, it must have been a very difficult voyage.

    I am fortunate to have many photos of many of my ancestors. When I see them, I am humbled and grateful for their coming here, for sacrificing just so their children, grandchildren, great, great great granchildren, on and on could have a better life.

    My family was not from the South, they abhored slavery.

  • Michael B.

    @sg@104

    “How about you name the place? ”

    The place is planet earth. Any nation or any city. Name a place where legalized slavery would be moral.

    We are getting very side-tracked, and it’s hard not to address your ignorant comments about non-Europeans and slavery. But here’s my point. You would never advocate legalizing slavery in the US. It’s something for some other place, some other time. What the Bible has said about slavery has been rendered of no effect. Whether it’s dismissed by Fourth Kitty as a fairy tell, or by you as something for somebody else, nobody pays attention to it. We’re ashamed of what the Bible says about slavery, and rightfully so. We’re already ashamed of what the Bible says about putting homosexuals to death. It’s only a matter of time before we’re all ashamed about discriminating against homosexuals.

  • Michael B.

    @sg@104

    “How about you name the place? ”

    The place is planet earth. Any nation or any city. Name a place where legalized slavery would be moral.

    We are getting very side-tracked, and it’s hard not to address your ignorant comments about non-Europeans and slavery. But here’s my point. You would never advocate legalizing slavery in the US. It’s something for some other place, some other time. What the Bible has said about slavery has been rendered of no effect. Whether it’s dismissed by Fourth Kitty as a fairy tell, or by you as something for somebody else, nobody pays attention to it. We’re ashamed of what the Bible says about slavery, and rightfully so. We’re already ashamed of what the Bible says about putting homosexuals to death. It’s only a matter of time before we’re all ashamed about discriminating against homosexuals.

  • mikeb

    Grace @ 125-126 (re: 119)

    “Problem is that slavery did not end. It only ended in places ruled by Europeans.” – sg

    NO, you are wrong. The United States was not ruled by Europeans before or after the Civil War. Slavery ended after the Civil War. – Grace

    So when you said slavery was ended and then you said

    There are many cases of people being bringing people to enslave

    were you originally referring to the institutionalized slavery of the South? Because its clear that slavery still exists, you just admitted it. It exists both in the U.S. and worldwide. I just wanted to clarify…

    Also, cleary sg has been arguing that it indeed is the enlightened European sensibilities that led to the end of institutionalized slavery in the parts of the world under their influence, including the U.S. Your family is a prime example of this: they abhored slavery as did much of Europe and the Northern States.

    But their morality was no more superior than that of the Southern planters. They were no more righteous.

  • mikeb

    Grace @ 125-126 (re: 119)

    “Problem is that slavery did not end. It only ended in places ruled by Europeans.” – sg

    NO, you are wrong. The United States was not ruled by Europeans before or after the Civil War. Slavery ended after the Civil War. – Grace

    So when you said slavery was ended and then you said

    There are many cases of people being bringing people to enslave

    were you originally referring to the institutionalized slavery of the South? Because its clear that slavery still exists, you just admitted it. It exists both in the U.S. and worldwide. I just wanted to clarify…

    Also, cleary sg has been arguing that it indeed is the enlightened European sensibilities that led to the end of institutionalized slavery in the parts of the world under their influence, including the U.S. Your family is a prime example of this: they abhored slavery as did much of Europe and the Northern States.

    But their morality was no more superior than that of the Southern planters. They were no more righteous.

  • Grace

    mikeb

    Slavery in the South, before and after the Civil War —- and those who bring people to this country today, to work as prostitutes, or other such jobs, are two different things. TWO, count them TWO. They are still slavery, but they are not the same. Slavery is against the law in the U.S.

    You’re making a twisted malt of this discussion, just as Kiitty pulled. It serves no purpose. Throwing quotes together, mixing and matching.

  • Grace

    mikeb

    Slavery in the South, before and after the Civil War —- and those who bring people to this country today, to work as prostitutes, or other such jobs, are two different things. TWO, count them TWO. They are still slavery, but they are not the same. Slavery is against the law in the U.S.

    You’re making a twisted malt of this discussion, just as Kiitty pulled. It serves no purpose. Throwing quotes together, mixing and matching.

