American Muslims Are Now More Accepting Of Homosexuality Than White Evangelicals

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Just telling it like it is, man.

6 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm:

7 “Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

8 “Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
9 Do you have an arm like God’s,
and can your voice thunder like his?
10 Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor,
and clothe yourself in honor and majesty.
11 Unleash the fury of your wrath,
look at all who are proud and bring them low,
12 look at all who are proud and humble them,
crush the wicked where they stand.
13 Bury them all in the dust together;
shroud their faces in the grave.
14 Then I myself will admit to you
that your own right hand can save you.

From Job 40

Why did you leave out the hippo's testicles? That's rather colourful, after all.

 

[DavidFirth]

But I thought Jesus is God? Not so? Do tell....

Why did you leave out the hippo's testicles? That's rather colourful, after all.

Oh, so you just want to be hateful and spiteful. I ain't got time for that. Good night.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oh, so you just want to be hateful and spiteful. I ain't got time for that. Good night.

Neither of my comments was either hateful or spiteful. For most Christians, so I am reliably informed, Christ, the Holy Spirit and God are one (in three persons, whatever that means). But that God is Christ and Christ is God is not disputed. Therefore, when you commented that "only God could give some commands but they had nothing to do with Jesus, then I have to ask the obvious question. What else would you expect?

And it is true, in Job 40, that God does ask Job to consider the hippo ("behemoth") and his sinews, penis and testicles -- and frankly, that makes for colourful reading. If you don't think I ought to have mentioned that, perhaps the Bible should not have included it.

Or maybe, actually, you just don't like the fact that I know the book as well (possibly better) as you do. I'm doing my writing from memory, after all.

 

[shmogie]

And when Christians do this, it's not Christianity's fault?


I am amazed that so many people in the world don't get that group dynamics change all the time. It's reality. Even if someone you approved of moved in, that still changes the dynamic and your life won't be the same as it was before.


How about I act the way he and his apostles ACTUALLY acted, and run from angry mobs and the cops because I'm afraid they'll hurt me? How about I ask "angels" to break me out of jail or ask Caesar to get me out of prison?


But people want to legislate their vindictiveness over the fact people didn't want to listen to them.


True. Jesus also had a dark side. However, we must ask ourselves whether we also want to harm others just because Jesus did it.


Then why do you keep doing it?


History of violence against LGBT people in the United States - Wikipedia

I've been harassed by good ol' Christians and I'm not even gay. They just think I am. That's what convinced me God, the Truth, is not behind this at all.


Maybe not, but you have no moral justification to be a dick to others, citizens or not, especially if they haven't even done anything to you.


The crusades was about Muslims making money off of pepper and Christians weren't getting those profits.

Do you feel the same way when Christian empires do the same thing?


Christian Crusaders did insanely immoral things to people.


He says he only came for Israel. Gentiles have to guilt trip him in order to receive any assistance. Jews don't.


No, it's about asking the question: why is God such a wimp that Satan can easily manipulate Him into spiting someone for no good reason? Even God admits there is no good reason for this, but He does it anyway.

Truy not worthy

By this definition there are no Christians on Earth - only alleged Christians - because Christian theology teaches that all of us are sinners, and all of us incline toward sinful acts i.e. acts proscribed by Christianity. And since that definition of 'alleged Christians' would include you, I can dismiss what you say because as a non-Christian you are not in a position to lecture others on what Christianity is and is not. Hoisted by your own petard.




So basically anybody who fails to live up to Christ's standards cannot be a Christian. Again, by your own religion's theology, that means nobody can be a Christian. You're also forgetting that Christianity is more than the sum of sayings attributed to Jesus by others - it also consists of Pauline doctrine. And Paul gave his share of homophobic verses too:

1. Romans 1:26-28;
2. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11;
3. 1 Timothy:8-10;

That's just a start.




Sorry but your attempts to disown the problem don't wash. Christians have been using scriptural interpretations (Leviticus; claims that Jesus promoted mixed-sex marriage etc) and various theological angles (homosexuality is a symptom of our Fallen, sinful nature etc) to promote homophobia for millennia. You can't just brush that or any of the resulting homophobic actions under the carpet because you don't want to admit you're part of a belief system that still uses these justifications among others (such as falsely conflating gay people with child molesters (which coming from groups like the Catholic Church and some Evangelical ministers just screams of projection)) to treat LGBT people like second-class citizens. In every single Western country that has attempted to grant equal marriage rights under law to LGBTs; the campaigns to deny them these rights have been spear-headed by Christians spouting the Bible and Christian theology as arguments.

