Homosexuality and the Bible

[Anonymous]

I'm 9:49, and I did read the link. In fact, that argument has been around for several years now, so I already knew it well. I have no problem with the line of reasoning in the link, FWIW. I do have a problem with saying that somebody else, who does have something to say about the link's arguments, would have a bunch (I do mean a bunch) of people telling her to shut up because she can't take a "joke."

I'll stop now. I just wanted to get that out there, pointing out a type of trolling that happens all the time on religion threads, and that's very destructive to a give-and- take.

I know some of you will continue to think it's too much fun to bait people of faith, to give it this trolling. I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to the thoughtful posters out there.

OK, I'm done.

[Anonymous]

Question: why is it "baiting people of faith" when you point out the absurdity and hypocrisy of what's written in the bible? Isn't it more just pointing out the absurdity and hypocrisy? Pointing out that most people treat the bible in an a la cart manner is not baiting. It's pointing out hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing is, it seems like more than just 1, or even two, ranting atheists. Possibly it's one crazy sock puppet who posts all the time. I don't have telepathic powers (despite having faith), but the differences in style among the various posters suggests to me it's many people posting insults. Yes, I agree, there are some thoughtful atheists here, but unfortunately they seem to be in the minority (again, unless you go with the theory that it's just one or two crazy sock puppets).

I could turn this around, and ask why you don't just ignore the one fundamentalist poster here who seems to be against homosexuality. I find her embarrassing, too, but I don't see more than one poster like her. Yet you atheists immediately blast back with condemnations of all people of faith.

How about a more reasoned response, that she might actually listen too. At the same time you wouldn't be giving people like me a bad opinion of all atheists?

If you saved one-one-thousandth of the outrage you've expressed towards skeptics for the high-profile folks who are poisoning your religion, and actually made an effort to speak out against them publicly, rather than meekly letting them define the debate, folks might have more respect for mainstream US Christianity. Just sayin'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question for Christians who rely ONLY on the Bible for their beliefs:

How can you be sure your particular interpretation is the right one?

You can't, but that's a feature, not a bug.

[Anonymous]

With "baiting," I was referring not to the link itself, but to the way various posters jumped on anybody who tried to discuss the link, in totally predictable ways: (a) you can't take a joke or (b) you're a whiner.

So yeah, it's baiting in the sense that somebody puts something controversial out there, but then cuts off believers at the knees with the usual bag of tricks that you see here all the time, i.e, the gleeful accusations of humorlessness and martyrdom.

I gotta stop now, or someone will accuse me of being a martyr.... Believers are definitely guilty of typecasting all atheists as angry atheists, but they don't generally troll and bait atheists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With "baiting," I was referring not to the link itself, but to the way various posters jumped on anybody who tried to discuss the link, in totally predictable ways: (a) you can't take a joke or (b) you're a whiner.

So yeah, it's baiting in the sense that somebody puts something controversial out there, but then cuts off believers at the knees with the usual bag of tricks that you see here all the time, i.e, the gleeful accusations of humorlessness and martyrdom.

I gotta stop now, or someone will accuse me of being a martyr.... Believers are definitely guilty of typecasting all atheists as angry atheists, but they don't generally troll and bait atheists.

You have GOT to be kidding me. Re-read some of the items posted just on this thread alone. Rewriting history much?? There's not much to "bait" atheists, with, though actually so I agree with you on that one.

[Anonymous]

[quote=

If you saved one-one-thousandth of the outrage you've expressed towards skeptics for the high-profile folks who are poisoning your religion, and actually made an effort to speak out against them publicly, rather than meekly letting them define the debate, folks might have more respect for mainstream US Christianity. Just sayin'.

And I do. Why do you assume I don't? I don't do it on DCUM much because neither of us wants it to look like I'm trying to convert you. God no. My goal on DCUM is different, it's to improve the level of discussion. Just sayin'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With "baiting," I was referring not to the link itself, but to the way various posters jumped on anybody who tried to discuss the link, in totally predictable ways: (a) you can't take a joke or (b) you're a whiner.

So yeah, it's baiting in the sense that somebody puts something controversial out there, but then cuts off believers at the knees with the usual bag of tricks that you see here all the time, i.e, the gleeful accusations of humorlessness and martyrdom.

