Slashdot Mirror
Video Game Free Speech Ruling Aftermath
On Monday we discussed the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that a California law banning the sale or rental of violent video games to minors was in violation of the First Amendment's free speech protection. By now, both sides of the debate have had a chance to respond to the Court's ruling. Congressman Joe Baca and CA State Senator Leland Yee pledged to continue the fight for stricter controls on the distribution of violent games, while others cried, "think of the children." Game industry groups were unsurprisingly pleased with the decision, but warned that this won't be the end of it, and asked lawmakers to stop wasting time with such legislation in the future. An article at the NY Times points out how the ruling highlights the lack of clear evidence supporting either side of the debate, and Time notes the Supreme Court's double standard, asking, "Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?" Finally, an editorial at Gamasutra reminds us that even though most game developers are breathing a sigh of relief, many would like to see the industry shift toward something more creative and meaningful than violence.
Other than for politicians who like to say they voted "against" sex and violence, and retailers and producers, do these laws have any effect to begin with on kids? I have seen opinions that it "desensitizes" kids to violence. But I've also read that access to porn has led to less sex crime. It kind of feels like violent games would reduce empathy in kids, but I'd be more interested in slashdot links to actual studies of behavior than political posturing and opinion about the ruling.
Gently reply
Why does the industry have to SHIFT towards anything? Is there some sort of quota that prevents the publication of more than one type of video game? Jesus Christ, I'm so fucking tired of everything being black or white and thing else.
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"
a possible answer is: violence tends to lower the demographic pressure, sex to increase it. With limited Earth resources, this is still "think of the children" but on a longer run. </sarcasm>
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Why does the Supreme Court treat violent video games differently? Its a double standard...blah blah They acknowledged that and said why in their ruling. They pointed out that not just in American history but in western society leading up to American, we have always done so. Our oldest fairy tails and even our Bible stories depict rather graphic violence even though they are intended for presentation to children. Meanwhile we have always restricted the presentation of sexual images, when not presented in away that society broadly recognizes as high art.
They said all this in their ruling, maybe these people should try reading it and then respond.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
The thing newspapers keep missing is that there is already a voluntary rating system out there, which all game retailers adhere to. Console makers have already banned Adults Only games from their consoles, and violent M games are kept away from kids by retailers already. By most tests, the system is more effective than the Movie rating system at keeping kids away from M (R) rated content.
So really, the court didn't rule that you can't have a ban. The court ruled that to overcome the first amendment challenge, California had to prove significant interest in a government-enforced ban above and beyond the already in-place industry ban. Since the California law was only going to add legal confusion to an already working voluntary system, the supremes ruled against them.
The ______ Agenda
There is also lack of clear evidence that rules restricting the sale of tobacco, alcohol, and porn to minors is making a difference. For that matter, the closest analogue is probably R-rated movies, and there isn't any evidence that restricting those at the theatre is useful, either.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"
To call it the 'court's' double standard seems rather unfair. The justices specifically noted that it was rather odd how American tastes in media, past and present, were highly permissive of violence, even for fairly young children; but much less permissive of sexual material. However, in keeping with their job description, they couldn't really do much about that. 'Miller-test obscenity', while pretty unsatisfactory in a number of respects, is one of the few ways to successfully exempt something from First Amendment protections. For reasons having to do with American culture in the past, continuing into the present, that one doesn't mention violence.
Perhaps more importantly, the court argued that the law was attempting to enforce an (unconstitutional) double standard by imposing special restrictions on violent media that happened to be video games, restrictions that were not imposed on violence in other media: had the law flipped out at violence per se, as people often do about sexual content, regardless of medium(except for stuff old enough to have a gloss of cultural respectability, which is why 120 Days of Sodom is on the shelves and Playboy behind the counter, wrapped in plastic...), it would have at least had a shot at getting some Miller-esque test carved out for it. Since it specifically targeted video games, it was quite arguably an attempt to legally silence one specific class of speakers, rather than a specific perfidious topic(which might not have necessarily succeeded; but would have had a better chance...)
The court, for the most part, was just repeating back to us an observation on our own standards.
... violence. Raw violence, controlled violence, channeled violence... it's all the same. "Competition", that poster boy of capitalism, is really nothing more than a highly channeled and almost symbolic form of violence. Competition is all about putting your figurative foot to the other guy's figurative throat and squeezing until he cries uncle, right? Would somebody please explain how that is really so much different than the caveman version of that scenario, where it's actual feet and necks in play rather than sales figures and balance sheets and quarterly reports? Then there's the ubiquity of literally violent team sports, which curiously no one is rushing to banish from schools and universities and the airwaves. Violence is violence, when the intent is the same, to put one's figurative foot on the other guy's neck.
So "competition" isn't that different from game violence in terms of the intent, but once again the ruling class/elite/whatever wants to make sure we're all restricted to playing this game of life by their rules only, by which they hope to have an incumbent advantage. They've been playing this game with systems of laws for centuries, using "the law" to their primary advantage. They perhaps don't want these games reminding a generation that they in fact do have other options for playing The Game. Vive la revolucion!
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"
Politicians can pretend to be dealing with violence by putting on cowboy hats for photo sessions.
People having Too Much Sex is harder for them to deal with.
No sig today...
Ah, BTW, in regards to
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"
a possible answer is: violence tends to lower the demographic pressure, sex to increase it. With limited Earth resources, this is still "think of the children" but on a longer run.
</sarcasm>
Clearly you've never read the bible. Endless killing of people of other religions is "OK" even encouraged by God. On the other hand, extreme societal control of what goes on in "private" bedrooms is mandatory.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"
Better question: Why does the media and general populous of the United States consider violent images and sexual images to be the same?
Sure; back in our pre-civilized history sex and violence were often closely related. But as we have advanced as a civilized species and people this relationship has grown further and further apart.
My parents never put too much effort into shielding me from violent OR sexual (or both) imagery as I was growing up. I had video games (Commodore 64 represent!), television, access to the internet (first in my rural town! I was 12!), and content was never a deciding factor when I asked to see a movie (Money, time, or "I really don't want to see that, so I'm not taking you" were).
I have now been an adult for over a decade and am socially, sexually, intellectually, and monetarily stable/successful.
(wishful thinking)
Maybe they finally realized that there's nothing wrong with sex!
(/wishful thinking)
Oh, and don't rebut with BDSM. It's not really my thing, but I've got friends in the scene and I can tell you with absolute certainty that while BDSM is variably painful and variably dramatic... it does not count as "violence" in this context. If it does, then it's not BDSM, it's assault.
Sex is usually obvious to identify. What actual "damage" sex does to minors is still a bit of a mystery to me. I recall as early as 5 finding girls to be "interesting" and being quite curious about the differences. This is considered normal and healthy for kids. Oddly enough, the interest and curiosity never stopped. And we also know that when something is denied to someone, it just makes them want it all the more. What's more, I also recall my first experiences with alcohol -- I was also quite young and guess what? I hated it! I didn't learn to like it until my early 20s. I can't say they same would be true for sexual experiences for kids because I have no experience to relate, but there seems to be some indication that "protecting children" from exposure to sexual information is probably more damaging emotionally and psychologically.
Violence is really subjective... easy to identify, but we have to approve the cause or justification first. Recall that people weren't upset that yet another war game was created, but that there was a depiction of a playable present-day "enemy" where the player attacks US soldiers. (There would have been no commotion if the game was only about US soldiers attacking the Taliban.) It's not the violence itself that we seek to limit, it's the thinking behind the violence we seek to limit. Of course, we can't say what we actually mean because then it is clear and obvious that what we think or feel on the subject is pretty anti-american ideal-wise.
So instead of admitting that to ourselves and everyone around us, we just say "ban violence! (with the following exceptions: [insert list of things I approve of])"
many would like to see the industry shift toward something more creative and meaningful than violence
Yea, except those that do the purchasing. Though I'm sure it's been tried, "Call of Knitting: Black Yarn", "Mundane Borrowing Bicycle" or "Halo: Frolicking" probably just wouldn't sell very well.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Clearly you've never read the bible. Endless killing of people of other religions is "OK" even encouraged by God. On the other hand, extreme societal control of what goes on in "private" bedrooms is mandatory.
Considering you've been modded Insightful instead of Funny, I feel the need to point that this is not actually in the bible.
You haven't read the Old Testament, have you?
No sig today...
You haven't read the New Testament, have you? Nothing in the Old Testament is mandatory anymore.
But even in the OT, there was no such thing as extreme societal control.
If something is found unconstitutional and people keep attempting to push the exact same laws over and over, they should be personally fined for the amount of the cost to the system if again found unconstitutional.
Why does the media and general populous of the United States consider violent images and sexual images to be the same?
They don't. Remember the uproar over the exposed nipple during the superbowl?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
No extreme societal control? http://niv.scripturetext.com/leviticus/20.htm Nothing in the Old Testament is mandatory anymore? http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm
Ah you lucky Americans. I can only wonder what excitement and wonder it is for a woman to show her nipples if it might cause a public uproar.
Pick and choose... pick and choose. Toss away what you don't agree with, keep what you do.
Either follow it ALL, or don't follow it. Poser.
You haven't read the OT have you?
OT specifically states that the OT is the first and one true law, the unchanging, unimpeachable, direct word of God and shall never be changed by any entity ever for any reason whatsoever no exceptions no loopholes.
If a newer version of the Bible can override an older version, I have (as the one true living prophet of all deities ever) just penned a NEWER Testament which makes vast and sweeping changes to all holy books throughout the world.
Why wouldn't the court treat violent images and sexual images differently? Human brain has a different response to seeing violence and to seeing sex.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I would it imagine during victorian times, it would have been equivalent to a wanton display of ankle. Quite the racy event.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
even though most game developers are breathing a sigh of relief, many would like to see the industry shift toward something more creative and meaningful than violence.
Regardless of whether the "many" in that sentence are the developers or the 3rd part observers, these "many" have an opportunity to either develop other types of games themselves or to patron different types of games. The benefit of for-profit art, just as the the benefit of for-profit anything is that they have to strive to keep pleasing their customers.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
You haven't debated with a fundamentalist, have you? Which parts of either Testament are valid is entirely up to whoever you are talking to, and dependent on what point they are attempting to make.
they are about expressing and releasing violent and sexual energies that have no other outlet. much of violent and sexual impulses cannot be released in socially acceptable ways. so on some basic level, this is why violent and sexual media are so successful: they fill a need
it has always been my assertion that violent and sexual media doesn't CREATE inappropriate violent and sexual real life behavior, but instead serves as a form of releasing what is already there. in other words, those who oppose violent and sexual media are working on an inaccurate model of human psychology: we are not empty vessels that are corrupted. we are vessels already, naturally, innately, full of violent and sexual impulses. and we need a way to release them harmlessly, lest they be released harmfully. so violent and sexual media DECREASE real world inappropriate violence and sexxual behavior in my view
of course, videogames don't HAVE to be violent or sexual
but what i am saying, psychologically, is that the most successful videogames will always be violent or sexual. that's the most important need they fill
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"
They are treated differently because they are different.
Any toddler can tell the difference between real and "cartoon" violence just from their direct experience of, well, toddling.
No pre-pubescent child can possibly understand human sexuality - they just aren't wired for it yet.
Does this mean that exposure to Janet Jackson's nipple will twist their development - probably not.
But exposure to Michael Jackson might.
I have no problem with my kids chainsawing the heads off of aliens in Gears of War:
I'd have a big problem with them being exposed to puerile blow-job jokes in Duke Nukem Forever (even if it didn't stink).
"We got fences put up around every cheap hotel pool in the country! This first amendment crap won't stop us for long!" - another hysterical middle American 'homemaker' who cares about the 'the children'
I feel it is up to a parent to choose what is best for his/her child. By the standards that some politicians are choosing my son (when younger) would have limited to "age level" reading only, when he was capable of reading adult books. (Note: One of his parents always read every book before he was allowed to read it, as we felt it was our responsibility.) My son is an adult now, but I felt and still feel it is the parent's decision for their child as they grow. Each child is different. Some children can handle different video games at different ages than others.
Accepting the court's separation of sexually explicit material and violent material, does this ruling open the door for letting small children into R-Rated movies, which carry the "Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian" text along with the rating, without the "required" "accompanying parent or adult guardian" if the film is only rated "R" for violence and not sexual content? And if so, why have the "requires accompanying parent or adult guardian" text at all. And, what about NC-17, again if rated for violence and not sexually explicit material?
And, is it really that bad, from a First Amendment perspective, that adults have the right to decide if their children can play violent video games? I understand the profit motive, by restricting sales to any demographic the company looses potential profit, but I do not understand how the ability to SELL something to someone is a First Amendment issue, or how the corporations rights outweigh the rights of the parents.
I would actually have liked to see certain computer games restricted to adult sale only. The average gamer is apparently now 37 years old so why should companies not be able to produce games that are aimed exclusively at adults? If a parent wants to show let their kid play Doom or whatever then let them but force the parent to make the choice by purchasing it for them.
By allowing certain games to be restricted to adults we may get more games that were produced exclusively for adults. Some of them might be quite good. Currently if a game goes too far in this direction then it risks the distributor refusing to distribute it for fear of the moaning minnies demonstrating outside their shops or whatever.
