SPFS

June 10, 2003 7:03 AM

Sexual Purity Fact Sheet. Facts and statistics related to homosexuality and sexual purity.
posted by the fire you left me (55 comments total)

is there a demo?
posted by demo at 7:04 AM on June 10, 2003

Cute, but this is just one small step away from a Fred-Phelps-type page. Which makes this one small step away from a Fred-Phelps-type post.

So let's take one small step away...
posted by soyjoy at 7:09 AM on June 10, 2003

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 -- Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

So, according to this nobody is getting into the Kingdom of Heaven anyway. Politics in general, and Christian conservative politics in general, rely on slander to discredit their opponents. Capitalism is based on greed, so pretty much anybody who can afford to read MetaFilter is in for a hot time in the afterlife.

I'm pretty familiar with this version of Christianity, I call it the Gospel of the Selective Quote. A lot of people I work with exchange emails selectively quoting from the Old Testament to prove that homosexuality is bad, capital punishment is good, women meant to be servant to man and whatever other position they're trying to prove is morally just.
posted by substrate at 7:22 AM on June 10, 2003

To quote Chief Wiggum:
Yeah, well, the Bible says a lot of things.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 7:24 AM on June 10, 2003

Not to get dragged into this type of speech which as the purpose of inciting, I would point out all of the references are from Bible passages that are interpretations. I would be happy to discuss this argument with any person that looks at the original scripture - why? because it does not say these things in the original text. The interpretations serve the purpose of hate and division.

In the interest of full disclosure and before I am labeled, I try to be a buddhist. Anymore info beyond that, you'll have to ask Ashcroft.
posted by fluffycreature at 7:29 AM on June 10, 2003

here's my fact about homosexuality :

0% of homosexuals have ever started a fight with me in a bar over nothing.

now, on the other hand, those straight devils...
posted by badzen at 7:33 AM on June 10, 2003

The Bible is the WOG (Word of God) and all those who translate, revise, interpret are channeling the WOG. There is no such thing as 'interpretations' of the Bible, all interpretations come directly from GA (God Above).
posted by PigAlien at 7:36 AM on June 10, 2003

The first quote condones masturbation. Technically.
posted by klaatu at 7:37 AM on June 10, 2003

Christians obsessed with sex?? Whoa.
posted by UncleFes at 7:38 AM on June 10, 2003

Look, whatever Gamblers Anonymous thinks, I like my bread baked with yeast, OK?
posted by klaatu at 7:41 AM on June 10, 2003

So far most of the comments here have been. . . what have they been about? Everyone's knocking at some people and being smarmy, and no one is defending it. That's great and all, but . . . no one here is not convinced. You are preaching to the choir.

It just seems a lot like Free Republic, when they take a crazy, wacked-out liberal page and proceed to characterize all liberals like that. Then every single poster says the same thing and makes fun of it.

I don't know, maybe I'm just being a content-nazi here or something.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 7:48 AM on June 10, 2003

So what you're saying is that conservative christians disapprove of homosexuality and non procreative sex in general? hmm, that is interesting. Recently, I discovered that grass is green. I will make an FPP about it soon.
posted by monkeyman at 7:51 AM on June 10, 2003

You use yeast, klaatu? I bet you mix linen with cotton, too. You shameless slut! You sure as Hell won't be sitting on the Right Hand of God in the Hereafter.
posted by kozad at 7:52 AM on June 10, 2003

I also like selective quoting. My favorite one is the one about working on Saturdays:


"And if you broke the Sabbath by working on Saturday, you were to be put to death " (Exodus 31:13-17; 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36)
posted by magullo at 7:55 AM on June 10, 2003

maybe I'm just being a content-nazi here or something.

Shame there aren't more of you around, milord.
posted by UncleFes at 7:56 AM on June 10, 2003

I'm not even going to click on the link, and I am not in the mood for a holy war, either.

I would like to note there are lots of Bible study helps with dictionaries, concordances and such in order to look up the Greek and the Hebrew of the original text. I have them in the house myself and use them often.

