- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Religion
Video: Gay Rights Activist Dan Savage Slams the Bible at Anti-Bullying Event
On Monday, 'Fox & Friends' broadcast a clip of gay rights activist Dan Savage giving an anti-bullying speech that offended Christian students (video below) recently in California.
Savage said: "People often point out that they can’t help it, they can’t help with the anti-gay bullying, because it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in Timothy, it says right there in Romans that being gay is wrong. We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people."
After some Christian students walked out, Savage said: "You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible. It’s funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how pansy-ass people react when you push back."
Savage led the “It Gets Better” project, a campaign offering support and encouragement to young gays facing rejection and discrimination.
UPDATE:
Dan Savage has apologized for describing his detractors as “pansy-ass,” according to thestranger.com. Savage said in a statement: “I wasn’t calling the handful of students who left pansies, just the walk-out itself. But that’s a distinction without a difference—kinda like when religious conservatives tell their gay friends that they ‘love the sinner, hate the sin.’… Likewise, my use of ‘pansy-assed’ was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it."
You May Also Want to Read
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
People from all religious and
People from all religious and cultural backgrounds bully. To assume that the bullies are Christians is ridiculous. Christians have a right to say that they believe homosexuality is wrong. NO ONE has a right to bully anyone. This was an Anti-Bullying rally not and Anti-Christianity rally, his comments were unwarranted. if he had said, something along the lines of, "No one should use their religion as an excuse to bully" that would be ok. But the targeted attack on Christianity was not warranted.
Actually, it is VERY
Actually, it is VERY warranted.
In case you haven't been paying attention, it is the pseudo-Christians that have been making the biggest stink, going so far as to try to pass legislation saying that bullying can be okay if there is a "moral" (religious) reasoning behind it; effectively approving sectarian violence and religion-based violence.
On this issue, you cannot address it without making a point of addressing these so-called Christians and their hate based cult.
As far as the discrepancies in the bible, they are valid points. The fact that the bible has been mistranslated in layer upon layer of mistranslation as well as edited for political content and motivation, does point to a significant problem in the use of the bible as an excuse for many of the most heinous acts in history.
And everything that he did point out was true, but there were also Christians that also used THEIR VERSION of the bible to oppose slavery, just as many southerners used their version of the bible to support it.
More proof of the self-contradictions found in the bible.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Its hypocrisy. How do you
Its hypocrisy. How do you think those Christians felt in the audience with all their classmates jeering on? The ceiling would have come down if he'd started to insult the Torah and Jews. He used his position at an anti-bullying conference to bully other kids. Hypocrisy. Often people who are seemingly against H8, turn to hate when the button is pushed. Some politicians in the UK have received death threats for not fully supporting the gay agenda. Some have required police protection. Others get abusive phonecalls. One woman on a local radio station mentioned that gay parenting is not as good as hetrosexual and she didn't support it. Next thing she knows she gets a visit from the police. Scary. But, you will see in the near future in the US, people supposedly against H8 indulging in exactly that. Mark my words. The UK is ahead of the the US in terms of its PC madness by about 2 years.
This is rich, the Christian
This is rich, the Christian majority whining again about how the minorities pick on them. Cry me a river. Christians have been bullying the world for centuries, anybody who points it out is bullying them?
what are you talking about
what are you talking about bro.? REAL Christianity doesn't work like that. the crusades wasn't a 'christian event'. you can't force people to accept Jesus. about the video/topic - it's interesting how instead of correcting the problem of being gay, they support it. i don't hate gay people. hate the sin, love the sinner. but i do understand why others do. it's unnatural. it'd be like going to school without clothes on...if you live life the way God intended(as he says in the bible), life will work out better.
Ah, what are you talking
Ah, what are you talking about "bro"? Christianity does work that way and of course the Crusades was a "Christian event". Catholics (you know, the ones that ruled over countries for centuries using Christianity) are Christian, and their little slaughterfest was approved by the leaders at the time, who claimed to have divine revelation etc.