Finally, your attempts to disown Christian homophobia look quite hypocritical since you don't grant Muslims the same courtesy in respect to problems with Islam.

Interesting, you don't understand my petard. People are defined by their acts by other people. In some cases, this is expected. Only God understands motives and reason's. We are all sinners, correct. However, coveted, habitual cherished sin, by the acts, cannot be acts of a Christian. I don't say that, the Apostles do. However, that human judgement of the acts does not replace God's judgement of the soul. That is a completely different issue way above mine and every other Christian's pay grade. Heinous despicable acts against other's cannot be those of a Christian. No Christian, at the time of the act could do so. He may have attended church faithfully for 50 years. He may have done wonderful charitable things for 50 years, no matter. Hate erupting in unprovoked violence against another cannot be the act of a Christian. Ditto for violence mongering against others, God flees from that behavior. Certainly redemption from any sin can be obtained by TRUE repentance. A person that murders another is not a Christian at the time of the act, he cannot be. It is very simple, but those who tout their particular political philosophy cannot grasp the distinction. A man or woman may be a submarine captain, but when terrible non captain errors send the sub to the bottom, as they are going down the crew knows they weren't a competent captain at the time of the errors. Now, to your rant re homosexuals. First, in America, they have the exact same rights as other citizens, no more, no less. As i have repeated till I am blue in the face within the Christian Church, the instruction is clear. They cannot be members of the Church. Let me explain because purposely or out of ignorance you won't understand it. The earthly Church is composed of official members, on the Church rolls. The universal body of Christ is composed of those only God recognizes and knows in his wisdom and knowledge. The earthly Church, has members, and those not members on the rolls who are free to attend all open Church meetings. They may not participate in certain activities reserved for members, e.g. business meetings. This is all Paul says on the issue, if you don't like it, it is what it is. There are times when the free exercise of religion clashes with what homosexuals consider their rights. Only the courts can arbitrate these issues. All people are to be treated with respect and dignity

 

[shmogie]

Sorry, but I do not believe that I missed the point -- in fact I think that you did. Job is clearly an allegory (and one which has been added to, which is easily seen and one which a large majority of scholars agree -- especially the sudden, inexplicable appearance of Elihu with an entirely different message than what has so far been the dialogues of Job's friends who are mentioned in the prologue -- Elihu is not). Further, the "voice in the whirlwind" is also clearly a later addition -- also much agreed by scholars. And it explains nothing except "I'm god and I'm wonderful and you're not, so shut up!"

In my view, Job is an attempt at a "theodicy," or an explanation of what we call "the problem of evil." And as such, in my view, it fails utterly for two reasons:

1. Job, as written, posits that there is evil in the world because God is so freakin' great that he can do what he wants and you're not up to understanding it anyway, no matter how it hurts -- so suck it up, loser, and
2. God -- in what I can only call a sheepish mea culpa contrives to make it all up to Job by giving him more children and even more wealth -- without ever actually saying "Sorry!"

As to your point about "God and Job knew his dead children were just fine, and would be restored to him" (which, although you don't say it we must assume you mean to be when he's dead and buried), I have this to say -- if it's that good, everybody should kill their children so they can start enjoying all those heavenly benefits sooner, rather than having to put up with school, bullying, acne, the pain of first love and all the other crap that "the problem of evil" never does manage to explain.

I find that comment of yours to be repulsive, on that basis.

Your exegesis fails. I wonder which Bible scholars you refer to, you didn't mention any. God does not allow murder, for one so tuned in to the Bible, I am surprised you haven't grasped that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Your exegesis fails. I wonder which Bible scholars you refer to, you didn't mention any. God does not allow murder, for one so tuned in to the Bible, I am surprised you haven't grasped that.

