Talk Elections

General Discussion => Religion & Philosophy => Topic started by: bgwah on April 28, 2012, 07:15:23 PM



Title: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: bgwah on April 28, 2012, 07:15:23 PM
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/04/28/savages-great-new-sh**tstorm (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/04/28/savages-great-new-sh**tstorm)


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: The Mikado on April 28, 2012, 08:06:27 PM
Savage should shut up.  He's just hurting the entire "It Gets Better" thing this way.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 28, 2012, 08:10:23 PM
Supercilious words from a supercilious HP, citing at one point a considerably more H P.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 28, 2012, 08:18:20 PM
Link gets broken by the profanity filter, and there doesn't appear to be any way to fix it.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: The Mikado on April 28, 2012, 08:27:46 PM
Link gets broken by the profanity filter, and there doesn't appear to be any way to fix it.

Copy/paste it into the address bar and fix it manually?


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 28, 2012, 08:50:34 PM
Wow.  I thought Dan Savage was a man of tolerance.  Very disappointing to see.

I applaud the students who left the auditorium.  The gay rights movement was established to obstruct bigotry and divisiveness, not create more of it.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 28, 2012, 09:36:31 PM
Geez people it's not hard to fix URLs like that: http://bit.ly/Ih2q4e

Now I generally like Savage, but he's being a douche here, and it's even worse when you consider how many other people involved in the It Gets Better campaign are Christians, or even clergy.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: bgwah on April 28, 2012, 09:42:07 PM
His delivery could have been better, but I'm curious why you all seem to think his message is incorrect.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: Joe Republic on April 28, 2012, 10:31:40 PM
Jeez, Christians get so sensitive when the bullsh**t in their 'sacred document' is called out.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: Meeker on April 28, 2012, 10:43:04 PM
I think using the words he did in reference to high school students is a bit much.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: Joe Republic on April 28, 2012, 10:51:16 PM
I think using the words he did in reference to high school students is a bit much.

Nah, it's not like high schoolers are unfamiliar with bad language.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: Meeker on April 29, 2012, 01:15:11 AM
I think using the words he did in reference to high school students is a bit much.

Nah, it's not like high schoolers are unfamiliar with bad language.

They are probably unfamiliar with a 45-year-old man calling them that in public.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on April 29, 2012, 11:38:32 AM
Jeez, Christians get so sensitive when the bullsh**t in their 'sacred document' is called out.
Compared to Muslims- for example- who take to murder when it happens to their document?


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: greenforest32 on April 29, 2012, 01:37:44 PM
Relevant:
()

(I can't believe I have to self-censor...)


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook on April 29, 2012, 02:18:49 PM
*facedesk*


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: opebo on April 29, 2012, 02:20:50 PM
He's obviously correct.  It is as greenforest32 points out a double standard that he is being attacked for criticizing a group like this - if one attacked the Nazis or the KKK one would be greeted with accolades.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: bgwah on April 29, 2012, 02:28:45 PM
I'm curious why people seem to think we should craft public policy based on texts such as the Bible while they simultaneously remain immune to critique. If you want to create laws based off of the Bible, if you want to force your personal religious beliefs on the rest of us, then that opens it up to criticism. And in this situation we are still not the bigots, as you are the ones trying to force your beliefs on us, while we merely want you to leave us alone. That makes the religious right the bigots.

But the Republican victim complex is difficult to overcome, so we're probably just wasting our time.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 29, 2012, 02:34:49 PM
Obviously none of the Christians who attended the speech interpret the Bible the way Savage thinks every Christian does let alone tie their political convictions to religious faith, otherwise they would have never went in the first place.  Can we honestly not see the irony here in promoting divisiveness at a cause that fights to break divisiveness?


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on April 29, 2012, 02:46:04 PM
Scott is right- I am for gay marriage and against discrimination against gays- my problem is not his point but the fact that he is aiming to divide...and also bullies students when he aims to prevent bullying

Savage hurts his cause more then any other gay rights activist...


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: Oakvale on April 29, 2012, 03:06:06 PM
Whatever about the delivery, I can't say I disagree with his point at all.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: afleitch on April 29, 2012, 03:39:35 PM
Whatever about the delivery, I can't say I disagree with his point at all.

