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

[Seek&Find]

Why? You haven't told me any of the passages from Greek that are so unambiguous.

The only one that comes to mind is Paul's letter to the Romans that complains of men have sex with men and women having sex with women against their natures. Read literally, it seems to be a criticism of sexual experimentation that has nothing to do with gay people who act according to their natures.

But then some Christians only read the Bible literally when it suits them. It's unlikely that Paul knew of gay people, since the concept didn't really exist in his time. If he had known there were people with an innate attraction to their own sex, who knows what he might have said?

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.

 

[Gardenlady]

From a Christian perspective, God doesn't require church attendance for salvation, He just encourages it, for teaching, encouragement, and interaction, per the Bible.

SBM

You mean "From some Christians' perspective".

 

[Gardenlady]

Marriage is a right?

The SC has referred several times to marriage as a right.

 

[Seek&Find]

As it happens, Wikipedia has a necessarily brief, but insightful and carefully sourced, discussion of the Biblical passages that have been interpreted as injunctions against homosexuality and the translation problems with each:

The Bible and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But let's be clear. The people of Sodom demanded that Lot give up his houseguest (the angel) so that he could be raped by the mob. I think we all agree that was wrong (though Lot's solution of offering up his own daughters for rape instead is questionable)! But to make the leap from gang rape to condemnation of same-sex love and affection is an entirely arbitrary jump!

Just like Wiki to leave some verses and information out!

Yes, what happened in Sodom & Gomorrah was wrong on many levels. Lot's desire to protect the men (angels) was good, but his suggested solution terrible. Not Lot's only mistake in the Bible.

 

[Seek&Find]

:sigh:

It matters because of the hypocrisy of those Christians who insist on imposing the parts of the Bible they like on the rest of us, while hypocritically ignoring the parts that don't suit them.

Equating homosexuality, not with fornication or gossip, but with murder carries with it an implicit condonation of violence.

***

As for your question about why the Ancient World didn't have a concept of gayness equivalent to ours, it's because they didn't have a concept of romantic marriage equivalent to ours. Marriage was an economic institution that was the duty of everyone. Children were an essential addition to the family labor force, and also the only security for one's old age, as they are in all agricultural societies.

There are allusions in Greek and Japanese sources to what we would call adult, gay relationships, but they are few. Almost everyone married and tried to have children, regardless of his or her personal orientation. It was a matter of survival, personal and for society.

Modern concepts of homosexuals arise with the Industrial Revolution, because for the first time, one worker could support himself with his labor. Before that, you needed an entire family working to avoid starvation.

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.

 

[wfgodot]

It's an understatement to note that biblical examples do not necessarily equate with historical examples.

Marriage was about economics long before it locked in to a romantic type of groove.

As for the nature of one's sexual orientation - the same as with the nature of everything: it can be debated and will be debated ad nauseum, ad infinitum. But the enlightened consensus is that it is part of one's nature; and that one does not choose one's path regarding sexual attraction.

Twain entitled one of his best essays, "To the person sitting in darkness" - a critique of imperialism. However, that title is quite useful when discussing any matters with those who would choose to return us to the prejudices of the past.

 

[Seek&Find]

He has threatend us all to hell unless we accept his religion , In addition to that he has forwarned us heaven will be full of snners who have merely accepted him into their hearts.

Sinner such as murders ,liars and cheaters.

:waitasec: Didn't you post before in defense of the teacher and his post?

Are you now saying you see it as hateful?? Just trying to understand.

 

[Seek&Find]

SBM

You mean "From some Christians' perspective".

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

 

[Seek&Find]

The SC has referred several times to marriage as a right.

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

 

[wfgodot]

The term "Biblical perspective" is sometimes an oxymoron when used to support various sorts of opinions about matters.

 

[Seek&Find]

It's an understatement to note that biblical examples do not necessarily equate with historical examples.

Marriage was about economics long before it locked in to a romantic type of groove.

As for the nature of one's sexual orientation - the same as with the nature of everything: it can be debated and will be debated ad nauseum, ad infinitum. But the enlightened consensus is that it is part of one's nature; and that one does not choose one's path regarding sexual attraction.

