Anti-Bullying Bullying Makes Me Barf

Recently, MTV personality, newspaper columnist, gay-rights activist, and supposed anti-bullying advocate Dan Savage was invited to speak at a high school journalism convention.  Through a series of inflammatory remarks and fallacious rhetoric, Savage proceeded to verbally bully Christian students in the audience.  Some of these kids chose to walk out in protest, at which point Savage verbally assaulted them with name calling and claimed it was self-defense.  Not very “anti-bullying” of him, but this sort of special pleading seems to be par for the course where the “tolerance” movement is concerned (as I’ve previously discussed).

Let’s take a look at what Mr Savage had to say on the Bible.  If you watch the video linked below to get the context, you may want to make sure there are no small ears around first, as this fellow doesn’t prefer to stick to societal conventions on etiquette in public discourse.  On the other hand, if you have Jr High or High School kids that are mature enough to watch this critically, I highly suggest viewing it with them to show them what they’re up against.  They’re going to be challenged to be tolerant, all the while being bullied for their beliefs.

http://youtu.be/ao0k9qDsOvs

0:15 – Good start Mr. Savage!  You’re right, the Bible does say homosexuality is wrong, along with a host of other sexual sins, and things like murder, stealing, false gods, arrogance, corrupt conversation, hatred, bitterness, etc.

0:25 – Wait, what now?  The BS about gay people in the Bible?  You mean the part where it says it is wrong?  I don’t mean to straw man Mr Savage’s position, but he seems to be implying that things being in the Bible invalidates them somehow.  Does this mean that the part about murder being wrong is also BS because it is in the Bible as well?  That would just be committing the genetic fallacy.  An argument cannot be dismissed simply in light of its source.  You need to actually make a positive case for your side, otherwise it looks like you’re just ignoring the Bible simply because you don’t want to live according to its standards, not because there’s actually something wrong with the standard.  Simply not liking the claim it makes on your life does nothing for your position.  If he’s not implying it’s position in the Bible is what invalidates it, then it’s simply a foundationless claim, and I have no reason to believe the Bible’s claims that God has high standards for acceptable sexual relationships are BS.

0:37 – Shellfish? Shellfish were covered under the theocratic rule of God over Israel in the old covenant.  It is no longer relevant, nor is this argument (if simply saying a word is an argument).  We’re no longer living under the old covenant, or its dietary restrictions.  Perhaps a Jewish person would like to have that debate.

0:39 – Slavery? You realize slavery in antiquity wasn’t the antebellum slavery we see in the American south, right?  Biblical “slavery” was more of an indentured servitude.  A person might sell himself as way to have him and/or his family taken care of, or for forgiveness of debt, in exchange for his service.  In fact, what you see happening in Israel in terms of Biblical law is vastly different from what is seen in the pagan cultures around them. For instance, in the Code of Hammurabi we see slaves were clearly treated as property.  If you put out the eye of a slave, or broke his bones, you were to pay half the value of the slave to the master.  On the other hand the Old Testament of Israel affirms the personhood of servants.  In the same circumstance in Hebrew culture, the slave would be allowed to go free (Exod 21:26-27).  The servant was given justice in God’s theocracy, not the master.

0:40 – Dinner?  This is a new one to me.  Honestly I’m not sure what he’s referring to here.  If it is having to do with dietary restrictions see the comment above about shellfish.  We ignore those laws because they applied only to Jews living under the theocratic rule of God, not because there is something wrong with them.  At the time, some of them were largely symbolic, and others provided health benefits.

0:41 – Farming?  Presumably this is reference to Deuteronomy 22 where the Israelites were not supposed to plow with an ox and donkey together.  In fact, they had several restrictions about combining differing things.  This is likely symbolic, as a reminder that they were a people set aside for God.  They were not to mix with the pagan cultures, and therefore were given several reminders to keep themselves separate, like mixing seed in the field, mixing fibers in clothing, and plowing with a mixed team.  Again, this was special to Hebrew law under theocratic rule, and does not apply since Jesus fulfilled the old covenant.

