Christian students walk out as Dan Savage attacks the Bible

[KingCracker]

oh, you mean like telling me to go protest in front of a church, or having a discussion with them? you cant have a discussion about religion when its predominantly religious.

Of course you can't just like you can't have a discussion in this thread pro religion because just as people claim christians aren't open minded neither are anti religious people. I said go protest outside a church in reference to your internet anonymity comment because anyone can say **** online right.

[THolman Veteran]

What exactly is hypocritical about us having an online discussion?

I think what he's trying to say is basically that you need to look at the situation from the eyes of the people who walked out. You hold beliefs to be sacred, and a man walks up and calls those beliefs, literally, BS. You have every right to be upset, and yet you still get called small minded and bigoted for walking out. Savage could've stated his opinion without being insulting, that doesn't win any friends, no matter who you are.

Now, imagine a so-called Christian goes in and starts bashing gays. Some students walk out. Would they be small minded and hateful? Or would they be righteous? The situation is really quite similar, it's just a bias against religion that automatically makes the religious people wrong, no matter what they do, just for being religious and not listening to vulgarly insult their beliefs.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that it would be okay for someone to bash gays in a speech, either. Hence my use of the term 'so-called.' They would be just as bad as Savage, and they would be hurting the image of all Christians in doing so. But yet Savage gets defended for doing basically the same thing, it's just that he has the opposite views.

[mudslag]

How is saying religion is "the blight of humanity" having a discussion. You can't have a discussion about religion here its predominately anti religion.

How does one person's comment equate to an entire thread? This is an example of cherry picking. Nor does this answer my question on what hypocrisy you were referring to. You want to try this again?

[KingCracker]

How does one person's comment equate to an entire thread? This is an example of cherry picking. Nor does this answer my question on what hypocrisy you were referring to. You want to try this again?

Who do you think i've been replying to in this thread?

[Amarok]

You know, even though I am a Christian, I actually pretty much agree with what you've got to say about schools. I think that education should be secular (which is neutrality towards religion, not endorsement or opposition). But since I believe that they should be neutral towards religion, I also don't think they should have speakers bashing people's beliefs.

Teach about them, sure - in an objective way, since that's needed to get a basic grasp on history and literature. If you want to bash them, sure, you can do that, since I believe in freedom of expression, but a high school is not the place for that. I'm the last person to call politically correct, I'm not worried about hurting anyone's feelings. I just don't think that a school should be forcing any philosophy on anyone. Just the facts, sir! That goes for any agenda.

Also, about that statement you made regarding the 'Dark Ages,' sure, that was appalling, but that's definitely not the standard to judge Christianity by, considering that that was against the beliefs they were supposedly defending. Modern Christianity - and Christianity in general - can't be judged by what someone did 1500 years ago, which probably had as much to do wih politics as religion. Those were cruel times wih or without religion, and revealed humanity at its worse. Yet, if it hadn't been for Christian monks, think of how much knowledge would have been lost, and perhaps there wouldn't have been a Rennisance. That doesn't right the wrongs others, and maybe he same people, did, but I think it proves that religion has done some good for the world.

This is one of the best posts I've read in ages. Honestly a lot of people who think that they "get it" don't get it. It's not really a for or against thing, you can be completely neutral. You don't have to be hostile towards non-religious people if you're religious and you don't have to be hostile towards religious people if you're not religious at all. Being hostile and condescending breeds more hostility. Coexistence ftw. People representing Christianity have done some horrible things over the centuries, and people representing Christianity have done some pretty amazingly awesome things as well. They continue to do both. Same with Muslims, same with Jewish people, same with non-religious groups. As long as someone and their beliefs or lack thereof don't attempt to prohibit me and mine from doing what I do it's all good.

I also understand that some people get offended easier than others. I wouldn't have walked out because he wasn't being disrespectful (yet) even though they perceived it this way. I'm very much against the anti-gay crowd in religions, but I don't have to be a jerk about it. It's kind of like the pieces of the Qur'an that are taken out of context to justify slaughtering innocents, if you look at it rationally and in context it's not that bad. The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, but honestly that's between God and the people who are gay and truthfully Christians have no business being obnoxious over it, because their job as Christians is to love everyone, and a LOT of Christians get that, it's just that the obnoxiously loud ones. Kind of like again, with Muslims, how the obnoxiously loud ones do their religion a great disservice by being obnoxious and loud and taking things out of context. While in reality I've met a lot of Muslims and outside of ONE of them I've never met one in person that wasn't one of the nicest and kindest people.

