Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 237

Thread: Dan Savage Points Out Hypocrisy in the Bible-one R rated word in video

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    What in his statement was ignorant? Offensive maybe, overblown maybe, crass maybe, but ignorant? He was quoting the bible and pointing out how some adherents, and particularly those who are homophobic (yes, if you believe gays are bad because of the bible, you are a homophobe), only quote and follow bits of the bible.

    Here's the problem. Not all people who believe in the Bible are homophobes. In fact, not even all people who believe that homosexuality is a sin are homophobes. As Luth has said, it is entirely possible for Christians of good faith to come to opposite conclusions as to the interpretation of the passages that condemn homosexual conduct.

    Dan Savage's speech was broadly condescending and offensive to anyone who is a Christian. If I was there, I would have walked out too, which, by the way, is a perfectly legitimate way for someone to express their disagreement with the person giving the speech.

    Dan could have gone about making his argument in a way that would have pointed out the hypocrisy of the Christians who have condemn gays while ignoring other sins. He could have pointed out that even if homosexuality is a sin, that fact in no way would condone bullying or discrimination against gays. He could have used the Bible to his advantage, and pointed out the instances where Jesus stands up and defends the bullied and the ostracized, even if they were sinners.

    Instead he chose to be snide and condescending to everyone who believes in the Bible, and not just to those who use the Bible to justify their bullying of gays. It was a stupid approach and entirely counterproductive to the very admirable goal that he is working to acheive.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  2. #42
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,841
    Quote Originally Posted by CornfieldCounty View Post
    I see what you did there

    Its cool for him to screech his displeasure at his perceived bullying.. but that was not what the conference was about, now was it.
    But as you said, he is the Anti Bullying expert, so it was very on topic for him to demonstrate how to stand up for ones self against the bullies.

  3. #43
    Society Crazy Indeed
    Pops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    45,630
    Y'ALL HAVE TO KNOW THAT HE IS DEAD>>>MOVE ON!!!!!!1


    oops wrong thread


    I cannot be bought, compromised, detoured, lured away, turned back, deluded, or delayed. I will not flinch in the face of sacrifice, hesitate in the presence of adversity, negotiate at the table of the enemy, ponder at the pool of popularity, or meander in the maze of mediocrity.I wont give up, shut up, let up, until I have stayed up, stored up, prayed up, paid up, and showed up for all wounded children.

  4. #44
    Heathen
    CornfieldCounty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    11,473
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPhoenix View Post
    But as you said, he is the Anti Bullying expert, so it was very on topic for him to demonstrate how to stand up for ones self against the bullies.
    Oh.. he was "demonstrating" bullying? OK, well then heck, why did he just say that?

    I tend to think Chi is spot on here more than you, but that's just my christian side.. capiche?

    Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple. - Barry Switzer

    Life is hard
    ; its harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

  5. #45
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,841
    Quote Originally Posted by CornfieldCounty View Post
    Oh.. he was "demonstrating" bullying? OK, well then heck, why did he just say that?

    I tend to think Chi is spot on here more than you, but that's just my christian side.. capiche?
    No. He was demonstrating how to stand up to bullies. But there is that logic again....If a victim of a bully stands up to those doing the bullying he is therefore now a bully.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Pops View Post
    Y'ALL HAVE TO KNOW THAT HE IS DEAD>>>MOVE ON!!!!!!1


    oops wrong thread

  7. #47
    Guest

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    19,545
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    Here's the problem. Not all people who believe in the Bible are homophobes. In fact, not even all people who believe that homosexuality is a sin are homophobes. As Luth has said, it is entirely possible for Christians of good faith to come to opposite conclusions as to the interpretation of the passages that condemn homosexual conduct.

    Dan Savage's speech was broadly condescending and offensive to anyone who is a Christian. If I was there, I would have walked out too, which, by the way, is a perfectly legitimate way for someone to express their disagreement with the person giving the speech.

