Duke students offended by reading assignment lol

Parents Forum
541

@Much2learn #539: I think the issue is the word many. You may have meant a meaning along the lines of ‘some possibly small but very visible number’, but others would be justified in reading it as ‘a number possibly reaching or exceeding a majority’—it’s a problematic word when making generalizations about some subset of a group precisely because it’s so polysemous, and can cover such a wide range of different possible subsets. Therefore, it can easily be taken as a controversial statement, because it’s unclear what you actually meant.

And to be fair, there were a number of progressives of the time who fought against, e.g., women’s suffrage—so just saying that some small subset of a group did such a thing isn’t really indicative of a general mindset among the larger group they’re a part of.

542

^^^^(some posts back)

True, Christ said nothing about homosexuality. But he did say to honor God’s (as in, God the Father’s…) commands and keep them holy, and the OT is full of fire and brimstone.

On the other hand, Christ is the new covenant… so the “love God” and “love your neighbor” commandments are the most important ones, since he said they are.

I’m going to challenge your assumption that only 1 in 10 conservative Christians reads (or has read) the Bible. People read it to prepare for a bible study, or to review what the minister preached about on Sunday, or simply for any other derived utility – enjoyment, research, advice, inspiration, etc. I’m sure not all read it regularly, but that number is higher than 10% surely. Just in my nuclear family (growing up), all four of us did. For your 10% number to equate, that means 36 Christians (out of 36) would have to be non-readers in that 40-person sample.

I do think that some Christians rely on their pastor for their Biblical teaching, thinking that the Sunday sermon is enough… in which case, they are doing their reading vicariously through the pastor. :wink:

543

Oh, for heavens’ sake. Sexuality exists along a spectrum. Some (perhaps most) people are exclusively attracted to members of the opposite sex. Some people are exclusively attracted to members of the same sex. Some people are attracted to both pretty much equally, and some are primarily “straight” or “gay,” but might under certain circumstances be willing to explore the possibility of same-sex intimacy, whether in the context of youthful experimentation or as a long-term relationship. Probably, increasing acceptance of homosexuality will increase the number of people theoretically wired for a certain level of same-sex attraction who will be willing to act on it – which I don’t see as a problem.

I do think the fact that some people are exclusively gay and lesbian (or, “born this way,” if you will) made it more of a moral imperative to legalize same-sex marriage than it would otherwise have been. But because I don’t see any secular reason to prefer heterosexual to homosexual relationships, I think that even if every gay person were actually bisexuals “choosing” a same-sex relationship, denying people in such relationships the benefits afforded to other similarly-situated people would still have been arbitrary.

To add a little bit to the discussion of Fun Home, to criticize it as non-literary for being a graphic novel is just silly. I’ll admit that I haven’t been terribly impressed with the few graphic novels I’ve encountered, even in cases in which the author has written conventional novels that I’ve liked. However, many art forms now considered canonical began as aesthetically suspect innovations, including the novel itself, which was initially regarded by many as frivolous entertainment unfit for serious discussion – and potentially dangerous to the morals of young readers.

544

@Prezbucky I meant read the whole Bible. The book that they believe is the inerrant word of God. Clearly, you are correct that essentially all Christian’s have opened a Bible and read something. Even if it was only a verse.

545

Well the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue the same sex marriage licenses was just ordered to jail.

546

Much2learn, if you saw my library at home you would understand how funny your suggestion is. I attended the seminary I passed along to you earlier. I have owned several different “Intro to the NT” books over the years. I know who Ehrman is very well, I have read Misquoting Jesus, and of course essentially all evangelical scholars, the entire list I aimed at you, are going to disagree with him, so your bulk/most bible scholars claim is completely ridiculous.

“Cherry pick example: Conservative Christians say they are all about Jesus and they want to be like Jesus…My question is all that Jesus said, from when he first speaks at his baptism, to the sermon on the mount, the the cross, to his appearances after the resurrection, what did he say about LGBTQ people As I am sure you are aware, he said nothing about it at all. He never mentions homosexuality.”

Of course that is such a ridiculous hurdle that it shouldn’t even have to be responded to. If He wanted to say something on this particular matter, something that I am sure even you would acknowledge that every religious Jewish man and woman of that time would have thought was an abomination, don’t you think He would have mentioned it? Isn’t that really the right hurdle? I can imagine a wonderful opportunity that he would have had to do so. Have you read Matthew 19:4-6? He had a perfect opportunity there to clarify God’s will on marriage. Does it sound to you like He did?

547

Let’s not forget US is established on freedom, one of which is “religion”. Why keep imposing personal beliefs on others?

