Anti homophobia speech labelled anti Christian.

[Tango]

sure, its stupid in my opinion to believe in something like a god that for some reason really cares about humans (which are less than dust in this universe that it created) without having any evidence at all but if they leave me alone id be happy to respect their choice!

Relevant to this conversation.

[Lobar]

Relevant to this conversation.

The portion of the speech that originally kicked off this topic was specifically about people that use the Bible to justify homophobia (and not Christians as a whole, no matter how many are flagellating their persecution complexes about it). A brief overview on the causes of homophobia is hardly off-topic for a speech about gay bullying. And homophobia in the West is absolutely rooted in religion, it's what sustains it and keeps it going. Anyone that thinks religion has nothing to do with anti-gay sentiments, well, I've got a bridge to sell them.

[Tybalt Maxwell]

That doesn't really justify open attacks against christians though

Yes, Christians openly attack gays

But how are you supposed to be any better than them if you do the same thing back :/

Don't get me wrong, I really dislike the concept of organized religion, but I don't think attacking christians is the right way to go

There are ways to peacefully promote acceptance :/

[Aleu]

The portion of the speech that originally kicked off this topic was specifically about people that use the Bible to justify homophobia (and not Christians as a whole, no matter how many are flagellating their persecution complexes about it). A brief overview on the causes of homophobia is hardly off-topic for a speech about gay bullying. And homophobia in the West is absolutely rooted in religion, it's what sustains it and keeps it going. Anyone that thinks religion has nothing to do with anti-gay sentiments, well, I've got a bridge to sell them.

I've actually met quite a few atheists that were very anti-gay. Not saying religion has nothing to do with it but that it's not the only thing. Given that religion was created by man they've already hated gays. They just wanted something to justify it.

[Term_the_Schmuck]

A brief overview on the causes of homophobia is hardly off-topic for a speech about gay bullying.

Which again would be great if that's what the JEA/NSPA had brought him in to give a speech about.

[Lobar]

That doesn't really justify open attacks against christians though

Yes, Christians openly attack gays

But how are you supposed to be any better than them if you do the same thing back :/

Don't get me wrong, I really dislike the concept of organized religion, but I don't think attacking christians is the right way to go

There are ways to peacefully promote acceptance :/

Again, Savage specifically attacked attempts to justify homophobia using the Bible. Very specifically. And he backed up his argument by citing how the same parts of the Bible got other moral questions plainly wrong, particularly that of slavery. Many moderate Christians themselves agree with this line of thinking. So this was never really an attack on Christians themselves.

The only problem here is that Christianity and religion in general hold such a massive degree of privilege in the West, actively maintained for political purposes, that many people have developed an unwarranted expectation to never hear a dissenting opinion expressed openly on the subject.

[CrazyLee]

I was deconverted within minutes. It was like a miracle or something.

To go slightly off-topic, one of the things that had me doubting the Bible as being wholly and completely the word of God, having no mistakes, is Revelations.

There are plenty of fundie nutjobs that are certain Jesus will come back within the next few decades, and some make it their life's work to spread that view. Many of them think that America needs to become a Christian nation first, as well. For a prime example, Jack Van Inpe and his fugly pointy-chinned wife have a TV show broadcast out of the Detroit area where they take current events and claim it's proof Jesus is going to appear soon. Like "h1n1 is the plague mentioned in revelations!!!" even though the recent outbreaks are nothing like the plagues of the past, or even the Flu epidemic of 1917. And then at the end of his show he plays this fearmongering clip and says the only way to survive the end of the world is by buying his shit and giving him money... a classic con artist using Christianity to scare people.

Anyway, it's intersting to note that Jesus's followers thought he'd return within 100 years. In fact, Jesus says that some of his followers will still be alive by the time he returns:
http://bible.cc/matthew/16-28.htm
http://bible.cc/matthew/10-23.htm
And if you read the beginning of Revelations, it describes the angels calling out to Churches in ancient Roman cities that don't even exist anymore, cities that are now a part of Turkey.

So if Revelations is bullshit, how can the rest of the Bible not be taken with a grain of salt?

[Tybalt Maxwell]

Again, Savage specifically attacked attempts to justify homophobia using the Bible. Very specifically. And he backed up his argument by citing how the same parts of the Bible got other moral questions plainly wrong, particularly that of slavery. Many moderate Christians themselves agree with this line of thinking. So this was never really an attack on Christians themselves.

The only problem here is that Christianity and religion in general hold such a massive degree of privilege in the West, actively maintained for political purposes, that many people have developed an unwarranted expectation to never hear a dissenting opinion expressed openly on the subject.

I'm more talking about his comparison of the people in the hall to the people who beat him up

And calling them "pansy assed"

You're right, he DID specifically attack the bible on its use as a tool for homophobia, but its the ending flourish that annoys me

[Aleu]

To go slightly off-topic, one of the things that had me doubting the Bible as being wholly and completely the word of God, having no mistakes, is Revelations.

