9 years ago: Big (anti)Gay Al

July 9, 2004, on this blog: Big (anti)Gay Al

Mohler is so obsessed with this notion of a grand scheme and a gay agenda that he fails to appreciate why a greater number of “mainstream” heterosexual folks seem to have become more accepting of their homosexual neighbors: They’ve gotten to know some of those neighbors (sons/daughters/aunts/uncles/coworkers/friends) as people.

That’s probably the strangest thing about guys like Mohler. Despite his fascination with homosexuals, he seems to think he doesn’t know any.

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

The Bond villain running Donald Trump's campaign
RIP Daniel Berrigan
Left Behind Classic Fridays, No. 80: 'Still not creepy enough'
Thursday de Mayo
  • Carstonio

    I’ve never knowingly met a gay person. Offhand I’m not sure how that would work: “I’d like you to meet Jane and her wife Angie.” And I suppose that meeting an openly gay celebrity wouldn’t count. But I know three people whose orientations I learned years after meeting them.

    Mohler and other bigots imply that the “homosexual agenda” is about switching society’s norm from heterosexuality, or worse, converting all straight people. I’m not sure how much of this is genuine belief, how much is demagoguery, and how much is both. I oppose the idea of society even having a norm when it comes to sexual orientation, because it’s another form of privilege.

  • Baby_Raptor

    They fear the loss of their power.

    What they say is stuff that’s designed to get the “commoners” riled up behind them and to open their wallets. Whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter and probably doesn’t even cross their minds. Truth isn’t the motivation; maintaining their power is.

  • jojo

    And precisely what is the nature of Al Mohler’s “power” compared to, say, the President, or the Supreme Court of the United States, or Comcast? Please be detailed, because I can’t see that the man has any “power” at all, except the power to disagree with you, and you just can’t stand that, can you?

  • Lori

    Please be detailed, because I can’t see that the man has any “power” at all, except the power to disagree with you, and you just can’t stand that, can you?

    It’s a good thing for you that it’s not possible to die from irony poisoning or you’d be a goner.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Power over other people. The power that comes with privilege. The power that comes with being respected, and having a lot of money. The power that comes with people believing that one is a man of God.

    Pick one, any one.

    And frankly? I don’t give two flying Fucks whether or not anyone “agrees” with me. I’m an adult, not a child…I can handle someone having a differing opinion. It’s when people who disagree with me start actively working to harm people, as Mohler does, that I start getting angry.

  • Carstonio

    Good distinction. There are some folks who don’t like same-sex marriage but who leave those couples alone. That’s probably a small group, but whatever its size, it’s largely irrelevant to the issue. We’re talking about one side that seeks to impose both laws and social norms against same-sex marriage, and another side that believes that individuals have the right to seek a spouse from either sex. Freedom versus anti-freedom. If this were really about differing opinions, the second side would believe that opposite-sex marriage is wrong and would seek laws and norms against it.

  • dpolicar

    FWIW, I’m actually all in favor of imposing social norms against many of the things people like Mohler and jojo do. I just don’t support making them illegal.

    By the same token, when anti-marriage-equality folks seek social norms against families like mine, I’m relatively OK with that. I mean, it pisses me off from time to time, and I think they’re wrong to do so, and I seek opposing social norms, but ultimately that’s how it should work… they live by their views, I live by mine, and collectively we work out how we collectively live. I endorse this, even when it pisses me off in practice.

    Whereas when they seek to criminalize my life choices rather than merely disapprove of them, they become a much more acute threat to me and mine, and much more acute opposition becomes necessary.

    So I wouldn’t group laws and social norms together like this.

    I do agree with everything you’re saying about laws, though.

  • Carstonio

    That’s not my understanding of social norms. I see them as collections of shoulds and should-nots. In principle they serve the same purpose as laws, balancing individual and societal interests.

    The anti-equality folks not only oppose homosexuality themselves but want society to disapprove of it. Again, a truly opposing social norm would be broad social disapproval of heterosexuality. Either one would constitute an injustice, no different from the norms that were extralegal components of Jim Crow.

    My ideal world would have orientation off the table entirely for either social approval or disapproval, but I don’t expect that to happen any time soon. A more realistic goal would be an attitude of benign indifference for anyone else’s orientation, regardless of what one believes about one’s own orientation.

  • dpolicar

    I agree that social norms are collections of shoulds and should nots.

    Many people think I shouldn’t be married to my husband, for example. I think they should get over it. Etc. As long as it remains at that level, I’m basically OK with it.

    I disagree that broad social disapproval of heterosexuality would oppose broad social disapproval of homosexuality. It’s entirely possible to disapprove of both without contradiction.

    What opposes disapproval of heterosexuality is approval of homosexuality. Which is perfectly consistent with approval of heterosexuality. And bisexuality. And asexuality. And various other options.

    I’m OK with indifference, but as long as we’re talking ideals, I’d prefer enthusiastic endorsement of people living their sexual lives in accordance with their own sexual orientations.

  • Carstonio

    I disagree that broad social disapproval of heterosexuality would oppose broad social disapproval of homosexuality. It’s entirely possible to disapprove of both without contradiction.

    In principle, yes. In practice, approval of homosexuality means disapproval of heterosexuality, because the former is a belief that individuals should be gay and shouldn’t be straight. Flip the two orientations and you have the anti-equality position.

    I’d prefer enthusiastic endorsement of people living their sexual lives in accordance with their own sexual orientations.

    That’s the same as benign indifference, meaning that one would have no investment in others living their sexual lives any other way.

  • dpolicar

    In practice, approval of homosexuality means disapproval of heterosexuality, because the former is a belief that individuals should be gay and shouldn’t be straight.

    It certainly seems to me that I approve of homosexuality, and that I approve of heterosexuality.

    If I’ve understood you correctly, you’re saying that in practice this is an impossible state to be in.

    I assume I haven’t understood you correctly, but I don’t know how else to interpret this.

    That’s the same as benign indifference, meaning that one would have no investment in others living their sexual lives any other way.

    If indifference in this context is equivalent to enthusiastic endorsement, then sure. That’s not how I initially interpreted you; thanks for clarifying.

  • Carstonio

    While Kinsey pointed out that orientation is not exclusive, approval or disapproval of another’s orientation would typically involve exclusivity. It may be possible for someone to, say, approve of a bisexual person’s homosexuality while holding no opinion on the person’s heterosexuality, but that would probably be extremely rare. I suspect that would happen if the approver was a gay man interested in a relationship with the other.

  • dpolicar

    I begin to suspect that I don’t know what you mean by “approval.”

    Let me try and clarify what I mean by it.

    My heterosexual brother is married to a heterosexual woman. They make each other happy, they have built a loving and mutually supportive life, and their sexual attraction has been an important part of that life. I approve of all of that, and I approve of the heterosexuality that makes it possible.

    My homosexual friend is married to a homosexual woman. They make each other happy, they have built a loving and mutually supportive life, and their sexual attraction has been an important part of that life. I approve of all of that, and I approve of the homosexuality that makes it possible.

    My bisexual husband is married to a bisexual man. We make each other happy, we have built a loving and mutually supportive life, and our sexual attraction has been an important part of that life. I approve of all of that, and I approve of the bisexuality that makes it possible.

    So, it seems to me that I approve of homosexuality, and that I approve of heterosexuality, and that I approve of bisexuality. (Among other things.)

  • Carstonio

    I guess I am using the word differently. I’m saying that your gay and straight friends don’t need your permission to live in ways that make them happy, just as my gay and straight friends don’t need my permission either. I read “approve” and “disapprove” as meaning “should” and “shouldn’t.”

  • dpolicar

    I certainly agree that our friends don’t need our permission to live in ways that make them happy. Nor do I need their permission.

    And that’s as it ought to be; the world would be worse if we required one another’s permission for that sort of thing.

    But when my friends came to celebrate my wedding with me, I understood them to be expressing their approval of my marriage, and that inferred approval brought me joy.

    I guess I see approval and permission as very distinct concepts… I permit many things of which I disapprove, for example. (I’m not sure if I approve of anything I don’t permit. I can’t think of any examples offhand.)

    But I guess, if I think of “approval” in a context more like what a judge does… as being more like certifying… I can see how “approve” and “permit” become somewhat synonymous.

    That doesn’t really help with my initial confusion, though. Even if I were somehow in a position to approve of homosexuality or heterosexuality in that sense (which I’m not, and prefer not to be), I don’t see what would stop me from approving both.

  • FearlessSon

    I get the impression that the authoritarians feel the need to for their social norms to be endorsed by authority, and a way to make that obvious is through laws. Note how many of them seek to enact or maintain laws for reasons of “sending a message” rather than being practical or even necessarily enforceable.

  • dpolicar

    It’s when people who disagree with me start actively working to harm people, as Mohler does, that I start getting angry.

    Word.

  • Frank

    Rescuing people from sinful behavior is the opposite of causing harm.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Except the form in which this “rescuing” occurs has an unusual tendency to result in people winding up penniless and homeless, isolated in hospitals, in prison or faithless or dead. I’m reasonably certain this is an indication that harm has been done.