I don't understand the whole idea of "the problem of being gay". Who exactly is it hurting? And the whole "It's unnatural thing is laughable, it has been around since time immemorial, homosexuality isn't new. Also, the idea of living like "the way God intended (as he said in the bible)" is craziness. Make sure you get back to me after dealing with the insanity of the law of Moses. Try to live your life that way and you will snap. God has all this power etc, and yet he made sure his book was ghost written, by horrible people who had no interest in helping anyone but themselves. Riiiight.
"How do you know so much about everything?'" was asked of a very wise and intelligent man; and the answer was "By never being afraid or ashamed to ask questions as to anything of which I was ignorant." - John Abbott (1821-1893)
Christians are the
Christians are the acknowledged experts on bullying. They've been doing it for 2,000 years. That's how they achieved their privileged status and freedom from criticism until now. But when they start to lose those undeserved perks, they cry "persecution!" Maybe that's because they are losing the ability to persecute others without restraint, they are feeling panic. What if they have to start living under the same rules as everyone else? How can they survive?
James, I think you use mass
James, I think you use mass generalizations often. There have been people who've called themselves Christians who have bullied over the centuries. That's bad. Even Christians have bullied other Christians, - totally against the teachings of Jesus. But please don't tar all Christians with the same brush. What about those who fought against slavery (Wilberforce), pioneered modern famine relief, erected a vast majority of schools, hospitals, universities, fought for the protection of kids from abuse by setting the age of consent and by fighting for laws to protect children from employers who would exploit, setting up the Royal Society for the protection of children. Those Christians who began the Social Worker movement, Foster care movement, began orphanages, pioneered homes for the disabled, homes for the elderly, reached out to the poorest in society. Started the first animal welfare organization in western society (RSPCA) ... etc ... I don't think you would like me to take the example of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Jeffrey Dahmer, and apply it to all atheists I am sure. Its unfair. There are different kinds of atheists. Some really nice ones I've met.
Unfortunately for your
Unfortunately for your argument of taking examples of other atheists, atheism is not an inclusive group and has no doctrine, so your analogy is entirely invalid. Christianity is a religion, atheism is not. You cannot use other atheists to Guilt by Association in any legitimate way. Moderate christians are usually passive towards their extremists, thus they are only helping their extremists. Get over it.
@apocylpse... right, I said
@apocylpse... right, I said it was "unfair" in the last line of the post you commented on. But I do think on one level, atheism is a "core belief" system. And from that spring our actions. Jeffrey Dahmer said,“if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”. I also think Stalin was not benign in his anti-religious views. Now, I am not saying that because I believe in God I am morally superior to you. I have a ton of faults. But I do think that sometimes an atheist will think (even subconsciously) "there is no god, so why not just do it?" Mind you, a Christian might think, "I am more righteous than this person, so I can persecute them." Which is equally as bad, ... and severely frowned upon by Jesus: Luke 18:10 Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
Stalin didn't start out as an
Stalin didn't start out as an atheist, and actually spent 5 years studying in a seminary before being expelled for not being able to pay his tuition and missing final exams. If there was such a thing as an all-knowing god, he could have saved a few million lives by showing up to speak to Stalin for a minute, or even arranging for him to get a little help with his tuition.
>But I do think that sometimes an atheist will think (even subconsciously) "there is no god, so why not just do it?"
Just because you imagine it doesn't mean it actually happens. You're constructing a straw man there. If that sort of thing actually happened, wouldn't you expect there to be a number of atheists in prison proportional to their percentage of society? More than 10% of Americans are atheists, yet they make up less than 1% of the prison population. Christians make up 70% of the population, yet make up over 80% of prison inmates.
Your same logical argument would justify my stating that most christians say to themselves "god promised he will forgive me, so why not just do it?"