^^^^

This. I'm still waiting to hear a counter to his overall argument.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: opebo on April 29, 2012, 04:21:13 PM
Whatever about the delivery, I can't say I disagree with his point at all.

^^^^

This. I'm still waiting to hear a counter to his overall argument.

Well, I suppose it is trolling, isn't it?


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook on April 29, 2012, 06:12:03 PM
Relevant:
()

(I can't believe I have to self-censor...)

Why would a book written by Jews support Anti-Semitism? Their's nothing about Blacks in the Bible at all either. As for the slaves, that only applied to the Jews of the day.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 29, 2012, 08:26:40 PM
Yeah, the fact that Sam Harris seems to think that slavery should have been the 'easiest moral question' to people living in Bible times says more about Sam Harris's sense of history than it does about the Bible.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: Joe Republic on April 29, 2012, 09:26:07 PM
Jeez, Christians get so sensitive when the bullsh**t in their 'sacred document' is called out.
Compared to Muslims- for example- who take to murder when it happens to their document?

Why do we need to compare them at all?  


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 29, 2012, 10:12:58 PM
Religious folks are generally insane, but just to varying degrees.

Let's not fool ourselves with unjustified feelings of superiority.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on April 29, 2012, 11:57:08 PM
Jeez, Christians get so sensitive when the bullsh**t in their 'sacred document' is called out.
Compared to Muslims- for example- who take to murder when it happens to their document?

Why do we need to compare them at all?  Religious folks are generally insane, but just to varying degrees.
Joe- I think you are a good guy but this attack on religious folks is unwarranted... for one- consider the charity (in money but moreso in action) that Christians worldwide provide. I know you aren't denying this but to call us insane over a peaceful reaction to an offensive comment...


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: Joe Republic on April 30, 2012, 12:25:38 AM
Sure, crazy people can often do useful things too.  Look at Vincent van Gogh, John Nash, or David Helfgott.  Many crazy people, whether religious or not, can also be completely harmless.  But ultimately, they are invariably nuts.  You'd have to be to believe that well-meaning but often hateful and irrelevant fairy tales are not only true, but also that their message must be imposed on the rest of society.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 30, 2012, 12:42:26 AM
It's better than being sane if sanity entails acting like a supercilious little pissant. Maybe examine your own beliefs before you start insulting others'. I'm sure you have some.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: Joe Republic on April 30, 2012, 12:46:08 AM
It's better than being sane if sanity entails acting like a supercilious little pissant. Maybe examine your own beliefs before you start insulting others'. I'm sure you have some.

Jeez, Christians get so sensitive when the bullsh**t in their 'sacred document' is called out.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 30, 2012, 12:52:05 AM
It's better than being sane if sanity entails acting like a supercilious little pissant. Maybe examine your own beliefs before you start insulting others'. I'm sure you have some.

Jeez, Christians get so sensitive when the bullsh**t in their 'sacred document' is called out.

Sorry, but no. May I quote to you what you just said?

Sure, crazy people can often do useful things too.  Look at Vincent van Gogh, John Nash, or David Helfgott.  Many crazy people, whether religious or not, can also be completely harmless.  But ultimately, they are invariably nuts.  You'd have to be to believe that well-meaning but often hateful and irrelevant fairy tales are not only true, but also that their message must be imposed on the rest of society.

You didn't 'call out bullsh**t in a document'; you called me and the vast majority of the population of the planet you're living on insane. If you genuinely don't understand the difference there is something much more severely wrong with you than is within my power to even dream of trying to wrap my head around.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: Joe Republic on April 30, 2012, 12:57:13 AM
Easy, tiger!  No need to get all offended.  Look; many, many, many people living with some form of mental illness live totally harmless lives.  Similarly, people who hold some kind of religious belief often appear to be completely normal.  And, like a lot of conditions, there is actually a cure!


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 30, 2012, 12:59:32 AM
If I'm insane for believing in a man who preached equality, tolerance, love, charity, forgiveness, and other things both militant atheists and militant fundies don't apparently like, then I don't want to be sane.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 30, 2012, 01:04:21 AM
If I'm insane for believing in a man who preached equality, tolerance, love, charity, forgiveness, and other things both militant atheists and militant fundies don't apparently like, then I don't want to be sane.