There are plenty of fundie nutjobs that are certain Jesus will come back within the next few decades, and some make it their life's work to spread that view. Many of them think that America needs to become a Christian nation first, as well. For a prime example, Jack Van Inpe and his fugly pointy-chinned wife have a TV show broadcast out of the Detroit area where they take current events and claim it's proof Jesus is going to appear soon. Like "h1n1 is the plague mentioned in revelations!!!" even though the recent outbreaks are nothing like the plagues of the past, or even the Flu epidemic of 1917. And then at the end of his show he plays this fearmongering clip and says the only way to survive the end of the world is by buying his shit and giving him money... a classic con artist using Christianity to scare people.

Anyway, it's intersting to note that Jesus's followers thought he'd return within 100 years. In fact, Jesus says that some of his followers will still be alive by the time he returns:
http://bible.cc/matthew/16-28.htm
http://bible.cc/matthew/10-23.htm
And if you read the beginning of Revelations, it describes the angels calling out to Churches in ancient Roman cities that don't even exist anymore, cities that are now a part of Turkey.

So if Revelations is bullshit, how can the rest of the Bible not be taken with a grain of salt?

That's not really fair. Revelations is basically "predicting" shit while the rest of the bible was written after shit had already happened. Yes, it should be taken with a grain of salt but to say "I don't believe the whole bible because of the silly prediction" is kinda dumb.

[Mayfurr]

That's not really fair. Revelations is basically "predicting" shit while the rest of the bible was written after shit had already happened. Yes, it should be taken with a grain of salt but to say "I don't believe the whole bible because of the silly prediction" is kinda dumb.

On the other had, you have the fundies themselves claiming that every word in the Bible in general and the book of Revelations in particular are absolutely 100% divinely inspired and "the word of God" - the reason the fundies are so hot on creationism for example is because if the Genesis account of creation is wrong then there was no original sin for Jesus to save the world from.

You're right, Revelations - which when you look at it reads like something you might experience on some sort of fever-dream or drug-induced high - can be interpreted in a non-literal fashion as some metaphorical tale... but there's plenty out there that take Revelations as, well, Gospel truth.

Mind you, when the Bible can't even get something basic like the father of Joseph (Jesus's nominal father) consistent in the Gospels without handwaving some hitherto non-Bible doctrinal explanation, you have to wonder about the veracity of some of the more fantastical claims...

[Tybalt Maxwell]

The bible is sometimes a bit inconsistent

but most christians will tell you they don't take it literally, and that they don't believe the stories actually happened

This is acceptable with things like the miracles and the burning bushes and such

But then sometimes they say that about things where the meaning is the literal interpretation thereof, like when god said that gays are an abomination

Or when Pastor Harris called for parents to beat the gay out of their kids (thread over in OT, basically the same topic at this point). The church community defended him with that, stating that people were taking "if your son gives you limp wrist, you crack that wrist! Give him a good punch" too literally

uguu~

I like the bible because it actually has some really good rhetoric in it. Like, the style of the writing is incredible, and was probably a huge factor in just how powerful the religion based around it became

[Term_the_Schmuck]

That's not really fair. Revelations is basically "predicting" shit while the rest of the bible was written after shit had already happened.

You're right, Revelations - which when you look at it reads like something you might experience on some sort of fever-dream or drug-induced high - can be interpreted in a non-literal fashion as some metaphorical tale... but there's plenty out there that take Revelations as, well, Gospel truth.

Given that Revelations was allegedly first written by John the Apostle after he was exiled to the Greek island of Patmos recounting "visions" that he had allegedly given to him by Jesus, it's safe to assume this is nothing more than a prediction of things to come as opposed to absolute fact. Essentially he's recounting a dream he had of the apocalypse.

Then you start getting into the possibility that John the Apostle wasn't the actual author, but someone referred to simply as John of Patmos, given that writing style and theology changes in Revelations than in the Gospel according to John, specifically whereas Gospel John advocated chastity, Revelations John advocated outright celibacy. Then you're further bothered by the fact that the Bible itself is perhaps the most edited document in human history and that pretty much helps explain why Revelations in and of itself is a head-scratcher when reading it. Dream recollection mixed with edits and confusion of the original author's writing style.

[CrazyLee]

That's not really fair. Revelations is basically "predicting" shit while the rest of the bible was written after shit had already happened. Yes, it should be taken with a grain of salt but to say "I don't believe the whole bible because of the silly prediction" is kinda dumb.

First off, you missed the part where I said "ONE OF the reasons" as in meaning I have many reasons. But the fact the Bible was written by men, and men can lie or be mistaken or make mistakes me think "if this book was written by man, and has mistakes, yet God expects us to use it for salvation, it seems God is using something rather imperfect to keep people from Hell, right? Why would God use such an imperfect book to get His message out? Maybe it means there is no God."
OR: "If the only 'proof' that God exists is an inperfect book written by Man, then that's not very good proof at all and he probably doesn't exist."