0:42 – Menstruation? Again, I’m not sure Mr Savage has made an attempt to understand the Biblical narrative rather than just reading single phrases and attacking them out of context.  First, a menstruating woman was not morally unclean (if that’s what Savage is getting at), just ceremonially unclean.  There were a lot of other health-related distractions that put both women as well as men in this ceremonially unclean condition.  Second, blood was a symbolically sacred thing to the Hebrews, so there are numerous regulations regarding it. It doesn’t strike me as especially controversial.  Coincidentally, it is the narrative of blood as the source of life via atonement that is taken right up to the last sacrifice made, which was Jesus, the Messiah, on the cross.  The only thing required to be ceremonially clean now, is acceptance of the Messiah as a sacrifice on behalf of all people.  It’s a lot easier!  Again, this sort of ceremonial law regarding menstruation is part of the old covenant that God had with Israel.  There were similar laws that applied to men.  Not really relevant to Mr Savage’s point unless he’s talking directly to Jews who don’t believe Jesus was the Messiah.  It doesn’t seem that way though.

0:43 – Virginity?  See 1:45 when Mr Savage brings this back up, but I think he’s confused about his details again.  Peculiar for a journalism conference!

0:44 – Masturbation? Actually the Bible doesn’t say anything at all about this in and of itself.  Catholics in particular might try to use the account of Onan in Genesis 38 to say it is there (as well as using it to lobby against family planning), but in context Onan was simply punished for being wicked in light of his refusal to obey the law of levarite marriage which protected a family’s inheritance rights in the event of the untimely death of a husband.  A male relative of the deceased, in this case a younger brother, was directed to marry his brother’s widow and carry on the family line.  He stubbornly chose to ignore the law.  Coincidentally we later see a similar law applied successfully with Ruth and Boaz, which eventually leads to David, and finally Jesus.

0:50 – Mr Savage and I can’t agree that what is in the Bible is BS, but we can agree that we do, in fact, ignore things in the Bible about all sorts of things.  This is not the question though.  The question is SHOULD we ignore things in the Bible, and does the Bible contain a real claim on our lives and the way we should live, or just a bunch of ancient made up mythology?  Savage seems only interested in the former and not the latter.  His logic is that because we, as a culture, seem to be already ignoring some things, we might as well ignore them all.  His reasoning, doesn’t seek to determine what is right or wrong, but merely appeals to the culture to define what we should or should not do.  Relativism!  Taken to the absurd like our mothers always did, Mr Savage, if all your friends were to jump off a bridge, sir, would you follow?  This is the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum, or the appeal to popularity.  Just because a bunch of people are doing something, it does not follow necessarily that it is the right thing to do, otherwise we’d have to conclude Hitler’s Germany was justified in its actions.

0:55 – The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document because slave owners waved Bibles over their heads during the Civil War?  Again, Mr Savage seems to be a big fan the genetic fallacy.  If Hitler waved a chocolate bar over his head during WWII saying, “Chocolate made me do it!”, would it follow necessarily that chocolate lovers are anti-Semites?

1:02 – Again, since Mr Savage is just throwing out unsubstantiated rhetoric and bald-faced assertions with no explanation, it’s difficult to tell what he’s referring to.  He refers to “the shortest book in the New Testament”, but that is 3 John, which obviously was not written by Paul and has nothing to do with slavery.  I think he must be referring either to Paul’s letter to Titus, where he addresses how Christian slaves should behave, or the 3rd shortest book of the New Testament, Philemon, where Paul request that Philemon release his dear friend Onesimus.  It almost seems like he’s just hodgepodging them together.  In the first case Paul only talks about what Titus should teach slaves, not how Titus should own slaves.  In his letter to Philemon Paul IS clearly asking Philemon to release his friend Onesimus.  Paul is in the position to make demands of Philemon, but appeals to Philemon to consult his relationship with Christ, and his relationship with Paul as a friend, and do the right thing.  Contrary to Mr Savage’s claim, Paul IS asking his friend to set his servant free.  However, it’s quite plausible given the culture that Onesimus owed some sort of debt to Philemon, and so Philemon would be under no obligation to do so.  Paul even suggests as much, and offers to have the debt charged to himself instead (Philemon 1:18) rather than Onesimus, so that Philemon might see Onesimus as the brother that he is.  Further, while ranting from the pulpit about how apparently he doesn’t like the way some Christians tell other people how they should live, Mr Savage is saying Paul should be more forceful in the way he tells other people how to live.  Your circular logic confuses me, sir.  I can’t tell what you really want.

