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

Nova said:

What's funny is that some Christians think their faith is so important that it should not only govern their lives but mine as well.

Yet if I point out that said Christians are speaking from faith, something which by definition cannot be proven, rather than reason, I am being "hateful".

Click to expand...

BBM haven't seen you say this until this post.

Seek&Find said:

Prior posts indicate you didn't know which books contained these verses or how many related verses there were, so how can you dismiss them without having read them?

It's interesting, in a good way, that you do seem to care about what the Bible has to say on this topic.

Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, I have a graduate degree specializing in queer studies, I have lectured extensively on homosexuality in the pre-modern and modern worlds, and have won awards and published my work on the subject in peer-reviewed journals.

The Bible was not my special focus, but I have read extensively on the few indisputable references to homosexuality in the Bible and there are only a handful. The others use words that in some periods referred to men who engage in homosexual behavior, but those same words have other meanings the brief references to them are simply not clear enough to draw conclusions.

So the fact that you now present me with a laundry risk of "undeniable" condemnations leads me to the conclusion that you are reading some highly biased sources on the subject.

But for what it's worth, I did take your list and go through it passage by passage, consulting expert philologists on each passage. If I gave you the impression that I ignored your posts, I apologize.

***

Certainly I care what the Bible says. It's an important historical document and a great work of poetry. That by no means is to say I think it is a literal historical account or that any proscription found there is in any way binding on modern people.

In fact, and as long as we're being perfectly frank, I think using "the Bible says so" as a moral argument is the height of intellectual laziness. I apologize to those whom that offends, but come on! Surely we all have to admit that consulting the magic book and pulling out those passages that suit us requires very little struggle with competing moral imperatives.

Nova said:

Oh, all of the things you list make him an idiot. But I defend his right to be ill informed.

It's the comparison to murder to which I object, because that comparison has proved dangerous, historically. And, yes, I have a problem with him publishing that opinion to 600 people, including students. (Students who may very well be gay, for all he, you or I know.)

If I seemed to be arguing other matters, it was only because I was correcting misinformation as I encountered it.

Click to expand...

Not sure why the desire to label others as stupid, an idiot, etc. I'd jump in and defend you if anyone was calling you names.

Thanks for the clarification. I hear your concern that what he said could lead to physical harm. No one has the right to attack you verbally or physically, and Christians should be the first to physically stand in the gap to prevent that, if need be. God's placed me in those positions before and strengthened me to stand. Clearly you and I disagree on both the intent and the effect of his words.

Ditto

Seek&Find said:

BBM haven't seen you say this until this post.

Click to expand...

I have said it in every way I know how. What did you think we were discussing?

Seek&Find said:

Not sure why the desire to label others as stupid, an idiot, etc. I'd jump in and defend you if anyone was calling you names.

Thanks for the clarification. I hear your concern that what he said could lead to physical harm. No one has the right to attack you verbally or physically, and Christians should be the first to physically stand in the gap to prevent that, if need be. God's placed me in those positions before and strengthened me to stand. Clearly you and I disagree on both the intent and the effect of his words.

Ditto

Click to expand...

What would be a worse name he could call me than murderer? Some people would say "child molester", I suppose, but plenty of Christians have equated me with pedophiles as well. AND THEY CONTINUE TO DO SO with no outcry from conservative Christians.

The sad fact is that only a few Christians here were willing to defend me and those like me in the face of the teacher's vicious name-calling. Most were too busy and too quick defending a fellow believer.

The irony is that we have umpteen examples from the Gospels of Jesus condemning precisely the sort of judgmental tirade that the teacher posted on FB. I am quite sure as to which "side" He would be on in this debate.

(ETA but I know you meant your post to be kind and conciliatory, and I appreciate that. I have no doubt you are a good person and a sincerely pious Christian. I'm sure I'd be glad to know you in real life.)

Nova said:

There is no reference to homosexual persons in the OT. The concept did not exist in 800 BCE.

I've never read a reputable philologist who finds a reference to homosexual persons in the NT. By "reputable" I mean credentialed, published and accepted in his field; religious "scholars" grasping at straws to make the Bible say what they want don't count.

