NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070427/LOCAL/704270537

I'm not sure whether this is true or not, since I'm exceedingly lazy and haven't looked up the bible passage. But true or not, it annoys me that this vandal would be so...annoying. Heh. A lot of things annoy me lately.

Billboard quoted Matthew 8:5-13. Matthew 8:5-13 is the passage about Jesus healing a centurion's servant because the centurion had faith. He essentially healed the servant of what was a relatively high rank in the Roman legions, and even today high ranking military officials regularly keep personal staff. I fail to see how Matthew 8:5-13 approves of a gay couple.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070427/LOCAL/704270537

I'm not sure whether this is true or not, since I'm exceedingly lazy and haven't looked up the bible passage. But true or not, it annoys me that this vandal would be so...annoying. Heh. A lot of things annoy me lately.

site is blocked for me, can someone cut and paste the article?

Billboard quoted Matthew 8:5-13. Matthew 8:5-13 is the passage about Jesus healing a centurion's servant because the centurion had faith. He essentially healed the servant of what was a relatively high rank in the Roman legions, and even today high ranking military officials regularly keep personal staff. I fail to see how Matthew 8:5-13 approves of a gay couple.

Indeed. I see nothing in those verses that approves of a gay couple.

Billboard quoted Matthew 8:5-13. Matthew 8:5-13 is the passage about Jesus healing a centurion's servant because the centurion had faith. He essentially healed the servant of what was a relatively high rank in the Roman legions, and even today high ranking military officials regularly keep personal staff. I fail to see how Matthew 8:5-13 approves of a gay couple.
A century of 80 or so men is about halfway between platoon and company. IIRC today captains don't keep personal staff.

Worst thing you can do is give publicity to the ignorant.

Signs spark biblical debate about homosexuality
Church's billboards that contend Bible approves of gays attract vandals and a countercampaign

By Robert King
robert.king@indystar.com

A vandal's own statement -- the words "Lie, lie, lie" spray-painted in red -- delivered an opposing view above them.
In some ways, the argument in giant letters above an Eastside street reflects society's ongoing argument over homosexuality -- on issues ranging from same-sex marriage to gay clergy.
The discussion just got more intense in Indianapolis where 22 billboards and 1,000 yard signs went up recently as part of a campaign based on the premise that the Bible approves of gays and lesbians.
The signs are part of a joint effort between Faith in America, a national gay advocacy group, and Jesus Metropolitan Community Church, an Indianapolis congregation rooted in the belief that homosexuality is acceptable to God.
Featuring portraits of Jesus and other biblical figures, the billboards and 1,000 yard signs in Indianapolis proclaim things like "Jesus said some are born gay" while citing Bible passages. Some billboards suggest that key Bible figures, such as David and Ruth, were involved in gay relationships.
The groups hope to change the public debate by citing the same book often used against them, with a contention that the Bible does not call on Christians to reject homosexuality.
"Most people right now think the debate over homosexuality is between those who love the Bible -- conservative Christians -- and those who want to throw the Bible out -- godless homosexuals," said Jesus Metropolitan pastor Jeff Miner, who is gay. "That is not reality. This is a debate between people who love the Bible."
He suggests that the vandalism of two signs last weekend is "an indication of the power of the ideas we are sharing."
The countercampaign

