http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/05/01/testaments-old-and-new Comments On: Testaments Old & New by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
"A cursory examination of the New Testament makes it clear that such a type of slavery is wrong and explicitly anti-Christian. (Matthew 7:12, Col 4:1, John 13:34.)"

Matthew 7:12 is the golden rule and John 13:34 is the command to love one another. Neither say anything specifically about slavery. In fact, both of those passages could be just as easily cited as an argument to treat homosexuals equally. Col 4:1 says to treat your slaves fairly. It doesn't say free them or to not have slaves. Take the three together and the New Testament says that slavery's fine as long as you're nice to your slaves.
Posted by mirth]]> Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:18:47 -0700 The Stranger Posted by dwklaws]]> Fri, 06 Jul 2012 22:18:47 -0700 The Stranger "But tell me, how can someone say they hate homosexuality, but don't hate someone for whom homosexuality is an inherent part of their makeup? It's like saying someone doesn't hate black people, they just hate people being black."

Its because some Christians are still suffering under the delusion that homosexuality is a choice, not something you are born with and can't change.
Posted by Ba of O]]> Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:55:11 -0700 The Stranger Posted by ctmcmull]]> Thu, 31 May 2012 08:36:38 -0700 The Stranger Posted by KINCAID]]> Tue, 22 May 2012 22:11:45 -0700 The Stranger
Romans CRUCIFIED slaves. They raped, tortured, and killed them without any penalty whatsoever. In the South slave owners were PROSECUTED for severely injuring a slave. Some planter were EXECUTED themselves for killing a slave.

In Rome it is true that slaves could buy their freedom. Perhaps you did not know that slaves in the South could also buy their freedom? In fact, nearly 10% of blacks in the South population were 'freedmen' at any time.

Roman slavery did not relentlessly teach the racial inferiority of the slaves as was done in South, but this attempt to sugarcoat Roman practices as a way to further condemn Southern slavery is as transparent as Christian apologists "judging" (judge not lest you be judged) homosexuals over a a plate of shellfish (if a man lies with a man it is an abomination; do not eat shellfish, it is an abomination unto the Lord).

Get your history right.
Posted by Professor]]> Mon, 14 May 2012 09:17:34 -0700 The Stranger
The straightforward answer is that the church leadership at that time was doing what Jesus had instructed them to do: binding and loosing, allowing & disallowing. What they were not doing was hermetically sealing the Truth in mayonaise jar under Funk & Wagnalls' porch for all time. But that is how the current church views scripture, and THAT is the real problem. They have created a definition of Scripture that Scripture doesn't even say about itself.
Posted by beggar]]> Mon, 07 May 2012 05:34:17 -0700 The Stranger
Obviously, the bible does deal equivocally with something called "slavery;" it's right there in black and white. But the problem is that here, you suddenly reject any contextualization or historicity. You say that the "bad kind" of slavery "existed" when Paul was alive. But critiques of that "bad kind" are indeed in the bible, showing that treatment of people under the umbrella of "slavery" was indisputably a concern to the bible's authors.

Harris asserts that "the bible got slavery wrong." Nominally speaking, it did. The problem is that "got," "slavery," and "wrong" are words that tunnel carelessly through time, comparing something whose horror became apparent (yes, even to thickheaded churchmen) as the institution transited the 18th and 19th centuries, with something that, in the first century, had a breadth of forms and occupied a level of societal indispensability not unlike that of capitalism today. "Slaves" constituted a huge chunk of Roman society, at one point around 40% of the population of Italy as a whole. Their status was widely varied and always in flux: first they could become freedmen by merit, then they couldn't, then they could again.

What "slavery" was when the bible was first authored appears to have encompassed everything from true chattel slavery to something that not unreasonably compares, de facto, to minimum wage labor today. "Slavery" appears to have meant "being on the short end of the power stick," and the authors of the bible could not conceive of society without it. The slave was not considered to be something other than human, and could become free, something which would cease to be true only later. Several popes of the early Christian church were themselves former slaves.

