Michael Hamar points out one of John Aravosis’ sites, HateCrime.org, which compares the factoids used by Nazi German propagandists to justify discrimination against Jewish people, with the soundbites used today by Robert Knight (formerly of the Family Research Council, now with Concerned Women for America) to justify discrimination against gay people.
The comparison has been online for a few years, and I’m usually hesitant to draw connections between any political cause and the convenient bogeyman of Nazism. But I think the propaganda comparison is worth noting at the moment, since Exodus spokesman Randy Thomas recently associated gay equal rights with Nazism.
The comparison between CWFA/FRC language and pre-WWII Nazi language seems more substantive to me than the claims by Thomas and exgay activist Scott Lively that ultra-rightist Nazism derived its power from supposedly “liberal” homosexuality. But at the same time, I hope that groups like HateCrime.org will broaden their historical perspective.
The world suffered under many genocidal monsters during the 20th century: Cambodia’s Pol Pot, China’s Mao Xedong, Guatemala’s Rios Montt, the apartheid government of South Africa, and sub-Saharan despots. In the 21st century, new monsters are emerging: Islamic fundamentalists who espouse the slaughter of millions of people deemed politically and theologically incorrect.
Do some culture warriors inherit their beliefs and messages from monsters of the past? No doubt. But playing the Nazi card has limited utility in a modern world of diverse and complicated problems.
I think it’s important to note that the Nazi anti-semitic propaganda was merely a compilation of arguments made for years (if not centuries) about Jews. The Nazis did not originate most of these arguments, and we should not be circumspect in pointing out the similarities between their propaganda and modern-day anti-gay propaganda. The real message is that oppressed and hated minorities are often the subject of flat-out lies, myths and superstitions, and those who choose to stigmatize those minorities will use exaggeration, deliberately mis-interpret social data and create false “research” to continue the spread of anti-minority propaganda.
I am sure that Klan materials from the post-Reconstruction period could be likewise compared to anti-gay rhetoric, particularly the common Klan myth of the oversexed black man out to rape white women – replace the oversexed black man with the oversexed gay man and the white women with kids, and you have the pedophilia anti-gay arguments of the “pro-family” movement.
>The comparison has been online for a few years, and I’m usually hesitant to draw connections between any political cause and the convenient bogeyman of Nazism. But I think the propaganda comparison is worth noting at the moment, since Exodus spokesman Randy Thomas recently associated gay equal rights with Nazism.
I suspect that you misconstrue the point of the comparison. The point of the comparison is not to liken the political “religious” right’s anti-gay propaganda to Nazism, per se. The point is to liken the pRR’s tactics to those that were used by the Nazis–the lies, the stereotypes, etc. The tactics used by the Nazis being among the better documented of hate movements in recent times.
I suppose one could also use reference to tactics by the KKK. The problem with that is that there were various KKK movements, including many at the same time. Unlike the Nazis, which were very centralized, and, hence, spoke with one clear voice.
I think I understand the point of the comparison, and I agree with the Aravosis site’s effort to compare current propaganda to hate propaganda of the past.
Nazi tactics are well-documented, yes, but I’d say that’s the case in part because history’s other recent monsters have been casually ignored — and are becoming forgotten. I think there needs to be a concerted effort — though not by John Aravosis in particular — to document history’s other recent monsters.
One resesmblance that has always seemed particularly relevent to me is between anti-gay and anti-integration propaganda. The two are remarkably similar; even to the point of being made by the same people. Plus, anti-integration aka pro-segregation propaganda has conveniently gone down the memory hole. Most conservative Christians are utterly unaware of it. Even the ones who lived through the period.
The most important thing to note about comparisons between Biblical Christian positions on homosexuality and nazi propaganda is that the comparisons are, themselves, hate speech. Biblical Christians don’t “hate” gays anymore than gays “hate” theives. Gays have a different “sexual orientation” while thieves have a different “property orientation”. The only missing ingredient for the clepto population is to get a catchy name like “sharers” and begin to decry the historic discrimination against “commies” and “native americans” because they had a different “property orientation.” “Traditionalists have no right to discriminate against those who view property as held in common,” it could be said, “just because they believe property can be ‘owned'”. The aboriginal American had no concept of land ownership and habitually took whatever he needed where ever he found it. Is it “hate” to think that “property” should be protected or theft should be illegal? John Lennon (while admittedly writing for marxist revolution) wrote: Imagine no posessions/I wonder if you can/Nothing to kill or die for/A brotherhood of man. Don’t all laws discriminate agains those who break them? Are laws, therefore, hate? Should laws be illegal?
Doug,
Much of your message broadly attributes beliefs about hate, property, and orientation to groups of people who do not really hold the beliefs you claim.
Personally, I define bigotry as the broad, persistent and false attribution of beliefs, motives, and activities to groups of other people. Whether bigotry always qualifies as “hate” is debatable.
I will repeat what I said earlier: I believe that comparisons of propaganda should be approached with some caution. I also believe that the word “hate” is overused.
Doug:
In RE your, “Biblical Christians don’t ‘hate’ gays anymore than gays ‘hate’ theives,” I guess you are trying to equate being gay with criminal, felony activity?