Truthfully I practice coexistence as best I can, but I accept that it will probably never be universally accepted because coexisting is one thing that people are notoriously horrible at and always have been. If someone gets in my face about religion or politics or anything because they disagree with me I tend to just wish them a good day and don't let that one jerk influence my opinion of an entire group. *shrug*

[mudslag]

Who do you think i've been replying to in this thread?

You have replied to a few people in this thread, you didn't say one person you said "i'm just pointing out how people are hypocrites". That usually implies you are talking about multiple people.

[mudslag]

I think what he's trying to say is basically that you need to look at the situation from the eyes of the people who walked out. You hold beliefs to be sacred, and a man walks up and calls those beliefs, literally, BS. You have every right to be upset, and yet you still get called small minded and bigoted for walking out. Savage could've stated his opinion without being insulting, that doesn't win any friends, no matter who you are.

Now, imagine a so-called Christian goes in and starts bashing gays. Some students walk out. Would they be small minded and hateful? Or would they be righteous? The situation is really quite similar, it's just a bias against religion that automatically makes the religious people wrong, no matter what they do, just for being religious and not listening to vulgarly insult their beliefs.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that it would be okay for someone to bash gays in a speech, either. Hence my use of the term 'so-called.' They would be just as bad as Savage, and they would be hurting the image of all Christians in doing so. But yet Savage gets defended for doing basically the same thing, it's just that he has the opposite views.

In all honesty, the very opposite can be found every day being played from the other side. I can't tell you how many times someone has come to my door asking if I found Jesus. When I say no or Im an atheist or something similar, a common response is "well you're going to hell". It's no different then what happened here. I don't have a problem with them walking out and I do find it a bit counter productive that they were called pansy-assed. I dont think that was a proper way of dealing with it.

[bj55555]

You hold beliefs to be sacred, and a man walks up and calls those beliefs, literally, BS.

That's the problem with religion. Beliefs should not be held sacred. Beliefs are either backed up with evidence or they're not. If you don't have the constitution (lower case "c") to believe what you believe is right despite the criticism or ridicule you face for those beliefs, then you should go find something else to believe.

[John S. Veteran]

The Old Covenant (in the Old Testament) he was quoting from was written to the Jews. He clearly has no concept of the entirety of the Bible, whether or not he believes it. He just showed his own ignorance attempting to play gotcha to those of us living under the New Covenant as outlined in the New Testament.

[ILikeTobacco]

The Old Covenant (in the Old Testament) he was quoting from was written to the Jews. He clearly has no concept of the entirety of the Bible, whether or not he believes it. He just showed his own ignorance attempting to play gotcha to those of us living under the New Covenant as outlined in the New Testament.

This. The old laws of the Old Testament no longer apply the way they did before the events of the New Testament. It is a very basic fact most people who have never studied the unbiased facts never realize. Anyone who takes up the title Christian, Saved, etc.. is no longer bound by those laws the way they are written. That is why they can eat bacon!

[bj55555]

This. The old laws of the Old Testament no longer apply the way they did before the events of the New Testament. It is a very basic fact most people who have never studied the unbiased facts never realize. Anyone who takes up the title Christian, Saved, etc.. is no longer bound by those laws the way they are written. That is why they can eat bacon!

I guess that all the kids that walked out were either Jews or ignorant Christians then.

[bj55555]

The Old Covenant (in the Old Testament) he was quoting from was written to the Jews. He clearly has no concept of the entirety of the Bible, whether or not he believes it. He just showed his own ignorance attempting to play gotcha to those of us living under the New Covenant as outlined in the New Testament.

If you watched the video, you'd realize that he points out that even the New Testament condones things that our society rejects. He's right. Those kids that walked out were pansy-asses. A comment like that coming from a gay person ought to sting pretty bad.

[ILikeTobacco]

If you watched the video, you'd realize that he points out that even the New Testament condones things that our society rejects. He's right. Those kids that walked out were pansy-asses. A comment like that coming from a gay person ought to sting pretty bad.

The New Testament addresses that specifically. Romans 13 goes into obeying the laws of the land.

[bj55555]

The New Testament addresses that specifically. Romans 13 goes into obeying the laws of the land.

Then Christians need to STFU about abortion. Abortions are legal. It's the law of the land. Case closed.

Being gay is legal too, and in some states gay marriage is legal. So they need to stop trying to change those laws.

[ILikeTobacco]

I guess that all the kids that walked out were either Jews or ignorant Christians then.