And finally, as a parting shot-those that generally want to please the Lord will find a way to do it, and those who don't give a rat's hiney will do as they please no matter what anyone or anything says.
posted by konolia at 7:56 AM on June 10, 2003

This is a bit fish-in-a-barrel for me. I'll second the freepy feeling.
posted by blissbat at 8:00 AM on June 10, 2003

I have a big problem with anyone who says "you can't do xyz because it wasn't allowed in something or other BC".

If it's valid now, lets make it illegal. If it's not valid now, then sod'em.

I like my calves liver soaked in milk...
posted by twine42 at 8:01 AM on June 10, 2003

meh. 'illegal' is the wrong word there. replace it as you feel fit.
posted by twine42 at 8:03 AM on June 10, 2003

While I am at it, go read the Song of Solomon, where you will find that sex is not just for procreation.

These threads annoy me so much. I could sit for eight hours explaining the difference why Jewish ceremonial law no longer applies, etc etc. It's easy to make fun of stuff you don't have a full understanding of-and yet to get that understanding would take a lot more time and effort (and for that matter, interest) than this forum is able to provide.

I mean, this isn't Biblefilter or anything.
posted by konolia at 8:05 AM on June 10, 2003

Sayeth Beavis: "This sucks. Change it."
posted by zaack at 8:11 AM on June 10, 2003

I would like to remind folks of the Dr. Laura letter that was going around a few years back when she opened her mouth about homosexuality and the bible:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Sincerely,

Very confused
posted by Pollomacho at 8:14 AM on June 10, 2003

Well Hey! The Bible doesn't say a thing about getting Rick Santorumed now, doesn't it? Must be A-OK by goddawg!
posted by DenOfSizer at 8:22 AM on June 10, 2003

The bit they quote from Genesis 19 is really laughable:

4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." 6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

(that's the part the page quotes. But then...)

8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
posted by norm at 8:24 AM on June 10, 2003

In related, yet more discussion worthy news:

Same Sex Marriage now legal in Ontario
posted by Adam_S at 8:28 AM on June 10, 2003

Konolia mentions how Jewish ceremonial law no longer applies to the Christian tradition, and two posts later someone pastes in the Dr. Laura letter, a classic straw man.

Yup, just another "Hey check out those damn wacky homo-hating Christians" flamebait thread on MakeBabyJesusCryFilter. (Preview: Ditto on the freepers comment.)
posted by brownpau at 8:31 AM on June 10, 2003

The "Dr. Laura letter" is a response-in-kind to the selective editing contained on the linked page, a page which also sports contemporary English lingo versions of the original texts without missing a beat. There's plenty of academic room to maneuver around those translations. It's also something like 3% or 4% of the total content, cherrypicked for maximum finger-waggin' value. But apparently, when you're a "good" Christian, you get to choose which parts of Leviticus you're going to obey - but, geez, the rest of the ancient proscriptions sure come in handy when you need to beat doen those nasty homosexualists!

Or is it just that the hypocritical nature of picking and choosing only those rules and regulations from the Judeo-Christian Bible that condemn what you already have decided you don't approve of lands too close to home for you to see?
posted by JollyWanker at 8:43 AM on June 10, 2003

Can I say that (IMHO) Christians seem to have a major bee in their bonnet that when someone takes the mickey out of one of them, then the whole group is being attacked? [This is not aimed at brownpau - on preview it reads that way, but I can't be arsed to reword it]

Brownpau, from my personal point of view, I'm all up for taking the piss out of "those damn wacky homo-hating Christians".

Not all Christians, just "those damn wacky homo-hating Christians"
posted by twine42 at 8:48 AM on June 10, 2003

Jolly,
Rather than pull my hair out at the lot of you-this is how I explain it. Read the Gospels and see how Jesus handles things. Since He is God and Man at the same time (basic tenet of Christianity, so don't quibble) how He acts and treats people is how God actually acts and treats people.

Now note how He treats Pharisees.

Now when you are done with that, go to the book of Acts and see how the adjustment from Jewish law takes place. The book describes actual conferences that the apostles had over such things.