Your argument is what is termed an “argumentum ad absurdium,” an argument taken to an absurd limit. “The comparisons themselves, are hate speech,” “Sharers,” “property orientation…”
Give me a break! I’ll bet you can come up with something better.
The common demoninator, Doug, between anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Jewish or any anti-group speech is prejudgement. By virtue of being a member of a specific group, we are assumed to be immoral, or evil, or anti-American, by specific people who do not know us or how we live our lives. Unless you believe every single gay relationship results in harm to someone, as every single theft does, you cannot make a pre-judgement about any gay person. Just as you cannot make a pre-judgement about every black person or every Jewish person.
Of course, many “Christians” claim that gay relationships produce nothing but evil. Thankfully our friends, family members, employers, neighbors, etc. who get to really know us come to understand that there are many, many gay people and gay couples out there who are positive contributors to their community, and have built their lives on healthy relationships.
I would like to ask a question of Doug Parris (though I think this thread is long since dead). Along the lines of Sharon B’s comment, I ask you how does a homosexual person hurt you, or society for that matter, as a thief might? That is where your argument heads for the absurd. I would like you to be specific in answering my question and refrain from the typical, vauge “homosexuality damages the family” rhetoric. How does it damage that institution? You are still permitted to raise a family as you please within the law. And if you are worried about the children, I (the son of a lesbian) came out just fine as far as I can tell. Furthermore, you will be happy to know that I am engaged to be married to a member of the opposite sex. Or maybe you aren’t happy to know that since it disproves a common myth that somehow I would “fall prey” to the lifestyle having been raised in it.
Another parallel to anti-Jewish speech is some of the outrageous, but allegedly “scientific” evidence that anti-gay authors create against gays, that echoes the propaganda that the Nazi press created to de-personalize Jews.
Example: this little “gem” from Chuck Colson’s Breakpoint (n.b. he was not the author, but that’s an irrelevant point, since he sponsors this garbage):
“Lesbians have more male sex partners then their heterosexual counterparts, putting lesbians at greater risk for contracting STDs.”
You’ve got to be kidding me. Lesbians have more MALE sex partners than their heterosexual counterparts? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!(ROTFL)
Please!
This and more FRI / Paul Cameron chestnuts, all 20-30 years old, here.
Moderator’s note: I fixed Sharon’s links.
A Barthle: good post!
Criticisms, above, of my points are clearly based on ignorance of the Christian position and a stereotyping of that position based on propaganda. A Barthle asked: “how does a homosexual person hurt you…?” The Christian position is that homosexual acts hurt the one who engages in them. To understand the whole position you have to understand that humans live in a spiritual dimension. You must understand that sexual relations do things on that level and that a gay hurts his capacity to function there. Engaging in gay sex is a spiritual equivalent of doing heroin. Does a person who does heroin hurt you? Only if you care about them. Would you be doing them a favor by preventing them from taking heroin? If you tried to prevent them from taking heroin would you be a bigot? Ridiculous! But it’s hard to understand if you have no spiritual vision. Marriage is a supernatural union that can generate the power to give children the home God intended for them to have. Homosexual unions don’t. But how can I speak of spiritual things if you have no vision? Yet you could have it if you wanted. God proves himself to those who, alone, seek him.
Sharon B. obviously had trouble following my logic.
Cpt. Doom said, “By virtue of being a member of a specific group, we are assumed to be immoral, or evil, or anti-American, by specific people who do not know us or how we live our lives.” This does not apply to Christianity. Christianity does not believe you are immoral because of any group you belong to, but because you engage in immoral activity. Do we assume that murderers are immoral because they belong to a group? No. It’s because they kill people. It is the activity, not the identity that is the issue. Gay apologists try to say it is irrational prejudice, but that’s blatantly dishonest. If homosexual acts are wrong, Christians are right. They aren’t discriminating against people but specific actions. Christianity says homosexual activity, itself, is immoral. It also says we (Christians) should have love for people who engage in it. At one time sodomy was, pretty universally, illegal. Did that, itself, make it immoral? No. Would legalization of theft (property sharing as, it is a matter of historical fact, the Native Americans believed and Communists believe in) make it morally right? No. Laws SHOULD follow morality, but they don’t always.
Sharon B. says Colson’s statement is false about lesbians. I don’t know. Where does she get her statistics and what is their research methodology?
Doug opined:
Wrong. This is not THE Christian position, but one position among many diverse positions held by a variety of Christians. To claim one position is THE Christian position is just dishonest. (and I refuse to enter discussion about the rightness or wrongness of any of them, because I’m no longer a Christian so it’s a moot issue for me; I’m just pointing out that there is no single position universally held among Christianity.)
Ahh yes…. “If you don’t see things my way, you are obviously blind; I have clear sight so you have to trust me.” Boy, that sounds like an invitation to open and respectful dialog … NOT! Majorly demeaning, paternalistic and alienating.