I gotta stop now, or someone will accuse me of being a martyr.... Believers are definitely guilty of typecasting all atheists as angry atheists, but they don't generally troll and bait atheists.

But again - no one actually tried to discuss the link. The Believers,* as you call them, threw out a bunch of scripture and Catechism, but ducked the real issue. Yes, yes, we know the Catholic Church and (arguably) the Bible come out against homosexuality. But the Bible also comes out against football, working on Sunday, and a whole bunch of other things that the Believers don't get all exercised about. Why the double standard? Those Believers that were "cut off at the knees" weren't addressing the actual question raised by the link.

*I object to your characterization of "Believers." I believe in God. I also think that the Church's position on homosexuality is indefensible, both from a logical and moral standpoint. That doesn't make me any less a Believer. In fact, I think it makes me a better Christian, at least with respect to this issue.

[Anonymous]

Baiting is using perfectly good food to set a trap. Pick up this tasty little morsel, and I'll jump all over you.

The link would have been fine if it was meant to spur discussion. But OP and others said that anybody who wanted to discuss it just didn't get humor.

[Anonymous]

But you're not discussing it. You're saying that it's unfair to Christians to discuss it.

[Anonymous]

We were having a good discussion about how some of us - me included - think the OT and the NT are separable, and that's why we can believe but not think homosexuality is wrong. I can't tell if the catechism was posted by a catholic or atheist, in fact it easily be by an atheist, but as there's doubt let's movd on. The second post at 15:58 was mine. Then check out what happens starting on the 2nd page at 11:21 and 11:50 - somebody comes on to say the article is "not serious" and it's "tongue and cheek" and *all* of us are condemning homosexuality (she obviously hasn't read half the preceding posts) and we should all shut up because it's "FUNNY" - leading straight in to several pages about why believers can't take a joke.

BTW, I don't know why you think I'm using the term "believers" to exclude people who believe in God but think homosexuality is OK. I'd be excluding myself. It's just shorthand.

OK, I really want to stop. Answering these questions and charges does make me look like a whiner, even though the only intent is to do everybody the coutesy of answering their questions and charges.

[Anonymous]

Pp again. Excuse the typos, I was using an iPhone.

[Anonymous]

Why Christians have an image problem, Exhibit #388233373:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/anti-abortion-protesters-target-clinics-landlord-outside-childs-md-school/2011/09/12/gIQAn8z2NK_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why Christians have an image problem, Exhibit #388233373:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/anti-abortion-protesters-target-clinics-landlord-outside-childs-md-school/2011/09/12/gIQAn8z2NK_story.html

.

Not so fast, my friend.

--protestors were not identified. No way to know their religious affiliation.

--there were five protestors one day, two one other day, could have been the same people. Not representative sample.

--note that the picture accompanying the article was from a completely different protest almost one year ago (how do they get away with that?).

--people from all/no religious backgrounds find late-term abortions morally problematic.

Your link exposes your prejudice that Christians are mean-spirited and not that bright. That's a shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We were having a good discussion about how some of us - me included - think the OT and the NT are separable, and that's why we can believe but not think homosexuality is wrong. I can't tell if the catechism was posted by a catholic or atheist, in fact it easily be by an atheist, but as there's doubt let's movd on. The second post at 15:58 was mine. Then check out what happens starting on the 2nd page at 11:21 and 11:50 - somebody comes on to say the article is "not serious" and it's "tongue and cheek" and *all* of us are condemning homosexuality (she obviously hasn't read half the preceding posts) and we should all shut up because it's "FUNNY" - leading straight in to several pages about why believers can't take a joke.

BTW, I don't know why you think I'm using the term "believers" to exclude people who believe in God but think homosexuality is OK. I'd be excluding myself. It's just shorthand.

OK, I really want to stop. Answering these questions and charges does make me look like a whiner, even though the only intent is to do everybody the coutesy of answering their questions and charges.

But the original link dealt only with OT. By your own argument, the NT wasn't even applicable and totally irrelevant. So then I wonder why, if a link exposes how irrelevant and seemingly funny the OT seems to be on so many levels, why is that a slap in the face to people who believe what's written in the NT. It's like getting offended by something you read in the Washington Post and posting about it, and then someone getting upset and firing back that you dissed the Chicago Tribune.