May 9th, 2014
08:34 AM ET
Were TV hosts' religious beliefs a problem?
(CNN) – Twin brothers David and Jason Benham have lost their opportunity to host their own HGTV show.
The brothers ran afoul of the network after the site Right Wing Watch published a post about the pair, labeling David Benham as an "anti-gay, anti-choice extremist" for reportedly leading a prayer rally in 2012 outside of the Democratic National Convention held in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The site posted a recording of Benham talking to a talk show host about "homosexuality and its agenda that is attacking the nation" and "demonic ideologies" taking hold in colleges and public schools.
Benham also discusses the fight for North Carolina's Amendment One, which involved a ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions in the state constitution.
The Benham brothers were the planned stars of the HGTV show "Flip It Forward," set to premiere in October, in which they would have helped families purchase homes they otherwise could not afford.FULL STORY
About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.
The CNN front page is leading with the headline Benham twins: HGTV got bullied
I think there is some truth to this.
Having read what Right Wing Watch actually printed
The expression "sins of the father" comes to mind..
I for one am pleased with their decision. It is part of a larger crackdown on giving bigots a spotlight in this country; a trend that seems to be gaining momentum.
That's a fair and balanced article by CNN on the front page.
Regarding the 'agenda' issue, this is not new, here is something I posted a while back regarding people's perception concerning the issue:
Vic, gays aren't "recruiting". There isn't some kind of "red rover come over" conspiracy going on. They are demanding full equality. They don't want to have to hide in the shadows, in a 'separate but equal' kind of way.
Here's another CNN headline showing how they are forced to behave by society today:
More than half of gay, lesbian employees still closeted at work
"The majority, or 53%, of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees are closeted at work, according to a random poll of 806 LGBT and 879 non-LGBT respondents published by the Human Rights Campaign."
Yeah, Vic, I don't think you really helped your case by referring back to that one. "Recruiting" is a myth, and a rather paranoid one at that. Asking for acceptance is not recruiting.
Let us pray:
Heavenly Father, we thank you this day for not making any effort to help the homeless or feed the hungry. Lord we understand how little you care for us and your lack of attention to murders and catastrophes is a gesture of love and disregard. In Jesus’ name we pray. Amen.
I believe in electricity. I have tested it. I have proof I can share.
I don't understand why anyone wouldn't.
I don't believe in a christian god. I cannot test its existance, and there is no proof.
I do understand how a child could believe in a god if it is lied to by parents figures of authority, but at some point they should start thinking for themselves and stop descriminating.
Alias, your point is well taken but unfortunately, the indoctrination for many adults, is impossible to break free from. That is how an otherwise "normal" person can simultaneously be delusional. The brain can compartmentalize the religion away from the common sense. Indoctrinating children into a religion is a form of child abuse and the damage often can't be undone.
We can prove that.
There are people who escape North Korea but still think Kim Jung Fat III can hear their thoughts.
You mean.....he can't?
But if 100% of the people voted for him, why would anyone leave?
LIBERALS DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOOD FOR THEM!
NO NEED TO SHOUT
"it is hard to deny the power of the gospel to change the lives of former cannibals."
How does that work when they tell cannibals about all the references to cannibalism in the Bible including eating Jesus' body and drinking his blood?
Electricity, you can test its effects, you can feel its effects but alas you cannot see it, you can only observe its effect. Many believe they see and feel God's effects. While you may deny His existence, it is hard to deny the power of the gospel to change the lives of former cannibals. A feat that would be difficult for an atheist to accomplish in such a short time period.
That is giving credit where credit isn't due because regardless of how many say they feel his presence or what impact you say the gospels have, you still have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that god exists.
Truth....not only beyond a reasonable doubt, but not at all! There is not a shred of evidence that the bible is anything other than a fairy tale, that Jesus was the son of god, or that any of the 'stories' in the bible are actually true. I think that any evidence these people have is all in their imaginations. You ask them for proof, and 99 percent of them say that they have had a 'personal experience' with god. I'm afraid I am too intelligent to have an ecclesiastical experience in my bathroom mirror, so I will never know their god. I am one of the lucky ones.
Gullible: I know and sadly they refuse to see it for what it is...a con-man's story that creates undue fear and keeps them ignorant. It's when they replace believe with know that gets me, it's almost as if they've never picked up a dictionary or they believe the dictionary definitions don't apply. They can't seem to understand that this so-called personal evidence is not valid to anyone but themselves and maybe the other sheep of their flock.
In a way that most believers might not want to agree with, I don't think that it is necessary for belief that God be proven. If it does effective work psychologically to believe in God, to pray and worship, etc... then that is enough. This lack of need of proof, does not excuse anyone from the need to act morally, in fact if the believer doesn't act morally (I would include having an open heart and an open mind to be a moral consideration) then the individual should call their own belief into question. That anyone takes their belief too far and acts immorally doesn't mean that all unproven truths are immoral.
haime...You're correct about one thing....the atheists could never have participated so strongly in things like The Crusades, Slavery, Salem witch trials, etc. We just don't care enough about forcing people to conform to anything that we worship. We get our morals from societal needs. So....thanks for calling that out....we atheists thank you for the compliment.
"Electricity, you can test its effects, you can feel its effects but alas you cannot see it, you can only observe its effect."
Maybe I'm missing something here, but what am I seeing when I see lightning, or an arc from an outlet, or the sparks from a jump start?
I told you... electronics theory... it's only a theory! (grin)
Maybe this would be an easier example for Christians to understand:
Imagine you own a car dealership. Your goal is to sell cars to anyone you can. Now one day you hire a guy to stand out on the highway holding your sign trying to get you more business and everything was going swell until one day the guy you hired shows up on TV with his KKK hood and shouting "white power" at some weekend event and thousands will see the connection between the guy you hired to be a face of your company and the guy on the news shouting hate speech. Now as an American you can respect his freedom of speech, however, when he took on a job of representing your company his personal life now became a public problem and is now causing you financial harm so hopefully you would fire him and then sue him for every customer he chased away. If you don't you will look like you support his message and you will be considered a KKKar dealership...
I dunno ....
The KKK is a protestant group, so there may not be a problem there.
Now if they found out he had converted to Islam and was seen preaching a peaceful message from the Koran – That would be something they may understand.
Clearly they were a problem for HGTV.
The free market has spoken. This is capitalism in action.
HGTV knows their audience. The people who watch shows about home decor are the people who shop at Pier One.
Your atheism is a delusion of your own mind. Your supposed "reality" is not real atheists. Giving up your delusion will help you live a better life. It's ok if you feel anger over someone calling your atheism a delusion. That's the first step in realizing that it's true.
Aren't you going to use your Salero name today?
LOL!!! Where's your supposed "logic" at?
My logic is the hope that there aren't two people with the same maturity and intelligence levels as Salero.
You falsely assume I'm him(or her) without evidence. You truly are an idiot.
Coming from someone of your maturity and intelligence, that is a compliment.
Observer, he and Salero are co-joined twins, sharing the same brain, hence th finished1 has only half a brain; isn't that evident?
But falsely assuming your god exists without evidence is ..... logical?
But what about truthfollower, etc.?
Tell us, are you medicated? So many personalities; pathological lying; lack of education...seems like you need an asylum, not the internet.
What anger? The only ones I hear yelling and screaming on these boards are the uneducated religious morons like yourself, and I have no anger for you, just pity. I really wish the world had done a better job educating you.
Your atheism is a delusion. Get over it.
delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
Right....i'm the delusional one. You might try your hand as a stand-up comic, you'll have at least one joke ready.
Awe!!! Atheism is stupid and illogical. Get over it.
What do you think you prove by acting like a hateful, uneducated fool only calling out Atheists? IIs there some morbid thrill you get from this? Did an Atheist hurt your feelings by telling you that your imaginary friends are imaginary?
Grow up or sign yourself in to an asylum so you're safely out of society and not a potential danger to them.
Are you sure that he actually is an atheist? This seems much more like a case of someone with real issues who is so pathetically desperate for attention that they use multiple names and make mindless statements just to rile people up. Sad.
If no one responds to thefinished1, the pimple would dry up and disappear. He loves the attention, a true troll, so let's not respond to his tirades. Let him talk to himself... he does anyway, as he prays to whatever deity he thinks is out there.
Lack of belief in things that cannot be detected objectively is delusion, while belief in those things is sound. I can understand how your kind of thinkers could stick with flat earth, geocentric universe, no evolution, etc.
Lack of belief means you are a child that gets upset when life doesn't go your way or the answers aren't in front of your face. Awe! Atheists are such cry babies it's unbelievable!
By that same logic you're a child for not believing in Zeus or Odin or unicorns or or or. Dictionaries exists for a reason, you might wish to learn to use one.
Delusion is believing something for which there is no evidence, especially when the available evidence refutes that belief.
How does that apply to atheism? Taking comments that atheists make about belief and switching atheism for belief often makes no sense – this is an example.
I'd never heard of these two guys before ... and honestly, when I first saw the picture I thought they were a gay couple (poor screen resolution; didn't notice they were twins).
Was the network wrong to cancel the show? Not if they felt continuing it would be a bad business decision. This is less about free speech than it is about ... though I hate this term ... "political correctness." The network didn't want their image associated with these guys because they felt their views were objectionable. It's the same reasoning used by Food Network about Paula Deen (and, I suppose, similar to booting out that basketball guy).
I didn't like seeing Paula's show canceled, because I kinda liked it, and didn't think her past comments were relevant. It's not like she brought those views to the show. So, to be fair, if these two guys didn't bring their views to the show, it probably shouldn't matter for them either. But hey, networks cancel shows all the time. They're allowed to do that.
"The network didn't want their image associated with these guys because they felt their views were objectionable. It's the same reasoning used by Food Network about Paula Deen (and, I suppose, similar to booting out that basketball guy)."
I think the two cases are different.
Paula Deen was already a big money-spinner for Food Network. The dropped her on 'principle' (and to avoid boycott / backlash). This was certainly in the political correctness space. She had lots of loyal viewers who would have kept watching her.
To my understanding, the Benham brothers do not already have a successful show on the air. Given who the HGTV demographic is, I think this that this move is preemptive and related to projected ratings. HGTV knows their audience won't likely watch a show hosted by the Benhams and anticipate that ratings will be poor. plus they get to avoid any possible boycott / backlash.
Note that both HGTV and Food Networks are owned by Scripps Networks Interactive.
…and in other news.
Scientists have recently found that giving old mice transfusions of young mice blood can reverse the aging process, human trials coming soon.
More proof of God. He told us thousands of years ago. “Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood:”
Amen and have a great weekend.
He told us thousands of years ago
"He" didn't tell us. The humans that wrote that portion told us.
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood"
You don't think you're stretching the premise just a bit on this one? I mean, it's pretty obvious that no blood = no life. People have known that for a long time.
Exactly ... like the Jesus face on my toast must be a miraculous sign.
I thought I had a Jesus face on my toast, but it turned out to be Steven Tyler.
crittermom2, Mary keeps po.pping up from my toaster, but I can't tell which Mary it is. Is it the vir.gin Mary, or the sup.posed ho.oker one? Do I use but.ter or jelly?
If it's the ho.oker one, I wouldn't eat it.
You'll note it said scientists and not creationists. It doesn't prove god, it just proves that you're a biased fool thinking it does.
"14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had se.xual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having se.xual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” Number 5:14-22
So when will science prove this one Robert?
More evidence that Confirmation bias is the foundation of religious belief.
Elizabeth Báthory must've read that passage too.
This story illustrates a harsh reality today, the 1st Amendment is tough on dumb people.
With the Internet, everything you do and say in public is recorded and shared quickly. You are free to be a Christian and express your beliefs, morality, etc. But be prepared to to reckon with the consequences. Networks have rights too. They get to choose who they pay to be on their network. These dudes lost a huge payday.
@ bostontola: because – in your estimation – money is more important than beliefs?
whenever 'progress' is silencing those with whom you disagree, beware.
Everyone is certainly free to speak their mind. In some cases, like slavery and mindless discriminations like this, we are better off to not have such ignorant people representing companies.