  • Frank

    What do you mean? How does escaping sinful behavior result in those things? And even if it did its better than living in sin.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Because in my experience, people aren’t willing to let us sinners have a choice, so they pass legislation in an effort to force us to conform to their preferred behavior.

    Really now? I take it you haven’t read Matthew and what happens to people who insure that their neighbors enter and remain in these conditions.

    They go to Hell. They’re the only ones who go to Hell.

  • Frank

    The people who choose to spend eternity in hell are the ones who choose to reject God and His truths.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Indeed, and yet.

  • Carstonio

    No one who has any morality is capable of believing that eternal suffering is a just punishment. And if you had any morality, you would petition your god to do away with such a punishment. Instead, you’re like a child taunting a sibling: “Aw, you’re gonna get it!”

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Triumphalism: Revealing more about the Antichrist since ~6000 BCE.

  • Frank

    It’s not a punishment its a choice. A painful one but a choice none the less.

  • JustoneK

    Query: what is punishment if not a consequence of a choice? If it isn’t meant to correct behavior, what is the good of it?

  • dpolicar

    An excellent question.

    One possible answer is “No good at all.”

  • JustoneK

    it’s why, in light of “sheol” and a lot of Fred’s posts here, I don’t buy into the Hell aspect of things these days. it’s just too cruel for me to deal with, and life on earth is cruel enough and I can’t escape it. if I end up in Hell, I end up in Hell regardless. there is no hope in the fundie lack of choices.

  • dpolicar

    Given our demonstrable collective fondness for telling stories in which people whom we condemn suffer various penalties, I see no reason to believe that the particular versions of that story attached to various religions are reliable. Hell is just a story we made up to scare each other with.

  • Frank

    Everyone has a choice to either accept or reject the truth, to follow God or create their own gods.

  • Frank

    All choices have consequences.

  • Carstonio

    You’re avoiding the question. Do you or do you not see eternal suffering as an appropriate punishment for any particular action, and why or why not?

  • Frank

    If I was God then I might be able to answer the question.

    That’s kind of like asking me whether I agree with gravity or the fact that I will be at least injured if I jump off a tall building.

  • JustoneK

    If only God is capable of truthfully or accurately answering, why are you asking us?

  • Frank

    I am not asking you. You asked me.

  • JustoneK

    So above with
    jojo AnonymousSam • an hour ago

    What do you mean? How does escaping sinful behavior result in those things? And even if it did its better than living in sin.

    isn’t you?

  • Frank

    Yes I ask questions but what does that have to do with whether hell exists or what it is?

    Lets not confuse each other eh?

  • JustoneK

    Hell is eternal suffering for a temporary earthly transgression. (It is also, incidentally, never mentioned in original translations of the Bible.) Thus, when Carstonio asked if this was a right and moral consequence, you dodged by saying only God can truly answer that. My question was about why pose the question about living with sinful behavior and going to Hell if we, not being God, cannot answer?

    And there’s a recap, folks!

  • Carstonio

    That comparison makes no sense, because it implies that eternal suffering or eternal paradise are simply natural consequences, like a tree falling in a forest, instead of a conscious decision by a sentient being to subject a person to one fate or the other. One should be able to judge whether any action by any sentient being is just or unjust.

  • Frank

    They are the natural consequences of peoples choices.

    That being said no analogy ever is a perfect one.

  • Carstonio

    The consequences aren’t natural because, according to your theology, your god chose to create the rules of the universe that way.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    Are you the same Frank who was banned from this blog a year or so ago? It was a thread on abortion- actually contraception, but you (if it’s you) made it about abortion right quick.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Ah, that thread rings a bell. “Claims of crisis belied by indifference.” That was the very first thread in which I posted on this blog.

    (Also, I’m tired of being anonymous. My name is Sam. Nice to meet you all!)

  • Daniel

    But if God has to punish you by sending you to hell, then God is bound by rules and ceases to be omnipotent.

  • FearlessSon

    If my alternatives are between an eternity in Hell and an eternity in the company of sanctimonious true believers, I would choose Hell.

    It would be the lesser of two unpleasant afterlives.

  • Daniel

    It’s hardly an informed choice though, is it? We cannot conceive of eternity, we cannot imagine any suffering that does not end, and we cannot imagine that there is no possibility of escape. Human beings are incapable of understanding the reality of hell, so we can’t be said to be making a choice as regards going there.

  • Alix

    All right then, I’ll go to hell.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    That doesn’t bode well for people who go around making up shit about God having a weird random bugaboo about whether or not you prefer to fuck people with the same shaped genitals as yourself.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Your personal opinion of what constitutes sin means nothing to anyone but you.

    And the fact that you would dare minimize the harm done to others to support your opinion shows exactly how little you care for anyone but yourself.

  • Frank

    Not my personal opinion. I follow the Word of God and the truth of God.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    You follow one of several tens of thousands of denominations’ individual interpretations of the Word of God and truth of God. Would you care to explain why your denomination’s interpretation is correct and none of the other 41,000 denominations are?

  • Frank

    In regards to SSM and SS behavior I am open to see any cogent, compelling and scripturally supported case made that God condones or blesses it. I have been waiting a very long time.

  • dpolicar

    While you wait, I recommend you try embracing the glorious reality of Creation, of which you are an integral part. It really is a remarkable thing, and much can be learned from it.

  • Frank

    I do but what does that have to do with embracing sin?

  • dpolicar

    Nothing at all.

    But it has a lot to do with embracing things that are part of the glorious reality of Creation which you currently categorize as sin, while you focus your attention on seeking cogent, compelling, and scripturally supported cases.

    I am delighted to hear that you embrace Creation. As you continue doing so, your understanding of sin will mature.

  • Frank

    I am sure that it is true but what is sinful or not sinful doesn’t change.

  • dpolicar

    Perhaps not.

    Even if that’s true, because I lack perfect insight into the reality of what is and is not sinful (or the reality of anything else), all I can do is work with my understanding of sin, which demonstrably does change.

    I suspect the same is true of you, as well.

  • Frank

    No it’s not. I work off of Gods truth because of the fact that if truth is left up to whatever someone, at some time, believes it to be, its not truth at all.

  • dpolicar

    I’m not sure I understood you correctly. It sounded like you were claiming to have perfect insight into the reality of what is and is not sinful. Are you claiming that?

  • Frank

    I am claiming that God has perfect insight to the reality of whats sinful and what is not. Afterall all sin is actually rejection of God.,

  • dpolicar

    Ah, OK. Thanks for clarifying.

    Yes, it may be true that God has perfect insight into what is and is not sinful.

    Even if that’s true, because I am not God, and I lack such insight, all I can do is work with my insight into sin, which is imperfect.

    I suspect the same is true of you, as well.

  • Frank

    That’s why we have Gods Word. As a litmus test to see if our insight is correct. God does not leave us in the dark here.

  • dpolicar

    And yet, scripture has been interpreted by people throughout history in conflicting ways.

    Which suggests that our interpretation of scripture is not perfectly reliable… at least some people get it wrong.

    And since I am no more infallible than any other mortal, that means it’s possible for me to be wrong about scripture.

    I suspect the same is true of you, as well.

    All of which is unsurprising. The moment any message is made a part of Creation, whether it be as a thought in our minds or a sentence written on paper or some other form, it is subject to the information-theoretical rules which govern Creation, and those rules permit error.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    You’re right. We have it in black and white that God isn;’t bothered by homosexuality, and that anyone who goes around declaring it to be an abomination is going to burn in a lake of fire for it. Perfectly unambiguous.

  • Frank

    I guess you must of written your own bible?

  • J_Enigma32

    And by worshiping Jesus as the son of God, you reject the truth as revealed by the Prophet Muhammad.

    Don’t worry, though; the truth of the Rig Veda and the Upanishads still leaves for Jesus. There’s still plenty of opportunity to leave your false faith for the one true religion of Hinduism.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    So what else out of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy is still considered a sin today?

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Romans 14.

  • Frank

    Can you elaborate? Food and sexual behavior are not the same thing. Sexuality morality is affirmed in the NT where as the dietary laws are rejected in the NT.

    Nowhere doe God approve of homosexual behavior.

    Good try but its doesn’t fly.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    I take it you’re one of those people who believes that Peter’s vision was all about food, too.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat
  • Frank

    God has not declared homosexual behavior clean.

    Sigh! The ignorance abut biblical principles is really quite astounding.

  • JustoneK

    Biblical principles seem to change a lot also.

  • Frank

    Only to those that don’t accept them. Gods truths are eternal and unchanging and they don’t require us to make them true.

  • JustoneK

    And yet no one can agree on what they are, and never have been able to.

  • Frank

    For millenia. Jews and then Christians have agreed with Gods Word that homosexual behavior was sinful.

  • JustoneK

    Um. I’m pretty sure they have not. However, large groups of Eurocentric Christians were perfectly fine with agreeing that Jews, by virtue of being Jews, were sinful.