Here in the UK we have a ratings system for both movies and video games. This results in many films and games being rated as unfit for children and not for sale to them. They are still available in shops on the high street and supermarkets, its just that the retailer has to look at the person buying it and make a judgement about their age. If they are unsure they ask for ID and refuse sale if they don't see any. Many countries use a similar system for alcohol, guns and many other things.
While this is by no means perfect it does have advantages. The main one is that if something unwholesome is sold to a minor, then the producer's hands are clean. They just point to the retailer who is clearly in the wrong since all adult only material has to be labelled with the appropriate age in big letters on the cover / box / whatever.
I can't help but feel that the current system helps the fundamentalists who feel that this content should be unavailable to everyone since they can use the think of the children excuse directly against the producers of content. If a decent, legally enforceable age restriction system was in place then they would have to concentrate on people letting minors access the material rather than using the same argument to try and attack everyone having access to it. They would certainly find other avenues to attack the people producing stuff they disliked, but by allowing the producers to say clearly that kids should not have access to this as well then it would make it harder to ban it outright.
I dont read
People having Too Much Sex is harder for them to deal with.
And, of course, "too much" is "more (or better) than me."
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Although I find the double standard for violence vs. sex disappointing (especially being more of a fan of the latter than the former), I'd rather have a double standard than for them to deny them both the full protection of the First Amendment. And the existence of double standards can sometimes be used to leverage equal treatment in the long run (see the civil rights movements, for examples).
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Nothing in the Old Testament is mandatory anymore.
Does that mean we can drop the whole creationism debate?
do these laws have any effect to begin with on kids?
Does this DECISION have any effect either? The industry already self-censors, so what practical impact does it really have. It isn't going to make it any easier to get a AO rated game made, published, or sold. It isn't going to make it any easier for a kid to buy a M-rated game (since most retailers won't sell them to a kid anyway). It has no real-world impact at all. I suspect the court only did it so they could *look* like they were championing free speech (after a year of ultra-conservative decisions that DID have real-world implications).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I'm sorry, but that's just not how it works. The Bible isn't just a single body of work, it's a collection of history and laws spread out across thousands of years, detailing God's word, etc. Things change over time. Prophecies are fulfilled, promises are met.
Look at it this way: when the God of the Universe himself comes down and says "Hey, all that stuff I told you before has been taken care of. now all I want you to do is to love Me and each other, and to spread the word." that tends to change one's outlook. The Old Testament, as it stands, is now a history book that we can learn from, not a body of law that we are to strictly follow. It still reflects the Word of God, and is thus still applicable for teaching and insight, but it's not like Christians are being told not to eat pork, or not leave their houses on the Sabbath, or go to war with the Canadians because that land was promised as an inheritance at some point in the past.
Love God, love everyone else too. That's what it boils down to.
Now let's go back to being mutually happy that we're allowed to play and buy video games where we shoot up aliens, okay? ;)
"Gamasutra reminds us that even though most game developers are breathing a sigh of relief, many would like to see the industry shift toward something more creative and meaningful than violence." When I come home after a full day of dealing with idiots I like to blow off some steam by killing people (on my computer of course :-) I don't consider COD Black Ops an especialy violent game. I do my best to keep this away from my daughter so I have to wait till she goes to bed to play. If the industry self regulates who gets to buy these "violent" games why is this an issue. Ok maybe some parents may expose younger children to violent games but that is not the fault of the industry. That's just bad parenting. This whole thing is just a big waste of time.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
Is there a lobbying group representing the VG Industry?? I know there's IGDA, but they are more concerned on the inner workings of the industry, not the relations of the gaming industry and the rest of the world (ie. government).
If I were a big-name video game publisher I would want less regulation/restrictions on games so that I can make as much money as possible. Laws can change at any moment and without a dedicated lobbying group with good pockets, they can easily change against the industry and we'd end up like Germany, where everything god-damn-thing is censored.
I sincerely hope all the big-name publishers out there pool their money and create or bolster their current special interest group (aka lobbyist) to keep their profitability high.
Previewing comments are for sissies!
You haven't read the New Testament, have you? Nothing in the Old Testament is mandatory anymore.
I'm Jewish, you insensitive clod!
Ok, not really, I just couldn't resist using that meme to point out that the New Testament means jack to some people.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Ah you lucky Americans. I can only wonder what excitement and wonder it is for a woman to show her nipples if it might cause a public uproar.
Go join your local Jesus or Mohammed cult. They will take care of you. Then you will know all the joys associated with abridging the freedom of others around you.
Our country is controlled by our Jesus cult of power and greed known as the C-Street 'the family'
If games are free speech, aren't movies and magazines?
Why can't a minor go and buy porn whenever he wants to?
Why is it that violence is more acceptable than sex?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Huh? There are a few broad guidelines about homosexuality, masturbation, and some OCD dont-touch-menstrual-blood stuff in Leviticus, but there's tons of polygamy, concubinage, rape, and incest that's treated as an unremarkable part of the scenery throughout the old testament..
People having Too Much Sex is harder for them to deal with.
That's because you can never have too much sex, only too many children. Even suggesting limiting the number of kids someone should have would be political suicide for them.
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
The Bible isn't just a single body of work, it's a collection of stories and anecdotes spread out across thousands of years, before being written down by many diferent people, supposedly detailing God's word, etc. and then translated by an english king, in order to slip in his own desired revisions.
There. Fixed that for you.
Context can only twist the meaning so much. When the bible says that we should stone a woman to death because she was raped, I think the message is pretty clear. How does the context change that? Two men or women in love with each other, are also to be stoned to death? Not the caring, compassionate God that I personally want to blindly obey without questioning. In fact, that's the reason that fundamentalists of ANY religion scare the shit out of me. Love your fellow man, sure, just don't read the bible verbosely.
That being said, the church has absolutely NO place in politics, and never should. Ban the games or not, religion should have no bearing on the decision.
I grew up in a catholic (religiously) and conservative (politically) house and always wondered why my parents (mainly my father) was so repressed over sex AND violence (in that order). He didn't want to talk about it, hear about it, or address the issues. Heck, just saying that it was a catholic or even a conservative (politically) house should tell you that homosexuality stants I had to listen to. (hearing the words "Homosexuality is wrong... Sex is wrong... Violence is wrong... blah blah blah blah..." like Stan Smith from American Dad would say in his tone).
I am no screaming liberal, but I find nothing wrong with any sexuality, any violence (in movies, games, etc). Sure, there is a time and place for each, but why should we shelter the world of what is in our nature? Granted, I am not going to show a four year old some sex or graphically violent scenes, but if the child is 10, 11, 12, etc, he/she should understand what is out there and that it happens and what the outcome of such actions are.