@ observer: "mindless discriminations" runs both ways.
why else would Andrew Sullivan (who is g.ay) have said this sort of intolerance from the g.ay community must stop?
The only thing we should not tolerate is intollerance.
If you invited all of your friends to a party that you wanted to be inlusive so everyone was invited but some of your friends said "Hey, we like everyone and all, but we will not stay if you invite those short guys to the party, because we don't want our pictures taken next to short people, it makes us look weird." Would you say "Oh, okay, sure, we'll not invite them because of your issue with them" or would you say "Hey, if you have the problem then you can leave, i'm inviting everyone just like I said."
In America, everyone is invited to the party, if you don't like it then you can stay home and clean the doublewide.
You may be free to say what you want in America but that does not mean everyone has to still like you after you speak, we have the right to tune you out when we hear racist, bigoted rhetoric which is our right not to have to listen anymore. This TV station knew their pocket book would get hit by those choosing to boycott them so they made a financial decision and very likely the correct one since what they are concerned with are advertisment revenues, and thats it.
There's no "mindless discrimination" if a COMPANY wants to project a image of EQUALITY.
@ observer: you're not being honest about the underlying principle here.
you mean something utterly different by "equality" than those with whom you disagree.
the division is not over equality – the division is whether or not a particular thing/agenda/etc. is 'good' (morally, ethically, philosophically). this topic merely exposes our morality & corresponding foundational beliefs. that is the point of divide.
@ never been:
1) you said: "The only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance."
that is self-refuting. you are demonstrating why there is no such thing as diversity for diversity's sake. diversity only exists if there is an underlying principle that calls to pursue it. otherwise, you would equally have to accept everything you hate: racism, pedophilia, ra.pists, etc.
the point of division is the underlying principle. WHY pursue diversity?
i'm all for diversity – but HOW i pursue it is predicated on WHY i believe in it.
2) your analogy breaks down.
a) b/c in American, NOT everyone is invited to the party (whether you're speaking economically, socially, racially, gender, etc.).
b) even if you *were* to invite everyone, again: what is the reason that led you to do so?
c) as you've already stated, there is clearly a group you *would not* invite – which probably derives from your prejudicial misconceptions (e.g., doublewide). you are doing the very thing you won't stand for others to do to you.
Russ: "the division is not over equality "
I don't think you can speak for everyone on that, Russ. I think for many, that's exactly what it's about.
"you are doing the very thing you won't stand for others to do to you."
Do you mean like all the Christians who love to preach but not practice the golden rule?
In other words, Russ, I think for many, they see the immorality of the obvious inequality, the disenfranchisement that is now being rectified in many societies across the globe.
My analogy stands just fine Russ. You apparently are to dense to understand but it's pretty simple. R apists and pe dophiles are not welcome because they to are inflicting pain on other humans without consent just like the bigots and racists. To invite everyone to your party to have a good time where everyone has the same right to enjoy the party also means if you are a bigoted dlck who wants to ruin the party for others then you will get thrown out.
To say it's discriminatory to not invite those who discriminate is just plain sad. I understand your point, it's just such a lame moronic position that I didn't think anyone would stoop to it. I guess I should have known better when dealing with people who think their discrimination a virtue.
@ Doris: you miss my point. the entire debate is decided in one's underlying principles.
*IF* one believes ho.mo.se.xuality is a good thing (morally, ethically, etc.), then of course pursuing "equality" in that vein is a given.
however, *IF* one believes ho.mo.se.xuality is sinful/wrong/etc., then seeking "equality" under that premise is preposterous.
@ observer: you consistently mention the Golden Rule out of context from Jesus' remarks.
the so-called Golden Rule is contingent on the *greatest* commandment (which precedes it), namely:
"Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind & strength."
point being: if God (who defines Love) says it's wrong, then it is NOT loving your neighbor to encourage him to do something self-destructive – whether realized or not.
you said: "To say it's discriminatory to not invite those who discriminate is just plain sad."
no, i'm saying YOU are discriminating as much as those you are claiming discriminate against you.
EQUALITY in this case means either:
a) admitting you are being just as exclusive
b) welcoming ALL the so-called hypocrites in
I will not admit i'm being just as exclusive because its like saying "Hey, everyone is invited to our book club!" but then rejecting those who show up who don't want to read books, they just want to burn them. Their very presence is a rejection of the idea of an inclusive book club.
I want to invite everyone to an inclusive American secular democracy. Everyone is welcome regardless of race, religion or s ex ual preference. The only ones not welcome are those who want to destroy the inclusiveness and close the doors to people they don't like. That is the only people we cannot have because they threaten to destroy the very fabric of what we are attempting to create, a more civilized society for all.
I cannot support a system built for the white rich male few that have enjoyed their WMP (white male privilege) for over two hundred years. Even when slavery was supposedly ended the wealth of America was split up among its citizens, and for each dollar a white male received his black counterpart got a nickel. Equality? I don't think so.
@ neverbeen: you are saying two contradictory things.
you said: "Their very presence is a rejection of the idea of an inclusive book club."
that sentence is self-refuting. either the book club IS NOT inclusive, or their presence should be welcomed.
it presses out the real agenda: what is the book club attempting to do? engage everyone – including those who hate books? or something else?
see, the underlying principle reveals the real agenda – which you are repeatedly admitting (in action) IS exclusive.
you just want *your* brand of exclusiveness to somehow be morally superior to their brand of exclusiveness.
that's a discussion worth having – but it requires admitting that BOTH are being exclusive.
Russ – let me put it another way. I think for many, the disparity in equality helps them with their interpretation of scriptures that support their beliefs; helps them fill in the blanks where they find that supports their beliefs lacking in guidance. How else can you explain the millions of Christians that differ on this issue?
sorry, Russ – this needed a bit of clean-up to be clear:
Russ – let me put it another way. I think for many, the disparity in equality helps them with their interpretation of scriptures that support their beliefs; helps them fill in the blanks where that which supports their beliefs they find lacking in guidance. How else can you explain the millions of Christians that differ on this issue?
@ Doris: your pragmatic argument here fails to see my deontological one.
yes, Christians sometimes disagree – and sometimes it's awfully convenient to hold certain views (excusing their own private sin).
but while there are certainly some teachings that are less clear, others are abundantly clear (adultery, for example). when someone chooses to make their own experience trump the content of the Bible, that is not an expression of a biblical faith, but something else.
here, my agenda is pointing out that those of us attempting to be biblical in our faith (including hypocritical people) are attempting to come willingly under the Bible's authority (as superior to our own desires). that's not convenient – whether being called bigots for holding certain unpopular beliefs or (even more personally) having God call you out on something you really thought was right that he clearly does not. it's about being consistent in that faith... or more forthrightly, being in relationship with the King (and remembering I am not the 'captain of my soul', the king of my existence).
you don't have to agree with Christianity to respect that many of us who do are attempting to follow Christ in that manner. as such, "we must obey God, not men" (Acts 5:29). it's not self-projection – especially when God's Word often calls me out on *my* sins (much more than on *others*: 1 Cor.5:12).
Ah, I see what Russ wants to say, that if we want an "inclusive society" we are no longer allowed to be civilized, so the society part is out. If it's inclusive we must allow any and all behavior. Is that your argument Russ? That I can not claim to want an inclusive society without accepting that for society to exist we must be a nation of laws and respect? I must now allow the law breakers and book burners who want to destroy our secular society built to meet the needs of everyone because some theocracy wants to run things? Well my answer is my vote which I use to thwart theocracies at every turn. Religious persons are welcome in secular society as they have the same needs as everyone else, physical safety, security and peace to live our lives and have families. When the religious run things they force everyone to practice their brand of religion, when you have a secular society everyone gets to pick their own religion and practice it as much or as little as they want as long as they do not prevent someone else from doing the same.
Russ: "when someone chooses to make their own experience trump the content of the Bible, that is not an expression of a biblical faith, but something else."
Maybe that is the issue for some Christians – that for some of them, their faith in Christ is not dependent on the moral biases of men who lived thousands of years ago allegedly represented in the Bible.
@ neverbeen: no. that is the argument of the altruistic inclusivist – which you are claiming to be.
i'm admitting my inclusiveness is driven by an exclusive principle (namely, my faith).
you are denying you hold an equally exclusive position (if not simply a competing metaphysical grid/faith), so i am calling you out on it.
the divide here is not "who is really inclusive?" because NO ONE is truly all-inclusive (that's the anarchy you're referencing).
the real discussion is the underlying principles which lead us to pursue diversity & dialogue – as well as distinguish the good from the bad.
@ Doris: if you throw out the Bible, you're throwing out the only access one has to Jesus.
so yes, i'd point out the 'Jesus' one fabricates is not the same as the Reality.
Russ said: "when someone chooses to make their own experience trump the content of the Bible, that is not an expression of a biblical faith, but something else."
I said: "Maybe that is the issue for some Christians – that for some of them, their faith in Christ is not dependent on the moral biases of men who lived thousands of years ago allegedly represented in the Bible."
Russ said: "if you throw out the Bible, you're throwing out the only access one has to Jesus. so yes, i'd point out the 'Jesus' one fabricates is not the same as the Reality."
I didn't insinuate that some Christians were fabricating Jesus and throwing out the Bible. There is a difference in what I wrote. For instance at one extreme, you might have someone who thinks that every word in the Bible is Holy and God-breathed regardless of who wrote it, when or what we know about who may have written it. On the other extreme, you might have someone who believes in the divine Christ, but who don't believe the words of others come from a divine source. And everything in between. For instance, a kid growing up today may very well investigate and see that most NT scholars agree that Peter did not author Peter 2, where Peter allegedly calls Paul's epistles "scripture".
SUM: There are obvious differences in how Christians – many Christians, view the moral laws that they believe come from their God.
@ Doris: i didn't argue against a the idea that there are a variety of interpretations. i argued that the Scriptures themselves preclude being read as anything less than God's Word. that presents a problem to anyone who claims to be Christian and says otherwise.
moreover, the same "divine Christ" (as you said) that some (who disregard other parts of Scripture) might believe in also plainly & repeatedly speaks of the rest of Scripture in that same fashion. he quotes the OT with full authority – word by word. he even argues at one point based upon a single word alone.
a Christian who does not regard the Bible in a similar fashion has a central problem: if the God I worship reads the Bible that way, why don't i?
"you are denying you hold an equally exclusive position (if not simply a competing metaphysical grid/faith), so i am calling you out on it."
Oh, I hope you didn't misunderstand me, I totally admit that those who don't want to be a part of society, those who are trying to undermine humanities success, those who are fighting science and progress at every turn have NO PLACE ON OUR PLANET. As I stated originally, the only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance. Those who are intolerant of others based on race, religion, gender or s e x ual preference are not welcome. The only kind of intolerance tolerated is that of people who want to destroy the world with their God and their Armageddons. None of those who wish for the destruction of mankind should be allowed to stay. It's a pretty simple concept. If you are in a rubber life raft and survival of the group is paramount, then it would be completely moral to throw the guy overboard who keeps attempting to pop the raft and drown us all, and not a single other person in the raft would object for they would understand that that guy must have lost use of his senses and had abandoned his humanity. Those who pray for the destruction of mankind have also abandoned their humanity and don't deserve a seat at the table.
" money is more important than beliefs?"
If it's the "money" of the company vs the "beliefs" of an employee – yup, pretty much.
If belief is more important than money, then why aren't the twins defiant? They are expressing disappointment and regret.
@ bostontola: i'm not here to defend these guys in every aspect of their lives. i don't know them other than this.
1) no, integrity should trump money. isn't that the whole point with Donald Sterling?
2) disappointment & regret (rather than defiance) only further illustrates that they think of business & people in terms of relationships rather than 'consumers' (commodifying people).
bottom line: if – as it appears – they turn out to be genuinely respectful of those with whom they disagree, wouldn't you want that standard to be mutual?
Each company is certainly free to maintain whatever image they want. Don't you RESPECT that?
If HGTV doesn't want their image to include ignorant people supporting discrimination, you should RESPECT that.