Plus the idea of something transhistorical or, dare we hope, eternal, which I'm given to understand is a little hard to wrap one's head around when one is obsessed with the idea of One's Oh-So-Rational Highness' superiority (or One's Oh-So-Pious Highness' superiority).


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: Joe Republic on April 30, 2012, 01:04:51 AM
If I'm insane for believing in a man who preached equality, tolerance, love, charity, forgiveness, and other things both militant atheists and militant fundies don't apparently like, then I don't want to be sane.

You also believe he was born to a virgin, walked on water, died and then magically came back to life after a couple of days, too, right?  ;)  :P


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 30, 2012, 01:08:20 AM
If I'm insane for believing in a man who preached equality, tolerance, love, charity, forgiveness, and other things both militant atheists and militant fundies don't apparently like, then I don't want to be sane.

You also believe he was born to a virgin, walked on water, died and then magically came back to life after a couple of days, too, right?  ;)  :P

Yep, same guy.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on April 30, 2012, 01:19:42 AM
If I'm insane for believing in a man who preached equality, tolerance, love, charity, forgiveness, and other things both militant atheists and militant fundies don't apparently like, then I don't want to be sane.

Plus the idea of something transhistorical or, dare we hope, eternal, which I'm given to understand is a little hard to wrap one's head around when one is obsessed with the idea of One's Oh-So-Rational Highness' superiority (or One's Oh-So-Pious Highness' superiority).

Precisely.

If I'm insane for believing in a man who preached equality, tolerance, love, charity, forgiveness, and other things both militant atheists and militant fundies don't apparently like, then I don't want to be sane.

You also believe he was born to a virgin, walked on water, died and then magically came back to life after a couple of days, too, right?  ;)  :P

Yes.  But of course that's clearly just one of many irrational beliefs I hold that's so highly unpopular with the American people and resented by our president, though.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: afleitch on April 30, 2012, 03:12:18 AM
So is anyone going to discuss what Dan Savage actually said?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0k9qDsOvs&feature=player_embedded


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: afleitch on April 30, 2012, 03:21:02 AM
So is anyone going to discuss what Dan Savage actually said?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0k9qDsOvs&feature=player_embedded

People walked out when he called what was in the Bible about gays 'bullsh-t.' Perhaps we are to presume that these people don't consider what is said about gays bullsh-t particularly as a number of them went straight to Focus on the Family to air their grievances?

So he is right in a way. They are pansyasses for leaving. It happens to me when I've called them out on it. I can stand there and take everything thrown at me, but the moment you fight back they can't take it.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: dead0man on April 30, 2012, 06:08:19 AM
The excuses for hypocrisy are often funny and you guys haven't let me down.  He probably is right, that doesn't give him an excuse to be a bully.  Which he is supposedly very much against.  That's the issue here.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on April 30, 2012, 06:26:05 AM
So is anyone going to discuss what Dan Savage actually said?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0k9qDsOvs&feature=player_embedded

People walked out when he called what was in the Bible about gays 'bullsh-t.' Perhaps we are to presume that these people don't consider what is said about gays bullsh-t particularly as a number of them went straight to Focus on the Family to air their grievances?

So he is right in a way. They are pansyasses for leaving. It happens to me when I've called them out on it. I can stand there and take everything thrown at me, but the moment you fight back they can't take it.
I am more outraged at a 40 year old man calling a specific group of kids "pansyasses" and how it is very contradictory to his anti-bullying message... or is bullying ok when it is directed at those who disagree with him?


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: afleitch on April 30, 2012, 08:37:25 AM
So is anyone going to discuss what Dan Savage actually said?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0k9qDsOvs&feature=player_embedded

People walked out when he called what was in the Bible about gays 'bullsh-t.' Perhaps we are to presume that these people don't consider what is said about gays bullsh-t particularly as a number of them went straight to Focus on the Family to air their grievances?

