In that light I dont really have a problem with it, but its a fine line that should not be crossed, at least in the school setting. The bible says to follow the law of the land, and at that time slaves and what not were the law of the land. The bible does not say to go and make slaves, but it also does not say don't make slaves. Its more tolerable to it. It strictly opposes homosexuality. Not to mention several of those practices were changed in the new Testament when the tenets of Christianity came along. As far as teaching homosexuality, I am wondering the difference between "moral compass style folks''(since some people don't follow a religion) being opposed to this and poeple opposed to teaching Christianity during history class?? Nobody should have their child subjected to doctrines that they oppose(be it Christianity, Islam, Homosexuality, any political issues). I am not talking awareness, I am talking anything above a nod that it exists. Awareness is fine, but do not force things on my child.
Most tolerable Christian people have no quarrel with gays... so long as they can at least have enough shame to keep quiet about it. How dare they push an agenda for acceptance and tolerance of something that should be accepted and tolerated? If black kids had a day of silence to raise awareness of racial issues, would you tell them it's not okay for them to bring that into public schools? Can't they do that black stuff in their private time? The real problem here is what is and is not considered "sin." Slavery (and a litany of insane laws) are allowed in Leviticus while homosexuality is condemned. Modern Christians cling to one verse and ignore the rest. I have a sneaking suspicion that if some high school kids used a day of silence to raise awareness of Chrisian issues you wouldn't consider it disruptive. (How would silence be disruptive, anyway?)
Read previous post about tenets changing in the New Testament. Christians didnt exist in the Old Testament. As for Christians using a day of silence to raise awareness?? Not going to happen. And if some crazy bunch did, I would expect them to face the same punishment. The disruption from being silent would be small group discussions where one or more participants arent doing anything. That would frustrate a teacher. Edit: Also, you added the word shame. Dont try to paint my basic premise of "What you do on your own time is your own business" in a negative light. You put the negative light on it. Same as folks doing mar1juana in their own time. I dont care what you do in your own home. Its your home so I have zero say. If you come pushing that at my child's school, I will have an issue with it. And again, Awareness good.
i don't know a whole lot of modern Christians who cling to Leviticus in any literal way. i'm sure there are some out there...and i'm guessing you could find some lovely websites of some folks who are really "loud" about it. i just don't know any. i've heard a great sermon about the ceremonies surrounding yom kippur (detailed in Leviticus) foreshadowing Christ, however. there are verses about homosexuality in Paul's letters in the NT. though i've read some interesting things about the translation being a bit misleading because pedophilia was Paul's real concern.
By that logic, we can justify anything by making it law. Selling your daughter into slavery is part of the law of Leviticus. How Godly does that sound to you? By saying the bible is more tolerant to slavery, what does that say about the bible? So now, you get to reverse your stance on slavery but keep your stance on homosexuality because of your interpretation of the degree of condemnation or acceptance? This is my favorite tactic of cafeteria-style bible study. Essentially: because of Jesus we can now ignore any passages we want in the old testament while still claiming that the whole thing is true. We can also still claim that any old testament verses are god's absolute truth while utterly ignoring other verses, yet never contradict ourselves. There are americans out there who are anti-christianity. Their numbers grow as the religious right continues to grab for governmental and legislatvie power. There are many, many people out there who are fine with people practicing whatever religion they want, but are adamant about the separation of church from the government. There are eons of history and sound reasoning why the founding fathers put that into the constitution. It deserves its own thread. What if children raised in racist families were being made aware of important things like racial equality? Would you be opposed to that? The families would.
Glad you liked that mental image of "teaching Homosexuality". That may have been a bit much, but to more than acknowledge that its there gets on the "on ramp" towards advocating and teaching it. I suppose you havent read the New Testament much. Its not a situation of picking and choosing, its that it really is outdated. I dont know of many pastors who use scripture from Old Testament other than to supplement things from the New Testament. And no, making it a law, doesnt make it right. It just says obey the law. It is what it is. Very different. This isnt about racism, its about homosexuality. As it is, racism is not condoned in the bible, as it says there are many examples of Jesus helping the Gentiles.(which in those days, were the blacks to the Jews whites).
I'm assuming that you think homosexuality is a sin, and that it is wrong. I had assumed that you would wish that some sense of shame for their wrongdoing would keep them from 'promoting their agenda.' If I have assumed wrongly I apologize. And I do appreciate that you take a tolerant tone towards something you think is wrong (if you do think it's wrong.) But I'll still disagree with you, strongly, that it is wrong.
