- High school students tend to express little appreciation for the First Amendment. Nearly three-fourths say either they don't know how they feel about it or take it for granted.
- Students are less likely than adults to think that people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions or newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.
- Students lack knowledge and understanding about key aspects of the First Amendment. Seventy-five percent incorrectly think that flag burning is illegal. Nearly half erroneously believe the government can restrict indecent material on the Internet.
- Not surprisingly, those students who worked for school media had a higher rate of knowledge about and support for the First Amendment.
Ultimately, the project surveyed more than 100,000 high school students, nearly 8,000 teachers and more than 500 administrators and principals at 544 high schools across the United States.
Go to the Web site.
We've got to do something. I have a laundry list of ideas, and I plan a longer post on this topic soon. But let's start a dialog among educators, students, parents and members of the community as to how we can do more to encourage students to know and value the First Amendment.
-- Wenatchee, Wash.
23 comments:
The students of today are constantly bombarded by images that drown substance, propaganda that overshadows truth, and passionate language that silences reason. Students do not always learn to see the bigger picture when viewing these first amendment ideas; they only see through their own "lens" and forget others' perspectives.
We, as educators and adults, need to teach the students their rights, the value of those rights, and the consequences of the absence of these rights. The media (sorry, Loganite) and those in power frequently use the ignorance and apathy of the masses, including the youth, for a furtherance of control and ultimately power.
Maybe we need to focus not just on the Constitution but the transcendental writers who stressed self-reliance, independence, and freedom of thought. These writers' ideas were later promoted by King, Gandhi, and other leaders of civil rights and equality around the world.
Apparently, the kids seem to think we are all equal but some are just more equal than others.
As a student of today, I am never bombarded by images that drown substance, propaganda that overshadows truth, and passionate language that silences reason. I have learned to see the bigger picture when viewing these first amendment ideas; I see through other "lenses" and carefully considers others' perspectives.
Way to go, Anonymous! One down and 50 million to go.
Obviously, my comments were not directed at an individual but as students as a group. Every study I've seen reveals the lack of media literacy and constitutional knowledge in today's youth. There will always be exceptions, but the exceptions don't make the rule.
So what do you propose we do about the awful indoctrination that goes on in college where the professors preach their opinions as facts and students who oppose them ultimately fail the class?
Such as univerisity newspapers have anti US voices, pro Al-Queda voices, but the single conservative voice gets ambushed, threatened, and often times fired (true story).
I recall watching an anti-Rush Limbaugh video in Mr. Kalahar's class that taught the class that he only appealed to white people and was full of propoganda. I was outraged at how a propoganda awareness video was actually full of propoganda itself!
Two things differ about college than the public K-12 system. First, students are generally making a conscious choice (even a paymen t) to enroll in the course. Second, students are expected to have developed the sophistication to be able to distinguish when these preachings are the professor's opinion and not facts.
And that's exactly what college is supposed to be: a chance to shop at the marketplace of ideas, the academy where free thinking can take place.
The conservative voice is not being ambushed or fired from colleges or squelched in college newspapers. A glance at the firestorm surrounding the Colorado professor who made pointed comments after Sept. 11, 2001, and is today receiving cancellations for speaking engagements, criticism and calls for his termination, will tell you that the new front in Neo-Conservatism is college campuses.
-- L.
I also remember Falwell speaking from Liberty College, I believe, saying very similar things as that Colorado professor and getting no flak from the so-called liberal media. Falwell said the 9/11 attacks were brought on by the U.S. This is the same basic message that the Col. prof. decalred. While Falwell blamed gays and other people bringing down his morality, this prof. blamed U.S. business and political interests. I do think the inflammatory manner of this prof.'s speech is what is really what people object to. The ideas sure ain't new.
I don't believe there is an indoctrination in schools (besides the flag salute, but don't get going there). I discussed this with the Loganite before. Nowadays every idea is allowed to be spoken and respected and valued. There may be debate, but every idea in today's schools is accepted with some grain of appreciation and value. Times used to be when teachers would simply say, "No, you're wrong," and denounce an idea. Maybe we need more of this simply to force students to defend their ideas and show some passion. Maybe school is too bland and thus squelching some studious fires.
