"Reckless, irresponsible": Kansas teacher's "gay is same as murder" Facebook rant

[Nova]

just because something is consensual does not mean that it harms no one.

Congratulations! You have now thrown everything that could possibly distract from the actual topic into the pot.

You knew exactly what I meant.

 

[Gardenlady]

High school students are among Conkling's nearly 600 Facebook friends. Some posted comments or reactions, pro and con, to his statement written May 10, in the wake of President Obama's announced support for gay marriage rights.

From the article in op.

 

[Charlie09]

I have never claimed to read Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic (except for a few words of the former that are relevant to my field). However, I have studied comparative translations of Plato and Aristotle. I have even published articles and lectured extensively on differing translations, how and why they differ and what it means to our understanding of ancient authors.

If you want to know which Biblical scholars I trust, it would be those (whatever their personal beliefs) who approach philology as a science, rather than attempting to take copies of old texts and imposing a pre-determined belief system on them. It is actually quite easy to tell the difference by reading their work (but don't skip the footnotes).

As for favoring those translators with whom I agree, the scholars I trust don't always agree with each other, so they are hardly in a position to confirm my personal suspicions.

Do any of these translators have names?

 

[Charlie09]

From the article in op.

So his students were able to voice their own opinion of his posted status, those who agreed with and against. Just like we're allowed to do constitutionally...how interesting.

I personally DO NOTthink it's a good idea for teachers and students to be friends on facebook.

 

[Charlie09]

Sorry. Not taking the bait.

You just said that the Bible clearly supports polygamy. I'm saying it doesn't. So either post your backup - or be honest and delete the comment.

 

[Yoda]

I am very afraid to post. These are very sensitive subjects. When I read his entire post I felt his post was an explanation of why he feels homosexuality is a sin. I felt his post was a genuine admission of his beliefs and they had nothing to do with hate. It had to do with his love of God. The God he believes in considers certain things to be sins, everyone sins in the eyes of God and God is the one that will be judging. He says he himself is viewed by God to be the same as a murderer, homosexual, cheater, etc. And he wants all to be able to experience Heaven. It doesn't appear to me that he is spouting hate but explaining his religious beliefs.
Fwiw I no longer go to church because I don't believe the ever changing discriminatory rules that man has created in the name of God. But after years of disliking organized religion, I have come to understand and feel happy for people that find the peace the church brings to them- as long as it is not imposed on me. You see my wonderful spouse attends church, I haven't in years, and he thinks that I will not be in heaven with him but he let's me be me.

 

[Seek&Find]

To give them their due, the two ancient branches of Christianity - catholic and orthodox - definitely do not think all sins are the same. There is a difference between, say, gossip and murder.

Of course, I do disagree with both those branches' stands on homosexuality and other issues. But thought I'd just throw that out there. Not all branches are as odd in their theology as American evangelicalism.

While there may be some denominational variances, when one goes straight to the Bible (as most nondenominational churches do), sin is sin. There is no ranking. All have sinned, all have fallen short. Sin harms us and separates us from God, hence His sacrifice on our behalf. FYI for those unfamiliar.

Off to make dinner. Will read more later.

 

[Nova]

Do any of these translators have names?

Why? You haven't told me any of the passages from Greek that are so unambiguous.

The only one that comes to mind is Paul's letter to the Romans that complains of men have sex with men and women having sex with women against their natures. Read literally, it seems to be a criticism of sexual experimentation that has nothing to do with gay people who act according to their natures.

But then some Christians only read the Bible literally when it suits them. It's unlikely that Paul knew of gay people, since the concept didn't really exist in his time. If he had known there were people with an innate attraction to their own sex, who knows what he might have said?

 

[Nova]

While there may be some denominational variances, when one goes straight to the Bible (as most nondenominational churches do), sin is sin. There is no ranking. All have sinned, all have fallen short. Sin harms us and separates us from God, hence His sacrifice on our behalf. FYI for those unfamiliar.

Off to make dinner. Will read more later.

I believe the denominations that Gardenlady mentions make very clear distinctions between "mortal" and "venial" sins. I belong to neither group and don't pretend to understand all the differences.

 

[Nova]

You just said that the Bible clearly supports polygamy. I'm saying it doesn't. So either post your backup - or be honest and delete the comment.

I don't think it's necessary to cite things that are common knowledge, but here you go...

