BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS 'Gay' activist to oversee public classroom safety

[Pathfinder]

Slavery was recognized in the Bible, not approved of or rejected.

Homosexuality has been rejected by Judaism (Torah, aka Old Testament when you include the Mishnah), Christians (New Testament) and Islam (something they got right).

Homosexuality is abnormal - even if you take Out's or The Advocate's statistics, no more than 10% (probably much less) of the US population is homosexual. That means they are a distinct minority, and therefore not an indicator of "normal". Do we beat them, use fire hoses on them, or otherwise physically assault them? Some do and they go to jail - deservedly.

Part of the problem is apologists like you twisting scripture to meet your current societal desires. You want Scripture to be what you believe, rather thqan what it says.

Homosexuality should be kept out of the schools, work place and everywhere but the bedroom and the odd homosexual bar here and there.

[JC5123]

Slavery was recognized in the Bible, not approved of or rejected.

Homosexuality has been rejected by Judaism (Torah, aka Old Testament when you include the Mishnah), Christians (New Testament) and Islam (something they got right).

Homosexuality is abnormal - even if you take Out's or The Advocate's statistics, no more than 10% (probably much less) of the US population is homosexual. That means they are a distinct minority, and therefore not an indicator of "normal". Do we beat them, use fire hoses on them, or otherwise physically assault them? Some do and they go to jail - deservedly.

Part of the problem is apologists like you twisting scripture to meet your current societal desires. You want Scripture to be what you believe, rather thqan what it says.

Homosexuality should be kept out of the schools, work place and everywhere but the bedroom and the odd homosexual bar here and there.

You make a very good point here that I want to expand on very quickly. You say that people are twisting scripture, remember that these are the very same people who twist the constitution and bill of rights to make their point, rather than being able to read them and understand what they say.

That is what is being taught by revisionist history, that our core documents, that were basically written in stone, are in fact, living documents that are meant to be reinterpereted as language and social attitudes change.

[fightingquaker13]

Slavery was recognized in the Bible, not approved of or rejected.

Homosexuality has been rejected by Judaism (Torah, aka Old Testament when you include the Mishnah), Christians (New Testament) and Islam (something they got right).

Homosexuality is abnormal - even if you take Out's or The Advocate's statistics, no more than 10% (probably much less) of the US population is homosexual. That means they are a distinct minority, and therefore not an indicator of "normal". Do we beat them, use fire hoses on them, or otherwise physically assault them? Some do and they go to jail - deservedly.

Part of the problem is apologists like you twisting scripture to meet your current societal desires. You want Scripture to be what you believe, rather thqan what it says.

Homosexuality should be kept out of the schools, work place and everywhere but the bedroom and the odd homosexual bar here and there.

I don't dispute that its a minority, but we also see science explaining this by seeing phsiologial diffeences between gays and straights. So aytypical yes. My point is merely that if people are born this way, than bigotry against them is no different than bigotry agaist those with differnt skin tones. Your distaste for seeing a gay couple is no different than my grand father's at seeing an inter-racial one, learned predjudice.
FQ13

[fightingquaker13]

You make a very good point here that I want to expand on very quickly. You say that people are twisting scripture, remember that these are the very same people who twist the constitution and bill of rights to make their point, rather than being able to read them and understand what they say.

That is what is being taught by revisionist history, that our core documents, that were basically written in stone, are in fact, living documents that are meant to be reinterpereted as language and social attitudes change.

JC it is basic truth that there is no such thing a self interprting text. If there was we wouldn't disagree about state's rights or flag burning or gun control or a hundred other disputes about the Constitution. Hell the Framrs them selves disagreed. Same is true of Scripture. Disputes over the age of the earth the role of women the method of creation vary. We can all read. We know what the words say. What they mean to the reader at any given point is going to be shaped by their context of history and knowledge. Genisis was a different book pre-and post Gallileo in terms of how it was understood. Thats not revisionism, its reality.
FQ13

[Pathfinder]

JC it is basic truth that there is no such thing a self interprting text. If there was we wouldn't disagree about state's rights or flag burning or gun control or a hundred other disputes about the Constitution. Hell the Framrs them selves disagreed. Same is true of Scripture. Disputes over the age of the earth the role of women the method of creation vary. We can all read. We know what the words say. What they mean to the reader at any given point is going to be shaped by their context of history and knowledge. Genisis was a different book pre-and post Gallileo in terms of how it was understood. Thats not revisionism, its reality.
FQ13

Problem is, we do not read the Hebrew and Aramaic of the New Testament, or Koiné Greek that the New Testament was written in.