  • mikeb

    Yes, there are TWO different forms of slavery. I’m trying to understand your argument, by reading your statements. Aren’t both forms of slavery equally morally reprehensible by our enlightened standards?

    It’s easy to be against slavery when we don’t have to make the choice, when our society has collectively agreed that it is wrong, and when we’ve passed laws making it illegal. Laws and agreement informed of our collective enlightenment. But not necessarily the Word of God.

  • mikeb

    Yes, there are TWO different forms of slavery. I’m trying to understand your argument, by reading your statements. Aren’t both forms of slavery equally morally reprehensible by our enlightened standards?

    It’s easy to be against slavery when we don’t have to make the choice, when our society has collectively agreed that it is wrong, and when we’ve passed laws making it illegal. Laws and agreement informed of our collective enlightenment. But not necessarily the Word of God.

  • Grace

    mikeb

    Are you an “enlightened” individual? – if you are, you wouldn’t be asking these questions. From what I’ve written concerning all slavery, you should be able to comprehend, but alas you’re stuck in a rut.

    “enlightened standards” – “collective enlightenment” ?

    You don’t have an “enlightened” base to work with, just a flock of words, jazzed together, which make no sense.

  • Grace

    mikeb

    Are you an “enlightened” individual? – if you are, you wouldn’t be asking these questions. From what I’ve written concerning all slavery, you should be able to comprehend, but alas you’re stuck in a rut.

    “enlightened standards” – “collective enlightenment” ?

    You don’t have an “enlightened” base to work with, just a flock of words, jazzed together, which make no sense.

  • mikeb

    Grace,

    I just love how you can’t see the forest for the trees.

  • mikeb

    Grace,

    I just love how you can’t see the forest for the trees.

  • Grace

    I wish you could just see the tree’s – if you could see the tree’s, you might be able to see the forest :razz:

  • Grace

    I wish you could just see the tree’s – if you could see the tree’s, you might be able to see the forest :razz:

  • Grace

    Or at least peek through!

  • Grace

    Or at least peek through!

  • mikeb

    Grace,

    Please tell me that you have heard of the Enlightenment that swept through Europe in the 18th Century, which one philosopher described as “mankind’s final coming of age, the emancipation of the human consciousness from an immature state of ignorance and error.” The ideas born in this era contributed greatly to the sense of freedom that led to the American and French Revolutions, the ending of slavery, and more. No doubt we still see such influence in women’s “rights” movements, and the acceptance of homosexuality.

  • mikeb

    Grace,

    Please tell me that you have heard of the Enlightenment that swept through Europe in the 18th Century, which one philosopher described as “mankind’s final coming of age, the emancipation of the human consciousness from an immature state of ignorance and error.” The ideas born in this era contributed greatly to the sense of freedom that led to the American and French Revolutions, the ending of slavery, and more. No doubt we still see such influence in women’s “rights” movements, and the acceptance of homosexuality.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @127

    Like I said, Michael B, you bring nothing substantive to the discussion.

    “We’re ashamed of what the Bible says about slavery, and rightfully so.”

    I am not ashamed of what it says. It is rather liberal given the historical context.

    We’re already ashamed of what the Bible says about putting homosexuals to death.

    I am not ashamed of what the Bible says here either, though you mischaracterize it a la the historical fallacy.

    “It’s only a matter of time before we’re all ashamed about discriminating against homosexuals.”

    Unlikely, given that we don’t discriminate against them, there is nothing to be ashamed of.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @127

    Like I said, Michael B, you bring nothing substantive to the discussion.

    “We’re ashamed of what the Bible says about slavery, and rightfully so.”

    I am not ashamed of what it says. It is rather liberal given the historical context.

    We’re already ashamed of what the Bible says about putting homosexuals to death.

    I am not ashamed of what the Bible says here either, though you mischaracterize it a la the historical fallacy.

    “It’s only a matter of time before we’re all ashamed about discriminating against homosexuals.”

    Unlikely, given that we don’t discriminate against them, there is nothing to be ashamed of.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “No doubt we still see such influence in women’s “rights” movements, and the acceptance of homosexuality.”

    Very doubtful. Women’s rights is a bit of a misnomer and acceptance of homosexuality is more due to the sleep of reason rather than its engagement.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “No doubt we still see such influence in women’s “rights” movements, and the acceptance of homosexuality.”