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/polygamy.html

 

[Gardenlady]

While there may be some denominational variances, when one goes straight to the Bible (as most nondenominational churches do), sin is sin. There is no ranking. All have sinned, all have fallen short. Sin harms us and separates us from God, hence His sacrifice on our behalf. FYI for those unfamiliar.

Off to make dinner. Will read more later.

But what happens when everyone goes back to the bible and interprets it differently?

It also seems to me that a god who would condemn for gossip just as easily as for murder is a monster.

Or, if we don't want to blame god, we can blame he men who developed this warped interpretation. It shows a distinct lack of mercy, and complete failure to understand what it means to be human.

 

[Charlie09]

Why? You haven't told me any of the passages from Greek that are so unambiguous.

The only one that comes to mind is Paul's letter to the Corinthians that complains of men have sex with men and women having sex with women against their natures. Read literally, it seems to be a criticism of sexual experimentation that has nothing to do with gay people who act according to their natures.

But then some Christians only read the Bible literally when it suits them. It's unlikely that Paul knew of gay people, since the concept didn't really exist in his time(Really? When did it start to exist? If it's so normal, why wouldn't it have existed in his time?). If he had known there were people with an innate attraction to their own sex, who knows what he might have said?

Well there's Romans , there's Corinthians, there's Galations for a few.

Strictly gay relationships may not have existed in the way it does today, but it's quite likely that such a traveler as Paul would be aware of homosexual activity and cultures before and after the gospel was presented and in what he chose to address to specific churches.

What I wanted to know, is if anything mentioned would automatically be discounted, and it will be I see.

If you (generically) don't believe in the bible...why does it matter what it says anyway? Why should it matter that someone who believes in the Bible believes in it literally? Why does it matter if there is disapproval? There's no call for violence, just disapproval. Because you (again generically) don't want to feel bad? But....you (generically) don't mind putting down others and want them to feel bad because they believe in the Bible? It doesn't make sense to me -why not grant others the same acceptance that is desired?

 

[Nova]

But what happens when everyone goes back to the bible and interprets it differently?

It also seems to me that a god who would condemn for gossip just as easily as for murder is a monster.

Or, if we don't want to blame god, we can blame he men who developed this warped interpretation. It shows a distinct lack of mercy, and complete failure to understand what it means to be human.

As it happens, Wikipedia has a necessarily brief, but insightful and carefully sourced, discussion of the Biblical passages that have been interpreted as injunctions against homosexuality and the translation problems with each:

The Bible and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But let's be clear. The people of Sodom demanded that Lot give up his houseguest (the angel) so that he could be raped by the mob. I think we all agree that was wrong (though Lot's solution of offering up his own daughters for rape instead is questionable)! But to make the leap from gang rape to condemnation of same-sex love and affection is an entirely arbitrary jump!

 

[Charlie09]

I don't think it's necessary to cite things that are common knowledge, but here you go...

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/polygamy.html

What is being missed in this list of verses is that it wasn't God ordained. He perhaps didn't forbid it, but he set it up to be one man, one wife -

People in ancient Bible times did much like we do now, and like now - they often faced the consequences of those actions. I only looked at a few of the examples but

God didn't tell Abraham to bring in a concubine - he told him to have faith - and Abraham went around that and solved it on his own - with devastating consequences.

 

[Nova]

Well there's Romans , there's Corinthians, there's Galations for a few.

Strictly gay relationships may not have existed in the way it does today, but it's quite likely that such a traveler as Paul would be aware of homosexual activity and cultures before and after the gospel was presented and in what he chose to address to specific churches.

What I wanted to know, is if anything mentioned would automatically be discounted, and it will be I see.

If you (generically) don't believe in the bible...why does it matter what it says anyway? Why should it matter that someone who believes in the Bible believes in it literally? Why does it matter if there is disapproval? There's no call for violence, just disapproval. Because you (again generically) don't want to feel bad? But....you (generically) don't mind putting down others and want them to feel bad because they believe in the Bible? It doesn't make sense to me -why not grant others the same acceptance that is desired?

:sigh:

It matters because of the hypocrisy of those Christians who insist on imposing the parts of the Bible they like on the rest of us, while hypocritically ignoring the parts that don't suit them.

Equating homosexuality, not with fornication or gossip, but with murder carries with it an implicit condonation of violence.

