Check out this thread over at the Catholic answers forum. Look familiar?
And this was 9 years ago!!
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Good Words
Now that a 4-year-old has shot and killed another 4-year-old in Detroit, we’re going to again talk about gun control, with predictably the same results. To me, two things are true: (1) Gun advocates who want no registration and management of gun ownership are in fact afraid of their government, and (2) we as a nation have a competency problem when it comes to managing gun ownership.
Every gun advocate argument I’ve heard that is against better management (not restriction) of gun ownership boils down to the individual or group being afraid any government control will lead to removal of their constitutional right. Until we solve that problem, gun control will only be a dream. Yet when a 4-year-old has access to a loaded rifle that is improperly stored or when a troubled high school student has access to military-grade weapons without military-grade training, oversight or certifications, we have proved ourselves unable to manage gun ownership. Identify the real problems, and perhaps we can together come up with real solutions. (Letter of the Day, Minneapolis Star Tribune)
Gun competency...indeed. Meanwhile, in responsible gun owner land..
Americans who accidentally shot themselves recently: A 31-year-old man, showing off his high-powered rifle to friends, shot off part of his face, Waterville, Maine (November). A 22-year-old woman, handing her brand-new assault rifle to her husband, shot herself (fatally) in the head, Federal Heights, Colo. (May). Two police chiefs shot themselves (Medina, Ohio, in April and Washington, N.H., in June). A 66-year-old firearms instructor, Winona, Minn., shot his finger while explaining to his wife that it was impossible to pull the trigger while the gun is holstered (April). Awkward Wounds: A Columbia, Mo., man shot in the "posterior" while removing his gun from his back pocket (May); a 23-year-old man, Charleston, W.Va., shot in the groin while holstering his weapon (August); a 43-year-old driver, Norfolk, Va., shot in the groin while waving his gun at bystanders who objected to his speeding (August). Waterville: [Morning Sentinel (Waterville), 11-8-2013] Federal: [KMGH-TV (Denver), 5-16-2013] Medina: [Medina Gazette, 4-18-2013] Washington: [WMUR-TV (Manchester), 6-3-2013] Winona: [Winona Daily News, 4-30-2013] Columbia: [KMIZ-TV (Columbia), 5-30-2013] Charleston: [Charleston Daily Mail, 8-28-2013] Norfolk: [WTKR-TV (Norfolk), 8-7-2013]
Every gun advocate argument I’ve heard that is against better management (not restriction) of gun ownership boils down to the individual or group being afraid any government control will lead to removal of their constitutional right. Until we solve that problem, gun control will only be a dream. Yet when a 4-year-old has access to a loaded rifle that is improperly stored or when a troubled high school student has access to military-grade weapons without military-grade training, oversight or certifications, we have proved ourselves unable to manage gun ownership. Identify the real problems, and perhaps we can together come up with real solutions. (Letter of the Day, Minneapolis Star Tribune)
Gun competency...indeed. Meanwhile, in responsible gun owner land..
Americans who accidentally shot themselves recently: A 31-year-old man, showing off his high-powered rifle to friends, shot off part of his face, Waterville, Maine (November). A 22-year-old woman, handing her brand-new assault rifle to her husband, shot herself (fatally) in the head, Federal Heights, Colo. (May). Two police chiefs shot themselves (Medina, Ohio, in April and Washington, N.H., in June). A 66-year-old firearms instructor, Winona, Minn., shot his finger while explaining to his wife that it was impossible to pull the trigger while the gun is holstered (April). Awkward Wounds: A Columbia, Mo., man shot in the "posterior" while removing his gun from his back pocket (May); a 23-year-old man, Charleston, W.Va., shot in the groin while holstering his weapon (August); a 43-year-old driver, Norfolk, Va., shot in the groin while waving his gun at bystanders who objected to his speeding (August). Waterville: [Morning Sentinel (Waterville), 11-8-2013] Federal: [KMGH-TV (Denver), 5-16-2013] Medina: [Medina Gazette, 4-18-2013] Washington: [WMUR-TV (Manchester), 6-3-2013] Winona: [Winona Daily News, 4-30-2013] Columbia: [KMIZ-TV (Columbia), 5-30-2013] Charleston: [Charleston Daily Mail, 8-28-2013] Norfolk: [WTKR-TV (Norfolk), 8-7-2013]
Friday, January 17, 2014
Retractions, Please
The United States Senate has released its report on the Attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Here are some key takeaways.