A higher percentage of
A higher percentage of Scottish prison inmates claim to have no religion in comparison to the general population (34.1% to 19% of pop'). According to the Scottish Government’s Statistical Bulletin.(1) As far as I know, The United States keeps no official statistics on religious beliefs of inmates (?) Maybe they do, I just couldn't find them. Though, I think socioeconomic factors contribute a lot. As for God forgiving us so "why not just do it?" , hopefully they read Romans (2) ________ ___(1) http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/235546/0064616.pdf _____ (2) Rom 6:1-2 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
I don't think you looked very
I don't think you looked very hard then. A quick google search brings up lots of articles that reference the Federal Bureau of Prisions statistics on religious affiliations of prisoners.
Also, atheism is not a 'belief-system' in the same sense as religions are. You are also making false connections with some of the people that have done bad things that you claim are atheist.
People aren't mad about bad things done by people that have a religious affiliation, they're mad about bad things done by people who use their religion as rational or a shield.
I have found these statistics
I have found these statistics quoted in a lot of places but not found any official .gov statistics. Maybe there is a .gov site, but I couldn't find it. I found the Scottish .gov one but not the US one.
The USA does keep those
The USA does keep those statistics in most states. FYI, about 97% of the prison population in the USA claims to be christian. Less than 1% claim to be atheists or "no religion". Yes, it's true that many claiming to be religious are doing so for the advantages they gain in prison for it. That's a refection of the n on-incarcerated population. How many do you think are "lip service" theists for the social, political, and financial advantages?
Considering the number of politicians being caught in "inappropriate relationships" financial improprieties, and questionable morals, It seems like it is a large number.
Then consider the majority of child molesters are "straight, christian" men, even those molesting young boys, perhaps the true number of "non believers" or "just don't give a damn" hypocrites is far larger than you think.
Atheism is not a "core
Atheism is not a "core belief" system, no matter how much you want it to be. Jeffrey Dahmer is a sociopath. It doesn't matter what a sociopath says because it doesn't matter if they're religious or not, they will twist things inside their head so they feel like they can do anything. For example, a sociopathic christian can justify it in their head like this: "Jesus died for my sins already, therefore I can do whatever I want as long as I believe he died for me and my sins and I'll still go to heaven." They don't even have to read the bible. That doesn't matter to them. They will justify it any way they want to.
Did I say "all christians"?
Did I say "all christians"? No, I did not. But, as a group, christians have been the most intolerant, violent group in history.
Yes, that is the teachings of Jesus. Here's some proof: Passages such as Matthew 10:34: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” This refers to turning families against each other.
The few decent things christians have ever done have always had the proselyting string attached.
No, you could not take those people you named as example. Not one of them committed atrocities in the name of atheism. That they did is another theist lie.
It must be very nice to only believe what you want to believe and discard all rational thinking and even facts.
You do realize that the sword
You do realize that the sword that Jesus came to bring is the Bible itself, right? Do you worry that psychotic Christians will go around giving people paper cuts with our swords?
The sword referred to there
The sword referred to there is cutting families asunder. Yes, I worry about "psychotic christians". (a redundant phrase, I know)
I don;t worry about paper cuts, I worry about bombs, clubs, forcing your views into laws for everyone and spreading hate and intolerance,
Matthew 10:34 that verse is
Matthew 10:34 that verse is not talking about a literal sword, as you probably know. If you remember, Peter pulled a sword out and attacked the Pharisee guard, then Jesus stopped it and healed the guard. The verse means that even in families opinion will be divided over Jesus. I think if you infer that Jesus somehow endorses physical violence then you've not read his teachings in context. "Love your enemies" "Pray for those who persecute you" "Love your neighbor as yourself" etc. In John 6:15 Jesus knew that the people wanted to make him "king by force". How did he react? He withdrew from them and didn't want anything to do with their violence. I knew a guy in my home city who was into organized crime. A violent guy sometimes hired to do "hits" on people. When he met Jesus, he became a Christian and completely left that lifestyle behind. He understood Jesus and what he taught in the Bible. Now he preaches to others who are in that life and tells them to turn away from it. The guys name is Davey Falcus. Another similar example is mafia guy Michael Franzese. Thats the real power of the Gospel ... read properly... in context. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ http://www.wordoutproductions.co.uk/davey-falcus-gangland-to-god/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Franzese: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGCAwE2lTDA
If you think christianity is
If you think christianity is not violent, you have a very selective memory and view of your religion. Your interpretation of the verse does not match the context around it. To believe in any religion you must reject facts, rational thinking, and be selective in your interpretations.