So he is right in a way. They are pansyasses for leaving. It happens to me when I've called them out on it. I can stand there and take everything thrown at me, but the moment you fight back they can't take it.
I am more outraged at a 40 year old man calling a specific group of kids "pansyasses" and how it is very contradictory to his anti-bullying message... or is bullying ok when it is directed at those who disagree with him?

It was the National High School Journalism conference. If prospective journalists can't listen to something that they disagree with without walking out then yeah, they are pansyasses for walking out of the conference.

EDIT: I note that those who left were the yearbook staff from the Arrowhead Christian Academy in California. It appears to have been a co-ordinated walkout by one school. They then talked to Focus on the Family and other such organisations so that it became a 'story' over a week after the event.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: tpfkaw on April 30, 2012, 08:43:13 AM
So is anyone going to discuss what Dan Savage actually said?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0k9qDsOvs&feature=player_embedded

People walked out when he called what was in the Bible about gays 'bullsh-t.' Perhaps we are to presume that these people don't consider what is said about gays bullsh-t particularly as a number of them went straight to Focus on the Family to air their grievances?

So he is right in a way. They are pansyasses for leaving. It happens to me when I've called them out on it. I can stand there and take everything thrown at me, but the moment you fight back they can't take it.
I am more outraged at a 40 year old man calling a specific group of kids "pansyasses" and how it is very contradictory to his anti-bullying message... or is bullying ok when it is directed at those who disagree with him?

It was the National High School Journalism conference. If prospective journalists can't listen to something that they disagree with without walking out then yeah, they are pansyasses for walking out of the conference.

Yeah, like you wouldn't walk out if they had Jim Dobson or something.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on April 30, 2012, 08:43:59 AM
So is anyone going to discuss what Dan Savage actually said?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0k9qDsOvs&feature=player_embedded

People walked out when he called what was in the Bible about gays 'bullsh-t.' Perhaps we are to presume that these people don't consider what is said about gays bullsh-t particularly as a number of them went straight to Focus on the Family to air their grievances?

So he is right in a way. They are pansyasses for leaving. It happens to me when I've called them out on it. I can stand there and take everything thrown at me, but the moment you fight back they can't take it.
I am more outraged at a 40 year old man calling a specific group of kids "pansyasses" and how it is very contradictory to his anti-bullying message... or is bullying ok when it is directed at those who disagree with him?

It was the National High School Journalism conference. If prospective journalists can't listen to something that they disagree with without walking out then yeah, they are pansyasses for walking out of the conference.
Most of the kids are probably under 18 years of age and they are just that- kids. It is ASTOUNDING that you justify the bullying that went on here- it was a deliberate attempt by Savage to isolate a certain group that were there...cussing at first was bad enough, but after the kids left and he used profanity to insult them in front of their peers...that is an abomination and is a VERY CLEAR example of bullying


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on April 30, 2012, 08:45:23 AM
And I would add it's more then something they disagree with...it is attacking something they live their lives by as do billions around the world! And it was attacked in a very profane and offensive manner... these kids didn't interrupt or protest- they simply left. Peaceful, quiet, mature- I would be proud if they were my kids for handling it like an adult...more then I could say about Savage


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: afleitch on April 30, 2012, 08:56:49 AM
And I would add it's more then something they disagree with...it is attacking something they live their lives by as do billions around the world! And it was attacked in a very profane and offensive manner... these kids didn't interrupt or protest- they simply left. Peaceful, quiet, mature- I would be proud if they were my kids for handling it like an adult...more then I could say about Savage

Watch the video and familiarise yourself with the story. Not what was fed to the media by the school pupils and their parents who arranged the walkout, but what was said.

Dan Savage, who is a Catholic himself and is a proponent of having faith communities and LGBT groups work together said that what the bible said about homosexuality was bullsh-t. Which of course it is, and offended Christian students 'spontaneously' walked out as soon as he said it. He wasn't slamming Christians or Christianity but specifically how those who say 'I have to hate gays cos it's in the bible' can easily overlook everything else objectionable and he gave examples. The fact that some (and remember there were other Christian students there who didn't walk about and applauded Savage) took offense to that and didn't want to hear him out proved his point.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on April 30, 2012, 09:02:37 AM
I've watched the video- and for you or me his original comment would be less offensive but for a 15 year old child? To have a grown man cussing about something you have grown up with? I can see how that would be much more uncomfortable for them...