The Rev. Andy Hunt decried both the message of the billboard and the vandalism it provoked. "It ignites passions whenever someone brings a lie against the god you worship. But we can't go down to their level," said Hunt, pastor of Body of Christ Community Church on the Northside. "We have to be able to fight a lie with the truth."
He said he nearly drove into a power pole the first time he passed a yard sign with the message: "Jesus affirmed a gay couple." Then he cried.
The message is such a distortion of the Bible's clear opposition to homosexual behavior, he said, that he has begun going to the signs and praying people won't be misled. "That is an absolute affront against God," he said.
Hunt is one of a handful of pastors commissioned by the Indiana Family Institute, a conservative faith-based organization opposed to gay marriage, to respond to the billboard claims with written counterpoints.
The institute plans to post the counter-arguments on its Web site. Given the expense, there are no plans to start a billboard war, said Ryan McCann, the institute's director of operations and public policy.
The billboard campaign, which is scheduled to run on Clear Channel signs for 30 days, cost $42,502. It is a follow-up to a $55,000 campaign last summer that asked the question "Would Jesus discriminate?"
Faith in America has conducted similar billboard campaigns in North Carolina, where it is based. And it has run similar messages in newspaper ads in Baltimore and Washington, D.C., and through direct mail in Colorado Springs, Colo., said Jimmy Creech, Faith in America's executive director.
The other campaigns drew little public response. The organization's goal, as stated on its Web site, is to educate people about "religion-based bigotry."
The organization draws key support from furniture maker Mitchell Gold, who is gay, and two private foundations that support gay rights causes -- the Evelyn & Walter Haas Jr. Fund of San Francisco and the Denver-based Gill Foundation.
The group is putting up the billboards in major cities that have local congregations strong enough to support the efforts, Creech said.
Reading ancient texts

To that end, Miner's Northeastside church is sponsoring what will eventually include 2,000 yard signs that support the billboard campaign: a Web site, wouldjesusdiscriminate.com, T-shirts and bumper stickers. All told, the billboard and sign campaign could cost $100,000.
A third blitz of billboards and signs in June will trumpet how the Bible has been used to justify slavery, opposition to women's rights and taboos against interracial marriage.
Miner acknowledges it is difficult to convey theology in a few words on a billboard or a yard sign. But he hopes it provokes debate.
Miner has written a book on the Bible's view of gay relationships, "The Children are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-sex Relationships." He makes his case by looking at the wording in the original Greek and Hebrew, as well as cultural practices in biblical times. He said the Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality, for instance, was directed at the Egyptians and their practice of temple prostitution, not committed relationships.
When the New Testament tells the story of a eunuch being baptized, Miner said, it was done with a widespread societal belief that all eunuchs were gay. Thus, baptizing a eunuch with no reference to condemning his behavior would have been an endorsement of his homosexuality.
Others skeptical

Other ministers remain certain that the Bible consistently says homosexuality is sinful. In Genesis, the story of Sodom's destruction decries homosexuality, said the Rev. Bob Taylor, of Colonial Hills Baptist Church, a Northeastside congregation. In First Corinthians, Paul says gays are among those who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
One Jewish scholar goes further. Rabbi Arnold Bienstock, an adjunct professor of religion at Butler University, said endorsements of homosexuality can't be found in the Bible.
The type of long-term, monogamous gay relationships Miner's church supports didn't exist in biblical times, Bienstock said. Homosexual acts were deemed unacceptable, as the oft-quoted passage in Leviticus -- that homosexuality is an abomination -- states.
The idea that Ruth was in a romantic relationship with Naomi is a "creative" interpretation that ignores the fact that Ruth wound up marrying a man named Boaz, Bienstock said. "He is simply twisting things inside out and around."
Taylor agreed.
"It is just an outright lie," he said. "They have just made a great leap in sound logic."
The billboard campaign doesn't worry him, though, Taylor said, because the Bible is so clear on the issue. "People will always find an excuse to do what they want to do."


Call Star reporter Robert King at (317) 444-6089.

Billboard quoted Matthew 8:5-13. Matthew 8:5-13 is the passage about Jesus healing a centurion's servant because the centurion had faith. He essentially healed the servant of what was a relatively high rank in the Roman legions, and even today high ranking military officials regularly keep personal staff. I fail to see how Matthew 8:5-13 approves of a gay couple.... it's a stretch, but I can see it being that the Roman wasn't a Jew. thus one of the "godless heathens". yet he still had faith reguardless that this life MAY not be according to the Bible.

a stretch, mind you. but that's what they might have ment.

oh and thanks LancasterCounty

Billboard quoted Matthew 8:5-13. Matthew 8:5-13 is the passage about Jesus healing a centurion's servant because the centurion had faith. He essentially healed the servant of what was a relatively high rank in the Roman legions, and even today high ranking military officials regularly keep personal staff. I fail to see how Matthew 8:5-13 approves of a gay couple.