It isn't until florid racism meets mercantile opportunity in West Africa and the New World that we get the horror of human beings stacked on top of each other like sardines in ship holds, Constitutions naming them three-fifths of human at best, and racist theories of the inherent unsuitability of such types of individuals to freedom. Under these conditions, the gross maltreatment that was widespread chattel slavery became something different from what it had been in the past: so violently exploitative and conceptually apart from any standard workings of society that only those with vested economic interest could deceive themselves deeply enough to continue to defend it as such. The Catholic church, for its part, did not do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Supremo_…

So while using "getting slavery wrong" as a cudgel against biblical literalists does hit 'em where it hurts, it does so at the cost of blowing the historical and contextual analysis of the bible in that case, something which in other contexts (such as gay rights and gender equality) advances humanistic concerns, and rightly so. The "slavery" that was "gotten wrong" simply was not the intractable racist horror that the justifiers of North Atlantic slavery later sought to misuse biblical passages in order to defend. As you point out, abolitionists were able to use the bible itself to make that case. If we flatten complexity to simplicity here, we shoot ourselves in the foot.

Dan, if you care to welcome religious allies in supporting full equality for GLBT people, believe me, you've got them. Lots of them, I, and many co-religionists I personally know, among them, including some in the Catholic clergy itself.

Harris, in contrast, can't accept any such allies. Harris speaks in eliminationist terms: he will, to the face of a highly educated and intellectual rabbi (David Wolpe), compare Judaism to believing in a reincarnated Elvis, arguing that the religious should suffer the same social penalties for their beliefs as the insane. When Harris says "the bible got slavery wrong," he says it for the purpose of vitiating the bible's moral authority entirely. He's not interested in historical analysis; he's interested in polemics.

I know you don't intend to force people to "choose between God or Gay," as some hypersensitive antagonists have accused you of. Citing the likes of Harris makes that needlessly harder to perceive, and makes those asshole critics look more correct than they have a right to.
Posted by biomuse]]> Sun, 06 May 2012 20:59:23 -0700 The Stranger
But for anyone that brings it up, I tell them that I'll accept that the the story of Sodom is appropriate to apply to our modern day public policy if they will apply the rest of the story as well. After all Lot, the hero, offered up his young virgin daughters to be raped. God does not condemn this. In fact Lot is still the hero and still saved from the destruction. We have laws against that in our country. Should they be changed to allow parents to force their daughters into sex? This is consistent with much of the Bible, Old and New Testament. There is far more in the Bible that reinforce the notion that women are mere property than the entire subject of homosexuality. Shouldn't our laws then make women property?

And we can't forget that the story ends with Lot's daughters having sex with him. What do we make of that?
Posted by westburbswimmer]]> Sun, 06 May 2012 17:23:02 -0700 The Stranger
Here, educate yourselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_…
Posted by Central Scrutinizer]]> Fri, 04 May 2012 22:50:53 -0700 The Stranger Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. (KJV)
Posted by d.m.stone]]> Fri, 04 May 2012 11:27:41 -0700 The Stranger
Sorry to read of your eyesight issues and of your frustrations with your eldest's choices at the moment.

Venomlash told you that he is a Jew. The NT is part of the Christian faith. Perhaps, just my own thought, Micah 6:8 could offer some insight. Venomlash is more equipped to answer your questions.

I'm not sure what your saying about choice. I can guess that you are saying that you capable of believing that being gay is a choice, perhaps obligated by your faith, and not allow that belief to permit you to discriminate, harass, advocate against your LGBT brothers and sisters? And, you can emphathize with our Fourtunate, because your work enviornment is hostile to Christianity which means you get harassed? Maybe you are saying that you want the opportunity to learn from your LGBT brothers and sisters to understand what they mean by it is not a choice, because that continually comes into conflict with what you have grown up with, been taught, and is intertwined with your faith? Maybe you are asking to be judged by your actions and you would like others to do the same with regard to your being a Christian? If my musings are but a bit accurate, then I would kindly recommend that you deeply understand the community you are commenting in now has many, many LGBT people who have been deeply wounded (physically, emotionally, mentally, and sexually) and discriminated against by people who identified themselves as Christians. And, it can be a bit rough to hear the expressions of hurt and to remind yourself that if you are not that Christian, then they are not talking to you. And, I truly understand that it is hard, especially if your identity has come inseparable from your faith to you. Being here can teach you the importance of turning ones cheek. You will need to trust that they are not directing things specifically towards you. And you'll have to wait for them to see your character and to see your unwillingness to tolerate their being mistreated. These are my suggestions.

Good luck on your journey. Please be mindful of your health and make sure you're getting enough rest.

Kind regards,
kim
Posted by kim in portland]]> Fri, 04 May 2012 07:56:00 -0700 The Stranger
No, I'm not.

I am talking about fact vs.. fiction.

You said that gay people shouldn't get upset when you say that being gay is a choice because that is simply your belief.

