h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ste,
do you honestly think that Caleb withh change his ways? This thread is 160 posts long now (my longest ever!) and he still hasn't even produced one valid argument against homosexuality. I find myself reading this thread less and less, because it seems like we're going round in circles

I read your excellent debate with Josh about racial profiling. Caleb raises these exact points (unsuprisingly) on his page. That was one of the main reasons why i started this thread. I think that it would be beneficial to address some of these issues, as Caleb would be forced to provide an argument rather than making himself look stupid by posting lame leviticus quotes.

Doesn't anal sex hurt?
(no 'experience' with other males, but wouldn't mind some if he met a nice enough person)

nope.
Least, not in a bad way... like so many things.

man,

The fundamentalists on this thread want to take gay people and "cure" them by showing them the love of Christ. I however want to cure these people of their bigotry with the light of reason. I feel like I have a responsibility to try; remember this poem by Martin Niemöller?:

"First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

For some reason it has stuck in my mind from school history lessons. I just feel the need to speak up against these people. Also to let people who are reading this that might be gay that there are people on their side, fighting against such disgusting comments as "but i shall not aoplogize for offending you. you brought it opon yourself when chose the lifestyle that you chose. you should have known that this lifestyle will bring you ridicule." We should remember what type of person we are dealing with here.

Josh (if you're still reading this), I am British, you are American. Literally millions of our countrymen fought side-by-side and have given their *lives* to stop people who would persecute certain sections of society. Caleb and people who share his opinions make this sacrifice worthless. How patriotic is that?

Great, I have compared Christian fundamentalists with not only Islamic fundamentalist but now Nazis. They're going to love me for this one...

I am disillusioned with this thread a bit too but luckily I am way too stubborn.

Ste

Ste -
I started this thread because I simply couldn't let such racist, homophobic, sexist/misogynist comments be made without giving my reactions. I hoped that i could enter a serious debate with Caleb, and at the very least let him see the bigotry in his arguments. Now i just feel frustrated and annoyed at his complete lack of thinking, and his closed mind. At least this thread will show to the rest of the h2g2 community how being a homophobe is moronic, so i suppose it wasn't a complete waste of time.

I do know that poem, but i didn't know it was by Martin Niemöller, so thanks for that. In future, when i feel frustrated, especially when i'm shunned for having non-homophobic views i'll think of that poem, h2g2 and this thread

Josh -
<>

So being a god-loving, gun-slinging, wrapped-in-the-flag patriot gives you an objective judgement of 9/11, does it? Ha!
I would quote some Tolstoy at you (just as you quote the bible at me), but it's hardly worth it.

For the Rocket, and for Ste: your quotation from Niemöller brought to mind the line "No man is an island, entire of itself". For the whole poem, go here: [Broken URL Removed By Moderator] (The poem is far too cumbersome for the poor BBC servers, which might crash if I tried to quote Donne at them!)

For those that don't want to follow the link, the two well-known parts from this poem, which summarise very nicely the previous two Postings, are:
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main."
"...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

I will speak out against intolerance, too. Because I want to treat others the way I would wish to be treated.

x x Fenny (Mrs. Doasyouwouldbedoneby)

I sort of get the sense that a lot of people here just want to feel superior to someone else.

Caleb says that's his approach too, but...
does he honestly see no paradox here?
(speaking in 3rd person since he's rarely seen.)

Anal sex is great - cant get enough of it in any position.

I have run anti discrimination courses within my trade union and always find it amusing the reaction from the men when we get to the issue of homosexuality.

The bottom line is that if you think discrimination is wrong - then ALL discrimination is wrong - you cant pick and choose which sort is ok.

I understand the BBC are about to air a show called The Experiment where a group is split in 2 with one half being prisoners and the other half being warders. I wonder if they had the same problem as a university (I forget which one) in the UK that tried this - they had to stop the experiment after about 3 days or so as those playing the warders had got completely out of control. I mention this as it is a good example of what happens when there are no controls to prevent discrimination by the powerful on the powerless.

Someone's made a naughty posting. Wonder what it said?