Finally, the rest of the New Testament expands on what Christians should believe and practice-including chastity, fidelity, and rejection of perversion (and lying and gossip and backbiting, while we are at it.)

The Bible of Mefi imagination is a weird book indeed, and I'm glad I've never read it.
posted by konolia at 8:57 AM on June 10, 2003

Konolia mentions how Jewish ceremonial law no longer applies to the Christian tradition, and two posts later someone pastes in the Dr. Laura letter, a classic straw man

What straw man? Did anyone attack Dr. Laura? Did I even make comment on the letter other than that the discussion reminded me of it? If you have a problem with the way the post was presented or about its reaction here, why don't you make comment regarding that rather than creating an ad hominem, straw man attack of your own? Don't like the way people are reacting to something on MeFi, think its too fucking "liberal" or something of that nature? The power is at your own finger tips. Make a good argument in favor of the FPP and people may actually listen. Think, "WWJD in this situation?" and then act on it. Hmm, Jesus was an example to the people, wasn't afraid to sacrifice himself for his beliefs, yet was never willing to stoop to petty name calling and personal attacks rather made good illustrative examples of what he was arguing. Then again, he was pretty adamant about overturning the ancient and stifling Jewish laws, something the For Faith and Family ministry may have missed in their reading. Maybe they just haven't gotten to the New Testament part yet (funny how its called that the "New" Testament, makes it sound like its taking the place of some earlier Testament or religious code) they seem to have missed a lot of the Old Testament anyway.

I'm with twine, Christian does not automatically mean "homo-hating" or bible beating, or ultra right wing until it kills me, Christian could mean tolerant, forgiving, loving and rational, you know, kind of like Jesus.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:03 AM on June 10, 2003

konolia: do you know of any websites that would give us a better understanding of this? or give a quick point form summary off the top of your head or something...
posted by sip at 9:04 AM on June 10, 2003

It's funny. Of all the passages quoted against homosexuals, not one is from the Gospels. Compare this to divorce, which is attacked many times in the Gospels and yet is accepted by mainstream evangelical Protestants.

Add to this the context of Leviticus (homosexuality is as evil as eating shrimp, wearing a cotton-poly blend, or getting a tattoo) and the fact that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is clearly a story about hospitality and not a story about homosexuality...
posted by dagnyscott at 9:06 AM on June 10, 2003

These threads annoy me so much. I could sit for eight hours explaining the difference why Jewish ceremonial law no longer applies, etc etc. It's easy to make fun of stuff you don't have a full understanding of-and yet to get that understanding would take a lot more time and effort (and for that matter, interest) than this forum is able to provide.

True, on the other hand, as a non-Chistian, is not demanding that I obey Chistian ritual law in regards to sexual orientation rather like an Orthodox Jew demanding that you follow Kosher laws?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:08 AM on June 10, 2003

What's very interesting about the quotes on the page is that it jumps from Leviticus to Romans. Nothing from the Gospels ( which I personally consider the heart of true Christianity) was relevant to their argument.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:12 AM on June 10, 2003

Suprised no one else said it first:

WHO CARES?
posted by angry modem at 9:13 AM on June 10, 2003

Uh, what Dagnyscott said
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:13 AM on June 10, 2003

Obviously at least one person cares. ;)

I have to agree that it seems strange that Christian rules and ideals seem to get forced upon us all whether we like it or not. Not matter what you think, American is a Christian country. So is the UK.

I'm atheist. Why should I follow Xian rules any more than Jewish, Muslim or Buddist? Or failing that, my own?
posted by twine42 at 9:16 AM on June 10, 2003

channeling the WOG.
posted by quonsar at 9:21 AM on June 10, 2003

With ya there, PSTail. The Gospels are about Christ. The rest is about Paul taking control of the fledging reformist movement and bending it to his sick ways.

