"Reckless, irresponsible": Kansas teacher's "gay is same as murder" Facebook rant

[Charlie09]

WHY DID HE JUMP TO MURDER?! WHY IS IT FIRST ON HIS LIST?!

Yes, I'm shouting, but this is really frustrating. Look at the passage from your post that I highlighted. You completely contradict yourself in the first sentence!

Because it's in the Bible?

 

[Gardenlady]

Look up the definition of "fundamentalism". I certainly wasn't talking about all Christians.

This is one of the many roots of the problem - American fundamentalists often think that THEY are the only Christians. Or they speak for Christianity. Or their view is THE biblical view.

 

[Gardenlady]

How about this...from a Biblical perspective. I likewise almost posted nondenom Christian perspective...

Whose biblical perspective? Your tiny corner of peculiarly American fundamentalism?

 

[Nova]

I read it. Unfortunately, it's skewed, skipping over many scriptures and either misinterpreting some or misrepresenting them.

And you wonder why I say Fundamentalism is antithetical to learning?

 

[Seek&Find]

Oh, God, the endless persecutions of the poor, put-upon Christian!

Let's talk when you are 5% of the population instead of nearly 80%! Let's talk when Christianity is illegal in America, as homosexuality was until 8 years ago! Let's talk when Christians are forbidden to adopt or marry!

You said "No. No. No. Let's talk again when you've been equated with murderers for a few decades.."

Just pointing out it has happened for centuries.

 

[seattlechiquita]

The US Supreme Court hasn't stated gay marriage is a right.

Yet. It will, and soon. :rocker:

 

[wfgodot]

:waitasec: isn't this thread about someone that said something you disagreed with?

Yes. And it had nothing to do with gay marriage.

Now, if you ask me (nicely), "wfgodot, what's your stance on gay marriage?" I would say:

"I support it."

Then you could continue with the not unreasonable question about how I'd treat those in opposition, i.e., would it be in keeping with Christ's basic "love one another" thesis.

Then I'd say, "You're right. Probably not, if I got my dander up."

Then I might continue, "I in fact am a sinner and would, I imagine, noticeably stumble, in fact perhaps be guilty of becoming positively un-Christlike, in any sort of debate regarding the matter."

Then you could say, "But isn't that hypocritical?"

And then I could say, "Jesus came into the world to save fools such as me."

But I would also add, "But at least I'm not hateful enough to equate homosexuality with murder and other crimes punishable in the here and now."

 

[Seek&Find]

WHY DID HE JUMP TO MURDER?! WHY IS IT FIRST ON HIS LIST?!

Yes, I'm shouting, but this is really frustrating. Look at the passage from your post that I highlighted. You completely contradict yourself in the first sentence!

No, I didn't.

So, as I asked in a couple posts, the anger is over the order of the sins listed? Would it have been better if murder had been at the end, in the middle, excluded, the list was longer, etc?

 

[Charlie09]

Yes. And it had nothing to do with gay marriage.

Now, if you ask me (nicely), "wfgodot, what's your stance on gay marriage?" I would say:

"I support it."

Then you could continue with the not unreasonable question about how I'd treat those in opposition, i.e., would it be in keeping with Christ's basic "love one another" thesis."

Then I'd say, "You're right. Probably not, if I got my dander up."

Then I might continue, "I in fact am a sinner and would, I imagine, noticeably stumble, in fact perhaps be guilty of becoming positively un-Christlike, in any sort of debate regarding the matter."

Then you could say, "But isn't that hypocritical?"

And then I could say, "Jesus came into the world to save fools such as me."

But I would also add, "But at least I'm not hateful enough to equate homosexuality with murder and other crimes punishable in the here and now."

But why is is less hateful?

 

[Nova]

Nice to see you think you've the ability to better interpret Holy Scripture than does a priest and theologian.

As for seeing through the eyes of a deity: no. we. don't. And imagining that we do leads to all sorts of mischief.

I find your posts generally well-reckoned and always sincere. But questioning if one "believe(s) in the Bible" based on a disagreement in interpreting Scripture seems quite petty.

As the late great Gilbert Keith Chesterton wrote, "The only argument against Christianity is Christians."

When believers say they can "see through the eyes of God" or claim to speak for God, they do realize they are talking about the Creator of an Infinite Universe, don't they?

Yet they insist that all the Creator's thoughts can be contained in a single book!

The hubris is astonishing to me.

 

[wfgodot]

But why is is less hateful?

Eh? Concoct your question again please, don't understand.

