A COUPLE of weeks ago Dan Savage, a columnist and activist perhaps best known for making Rick Santorum hate Google and for trying to comfort bullied gay teens, gave the right a gift. At a high-school journalism convention, he attacked Bible-backed anti-gay bigotry. He pointed out that the Bible does indeed condemn homosexuality, but it also endorses slavery. "We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people," he said, "the same way we learned to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about masturbation...We ignore bullshit in the Bible about all sorts of things." During this portion of his speech some students walked out. When he moved on to another topic, he said, "You can tell the Bible guys in the hall to come back now because I'm done beating up the Bible. It's funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings justified by the Bible how pansy-assed people react when you push back."
Mr Savage was making one valid point and one sloppy one. The former: people who justify anti-gay bigotry by brandishing a Bible but ignore other, less convenient biblical prohibitions (the list might also include mixed fabrics and divorce) are hypocrites. The latter: people quick to condemn ought not to be so quick to take offence. The problem with the latter point is that however true it is in the abstract, it was not necessarily true in the particular. No evidence exists that the students who walked out ever condemned or bullied anyone. However poorly Mr Savage may have been treated in high school, it was not by the students in the audience, and they deserved more from a famous and accomplished journalist than derision. Mr Savage acknowledged as much when he apologised, both for the regrettable and infantile slur "pansy-assed" and for using what the great J. Anthony Lukas called "a barnyard epithet" to refer to the Bible. (He could, of course, have opted to make a broader point: that nobody should be so quick to take offence; that journalists will hear a lot of things over the course of a career that they find offensive and even hurtful, and walking out anytime that happens will result in a short career and a narrow mind; that, however ugly his language Mr Savage was at least advancing arguments, and that surely at least one of those offended souls hoping to make a life out of words could have found a few to hurl back at him rather than just flouncing out in a huff.)
Mr Savage's apology did not stop the outrage machine. Some seem to have taken particular delight in hurling Mr Savage's epithets—bully and basher (of Christians and Christianity, rather than gays)—back at him. The American Thinker harrumphs, "Evidently, bullying is one of those things that is defined by the 'victim'." Well, yes: in fact it is. Bullying is the strong picking on the weak, not the other way around (the other way around is satire). One could make the argument that in the case of Mr Savage's speech, he was the strong one, and the high-school students were "victims", but that would be weak tea indeed. Mr Savage is one person, not a movement, and of course those students whom he gave the vapours were free to leave. Not everyone has such freedom. Gay teens, not Christian teens, kill themselves at higher rates than the general populace. Nobody calls Christianity an abomination. One blogger accused Mr Savage of "Christian-bashing" for pointing out the Bible's position on slavery. A writer for a Focus on the Family site said that "using profanity to deride the Bible...is obviously a form of bullying and name-calling." In fact it is neither: Mr Savage, however intemperate his language, was arguing, not name-calling. That is a crucial distinction, and one that too often eludes the showily devout. If the Bible is in fact the word of God it can survive a few arguments about context and application.
(Photo credit: AP)
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
regarding "religious" people who say that homosexuality is wrong:
as the webmaster of the cynical and satirical e-zine known as www.faggot.me, i have little tolerance for anyone who says that homosexuality is wrong and then brings up the bible and leviticus. we've heard it all before, god says that homosexuality is wrong - but people who hate homosexuality because of the bible must be such a bunch of joiners who rely on the outside world for opinions. they probably think that muslims weren't responsible for 9/11 and that it was george bush who planned it. i can't imagine the lives that these people lead if they are apt to hate homosexuality because of something the bible says! to quote a limp-wristed maitre'd in ferris bueller's day off: "i weep for the future". i weep for the future when people can't make up their own minds about homosexuality. i weep because they don't even take into consideration what it takes to find security, fulfillment and something excitably taboo in a member of one's own gender. talking about a sense of completion, it should be the biggest insult for anyone not to feel complete without the presence of a member of their own gender acting as a psychological crutch for their sexually-dysfunctional existences. any man who utters the words "i need a man" is a masculivoid whose sense of masculine self-esteem is as "little bitty pissant" as the country place featured in "the best little whorehouse in texas".
sure, gays are heard preaching self-love 24/7. i'm sure that the people who get their disrespect of homosexuality from outside sources (such as the bible) are apt to buy into gays' self-esteem and pride when the little queer exhibitionists are out trying to justify their self-love in "gay pride parades" from coast to coast, but it's only a front. a show. gay people are trying to sell their pride to the outside because they have no pride inside themselves, which is evidenced by their "little bitty pissant" states of minds and/or gender-identities which are half-baked enough to get a sense of completion from someone acting as "the real thing" in their lives. what makes a man date another man, surely not a strong sense of masculine sufficience.