Most students in my classes repeat what they see on the news, see in the papers, or what they hear from their parents. I personally think there is some validity to the Limbaugh video. He is hypocritical, spews thinly veiled racist comments (and got fired from ESPN for this), and throws out opinions as truth. I wonder if the Limbaugh video actually showed a truth that Limbaugh's supporters would be offended by (or refuse to admit). When someone's box is shaken, something on the inside can shift or break.
This is dangerous with a guillible public. I think the same of those far-left commentators as well. Having been to a university (and graduated -- woo-hoo), I know that there is much debate and that the conservative voice is alive and well.
Many students don't understand when they are graded down because of faulty logic or a poorly supported thesis versus a disagreement with a professor. In fact, I used to pick the opposite point of view from my instructors just to ensure my arguments would result in a discourse with the instructor.
I suggest reading the book "Brainwashed" by Benjamin Shapiro.
Also, did you hear about the Christian Frat that didn't sign a deal with UNC accepting all students to their frat? It makes sense to me. Having gay people in a religious fraternity is like having Ted Nugent in the Vegetarian fraternity. The irony is, the frat was discriminated against in order to try to end discrimation.
Laura Bush was chosen to speak at a UCLA graduation class a few years back, but when other officials heard of this, she was immediatley dismissed and the people that selected her were heavily criticized by most of the University staff.
I'm also quite aware that college is a conscious decision, and quite honestly, I'm whole-heartedly sickened with the promiscuity, drugs, underage drinking, and other irresponsible behaviors that go on at our Universities.
I think Dr. Savage has it right. Liberalism is a mental disorder and I'm gonna reserve his book. :)
That UNC frat is not being discriminated against. They simply can't use sexual orientation as a determiner of acceptance into the frat. That would be discrimination.
Who the hell are you, Adam?
What I gather is you are close-minded, against diversity, anti-gay, don't believe homosexuals can be religious (or involved in Christianity), against inclusion, and self-righteous. You also don't understand the multi-faceted nature of issues (in education and otherwise).
Everything you spout seems to identify you as blindly faithful to the crack pots posing as the conservative voice (i.e. Limbaugh and Savage). Those two spew racism and intolerance without regard for the guillible public listeners and unthinking followers.
For some reason you seem to think the left (liberals as you say) are to blame for everything. You want everyone to follow your moral beliefs, which is ridiculous to expect. You can't seem to get past your own prejudices.
Get some life experience. I don't know if you are in a university, but I do know you are only 20. Until you have some more experience in the world (not necessarily in school), be careful that you don't cement your beliefs too early (including your obvious bias).
Wow DrPrezz, way to come up with some meritable responses to my arguments. If all else fails, just call somebody evil and selfish.
The problem is, if you KNOW liberals (at least my age), they are more likely to be selfish, materialistic, and close-minded as all hell. They tend (as you do) to obsess over things like gay rights and racism. I don't look at people at their sexual preference or skin color, but I start to notice it when issues pertaining to them are obsessed. I don't think somebody should be out of a job because of race, sexual preference, etc.
"Everything you spout seems to identify you as blindly faithful to the crack pots posing as the conservative voice (i.e. Limbaugh and Savage). Those two spew racism and intolerance without regard for the guillible public listeners and unthinking followers."
--Listen to them sometime.
Once again, your conclusions are outrageous, and at the very least, hipocritical. Thank you for re-inforcing my conservative idealogoy.
Of course what I say reinforces your thinking; your thinking is without support (or any deep thinking really). You generalize and then get mad when called on it. You are reinforced because I disagree with you, and you dig your heels in.
I have listened to those two crack pots and choose not to listen any more. Limbaugh was fired for racist comments, and what is Savage a doctor of? Limbaugh has been proven to be a hypocrite and Savage is notorious for promoting policies that propel the majority and limit the minority.
You used a discriminating policy to say a group isn't discriminating. Sheesh! Figure out what you are saying!
You bring up points and accuse me of obsessing. I simply pointed out your faulty reasoning. Get a clue, Adam. You brought up the issue and I responded to you.
You have not refuted my other points but tend to fixate on where your morality butts heads with constitutional limitations.
Explain to me how I am hypocritical when I state that all voices should be heard (even yours) and that all people are guaranteed the same rights and equality under the Constitution. If you can't handle your limited world view, then that's your own shortcoming.
I would guess that you come from a middle or upper-middle class home, have never been a true minority, have never felt true hunger, have never been truly marginalized, have never been without a safety net, and have never been wanting in any meaningful way. And it shows.
Actually I come from the area of Wenatchee people refer to as the ghetto. Only after a lot of hardwork and sustaining good family and moral values were my parents able to pull themselves into the middle-class.
McNabb gets a pass as starting Quarterback because the media wants to see a black quarterback do well ...how is that racist? McNabb was doing horribly at the time and that was Rush's conclusion. Savage is a doctor of nutrition.
The rest of your post gets no attention (besides what I'm saying in this paragraph) because it's too filled with fallacious arguments and you're trying to yield some sort of substance that certainly isn't there. I think I'm done here.
"Don't believe homosexuals can be religious (or involved in Christianity)..."
Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is quite clear in both the Old and New Testament. Clearly, Drpezz, you've never actually picked up a Bible. Perhaps you should do a little research to back your flawed statements. I'm afraid your thinking, not Adam's, is without support.
"Get some life experience."
You act as if you have more knowledge and experience than anyone else out there. I hate to break it to you, drpezz, but there are some people in this country who are older and more knowledgeable than you. It may come as a shock, but some of them are (gasp) conservative. Seems to me someone other than Adam is a little "self-righteous."
Drpezz, just because Adam isn't willing to conform to your thinking doesn't make him close-minded. He could say the same about you--your "obvious bias" prevents you from agreeing with his point of view.
"...have never been a true minority, have never felt true hunger, have never been truly marginalized, have never been without a safety net, and have never been wanting in any meaningful way. And it shows."
I suppose you have experienced all of this yourself, Drpezz. What a noble, hardworking man you are.
Anonymous,
Regardless of your interpretation of the Bible, there seems to be no doubt that the writers of the Bible believe man should love his fellow man without exception. Also, the only true judge is to be the All Mighty. Man should not judge.
Jesus also spoke of inclusion, not exclusion. Jesus would definitely take up the cause of the downtrodden and unfortunate. He was a man of togetherness, not separation. He loved all men (and women, of course). He spoke of tolerance, acceptance, and love. I have never read in the Bible where a homosexual cannot be a practicing member of Christianity. Show me where it is, and I'll apologize with grace. Until you show me this research (and which "version" of the Bible you used), then I suggest you reserve judgment.
I cannot agree to Adams' cose-minded, bigoted, separatist points of view in regards to race, sexuality, and his obscene blaming of a group (Liberals, of which I am actually not one)for all of the nation's ills. I am very conservative in my views of military spending, the separation of state and federal power, and fiscal responsibility. I am, however, very open-minded in my social views. Conservative is fine, and I respect that; however, close-minded and prejudiced I don't.
Just because I have not experienced all of the scenario I have described, I have experienced some of that scenario. Additionally, I can feel and be compassionate and avoid being completely condemning of those less fortunate than myself. I believe in assisting those in need and not simply abandoning them. If this makes me "self-righteous" in your mind, that is your short-sightedness. I need not attack you personally. I don't know who you are (anonymous the too many to count), but I have had an extensive dialogue with Adam, whose two conservative political role models are an expert on nutrition and a man caught in his own hypocrisy. That is scary.
This is my hypocrisy: I am biased against those who do not accept others openly, against prejudice, and against discrimination in all forms.
Here are just a few examples of Biblical condemnation of homosexuality (NIV version):
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Leviticus 18:22
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Leviticus 20:13
"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Romans 1:27
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes not homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
These verses seem pretty clear to me. There really isn't any other way to interpret them.
It is true that homosexuality is no worse than any other sin. Nobody is perfect, and one who lies, cheats, or swears is just as much a sinner as a homosexual. However, a practicing Christian cannot be a homosexual because Christians are instructed to make every effort to live their lives according to the word of God. Homosexuals make no effort to change their sinful lives.
You can love a person without supporting his or her sin. Those who say they hate homosexuals are wrong. However, they are right to condemn the sinful practice of homosexuality. You can tolerate a person without tolerating their actions.
Here's an interpretation from the Life Application Study Bible:
"Homosexuality (to exchange or abandon natural relations of sex) was as widespread in Paul's day as it is in ours. Many pagan practices encouraged it. God is willing to receive anyone who comes to him in faith, and Christians should love and accept others no matter what thier background. Yet, homosexuality is strictly forbidden in Scripture. Homosexuality is considered an acceptable practice by many in our world today--even by some churches. But society does not set the standard for God's law. Many homosexuals believe that their desires are normal and that they have a right to express them. But God does not obligate nor encourage us to fulfill all our desires (even normal ones). Those desires that violate his laws must be controlled."
"If you have these desires, you can and must resist acting upon them. Consciously avoid places or activities you know will kindle temptations of this kind. Don't underestimate the power of Satan to tempt you, nor the potential for serious harm if you yield to these temptations. Remember, God can and will forgive sexual sins just as he forgives other sins. Surrender yourself to the grace and mercy of God, asking him to show you the way out of sin and into the light of his freedom and his love."
So are you saying all sinners can not be practicing Christians if they are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexual offenders, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers, or swindlers? There seems to be no distinction between these.
Besides, how can you say that homosexuals do not want to (or can) change? If by nature they are gay, how can they change what their Maker has created? I sense you feel homosexuality is a choice rather than biological. Now, I don't want to get into an entire debate over the nature-nurture aspect of the issue, but this stance assumes quite a bit. The word "natural" from the Life Application Study Bible passage is obviously directed towards those who feel homosexuality is a choice. Besides, as you say, it is an interpretation and obviously not yours. If the reader believes (as much of the scientific community does) that this lifestyle is biological, how is this addressed? That would mean they are, by their Creator, meant to be this way.
I have mixed some of my ideas in the following with those of Remebert Truluck, a former pastor, who wrote a book on the improper use of Bible verses to condemn others and to argue for causes. He is a Doctor of Theology and former Southern Baptist preacher who advocates for the inclusion of all. I also looked at Davis’ book “Don’t Know Much About the Bible” and several websites, specifically those dealing with word origins. I really wanted to confirm my own beliefs and provide a researched opinion back to you.
I knew these passages from Leviticus would come up. Nobody follows the laws in this book of the Bible. Check the other laws; they are discounted and dismissed. Some of your quoted verses fall in between verses (especially in the Old Testament) where women during their "unclean" time must leave the village and any who come in contact with her must be cleansed. Other laws on food, sex, and beliefs are mixed in as well. The Bible, written by men over 1500 years ago (the exact dates depend on who you believe), seems to contradict itself in some passages dealing with many issues, especially from the Old to the New Testament. But, here goes:
Another copy of the Bible states Lev. 18-22 as “You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination" and the other as "If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death." These passages refer to heterosexuals who participated in pagan fertility rites, according to the history I have read on this passage. Worshipping idols and anything unclean (in a religious sense) was considered an “abomination.” Look at Leviticus 26:14-16 where it states that ALL of the laws must be followed or else major terrors and punishments will be placed upon those who do not. This refers to many laws, not just one.
The only passage I saw in Leviticus from Jesus reads "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." In fact, I don’t recall Jesus ever mentioning homosexuality. He did, however, talk of inclusion, love, forgiveness, and acceptance while denouncing the judging of others and hypocrisy (which I believe picking out passages without context is). Take a look at Paul 2:14 and Colossians 2:8-23. Pastor Trulock is right that these two passages are revealing, but no matter what you do, look at the context of the passage.
According to what I know of your passage from Romans, it is directed towards idolators. This passage you quote (which is often misinterpreted because of a lack of context) was used to denounce many other groups of people as well (Jews, women, etc.). This lack of context is particularly obvious when you look at the line prior to it: "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." Besides the wording of early versions of the Bible (I believe) was not “natural relations” but “passions” referring back to cults (also known as mysteries if you study Greek/Roman society of about 2,000 years ago) and their frenzied dedications and their followings of Dionysus, Aphrodite, and others. When you look at Greek/Roman mythology, this makes absolute sense that the writers of the Bible would abhor these practices. This would coincide with the passages surrounding your quoted verse.
According to Dr. Trulock, the word “homosexual” was not even used in any translation of a Bible until 1946. Many have discussed this passage because of the Greek word “arsenokoites” which only appears once in the Bible and is thought to refer to the male prostitutes (for servicing women) of the time. The word “malakoi” means soft or pliable, which is definitely not effeminate.
There is also a debate over the use of “to know” in the Bible. Because of the original Hebrew word “Yada” being used in multiples places where sex is not intended or meant, some believe it to simply be an intimate knowledge (in a platonic sense). Just something else to ponder.
You must remember that the Bible was not originally written in English. Jesus would’ve spoken Aramaic; the earliest versions of the Bible are written in Hebrew, then Greek and Latin, and then disseminated out from there if I remember correctly from my ancient literature studies. English versions (note the word versions in plural) are at least four languages from the original and translations can affect the passages.
Regardless of the particulars, Jesus would’ve included homosexuals into his flock. He would’ve loved them, respected them, and ultimately, I believe, accepted them.
No matter what, if you look at just about every religion in the world (at least those I have even seen a piece of), the commonalities focus on love, respect, forgiveness, and passion. This, to me, is the basis for many beliefs in religion, but all are based on faith. I have faith in love, respect, forgiveness, and passion, but can't in goof faith (pun intended) see Jesus' teachings even implying the exclusion of any group from the church if they dedicate their lives to their belief in Jesus and God.
Oops. "good faith" and not goof faith
You know drpezz, you must live up to your word. I quote, "I have never read in the Bible where a homosexual cannot be a practicing member of Christianity. Show me where it is, and I'll apologize with grace." I believe that anonymous showed you four quotes in the bible, regardless of old or new testament, that clearly show that homosexuality is not a part of the christian faith. I think you owe someone an apology; with grace now.
When I view myself, as a practicing christian, I practice abstinance from sins that the bible tells me not to commit. If I swear or think lustfully I ask for my lord's forgiveness and try not to repeat my actions. Granted, I know that no one is perfect and everyone sins. I do; I am not perfect. However, I work to follow the laws that have been set before me by the bible and Jesus's example.
Having said this, I do not believe that homosexuals can be practicing christians. I don't understand how a homosexual can be a practicing christian when verses like Romans 1:27, Corinthians 6:9-10, and both of the Levitcus verses clearly state that one is not to partake in homosexual behavior. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Now, the actions of others I can not control; and Jesus did preach inclusion, togetherness, tolerance, acceptance, and love. But let me ask you this, is it possible to accept but not approve? God loves all of man kind regardless of immoral actions (even homosexuals). Yet what seperates God's followers is the morals in which they live their lives by. Homosexuals live their lives in a fashion, clearly stated in the bible, as unacceptable.
The argument that homosexuality is biological is irrelevant. As humans and sinners, we all have ungodly urges. Practicing Christians must make every effort to live their lives according to the Word of God without succumbing to these temptations. I am a unmarried, heterosexual male; naturally, I have a biological urge to have premarital sex. Does that make it okay? Of course not. Sometimes I have urges to lie, cheat, or steal. But do I? No, because these acts all defy Biblical teachings. You can't use a biological condition as an excuse for sin.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and SELF-CONTROL." Galatians 5:22. All people, homosexuals included, must make a conscious effort to keep their sinful desires under control and resist their urges, biological or not. It may be more difficult for some than others, but it can be done with the help of God.
"So are you saying all sinners can not be practicing Christians if they are sexually immoral...homosexual offenders...or swindlers? There seems to be no distinction between these."
You're right; there is no distinction between any of these. They are all sinners, all equally wrong in the eyes of God. And yes, I am saying that none of them can call themselves practicing Christians--if they make no effort to change their sinful ways.
Those who continue to sin without repentance and don't try to live their lives according to the word of God are not to be associated with the Christian Church:
"I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat." 1 Corinthians 5:9-11.
An interpretation of those verses (I can't explain it any better myself):
"Paul makes it clear that we should not disassociate ourselves from unbelievers--otherwise, we could not carry out Christ's command to tell them about salvation (Matthew 28:18-20). But we are to distance ourselves from the person who claims to be a Christian, you indulges in sins explicitly forbidden in Scripture and then rationalizes his or her actions. By rationalizing sin, a person harms others for whom Christ died and dims the image of God in himself or herself. A church that includes such people is hardly fit to be the light of the world. To do so would distort the picture of Christ it presents to the world. Church leaders must be ready to correct, in love, for the sake of spiritual unity."
"Besides, how can you say that homosexuals do not want to (or can) change?"
I don't believe I ever said that homosexuals can't change. In fact, I believe exactly the opposite. Homosexuals can change with the help of God. All they have to do is ask for forgiveness and for help to end their sinful practices. If they want to change, it can be done.
"Regardless of the particulars, Jesus would’ve included homosexuals into his flock. He would’ve loved them, respected them, and ultimately, I believe, accepted them."
Jesus absolutely would have loved and respected them as people; he loves and respects everyone. Jesus was known for spending time and associating with those many considered to be the wrong types of people. For example, Matthew was a sleazy tax collector before he knew Jesus, but Jesus called on him to follow so he could learn and change his sinful ways. He spent much of his time with the obvious sinners instead of the devoutly religious because they were the ones who needed him most. Just because Jesus accepts and loves the people does not mean he accepts and loves their sin.
While Jesus may never have addressed homosexuality directly, he did have this to say about Old Testament Law at the Sermon on the Mount: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17.
Jesus also used the words "male" and "female" when discussing marriage, not "male" and "male," or "female" and "female":
"But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one." Mark 10:6-8
"According to what I know of your passage from Romans, it is directed towards idolators."
The passage is about idolators and specific sins, including homosexuality, that they committed as a result of their separation from God. They were given over to their "shameful [homosexual] lusts" because of their idolatrous acts. Notice the "Because of this" at the beginning of the verse. Because they were idolators, they were seperated from God, and because they were seperated from God, they shamefully lusted for other men.
"Besides the wording of early versions of the Bible (I believe) was not “natural relations” but “passions” "
So according to your early translations, the verse would read, "In the same way the men also abandoned passions with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Funny, it doesn't really change a whole lot.
"Take a look at Paul 2:14 and Colossians 2:8-23."
Paul? Did you mean Phil, as in Philippians or Philemon, or perhaps Peter? I'm not finding a Paul anywhere. As for the Colossians passage, I don't know exactly what you're trying to prove. To me, it is your philosophy that is "hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." Where exactly are you trying to go with that one?
"You must remember that the Bible was not originally written in English."
I realize that the Bible has been translated many times, and some translations are better than others. However, I highly doubt that the core meaning of any verse in the Bible underwent a complete reversal in the translation process. I have faith that God preserved the meaning of his word across the language barrier. God has a stong interest in preserving its sanctity: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book." Revelation 22:18.
It's funny how you have to stretch and twist words in the verses I selected in order to get them to mean what they want. You base your beliefs off of what they might say. I, on the other hand, base my beliefs off of what they do say.
"...but can't in good faith (pun intended) see Jesus' teachings even implying the exclusion of any group from the church if they dedicate their lives to their belief in Jesus and God."
It's not merely a belief in God that leads to salvation, but rather a personal relationship with him. Anyone who has a true personal relationship with him does his or her best to live life according to his word.
"I have mixed some of my ideas in the following with those of Remebert Truluck, a former pastor, who wrote a book on the improper use of Bible verses to condemn others and to argue for causes."
Just out of curiosity, what makes Remebert Truluck's opinion any more valid than the opinion of the Biblical scholars who wrote the interpretations in my Bible?
Ultimately, the conflicting interpretations don't really matter. They are the words of men. For a Christian, nothing written by men can possibly override the Bible. Under any circumstance, I will trust the word of a perfect, omnipotent God above all else.
""Besides, how can you say that homosexuals do not want to (or can) change?"
I don't believe I ever said that homosexuals can't change. In fact, I believe exactly the opposite."
Oops, I misread that a little. Ignore my first two sentences and the rest of my response makes sense. To expand, I know it can be done because I've heard success stories. Some formerly sexually active homosexuals change their ways and end up in heterosexual marriages. That's not to say that all homosexuals can or should marry heterosexually (obviously the vast majority don't), but the point is that is can be done.
Of course the obvious opposition to your situation is can you make a heterosexual become a homosexual? Is it just a suppression of true desires or have you really changed the person's preference? If it can go one way, then it must be possible the other. I personally believe people simple repress their true desires to fit in. People do it all the time to fit in (in other situations as well) until they begin think they believe what they are telling themselves. I don't really think they have changed; they are just trying to fit in better.
I think you are still misunderstanding my point; plus, you and I seem to come from two completely different view points on this issue.
I am showing you that the version of the Bible you are using changes everything. Going back to the original wordings of the verses can change the outcome of the message (ever play “telephone” with your friends). The context of the passages is crucial. There was a denouncing of homosexual acts, but those were most likely directed towards acts by heterosexual men with other heterosexual men (homosexual acts by heterosexuals is possible) during pagan rites, which encouraged this sort of behavior in some areas of ritual. In the middle of a section about idolatry is one mentioning of an act--a passion, a moment of frenzy brought about by the fervor of the moment--that is forbidden. This says nothing of a homosexual in the house of the Christian god or being a member of the church. Neither you nor I can definitively know what the writer intended, though my look at the original wordings does suggest my point. Going back to the source is the best way to determine this.
You appear to believe that the Bible was written by those who are creating a text completely free of error, essentially God’s word direct and perfect. I can’t possibly believe this to be so because of the number of translations written by man (who are decidedly not perfect).
I also think that you (at times and maybe not always) look at the Bible text as being able to be looked at literally, whereas I look at the Bible as a series of parables and life lessons not to be taken literally. Having studied enough translations to see that subtle differences in translation can alter intent and meaning, I have a difficult time seeing the Bible literally. Besides, people pick and choose what they wish to prove their personal issues. This can be said of the Bible's writers as well.
I know that the study of homosexuality is relatively recent in its foundings. Ancient people did not have the same understanding of this issue that we do today. It is difficult to apply any ancient script to today’s world (except maybe the basic tenets); this also helps explain the church’s changing stances on many issues over time. What it once believed, it does not now in many instances. We don’t advocate or practice slavery; we believe genocide to be wrong; also, women are gaining equality in many areas of the church, which is definitely not acceptable in the Bible. I also don’t believe man can possibly understand the will of God. To even assume to do so, to me, seems blasphemous.
I apologize if I offended you, but I don’t want to start a Holy (Blog) War over this. This was not the intention of the blog. I will not, however, concede the point. It depends on your approach and interpretation. We will always disagree on (I think) our outlooks on the Bible. I respect your articulate and well-researched opinion, but I definitely don’t agree. I’ve always said that it’s rare to see someone change his/her mind when it comes to religion.
Carl Sagan once said, “In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.” While I don’t think this is true of all of the church (see comment above), I do think it is consistent with the majority. I have never known anyone to suddenly and monumentally change a religious belief because of a debate or personal discussion.
Remember that faith is defined as a “the theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will” and a “belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.” I believe (or should I say have faith) in some of the Bible’s teachings but not all. Without proof of the Bible’s original intentions, we will have to (cliched as it is) agree to disagree. For this, I apologize to you.
P.S. Get a screen name, so people can distinguish between all the "Anonymous" people. I think mainly it's laziness in not wanting to create one for most anonymous bloggers, but having one sure does help direct comments to people. Make a name for yourself. Take that any way you wish. :)
I was thinking in the shower this morning about how I made an error when I wrote the other day. Oops.
I meant Paul's words in Colossians 2:14 and specifically in 2:16 and 2:21-22. I was thinking faster than I typed. These passages seem to show a warning against too strict (or an absolute) following of the laws in Leviticus ("having cancelled the written code" in one version and "canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees" in another version). In 3:11 he speaks again of inclusion no matter who the person is (as a positive and a negative): "Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncirsumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free..." The he says in 3:12-13 to clothe yourselves in kindness, humility, gentleness and patience" followed by a call to forgive all and bind all to love. He wrote Colossians in response to the differing beliefs in Colosse (basically cults) similar to but not not exactly like the worshippers of Baal by the Caananites and Eqyptians referred to in Leviticus. Sorry, but that's to what I referred.
Post a Comment