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

[Seek&Find]

snipped

2. Deuteronomy also condemns cross-dressing, so I assume that all women who wear pants are just like murderers, too, along with every Scotsman in his kilt.



Deuteronomy, 22:5

No, wearing pants and kilts isn't like murder, but to fully address this is far beyond the thread topic or this forum. (plus I don't have much time this evening to post and won't in the next few days) Suffice it to say, it relates to the difference between the Law and OT, Jesus, the NT, and grace.

 

[Seek&Find]

Sorry, but again, your argument is technically true (per Christian dogma) and utterly false (per Christian practice). The teacher didn't have to jump right from homosexual to murderer, but he did.

Before the 12th century, his argument might have been valid, in the Middle Ages, the Church usually did treat homosexual intercourse as just one more in a long list of possible sins. Since the 1300s, however, Christianity has consistently lumped those who engage in homosexual behavior with the worst possible sinners: murderers, rapists, child molesters and heretics.

The "we're all sinners" argument just doesn't ring true after eight centuries of oppression.

But if "we're all sinners", why am I denied basic civil rights in most states, while liars, gossips, fornicators and hypocrites are not?

I thought the previous argument was civil rights were granted by the government, not the church?

Anyway, I think you're differentiating between the faith vs the church institution. As we know, the church in England was quite corrupt, for example. That does not mean the faith was.

 

[Seek&Find]

You are now attacking a poster and not the posts.

Actually, I've seen several here do that to Charlie.

 

[Seek&Find]

Thank you, Capp. But in fairness, I made a facetious reference to Charlie taking a page from the "Fox News handbook". A "handbook" implies a conspiracy and it is to that that she refers.

My original point was the current rightwing tactic of calling anyone who protests intolerance "intolerant". We've seen plenty of that here: any of us (you and I included) who have objected to the implied hatred of equating gays and killers has been accused of religious hatred.

And those expressing their faith, according to some of the posts here are:

Bigoted
Homophobic
Lazy
Idiotic
Stupid
Ignorant
Cruel
Hateful
Unempathic, etc.

From our side, if we say, from the perspective of our deeply held faith in God and not from ill-intent, that we believe homosexuality is a sin, some feel the need to immediately label us bigoted, homophobic, and hateful to diminish, dismiss, and hopefully silence our views. Those three labels are too important and too caustic to be thrown around rampantly, so much so that they begin to lose their meaning. Many don't even know the origin or initial meaning of the word homophobic, because it's come to mean anyone who doesn't fully support homosexuality as a lifestyle.

It's like the word rape. I've been raped twice by two different men, and during my years working with at-risk and adjudicated youth, I've worked with both perpetrators and victims. But people throw that word around like it's nothing, ie in reference to overpaying for something. Really??

My point is words have power. I'm so far from perfect and I can get riled up too, but I do try to think before each post, not only about what I want to say, but how to effectively say it. And if I'm too emotional to post at that moment, I try to walk away.

There actually are people out there who genuinely hate LGBTs and mean them harm. I haven't seen any on this board. Some feel the same toward Christians or African Americans, etc. Thankfully, I think there are very few who feel this way toward anyone.

Charlie has a point, IMO.

 

[Seek&Find]

Snipped

In fact, yes.

That's sad to hear, IMO.

 

[Soulmagent]

I declare myself a hummerphile.

:what:

:what: We own a big black one! Soooo not going there! :escape:

:floorlaugh:

 

[Seek&Find]

I am american ,and I dont see why it is an issue either .

The first thought I ever had on the issue was wondering if this was a big push by insurance agencies not wanting to pay out for domestic partner benefits. I understand homosexuals want to get married and agree they should be allowed if they choose. I am related to ,and friends with people who are homosexual (even thou I hate the word homosexual) My best friend and my mothers bother. I just wondered about the motives of wanting the state to stamp the seal of approval and wondered about the backlash. My best friend is covered under these benefits currently and I am unsure about my uncle because he and his partenr own their own bussiness.


http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/domestic-partner-benefit-eligibility-defining-domestic-partners-and-depende


Has anyone considered this ? Or am I being overly suspicious of coperate america?

Why do we rely on the state to say if our marriage is valid?

I would like to here from an attorney too!