But not all beliefs are equally sacrosanct.

You believe in God and Christianity and all that, and that is your right.

However facts are facts. You can believe that God will hold you up if you step off a building, but if you do you will fall. You can believe that the earth is flat, but the earth isn't flat.

It is one thing to talk about your belief in your own subjective experiences. It is another when you deny facts or the experiences of others.

Because if you are straight then you have NO personal experience with actually being gay. How can you tell someone that they chose to be gay when you are not that person and that person tells you that they didn't?

I don't believe in your god or religion, but where, exactly, have I negated your experience? I haven't. I have argued against your illogic and your false statements of fact, but I have not, even once, addressed your experience.

But when you tell me that I chose to be gay you are telling me that I don't know my own experiences, and also that I am lying.

Where am I intolerant against Christian? My only intolerance against Christians is when Christians try to impose their beliefs on others through legislation.

You can believe what you want, but when you are wrong I will point it out. You are wrong that gay people chose to be gay.

You can insult people all you want, but when you call me a liar you have no right to expect I will accept that and keep my mouth shut.

I have never pushed for legislation to deny rights to Christians.

I have never tried to harm a Christian.

I have never suggested that Christians are mentally ill.

I have never denied anyone the right to pray, attend church, or adhere to any beliefs they want to.

What I have done is point out when people misrepresent me, lie about me, and hold false beliefs about me. You can adhere to your beliefs. You can believe I am a liar who chose to be gay but for some reason wants to deny that, but it is not true and I will not let that falsehood go unchallenged.

Christians make up the majority of people in this country. Over 90% of the elected officials in government are Christian. Christians have the most privilege in this country over anyone else.

You should have to experience real discrimination once in a while to see how good you have it, so forgive me if I don't give you sympathy over all the oppression you face as a member of the ruling class of people in this country.

As I already said, if so many Christians didn't use their religion and the Bible as a weapon against others then others wouldn't have any reason to attack back. When you use something as a weapon against others you invite retaliation. You make your weapons targets.

If you are upset at people criticizing Christianity, the Bible, and Christians in general then don't get mad at the people fighting back. Get mad at the Christians who are initiating the attacks and inviting the retaliation.

Let me say this again so you will understand.

I wouldn't care, think about, or talk about Christians' beliefs, practices or anything else if it weren't for the fact that so many Christians use their religion to attack, oppress, and lie about others. Do you really think I enjoy spending my time thinking and fighting against Christianity? I would much prefer that Christians and everyone else leave each other alone. But far too many Christians don't, and so forces the rest of us to defend ourselves. And then when we defend ourselves you cry persecution and act like WE are the ones being mean towards YOU.

When you say that I chose to be gay (not that it should matter regarding equal treatment since after all Christianity is chosen as well), you are not just expressing a believe. You are lying about me and misrepresenting my actual experience.

So again I say, how is that different than if I claimed you didn't really believe in Christianity? Because although I don't believe in Christianity I have never denied the sincerity of those who say they do, nor denied their experience. I only deny it when they blatantly lie about things.

So tell me, how am I denying your experience when I tell you that you are wrong about me choosing to be gay? What, exactly, is your so called personal experience regarding my life, my mind, and my choices? Unless you are living in my head or the head of other gay people then you have NO personal experience on this issue, and when you say that gay people chose to be gay you are NOT talking about personal experiences. You are talking about something you don't know anything about. When we say you are wrong we are not negating your pesonal experience because this isn't a personal experience for you. YOU haven't experienced it.

Everyone has a right to their opinion. No one has the right to make up their own "facts".
Posted by Fortunate]]> Fri, 04 May 2012 07:41:20 -0700 The Stranger
Throw out the OT? Sure! Does that mean we can forget Creation, the Fall, Original Sin, the Ten Commandments, and all those *cough*"prophesies"*cough* that Jesus "miraculously fulfilled?

The NT is all about "love" and "compassion?" Sure. Except Hell. Remember that? The thing Jesus introduced to us when he told us about a place where fire burns and never consumes? The place where the worm eats but never dies? That place? So loving and sweet I could shit myself.

Oh, the NT. The superbible with all its stories about scorpions with women's hair and lion's manes and anhels with six wings and great beasts that rule the earth and whores who ride dragons and give birth to rivers of blood. Such a story for the whole damned family.
Posted by HellboundAlleee]]> Fri, 04 May 2012 06:48:20 -0700 The Stranger If someone believes that they only need to do more good stuff than bad stuff:
1) how could anyone have any idea what their standing is?
2) this could lead to careless transgressions based on the belief you can later make amends by working the soup kitchen an extra day.