In any case, Mayfurr hit it on the nail. Fundies and evangelicals believe the Bible is either the inerrant, perfect word of God, with no errors in it, or a book written by man but guided and inspired by God, with no errors in it. This is why right-wing Christians use the Bible to justify hate towards gays. "It says that gays are bad in the bible, and the bible is the Word of God, thus gays are bad." The only Christians who don't feel this way are the ones who don't take the Bible entirely literally and are more willing to accept gays or think that maybe the ban on homosexuality was only for the Jews of ancient Isreal, or that Jesus nullified the old law.

You also missed that I also linked to two different verses in Matthew, both of which said that Jesus The Son of Man (maybe not Jesus?) would return with the Kingdom of God (IE the apocolypse) before the Apostles died, IE in the next 50-100 years. And Revelations hinted the Apocolypse would happen within the next 100 years. And BOTH of them was wrong. Not only was Revelations wrong, but also the Gospel of Matthew? And yet fundies say the Bible is never wrong, and thus is not wrong about Gays? Even though I just proved the Bible was wrong in at least two spots?

It's interesting to note, as well, that in the first three Gospels I don't think Jesus ever actually says he is God, just that he is a "Son of God" which could be iterpreted to mean a follower of God, or created by God like all humans are. I think only John, written after all the other gospels, actually says he's THE Savior.

Mind you, when the Bible can't even get something basic like the father of Joseph (Jesus's nominal father) consistent in the Gospels without handwaving some hitherto non-Bible doctrinal explanation, you have to wonder about the veracity of some of the more fantastical claims...

I think Joesph was the "son" of Jacob through dozens of generations. In Matthew they just don't mention all those other people in the blood line. One thing to remember is how obsessed Jews and just about any patriarchal society back then was obsessed with male bloodline, especially tracing oneself to a famous hero through blood. Every Jew wanted to have their blood traced back to Jacob, the founder of the 12 tribes of Israel, and especially if it's the father of the Savior of Man, so they could prove their case that the Jews were the Chosen People who would save mankind by giving birth to a pure-Jewish-blooded Messiah, descended directly from the founder of Israel.

What you should be complaining about is the fact that IF Mary really was impregnated without getting jiggy with Joseph, that means Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, so technically he's NOT of Joseph's blood line. He's of Mary's bloodline. But back then Women were cattle and their blood lines meant shit, and Jesus would be of Joseph's bloodline just by him being Mary's husband.

Then you start getting into the possibility that John the Apostle wasn't the actual author, but someone referred to simply as John of Patmos, given that writing style and theology changes in Revelations than in the Gospel according to John, specifically whereas Gospel John advocated chastity, Revelations John advocated outright celibacy. Then you're further bothered by the fact that the Bible itself is perhaps the most edited document in human history and that pretty much helps explain why Revelations in and of itself is a head-scratcher when reading it. Dream recollection mixed with edits and confusion of the original author's writing style.

Most edited document AND written by multiple people and yet people STILL use it as TRUTH and FACTTUAL and hate gays and write laws based on this heavily edited and multi-authored book.

[Conker]

To go slightly off-topic, one of the things that had me doubting the Bible as being wholly and completely the word of God, having no mistakes, is Revelations.

So if Revelations is bullshit, how can the rest of the Bible not be taken with a grain of salt?

The only logical way I've ever read Revelations is that it's a coded message for Christians of the time, and not actual predictions of the future. If I'm remembering right, Christians were being prosecuted at the time, so it was dangerous to be one. That's why the messages of Revelations were wrapped up in so much crazy hocus pocus. There are seven cities mentioned in Revelations, and they were all around and very important when that was written, but I don't think anyone gives a fuck about them now. Same with people and figures mentioned in the book. They were coded names for actual people that were spreading lies and persecuting and shit. So, the actual message isn't so much WORLD IS GOING TO END, but "the world will change and Christians will come out ahead" since those are the people that live happily ever after in that book.

[Mayfurr]

I think Joesph was the "son" of Jacob through dozens of generations. In Matthew they just don't mention all those other people in the blood line.

No, that's not actually the case - Matthew does list the entire nominal family tree of Jesus, and the "Jacob" of v.16 is actually Joseph's dad, not Abraham's son (who IS listed in the genealogy, but in verse 2).

Meanwhile, the entire nominal family tree of Jesus according to Luke not only has Joseph's father as "Eli", the relationship to King David is through Solomon in Matthew but through "Nathan" in Luke! And the generation counts from David to Joseph don't match either... Jesus's nominal family tree is well as truly "forked" if you believe the Bible as literal truth

Most edited document AND written by multiple people and yet people STILL use it as TRUTH and FACTTUAL and hate gays and write laws based on this heavily edited and multi-authored book.

<nods> Very much so.