Ya read some of Paul's work and it's just terribly misogynist. The man wasn't Christ-like. Shame he had so much influence on the new church.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:23 AM on June 10, 2003

Bastard wasn't even an Apostle, he was just a poseur!
posted by Pollomacho at 9:24 AM on June 10, 2003

Did I even make comment on the letter other than that the discussion reminded me of it? If you have a problem with the way the post was presented or about its reaction here, why don't you make comment regarding that rather than creating an ad hominem, straw man attack of your own? Don't like the way people are reacting to something on MeFi, think its too fucking "liberal" or something of that nature? etc. etc.

Well, this has certainly turned out well. I take it all back.
posted by soyjoy at 9:26 AM on June 10, 2003

Offtopic-ish: I'm currently having an argument with a fundamentalist Christian preacher at my wife's church who says that Islam commands the murder of Christians, and thus it's evil. I countered with pointing out that Bosnian moslems were murdered by Serb orthodox christians or Croat catholics, but that is indicative of evil deeds done by people *in the name of* religion, and not indicative of evil in the religion itself.

He's also saying that the Bible condones the murder of gays and adulterers; I say it doesn't.

Trouble is, I'm neither a christian nor a moslem. Anyone with knowledge of the Koran and the Bible want to mail me off-mefi (brucelawsonuk AT aol.com) and give me some scriptural ammunition for my liberal arguments?
posted by Pericles at 9:27 AM on June 10, 2003

jeez....

those that generally want to please the Lord will find a way to do it, and those who don't give a rat's hiney will do as they please no matter what anyone or anything says.

I hope this isn't an allusion to the strawman that atheists have no morals, because if it is, well, you're wrong.

Since He is God and Man at the same time (basic tenet of Christianity, so don't quibble)

WHOA. "Don't quibble?" I'm sorry, I think I will. It may be a basic tenet of Christianity, or whatever, but being a basic tenet of something does NOT give something validity a priori. I'm insulted that you expect us (or even just jolly) to believe something out of hand with nothing whatsoever to back it up save faith in a book several thousand years old written over hundreds of years by scores of different unrelated authors often writing about events hundreds of years in the past by the time they wrote translated many many times from language to language to language.

The book describes actual conferences that the apostles had over such things.

So... we know they're actual because the bible says so?

The Bible of Mefi imagination is a weird book indeed, and I'm glad I've never read it.

Oh, you have; you probably just glossed over the parts mentioned in the Dr. Laura letter. The point, however, isn't that the bible is horrible. It's that selective quoting of the bible, or ANY work, is irresponsible and can be done to support anything, from banning homosexuality to selling your daughters into concubinage and ritual sacrifice (it is a pleasing odor, you know).
posted by The Michael The at 9:28 AM on June 10, 2003

WOGGA - Word Of God, God Above. I vote we rename the Bible the WOGGA.
posted by PigAlien at 9:31 AM on June 10, 2003

konolia: do you know of any websites that would give us a better understanding of this? or give a quick point form summary off the top of your head or something...

I will have to see what I can find-have to take my kid to graduation practice in an hour so not sure when I can do it.

It's funny. Of all the passages quoted against homosexuals, not one is from the Gospels. Compare this to divorce, which is attacked many times in the Gospels and yet is accepted by mainstream evangelical Protestants

So what? We still have 1st Corinthians 6:9-20. I'm not copying it-go read it in a translation of your choice.

And as for the divorce thing-just because mainstream evangelical Protestants accept it doesn't make it right. If someone is being abused, I have no problem with them finding safer quarters, and if someone had a cheating spouse (definite Scriptural out for this one) I can deal with it- but marriage is a serious thing, and divorce even more so. I do have divorced friends and I don't throw things at them-but it's a tragedy.
posted by konolia at 9:33 AM on June 10, 2003

Can I say that (IMHO) Christians seem to have a major bee in their bonnet that when someone takes the mickey out of one of them, then the whole group is being attacked?

what are we meant to do , stand idly by while you all gang up on konolia like the good humanists that you are ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:44 AM on June 10, 2003

I do have divorced friends and I don't throw things at them-but it's a tragedy.

Whyever would you throw things at them?