More violence has been performed in the name of christianity than any other political or religious system in history. The bible demonstrates more violence and outright genocide either commanded by god or actually performed by god. Those are facts. Or perhaps you've for gotten the fable of the flood, where 99+% of all living things were killed.
Perhaps you forget the command to destroy entire populations including women, children, animals, plants and buildings "that one stone may not stand upon another"?
Those commands were in the
Those commands were in the old testament - can't think of a single instance of Christians being told to do this. So not only is the command several thousand years old in another culture under dramatically different circumstances than those we live under today, it helped a people group survive in a violent world when you either overcame your neighbor or he overcame you. And people enslaved from neighboring groups eventually assimilated into the new culture and brought with them resentment and foreign religious practices that negatively affected their new homeland. It comes down to judging ancient thinking and cultural mores by today's standards. There's no corelation.
What are you saying? That
What are you saying? That the old testament doesn't count? According to the new testament, that's not what jesus said. But you can find anything in the bible you want to believe if you squint your eyes, close your brain and "interpret it correctly."
Are you a "bible believing christian?" If so, do you believe all of it, only the parts that suit your purpose of the moment, or just don't know it well enough to make a rational answer?
Okay. Savage hs apologized
Okay. Savage hs apologized for his use of "pansy ass" therefore, let me be among those who will say that the students who walked out on Savages speech are, (no drum roll necessary here), pansy ass punks in training, who would sooner stand around and watch a gay kid get beat up, than throw a punch or two themselves. Of course, I don't know this...but, Savage's inference is correct: if the students follow the bible, and the bible states such hatred, then, it can only follow that the children, and the adults who helped brainwash them, will follow the guidance of such a document.
"Hate the sin" is still hate. Further, the belief in sin is hatred. Hate is more than intolance, it is a knee jerk reptilian minded reaction to fear of change. In this case, the fear of those who think differently. To these people the best response is, first, either to attempt to change people as they people are, (evangelism), or, if unsuccessful, to physicaly destroy them. And, when the marginalized rise up against such a corruption of conscioiuness, the perpetrators hide behnd their bibles and play the martyrdom card. This is the very definition of cowardice. However, kudos to those Christian students who gritted their teeth and stuck around to actually listen to what Savage had to say. At minimum, they may have some glimmer of hope, some possibility of redemtion of mind, because they cut through their fears to listen. It doesn't matter if they "got it," or even agreed with it: at least they listened. The rest? Potential pansy ass bullies, one and all.
The bible doesn't state
The bible doesn't state hatred. If you really believe that, then you clearly haven't read it.
Hypothetical question to demonstrate "hate the sin" (which is not in the bible, per se)... If your best friend who has been your favorite companion for years, gets arrested for robbing a bank and shooting a guard, do you stop loving him? If your love is conditional, he's not a true friend. You can't condone what he's done but he's still precious to you. The person is separate from the behavior. This is what it means to love the person and "hate" the sin.
"Hate the sin" is not "still hate" any more than upholding the law is hate. If that were true then lawlessness (aka sinfulness) would be love. I'm sorry but that's ludicrous. Shunning lawlessness (hating sin) helps us to live together in a safe, orderly and productive way.