God not only allows murder, he commands it. Try reading Numbers 31. Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins -- Wow! (Even God gets some of the booty -- including the virgins.) 31:1-54

I will not ever accept the wretchedly stupid idea that "the little ones" can ever be guilty of anything meriting being slaughtered -- and thus, and I don't care what you or God says about the matter -- that's murder! Murder most foul. Anyway, there's lots more God-condoned murder in the Bible -- even God-committed murder. The first born of Egypt includes babies just born, you know, and they cannot possibly be guilty of meriting death. Not to mention the flood, which killed all but 8 humans -- and some of those would have been born just minutes or hours before -- and thus not have nearly enough time to have contemplated and committed capital crimes.

My exegesis does not fail. The Bible says it, in no uncertain terms. If you attempt to make those events look otherwise than they are, they you are not doing exigesis at all, but eisegis -- you're reading it in to suit your own purposes.

 

[Augustus]

It is fortunate that we have educated people that have studied Islam in depth.

He's studied it in so much depth he quotes precisely zero Islamic scholars on the subject, and instead offers his own interpretations of 3 isolated passages, one of which contains the bombshell revelation that it's ok to deceive people during war.

Verbatim: "So the next time your hear something about islam and it just doesn't sound right, and it comes from the mouth of a Muslim, you're right. It's not right. It's a lie. It's taqiyya".

So unless a Muslim confirms your ignorant prejudice, they are lying. We are indeed fortunate to have such intellectual heavyweights as Bill Warner. Hats off to him

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Truy not worthy

I try.

But all the women children

Otherwise known as girls?

and some of those would have been born just minutes or hours before

Or not yet, even.

 

[shmogie]

God not only allows murder, he commands it. Try reading Numbers 31. Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins -- Wow! (Even God gets some of the booty -- including the virgins.) 31:1-54

I will not ever accept the wretchedly stupid idea that "the little ones" can ever be guilty of anything meriting being slaughtered -- and thus, and I don't care what you or God says about the matter -- that's murder! Murder most foul. Anyway, there's lots more God-condoned murder in the Bible -- even God-committed murder. The first born of Egypt includes babies just born, you know, and they cannot possibly be guilty of meriting death. Not to mention the flood, which killed all but 8 humans -- and some of those would have been born just minutes or hours before -- and thus not have nearly enough time to have contemplated and committed capital crimes.

My exegesis does not fail. The Bible says it, in no uncertain terms. If you attempt to make those events look otherwise than they are, they you are not doing exigesis at all, but eisegis -- you're reading it in to suit your own purposes.

 

[shmogie]

God not only allows murder, he commands it. Try reading Numbers 31. Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins -- Wow! (Even God gets some of the booty -- including the virgins.) 31:1-54

I will not ever accept the wretchedly stupid idea that "the little ones" can ever be guilty of anything meriting being slaughtered -- and thus, and I don't care what you or God says about the matter -- that's murder! Murder most foul. Anyway, there's lots more God-condoned murder in the Bible -- even God-committed murder. The first born of Egypt includes babies just born, you know, and they cannot possibly be guilty of meriting death. Not to mention the flood, which killed all but 8 humans -- and some of those would have been born just minutes or hours before -- and thus not have nearly enough time to have contemplated and committed capital crimes.

My exegesis does not fail. The Bible says it, in no uncertain terms. If you attempt to make those events look otherwise than they are, they you are not doing exigesis at all, but eisegis -- you're reading it in to suit your own purposes.

Murder is the unlawful murder of another. God is the law, killing commanded by him cannot be unlawful. Once again, those occurrences were for an over riding purpose 4,000 years ago. That purpose was for a very specific place for a specific (short) time. However, you and most not familiar with the Bible never grasp this nor do they grasp that those days and times and commands never had any bearing on Christians. They happened 2,000 years before any Christian existed, and what occurred was for the establishment of Israel, the Jews. The old Testament was for and given to the Jew's, I. a gentile Christian, had no representation in the OT, and the OT , other than for purposes of history and some wisdom, does not apply to Christianity. Christians are under the New Covenant brought by Jesus. That is our law, our mode of behavior, our reference point. So save your emotional and mis spent baloney for God when you meet him, and you will. I am under something totally different from what you are whining about, relate to what I believe, MY law, MY code of behavior, or stop trying to relate at all.