    Dan could have gone about making his argument in a way that would have pointed out the hypocrisy of the Christians who have condemn gays while ignoring other sins. He could have pointed out that even if homosexuality is a sin, that fact in no way would condone bullying or discrimination against gays. He could have used the Bible to his advantage, and pointed out the instances where Jesus stands up and defends the bullied and the ostracized, even if they were sinners.

    Instead he chose to be snide and condescending to everyone who believes in the Bible, and not just to those who use the Bible to justify their bullying of gays. It was a stupid approach and entirely counterproductive to the very admirable goal that he is working to acheive.
    Agreed. I hope based on his apology he realizes he can address the exact same issues he wants to address while keeping it respectful, and that he can probably do a lot more good and be heard by many more people by taking that approach.

  8. #48
    pray for me ;)
    ColoREDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Denver 'burbs
    Posts
    42,551
    Quote Originally Posted by FLA4NEB View Post
    I guess the golden rule translates into the golden shower in his belief system...
    Are 'golden showers" strictly a gay thing?
    Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.Bill Watterson, cartoonist, "Calvin and Hobbes"

  9. #49
    Guest

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    4,793
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoREDo View Post
    Are 'golden showers" strictly a gay thing?
    Heck no.

    Signed,
    R. Kelly

  10. #50
    pray for me ;)
    ColoREDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Denver 'burbs
    Posts
    42,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Nishioka View Post
    Heck no.

    Signed,
    R. Kelly
    I just find it odd that "golden showers" were automatically associated with the gay lifestyle. I would guess that most gays do not play that way just as I would guess that most heteros don't either.
    Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.Bill Watterson, cartoonist, "Calvin and Hobbes"

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Pops View Post
    Here we are again one side pitted against the other rather than coming together for a common theme....Love each other even with our flaws.

    instead we pick out reasons to hate
    Thanks Pops.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Showman View Post
    Agreed. I hope based on his apology he realizes he can address the exact same issues he wants to address while keeping it respectful, and that he can probably do a lot more good and be heard by many more people by taking that approach.
    Agree...and for the record I think the same can absolutely be said about many blowhard and angry religious folks when speaking about homosexuality among other things.

  13. #53
    All Legend

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    16,032
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    Here's the problem. Not all people who believe in the Bible are homophobes. In fact, not even all people who believe that homosexuality is a sin are homophobes. As Luth has said, it is entirely possible for Christians of good faith to come to opposite conclusions as to the interpretation of the passages that condemn homosexual conduct.

    Dan Savage's speech was broadly condescending and offensive to anyone who is a Christian. If I was there, I would have walked out too, which, by the way, is a perfectly legitimate way for someone to express their disagreement with the person giving the speech.

    Dan could have gone about making his argument in a way that would have pointed out the hypocrisy of the Christians who have condemn gays while ignoring other sins. He could have pointed out that even if homosexuality is a sin, that fact in no way would condone bullying or discrimination against gays. He could have used the Bible to his advantage, and pointed out the instances where Jesus stands up and defends the bullied and the ostracized, even if they were sinners.

    Instead he chose to be snide and condescending to everyone who believes in the Bible, and not just to those who use the Bible to justify their bullying of gays. It was a stupid approach and entirely counterproductive to the very admirable goal that he is working to acheive.
    I'm not a Savage fan, and I generally agree he could have been more effective. Unfortunately, a reasonable attack on the tenets of christianity probably wouldn't have gone viral.

    Beyond his comments, though, the bolded in your post highlights the internal tension/conflict in the bible.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but sin is defined as disobedience to God. God provided his instructions in the bible, and acting contrary to those instructions is a sin. Add to that the common message which is, you must take the entire Bible as true or none of it, and you have a situation where it's very difficult to understand why some biblical "instructions" are closely adhered to while others are ignored as quaint or not really accurate.

    My point is, it's not that these christians are "ignoring other sins." It's that they, somehow, don't consider them sins at all.

    The selective approach confuses me.
    "We need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure."