  • EllieMurasaki

    You know, Frank, you’re really damn fortunate there’s no such thing as God, because I bet she’d smite you for talking shit about the people she made queer with the explicit intent that they love people of the same gender.

  • Frank

    God does not make anyone gay. Our fallen sinful world does,

  • dpolicar

    Labeling parts of Creation as “fallen” and “sinful” is a way of failing to embrace Creation.

  • Frank

    Its reality.

  • dpolicar

    “It’s”.

  • Frank

    Yes I understand how being unable to refute content you have to point out a missing apostrophe. Good job!

  • dpolicar

    Refutation is not my purpose.

    Your view of reality is consistently mistaken. I’ve said that already; I see no value in repeating it on this thread.

    Your use of the third-person neutral possessive is also consistently mistaken.

    In both cases, I can and do point out your mistakes. That’s really all I can do.

    You decide whether to treat that as an opportunity for rhetorical victory or for self-improvement. Thus far, you’ve been pretty consistently choosing the former.

  • Daniel

    It really isn’t Frank. Not really. It’s a way of validating a profound misanthropy and fear of people.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Science says otherwise. If you claim that scientific observation of the natural world is wrong, then you deny the truth of creation.

    Which is fine I guess if you’re a skeptic or something, but you should really leave trying to impose christian morality on other people to people who are actual christians.

  • Frank

    Science say God makes people gay? Yeah ok.

  • P J Evans

    Parthenogenic lesbian lizards would like to speak with you.

  • Daniel

    So once again you raise the problem of an omnipotent omniscient God being surprised by what his creations do. Assuming people do choose to be gay- why would this be wrong? God never actually offers any reasons for this, does he?

  • Alix

    lol

  • Daniel

    They’ve also regarded art and music as sinful at various points, and democracy, and universal suffrage. Oh, and mince pies.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.” How is that unclear?

  • Frank

    “The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.””

    God has never called homosexual behavior clean. In fact just the opposite.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Here’s where you run into a problem:

    Peter’s vision was about food. Peter awoke and was trying to figure out what the vision meant, when a gentile knocked on his door.

    Cornelius, not being circumcised, would have been considered an unclean person by Jewish law.

    Peter hadn’t seen anything directly or obviously to do with circumcision in his vision.

    Yet he interpreted his vision as being not about food, but about people.

    Note, also, that Peter said, “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.” He didn’t say, “God has shown me that I must not call any uncircumcised males unclean. Everyone else, though… still unclean. Sorry.”

    ANY. ONE.

    That would include uncircumcised men, eunuchs, menstruating women, prostitutes (Jesus hung out with some of those, remember?), and gays.

    “God has shown me that I should not call ANYONE profane or unclean.”

  • Frank

    Except the NT is quite clear on Gods sexual ethic and morality. God never calls homosexual behavior clean.

  • Lori

    God never calls homosexual behavior unclean either. Paul, who clearly had some issues, condemns some kinds of homosexual behavior. That’s it. Jesus of course never mentioned it at all.

  • Baby_Raptor

    The New Testament is anything but clear.

    Paul knew nothing of homosexuality as we know it now. What he was condemning back then was the Roman habit of men forcing themselves on other males, usually children. There wasn’t even a concept of what we now know as homosexuality.

    And that’s if those verses even were addressing male-on-male sex. There is a huge amount of debate on the words used in the writings.

    But, hey. Don’t let what the words you’re leaning on actually mean get in the way of your opinions, yeah?

  • Frank

    Paul knew exactly what he was talking about. Gay marriage existed in Rome and China and other places at the time.

    Try again.

  • Daniel

    Paul hadn’t been to China. And it’s not really accepted that the concept of “gay” existed much before the twentieth century. Do keep up.

  • Frank

    Look up the ancient history of gay marriage. Learn something.

  • Daniel

    No really, you look up sociology papers about exactly this subject- the idea of “gay” didn’t exist until the twentieth century. It was quite common prior to this for men to have relationships with both sexes, the idea of exclusively directed sexuality dates from Krafft-Ebing onwards. Common did not equate to accepted, but that changed according to time and place. Incidentally, James VI whose bible everyone seems so keen on was pretty much a massive screaming bender.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Is that why he invented a word from scratch to describe it?

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    When did God tell us to stop killing women who had lost their virginity before marriage?

  • Alix

    The ignorance abut biblical principles is really quite astounding.

    Funny, I was just about to say the same thing in response to you…

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    I believe the relevant quote is

    “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean”

  • Baby_Raptor

    Disagreeing with your interpretation of a book does not make someone “ignorant.”

    Further, you told Shifter that she’s wrong, and you insulted her, but you offered no proof that she’s wrong. You offered no explanation. Just your stubborn insistence that you’re right, because you think God says so.

    So, it would seem that you yourself are not adhering to the standards of proof you demanded I meet earlier. Hypocrite much?

  • Daniel

    This is what’s pissing me off so much about his posts. I love to debate this stuff- I’ve literally had Christians of various denominations and sects popping over to my house for months to discuss this with them- but in my world “debate” includes using supporting evidence, which he doesn’t.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Can you elaborate? Food and sexual behavior are not the same thing.
    Sexuality morality is affirmed in the NT where as the dietary laws are
    rejected in the NT.

    Then you are saying that St. Peter was wrong? That the vision he interpreted to mean “I should not call anyone unclean” actually meant that he was allowed to eat any animals he liked? That the vision he received in response to him thinking he wasn’t allowed to treat people decently if the lived lifestyles which his Jewish tradition considered sinful had nothing to do with whether or not he should treat people decently even if they lived lifestyles which the OT considered sinful?

    What religion are you, anyway? You seem to have a lot of disdain for the bible, except for a few exceprts you’ve pulled out of context.

  • Daniel

    Why does he need to voice an open approval of something to make it OK? God doesn’t punish Lot’s daughters for getting him drunk and raping him- does that mean daughter-on-dad incestuous date rape is OK? Or is it only ok if the aim is to get pregnant? Or is this another one of those things that I’m misinterpreting?

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Just for the record? I suspect when Jesus flipped that table, he had churches like the Southern Baptist Convention in mind.

    Honestly, when you refer to your leader as a chief executive officer and have him speak an oath which affirms the importance of money…

    And Mohler supports this! Affirms this!

  • Baby_Raptor

    As I said to your other comment, there is no definitive proof for ANY religion. You think your opinions of the bible are “the truth.”

    And you’re free to think that. But stubbornly insisting that you’re right, and therefore everyone else should have to toe your line isn’t going to get you anywhere. It’s the act of a child.

    And your “truth” means nothing to anyone but you. Law cannot be based on it. You cannot force people to adhere to it.

  • Frank

    Same is true for you. So where does that leave us all?

  • dpolicar

    where does that leave us all?

    Basing law on things other than sectarian revealed truth.
    It works out pretty well, actually.

  • Baby_Raptor

    I’m not trying to base laws off my lack of a religion, nor am I judging anyone by it. You’re the one going around talking about sin, and saying that you can’t support anyone who doesn’t toe your line.

    Answer your own question. It only applies to you.

    Also, you’re dodging. Repeatedly. Every time someone corners you, you change the topic. It’s very noticable.

  • Frank

    Dodging what exactly? Enlighten me.

  • Baby_Raptor

    The questions and points you can’t talk your way out of. Every time you get hit with one, you change the topic.

    I stated as much in the comment you replied to. You’re not a stupid person; you would do well to quit acting it.

  • Boidster

    BINGO!

    “Word of God” got me the diagonal. Thanks, man.

  • Carstonio

    Don’t presume that one religion’s definition of sin applies to everyone, and don’t presume that you know what’s best for everyone. By your logic, Hindus would be justified in invading the US and shutting down every cattle farm and beef processing plant.

  • Frank

    There are many religions but that does not make them all true.

  • Baby_Raptor

    There’s no definitive proof any religion is true. Your point?

  • Carstonio

    More to the point, neither Frank nor the hypothetical Hindu in my example can prove that each other’s religion is false.

  • Daniel

    I think Hypothetical Hindu was the lamest Hannah-Barbera rehashes of Scooby Doo. I mean they didn’t even have crimes to solve, just hypotheses to work out. And the same ones came up every week- they died on the first outing but then somehow got reincarnated into a later episode.

  • Frank

    So what do you believe in and why do you think its true?

  • Baby_Raptor

    Why, so you can insult me more?

    I’m an Atheist. I was raised very fundamentalist Christian and eventually left it because there’s no solid proof that Bible God actually exists. And moreover, if the Bible is true, then personally I believe that the God contained therein is not a moral being worthy of worship.

    This conversation, however, is not about me. It’s about you, and the fact that you seem perfectly content with denying other people basic rights based on your personal opinions.

  • Frank

    So prove you are right. Or is the standard you set for others not applicable for you?

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Why does she need to? She’s not the one trying to legislate away anyone’s rights.

  • Frank

    Neither am I.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    So you’re cool with the legal recognition of same-sex marriage? All right then.