So aside from the fact that you obviously have no understanding of biblical principles, why does everyone assume that people walked out because Savage was bad-mouthing the bible? He didn't even use the "pansy a--" term until they were out of the room... they never heard it. Isn't possible that some of these MINORS just weren't comfortable with the profanity, vitriole and ad-hominem attacks on a single group of people based solely on their religious affiliation. Isn't this the definition of "bullying?"
I probably have a far better
I probably have a far better understanding of the bible than you will ever have. I've read it front to back, many times and without the blinders of being determined to believe what I've been told instead of what it says.
Minors? College students are minors?
The "attacks" were directed at the one group that has consistently bullied others and has always tried to make gays feel nothing but guilt, fear and intimidation. How many gay bashings or murders of gays were committed by atheists? I suspect 100% of them were by "good christians."
I'm not even gay but, in my own life, every time I have been cheated, taken advantage of, or otherwise abused or misused, it has been by a "good christian." Yes, I personally know christians who are good, trustworthy people. My own parents fit that description.
If every time you had been cheated or robbed, it was by a red head. Would you begin to be wary of people with red hair, even if "some of my best friends" had red hair?
It's a shame you managed to
It's a shame you managed to read the bible front-to-back without understanding any of it. Apparently, you had the same difficulty with this article -- these were HIGH SCHOOL students.
I'm sure that some christians are bullies but I'm also sure that three times more christians died in the holocaust than jews, because they were protecting jews...
I'm sure that christians have built and re-built houses for the homeless, fed the hungry, clothed the needy, comforted the sick...
I'm sure that christians all over the world have been persecuted for no reason but what they believe...
And I'm sure that even if SOME members of a group (in this case christians) are bullies, it doesn't justify you or Mr. Savage bullying them. NOBODY should be bullied - not christians, not gays, not redheads ... not even careless readers.
1-You're sure 3x's more
1-You're sure 3x's more Christians died than Jews? Looking at most estimates, there were ~5.9mil Jews killed in the Holocaust. If you take the high estimate of all the other groups together, you only end up with ~12mil other people killed. Even if every one of them was Christian (which would be a major stretch), you'd still be wrong.
2-Don't argue against a position no one is taking...no one is saying there aren't Christians that have done good things and helped many people.
3-Yes, lots of Christians have and continue to be persecuted, and most of that has been done by other Christian sects and other religious groups.
I'm honestly curious how the
I'm honestly curious how the Christians posting here decide which parts of the bible they're going to believe and follow. Please enlighten me how you choose which parts of the bible are the absolute word of god that you must follow and which parts can be pitched.
I ask this because we all know that the bible endorses slavery, demands that rape victims marry their rapist, forbids eating shellfish or pork, ban's clothes made of 2 types of thread, among a host of other laws and declarations that we can pretty much all agree are bullshit. So how do you, as a believer, sort through which parts of the bible you want to believe and which are the word of god?
The Bible does -not- demand
The Bible does -not- demand that rape victims marry their rapists. The Bible carries the death penalty for rape and is much more serious about rape than our current society is. You've written this kind of stuff before without spending, seemingly, much time -studying- the Bible. The situation you quote is more of the date rape scenario where the couple have been promised to each other and the guy has forced the issue. The woman can claim damages in the form of monies or force the guy to marry her. The woman can also refuse to marry the guy. She is not obliged to go through with the marriage arrangement. The Bible also holds the death penalty for slave -traders- too. Look it up. If the Bible endorses the practice so much, then why the death penalty for slave trading? You can sell -yourself- into "slavery" or bondservantship if you like, but slave traders (kidnappers) are put to death. But then, why sell yourself into slavery ? Answer... because slavery was bondservantship, ... not the brutal form of abuse we subjected the Africans to.
Deuteronomy 22:28–29 28 “If a
Deuteronomy 22:28–29 28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife sbecause he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.
or if she is betrothed already and a man rapes her then we stone both of them. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 23 “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
Of course the bible condones murder and rape in other places too. Judges 21:10-24 It's a little long but the summary is: Go kill every male and non-virgin woman at Jabesh-gilead and take the virgins to give to the men of another Israelite tribe. When there weren't enough virgins they told the men of that tribe to take the women of Shiloh instead.