1:20 – The Bible got slavery wrong?  The Bible doesn’t particularly take a position on slavery itself, only how to treat slaves.  I know I already said this, but I’ll say it again.  It also is definitely not referring to slavery like we think of when we imagine it in the antebellum South, which seems to be where Mr Savage is likely still trying to make a connection.  The Bible merely addresses the master/servant relationship that exists in both ancient near-eastern and then, later, the Roman empire.  Frequently a voluntary contract of servitude, or a necessary contract of servitude to pay off a debt.  I have no doubt that just like other institutions people establish (like high school journalism conventions) that people abused their position of authority.  However, in both cases the Bible defends the servant’s right to be treated with fairness and dignity, which was unheard of at the time.  In Titus 2 he’s addressing Christians who are slaves, not saying Christians ought to take slaves.  In Philemon he’s appealing for the release of a slave.  Mr Savage, again, resorts to logical fallacy by setting up a straw man for use in his rhetoric. He changes Paul’s position to be that Christians support slavery and then attacks that position, rather than addressing what Paul really said.  It’s poor form.

1:25 – Mr Savage’s fallacious appeal to authority with reference to Sam Harris’s book does nothing for his argument.  Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, not an ancient history or Biblical scholar.  Two unqualified people making naked assertions and taking the Bible out of context doesn’t make the position any more defensible.  In fact, to see the weakness of Sam Harris’s position on morality without God, watch his debate with Dr. William Lane Craig.  It’s a couple of hours, but well worth the investment no matter where you currently stand with regards to your view of theism.  http://youtu.be/yqaHXKLRKzg.

1:40 – I don’t agree that the Bible “got slavery wrong, but let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Bible did get the slavery issue wrong.  How do you arrive at the conclusion that it got sexuality wrong with 100% certainty?  This just seems to be affirming the consequent.  If the Bible was wrong on the issue of slavery, does that mean it follows necessarily that it was also 100% wrong on other issues?  Perhaps because it was wrong on slavery (for the sake of argument) it was also wrong on theft and it is okay to steal from people?  Or perhaps this form of reasoning could be used like this: If a gay person has ever molested a child, then gay people are dangerous.  A gay person has molested a child.  Therefore, gay people are dangerous.  The conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises, even if we were to accept premise #1 (which I don’t in either example). It’s logically flawed.

1:50 – If a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night she should be dragged to her father’s doorstep and stoned to death?  Mr Savage’s failure to bother with details about the thing he’s so against shows through apparently here, as it appears he is combining two distinct laws from Deuteronomy 22:23-24 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 in order to create one law of his own.  In the former case, the engaged virgin woman AND the man are both stoned outside the city gate, because they’ve consentually committed evil by violating a marriage under the theocracy of God. A good example of the high regard God has for marriage, and why it should be taken seriously. The latter circumstance is similar, except in this case the virgin woman is not engaged, so there was no marriage that was violated.  In this case the man is to pay a bride-price (50 shekels) to the father of the girl and he is to marry her.  This is for the woman’s protection, as a woman who was not a virgin would likely not be easily married.  Again, neither of these laws apply outside of God’s direct and personal rule over Israel.  If Mr Savage were to take even a moment’s time to attempt understand what is going on in the theocracy of ancient Israel, perhaps he would at least get his facts straight.  If this the sort of accuracy they’re promoting at journalism conferences, its no wonder the media is so inept.

1:55 – I don’t get the reference to Callista Gingrich.  Savage’s faithful seem to appreciate the comment, but I’m not sure what he’s driving at there.  Could somebody please explain this one?