Xians favorite parts of the bible to ignore are the parts about not judging others. Me, I just want Tim Burton to make a movie out of Revelations.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 9:51 AM on June 10, 2003

Mefi Christians: what do you do when you meet co-religionists that express illiberal readings of the bible (ie, don't wear mixed fibre clothes, gay is wrong, sell your daughter into slavery)?

Do you challenge them, as you would a racist (I hope)? Do you remind them, that the man who they firmly & sincerely believed was God and man, omitted any reference to homosexuality ( a practice I'm sure he'd have at least heard about, as the earlier prophets he'd studied condemned it), and seemed to welcome the isolated, marginalised and needy?

Sgt: I havent seen anyone attack Konolia. I have seen humourous references to ancient dicta on moral conduct. Be more specific, please.

For some people, Silence = Death.
posted by dash_slot- at 9:52 AM on June 10, 2003

Dr. Laura is Jewish. Nothing wrong with quoting Leviticus at her.

There's no point in using Leviticus or, indeed, much of anything else in the Tanakh when debating Christians--any more than you should cite only the Bible when debating Jews or, for that matter, Catholics (a typical evangelical error). In the typological interpretation of Scripture, the Spirit (Christ) came to Earth in order to fulfill and supersede the Law (the Levitical proscriptions). Obviously, there are occasional hang-ups, some of which are reflected in Christian theological debates. Some hyper-Calvinists (or High Calvinists), for example, argue that the Ten Commandments fall under the heading of the Law--not a popular conclusion, although most Jews would in fact argue that it's the logical one.
posted by thomas j wise at 9:53 AM on June 10, 2003

Aye, sarge. Watch:

but marriage is a serious thing, and divorce even more so. I do have divorced friends and I don't throw things at them-but it's a tragedy.

Why is it a tragedy? (no, really, give me reasons that support this point of view). Or is it really something that happens in life (separation, that is, considering that marriage and divorce are merely human interpretations of partnership and separation) and shouldn't necessarily have a value, positive or negative placed on it without knowing the specifics of each situation?

I guess you'd really disagree if I said that marriage is an unnecessary social control and I'll die before I ever take posession of a woman in such a way. I'm content living and loving as a homo sapien and need no divine intervention, thanks.
posted by The Michael The at 9:57 AM on June 10, 2003

Is anyone actually looking through the whole post, or just reacting to the scripture quotes off the top? Because there's more than just those quotes. I'm a little surprised at the lack of judgement/commentary/moralizing/preaching; it seems to be a relatively well organized collection of stories about the subject at hand. In fact, sans the scripture, it could almost be an ACLU fact sheet.

Funny how people get worked up about Bible quotes here. Personally, they don't bother me. To my atheist mind, they might as well be from Shakespeare or Twain for all the value I'll place in them.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 10:03 AM on June 10, 2003

I believe Jesse "The Body" Ventura said it best: Religion is a crutch for the weak-minded.

If you can't decide what's right and wrong for yourself, just ask your local priest to make up some good arguments! Then it'll be ok to bash gays, kill jews, kill arabs, beat women, and whatever else you stupid rednecks want to do. 'Cause God said so!
posted by zekinskia at 10:09 AM on June 10, 2003

jesus wept.
posted by quonsar at 10:12 AM on June 10, 2003

I'm with The Michael The: I'm insulted that you expect us (or even just jolly) to believe something out of hand with nothing whatsoever to back it up save faith in a book several thousand years old written over hundreds of years by scores of different unrelated authors often writing about events hundreds of years in the past by the time they wrote translated many many times from language to language to language.

What I can't get over is how many people take the Bible to be such a guiding text when it's so bloody uneven (and self-contradictory). What kind of omnipotent being can't even get his own book straight? How do you know which part to believe and follow, and which part to ignore? On whose authority?

If it's okay to only believe part of it, then why not just write your own book of rules based on what you believe, something that's internally consistent, respectful of human rights, and relevant to modern times?

Oh wait, that's what humanists do (though they don't typically write it down).
posted by beth at 10:20 AM on June 10, 2003

Heh, when I saw "WOG" while scanning down the page I assumed it meant "War On Gays".
posted by uosuaq at 10:26 AM on June 10, 2003