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: afleitch on April 30, 2012, 09:12:35 AM
I've watched the video- and for you or me his original comment would be less offensive but for a 15 year old child? To have a grown man cussing about something you have grown up with? I can see how that would be much more uncomfortable for them...

You do know that they would probably have walked out even if he hadn't 'cussed'? If he'd stated his point they would still have left. They left the moment he said he believed what the bible said on homosexuality was bull. Given that they were from a Chrisitian college, perhaps it would be possible that they agreed with their interpretation of bible's 'position'? The very position that Savage was saying still drives gays to suicide today. The very thing he's fighting against. I think he can be forgiven for using the term pansyass; I would think that the students that walked out were more accurately described as cowards.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on April 30, 2012, 09:16:21 AM
Picture this for a second...

Instead of Dan Savage, Ann Coulter is invited to speak. She then brings up the issue of gay marriage and says- in front of these students- "the fact that gays want to be able to get married is bullsh**t"... at that point there would be outrage- from you, from the media, from me, from everyone... and then some offended gay or lesbian students walk out because the crowd applauded and they were uncomfortable...and Coulter refers to these gay students in front of their peers as "pansyass"

You would be singing a different tune...


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 30, 2012, 09:20:08 AM
Dan Savage, who is a Catholic himself

No, he's an atheist-leaning agnostic.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: memphis on April 30, 2012, 09:24:15 AM
Everything he said was right. But LOL@who invited Dan Savage to speak to high schoolers.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: afleitch on April 30, 2012, 09:29:13 AM
Picture this for a second...

Instead of Dan Savage, Ann Coulter is invited to speak. She then brings up the issue of gay marriage and says- in front of these students- "the fact that gays want to be able to get married is bullsh**t"... at that point there would be outrage- from you, from the media, from me, from everyone... and then some offended gay or lesbian students walk out because the crowd applauded and they were uncomfortable...and Coulter refers to these gay students in front of their peers as "pansyass"

You would be singing a different tune...

That's not quite comparing like with like. Again Dan Savage was not saying the Bible is bullsh-t; he was saying that there's some bullsh-t in there that we still hang on to, even though we've let other stuff go. The fact that students walk out because Dan Savage says stop using the Bible to justify your intolerance is not particularly a noble stance.

If your scenario happened, well besides the fact I think Ann Coulter is a c-nt may cloud my vision, but I would think it a bit stupid for students to walk out rather than challenge her at the end.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on April 30, 2012, 09:33:56 AM
I think there is a difference between a legitimate and respectful point about a literal interpretation of the lines of Leviticus regarding homosexuality and the manner in which he discussed it...it was his blanket assertion of how the Bible gets things wrong and the profanity which offends me and which offnded them most likely
I am paraphrasing when I quote him as saying "The Bible got wrong the easiest moral issue of all time- slavery"... obviously I understand his point, but he is insulting and generalizing the Bible at that point. Once again- place yourslf in the shoes of a 14 year old listening to some one your parents age say these things


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: afleitch on April 30, 2012, 09:40:48 AM
I think there is a difference between a legitimate and respectful point about a literal interpretation of the lines of Leviticus regarding homosexuality and the manner in which he discussed it...it was his blanket assertion of how the Bible gets things wrong and the profanity which offends me and which offnded them most likely
I am paraphrasing when I quote him as saying "The Bible got wrong the easiest moral issue of all time- slavery"... obviously I understand his point, but he is insulting and generalizing the Bible at that point. Once again- place yourslf in the shoes of a 14 year old listening to some one your parents age say these things

Let's imagine that homosexuality wasn't the issue of contention. Imagine there were a dozen racial supremacists in the audience who walked out when he said that the Bible got 'slavery wrong'; imagine the catalyst. What would you think of their walkout?


