This is the perfect storm of nutcases: Phyllis Schlafly's kid is involved, they're questioning the veracity of the "Forgive them father..." line, they're claiming the Bible has liberal bias aaaaand (wait for it...) "non-experts collaborate Wiki-style on the Internet to produce their version."
I don't think I can call this gay-bashing. Stating an opinion I don't like and don't agree with, but not gay-bashing.
Gay-bashing would be an attack on the people, rather than on the practice. It's like saying that drinking coffee is wrong as opposed to saying that coffee drinkers are idiots - the former is talking about coffee, the latter is talking about coffee drinkers.
Randon instance of people failing to understand the Bible:
When the old testament was translated to English, all instances of YHWH were changed to "the LORD." The third commandment is the reason for this: it was considered vulgar to use Yahweh's name outside of specific situations.
So when people say, "do not take the Lord's name in vain," they're getting it wrong. It should be "do not take Yahweh's name in vain." Which is pretty easy, really. When was the last time you heard somebody yell "Yahweh damn it!"
This is claiming homosexuality to be evil on an ineffable cosmic scale, that homosexuals commit a crime against God simply by existing. It's denigrating and dehumanizing homosexuals on a personal and fundamental level.
Homosexuality is no more a practice than "being black" is. Would a sign saying that being black was a crime against God not be an attack on that race?
I don't think that it's the same as saying "I don't like homosexuality." It's saying that homosexuality is a sin--something that makes your soul, which is supposed to exist for eternity, to spend that eternity in torture. While what they're saying, rather peacefully, isn't meant to harm anyone now, they obviously believe that it is something so hateful as to condemn someone for eternity--not a few years, not even life--in total and complete agony.
Now, again with the "being black" part above. I don't need to restate their stuff. = P
Oh! I got into a lovely argument with someone on how "god damn you" was in any way different from "god bless you". My argument is that it's a supplication, not a command, in either case--either both are in vain or neither are.
The motive of the person holding the sign is a completely separate thing. The action determines whether or not it's gay bashing, and I maintain that it's an attack against a practice rather than against the individuals practicing it.
If you disagree, that's fine. I doubt we're going to convince one another regardless.
Were they to carry a sign stating that pre-marital sex is a sin, all the same arguements you make would apply.
However, the majority of us would recognize that they're stating an opinion that we don't agree with, and that we don't care about. We certainly wouldn't be having a discussion about it being a hate crime against the unwed.
I dare say that the same can be said of anti-religious bigotry - I mean, if they demand muslims just stop praying to and believing in Allah then it's a matter of action?
And homosexuality is far less changeable than religion
I hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense. There are as many miracles in the Bible that destroy things as there are creating things, so why would we not ask God to do negative things for us?
Actually "yahweh" and "jehovah" are the mis-translations and "THE LORD" is blasphemy - basically YHWH is a tretragrammaton used to avoid blasphemy in the tanakh, but to remind people reading it that you were in fact supposed to say "adonai" during prayers and other formal ceremonies, they stuck the vowel symbols for Adonai onto the tetragrammaton YHWH.
The gentiles who formed the christian church didn't know that and just read Y(a)H(o)W(a)H(i) because that's what it said and they didn't feel like asking any jewish person to explain it to them, despite neither Yahweh or jehovah being any sort of word in hebrew.
The only reason the KJV got the translations right in the end is because it intentionally mistranslated the Yahweh/Jahovah misspellings to avoid blasphemy... and thereby made every english bible since a vile blaspheming text where the original poorly researched one wasn't.
biblical inerrancy is an idea that does not make a great deal of sense.
Ha! That's fabulously funny, and further demonstrates how important it is the study the Bible rather than just reading it if you intend to make it an important part of your life.
If they demand that any religious group stop doing something, it's limiting the freedoms of others and I'd take umbrage.
If they state that their religion is the only true religion, and that doing it any other way is WRONG and will DAMN THEM TO HELL - well, that's par for the course really, and I'd write it off as having no bearing on my life since I don't share their belief.