I have wondered about the financial ramifications for companies of same sex benefits, (not that it impacts my position on the issue.). Considering the highest estimates I've seen are 10% of the population identifies as LGBT, and of that number not all are in committed relationships, I'm not sure how big a hit that'd be. Of course, I support capitalism and the free market, so I don't believe companies should be required to provide any benefits. I know I've chosen to decline a job offer due to the lack of benefits before. Companies are welcome to compete for me with different packages. (hmmm-that sounds um different than intended, lol!)

I agree - why's the state involved with marriage anyway? I disagree with Ron Paul on many things, but as I said before, I agree with his statement that marriage is a function of the church, not government.

 

[Seek&Find]

snipped

(I am not saying that's what the teacher in question intended. But his lack of knowledge isn't really my problem.)

I appreciate you considering that that may not be his intent.

 

[Seek&Find]

"Balderdash."

I do apologize for the "homphobe" thing. I was a bit of a jackass there. Mea culpa.

Seriously? You dont think that was the basis of his post??


Thanks for that.

 

[Seek&Find]

I started this thread. You've only tried to take it over.

:waitasec: Do the one's who start the thread on this forum own/control them? I didn't think that was the case...??

 

[Soulmagent]

Does the state not guarantee certain rights to married couples? Eg, inheritance rights, tax breaks, etc?

In Ireland, that is the case. So maybe it is a European perspective to say that the state needs to guarantee the right of gay people to get married. After all, the state demands the same responsibilities off gay couples that they do off straight couples, so why not give them the same rights? Is that not common sense?

That is the case here even if the tax breaks are not as great as one may think. Inheritance right can be countered with a will except for death benefits such as social security. There maybe a few more but I am not in the legal feild and unware of others. The questions I had didnt just pretain to gay couples it had to do with parteners benefits which are not liable the same way a married couple would be under state law. A partner is not legally liable for the debts and taxes as a spouse would be .
This subject is way off topic from the freedon of religous expression that the teacher came under fire for. So I am sorry for that.
On that subject I believe he should be allowed that freedom without prejudice.

I'm not qualified to answer your question, and I won't presume to speak for insurance companies. (Surprise, Charlie!)

But I think corporate America has been pretty receptive to domestic-partner benefits. There are a lot of highly qualified gay people out there and such benefits are often seen as essential if a firm wants to stay competitive. (I am speaking of large corporations here. Small businesses may see the cost of such benefits as too high, if they have a small pool of insureds.)

I think your correct in the fact they have been receiptive towards the domestic partner insurance benefits , except the exact same year they started issuing those benefits is the exact same time frame that the issue of gay marriage hit MSM . Larger companies have seen cost of insurance coverage increase as every domestic partner(gay or straight) is elligable for coverage under the same guide line gay or not . So as far as large companies go it would save tons not to have to have that option of coverage. However the coverage prohibits the goverment from collecting on the dual incomes of 2 working partners.

I am not a lawyer and again this is way off the topic of the teacher and his facepost expression . And I have not researched this topic sine 2002.

 

[Seek&Find]

What articles? I'm pretty well read when it comes to leading gay activists and I subscribe to a number of gay and/or progressive publications. And I've never seen anyone even hint at such a thing as the government forcing churches to marry gay couples. The Constitution is rather clear on that subject.

Are you sure you aren't reading materials intended to scare Christians into believing the sky is falling? There's a lot of that out there.

Lol, yes I'm sure. Don't know that it's a movement thing per se, or not?? Perhaps just individual couples. I've seen at least one instance before, and happened to see a MSM article earlier today regarding a couple in Europe, coulda been England. I'm sleepy and have to leave soon. Please google search. Or I can try to find it again another time. :yawn:

 

[Seek&Find]

I've read this whole thread carefully, and have to admit the teacher's Facebook post isn't coming across as particularly "biblical". As each "side" in this debate has laid out their body of evidence, the teacher's assertion looks less "biblical" and more a repeat of a common anti-gay sentiment.

Is there more evidence yet to be produced to show the teacher's statement is more visibly "biblical"? I mean this with sincere curiosity, being personally involved with neither side of this debate.

Here's another one. Only Christians and Jews consider "biblical" to be equivalent to "truth". Being neither one, to me "biblical" means the basis for the behavior/choice/belief/sentiment is found in the Bible. I'm not personally convicted because something is touted as "biblical" or "Talmudical" or "Koranical". I think this is why I am less moved by the assertions of those who defend this teacher's "expression of faith and belief". Those assertions are UNMOVING unless you are a believer.