The late Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, has been partially implicated for the failure of adequate security at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The report notes that Mr. Stevens was aware of all of the intelligence reporting on Libya, including updates on the increased risks of anti-Western terrorist attacks that had prompted the C.I.A. to substantially upgrade the security at its own Benghazi facility in June 2012.
At times, Mr. Stevens requested additional security personnel from the State Department in Washington. But the inquiry also found that in June 2012, around the time the threats were mounting, Mr. Stevens recommended hiring and training local Libyan guards to form security teams in Tripoli and Benghazi. The plan showed a faith in local Libyan support that proved misplaced on the night of the attack.
During an Aug. 15, 2012, meeting on the deteriorating security around Benghazi that Mr. Stevens attended, a diplomat stationed there described the situation as “trending negatively,” according to a cable sent the next day and quoted in the report. A diplomatic security officer “expressed concerns with the ability to defend post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound.”
A C.I.A. officer at the meeting pointed out the location of approximately 10 Islamist militias and Al Qaeda training camps within Benghazi, according to the same cable. After reading the cable, Gen. Carter F. Ham, then the commander of the United States Africa Command, called Mr. Stevens to ask if the embassy in Tripoli needed additional military personnel, potentially for use in Benghazi, “but Stevens told Ham it did not,” the report said. A short time later, General Ham reiterated the offer at a meeting in Germany, and “Stevens again declined,” the report said. The same Aug. 16 cable had also promised that requests “for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs” for the Benghazi mission would be submitted through the Tripoli embassy, but “the committee has not seen any evidence that those requests were passed on by the embassy, including by the ambassador, to State Department headquarters before the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi.”
The Senate reports notes that the CIA bolstered its security at the annex, located near the diplomatic compound and actually paid attention to these reports. Stevens and the people at the State Department in DC did not. The person at the State Department specifically responsible for security at diplomatic compounds was Patrick F Kennedy. Kennedy held a similar job in 1998 when two American Embassies in East Africa were bombed. Clearly, Mr. Kennedy is not capable of doing his job and should never be allowed to be responsible in such a capacity again.
Nowhere in the report do we see secret plots or cover ups that we have been hearing squeak from inside the right wing bubble. No evidence that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama turned down additional security requests. This bloviation can be summed up quite simply as this. Sorry, folks, the president is better at foreign policy and international security than George W. Bush. Deal with it.
With this new information, I'm expecting some retractions from people who claim they can admit when they are wrong. Let's with Kevin Baker and his bullshit lying.
The late Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, has been partially implicated for the failure of adequate security at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The report notes that Mr. Stevens was aware of all of the intelligence reporting on Libya, including updates on the increased risks of anti-Western terrorist attacks that had prompted the C.I.A. to substantially upgrade the security at its own Benghazi facility in June 2012.
At times, Mr. Stevens requested additional security personnel from the State Department in Washington. But the inquiry also found that in June 2012, around the time the threats were mounting, Mr. Stevens recommended hiring and training local Libyan guards to form security teams in Tripoli and Benghazi. The plan showed a faith in local Libyan support that proved misplaced on the night of the attack.
During an Aug. 15, 2012, meeting on the deteriorating security around Benghazi that Mr. Stevens attended, a diplomat stationed there described the situation as “trending negatively,” according to a cable sent the next day and quoted in the report. A diplomatic security officer “expressed concerns with the ability to defend post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound.”
A C.I.A. officer at the meeting pointed out the location of approximately 10 Islamist militias and Al Qaeda training camps within Benghazi, according to the same cable. After reading the cable, Gen. Carter F. Ham, then the commander of the United States Africa Command, called Mr. Stevens to ask if the embassy in Tripoli needed additional military personnel, potentially for use in Benghazi, “but Stevens told Ham it did not,” the report said. A short time later, General Ham reiterated the offer at a meeting in Germany, and “Stevens again declined,” the report said. The same Aug. 16 cable had also promised that requests “for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs” for the Benghazi mission would be submitted through the Tripoli embassy, but “the committee has not seen any evidence that those requests were passed on by the embassy, including by the ambassador, to State Department headquarters before the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi.”