  • Frank

    I cannot in good conscience support anyone engaging in sinful behavior. That’s not what love looks like.

    That being said I do not participate in the political processes.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    You don’t get to determine what love is for anyone else. What may make one person feel cherished may make another feel stifled; what makes one person stable and content might make another one lonely and insecure.

    You don’t vote? I see. But even though you, personally, may not be trying to get your ideas of morality legislated, you’re supporting those who do.

  • Frank

    Right. First no one is stopping anyone from loving anyone they choose to. Secondly love is defined by God not by human emotion.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    …love is defined by God not by human emotion.

    Let’s see:

    “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”

    Not seeing a conflict here.

    I also seem to recall something about love being about feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and absolving debtors. Not seeing a conflict there, either.

  • Mark Z.

    See, when Frank does it he’s just reading what the Bible says, but when you do it you’re “twisting God’s word”. The proof of this is that you don’t come to the same conclusion that Frank does.

  • Frank

    Yes I agree.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Well, I’m not seeing anything that says, “Love must be between a penis-having person and a vagina-having person, or it’s not really love.”

  • Daniel

    That’s still not love. Read his earlier post. Love apparently only exists if it never, ever changes. Ever. At all. Change is for liberals and underwear. I really want to cry for Frank, but I am atheist and have no soul so I can’t. Love, for Frank, cannot be given by human beings. All we are is duplicitous fuck machines. And those need opposing genitals.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Oh, now you’ve done it.

    Love is patient, love is kind. Love is patient, love is kind.

    Stirs me to tears every single time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVBg7_08n0

  • dpolicar

    You’re mistaken about love. But as long as you aren’t trying to exert temporal or political power over loving families, I’m basically OK with that. You will either come to a greater understanding of what love looks like as you engage with Creation, or you won’t.

  • Frank

    No you are mistaken about love. Only someone who thinks love is about emotion or romance or allowing people to sin is mistaken about what love is.

  • dpolicar

    I am no doubt mistaken in many ways about love.

    Your insistence that there’s only three ways to be mistaken about love is simply false.

  • Frank

    I never said the list was complete but its accurate.

  • dpolicar

    In English, the construction “only X is Y” implies that non-Xes aren’t Y.

    For example, “Only Jesus is Lord” implies that things which aren’t Jesus aren’t Lord. Similarly, “Only a union between one man and one woman is marriage” implies that things which aren’t unions between one man and one woman aren’t marriage.

    Similarly, “Only someone who thinks love is about emotion or romance or allowing people to sin is mistaken about what love is” implies that someone who doesn’t think one of those three things isn’t mistaken about what love is.

  • Frank

    Ok. Fair enough. However love is not either of those three things.

  • dpolicar

    Love is indeed about emotion, though not exclusively about emotion. Love is about romance, though not exclusively about romance. Love is about many things which you consider sin, though not exclusively about those things.

    As I said initially, you are mistaken about love.

    Which is OK. Love is a big thing, and any simple conceptualization of it will necessarily be mistaken.

  • Frank

    I just don’t agree that love is about romance or emotion as romance fades and emotions are fickle and change often but love is eternal.

  • dpolicar

    Love is about many transient things, though not exclusively about those transient things.

  • Frank

    If love is transient that its not real. It based upon the wrong foundation.

  • dpolicar

    There are many confusions here, but let’s begin with the easiest one: do you understanding that love can be non-exclusively about many transient things while not itself being transient?

  • Frank

    I understand that love expresses itself in many different ways and some of those ways are time bound but the definition of what love is, is eternal and unchanging.

  • JustoneK

    I think perhaps your definitions of eternal and unchanging are themselves inaccurate.

  • Frank

    How so?

  • JustoneK

    To demonstrate: Frank, do you believe you’re a human being created by God? Was there ever a time when you do not remember knowing this?

  • Frank

    There was a time I did not understand that truth but it was always true. The truth doesn’t need me to make it true.

  • JustoneK

    That is my point. The truth that you are or are not a child of the one true living God of Christ is tangential to what you belief you are, or are not.

    What you believe eternity is and what it is are different, and will continue to be unless and until, somehow, you are equal to that same God.

  • Frank

    I understand that I will never understand things the way god understands things but no one has to but that doesn’t make something less true. I think we agree?

  • JustoneK

    We agree on all but one point here: you do not see that you are elevating yourself to your alleged God’s post. That is what your arguments lead to.

    It is also the difference between Fred and most of the slacktivites in general, and your appearance thus far. We, as a group, are not presuming we know more than an infallible, omniscient creator.

  • Frank

    Thats exactly what you are doing. God says one thing and you say “I don’t agree.”

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    No. A document written by transient humans says one thing, and we say, “I don’t agree.”

  • JustoneK

    I don’t agree that God said it, correct. This doesn’t rule out the idea that God said anything at all, or that any human being ever heard it properly and conveyed it properly to other humans. There are a lot of possibilities that are nowhere near addressed here.

    I am not speaking for God. You are, and if anyone disagrees, they’re disagreeing with God, not you. This places you on the same level as your God, whether or not you believe that’s what you’re doing.

    Claiming that something is other than what it is does not really make it something other than it is.

  • Daniel

    Why are we not able to disagree? Again, God made us, he gave us the power to question so why is it wrong to disagree with God?

  • Frank

    But you are by denying the Word of God.

  • dpolicar

    I don’t understand what it would mean for a definition to be eternal.

    Definitions, as I understand them, are a tool of certain mortal minds, just as arguments and citations and languages are. And like all such tools, they are transient and mutable, as are the minds that use and construct them.

  • Mark Z.

    You are transient, Frank. I am transient. All of this is transient. Thus says the Lord: “You are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

  • Frank

    Yes thats exactly my point which is why we need something eternal to base our lives on.

  • dpolicar

    It may be that we need it. That doesn’t seem true to me, but I am not confident about what we need or don’t need. Especially since we don’t all seem to need the same thing.

    Whether we need it or not, though, in this life we do not have it.

    While we remain part of Creation, we are subject to the rules that govern Creation, and those rules do not allow for things being eternal.

  • Daniel

    Although that is a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow that because one thing is transient the only valid thing is something eternal. Also, the Bible wasn’t written at the beginning of time. There were several billion years before this “eternal” source of ethics came into being, several million years in which people did not know this apparently unchanging code of conduct, and society seemed to do pretty well before it.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    גם זה יעבור

  • Daniel

    That’s a very sad outlook, Frank. By that logic no one can love anyone- no one can be sure their love won’t at some point fade or die. That doesn’t make it any less real while it lasts. You have a very sad view of the world.

  • Daniel

    I keep thinking about this definition of love, and I’ll be honest I feel bad about my earlier sarcasm. The more I think about the way you catagorise love- as basically something no human being is capable of giving- the worse I feel for you. I have a genuine sympathy for you. I feel like giving you a hug. Not in a sinful way, I should stress.

  • Daniel

    So love is not about emotion? What is it then?

  • Jess Goodwin

    Look, man, I know some things. I know what direction the summer sun is shining from, even with my eyes closed. I know heat and cold, light and dark, up and down. I don’t need those things defined for me.

    I know what love is, with every cell of my body and every electrical impulse of my brain and every stirring of my indescribable and unprovable soul. I know that I love and am loved. I know it the way I know the sun’s warmth. You don’t get to tell me I’m wrong.

    Love is more than an emotion, but emotion is a part of it.

    Love is more than romance, but romance can be a part of it.

    Love is more than passion, or friendship, or loyalty. Trying to describe it is like trying to describe the sun itself. It’s a nuclear reaction and a source of illumination and the origin of life and a cause of death and a divinity and a wheel and a smiling face…

    We can’t list all the things it is, but we can point to it when we see it.

  • dpolicar

    Word.

    For my own part, I find my life works best when I treat love as a vague perception of something powerful and valuable that I don’t fully conceive or understand, but which can serve as a beacon to orient myself around in a turbulent and disorienting environment.

    Which is not to say I always do treat love that way.

  • Lori

    Your idea of love is a sad, shriveled little thing, which makes your lack of political participation a good thing.

  • Frank

    There is nothing loving about supporting sinful behavior. Thats the opposite of love.

  • Lori

    I imagine that if I knew you even a little bit I could point out several sinful behaviors in which you engage. Tend to your own Frank. Or, to phrase it in a way that must surely be familar to you, get the plank out of your own eye before you puff yourself up pointing out the speck in someone else’s.

  • Frank

    Yes I am sinful, we all are. Therefore by your logic no one should say anything. Fred and everyone else should close their blogs and shut up.

    :rolleyes

    I admit my sins are sins. Do you?

  • Lori

    Ah yes, and I should be tolerant of your intolerance or else I’m not really tolerant, right? [eyeroll] indeed

    Here’s the thing Frank, there’s a lot of ground between “saying something” and “supporting using the law to force people to conform to your idea of morality”. Your willful refusal to acknowledge that doesn’t make it any less true.