Mr. Parris,
Unless you have lived the lives of every single gay person, you cannot talk about “damage” from being openly gay. For one thing, being openly gay is NOT about specific sexual acts, no matter how much certain “Christians” may say it is. Being openly gay is about having romantic relationships with the same gender – you boil it all down to the sex act. If the sex act does “spiritual damage” than the emotions behind the act – the emotions of love, caring, and compassion – must also do that “spiritual damage.” But that of course does not make sense – love makes our lives better, and helps us grow with God.
sorry about messing up the margins. I failed to close one of my ‘blockquotes’ correctly
Ray makes several points (above) that are demonstrably in error. I’ll just take the first for now:
On whether or not Christianity takes the position that homosexuality is a sin, he says, “This is not THE Christian position, but one position among many diverse positions held by a variety of Christians.” Ray may be sincere, but, if so, this is purest ignorance. Christianity is about 2000 years old. It was started by a Jew named Jesus who emphatically endorsed the Mosaic Law which had been the central document of Judaism for more than 1000 years before that. This law that Jesus repeatedly endorsed, saying it was right, utterly condemns homosexual acts, over and over again. This is a matter of recorded history. The church that began among Jesus’ disciples began writing its own history (most particularly that of Jesus) immediately following his crucifixion and resurrection and this literature uniformly condemns homosexuality. This church became a unified organization by 300 AD in the form of the Roman Catholic Church and the official position of that church has been against homosexuality, without a break to this day. There is an ENORMOUS body of written historical proof for all of this. Until about the 1500’s there was no alternative to the Roman Church, but The Protestant Reformation brought new denominations and THEY universally condemned homosexuality. So, for more than 1900 years the church exclusively taught the same thing. The doctrines that Jesus and all these churches believed, that the Book that they uniformly regarded as the Word of God has taught, for all those years is called “Christianity.” Here is what Meriam Webster’s says:
Main Entry: Chris•tian•i•ty
Pronunciation: “kris-chE-‘a-n&-tE, “krish-, -‘cha-n&-, “kris-tE-‘a-
Function: noun
1 : the religion derived from Jesus Christ , based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies
2 : conformity to the Christian religion.
It is true that, beginning in the 20th century, which time period, among other things, was the first to put forth the idea of a natural “homosexual” proclivity, Break-away factions of the religious orders began to change the doctrines, denying what the church has always believed about, by and large, EVERYTHING, but still calling themselves “Christian.” But this is not “Christianity,” any more than axe-murder is “Buddhism” even if I find a few Buddhist axe-murderers. There is such a thing as a definitive cosmology called “Christianity” just as there is one called “Communism” and, just because a few, or, even a few thousand, people take one of those names but don’t agree with the doctrines, doesn’t CHANGE what those doctrines are. If someone tells you that, they’re lying or just uneducated.
Ray also tries to put these words into my mouth: “If you don’t see things my way, you are obviously blind; I have clear sight so you have to trust me,” but he’s wrong because he misses the point altogether. Biblical Christians claim to have been given life in another dimension and it includes “seeing” spiritual things they did not see before. All mankind starts out with some of that “blindness.” And no one gains “sight” into that world because he’s better than anyone else. But that world is real, and vision into it is available if you want it. That has been my experience. God has proven himself to me. But, if you don’t think there is a real, objective God, or a real spiritual world and a supernatural dimension that can be proven to exist, you can’t understand why homosexuality would be “wrong.” But, then, nothing, absolutely nothing, could be “wrong.” Because right and wrong refer to a higher moral law, something above personal opinion. If it isn’t above personal opinion it’s no different that personal taste and changes with the user. Hitler killed Jews and had a lot of Germans behind him, but even if the whole world agreed with him he’d still be wrong because there is a higher law: God’s. And I most emphatically am not saying “you have to trust me.” I am saying that these are things anyone can see if he is willing to have his eyes opened. (But not by me.)
Ray says, “But Christianity (your brand or anyone else’s) doesn’t apply to everyone. It only applies to those who choose to submit themselves to the Christian religion, which is largely built on superstition and speculation that cannot be proven.” Here again, Ray demonstrates an extraordinary ignorance of Christianity. “Superstition” means a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, a false conception of causation or a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary. Christianity is clearly none of those things. Ray probably equates belief in supernatural realities with “superstition” because he is a materialist and has never submitted his faith in materialism to reason. The claim of “speculation” is even worse. Speculating is guessing. Christiany claims to be a direct revelation from God himself with supernatural proof. You can call it a lie or insanity, and even though you’d be wrong, that would make more sense than calling it “speculating.” If someone runs in and says “I just got run over by an Ice Cream Truck” he’s not SPECULATING even if he’s lying. “I THINK I MIGHT have gotten run over by an Ice Cream Truck,” is a speculation. Christians say, “I just found God through Jesus Christ.” There is no speculation to it. It is true that if Ray could somehow disprove the claims of Christianity he could rightly say it “doesn’t apply to everyone.” In fact, it wouldn’t apply to ANYONE. But Ray hasn’t even tried to disprove Christianity. He just calls it names. If Christianity is a true explanation of God, however, it does apply to everyone. But I’ll bet Ray can’t even tell us what the central beliefs of Christianity are.
