The bible can be viewed as hate literature.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Stratos: The Bible was written almost 2000 years ago. Some things were different back then. If you follow any religious book to the word you will find alot in the world which doesn´t fit into your beliefs. Practice some Common Sense when reading holy scripts.

Some things were different, some things weren't. Things like human nature, love war, greed, envy, careerism, addiction, homelessness, murder, abandonment, orphanism and adoption, marriage, politics, music, art, dance, brass and stringed intruments, holidays, travel, uncertainty, security and inner peace, all existed then and all exist now.

The bible is VERY relevent to millions of people today, which by definition makes it relevent.

[wellard]

Takes hold of Cerek's hand grenade

There is a huge step between this add causing grief and being fined for it and what is written in the bible.

1) The people reading the newspaper would have had no warning that aggressive material would be in that edition of the newspaper. It was not an editorial discussing pro/anti homosexuality, but an Advertisement blatantly throwing petrol on a difficult topic.

2) The old testament mentions 4 times the wrongness of homosexuality, but these quotes had been taken out of context of the whole bible which IIRC was all about recognising your sins putting your love into the holy trinity and being delivered from sin. The bible is about love, about forgiveness, not taking 4 very small parts out of the whole and hitting people with them.

3) That people are using this fine to fan the hatred of minorities and to use it as "proof" that these homosexuals are in a conspiracy to ban the bible and teachings of Christ are nothing short of evil. Perhaps they should actually read the bible with an open mind and an open heart. By even contemplating and commentating that the bible may be banned is playing into these vindictive peoples hands.

There you go Cerek you can have your hand grenade back

[ 02-22-2003, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: wellard ]

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

The thing that bothers me the most is this from Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them

I appears to me to be calling for their death. I mean "They shall surely be put to death" doesnt realy lend itself to misinterpretation. It seems to toss the whole "Thou shalt not kill" idea right out the window. I also Find the part where the peron who put in the ad says this:

Owens, an evangelical Christian and corrections officer, said his ad was "a Christian response" to Homosexual Pride Week

to be fairly inflamatory. What exactly is a "Christian Response" and who made this joker the authority on it?? If the christian god is all loveing, then the "Christian Response" should be to join these people in celebrateing gay pride week. Showing the love for your fellow man seems to me to be the correct response if you are going to claim to follow an all loveing diety. Then again , maybe based on what the bible says ,the correct response is to show hatered toward anyone who doesnt believe like you do. The more vocal "christians" in the world seem to think that way.Just look at the shineing example of mindless hate thar Pat Robertson,Jerry Falwell, and Fred Phelps spew forth all in the name of Jesus.

[ 02-22-2003, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: The Hunter of Jahanna ]

[Larry_OHF]

From the way it has been explained to me, here is wht I will say about that Leviticus quote you mentioned.

The people of Israel were living out in the wilderness for all that time, and when they finally got over to their promised land, they saw other peoples doing nasty things such drinking the blood of animals and such. In that enviroment, there were terrible diseases. People of Africa still belIieve in witchcraft over medicine, so they have recently stoned four teachers that they claim put a spell on the people that caused the spread of Ecoli. Many tribes think that if a man has aids, he can sleep with a virgin and be cleansed. This type of stuff was what would destroy God's chosen, if he did not set rules to obey.

When a man or woman was found to be leperous or plague-ridden...they were locked up and made to remain isolated until they either died or were cured.

Condems were not invented yet, so the spread of disease was more easy to occur, and disease can easily come from homosexuality. They did not have an abundance of water and stuff, so they could not clean themselves well.

Putting religion aside...the rules of cleaniness would still be important. And if a man be found unclean as in diseased..it weould be better to kill him than to allow the spread of disease that could kill everyone. Rather than kill offenders, why not just prevent the offence? Therefore, the rule was placed to stop any activity that could be considered unclean. That incuded drinking blood of animals or sleeping with a plagued man.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Luvian - I apologize if my message came across unclearly. Olorin was correct when he said I was simply trying to "turn the example around". My point was that the Christian printer was fined for refusing to do a job for someone whose lifestyle he disagreed with. If the homosexual had been the printer and had denied to do the church letterhead for the same reasoning...I very seriously doubt he would be fined for it. I would expect the court to agree that he has a right to refuse a customer if he wishes.

I certainly did NOT mean to imply that all homosexuals are "anti-religious" - because I know from personal experience that isn't the case.

I just feel there is a double-standard in how the court rules in these "hate crimes" and that they seem to really stretch the limits as to what constitutes a hate crime.