There are a few dubious passages in Plato's Symposium, but even there it isn't clear that Plato has a concept of homosexual orientation that is comparable to ours. There is a brief story about lifelong male companions in a Japanese text dating from the 16th century.

Otherwise, the concept doesn't appear with any regularity until the 1700s. It isn't formally defined until psychiatrists do so in the 1800s.

Click to expand...

Previous quote: "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?"

Actually, they are mentioned in the OT - Deuteronomy, 1400 BC...not sure why the timetable is important, though. (I can never find the shrug icon!) They're likewise mentioned in the NT. In fact, it's been referenced by others, but we can agree to disagree.

Nova said:

Yeah, 'cause how could likening me to a murderer be hurtful?

Click to expand...

I don't think that was the intent. I know you do.

because they are exactly the same as anyone else, right. You are all equal sinners and you are all OK to go to heaven. So, why would anyone try to pray away the gay as they say? Or is that being gay is really not OK and so gay people have to acknowledge that their existence as gay people is basically repugnant to God as sin and must forgiven by him. They must repent for being who they are. So whether you are born gay or you willingly kill another person you are equal sinners, one by their mere existence the other by overt act of a type of wrongdoing acknowledged by everyone as evil. Yet you say there's nothing we can do to change who we are so what is the pont here. A gay person can't change who they are but they also must repent for being who they are and try to what, be someone different? How else do they get saved? You say it's all the same but people choose whether to sin they don't choose their sexual orientation-that is really not up for serious debate any more. How meaningful could repentence be if they have no choice but to continue to be gay?

Bible.org is a christian web site which answers questions and has information about allegedly "christian" beliefs. However, these seem to be the beliefs of a certain subset of Christians and certainly not all, at least I hope so.

Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God...

Recently in America ten homosexually oriented religious organizations, comprised of men and women from more than a dozen denominations, and from seventeen states and Canada, met at Kirkbridge, a retreat and study center near Bangor, Pennsylvania. The retreat was entitled, "Gay and Christian." But the two terms, "gay" and "Christian" are mutually exclusive, incompatible, incongruous... A truly born again person, who loves and understands the Bible as God's revelation to him, will not condone an evil that God condemns...

The clever adaptation of the word "gay" by homosexuals has robbed it of its pure meaning, thereby corrupting a once perfectly good word. I never use the word "gay" when referring to homosexuals. There are many bright, exuberant, merry people in this world who are not sexual perverts.

Both the desire (lusting after) and the act of homosexuality are condemned in the Bible as sin.

Inasmuch as homosexuality is classified in the Bible as an evil, to insist that children be exposed to homosexual teachers in the public schools would be an infringement upon the rights of parents and their children. Under no condition would I permit my children to be subjected to the influence of a sex pervert.

Click to expand...

The whole premise is, to me, absurd and frightening. No person of any age, but especially a fragile adolescent should be made to feel the kinds of self loathing required to consider themselves a human being so flawed that their very existence is a sin to be condemned. Have you read anything about what gay young people go through in school already? Yet you find it a normal and admirable Christian act for their teacher/role models/authority figures to essentially condemn them publicly. What purpose does that serve? Would your Jesus approve? Is this what he taught? I'm really curious about what good is advanced by this expression of hate, because you do hate sin right and their existence as a gay person is a sin. I just don't get what kind of human being feels the need to do this.

T4Tide said:

BBM

That, my friend, is the whole premise of Christianity. There is NOTHING we, as sinners, can do to change who we are. Jesus was our sacrifice, and through believing in Him, we have eternal life and forgiveness.

I am a sinner by merely existing. I am condemned if I do not ask forgiveness for the things that I know are sins. Because of the Holy Spirit who dwells within me, I am convicted and I know when I sin, and therefore ask for forgiveness and try my hardest not to sin again. I cannot deliberately sin without feeling horrible and knowing I need to repent. How is it that I don't have a hard time saying that I am a sinner, but yet so many people take offense? If they aren't believers, why would they even care about my little spiritual game and FB posts to begin with?