    Very doubtful. Women’s rights is a bit of a misnomer and acceptance of homosexuality is more due to the sleep of reason rather than its engagement.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The United States was not ruled by Europeans before or after the Civil War.”

    Stunning.

    Well, Grace please tell us the ethnic origin of those who were ruling the United States since you claim they were not Europeans.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The United States was not ruled by Europeans before or after the Civil War.”

    Stunning.

    Well, Grace please tell us the ethnic origin of those who were ruling the United States since you claim they were not Europeans.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The funniest thing in this whole slavery dust up is that Michael B cannot bring himself to criticize those who actually enslave people right now in the 21st century aka folks of non-European ethic origin. But he hounds anyone who is of European ethnic origin to get in line and parrot the popular platitudes. To top it all off, the Enlightenment is evoked to shame us into conformity rather than to engage our intellect to analyze actual real world conditions. Hilarious.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The funniest thing in this whole slavery dust up is that Michael B cannot bring himself to criticize those who actually enslave people right now in the 21st century aka folks of non-European ethic origin. But he hounds anyone who is of European ethnic origin to get in line and parrot the popular platitudes. To top it all off, the Enlightenment is evoked to shame us into conformity rather than to engage our intellect to analyze actual real world conditions. Hilarious.

  • Grace

    There is nothing “hilarious” about this thread, or those who have twisted it. It’s frought with a desire on the part of a few to disrupt, distort what other posters write.

    Homosexuality is something to be ashamed of, it is a sin that this made very clear in Romans 1. God doesn’t change his mind regarding sin.

    13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

    14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

    15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

    16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

    17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

    18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

    19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

    20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

    21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
    Matthew 7

  • Grace

    There is nothing “hilarious” about this thread, or those who have twisted it. It’s frought with a desire on the part of a few to disrupt, distort what other posters write.

    Homosexuality is something to be ashamed of, it is a sin that this made very clear in Romans 1. God doesn’t change his mind regarding sin.

    13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

    14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

    15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

    16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

    17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

    18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

    19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

    20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

    21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
    Matthew 7

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Oh, yes, this thread is hilarious. It is a burlesque of argument and discussion.

    My platitude is holier than your platitude. Notice how Michael B offers exactly no argument for his assertions? His only appeal is to popular sentiment.

    There are actual profound and important arguments against slavery. Since Michael B doesn’t offer any, I assume he doesn’t know them.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Oh, yes, this thread is hilarious. It is a burlesque of argument and discussion.

    My platitude is holier than your platitude. Notice how Michael B offers exactly no argument for his assertions? His only appeal is to popular sentiment.

    There are actual profound and important arguments against slavery. Since Michael B doesn’t offer any, I assume he doesn’t know them.

  • mikeb

    sg @ 137

    How can you say that we’re not seeing such influence in the women’s rights and homosexual rights movements of the 20th century? Do they not appeal to the writings of Jefferson and others, i.e. “all [people] are created equal”?

    It seems to me that reason comes very much in to play with these movements. Flawed reason, but still.

    In any case it’s not worth arguing over.

  • mikeb

    sg @ 137

    How can you say that we’re not seeing such influence in the women’s rights and homosexual rights movements of the 20th century? Do they not appeal to the writings of Jefferson and others, i.e. “all [people] are created equal”?

    It seems to me that reason comes very much in to play with these movements. Flawed reason, but still.

    In any case it’s not worth arguing over.

  • Grace

    Hysteria isn’t going to change anyone’s mind, no matter how much self righteous anger is spewed.

  • Grace

    Hysteria isn’t going to change anyone’s mind, no matter how much self righteous anger is spewed.

  • mikeb

    sg @ 139

    I wasn’t bringing up the Enlightenment to defend Michael B. or coerce anyone into conformity. I think just the opposite, at least insofar as I understand his arguments; as Enlightened and modern as mankind thought itself to be in the 18th and 19th Century, (especially the Europeans who ruled the world through either their power or ideas), they were still poor, miserable sinners. Their notions of moral and intellectual superiority based upon a new and improved worldview reminds me of many in today’s world who, having cast aside time proven values and mores, choose to champion yet another new and improved worldview.