I just find it to be a terrible thing to deny people of information about their bodily functions and desires. We must inform our children of what to expect and how to control our urges into appropriate responses (ie: don't have sex with kids, but have it with consenting adults in an appropriate place and time, and don't go killing, yadda, yadda, yadda. )
If you think that modern Christians don't go back to the OT for Rules and Regulations, you don't know actual Christians, just their textbook. They're rather fond of the Ten Commandments (most of which I get behind as well), but many of them find plenty of specific things in (for example) Leviticus that they consider Still Enforceable.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
It might cause public arousal
*schwinnng*
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Question:
If "the Old Testament, as it stands, is now a history book that we can learn from, not a body of law that we are to strictly follow" then why do people keep quoting it while claiming that we are violating God's laws? If the Old Testament is not binding law, then why is it quoted to say that homosexuality is wrong? Why is it quoted to say same-sex marriage is an abomination? Why is it quoted to say that sex before marriage is wrong? The Ten Commandments? etc. It would see that you are still "picking and choosing" bits and pieces that you want to follow because you agree with them, and then throwing away the bits and pieces you don't agree with.
Either the bible is a body of laws to follow in which you must follow it all, or the bible is not a body of laws to follow in which don't follow the laws in it. You can't claim that it's just a history book and not a body of law....except for the parts that we want to still be laws...
mmm exposed nipples... the uproar only causes more people to pay attention. if we can get the society as a whole to ignore the "wardrobe malfunction", it wouldn't be so popular.
The 1st amendment applies to everybody in the states and in each state.. "...Congress shall make no law..." No exceptions, no qualifications... It's too damn easy.. even a child can understand it
If they don't like it, hey must change the written law instead of making up their own interpretations..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
What's wrong with movie-style ratings for video games?
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Depends on what you call "extreme societal control", I suppose. The OT had rather harsh punishments for pretty silly things, but that doesn't automatically mean there's actual control. But it could be that I'm thinking more in terms of governmental control instead of societal control. But societal control sounds weird to me, because society itself is rather uncontrollable.
Who are you to call me a poser? And what exactly is your authority concerning what it means to follow what's in the bible?
It sounds to me like you're trying to impose your misunderstandings on people you disagree with anyway.
No. That still counts. And gays are still evil and must be persecuted. But it's OK to shave (contrary to Leviticus 19.27). And to wear blended fabrics.
See, Jesus really said that only the parts of the bible that are convenient to our goals of oppressing people who are not like us are valid. I know that's not actually in the bible, but it's true. Honest. The rest of the bible can be disposed of, which is good because bacon tastes good.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
Because extremists will use any form of failed logic to prop up their viewpoints.
I'm pretty sure the idea is that Jesus and the apostles set out new laws that overrode the old ones (though I'm 99.999% sure that the Ten Commandments still apply). If you believe it's entirely fiction (which, let's be honest, it looks like you do), than the "picking and choosing" bit makes sense, but if you at least believe in some truth value in the New Testament, the explanation is in there.
Who's the fundamentalist now?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Why it's not Ok to show sexual images (people loving each other) but it's alright to show people killing each other to kids. To me this is a basic problem in the way our society views "objectionable" material. When I was in high school, teachers could show movies that were rated R for violence but not for love scenes... I think the video game makers can make whatever they want, I just don't want the 19 year old cashier at gamestop selling GTA 27 to my kid when he's 14-15 and out with his friends. So again... in light of this ruling, what makes it OK to have laws prohibiting the sale of porn to kids?
Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
Two men or women in love with each other, are also to be stoned to death?
Don't be silly. I just read the Leviticus passage, and I tell you surely: It's just the men that have sex with other men! Clearly, even the Lord has a soft spot for lesbians....or is just obsessed with making rules about cock as a method of ensuring that dick jokes would be funny until the end of days.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Some. Go on, try it. Some Christians. There are literally thousands of sects of Christianity, all believing something slightly different. Painting them all with the brush of, say, the Westboro "Baptists" is a huge, sweeping, unfounded generalization.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Of course the Old Testament means jack to quite a lot of people too. But calling it the Old Testament suggests there's also a new one. If I'm not mistaken, Jews call it the Tenach, right?
There's a lot of different interpretations possible for that support. He clearly had no problem violating a lot of the Jewish rules at that time, including gathering food at the sabbath, which was explicitly forbidden in Exodus. He also said that while he didn't come to change or abolish the law, he did come to fulfill it. What that means exactly is anyone's guess, but unless he was a flaming hypocrite in that one regard, he probably didn't mean that the law would remain as binding as it had been in the past.
Oh please! While you will ALWAYS have a few racist asshats I bet you'll find the majority are just like me and don't give a damn what color he is, we care that he is a lying asshole and a shitty president! Just about every. single. promise. he made on the trail he pulled a 180 on when he walked through the door. get us out of the two wars? nope in fact he started a third! get us out of Gitmo? nope. Warrantless wiretapping? All for it now. The Bush era abuse of authority? Now he says that the office of the president has the right to assassinate Americans on American soil and that this "right" can't even be revoked by congress! hell even Nixon didn't have the balls to pull that shit!
As for TFA it reminds me of a saying I heard years ago (I think it was old Joe Bob Briggs) that went "In America you can't show a tit unless it has a knife in it". For some reason we here in the states have never had a problem with mass slaughter but heaven forbid little Billy knows where his penis goes. Personally I wasn't hung up about any subject when it came to my boys but that was because I actually talked to them and encouraged them to ask questions. Both boys played violent video games if they wanted but after showing how games were actually constructed I wasn't worried about them mistaking reality for GTA. Of course this had the humorous side effect of my oldest having strange "cursing" when playing, such as "You call this level design? I've seen mods with better layouts! And who wrote the AI scripts? Barney? This is awful!"
Sadly picking up my boys from their friends houses on occasion I saw why America is fucked. I saw homes where not a single book resided and where the kids were NEVER read to (while others read kid stories or worse nothing at all my boys got "best Sci Fi of 1975" just like I got when I was a kid) and where the ONLY interaction they got was a few words before the parents went to their idiot box and the kid sat down in front of his. But no matter how many stupid laws you pass (and I agree with SCOTUS you can't have movie access be voluntary and games not, that is discrimination based on format) you ultimately can't have the government raise the kids. Sooner or later the people in the home, that is the PARENTS actually have to get off their collective asses and interact with the child.
Maybe that whole "have to have a license to have a kid" thing isn't such a bad idea. What I saw from watching my boys grow up is there are a hell of a lot of folks out there that are simply letting the boxes raise their kids and don't know shit about their kids, what they are doing, what they are playing/watching, etc. Be it the decline of the west, the fact that so many are single parent households now, that everyone is too tired from working shitty jobs, whatever, there just seems to be a lot of folks out there expecting the government to do their job because they refuse to. But you can't babyproof the planet and you can't send social workers to teach little Billy in his home what is what because the parents are too busy watching their reality TV.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Does that mean we can drop the whole creationism debate?