HOWEVER - Olorin is also correct about that same double standard existing in churches. Our preacher is has made it clear that he bears NO bias towards homosexuals, but I know many churches (especially in the South) that would NOT be so open-minded.

Hunter - I will have to defend the ad in the paper as a "Christian response" to Homosexual Pride Week. "Pride Week" means the city has set aside 7 days to allow activities that promote the homosexual lifestyle and say that "it's OK to be gay". A Christian does not share this belief and is trying to present the opposing message that homosexuality is NOT "OK" in God's eyes. Now, I will agree that a better "Christian response" would have been to invite those attending the Pride Week to attend the ad-writer's church that Sunday. THAT would have promoted the message of God's universal love that you were talking about.

I think it would be inappropriate for Christians to join the activities of Pride Week because then they would be seen as endorsing the lifestyle rather than disagreeing with it. Maybe they could have asked permission to set up a booth and hand out pamphlets to interested parties. That way, they COULD be on the scene to express God's love for all mankind while still making it clear they disagree with the lifestyle choices of the participants. It can be done in a respectful manner - it just isn't easy.

Larry - Good explanation of why God would say that homosexuals should be put to death. The Old Testament has the harshest penalties and language in all the Bible...but it often becomes more understandable when one understands the social and cultural environment it was written in. Unfortunately, as Hunter pointed out, too many "modern" Christians interpret the Old Testament punishments as being literal and applicable to today's society also - and that just isn't the case.

[wellard]

Well put Larry_ohf
Tho' I have lost my faith over the years, the bible was to me a thing that could be viewed 2 ways. One would be the literal way where every quote by all characters is the word and rule of god, to be followed blindly as each individual sees fit to interpret it. The other way is to understand the overall *vibe* (Australian humour) of the bible and follow that and put faith in Jesus to guide you through it's many seemingly contradictory statements and viewpoints.

The bible imho was written as a guide to help the people of that time live their lives in the best way possible to protect society as a whole, with the advances of mankind, surely now we can just concentrate on the ten commandments from god, not the comments of Leviticus.

[Azred]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the New Testament doesn't touch on the topic of homosexuality too much, does it? If not, then anything mentioned in the Old Testament shouldn't matter too much, since the Crucifixion and Resurrection rendered the Old Testament moot.

It is always a shame when anyone regards their holy writings to be inflexible and immutable documents rather than the living Word. Besides, you can take any single verse and misinterpret it to try and show how the Bible (or other holy writ) "supports" your viewpoint. Just like anyone else, I don't think God would like to be quoted out of context. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

On the other hand, I disagree with the court decision. The freedom of the placer of the ad to state that he doesn't like homosexuality does not imply that homosexuals should be killed, despite the verses cited and the "no" circle graphic. If you don't like what someone is saying or writing, then don't listen to or read their words. Simple.

[Bardan the Slayer]

Does the bible incite hatred and ridicule against homosexuals? Undoubtedly. We see it rather alot, sadly.

However, even as a proud atheist, I consider this a rather disgusting judgement. I am not the thought police, and neither should the judiciary be. In advanced western civilisations, we are meant to have freedom of thought and belief. That is severly undermined if voicing that belief is a crime if it is seen to be offensive to other groups.

This can elad to tension. You get all sorts of nutcases standing up and screaming about how christians/atheists/muslims/women/dogs/Dr Pepper are the ultimate work of evil, and should be put to death. However, it comes down to a matter of judgement. There is a difference between espousing an honest belief and inciting violence, and I think the court has got this one wrong.

It should not be a crime to believe homosexuals are evil (I don't, btw) any more than it should be a crime to believe Christians are evil (I don't) or atheists are evil (nopey). Freedom of belief and thought is very precious, and is one of those things that has to be guarded, even if it can lead to some problems.

All in all, from my ramble you can determine a few things.

1) I'm kinda tired

2) Espousing honest belief should be allowed in all cases

3) Inciting hatred against other groups should not be

4) In cases where the difference between the two is in debate, then benefit of the doubt should *always* be given on behalf of the person espousing their beliefs.

5) Dr Pepper is evil.

[Attalus]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: I mean "They shall surely be put to death" doesnt realy lend itself to misinterpretation. It seems to toss the whole "Thou shalt not kill" idea right out the window. I also Find the part where the peron who put in the ad says this:

I would point out that "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew (by the translators of the King James Version), where the word means "murder," the unlawful killing of another. The ancient Hebrews had the death penalty for many things, like this.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

That is a whole different can of worms, Attalus. If we cant even agree on a standard version and wording of the bible how can we begin to understand it or take it seriously?