  • Frank

    Its not possible to separate faith from life unless the faith is weak, misplaced or it lack integrity. I choose to not engage politically. Others choose to do so. And if they have integrity of belief they will work towards what they believe otherwise they are hypocrites. I don’t think morality can be legislated but I accept those that think it can be. They have a right to do so in our representative democracy.

  • EllieMurasaki

    No, that’s one of the things they don’t have a right to do and nor do I, because their idea of morality conflicts with mine.

  • Frank

    And yours conflicts with them. So take your own advice then and be quiet if that’s what you believe.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Oh, no, I don’t need to be quiet. You see, I’m not trying to legislate my morality.

  • Frank

    You are trying to force your belief (that no one should legislate their beliefs onto others) onto others.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I can’t even parse that sentence.

  • Frank

    I think its grammatically correct but I was never good at grammar.

    Either way the truth of it stands.

  • JustoneK

    Truth that is poorly conveyed leads to falsehood.

  • Frank

    That’s true but the truth doesn’t need us to communicate properly in order to be true.

  • JustoneK

    Correct. But poorly conveyed, and with a connotation that poor communication does not affect the perception of truth, which is incorrect.

  • JustoneK

    Error: definitions of legislation, force. Antonymic.

  • dpolicar

    Can you point out examples of EllieMurasaki exercising force in this way?

  • Frank

    She wrote “No, that’s one of the things they don’t have a right to do and nor do I, because their idea of morality conflicts with mine.”

  • Lori

    That’s your idea of Ellie exercising force?

  • Frank

    Trying to strip someone of their right? Yes.

  • Lori

    Their right to what?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Apparently. I’m bored now–he’s obviously not going to see reason. Also, though to be fair he probably can’t have known, he misgendered me. I’m done.

  • dpolicar

    Just to confirm: on your view, if you say I don’t have a right to do something, you’re forcing your beliefs onto me?

  • Jim Roberts

    Okay, let’s pretend for a second that you’re right and God clearly disapproves of homosexual marriage because it’s not His definition of marriage. We’ll ignore that he only every defines marriage in the case of church leaders and otherwise seems to approve of stuff we’d consider creepy and wrong (I love my sister-in-law, but not THAT way).
    Would it not follow that God also disapproves of Muslim, Hindu and pagan marriage, since they aren’t based on His definition? Why aren’t those morally wrong?

  • Daniel

    I don’t know what sin is! I don’t know why a sin is a sin and why something like “fancying someone who has the same genitals as me” should be a sin. Please explain.

  • dpolicar

    You’re mistaken about love.

  • Frank

    I’ll stick to an eternal unchanging source for what love is and sorry but that’s not you. Me either.

  • dpolicar

    No reason to apologize. I am not an eternal unchanging source of truth about love, nor have I ever claimed to be.

    And, as you say, neither are you.

    We understand what we understand, and as we experience more of Creation our understanding changes.

  • Daniel

    Really please please please please please explain what sin is and why being gay is sinful. It really makes no sense. What does “that’s not what love looks like” mean?

  • Baby_Raptor

    Prove I’m right about what? That there’s no solid proof God exists?

    You have one very self-contradictory book, written by an unknown number of different authors. Very little in said book has any historical back-up. There’s not even any proof that a person named Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.

    Since then, your god has completely disappeared. Long gone are the days where he made himself obvious by burning bushes, appearing to people, or unexplainable miracles.

    Meanwhile, the world runs rampant with evil. People who use your god’s name openly flaunt his commands, do massive amounts of harm to others, and brag about it. And your god does nothing to them or for their victims.

    Nor does your god make his presence known. Everything must be taken “on faith,” from the aforementioned contradictory book, or from feelings that people get. People actively seek him for years of their lives and get nothing.

    And all this is before we take into consideration my issues with the Bible itself, and what it claims about your god.

    So, no. I see no real proof your god exists. I’m open to it; if he were to show up in my bedroom one day, I would acknowledge his existence. But as of now, nobody’s home. And that ‘s enough for me.

  • Frank

    So the standard you expect from me you are unwilling to hold yourself to.

  • Baby_Raptor

    What standard have I demanded of you that I’m not holding myself to? I very plainly said in my last paragraph that if undeniable proof appears, I’ll acknowledge it.

    Further, when have I demanded anything of you? I said repeatedly that there’s no proof for any religion; I never demanded that you prove your religion is correct. That comment came from Anonymous Sam.

  • Frank

    You asked me to prove what I believe to be truth and I asked the same of you. I cannot scientifically prove that God exists and you cannot scientifically prove that God does not exist. So by your standards neither pone of us can prove our belief.

  • dpolicar

    Can you point out where Baby_Raptor asked you to prove your beliefs? I haven’t seen it, and I’ve seen several places where they’ve said explicitly they don’t think such proof is possible.

  • Daniel

    You realise atheism doesn’t mean ” I believe there is no God” it just means “I do not believe that there is one”. It’s not a belief that needs to be justified, it’s not actually having a belief.There is nothing else dependent on that absence of belief. Your world view however rests on an unprovable premise that needs to be proved for any of the rest to follow- “homosexuality is wrong” “why?” “because God said” “but I don’t believe in God” “If you don’t believe in God God’ll punish you” “But I don’t believe in God”. Not believing in God means you do not risk this. You can instead argue “it is wrong because it causes harm” or “it is wrong because it is unfair” and then people can ask you for definitions of those terms, which you can discuss until you reach an agreement and go from there. “Because God” only works if the other person believes in the first place.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Two concepts you need to understand: “Burden of proof rests with the claimant” and “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

    Let’s say I claim that the Loch Ness Monster exists*. You ask me to prove that claim. I can’t just reply, “Well, you can’t prove that Nessie doesn’t exist!” If I’m the one making this extraordinary claim, it’s on me to provide evidence.

    It also wouldn’t count for me to say, “The Great Book of Cryptids says that the Loch Ness Monster exists, and I know that the Great Book of Cryptids is never ever wrong — it says so itself!” That is what’s called a circular argument.

    By the way, here’s a handy reference to help you avoid making other logical fallacies: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/assets/FallaciesPosterHigherRes.jpg

    *Just so you know, I’m not saying that religious belief is equivalent to cryptozoology… at least, not unless you ascribe deific powers to cryptids.

  • Baby_Raptor

    As I said in the comment you replied to, I never asked you to prove your beliefs are true. That was Anonymous Sam.

    Reading comprehension, do you have it?

    Further, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, there’s one massive difference between you and a lot of the people you’re debating with: You lack the maturity and respect for others/the law to keep your beliefs in your own life.

    You can’t just live and let live. And you condone others refusing to do so by saying that they’d be hypocrites if they didn’t. (Newsflash: They’re hypocrites by doing what they’re doing. Several times in the New Testament Christians are commanded to obey the government God put over them, which these people are not doing. Further, judging and treating people as subhuman because they don’t meet your accepted doctrine is not love.)

  • J_Enigma32

    *looks around*

    Nope. No God. Your turn – prove God exists.

  • Daniel

    A very basic question here- how do you know yours is? Can I hazard a guess? You were raised in a society that was strongly Christian, maybe not your family in particular, but the town you grew up in. At some point, as you mention in an earlier post, you studied religion. Christianity. You probably cast a cursory glance over some non-Abrahamic faiths as well but you did not research them in nearly as great a depth. At some point you had a religious experience. I’d guess that this happened when you were feeling very depressed and alone, and not say, in the middle of a kick-ass party. You felt the presence of Jesus- not Vishnu, not Ahura Mazda, not Quetzalcoatl, but the deity you’d spent a great deal of time studying. You then realised that Christ really did die for out sins, and strangely all the disgust you felt at seeing two men kissing was now validated as it coincided with the will of God. That bit of the bible means exactly what it says, although you are also very certain that other equally unambiguous passages about genocide, slavery and murder do not mean exactly what they say and these bits AND ONLY THESE BITS are twisted by people to make the case for injustice. But the bits about gayness, they’re definitely 100% unvarnished, unambiguous truth. A burden had been lifted, and, which is more, people are wrong to
    criticise you because you are only trying to help them. Admittedly you are trying to help them avoid a fate they don’t actually believe in,
    but that’s besides the point. Is any of that right?

  • J_Enigma32

    Like yours, for instance.

  • dpolicar

    That turns out not to be the case.

  • Frank

    How so?

  • dpolicar

    Many harmful actions are routinely performed in this world in order to prevent people from engaging in behavior you call sin.

  • Frank

    I agree with that. That doesn’t change the truth about sin however. Methods can be changed, God’s truth cannot be.

  • JustoneK

    God’s truth changes every day in a million ways. It all depends on who you talk to.

  • Frank

    Gods truth never changes. Its humanity that changes.

  • JustoneK

    Humanity is our only way of confirming anything about God.

  • Frank

    Gods word is the only way of confirming anything. If it doesn’t line up them it is not true.

  • JustoneK

    Except that people are frequently changing what God’s word is, thus changing what may’ve ever lined up with it.

