Mr Fish Toon "Tell Me about it..."

[n2doc]

[xchrom]

1. Funny - I like it. Nt

[Betty Karlson]

2. Sorry, not funny at all.

The toon presupposes that the protesters have a point: that God would hate GLBT people. The message we want to get out to all those youngsters who have done nothing wrong, is that God created them just the way they are - and that they are beautiful in His eyes.

If the protesters can't share God's actual point of view, that's their problem. But God does not hate people for the way He made them - and neither should any of us.

[baldguy]

3. Most mainstream Christian sects believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.

[Betty Karlson]

4. Trinity?

Where did I mention the doctrine of the Trinity? Whatever you were trying to say, baldguy, it is entirely beside the point: which is, <size=17>that no toon should imply that God hates gay people.</size>

[baldguy]

5. The toon is exposing the absurdity if that position.

On several different levels. According to mainstream Christian doctrine God, The Father and Jesus Christ are the same person, along with The Holy Spirit which exists in each of us.

In order for "God Hates Fags" to be true, then either-

A) God must deny the humanity of His own creations: the people who are gay, and thus deny Himself.

or

B) God must deny the humanity of His Son, Jesus Christ


It denies human rights to people based upon truly arbitrary attributes and advocates treating them as less than human. Down that path lies death camps and ovens. THAT'S the reason the extreme anti-gay position adopted by the GOP is evil.

[Betty Karlson]

6. Even then the toon still sends the wrong message:

Because it would imply Jesus, or God, or the entire Trinity for that matter, has to be gay for God to love gay people. God's love for them is unconditional, as is His love for all His children.

The toon just doesn't amuse me one bit. The idea behind it may be laudable, but the work itself is based on reprehensible premises.

[Eryemil]

7. If the Christian god existed as he is believed to be by the majority of his followers-

-then he would undoubtedly hate homosexuals. Non-homophobic Christians are, after all, a fringe group. I find it hilarious how there are no "true" Christians among believers; every group assures us that those that disagree with them must be false Christians while they themselves have a direct line of communication to their deity.

I would ask you how you are so certain that god does not hate homosexuals but I already know your answer; it is, hilariously enough, the same answer that those that think the opposite would give if asked the same question.

[Betty Karlson]

8. Then allow me to give an original answer:

Why would God not love gay people, when He can even love all those Christians?

[ZombieHorde]

10. What are your claims based on? The Holy Bible is clearly anti-gay.

1 Corinthians 6
9Do 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 nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Leviticus 20
13 " '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 to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

The Holy Bible is extremely bigoted.

[Betty Karlson]

11. My claims are based on the Bible actually:

As for Corinthians, the original phrasing is: "malakoi te kai arsenikoites", which applies only to male prostitutes and their "customers". In a similar fashion, the word "whore" does not apply to all heterosexual women.

And as for Leviticus, those words are preceded by verse 3, where Israel is called upon to not commit the sins of Canaan or Egypt. What follows must therefore be a list of practices that were common in Egypt and/ or Cannaan at the time. Unless you can give me historic proof that monogamous, loving, and committed relations between two members of the same sex were common in Egypt and/ or Cannaan, I'm going to assume that these words refer to a few same-sex practices that we know from historic sources:
child abuse, sexual abuse of prisoners of war, sexual abuse of a xenophobic nature, cultic sex, male prostitution.
These words can today be applied to Guantánamo wards, some Roman-Catholic priests, and Congo rebels. But not to my lesbian and gay friends.

I'd rather opine that the Holy Bible is very right in prohibiting these actions. But the Bible's readers are wrong to take these words and interpret them in a way that holds GLBT people and heterosexual people to different standards. THAT is bigotry.

[ZombieHorde]

12. "malakoi te kai arsenikoites", which applies only to male prostitutes and their "customers".

I have a peered reviewed source which states otherwise.

Page 135 and 136 in the link.

http://www.little-yeti.com/idh3931-aaia/files/Locke%20-%20The%20Bible%20on%20Homosexuality%20%5B2004%5D.pdf

The line in Leviticus is preceded by 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, ... Do you really believe the 9th restriction ('If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head) is strictly an Egypt activity? Your interpretation does not make any sense.