[Moderator’s note: I have deleted Adam’s remark due to a personal attack in the first paragraph. I invite Adam to repost without the personal attack. — Mike A.]
Well, to judge by the activities of current prominent Christians, the central beliefs of Christianity concern gay sex. The poor, the suffering, who cares? Certainly not Christians of the evangelical persuasion.
Looking at your history of Christianity, I would submit my own view. What we call Christianity today was first cooked up in late Roman times. It is a grab bag of various things from Mithrism to Stoicism. The unifying theme is attached to some first century Jew who left no footprints in the historical record.
As a Pagan I am aware of the spiritual dimension. My experience has always been that Christians denounce and deny this.
Dear CPT Doom,
Is the “CPT” supposed to stand for “captain”? I only ask because where I come from it is an abbreviation for carpet.
You raise two interesting points, but the first is ridiculous. You say, “Unless you have lived the lives of every single gay person, you cannot talk about “damage” from being openly gay.” Your root error is the assumption that the only source for moral truth is personal experience and no experience can apply to any other situation.
That’s like saying “Unless you have driven every single car you cannot talk about ‘damage’ from traffic accidents.” The fact is there are moral components to all historical human experience and, by and large, a tremendous consensus on sexual issues with which post- ‘60s modernist civilization is seriously (but temporarily) out of step. The tragedy is that young people are being taught, both by unscrupulous, exploitative media and by an educational system that worships epistemological relativity, that there is no such thing as “truth”. In order to substantiate your proposition, that I must “have lived the lives of every single gay person” before I can make moral conclusions, you must either disprove the existence of a spiritual dimension or, alternatively, prove that all possible spiritual dimensions exclude the possibility of the potential of damage by homosexual acts. Go on, try it.
Your second point is much more interesting. You say,
“For one thing, being openly gay is NOT about specific sexual acts, no matter how much certain ‘Christians’ may say it is. Being openly gay is about having romantic relationships with the same gender – you boil it all down to the sex act. If the sex act does ‘spiritual damage’ than the emotions behind the act – the emotions of love, caring, and compassion – must also do that ‘spiritual damage.’ But that of course does not make sense – love makes our lives better, and helps us grow with God.”
I will attempt to avoid being misunderstood by the subtle differences between what you mean by “being openly gay” and the true context of homosexual acts. Allow me to comment.
Love, caring, and compassion, which are much more than just “emotions,” exist in men and women and are directed toward all kinds of living things, as well as to other men and women, and many instances of all those cases exclude “romantic” affection. I can love a painting or show compassion for a plant. I, personally, love numerous men, including my son, but have romantic feelings for none of them. “Romantic” feelings, however, always include sexuality, whether or not it is expressed in any way. Christianity does not condemn any “feeling” in and of itself, but forbids (to the believer) ACTING on any sexual feeling for the same sex (and several other sexual feelings) and that includes indulging your fantasies, pornography, etc. This in no way precludes love, caring, and compassion. Just the sexual component: “romance”… which is not love. When expressed for an individual of the same sex, or another man’s wife, it is just LUST. And yes, lust, like hate, when manifested, does damage, though initially not much. As one endulges one’s lusts, however, they grow larger and more demanding. Lusts for money or power, for instance, are just the same in this respect. I was not, in my previous comment, boiling it all down to the sex act, but the sex act is unambiguous and it is a threshold. Yes, it may damage me to hate my algebra teacher because of his detestable subject, but nothing compared to the damage done if I give in to my motivation and shoot him in the back of the head. There is a distance from hate to murder and from lust to, say, male sodomy. It usually takes a while to traverse. Plenty of time to think. Plenty of opportunity to hear from one’s conscience. Crossing the line is crossing the line. Because I believe in penalizing murderers does not make me a hypocrite if I don’t attempt to jail people with only “hatred” even though a murderer’s hatred is all part of the same thing.
I hope that clears it up.
Dalea says, “The poor, the suffering, who cares? Certainly not Christians of the evangelical persuasion.” But this is the opposite of the truth. Both currently and historically, believing Christians give more of their income to help the poor than any other demographic. This is a statistical fact. They simply don’t believe in the coercive communism of the left, so they are targets of propagandists.
Perhaps it is the same propagandists that gave you your view of the church and history. With regard to the church’s history you are “entitled” to your “view” but it is pure fiction. The Bible is, among other things, the most reliable document of ancient history, vindicated over and over by archeological findings; it represents a single faith, consistent in philosophy from the earliest of ancient writings to today. You just disagree with it, hence you engage in disinformation. The man, Jesus, has bigger historical footprints than, say, Rutherford B. Hayes. Atheist historians simply disqualify the record because it testifies to his reality and they refuse to accept it. They will not admit any evidence of the supernatural. Their versions keep getting re-written. But “Pagans”, like yourself, presumably, may have experience with the other side. They see the shadows of the spiritual realm. The side that is compatible with their lifestyle. You may well have more experience with the supernatural than many “Churchians.” But, tell me, how can you trust the spirits you encounter?