    "If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    I'm not a Savage fan, and I generally agree he could have been more effective. Unfortunately, a reasonable attack on the tenets of christianity probably wouldn't have gone viral.

    Beyond his comments, though, the bolded in your post highlights the internal tension/conflict in the bible.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but sin is defined as disobedience to God. God provided his instructions in the bible, and acting contrary to those instructions is a sin. Add to that the common message which is, you must take the entire Bible as true or none of it, and you have a situation where it's very difficult to understand why some biblical "instructions" are closely adhered to while others are ignored as quaint or not really accurate.

    My point is, it's not that these christians are "ignoring other sins." It's that they, somehow, don't consider them sins at all.

    The selective approach confuses me.
    Well the vast majority of the sins that people point to that are purportedly being "ignored" come from Leviticus. They are, in other words, exclusively Old Testament rules. Now if the New Testament was silent about those Old Testament rules, you could make a solid argument that people are being selective about which rules they are going to follow. But it isn't silent. To the contrary, the Acts of the Apostles and several of Paul's letters grapple with whether the gentiles who were flocking to the early Christian Church were bound by those rules, such as those pertaining to the eating of pork and circumcision. And the New Testament is very clear that Jesus provided us with a new covenant, and that continued devotion to the Mosaic law was not necessary. That's why Christians don't keep kosher, for instance.

    Somebody like Dan Savage could make a much more cogent argument about people ignoring Jesus' directives, particularly on the issue of divorce and remarriage, or on the hypocrisy of judging other people, then he does. By focusing on Old Testament rules that do not pertain to Christians, he is simply exhibiting his ignorance of the Bible.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    Well the vast majority of the sins that people point to that are purportedly being "ignored" come from Leviticus. They are, in other words, exclusively Old Testament rules. Now if the New Testament was silent about those Old Testament rules, you could make a solid argument that people are being selective about which rules they are going to follow. But it isn't silent. To the contrary, the Acts of the Apostles and several of Paul's letters grapple with whether the gentiles who were flocking to the early Christian Church were bound by those rules, such as those pertaining to the eating of pork and circumcision. And the New Testament is very clear that Jesus provided us with a new covenant, and that continued devotion to the Mosaic law was not necessary. That's why Christians don't keep kosher, for instance.

    Somebody like Dan Savage could make a much more cogent argument about people ignoring Jesus' directives, particularly on the issue of divorce and remarriage, or on the hypocrisy of judging other people, then he does. By focusing on Old Testament rules that do not pertain to Christians, he is simply exhibiting his ignorance of the Bible.
    This.

    "Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence." 1 Peter 3:15-16 (NRSV)

  16. #56
    All Legend

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    16,032
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    Well the vast majority of the sins that people point to that are purportedly being "ignored" come from Leviticus. They are, in other words, exclusively Old Testament rules. Now if the New Testament was silent about those Old Testament rules, you could make a solid argument that people are being selective about which rules they are going to follow. But it isn't silent. To the contrary, the Acts of the Apostles and several of Paul's letters grapple with whether the gentiles who were flocking to the early Christian Church were bound by those rules, such as those pertaining to the eating of pork and circumcision. And the New Testament is very clear that Jesus provided us with a new covenant, and that continued devotion to the Mosaic law was not necessary. That's why Christians don't keep kosher, for instance.

    Somebody like Dan Savage could make a much more cogent argument about people ignoring Jesus' directives, particularly on the issue of divorce and remarriage, or on the hypocrisy of judging other people, then he does. By focusing on Old Testament rules that do not pertain to Christians, he is simply exhibiting his ignorance of the Bible.
    But didn't Jesus specifically say that the old laws would continue to apply? Going off memory of misspent Episcopal youth, but I thought there was something in there about that.

    And of course you touched on the issues raised in the New Testament, such as a requirement to marry your widowed sister-in-law, that are simply ignored, while non-directional commentary (e.g. homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of god) are read as literal requirements to advocate the changing of their behavior.

    I can't wrap my head around it.