The Senate reports notes that the CIA bolstered its security at the annex, located near the diplomatic compound and actually paid attention to these reports. Stevens and the people at the State Department in DC did not. The person at the State Department specifically responsible for security at diplomatic compounds was Patrick F Kennedy. Kennedy held a similar job in 1998 when two American Embassies in East Africa were bombed. Clearly, Mr. Kennedy is not capable of doing his job and should never be allowed to be responsible in such a capacity again.
Nowhere in the report do we see secret plots or cover ups that we have been hearing squeak from inside the right wing bubble. No evidence that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama turned down additional security requests. This bloviation can be summed up quite simply as this. Sorry, folks, the president is better at foreign policy and international security than George W. Bush. Deal with it.
With this new information, I'm expecting some retractions from people who claim they can admit when they are wrong. Let's with Kevin Baker and his bullshit lying.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Paying Down Debt
Hey, look what super liberal California Governor Jerry Brown is doing.
Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday proposed a $106.8 billion general-fund budget that seeks to pay off a big chunk of the state's long-term debt while making modest investments in public schools, health care and the troubled bullet train. While the state's finances have improved significantly since the days of embarrassing, multibillion-dollar deficits, Brown said at a morning news conference that he believes the newfound fiscal stability could be short-lived and that restrained spending of scarce state resources is crucial.
What the-?!!?? A fiscally responsible liberal. you say? Where is Spock with a beard?:)
Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday proposed a $106.8 billion general-fund budget that seeks to pay off a big chunk of the state's long-term debt while making modest investments in public schools, health care and the troubled bullet train. While the state's finances have improved significantly since the days of embarrassing, multibillion-dollar deficits, Brown said at a morning news conference that he believes the newfound fiscal stability could be short-lived and that restrained spending of scarce state resources is crucial.
What the-?!!?? A fiscally responsible liberal. you say? Where is Spock with a beard?:)
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Even Weaker
Personally, I don't think the bridge scandal is that big of a deal in terms of Chris Christie's chances of being president in 2016. Is still think he'd make a great president. This isn't any different than things Democrats have done in the past so why is the left all bunged up about it? In fact, I would think the right would be more pissed off because Christie is acting like a Democrat in pulling this sort of shit. Besides, it's far less worse of a transgression than the sheer moonbattery we have seen these last few years from conservatives.
Yet, if Christie is toast, the GOP is really fucked. This recent piece in the Washington Post shows how there really isn't a good candidate out there that can win a national election. If 2012 was weak, 2016 is going to be downright awful without Christie. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal? I challenge Republicans to show me someone who can beat Hillary Clinton, let alone a Democrat at all.
Yet, if Christie is toast, the GOP is really fucked. This recent piece in the Washington Post shows how there really isn't a good candidate out there that can win a national election. If 2012 was weak, 2016 is going to be downright awful without Christie. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal? I challenge Republicans to show me someone who can beat Hillary Clinton, let alone a Democrat at all.
Tough One
The Supreme Court has a tough one in front of it with this case. Does free speech trump possible physical danger?
A couple of mornings a week, Eleanor McCullen stakes out a spot outside the Planned Parenthood clinic here and tries to persuade women on their way in to think twice before having an abortion. But she has to watch her step. If she crosses a painted yellow semicircle outside the clinic’s entrance, she commits a crime under a 2007 Massachusetts law. Early last Wednesday, bundled up against the 7-degree cold, Ms. McCullen said she found the line to be intimidating, frustrating and a violation of her First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday in her challenge to the law.
Yet...
The state’s attorney general, Martha Coakley, who is the lead defendant in the suit, said the 35-foot buffer zone created by the 2007 law was a necessary response to an ugly history of harassment and violence at abortion clinics in Massachusetts, including a shooting rampage at two facilities in 1994.
It's going to be interesting what SCOTUS has to say about this. My first reaction is what difference does a few feet make? Is there some sort of Pavlovian response to having a line drawn the prevents people from committing violence? Before reading their opinions, I say that Ms. McCullen's right to free speech is being violated. It's a public street. People can say whatever they want. If you are tough enough to go get an abortion, you can withstand an extra few seconds of conversation.
Or maybe you shouldn't have been a moron in the first place and used birth control more effectively.