2:10 – There’s no efforts to make stonings legal…at least not yet because we don’t know where the GOP is going?  More ridiculous rhetoric!  Here Mr Savage resorts to the slippery slope fallacy. This can actually be a valid form of reasoning if you can logically tie related events together to arrive at the conclusion, but Savage makes no attempt to do so, because it would not be possible. He’s made the statement based on his previous strawman account of the Biblical text in order to solicit the shock value and get laugh.  Again, perhaps it would be good fodder from a super PAC sponsored political attack ad, but not very responsible reasoning from a public platform.

2:15 – People are dying because we can’t clear this one last hurdle?  Really?  That’s weird.  I’ve never agreed that homosexuality, nor any form of heterosexual sin was right, yet I’ve never killed anybody.  That would seem to suggest to me, that the problem is not the belief that a certain action is objectively morally wrong, but only that there is another objectively morally wrong action being perpetrated that is the root of the problem.  Let’s say I hate the hiccups (I do)…a lot (really)…and perhaps I murder my neighbor because he has a bad case of the hiccups. Does anybody, even for a second, believe that my problem was really that I disliked the hiccups? This is a red-herring. Nobody is being harmed because of a belief that homosexuality is sinful. They’re being harmed because people believe it is okay to harm somebody verbally or physically with whom they disagree. That is the fundamental character flaw in play. Moreover, this is not unique to people who try to hide behind the Bible for their moral crimes. Some people might try to hide behind, for instance, the cover of a high school journalism convention to harm people they disagree with. That doesn’t make high school journalism conventions objectively wrong.  It just means somebody abused their understanding of its purpose.

2:50 – Beatings justified by the Bible?  I could also attempt to justify beatings using, say, the words of an anti-religious zealot from MTV.  That however, would not necessarily be his intent.

2:55 – More name calling from the speaker who is there to present on anti-bullying.

3:00 – Snarky apology fixes his rhetorical bullying.  Yay!  He’s just defending himself, but the kids that removed themselves from his assault are “pansy-assed”?  He’s just pointing out the hypocrisy of being “anti-gay”, while spewing anti-Christianity during a supposed anti-bullying speech?  Sneaking in yet more fallacious reasoning to wrap it up by throwing in some special pleading: it’s okay for him to be a bully from the stage because he’s been bullied, but Christians ought not do it or they’re hypocrites. Reality check Mr Savage – hypocrisy is wrong from all sides!

3:14 – Don’t even get me started on calling people who disagree with you bigots!  That’s just more straw men!  It’s perfectly reasonable to disagree with people’s positions without attacking them personally. Not everybody who disagrees with you is out to get you. Sure Ford and Chevy truck owners can’t relate to each other in this way, but I see no reason why people can’t disagree on other important things without the name calling.

Conclusion:  Listen, I’m no pastor, or Bible scholar, or historian.  I’m simply another random internet dude trying to make the best sense of reality as it appears to me.  It takes me only an evening of effort not only to figure out what Mr Savages obscure references are supposed to be too (since he doesn’t want to point them out specifically, or even get their literal gist accurate), but to also discern some real meaning within the context of those passages’ place in scripture and history.  Make an effort!  Both theists and atheists need to quit with the rhetoric and actually try to understand the other side’s position.  Dan Savage clearly doesn’t have an accurate view of the Bible, but then again, neither do many Christians so how would he!  This type of fallacious reasoning is rampant on both sides.  Get rid of it and have a real discussion!  Also, take some time to understand the context of these difficult parts of Scripture that people throw around carelessly.  I recommend a book by Paul Copan called “Is God A Moral Monster?”  It addresses many of the issues skeptics have that Savage brings up here.  Clearly much of his position is based on misinformation and/or misunderstanding of the text and/or history.  In the end, many people are going to reject the Bible outright, simply because the don’t like the claim it might have on their life if it were to be true, or their pre-supposition that supernatural events do not occur and never have.  This is the precarious position Mr Savage finds himself in.