I agree with the conclusion of your 'if' statement. These young men do have on the record statements that conflict with the premise of your 'if' statement.
@ observer: i'm not a fan of the historical majority playing the inverse discrimination card, but at what point are those seeking change held to their own standards?
mutual respect WHILE passionately disagreeing... well, just imagine this situation was reversed.
wouldn't you be enraged by the injustice of it?
"well, just imagine this situation was reversed, wouldn't you be enraged by the injustice of it?"
So reverse everything. Let's see:
HGTV = 700 Club
Two anti-gay hosts = two pro-gay hosts
700 Club fires them.
Hmmm, sounds kind of reasonable to me. I would not expect a group like the 700 Club to hire people who espose beliefs contrary to their exclusive religion. HGTV hires people who espose their inclusive company that wants to sell advertising time for anyone not just an exclusive minority.
do you see what you've assumed in your analogy about HGTV?
a) that HGTV has an explicitly religious/metaphysical/ethical agenda
b) that HGTV was in talks with hiring someone contrary to their central beliefs
i doubt you intended those implications – but they are the very assumptions that make your analogy "work" in your favor.
most ironically, if HGTV was committed to inclusion, they would purposefully retain this show in the name of it.
you do realize I was reversing them right, swapping a secular company for a religious based one, not as you say claiming HGTV "has an explicitly religious/metaphysical/ethical agenda".
They didn't hire these guys in the name of inclusion BECAUSE of these two brothers rejection of inclusion. If they had said "Hey, we have no problem with gays and we understand there everyone is welcome here, we simply want everyone to respect our religious beliefs that being gay isn't a way we would choose to live." and left it at that they would likely still be getting the job. Instead they start running the mouth about some shadowy group pushing a "g a y agenda" as if there are alien people sna tc hers out there that are trying to brain zap your kids into h0 m0 s3x vals. Understanding that people are just born that way is the first step to recovery, then you can all join the rest of humanity. If you think chastising it and trying to hide it in the closet will make your nephew or niece or son or daughter anything other than what they were born you are deluding yourself. That is what HGTV is supporting, the understanding that the unwarranted paranoia displayed by these two h0 m0 pho bes is unacceptable behavior for their inclusive employee policies.
you've mixed a few arguments here.
1) they claim (in the video) that in their initial interview they fully disclosed their views here. HGTV was aware, and apparently still gave the green light. that's why the sudden switch feels to them like an external (as you said, "alien") *agenda.*
2) no one is arguing to push g.ay people back in the closet.
but recognize, if you believe something is *wrong*, why is stating that so unacceptable?
3) where i am, '700 Club' (i'm not a fan, BTW) comes on a secular channel.
that's another reason the argument didn't fit.
but again, in this case, it doesn't sound like a corporation realizing someone had a different set of values. their values had been explicitly stated from the outset. something else happened here.
'Thursday night, Jason Benham told CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront" that HGTV had vetted the pair.
"When they - a year and a half ago - saw some of the footage....'
Russ: "something else happened...."
No kidding. These brothers thought that programming execs would have the same gut instincts about an upcoming prospective show a week later, much less a year and a half later? lol. Maybe these brother have never watched any TV to remain so naive. Unless I missed it, I don't think the story says what was involved in the decision. Maybe part of the regular practices at HGTV for upcoming shows is to vet prospective upcoming content regularly to include their sponsors to make sure they see consistency in how the content will be perceived by viewership. Just a guess really, but most people seem to know how fickle and timely programming decisions seem to be.
"they claim (in the video) that in their initial interview they fully disclosed their views here."
But their claim was that HGTV had only seen SOME of what they said.
Losing a television show that has never aired does not equate to being silenced. They are still just as free as they were previously to say anything they want to. That doesn't mean they will be free from consequences.
agreed, but the vitriol from bloggers who led this charge forcing HGTV's hand *is* seeking to silence any other voice – including those who would *graciously* disagree.
Russ, I understand the spirit of your post, but how exactly is it possible for a group of bloggers to silence anyone ? They simply can't. They don't have the power to do so.
Having said that, I do agree that a greater level of civility and decorum would be beneficial.
A sidebar – a quick search of these two gentlemen yields some rhetoric that is anything but gracious.
@ midwest rail: as i said, i don't know them other than this incident.
my goal is not to defend the brothers, but the notion of passionate yet civil disagreement – one that allows both sides to speak.
The brothers spoke before and they continue to speak (if you check the latest news). No is trying to deny them that right.
HGTV has spoken too. They can determine whether they want to have an image of hypocrisy and discrimination or not.
@ observer: then let's be clear...
is your objection that they have said they love ho.mo.se.xuals but are against the agenda (which is the current headline)? or is there some other statement to which you are referring?
"Love" is a laugh for people pushing prejudice. My objection is that I don't see these HYPOCRITES protesting against their fellow Christians getting married and divorced to become ADULTERERS.
I don't see these HYPOCRITES protesting against craven images in religious shops.
I don't see these HYPOCRITES protesting against Christians with tattoos.
It's all pick-and-choose prejudice.
@ observer: i agree that the church should be equally (if not more so b/c it represents a greater statistical percentage of people) upset about adultery.
but you didn't answer my question. to what precisely are you objecting that they have said here?
Here are their ignorant comments according to the report:
"h0mos3xuality and its agenda is ATTACKING the nation"
"DEMONIC ideologies" are taking hold in colleges and public schools.
And their fight AGAINST EQUALITY for their fellow Americans.
@ observer: suspend your own beliefs for a moment.
if you believe something is *wrong*, don't you state the same sort of things about that thing/topic?
Yes, I do. They did. HGTV did too. No problem.
If saying that something is vile, demonic, and later go on to compare it to Nazism, is somehow gracious, then we have different definitions of the word.
@ observer: so you admit your bias & exclusivism... but then you call for equality.
you can't have it both ways.
a) i already questioned their word choice
b) but what if they simply quoted the bible? wouldn't that make your real offense with the Bible? but now we're talking about a MUCH larger swath of people (and getting closer to the root issue: competing metaphysical views/grids).
c) change the scenario. if something is wrong/evil/broken/self-destructive/etc. (pick the word you'd like from your perspective), is it most gracious to ignore or confront the issue? certainly the method matters, but ultimately the most caring thing you can do is confront.
" b) but what if they simply quoted the bible? "
Please direct me to the bible text that compares gay people to Nazism.
@ midwest rail: is "abomination" a strong enough word for you?
"Nazism" would be an anachronistic thing to look for – but the atrocities of the Holocaust are equally condemned... as are many other things the bible calls evil (including things that many evangelicals aren't so quick to point out).
"but what if they simply quoted the bible? wouldn't that make your real offense with the Bible?"
Genesis 9 is often used as support for slavery, white supremacy, etc. The world has changed on that, and tolerance for gays has grown very quickly in the last few decades – another area where the world is moving away from the bible.
MLK used *the Bible* against Southern racists. that's what made him successful where his more liberal counterparts had failed. MLK was a social progressive but theological conservative. he wasn't asking Christians to abandon their bibles but rather to ADHERE to them. (misconstrued passages about slavery are clearly & roundly addressed in passages like Gal.3:28 or Philemon, Acts 10, etc.)
the g.ay lobby has NO SUCH avenue. the Bible speaks univocally on this topic.
and therein lies the biggest problem (& why this topic is garnering a different kind of pushback):
the g.ay lobby is asking conservative Christians to ABANDON their beliefs, whereas MLK could ask them simply to be better Christians.
" @ midwest rail: is "abomination" a strong enough word for you? "
No. The twins specifically used the word "Nazism". Since your initial appeal was for a more civil debate, is it now your contention that any criticism of gay people, no matter how it is phrased, loving as long as the critic claims biblical support ?
@ midwest: no. go back & read what i wrote. i am not approving their particular word choice...
but i was pressing for the underlying (more valuable) discussion.
is there ANY room for disagreement here?
is there ANY willingness to allow passionate, principled disagreement?
it's not as though the Bible is some new, unknown doc.ument. and it clearly has a negative view of ho.mo.se.xuality. as the most read book in history, is it (and all its adherents) now to be censored or pushed to the societal margins? or are you for civil dialogue?
Russ – go back and read what I wrote. I agreed that the debate can be more civil. I am only addressing the subject of the article, namely the Benham twins. Their past rhetoric betrays their eyelashes-batting, innocent demeanor of today as dishonest.
In the Biblical sense, "abomination" means ritually unclean.
Shellfish are abominations too, and yet you don't see Jews or Conservative Christians picketing outside Red Lobster
@ Doc: read Acts 10.
or here's a helpful article in that regard (the so-called "charge of inconsistency"):
@ midwest rail:
i read the linked articles about them.
as i said: there were a few exceptions (word choice), but for the most part, they accurately represented conservative Christian beliefs.
SUM: is your objection with the word choice or the beliefs themselves?
note: word choice is an issue on BOTH sides of this debate.
" note: word choice is an issue on BOTH sides of this debate."
Good grief, man, I already agreed with you on this point twice. Shall we go for three ?
@ midwest: you did agree with me before on word choice, but then it sounded like you back-tracked.
you said: "I am only addressing the subject of the article, namely the Benham twins. Their past rhetoric betrays their eyelashes-batting, innocent demeanor of today as dishonest."
i guess i'm asking you to clarify. your statement here does not sound commensurate with merely a 'word choice' objection. how are they being dishonest?
" how are they being dishonest? "
They are obviously old enough to understand the ramifications of employing the term "Nazism". To turn around now and claim to "love" everyone is patently dishonest. Knowing the ugly emotional baggage associated with Hitler and Nazism, and using the term anyway, is anything but loving.
1) so it is simply 'word choice' for you... but extreme word choice.
2) not to defend them, but do you think – by their own beliefs – 'abomination' and 'Nazism' are at similar levels?
point being: if we are going to have civil dialogue, the goal should be to hear people in context of their beliefs.
" 2) not to defend them, but do you think – by their own beliefs – 'abomination' and 'Nazism' are at similar levels?
point being: if we are going to have civil dialogue, the goal should be to hear people in context of their beliefs."
You cannot be serious. Their dialogue should be regarded as civil because we need to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding the term Nazism ? That is the lamest argument for context I've ever heard, Russ.
"the g.ay lobby has NO SUCH avenue. the Bible speaks univocally on this topic."
The Bible speaks univocally about the MORE IMPORTANT GOLDEN RULE, too, but that is IGNORED in favor of discrimination. Pick and choose. IGNORE what Jesus said was most important.
@ observer: how many times must we have the same conversation?
here's the same answer i've given you at least three times on that:
as i said repeatedly to you:
the two greatest commandments ARE about love & relationships: first with God, then each other.
and Jesus said they SUMMED up the entire OT – not replaced or debunked.
it's the clear statement of the text. two things are stated plainly here:
a) God ultimately defines love, not us.
b) Love is a *command* – meaning it's not 'up to us' whether and/or how we do it.
April 2, 2014 at 10:33 pm | Reply
"Love is a *command* – meaning it's not 'up to us' whether and/or how we do it."
lol. So you DECIDE whether or not you will fall "in love" with a person. Get real. What kind of fantasy are you living in? So love is just another command from God with the usual bribe (heaven) and threat (hell). Have people tell their hearts that.
And again. Jesus NEVER talked about gays. Read a Bible.
@ observer: it's as if you decide to forget all our previous conversations. i even gave you evidence we had the SAME conversation MULTIPLE times over a month ago.