You're right that they may not be "moving" to a nonbeliever. As Christians, it's our job to present the message and defend it, but we believe it's the "moving" of the Holy Spirit that will convince and illuminate it to someone. But the teacher referenced Biblical teaching and thus we're confirming that.

If you haven't looked up the actual verses, you might try that. It's impossible to convey all the Bible contains or how all these concepts fit together on an online forum.

 

[Boytwnmom]

homosexuality as a valid way to live so saying you are isn't really an insult. Perhaps you are sincere in applying biblical principles and determining that homosexuality is a sin. But since you believe it is a sin you obviously are "against" it. I just doubt that many people undertake a thorough analysis of the Bible and history to come to a complete understanding of what the Bible says for themselves.

It is just human nature to accept that which confirms your opinions. The majority are heterosexual and find homosexuality disgusting and unnatural as they are not attracted to other men (I'm using men because, honestly, people don't seem as freaked about lesbians-women don't go on about lesbians like men do about gay guys, IMO). The majority want to believe they know the truth and what is right and wrong and they get to confirm their bias by using their trump argument, that "God said so"! Of course God, or "whoever" for the rest of us, said lots of things in the bible. So why focus on gays? Maybe because it feels good to not be gay, to be a fine upstanding moral heterosexual preferred by God and man. To me, it all smacks of self righteousness, the idea that "it's not ME having a problem with gays, it's just that GOD has condemned them, not me", I'm the RIGHT kind of person, a heterosexual.

To me, needing to post on your Facebook against gay people is just another way of thinking you're better than them. Sure, you're a sinner, but so is everyone, in general, but you're certainly not a murderer or thief or liar or homosexual, you're BETTER than that. I just don't believe this guy posted out of LOVE and faith in God but because he wanted it out there, he's against them gays.

Strangely, where I live, in New England, most of the Christian denominations, except Catholics, my Alma Mater, welcome gays and lesbians. So, it's not like all Christians agree, any more than do all translations agree. And Nova has very aptly described a lot of the history invovled. I was just reading about how the Leviticus often quoted:

..appear in a holiness code that applied to Israel rather than to gentile Christians in an age of grace. Both occur in the clear context of opposition to the practices of the local fertility god Moloch; verse 21 sets the stage for this one by forbidding people from allowing their children to be burned in sacrifice to Moloch, verse 23 prohibits intercourse with animals (the idol of Moloch was in the form of a bull with a man’s head and shoulders, so this verse too may refer to idol worship).

http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Leviticus.php

I always hear how "abomination" was used about homosexuality in the Bible. Now I find out that it's not even used in all versions of the Bible but is in the KJ, but

the word does not occur at all in the New Living Translation, Contemporary English Version, New Century Version, or New International Readers’ Version. The American Standard Version and Darby Translation use it slightly more than the KJV; the Amplified Bible, New American Standard, and English Standard Version somewhat less, the Holman Christian Standard Bible relatively little, and the New International Version, The Message, and Today’s New International Version almost not at all.

How much of believing homosexuality is sinful and wrong and abnormal is a desire to believe so? I'm sure you would say none-that God commands it. But it's simply not true that this is universally accepted even by Christians. It's frankly always easy to condemn something you have no interest in, something you can never be, something you will always be "better than". Is all condemnation of homosexuality really driven by pure Christian belief or is it often something less pure? Is some of it just driven by distaste? People find it "gross" or whatever and then they "read" the Bible as condemning it perhaps because they assume it would be condemned because it is so gross and unnatural.

This kind of Christian preacher comes to mind who acknowledges the many hate crimes against homosexuals but says:

We address this issue out of God's love for the homosexual to bless and help him

but he also notes that back "in the day" the penalty for homosexuality was death and

Today the penalty of death comes in the form of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases

Really, is this biblical? I thought everyone was a sinner and all you had to do was accept Christ and you'd be forgiven. But not homosexuals, no, they get AIDS and die as they should and always have. And, worse, now innocent people get it because the sinner homosexuals are spreading it. To me, he sounds more personally disgusted than biblically opposed.

We certainly acknowledge that AIDS has broken out of the homosexual community, and now, many innocent people are suffering with this disease through no fault of their own. However, the intent of the above statement is not directed to those who have innocently contracted this disease, but rather to the sinners who are spreading it.