***

As for your question about why the Ancient World didn't have a concept of gayness equivalent to ours, it's because they didn't have a concept of romantic marriage equivalent to ours. Marriage was an economic institution that was the duty of everyone. Children were an essential addition to the family labor force, and also the only security for one's old age, as they are in all agricultural societies.

There are allusions in Greek and Japanese sources to what we would call adult, gay relationships, but they are few. Almost everyone married and tried to have children, regardless of his or her personal orientation. It was a matter of survival, personal and for society.

Modern concepts of homosexuals arise with the Industrial Revolution, because for the first time, one worker could support himself with his labor. Before that, you needed an entire family working to avoid starvation.

 

[Nova]

What is being missed in this list of verses is that it wasn't God ordained. He perhaps didn't forbid it, but he set it up to be one man, one wife -

People in ancient Bible times did much like we do now, and like now - they often faced the consequences of those actions. I only looked at a few of the examples but

God didn't tell Abraham to bring in a concubine - he told him to have faith - and Abraham went around that and solved it on his own - with devastating consequences.

Basically all the OT figures who carry Abraham's lineage and faith in God have multiple wives. But I suppose you're going to say they all suffered (just like the rest of us do), so that is proof of God's disapproval.

This is the problem with deciding the conclusion before looking at the evidence. IMO.

 

[Charlie09]

:sigh:

It matters because of the hypocrisy of those Christians who insist on imposing the parts of the Bible they like on the rest of us, while hypocritically ignoring the parts that don't suit them.

Equating homosexuality, not with fornication or gossip, but with murder carries with it an implicit condonation of violence.

***

As for your question about why the Ancient World didn't have a concept of gayness equivalent to ours, it's because they didn't have a concept of romantic marriage equivalent to ours. Marriage was an economic institution that was the duty of everyone. Children were an essential addition to the family labor force, and also the only security for one's old age, as they are in all agricultural societies.

There are allusions in Greek and Japanese sources to what we would call adult, gay relationships, but they are few. Almost everyone married and tried to have children, regardless of his or her personal orientation. It was a matter of survival, personal and for society.

Modern concepts of homosexuals arise with the Industrial Revolution, because for the first time, one worker could support himself with his labor. Before that, you needed an entire family working to avoid starvation.

But then we get into things that you are morally opposed to but others poly marriage folks, younger age of consent folks, etc, might not have the same moral opposition to. So a line has to be drawn somewhere. Some people find that the one man, one woman line is fine. It doesn't mean they hate same sex relationships, they just don't see it fitting the definition of marriage.

Interesting because the Roman Empire had many classes, not just agricultural classes - and it was during this time that women were actually the merchants, no longer was it delegated to men only in the stalls selling wares.

 

[Charlie09]

Basically all the OT figures who carry Abraham's lineage and faith in God have multiple wives. But I suppose you're going to say they all suffered (just like the rest of us do), so that is proof of God's disapproval.

This is the problem with deciding the conclusion before looking at the evidence. IMO.

So what is your conclusion based on reading and studying all the evidence of the old testament, and what Jesus said about the old testament in the New Testament?

 

[Soulmagent]

Once again, the issue is not thinking homosexuality is a sin, it's equating it with murder.

He listed cheating and lying as well.

More words games. Okay, you're right: sins, not crimes.


But if Christians think all sins are the same, there is something seriously wrong with their theology. There's still a difference between sinning that harms someone and consensual behavior that harms no one. To equate the two, even if technically correct according to somebody's dogma, is appalling.

I think you might have made the point for yourself . According to someones elses dogma . If you find their belief system appalling ,that is your right. You however cannot prejudice agaisnt them for their belief.It is protected under the same rights that your sexual orientation is protected under. You can speak freely on how you feel about this teachers statement but you cannot in all fairness be expecting someone to be untolerant of his beliefs while demanding respect for you lifestyle.

His speach was not saying being homosexual is the same as being a murder,nor was it advocating any actions agaisnt any group of people.

He has been fired for his lifestyle chioce to speak openly about veiws and his faith. I find it ironic you support that .

 

[animlzrule]

Snipped from Soulmagnet:

He has been fired for his lifestyle chioce to speak openly about veiws and his faith.

Unfortunately no, he hasn't been fired. Just exposed on an international scale.