i have no respect AT ALL for people who hate homosexuality because of what the bible says. what a bunch of mind-numb robots, "god commanded me to hate homosexuality, i must obey" - people who say this are like people who think that god is responsible for the gender they're sexually attracted to. i think there was a song called "going through the motions," i bring this up because that's exactly what people are doing - they're living life "going through the motions" and they're not thinking about the reasons why they are. what kind of robotic life is lived by bible-thumping and anti-gay people who think they were born straight? don't they have any justification or reasons for being anti-gay or for being psyched by a specific gender? i do, i've always known the reasons for my actions.
i grew up a skinny little wimp who did not excel at or play sports. i was picked last for teams in gym class, my sense of masculine esteem was damaged to see most boys being picked first and most girls being picked after them. i was always picked last because i was not as good as the boys. i wanted to be a real boy, kind of like peter pan, but situations like gym class told me that i was not. the real boys were picked before the girls, but i was picked last. like a remnant.
i had absolutely no armpit-hair until i was 16 or 17, even then it came in slowly. as early as 4th or 5th grade, i saw how i was lesser than the other shirtless boys in the locker-room who had a good bit of armpit-hair. every day in the locker-room would damage my masculine esteem, every day for 7 or 8 years. i don't have time (or respect) for anyone who tells me that i am attracted to men because of a fabled "gay gene," just like i no respect for anyone who tells me that i should not respect homosexuality out of respect for the bible. i don't need a bible to give me permission to spit on homosexuality, i have my own experiences and most of all i have common sense.
"if you're not all the man you need, good luck filling anyone else's void"
mr. dylan terreri, i
dr. sheldon cooper, ii
--------------------------
"When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna
www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays
--------------------------
There is absolutely no evidence that Christians are bullying gay teens and there's no evidence that there's an epidemic of gay suicide. Overweight kids are more likely to kill themselves, where's the outcry? How many teens commit suicide every year? It should be of no surprise when gay teens do it. As for "Christian teens are NOT committing suicide but gay teens are", odds are is that the gay teens were Christians (See: New Poll Shows Gays and Lesbians Believe in God)
This whole debate has less to do with homosexuality and more to do with bashing Christians. Christians were the ones singled out in 3 school shootings, not gay teens. Where's the outcry? (See The New York Times: Eerie Parallels Are Seen to Shootings at Columbine & / The Associated Press: 14-Year-Old Freshman Opens Fire at Kentucky High School Killing Three Students and Wounding Five Others).
It's politics, not religion (See IU Northwest SPEA Professor Examines Religion and Political Tolerance / Religious Orientation and Prejudiced Behavior Toward Sexual Orientation and Promiscuous Sex / Southern Intolerance: A Fundamentalist Effect?, & / Politics and Prejudice Explored).
I know what the bible says about stoning homosexuality, but a dictionary definition of Christian will explain that Christians live by Christ, not OT law. Which could explain why not one of the 2.1 billion Christians alive today has never stoned anybody to death.
Notice I added to sources.
I read the first paragraph and part of the second, and had to stop, because the tears started coming. I think I may have just been severly bullied.
I'm 13 years old, and I'm a christian. I go to MacGregor Jr. High.
They say it's safe now, I don't have to worry.
I'm scared.
One day, a guy in my class confessed he was a Christian, and wasn't for all the "gay" stuff. Two girls in my class started bullying him that afternoon. Cruel words, horrible glares, they were never polite to him again.
I believe the Bible tells the truth about being gay. It is a sin. And... the next part makes me sad. I believe "gay" people will go to hell, unless they repent, and leave that path of sin. "Gay" isn't something you're born with. It's a lable. A choice. That is what I believe.
In the past, the some (not all) of the church reacted wrongly to "gay". That was generations ago. The church has changed! We believe it is wrong to be gay, but we should pray for and love those people.
Now, I'm scared to go to school, because I'm scared of the people. And no, I don't feel too scared about those two girls. The ones I'm really scared of? Those are the teachers. The ones who are against what I believe, and who I really am. I'm a good student; the teachers like me. But it's amazing how fast love turns to hate.
I'm scared to go to school, where it's good to be gay and bad to be christian. I don't want to be scared.
Mr. Savage, I'd like to ask you…
1. Not to swear.
2. To please stop bullying innocent people.
3. To please consider the opposite site, as I have yours for hours (some when during class, because a teacher needed to talk to us about our forced religion.)
I'll be praying for you, Mr. Savage.
I don't want to be scared anymore.
I think its very sad that gays are bullied so often in schools, at home, and across society. Regardless of Mr. Savages' actions, I felt the need as a parent to take action and make sure my kids were protected from bullying. I use MMGuardian mobile application from Google Play https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mmguardian&hl=en and it tells me whenever my kids send or receive bullying texts. I tell everyone that, if you are worried for your kids' safety, try MMGuardian and it will help you!