Sorry, but this all sounds more like ignorance than biblical truth:

People become homosexuals because they yield to abnormal acts or lust. It is through some source that they have received a demonic spirit that drives them to their lust.

http://www.bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=246

It really isn't a majority of people anymore that believe as you do. Where I live, it's not even a majority of Christians. I think many people of good will and many of faith too have taken the time to look a little deeper, beyond their personal feelings and biases and truly seek to understand. I just really doubt the FB guy did that. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

I would say that I also ran across this church elder and professor and could really support what he says even though he's looking at the bible for answers. I don't even know what HE concluded personally but at least he advocates taking a rational approach to something that does have an impact on actual people who, IMO, deserve to love and be loved and not condemned because some people find their sexual preference distasteful.

In the gospels, Jesus often begins a parable with the question: What do you think? He was inviting his hearers to think along with him -- in other words, to be interpreters....

What do you do when you try to understand someone or something other than yourself? Usually you listen and observe before you form an opinion or make a response. For example, when trying to understand a friend's problem, you listen carefully in order to understand what your friend thinks and feels in order to appropriate faithfully your friend's meaning.

Biblical interpretation works the same way. However, when interpreting the Bible, we often emphasize APPROPRIATING over LISTENING. But we limit our understanding of God's word if we quickly jump to conclusions about what a text means to us now before carefully listening to what the text itself says and what it meant in its own life context. To be faithful interpreters, we need to practice LISTENING as much as APPROPRIATING.

We all interpret out of our own particular and unique life contexts which in turn shape the way we listen to the Bible. Our contexts include elements such as age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, class, nationality, cultural identity, and other related characteristics. Biblical scholars think of this as their "social location" and are careful to be aware of how it affects their interpretation. "Social location" -- your own life context -- is not something to be denied or eliminated, but rather to be acknowledged and consciously brought into the interpretation process.

Before exploring your way of interpreting what the Bible says about homosexuality, let's first consider what knowledge you bring to your interpretation.

He goes on to offer exercises and questions to identify who you are and what you know. I found some of what he listed quite interesting. Anyway, it is a lengthy exercise/lesson plan that I found interesting and which at least suggests the topic is worthy of serious study and reflection instead of just parroting the words that are easiest to say, words that affect real people who, IMO, have no choice about who they are attracted to.

... There is no single word in Hebrew or Greek which lends itself to a simple word-for-word translation of "homosexual." The word appeared in English for the first time in 1912 and in the Bible for the first time in the 1946 RSV in 1 Corinthians 6:9....
There is no reference to homosexuality in the four gospels.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=244

And those expressing their faith, according to some of the posts here are:

Bigoted
Homophobic
Lazy
Idiotic
Stupid
Ignorant
Cruel
Hateful
Unempathic, etc.

From our side, if we say, from the perspective of our deeply held faith in God and not from ill-intent, that we believe homosexuality is a sin, some feel the need to immediately label us bigoted, homophobic, and hateful to diminish, dismiss, and hopefully silence our views. Those three labels are too important and too caustic to be thrown around rampantly, so much so that they begin to lose their meaning. Many don't even know the origin or initial meaning of the word homophobic, because it's come to mean anyone who doesn't fully support homosexuality as a lifestyle.

It's like the word rape. I've been raped twice by two different men, and during my years working with at-risk and adjudicated youth, I've worked with both perpetrators and victims. But people throw that word around like it's nothing, ie in reference to overpaying for something. Really??

My point is words have power. I'm so far from perfect and I can get riled up too, but I do try to think before each post, not only about what I want to say, but how to effectively say it. And if I'm too emotional to post at that moment, I try to walk away.

There actually are people out there who genuinely hate LGBTs and mean them harm. I haven't seen any on this board. Some feel the same toward Christians or African Americans, etc. Thankfully, I think there are very few who feel this way toward anyone.

Charlie has a point, IMO.

 

[Seek&Find]

I've read this whole thread and your posts have been so thoughtful, Yoda. There is one thing, though, about this last post I need to point out. I'm seeing it in most, if not all of the posts written in support of the teacher's freedom to give testimony; DENIAL of the experience of the homosexuals and sympathizers.

It is surprisingly arrogant for anyone to tell another person "Your experience is not legitimate."

This teacher's testimony was not abusive or painful or degrading to you. But it was especially so to others. Unless you (the generic you) were present and practically reading the mind of the teacher at the time he wrote the post, your interpretation of his words is as good, or not, as Nova's (for instance).