Two Bit, I reject your suggestion. If you re-read the thread you will see that people have been trying to engage in constructive debate, and are getting understandably frustrated at the nature of the responses we have been getting. It is not a question of wanting to feel superior; I for one don't need the artificial ego-boost that comes from a web forum. (I have quite a fulfilling real life, thanks ) No, this is about questioning the sweeping homophobic statements that have been made here, then understanding and debating the "reasoning" behind them.


Geoff

Geoff - It was a posting by myself and made reference amongst other things to a TV show that is about to be broadcast that is a rerun of a university experiment about control, abuse of authority and discrimination. I drew the conclusion that without controls on discrimination in society the powerful tend to abuse the less powerful.

Isn't it funny that when I bring up a few points about Leviticus and periods and baies and stuff, I get no answer from those who think that following Leviticus would make a better world.

Maybe I scared them off with the nasty details. Not surprised!

Its easy to make up rules, its not so easy to discuss all matters surrounding them.

You were so right Geoff!

Or it could be that Caleb only logs on every couple of days. So he comes in and posts, and then when he comes back there's 20+ posts where y'all have worked yourselves into a righteous fury. That can be pretty overwhelming.

I'm not sure this is the best place to discuss anal sex. You're essentially typing it right in front of a 16 year old. Granted that its all over the net, and I think its suitable for the board, but I wouldn't discuss it like this in a 16 year old's personal space ina forum where you know he's going to read it.

In hindsight, I'd agree with that sentiment. Having let the topic drift slightly, can we agree to drift it back to the subject matter?

Hmm. Granted that Caleb isn't here very often, however when he does appear he seems to pay no attention to what has been said, even when questions are put directly to him, and instead throws in another diversion and then leaves us to it. Like the incest thing.
Fury is an understandable reaction to some of the things that have been said here.
The anal discussion is relevent in that some people consider it the only reason to dislike homosexuality. Relevent at first, but aye it's gone a little wayward... however if Caleb wishes us to stay on-topic and not track off into the shady undergrowth he could pay more attention to our points.
(Also, is there really any fundamental difference? He's a 16 yr old who seems to be pretty knowledgeable about 'ordinary' sex... to say one is hugely offensive compared to the other seems a little odd. Besides, he could've yikesed it anyway if he were that bothered.)

Please excuse the tardiness of this reply. I have an excuse though. My wisdom teeth were removed. I make a point of not writing anything that might be used against me when I'm on powerful pain medicine Anyhow, onward!

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

Actually, I did look these up. And that is definitely what it says. But let's look at this in the historical context. In this time period, women were not educated in any way. So before Jesus, men and only men went to the synagauge. But the early church followed Jesus's commands which indicated that women were just as important as women.

So women finally got to go to church. This posed a problem for the preacher because he was essentially preaching to two groups: the men who were well educated in theology and the women who knew next to nothing. This became a serious problem because the women would often ask their husbands in the middle of a prophesy what the speaker meant by such and such a phrase.

So Paul suggests (albeit, in a rather politically incorrect manner) that women should wait until they get home to ask their husbands questions about the sermon. Today, since women are so well educated, this rule applies to men as well. It is simply common courtesy to wait until after the sermon to ask questions about it. Is that really a very unfair rule? Let me know if any of that didn't make sense.

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man"

For some reason you left part of this verse out. In full it reads:

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and birds and and animals and reptiles."

Paul is not talking about paintings. He's talking about idols, or more specifically, objects of worship. He's saying that some people trade God for earthly objects. As for pictures of Jesus, yes, sadly some of them can fit into this catergory. One of Martin Luther's 95 theses was the worship of replicas of Jesus rather than Jesus Himself. Images of Jesus are not evil in themselves, but they can certainly be used for evil purposes.

"and thy house."

I have an NIV Bible and it does not have the words "and thy house." on the end of that verse. No kidding. However, I recall a similar verse which mentioned "and thy house." Perhaps you mixed up your references. Anyway, I am almost certain that there is a verse in the Bible that is nearly identical to the one you wrote (can't remember for the life of me where it is). The only difference is, that verse says "be made holy" or "shall be blessed" rather than "shall be saved." You are blessed through your father, Geoff. He makes you more holy. But he doesn't get you into heaven. That's something totally between you and God. I sure wish I could remember where that verse is....Anyway, next question.