    Which is probably why I'm a generally spiritual person who believes no religion "got it right." And I tolerate just about any religion up until the point it causes people to act in bad ways.
    "We need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure."

    "If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    But didn't Jesus specifically say that the old laws would continue to apply? Going off memory of misspent Episcopal youth, but I thought there was something in there about that.

    And of course you touched on the issues raised in the New Testament, such as a requirement to marry your widowed sister-in-law, that are simply ignored, while non-directional commentary (e.g. homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of god) are read as literal requirements to advocate the changing of their behavior.

    I can't wrap my head around it.

    Which is probably why I'm a generally spiritual person who believes no religion "got it right." And I tolerate just about any religion up until the point it causes people to act in bad ways.
    Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, "I came not to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them." The greek word translated as "fulfill" has the sense of "make full, make complete, bring to completion." The way I interpret it, he's setting himself up as the lens through which those who follow him are to interpret the law. For Christians, Jesus himself is the law in its completeness. Of course, that doesn't make the question "how then do we live?" necessarily any clearer, but in asking that question I'm compelled to consider my answer in light of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

    "Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence." 1 Peter 3:15-16 (NRSV)

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    But didn't Jesus specifically say that the old laws would continue to apply? Going off memory of misspent Episcopal youth, but I thought there was something in there about that.

    And of course you touched on the issues raised in the New Testament, such as a requirement to marry your widowed sister-in-law, that are simply ignored, while non-directional commentary (e.g. homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of god) are read as literal requirements to advocate the changing of their behavior.

    I can't wrap my head around it.

    Which is probably why I'm a generally spiritual person who believes no religion "got it right." And I tolerate just about any religion up until the point it causes people to act in bad ways.
    In Matthew, Jesus said I came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. But he also made clear that he was replacing the old covenant with the new. As I said, Acts and various letters of Paul make clear that the Mosaic law does not apply to gentiles. Jesus also said that the entirety of the law could be summed up in loving God with your whole heart, mind and soul, and loving your neighbor as yourself. He also repeatedly did things that were contrary to the Mosaic law, such as allowing his apostles to harvest and eat grain on the Sabbath, or performing miracles on the Sabbath, or stopping the execution of a woman in accordance with the law. Luth might be able to explain this better than I am.

    I'm not aware of any NT requirement of having to marry your brother's widow. I know that at one point Jesus answered a hypothetical posed to him about a woman who married 7 brothers each of whom had passed away, but I am not aware of any "requirement." Maybe you could point me to a verse. I do know of verses where widows were allowed to remarry, but no requirements.

    As to the handful of references to homosexuals in the Bible, none of them are as clear cut as you imply (e.g. homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God).
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    In Matthew, Jesus said I came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. But he also made clear that he was replacing the old covenant with the new. As I said, Acts and various letters of Paul make clear that the Mosaic law does not apply to gentiles. Jesus also said that the entirety of the law could be summed up in loving God with your whole heart, mind and soul, and loving your neighbor as yourself. He also repeatedly did things that were contrary to the Mosaic law, such as allowing his apostles to harvest and eat grain on the Sabbath, or performing miracles on the Sabbath, or stopping the execution of a woman in accordance with the law. Luth might be able to explain this better than I am.

    I'm not aware of any NT requirement of having to marry your brother's widow. I know that at one point Jesus answered a hypothetical posed to him about a woman who married 7 brothers each of whom had passed away, but I am not aware of any "requirement." Maybe you could point me to a verse. I do know of verses where widows were allowed to remarry, but no requirements.

    As to the handful of references to homosexuals in the Bible, none of them are as clear cut as you imply (e.g. homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God).
    Again, this.

    "Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence." 1 Peter 3:15-16 (NRSV)

  20. #60
    All Legend

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    16,032
    Thanks for the info. I appreciate the clarifications and education on something I don't study closely.

    To answer one question, I only found that verse on homosexuals not inheriting because of the NC pastor thread (it was quoted in his blog as a translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11):

    Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
    "We need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure."

    "If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •