Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/us/rho…)
P.S. David: "I know you're, like, six busy people locked in perpetual battle with each other" SQUEEEEEE!
A gay, sex advice columnist and an homophobe "debating" the bible? What for?
I guess it would be entertaining. It's not likely to change anyone's mind though, or give anyone any new perspective. I think Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins in their discussions with various theologians have pretty much covered this topic extensively.
If it's televised, however, I doubt this NOM guy will show.
Dan Savage makes a reasonable critique.
Brian Brown will say Dan is just interpreting things wrong.
Dan will say something funny and reasonable.
Brian will say Dan is being mean and also that since he disagrees with Brian, he must be wrong.
People who agree with Dan will think Dan embarrassed Brian who was ignorant and bigoted. People who agree with Brian will think Dan was mean and embarrassed himself by not agreeing with them and being gay.
Dan will be right, but that simply doesn't matter.
And let's see if Brian Brown has bigger stones than Hutcherson did.
Please pick 3am at Club Z.
Still.... Nothing would be actually decided or established, but it would so much fun to watch.
But only if you have a contract that both sides have to put $100,000 in escrow, to be paid to the other if they back out or fail to show up and perform adequately. Or as much cash as you and Tim Keck can front. I'm pretty sure you'll double your money.
Thanks.
Also, this reminds me of fun anecdote I first read of in A History of Jewish Costume by Alfred Rubens--some hundreds of years ago in Europe, the priests decided that the best way to convert the Jews would be to hold public debates with Rabbis on the Bible. The priests thought that it was a certainty that they would be able to defeat the Rabbis in debate, prove the superiority of Christianity, and gain the Jewish spectators as converts.
The problem was that most of the priests were barely literate (if that) and didn't really understand their holy book beyond regurgitated talking points. The Rabbis were all literate and well-read at that, even when it came to Christian texts, and ran circles around the priests at the debates, which became so embarrassing the higher-ups in the church had to step in and put a stop to them to save face.
I guess what I'm saying is that things haven't really changed!
Just "the bible" is not a debate topic.
"Any debate where he gets to quote scripture at you is a huge win for his side."
Not necessarily.
Have you ever watched "Thank You For Smoking"?
If not, do so this weekend. It is a great movie.
"Winning" a debate is not so much about showing that your opponent is wrong.
It is more about showing that you are right.
Dan can "win" this easily by doing what he did before. By pointing out that there are passages in the Bible (such as slavery) that we ignore because they conflict with our modern morality.
So Dan's opponent either has to come out in favor of slavery OR go off on a different tangent.
Either way, Dan wins.
Savage responds saying "sure, but not on just any terms, here are some minimum rules for the debate." Brown comes back with "You are a coward and I will only meet you on the open field of battle, barefisted, with none of your little rules." Nothing happens, both sides declare victory, sneering at the other side's notion of a "fair fight".
It's not like we haven't seen this sort of crap before.
I maintain that agreeing to debate Biblical morality sets the frame in such a way that there is no way to win. A knowledgeable preacher can equivocate all day and all night about what the Bible "really" says.
Keep in mind this guy could not even articulate why gay marriage threatens his marriage on the John Stossel show on Fox News. He basically got laughed off the set.
But of course, those on Brown's side will take his embarrasment as "persecution," and it will "prove" to them that they must be right. Nothing get's a Christian's dick harder than feeling persecuted.
And I dunno, I think this does stand a chance to accomplish something. Support for NOM is going to be eroded a bit at a time, and a chance to confront a bigwig in their organization- not some affiliated lawyer or some sympathetic Republican lawmaker, but an actual executive in the actual NOM- is a great opportunity to do a lot of eroding. I couldn't cite numbers or anything but I think there's still a lot of people out there who are waffling on the matter, or whose understanding of it is flimsy enough that a high-profile Discussion of it might help change their minds.
But even if it doesn't do any good, I'm still looking forward to just seeing Dan get to tear into Brown. It'll be a morale booster. I like those.
Wrestling with people full of shit and covered in shit will result in you getting covered in shit. Sometimes it is better to let them reveal their true colors without you. And, these people are looking for gifts that the right can use. Ways to inject enthusiasm into their fundraising campaigns. Ways to destract people from the actions of fellow Christians like Sam Harris and from the actions of Christian legislators.
Without some kind of mutually agreed authority then this will likely result in proclamations being made about verses being taken out of context or that specific word(s) is defined incorrectly. Don't forget there are some differences between the Catholic and Protestant Bible to keep in mind. Don't forget that denominations within Christanity don't agree. Every denomination, church, or person can't have the right interpretation, right? Therefore...
Or would they debate the question of same sex marriage which, let's face it, is a decision in the hands of civil authorities, not religious authorities. Perhaps they could debate whether civil law should be dictated by religious law or at least a moral code promoted by religion?