1) you quoted me & then said: "lol. So you DECIDE whether or not you will fall "in love" with a person. Get real. What kind of fantasy are you living in? So love is just another command from God with the usual bribe (heaven) and threat (hell). Have people tell their hearts that."
a) how do you define love? and on what basis? you are assuming several things here – which are non-sequiturs and/or w/o basis.
b) we're not talking solely about romantic love. and mocking the "decision" – as you put it – makes love to be merely an emotion that controls you, like an animal instinct. why then do people *choose* to take vows? why is the g.ay lobby arguing so passionately to be able to take those vows & have marital status unless someone somewhere recognizes that love is not merely an emotion (which can come & go just as quickly) but it is a purposeful *commitment* (an act of the will) as well.
c) you said: "And again. Jesus NEVER talked about gays. Read a Bible."
and again – we've had this conversation ad nauseam.
i) this is an argument from silence (which is a fallacy in itself).
ii) there are lots of things Jesus never explicitly stated, but he obviously condemned (pedophilia, r.a.pe, child abuse, infanticide, etc.).
ii) he did talk about marriage A LOT. and instead of saying "hey, you know that OT thing about hetero only? forget that.", he said this:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Mt.5:17-18)
however, to be clear: the cross tells me my sins are as bad as anyone else's (they deserve death) – and yet he was willing to do that for me (demonstrating what LOVE really is: Jn.15:13).
SUM: as i said in my previous post: Jesus did not come to debunk or replace the OT, but to fulfill it (Jn.5:39-40; Lk.24:27,44). and he demonstrates that he is the God who is Love.
Rather than pretending that Jesus actually SAID anything directly about gays, let's see what he ACTUALLY said.
What did Jesus SAY was "what the laws and prophets ARE ALL ABOUT"?
@ Observer: did you not read the verses I gave you?
Jesus claimed the entire OT was about HIM – which again, affirms the content of it dramatically.
all your objections about people being told they deserve death? the cross fulfills.
all your concerns about harsh judgment (it just can't be that bad)? Jesus says it is.
and then he says: this is what Love is – i take what you deserve.
now... live in that love.
NOT "do whatever you think is ok."
So Russ...you actually believe everything in the old testament? Including the nutty things Leviticus said?
Jesus specifically stated "(this) IS WHAT THE LAWS AND THE PROPHETS ARE ALL ABOUT".
Apparently, you are unfamiliar with such a CRITICAL statement from him. Obviously, it's one of the MOST IMPORTANT statements he ever made.
Please read a Bible and then come back when you find what this extremely important statement from Jesus said.
1) again you refuse to take me in context. it's really ridiculous.
we've had this conversation. over & over & over.
ok, so you want me to quote the Greatest Commandment again?
because you can't have the Golden Rule (second greatest) w/o it.
and you keep wanting to define love on your terms, not His.
2) here's the passages I gave you (which apparently you're refusing to look up). note well how clear Jesus is that he is the summary of the OT:
"You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." (Jn.5:39-40)
'And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself... He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."' (Lk.24:27,44)
We keep having this same conversation over and over and over and over because I naively expected you to know one of the VERY MOST IMPORTANT things Jesus ever said. I thought you were hiding from answering, but obviously you don't know so I'll have to read a Bible to you:
(Matt. 7:12) “Treat others as you want them to treat you. THIS IS WHAT THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS ARE ALL ABOUT.” [Jesus]
@ observer: so... you want to ignore EVERYTHING else Jesus says – including when he repeats the same phrase & goes further – so you can believe whatever you want.
but here's the very next verse & after: (Mt.7:13-14,22)
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it... Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
it becomes clear you aren't interested in Jesus per se, but how you can use Jesus' words to do what you want. it not only fails basic literary guidelines (reading in context) and basic biblical scholarship, but it fulfills what he says directly after.
Grace abounds to idiots like me. Sinners like me. Worse than you.
but refusing to hear what he's saying so you can do what you want... that's H.ell.
as has been said, the theme song of H.ell is "I did it my way."
Here is one of the MOST IMPORTANT THINGS Jesus EVER said;
(Matt. 7:12) “Treat others as you want them to treat you. THIS IS WHAT THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS ARE ALL ABOUT.” [Jesus]
Please tell us why you apparently don't think this applies to gays and that negative verses about them are "more important'.
@ observer: on the contrary! i think it definitively applies to g.ays & everyone else.
that's not the point of divide here.
the point of divide is your apparent contention that somehow that verse disavows all that the law & the prophets teach.
aside from being overtly self-refuting, it also fails to acknowledge that Jesus repeats that phrase in several places – including later in Matthew when he sums up the law (Mt.22). and again: "Love the Lord your God..." is the greatest command.
your response here shows no acknowledgement to my point – you want to use the Bible to say something that is explicitly opposite what it says.
for example, you want to divide positive & negative. the bible explicitly does the opposite. often times (as an ancient teaching method), positives & negatives are laid side by side purposefully so that the meaning is clear... in other words, so people won't take it OUT OF CONTEXT.
an image: if someone is walking in front of an oncoming truck & does not see it, is it more loving to let it happen or tackle them? you think just because i advocate tackling in that scenario, i'm somehow against love – but it's simply a failure to understand that it is precisely Love that leads to such an action.
Penn Jillette makes that analogy regarding proselytizing:
The Bible is full of contradictions and lacks clarity in many areas. When Jesus says this IS WHAT THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS is all about, it SHOULD be important to you, rather than look for ways to DILUTE it.
Jesus and the 12 male friends he constantly hung around with must have been familiar with gays. If he considered it VERY important, like all his complaints about hetero s3xual activity, it would have made sense to at least MENTION it. Obviously, he was MORE CONCERNED about the much larger problem of ADULTERY by heteros, but don't expect HYPOCRITES to make as big a point about it.
1) it's an easy dodge to simply claim contradictions rather than actually engage the final form of the text. even modern higher critical scholars have finally begun to figure this out – hence "final form" criticism being on the rise.
2) at no point did i attempt to dilute it. rather i'm pointing you to the purity of it.
*the same author* uses his vocabulary carefully. there's a reason Mt.22 echoes this AND goes further. why dodge that?
and considering the theme (Jesus IS the point of the whole OT) across various authors, the redundancy points out that Jesus repeatedly taught it. so, yes, it is very important to me, especially as a Christian. that's why i'm pointing out your misuse of it.
3) i do not doubt that Jesus was familiar with g.ays. and at no point did i say adultery was any less of a concern.
a) statistically speaking, adultery was much more prevalent. if you're going to call out se.xual sin, that's the one to highlight... and he did. and there are churches which point that out.
b) yet again you are making an argument from silence. that is a logical fallacy.
or are you claiming that EVERY topic Jesus didn't address was acceptable to him (child abuse, r.a.pe, pedophilia, etc.)?
SUM: yes! i do think he was more concerned about adultery b/c of its greater prevalence.
but that doesn't support ho.mo.se.xuality in any way, shape or form.
if anything, it affirms that Jesus stood against ANY se.xual activity that went against God's Word.
after all, he claimed to BE the Word in the flesh...
Please explain why you CHOOSE negative verses about gays rather than STRESS the MORE IMPORTANT Golden Rule?
the Golden Rule does not stand *against* those negative verses. it affirms them.
kid says: hey, can i eat this milky white substance (ar.senic)?
parent says: no.
kid: if you loved me, you'd say yes.
Sorry you missed my question. Here it is again:
Please explain why you CHOOSE negative verses about gays rather than STRESS the MORE IMPORTANT Golden Rule?
Speaking of eating poisonous stuff, here's the Bible's guide to what is safe to eat:
(Gen. 1:29-30) “God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.”
1. Do you understand exactly who is the viewing demographic for HGTV?
2. Have you read the Right Wing Watch post and read what then Benham's actually said?
If you have done each of those things you will understand why this is a clear-cut business decision. Once word got out there is no way that the HGTV audience would watch these guys. Ratings would be a disaster and HGTV would lose money.
This is not about belief or principles or values, it is about business. It is capitalism in action.
Actually this is different to Food Network dropping Paula Deen. That was done on principle – Paula Deen enjoyed huge ratings and was a money-spinner for Food.
1) the HGTV demographic: primarily female. some g.ay.
2) i read the blog entry. the quotes mostly espouse classical, conservative evangelical views (with maybe a few exceptions, and potentially better word choices here & there).
are you arguing that all conservative evangelicals should be commensurately regarded & treated? you seem to assume such views are purely hateful even though they are simply stating what they believe to be the truth. aren't you espousing the same view (including hatred) about them?
3) business in action, eh?
the same business that leads bottom feeding Fox to put all sorts of low brow material on?
understand, the same argument made here, was made about other shows: whether Duck Dynasty or even Ellen Degeneres.
you are putting the cart before the horse. the show wasn't canceled for ratings. (notably, most PR folk say: any press is good press – it would have gotten a huge viewership, at least initially. long term the question would have been if the show was sustainable.)
and note: you are claiming opposite things here. is it principles or pragmatism?
it seems the primary objection here is principles. pragmatism is the afterthought that justifies privileging one set of principles over another.
I am claiming pragmatism in this case.
With the bad publicity, the gay community would organize to not watch this show, resulting in poorer ratings than it would likely have seen, had the anti-gay views of the prospective hosts not been highlighted. HGTV is cutting their losses.
As you say, the views of the Benham brothers are the standard sound bites for the religious right. They are not illegal and are protected free speech and yes, I think they are hateful to gay people.
Let's say I wanted to host a TV show whose demographics were largely "traditional values" based viewers. Would a network want to hire someone who did not believe in God? I think not and that would be their prerogative.
I think you are overreaching here. Unlike Fox News or MSNBC, the HGTV audience is not necessarily as polarized. of course there is a larger g.ay audience – but that's an admittedly small minority of the overall American demographic. women – on the other hand – make up half the nation. and, statistically speaking, many of them (millions) *are* conservative. the South east comes to mind...
again, your pragmatic argument fails on the grounds that it was never allowed to run its course.
"your pragmatic argument fails on the grounds that it was never allowed to run its course."
1. HGTV knows their audience way better than you or I do.
2. They don't have to run the show as an experiment to prove that ratings would be bad.
The conduct of the hosts became a ratings liability so they were cancelled. Period. This is HGTV's prerogative.
i'm not arguing they have to run it to prove a point (though the "diversity" argument – if consistent – should).
i'm pointing out that your pragmatic argument fails to admit HGTV was willing to allow a loud minority to trump the risk of a success among a larger group. A&E faced a similar dilemma with Duck Dynasty – but it was already a proven success, so they conceded.
Gays are a minority, but those who respect their rights are over 50% of the population.
The minority of which you speak is much more concentrated in the HGTV audience.
How many gays watch Duck Dynasty? How many watch HGTV?
Scripps Networks Interactive also owns Food Network. They did cancel Paula Deen and she was very successful for them. I think this decision was a lot more based on the numbers than that one was.
@ Alias: again, i'm not arguing for the fallacy of majority rule. i'm simply addressing GOP's 'pragmatist' argument.
in that light: so roughly 150 million Americans still believe contrary to you. that's plenty of possible 'ratings.'
clearly the issue isn't pragmatic. it's an appeal to a principle – and as such, a collision of principles.
Sorry – that was unclear. I suspect the Benham decision was more numbers based than the Deen decision. At the end of the day the company made consistent decisions respecting minorities.
1) again, i pointed to the *women* (50+%), not the g.ay community (at most, roughly 10%?).
2) the "numbers" were non-existent, as you yourself said before. the show never ran – and there wasn't time to gather 'focus-group' responses here.
the pragmatist argument just doesn't hold up.
"so roughly 150 million Americans still believe contrary to you. that's plenty of possible 'ratings.'"
And Fox News Networks panders to them specifically.
"the "numbers" were non-existent, as you yourself said before."
Broadcast numbers are irrelevant before a show airs. No show gets a green light without projected numbers.
Let me assure you that (projected) numbers are *not* non-existent.
"it's an appeal to a principle"
The principle here is very simple. A BUSINESS is free to decide who they want as part of their image. Very simple. Disney likely doesn't want neo-Nazis working for them and issuing public statements.
The brothers are certainly free to say what they want and they are DOING SO. The company is free to not have their public image be one of supporting ignorance, hypocrisy, and discrimination.
It's all part of being in our great nation.
@ GOP: i didn't say "projected numbers are non-existent." i said they didn't have TIME to get new ones.
this was a social media knee-jerk reaction. they didn't take the time to run some new numbers, and obviously they believed BEFORE that they had the numbers necessary to start the show.
@ observer: you didn't watch the video.