Can someone please tell me why we have born-again christians coming on here trying to convince us to become guinea pigs in there ex-gay expirements? I have been on ex-gay sites (Yes I do explore the other dimension to see what they have to say philosophy is my hobby) and guess what they are all a bunch of snake oil salesman. You hate people like me because were gay and you ask us to come out of it like it was a choice, If it were that simple there would be no gays, Why would I choose to be ridiculed, to be called homo, fag, pervert, spawn of satan, that I molest kids, that no gay relationships ever last, to get beat up even killed just because of the lies you people spread. Tell me what person in the right mind would choose it? I have been gay ever since I was a little child, you want to know why because when my sisters were looking at heartthrobs on television we were watching the same thing, the guys. To tell you the truth sir is that the FACTS (notice I put it in all caps) the FACTS are on our side and it won’t be too long before you people are caught with the emperors new clothes, when that day comes, believe me it will come no one will ever take you people seriously again. Believe I can not wait for you people to get your come-upins, it will be sweet to see your people’s faces when the facts are unveiled and people see you for who you people really are. another thing I want to say is that the lies you people spread put you outside the legal protection of free speech in the constitution. You see free speech doesn’t protect slander or libel, look it up for yourself. Anyhow us gays can sue organizations like CWFA, FRC, AFA, Focus, American Values and others like them heck we can bankrupt you all and silence your lies once and for all. Believe me one of these days these people are going to p*** o** the wrong gay and he or she will sue these organizations into chapter 7 bancruptcy. That is not a personal attack believe me it will happen, and it might just be me, because it is time us gays and lesbians have a leader just like Martin Luther King J.R. Believe me if I have to die opposing the christian right, to save a generation of gays and lesbians so they won’t be abused and killed like Matthew Sheppard was killed, by the lies spread by them I will. The needs of the many outway the needs of the few, and our needs are plenty.
Several commenters on both sides of this discussion claim to own the right facts, the right history, the right science, the right definition of Christianity.
Apart from the non-fundamentalist definition of Christianity (thank you, Doug), no one has cited specific facts, histories or science studies. You’re just talking past one another. What a bore. 🙂
This discussion isn’t going to go very far unless y’all provide the names of your third-party religion, history, science and demographic sources — along with hyperlinks to the page where you’re getting your data.
You all obviously define Christianity and see history differently. Absent third-party backup, your subjective observations and generalizations are of limited benefit to others.
OK Mike. To keep this from putting people to sleep, here is a link I find very interesting:
https://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jesus.html
Here is a lot of carefully researched information about the origins of Christianity from someone who is obviously not just another Josh MacDowell clone.
I went to Dalea’s link and found an extraordinarily convoluted story. It is so bad that ONE false point that it made in just two phrases could be refuted for several pages:
In his “preamble” Earl Doherty’s “Jesus Puzzle” makes it clear that he intends to make “historical” points by insisting on his own creative interpretation of historical writings. And these interpretations are… I’m searching for a word… “un-believable?”… “incredible?” No… I can’t find a word that combines the element of astonishing brass that men like Clinton possess… (as in “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” or “I never had ‘sex’ with that woman,” the kind of thing that makes it possible to look at us with a straight face and tell whoppers that everyone in the room knows to be untrue); with the kind of blatant misrepresentation that utterly depends on his audience’s ignorance of the subject matter. Let me give just one example.
Doherty tells us, “…everything in Paul points to a belief in an entirely divine Son who ‘lived’ and acted in the spiritual realm, in the same mythical setting in which all the other savior deities of the day were seen to operate.” Later, Doherty refers to “Paul’s belief in Christ as an entirely spiritual figure.” Here Mr. Doherty is beginning with the assertion that Paul accepted, even preached, what Christians, then, now, and always have rejected: the idea that “Jesus” or “The Christ” was only a divine spirit and not a historical man who was born on earth in Bethlehem to Jewish parents. (The opposite and equally false claim is that he was only a man and not the Son of God.) But Paul’s words are both clear and abundant, that Jesus was both a historical human being, in fact contemporary with Paul (though unknown to him during his life on earth prior to the crucifixion) and the Son of God!
So here is a question by which you may judge the credibility of Dalea’s link. Did Paul, the apostle, contradict the other apostles and believe Jesus was only a divine spirit or did he believe, as did all Christians, that Jesus was both God AND man. You don’t need to decide on that divinity/humanity question yourself, just figure out what Paul was claiming. If Paul was saying he was ONLY a Divine Spirit, Doherty has credibility. But if Paul referred to Jesus as a man as well, then Doherty has NO crediblility and you need take nothing he says seriously because you know he’s a snake oil salesman.
Here are some quotations directly from Paul:
1. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one MAN, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. Romans 5:15
2. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus; 1 Timothy 2:5
3. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to THE FLESH Romans 1:3
4. But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord FROM THE DEAD; Romans 4:24
5. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up CHRIST FROM THE DEAD SHALL ALSO QUICKEN YOUR MORTAL BODIES Romans 8:11
6. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 10:9
7.”…the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.” I Cor. 11:23-24
I’m going to leave the evidence gathering there, though, of course, there is a volume of material. Paul was the New Testament’s most prolific writer. He spoke, uniformly, as did his contemporaries that knew and lived with the man Jesus, that He was God, who was born in the flesh as a man.