Oddly it doesn't say how any of these women felt about being taken and given away as "wives". We could be here all day with examples of god telling them to kill all the men and take the women.
We can cut right to the New Testament if you want examples of endorsements of slavery. How about Collosians. Slaves, obey your masters in all things. Do not obey just when they are watching you, to gain their favor, but serve them honestly, because you respect the Lord.
Can you show me where the bible it clarifies the difference between the "brutal form" of slavery and the happy smoochy kind you're trying to invent?
People seem to persist in
People seem to persist in applying today's understanding and mores to this ancient culture. I don't understand how people now feel they have the moral perspicacity to judge those living in another place and time. But be that as it may ... just a thought about the rape/marriage thing.
Again, it was a different culture in a different era where women had few rights. The fact that the bible (or then, the torah) gave women any rights was radical in that day and age. But the presumption was that a women had a right to her own body. If a man violated her body, not only did she have a right of retribution, she had a right to be provided for.
In that culture, a woman who was not a virgin had no prospect of marriage. She was viewed as tainted, used and undesirable. With few economic options, such a woman could suffer a long and difficult life. This was unfair; after all, her "tainted" condition wasn't her fault -- it was the fault of the rapist and he would pay for his crime (monetarily or otherwise).
The option to marry the rapist wasn't a punishment for the woman, it was a punishment for the man. He would be responsible to feed, clothe and provide for this woman for the rest of his life. She would not suffer the social stigma of being an unmarried non-virgin. She would not have to turn to unsavory means of supporting herself (such as prostitution or slavery) or live like the poor/homeless gleaning leftover crops from the fields of the wealthy. She would have a home and all she needed for the rest of her life.
As for the perpetrator ... if he wasn't put to death, he got a "tainted" wife rather than a virgin, he was legally obligated to supply all her needs, and he likely had to live with a shrew who didn't like him very much. Talk about a deterrent to crime!
I agree with State of reason,
I agree with State of reason, but would like to point out that your understanding of history is wrong. There were cultures before and during that period that gave women rights, and some even in the near vicinity e.g. Sparta or the Stoic philosophers.
So a religious text giving women rights would not be considered radical, and if we move a little later down the timeline, you can note that the Koran actually afforded more rights to women than was custom in their area.
Barbara, You make an
Barbara, You make an excellent point and I'm glad you brought it up. You're exactly right that it was a different world with different mores and very different concerns and ALL of their rules need to be considered in that context.
They, and the societies around them had slaves so they had to come up with rules about it.
They didn't have modern medicine or an understanding of how some uncooked food can get you sick, so they had to identify "clean" and "unclean" animals and foods.
They needed to keep the population up due to high infant mortality and constant war and illness so they had to make up rules encouraging marriage and against homosexuality.
So, thank you for making my point. Believers have a choice. You can follow all biblical law as the literal word of god or you can recognize that those rules were designed for people in a very different world with very different concerns and they have no place in today's society. You don't get to pick and choose which ones to keep (gays = bad) and which ones you can throw out (eating kosher) and expect anybody to take you seriously.
BTW, to your last point "and he likely had to live with a shrew who didn't like him very much. Talk about a deterrent to crime!". Why don't you ask that young woman in Morocco recently, or the millions before her, who was forced to marry her rapist. He kept raping and beating her all the time until she killed herself. Not much of a deterrent if you ask me.