A couple of mornings a week, Eleanor McCullen stakes out a spot outside the Planned Parenthood clinic here and tries to persuade women on their way in to think twice before having an abortion. But she has to watch her step. If she crosses a painted yellow semicircle outside the clinic’s entrance, she commits a crime under a 2007 Massachusetts law. Early last Wednesday, bundled up against the 7-degree cold, Ms. McCullen said she found the line to be intimidating, frustrating and a violation of her First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday in her challenge to the law.
Yet...
The state’s attorney general, Martha Coakley, who is the lead defendant in the suit, said the 35-foot buffer zone created by the 2007 law was a necessary response to an ugly history of harassment and violence at abortion clinics in Massachusetts, including a shooting rampage at two facilities in 1994.
It's going to be interesting what SCOTUS has to say about this. My first reaction is what difference does a few feet make? Is there some sort of Pavlovian response to having a line drawn the prevents people from committing violence? Before reading their opinions, I say that Ms. McCullen's right to free speech is being violated. It's a public street. People can say whatever they want. If you are tough enough to go get an abortion, you can withstand an extra few seconds of conversation.
Or maybe you shouldn't have been a moron in the first place and used birth control more effectively.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
The First Casualty in Fox News' War on Texting
I don't watch Fox News, so I'm usually alerted to their craziness only when Jon Stewart calls attention to it. One of the more hilarious recent segments on The Daily Show was his sendup of Bill O'Reilly's tirade against marijuana and texting. (Lest you accuse me of some kind of liberal TV news bias, I also never watch the garbage on MSNBC, CNN, or the histrionic pap local TV sprays across the airwaves.)
In the Fox News segment, after O'Reilly claims that smoking weed is "literally Russian roulette," he notes that 75% of teenagers have cell phones and text (!). As if marijuana is the gateway drug to texting. O'Reilly then says that American kids should study harder and be more competitive, like the kids in the People's Republic of China (where kids text even more than they do in America).
Well, old white men have heard O'Reilly's call to action and fired the first shots in the battle for freedom from texting. An ex-cop in Florida shot and killed a man for texting during the previews at a movie theater. This appears to be the reason why we need to carry guns wherever we go: a good guy with a gun is needed to stop texting wherever it might break out.
The victim, Chad Oulson, 43, was texting his three-year-old daughter. His wife was also shot in the hand by the same bullet. That little girl sure is precocious, having her own cell phone and able to read at the tender age of three. Too bad her daddy was vile, low-down movie-preview texter, a dog too dirty to let live because he was filling that little girl's innocent mind with poisonous . . . texts.
The shooter, Curtis Reeves, 71, retired from Tampa Police Department 20 years ago. He was arrested and charged with second-degree murder. This is another in a long string of gun madness by crazy old coots, like the old man who shot a 13-year-old boy on the street in front of his mother, or the old man who abducted a boy and held him hostage at gun point in a bunker in Alabama.
The NRA likes to say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But if Reeves hadn't had a gun in that theater he wouldn't be in jail, and Oulson's daughter would still have her father.
Guns are like a drug. They give men delusions of grandeur, strip them of their normal inhibitions and incite them to violence. Without guns, these old coots -- and probably the vast majority of people who kill with guns -- would never dare attack others with their fists. At best they'd simply be pulled off their victims. At worst they'd be beaten to a bloody pulp. But a gun in their hand gives them the power and the courage to kill on the slightest impulse.
So, I have to wonder. Did Curtis Reeves watch Bill O'Reilly's tirade against texting? Did Fox News incite this old coot to murder a man texting his little daughter?
Yes, I can hear the defense attorney addressing that typical Florida jury of little old white ladies, all Fox News viewers: "Bill O'Reilly told my client that texting was like marijuana, and when that man said he was texting his daughter my client knew he had to protect her from that monster at any cost!"
In the Fox News segment, after O'Reilly claims that smoking weed is "literally Russian roulette," he notes that 75% of teenagers have cell phones and text (!). As if marijuana is the gateway drug to texting. O'Reilly then says that American kids should study harder and be more competitive, like the kids in the People's Republic of China (where kids text even more than they do in America).
Well, old white men have heard O'Reilly's call to action and fired the first shots in the battle for freedom from texting. An ex-cop in Florida shot and killed a man for texting during the previews at a movie theater. This appears to be the reason why we need to carry guns wherever we go: a good guy with a gun is needed to stop texting wherever it might break out.
