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

[T4Tide]

Exactly, boytwnmom! I don't know if I've ever read those ideas so well articulated.

One of the most chilling things I ever saw was an interview with a man in an Alabama prison for killing a gay man. The killer looked straight into the camera, grinned and said, "I know God has forgiven me for my sin because I've repented, but that little ****** I killed? He never got the chance to repent!"

And then he laughed. "So he'll be in hell while I'm in heaven!"

NOW I KNOW THAT NOBODY HERE WOULD AGREE with that man's sadism or even agree that he had actually repented his sin. Perhaps the teacher we're discussing wouldn't agree either.

But let's don't be naive and pretend that equating homosexuality with murder doesn't embolden such people by providing justification for their hatred.

Well, crazy people are just a whole 'nother thread altogether. There's crazy folks in EVERYbody's corner. There's crazy Christians and crazy Atheists, and crazy gay people and crazy straight people. There's crazy people of all races and socioeconomic statuses. I, personally, can't take credit or blame for all that craziness. If someone gay committed the next random act of craziness, I wouldn't blame all gay folks, so I don't see why a person stating their beliefs on their FB should have to take the blame for a crazy Christian.

Crazy people don't need justification. That's what makes 'em crazy. :what:

 

[Nova]

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!

Thank you, tide, for articulating that better than I did. If I misrepresented Christian theology in any way, I do sincerely apologize for that.

But as for Heaven, I promise you I want no part of a God who would condemn my husband and me for 3+ decades of mutual love and support.

 

[wfgodot]

Well, crazy people are just a whole 'nother thread altogether. There's crazy folks in EVERYbody's corner. There's crazy Christians and crazy Atheists, and crazy gay people and crazy straight people. There's crazy people of all races and socioeconomic statuses. I, personally, can't take credit or blame for all that craziness. If someone gay committed the next random act of craziness, I wouldn't blame all gay folks, so I don't see why a person stating their beliefs on their FB should have to take the blame for a crazy Christian.

Crazy people don't need justification. That's what makes 'em crazy. :what:

(Puzzled expression on face, but nodding head briskly.)

 

[Soulmagent]

: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.

I was joking ..

 

[Nova]

Well, crazy people are just a whole 'nother thread altogether. There's crazy folks in EVERYbody's corner. There's crazy Christians and crazy Atheists, and crazy gay people and crazy straight people. There's crazy people of all races and socioeconomic statuses. I, personally, can't take credit or blame for all that craziness. If someone gay committed the next random act of craziness, I wouldn't blame all gay folks, so I don't see why a person stating their beliefs on their FB should have to take the blame for a crazy Christian.

Crazy people don't need justification. That's what makes 'em crazy. :what:

Sorry, but that just isn't true.

First, I want to be clear that I didn't mention the Alabama killer because I think he's typical of Christians or posters here. But he didn't focus his sadism on gays for no reason; he got those ideas from a homophobic culture in which equations of homosexuality and murder are defended as "free expressions of religion".

So, yeah, if you accept such equations, you are responsible (to a tiny degree).

All this talk about how "we are all sinners" and "all equal in the eyes of the Lord" is just as fundamentally dishonest as it is technically correct (per Christian dogma). That pastor in NC isn't proposing concentration camps for those who gossip, not even for adulterers.

 

[Trident]

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.

Charlie, you are an inspiration. Thank you.

 

[wfgodot]

Charlie, you are an inspiration. Thank you.

Yes, it's always so grand to have several gathered together to defend one who's made a hateful comment - equating homosexuality with murder - by calling those who have posted to oppose it "haters." Shows such imagination.

 

[T4Tide]

(Puzzled expression on face, but nodding head briskly.)

lol.... I felt like Bubba Gump. "Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There's pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That- that's about it."

 

[T4Tide]

Thank you, tide, for articulating that better than I did. If I misrepresented Christian theology in any way, I do sincerely apologize for that.

But as for Heaven, I promise you I want no part of a God who would condemn my husband and me for 3+ decades of mutual love and support.

Oh.... come on! :grin: Surely eternity with 'lil ole redneck Alabama me, streets of gold, and a crystal sea sounds tempting. :dance:

J/k (and not at the same time... :lol

 

[wfgodot]

lol.... I felt like Bubba Gump. "Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There's pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That- that's about it."