@SOR, halfway down I address
@SOR, halfway down I address Hebrew culture slavery, but just to recap on rape first.......Deuteronomy 22:25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. _ _ _ _ _ _ Deut 22:28-29 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. _ _ _ _ _ _ The man who rapes the promised woman in v25 is to die under the law. The one who rapes the one who is not promised yet is to offer marriage to the woman. The woman has the option to refuse or accept the monetary fine. The monetary fine is hefty. Some scholars put the amount to ten years wages. Basically the guy pays for the rest of his life. Financial security played a part in marriage in that culture, hence the large lifetime fine. If the woman had a man to supply her needs, then the rapist would be put to death. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Also of note is the way that the Hebrew word for rape has been translated. The word "shakab" (and "taphas") is translated differently elsewhere and differently in other translations. In Leviticus, shakab is used to describe a man "lying" with a woman, and Numbers 5:11-13, adultery. Not necessarily rape. The New King James rendering of Deut 22:28 is: If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be found, _ _ _ The CEV translates it as "Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught," _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Look it up on Biblegateway.com for similar translations. _ _ _ _ _ _ As for slavery. I don't think I can make it a smoochfest, but I'll try and offer some verses that might help: _ _ _ Exodus 21:16 holds the death penalty for a slave trader: “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession. _ _ _ _ 1 Timothy 1:10b puts slave traders into the immoral category: "...for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine... _ _ _ _ The "slave" owner also was not to physically abuse the servant: Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. _ _ _ _ Deut 15:12-15 If any of your people—Hebrew men or women—sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free. 13 And when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. 14 Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the Lord your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ So, here we see that the master has to let the servant go, but also gift him (potentially enabling him to start his own business) and his family in the process. But, if a love relationship develops between the bondservant and master, then he can choose to stay: Deut 15:16 But if your servant says to you, “I do not want to leave you,” because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his earlobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your female servant. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Physical violence was frowned upon. If you read Exodus 21 you will see that even if a slave master so much as "knocks out a tooth" , the slave is to be released immediately. _ _ _ _ _ Foreign slaves were treated a little differently in that the year of Jubliee did not apply to them, but listen to what God says about foreigners too: Deut 24:17 Do not deprive the foreigner or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. 18 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there. _ _ _ _ _ _ I don't know about combatants in war times, but in general terms I hope you can see that "slavery" -was- indeed different in Hebrew culture compared to the brutal more modern versions.
IN RESPONSE TO SLAVERY: 1
IN RESPONSE TO SLAVERY: 1 Corinthians 7: 21 "Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so."
in terms of the thread count of clothes, (AT THE TIME THIS TYPE OF CLOTHING WAS ASSOCIATED WITH IDOLATRY, GOD WAS TELLING THEM GET RID OF THINGS THAT ASSOCIATED WITH OTHER gods, BECAUSE HE IS THE ONE AND ONLY GOD)
About the kosher food. I will round that up to the laws of the old testament. Here's what Jesus said, Matthew 5: 17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
BASICALLY JESUS WAS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE LAW. HE EMBODIED THE OLD TESTAMENT LAWS OF HOLINESS AND GAVE US REDEMPTION.
Then Paul said in Hebrews 9: 15 "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance–now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant."
MORE SPECIFICALLY IN RESPONSE TO KOSHER FOOD WHEN NEW CHRISTIANS WERE SEEKING GUIDANCE PAUL INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT SAID: 1 Corinthians 10:25 "Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of questions for, 'The earth is the Lord's and everything in it'"
Your response to the slavery
Your response to the slavery question seems to be: If you're a slave, don't worry. Only worry if you gain your freedom. That seems like small comfort to slaves.
So, instead of saying "get rid of all things associated with idolatry and other gods" he tells them they can't mix wool and cotton. Either god's really bad at writing rules or you're really bad at reading them.
So, if Jesus is the fulfillment of the old testament laws which allows you to throw them out why bother attaching the old testament to the new today? If Jesus is allowing us to throw out the old testament law will Christians stop quoting the old testament to justify their bigotry against gays?
The Old Testament is in the
The Old Testament is in the Bible for the same reason we read history books today, to learn from.
That's nice, but if the rules
That's nice, but if the rules don't apply then people need to stop using the old testament as a way to justify their discrimination.
