My professor wonders why people claim homosexuality is unnatural when there’s evidence of it among chimps.
Incest and dung-throwing are also recorded as natural among chimps.
Originally posted by Frank J. Fleming:
How long have Christians been around?
While many people see Christians as a brand new and quite scary thing, records show Christians have been around since at least the 1950s, and maybe even much earlier.
What are their beliefs based on?
It’s a book called “The Bible.” It’s full of thousands-of-years-old religious writing, which Christians believe to have been written by men inspired by God. It’s very long.
I see many Bibles are labeled “Holy Bible.” What if I got a non-holy version?
Immediately return it for a refund.
The Bible is full of really old values, with lots of outdated views on things like sex. Do Christians actually follow this thing?
Indeed they try. Their view is that while society and technology change, the fundamental nature of man doesn’t, and neither do the values God gave us. Thus, the Bible is something they find relevant and expect people to read and follow many years into the future, like Harry Potter.
Don’t Christians know how weird and old-fashioned following the Bible makes them? Everyone else is fine with swearing, sex on TV, and abortion. Why do they have to be so different?
To Christians, following the ways of God is more important than fitting in with societal norms. Thus they are gladly counter-cultural.
So they’re like hipsters?
Yes, except everything they do is unironic.
There’s some really weird stuff in the Bible, like [quote of strange-sounding rule from Leviticus or Deuteronomy]. The Bible sounds stupid, and people shouldn’t listen to it.
Parts of the Bible can sound weird in isolation, but it takes lots of study to understand the Bible and how the Old Testament relates to the New Testament.
But don’t Christians just pick and choose what parts of the Bible they want to follow? Like [quote rule from Leviticus or Deuteronomy that Christians are unlikely to follow].
Christians do not follow much of what is known as the “Mosaic Law.” Much of the reasoning for this is addressed in the book of Hebrews.
Okay, so if I just check that out, I’ll find the answer and… wait a second! You almost tricked me into reading more of the Bible! I only need to know enough about it to mock it!
Almost got you. When trying to trip up Christians with quotes from the Bible, just be aware you’re unlikely to find anything they aren’t already aware of, since they read that thing religiously.
And don’t Christians know we now have science, which has replaced religion, and that there is no more need for Jesus, since we have lasers and rockets and other science stuff?
Science covers physical and temporary things, while religion covers spiritual and eternal things, so Christians still feel religion is very important — even more important than science.
For some reason the article was removed from the website, but the text was fortunately saved from my Pocket account. So here it is, I’ll update the link if the article is re-added:
In case you haven’t heard, some of the stars of the popular TV show “Sister Wives” are suing the state of Utah, arguing that its laws against bigamy are unconstitutional. And just last week, a reporter asked White House press secretary Jay Carney, “How does the president stand on polygamy?”
Polygamy? Are you kidding?
Not surprisingly, Carney ignored the question, but it is a question he won’t be able to ignore for long. In an extensive, feature article, Time magazine described how “once secretive plural families like the Dargers of Utah [also part of “Sister Wives”] are coming out of the shadows and beginning to advocate for their way of life.” (The article was entitled, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do: Polygamy Raises Its Profile in America.”)
But what else could we expect? First same-sex couples have come out of the closet and now “plural families” are “coming out of the shadows.” After all, if two men can get “married,” why not one man and several women? And if there is a fundamental “right” to marry the person you love, shouldn’t that “right” also extend to the persons (plural) you love? Surely “marriage equality” means equality for all, right?
On July 25th, AP News reported that “Kody Brown and his four wives just want to live like any other family — free from the threat of being tossed in prison.” Surely, “tolerance” and “diversity” require this too, do they not? (Yes, I’m being sarcastic, but if “tolerance” and “diversity” and “equality” can be used to support same-sex “marriage,” then they can be used to support polygamy.)
The Browns are being represented by no less a prominent attorney than Jonathan Turley, professor of law at the George Washington University Law School and a frequent TV commentator. Turley is claiming that the very court rulings that paved the way for same-sex “marriage” also pave the way for polygamy. And this, it turns out, is exactly what Justice Antonin Scalia predicted in 2003 in his withering dissent of Lawrence v. Texas, where 6 Supreme Court justices found a constitutional “right” to Sodomy. Scalia warned that with the court’s ruling, “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest … are … called into question by today’s decision.”
Not surprisingly, Turley is now arguing that “under previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings, such as one that struck down Texas’ sodomy law, private intimate relationships between consenting adults are constitutionally protected.” But of course! And despite the fact that Scalia was ridiculed for issuing his 2003 warning, his words are proving to be strikingly prescient. In fact, already in 2003, a conservative reporter wrote that “Polygamy is the next civil-rights battle,” stating that the “Multiple-wives crowd hopes to capitalize on [the Lawrence v. Texas] sodomy decision.”
In 2005, during a question and answer session at Yale University, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that polygamy was among the “fundamental rights” that her organization would continue to defend, and in 2011, Joseph Farah asked rhetorically, “if marriage is a discriminatory institution because it prohibits same-sex couplings, why would it not be discriminatory to prohibit more than two people from participation?” He also noted, quite rightly, that “there is much more demand for polygamy throughout the world than there is for same-sex marriage,” not to mention much more historical precedent for it.
But this is not just an issue that is being played out in the courts. It’s also being played out in the court of public opinion, and just as the media has helped promote the acceptance and even celebration of homosexuality (along with bisexuality and transgenderism), it is doing the same for polygamy. (For the media’s recent promotion of polyamory, see here.)
After all, it was just a few months ago that Vice President Joe Biden said, “I think ‘Will & Grace’ probably did more to educate the American public than almost anybody’s ever done so far. People fear that which is different. Now they’re beginning to understand.” The same can be said for shows like HBO’s “Big Love” and TLC’s “Sister Wives,” as Americans are “beginning to understand” polygamy as well. Why should they fear it?
Polygamists now have a friendly face, and if the women are happy sharing their husband and making a life together with their children, how can we object? At least that’s what the popular argument would say.
I wrote last year that same-sex “marriage” represented a further fall down the slippery slope than did polygamy, and so it’s only logical that the continued push for same-sex “marriage” will be followed inevitably by the push for polygamy (and more).
The lesson from all this is simple: If we don’t draw an absolute line in the sand and declare on a national level that marriage is the union of one man and one woman only, this sacred and most foundational human institution will soon become so malleable as to be totally unrecognizable. And so, we either do the right thing today or we face the radical consequences tomorrow. Which will it be?
Maybe Christians are tolerant after all?
Some have suggested some qualifiers for the previous post on homosexuality. In the post I clearly refer to it as a sin. But some have suggested that homosexual proclivities in and of themselves are not sinful, but only the behavior itself.
shared via WordPress.com
Some important excerpts below. Click the link above to read full article.
"Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino vowed to block Chick-fil-A’s effort to open an outlet in that city. But the freedom to express unpopular viewpoints must be protected too."
"We disagree heartily with Cathy, but are far more troubled by the reaction of Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who vowed to block Chick-fil-A’s effort to open an outlet in that city."
"Menino suggested that it would be appropriate to block the chain from opening in Boston because Cathy’s views amount to discrimination. That would rightly apply if Chick-fil-A were to refuse service to gay customers; the city has a right and an obligation to prevent discriminatory actions against its residents and visitors. But there’s no evidence that any such thing has occurred."
Can someone please send me at least 1 example of Chick-fil-a showing direct hatred towards homosexuals? I’m trying to figure out what all the fuss is about.
Sources please! ;)