  • Frank

    Yes people try and change Gods Word all the time. Much lie those that are trying to assert that homosexual behavior is not sinful, or that slavery is ok… The list goes on.

    None of those attempts however change the truth of God.

  • JustoneK

    Homosexual behavior is not mentioned but possibly once, in a word used to describe explicitly pederastic dynamics in ancient Greek culture. Slavery is mentioned throughout the Bible and explicitly condoned on conditions that slaves are usually treated well for their service.

    It is impossible to find the truth of God when everyone keeps changing what it was, or what truth means.

  • Frank

    I suggest more study on the issue. There is a clear sexual ethic all throughout both the OT and the NT.

  • JustoneK

    How much more study would satisfy you? Would you like my credentials so you can discredit those?

  • Frank

    Your credentials are meaningless if you don’t know what the truth is.

  • JustoneK

    I had a hunch.

  • Lori

    If there’s a clear sexual ethic throughout the Old and New Testaments it’s that women exist for the pleasure and use of men. Beyond that the consistency you claim is just not there.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Whoah there. Women in the bible are most assuredly not for pleasure. They’re there for duty. It’s a man’s duty to impregnate women in order to produce descendants. If he happens to enjoy himself, that’s okay, but really it is purely optional. We never hear of a man saying “Not tonight, dear, I’m still sore from a long day killing Ephramites.” A good two-thirds of the time, the men seem fairly ambivalent on the subject, but yeild to the argument “We’re not getting any younger and you don’t have enough kids yet.”

  • Lori

    You have a point that male pleasure doesn’t get a lot of discussion. Some, which is more than can be said for women, but not a lot. The only times I recall there being any actual pressure on them to get with the baby-making though is when a barren wife pushed them to give her babies via a slave. (Don’t even get me started.) The only other time I can really remember the duty angle being a major issue is with Onan.

    In general OT men treated male children as form of wealth or proof of virility and female children as either bargaining chips, pets of which they were somewhat fond or nothing at all.

  • Daniel

    David. Jonathan.

  • Frank

    Oh dear the deception runs deep. There is nothing sexual between them. Its been discredit ad nauaseum. Try and keep up.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.

    –2 Samuel 1:26b. Speaker is David (who had lots of wives, so we know he liked the love of women), speaking about Jonathan.

  • Daniel

    David was referring to Jonathan’s skill at ironing. Try and keep up.

  • EllieMurasaki

    *dies*

  • Frank

    Oh dear. Only someone who is an expert at eisegesis would see something sexual in that relationship. How sad for scholarship.

  • EllieMurasaki

    *googles* Ooo, my word of the day! I’ll use it in a completely true sentence: Frank, you are engaging in eisegesis.

  • Daniel

    Why is it sad to see something sexual in that relationship? Again, you seem to ignore the fact that most people don’t actually have a problem with men doing it.

  • Lori

    Are you actually trying to claim that “God’s word” is unambiguously anti-slavery and that people just made up the idea that it was OK with God for one person to own another? If so then you’re pretty much admitting that your notion of “God’s Word” is “whatever Frank likes”, because that’s certainly not what the book you claim to follow says.

    In the wise words of Anne Lamott, “You can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”

  • Frank

    If you think Gods Word supports slavery than clearly you need to do some more study. There are many good resources out there for you.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yeah. Try ‘any resource written by a white Southerner before the end of the Civil War’.

  • Frank

    Yes it exists. It doesn’t mean its correct. People have been twisting scripture to suit their own needs since the beginning.

  • JustoneK

    WE HAVE FULL CIRCLE, FOLKS!

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yes, which is why you say the Bible is anti-slavery today. It wasn’t always.

  • Frank

    The bible was always anti-slavery. Just because some people tried to use it for their own selfish purposes does not change that truth.

  • Lori

    A book that gives rules for owning slaves is not anti-slave owning. A book that says “don’t own slaves” is anti-slave owning.

  • Lori

    So, the rules for slave holders in the Bible are just some people using the Bible for their own selfish purpose?

    Think carefully before your answer, because if you say “yes” then you’re admitting that there are things in the Bible that aren’t the word of God and if you say “no” you’re admitting that the Bible doesn’t condemn slavery.

    That’s a tricky spot for you to be in .

  • Jess Goodwin

    So, try to follow us here:

    If the Bible was *always* anti-slavery, but some people’s interpretation of it was wrong for nineteen hundred years, *why* shouldn’t some people’s interpretation of its treatment of sexuality have been wrong as well?

    And *please* don’t dodge and tell us to just study more and we’ll all come to the same opinions as you. That smacks of a man who attends a Bible study group where the pastor tells him what conclusions he’s allowed to draw.

  • Daniel

    Where does the bible condemn slavery? And can you explain (not just sneer at me for asking) why there are so many passages in the bible that tell you how to treat your slaves and who you have the right to hold as slaves if the bible is anti-slavery?

  • Daniel

    But you really don’t have the self awareness to question whether they’re doing the same thing today with homosexuality?

  • Frank

    They are exactly doing the same thing with homosexuality trying to say its not sinful. Good for you!

  • Daniel

    Excellent way to deliberately misread a statement. Let me be more clear: if people in the past have misconstrued the bible’s instructions about slavery as an endorsement for slavery, how do you know that you are not misinterpreting the Bible’s equally explicit view on homosexuality? I know you know that’s what I meant the first time, and are just avoiding the question again.

  • Frank

    No one misconstrued (well maybe some fools did) that the bible supports slavery. They chose to believe that as it fit in with how they want to live their life. Exactly whats happening right now with sexuality and marriage.

  • Daniel

    But you said that the Bible’s explicit statements about how to look after your slaves was not the bible approving of slave holding. So if that’s the case, how do you know that the bible’s explicit condemnation of buggery is actually a condemnation of homosexuality in general and not just you choosing to believe it as it fits in with how you want to live your life?

  • hf

    Those would be the fools who popularized your way of interpreting the Bible. Your literalist approach came in handy for defending slaveholders, who of course claimed to be treating their slaves “well”.

    Later, descendants of the same people decided to pretend that never happened and could never have happened.

  • Lori

    Frank, have you read your book? I have. Keep in mind that my knowledge of scripture seriously limits the bill of goods that you can sell me.

    In the Old Testament the only slavery that’s condemned is the Jews being the slaves. Jews being slave owners is not only A-OK with the big guy, it’s sometimes mandatory.

    The New Testament doesn’t explicity condemn slavery either, even in the case where it would clearly have been easy to do so (Philemon). You think that slavery is wrong so you’re claiming that the Bible condemns it. You’re making your God in your image, just another graven idol.

  • Frank

    As I said, for you on this issue, more study is needed.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yes, you do need to study more. Start with the parts of the Bible that set out rules for the treatment of slaves.

  • Frank

    You mean where they say to treat them well?

    You also need much more study on this issue. Go for it I will be waiting.

  • EllieMurasaki

    No, no, you misunderstand. Saying ‘treat slaves well’ instead of ‘don’t have slaves’ is expressing approval of the institution of slavery.

  • Frank

    As I said you need more study. In logic too!

  • Lori

    You did not claim that the Bible said that slaves should be treated well, you claimed that the Bible doesn’t say it’s OK to own slaves. You’ve just admitted that your original statement is untrue.

    Also, there’s no way to treat a person well while owning them as property. You can treat them more or less badly, but you can’t treat them well.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    I think if your position on the “right” way to have slaves doesn’t come down to “Set them free immediately and spend the rest of your life doing nothing other than trying your hardest to make restitution for having owned slaves”, you’re operating from a flawed definition of “treat them well”

  • Lori

    You can repeat that as many times as you want Frank, but it still won’t be true.

    The Old Testament clearly says that God told the Jews to enslave other people on more than one occasion.
    The New Testament condemns Christian slave-owners mistreating their slaves, but it doesn’t say anywhere that they need to free them. Not even in the cases where their slaves have also become Christians.

    There’s no amount of study that changes that. I realize that this is a huge inconvenience for you and others like you who want to claim that the Bible is the last word in morality, but who don’t want to openly support slave-holding. That’s your problem, not mine.

  • Frank

    Once again you only expose your lack of knowledge.

  • JustoneK

    Interesting to note is she has cited her sources, displaying actual knowledge. You have yet to do so.

  • Lori

    Don’t “once again” me. You’re the one pointlessly repeating himself. Let’s be specific. If the book you claim to follow condemns slavery then why does Paul not directly tell Philemon that it’s his Christian duty to free Onesimus? It’s not like Paul was shy about telling people straight up when he thought they were sinning. It’s clearly Paul’s wish that
    Onesimus be freed, but he doesn’t invoke any direct teaching to make that happen and he doesn’t say anything about the need for any slave other than Onesimus to be freed. Paul doesn’t want his friend to be a slave, but he doesn’t seem to care at all that other people are.

    Explain how that translates to the Bible clearly condemning slavery or drop the subject. And no, saying that there are resources out there and I need to study more doesn’t cut it. Put up or shut up.