Bingo. The so-called admonishments against homosexuality in the bible are not clear, at all. Ancient greek and hebrew doesn't translate clearly because of the gap in history- everyone assumes that the sexual mores of their time are normal, and because of the archaic language itself. Leviticus is the only really passage that seems to clearly make a statement against "man lying with another man (as with a woman)". Other passages use words (ancient Greek, I believe) which do not have a clear translation and scholars have to make educated guesses based on the culture / sexual mores of the time period in question. Christians who are against homosexuality and need to use the bible to justify their stance most certainly stand upon Leviticus; it's the only firm ground they have.
Now you got it. We can disagree that its wrong, but I want nothing of it being taught in school the same as you want nothing of christianity being taught in school. Its not my place to judge someone for doing something I think is wrong.
I havent heard a sermon on it in quite some time. But I would figure that Leviticus would be used in conjunction with some of the stuff from Paul to cement that stand. I dont recall anything in the NT about selling slaves or putting daughters into slavery though. Granted, I dont think there was anything about condemning said practices in the NT, though I could be wrong.
To be honest I have my opinions as do everyone, but I will leave it to GOD to make that judgement on each person's soul. At that time we definitely will know who and what was wrong.
Exactly. I agree. You're a credit to Christianity. As I've said, sponsoring DoS is like sponsoring Christian activities or prayers. Neither has a place in public schools. See, and this is where I sort of have a problem with it. I feel like OT stuff is selectively used to justify stuff in the NT, which is "cafeteria style," as Nolen says. If you discount the OT, I don't think condemnation of homosexuals is clear in the NT. That position doesn't have much of a leg to stand on without the OT; it needs the OT "cement." I think what I posted earlier on this bears repeating: Basically, homosexuality shouldn't be a sin anymore, just like eating or even having contact with pork is no longer a sin. Paul isn't clear on the subject. If he is, it's because someone took liberties with the translation.
Exactly. Which is why I have a problem with public schools endorsing DoS (in effect shoving these beliefs down conservatives' throats), and I have a problem with "day of truth" or the endorsement of Christian ideas in schools (in effect shoving Christian values down homosexuals' throats). We should all be free in our beliefs. Neither side should have jurisdiction over the other.
Unfortunately, the majority seems to be at a disadvantage because if you allow one, you should allow the other. But if not, you get the cries from the minority ideal support being repressed and what not. Reverse discrimination against the majority/more accepted ideals.
Or you can just use common sense. You can't plug a lamp cord into another lamp cord, but you can plug it into an electrical socket. Male and female meant to fit together doesn't really take a decree from God. Sadly, some pretty obvious things seem to be called into question these days. .
The question in my mind is, how many american christians believe in the innerancy (sp?) of the bible? It seems that american evangelists, among others, believe that. And they are numerous. Enough so to have a significant effect on voting and legislation. One of them had a legitimate shot at being president and won some republican primaries not too long ago. If you believe that the entire bible is the perfect word of god, well... the old testament and Leviticus are in there too. What's interesting to see is the combination of beliefs that: 1) the bible is the inerrant and perfect word of god 2) but Jesus changed everything so we can play cafeteria style with which passages really count.
And last I checked, it isn't hurting anyone if some guy is trying to plug a lamp cord into another lamp cord. So why should anyone protest?
First off, I want to note again that I appreciate your reasonable tone on the subject, and I apologize if I haven't been equal to it. Do you believe the bible is the inerrant, perfect word of god? (You don't have to answer.) If so, how do you choose which things to accept as god's law and which to interpret as outdated? I'm confused that in one sentence you say that "it is what it is", just being a law doesn't make it right... Then in the next you say that racism isn't condoned in the bible... in this post I see contradicting interpretations. It seems that some things in the bible can be taken less seriously than others. If so, why? And who gets to decide? IMO the fight for gay rights is in the same boat as the civil rights movement for blacks earlier last century. Believing that homosexuality isn't wrong isn't some "belief system" that is separate from other beliefs that shouldn't be forced on people. It's common sense. Is believing that all races of man are born equal a belief that shouldn't be forced on people? I don't even consider it a belief. It's just a truth. But it took the civil rights movement in america to make it a commonly accepted truth, and there are still corners where it most certainly is not accepted. Increasing awareness of the plight of gays in our country and teaching children that there is nothing wrong with it is no different than teaching children that there's nothing wrong with being born black. I repeat, there is no difference. Blackness, brownness, gayness, are all qualities that people are born with and they should not be discriminated against for it.