HGTV was already aware of the Benham Bros beliefs. they disclosed them in the initial interviews.
this was not HGTV responding to the Benham Bros' beliefs, but to the over-reaction of a certain group on social media.
and again, Andrew Sullivan is at least one prominent g.ay man who has condemned this sort of reciprocal intolerance. the 'loud' group does not even represent all g.ays – just those who are out to silence anyone who disagrees.
"i said they didn't have TIME to get new ones.
A specious argument. The numbers they have will be broken down by demographics.
Further speculative argument is pointless. Neither of us has the objective data to make further determination beyond the positions we have both taken.
@ GOP: i'm not talking about guesses here, GOP.
– HGTV wanted a show with the Benham Bros
– HGTV interviewed them in advance and was well aware of their beliefs
– HGTV did their homework on the viability of the show
– the above took a lot of TIME & preparation
– a news story broke out on blogs about the Benham Bros' views on g.ays (something HGTV was *already* aware of)
– very soon thereafter, HGTV decided to scuttle the project
are there any of those facts with which you disagree?
the only guess is the exact motives here. but the facts are pretty revealing in & of themselves.
"- HGTV interviewed them in advance and was well aware of their beliefs
Nonsense. It is not a fact that HGTV was well aware of their beliefs. Unless you have evidence to suggest that the Benham brothers discussed their religious politics with the producers It is an unfounded assertion that you are making.
@ GOP: go watch the CNN videos on these guys. they've switched them several times this morning, but in at least one of them, the Benham Brothers plainly state that was part of their interview process.
It is also possible that if *someone* knew about the Benham brothers' religious politics it was not known to network executives at HGTV or Scripps.
@ GOP: seriously, go watch the videos. it's been a few hours for me, but i'm almost certain he said it was a network executive with which they sat down to interview.
again, these guys are defending HGTV b/c they feel HGTV has been bullied. whether that is accurate or not, why do they have that perception? they believe they fully disclosed from the outset, but *another group* pushed HGTV from their former position.
"go watch the CNN videos on these guys"
I watched the one on the masthead of this article. "We believed they knew who we were" is pretty non-specific.
Face it neither of us have access to the data to definitively prove either position we have taken. We simply don't know.
If you want to argue that Right Wing Watch unfairly targeted these guys because of who their father was, resulting in a potential career at HGTV being scuttled, you'll find I won't argue very hard in opposition.
@ GOP: fair enough.
HGTV obviously found this was more of an issue than originally thought. Is there any proof that they had seen all of the comments that came out?
I've never heard of Andrew Sullivan and don't care about ONE MAN's opinion, regardless.
No rights were violated here. The hypocrites are certainly free to speak all they want. NO ONE is saying that they shouldn't. They certainly can spend hours talking about it on Faux News if they want.
The COMPANY violated NO RIGHTS. They can choose who they want to be identified with them. It shouldn't be that hard for you to comprehend that. What's wrong with not wanting to be identified with hypocrites advocating discrimination?
1) the Benham Brothers are claiming they fully disclosed their views in advance.
2) Andrew Sullivan is a rather famous g.ay man. he was former editor of the New Republic, and now writes for Time, the Atlantic & the Daily Beast. one man's opinion? yes. but he is in a (culturally speaking) influential position.
3) rights? no. but isn't that the whole debate for g.ay marriage here? if you press your own argument, it is self-defeating (the conservative argument that since ho.mo.se.xuality is wrong, it is not a "right" at all).
the immediate point: if they did fully disclose, should any group be able to "bully" (their term) HGTV into submission here? again, the Mozilla CEO comes to mind.
4) at the heart of this is morality & ethics. there is a collision in values happening, based upon differing grids. do you have a vested interest in ensuring civil dialogue, or does your underlying ethical grid lead you to believe that the ends justify any means? that is the question of discrimination – from ANY side.
"do you have a vested interest in ensuring civil dialogue,"
Of course. When you can show me that the brothers are not free to talk to anyone, then you will have a point. I see them here on CNN and I'm sure Faux News loves them right now.
You have their word that they told everything. That is just ONE SIDE.
Regardless, HGTV has the right to hire or fire whoever they want. Mitt Romney made a career out of firing people. Where's your sympathy for ALL of them?
1) if saying "i disagree with your position" means a group of people are going to attempt to get you fired, it is disingenuous to claim one is 'free to speak' – especially when the company for which one works supposedly has NO stance on the issue. no, civil dialogue means that even if you disagree with someone, you will ardently defend their right to speak (even & especially from members of *your own camp* who are seeking to silence them through manipulative means).
2) you said: "You have their word that they told everything. That is just ONE SIDE." i haven't heard HGTV say anything to the contrary. if they do, i'd gladly reconsider the point. until then, why are you so sure they aren't telling the truth?
3) where did this Mitt Romney stuff come from? for the record, i'm an independent. and yes, as a Christian, the Bible finds ANY injustice as an offense to God – regardless of political party. (the minor prophets make this especially clear.) i think the Bible has as much harsh things to say to Republicans as it does Democrats.
You keep refusing to answer the question. Why shouldn't a company have the right to fire someone who is, in effect, representing what they stand for and this person is ignorantly and hypocritically supporting discrimination against many of their "customers"?
@ observer: your question's premise is false. to answer it is to affirm a false premise.
a) HGTV has not taken such a stand. if anything, they had ALREADY affirmed the Benham Bros' beliefs as falling w/in acceptable parameters.
b) you are assuming your position is not discriminatory. that is the *current* debate we are having.
SUM: so, of course i will not answer a question that is asking me (in its assumptions) to affirm the very thing under debate.
Guess you missed the FACT that HGTV has FIRED them. You apparently don't have a CLUE why they did that.
How about answering the question as it was GENERICALLY stated? Stumped?
Russ: "a) HGTV has not taken such a stand. if anything, they had ALREADY affirmed the Benham Bros' beliefs as falling w/in acceptable parameters."
Russ, you should know not to expect programming execs in this free market to be consistent from one day to the next on their gut instincts about upcoming programs or programs in progress. Nothing new at all with that regardless of the factors involved.
1) you keep dodging my point. you are wanting to discri.minate in the same fashion as your so-called oppressors. even *IF* (for the sake of conversation) it is allowed that ho.mo.se.xu.ality is a good thing (which again, is what is under debate), your methodology is your problem.
compare Mand.ela. instead of perp.etuating the cy.cle of violence in South Africa that has been rav.aging many countries on that cont.inent for years, he held reconc.iliation trials. anyone who would come & confess their wrongs (not matter how grave) would be forgiven. he brought healing to that nation.
your approach is more like Rwanda & Sudan – if you get the power, make them pay. think that through. if you really believe you have been discri.minated against, why would you want to perpe.tuate that cy.cle?
2) i have never stated that HGTV was outside their rights. a private company may have technical 'rights', but advocating them in certain fashions can still be wrong. the point here was that HGTV evidently was already aware of their views, moved forward as though they were comfortable & then flipped. yes, it shows no backbone for HGTV.
a) in my ongoing conversation w/ GOP (which you jumped into), the debate was over whether that was based on pragmatism or an underlying principle. [i still contend it was principle (Doris' comment above notwithstanding), but it appears the principle is appe.ase.ment.]
b) why are you purposefully taking me out of context? the whole discussion is predi.cated on the *fact* that they have been fired. i was pointing out the *fact* that HGTV had no problem with them before.
this is the same problem i pointed out with the other thread we're having on this page – you seem to have a purposefully short term memory on our conversations. it is a significant barrier to actually *going* somewhere in our conversations. you tend to want to have the same conversation ad nauseam without a.cknowledgment of previous progress on BOTH sides. why?
Russ: "a) in my ongoing conversation w/ GOP (which you jumped into), the debate was over whether that was based on pragmatism or an underlying principle. [i still contend it was principle (Doris' comment above notwithstanding), but it appears the principle is appe.ase.ment."
Could be, but I don't see it that way. I can easily see the programming execs saying "hey – we didn't see this as a problem before and but now it seems this potential content, which reflects on our sponsors, could become to be known more for the controversy it will have stirred up rather than the simple story we had in mind which was about people helping people with home ownership." Now you may call that an exercise based on principle for the sake of app.ease.ment, but a decision like that sounds pretty pragmatic to me. I don' think you'll find too many people running to the HGTV channel thinking they'll find controversial issues covered a lot there...
"your approach is more like Rwanda & Sudan – if you get the power, make them pay."
Your comment was totally false and beyond stupid. I have never claimed any such thing and you are clueless to make such a false statement.
HGTV made a logical business decision. The product they sell is personality. The programming might be based on home and garden improvement, but what they really sell is friendly hosts doing familiar things. There is no room for controversy in the paradigm.
@ tallulah: and yet the controversy came & found them.
appeasement may be too simplistic a way of stating it.
& ultimately, even pragmatism is driven by convenience (whatever gets me what i want).
@ observer: are you really so self-unaware?
read your own comments on this blog. why are you full of such vitriol?
it is clear that you are angry & anyone who holds a different opinion... woe be unto them.
my point there (differing African methodologies) is that the problem is not *being* angry but *what you do* with the anger. but again, that's driven by underlying beliefs (and Mandela had a different set of beliefs).
if you believe you need to win at all costs, then the ends justify the means.
but – as others have said – beware the ends in such a case, especially if you become someone else's means.
No, Russ. They created the controversy with their own words and actions. Only a fool preaches hate without understanding that there are consequences. You can't hide from the media anymore. If you speak in public, your words belong to the public.
HGTV found out what these men were preaching and decided that it was not compatible with the image they are selling. These brothers have only themselves to blame.
"If you believe you need to win at all costs, then the ends justify the means."
Another brainless charge. When all you have to offer is attacks on a messenger, it shows you have no FACTS left to support yourself.
My position from the beginning is that HGTV has the right to fire anyone who projects an image of ignorance, hypocrisy, and discrimination against some of their targeted audience in opposition to their desired image. So why not stick with the TRUTH about what I said instead of telling mindless lies about me?
@ tallulah: ironically, southern racists said the same thing about a jailed MLK.
the only question that remains: who actually defines the 'good'?
Apparently, Russ, HGTV decided what was "good". They decided that people who preach hate against a minority are not good people, and thus denied them a program on their network.
And Russ? Dragging MLK into this is neither here nor there. I read the words the Benhams spoke. These are not people I would want for neighbors. These are not people I would want anywhere near me or the people I love. I don't even want them on my TV.
1) the underlying debate (is ho.mo.se.xuality a 'good'?) determines whether it is discrimination or appropriate to voice such views.
2) i stand by my comments. i would think even those who often ardently disagree with me on this blog would not have difficulty reviewing your comments & admitting you represent yourself in that fashion.
3) despite your desire to label all those with whom you disagree as "mindless," this debate will not actually be productive until we can both demonstrate enough mutual respect to have civil yet honest dialogue.
1) so you look to those who program TV shows to determine what is 'good'?
and is it hatred for you to speak against those you believe are advocating something destructive (say, the Benhams)?
2) dragging MLK? i gave you an example that exposed your logic.
i also have read some of the Benhams remarks. so far, aside from occasional poor word choice & analogies, the outrage appears to be that anyone would actually believe and articulate what the Bible says.
it doesn't matter that they are willing to engage g.ays personally AND DO. the fact that they believe ho.mo.se.xuality to be wrong is enough to ostracize them. it's shaming, and it's not a very good long-term approach for having honest discussions. even as prominent a g.ay figure as Andrew Sullivan has called it such.
"1) the underlying debate (is ho.mo.se.xuality a 'good'?) determines whether it is discrimination or appropriate to voice such views."
H0m0s3xuality is neither good nor bad. It is a normal condition like being left-handed is a normal condition.
"3) despite your desire to label all those with whom you disagree as "mindless," this debate will not actually be productive until we can both demonstrate enough mutual respect to have civil yet honest dialogue."
If we are to carry on a conversation in respect, which is what I desire, you need to start telling the TRUTH about what I said. I have NEVER called anyone "mindless". NEVER. I have called comments mindless. I have also NEVER claimed that the end justifies the means.
Pllease make you comments based on what I ACTUALLY say rather than WISHFUL THINKING and fantasy.