I'd rather opine that the Holy Bible is very right in prohibiting these actions.

You think male prostitutes should be executed? Really?

[Betty Karlson]

13. Look, if we are going to quote sources,

peer reviewed or otherwise, we will turn this discussion into a load of links. I could give you links to prove that same-sex relationships were blessed in the early Christian churches. But that would lead astray from the real issue here: that the name of God should not be abused to excuse homophobia, and that no cartoonist should allow his work to sustain the claims of homophobes.

When reviewing those other lines in Leviticus, the preceding verse three remains paramount. This "cursing" must relate to a practice common in either Canaan or Egypt. My money would be on Egypt, where cults were in the habit of casting strange spells. "Cursing your father an mother" does not necessarily relate to our "fuck you" to a parent as well as to those ancient spells. Beware of over-generalisation!

And that applies to your last question as well. Prohibition is not the same as endorsing execution. When I say that the Bible is right in prohibiting something, I do not necessarily call for blood. And no, I would not call for male prostitutes to be executed. But I will admit that when it comes to child abusers, I have on occasion reached a different sentiment.

And now, I would like to suggest to either start a new topic in the Religion forum, where we can discuss these things without getting off topic, or agree to disagree.

[ZombieHorde]

15. I doubt n2doc is concerned about our discussion, at least we are kicking n2doc's thread.

I could give you links to prove that same-sex relationships were blessed in the early Christian churches.

No need, I know there are Christians who completely support gay people. I also know there are Christian churches which are supportive of gay people. However, I still believe the Christian Holy Bible is anti-gay.

This "cursing" must relate to a practice common in either Canaan or Egypt.

Why?

Prohibition is not the same as endorsing execution.

I agree, but the passages in the Holy Bible advocate execution.

Leviticus 20:13 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 to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

The passage is pretty clear.

[Betty Karlson]

16. Well all right, you asked for it:

Have you ever noticed that apart from context, there is also a diachronic line in the Bible? I mean that apart from every quote belonging to a larger passage, those passages are also part of a larger development of ethics throughout the Bible.

As an example, I'd like to point out the emancipation of women in the Bible. In Genesis, women start out as their husbands' property. Then God emancipates them step by step. The first step is that Sarai becomes Sara: "my princess" turns into "princess". Before that change, Abram could "lend" his wife to a foreign lord. After the change, Abraham tries again, but God protects Sara: she was no longer Abraham's to lend.

Many developments later, we find Jesus telling Martha to get out of the kitchen: He wants her to be His disciple. And in a much-ignored passage, Paul greets Prisca as his colleague ("sunergetos") at the end of his letter to the Romans. Misogynists can pinpoint all those intermediary stages and say: "see, the Bible justifies that I subjugate my wife." But in reality, the Bible shows a clear favour for incremental emancipation of his wife. And coming after Jesus and Paul, that means nothing short of full equality for us.

Those homophobes inside and outside the church who pinpoint to specific quotes from the Pentateuch disregard all the developments from later Bible books. Developments like the gradual abolition of violent rebuttal ("turning the other cheek is part of that development). So even if a certain passage is "pretty clear", it still doesn't mean anything without its proper context. In addition, you need to ask if there is a diachronic development to take into account.

I often reproach (silently or otherwise) fellow Christians for disregarding those diachronic lines. Their blind spots lie at the root of many abuses in the church, like misogyny and homophobia.

And that is why I keep pointing out Leviticus 18:3, which ties all following verses to two places (Canaan and Egypt) and one time long before Christ. I believe this answers your second question as well. Inasmuch as a line can be derived from the paltry seven passages in the Bible regarding homosexual practices, ny tentative guess would be that
1) all regard practices of abuse: prostitution, rape, child abuse, cultic sex
2) monogamous relationships are not referred to (to judge them, extrapolate from Biblical referring to different-sex relationships)
3) in the Old Testament, violent rebuttal is still an option. The New Testament tells you to leave judgement to God (via the reference to the Kingdom of Heavens) This would invalidate any Leviticus incitements of violence against GLBT people, even if those words referred to them in general. But, as I have said time and again, I don't believe they do.