 

[shmogie]

Murder is the unlawful murder of another. God is the law, killing commanded by him cannot be unlawful. Once again, those occurrences were for an over riding purpose 4,000 years ago. That purpose was for a very specific place for a specific (short) time. However, you and most not familiar with the Bible never grasp this nor do they grasp that those days and times and commands never had any bearing on Christians. They happened 2,000 years before any Christian existed, and what occurred was for the establishment of Israel, the Jews. The old Testament was for and given to the Jew's, I. a gentile Christian, had no representation in the OT, and the OT , other than for purposes of history and some wisdom, does not apply to Christianity. Christians are under the New Covenant brought by Jesus. That is our law, our mode of behavior, our reference point. So save your emotional and mis spent baloney for God when you meet him, and you will. I am under something totally different from what you are whining about, relate to what I believe, MY law, MY code of behavior, or stop trying to relate at all.

UNLAWFUL KILLING, I meant to say.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

UNLAWFUL KILLING, I meant to say.

You (and many other religious believers) make me sad. I mean that genuinely, and not unkindly.

I do not like killing, whether its "lawful" or "unlawful." You know, of course, that humans make their own laws -- and they are empowered to do so, I think you have to suppose, by God. There are many places in the world that have laws that permit the killing of persons for a wide variety of crimes. Many American states still have -- and execute -- capital punishment. That is, they have somebody locked up so securely that they can neither escape nor defend themselves, and in that helpless state, they are put to death. The "law" makes that okay -- that they are not being "unlawfully killed" in your own expression.

I despise it! The "law" in Germany some decades ago made it okay to herd millions into gas chambers. Later, other nations put some of those who ordered those executions to death by simply deciding that Germany's laws -- duly enacted by the government in authority -- weren't "legal."

I despise it, too, because we are not omniscient -- and the numbers of wrongful convictions on the books make it an absolute certainty that many innocent people have been "lawfully killed" by our societies. As Gandalf says to Frodo, in the Two Towers (after Frodo opines that Gollum "deserves death"): "Many that live that deserve death; and many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?"

My morality is human-centered. I'm human, and I know what it means to be human. My morality cannot be God-centered because I'm not God, I don't what know what it might be like to be god -- AND I DO NOT TRUST THOSE HUMANS WHO HAVE PRETENDED THE CONTRARY. That includes, by the way, those who wrote scripture and make statements like "God is the law, killing commanded by him cannot be unlawful." Because the only evidence you have that anything was "commanded by him" is 100% hear-say, written by those (altogether human) with an agenda to protect.

 

[shmogie]

You (and many other religious believers) make me sad. I mean that genuinely, and not unkindly.

I do not like killing, whether its "lawful" or "unlawful." You know, of course, that humans make their own laws -- and they are empowered to do so, I think you have to suppose, by God. There are many places in the world that have laws that permit the killing of persons for a wide variety of crimes. Many American states still have -- and execute -- capital punishment. That is, they have somebody locked up so securely that they can neither escape nor defend themselves, and in that helpless state, they are put to death. The "law" makes that okay -- that they are not being "unlawfully killed" in your own expression.

I despise it! The "law" in Germany some decades ago made it okay to herd millions into gas chambers. Later, other nations put some of those who ordered those executions to death by simply deciding that Germany's laws -- duly enacted by the government in authority -- weren't "legal."

I despise it, too, because we are not omniscient -- and the numbers of wrongful convictions on the books make it an absolute certainty that many innocent people have been "lawfully killed" by our societies. As Gandalf says to Frodo, in the Two Towers (after Frodo opines that Gollum "deserves death"): "Many that live that deserve death; and many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?"

My morality is human-centered. I'm human, and I know what it means to be human. My morality cannot be God-centered because I'm not God, I don't what know what it might be like to be god -- AND I DO NOT TRUST THOSE HUMANS WHO HAVE PRETENDED THE CONTRARY. That includes, by the way, those who wrote scripture and make statements like "God is the law, killing commanded by him cannot be unlawful." Because the only evidence you have that anything was "commanded by him" is 100% hear-say, written by those (altogether human) with an agenda to protect.

Well of course, your statement regarding the Bible being written by humans with an agenda is an opinion, nothing more, an opinion. Regarding capital punishment, I support it. My opinion radically changed on this when as a young law enforcement officer I had in my custody a man, a murderer, who was paroled and in less than 24 hours robbed two old ladies and murder 3 innocent people. Since two were police officers I saw the family lives destroyed, that an execution in the first place would have prevented, along with the deaths of three more people. Murderers cannot be kept in prison without risk to others. Inmates, prison workers, doctors dentists. Therefore for the worst of them, their lives are forfeit.