    They base not the fountain and source their convictions on Almighty God but their own Enlightened (in an ever modern use) selves. Say or do whatever you want, as long as you don’t say or do the old things. I say nay… The new rebel is the conservative traditionalist who does not conform.

  • mikeb

    sg @ 139

    I wasn’t bringing up the Enlightenment to defend Michael B. or coerce anyone into conformity. I think just the opposite, at least insofar as I understand his arguments; as Enlightened and modern as mankind thought itself to be in the 18th and 19th Century, (especially the Europeans who ruled the world through either their power or ideas), they were still poor, miserable sinners. Their notions of moral and intellectual superiority based upon a new and improved worldview reminds me of many in today’s world who, having cast aside time proven values and mores, choose to champion yet another new and improved worldview.

    They base not the fountain and source their convictions on Almighty God but their own Enlightened (in an ever modern use) selves. Say or do whatever you want, as long as you don’t say or do the old things. I say nay… The new rebel is the conservative traditionalist who does not conform.

  • mikeb

    I’m not sure anyone is angry…

  • mikeb

    I’m not sure anyone is angry…

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @143

    LOL

    If only that were true!

    Plenty of folks are cowed by aggressive deceptive liars accusing them of all sorts of baseless crap. Just look at history starting in the garden.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @143

    LOL

    If only that were true!

    Plenty of folks are cowed by aggressive deceptive liars accusing them of all sorts of baseless crap. Just look at history starting in the garden.

  • Michael B.

    @SG

    “There are actual profound and important arguments against slavery. Since Michael B doesn’t offer any, I assume he doesn’t know them.”

    I suppose that’s a fair question. There are many arguments against slavery. Frederick Douglas provides ample literature on this. So why didn’t I mention any? I suppose it’d be the same if you suggested that legalized female circumcision can be moral. No one would feel the need to give you reasons why female circumcision is immoral. The second you make the claim that legalized slavery can be moral, you’re dismissed as a troll at best, and a moron at worst. Discussion over. Even other fundamentalists on here won’t defend you on this.

    Also, you keep bringing up this side-issue of European superiority up. I’m not sure where that came from. I guess someone who could support legalized slavery in any nation probably has some race-issues to work out.

  • Michael B.

    @SG

    “There are actual profound and important arguments against slavery. Since Michael B doesn’t offer any, I assume he doesn’t know them.”

    I suppose that’s a fair question. There are many arguments against slavery. Frederick Douglas provides ample literature on this. So why didn’t I mention any? I suppose it’d be the same if you suggested that legalized female circumcision can be moral. No one would feel the need to give you reasons why female circumcision is immoral. The second you make the claim that legalized slavery can be moral, you’re dismissed as a troll at best, and a moron at worst. Discussion over. Even other fundamentalists on here won’t defend you on this.

    Also, you keep bringing up this side-issue of European superiority up. I’m not sure where that came from. I guess someone who could support legalized slavery in any nation probably has some race-issues to work out.

  • Grace

    Michael @147

    YOU WROTE: → ” I guess someone who could support legalized slavery in any nation probably has some race-issues to work out.”

    You hit the nail on the head. I doubt however, it will be dealt with anytime soon.

    .

  • Grace

    Michael @147

    YOU WROTE: → ” I guess someone who could support legalized slavery in any nation probably has some race-issues to work out.”

    You hit the nail on the head. I doubt however, it will be dealt with anytime soon.

    .

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @147

    So what is your point, Michael B? Are you just trying to prove your moral superiority to anonymous internet blog commenters? You still haven’t made any arguments or engaged any discussion beyond your opinion of me. What could any reader gain from reading this exchange? Absolutely nothing. It is ridiculous and content free.

    The whole of your comments can be summarized: Anyone who says ________ is a _________. Oh, gee, how profound. We all understand the issues now. Every one of your statements is just another version of that statement. Not all of us live entirely self referential existences where the only thing that matters is whether or not others praise our position. You know you can actually have a real discussion of issues, including stuff you disagree with, without the entire discussion revolving around your opinion of the other person with whom you are discussing the topic and incessant moral preening. Try it sometime.

    For example:

    What criteria have to be met in order for a non paid work arrangement to be moral?