I'm still not sure if I agreed with that paragraph, but it was really fun to read!

 

[Seek&Find]

I was joking ..

Oooooooh, lol! :blushing:

 

[Tugela]

a rabid homophobe, because he doesn't embrace gay marriage?
That's a rather intolerant viewpoint -

A rabid homophobe because he is equating it with murder.

I can tell the difference, I hope you can too. Apparently he can't, which makes him a very dangerous man.

 

[animlzrule]

I have to run. RL calls. But it does help to know how you are defining hateful. I'd say it's loathing, despising, wishing someone ill or harm, intentionally doing or saying things to hurt another, visceral and intense dislike.

I don't see that in the teacher's post.

BBM Actually, each of these actions is clearly represented in his pitiful display of ignorance and bigotry. Granted, they may be thinly veiled, but whether one chooses to admit to recognizing his views for what they are speaks volumes. Generally all of the pearl clutching over "free speech" earns a BIG eye roll from me as typically it's used as a bridge towards defending something reprehensible (Fred Phelps), but in instances like this I'm thrilled for it as it provokes these debates and exposes the pretzel logic and hypocrisy of a segment of the population purporting to represent Christianity.

 

[Seek&Find]

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.

Webster's definition of Hate (condensed for brevity):

1
a : intense hostility and aversion
b : extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing
2
: an object of hatred

 

[Seek&Find]

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.

No one here has claimed expertise.

This link starts at Abraham. Not sure why it skips God selecting/creating a companion for Adam in Genesis. Some believe it was created by God from the beginning. Some believe in a later, secular, economic origin for marriage.

The idea that pre-modern people didn't understand love as we do seems presumptuous at best.

As pointed out previously, it's in numerous books beyond Leviticus.

 

[Nova]

Oh.... come on! :grin: Surely eternity with 'lil ole redneck Alabama me, streets of gold, and a crystal sea sounds tempting. :dance:

J/k (and not at the same time... :lol

I know you are joking, but I am truly sorry if my remark seemed at all personally directed at you. I certainly didn't mean I wouldn't want to spend eternity with you, Tide.

In fact, actually, since I don't believe in Heaven and Hell, I am convinced you and I will end up in the same place. And I shall be happy to see you there. :blowkiss:

 

[Seek&Find]

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.

Not sure why there's a need to personalize?

Not all human beings do.

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

 

[Seek&Find]

Yes, because it's simply wrong. The "other verses" to which you refer don't say what you think they say.

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.

 

[Nova]

No one here has claimed expertise.

This link starts at Abraham. Not sure why it skips God selecting/creating a companion for Adam in Genesis. Some believe it was created by God from the beginning. Some believe in a later, secular, economic origin for marriage.

The idea that pre-modern people didn't understand love as we do seems presumptuous at best.

As pointed out previously, it's in numerous books beyond Leviticus.

You're still missing the point. Nobody is saying ancient people didn't feel love. The Bible says Jonathan loved David and Ruth loved Naomi, for all that it matters. But most scholars think it's stretching matters to assume those were homosexual relationships in our terms. If only Christian scholars were as scrupulous about using the Bible to support a predetermined conclusion!

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.

I can't believe anybody takes Genesis literally, especially since it contains two, conflicting accounts of creation, but never mind that here.

Nobody denies that a male and a female were necessary for procreation and the Adam and Eve myth* reflects that. So? Does that mean everyone has to follow suit? Are celibate priests and nuns then committing the same sin as homosexuals? What about people who simply choose to remain single?

The "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" argument isn't really worthy of an adult conversation.

*I'm using "myth" in its original meaning of an ancient legend, without judging whether or not the myth is literally true. The Greeks thought their "myths" were historical accounts.

***

There's only the one significant reference to same-sex behavior in the NT in Romans. The other examples to which you refer are mistranslations or dubious translations at best. They have been cooked up by conservative Christians for the sole purpose of justifying homophobia. No objective philologist accepts them as legitimate and clear references to homosexuality. As I said above the same Greek and Aramaic words refer to male prostitutes, and many of Paul's references simply refer to behavior with such people as socially disapproved, not as significantly sinful.

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.

 

[Nova]

Not sure why there's a need to personalize?

Not all human beings do.

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

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.