LGBT in schools vs religious parents

[ViolentPanda]

a large section of religious ethnic minorities reject LGBT ideology. i guess.

Your guess is based on...?

 

[Pickman's model]

That's easy. It's called 'The Bible'. Old or New Testament will do. It's all complete bullshit.

Not at all. There's much that's true in there, from historical to geographical information. Not so sure about Elijah and the rocket ship tho

 

[ViolentPanda]

So to take Anton at face value once more, I support the British Humanist Association and National Secular Society and their efforts to ensure that schools prepare children for a life in a diverse society as well as teaching them the usual stuff.

Some things cannot be optional and that includes sex education and an understanding of (if not agreement with) different belief systems and sexualities.

If Anton had been on Urban75 at the time he was a member of Respect he would have seen a whole bunch of people criticising them for not dealing with this stuff adequately and I'd be interested to know how vocal he was at the time as a member.

Quite. I remember them keeping absolutely fucking SCHTUMM about anything that might impinge on their Muslim vote.

 

[agricola]

Not at all. There's much that's true in there, from historical to geographical information. Not so sure about Elijah and the rocket ship tho

Indeed; 1 Maccabees is almost entirely history, for example.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i would too.
But they have a flag. the rainbow flag.
and there are Pride parades.
these are expressions of the LGBT movement.
i guess Peter Tatchell is a well known activist for this movement, i suggest you look at his website. and the political campaigns and demands.
the works of Judith Butler, Foucault etc also make up part of the ideology.

They're expressions of elements of the lesbian, gay, bi and trans communities. There isn't any over-arching ideology, and many lesbians and gay men think Butler's post-modern take on gender is shit, that "queer theory" is a wizard's sleeve stuffed with unicorn shit, and that Foucault can fuck off.

 

[8ball]

What I find curious is his claim that he can determine the extent of delusion, in other words that he's some sort of psychiatrist

I think that's a lot to expect from most psychiatrists to be fair.

Also, being fair, I'm sure it was a flippant comment.

 

[8ball]

Not at all. There's much that's true in there, from historical to geographical information. Not so sure about Elijah and the rocket ship tho

I must have missed the whole Elijah rocket ship bit.

<Googles>

 

[8ball]

Irreligious people are certainly a growing demographic, but I think it's a mistake to identify them with the people making podcasts you don't like.

That's fair in that the "people making podcasts I don't like community" is pretty diverse.

 

[Edie]

Praying is another form of mediation, for some people. I'd have to talk to your mother to work out exactly how deluded she is of course.

Just... stop

 

[8ball]

Just... stop

I'm assuming he meant "meditation".
As are we all, I expect.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Just... stop

He won't. He's far too self-righteous!

 

[Pickman's model]

He won't. He's too far gone

C4U

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Jesus explicitly says he'll return within his disciples' lifetime, so this hand-wavy excuse doesn't wash.

If you want to understand what Christianity in its many forms actually teaches, I suggest you try reading a variety of Christian commentaries instead of the tedious output of 14 year old Dawkins fanboys, smashing their face against their keyboards whilst screening autistically about sky daddies and spaghetti monsters.

As it stands, most Christians would take the verse you quoted to be a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d., not the final judgment.

 

[8ball]

If you want to understand what Christianity in its many forms actually teaches, I suggest you try reading a variety of Christian commentaries instead of the tedious output of 14 year old Dawkins fanboys, smashing their face against their keyboards whilst screening autistically about sky daddies and spaghetti monsters.

As it stands, most Christians would take the verse you quoted to be a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d., not the final judgment.

Tempted to voice offence at your characterisation of autistic people, but more concerned about your usage of "screening".

 

[gentlegreen]

What did the Romans ever do for us ?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Tempted to voice offence at your characterisation of autistic people, but more concerned about your usage of "screening".

Fair point. I apologise for the use of the term autistic.

 

[NoXion]

If you want to understand what Christianity in its many forms actually teaches, I suggest you try reading a variety of Christian commentaries instead of the tedious output of 14 year old Dawkins fanboys, smashing their face against their keyboards whilst screening autistically about sky daddies and spaghetti monsters.

As it stands, most Christians would take the verse you quoted to be a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d., not the final judgment.

These commentators would seem to disagree with "most Christians":

"Verily I say unto you ... - To encourage them, he assured them that, though his kingdom was now obscure and despised - though he was cast out and little known - yet the time was near when he would be regarded in a different manner, and his kingdom be established with great power.

This cannot refer to the end of the world, and there is no need of referring it to the destruction of Jerusalem." - Barnes' Notes on The Bible

"till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. This inclineth others to think, that it is to be understood of Christ’s showing forth his power in the destruction of Jerusalem. But the most generally received opinion, and which seemeth to be best, is, that the coming of the Son of man here meant is, his resurrection from the dead." - Matthew Poole's commentary

"Having affirmed the certainty of the second coming and the divine retribution, He now proceeds to do the same with regard to their nearness." - Meyer's NT commentary

Maybe you should take your own advice, before casting aspersions against the characters of straw men - which should be irrelevant compared to the actual content of anyone's arguments by the way - while yourself using objectionable language and accusing people of "keyboard-bashing" with poor spelling.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

These commentators would seem to disagree with "most Christians":

"Verily I say unto you ... - To encourage them, he assured them that, though his kingdom was now obscure and despised - though he was cast out and little known - yet the time was near when he would be regarded in a different manner, and his kingdom be established with great power.