Even if we could, the same word may have multiple meanings. As a former linguist, I know the study of the written word is troubling at times - the whole Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis thing.

Rather than bring all learning to a halt, picking a text/translation and sticking with it, reading and knowing where the interpretations are or might be is important, such as the translation of the 6th Commandment as "kill" rather than "murder".

But, and this is the important one, when so many translations are clear on a specific point such as homosexuality, there is a good evidence that a reasonable person will make the conclusion that it is pretty clear - regardless of how it is phrased.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

In order to assist my train of thought I will insert my comments in to the post :

In the spirit of Christian brotherhood, I'm going to respond. Only I'm going hope you actually act like a man for a change and actually debate iinstead of engaging in your usual drive by style of a "point" made and undefended coupled with an insult. Not only is it rude, its also kind of sad, I'm just sayi'n. People are trying to make their point without coming right out and saying that they think you are a hypocrite who spent to much time sucking down the socialist Kool-Ade, and not enough, if any, time thinking about the BS you were soaking up
Here's the thing. I am hetero-sexualNo, HERE'S the thing, We don't give a shit how you, or anyone else warms their sheets, as long as it is legal, which in the case of many gays, advocating sex with minors, it is not I was born that way (so, presumably are you unless you're just protesting too much). The thing is that I know that there is no amount of prayer, counseling or social stigma that could get me to turn gay. Why then should I assume that Homo-sexual behavior is any less innate and therefore morally ambiguous at worst? I believe it is called "resisting temptation, like an alcoholic who REFUSES to drink because he knows it will ruin his life, Jesus was familiar with the concept, I think he mentioned it a time or 2, you would be as well if you spent more time considering what, if any, principles you BELIEVE, instead of just spouting relativist crap.
As further evidence "choosing" to be gay and embracing the stigma from bigots like yourself is deeply irrational. It would be like choosing to be black in 1960s Alabama. Who would choose that? Being old enough to remember the difference, I will point out that shows like, "Queer eye" have been on for years trying to normalize degenerate behavior, I do not recall any shows like "Fire extinguisher for the colored guy" in the 60's
As Reagan famously said, facts are stubborn things. When ideology, prejudice or even theology run up against facts and logic, you better adjust the former because the latter aren't going anywhere. Its not scripture that's on trial here Rastus, its how you how we read it. How, Pray tell, do you read  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." or  perhaps Deuteronomy 22; 5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." They seem pretty much clear cut to me, but then I never bought into the relativist crap Its the human reader that's the weak link. You are a literalist who , amazingly enough (that would be sarcasm), sees it as confirming secular cultural prejudice, even as it ignores evidence.This contradicts your previous line, what I'm reading here paraphrases as "facts mean whatever I chose to twist them to mean I think exegesis is a bit more complicated and that Scripture should provide a prophetic critique to secular prejudice rather than a confirmation of it. As a final note your great grand dad and mine saw no problem with Jim Crow and the scripture. Neither did the Supreme CourtNow fundamentalists do.  If that were true "Christian Identity" would not exist, whether or not one agrees with them they are yet another example of your intellectual dishonestyWhat changed, not scripture, just how facts made them rethink how to interpret the bible.  Your attempt to equate a disgust for Homosexuals with "Racism" is going to blow up on you. What do people like Bill Cosby, and Alonzo Rachel object to about America's urban Blacks ? It's their refusal to make an effort to improve themselves, their entitlement mentality, What young Alonzo calls "Refusal to leave the plantation". What is it that we object to about gays ? Publicly flaunting degenerate behavior that not to long ago would have seen them jailed for offenses against morality, and trying to convince the general population that perversion is simply "an alternative lifestyle". The source of both of these types of offensive and self destructive forms of behavior is the socialist campaign against personal responsibility, that is why there is no more competitive testing in schools, Crime is increasing because no one is a damned thief any more, they are "victims of their economic or social environment" A guy who beats his wife or kids is always portrayed as a "victim of an abusive childhood" You may buy that sh!t but the fact that Drunk Drivers are now going to prison illustrates the holes in this specious argument
FQ13 