 

[Socratic Berean]

How can Jesus be moral, if he wrote this,.

Matthew 13:42
And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Quran 14:49-50
Those in hell will be chained together. Their clothing will be made of pitch and fire will cover their faces.

Text cited out of context is nothing more than pretext.

 

[Socratic Berean]

The Covenant in Genesis was for Hebrews not Jews , they are many covenants in the OT and they are all based on the decree in Ezra 1:2

How do you reckon that the covenants put in place well before, such as the Adamic and Noahic covenants, sprang from Ezra 1:2?

 

[Socratic Berean]

As Gandalf says to Frodo, in the Two Towers (after Frodo opines that Gollum "deserves death"): "Many that live that deserve death; and many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?"

At the risk of sounding like I am lending support to the culturally popular practice of cobbling together one's world view from disparate nuggets of wisdom salvaged from Star Wars and other entertainment, from where do you think the Roman Catholic Tolkien drew the concept behind this poignant exchange?

My morality is human-centered. I'm human, and I know what it means to be human....

Isn't the concept of a personalized, customizeable sense of morality ("My morality is...") exactly what leads to incidents (and laws) like the gas chambers (and German codes) you referred to?

 

[Socratic Berean]

...since scripture says if you want somebody else's land, you should kill all their men, women and boys and keep their virgin girls for yourself...

What verse of scripture instructs so?

 

[Magus]

Text cited out of context is nothing more than pretext.

That's how Christianity was created.

How do you reckon that the covenants put in place well before, such as the Adamic and Noahic covenants, sprang from Ezra 1:2

No one doubts the existence of King Cyrus.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well of course, your statement regarding the Bible being written by humans with an agenda is an opinion, nothing more, an opinion. Regarding capital punishment, I support it. My opinion radically changed on this when as a young law enforcement officer I had in my custody a man, a murderer, who was paroled and in less than 24 hours robbed two old ladies and murder 3 innocent people. Since two were police officers I saw the family lives destroyed, that an execution in the first place would have prevented, along with the deaths of three more people. Murderers cannot be kept in prison without risk to others. Inmates, prison workers, doctors dentists. Therefore for the worst of them, their lives are forfeit.

So you have made a generalized, universal rule out of a single case? Then I have to ask you, if you were presented with another case -- or two, or three, or six, or 25 -- where it is verified that an innocent person (proved later) was executed -- then what? Would you change your mind? Those cases exist, just so you know, and are not hard to find.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

At the risk of sounding like I am lending support to the culturally popular practice of cobbling together one's world view from disparate nuggets of wisdom salvaged from Star Wars and other entertainment, from where do you think the Roman Catholic Tolkien drew the concept behind this poignant exchange?

I am of course well aware of Tolkien's religion. I am equally well aware of the Bible. I am -- and this may come as a surprise to you -- also a person who has read and still reads the Bible -- as a commitment to the study of human literature, philosophy, culture and art. There's much of it that I like (Ecclesiates). There's much that I quote (1 Cor 13) with some reverence. There's also much that I detest. (I do the same with Shakespeare, Tolkien, Dostoevsky and hundreds of other writers.

But please understand, I accept all of those writers as human -- I think they have all tried to express their views of the human condition, and I gravitate easily to those views that match my own, and tend to reject those that offend me. Much like everyone, I suppose.

For the record, when I do quote such things (and I do often), it's primarily because those authors have expressed something about which I feel strongly in language far more powerful, far more poetic, and far more beautiful than I'm capable of. It's like war: I hate it, but Picasso painted my hatred in Guernica in a way that I could never express in words.

Isn't the concept of a personalized, customizeable sense of morality ("My morality is...") exactly what leads to incidents (and laws) like the gas chambers (and German codes) you referred to?

Yes, I suppose that is true -- in fact, I agree with you that it is not only possibly true but is certainly true. But then, that takes us to the very core of the issue: "what informs my morality?" And that's what I tried to explain in my post: that my views are centered on humans and reason, not on things that I have to accept on faith, and that often offend my own sensibilities.