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on April 30, 2012, 09:49:16 AM
I think there is a difference between a legitimate and respectful point about a literal interpretation of the lines of Leviticus regarding homosexuality and the manner in which he discussed it...it was his blanket assertion of how the Bible gets things wrong and the profanity which offends me and which offnded them most likely
I am paraphrasing when I quote him as saying "The Bible got wrong the easiest moral issue of all time- slavery"... obviously I understand his point, but he is insulting and generalizing the Bible at that point. Once again- place yourslf in the shoes of a 14 year old listening to some one your parents age say these things

Let's imagine that homosexuality wasn't the issue of contention. Imagine there were a dozen racial supremacists in the audience who walked out when he said that the Bible got 'slavery wrong'; imagine the catalyst. What would you think of their walkout?
You're talking about a point that is uniformly agreed to be archaic and not applicable. There is significant debate over the homosexuality verses...do I agree with you and Savage that it ought not to be taken literally? YES- but was this the right audience to bring that up- let alone use profanity during it?
You are changing the issue- I will not disagree with the point he is trying to make...I disagree completely with the methods and find them very hypocritical


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: afleitch on April 30, 2012, 10:00:51 AM
I think there is a difference between a legitimate and respectful point about a literal interpretation of the lines of Leviticus regarding homosexuality and the manner in which he discussed it...it was his blanket assertion of how the Bible gets things wrong and the profanity which offends me and which offnded them most likely
I am paraphrasing when I quote him as saying "The Bible got wrong the easiest moral issue of all time- slavery"... obviously I understand his point, but he is insulting and generalizing the Bible at that point. Once again- place yourslf in the shoes of a 14 year old listening to some one your parents age say these things

Let's imagine that homosexuality wasn't the issue of contention. Imagine there were a dozen racial supremacists in the audience who walked out when he said that the Bible got 'slavery wrong'; imagine the catalyst. What would you think of their walkout?
You're talking about a point that is uniformly agreed to be archaic and not applicable. There is significant debate over the homosexuality verses...do I agree with you and Savage that it ought not to be taken literally? YES- but was this the right audience to bring that up- let alone use profanity during it?
You are changing the issue- I will not disagree with the point he is trying to make...I disagree completely with the methods and find them very hypocritical

Again, that's the point Savage was making; why is 'agreed to be archaic and not applicable' when passages in the NT, including those attributed directly to Jesus supports slavery, yet despite Jesus not saying a word about gays, homosexuality is still subject to 'significant debate'

Therefore why are to we feel 'sorry' for Christian students that have a problem with gays so walk out, but we shouldn't feel 'sorry' for those who, hypothetically speaking, would think the bible was being 'attacked' because Savage pointed out the bits on slavery?


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: tpfkaw on April 30, 2012, 10:06:54 AM
The distinction is that the Bible (IIRC) does not specify as a rule that there *must* be slavery so either having slavery or not having slavery are both consistent with Biblical principles, but it does specify in several places that there *must not* be homosexual activity.  Of course it is ridiculous to take one's moral guidance from a document that represents the moral code of an ancient civilization that was considered backwards even when said moral code was written down, but that's neither here nor there.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: memphis on April 30, 2012, 11:09:41 AM
Oh and while we're at it, Savage is just a victim of a politically correct culture that says religion can never be criticized under any circumstances.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on April 30, 2012, 11:26:41 AM
memphis- I'd be fine obeying those rules if people were consistent! When folks are called bigots for mentioning Sharia law- they are called bigots!


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 30, 2012, 12:16:22 PM
Oh and while we're at it, Savage is just a victim of a politically correct culture that says religion can never be criticized under any circumstances.

What's pretty pathetic is the double standards, attacking the Catholic Church, anti-gay fundies or Young Earth Creationists gets that type of response, but Jeremiah Wright who isn't anywhere near as remotely as offensive as them, oh no.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: The Mikado on April 30, 2012, 08:17:06 PM
Savage is utterly failing at fighting bullying.  He's only increasing tensions.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: bgwah on April 30, 2012, 11:05:18 PM
On what planet does that qualify as bullying? lol


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on May 01, 2012, 12:05:37 AM
On what planet does that qualify as bullying? lol

The planet where a grown man calls teenagers 'pansy-ass'.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on May 01, 2012, 12:51:18 AM
Basically, he's saying that the Bible is truly incompatible with treating gays or anyone else with human dignity. He's more fundamentalist in his interpretation here than any fundamentalist.  He doesn't understand the role of Scripture in religious and moral life over the past three millenia.  And, like some posters here, it doesn't look like he wants to. He feels like he's been hurt by the Bible, and so he's reacting to that. 