I sense a lack of basic empathy from the social conservatives toward less conservative points of view, as if social conservatives believe they are THAT different, fundamentally, than those who look askance at their agenda. Or, those who "defy" their agenda. Where did all this arrogant ownership of the human experience come from??? I know it is a common assumption of the majority class, that is explicit throughout history, but are American religious conservatives really a majority class? So entitled to "share" their beliefs that the confusion, pain or outrage against it will be dismissed by simply saying "His words are not hateful."

Experiences that contradict yours (the generic yours) are not illegitimate, or necessarily skewed or based upon the wrong information. I have yet to encounter a social conservative who approaches opposition with an attitude of openness, concern and curiosity. I'm seeing a lot of dismissal on this thread of for the experience of those who do not share in the religious/conservative agenda.

I am curious about YOU (the generic, again lol), and especially so when the debate concerns facts and other verifiable data. This is the one ground we can speak the same language; because faith and belief are not mutually shared, we have to find a common ground elsewhere.

PeteyGirl, saw you lurking on the thread earlier. (I lurked for years, lol.) Glad you decided to post. Yoda does seem to have a gentle style, doesn't she.

I have to disagree, though. No one has stated a related experience, no one has denied anyone's experience, and no one has said anything along the lines of "your experience is not legitimate."

Yes, the way the teacher's post was perceived is different. In fact, we have acknowledged Nova's sense of it. Stating why we see it differently is not denying anyone's experience. One aspect of us sharing our perspective of the teacher's post is that those of us who share his view can give insight into where the view originated and why we hold it. Are you saying we just shouldnt share our perspective?

This statement:

"I have yet to encounter a social conservative who approaches opposition with an attitude of openness, concern and curiosity."

along with the "defy" agenda thing lends itself to a bias against social conservatives in general, IMO. (That generally happens anytime we try to imply everyone or no one in a given group does x.) Where has anyone even alluded to defiance?

You're right. It's good when we seek common ground, or at least understanding. But starting from a position that all social conservatives are arrogant, lacking empathy, close minded, callous, and uninquisitive won't get us there.

 

[Yoda]

I've read this whole thread and your posts have been so thoughtful, Yoda. There is one thing, though, about this last post I need to point out. I'm seeing it in most, if not all of the posts written in support of the teacher's freedom to give testimony; DENIAL of the experience of the homosexuals and sympathizers.

It is surprisingly arrogant for anyone to tell another person "Your experience is not legitimate."

This teacher's testimony was not abusive or painful or degrading to you. But it was especially so to others. Unless you (the generic you) were present and practically reading the mind of the teacher at the time he wrote the post, your interpretation of his words is as good, or not, as Nova's (for instance).

I sense a lack of basic empathy from the social conservatives toward less conservative points of view, as if social conservatives believe they are THAT different, fundamentally, than those who look askance at their agenda. Or, those who "defy" their agenda. Where did all this arrogant ownership of the human experience come from??? I know it is a common assumption of the majority class, that is explicit throughout history, but are American religious conservatives really a majority class? So entitled to "share" their beliefs that the confusion, pain or outrage against it will be dismissed by simply saying "His words are not hateful."

Experiences that contradict yours (the generic yours) are not illegitimate, or necessarily skewed or based upon the wrong information. I have yet to encounter a social conservative who approaches opposition with an attitude of openness, concern and curiosity. I'm seeing a lot of dismissal on this thread of for the experience of those who do not share in the religious/conservative agenda.

I am curious about YOU (the generic, again lol), and especially so when the debate concerns facts and other verifiable data. This is the one ground we can speak the same language; because faith and belief are not mutually shared, we have to find a common ground elsewhere.