Well, aside from the fact that centurions would fuck their servants, seeing as how they were Roman and all.

http://mcwilliams.com/books/aint/309.htm

Ctrl+F for "centurion." It'll explain everything in far greater detail than I could.

http://mcwilliams.com/books/aint/309.htm
So Jesus approved of sexual slavery, interesting . . .
*rubs chin thoughtfully*
To completely change the subject, does anyone know of somewhere in the New York area that sells bear traps, chloroform and/or tasers? Preferably without asking any awkward questions about what I intend to use them for.

So Jesus approved of sexual slavery, interesting . . .
*rubs chin thoughtfully*
To completely change the subject, does anyone know of somewhere in the New York area that sells bear traps, chloroform and/or tasers? Preferably without asking any awkward questions about what I intend to use them for.

Everywhere?

http://mcwilliams.com/books/aint/309.htm

Ctrl+F for "centurion." It'll explain everything in far greater detail than I could.

It's still a hell of a stretch. While a homosexual relationship may have been the connotation, the leaps made from "boy" to "body-slave" aren't justifiable. The relationship between the boy and centurion could just as easily have been familial or platonic.

Apparently, the words 'servant' differs depending on the translation and in others it means, 'child' or even 'young man'.

Young's Literal Transation is the most 'gay friendly' sounding translation. It is also one of the most accurate translations.

So Jesus approved of sexual slavery, interesting . . .
*rubs chin thoughtfully*
To completely change the subject, does anyone know of somewhere in the New York area that sells bear traps, chloroform and/or tasers? Preferably without asking any awkward questions about what I intend to use them for.

Exactly how completely are we changing the subject?

Oh, and I still have some chloroform left from a previous adventure. :)

I fail to see the connection.

I fail to see the connection.

Then follow one of the links so helpfully provided.

Vandals suck, heck, they go about painting those crappy little anarchy A's and the word lies on newspaper mailboxes around the OSU campus. If I ever catch one in the act I'll whup him real good.

If I ever caught the person who did this in the act, I'd whup them real good too.

Vandals are low on my totem pole, not even worthy of contempt, but rather, of pity. They don't have the balls to confront their own personal challenges in an open sphere, where they'd be vulnerable to public criticism, they just go out and ruin other people's stuff. It's pathetic, if you must ask me, pathetic and silly.

I hate vandals.

If you think deeper 8+5=13. Also, they didn't even make it sound biblish at all. It would say "a man and his brother" or something not "Jesus...gay couple."

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/319.jpg

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/319.jpg

Heh. That's actually hilarious. Thank you for sharing that.

It's all made up anyway. Might as well add some stuff that make the bible seem less like a tome for assholes. Non-assholes who like the bible - you and me have always been on good terms.

It's all made up anyway. Might as well add some stuff that make the bible seem less like a tome for assholes. Non-assholes who like the bible - you and me have always been on good terms.

YEAH. if you want to add a bit of subtext to the centurion story and have the servant be his lover, GO FOR IT. SURE that means that jesus is OK with gay sex because otherwise he would just let the guy die as the disgusting sinner the opposition thinks he is.

its as good an interpretation as any.

If I ever caught the person who did this in the act, I'd whup them real good too.


Vandilism vs Vigilantism. Interesting

Vandilism vs Vigilantism. Interesting

The Onion has an article for everything:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31038

Anyway, I like graffiti. But just randomly spraypainting "Lies" on stuff is stupid.

Except maybe newspaper dispensers, in which case it's probably fairly accurate.

The Onion has an article for everything:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31038

Anyway, I like graffiti. But just randomly spraypainting "Lies" on stuff is stupid.

Except maybe newspaper dispensers, in which case it's probably fairly accurate.

I like Graffiti if it's...
1) artistic and not just random words plastered everywhere.
2) without the profanity.