Please, yes. Also please point out to any creationists that the bible contains two different and slightly contradictory creation stories from very different times.
All the excessive biblical literalism is getting pretty tiresome.
Either the bible is a body of laws to follow in which you must follow it all, or the bible is not a body of laws to follow in which don't follow the laws in it.
I fail to see the requirement for imposing the inability of different people to interpret a work of literature differently. I suppose that you've read the Bible yourself and interpreted it to say that "every word [of it] is immutable truth," and that all others must agree with only this viewpoint?
It's one thing to "pick and choose" what you find convenient, but quite frankly I find the combination of "pursuit of happiness" and "love thy neighbor" to mean that legislating against or denying marriage of same-sex couples [in the USA] is irrefutably wrong. If you consider me a hypocrite for not also finding precisely the opposite....
To frown upon people for "picking and choosing" from a work as vast and varied as the Bible doesn't really make sense anyway. Would you frown upon someone for going to a buffet but not eating a full serving of everything?
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Good luck getting some followers, then! I'm sure they will value your words above any other. Similarly, any follower of Jesus will value his words above those of the (rather heavily edited, any credible scholar will admit) OT. It doesn't automatically mean that the OT is wrong, but the NT does put the OT in a completely different light. As it should, according to the words of Jesus.
Context can only twist the meaning so much. When the bible says that we should stone a woman to death because she was raped
John 8, 1-11
1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
You have now been educated.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
All the excessive biblical literalism is getting pretty tiresome.
Very good. Now take the next step and apply that same reasoning to the New Testament.
If "the Old Testament, as it stands, is now a history book that we can learn from, not a body of law that we are to strictly follow" then why do people keep quoting it while claiming that we are violating God's laws? If the Old Testament is not binding law, then why is it quoted to say that homosexuality is wrong? Why is it quoted to say same-sex marriage is an abomination?
No idea, but it's certainly not something you'll hear from me. I prefer to quote stuff about "love your neighbour as yourself", "love your enemy", and the many other verses about the importance of love in the NT.
It would see that you are still "picking and choosing" bits and pieces that you want to follow because you agree with them, and then throwing away the bits and pieces you don't agree with.
The major bit he's picking and choosing is Jesus. To a Christian, the gospels aren't just some books no greater than any of the lesser prophets. They contain the words of God himself, spoken directly to many people around him.
Either the bible is a body of laws to follow in which you must follow it all, or the bible is not a body of laws to follow in which don't follow the laws in it. You can't claim that it's just a history book and not a body of law....except for the parts that we want to still be laws...
That could well be what you believe, but your religion is not necessarily his religion. Why should he not be allowed to value the words of Jesus above any other? Does it upset you so much when someone hold a different opinion than you?
Probably the same wonder and excitement as wearing clothing that isn't government approved in France.
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?"
Why would anyone think that sexual images and violent images should fall in the same category?
A child can understand violence, it is not very hard. Everyone has bumped there head or cut themselves, they know it hurts, it is not good. It is easy to extrapolate this to a greater extent, a child can do that. But sexuality, a child by definition has not even hit puberty, sexuality is physically incomprehensible and its consequences are so complex that most adults do not grasp them. Violent and sexual images are two totally different things! Please set me straight otherwise...
I'm pretty sure the idea is that Jesus and the apostles set out new laws that overrode the old ones (though I'm 99.999% sure that the Ten Commandments still apply).
I'd make that 90%. Very, very few Christians hold the Sabbath (though many confuse Sunday with the Sabbath).
If you think that modern Christians don't go back to the OT for Rules and Regulations, you don't know actual Christians, just their textbook.
I happen to know quite a lot of modern Christians. In fact, I'm one myself. The OT gets milked a lot for its wisdom, for perspective, for context, but the rules and regulations in it get mostly ignored. Especially Leviticus.
The quote provided of Matthew 5:18 was spoken by none other than Jesus himself. Later in the book, Mark 7:9-13 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their children according to the teachings in Leviticus. Christians are explicitly told by Jesus to kill their children for cursing them. So, essentially none of your points are backed up by the Bible.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Considering you've been modded Insightful instead of Funny, I feel the need to point that this is not actually in the bible.
Are you aware that there are actually two versions of the ten commandments in the bible? And that the second set (after Moses broke the first tablets) starts with "Observe what I command you today. See, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites." Now you could argue about the exact wording but in the context it was pretty clear that god wasn't going to just convince them to get up and leave peacefully on their own, the jews were supposed to do their part by killing a whole bunch of them. That's certainly not the only example of violence being condoned or encouraged by the bible, but it's certainly one of the more prominent.
And before you get into the whole OT vs NT thing you seem to be getting into later in the thread, may i point out that your words are "I feel the need to point that this is not actually in the bible."
The last time i checked most versions of the christian bible included both the OT and the NT. We can get into a long debate about in what way the NT overrides the OT, and how god may have changed his mind about some things or whatever. But the god-approved killing and violence is most definitely in the bible.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
he did come to fulfill it. What that means exactly is anyone's guess
I believe what is meant by that is that Jesus came to make it so that no man (Or woman) need worry about breaking the laws. The whole idea behind the crucifiction is that Jesus took ALL our sin, past, present and future, to the grave with him, and there it died with him. Now when God looks at those that have accepted Jesus as their Saviour, he sees a pure perfect soul.
That's not to say that we can go around murdering people and stealing peoples wives, even though the forgivness for doing that has already been granted. It says that God will give us the desires of our hearts. A lot of people interpret that as God will give you what you want, but I interpret it as God will place desires in our hearts, or mould our desiers, through relationship with him to what he wants to see in the world.
That is why you will find that most Christians are loving caring people, and rather wanting to be associated with the heirarcichal prison of religion, will just profess to have a faith! I myself despise religion, as it is just a way for people to control 'minions', and faith is freedom and love.
And yet just about all Christians seem to have issues with homosexuality.
This makes a lot of sense. Lately I've been coming to understand that we shouldn't follow Jesus' commandments of love in order to attain salvation, because salvation has already been given to us if we want it. We should follow them simply because they are the right thing to do. In fact, we cannot help but follow them if we accept God's love. Really following Jesus means that you automatically love all your fellow humans. That, I think, is what it means that Christians are recognized by their deeds.
That is why you will find that most Christians are loving caring people, and rather wanting to be associated with the heirarcichal prison of religion, will just profess to have a faith! I myself despise religion, as it is just a way for people to control 'minions', and faith is freedom and love.
There's one problem here: many people calling themselves Christians, especially if they do so loudly, don't seem all that loving and caring. And this gives non-Christians a very wrong view of what Christianity is about. It's like Gandhi said: "I like your Christ but I do not like your Christians".