I've never heard any
I've never heard any christians use the old testament to justify bullying anybody. There are passages in the new testament about men having sex with men. That's not about bigotry; it's just saying its wrong. Just like our society has laws that provide us a standard by which to judge behavior (have to go to school, can't beat on people just because they make you angry, stop the car at red lights ... etc.), the bible provides standards on which to determine morally right and wrong behavior -- and homosexuality is morally wrong behavior (as is, for example, overeating, gossiping, lying, stealing and murdering). To say that someone's behavior is morally wrong is not bigotry any more than telling someone that running red lights is wrong would be bigotry.
If you don't care that your behavior is morally wrong, so what; why would you attack those who do? In fact, true bigotry is when someone tells people he will not tolerate their creed simply because he personally doesn't ascribe to it.
"If you don't care that your
"If you don't care that your behavior is morally wrong, so what: why would you attack those who do?"
Ignoring the assumptions of mortality in this statement, it;s an easy answer. 1) Because you & people you know are being physically harmed 2)Your legal rights are being restricted.
"I've never heard any
"I've never heard any christians use the old testament to justify bullying anybody." Then you haven't been paying attention. I bet if you talk to any gay person they could give you plenty of examples of being bullied due to old testament laws. The fundamental basis of anti gay bigotry is the whole "man shall not lay down with man" BS. Maybe you don't consider telling parents to punch their effeminate boys bullying http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/audio-pastor-sean-harris-calls-punching-effeminate-boys Maybe you don't consider banning a girl from going to prom with her girlfriend bullying. Maybe you don't consider kids taunting other kids calling them fags as bullying. Maybe you don't consider it bullying when the legislature debates whether you have the same rights to marry, serve in the military or be protected by the police.
I suppose it all comes down to what you consider bullying. I'd say kicking your own child out of the house for being gay (this happens all the time) because of your bullshit interpretation of the old testament is bullying. On the other hand telling people that there's a lot of bullshit in the bible? Not bullying.
There was no bullying. Mr
There was no bullying. Mr Savage saying that anti-gay passages in the bible are wrong, is not bullying. I guarantee you that if Mr Savage was condemning a part of the Koran which espoused intolerance, the same whacko christians blowing this out of proportion would remain absolutely silent. The utter hypocrisy of some christian is astounding.
According to dictionary.com a
According to dictionary.com a bully= a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people. I think this definition exactly fits an adult haranguing a bunch of minor students in loud "quarrelsome" challenges liberally laced with profanity.
why would they speak up? They
why would they speak up? They are defending themselves not other religions that's not hypocrisy. Just like you're not speaking up in defense for his rude comments toward Christianity. Christians have a right to feel insulted by others rudeness and misinterpretation towards their religion. Just like any other group should stand up for themselves if they feel they are treated unfairly. Does this not apply to Christians, don't they also have the freedom of religion?
Would the reaction have been
Would the reaction have been the same if he said 'we can ignore the bullshit in the bible about stoning to death anyone who works on the sabbath or has an affair or sex outside of marriage?' If that was said and the kids walked out, would people really be saying he was bullying Christians by saying that that part of the bible is bullshit? Hypocrisy reigns, apparently. That said, Dan Savage could stand to chill out at least slightly.
Is this guy really as S T U P
Is this guy really as S T U P I D as he sounds ????
It comes down to this- he
It comes down to this- he abused his power. If it were the other way around, there would have been a terrible uproar about how he abused his position as a public speaker. If the kids that walked out would have taken a stronger position and made stronger actions they probably would have been arrested for hate crimes. Funny democracy we live in....Whether you believe in Christianity or any other religion, we all need to respect another's point of view.
No we do not need to respect
No we do not need to respect another's point of view. We must respect their right to express that point of view, something that theists rarely do.
Respect for the viewpoint is something that must be earned. When it is demanded, that's an admission you know no respect is deserved but you want the perks that go with respect anyway.
exactly.
exactly.