"Moral Values" > National Security

[Relbeek Einre]

Another excellent point, Ddrak. The OT is definitely NOT about peace, love, redemption, kindness. HELLS no.

Bangzoom brushed the OT off to the side and I let him. Darn me.

[Grygonos Thunderwulf]

In the end, it's about what you believe. I have a hard time believing that today's bible is even 90% what God intended it to be. Why? Because men wrote it and men are far from infallable. Living in Kentucky, I can safely say that forward thinking churches are in short supply.
Any Christian who says that the bible doesn't contradict itself in some places is kidding themselves. Take those contradictions in the proper context and make of them what you will. Why do these contradictions exist? one of two reasons in my mind. 1.) God changed his mind on some things (how likely/unlikely is that... i don't know)
2.) See reference to fallable men writing the books of the bible.

Faith is not something easily defended, since by definition it implies belief in things that cannot be directly proved. Faith is also a dangerous thing. People are very big on being strong in their faith. This really amounts to people moving more toward close-minded thinking, for fear of someone poking a hole in what they believe. That's why protestant denominations were born IMHO. People grouped together and said here's a set of beliefs that we all "pretty much" agree with. Let's call them right and call others who don't believe them wrong.

This is why churches that simply state, we believe Jesus was the Son of God, and that he preached a message of love, and we believe you must accept that message of love to receive eternal life, are so appealing to me. They proclaim the basics of Christian faith and don't make any claims to "know" the rest. They don't ignore it, but don't claim that one view is right.

....and /ramble off

[foeham]

True left liberals have no morals, only self gratifaction and trying to tell others whats best for them.

[Ddrak]

Which is indistinguishable from far right conservatives, oddly enough.

Dd

[Relbeek Einre]

I guess there aren't many true left liberals.

[maltheos]

Another excellent point, Ddrak. The OT is definitely NOT about peace, love, redemption, kindness. HELLS no.

Bangzoom brushed the OT off to the side and I let him. Darn me.

Beeks, all kidding aside, I think you have a somewhat distorted view of the Biible. First off lets look at the OT. THe OT is (in the language you likely read it) a document that has been translated at least 2 times(possibly more). Further the languages involved have had at least 2000 years to shift in both meaning and structure.( look at Old English versus modern english and that is less than 1000 years. Further, the material was presented and prepared and filtered through the psycological and sociological structure of people that is so far from us as to be alien. The OT preaches both love and hate, tollerance and cruelty, and IMHO is best seen as a strict context for the NT, not as a guide to living ones life. Even the Torah as presented by Judiasm is wraped in comentary and interpretive documents so thickly as to be substantially more of the interpretation than the original document as it is used and taught. The OT is quite rightly used as a basis, not as a moral or theological guide.

Biblical literalist on either side of the pike -- either those who say "IT IS HIS WORD" and follow even its more lunatic pronouncments or those who quote scripture to demonstrate the flaws witin the document are IMHO living with their head in the sand.

To use Romans as an example. To use a modern metaphor. You are looking at a document originally written as advertising copy for an institution, to a culture that is very different from your own, in a different language, in an archaic dialect of that language, was translated at least 1X, and this translation may have been made by someone who is culturally and socially alien to you. This makes it likely to convey the details that you are so very devilish about as well as cheap Japanese stereo instructions or fan subtitled anime at a convention. It is inherently necessary to attempt to absorb the volume as a whole and ignore specific flanges as it is likely that the "doors of your perception" will have been clouded by the massive accumulation of cruft and folderol that that book has gathered.

Ok. Thats my 2 cents.

[Relbeek Einre]

Maltheos, all you're telling me is "Well, these parts of the Bible you mention don't count."

It's what's written. Nobody's disputing that it's what's written. All I'm hearing is a lot of rationalizations about how it doesn't count.

Again -- if the world were largely populated by Christians who followed the true meaning of the New Testament, I think the world would be a better place than it is today. I simply refuse to accept these milquetoast rationalizations and attempts to sweep under the rug anything from the Bible which conflicts with the sole message you wish it to convey.

[goth]

. I simply refuse to accept these milquetoast rationalizations and attempts to sweep under the rug anything from the Bible

im not sure what u meant by that beek, but i like butter on my toast /shrug

[Rsak]

Taking the totality of the bible under consideration rather then specific quotes and sections which can be taken out of context is not sweeping anything under the rug!

[Relbeek Einre]

The totality of the bible. Sure.

Include the Old Testament, then.

[Ddrak]

I find that Song of Solomon is the best guide for how to live your life. Followed closedly by Job.

Dd

[Rsak]

I have advocated nothing less Relbeek!