I do not think Mr. Savage actually raised a good point. Many of the things he refers to in the Bible are primarily found in the Old Testament and are closely connected to the context in which they were written. Most of them didn't make it into the New Testament. The New Testament provides you with a clarified version of God's intent for humanity, including the core principles to guide one's life, -Holiness is one of them-.
And it is Old Testament passages about homosexuality that are most often cited by christians making the biblical case against homosexuality.
Anyway, "primarily found in the Old Testament" is a pretty weak argument. You mean the Old Testament doesn't count, that fewer endorsements of barbarism in the New Testament indicates God was improving his manuscript? That's some argument. Some god.
Well, yes, that is a central focus of the New Testament, a sort of spiritualization of the old law.
This can be confusing to non christians - when does what the bible says count and when does it not?
You may have seen other of my comments in which I ask: How can christians say homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so (in the old testament) but dismiss other messages from the old testament because they're from the old testament?
- Curt Nelson
Luke 20:25
Render therefore to Cesar, the things which are Cesar's; and to God, the things that are God's.
Gay marriage is a social/political issue, not a religious one. Different religions/faiths can have different attitudes to these behavioural differences.
Fact: you need a man and a woman to procreate and continue life on earth. Mankind would have died out otherwise.
As regards slavery, the word slave was first used in the King James version (circa 1600s). I believe the original Greek/Aramaic word was 'servant'. Apostle Paul asked servants to be good and faithful to their masters; while urging masters to take good care of their servants.
The Bible is not about literal interpretation; it's sometimes metaphoric, poetic etc. The Old Testament was an agreement between God and his chosen people - Israel, until the Messiah actually came, but was rejected by Israel as such. Christ came to fulfill the law by offering grace and acceptance by God to all nations without the need to observe the law in order to be righteous. It's now all about the SPIRIT of the new agreement between God & all people, not the legalistic LETTER of the law. Hence, look to this spirit of LOVE and PEACE that the Bible is pointing to. Be open minded to this invisible reality around us (like wind that's you can't see, but see its effects). Christ gives you love & peace when you ask for it in faith.
I don't understand. Do you mean that the word "slave" didn't exist in the english language before 1600s?
In such case, you are wrong.
Also, if you mean to say that the biblical texts in Greek did not refere to slaves, but rather to "servants" (as a voluntary profession), then you also are wrong.
Have you even read the Bible? There is no doubt that the authors of the Bible understood slavery as an accepted part of the society.
Regarding procreation, you are right. If all men and women had been gay, and avoided procreation, mankind would have died out. Does that mean that we have to make laws that forces everybody to procreate?
What shall we do with people that have no desire to have neither sex nor children? If everybody were like them, mankind would have died out as well.
The word 'slave' certainly existed in the English language before 1600s. So did the word 'servant'. I don't claim to be the ultimate authority on this, but as far as I know many cultures had both or either.. At that time, de jure - virtually the same notion, de facto very different (servants often get treated fairly for various reasons, whereas slaves were exploited and had no choice or fair treatment).
I've been reading the Bible for years, and in differnt languages. Where slave is used in English, 'servant' is used in numerous other translations from the original Greek (after Aramaic).. That's why I am saying the 'slave' word used in the King James version of 1600s is very strong and nowadays has very negative connotations. It did not in the England 1600s (perhaps just before the African/colonial slavery began).
As regards laws to force everybody to procreate - we all agree this would be absurd. It's up to each individual to decide. Government/laws have nothing to do with this. Thank God we are all wired differently (for better or worse ;). What I was saying was that objectively, the circle of life would have been broken were it not for procreation in both animal and human worlds.
Those with no desire to have sex or children, are perfectly fine too. They could be fortunate to have more time to do good and perhaps focus on becoming what they dream to be faster. There's always someone around who is in much worse shape than you may be. By helping them, we help ourselves.
I think ultimately we all want: love, peace and joy (things you can't really buy). One can buy pleasure, but it won't be true joy. That can be achieved largely through finding a true community (a place where they understand you), dialogue, and the freedom to make informed choices realizing the consequences of our own decisions for us and those around us.
In my humble opinion, God could have forced everyone to believe in him. But he would not do this because it would destroy the main reason for creating man: fellowiship and voluntary relationship with God. He would not want slaves who have no choice but to forcefully fear and 'love' him, rather he wants 'faithful servants' to quote other perfectly valid translations of the Bible, who accept who he is and who they are in relation to him and love him by choice realizing that he was the one who loved us first.
While I would certainly not want to disagree with all you say, the word "doulos" in the Greek of the first century and the word "ebed" in the Hebrew of the various periods the Old Testament was composed in both generally meant a slave, i.e. one who was owned by another as chattel property.
Why don't christians actually answer the charge that they pick and choose their "it says so in the bible!" causes instead of being offended?
Dan Savage is not the first to recognize this christian hypocrisy, and all they've come up with to answer it is walking away?