The victim, Chad Oulson, 43, was texting his three-year-old daughter. His wife was also shot in the hand by the same bullet. That little girl sure is precocious, having her own cell phone and able to read at the tender age of three. Too bad her daddy was vile, low-down movie-preview texter, a dog too dirty to let live because he was filling that little girl's innocent mind with poisonous . . . texts.
The shooter, Curtis Reeves, 71, retired from Tampa Police Department 20 years ago. He was arrested and charged with second-degree murder. This is another in a long string of gun madness by crazy old coots, like the old man who shot a 13-year-old boy on the street in front of his mother, or the old man who abducted a boy and held him hostage at gun point in a bunker in Alabama.
The NRA likes to say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But if Reeves hadn't had a gun in that theater he wouldn't be in jail, and Oulson's daughter would still have her father.
Guns are like a drug. They give men delusions of grandeur, strip them of their normal inhibitions and incite them to violence. Without guns, these old coots -- and probably the vast majority of people who kill with guns -- would never dare attack others with their fists. At best they'd simply be pulled off their victims. At worst they'd be beaten to a bloody pulp. But a gun in their hand gives them the power and the courage to kill on the slightest impulse.
So, I have to wonder. Did Curtis Reeves watch Bill O'Reilly's tirade against texting? Did Fox News incite this old coot to murder a man texting his little daughter?
Yes, I can hear the defense attorney addressing that typical Florida jury of little old white ladies, all Fox News viewers: "Bill O'Reilly told my client that texting was like marijuana, and when that man said he was texting his daughter my client knew he had to protect her from that monster at any cost!"
Eight Inches
Remember a couple of weeks back when that ship carrying scientists and adventure tourists got stuck in the Antarctic and the 12 year olds laughed and pointed? Well, it turns out that there was no connection between that event and climate change.
The episode had little connection to climate change — shifting winds had caused loose pack ice to jam against the ship — and this was far from the first time that a ship had been trapped, even in the Antarctic summer. But sea ice cover in the Antarctic is changing, and scientists see the influence of climate change, although they say natural climate variability may be at work, too. “The truth is, we don’t fully understand what’s going on,” said Ted Maksym, a researcher at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Unlike the Arctic, where sharp declines in recent decades in the ice that floats on sea surfaces have been linked to warming, sea ice in the Antarctic has actually increased, scientists who study the region say. Averaged over the entire Antarctic coast, the increase is slight — about 1 percent a decade. At the same time, larger increases and decreases are being seen on certain parts of the continent.
In short, listen to science, not the right wing blogsphere.
This incident calls for a reminder of the Top Ten Right Wing Lies Regarding Climate Change with special attention to this one. Another great resource on all the lying is Skeptical Science. Here is their analysis of the Antarctic lie.
Meanwhile we have eight inches...
The episode had little connection to climate change — shifting winds had caused loose pack ice to jam against the ship — and this was far from the first time that a ship had been trapped, even in the Antarctic summer. But sea ice cover in the Antarctic is changing, and scientists see the influence of climate change, although they say natural climate variability may be at work, too. “The truth is, we don’t fully understand what’s going on,” said Ted Maksym, a researcher at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Unlike the Arctic, where sharp declines in recent decades in the ice that floats on sea surfaces have been linked to warming, sea ice in the Antarctic has actually increased, scientists who study the region say. Averaged over the entire Antarctic coast, the increase is slight — about 1 percent a decade. At the same time, larger increases and decreases are being seen on certain parts of the continent.
In short, listen to science, not the right wing blogsphere.
This incident calls for a reminder of the Top Ten Right Wing Lies Regarding Climate Change with special attention to this one. Another great resource on all the lying is Skeptical Science. Here is their analysis of the Antarctic lie.
Meanwhile we have eight inches...
A Responsible Gun Owner
Check out this story.
Three neighbors said a neighborhood meeting was held last Sunday so that Bauerle could talk about his fears about surveillance around his home, but they described his fears about the surveillance as “quirky” and “made you scratch your head.” Bauerle’s fears and suspicions about surveillance occur at a time when he has been on the air, criticizing the governor for sponsoring the new gun control laws in New York State and accusing Cuomo of seeking retribution.
At least he voluntarily submitted himself for a psych evaluation.
And people wonder why there is so much gun violence in this country...
Three neighbors said a neighborhood meeting was held last Sunday so that Bauerle could talk about his fears about surveillance around his home, but they described his fears about the surveillance as “quirky” and “made you scratch your head.” Bauerle’s fears and suspicions about surveillance occur at a time when he has been on the air, criticizing the governor for sponsoring the new gun control laws in New York State and accusing Cuomo of seeking retribution.
At least he voluntarily submitted himself for a psych evaluation.
And people wonder why there is so much gun violence in this country...
Monday, January 13, 2014
Picking And Choosing
Evangelical Christians continually rip liberal Christians by saying that they pick and choose what verses of the Bible to follow and which ones not to follow. This is ridiculous when one considers, for example what God told Moses in Leviticus.
“‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head. (Leviticus 20:9)
‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
“‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire. (Leviticus 21:09)
Considering I don't see any conservative Christians putting their kids to death for mouthing off to them, they pick and choose as well just like every other Christian. So, their protestations are completely ridiculous. In fact, nearly all of the 600+ commands of the Old Testament are no longer applicable today. Most Christians do not follow them unless they are Messianic Jews. What remains applicable today are the Ten Commandments + Jesus's New Commandment.
It would seem, then, that the issue of homosexuality should also be swept away with archaic OT laws and commands as it is mentioned with all the rest of them. The problem is that homosexuality is mentioned in the New Testament in both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:28. Paul, not God, is talking here so that should be the first clue as to how much weight it should hold. Further, something has clearly been lost in the translation from Greek to English as noted in this excellent piece from St. John's Metropolitan Community Church.
If Paul had wanted to condemn homosexual behavior in general, the word for it at the time was paiderasste. What he did, rather than simply use one of the many existing, quite precise Greek terms for aspects of homosexuality (or for homosexuality in general) – words that he would have been quite aware of – is to coin a new word from the Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13.
In the Septuagint, Leviticus 20:13 is something like hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos (And not lie-down with mankind [in] beds [of] a woman/wife). Notice the words arsenos koiten together there? It would have surprised no one for the scholar Paul to have compounded the noun arseno with the following Greek verb koiten into a new word, thereby repeating the prohibition of the abuse of temple prostitution in Leviticus – and it would be no surprise that his learned audience had no need of a translation or an explanation of the new word for an old idea; they, too, would have been familiar with the passage in Leviticus. (This would not be Paul’s only reference to earlier Scriptural phrasings; for example, when he wanted a phrase for ‘female’ and ‘male’ other than more common pairs, he used thelusi and arsen, words that had appeared together in the narrative of creation in Genesis.)
Once Paul’s warnings helped temple prostitution disappear from the landscape, the force of his words very likely caused later Christians to extend the meaning of arsenokoites to cover other behaviors that Christians found regrettable. Early Christians and Jews also applied the word to incest and orgiastic conduct. For a time it designated masturbation (arseno is singular, as masturbation generally is…). The only certain statement that can be made about the word is that it has changed in its perceived meaning and translation over time.
St. John's Metropolitan Community Church also offers this link and this link for more background on the two words that Paul uses. Given this evidence, it's quite clear that society, not God, decided that homosexuality was a sin and put that bias into later English translations of the Bible. This means that our changing culture is not violating anything in accepting gay Christians as how God made them as opposed to evil sinners who need to be deprogrammed.
When Jesus said "Keep My Commandments," He meant it quite literally. The rest of it can either be viewed as kind advice (Psalms and Proverbs) or a code of laws that no longer applies to today's society.
“‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head. (Leviticus 20:9)
‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
“‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire. (Leviticus 21:09)
Considering I don't see any conservative Christians putting their kids to death for mouthing off to them, they pick and choose as well just like every other Christian. So, their protestations are completely ridiculous. In fact, nearly all of the 600+ commands of the Old Testament are no longer applicable today. Most Christians do not follow them unless they are Messianic Jews. What remains applicable today are the Ten Commandments + Jesus's New Commandment.
It would seem, then, that the issue of homosexuality should also be swept away with archaic OT laws and commands as it is mentioned with all the rest of them. The problem is that homosexuality is mentioned in the New Testament in both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:28. Paul, not God, is talking here so that should be the first clue as to how much weight it should hold. Further, something has clearly been lost in the translation from Greek to English as noted in this excellent piece from St. John's Metropolitan Community Church.