YEAH. if you want to add a bit of subtext to the centurion story and have the servant be his lover, GO FOR IT. SURE that means that jesus is OK with gay sex because otherwise he would just let the guy die as the disgusting sinner the opposition thinks he is.

its as good an interpretation as any.

Well, when you consider the other possible interpretations, this is not such a bad one. For example, if we translate the original greek word as 'slave' rather than 'lover', we end up with Jesus supporting slavery.

Well, when you consider the other possible interpretations, this is not such a bad one. For example, if we translate the original greek word as 'slave' rather than 'lover', we end up with Jesus supporting slavery.

true

or we could just take the story as told and think that jesus was impressed with the guy's faith and didnt give a fig about the politics involved.

He said he nearly drove into a power pole the first time he passed a yard sign with the message: "Jesus affirmed a gay couple." Then he cried.

What a pansy.

First Jesus came to seek and save the sinners not those who thought they were better than everyone else like the Pharisees. Jesus often ate with sinners which in Israel at the time to share a meal with someone was a sign of deep friendship. Just because he associated with these does not mean he condoned their sin. Jesus ate with the hated tax collector Zacchaeus does that mean he approved of the fact that he very likely stole money from those who he collected taxes from? I don't think so. He also saved the adulterous women from being stoned. Does that mean that Jesus condones adultery? No it doesn't. Jesus came to minister to the outcasts of society not to the priests. I think if we say that Jesus approved of this man's sin (if we assume that he was in a homosexual relationship I'm not saying he was) we are reading dangerously between the lines.

I think if we say that Jesus approved of this man's sin (if we assume that he was in a homosexual relationship I'm not saying he was) we are reading dangerously between the lines.

The only danger is caring what "Jesus" approved of.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070427/LOCAL/704270537

I'm not sure whether this is true or not, since I'm exceedingly lazy and haven't looked up the bible passage. But true or not, it annoys me that this vandal would be so...annoying. Heh. A lot of things annoy me lately.

Ok, sure the Biblical passage quoted had nothing to do with homosexuals or marriage, but whoever did that is an asshole.

The only danger is caring what "Jesus" approved of.Right being God and all we shouldn't care about what he approves of. Next.

Right being God and all we shouldn't care about what he approves of. Next.
Well, since the U.S. isn't a theocracy, no, no we should not.

Right being God and all we shouldn't care about what he approves of. Next.

I don't believe that. Can't make me. Shouldn't want to make me. Should mind your own business.

Well, since the U.S. isn't a theocracy, no, no we should not.Since when did the US government come into the picture?

I don't believe that. Can't make me. Shouldn't want to make me. Should mind your own business.I don't care if you don't believe that. I do care however when people misinterpret the Bible.

Right being God and all we shouldn't care about what he approves of. Next.

Why would you care about the approval of the fictitious?

Since when did the US government come into the picture?

Well, since the purpose of the billboard is to drum up support against laws attempting to ban same-sex marriage, it's quite relevant.

Well, since the purpose of the billboard is to drum up support against laws attempting to ban same-sex marriage, it's quite relevant.True honestly I could care less whether or not gay marriage is made a law. The government isn't the Church. If homosexuals want to get married why stop them? I don't think that gay marriage will destroy the foundation of traditional marriage like some people say. It's not like these people are in a traditional relationship anyways.

Why would you care about the approval of the fictitious?

HOW far to the left is Fass now?

HOW far to the left is Fass now?

What the fuck does atheism have to do with one's stance on economic issues?

What the fuck does atheism have to do with one's stance on economic issues?

Economic issues? Since when was the economy brought up? I was pointing out the fact that Fass said:

Why would you care about the approval of the fictitious?

in relation to the Bible, acting like it wouldn't offend Cookavich, and that that was surprisingly left wing for Fass.

Economic issues? Since when was the economy brought up? I was pointing out the fact that Fass said:



in relation to the Bible, acting like it wouldn't offend Cookavich, and that that was surprisingly left wing for Fass.

"Left wing" refers to one's stance on economic issues.