So when exactly did MLK preach against human rights, Russ? If he did, I certainly would not consider him a "good" person.
Anyway, the people (yes it's not just a machine) at HGTV are fully capable of deciding what they consider "good". They are fully capable at looking at the actions of the individuals that they wish to hire and making a judgement call. Apparently, they believe that the Benhams are advocating something destructive and have chosen not to air their program.
The Benhams are calling for bigotry against a minority on the basis of their personal belief. HGTV is just one entity among many entities and individuals who are fighting against actions and words that we consider to be ignorant and unjust. We are under no obligation to support the views of the Benhmans. They can believe what they wish and say what they wish, but they are not immune to the consequences of their actions.
1) you said: "H0m0s3xuality is neither good nor bad. It is a normal condition like being left-handed is a normal condition."
what about a predilection to alcoholism? or how about psychosis? birth defects?
if you want to choose a genetically causal example, it's important to see the broader array. science doesn't weigh in on 'good' or 'bad', b/c it cannot make such assessments. but we – being ethical beings – can. the real question remains: how do we determine what is good?
you want to call it normal. on what basis?
left-handedness is statistically much less likely, but no one's claiming it's a bad thing.
birth defects on the other hand...
and note: BOTH could be considered 'normal.' what is your basis for evaluation?
2) i'm glad you desire respectful dialogue. that's something we can share as a desire – and agreement is not something to casually pass over considering the depth of our disagreement here.
a) you said: "I have NEVER called anyone "mindless". NEVER. I have called comments mindless."
that is a distinction without difference.
if you say to your child: "how could you do such a stupid, stupid thing?! that was a stupid thing to do." did you call them stupid? by your logic, no. but ask your child...
what kind of person makes "mindless comments"? it's not a huge jump here.
again, it's a distinction without difference.
b) you have not used the term "the ends justify the means." i was stating your apparent method.
again, not "wishful thinking." just telling you how you came across to me.
Have you ever made any comments that were stupid? By your "logic", then you are stupid.
Alcoholism, psychosis and birth defects are all harmful. Being gay is not. It's bigots that go a long way to make their lives miserable.
Why shouldn't Christians practice the Golden Rule when it comes to gays?
Russ? Exactly why do you compare homosexuality to a birth defect? What is the basis of your judgement?
And....a better question might be....do you treat all people with birth defects in the same insidious manner?
1) you said: "So when exactly did MLK preach against human rights, Russ? If he did, I certainly would not consider him a "good" person."
that's question begging. your question here as.sumes the debate at hand.
again, i pressed the underlying point: is ho.mo.se.xuality a good? on what basis can you claim that?
instead of answering it, you simply assumed it was in your response.
to be clear, MLK did stand for human rights. how was he so effective against the Southern racists? he didn't encourage them to ABANDON their bibles & faith, but rather to ADHERE to it more seriously. he pointed out what the Bible teaches regarding race.
he didn't tell them they had to find a new way of reading their bible, but rather to simply READ it. the g.ay lobby cannot do that. its choices are: get them to buy into a new way of reading it (that jettisons the central tenets of the faith along with it) or tell them to abandon their faith.
that's not a very effective method – and that's why it's perceived as an attack on the faith.
2) you said: "Anyway, the people (yes it's not just a machine) at HGTV are fully capable of deciding what they consider "good". They are fully capable at looking at the actions of the individuals that they wish to hire and making a judgement call."
interesting. you have such great faith in the people behind such channels. do you affirm A&E's decision to reinstate Duck Dynasty despite Phil Robertson's commensurate stance on ho.mo.se.xuality?
3) you said: "The Benhams are calling for bi.gotry against a minority on the basis of their personal belief."
on what are you basing this? everything i've read says they are more than willing to serve, interact with, befriend, etc. anyone from the g.ay community. they simply believe ho.mo.se.xuality is wrong. have you read otherwise?
bottom line: are their personal beliefs unacceptable to you under those conditions?
or to put it bluntly: is your bi.gotry acceptable but theirs is not?
4) you said: "HGTV is just one ent.ity among many ent.ities and individuals who are fighting against actions and words that we consider to be ignorant and unjust. We are under no obligation to support the views of the Benhmans. They can believe what they wish and say what they wish, but they are not immune to the consequences of their actions."
who is the WE here? and who made YOU the ultimate court of authority?
your metaphysical grid is showing, whether you intend for it to or not. and that is the real debate here.
1) so you really don't see a correlation b/t repeatedly calling everyone's comments with which you disagree "mindless" & the implication that they are 'mindless' for saying so?
and note: there is a huge difference between me calling my own remark/s stupid & someone else.
2) you said: "Alcoholism, psychosis and birth defects are all harmful. Being gay is not."
again, this is question begging. that's the entirety of the debate.
as genuinely as i can state it: that's what the bible is saying:
we were designed. to use our bodies other than that for which they were designed is to act self-destructively... unlovingly...
3) you said: "It's bigots that go a long way to make their lives miserable."
agreed. and they exist on both sides of this debate.
4) you said: "Why shouldn't Christians practice the Golden Rule when it comes to gays?"
they should! but you want the Golden Rule to mean something it doesn't: namely, "accept whatever i accept." but even the quickest of glances at the bible tells us otherwise.
what does the cross tell us? we are broken. something is wrong with us. and yet he came to fix it. saying "you're fine just like you are" when you are not is unloving. and note well: the cross says the same thing TO ME.
Russ...just out of curiosity....do you believe the entire OT, including all the comments from Leviticus?
@ tallulah & gullible:
read the context there. observer raised an example of a genetically caused disposition – but one that was solely favorable. i raised examples that were not always so favorable. that's why.
just because someone was "born that way" doesn't make it an inherently 'good' thing.
birth defects are a prime example.
you said: "And....a better question might be....do you treat all people with birth defects in the same insidious manner?"
if you consider neonatal units as unloving... the answer might be yes.
but if you're talking about the way some treat g.ay sin as somehow worth than others, i would fully agree with your objection. the cross makes it clear that we ALL deserve death apart from God's grace.
but *anyone* who calls something harmful 'good' is in a dangerous place. it would be unloving to affirm or ignore.
Russ...thanks for answering my question, but I do have the other one. Do you believe every word of the old testament, including Leviticus?
@ gullible: if you're willing to take 90 seconds...
Russ....really, this is a simple question. Do you believe every word of the old testament, including Leviticus. This is not a trick question. Just answer either yes or no. I don't need a link, I don't need any verbiage other than yes or no, thanks.
So basically, Russ, you dragged MLK into this because he's a religious figure who stood up for human rights, and you are trying to use that to defend men who use their religion to try to deny human rights to others. I don't think your argument is as logical as you think it is.
As for HGTV, the people there are capable of deciding what they believe is good. You don't get to choose for them, nor do you get to choose what programming they provide.
My personal belief is grounded in science and in the many friendships I have with gays and lesbians. They are no different than heterosexuals: They work, they pay taxes, they love their families and their mates. It sickens me that people like you wish to treat them as second-class citizens, simply because of who they love.
I am not trying to silence the Benhams or force them to change their beliefs. I am not advocating that they lose their rights. You don't seem to understand this simple fact: Actions have consequences. No one is obligated to give the Benhams a TV show. No one is obligated to respect the opinions of the Benhams. They don't get special rights.
And when I speak of "we" I speak of those of us who believe that gays and lesbians deserve equality. I say "we" because there are many, many people who think that unjust discrimination is wrong.
So Russ: Exactly why do you think that homosexuality is harmful? What is the basis of your opinion?
Well, heck. I've gotta go. Maybe Russ will have answered by the time I get back.
From your link:
“When Christ appeared he declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19), and he ignored the Old Testament cleanliness laws in other ways, touching lepers and dead bodies.
The reason is clear. When he died on the cross the veil in the temple tore, showing that he had done away with the the need for the entire sacrificial system with all its cleanliness laws. Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for sin, and now Jesus makes us clean.”
And from the bible linked to above:
”fThere is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”5 17 …
Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart jbut his stomach, and is expelled?’”
So, my question is, if there is nothing outside a person that can defile him, then why were dietary laws ever in place? Jesus, according to Mark, did not say as soon as I die all food will then be clean. He said “whatever goes into a person... cannot defile him.”
That seems fairly unambiguously contradictory to the very reason for dietary laws, i.e. cleanliness, be they exclusively for worship or not. If no food is unclean then no one is unclean because of food ever… even for worship, so why include dietary rules at all?
1) you said: "you dragged MLK into this because he's a religious figure who stood up for human rights, and you are trying to use that to defend men who use their religion to try to deny human rights to others."
no. read David Chappell's "Stone of Hope." it was MLK's conservative religious beliefs that led him to take the socially progressive stand he took – and that made it so effective. the same is true of Wilberforce.
you like MLK's faith when it worked in tandem with what you believe. now, on this topic, that those SAME beliefs stand against your beliefs. that's inconvenient for you – so you call it bi.gotry, because that's a lot easier than actually engaging their basis.
2) you are the one claiming HGTV is so capable, so i asked you if you equally believe A&E is so capable. you chose to ignore my question in favor of repeating your point.
you can't have it both ways. either the people at A&E are just as capable (which did not fall in favor of your beliefs) or HGTV is equally capable of making a poor decision. which is it?
3) you said: "My personal belief is grounded in science and in the many friendships I have with g.ays and les.bians."
a) science makes no ethical claims here. the discussion is what is 'good.'
b) your many friendships are just as anecdotal as mine in determining what is & is not 'good.'
4) you said: "They are no different than heterose.xuals: They work, they pay taxes, they love their families and their mates."
and just like heteros... they sin & need a Savior.
the question here is: what is right & wrong? and how does one determine it?
see, you want to assume the debate is about "rights", but you aren't being fully honest about from whence those rights are derived. you just want it taken on faith that my beliefs make me a 'bi.got' while your equally exclusive beliefs (in this case, of "people like me") are somehow accepted. that IS silencing.
5) you said: "It sickens me that people like you wish to treat them as second-class citizens, simply because of who they love."
i never said they should be "second-class citizens." you appear to be claiming that UNLESS i accept their moral grid, i am unacceptable. how is that not the very thing you are railing against? doesn't THAT make you sick?
6) you said: "I am not trying to silence the Benhams or force them to change their beliefs."
on the contrary, everything you have said here strongly implies that is the only acceptable course of action. either they should change or be pushed to the margins – which is a functional silencing.
7) you said: "I am not advocating that they lose their rights. You don't seem to understand this simple fact: Actions have consequences. No one is obligated to give the Benhams a TV show. No one is obligated to respect the opinions of the Benhams. They don't get special rights."
i never argued that they were ent.itled to a show. but isn't it interesting that HGTV was fine with them until certain bloggers got really hot about it?
and yes, actions do have consequences. that's why i'm pleading with you (and those with whom you agree) to consider your methodology. respectful disagreement should mean not trying to call those with whom you disagree "bigots" just because they disagree with you.
8) you said: "And when I speak of "we" I speak of those of us who believe that g.ays and les.bians deserve equality. I say "we" because there are many, many people who think that unjust discrimination is wrong."
see, your assumptions keep popping out. did you really think i would say "hey, I'm for unjust discrimination"? of course not. i'm absolutely against unjust discrimination. the real question: who determines what is "just"?
the point here AGAIN: is ho.mo.se.xuality just/good/right/etc.? "deserving equality" appeals to some underlying set of principles. you have a different set than me. if you can't admit that & acknowledge that possibility as legitimate, then civil dialogue will never be possible.
case in point: you want to have something i believe is wrong labeled as right.
can you understand why that's not "equality" from where i stand?
i understand why you feel oppositely. but i disagree with your BELIEFS.
now, are you willing to talk about *those* differences? or will you continue to take the cheap side door of labeling me as a 'bi.got' simply because i do not share your beliefs?