Finally, our kids need to understand that no matter what the claims of the opposition, Christianity is not the unreasonable nonesene that some skeptics claim it is.  Even though they claim it with certainty, the claims are typically laden with poor logic, poor facts, and grand rhetoric.  It will be our kids’ job to defend their faith (1 Peter 3:15) respectfully, but diligently, and bring the dialogue back to reality.  This sort of rhetoric isn’t unique to the growing militant side of atheism.  Christians fall into it frequently as well.  Teach your kids to be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.  Regardless of our beliefs, we’re all able to disgree without resorting to personal attacks.  I’ve heard plenty of atheists who are very good at this sort of constructive dialogue.  They need to be encouraging their brethren to do the same, perhaps starting with Mr Savage.  Jesus used sound reasoning to debate his opponents, we need to do the same.

I heard one discussion recently between a Christian and an atheist, where they agreed on the central tactic of interactions with other people.  The theist presented it as Jesus himself presented it…”Love they neighbor.”  The atheist’s way of summing up the same sort of thought, though lacking the active quality of love, was also quite good…”Don’t be a jerk!

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Anti-Bullying Bullying Makes Me Barf

  1. “Through a series of inflammatory remarks and fallacious rhetoric, Savage proceeded to verbally bully Christian students in the audience.”

    Would you care to quote where he ‘bullied’ them?

    The use of a swear word and saying the Bible is wrong…while might be disconcerting to young Christians…isn’t bullying.

    • If you read the post, I did. I would generally consider name calling bullying. At least it is considered such at my kids’ school. He clearly called them “pansy-assed.” Kids need thicker skin that that in this world to be sure, but this is not something somebody representing the government on an anti-bullying platform should be doing. I actually fail to see why anybody from any platform ought to be doing it. It’s not constructive.

    • Dan Savage himself realized what he had done there (with the pansy-ass comment) – admitted to it being name-calling and apologized for that.

      I don’t think his point is completely invalid, however much it was regrettable that he decided to use foul language and invite all sorts of criticism from all sides for that non-substantive aspect of his speech.

      Many people do NOT see actions as bullying at all, if it is against a group they do not identify with. The same person who will say that calling homosexuals an “abomination” is NOT bullying may very well be the same person who screams bloody murder the moment someone mentions that, well, the bible has a bunch of stuff in it explaining how to own slaves. It’s bizarre how a factual statement (the bible includes a bunch of rules about how to own slaves and actually instructs slaves to obey their masters) is somehow bullying – but telling someone that a Just God is going to send them to hell for eternity in hell-fire for being gay is a-okay.

      It’s pretty ridiculous. However, when someone does cross the line from debate into bullying – regardless of what “side” that person is on – it should be called out. That is the only way we’ll stop pointing fingers back and forth and get to the root of the problem.

      • Putting yourself in the position of needing to apologize for bullying from a anti-bullying platform just doesn’t make you the best one to be on the platform.

        I don’t take issue with factual statements, so long as you get your facts straight, which Mr. Savage didn’t take any care to do, even with regard to slavery (or debt-servants as the case may be). I addressed this in the response. Not sure if you read through it all the way or not.

        With regards to telling people God is going to send them to hell for eternity for being gay, I think that is a another mischaracterization of the facts of the Bible that misguided Christians often get wrong as well. God has given us a choice. God isn’t going to “send” people anywhere. We’re all going to choose our own eternal destiny. You might be starving so I invite you to my house for dinner, and the alternative is to dig through a dumpster. I won’t make you come to my house. You’re free to take me up on my offer, but your free will gives you the sometimes dangerous luxury of rejecting the invitation and choosing the dumpster.

        Thanks for the thoughtful comments!

      • My apologies – in all honesty, I did not read all of your post. I skimmed through and when I saw the comment I responded to, well, I felt it needed a response.

        I share your concern about how Mr. Savage presented his arguments, especially considering the venue. I just wanted to point out that, in the very least, he has accepted as valid some of the criticism he has gained from it.

        I am somewhat aware of various theological arguments concerning what the bible does and does not mean, if historical context matters, if we are under the law or not, etc so forth. I do not think that conversation is relevant.