This cannot refer to the end of the world, and there is no need of referring it to the destruction of Jerusalem." - Barnes' Notes on The Bible

"till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. This inclineth others to think, that it is to be understood of Christ’s showing forth his power in the destruction of Jerusalem. But the most generally received opinion, and which seemeth to be best, is, that the coming of the Son of man here meant is, his resurrection from the dead." - Matthew Poole's commentary

"Having affirmed the certainty of the second coming and the divine retribution, He now proceeds to do the same with regard to their nearness." - Meyer's NT commentary

Maybe you should take your own advice, before casting aspersions against the characters of straw men - which should be irrelevant compared to the actual content of anyone's arguments by the way - while yourself using objectionable language and accusing people of "keyboard-bashing" with poor spelling.

'Most' does not mean 3. The very fact these commentaries feel the need to counter the Jerusalem interpretation just proves my point.

And I'm using a tablet, not a keyboard.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

And I'm using a tablet, not a keyboard.

a tablet of stone?

 

[butchersapron]

If you want to understand what Christianity in its many forms actually teaches, I suggest you try reading a variety of Christian commentaries instead of the tedious output of 14 year old Dawkins fanboys, smashing their face against their keyboards whilst screening autistically about sky daddies and spaghetti monsters.

As it stands, most Christians would take the verse you quoted to be a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d., not the final judgment.

Which quote? Which christians?

You really need to be very careful here with stepping into this in this way.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Which quote? Which christians?

You really need to be very careful here with stepping into this in this way.

I'll be as careless as I like thanks, boss.

 

[butchersapron]

I'll be as careless as I like thanks, boss.

I think you will as well with your sunday school level bible studies. Knock yourself out, you're going to anyway.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I think you will as well with your sunday school level bible studies. Knock yourself out, you're going to anyway.

How about mind your own fucking business

 

[butchersapron]

How about mind your own fucking business

The love of christ.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

The love of christ.

Good one

 

[NoXion]

'Most' does not mean 3. The very fact these commentaries feel the need to counter the Jerusalem interpretation just proves my point.

And I'm using a tablet, not a keyboard.

What point? You said "most Christians would take the verse you quoted to be a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d." (a claim you have yet to actually substantiate, by the way). I then pointed out that at least three of the commentators disagreed, and now you're trying to say that proves your point?

So do Biblical commentaries actually reflect lay beliefs or not?

 

[butchersapron]

What point? You said "most Christians would take the verse you quoted to be a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d." (a claim you have yet to actually substantiate, by the way). I then pointed out that at least three of the commentators disagreed, and now you're trying to say that proves your point?

So do Biblical commentaries actually reflect lay beliefs or not?

You'd think such an expert biblical exegist as him would be able to do a basic chronological timeline. Or be aware of the competitive disputes between the early churches and the scrabbling afterwards when the proclaimed immediate return failed to come that ended up with the later temples fall being substituted for the end of days. Maybe not though eh?

 

[8ball]

You'd think such an expert biblical exegist as him would be able to do a basic chronological timeline. Or be aware of the competitive disputes between the early churches and the scrabbling afterwards when the proclaimed immediate return failed to come that ended up with the later temples fall being substituted for the end of days. Maybe not though eh?

I wasn't expecting this depth of analysis on this thread, but enjoying it.

 

[Anton]

I realise that it is not possible to have a serious discussion on this topic, mainly because leftism is itself a religion and cannot tolerate rivals.

maybe i wasn't clear.

the problem i have is NOT with LGBT.
It is NOT with religious Jews
It is NOT with Muslims
It is NOT with Christians either.
It is NOT with ethnic minorities either.

the problem i have is with the left.
all of it, the anarchist left and the trot left, and Corbynistas etc.
The left is fundamentally dishonest and cannot take up some issues

the reason I posted the article wasn't to pick on a group, but just pointing out that the contradictions are too obvious.
It is not because I want it to be so, but the fact is that LGBT rights are not compatible with religion, in most cases.
to the extent that a community is religious, it tends to be against LGBT.
If Muslims gave up Islam, or Jews Judaism, Christians Christianity, then they would have no problem with LGBT. LGBT is accepted in the west to the extent the west has given up Christianity and become completely secular.

It is the religious ideology that is against LGBT.

ethnic minorities are more religious, because the societies they come from are religious. if you can't see it then open your eyes, but i think there is a wilful blindness.
that isn't going to change anytime soon, because most people are not leftists by default and it is not obvious that leftism has any real answers any more than religion.

Anarchist/Communist utopia = kingdom of heaven on earth. ie a fantasy.

the fact is that Muslim parents in the article don't want LGBT ideas taught in school because the religion doesn't tolerate open homosexuality. It is not seen as a good thing.
HOW is the left going to interact with them? sooner or later, there will probably be an Islamic party that will take a chunk of the Labour Party's Muslim vote, because the fact is that Islam is incompatible with much progressive ideology inc. abortion etc. So are other religions, but the issue is framed differently and politicised differently.

what about white religious people? I think if they voice anti LGBT sentiment, they wouldn't be part of the left at all, they would be part of the (far) right.

what i want to know is HOW the left will deal with this problem?
by denial and turning a blind eye pretending there is no problem?
attacking the person who brings up the problem as racist and homophobic?

 

[tim]

I suppose if you make the definition of "God" vague enough, then it becomes impossible to falsify. Although I think it's pretty obvious that God as described in the Bible cannot exist, since such an entity flies in the face of many things that can be demonstrated to be true.

There is no God described in the Bible. There isn't even one Jesus described in the New Testament. In the different gospels, letters and books. You'll find different authors giving their perspectives on whatever happened. The Old Testament is a collection of documents written compiled and edited over several centuries by sophisticated intelligent writers who didn't necessarily agree with each other. It's not just a simplistic narrative as claimed by the fundementalists or the facile neo-atheists they so resemble