You have no possible way of knowing that. This guy walks into the room and makes ignorant claims without understanding a bit of what he is talking about. He is complaining about the Bible saying bad things about gay people and yet it doesn't say a single thing negative about the people other than calling them a sinner. The Bible also calls cheaters, thieves, murderers, rapists, and simple liars sinners. The Bible as says hate the sins, love the sinners. Anyone who hates gay people is not following one of the commands of the New Testament, which is as simple as love everyone, regardless of their short comings, including your enemy. The only real argument he can possible make is that mainstream churches have failed to control their masses in discriminating, not just gays, but plenty of other groups. He should be attacking the people, not the Bible, because whatever it was that got him so butt hurt to act so blatantly disrespectful was not done out of love, which means it wasn't doing what the Bible said was suppose to be done.

[bj55555]

You have no possible way of knowing that. This guy walks into the room and makes ignorant claims without understanding a bit of what he is talking about. He is complaining about the Bible saying bad things about gay people and yet it doesn't say a single thing negative about the people other than calling them a sinner. The Bible also calls cheaters, thieves, murderers, rapists, and simple liars sinners. The Bible as says hate the sins, love the sinners. Anyone who hates gay people is not following one of the commands of the New Testament, which is as simple as love everyone, regardless of their short comings, including your enemy. The only real argument he can possible make is that mainstream churches have failed to control their masses in discriminating, not just gays, but plenty of other groups. He should be attacking the people, not the Bible, because whatever it was that got him so butt hurt to act so blatantly disrespectful was not done out of love, which means it wasn't doing what the Bible said was suppose to be done.

You just said that Christians ought to know that they don't have to obey the Old Testament. So when somebody trashes the Old Testament, why should they give a rat's ass? So, these kids are either Jews or they're ignorant Christians.

Oh, and right. Putting somebody to death for "committing" a "gay act" as it's spelled out in Leviticus is just killing the "sin"--not the sinner. Uh, huh.

[ILikeTobacco]

Then Christians need to STFU about abortion. Abortions are legal. It's the law of the land. Case closed.

Christians are not the only people arguing against abortions. Atheists themselves are arguing against it. Most Christians I know will even say there are circumstances where abortions are just fine, like when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. You are doing exactly what this guy did. You watch way to much TV or get your information from sources that like to stir up a good controversy.

How are laws made in this country. Activists lobby for them. Obeying laws has no relation to trying to get them changed.

[ILikeTobacco]

You just said that Christians ought to know that they don't have to obey the Old Testament. So when somebody trashes the Old Testament, why should they give a rat's ass?

He was using examples out of the Old Testament but his overall point was to bash the Bible and anyone who believed in it.

[bj55555]

Christians are not the only people arguing against abortions. Atheists themselves are arguing against it. Most Christians I know will even say there are circumstances where abortions are just fine, like when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother.

Why do YOU get to decide when circumstances are "just fine"? Under what circumstances are they not fine?

You are doing exactly what this guy did. You watch way to much TV or get your information from sources that like to stir up a good controversy.

How are laws made in this country. Activists lobby for them. Obeying laws has no relation to trying to get them changed.

The problem is that there are many Christians that don't obey the laws. It's legal to be gay, but some Christians "take matters into their own hands" and justify crimes against gays with their religion.

Also, would you support making buttsecks (between two males) illegal again like it used to be in so many states through "activism"?

[bj55555]

He was using examples out of the Old Testament but his overall point was to bash the Bible and anyone who believed in it.

Uh, no. His goal was to point out the hypocrisy of ignoring some parts of the Bible while clinging so hard to the notion that buttsecks is a sin. He didn't say the entirety of the Bible was rubbish (although he probably thinks it). He's pointing out that Christians already consider parts of it rubbish, so why not the parts about homosexuality?

[brentmcgehee]

LONG POST, be warned.

I first want to start off by saying I am a strong believer in the Bible and I believe that if those people truly stood by their beliefs they should of not made a big scene of it by leaving, and when there was a round table discussion if there was one, bring out their bibles and defend the faith.

The way I was taught to believe, and I may be totally wrong, and I know not everyone believes this way is that there are two laws, the old law whichLeviticus talks about, and the new law which was brought about by Jesus dying on the cross for all of our sins. The old law had so many rules it was impossible for anyone except Jesus to keep them all. It is by God's grace that us sinners make it through and I am so thankful for that grace.

As far as Leviticus and dealing with eating meat is concerned, in 1 Corinthians 8: 4-13 it explains that we can have whatever meat we want, even if it was used in sacrefices to false gods.

As far as slavery in the Bible goes, here is a great article that deals with the issue and I think may be enlightening to some people, http://www.godandsci...very_bible.html

THis is all I have to really sya on the matter.

[ILikeTobacco]

Why do YOU get to decide when circumstances are "just fine"? Under what circumstances are they not fine?

You can't argue this point without first admitting that you yourself don't have the right to say when it is "just fine." We now live in a society that pressures girls into getting abortions. How is that okay? That is the reason abortion is an issue in the first place. No body can agree but other option is there? Not fighting one point or another?