I dont like justifying my opinion by race/religion/sex/etc. By experience, or by information, But not by labels. I feel when people start labeling then they stop thinking. When everyone posts i try to look at what they post by the facts they present. When people start posting, in all forums not just this, immediate absolute opinions that are highly emotional, I tend to tune them out. I try my best to read new threads from the view that the person was not intending to do harm. Then I look at it as -is there a way their actions could have been misinterpreted. Every human being's life and experiences are vastly different. In the case of this teacher, if a begin by assuming he meant no harm, then by interpreting his post I come to my conclusion he meant no harm. He did not threaten, he compared himself to murders also, and he wanted everyone to know god (something that obviously he values greatly.)
At the same time I feel there are people that look for the worst in others. In this case, in my opinion, I can understand why some people might do this. Experience. Experience with people that are hateful and potentially violent or violent to homosexuals. This would make many people put their guard up immediately-and rightly so.
My posts are not meant to devalue anyone's opinion. I was posting because I honestly don't feel the teacher was expressing hate and, maybe naively, I was hoping to reassure other posters who took personal offense that just because some people don't agree with homosexuality it doesn't mean they hate homosexuals. *I hate that anyone goes through life thinking others hate them, and in this case, why add a person to the list if they really don't.
My best friend growing up, who was also one of my bridesmaids, is a lesbian. She told me when we were teens almost 30 years ago. I don't care who she loves as long as they love her back-and that extends to the rest of the world. I feel sometimes when people throw facts like that immediately they are trying to use it as a reason their opinions are valid. I hope my opinions are valid because they were intelligent and levelheaded.
Peteygirl- ahh if I could write as clearly as you. It takes me almost an hour to write some responses because i know what i want to say but when i write it it comes out jumbled and convoluted. (just finished and this took me almost two hours)

 

[Seek&Find]

homosexuality as a valid way to live so saying you are isn't really an insult. Perhaps you are sincere in applying biblical principles and determining that homosexuality is a sin. But since you believe it is a sin you obviously are "against" it. I just doubt that many people undertake a thorough analysis of the Bible and history to come to a complete understanding of what the Bible says for themselves.

It is just human nature to accept that which confirms your opinions. The majority are heterosexual and find homosexuality disgusting and unnatural as they are not attracted to other men (I'm using men because, honestly, people don't seem as freaked about lesbians-women don't go on about lesbians like men do about gay guys, IMO). The majority want to believe they know the truth and what is right and wrong and they get to confirm their bias by using their trump argument, that "God said so"! Of course God, or "whoever" for the rest of us, said lots of things in the bible. So why focus on gays? Maybe because it feels good to not be gay, to be a fine upstanding moral heterosexual preferred by God and man. To me, it all smacks of self righteousness, the idea that "it's not ME having a problem with gays, it's just that GOD has condemned them, not me", I'm the RIGHT kind of person, a heterosexual.

To me, needing to post on your Facebook against gay people is just another way of thinking you're better than them. Sure, you're a sinner, but so is everyone, in general, but you're certainly not a murderer or thief or liar or homosexual, you're BETTER than that. I just don't believe this guy posted out of LOVE and faith in God but because he wanted it out there, he's against them gays.

Strangely, where I live, in New England, most of the Christian denominations, except Catholics, my Alma Mater, welcome gays and lesbians. So, it's not like all Christians agree, any more than do all translations agree. And Nova has very aptly described a lot of the history invovled. I was just reading about how the Leviticus often quoted:

http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/Leviticus.php

I always hear how "abomination" was used about homosexuality in the Bible. Now I find out that it's not even used in all versions of the Bible but is in the KJ, but



How much of believing homosexuality is sinful and wrong and abnormal is a desire to believe so? I'm sure you would say none-that God commands it. But it's simply not true that this is universally accepted even by Christians. It's frankly always easy to condemn something you have no interest in, something you can never be, something you will always be "better than". Is all condemnation of homosexuality really driven by pure Christian belief or is it often something less pure? Is some of it just driven by distaste? People find it "gross" or whatever and then they "read" the Bible as condemning it perhaps because they assume it would be condemned because it is so gross and unnatural.

This kind of Christian preacher comes to mind who acknowledges the many hate crimes against homosexuals but says:



but he also notes that back "in the day" the penalty for homosexuality was death and



Really, is this biblical? I thought everyone was a sinner and all you had to do was accept Christ and you'd be forgiven. But not homosexuals, no, they get AIDS and die as they should and always have. And, worse, now innocent people get it because the sinner homosexuals are spreading it. To me, he sounds more personally disgusted than biblically opposed.



Sorry, but this all sounds more like ignorance than biblical truth:



http://www.bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=246

It really isn't a majority of people anymore that believe as you do. Where I live, it's not even a majority of Christians. I think many people of good will and many of faith too have taken the time to look a little deeper, beyond their personal feelings and biases and truly seek to understand. I just really doubt the FB guy did that. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

I would say that I also ran across this church elder and professor and could really support what he says even though he's looking at the bible for answers. I don't even know what HE concluded personally but at least he advocates taking a rational approach to something that does have an impact on actual people who, IMO, deserve to love and be loved and not condemned because some people find their sexual preference distasteful.