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: bullmoose88 on May 01, 2012, 05:20:16 AM
You do know that they would probably have walked out even if he hadn't 'cussed'? If he'd stated his point they would still have left. They left the moment he said he believed what the bible said on homosexuality was bull.

That's speculation.  I don't disagree that in such a scenario that's the most probable outcome, but it is what it is, a speculation built counterfactual defense.

Basically, he's saying that the Bible is truly incompatible with treating gays or anyone else with human dignity. He's more fundamentalist in his interpretation here than any fundamentalist.  He doesn't understand the role of Scripture in religious and moral life over the past three millenia.  And, like some posters here, it doesn't look like he wants to. He feels like he's been hurt by the Bible, and so he's reacting to that. 

Are we sure his interpretation is any more "fundamentalist" than a fundamentalist's interpretation of the Bible? 

I personally think this is the elephant in the room for modern Christianity.  As I see it, most Christians [by that I mean, the folks under the normal statistical curve, if we can fit one] are likely in a few camps here. [As an aside, I'm going to use the word "tolerant" without necessarily saying thats something to be valued.]  (a) You're a tolerant Christian who doesn't think the literal message of the Bible is that intolerant, (b) you're a tolerant Christian who looks at the Bible and says...hmm...I've got to do some major reconciling between what I think God really is and well, what this 2000 year old text with a bunch of...inconsistencies with what I think God really is [so that you're put in a situation whereby your personal God is similar to, but may not be the same as the entity existing throughout the whole Bible], (c) You want to be a tolerant Christian, but are constrained by the Good Book's words, or (d) Tolerance at points is nice on some issues, but there is no room for tolerance here.  I don't want to be too pejorative, so I'll put it this way.  Some folks in this group...generally nice people, mean well...hate the sin, love the sinner (and this love can be expressed in strange ways, from a more secular viewpoint)...but that's the furthest they can go...the laws are absolute throughout time...any further accommodation almost makes one an accomplice.

Anyway, a roundabout saying that Christians, myself included, have this problem as to what the Bible actually says on the issue (as opposed to whats convenient to read from it) and how to reconcile it, if they think reconciling is necessary at all.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: afleitch on May 01, 2012, 08:50:30 AM
Anyway, a roundabout saying that Christians, myself included, have this problem as to what the Bible actually says on the issue (as opposed to whats convenient to read from it) and how to reconcile it, if they think reconciling is necessary at all.

I don’t disagree. The problem is that many Christians have a real difficulty not in just reconciling what the Bible says on this subject, but that they have difficulty in grasping that Christian denominations have indeed reconciled modern thinking (as thinking has progressed) with other unsavoury parts of the book as Dan Savage highlighted. Slavery is a perfect example. There is a reluctance to accept the position that churches and Christians held on this matter until recently in human history or to acknowledge that, “you know what, if you read what the NT says about slavery, slave owners had a point.” But do Christians sit and argue over slavery? Sam Harris is right; slavery is the easiest moral question we have ever faced. Are there any cases at all (unlike say murder) where owning fellow humans slaves ever justifiable? No. The Bible, and the NT flunk the issue.

Slavery is simply a choice. Sexuality is more complex. For example, Christians will point to Romans which says that people turned away from ‘the natural way to have sex.’ But of course we have seen and observed in nearly every observed animal species that procreates separated by millions of years of evolution, homosexual acts. Given that it exists in nature, given what we know about the spectrum of human sexuality, how can Paul’s pretext of it being ‘unnatural’ be correct? It may not be common, or dominant, but it exists in nature. Not only that but Paul’s rant accuses those who had same sex relationships of then being involved in everything from murder to parental disobedience. Why is this discussed in hushed awe rather than for what it is; an ill-informed rant. Why does the fact Jesus utter not a word on the matter count for nothing?

Now of course, as an atheist I understand the bible as simply a written book inspired by events perhaps, but certainly not by anything divine. However it would be nice if believers of the book would be consistent in what they do with it.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: afleitch on May 02, 2012, 02:58:32 PM
Fun facts.