548

It is amazing to me that this is controversial statement. I didn't say all Christians, or even most Christians, I said "many conservative Christians." Just as a start, the conservative Christians of the religious right have fought women's suffrage, fought the Equal Rights Amendment, fought the end of segregation, fought the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, fought birth control, and fought gay marriage. How can this be a controversial statement?

The people who fought those were doing it for political reasons or because they gave too much importance to (and misapplied) OT texts describing how the enemies of Israel should be treated – those things were written for Israel/Judah 3,000ish years ago and are not applicable to a nation whose roots were placed in the (also) Biblical concepts of Free Will and Equal Rights – “Free Will” since we all are free to choose (o r not choose) God; Equal Rights in that all may choose God, both Jew and Gentile.

Now – the Bible does not support gay marriage, per se, but Christ does tell us to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” – and no, Jesus wasn’t just talking about taxes. I think this supports the “city of man vs. city of God” premise: some things are God’s concern while others are man’s. So if a government wants to give people rights to the benefits that marriage yields, so be it: let government do so. // I support gay marriage rights.

Birth control: well, actually, the Catholics are probably the most vociferous here, as sometimes even condoms are brought into question. But really we’re talking about abortion. Yes, conservative Christians tend to value the life and rights of the unborn child. I do not think that makes them “anti-woman” per se, since certainly not all women would do that. Maybe they are “anti-right-to-abort-in-third-trimester-assuming-health-of-mother-is-ok.” That seems to be among the more popular anti-abortion stances recently, anyway. // I’m actually pro-choice for pragmatic reasons.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is still controversial: Did they go too far or not far enough? Did they create more opportunity or generations of dependents? (etc.). I think those are mainly socioeconomic and political questions. As for what the Bible would say: exempting some arcane rules for Israel and its enemies – which were written only for Israel and only for a given amount of time, a very long time ago; and nobody knows which tribe Ham was, where they went, etc., or if God forgave them – the Bible would say nobody should be treated any better or worse than anyone else, because if you follow the two greatest commandments, the Ten Commandments, and the Golden Rule… you’re naturally going to treat people well. It also says, however, that we are to be responsible for ourselves, make good decisions – and reap the rewards of good decisions and be punished for bad ones: that’s how we learn.

Overall, I think the Bible is apolitical. Many people try to paint Christ as a Socialist, but he was not; that’s easy to see when we take what he said into context and remember that he spoke in metaphors constantly. He orders us to personally minister to people; he said nothing about a huge impersonal government doing it. He was against stealing (it is a Commandment) and in favor of hard work, industry, and smart investing. At the same time, he never cared about money; he told us not to worry about it. His main concerns were how we treated each other and that we believed in and followed him, or tried to.

So – if conservative Christians do, or have, erred in their judgments on social issues, I don’t think the Bible can take too much blame for it. I think, rather, that those who are most aggressive/judgmental are in error: it’s okay to wish people would come around to Biblical ways, but it is not ever OK to judge or condemn someone. Maybe that is where the “holier than thou” wing could calm down a bit and stop throwing rocks…

549

I’ve read the Bible–all of it–and I do think, taken as a whole, both the Old and New Testament condemn homosexual behavior as a sin. But that’s not enough to determine whether homosexual marriage should be legal in the United States. First, you have to determine if you think the Biblical prohibition of homosexual behavior should be taken as commandment for all time, or whether it should be seen as something only relevant to the context of Biblical times. Almost all Christians think that some of the commands in the Bible aren’t relevant to today, including some of the ones in the New Testament. Second, even if you think the prohibition is still relevant, you have to decide if it is something that ought to be imposed by law on everybody, including people who aren’t members of the church. The Old Testament isn’t too helpful here, because it was laying out rules for a theocracy, which we don’t have. In the New Testament, Jesus displays little interest in secular laws (“render unto Caesar”), and Paul’s view is the same. The New Testament’s focus is on making people into disciples, after which they are expected to obey the moral requirements of the religion. Finally, while the Founding Fathers certainly incorporated some elements of Judeo-Christian morality into the founding documents, they also set up a separation of religion and government that has served us well. So “the Bible said so” is far from a basis for prohibiting something in the law, even if we can agree with what the Bible says about it. You need something else to base the justification for a legal position on, and the other arguments against same-sex marriage are not very strong–most boil down to “we’ve never done it that way before.”

I’ll add that there are many things that the Bible condemns as sin that few, if any, people argue should be illegal, including sex before marriage, divorce, lending money at interest, failing to honor your father and mother, and more. I note that one thing that is clearly approved in both the Old and New Testaments, and was practiced by Jesus himself, is today condemned as a sin by many Christians: drinking alcohol. Try to figure that one out.