        The reason it is not relevant is that what needs to be considered is not what theology is valid or invalid; but how expressing that theology (whatever it may be) and the WAYS in which that theology is expressed (whatever it may be) affects the psychological (and many times physical) well-being of people including children.

        When tactics such as this: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/anti-gay-pastor-parents-must-squash-like-a-cockroach-the-gay-out-of-kids/politics/2012/05/01/38837

        Are being preached in some pulpits – the distinction of whether homosexuality is an abomination or if a homosexual person is considered an abomination is just hair-splitting semantics. Gender queer and homosexual children and teens are fighting for their very lives; are being preached into pathological self-hatred; and the adults around them are not being allowed (in some cases) to intervene due to a sense that the expression of religiously based opinions (however, much you or I would strongly disagree) are protected regardless of their ill effects.

        Recently, a fellow blogger defended anti-queer theology by simply stating that beatings are rare!

        http://sinmantyx.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/beating/

        Now, I understand that most devout Christians absolutely do not condone treated others poorly – however, at times their version of “loving” someone else seems like the opposite (such as the case I linked earlier); but many Christian’s deference to biblical literalism (on this particular topic) indirectly (and sometimes directly) contributes to a culture which allows for the mistreatment of gender-queer and homosexual people.

        This may be all about abstractions and argumentation and theological debate to you – but it is literally about life and death for other people. We do have a right to defend ourselves against our attackers – regardless of how much they may rationalize their attack so profoundly that they can’t even SEE it for what it is.

        Dan Savage is a grown man who sometimes does sort of immature stuff that I don’t think is helpful. However, I understand his frustration.

      • I understand your concern, and I share it. There are a lot of people being mistreated in terrible ways, including by self-proclaimed Christians. To me, that’s why it is imporant to get the theology right. That is the life and death debate. It is the debate about what are and are not morally sound ways to treat one another in the eyes of our Creator. I would pose a question though. You say you have the right to defend yourself. On what grounds would you (or Dan Savage) say you have the right to to defend yourselves, or to not be attacked at all in the first place? Where does that right come from?

      • It’s a basic ethical right based on the concept of egalitarianism. If someone does not have the right to defend themselves, it is placing the worth of the attacker above the worth of the person being attacked. To require a person who is being abused, marginalized, or exploited without a socially condoned means of effective recourse is to fashion an inherently unjust social contract.

      • Where does this basic ethical right come from though? Egalitarianism basically says all people are valued equally. Is that correct? If that’s your view, on what basis do people have any value at all, whether equal or unequal? And why people in particular? Shouldn’t, say, cats or butterflies be counted of equal value as well?

      • I knew the moment you asked the question that you were going to attempt to lead the discussion in such a way (at least I suspected) that you would eventually assert that God was the source of morality and there can be no ethical codes without God. I realize that Acts especially reads like the Communist manifesto; and that egalitarianism is generally consistent with modern mainstream Christian theology. (How any Christian can justify worshiping at the feet of Ayn Rand I have no idea.) However, I don’t know how having a conversation about the ultimate source of morality is fruitful.

        Some religions do teach that all living things have equal value as humans – but that simply isn’t a practical stance.

        I could assert that ethical codes are a product of practicality and the advent of empathy – but regardless of how far back in the “why?” spiral we go, I suspect we will still disagree in the end.

      • Perhaps you’re right, but I have no problem disagreeing with people 🙂 The “why?” is a circle though, not a spiral. It doesn’t move anywhere, it just comes back on itself. If you think long and hard on it, the fact is that there can be no morality without some source of it outside the physical universe. What anybody asserts, myself or otherwise, makes no difference. All that matters is what the truth is. On naturalism, we are entitled to nothing. We are merely organisms fighting for survival. Nothing has value. You have no right to defend yourself or not be attacked, because rights don’t exist. You are just an organism competing for survival, and if the Westboro Baptist Church is the fittest, well, so be it. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just nature.