@ midwest Ken:
that's a fair question, and thank you for actually reading the link.
the short answer: the ceremonial laws of the OT were there to point to the spiritual reality (the people were unclean/unholy). washing their hands didn't make them somehow spiritually clean, but it reminded them that there was something broken in their relationship w/ God.
the ceremonial laws all pointed to the fact that the people weren't holy & needed some way to be made holy. after all, how can an animal's life (which does not bear God's image) make up for the loss of human life (which does)?
it points forward to the answer that only the NT brings: God would send his Son to be the sacrifice that would do what they could not: make his people clean.
or, as Hebrews 11 puts it, the OT believers trusted in the promises of God without realizing the full implications of those promises.
Russ....are you insinuating that asking a question that requires a simple yes or no answer is not fair?
1) are you insinuating your question wasn't loaded?
2) yes, i believe the entire Bible is the Word of God.
i await your favorite 'loophole' passage/objection.
Russ....no, I am not insinuating anything. I wanted to know if you believed every word in the old testament, including Leviticus. I have an extremely difficult time believing that of all the issues that Leviticus put forth, h-omos-exuality is the one that Christians seem to draw on so much. There are so many other issues he lists that should offend but does not seem to. And, I believe your knowledge of the bible is such that you know exactly what I am referring to, making it unnecessary for me to list any of his additionally silly diatribes. And, I asked because you seem articulate, so I was just wondering how it is possible that you have just been able to ignore all the scientific evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth is older than 6000 years.
“the ceremonial laws of the OT were there to point to the spiritual reality (the people were unclean/unholy). washing their hands didn't make them somehow spiritually clean, but it reminded them that there was something broken in their relationship w/ God.”
This seems different than what your linked article stated:
“There was also a complex set of rules for ceremonial purity and cleanness. You could only approach God in worship if you ate certain foods and not others, wore certain forms of dress, refrained from touching a variety of objects, and so on. This vividly conveyed, over and over, that human beings are spiritually unclean and can't go into God's presence without purification.”
“When he died on the cross the veil in the temple tore, showing that he had done away with the the need for the entire sacrificial system with all its cleanliness laws. “
If it were merely to, as you say, “point to” the spiritual uncleanliness, the why was it ever ‘needed’ and not merely recommended, in the first place? Were dietary laws necessary? Did certain foods make one unclean?
The Bible seems to say yes:
“ Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which divide the hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you.”
“24 ‘By these, moreover, you will be made unclean: whoever touches their carcasses becomes unclean until evening, 25 and whoever picks up any of their carcasses shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.”
So, I am still confused, were certain foods ever unclean as the OT states or never unclean as the NT states?
Ken....I have the same issues with the OT, especially Leviticus. He makes it pretty clear what is bad and const-itutes punishment...eating shellfish, wearing a poly-cotton blend, planting corn and soybeans in the same field, and what is good, like selling my daughter into slavery, but only to a neighboring country. There is nothing to misconstrue about that. It is plain as day and needs absolutely no re-definition or translation. I have an incredibly difficult time understanding how these things can be ignored, but h-omos-exuality seems to be so prevalent in their minds. I try to understand, but I really can't.
You know, Russ, I had a big spiel to counter your post, but it's an utter waste of time. You just don't get it. Freedom of speech is not freedom from accountability. The Benhams spoke out against a segment of our fellow Americans. Their comments were offensive to many people, including the powers that be at HGTV. HGTV has chosen not to be associated with behavior that they find objectionable. That is their right.
No one is trying to silence the Benhams. No one is trying to force them to change their beliefs. HGTV simply decided that they did not want to air their show.
From USA Today:
UPDATE: 7:30 a.m. ET: The Benham brothers issued a statement early Thursday saying they are "saddened" by HGTV's decision.
"The first and last thought on our minds as we begin and end each day is; have we shined Christ's light today? Our faith is the fundamental calling in our lives, and the centerpiece of who we are. As Christians we are called to love our fellow man. Anyone who suggests that we hate homosexuals or people of other faiths is either misinformed or lying. Over the last decade, we've sold thousands of homes with the guiding principle of producing value and breathing life into each family that has crossed our path, and we do not, nor will we ever discriminate against people who do not share our views."
The brother also said:
"We were saddened to hear HGTV's decision. With all of the grotesque things that can be seen and heard on television today you would think there would be room for two twin brothers who are faithful to our families, committed to biblical principles, and dedicated professionals. If our faith costs us a television show then so be it."
I wonder if Christians will threaten to boycott HGTV like they did for the Duck Hunters?
I think the real question is who the key demographic for HGTV really is.
I think HGTV knows their audience well.
The Benham's statement also appears in CNN's Full Story posts.
Obviously, the Benhams have an opinion about their appeal that is not shared by HGTV.
I don't know anything about these two, but their father is most definitely at racist, ho/mophobic, evangelical blowhard.
Can we expect correct moral judgments to come from a society that considers it harmless entertainment to find such things as video links on this very website to "Kate Upton weightless in a bikini," rather than to see it for what it is as a disgusting, childlike fascination with things that should be left alone.
This society is truly depraved, having been deprived of all vestiges of morality it once had, if ever it had any at all. It is this lax atti.tude towards holiness that has allowed our society to accept any form of so-called morality except of course that which comes from God.
Truly, light has come into the world, but men hate the light because their deeds are evil – morality comes only from God, and He has not stuttered.
Ja/pan is 99% non-christian.
It is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world.
It's homicide rate is 1/10th that of the US, for example.
Are you saying that the entire nation is now and has always been immoral?
Morality doesn't JUST mean lack of crime. Obviously it isn't illegal to post videos like I mentioned, but then, one of America's biggest problems is with po.rnography. Just because something is LEGAL, doesn't make it right, after all, there is a direct link between por.nography and crimes like r.ape. You should hear Ted Bundy's interview with James Dobson sometime.
And we'll use Fred Phelps comments to decide the merits of Christianity, right?
His hatred of non-Christians are on par with the vitriol that I have seen you write about Christians. NEITHER is right.
I have NEVER expressed any hatred of Christians. I don't hate anyone. I do report what the Bible says. Try again.
A study done at the Inst.it.ute of Criminal Science in Denmark that compared s.ex crime statistics against the rise of the availability of p.o/rn (especially violent types) found no ca.usal link between the two.
Since 1993, ra. pe is down 72 percent in the US and other se. xual as.saults have fallen by 68 percent.
A paper presented to Stanford Law in 2006 found that states where Internet access expanded the fastest saw ra. pe decline the most. A 10 percent increase in Internet access typically meant a 7.3 percent reduction in the number of ra. pes.
But anyways – are you calling 99% of all Ja/panese people immoral?
Even different Christian sects have differences in morality, correct? Two people cash have differing opinions on abortion, h0m0s3xuality, capital punishment, women's rights, race equality, the treatment of children, animals, and the environment, plus a host of other topics, and still be justified in calling themselves "Christian". So, how is it that you presume to speak for everyone of your faith?
Doc, try telling that to Ted Bundy.
It's fascinating to see you use Ted Bundy as a reliable source and indicator of America's morals. Gotta be the same for Fred Phelps, right?
hard to do, theo, as bundy is dead
on the other hand, you claim to talk to jesus
maybe you can give ted a call
Sam Stone – that made me laugh
Sam, unfamiliar with satire are we?
Correlation is not causation.
Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Lukashenko, Kagame, Pinochet, Hussein, and Gadafi and sported mustaches, therefore mustaches cause genocide.
Don't believe me? Ask Hitler.
But anyways – are you calling 99% of all Ja/panese people immoral?
Direct, personal interaction with God is the cause of infanticide.
Just ask Khandi Busby, Angel Rico, Lasahun Harris, and Jennifer Cisowski.
So are you saying then that morality can be defined as that which is legal, and doesn't lead to that which is illegal?
What then if it does lead to crime in at least one person? Is it still moral? What about when society makes something legal that used to be illegal, or vica versa? Can morality really be that fickle? We don't respect presidents who "flip flop" on issues, but you're fine with morality itself doing the same thing?
" But anyways – are you calling 99% of all Ja/panese people immoral?"
I don't know, that would be on a case to case basis if you're talking about specifics, but I can say this as a generality, if they are human, they are immoral. People become immoral when they do that which is not moral, and since everyone has violated even that which they themselves deem to be "moral behavior" then everyone on earth is immoral.
"but I can say this as a generality, if they are human, they are immoral."
All I can say is that generally, if they are Christians, they are corrupt liars. How is that for a generality Theo? It is just as accurate as your statement.
Concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals.
Morality is a covenant by and for people that enables us to live together.
We are selfish creatures by nature, yet our survival depends on cooperation. In order to balance these two conflicting instincts, mankind has had to develop rules that allow room for both.
These rules are not the same for all communities – hence we've had so many different types of religion and government throughout history.
Moral relativism is still a truism. Ethical codices existed prior to the Abrahamic religions and have evolved independently since.
People are inherently selfish. We instinctively do that which is least painful. Children do that which is least painful to themselves. Maturity comes when we are able to put aside our own immediate comfort and do that which is least painful for the group. Were it not for our ability to reason this out and cooperate, our species would not survive. As individuals, we are prey animals – soft, squidgy, slow and bereft of in-built offensive capabilities. As a cooperative group, we have become the dominant species in nearly every eco-system on Earth.
But it takes a mighty big stick to beat the selfishness out of us! Historically, it has been a God sized stick capable to inflicting unimaginable devastation in this life and the hereafter.
A prime example of the reality of moral relativism is cannibalism.
Our culture has a very strong cannibalism taboo, but it cannot be "human nature" or something "written on our hearts by God" to feel repulsed by it as virtually every branch of the human species has praticed it at some point in their development.
The Aztecs believed in transubstantiation. They consumed their human sacrifices in the belief that the dead literally became a part of the God to whom they were given.
Binerwurs in India ate the sick amongst them to please Kali.
The Karankawa, an indigenous Texan tribe, ritualistically consumed their enemies to gain their strength.
The Wari, The Kuru, Fore, Caribs, Fijians, Popayans, Serengipeans, are all fairly modern examples (within the last 500 years).
Indeed, Christians from the 1st Crusade consumed the fallen Arabs at Maarat.
Sociological evolution is leading us away from religion – not because Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc are negative in and of themselves, but becuase they are necessarily sectarian and divisive.
Universally accepted ethics can never be based on the supernatural. Any proposition that relies on faith can and will be twisted by unscrupulous individuals for their own gain. Its just far too easy to manipulate those who are willing to suspend critical thinking and accept something without evidence.
Countries with a high percentage of nonbelievers are among the freest, most stable, best-educated, and healthiest nations on earth. When nations are ranked according to a human-development index, which measures such factors as life expectancy, literacy rates, and educational attainment, the five highest-ranked countries – Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands – all have high degrees of nonbelief. Of the fifty countires at the bottom of the index, all are intensly religious. The nations with the highest homicide rates tend to be more religious; those with the greatest levels of gender equality are the least religious.
To co-opt the NRA:
"Po.rnography doesn't ra/pe people – people ra/pe people.
no, corn pone. i am quite familiar with satire.
can we expect correct moral judgements from those who take their morality from 2,000 year old texts?
"This society is truly depraved, having been deprived of all vestiges of morality it once had"
Like back in the biblical days when it said there was no depravity and everything was moral?
So rather than strive for morality, would you rather give in to the whims of society and go along with whatever it deems is moral? If society suddenly deemed that it was "moral" to marry your dog, would you then divorce your wife and marry Spot?
Society doesn't tell me what morality is, because society doesn't know what morality is, since it has no basis against which to compare "good" and "bad." It would seem that the standard is "as long as no one is hurt" but we know that doesn't work either.
With more enlightened people today, we are bright enough to see all the immorality in the Bible and so don't support slavery, beating children, discrimination against women and the handicapped, etc.
Yup! It's obvious that such advances as abolition were a product of the Enlightenment, and that enlightened Christians then reworked their interpretation of the Bible to support this secular discovery, not the other way around, like preachers like to claim these days. There was always a far stronger case for slavery to be found in the pages of that book.
I choose not to support society's so-called morality when it deems moral things like the murder of babies in the womb, sodomy, drunkenness, getting high, public nudity, po.rnogr.aphy... Yeah, society sure has come a long way.