I am not mocking your belief. The new testament also speak against "continuing in sin" or sinning with the belief that it's no big deal because you will be forgiven.

Hebrews 10:26-27
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice of sins is left But only a fearful expectation of judgement And of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
Posted by Frankzzzz]]> Fri, 04 May 2012 00:01:48 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Frankzzzz]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 23:27:07 -0700 The Stranger We Jews believe that our sins will be weighted against our own merits and mitzvot, not against the sacrifice of someone else. And I personally consider this to be the biggest theological issue with Christianity: that someone else can atone for an individual's sins. It removes individual responsibility and opens the door to careless transgression. According to Maimonides, a sin committed with the expectation that God will forgive it will not be forgiven.
Posted by venomlash]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 23:23:28 -0700 The Stranger
You are partially right. The Bible suggests a checklist (you word not mine), the Law, which No person COULD adhere to. That was the whole purpose of the Old Covenant - to show us that we cannot have salvation through our own actions. The New Covenant shows us we can have salvation through the grace of Christ Jesus.
Posted by Frankzzzz]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 23:07:01 -0700 The Stranger You didn't say exactly what I predicted, but not too far off. Kinda ironic - maybe I have more sense than you give me credit for.

You are doing exactly what you claim I am doing - negating my personal experiences I have had through Christianity. You can't just let me believe what I have chosen to believe, because my choice offends you.

Even if I don't directly insult you or attack you in any way. How is that different from gay bashers who want to force you to abide by their beliefs?

I have already seen it posted here many times, that Christians shouldn't be allowed to believe what they chose (I'm paraphrasing). Christianity should come to an end, etc. That is called hypocrisy, no matter how you word it. You believe that you have the right to your own set of morals, but are intolerant of mine,

You claim that gays know best about gays. But that gays also know best about Christians. If you can't see the attitude of superiority, prejudice and intolerance in that, then I don't know what to say, I truly believe that intolerance only leads tp more intolerance. There are certainly intolerant (so-called) Christians that bring out anger in others. I believe that intolerance towards Christians also brings out anger in response. If you expect Christians to just say, "yes you are so much more
superior than me" and to abandon their faith, then your expectations are unrealistic. What happens in five years when Christians don't change their beliefs to suit you. More insults? More attacks? What do you think the results will be? When will it stop? Is this what everyone wants?
Posted by Frankzzzz]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 22:59:57 -0700 The Stranger
I think you meant "I do believe being gay is a choice". If you didn't believe being gay is a choice that would be in line with what we are saying.

Here is the real problem. Claiming someone being gay is a choice isn't just a matter of opinion. It is either true or it isn't. Now who knows better if it is a choice, you are a gay person?

Because if you say being gay is a choice to a gay person who says that they didn't choose it then you are saying you know them better than they know themselves, and that their experiences aren't valid.

You don't get to decide that other people's experiences aren't true.

Do I get to say that you don't really believe in Christianity because no one really does, and that it is just a compensation method for dealing with trauma? Would you not take umbrage at that?

Sorry, but you don't get to have the right to be unchallenged about your beliefs when those beliefs attempt to completely negate the personal experiences of the people you are talking about.
Posted by Fortunate]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 22:06:52 -0700 The Stranger Posted by ean]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 22:05:41 -0700 The Stranger I guess I can see that when people deal with real haters a lot. While I'm not claiming to have gone through what people here have experienced, I can tell you that I do have to worry about what I say. Even though I work at a university in the South, it really is a very liberal place and I do worry about how some of my coworkers view me and get offendEd just by me being a Christian. I honestly don't shove it in anyone's face, but that doesn't really matter to some people. I am inherently evil because I am a Christian. It's not a big deal what they think about meas a person, but I worry more what they think of Christians.

Even though there are different aspects about the intensity of the word hate, I really do "hate" some of the actions of my oldest son and in this case, it is a pretty strong hate. I hate (with a passion) that he is wasting his abilities and hate even more that my wife and I are largely responsible. Too much to explain well, but it's not one of those cases where I'm an unreasonable dad who wants my 21 year old son to be perfect. He is extremely smart, but extremely lazy, and always has an excuse. It's usually the professors fault. Those damn professors always give him bad instructions, badly word exams and quizzes, expect too much, or have an accent that he can't understand. I don't care if he is a mechanic, a farmer, an artist, or a doctor. But I really hate to see him waste opportunities to succeed at whatever he wants, and I worry that unless and until he stops blaimng everyone else, he will succeed at nothing. He has a lot of wonderful traits, but his tendency to blame everyone else dominates his life. My health is not good and I worry what will happen to him if I die soon.