Lets look at this possibility. If people didn't lobby to put limits on abortions, it would be legal to kill a fetus the day before it is due. Simple argument: The baby can't survive without help outside of the body so it isn't a person yet. Ethically, it has already been successfully argued that if this were legal, it should also be legal to kill a newborn, because a newborn is not capable of sustaining life without help. Clearly, neither of these options are okay.

The other side, make abortions illegal. Now the mother can't abort a fetus that is going to kill her or was the result of a rape. Again, this is not the solution.

The reason our laws and legal system works, most of the time, is because we have groups lobbying on both sides. This forces both sides to make compromises and gives us fair and working laws, again most of the time.

The problem is that there are many Christians that don't obey the laws. It's legal to be gay, but some Christians "take matters into their own hands" and justify crimes against gays with their religion.

And this is worse than people taking matters into their own hands and committing crimes against Christians using their Atheism as justification how? The Christians that are committing crimes against anyone are still committing crimes and are just as wrong. It works both ways. Two wrongs don't make a right(but three lefts do :D ).

[ILikeTobacco]

Uh, no. His goal was to point out the hypocrisy of ignoring some parts of the Bible while clinging so hard to the notion that buttsecks is a sin. He didn't say the entirety of the Bible was rubbish (although he probably thinks it). He's pointing out that Christians already consider parts of it rubbish, so why not the parts about homosexuality?

Because there are technically two types of sins in the Bible. Direct and indirect. A direct sin is a sin on its own, such as lying, stealing, cheating. Homosexuality falls into that category. According to the Bible, men and women were created by God to be together and complete each other, not men and men and not women and women. These two things would be directly going against God's design/plan, and thus a sin. The second type of sin is indirect sins. Those are actions that are not sins by themselves but in the right context become sins. Examples of this would be stuff liking breaking a law. If it was illegal to walk backwards with an ice cream cone in your pocket on Sundays and you did it, you would be sinning. Not because you were walking backwards with an ice cream cone in your pocket on a Sunday, but because you broke the law.

[bj55555]

You can't argue this point without first admitting that you yourself don't have the right to say when it is "just fine." We now live in a society that pressures girls into getting abortions. How is that okay? That is the reason abortion is an issue in the first place. No body can agree but other option is there? Not fighting one point or another?

You're right. I can't argue this without first admitting I don't have the right say when it's "just fine". That's why I defer the right of getting an abortion to those that want it. It's none of my ****ing business, and neither is it yours. I'm absolutely pro-choice. I'm not necessarily pro-abortion.

And this is worse than people taking matters into their own hands and committing crimes against Christians using their Atheism as justification how?

Yeah, it's such a prevalent problem that it must be addressed! *rollseyes* Come talk to me when Christians in this country get beaten, tied up to a fence post, and left to freeze to death and have it tried to justified because of the atheist's lack of belief.

The Christians that are committing crimes against anyone are still committing crimes and are just as wrong. It works both ways. Two wrongs don't make a right(but three lefts do :D ).

Yes, they ****ing are, but there's a hell of a lot empathy for those that commit these crimes because of their religious beliefs. IIRC, some legislator in some state wanted to provide immunity from classification as a federal hate crime if the violent act against a homosexual was due to the perp's religious beliefs.

[bj55555]

Because there are technically two types of sins in the Bible. Direct and indirect. A direct sin is a sin on its own, such as lying, stealing, cheating. Homosexuality falls into that category.

According to the Bible, men and women were created by God to be together and complete each other, not men and men and not women and women. These two things would be directly going against God's design/plan, and thus a sin.

Citation, please. Where's this nonsense about males and females "completing each other"? Take individuals that stay abstinent. Do they "complete" anybody? Are they committing a sin?

If you take all of those "direct" sins as you listed, do you see that 3 of those (lying, stealing, and cheating) are considered morally wrong (even by atheists) because they impact others? A society that condones and fosters all three of those things doesn't last long. OTOH, who gives a rat's ass about homosexuality? How does having two fudgepackers living next door to you, romping way in the privacy of their own home affect you? Why is it a "sin" other than the fact it's arbitrarily so?

The second type of sin is indirect sins. Those are actions that are not sins by themselves but in the right context become sins. Examples of this would be stuff liking breaking a law. If it was illegal to walk backwards with an ice cream cone in your pocket on Sundays and you did it, you would be sinning. Not because you were walking backwards with an ice cream cone in your pocket on a Sunday, but because you broke the law.

Bad example No secular law is ever that arbitrary. The only laws that are ever THAT ludicrous and arbitrary are Biblical laws.