"Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens"

[Benel Germosen]

Well, it's Charlie Sheen's side, who wouldn't want to be there?

Transubstantiation taste like tiger blood.

[The Xenos]

I am surprised at Dan Savage. Not that it excuses Fox News's ignorance, but he comes across jsut about as bigoted as their framing.

Dan falls into the same trap the asshole Bible thumpers do. You can't treat the Bible as one solid book. It has many sources and anyone who actually went through even a year of Bible study through any decent church or religious group knows this.

As for Saint Paul, my argument to him would be the same to the assholes against gays and gay marriage. We're called Christians. The shit Paul said is secondary to the teachings of Christ in the Holy Gospel. Most Churches stand for Gospel readings, not for epistles. Paul wasn't even one of the originals and he wasn't Jewish, so it makes some sense that he'd confuse the old Jewish laws. Even believing that he may have been imbued with the Holy Spirit and had a vision of Christ and all that, and I don't think he was even at Pentecost, he is still just a man. And Christians believe only the divinity of Christ and God are infallible and perfect. Men like Paul, like the rest of us, are imperfect. (Let's not get into that whole Pope thing.) And you shouldn't even bother with that line in Leviticus because of the whole "new and everlasting covenant" that Christ teaches. Otherwise, they should be declaring God hates shrimp too.

And really, I'm shocked that Dan went off on this little rant at a bullying talk. What about gay Christian teens who still accept the rest of Christianity, but reject the bigots hating on gays and bullying them? Great. He's just alienated them more. Instead of trying to bring people together, he's letting his own anger and chip on his shoulder tear people apart more. He's giving into their hate and fanning the fire these failures calling themselves Christians stared.

By saying that beatings of gay kids are "justified by the Bible", he's giving the fucking bigots power. To me it's better to know what you're talking and declare how wrong these bigots are for using the Bible to justify their hate. Cause that's all it is. People taking texts out of context for their own holy war. And I'm sad to see someone on the side of the angels like Dan doing pretty much the same thing to get back of them instead of being the better man.

That's the thing. It doesn't matter how logically you break shit down to people. Those who are most fervently in their belief don't actually care about right and wrong. They care about winning.

A lot of Christians could give a shit about the teachings of Christ. They just want to be on the winning side.

Yeah. To them the Bible serves their views, not the other way around. Their use it to support their own bigotry and hate. The actual teachings of Christ be damned, these idiots will cherry pick the teachings of everyone else in the Bible to fuel their ignorance and hate. You know, forget all that love thy neighbor or even thy enemy stuff that should negate such things.

It's really easy to be a Christian if you stop trying to tell God how to run things.

..but that would mean they'd have to give up their hateful ways and actually read and think about Christ's teachings and take them to heart. It seems they don't understand why Christians would do that. ugh.

[bert]

the fact my Father watches Fox News (exclusively) while continuously criticizing me that I "get my politics from Bill Maher" (which is un-true, unlike him, I get my news from many sources, so I can see most sides of a story before making my personal decisions).. . . . pretty much tells you all you need to know about my Dad.


some of you may recall the incident several years ago where he furiously punched the dinner table and loudly cursed (in front of the children) when we were invited to my friend's house for dinner. My offense?. . I offered the following statement "sheesh. . Sarah Palin is an idiot. She's soooo stupid!"

(this was right about the time she was saying that Paul Revere was warning Boston that the right people were coming to stamp our the rebellion. . . .or some stupidity similar to that)

[scs]

I am religious, observant, and consider myself a "true" Jew, but the fact of the matter is that, even according to itself, the bible was not actually written by god (Except the Ten Commandments, that's accepted as being "really" written by god). Everything there was written by people who were interpreting and relating and translating...

Fascinating. Biblical reference, please?

And no, I'm not pulling your chain. I've never heard that particular claim before, and am honestly interested.

Advance thanks.

[zemo]

Fascinating. Biblical reference, please?

And no, I'm not pulling your chain. I've never heard that particular claim before, and am honestly interested.

Advance thanks.

I doubt you will find any reference in the book itself about what is written being an interpretation. Most people, however, forget that the bible isn't one monolithic book, it is a collection of stories that were around for a very long time before being put together in a book. Matter of fact, there are quite a number of stories from the same time as those in the bible, coming from the same people, that the Vatican council that put the bible together in medival times (so a loooong time after the actual events) just didn't include. It stands to reason by simple logic that those stories wouldn't be selected objectively.

I still find it said that the stories about baby Jesus strangling snakes and fighting dragons never made it into the finished product.

[JBK405]

"Interpreting" was actually a bad word, and I'd take that particular one back if I could (Well, I suppose I actually could since we have an 'edit' button, but that wouldn't be proper since it's already out there). Not to say that the writers aren't doing their own interpreting (Anybody writing anything is going to put their own interpretation on it), but I don't mean to say that they're up-front saying "This is my interpretation, not truly official."

However, the "relating" and "translating" part is an integral part of alomost the entire "New Testament." Its composition is the writings, letters and such of the people who knew Jesus. No part of it is claimed to have been written by him, this is everybody talking about what he told them.

The Old Testament authorship is a lot more up in the air (There's no accredited author) but it is usually ascribed to Moses (There are, I believe, five references in the Torah to Moses writing something, which people interpret as meaning the Torah itself).

[zemo]

"Interpreting" was actually a bad word, and I'd take that particular one back if I could (Well, I suppose I actually could since we have an 'edit' button, but that wouldn't be proper since it's already out there). Not to say that the writers aren't doing their own interpreting (Anybody writing anything is going to put their own interpretation on it), but I don't mean to say that they're up-front saying "This is my interpretation, not truly official."

However, the "relating" and "translating" part is an integral part of alomost the entire "New Testament." Its composition is the writings, letters and such of the people who knew Jesus. No part of it is claimed to have been written by him, this is everybody talking about what he told them.

The Old Testament authorship is a lot more up in the air (There's no accredited author) but it is usually ascribed to Moses (There are, I believe, five references in the Torah to Moses writing something, which people interpret as meaning the Torah itself).

Aye. The problem with the old testament (which, funnily enough, so many people are rather using to determine what is good and bad, instead of following, you know, what the son of th ebig guy said) is that there is no idea how "fresh" the stories are that have been written down. With the new Testament we know it's four dudes that were there (well, maybe one, as it seems one of them wasn't really around at that point, if I remember correctly), but with the old one it's "I heard this", and we don't know through how many ears it has gone before being written down.

[MacQuarrie]

Paul wasn't even one of the originals and he wasn't Jewish, so it makes some sense that he'd confuse the old Jewish laws.

I have to argue on this point. Paul was definitely Jewish. He was a devoutly obedient Jew, a Benjaminite, student of Gamaliel. His last act before being imprisoned was to attend a purification ritual at the Temple.

Luke is the only New Testament writer who wasn't Jewish.

[Tyr]

I have to argue on this point. Paul was definitely Jewish. He was a devoutly obedient Jew, a Benjaminite, student of Gamaliel. His last act before being imprisoned was to attend a purification ritual at the Temple.

Luke is the only New Testament writer who wasn't Jewish.

As I understand it wasn't Paul some kind of Jewish authority figure before turning to Christ?

[Tyr]

That's the thing. It doesn't matter how logically you break shit down to people. Those who are most fervently in their belief don't actually care about right and wrong. They care about winning.

A lot of Christians could give a shit about the teachings of Christ. They just want to be on the winning side.

The same could be said about quite a few atheists.