But when the New Testament says here are the things that will change then when you look at christianity at this day in age you have to take that into account. Instead you attack those who profess a faith other then yours and say this is where you are wrong when in reality those issues have already been adressed.

[Relbeek Einre]

I haven't attacked anybody, Rsak. Again, you lie.

[maltheos]

I do include it. However, It gets taken with a MUCH larger grain of salt than the New. The OT has been through so much in the way of retransaltion, reinterpretation, additions and deletions by people with an agenda, and linguistic change that it at best serves as a body of lore within which to root the new testament. All I am saying is that the Bible must be considered as a whole document with blemishes and defects due to the medium obscuring the message, and not looked at as a collection of "factoids" and quotes that while present are quite possibly artifacts of the medium and therefore serve only to dammage the relaying of the message inherent in the volume. Yeah there are some real howlingly flawed passages in there. Heck much of Leviticus is a primer on public health as written by primitive screwheads. There are reasons not to eat pork in back in biblical times -- mostly related to parisites and disease, not holy /unholy. I look at that stuff and think context as opposed to factual dictate.

Anytime one focuses on the document and ignores the message one loses alot from any treatise of philosophy, religious text, scientific textbook, or work of fiction.

[Relbeek Einre]

One can't appreciate the message without understanding the context. And I resist the supposition that there is but one message in any given work.

[Rsak]

You cannot appreciate a man, or a work -- cannot TRULY appreciate it, unless you see it for what it is, not what you idealize it to be.

What is that if not an attack at those who see the bible differently from you. You imply that there is only one view of what it is and it is yours!

The arogance is mind boggling.

[Relbeek Einre]

Yes... yes it is.

[Rsak]

It is the closest you will come to admitting the truth, but I will take it.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Skipping over the religious debate nonsense and trying to get back to the original topic...

I seriously doubt the majority of straight people have any clue just how many fags are in the military. It's interesting, really, because I'd be willing to bet the gay/straight ratio in military service is very disproportionate to that of civilians. I've spent a great deal of time in various gay chat rooms, and I swear over half the fags over the age of 25 were either currently enlisted or had been in the past. Those who weren't were dating a military guy.

What is the big deal with this, anyway? Are they afraid there's going to be homo orgies in the barracks? Are they afraid of wartime love affairs? Is there any practical reason behind the issue as a whole, or is it just bigotry in disguise? I've heard reasoning for some of it, and I must admit some of it makes sense. If lovers are in a firefight, and one is killed the other would likely drop to his side in grief as opposed to continuing to fight. This was also presented as an argument against women on the battlefield - that in some cases men (Wether the woman's SO or not) would drop to a woman's side were she wounded or killed, effectively removing him or them from the battle.
I am honestly curious. This logic specifically was pointed out to me by an army friend of mine (Who is not opposed to women and gays in the military, btw. He actually thinks women would be very effective and brutal warriors =p) who had heard as much from a CO in a similar discussion.

[Arathena]

Stepping back and looking at it from a minor distance, Jarochai, I can think of a number of reasons why open sexuality of any kind amoung members of the military isn't really the hottest of ideas, and that's not even counting gays.

Beyond the battlefield effects you've painted, there will exist the abuse of the command chain and misprioritization. It's bad as it is, it's even worse and more rampant when there exists the chance of getting into someone attractive's pants, and, then compound it with an average High School Educated, heterosexual, and quite probably slightly homophobic infantry man discovering that his C.O. wants to drill him from behind? The effects on morale and discipline can be potentially devestating.

Second, jealousy happens. So do (badly) failed relationships. Do you really want the man who's lover you stole calling the shots for your unit, knowing that he hates your guts? Do you really want the man who dumped you for the hot guy down in artillery calling the shots for you? Well... no. The best way to keep this from happening? Make em go off base for their sex. Yeah, stuff crops up, but at least fewer of the involved parties are in forced proximity to each other, which only makes things worse.

Add in the issue of rank-and-file homophobia, and all of a sudden, you've got major issues. Yeah, a good number of folks just plain don't care. But, y'know, a lot of other folks are at least a little bit frightened of getting hit on by a member of their own sex, and they simply wouldn't know how to handle it gracefully - it makes teamwork awkward and uncomfortable. And there's enough bigoted, intolerant, hateballs that can and would shoot a homosexual on identification, if they had a gun... and in the army, guess what? They've got guns.

All in all, the reasons to say 'straight men only' in the army is a whole lot similar to the reasons why it's a real bad idea to get involved with co-workers, with the added benefit that you can't go home at the end of the day, you can't quit, the command chain is much more powerful and must stay inviolate, and everyone's got guns. Mostly though, everyone's got guns - straight men only is the closest thing the army can do to forcing celibacy.