[ZombieHorde]

17. "there is also a diachronic line in the Bible"

As an example, I'd like to point out the emancipation of women in the Bible. In Genesis, women start out as their husbands' property. Then God emancipates them step by step. The first step is that Sarai becomes Sara: "my princess" turns into "princess". Before that change, Abram could "lend" his wife to a foreign lord. After the change, Abraham tries again, but God protects Sara: she was no longer Abraham's to lend.

Many developments later, we find Jesus telling Martha to get out of the kitchen: He wants her to be His disciple. And in a much-ignored passage, Paul greets Prisca as his colleague ("sunergetos") at the end of his letter to the Romans. Misogynists can pinpoint all those intermediary stages and say: "see, the Bible justifies that I subjugate my wife." But in reality, the Bible shows a clear favour for incremental emancipation of his wife. And coming after Jesus and Paul, that means nothing short of full equality for us.

This is a pretty interesting argument. I thought about it today in my anthropology class, as opposed to paying attention. I will have to think about this argument more before I accept it or reject it. Thought provoking; thank you.

Those homophobes inside and outside the church who pinpoint to specific quotes from the Pentateuch disregard all the developments from later Bible books.

Homosexuality is not clearly addressed in the New Testament; Jesus never mentions it. The argument I quoted above may demonstrate an incremental improvement of women's civil rights in the Holy Bible, is there evidence of improvement of gay civil rights?

in the Old Testament, violent rebuttal is still an option. The New Testament tells you to leave judgement to God (via the reference to the Kingdom of Heavens) This would invalidate any Leviticus incitements of violence

To me, this sounds like God has changed his mind on this subject. Do you agree?

The New Testament tells you to leave judgement to God (via the reference to the Kingdom of Heavens)

To me, this sounds like penal systems are anti-Christian. What do you think?

[Betty Karlson]

18. O, come on, you are caricaturing my positions

In response to "is there evidence of improvement of gay civil rights":

I doubt if there had to be one, considering that there is an impression that homosexuality was never categorically addressed, no, not even in the Old Testament. The presupposition behind your question (that the Bible is anti-gay) is not sustained as far as I am concerned. I refer you to the above discussion.

Of course, that does not mean that present-day Christians have no obligation to treat GLBT people no different than they would treat heterosexuals in the same situation. But that is an obligation that they have to all minorities.

"To me, this sounds like God has changed his mind on this subject. Do you agree?"
- No I don't. I'd rather say that (S)he has become progressively restrictive on what (S)he will still allow to be at odds with His/Her opinion. If God had said to Abraham: "Sara is your equal in all things", Abraham would have effectively become a pariah. By the time Jesus told Mary to get out of the kitchen, Jewish and Jewish-leaning society was largely ready for female leaders in faith. (Too bad all that changed back in the third century.) It would seem to me that God took the social context into account when further restricting stratification and discrimination in society, and never demanded more than society could handle.

"To me, this sounds like penal systems are anti-Christian. What do you think?"
- Penal systems of today are certainly not Christian. But that doesn't make them anti-Christian. And as Jesus Christ said: "all those who are not against us, are for us." (Mathew 19: 26). In present-day Western societies, laws (supposedly) favour no religious position. As such they are ideally only compatible with Christianity, rather than agreeing with it in all matters of ethics. However, there is a strong case that a legal system that is compatible with Christianity should include no penalties that cannot be undone - that is to say: no capital offenses, the possibility of pardoning, no minimum sentences, etcetera.

[ZombieHorde]

19. I offered peer reviewed evidence the Holy Bible forbids gay sex.

If you have peer reviewed evidence to the contrary, I am willing to look at it.

No I don't. I'd rather say that (S)he has become progressively restrictive on what (S)he will still allow to be at odds with His/Her opinion.

This is an example of changing one's mind.

But that doesn't make them anti-Christian.

What about, "Judge not, lest you become judged"?

[MNBrewer]

9. I think it's funny.

I laughed.

[kenny blankenship]

14. I wonder if he ever worked up the nerve

to talk to his dad about the Beloved Disciple in his life?