Everyone gets their shorts in a bunch when the government tries to step in and "watch out" for the kids. But what they should be doing is looking for the parents that don't keep an eye on their kids. The reason the government gets involved because parents are too lazy to say no and make their children mind them. If the parents said no, and the kids got a hold of the inappropriate games with out the parents permission the kid should get in trouble. But that is too hard for our lazy parents in this country. I am a single father and i keep an eye on my sons internet activity and what games he plays and has access to at home. He knows to ask if he can play a game because if he doesn't and plays a game that i don't approve of the whole system is put away and he is grounded. You want to keep inappropriate material from your kids then BE PARENTS, get off your butt and punish your kids when they break the rules, let them know who makes the rules and that there are consequences if the break them.
a possible answer is: violence tends to lower the demographic pressure, sex to increase it. With limited Earth resources,
I don't think that's it. I think they're treated different because they are very different.
Violence is unquestionably worse than sex (in most situations). I don't think many disagree. But violence also is far less of a temptation. I'm not too worried that a violent scene in a movie will cause people to run out and start slitting throats; I think it's far more likely that exposure to sexuality in media may promote sexual behavior. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it could be if done without preparation and understanding.
I'm pretty open to letting my (teen) kids see both, but honestly I'm more worried about them making 'sexual' mistakes than I am about them making 'violent' mistakes.
None of the examples you mentioned have anything to do with racism. False accusations of racism are as disgusting as racism itself.
Either the bible is a body of laws to follow in which you must follow it all, or the bible is not a body of laws to follow in which don't follow the laws in it. You can't claim that it's just a history book and not a body of law....except for the parts that we want to still be laws...
I typically don't like joining the religion threads on Slashdot but this merits a reply.
The Old Testament is primarily about God calling out the nation of Israel to be His chosen people through whom He will bring His son into the world so that His son can serve as a sacrifice to atone for the all of man's sins. Everything in the OT should be interpreted in that context, including Israel's experiment with theocratic rule. In the end it failed because of man's sinfulness, they couldn't live up to God's perfect standards. This is the point of the 10 commandments, they aren't laws to be followed so that you may gain salvation, they are a mirror which reflects your own sinfulness.
When Christ became incarnate He expanded the 10 commandments to include not just actions, but thoughts. He equated hate with murder and lust with adultery. (Matt. 5:22) Obviously no human can ever keep this, we all hate, we all lust. The law of the OT is to point us toward our need of a savior, because we cannot keep the law and are therefore condemned by the law. Christ's death meets that need and thus fulfills God's perfect law.
Its like if I am in court and have been fined 1 million dollars and I can't pay so the judge goes to throw me in jail. Suddenly a complete stranger steps in and says to the judge, "I will pay that fine for him, here is the money." At that point I'm set free. I'm not bound by the law anymore. The grace that the stranger has shown me saves me from the law.
As to why do people pull out OT verses to beat others over the head with? I don't know, probably the same reason someone modded GP (SethThresher) down. His comment isn't worth a zero, someone just didn't like it. There are "Christians" who hate others and misuse the Bible to beat up on them. Just like there are Muslims that misuse the Koran to justify flying airplanes into buildings. Jesus even addresses this in Matthew 25:31 in the parable of the goats and sheep.
When judging a belief system its not enough to look at the people whom claim to follow it. This is because the extremists will always draw more attention than the system's real followers. You must look at the system itself, and then also look at how it effects the lives of those whom follow it.
"Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?" I think South Park summed it up rather well... "Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words! That's what this war is all about! " Granted, they're talking about naughty words, but the message is the same: Showing someone having their brains splattered against a wall is perfectly acceptable. Hearing him curse just before he dies is bad. Showing a woman's boobies is bad, but it's OK to show her get beaten to death. It has always seemed the oddest thing to me. We can show acts that are considered heinous and are completely illegal, but we can't show acts that are perfectly legal and a healthy part of our basic nature. I guess I just wasn't raised right...
> But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger ... he straightened up and said to them ... Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
So what did Jesus write on the ground?
In either case, here at Microsoft, we feel standards are important. And we have fun, too. Doug Mahugh, Microsoft
Educated on what? The one time a member of a religious entity mentioned in the bible was not involved in the murder of an innocent?
Counterpoint; Remember the time the Israelites went around killing people in their tents for sex out of wedlock? I believe there was a double impalement in the act of coitus specifically ordered by god. (Num. 25:6-9)
The New Testament does not somehow whitewash the disgusting grave of the Old Testament.
That is what is being done now. Go to the store and pick up a video game box. Each game is rated by the ESRB. The ratiings are far more detailed and less arbitrary than the MPAA. This is what is so frustrating - the info is right there in front of people's faces and they are too blind to see it.
I know you're mocking it, but I figured it's worth pointing out that the topic of homosexuality isn't constrained to the Old Testament, so even if one does drop all belief in the Old Testament, they'd still have other places to cite, such as Romans 1:25-27 or 1 Timothy 1:8-10.
Because extremists will use any form of failed logic to prop up their viewpoints.
If you admit that people who do that are using failed logic, then you are not the type of person I am speaking about. If you claim it is a history book, and understand that continuing to see it as a body of law is not logically consistent, then you agree with me.
I'm pretty sure the idea is that Jesus and the apostles set out new laws that overrode the old ones (though I'm 99.999% sure that the Ten Commandments still apply). If you believe it's entirely fiction (which, let's be honest, it looks like you do), than the "picking and choosing" bit makes sense, but if you at least believe in some truth value in the New Testament, the explanation is in there.
Considering there is no proof other than the book itself that any of the events spoken of actually occurred, it seems that logically it is a book of stories and parables designed to teach people. In that context I am fine with the bible's existence. I find that people who believe that the bible is entirely the literal history tend to be the extremists or at least have issues with logic considering that they fail to understand that the bible contradicts itself many times. Regardless whether it is fiction or a literal history, the question is how do people simultaneously claim that the New Testament eliminated the need for the laws of the Old Testament and that certain laws of the Old Testament have to still be followed. As mentioned before, it seems you do not share this disconnect and believe that the new laws override the old ones and the old ones are no longer applicable. We have no disagreement.
Who's the fundamentalist now?
How is it fundamentalism to ask for logical consistency? Logically you can't both claim that the bible is a body of laws to follow and that it is not a body of laws to follow except for some bits and pieces which are in fact laws that need to be followed. It's hypocritical.
To be the unwilling pawn in a legal battle between the 'The side of good' and 'The side of bad', is indicative of the bible teachings in general. The idea that you are but a token to prove the good side right or the bad side right is a blatant control based teaching.