I will be in Heaven one day. Along with murderers, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, idolaters, haters, thieves, etc, etc, etc..... IF the before mentioned have confessed their sins before God and accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. No one's damning anyone. Well, except for the guy on FB. Everyone's damning him for his religious beliefs!

Click to expand...

Random snipping

Nova said:

Nobody is saying ancient people didn't feel love.

Click to expand...

My answer was in response to you saying: "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."

Likewise, the point is that the institution of marriage wasn't based on love. If individual husbands and wives grew to love one another, that was a bonus.

Click to expand...

Yes, I realize that was the substance of your post.

Nobody denies that a male and a female were necessary for procreation and the Adam and Eve myth* reflects that.

Click to expand...

I referenced the companionship aspect, not procreation.

They have been cooked up by conservative Christians for the sole purpose of justifying homophobia.

Click to expand...

Wow. So the theory is conservative Christians have for centuries colluded to insert mistranslated verses into the Bible.

But while we at it, you do know that no original copies of the Gospels or Letters exists, right? You're willing to deny my family our civil rights based on what some copyist wrote during the early Middle Ages? Nice.

Click to expand...

Again, undue personalization. Marriage is a God given right, not a civil right. He gets to make that call, He has, and I trust His love and righteousness to have made the right call. Moo. I also agree with Ron Paul re: marriage. That it's the business of the church, not the government.

I do think we're pretty far afield of addressing the teacher's post, though.

How can anyone support firing this man because of what he might do? That would be like firing a teacher because he was a homosexual and might discuss his sexual orientation with the students.

He posted his beliefs on his Facebook page. If he was saying this exact same thing in a restaurant and was overheard would he be fired?

Nova said:

No need to personalize whom? We're talking about the teacher and what he wrote. If he feels a need to compare me to a murderer, then I think I have a right to draw a few conclusions about him.

Click to expand...

A little who's on first moment, lol.

Here's the progression of posts. First you responded to me:

Originally Posted by Seek&Find
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?

Click to expand...

Regardless of what you imagine God thinks (I still find it astounding that anyone would presume to know that, but never mind), human beings do make distinctions between the severity of different sins.

The teacher could have just written "In the eyes of God, homosexuality is the same as any other fornication." That would have been Biblically sound, a fair equation and sufficient to make his point.

Of course, so few people obey the injunctions against fornication nowadays that such a statement wouldn't have conveyed the hatred he really wanted to express. So he jumped instead to what most people consider the worst possible sin. Equating gays with murderers is no accident; it's hate speech.

Click to expand...

Then I said the below in reference to the BBM portion above:

Not sure why there's a need to personalize?

Not all human beings do.

Yes, fornication is a sin he could've listed too.

Click to expand...

I have seen many anti-gay who are not Christian or religious at all. Some of those non-religious anti-gay figures are anti-religion, including anti-Christian.

Communism and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nova said:

I have said it in every way I know how. What did you think we were discussing?

Click to expand...

Lol. IMO, that wasn't how the posts were translating.

Nova said:

What would be a worse name he could call me than murderer?

Click to expand...

Again, I don't see what he said that way, but I know you do.

(ETA but I know you meant your post to be kind and conciliatory, and I appreciate that. I have no doubt you are a good person and a sincerely pious Christian. I'm sure I'd be glad to know you in real life.)

Click to expand...

That's very kind of you as well! God's still working on me. Hope to grow and learn til I'm 104. I've enjoyed many portions of your posts and that we are trying to honestly discuss this. I do care about and value you. :hug:

HMSHood said:

I have seen many anti-gay who are not Christian or religious at all. Some of those non-religious anti-gay figures are anti-religion, including anti-Christian.

Click to expand...

I don't think any group or belief system holds a monopoly on hatred, so I don't understand the point of this, other than more of the fallacious 'two wrongs make a right' sort of thinking.

Woke with some thoughts this morning...

The Bible calls Christians to spread the good news (gospel) about salvation and to be prepared to give a defense of our faith. IMO, the teacher was doing both in his post. Obama made an announcement in support of gay marriage, and chose to say:

And — you know, I — you know — you know, we — we're both — practicing Christians. And — and obviously — this position may be considered to put as at odds with — the views of — of others. But — you know, when we think about our faith, the — the thing — you know, at — at root that we think about is not only — Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf — but it's also the golden rule, you know? Treat others the way you'd want to be treated.