550

^ He could have turned water into orange juice…

551

@hunt I love your post. It is very insightful as always.

I have two comments.

  1. "Almost all Christians think that some of the commands in the Bible aren't relevant to today."

If you have spend some time in fly-over country, you will realize that a huge number of people there would be deeply offended by this statement. A large number of people there believe that the Bible is inerrant and entirely relevant. You could disprove their argument by example, but they will not agree with you.

On the coasts, I think you are probably correct.

  1. "I note that one thing that is clearly approved in both the Old and New Testaments, and was practiced by Jesus himself, is today condemned as a sin by many Christians: drinking alcohol. Try to figure that one out."

In the evangelical church I was raised in they manage this by teaching that the word “wine” in the Bible actually meant “grape juice.” They say that it was wine, but it was not fermented. That is their story and they are sticking to it.

552

“A large number of people there believe that the Bible is inerrant and entirely relevant. You could disprove their argument by example, but they will not agree with you.”

Right. The women don’t cover their heads, and the women speak in church, but they’ll tell you they’re following everything in the New Testament.

553

I think the difference between the “obey every rule” crowd and the “it’s ok if we err” crowd are that the former values Jesus’ command for us to be perfect, while the latter group favors the more relaxed “all have fallen short/nobody’s perfect/we are forgiven” vibe.

Both are right, biblically: we are supposed to try to be perfect, but we can’t be, and Christ knows that. That’s why there is forgiveness: why Christ forgives, and why we are ordered to forgive one another.

554

It’s my experience that even among very conservative Christians, most believe that some of Paul’s instructions to churches were relevant to the times and aren’t applicable now–at least, when you point out they are allowing women to teach Sunday School, that some of the men have long hair, etc. I agree that many would disagree with the generalization. (Ironically, I’ve heard some folks arguing that drinking alcohol was OK in Biblical times because the water wasn’t safe to drink; because you can drink water now, alcohol is now a sin.)

Note: I would say that virtually all Christians do not believe that they are bound by all of the instructions given to the chosen people in the Old Testament, such as dietary laws.

One further point on this: people who take the most conservative, fundamental view of Biblical teaching are not, in my opinion, as prevalent (even in flyover country) as many people think.

555

“Lou, do you choose not to be gay, or it just happens?”

Short answer - yes I do."

It’s a shame you have to struggle like that. It must take up a lot of mental energy.

556

“One further point on this: people who take the most conservative, fundamental view of Biblical teaching are not, in my opinion, as prevalent (even in flyover country) as many people think.”

I agree.

557

537

Are you telling us that you feel same sex attraction, but choose not to act on it, and thus aren’t gay?

I am not trying to be snarky or rude. That is how your short answer reads to me and it seems like maybe we are all just reading over what you are telling us?

558

@Hanna "“A large number of people there believe that the Bible is inerrant and entirely relevant. You could disprove their argument by example, but they will not agree with you.”

Right. The women don’t cover their heads, and the women speak in church, but they’ll tell you they’re following everything in the New Testament."

I have to put this in the “strange but true” category. I know that it doesn’t seem to make sense. To believe it, you have to see it in person.

559

OK. I am done posting on this issue. But, I would like to state that I am not anti-women (I am a woman), I did not have ANY privilege (my parents did not have money to attend college and my whole extended family is from rural East Texas and my grandparents had to leave school to survive the Depression). Yes, I am a Christian. Yes, I have deep-seated beliefs. No, I do not really care what you do in your bedroom…just do not talk about it to me (gay straight…whatever). Do not call me names or call my kid names just because he disagrees with you and I won’t do the same either. I know that people who are not from where I live have strong opinions that are different than mine and I respect your opinion. It does not mean I have to change mine. So, perhaps I should take my accent, my Christian values, my guns and my kids and have him attend another college where they are just happy to welcome him. You can call me ignorant (I have several degrees), you can call me backwards, you can call me close-minded. You can call me anything you want if it makes you feel better but from where I am sitting it seems as if you are threatened if everyone does not agree with you. (and especially if you call us the dreaded “conservative Christian” name)

560

Basically I’m calling you neighbor, (and I’ve got the accent, the guns, and spent a large part of my childhood in a Southern Baptist Church) but my neighbors who feel as you do aren’t really comfortable with their kids applying to schools like Duke. They aren’t even comfortable with our southern public state flagship. It is interesting to me you are considering it. Duke is a wonderful university. But I’m not trying to talk anyone into anyplace. Campus culture is important.