The point to note is that Doherty, to claim there is “no historical Jesus” first has to falsify the historical record.
To adam kautz,
Your post, above, is full of threats, distortions and hateful accusations that, ordinarily, I woud spend time disproving. But you are in such obvious pain and have had such a hard life I just pray that you will find some healing. May God Bless you.
obviously doug you know absolutely nothing about me. I am a very happy person I just hate people who scream their religion in your face until they agree with you, I mean that is how I have seen born-agains behave, and you are all alike. So sad no diversity at all. Your slogan should be “Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.” I may have borrowed that from star trek but that represents the born-again movement. Destroy the individual and assimilate in to born-again christianity. Sticks and stones, well you know the rest. I have been called all sorts of names so what you said does not faze me. If your looking for converts to your born-again assimilation, go someplace else people here are very confortable with our beliefs. Another thing your characterization of homosexuality as being a behavior is insulting but understandable since your so dulude by your toxic religion.
I’d be moderately interested in knowing what this discussion regarding “christianity” and “christians” has to with the topic of the thread. The topic of the thread was the similarity between Nazi anti-Jewish speech and conservative christian anti-gay speech. It should be clear to anyone paying attention that there is a considerable similarity. It also should be clear to anyone paying attention that conservative christians’ engaging in such anti-gay speech is intended to demonize gay people among straight conservative christians. It does next to nothing to inhibit people from engaging in homo-sex.
Since Mr. Parris decided to throw out a definition of “christianity” from Merriam Webster, I’ll include a definition of “christian” that I find quite apt, particularly of conservative christians:
CHRISTIAN, n.
One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.
–Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary.
It strikes me that Parris’s
>Engaging in gay sex is a spiritual equivalent of doing heroin. Does a person who does heroin hurt you? Only if you care about them.
is rather disingenuous. Doing heroin hurts the body, and injures those who might need to rely on the person doing the heroin–certainly financially and in other ways. Engaging in homo-sex doesn’t injure the body–unless possibly one does it with the “wrong” person, such as someone infected with an STD. Of course, engaging in hetero-sex with the “wrong” person–someone infected with an STD–can also result result in injury. In addition, engaging in hetero-sex can result in unwanted pregnancy with the attendant consequences. Mr. Parris might argue that engaging in homo-sex might affect one’s “immortal soul,” but, given the dearth of evidence for the existence of an “immortal soul,” that strikes me as being about as relevant as arguing that engaging in homo-sex affects the unicorn living next door.
BTW, when Parris provides an indication of why I should Kiss Hank’s Ass, I might be moderately interested in reading it. On the other hand, before doing so, I’d be more interesting in reading about Parris’s credentials so that I might assess the reliability of whatever he provides.
Oh, and, by the way, Josh McDowell notwithstanding, the dearth of any evidence that the Jesus character of the Wholly Babble ever really existed should be telling. Christianity is really a Pauline religion, with a smattering (particularly in the Catholic religion) of a cult of the goddess Mary. The Jesus myth is little more than a retelling of the myths of the various sun-gods (Mithras, Osiris are examples) of middle eastern religions that predated christianity.
(I can see it was an “interesting” night!)
Doug Parris | August 28, 2004 09:17 PM: Biblical Christians claim to have been given life in another dimension and it includes “seeing” spiritual things they did not see before.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. You have no way of proving to others that such claims are in fact true, so any beliefs or doctrines deriving from such a claim have to be held at arm’s length with great suspicion. This includes the existence of the Christian’s version of God, the validity of the Bible (as the inspired and infallible word of that version of God — as a historical volume it references historical events, but any modern work of fiction can likewise reference historical facts and real places as well, as it lends an air of believability to the story), or the claim of the resurrection. As long as you are claiming special vision into a realm not seen by others and without recourse to empirical evidence and scientific examination, your arguments are unproven and unprovable, but you will continue the mantra “you are blind but I can see.”
Doug’s dismissal of Dalea (August 29, 2004 12:09 AM):
calls for the same degree of suspicion: how does Doug know he can trust HIS version of things he derives from the spiritual or supernatural arena? What does he know of Pagans’ lifestyle (whatever that means! and why does he put Pagans in quotes like he did?), and how does he suggest the Pagan spirituality is on the dark side, in the shadows? It’s little more than a matter of “he said, she said” without any intelligent progress in either direction.
Posted by: Doug Parris | August 28, 2004 09:55 PM:
But I’ll bet Ray can’t even tell us what the central beliefs of Christianity are.
Sure I could (I was not only a “born again Christian” but an ordained minister — I’m not nearly as ignorant as one might suppose), but why do I care about other people’s beliefs? They aren’t facts, just beliefs and doctrines, most of which are built on superstition (and I did see your discussion of superstition vs. supernatural; without extraordinary proofs to support that extraordinary claim, it’s all pretty much the same thing.)
You said: (August 28, 2004 09:55 PM) “Superstition” means a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, a false conception of causation or a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary. Christianity is clearly none of those things.