Twain entitled one of his best essays, "To the person sitting in darkness" - a critique of imperialism. However, that title is quite useful when discussing any matters with those who would choose to return us to the prejudices of the past.

Yes, but when referencing Biblical writings by Paul then stating historical context to try to explain them away, older Biblical texts regarding romantic marriage are relevant.

Whether nature or not, one does choose their actions.

So it's prejudiced and unenlightened to trust God and His word? Wouldn't that view be bigoted and intolerant?? Can't we disagree without name calling?

Anyway, back to the teacher. He's entitled to believe what he believes and to state it. IMO, teachers shouldn't be friends with students online or otherwise. I was very connected with my students, but always with clear boundaries. He didn't imply or advocate for hate, violence, etc. In fact, he did the opposite. Hopefully individuals and organizations begin to think more about SM, its impact, and implications.

 

[wfgodot]

So it's prejudiced and unenlightened to trust God and His word?

I think it's prejudiced and unenlightened to deviate substantially from what I take to be Christ's basic thesis: love one another.

 

[Seek&Find]

I think it's prejudiced and unenlightened to deviate substantially from what I take to be Christ's basic thesis: love one another.

And what did Jesus say about that?

Matt. 22:36*“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37*Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38*This is the first and greatest commandment. 39*And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40*All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

We can agree to disagree about the teacher's post and homosexuality.

 

[Charlie09]

I think it's prejudiced and unenlightened to deviate substantially from what I take to be Christ's basic thesis: love one another.

Just out of curiosity - is that what you show to those who disagree with you on gay marriage?

 

[wfgodot]

Just out of curiosity - is that what you show to those who disagree with you on gay marriage?

Just out of curiosity - when on this thread have I discussed gay marriage?

I have noted several times that the teacher in the initial post equates being gay with a host of crimes.

But I have not stated an opinion on gay marriage. Your attempt at baiting me fails.

 

[Nova]

How is merely comparing the two violent?

Are you are comparing spoken word to actualy being violent here?

Can you explain to me how you personaly veiw his post as violent or threatening?

I am not seeing in his statement the same thing as you and I am interested as to why.

Because it suits your purposes to isolate his post from all sociological and historical context.

How do we punish murderers? What do the teacher's remarks imply as to how we should punish homosexuals?

If you reasonably believe someone is trying to kill you, what does the law allow you to do? Now what should you do if you believe a gay person is making sexual overtures to you?

The above are not idle questions. The "just as bad as" or "worse than murder" rationals have been invoked to justify gay bashing and killing in hundreds of instances.

Would you call a political leader who declared war and/or ordered executions "non-threatening" and "non-violent" just because that leader never killed anyone with his own hands? To be clear, I am NOT comparing this teacher to Adolf Hitler. The point is that exhorting others to violence is itself a violent act.

 

[Nova]

Christians have long had the murderers label put on them. Not even equated to it. Just directly applied.

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!

 

[Nova]

Huh. I'm not big on labels, but believing in God and His word does not make one "opposed to learning" nor is it "incompatible with the scientific method". Perhaps we've exposed a bit of unintentional bias here?

Absolutely a Christian student should seek to understand the what and why of others' beliefs, as well as an author's POV/theme. Glad you let them compare and contrast voices.

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

 

[Nova]

I have to agree with others who pointed out that he did not equate homosexuality and murder, he said homosexuality is sin as are murder, lying, cheating etc and went on to say he too is a sinner.

His statement of belief does not indicate he wouldn't be able to teach LGBTs fairly. He also acknowledged lying as sin. Most consider lying wrong. If a teacher, like most, believes lying is wrong, and that teacher catches a student lying, is the argument that then the teacher could not teach that student fairly?

Christians separate sin from sinners, which we all are. I think he demonstrates conviction, compassion, and courage in his post.

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!

 

[Charlie09]

Just out of curiosity - when on this thread have I discussed gay marriage?

I have noted several times that the teacher in the initial post equates being gay with a host of crimes.

But I have not stated an opinion on gay marriage. Your attempt at baiting me fails.

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