        We both understand this is a lie though! It’s not reality. You seem to believe, I think, that you have intrinsic value simply on the fact that you are a person. I believe you do to! The only difference is that I’ve realized how you got your value, and that those heretical hypocrites from Topeka are mistaken! 😉

        Thanks for the comments. I really do appreciate differing viewpoints presented pleasantly. Thanks for that 🙂

      • No problem. I appreciate people like you who can express yourselves in the Christian theological language. I can speak that language, but from my mouth it’s theater. It would not be sincere, since (although I find some inspiration in the bible) I do not revere the bible as an authoritative source of truth. Theology will evolve (if you’ll excuse the term, ha) as it always has; to both shape and respond to cultural and societal norms. I just hope the neo-Calvinist and Dominionist theologies go the way of the dodo; and I think they will.

  2. So frustrating to me that someone can come in a tear down others to build themselves up. A speech about anti-bully was not the place to vent his frustrations with Christians. Plus, I hear a lot of “the Christians say this and the Christians say that” yet I have never in all my 25 years of attending church as an adult, heard a preacher do a hate speech about homosexuals – not once! This man WAS bullying these Christian kids who chose to walk out of his “anti-bullying” speech. His sarcasm, and his complete lack of respect for others beliefs, along with his blatant misrepresentation of the Bible was completely an “in your face and take that” moment.

    And what? Only gay kids are bullied? I think not! I am tired of that always being the focus. There are all kinds of children that live with bullying. It is a very serious and tragic situation and one that is dear to my heart, so to see someone so calloused and rude being in the position of teaching about bullying, is disheartening. I like that last comment in your blog that the atheist said, “Don’t be a jerk!” … That is what Savage was, a total jerk!

    All you had to say was well put and exactly what I was feeling (but much better worded)!

    • I understand the frustration. I haven’t ever heard a preacher give a message like that either, but that’s because I attend doctrinally sound churches with oversight. Unfortunately anybody can claim to be anything they want, which just soils the name of the thing they claim to be. There are, in fact, preachers that preach like this. They are the minority though.There’s jerks on all sides who need to come to a better way of thinking and communicating, and those who have places in the media need to be especially careful because they can do exponentially more damage to the cause of civility.

    • I have not found a church, outside of what are considered “liberal” churches (such as Society of Friends, Unitarian/Universalist, and Church of Christ) that were heavily influenced by the enlightenment; who have a theology that I find compatible with a healthy approach to gender-queer and homosexual people. My church of origin routinely preached concerning the evil inherent in the social tolerance/acceptance of homosexuality – in was a nearly bi-weekly occurrence.

      • The problem with picking and choosing the claims that God (if he exists) has on humanity, is that it doesn’t work. If it were left up to me to decide what is a healthy approach I would be a mess of all sorts. “Liberal” churches are making up their theology to suit their lifestyle, rather than attempting to discern proper theology that informs their lifestyle. It isn’t only homosexuality that is at stake here either. Heterosexuals are getting it every bit as wrong if not more so. I don’t believe the church should be shying away from calling out any sin for what it is because we don’t like how we’d have to live if we say it out loud, but what many people (even some pastors) fail to emphasize is that we’re all sinners.

        I think many people focus too heavily on the sins of others as well, rather then their own. They need to remove the speck. We all struggle with parts of our lives that God (if he exists) says we ought to avoid. Left to my own devices I’d be a wreck, but I’m challenged to give up all sorts of natural parts of me (lust, pride, anger, bitterness, revenge, greed, jealousy, etc) in order to be more like God (if he exists) intended me to be, rather than what I think I ought to be. Coincidentally, I think I’m happier that way, even though the culture tells me I should sleep with as many women as I can, hold grudges, return mistreatment, and get my way all the time. I’ve come to the conclusion I’m a terrible judge of right and wrong (if they exist ;P), so I use a handbook to try to get it right.:)

      • Yes, it is what they do. If you care to interpret the bible in a way that allows you not to be horrible – you have that freedom. You have an “out” given to you graciously by the concept of the Holy Spirit – who is able to instruct you and help you with interpretations of scripture. This is the major focus of the Family of Friends (Quakers).