If Paul had wanted to condemn homosexual behavior in general, the word for it at the time was paiderasste. What he did, rather than simply use one of the many existing, quite precise Greek terms for aspects of homosexuality (or for homosexuality in general) – words that he would have been quite aware of – is to coin a new word from the Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13.
In the Septuagint, Leviticus 20:13 is something like hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos (And not lie-down with mankind [in] beds [of] a woman/wife). Notice the words arsenos koiten together there? It would have surprised no one for the scholar Paul to have compounded the noun arseno with the following Greek verb koiten into a new word, thereby repeating the prohibition of the abuse of temple prostitution in Leviticus – and it would be no surprise that his learned audience had no need of a translation or an explanation of the new word for an old idea; they, too, would have been familiar with the passage in Leviticus. (This would not be Paul’s only reference to earlier Scriptural phrasings; for example, when he wanted a phrase for ‘female’ and ‘male’ other than more common pairs, he used thelusi and arsen, words that had appeared together in the narrative of creation in Genesis.)
Once Paul’s warnings helped temple prostitution disappear from the landscape, the force of his words very likely caused later Christians to extend the meaning of arsenokoites to cover other behaviors that Christians found regrettable. Early Christians and Jews also applied the word to incest and orgiastic conduct. For a time it designated masturbation (arseno is singular, as masturbation generally is…). The only certain statement that can be made about the word is that it has changed in its perceived meaning and translation over time.
St. John's Metropolitan Community Church also offers this link and this link for more background on the two words that Paul uses. Given this evidence, it's quite clear that society, not God, decided that homosexuality was a sin and put that bias into later English translations of the Bible. This means that our changing culture is not violating anything in accepting gay Christians as how God made them as opposed to evil sinners who need to be deprogrammed.
When Jesus said "Keep My Commandments," He meant it quite literally. The rest of it can either be viewed as kind advice (Psalms and Proverbs) or a code of laws that no longer applies to today's society.
Common Ground On The Role Of Government
The liberal and conservative positions on abortion have never made sense to me. Liberals should want more government in people's personal lives so why not be able to tell women what to do with their bodies? And conservatives complaint's about the long nose of government goes out the window when it comes to the womb of a private citizen.
Yet the issue of how much control the government has in terms of someone's right to life was illustrated in a very sad way in this recent piece in the New York Times. The womb of Marlise Muñoz is essentially a ward of the state of the Texas. Children’s Hospital Oakland, not the family of Jahi McMath, has decided that their patient is legally brain dead so they are well within their right (by law) to remove the ventilator. Part of their decision is financial but they are acting as a result of government law.
Even though these stories are gut wrenching, maybe they can be the start of some common ground between liberals and conservatives in defining the role of government in every day life. I would imagine that most people, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum, are sickened by this. In each case, the government is clearly in the wrong. The families of each of these women should have ALL legal authority over their child and the government should stand out of the way. These stories also stress the vital importance of having living wills that are spelled out in the greatest possible detail.
Yet the issue of how much control the government has in terms of someone's right to life was illustrated in a very sad way in this recent piece in the New York Times. The womb of Marlise Muñoz is essentially a ward of the state of the Texas. Children’s Hospital Oakland, not the family of Jahi McMath, has decided that their patient is legally brain dead so they are well within their right (by law) to remove the ventilator. Part of their decision is financial but they are acting as a result of government law.
Even though these stories are gut wrenching, maybe they can be the start of some common ground between liberals and conservatives in defining the role of government in every day life. I would imagine that most people, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum, are sickened by this. In each case, the government is clearly in the wrong. The families of each of these women should have ALL legal authority over their child and the government should stand out of the way. These stories also stress the vital importance of having living wills that are spelled out in the greatest possible detail.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
How Sadly Our Society Has Changed
From the Variety section in today's Strib...
Bravo 1985: “Jazz Counterpoint.” Billy Taylor chats with fellow pianists about their craft. Today: “The Real Housewives of Atlanta.” Rich women take turns backstabbing and berating each other.
A&E 1991: “Breakfast With the Arts.” A tribute to the finest in music, theater, dance and other art forms. Today: “Duck Dynasty.” A Louisiana family markets its duck calls and conservative views.