"Left wing" refers to one's stance on economic issues.

Fine, whatever you say.

HOW far liberal has Fass gone now?

Fine, whatever you say.

HOW far liberal has Fass gone now?

What the hell does atheism have to do with one's stance on social issues?

What the hell does atheism have to do with one's stance on social issues?

Usually, atheism and religion bashing is associated with people who have a liberal view on social issues. I rarely see a conservative atheist who bashes religion.

Usually, atheism and religion bashing is associated with people who have a liberal view on social issues. I rarely see a conservative atheist who bashes religion.

Well, you haven't been looking hard enough.

Well, you haven't been looking hard enough.

Name a conservative who is an atheist and bashes all religion.

Name a conservative who is an atheist and bashes all religion.

MTAE.

MTAE.

You're kidding me, right? Means to an End is, last I checked, just a troll. Even then, I also think he was Christian, wasn't he?

Name a conservative who is an atheist and bashes all religion.

Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand.

According to Cthulhu, she's right-wing. Not conservative.

According to Cthulhu, she's right-wing. Not conservative.

Well, if we're going to play that game, I guess it'd be impossible for a Conservative to bash religion because, apparently, Conservative = Religious.

Well, if we're going to play that game, I guess it'd be impossible for a Conservative to bash religion because, apparently, Conservative = Religious.

Hey, I was just telling you what Cthulhu told me. Right-wing and left-wing are in relation to economics, and liberal and conservative are in relation to social views. And yeah, usually conservatives are religious. Not always, just usually.

http://mcwilliams.com/books/aint/309.htm

Ctrl+F for "centurion." It'll explain everything in far greater detail than I could.

Interesting. The only glaring discrepancy I noted was Myth #9. He made a blatant assertion, but failed to provide any support; I would like to his line of reasoning.

I don't care if you don't believe that. I do care however when people misinterpret the Bible.

Yeah, I get you. I hate it when people misinterpret Moby Dick. Moby Dick was the whale. There was no Captain Dick.

Yeah, I get you. I hate it when people misinterpret Moby Dick. Moby Dick was the whale. There was no Captain Dick.Funny you should pick Moby Dick. This is coming from the guy who would like to have sex with his clone. :p

Billboard quoted Matthew 8:5-13. Matthew 8:5-13 is the passage about Jesus healing a centurion's servant because the centurion had faith. He essentially healed the servant of what was a relatively high rank in the Roman legions, and even today high ranking military officials regularly keep personal staff. I fail to see how Matthew 8:5-13 approves of a gay couple.

aye. I glad they called this group on its lie. The fact is Jesus never spoke of homosexuality one way or the other(in the Bible at least) and there are other Bible verses that clearly show homosexuality to be wrong. This group tries, but fails.

According to Cthulhu, she's right-wing. Not conservative.

Socially she was quite conservative.

Why would you care about the approval of the fictitious?
depends on the fictitious.
I like to think Horton approves of the way I try to live my life.
And I'm damn certain the Cat-in-the-Hat approves of LG.

Yeah, I get you. I hate it when people misinterpret Moby Dick. Moby Dick was the whale. There was no Captain Dick.
yes there is. That's my pet name for lil' DH.
well, it is now.
'Avast, m'hearty! Cap'n Dick wishes to enter thee tunnel o' lurv and board thee poopdeck!"

Socially she was quite conservative.

She seemed to have a rape fetish. Would that be considered conservative?

depends on the fictitious.
I like to think Horton approves of the way I try to live my life.
And I'm damn certain the Cat-in-the-Hat approves of LG.

A person can life one's life in a way a fictional idol would approve of. If a fictional character's ideals are one you value, fictionality doesn't make those ideals any less valuable to you. Or any less worthwhile.

And it's nice of you to say. Cat is one of my heroes. :)

Funny you should pick Moby Dick. This is coming from the guy who would like to have sex with his clone. :p

I'm hot. Or at least doable.

"Left wing" refers to one's stance on economic issues.

That is not necessarily true CthulhuFhtagn.