The challenge was kinda vague. What is the question that they will debate?
The challenge was also foolishly made by Mr. Brown. He allowed Mr. Savage to choose the time and place. What would Sun Tzu say about that?
You're so right. We need to return to biblical values. Who's with me on a campaign to legalize sex slavery?
'When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.' Exodus 21
And we must redefine marriage as one man many women. I really want to be able to marry my female slaves as well as free women.
'If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.' Exodus 21
Our soldiers need to get more biblical too. They should be permitted to rape & pillage in a biblical manner.
'So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.' Judges 21 (there are numerous additional verses).
Now I know that Peter's dream means we don't need to worry about pork or shellfish but female purity is a serious problem. I am forced to work with women during their period. We must change the law on this.
' And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.' Leviticus 15
So please, join me and every right-thinking follower of the true bible in bringing our great nation back to true biblical values.
Was Abraham a horrible sinner? Was Issac? Was Jacob? What about King Solomon or King David? Didn't they have multiple wives and concubines? Does that not make them perverts?
I know that a lot of Christians say that the entire law contained in the "Old" Testament is cancelled and there is now a "New" Testament with a new set of laws, but where is there any codification of that New law? Doesn't the New law still approve of slavery? Doesn't the New law still view women as property? Doesn't the new law forbid charging interest? Doesn't the new law say that people should pray in private? Doesn't Matthew 5:17-18 say that the Old law is still in force? And if the Old law is cancelled (or fulfilled), then why do Christians continue to refer to it when it suits their purposes? Shouldn't they stop that? Does Mr. Brown ever refer to it?
No, that makes them typical rich guys.
Sign me up!!!
First question for the Brown/Savage debate: "Why should a thrice-married, two-time adulterer like Newt Gingrich have the right to marry and divorce as many times as he wants, but a same-sex couple that have been together for decades should be denied that same fundamental right?" Since "procreation" isn't an issue for Newt anymore, I'm curious what possible reason our society favors Newt's ideal of "disposable marriage", over the long-term monogamous relationships that gay couples have managed.
--------
Me again: there's no reason to assume that Newt is only a two-time adulterer, but yeah, this is where the traditionalists are vulnerable. If marriage is about making sure that mothers and fathers stay together to raise their children, marriages such as Newt's would be illegal, as they once were in some states.
If marriage is what the Bible says it is, and if that definition should be reflected in our laws, then marriages such as Newt's would be illegal.
Town Hall, Seattle. Please.
Which edition?
We should try to get congress to investigate the Christian bashing in America, but also Islam bashing by these filthy liberals.
#13 has it right. No matter what, Dan won't be able to win the "other" side over. It's like the birthers, if you asked them what would convince them Obama is legit, they'd answer "nothing"*.
Peace.
PS: *This way, the US won't have had a true black President...
Dan has to gas up first: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co…
Oh yes, and I would *so* watch this. Please post it to youtube!
So Dan ... you can win this argument. PLEASE ... for the sake of the cause ... reign in the salty language and generic diatribes and instead rely on your eloquence and passion and TRUTH!
Having the debate at a more sober location, but still on Savage's home turf, and in the evening, would still be a very serious advantage. Having the event at a Unitarian church might be good, but I think a Presbyterian church might be better for neutral ground since the national church leaders are split on gay rights issues. In my opinion a Presbyterian minister would be a good choice for moderator for similar reasons.
The topic of the debate should be restricted to the content of Savage's speech at the Journalism Convention. This seems quite fair considering this is the reason that Brown is issuing the challenge in the first place. Savage said very specific things about the Bible in that speech, and if you want to confirm that what he said is true all you really need to do is read the Bible. The alternative is to debate the morality of what the Bible says about these things.
If Savage wants to accept this challenge I think the next step is to work out the details and terms of the debate, and publicly name his terms for Brown to accept or reject. If Brown wishes to negotiate the terms of the debate, this negotiation should be very very public.
But as I said before, it sounds like Brown is offering to debate Savage on Savage's terms.
(And I would drive up to Seattle to see this so I hope it happens, but I expect Brown to reject Savage's terms and then ironically call Savage a coward.)
Have a debate with oppressor Brian Brown minus the profanity so as to open people's minds to the damage he is doing to our country and our people's right to equality. A top-notch debater may perhaps verbally reduce an opponent to jelly by both razor-sharp logic and by keeping cool and calm + avoiding profanity. Profanity in front of Brown may just make Brown focus more on your profanity and less on debating the merit of your arguments.
"To the death!"
"No, to the pain...I will leave you wallowing in freakish misery forever."
This so needs to happen - go get him Dan!
You can tell she was pretty eager and jumped the gun...she took her cue too early. The other kids are waving to their friends and laughing. They obviously are not offended, and were likely only there to walk out.
I just wonder if they were being used by an adult, or came up with it themselves.