Let's make this more personal. Because we're having this discussion, you're obviously taking the poster personally. Why is that? Why do you care what a stranger holding a poster on a sidewalk thinks?
There are people who attack, beat, and kill homosexuals. Those people need to be shot.
There are also people who publically state opinions. The two are not equal. If we treat people saying things we don't like as being just as bad as beating/killing somebody, then we take away their relatively harmless outlet and leave them with more clandestine things. Essentially, hypervigilance polarizes the issue and turns more moderate ignorant people into exactly the violent monsters we're trying to protect ourselves from.
But that might not be what's going on here, which is why I asked.
It might be a reference to Lev 19:19 "Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you." rather than entirely made up... but that would only work if they assumed all corduroy is made of multiple types of fibre....
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-03 09:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-03 10:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-03 11:29 pm (UTC)(
This is the perfect storm of nutcases: Phyllis Schlafly's kid is involved, they're questioning the veracity of the "Forgive them father..." line, they're claiming the Bible has liberal bias aaaaand (wait for it...) "non-experts collaborate Wiki-style on the Internet to produce their version."
I don't think I could make that up.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 01:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 01:23 am (UTC)Gay-bashing would be an attack on the people, rather than on the practice. It's like saying that drinking coffee is wrong as opposed to saying that coffee drinkers are idiots - the former is talking about coffee, the latter is talking about coffee drinkers.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 01:31 am (UTC)When the old testament was translated to English, all instances of YHWH were changed to "the LORD." The third commandment is the reason for this: it was considered vulgar to use Yahweh's name outside of specific situations.
So when people say, "do not take the Lord's name in vain," they're getting it wrong. It should be "do not take Yahweh's name in vain." Which is pretty easy, really. When was the last time you heard somebody yell "Yahweh damn it!"
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 01:35 am (UTC)Even if I was a virgin, I would still be homosexual.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 01:41 am (UTC)Homosexuality is no more a practice than "being black" is. Would a sign saying that being black was a crime against God not be an attack on that race?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 02:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 02:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 02:12 am (UTC)Doesn't change that it's still gay bashing.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 02:14 am (UTC)Now, again with the "being black" part above. I don't need to restate their stuff. = P
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 02:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 02:22 am (UTC)If you disagree, that's fine. I doubt we're going to convince one another regardless.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 02:28 am (UTC)However, the majority of us would recognize that they're stating an opinion that we don't agree with, and that we don't care about. We certainly wouldn't be having a discussion about it being a hate crime against the unwed.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 02:29 am (UTC)And homosexuality is far less changeable than religion
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 02:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 02:34 am (UTC)The gentiles who formed the christian church didn't know that and just read Y(a)H(o)W(a)H(i) because that's what it said and they didn't feel like asking any jewish person to explain it to them, despite neither Yahweh or jehovah being any sort of word in hebrew.
The only reason the KJV got the translations right in the end is because it intentionally mistranslated the Yahweh/Jahovah misspellings to avoid blasphemy... and thereby made every english bible since a vile blaspheming text where the original poorly researched one wasn't.
biblical inerrancy is an idea that does not make a great deal of sense.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 02:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 02:59 am (UTC)If they state that their religion is the only true religion, and that doing it any other way is WRONG and will DAMN THEM TO HELL - well, that's par for the course really, and I'd write it off as having no bearing on my life since I don't share their belief.
Let's make this more personal. Because we're having this discussion, you're obviously taking the poster personally. Why is that? Why do you care what a stranger holding a poster on a sidewalk thinks?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 03:20 am (UTC)And because they're an idiotic bigot, but mostly that first one. That sign is a *threat*.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 03:39 am (UTC)There are people who attack, beat, and kill homosexuals. Those people need to be shot.
There are also people who publically state opinions. The two are not equal. If we treat people saying things we don't like as being just as bad as beating/killing somebody, then we take away their relatively harmless outlet and leave them with more clandestine things. Essentially, hypervigilance polarizes the issue and turns more moderate ignorant people into exactly the violent monsters we're trying to protect ourselves from.
But that might not be what's going on here, which is why I asked.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 04:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 05:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-12-04 05:38 am (UTC)