The video footage of the incident that I linked to was shot by Focus on the Family. Nicely staged.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on May 02, 2012, 04:19:16 PM

Again, that's the point Savage was making; why is 'agreed to be archaic and not applicable' when passages in the NT, including those attributed directly to Jesus supports slavery, yet despite Jesus not saying a word about gays, homosexuality is still subject to 'significant debate'

What are you referring to here?



Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: 7,052,770 on May 14, 2012, 09:58:16 PM
After reading reactions on this thread, I was surprised by how mild the video was.  I was expecting something anti-Christian or something...


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: The Mikado on May 16, 2012, 11:56:31 AM
Slavery is a perfect example. There is a reluctance to accept the position that churches and Christians held on this matter until recently in human history or to acknowledge that, “you know what, if you read what the NT says about slavery, slave owners had a point.” But do Christians sit and argue over slavery? Sam Harris is right; slavery is the easiest moral question we have ever faced.


I wouldn't agree that it's an easy moral choice at all.  The "right of the conquered" has a lot of logical moral purchase before you leave the context in which it ceases to be seen that way.  Slavery was also the fundamental underpinning of society in Antiquity, on all levels: economic, political, and, yes, moral, as shown by the Greek philosophers.  The idea that slavery is fundamentally morally wrong is actually an exceptionally new idea (less than 200 years old, for the most part), and we only all share it because we grew up in a social context that believed that idea to be true.  The fact that we have no (0, none, nada, etc.) arguments for the absolute abolition of slavery surviving from Antiquity speaks volumes.  People may have thought that freeing slaves was a pious act, but no one wanted to get rid of the institution. 

Really, it was only the rise of the modern industrial economy that killed slavery more than any moral arguments against it.  And it was the advent of feudalism and the increased sense of semi-free serfs over slaves that brought down Antiquity's slavery.  Moral considerations were window dressing.


Title: Re: Dan Savage on the Bible
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on May 16, 2012, 11:18:02 PM
Slavery is a perfect example. There is a reluctance to accept the position that churches and Christians held on this matter until recently in human history or to acknowledge that, “you know what, if you read what the NT says about slavery, slave owners had a point.” But do Christians sit and argue over slavery? Sam Harris is right; slavery is the easiest moral question we have ever faced.


I wouldn't agree that it's an easy moral choice at all.  The "right of the conquered" has a lot of logical moral purchase before you leave the context in which it ceases to be seen that way.  Slavery was also the fundamental underpinning of society in Antiquity, on all levels: economic, political, and, yes, moral, as shown by the Greek philosophers.  The idea that slavery is fundamentally morally wrong is actually an exceptionally new idea (less than 200 years old, for the most part), and we only all share it because we grew up in a social context that believed that idea to be true.  The fact that we have no (0, none, nada, etc.) arguments for the absolute abolition of slavery surviving from Antiquity speaks volumes.  People may have thought that freeing slaves was a pious act, but no one wanted to get rid of the institution. 

Really, it was only the rise of the modern industrial economy that killed slavery more than any moral arguments against it.  And it was the advent of feudalism and the increased sense of semi-free serfs over slaves that brought down Antiquity's slavery.  Moral considerations were window dressing.
There were, at the very least, strong arguments against slavery by the ancient monotheists, for example by Gregory of Nyssa (http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2010/07/gregory-of-nyssa-on-slavery.html), or in Philo's description of the Essenes:
Quote
There is not a single slave among them, but they are all free, serving one another; they condemn masters, not only as representing a principle of unrighteousness in opposition to that of equality, but as personifications of wickedness in that they violate the law of nature which made us all brethren, created alike.
   
Ulpian, echoed in the Justinian Code, viewed slavery as unnatural, even if tolerated.  The Natural Law tradition of all persons as equal by birth, and its corrollary in spiritual brotherhood and equality, took a long time to develop into an unambiguous condemnation of slavery, but the seed was there.  The changing economic and political conditions in medieval Europe allowed the anti-slavery view to be implemented, but it didn't invent it.  Certainly moral considerations were paramount in the end of slavery after its revival, and it had opponents calling for its abolition almost as soon as it began.