Essentially your comment stated the old testament was meant to crush the pride of the Israelites so as to make them more willing to commit horrible acts of murderous barbarism required by the leaders of Israel (genocide in the area of the 'Promised Land', internal and external purges). They idea being; "Hey you're a sinner anyway you should commit these horrid acts of violence against your own people and others." Do I have to give examples of internal purges or killings the Israelites themselves endured let alone the pain they brought as an occupational force in the 'Promised Land'?
People utilize Old Testament verses because they are still connected to a work they base their lives on. I am surprised to hear such an argument from your comment. The fact that all religious texts are interpreted by the extremists and the moderates to mean completely different things should give you an idea of it's actual worth. They are good reads and that's all.
How are we to judge a belief system if we do not judge by the entire population that serves it? To state we should only look at the passive moderates and ignore the extreme interpretations of the same belief system is folly. The sheep and the goats are a simplistic idea of segregation not a lesson. If your belief system engenders hatred, segregation, and violence it's broken and being an apologist for it simply proves it's shattered state.
It's one thing to interpret differently, it's perfectly logical to understand that different people will interpret parts of the bible differently and have different viewpoints to what it means. The problem I have is that it's not logically consistent to insist that only some of the laws need to be followed (the ones you happen to agree with) and other laws do not need to be followed, when the only reasoning you have between what to follow or not is that you like it better. There's a disconnect in that someone who "picks and chooses" is simultaneously seeing the bible as the irrefutable word of God that should be followed and as something that is flawed and should not be followed. That's different from interpretation.
You haven't read the Old Testament, have you?
Sorry, no. I just can't really get into the historical fiction genre.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
"murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers. For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons"
OK, so killers, pimps, people who "defile themselves with mankind" (which, despite fun modern Tea Party-esque interpretations that claim it's about homosexuality, isn't), adulterers, and liars.
I'll grant you that Romans is discussing homosexuality, but I'll point out that Jesus didn't say it. Paul said it, and Jesus was already dead and so wasn't around to correct him. I'll also point out that it doesn't say anything about what mortal mankind should do about homosexuals - only that god supposedly doesn't like them (which is interesting, considering the claim that he created them along with the rest of us).
I'll counter with a few choice ideas of Jesus himself:
Judge not
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone
Love thy neighbor
In short: Mind your own business and leave people who are doing things you don't like but that don't hurt anyone else alone.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
The Bible cannot be the word of God and fallible at the same time. Ether it is truly divinely inspired, which would mean that its flawless in logic and reasoning and unchanging, or its not, which means its a bunch of parables cobbled together and while a good story, not divine.
Good-bye
Does it upset you so much when someone hold a different opinion than you?
Not in and of itself, but it does upset me when laws are passed based on opinions that I neither hold nor understand.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
You are an idiot if you dont think sex and violence are still HIGHLY intermingled. Women get turned on by thrashing men. Its normal and human and part of how we select mates based on physical prowess. If you think all those primal forces are suddenly gone because i can say "I think therefore I am" then you are quite foolish indeed. And at its core BDSM is submission/domination MIND games more then true violent action.
Good-bye
When I read this guy's name, and note that he's opposing the side of this thing that I support, I can't help but associate his name with the Japanese word "baka"...
Bow-ties are cool.
(though I'm 99.999% sure that the Ten Commandments still apply)
So there's 1/10,000 of a commandment that doesn't apply any more? Which part no longer applies? I didn't realise that they were broken down into such fine divisions.
I supposed it's too much to expect someone who still believes in the sky fairy to be able to understand basic maths.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
I'm only going to comment on the question you asked. Namely "why do people keep quoting it claiming that we are violating God's laws?"
The answer is simple. It is because you (you said "we" so I responded "you") are infact violating God's laws. Those "laws" concerning appropriate behavior are not changed. What has changed between the old and new testament is the believer's expected reaction to those who break laws (on accident or on purpose). The entire new testament can be summed up as "love your God, and love your neighbor". Believers should follow the old laws, but they need not be spelled out. If you love your God and your neighbor, then you won't need to be told not to murder. You won't need to be told not to steal. When in doubt, read the old testament, the laws are made pretty clear. It's not out of date in terms of telling you how you are supposed to behave - it's just not necessary if you can remember the "love" rule. The new testament makes very clear that everyone makes mistakes and that NO ONE is perfect, well ONE maybe, and that anyone judging anyone else is just as guilty of some other sin. Laws of punishment then are left to man to control society and maintain order, they are not passed down from on high.
My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
No, you're not being truthful. Why didn't you provide the link fro Mark 7:9-13? Perhaps because it has nothing to do with what you said? Or atleast (even in it's little bit of context) would still not be clearly "pro child killing".
Jesus tells those trying to trick him that they are guilty of the same things. They accuse Him of eating unclean food and therefore breaking tradition - a no no. He then points out to them that they aren't exactly out killing their children every time the children act out of line. He's not getting on them for not doing it. He's getting on them for being hypocritical. And even then he's more telling them to stfu (only in a much more Christly way) because they don't even follow their own teachings than he is calling their teachings correct.
My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
Just about all Christians have issues with homosexuality because it is obviously against God's law.
What most Christians don't do is enforce the law like in Leviticus. The question is not whether the old testament laws of behavior are valid, but whether people should still be held to the law and face the same consequences - by other people who are busy breaking some different law. And the answer there is, "no, not according to the NT".
My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
You seem to have read quite a bit into what I said. All I was pointing out was that the topic isn't confined to the Old Testament. Simple references, nothing more. It wasn't my goal to spur a discussion about the modern state of affairs, nor did I offer an opinion on homosexuality. But since you seem to have assumed that I'd take a hard-line stance, allow me to clarify a few points in response. It seems like you're mostly focused on the current marriage debate, based on your closing remark, so that's where I'll spend most of my time.
I'd suggest using a different translation than the King James, since it takes quite a few liberties with the accuracy of the text. The translation I was using earlier to look those up was (Young's Literal Translation, and it referred to them as "sodomites", rather than those who "defile themselves with mankind", which is quite a bit clearer. Even so, an even clearer picture of the phrase can be offered by Strong's Concordance, which indicates that the original Greek word was indeed intended to convey the idea of homosexuality.
Anyway:
Regarding ignoring Paul - "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". Scripture also talks elsewhere about how Paul was instructed by Jesus during the eight or so years that he spent in Tarsus between his conversion on the road to Damascus and when he began his ministry.
Regarding marriage - "Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge."
None of that contradicts the three verse fragments you provided, however, nor are they intended to do so, since all of scripture is meant to be used, and all of the ones we've cited are reconcilable with each other. I'm not advocating hatred of homosexuals or anything of that sort, nor am I advocating that we should be judgmental towards them, both of which you seemed to assume of me. As you pointed out, it's God's place to judge, not ours, and that's even reiterated in the second verse I provided above.