I would say just the opposite: that Christianity is every one of those things. That is why I am no longer a Christian and why I left the pulpit. The message wasn’t true, and I could no longer speak a message that I held to be a cruel and outrageous lie.
August 28, 2004 09:17 PM: But, if you don’t think there is a real, objective God, or a real spiritual world and a supernatural dimension that can be proven to exist, you can’t understand why homosexuality would be “wrong.” But, then, nothing, absolutely nothing, could be “wrong.” Because right and wrong refer to a higher moral law, something above personal opinion.
Back to the old “no morality without God” routine. Go visit the library at Internet Infidels (https://www.infidels.org) and search for their essays on the topic. Humanists and atheists have a strong, reasonable and rational grasp of morality and ethics. We don’t need to explain the world by superstition or appeal to supernatural sources to understand and live in the world.
As an aside: Raj, I have borrwed the term “Sky Pixie” on my personal blog. Thanks for an interesting alternative to the variant “Gawd”.
Ray | August 29, 2004 10:58 AM
Glad to have been of service. Neither “Sky Pixie” nor “Wholly Babble” were original with me. “WorldNutDaily” (for the worldnetdaily web site) and “Brent Bozo” (for Brent Bozel, proprietor of right wing websites like Media Research Center and the Christian, no, Conservative, no, Cybercast News Service may have been original with me; at least I never saw them before I started using them. BTW, Joseph Farah, proprietor of WorldNutDaily, and Brent Bozo were functionaries in the Reagan administration. And they exemplify the fact that hate sells among conservatives.
(not sure why this post didn’t make it the first time)
Ray makes several points (above) that are demonstrably in error. I’ll just take the first for now: On whether or not Christianity takes the position that homosexuality is a sin, he says, “This is not THE Christian position, but one position among many diverse positions held by a variety of Christians.” Ray may be sincere, but, if so, this is purest ignorance.
Ignorance? There are many Christian denominations today that do not teach the ‘homosexuality=sin’ doctrine. While the Metropolitan Community Church is probably the best known, there are others, all with vast reasoningfor their position. Whether a doctrine was universally held for 1900 years is irrelevant – it is not a universal belief today, even among Christians, and today is the context in which this discussion (and our gay lives) must be lived. These are just a few examples of other Christian positions.
https://www.truluck.com/ — website of Dr. Robert Truluck
https://www.mccchurch.org/ — Universal Fellowshipof Metropolitan Community Churches
https://www.dignityusa.org — Gay and Lesbian Catholics (many denominations have similar groups)
https://ecchurch.org/index.htm — the Ecumenical Catholic Church
https://www.ucc.org/find/index.html — United Church of Christ lists many of their churches with an “Open and Affirming” position.
https://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm – Religious Tolerance discussion of the issue
So again I affirm that “homosexuality=sin” is not THE Christian position, but one of many positions, each of which has its own research to support their positions.
Dismissing the developments of the last 150-200 years as “breakaway factions” doesn’t mean they aren’t Christians. Every denomination has its own distinctives (else they wouldn’t be separate denominations), some for doctrinal reasons, others for issues on church government, etc., but I don’t believe that the “homosexuality = sin” doctrine is a fundamental or core part of anyone’s doctrinal base. Even those churches who are ‘open and affirming’ (or ‘gay-friendly’ or whatever term) don’t put sexuality in the center of their altars, but merely include it as a way to correct in their churches what they believe to be 2000 years of church error on that issue. Along with other branches of learning (e.g., medicine), some branches of the church value progress and believe in correcting errors when better information is found and proven to be true.
Christianity is about 2000 years old. It was started by a Jew named Jesus who emphatically endorsed the Mosaic Law which had been the central document of Judaism for more than 1000 years before that.
Christianity was not started by a Jew named Jesus. Jesus, the itinerant preacher about whom the New Testament stories were supposedly written, if he existed as a man at all and not just a refabrication of earlier myths and legends, was just one of many itinerant preachers whose interest was focused on bringing a spiritual revival (by repentance and restoration to a right relationship with their god) only to the Jews. He was a Jewish preacher, preaching to the Jews. Christianity began as a minor Jewish messianic cult propogated by some of his (also-Jewish) followers, and by your own admission took another 300 years before they had developed any sort of unified, codified doctrine in the form of the Roman Catholic Church. Having 300 years to establish their doctrine, they went picking and choosing what to include in their canon – what supported their doctrines, they kept; what didn’t support their doctrines, they dismissed. Purely a man-made endeavor in compiling the Bible canon which itself isn’t even agreed upon by all branches of Christianity today!
Mr. Parris:
To answer your question, yes CPT stands for Captain, and is derived from a nickname given to me by my housemates many years ago, relating to my negative assessment of an Ultimate Frisbee team I happened to be captaining at the time (I didn’t believe we would ever do well as a team, so I was “Captain Doom” for being cynical).
To relate the discussion back to the topic of this thread, anti-Semitism was an attempt to create societal scapegoats, in that case those of the Jewish faith, by spreading propaganda, myths and stereotypes that classified all Jews the same way – it used their choice of their religion to minimize the value of every Jewish life. As with anti-gay speech, there was no admission that specific individual Jews (in fact a lot of them) did in fact fail to conform to those stereotypes.