  • Frank

    Sigh. If you choose to remain ignorant that’s your choice, The answer is out there f you wish to find it.

    You all have been keeping me busy but I have to step for awhile but I will be back.

  • JustoneK

    Error: ignorant, antonymic.

  • Lori

    Sigh. If you choose to remain ignorant that’s your choice, The answer is out there f you wish to find it.

    IOW, you don’t have an answer.

  • Daniel

    Isn’t it your duty as a believer to help save those of us that don’t believe? So when a major issue like “the Bible says slavery is ok” comes up, and people ask you to explain your position that it doesn’t don’t you owe them an actual answer rather than just that superior “if you choose to remain ignorant” line? Where can we get the answer? What book will explain the fairly blatant and repeated references to how to keep your slaves that are made in the Bible? Please enlighten us rather than smugly “sigh”ing and telling us how dumb we are for asking questions. It doesn’t help your cause- and by extension it’s doing a disservice to God, who I think took a dim view on pride (though that may be another misunderstanding).

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    My god, the projection is strong in you.

    You are ignorant. You are choosing to be ignorant. God is SCREAMING for you to see that there is a more excellent way, but you are so OBSTINATE in hanging on to your HATE.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    So please do explain Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy’s provisions on slavery. I’m especially ‘fond’ of Deuteronomy 20:10-14, which mandates murder, rape and slavery all in one.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    So when the Bible says “you may purchase slaves,” it’s not condoning slavery? When the Bible gives you rules about how you may beat your slaves, it’s not condoning slavery? When the Bible gives you instructions on how you may sell your daughter into slavery and how she is not to be freed when male slaves go free, the Bible is not condoning slavery? When Paul sent a slave back to his master with an admonishment not to run away again, he was not condoning slavery?

  • Frank

    Yes exactly. It is speaking about the treatment of people in the reality of the day.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    That’s positively Orwellian.

  • Lori

    So, slavery was fine as long as slavery was the social norm? That means that God’s morality changes based on human society. I don’t think that’s really the view you want to be pushing. Think about it for a minute. I’m sure it will come to you.

  • Daniel

    So what is your source of God’s truth, given that the bible quite explicitly allows for slavery (which you disagree with), collective punishment (which I assume you disagree with) and genocide (which I hope you disagree with)?

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Gods truth never changes.

    Actually, it does. Remember that business in Numbers 27 about the daughters of Zelophehad? According to holy writ, only sons could inherit property. These women approached Moses and asked him to intercede with God on their behalf — in essence, to act as their representative in an appeal against God’s law. And they won:

    Moses brought their case before the Lord. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: The daughters of Zelophehad are right in what they are saying; you shall indeed let them possess an inheritance among their father’s brothers and pass the inheritance of their father on to them. You shall also say to the Israelites, “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance on to his daughter.”

    It’s even clearer in Judaism — not only can you argue against YHVH and win, but He’ll be proud of you for doing so: http://jhom.com/topics/voice/bat_kol_bab.htm

    Of course, the entire business of, “These animals are unclean… wait, no they’re not” is another example of YHVH changing His mind.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    That certainly flies in the face of recent alterations to the text of Exodus, Romans and Isaiah.

    Changes to Exodus implied that pro-life positions were as old as the Old Testament.

    Changes to Romans removed Junia, the female apostle.

    Changes to Isaiah altered a scientifically inaccurate verse in a manner which affirms the water cycle, rather than contradicting it.

    It seems to me that God’s truth is pretty malleable indeed, to people who always want to be seen as correct.

  • Daniel

    How do you know it’s God’s truth? And why does God not explain it to us? God knows we’re going to have this discussion, God knows this is where society will be at this point- asking for rational, verifiable objective proof before accepting a position that alienates, psychologically damages and oppresses millions of people and yet refuses to provide that proof. Why? What is God’s problem with gay people? I really want to understand this because I also have studied God’s word, and theology, and I have absolutely no idea what actually constitutes “sin” and why God- who is infinitely powerful and infinitely good- can’t just waive those things that are called “sin” and why he needs blood and guilt to make amends for them. None of this makes sense to me- please help me out. De profundis and all that.

  • Daniel

    Jesus rescued us from sin by being nailed to some wood. The whole basis of the sacrifice element of your faith is that sin was alleviated by harm. The whole fear of hell is based on harm. The central image of your entire religion is of torture and death. That’s the apparent trade off- this person is brutalised so you won’t be. Harm is inextricably linked with the idea of sin.

  • J_Enigma32

    Prove sin exists. I’ll wait.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    I disapprove of people trolling websites. But I would be against any government initiative to stamp out trolls*.

    There are lots of things I disagree with, yet support people’s legal right to do.

    The same can’t be said of Al Mohler. Can it be said of you, Jojo?

    *Please note that this does not preclude a website host from moderating comments, as the host is a private, non-government entity.

  • JustoneK

    Props for coherent sentence structure, minus twenty points from Conservobot House for argument structure.

    Huuuuge conflation between “disagreement” and “death-causing” here.

  • John (not McCain)

    Kiss my fag ass in hell, bitch.

  • dpolicar

    Al Mohler has less power than the President, the Supreme Court of the United States, and Comcast.

    If that’s your standard for not having power, I can understand why you’re confused. You might find it useful to think some more about how power relates to the ability to increase other people’s suffering, or alleviate it.

  • Carstonio

    One can pander to the fears and prejudices of others for personal gain while also sharing those beliefs, and I suspect Mohler belongs in that category.

  • phantomreader42

    Mohler and other bigots imply that the “homosexual agenda” is about switching society’s norm from heterosexuality, or worse, converting all straight people. I’m not sure how much of this is genuine belief, how much is demagoguery, and how much is both.

    You left out “projection”. These are people who fear that gay people will treat them the way they treat gay people (or women, or those who are not members of their cult).

  • Cathy W

    I think “I’d like you to meet Jane and her wife Angie” is about how it would go, yeah. And maybe the “homosexual agenda” is about switching society’s norm from heterosexuality – if it gets to a point that nobody even does a mental double-take at that statement, then I suppose the norm has been changed – but that doesn’t mean it’s been pushed in the opposite direction; it’s just achieved a state of neutrality.

  • jojo

    Fred, the only person more obsessed with homosexuality than Dr. Mohler is….you.

  • JustoneK

    You’re not even trying.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Oh, do you have special mind reading powers now? Do you know every single thing Fred has ever spoken on/written about? Have you read every single post in this blog?

    Do you know the other, secret life Fred apparently lives where he constantly media-whores himself out, belittling people and working to strip them of their rights?

    If you can’t answer yes to those questions, you’re talking out your ass.

    (And before you ask; I’ve been reading Fred since 2005, under this name or Selaris. So…Yes. I’m very aware of what all Fred speaks about.)

  • Frank

    Replaced Fred with Al and its just as true.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Mohler makes a career of pontificating about the bible and the culture wars in the spotlight. He regularly lies, slanders and generally talks plain shit about the people he disagrees with. He actively works against the rights of people RE things he considers wrong. He has no respect for the law, and is a massive hypocrite.

    The only one of those that can be said about Fred is that at one point, this blog was his sole source of income.

    Want to try again, or are you just going to keep insisting you’re right?

  • Frank

    I don’t have to insist at all. Your acceptance or rejection of the truth doesn’t change the truth.

    Once again change Al to Fred and what you says would be true. Your name as well.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Yup. Can’t support your position, so you resort to personal attacks.

    Done here. Argument’s over.

  • Frank

    It was over long before you got involved.

  • Baby_Raptor

    If you say so. Keep stomping your feet and insisting you’re right. After all, God says so, yeah?

  • Frank

    I thought you were done.

    Take your own advice it will be helpful for you.

  • JustoneK

    You really are terrible at this. You can actually put together English sentences but are amazingly apathetic at execution of either logic or emotion. It doesn’t come off as snide so much as lazy.

  • Frank

    Yes I can be lazy. When something compelling enough forces me to engage fully I will. This ain’t it.

  • JustoneK

    And yet you are compelled to reply. So inanity compels you to act but something you define as sin compels you less.
    Interesting priorities.

  • Frank

    Do you really think I’m am going to change Baby Raptors mind?

  • Lori

    Why are you replying using JustoneK’s ID? That’s really weird behavior.

  • JustoneK

    I think that’s just disqus being a butt again. el jojo has been pretty consistent with username thus far.

  • JustoneK

    What point are you making then? Why expend this effort at all here?

  • Frank

    I hate to see people being deceived by self-serving people..

  • JustoneK

    So do I, jojo.

  • Lori

    So do I Frank. It’s a shame it’s happened to you.

  • Frank

    How is my belief that homosexual behavior is sinful self serving? What do I get out of it? Being called a bigot and a homophobe? It would be much much easier if that were not true. I certainly would be more liked here and we all want to be liked. This is not a convenient position for me but I cannot change the truth of it.

  • JustoneK

    You get called a bigot and a homophobe, which are literally true by basis of the culture you are a part of and the beliefs you are espousing, and gays are denied the rights to love, liberty, and frequently their own lives.