- Curt Nelson
It is not hypocrisy!
Conservatives often make the contention that marriage is for procreation and for raising the children of those who bore them.
But this contention is manifestly false: The old and barren are permitted to marry freely in every society, if only because they form a heterosexual pair. Moreover, the contention that children need a father and a mother as parents, in order to turn out well, is equally and manifestly false: Study after study has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that children merely need loving and capable parents -- the gender and the sexual orientation of the parents is quite irrelevant to the children, themselves, given that these same parents are loving and capable.
Finally, the recognition of the committed relationships of gays and of lesbians for the marriages that they are injures the institution of marriage and any heterosexual marriages NOT ONE BIT: If you don't like the idea of same-sex marriage, don't get same-sex married ! But if I and my partner get married, this quite obviously can have no effect whatsoever on anyone else's ability to enjoy their opposite-sex marriage.
God's immutability is consistent b/t the OT and NT. The OT describes two forms of regulations: ceremonial and moral. Ceremonial laws (i.e. our example, the prohibition against eating shellfish) were meant to teach the Israelites the concept of holiness (defined in its original meaning of being "set apart"). That is, because the Israelites as God's people were to be holy, they would be trained to learn to abstain from certain foods and practices not b/c they're inherently sinful/evil but so that they learn they ought to be different from the practices of surrounding pagan cultures. Moral laws, in contrast, defined good and evil, absolute right vs. wrong and are eternal. Both laws were imperative b/c God--who is holy--took up residence among the Israelites who, w/o the regulations, did not otherwise know what it meant to be holy.
Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled both the ceremonial and moral laws perfectly as both God and Man. More importantly, the crux is that they believe that perfect moral record is imputed unto anyone who believes it. The implication is that Christians, by virtue of righteousness gifted (not earned by merit) to them by God, do not need to follow ceremonial regulations to be holy or meet God--that access has been granted through faith in Jesus's perfection. What it does mean, however, is that Christians are called to pursue moral law, not in order to gain holiness but b/c they have been granted holiness as a gift.
So yes, there is an obvious change in regulations but God's intent behind why they are necessary--the demand for holiness on part of his people--is consistent. In the OT, he shows man what is required of us. The NT doesn't abolish these laws--they are fulfilled on our behalf and that fulfillment is then gifted to man.
If I make a plan In order for a given event to happen and subsequently it does happen. Doesn't the fact that I recognise that the event has taken place mean that I have changed?
The whole point of the 10 Commandments was to show humans that they are incapable of living up to God's expectations. Therefore, it isn't following those laws that gets you into Heaven, but acceptance of Christ as your savior. You can be gay as a maypole while murderfucking seventeen infants and decorating your sex dungeon with their skulls, but if you subsequently genuinely repent and accept Christ as your Lord, you're good to go.
Course that's only if you believe in that sort of thing.
The guys walking out weren't offended. They were heading out to check grindr.
lmao!
lmao!
lmao!
Well, Savages language may have been a little strong. But the entire argument - and the unconstitutional legislation it has spawned - stems from fear, hatred and bigotry. No christian can claim otherwise, except that christian who obeys every stricture laid down in the bible.
There may be three of such christians in america, and none are republicans.
I am told that Catholics believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. That would indicate that God is capable of making any covenant (agreement) that he wishes. Let us suppose that there are an infinite number of possible agreements, and God may choose whichever he wishes. The fact that God offers one covenant to the Jews and another to Christians indicates that something has changed. In other words the offers made are conditional, either in terms of time or religious labels or the advent of Christ, or whatever other change you can imagine. So, how does God make a choice to offer one covenant as opposed to another. It seems to me that God is responding to changing conditions which is just the point I was making. How can God respond to change and yet be immutable?
God knows everything. He knows every little detail that is and has been. He loves us all more than you could imagine. Everything he does is for the best.
For example, one night, while driving a long way from one city to another during the night, my aunt suffered a terrible car accident with a pole, later resulting in a concussion. My family and I were worried, but God has His reasons. A week later, because of this car crash, my aunt and uncle realised they needed to be closer to the city and family. They moved from their small rental house to a big, beautiful house my great- grandfather had built that was otherwise going to go out of the family! Isn't that amazing!
God loves you.
"Nobody calls Christianity an abomination." With regard to this claim, Marx called Christianity the opiate of the masses, Richard Dawkins calls it a brain disease, and most communist countries have historically banned Christianity using similar claims. The statement - "Nobody calls Christianity an abomination" - is not completely accurate.
Additionally Mr. Savage cited Philemon as an example of the Bible endorsing slavery. It is unlikely that he ever read the book. The author, the apostle Paul, not only offers to pay any damages that the Philemon inflicted on his master but also advocates that Philemon's master accept him not as a slave but as a brother.