 

[Nova]

Whether homosexuality is part of one's nature is still debated. Those who believe in the Bible as God's word consider it to be written by the Holy Spirit through men. God was certainly aware of LGBT acts and people.

He may have known about the acts, but if He knew about gay people, why did He never mention us in that all-encompassing book?

BTW, the causes of homosexuality are still being studied, but the fact that sexual orientation is an innate part of one's "nature" is not disputed by any reputable authority.

 

[Seek&Find]

Whose biblical perspective? Your tiny corner of peculiarly American fundamentalism?

I was responding to Yoda. She thanked my response.

You can disagree. No need to get personal.

 

[wfgodot]

Allow me to plug another of my threads, which hasn't exactly caught fire in terms of posting:

Psychiatrist who championed "gay cure" apologizes, admits study was fatally flawed


This was a lot bigger deal than some assistant freshman women's basketball coach at Buhler KS High School mouthing off his opinion on Facebook.

 

[Seek&Find]

And you wonder why I say Fundamentalism is antithetical to learning?

So, if someone disagrees and points out that the author of an article left out numerous Biblical verses related to the topic he's addressing, it's antithetical to learning?

 

[Charlie09]

Eh? Concoct your question again please, don't understand.

It's just interesting that you are personally ok with the hateful comments on this thread - but not ok with someone expressing what is in the Bible,because that's "too" hateful.

Just an observation really.

 

[Gardenlady]

I was responding to Yoda. She thanked my response.

You can disagree. No need to get personal.

I quoted your post in which you quoted my question; so I assumed it was an answer to me. :waitasec:

My response wasn't meant to be personal or snarky - by "peculiar" I meant nothing other than "uniquely", basically. American fundamentalism IS also, truly, a "tiny corner".

In your posts, you talk of Christians this and Christians that, and biblical this, etc, as if your particular brand of Christianity's view is the ONLY view. Or the only TRUE view. Other Christians might find that a tad arrogant, just FYI.

 

[Charlie09]

Allow me to plug another of my threads, which hasn't exactly caught fire in terms of posting:

Psychiatrist who championed "gay cure" apologizes, admits study was fatally flawed


This was a lot bigger deal than some assistant freshman women's basketball coach at Buhler KS High School mouthing off his opinion on Facebook.

Obviously not - as the most rabid of posts are on this thread.

 

[wfgodot]

It's just interesting that you are personally ok with the hateful comments on this thread - but not ok with someone expressing what is in the Bible,because that's "too" hateful.

Just an observation really.

I really think when you read my posts that, in effect, your own opinions hop in and adjust some of what I've written to keep them accordance with your own disagreements about the matter.

"Hateful" here begs definition: I would define it as having to do with opinions and stances which would, in effect, cause grief to other human beings by denying them certain freedoms of expression.

The stances I support here are those which would guarantee rights to those who have not enjoyed them before. I don't see that as being hateful; I do see it as being opposed to those who would continue to deny those rights.

Being vitriolic in defense of what one believes isn't necessarily being hateful. But opinions stressed and posted on a social network, when one's employment deals with teaching in a public school, certainly may be.

 

[Nova]

You're right. Christians shouldn't ignore the uncomfortable parts of the Bible. They serve a purpose as well. We need to be aware of our own sins, weaknesses, and areas for growth.

I disagree with the idea that marriage was economic, not romantic historically. There are Biblical examples of romantic marriage. Jacob & Rachel, for example.

With all due respect, you are simply not an expert on everything we are discussing. Neither am I, but I know it, and that's the difference.

What I wrote about the institution of marriage was not my personal theory. It is a well known historical fact. Companionate marriage (i.e., marrying for love) becomes an ideal in the Early Modern Era, what we in the West call the Renaissance.

http://www.lambdaarchives.us/timelines/marriage/index.htm



Nobody is saying that some ancient couples didn't come to love one another, just as people in "arranged marriages" do today. The point is that romantic love wasn't seen as the goal of marriage, nor necessary for a marriage's success.

When pre-modern couples speak of "loving" one another, they usually mean something closer to what we would call "respect" or "honor". For the woman that might mean obedience; for the man it probably means he provides well for her.

Back on topic, the point is that gay people were expected to marry the opposite sex and procreate, just like everyone else. It was an economic, political and even military necessity.

Which is probably why the prohibitions were written into Leviticus in the first place. By men, not by God. The Hebrews were a small people surrounded by hostile neighbors. Naturally they were concerned that "seed" not be wasted in non-procreative endeavors! Of course, they were also conquering, killing and enslaving those neighbors, so they weren't people I'd hold up as moral models.