    False equivocation ahoy.

  • Lori

    First of all, I was referring to you being deceived by the self-serving people who sold you a small-minded, blighted vision of morality in the name of a punitive God.

    Second, you tell me how your beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexuality benefit you. Playing the odds, my guess would be that it allows you to feel self-righteous at no personal cost, but I’m open to other possibilities.

  • Frank

    I came to my beliefs through my own study of the Word of God and biology and science.

    I have no reason to feel self righteous. Other peoples sins do not take away my own sins, all of which I am painfully aware of.

  • Lori

    So, you came to these beliefs all on your own and yet somehow you ended up believing all the things that Right wing evangelicals believe. My, that’s such an interesting coincidence. Or you know, you’re full of it.

    Also, we’ve all seen the “I’m just a poor sinner, saved by grace…and standing here pointing the finger at the nasty, nasty gays” routine before. Faux-humble doesn’t impress anyone.

  • Frank

    Thanks for exposing your own bias while accusing m of mine.

  • Lori

    Unlike you Frank, I’m not trying to hide my biases behind a cloak of supposed supernatural instruction. I own my beliefs. You do not.

  • J_Enigma32

    It’s so adorable with idiot fundies try to justify their shit with “science and biology.”

    If you knew jack about biology, you’d know that homosexuality is common in 1,000s of species around the globe – but homophobia is common in only one.

    You tell me which is unnatural, Mr. Fundie Smartguy.

  • Frank

    So homosexuals live like animals? Is that your point? Really?

    Animals also eat their young and throw their feces.

    What a silly argument.

  • Daniel

    Quite clearly that’s not J_Enigma’s point. You know that full well, and are once again changing the subject to hide your inability to answer a legitimate point. You respire, you eat, you shit, you sleep and eventually you will die. Those are traits you share with animals. So I suppose then that I am saying you live like an animal. You type slightly better, I’ll give you that.

  • Daniel

    Before you studied “the Word of God” did you already think it was the Word of God? Or did you sit down with (I assume) the Bible, read it and decide “this must be true, this must be the word of God!” without having been Christian before hand? And how many other divinely inspired or dictated books did you read? What made you pick Christianity over all the myriad other religions out there?

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Upholding privilege and the ability to dictate social norms isn’t self-serving?

    Placing one’s self in a position of extreme controversy where there are groups who would happily see you tortured and murdered is self-serving?

    What do you think the benefit to being homosexual even is? Why do you think people would choose to be this way?

  • Frank

    I don’t think people choose to have SSA. But we all choose how we behave.

    “I want to live the way I want to live” is self-serving.

  • Lori

    The thing I’ve noticed about opponents of Civil Rights is their glaring lack of self-awareness and you are no exception.

    It self-serving for others to want to be able to marry a person they love, but it’s supposedly not self-serving for you to expect everyone to conform to your beliefs. How convenient for you.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    And you want to live in a manner which allows you to condescend upon others, to be assured of your freedom from responsibility and to have the support of rich men who assure you that there is no need to wrestle with the evil in your heart.

    How does that phrase go? “We are all equal, but some of us are more equal than others”? This strikes me as more “We are all forgiven sinners, but some of us are more forgiven than others.”

  • Daniel

    Seriously, why would it be wrong to choose to be gay? Why is it a sin? If it is just a sin because “God Says” then what argument do you have for people, like me, who do not believe in God?

  • Frank

    Wise up.

  • Daniel

    That’s not an answer. I asked you a legitimate question- I have seen no evidence to conclude that there is a God. Therefore arguments about morality “from God” have no meaning for me. I do not believe in Hell, I do not believe in Heaven. So please, given as this is apparently the will of an almighty, infallible being explain to me the reasons He has provided for people like me to accept such ridiculous moral diktats when I don’t accept the authority of the source. In other words give me a rational reason why homosexuality is wrong. “Wise up” is not an answer. It’s barely the title of an eighties sitcom.

  • Frank

    Eh. You have the choice to reject the truth of God.

  • Daniel

    You still haven’t answered my question. Why is homosexuality a sin?

  • Frank

    It’s against Gods created order.

  • Daniel

    How do you know? And isn’t it a contradiction for something to exist that contradicts the will of an all powerful and all knowing being?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    You certainly reject Matthew 22:38

  • Fanraeth

    What do you get out of it? That delightful, borderline masturbatory pleasure of being “persecuted” without the pesky problem of your life being in danger.

  • J_Enigma32

    Why? Nobody here believes you.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    If you truly believed God sent people to everlasting torture for their sins, you would be obliged to be screaming at us, “Please, please stop! Please change your ways!”

    The fact that you’re not says one of two things, and neither of them are particularly positive messages.

    This is where you go from claiming that Hell awaits someone under the tires of the next hypothetical bus to throwing them under the hypothetical bus.

  • Frank

    I don’t believe that. People choose to reject God.

    So yes please anyone who mistakenly thinks that homosexual behavior in any form is not sinful, change your ways and align your life to God’s Will.

    Happy?

  • JustoneK

    The interesting thing with reality is that it does not completely go away when you choose to believe otherwise. Your reality of a vengeful, hateful God is not necessarily a part of others’ here. You are, in fact, attempting to make a workable mesh with your own by imposing your reality upon the consensus usually in place here.

    Your reality of a language where love means rejection based on either choice or involuntary traits, where legality is decided by a deity everyone claims to speak for, and where Hellfire awaits anybody who screws up even once is not one that works in any longterm, for even one human lifetime.

    Your unbudging resistance to new data is not faith. It is doubt and fear.

  • Frank

    I don’t see a vengeful, hateful God. I see a loving,sacrificial God as demonstrated through Christ.

  • JustoneK

    Then your definitions of vengeful and hateful and loving and sacrifice are directly counter to other statements you have made here in this thread.

    Communication works best when definitions at the very least overlap.

  • J_Enigma32

    Except, you know, all the vengeful, hateful masturbation fantasies.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    The bus is careening around the corner, horn blaring, and you calmly inform the person, “A hideous end awaits you if you don’t make the right decisions.” And then you walk away, convinced of your own purity and goodness.

    You think this is what God would want? You are pathetic, man of clay. Your faith is poisonous.

  • Frank

    So I assume you would let someone jump in front of a train?

  • Daniel

    Can you explain why you think that? What constitutes a sin? Is it something that does harm, or is it purely something that goes against God’s edict- in which case do you believe in the other rules laid out by God in Leviticus for example? Do you think it is necessary for us to understand why something is a sin because personally I can’t understand why homosexuality would be- I would like to read your explanation. I’m interested in your reply, so please post one.

  • J_Enigma32

    Fuck your god.

    What’s the worst he’s gonna do? Stick me in heaven with you?

  • Frank

    Give an atheist a voice and they will discredit themselves. How sad yet predictable..

  • Daniel

    God is all powerful, whether we accept him or not. I assume that’s part of your faith. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Given that, and given that God knows everything – which must entail knowing exactly how everyone will behave at any given moment- how can we not be acting according to God’s will- even if we don’t believe in him? If we can that means God is not omnipotent. If we can’t then surely it’s a part of God’s plan that I don’t believe in him and that I would prefer gay people not to be ostracised and bullied into believing they’re evil?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    So, do you recommend that gay people enter into loveless marriages, or would you rather they live unfulfulled lives of loneliness deprived of any chance at romantic relationships?

    When God chose to make these people unable to experinece the only kind of sexual attractions He sanctions, was it out of spite, or to be an object lesson to others? Is there some higher purpose God is working on by creating some people born doomed to unhappiness?

  • J_Enigma32

    And you lost. Go away.

  • J_Enigma32

    You wouldn’t know truth if it bit you on the ass, son.

  • Hexep

    I know this has nothing to do with anything, but I just heard about this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Bodh_Gaya_blasts

    They tried to blow up my temple. They tried to blow up the master’s temple. They tried to destroy the place where the sky and the earth touched, the most sacred place in the entire world.

    When I first read this, I won’t lie – I initially wrote, ‘Today I stand behind the Tatmadaw; drive every last kalar Rohingya into the sea and never again let them a thousand miles of Holy Shwedagon, and restore the Dharmacakra to the whole soil of Toungu.’

    That anger was there. But then I calmed down, and I realized I have already seen through the Indian Mujahideen; that’s their entire objective. They want the Myanma Government to strike back and crack down, and for the Muslim community in Myanmar to radicalize and to strike back in turn. The Rohingya had nothing to do with this; on the contrary, this attack shows that the Indian Mujahideen hasn’t succeeded in recruiting them yet.

    It’s exactly the same as 9/11. The goal isn’t damage done by the attacker; it’s getting the defender to screw themselves up in response. I just hope that cooler heads prevail and that the relevant authorities don’t fall for it. Here’s your chance to prove yourself, U President…

  • Cathy W

    You hit the nail on the head with that last paragraph. I hope the people tasked with responding to the attack are just as willing to take a moment and think before acting.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X