Finally Mr Savage confuses, as do many Christians, that the bible does not condemn homosexual feelings but a homosexual lifestyle, just as the bible condemns any heterosexual sexual activity apart from marriage and not inclinations to engage in such activity.
Mr. Savage was wrong, and hasn't done his argument any favours with his insulting words. Some speaking in the name of Christianity have spoken judgmentally against those with homosexual orientation and they are also wrong, since most do not make a choice who they are attracted to.
Mr. Savage in not wrong, christians do ignore the bible's promotion of slavery and other vile things while vigorously pointing out its anti-gay content. Isn't it so often the case that when we can't refute an argument we answer that we were insulted.
Have you heard the story of Moses, where God frees an entire nation of slaves?
I haven't read the 8 pages of posts... so sorry if this has been said:
Mr. Savage missed a golden opportunity to speak like an adult to those entering adulthood. He had a chance to make a very valid point. That too many on the religious right point to the Bible when discussing gay marriage... but then conveniently ignore the remained of the book's "abominations." The examples (which are numerous) to include slavery, shellfish, divorce...etc.
Moreover, there appears to be some debate about what "abomination" means in the Biblical context. If it does, in fact, merely mean something against tradition, but not something morally wrong or reprehensible... then it makes much more sense.
And, as has been pointed out in other posts, the text is thousands of years old and has endured untold translations. I am reminded of the English version of the Qur'an. On the cover it claims to be an "interpretation." This is because there is no way to properly translate every word with the same exact meaning as it has in Arabic (or at least that is my understanding). Perhaps this would be a better approach to the Bible. We should label it as an English interpretation of the Hebrew (or Greek if new testament). Just a thought.
Actually, Christians are generally quite aware of the various prohibitions in the OT that they ignore. It's because the New Testament specifically tells us to ignore them. Read Acts 15 sometime, or the books of Galatians and Romans. But the prohibitions against homosexuality are repeated and reaffirmed in the New Testament, always in the context of a broad, liberal and all-encompassing vision of human flourishing. Knocking Christians for eating shellfish and still thinking homosexual activity is wrong is silly and simple-minded, and ignores how Christians have very intentionally read and used the Bible for the past two thousand years.
Wonderful! I thought that the Bible was the word of God. It's clear from what you say that the word of God changes over time. But I thought that God was everlasting and immutable. However this doesn't seem to be so. Which causes me to ask the question, "Is God is evolving over time"? In which case Darwin was clearly more farsighted and a greater genius than we ever imagined.
I wonder what corrections will be made in the third edition, probably due to be issued in time for the second coming. Perhaps, we would all be well advised to suspend making judgments on the actions of others, until we see what it contains.
The traditional doctrine of God (as you surmise, there are others, of varying orthodoxy) says that no, God never changes. But you don't have to postulate a mutable Deity to explain why there might be different rules at different times. For starters:
(1) The Bible describes multiple covenants that God makes with His people, and each covenant comes with its own particular set of restrictions. The purity laws of Leviticus are for those under the Mosaic covenant, and they are very specifically NOT for those under the new covenant initiated by Jesus.
(2) Even under the same covenant, different rules might be applicable for different societies. To take just one example, in a society without an established prison system, there are only four real criminal punishments available: paying a fine, maiming, exile, or death. It's not surprising that the OT legal codes make use of the only punishments available to that society. It would be surprising if we insisted on same precise punishments today (even though much of our modern legal code does in fact depend on the same moral discernments which informed the Old Testament legal code).
Lest you think that this is just special pleading on my part, see Augustine's Confessions, Book 3, Chapter 7: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confessions.vi.html. This is the understanding of morality that Christians have had for thousands of years.
I am told that Catholics believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. That would indicate that God is capable of making any covenant (agreement) that he wishes. Let us suppose that there are an infinite number of possible agreements, and God may choose whichever he wishes. The fact that God offers one covenant to the Jews and another to Christians indicates that something has changed. In other words the offers made are conditional, either in terms of time or religious labels or the advent of Christ, or whatever other change you can imagine. So, how does God make a choice to offer one covenant as opposed to another. It seems to me that God is responding to changing conditions which is just the point I was making. How can God respond to change and yet be immutable?
Religion, tends to paint things in black or white. Unfortunately nature does not work that way. Nature continuously deals with the whole spectrum of possibilities. The reason for this is that the conditions change and in order to survive the majority of beings in a given species have to be able to cope with the change. Certainly for any given species a major impetus is reproduction but it is not the only consideration. In human beings quality of life is also a consideration. The idea that because a given individual does not reproduce he or she is somehow unnatural is just not true. That individual can make great contributions towards the well-being and future survival of the species even though he or she does not reproduce. The fact that we are having this discussion now is in large part due to a homosexual who laid the foundation of the computer age. Despite being one of the most important contributors to the winning of the second world war, in addition to his computer work, he was hounded until he committed suicide. That person was, Alan Turing.