I also have an 18 year old son who had/has learning disabilities (tourette's and dislexia) hates school and has a 3.7 GPA in high school. By the way, he is also very doubtful about Christianity, "hates" the concept of hell, but has the best work ethic of anyone I know. He is iin excellent phisical condition because of his self-discipline. Him, I'm not too worried about, because I believe that anyone who honestly searches for truth will find it. Just told you about this one to show you I'm not an unreasonable republican (not any kind of republican) who expects my oldest son to do things just to suit me. I also have a 16 year old son and a 9 year old daughter. Just told you that because it's part of who I am - and I'm very proud of all my kids, even the slack one.

Maybe this is TMI. I don't know if this illustrates what I mean when I use the word "hate" in refering to actions, but still loving the person.

I do enjoy discussing things with you all. I think if people thoughtfully discuss issues, it helps them to reexamine and refine their beliefs.
Posted by Frankzzzz]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 20:55:10 -0700 The Stranger Sorry about your eyes. My eyesight sucks pretty bad but isn't as bad as yours. After years of doctors telling me that it was just allergies, they finally discovered that I have an irregular astigmatism that can't be corrected by glasses because of something to do with the distance between the lens and my eyes. Contacts fix me right up, but I have a lot of irritation with my eyes, which are allergies and I can't stand to wear contacts sometimes. I do a lot of typos and people usually make fun of me. Then I reply and ask them how is that English degree working out - which usually results in more insults - from English teachers.

Anyway, thanks for your comments.
You guys are helping me look at thongs differently. No not thongs - things. Damn eyes!

I would like to respond to your comments about choices, but if I tried right now, I would not be able to explain myself well - because that is a completely different discussion that would take me a whike t get into.

The biggest issue that I have about any of what you guys have said is that if I say "I don't believe being gay is a choice", no matter what my actions actually are, I beleive the response would be that I am a closed minded Christian and a horrible person because of my beliefs. In that respect, I think my right to my own beliefs is being disregarded. I think that is very much like me saying gays have no right to believe certain things. I may disagree, but I would never claim gays had no right to believe what they want to, I think this may be what Tim is trying to say, but I'm not sure. I am going on about 1/3 of the sleep I need for the last 3 days and your West Coast time doesn't help. The first time I posted a comment here - a few days ago - I thought it was about 2:00 am because of the timestamp on the comment, then I looked at the time and couldn't figure out how I lost 3 hours. It took me two days to figure it out, Duh!
Posted by Frankzzzz]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 20:40:19 -0700 The Stranger Posted by I have always been... east coaster]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 20:36:23 -0700 The Stranger
My appologies. No, I'm afraid I didn't notice that you qualified you statement son Chrisitans seval times. This wasn't intentional or careless. I currently use my iPad when I am at home, and I have to scroll back and forth when looking at comments and posting my own. Also your original response to me did say "If Christians don't want non-Christians to...they should.." and other statements that weren't qualified. I wasn't trying to be selective in what I was responding to - those comments probably drew my attention more quickly.

One thing that this makes me realize though, is how utterly difficult it is to discuss some things - especially on line. I try to be very careful when I make statements so I don't inadvertently attribute actions to all of some group. You likewise, shouldn't have to walk on eggshells to have a conversation. Unfortunately, our society has got to the point where it is easy for people to really misunderstand someone's intention - and this is probably due to the actions of haters that are constantly on the loose.

It's also due to this technology which is both a blessing and a curse. I pretty much hate computers even though I am an academic advisor in a computer science department and teach computer science course. I'm just a peon - not a faculty member.

Anyway I do appreciate you effort to explain things to me. And I do understand what you mean when you say that being gay is who you are. (not sure if that was your exact words). I don't know if I can clarify my thoughts, but I'll try. As far as hating the sin and loving the sinner : People who say they hate your actions, but not you are not looking at you actions as being part of you, even if you define yourself in this manner. That being the case, can you then understand that they can in fact hate your actions and still love you, because they are making a distinction that you aren't? If they agreed that your actions were an intricate part of you, then they wouldn't be able to say that.
Posted by Frankzzzz]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 19:29:49 -0700 The Stranger