Even so, Christians are called to spread the gospel, and part of it is that God can forgive sins, which is preceded by our repentance of them. Clearly you can't force someone to be repentant (of which many are guilty for trying), but if you had a friend who you knew was making a poor decision, wouldn't you come alongside them in friendship and advise them to do otherwise? It's no different here with loving your neighbor. There definitely are people who approach this matter with other motivations, particularly in a judgmental fashion, but I'd say that they're in the wrong for doing so.
That said, I don't want to give the false impression that I'm okay with the way the marriage debate is heading, because I'm not. While I am fully in support of homosexual relationships being given equal legal status to that of marriages, I do not believe that those relationships should be referred to as "marriage". As an analogy, if a group of classical music aficionados went to their local concert hall expecting to hear Bach, but were instead treated to the "classical" music of Eminem, they would be offended at the mischaracterization of the music they were listening to. Regardless of your thoughts on Eminem (the merits of his music are well beyond the scope of this discussion), referring to what he does as "classical" is clearly inappropriate.
Now, imagine if it was not just music, but was something that you believed was defined by God, who then told us that it should not be defiled. Though I don't expect you to agree with me, I hope this at least helps you to understand why I may object to the increasingly popular opinion on the marriage debate.
Speaking personally, I do have friends that aren't heterosexual, but that doesn't mean that I beat them over th
First off, I should clarify that I didn't actually assume anything about your stance on the issue, either biblically or otherwise. I was arguing against your devil's advocate comment, but I didn't actually assume that you agreed with the passages you cited.
That said:
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"
That idea would carry more weight if all Scripture were internally consistent.
"if you had a friend who you knew was making a poor decision, wouldn't you come alongside them in friendship and advise them to do otherwise?"
I should qualify my comment by disclosing that I'm agnostic with athiestic leanings, so discussing seeing a friend "making a poor decision" with regards to homosexuality is as meaningless to me from a biblical standpoint as discussing a friend who made the "poor" decision to be black.
If I saw a friend making a poor decision I suppose I would chat with him about it, but I wouldn't base my determination on the . . Poorness of his decision on a book which is so wildly inconsistent as to say that eating pork is sinful, but an all powerful being psychologically torturing a man by making him think he is required to murder his son is just fine and dandy.
"While I am fully in support of homosexual relationships being given equal legal status to that of marriages, I do not believe that those relationships should be referred to as "marriage""
I don't particularly care what they call it as long as everyone has equal legal status. Of course, this obviously means that if state-recognized homosexual unions have to be called something other than marriage, then so do state-recognized heterosexual unions. But that said, I'm annoyed that only when homosexuals are finally stepping up to the union plate does anyone think of the idea that maybe government and churches shouldn't be collaborating so much on this marriage thing.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
Or he is almost certain, that the entirety of the Ten Commandments still apply. You seem to be thinking he said "I'm sure 99.999% of the Ten Commandments still apply." There is a difference.
Better question: Why does the media and general populous of the United States consider violent images and sexual images to be the same?
I beg to differ: the news are full with/about violence, porn films are scheduled at small hours. What does this teach the kids? War is OK, sex is not?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
That said:
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"
That idea would carry more weight if all Scripture were internally consistent.
I'd hold that it is. A bit more on that later.
I should qualify my comment by disclosing that I'm agnostic with athiestic leanings, so discussing seeing a friend "making a poor decision" with regards to homosexuality is as meaningless to me from a biblical standpoint as discussing a friend who made the "poor" decision to be black.
I completely understand. I was merely trying to describe my stance, not convince you of it. The analogy only works inasmuch as it describes my perspective. Clearly it wouldn't hold for someone that adhered to different beliefs, such as yourself.
If I saw a friend making a poor decision I suppose I would chat with him about it, but I wouldn't base my determination on the . . Poorness of his decision on a book which is so wildly inconsistent as to say that eating pork is sinful, but an all powerful being psychologically torturing a man by making him think he is required to murder his son is just fine and dandy.
Understandable, if that's your take on the Bible. For me, I'm a believer in its infallibility and inerrancy, which I bet sounds like utter nonsense to you. As such, basing determinations on it makes sense to me, while it won't for you. We're not going to convince each other differently on it anytime soon, so I'll move on.
I don't particularly care what they call it as long as everyone has equal legal status. Of course, this obviously means that if state-recognized homosexual unions have to be called something other than marriage, then so do state-recognized heterosexual unions.
I'd be up for that. The legal status could be called something else, while "marriage" might be reserved for religious ceremonies of some sort. I wouldn't have any objections to breaking the two apart.
But that said, I'm annoyed that only when homosexuals are finally stepping up to the union plate does anyone think of the idea that maybe government and churches shouldn't be collaborating so much on this marriage thing.
Awareness of inequity takes a long time to percolate.
The nice thing about American society, when it works as it should, is that you and I can hold such widely varying beliefs on something as core as religion without one of us being killed or persecuted over it ;) From your words, it seems you and I have similar "live and let live" attitudes toward people who are different from us. Were more "religious-types" like you, I think we'd be better off.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
Oh, and don't rebut with BDSM. It's not really my thing, but I've got friends in the scene and I can tell you with absolute certainty that while BDSM is variably painful and variably dramatic... it does not count as "violence" in this context. If it does, then it's not BDSM, it's assault.
Within the scene there is a concept of "Safe, Sane and Consensual" for any BDSM activity. Sane is taken to mean that you are capable of giving consent through an understanding of what is being asked of you and being mentally competent to give consent (i.e. of average IQ and not affected by drugs, alcohol or intimidation).
There are however total tosspots who think that by calling themselves 'Master' or 'Mistress' they can demand any kind of sexual behaviour from others and excuse it as BDSM play. As a couterpoint there are also a number of damaged people whose self-worth is so in the toilet they seek to be abused as validation for their own self-perceived failings.
On the whole they give scene play a bad name.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
Gotta agree. And I'd turn that last one around to say that if more "less-religious types" were like you, we'd be better off too. Both sides have a tendency to tow their lines without really listening to the concerns of the other, but oftentimes there are simple answers that can please both sides, so long as they're reasonable with each other.
Also makes me very grateful for Slashdot. Honestly, the quality of the comments and responses is the thing that brings me back, rather than the news itself. I tried making a comment on a YouTube video this week for the first time (and not with regards to anything even remotely religious). I won't be making that mistake again.
Jack Thompson would cry for a few hours before having another tantrum. Although a fat load of good that would do him since he is disbarred.
I /.'ed angry and made myself look stupid. Darn... :(
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Laws are made by people. People are greatly influenced by their religion, regardless whether they are aware of it. Consequently, American laws are written that show a bias towards American-flavored religious fervor, e.g. banning sexual imagery while ignoring violent imagery.