In order to gain political power through scapegoating, there can be no admission that members of the targeted group may vary in the exact same ways as all humans, or the effort to dehumanize the targeted group fails. You can see the exact same thing in the current US anti-gay hate movement.
Whether Mr. Parris is part of that movement, I have no idea, but he clearly has adopted several of their arguments. The first, and most egregious,is the assumption that all gay relationships (assuming they involve physical contact – and I am assuming here that things like kissing, back rubs, etc. that are meant as an expression of same-sex romantic love, are included) must necessarily cause negative effects in the gay person’s life.
What is different about the modern anti-gay arguments and the anti-Semitic arguments of the past is the attempt to pass those arguments off as “loving” because the speaker simply wants to make gay people’s lives better. Unfortunately, to accept that argument means one has to accept Mr. Parris’ version of “Christianity,” which IMHO would be a grevious sin.
You see Mr. Parris, no matter how you try to slice it, there is no one version of “Christianity.” In fact, “Christians” cannot even agree on something as simple as the correct version of the Ten Commandments, or the exact wording of the Lord’s Prayer. The various sects certainly cannot agree on one version of the “bible,” so one cannot talk about a unified church, or one “truth.”
Incidentally, I find it highly amusing that so many of the Protestant faiths, particularly those who are vehement anti-gay, use the King James version of the “bible,” a version specifically translated for, and “corrected” by, a flaming homosexual.
As to the rest of this thread, I have no interest in debating the complicated and contradictory history of Christianity in this world. Mr. Parris believes he has found the only true faith, and expects the rest of us to believe it – and he will have to answer to God for that moral arrogance.
My own beliefs, influenced by my upbringing as a Roman Catholic (a church which incidentally views many of these breakaway faiths, like Mormonism or Southern Baptists, as invalid cults, because they cannot trace their origins back to the apostles) allow me to question the “truths” I have been taught in my religious upbrining. Just as Gallileo finally forced the church (albeit 500 years late) to accept that the “bible” was wrong about the relative position and importance of the earth and the Sun in our solar system, I believe it is entirely possible for the leading religious authorities to be greviously wrong about many “truths” they teach.
In fact, as I was taught in my Catholic high school, a religious “truth” is only as strong as its ability to withstand questioning. The “truth” that gay relationships are always immoral is one that simply cannot withstand that.
In the scientific world, which values logic and reason over historical religious “truths,” one example that contradicts a theory is enough to sink it. I give the one example that is against Mr. Parris’ argument: the Lofton/Croteau family profiled in Rosie O’Donnell’s fight against the heinously immoral Florida anti-gay adoption law.
This couple, Steve Lofton and Roger Croteau, are a gay couple (and I am going to assume here that they are more than “friends”) who have sacrificed of themselves to raise a family of 6 HIV-positive children (one of whom tragically died). These were children literally thrown away by their families and society because of the disease they have (one child, Bert, sero-converted to HIV-negative, meaning he only received the antibodies to HIV from his mother, not the virus itself, and therefore could be taken away from his fathers at any time Jeb Bush feels like) and have been lovingly raised by this couple. Steve Lofton quit his job to be a full-time stay-at-home parent, so this couple could not have done such amazing work with these children had they not been in a loving, adult, healthy gay relationship (I assume it’s healthy, because dysfunctional relationships invariably collapse under the strain of something like raising very ill children).
Mr. Parris may claim that this couple’s relationship is immoral, and will do them harm; it is his right to believe that way. But using my own “Christian” upbringing, I can only assume that God has blessed this couple, and the children they have raised together.
There are many other such couples and gay singles out there (Alan Turing, who led the group that broke the Enigma code in WWII comes to mind), who have done amazing things for their communities and society. It is their very existence that calls into question the belief that all gay relationships are bad, and that all people who engage in them will be invariably harmed.
I don’t expect Mr. Parris to believe this, but that is between him and God, just as my beliefs are between me and God. Too bad he refuses to let God handle what He should and concentrate on his own life.
Another thought occurs regarding the hate-speech and long history of the church: If it had not been the practice of the church to torture dissenters and burn heretics at the stake, I think a lot of folks would have been having (and resolving) this anti-gay discussion many generations earlier and we would have already moved beyond it. I guess it’s easy to toe the party line when the option is murder in the name of god.
(sorry for the delayed response, but I just found this article and found it relevant to an assertion made here earlier):
Doug Parris said:
)
They might not believe in coercive “communism”, but coercion is indeed the purpose of so-called Christian “charity”, and is in fact one of their mandates: “convert at any cost; the end justifies the means” Per Their Other “Dirty” Linen: Evangelism’s Quest to Conquer the World. This should be a must-read for all folks wondering about the motives of church-based charitable efforts — it’s not about the charity, it’s about conversions.
I have to wonder if all this charitable giving in the home pews comes with full disclosure about what the money goes for and how it is actually used. It isn’t used to “help the poor” become self-sufficient in their own culture and society. It is used to “help the poor” become the “Christian poor” while stripping them of their native cultures. This has been the “Christian” way for centuries and millenia.