If you look through the submissions made to this discussion by religious people they are characterized by absolute certainty and a lack of supporting information. Having absolute certainty does simplify life. But it also inhibits real thinking. After all, if you already know, what's the point in thinking? Religious people, on the whole, tend to wrap themselves in language and ritual, and to a large extent ignore quantitative matters. This works well in societies where literacy is valued more highly than numeracy. It also has the added benefit of making things appear to be simpler than they are.
Another aspect of this discussion which has interested me is how the reactions to Savage's speech have changed over time. The initial reaction was one of horror at what he said. This has mutated over time to become, well it wasn't so much what he said, but rather the way that he said it.
Homosexuals, tend to paint things in black or white. Unfortunately nature does not work that way. Nature continuously deals with the whole spectrum of possibilities It is thanks to religions that humanity can look back at its history, it has maintained old buildings, art and records so that today we can see what humnanity did, created etc.. Unfortunately sometimes we do have sectarian movements such as comunists and the gay movements who try to destroy any reference to the past of humanity through "idiotic" argumentation as relativity and how horrible religions are.
I recommend you see a very good film "IDIOCRACY" which you will find in youtube as it has been boycoted by the "idiots". Its extremely funny if you are not an idiot, and probably painful if you are.
"It is thanks to religions that humanity can look back at its history", what a curious short sighted statement. The history of humanity goes back further than any known religion. It has been preserved by nature in the earth. If you really want to study human history and its prehuman antecedents buy yourself a shovel. However I thank you for making my point about the narrowmindedness of those who immerse themselves in religion. I think it would be in your interest, and perhaps humanities if you tried to live up to your pseudonym.
I enjoy very much your stereotype answer, I am short sighted, I have to study history...You sound like the prototype proletarian whom unfortunately has learnt how to read only the titles and follows the dictates of the modern "gurus" of idiocracy. Strongly recommend you see the film Idiocracy, it will help you "think"...
You sound like the prototype bigot who have no idea how , for exemple the christian religion burned the largest library of antiquity in Alexandria, making the whole of western world descend into a dark age that took a thousand years to recover from.
You seem to forget that muslim bigots blew up the 2 largest statues of Buddha in Afghanistan in the 90's, back in the days where the Talibans were considered a nice bunch by the state dept...
Instead of watching some fiction, you should watch a real debate on the subject, it might not make you laugh, but it might make you "think"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsz9XBhrYA
I'll take your recommendation and watch Idiocracy, I'm always up for a good laugh. That's one reason I participate in these forums. I would suggest that you spend some time studying science. Science progresses by asking questions and then evaluating the answers. You will find is a whole new world out there. There is a reason why people become disenchanted with religion. When you try to progress in religion by asking questions you very quickly come to the point where the answers are unsatisfactory or indeed patently wrong. When you study history look at the way that knowledge has advanced by using science and compare that with the retreat of religion over time. Compare what religion and science have done in advancing the study of history. I think you'll find that what science is done by building up an accurate knowledge of historical events far outweighs anything that we can attribute to religion. Broaden your outlook and don't be so smug about those who question religion, they have good reasons to do so.
Why is it that when you cannot argue you must commence wit an insult? Do you have suffer from some inferiority complex?
What Christians or Muslims destroyed is penauts compared with for example what Socialism destroyed ( more than 100 million humans to start with), together with the destruction of intelligence and history.
As regards real debates according to your "gurus" and the unique thinking, no thanks I rather read a book...
Well you look at Idiocracy and then come back, science has only helped in practical everyday matters from medicine to physics etc.. It has also created golbal warming and AIDS and some other very positive things.
I dont want everyone to be religious just as I dont want everyone to be a non socialist. WE do need Socialism( practically a religion) in order to maintain parts of the world where people are poor enough so they dont consume raw materials.
And dont forget that neither religions, ideologies or science have the answers, most of the time they are wrong in all cases.
You literally just proved Marxism foreign policy theory of global division between the core and the periphery with your comment about how we "need socialism" in order to subjugate the poor so that they do not consume raw materials core states utilize for maintaining the current power structure. YOUR mindset and cognitive dissonance is the exact reason why their is inequality, bullying, and subjugation in the world. May your god save your soul.
I really dont understand exactly what you mean, but I must clear up that I am an anti.marxist and any associated ideology. But it is a fact that wherever this type of idiotic ideology reigns, misery is present; N.Corea,Cuba,Venezuela, China etc...And it is also a fact that thanks to this ideology the rest of us who are lucky not to live in a country where idiots are the majority and therefore those ideologies dominate, we live better because these idiots do not consume the raw materials that we do.This is pure fact, obviously a religious person is against these ideologies that cause death and misery, but in democracy we must respect the decisions of anybody, including idiots.
Do see the film Idiocracy its in youtube, very funny but very real.