In closing I would like to add 2 things,
1) If my language offends you, tough, I did not receive the questionable benefits of an expensive education, I grew up in gravel pits and logging camps where REAL MEN worked hard spoke plain, said what they meant and meant what they said.
2)Get IE Spell check, or switch to Firefox which has a built in spell check.

[tombogan03884]

JC it is basic truth that there is no such thing a self interpreting text. If there was we wouldn't disagree about state's rights or flag burning or gun control or a hundred other disputes about the Constitution. Hell the Framers them selves disagreed. Same is true of Scripture. Disputes over the age of the earth the role of women the method of creation vary. We can all read. We know what the words say. What they mean to the reader at any given point is going to be shaped by their context of history and knowledge. Genesis was a different book pre-and post Galileo in terms of how it was understood. That's not revisionism, its reality.
FQ13

What baffles people like you is that you think everything requires "Interpretation" The idea that at one time people said and wrote EXACTLY what they meant, ("Shall not be infringed" for example) and meant exactly what they said and wrote, (Thou SHALL NOT"). Believe it or not that archaic practice still exists among pockets of us "right wing gun and Bible clinging extremists". (Formerly known as "honest Citizens" )
PS, I fixed your spelling AGAIN.  What ever you paid for those college English classes, you got screwed.

[alfack]

I'll add one more thing. Give us back the rainbow!! I used to think rainbows were cool, when I was a kid. Now, when I see a rainbow sticker on a car, I want to blow chunks. What gives them the right to denegrate rainbows by associating them with sexually deviant behavior?

[JC5123]

JC it is basic truth that there is no such thing a self interprting text. If there was we wouldn't disagree about state's rights or flag burning or gun control or a hundred other disputes about the Constitution. Hell the Framrs them selves disagreed. Same is true of Scripture. Disputes over the age of the earth the role of women the method of creation vary. We can all read. We know what the words say. What they mean to the reader at any given point is going to be shaped by their context of history and knowledge. Genisis was a different book pre-and post Gallileo in terms of how it was understood. Thats not revisionism, its reality.
FQ13

And I'm not suggesting that there is. But when you start talking about such documents as the Bible, and the Constitution, once you open them up to interperitation, you have just lost not only your argument, by every right afforded you by said documents. This is the biggest concern with activists judges. It is not a Judges job to define what a law says, but simply apply the law, as written, to the current case. Without regard, or "empathy" for either party involved.

Here is the problem, if you choose to let the Constitution be open for debate, then the anti 2a's are right and the right to bear arms is reserved only for state militias. But if you read what the 2A says it gives that right directly to the people. Here's one more, it was a gross misuse of power by congress through manipulation of the meaning of the commerce clause that allows the federal government to dictate to a farmer how much he has to produce and then tax him even on that which he doesn't sell.

The whole reason we are in the mess we are in now is because of "progressive" interpertation of our founding documents. They were written very plain so that people could understand what they meant. Now thanks to public run education most people are lucky to be able to read. Comprehension in our society is so lacking that redefinition and misinterperetation of those documents goes unchallenged, leading to those documents becoming irrelevant.    Hmm, kinda sounds like what the new world order crowd is trying to do.....

I'm just sayin.

[Rastus]

I'll add one more thing. Give us back the rainbow!! I used to think rainbows were cool, when I was a kid. Now, when I see a rainbow sticker on a car, I want to blow chunks. What gives them the right to denegrate rainbows by associating them with sexually deviant behavior?

If you believe the Bible, and I do, the rainbow is the sign of the covenent between God to man and all flesh on earth that the waters again would never be used to destroy all flesh.  The use of the rainbow to signify some of the most depraved individuals on the planet is thoroughly disgusting.