    Slavery is not entirely uncompensated. The slave may get security, housing, food, etc., in exchange for services but he doesn’t get liberty and he can’t leave the arrangement. Now in plenty of places, there is just about nowhere to go with no skills to trade and no way to get there. So, how would the one managing such an individual have to act to satisfy the requirements given that he is not prosperous enough to pay the worker? At what level of benefit to the slave master does the relationship become exploitive and immoral? While in general, we understand such asymmetries of power to be immoral, is that absolute or relative? If so how and why?

    Okay, let’s play beg the question:

    “No one would feel the need to give you reasons why female circumcision is immoral.”

    What is the unstated premise here?

    Why is male circumcision moral?

    There are actual reasons for these things and the reasons must be stated as they constitute the premises for the argument.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @147

    So what is your point, Michael B? Are you just trying to prove your moral superiority to anonymous internet blog commenters? You still haven’t made any arguments or engaged any discussion beyond your opinion of me. What could any reader gain from reading this exchange? Absolutely nothing. It is ridiculous and content free.

    The whole of your comments can be summarized: Anyone who says ________ is a _________. Oh, gee, how profound. We all understand the issues now. Every one of your statements is just another version of that statement. Not all of us live entirely self referential existences where the only thing that matters is whether or not others praise our position. You know you can actually have a real discussion of issues, including stuff you disagree with, without the entire discussion revolving around your opinion of the other person with whom you are discussing the topic and incessant moral preening. Try it sometime.

    For example:

    What criteria have to be met in order for a non paid work arrangement to be moral?

    Slavery is not entirely uncompensated. The slave may get security, housing, food, etc., in exchange for services but he doesn’t get liberty and he can’t leave the arrangement. Now in plenty of places, there is just about nowhere to go with no skills to trade and no way to get there. So, how would the one managing such an individual have to act to satisfy the requirements given that he is not prosperous enough to pay the worker? At what level of benefit to the slave master does the relationship become exploitive and immoral? While in general, we understand such asymmetries of power to be immoral, is that absolute or relative? If so how and why?

    Okay, let’s play beg the question:

    “No one would feel the need to give you reasons why female circumcision is immoral.”

    What is the unstated premise here?

    Why is male circumcision moral?

    There are actual reasons for these things and the reasons must be stated as they constitute the premises for the argument.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    When you don’t state any actual reasons for what you say, then it sounds a lot like, “All the cool smart people think x, therefore I think x and if you don’t then you aren’t smart and cool.”

    Well congratulations, you have discovered popular opinion and can parrot it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    When you don’t state any actual reasons for what you say, then it sounds a lot like, “All the cool smart people think x, therefore I think x and if you don’t then you aren’t smart and cool.”

    Well congratulations, you have discovered popular opinion and can parrot it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “How can you say that we’re not seeing such influence in the women’s rights and homosexual rights movements of the 20th century? Do they not appeal to the writings of Jefferson and others, i.e. “all [people] are created equal”?”

    Misapplication of the ideas.

    I mean you could appeal to Jefferson to have the age of majority reduced to 12 or 14. Of course, that is absurd because equality before the law was specifically defined and including youngsters was never part of that construct, nor women, nor animals, nor unnatural behaviors.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “How can you say that we’re not seeing such influence in the women’s rights and homosexual rights movements of the 20th century? Do they not appeal to the writings of Jefferson and others, i.e. “all [people] are created equal”?”

    Misapplication of the ideas.

    I mean you could appeal to Jefferson to have the age of majority reduced to 12 or 14. Of course, that is absurd because equality before the law was specifically defined and including youngsters was never part of that construct, nor women, nor animals, nor unnatural behaviors.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    For the sake of a good discussion, it is useful to entertain ideas without necessarily embracing them.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    For the sake of a good discussion, it is useful to entertain ideas without necessarily embracing them.

  • Michael B.

    @SG

    I’m not going to dismiss one of your views just because it’s offensive or unpopular. But you have to present convincing evidence, because what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

  • Michael B.

    @SG

    I’m not going to dismiss one of your views just because it’s offensive or unpopular. But you have to present convincing evidence, because what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

  • Pingback: Lou Dobbs mystified by Obama-birth ‘taboo’ « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL

  • Pingback: Lou Dobbs mystified by Obama-birth ‘taboo’ « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X