I definitely understand that you are anti-Marxist but by believing in your ideals of "domination" of citizens in developing countries so that you and I can live our life style is THE cause of the "death and misery" that you're talking about. You (maybe not directly) are the one causing the death and suffering by supporting these ideals, not to mention they are deeply rooted in bigotry,hate and violate the basic rights of the individual which as a member of a democracy is something you should be staunchly against. I assume by the structure of your sentences you are not a native speaker and probably from Europe which explains why you take these extreme views on multiculturalism as it is viewed as a failure there. Finally the most essential problem with everything you have said on this comment thread is the amount of sweeping generalizations that you use in order to prop up your arguments which are highly inaccurate and lack any depth in understanding. Your comments about the "idiocracy of others" because they live in a communist/poor nation is a complete red herring and lacks any evidence of why or how this argument is true and shows your pure lack of understanding of global power relations and the root causes of poverty, political instability and anti-democratic governments. I have seen idiocracy a couple times and the "idiocracy" that you see is because you lack the knowledge to properly understand the world without creating a cognitive bias (look up the term) to translate the world into your own preconceived view of the world. In turn you use it to justify your illogical thinking. Idiocracy is about people no longer valuing education, reading and critical thinking and those people reproducing on a massive scale. If your not careful you will be a product of your own theory.
Wonderful! I thought that the Bible was the word of God. It's clear from what you say that the word of God changes over time. But I thought that God was everlasting and immutable. However this doesn't seem to be so. Which causes me to ask the question, "Is God is evolving over time"? In which case Darwin was clearly more farsighted and a greater genius than we ever imagined.
I wonder what corrections will be made in the third edition, probably due to be issued in time for the second coming. Perhaps, we would all be well advised to suspend making judgments on the actions of others, until we see what it contains.
You seem to view the world from a position of your own superiority. Others must be placed in ghettos so that they do not consume what you feel is rightfully yours. This seems to be an ultra-right-wing philosophy. Who do you consider to be the master race? Is it just you, and all the rest of us exist on lower planes of society? I wonder if you have ever read Mein Kampf.
Well, its difficult to have a conversation with someone who continuously uses personal attacks and offences, which by the way is the usual method of those who have nothing to say but say something that someone else has told them they must say.
It is not people like me who have ever forced in any way or tried to convince anybody that ideologies like socialism and similars would be good for them. There are obviously some countries where that type of systesm has been imposed by foreign powers( eastern Europe), but most of them have elected that system and it obviously has a price. If I dare critice such systems I am automatically described as a fascist( normally by people like you!).
If you instead of attacking the messenger, tried to contradict the message I would pay attention, otherwise with your continuos lack of argument except for daring to critice me as a person, I dont see any point as you are obviously a believer in some sort of pseudoreligious ideology.
Please do watch the film Idiocracy it will be positive and you'll have a good laugh.
God is a concept that some people do not understand, I am not a priest so I cannot answer your question. Just as I look at Darwins "theory" and its the same thing, its a matter of believing or not.But even so, I dont see much of a conflict specially from a Christian, Muslim or Budist point of view. Different of course is the Old Testament but that belongs to the "untouchables".
Full of bullshit that 19th. century concept of ultra right wing utlized by mentally retarded to critice those who dare speak out agaings the prevalent "unique thought", I ll take it as a joke.
I dont see anybody from my superiority as I know I am not superior, but I do worry about those who feel inferior.
Well then instead of citing your only reference Idiocracy, I'll be curious to find out what books you actually read.
My two examples are just few from an unlimited list of atrocities committed in the name of some god.
You cite the number 100M killed by socialism... the number of death attributed to the christians on the american continent alone was 60Million ... in the 16th century. And they didn't stop back then.
Any ideology that murders is nasty... but religions are ideologies that claim to come from beings with super powers...
You speak of unique thinking... where did you learn that word? It seems like a mantra in your posts and I begin to feel that your nickname is quite a long way from the reality. But hey, isn't that what religion is for? Painting a grim reality with pastel colours while of course never losing sight of your wallet?
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
You mean to tell me that the 60 million killed in the american continent were actually killed by orders of the Christian faiths? You cant be serious!! You mean to say that the leaders of all Christians religions thought the indians were killed by the immigrants chasing gold, land and other well known american aims. I also read in non stupid history that many of the natives died because of the illness that the immigrants brought with the and against which the natives had no defence.
However, since I am not a descendant of those assasins of the 60 million natives maybe I am wrong and the descendants of the assasins should pay for it.
Religions( all of them) are necessary in order to aleviate and help humansa survive the non religious Wall Street mongers and Obamas, Gaddafis and similar monsters. Religion does not need to paint a grim reality, all you have to do is read the newspapers. If even so you find the garden beautiful, you are obviously part and you profit from that fantastic world.