He goes on to offer exercises and questions to identify who you are and what you know. I found some of what he listed quite interesting. Anyway, it is a lengthy exercise/lesson plan that I found interesting and which at least suggests the topic is worthy of serious study and reflection instead of just parroting the words that are easiest to say, words that affect real people who, IMO, have no choice about who they are attracted to.



http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=244

I have no idea what this post has to do with the one you quoted, but I'm off to bed.

 

[Charlie09]

homosexuality as a valid way to live so saying you are isn't really an insult. Perhaps you are sincere in applying biblical principles and determining that homosexuality is a sin. But since you believe it is a sin you obviously are "against" it. I just doubt that many people undertake a thorough analysis of the Bible and history to come to a complete understanding of what the Bible says for themselves. <snip a lot of text>

Here's the deal - as was noted much earlier - no one would be calling out this facebook post if he compared group marriage to murder - or if he compared idolatry or perjury, or plain ol' fornication to murder. The response on this thread is simply because a person chose to approve of marriage in the traditional sense, not same sex marriage and used an example that made people angry.

 

[PeteyGirl]

You're right that they may not be "moving" to a nonbeliever. As Christians, it's our job to present the message and defend it, but we believe it's the "moving" of the Holy Spirit that will convince and illuminate it to someone. But the teacher referenced Biblical teaching and thus we're confirming that.

If you haven't looked up the actual verses, you might try that. It's impossible to convey all the Bible contains or how all these concepts fit together on an online forum.

The few-ish number of scriptures referring to homosexuality (attributed with much debate amongst biblical scholars) puts a cap on the amount of information to plug through. You and Nova (and others) have done a decent job of it.

I appreciate how you describe the interface between the "message" and how the Holy Spirit provides conviction and illumination of the message.

Therein lies the rift. Without the Holy Spirit providing "correct" understanding, this teacher's post on Facebook is inappropriate, injurious and humiliating for a significant portion of humankind. I cringed for the people targeted by his careless words. I did not find his post a brave testament to his faith any more than a suicide bomber crying the name of their god before they pull the pin. It is unbelievably entitled and arrogant, I guess, unless you have the Holy Spirit within you to illuminate the appropriate meaning. Without the Holy Spirit illumining the correct meaning of his words, this teacher sounded like just another bigot on a roll. What is alarming so many is his position of authority and responsibility with CHILDREN, and the actual, real-time damage his words have and are causing real children right now. This is a legitimate perception, however unillumined by the Holy Spirit.

Does it help to know these things, as a Christian? Could knowing this make any difference in how you bring your sacred teachings to others?

This teacher's post may have been a protestation of his faith, but that's not all it was. The people affected by his words also have a legitimate say, especially the parents of the children who respect him or seek his approval. This teacher's post did nothing to impact my understanding except perhaps to validate my distaste for that brand of rhetoric.

 

[Nova]

Thanks for the consideration.

Not surprisingly, we differ on this too.

Religious persecution drove the pilgrims to our shores. They sought freedom from governmental dominance of faith. Our Founding Fathers took great care to craft our founding documents. They did not create a "separation of church and state" as many refer to it today - that exists in exactly zero of our founding documents. There is, however, a First Amendment within the Bill of Rights, which states:



They could have included that phrase had they wanted to. There are numerous quotes about the role God played in their lives, yet they chose to codify very specific God-given rights and freedom of religion.

Instead, the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from Jefferson's Danbury letter.



The preceding election had been particularly bitter, and people were burying their Bibles in fear that they'd be confiscated. The letter was designed to calm those fears that government could quash faith/eliminate religion.

This is important because:



Link

I do agree that the US does not have freedom from religion.

In fact, both the First Amendment and Jefferson's statement above are completely in keeping with this teacher's right to post his statement of faith.

Moo

There's no question that the teacher has a right to post the remarks he posted. The issue is whether he should continue to teach (potentially gay) children given that he is such a petty and hateful person. I say no, but whether he can actually be fired depends on the laws and rules of the respective school district.

How is prohibiting gay marriage anything but the "establishment of religion" prohibited by the Constitution?