Click to expand...

He knew and acknowledged this would fly in the face of what many Christians believe. In fact, his pastor urged him not to do it.

The evangelical pastor who President Barack Obama calls his spiritual adviser says he's disappointed in the president's decision to endorse same-sex marriage.

Hunter says he told the president he disagreed with his interpretation of what the Bible says about marriage.

Click to expand...

link

More here: Obama spiritual adviser Joel Hunter concerned about support of gay marriage

“For him, there are competing moral values,” Hunter said in an interview. “One is the traditional view of marriage as seen in Scripture, and the other is fairness and equality.”

Click to expand...

link

So Obama chose to go against the scriptural view of marriage he knew most Christians held, which wasn't surprising IMO, but he also chose to try to make a vague Christian defense of his new stance. Some of us saw it as a twisting of some Scripture to blindly ignore other portions of scripture. It was offensive to many. I mentioned my agreement with Graham's take on Obama's announcement before. Here it is:

“In changing his position from that of Senator/candidate Obama, President Obama has, in my view, shaken his fist at the same God who created and defined marriage,” Graham said Thursday. “It grieves me that our president would now affirm same-sex marriage, though I believe it grieves God even more.”

Click to expand...

“The institution of marriage should not be defined by presidents or polls, governors or the media,” said Graham. “The definition was set long ago and changing legislation or policy will never change God’s definition. This is a sad day for America. May God help us.”

Click to expand...

link

Now, Obama's lack of scriptural knowledge isn't surprising as it's been apparent before, as when he advocated higher taxes with his "brother's keeper" line. Didn't seem to recognize he was quoting a murderer's lie to God (Cain). :facepalm:

Obama could've made his announcement without referring to faith. He chose to include it. And as many feel it misrepresented scripture and our faith, it compelled a response.

I see no non-relgious reason to outlaw gay marriage, so unless America is a theocracy, I see no reason for it not to be legalised.

I did find this interesting and hadn't really seen it reported. From this article above.

The pastor went on to explain that, from his church’s perspective, even a symbolic gesture by the president (Obama made clear he was not pursuing a policy shift and was expressing personal views) could foreshadow future laws that could force religious institutions’ hands.
His fears were not soothed by assurances from Obama and the White House that the president’s view would have no bearing on churches or religious groups. Obama said that these organizations should make their own decisions on whether to marry same-sex couples. In their conversation, Hunter said Obama referred to his belief in “civil marriage” for gays and lesbians, drawing a distinction between relationships sanctioned by the government and those by churches.

Click to expand...

BBM

Seek&Find said:

Woke with some thoughts this morning...

The Bible calls Christians to spread the good news (gospel) about salvation and to be prepared to give a defense of our faith. IMO, the teacher was doing both in his post. Obama made an .

Click to expand...

snip

Okay, with all due respect, let's keep political names out of this or we'll wind up in the basement in the political forum and many posters avoid that like the plague. So no "Obama's doing this..." or "Romney did that."

This thread isn't about gay marriage. It's about the teacher who saw fit to express his beliefs on homosexuality via his social network page, and whether or not that was a good defensible thing. I know that, above, various posts do mention it. But that topic will only sidetrack the legitimately interesting discussion going on regarding the initial thread post.

We're doing fine but let's not push matters into other arenas. Plenty of opportunity to fashion a gay marriage thread (if there's not one already) and either gripe and moan about it or show solidarity with the idea.

But not here. We can talk about the topic without dragging Barack or Mitt in. That would only polarize matters further.

Cappuccino said:

I see no non-relgious reason to outlaw gay marriage, so unless America is a theocracy, I see no reason for it not to be legalised.

Click to expand...

Question: Several of your posts have a European spelling. Are you in/from the US? You don't have to answer, but the answers might impact your stance/understanding of America.

America is not a theocracy, but was uniquely founded with religious freedoms as a fundamental principle. To take marriage, a faith originated covenant relationship, and try to change what it means and force religious institutions and individuals to support it violates the freedom of expression clause of the First Amendment.

Moo