Unique thought is what those who are in places of power and control make you believe( because you must believe) and obviously just like Communists hated religions because there is only "one truth" and that is Stupidity and Ignorance ( todays mainstream religions).
It seems that most of the comments are coming from the people across the pond ?! Poor you. So insular, so religious and out of this world.
How ridiculous. The scriptures from the Bible were dated back a thousand years ago. Of course, the culture and the lifestyle would have been different hence, the use of slavery, consumption of wine was part of Jewish culture. Slavery was seen as a social status but both the master and the servant should respect each other and know their own responsibilities.
He should not mix personal hatred with professional duties. Very pathetic of him.
What I find reprehensible about Mr. Savages conduct is not that he questions the bible, most good Christians do that. it is the manner in which he does to a group of high school students. if this language had been used in a typical classroom, the instructor would have been suspended on the spot and most probably fired. there is a modicum of acceptable behavior and language one should expect and demand from an "expert" and this is not even close to being acceptable.
Yes, it is Dan Savage's language that is appalling here, not what he's talking about: that the holy book christians use to justify their bigotry also promotes beating slaves, stoning to death adulterous women, killing men, women and children... But, the christian say, those obviously bad things were in the Old
Testament (so they don't count). But homophobia was in the Old Testament, too, and yet they hang on to that one.
- Curt Nelson
Mr. Nelson, your bigotry is also apparent. the old testament is not the basis for Christianity, the new testament is. and i think you will find a much different perspective. but to berate people for what was written several thousand years ago and the times in which it was written is ignored is also bigotry.
.
.
Why don't you try to justify bible-based discrimination of homosexuals instead of responding "no, you're a bigot"?
It's thousands of years old so we shouldn't take it seriously? Why not dismiss the homophobic parts for the same reason?
-Curt Nelson
Mr. Nelson, I did not call you a bigot. I said a certain type of behavior is bigotry. if the shoe fits wear it. and you make blanket accusations without addressing any statements. as I said, to judge what was written several thousand years ago by today's standards is a type of bigotry and arrogance, and to attack people because you disagree with them is also bigotry. challenge the ideas and have a thoughtful debate. but I find that is very seldom the case with the pro-homosexual crowd. call people names, accuse them of the bigotry because they disagree, and berate and ridicule their beliefs. this is the SOP for the pro-homosexual crowd. does not seem like an intelligent discussion to me. and I assume you will accuse me of calling you names. which shows quickly that you do not want to debate of listen to other perspectives, only bully people with your beliefs.
How about reading the entire Bible, starting at the beginning and ending at the end? Until you do this, you continue to display a lack of knowledge on the subject. If you have done this, then you don't understand the Bible and need to read it again. You couldn't get a more peaceful person than Jesus Christ who didn't condone violence against any of the issues you are mentioning above, instead forgiveness and then, repentance. This was unprecedented in it's day and has stood the test of time. An active homosexual is in a state of sin, according to the Bible, but a Christian is expected to treat this person as they would any other non believer, with dignity and respect by pointing out their error according to our beliefs. It has nothing to do with harrassment. Christians are supposed to say what they need to say and then dust off their shoes if the message isn't accepted. So, either stop misunderstanding, or stop lying, please. It's exactly the same as saying we need to accept that you chose to be gay, whoever you are, fine, but according to Christians, you are living in sin. You really don't care what Christians think - you have chosen not to so what is your problem? Do you really think the whole GLBT movement hasn't got enough support already? My Christian 12 year old child doesn't even open her mouth at school and still gets bullied, because she hasn't jumped on your bandwagon, thank God.
Christians don't need to say anything. You probably aren't interested in hearing what a Hindu thinks of you. Non Christians don't want to hear a critique from a Christian either. There are a lot of religions out there. Why don't you keep yours to yourself? When you don't you open yourself up to criticism - like mine, that you're hypocrites.
Curt Nelson
Actually I was part of the Hare Krishna movement and found that it led to.....nothing. Since I was an open minded person, I kept myself open to the possibility of other religions which would bring meaning. Jesus Christ stepped into my life at 40 years of age and turned it upside down. I have a responsibility to state what I know to be true, if I didn't I would be guilty of hating my fellow man. I have no problem listening to what other people think of me, I am solid in who I am in Christ and criticism is always interesting but, it needs to make sense. I have absolutely no idea why I would be considered to be a hypocrite, on a daily basis I understand the fear of the Lord and the repercussions of hypcorisy. Like I said, you would need to read the Bible from the beginning, to the end, in order, to make any further claims about Christians.
I will never understand why Savage and others always refer to the Chistians when attacking the Bible. Chistians are those after Christ, the previous Bible was and is Jewish, so why dont they attack the jews instead of Chistians???
Could it somehow be because Christians use that "previous Bible" every day bash people they don't like? And, last time I looked, my Christian Bible still included the Old Testament.
What a lame, tired and dishonest argument.