        I know you have been convinced that without God you would immediately fall into being a slave to your base desires. Do you really think you “ought to be” lustful, prideful, angry, bitter, greedy, vengeful, and jealous? Is society actually telling you to treat other people poorly, never forgive, never compromise and be promiscuous?

        So, if this were true of the majority – wouldn’t these “pickers and choosers” be preaching such anti-virtues from their pulpits? Why would the largest difference in the ethical codes between conservative and liberal churches be whether or not to deny gender queer and homosexual people the right to marry?

        Shouldn’t adherents of liberal religion and humanism, as well as atheists, be disproportionately plagued with the repercussions of the supposed “wreck” of their lives?

        More broadly, if we tolerate poisonous theology that would go against our better natures within Christianity – what basis do we have to complain when other religions use their books to justify the unjustifiable? How can you have a conversation about what is right and wrong; when those concepts are obtained from unchangeable dogmatic theology?

        What is worse? – to “pick and choose” and be honest about the fact that you are allowing your conscience (or the Holy Spirit) to assist in which ideas you either accept or reject; or to be forced to adhere to the dictates of transcripted, compiled and translated words regardless of what your conscience (or the Holy Spirit) may be trying to tell you?

      • Those people are even mistaken on that they have an out if they think the Holy Spirit is to help them interpret scripture. For the most part, I think scripture interprets scripture. The context should give the text its meaning. Not me. The trouble with people is they want to take any thought they have and call it the Holy Spirit, even though it isn’t Biblical. I would question those people’s actual salvation.

        I don’t think I “ought” to be any of those things. That’s the point I guess. I know I ought to be different than those things, even if maybe I think some of them aren’t so bad. I think everybody, at least to some degree knows that there IS things they ought, and ought not do…but where do “oughts” and “ought nots” come from? It isn’t nature. Nature has no purpose so it isn’t capable of even talking about right and wrong.

        I would also say that, yes, the culture is actually telling me to do most of those things. Without a moral foundation, hedonism is king, and all I’ve got to do is read the headlines or flip on any sitcom to see it is reigning with authority.

        I would actually say that, at least among those folks I know, that adherents of liberal religion, humanism, and atheists are disproportionately a “wreck”. Less things like broken families, and more things like contentment with life. I know plenty of happy atheists too though. The point though, on Christianity at least, is to live a God pleasing life, not a self pleasing life. I screw this up, but that doesn’t stop me from trying.

        You’re right about not tolerating poisonous theology. I don’t think we should be doing that either. The biggest problem is where worldview and politics meet. It’s at that intersection where everybody is forced to be a part of each others’ lives. More importantly with regard to having conversations about right and wrong though, is how can those conversations be had when right and wrong don’t exist. Without a moral law giver, aren’t right and wrong just illusions? Why should I concern myself with illusions at all?

        The key word at the end there is “assist.” That’s the role of both the Bible and the Holy Spirit. If either one is left out (which people do frequently), you’ve created a new religion. I believe people get their conscience from God. Luckily that’s something we have in common regardless belief. That’s why people are always smuggling morals and ethics into their reasoning, even though they can’t explain on what foundation these morals and ethics are based. Without real objective morality, why shouldn’t I just ignore my conscience anyway? I think that is exactly what people start to do, and that’s why I refer back to the Bible, and don’t trust just my conscience alone. I need to re-flash my firmware now and again 😉

  3. We can argue about theology all day long. Let’s just acknowledge that not everyone believes that homosexuality is right, but that doesn’t make them evil, dim-witted homophobes. How about we teach our children to embrace differences, while learning to engage in healthy debate by not demonizing those they disagree with.

    • The only qualification I’d make to that, is that I will teach my kids that differences exist, and we are to respect people they disagree with, but they need not embrace the difference itself. That’s real tolerance, unlike this liberal idea of everybody needing to agree with everybody else!

  4. Pingback: My Conscience Makes Me Barf « Mike's Mind Barfs

Let Me Know What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s