"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews. Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men. Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway, for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." - Paul obviously didn't like the Jews much.


Paul WAS a Jew! His comments here are not much different from me saying that I am ashamed of what my people's ancestors did to African American slaves. Paul's additude is like that of a German who condemned the Nazis.

By the way, I noticed that we are on a bit of a tangent here. When I dutifully answered a question about incest, and when Caleb brought up incest as a comparison, we were both accused of changing the subject....

Was it Rocketman or Geoff that brought up the Manchester attack? Well, whoever it was, I just wanted to say that I can identify with you since I live quite close to Oklahoma City which was bombed in 1995. We folks down here are like you British. We already knew what terrorism is like. It is sad that it took such a horrendous act to get the attention of the rest of the world.

Sorry about berating you like that, Ste. I made a mountain out of a molehill. Forgive me?

Kaz, I'm not ignoring you, I promise. I'm just getting attacked from all sides and don't have very good eye/hand coordination.

"Therefore it is the old testament which says 'eye for an eye', the new testament which preaches forgiveness.

So which testament do you follow?"

The concept of forgiveness is not confined to the New Testament. The Old Testament is chock full from beginning to end with stories of forgiveness. In a nutshell, "eye for an eye" is an governmental ideal for punishing criminals. It maintains social justice and order. Forgiveness is essentially: if you repent, God forgives.

Hi Josh,

Ow, how many wisdom teeth out? My wife is getting all four of hers out at the end of May. Are the drugs they give you any good?

"Sorry about berating you like that, Ste. I made a mountain out of a molehill. Forgive me?"
Forgiven .

I have to take you up on one thing though Josh (couldn't help myself, sorry):

"But let's look at this in the historical context."
Um, since when did fundamentalist Christians do such a thing? If Genesis was seen in it's historical context (i.e., using myth and symbolism to convey a meaning) then fundamentalism and creationism would not exist. Though I do not want to get on the topic of creationism in another thread, it does feel like you are picking and choosing where you are taking the bible literally and where you are interpreting it.

Surely if anything, the *whole* bible must be seen in this light and applied to the modern world that we live in. The example you give is excellent. People here are not actually saying that Christians should not allow women to speak in church, they are simply demonstrating something; that you quote a part of the bible to defend your dislike of homosexuality when you ignore another parts in the same chapter (women speaking, putting gay people "to the death").

To someone on the outside, Josh, it looks like you are simply disgusted by homosexuality and are using your religion to justify this. If it really was your religion speaking and you took *all* of Leviticus to heart then you would follow it *all*, not just a few parts. The next bit is important, hence the little asterisks:

***
Most Christians read the bible in it's historical context, like you suggest. It is for this reason that most Christians do not fear homosexuality, allow women to speak in church, and think evolution happens.
***

Are you following me?

All the best,

Ste

Josh,
Wisdom teeth? Ouch. I remember having mine done. You look like a hamster, I'll wager.

As Ste says, you're proving my point. Whether women can speak or not is beside the point; the Bible clearly instructs then to be silent, but the Church chooses to put that instruction into an historical context, thereby nullifying it.

By placing SOME of Paul's teachings into an historical context, you open the door to placing other teachings into the same context. You also, as Ste says, open yourself to accusations of inconsistency. A six day creation is literal, but Paul's teachings are culturally irrelevant? How exactly is that inconsistency justified? I think you're cherrypicking, as I've said before.

You choose to take biblical instruction regarding homosexuality as literal truth. I choose to take them as culturally irrelevant. Homosexuality is therefore not a sin. Discuss...

What is the historical context on homosexuality and the Bible? Has anything changed about the practice between Leviticus and now? I can see the reasoning behind what Josh is saying. I can see how the change in context between uneducated women and educated women makes sense, sort of. I don't know that there's anything that chages between then and now as far as homosexuality.

To me it does call into question the reliablity of the book. If this is the inspired word of a perfect god, I would think that that his will as expressed in it should be perfect and unchanging.

Society has developed and itself become educated enough to realise that this sort of intolerance is nonsensical and pointless.