Discovery 1988: “World Monitor.” A nightly news show produced by the Christian Science Monitor. Today: “Deadliest Catch.” A look at the rocky life of fishermen in the Bering Sea.
TLC 1987: “Captain’s Log With Mark Gray.” A low-key, boating-safety series. Today: “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.” A high-energy reality series revolving around a child beauty-pageant contestant in Georgia.
Well, the certainly explains why some people vote the way they do!
Bravo 1985: “Jazz Counterpoint.” Billy Taylor chats with fellow pianists about their craft. Today: “The Real Housewives of Atlanta.” Rich women take turns backstabbing and berating each other.
A&E 1991: “Breakfast With the Arts.” A tribute to the finest in music, theater, dance and other art forms. Today: “Duck Dynasty.” A Louisiana family markets its duck calls and conservative views.
Discovery 1988: “World Monitor.” A nightly news show produced by the Christian Science Monitor. Today: “Deadliest Catch.” A look at the rocky life of fishermen in the Bering Sea.
TLC 1987: “Captain’s Log With Mark Gray.” A low-key, boating-safety series. Today: “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.” A high-energy reality series revolving around a child beauty-pageant contestant in Georgia.
Well, the certainly explains why some people vote the way they do!
Good Words
It is not fair to expect secular journalists to be biblical scholars, nor should it be anticipated that they would spend the necessary time to research the issue. It is for that reason that they tend to accept uncritically the oft-repeated Evangelical Protestant and Conservative Roman Catholic definitions that the Bible is anti-gay. If these people were honest, they would have to admit that the Bible is also pro-slavery and anti-women.
There is also a widely accepted mentality that if the Bible is opposed, the idea must be wrong. That is little more than nonsensical fundamentalism. The rise of democracy was contrary to the "clear teaching of the Bible," as the debate over the forced signing of the Magna Carta by King John of England in 1215 revealed. The Bible was quoted to prove that Galileo was wrong; that Darwin was wrong; that Freud was wrong; that allowing women to be educated, to vote, to enter the professions and to be ordained was wrong. So the fact that the Bible is quoted to prove that homosexuality is evil and to be condemned is hardly a strong argument, given the history of how many times the Bible has been wrong. I believe that most bishops know this but the Episcopal Church has some fundamentalist bishops and a few who are "fellow travelers" with fundamentalists.
The Bible was written between the years 1000 B.C.E. and 135 C.E. Our knowledge of almost everything has increased exponentially since that time. It is the height of ignorance to continue using the Bible as an encyclopedia of knowledge to keep dying prejudices intact. The media seems to cooperate in perpetuating that long ago abandoned biblical attitude.
That is not surprising since the religious people keep quoting it to justify their continued state of unenlightenment. That attitude is hardly worthy of the time it takes to engage it. I do not debate with members of the flat earth society either. Prejudices all die. The first sign that death is imminent comes when the prejudice is debated publicly. ---Bishop John Shelby Spong
There is also a widely accepted mentality that if the Bible is opposed, the idea must be wrong. That is little more than nonsensical fundamentalism. The rise of democracy was contrary to the "clear teaching of the Bible," as the debate over the forced signing of the Magna Carta by King John of England in 1215 revealed. The Bible was quoted to prove that Galileo was wrong; that Darwin was wrong; that Freud was wrong; that allowing women to be educated, to vote, to enter the professions and to be ordained was wrong. So the fact that the Bible is quoted to prove that homosexuality is evil and to be condemned is hardly a strong argument, given the history of how many times the Bible has been wrong. I believe that most bishops know this but the Episcopal Church has some fundamentalist bishops and a few who are "fellow travelers" with fundamentalists.
The Bible was written between the years 1000 B.C.E. and 135 C.E. Our knowledge of almost everything has increased exponentially since that time. It is the height of ignorance to continue using the Bible as an encyclopedia of knowledge to keep dying prejudices intact. The media seems to cooperate in perpetuating that long ago abandoned biblical attitude.
That is not surprising since the religious people keep quoting it to justify their continued state of unenlightenment. That attitude is hardly worthy of the time it takes to engage it. I do not debate with members of the flat earth society either. Prejudices all die. The first sign that death is imminent comes when the prejudice is debated publicly. ---Bishop John Shelby Spong
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)