Speaking of drunkenness and public nudity, read the Bible about God's hero Noah.
"Speaking of drunkenness and public nudity, read the Bible about God's hero Noah."
Good, you're reading your Bible, now stop acting like a child and show me where God said that it was a good thing that he had done. Or does the Bible instead show how his immoral act caused nothing but hardship?
God scoured the ENTIRE world and Noah was the epitome of what God wanted man to be like. That's why he was one of only FOUR men worth saving.
So much for God's judgment and omniscience of what was to come.
"...show me where God said that it was a good thing that he had done"
He allowed Noah to get drunk, allowed Ham to do whatever was offensive. Then allowed Noah to punish Ham. Obviously didn't see too much wrong in any of that.
"God scoured the ENTIRE world and Noah was the epitome of what God wanted man to be like. That's why he was one of only FOUR men worth saving. So much for God's judgment and omniscience of what was to come."
Observer, quit typing, you're making yourself look bad. The Bible nowhere says that Noah was the epitome of what God wanted. He wasn't perfect, no man is. In fact, the Bible said of the world at that time that "all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth" and that included Noah. What is said of him though is that he "found favor in the eyes of God." What that means is that although he was sinful, his desire was to do the will of God, whereas the rest of the planet was not. That is not unlike Christians today.
Get serious. Out of the ENTIRE WORLD, God CHOOSES Noah and you don't consider him the best of what God wanted.
If Noah wasn't a good example for God, he should have been wiped out along with everyone else.
"He allowed Noah to get drunk, allowed Ham to do whatever was offensive. Then allowed Noah to punish Ham. Obviously didn't see too much wrong in any of that."
First, he didn't curse Ham, he cursed his descendants through Canaan. Next, you think that because God allows something, He sees no wrong in it? God allows murder on this earth, God allows theivery on this earth, God allows unbelief on this earth, but all are sins, and all will be punished. The reason that God allows this sort of thing is because He has a purpose for it.
Look at the life of Joseph as an example... (Genesis 50:20)
God used Joseph, and his suffering circu.mstances to accomplish His own sovereign purposes. God had a plan for the world, and in order to fulfill that, He had a plan for the nation Israel, and in order to fulfill that, He had a plan for Joseph, and it all was all tied together. The plan for His chosen people included their survival during a 7-year famine. During that famine, Joseph’s brothers had no food; that brought them to Egypt where there was plenty. And when they arrived in Egypt, because of the greatness of Joseph, they were given a land of their own, the best of the land – the land of Goshen. And over the next 400 years, that group of people would be transformed from a single family of 12 brothers into a nation that would witness to the glory of God.
Noah was such an immoral LOSER that he punished his own grandson for what he had done.
Where did God say that making a slave of his grandson was wrong?
"Get serious. Out of the ENTIRE WORLD, God CHOOSES Noah and you don't consider him the best of what God wanted."
No, of course he wasn't "the best of what God wanted" as you put it – his actions in growing a vineyard and getting drunk are a testament to that. The point is that although he was sinful, the practice of his life was to honor God. You need to stop "adding to the text" that's a dangerous thing to do.
"If Noah wasn't a good example for God, he should have been wiped out along with everyone else."
That's true, and God would have been completely justified in wiping out all of humanity at their first infraction of His righteousness, but God is not only just, but He is merciful, and gives grace to the humble. And that, of course, is the story of the flood. (and the rest of holy writ for that matter)
his actions in growing a vineyard
Growing a vineyard is sinful? So, you'll never visit northern California again?
Madtown, I do hope that you're attempting to be funny.
" murder of babies in the womb, sodomy, drunkenness, getting high, public nudity, po.rnogr.aphy"
No murder is being committed and anyone who thinks this way has failed to comprehend that if a woman can't get one legally, they will find a way. To force anyone to carry through with an unplanned pregnancy is immoral. Why should a rape victim be forced to carry through a pregnancy when this isn't what she wanted? Should she have forced her abuser to use a condom? What if the mother's life is at risk? There are a great many 'what ifs' here and yet all you can think of is that it is murder. When it becomes a criminal offense, then you can whine but until then get over it, your ilk has lost this battle.
Sodomy, really? How is it any of your business what a person does in the privacy of their own bedroom? How does it affect your life?
Drunkenness and getting high are both things inflected upon ones self and once again not your business. Presently and fortunately both are regulated. Alcohol is legal because as with most things, you're not stopping it, so you're best to find a way to work with it, thus the reason for laws. Listed as a Class A drug is marijuana and yet there have been numerous studies done that show where marijuana shouldn't be in that group. By keeping it illegal, you force people to dealers who are likely going to have access to much more potent stuff such as cocaine and heroine. There are numerous uses for marijuana and soon with the legalization of it in Colorado, you will see other states jump on that money making ship.
Public nudity and pornography are silly things to whine about. Although outside of nude beaches and strip clubs, I'm curious as to where you're seeing public nudity. As for porn, don't like it-don't view it but once again you're not going to prevent it....if Christians can stand on a corner and hand out their propaganda, people can make money from making movies in whatever way they wish. It's very small minded to take offense to something that no-one is forcing you to view.
Of course, always. Laughter soothes the soul. I do hope you don't seriously consider working a vineyard to be "sinful".
Just another case of bad judgment. Same story for another one of his top people, Solomon.
Donald Trump would have fired him if he was God's boss
what's immoral about getting high?
"Observer, quit typing, you're making yourself look bad."
Gee, Uncle Corn Pone, tell us again how the jews deserved the holocaust
I don't understand why we are even discussing anything with a nut that actually believes that the story of Noah is real! How can you hold a conversation with somebody that really believes that his creator wiped out every one of his creations via a flood because he was mad that his creation turned out exactly how he knew it was going to, then, produced a rainbow because he regretted doing such a bizarre thing, even though he knew way beforehand that he was going to regret it but did it anyway. Then....all the plants somehow recreated themselves, and people somehow re-created over the next 4000 years with differing features (like blacks, Asians, Norwegians, etc). Then....to ignore the fossil records found by scientists, as well as all the other evolutionary discoveries just to maintain some sick devotion to an invisible deity.....it absolutely staggers the imagination. There is nothing I can say to people of this dense intellect, as they have already made up their mind what they will accept as 'truth' and no amount of scientific evidence will convince them. They are idiots, plain and simple. Sorry to be so direct, but sometimes you have to be.
and your morality tells you that jews deserved the holocaust, corn pone
why should anyone dive a rat's behind about your view of the comic book?
morality comes only from God
How do you know? Where are the moral tenets listed, where do we go to refer to them?
Oh of course, the bible. Well again, since God didn't author the bible, how do you know the bible is the source of moral tenets from God? And, if you believe God wrote the bible as the moral source for all humanity, you then have to answer the question of why he doesn't make the bible available to each human that he creates. How are the humans he creates with no access to christianity going to be able to follow moral guidelines, when those guidelines are never provided in the first place?
You say that God didn't write the Bible? The 10 Commandments were written by God Himself, so was the inscription on the wall of Belshazzar's palace. The rest? Although penned by man, it was authored by God.
Exodus 33:11 – Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.
Numbers 12:8 – With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 13:12 – For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
10 commandments written by god himself?
saying it don't make it so, corn pone
The rest? Although penned by man, it was authored by God.
I see. He just felt the humans(that he created) living in North America at the time, or elsewhere not in the middle east, had no use for them? Do you ever have a thought in your head not backed by biblical scripture?
"saying it don't make it so..."
Without any proof, Darwinists have been using that reasoning for years to explain their beliefs.
"Do you ever have a thought in your head not backed by biblical scripture?"
Yes, but I have repented of them.
Our laws are FORTUNATELY not based on the 10 Commandments. Christians are lucky it's that way or all their adulterers would be in prison.
"Our laws are FORTUNATELY not based on the 10 Commandments. Christians are lucky it's that way or all their adulterers would be in prison."
First of all, Exodus 20:1-17 doesn't list a punishment for adultery, only that you shouldn't do it. Furthermore, do you think that adultery is a GOOD thing? If not, then how would you suggest we stop it from occurring? Jail for it might not be a bad thing.
I have repented of them
That is great. How does someone who God placed in an area of the world with no christianity repent? He has no concept of the bible's existence.
We'll never stop adultery. We can, however, take a much more realistic view than Jesus did. Calling people who divorced and remarried being adulterers just encourages bad marriages to continue which can lead to adultery. The biblical ignorance of claiming people are adulterers for lusting after others is actually so foolish that it, in effect, says everyone who ever fell in love with their future spouse was an adulterer when they married.
"Although penned by man, it was authored by God."
That's just what the Mormons say!
"Yes, but I have repented of them"
That pretty much sums it up
His thoughts are those of iron age sheep mounters
Come on, theo, jeebus is waiting....
""Although penned by man, it was authored by God."
WRONG........The bible is obviously authored by man, penned by man...
Seriously, corn pone, where was this moral utopia you say we have fallen from?
Wow....theo, that is a whole new world of crazy.
Mythology can be fun!
"morality comes only from God,"
God supports slavery, many discriminations, beating children, etc. That is his idea of morality.
FORTUNATELY, most people are intelligent enough to reject such barbaric and ignorant "morals".
How is it that a few words written on parchment by some unnamed, ignorant, desert dwelling goat herder a few thousand years ago can do such long lasting damage to LGBT people today?
Why is it than in a modern country like America, so many people switch off all common sense and logic and believe the fairy stories and hateful rhetoric written by this ignorant, desert dwelling goat herder and his ilk over centuries?
What does age and geography have to do with validity?
Ummm...let's see. Those same people thought the earth was flat, the center of the universe, that the earth came before the sun, that bats are birds, that a person could be the property of another person, etc., etc.
And what does those things have to do with the validity of certain morals?
How did you come to the conclusion that morals came from the bible?
My morals tell me that thinking another person can be your property is wrong. Your bible (and you?) are ok with that. The bible has many moral things in it, the problem is it has some immoral things. That would qualify the bible to be an important historical docu.ment recording human advancement, but it disqualifies the bible from being the perfect word of a moral God.
Study, prayer, practicing the teachings to see how they fit and apply and of course taking a leap of faith.
What makes you think that the one rotten apple spoils the bunch principle applies when it comes to the Bible?
Morals existed before the bible, before any religion, so they did not originate in the bible.
kevin, The bible has plenty of rotten apples – bear in mind that little of the bible and none of the creation stories are factual. As the creation stories are the foundation, well it means there is no foundation.
Bear in mind that you really don't know for a fact that what took place in the Bible are for certain factually incorrect,especially regarding creation since the details are not really there in the account. It's just your belief that they are just like it is my belief that there is a God who does not want to be made known but would rather have us develop our faith, and it is because you can't actually prove that there is no such God who does not want to be made known is why one can only believe that there is no such being. what it all boils down to is that it is all a matter of faith and belief in both your position as well as mine.
If you have ever been a parent, there's no doubt that you didn't raise your kids to guess whether you were in charge and you certainly never told them they were free to do what they wanted and that you'd punished them many years later when they die. Why?
kevinite.....Develop our faith? Really? Based on what? A 2000 year old book providing nothing but baseless clues, most of which have been debunked by scientific discoveries over time? And then, if we somehow miss all those ambiguous clues, we suffer an eternity in some hellish nightmare? That, is absolutely sheer lunacy. Any god that would act like that is completely unworthy of worship. I've said this before, and I will continue to say it. Show me the proof....any evidential proof...that your god exists, and I will be happy to park my keester in the pew every Sunday. Until then, please keep your delusion out of my legislation and to your own crazy self. It also helps that you put little fish on the back of your cars so I know exactly who to stay away from.
kevin, The biblical account of creation – in fact all creation myths – do not match our knowledge of how the universe, the solar system, and species on earth came to be. Best guess of an ancient people but not true.
because, like it or not, morality changes over time and culture
What makes you think that it's time and cultural evolution that define what truth is?
Morality is not truth.
Definition of morality in English:
Pronunciation: /məˈralətē, mô- /
NOUN (plural moralities)
1Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
1.1A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society:
a bourgeois morality
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
1.2The extent to which an action is right or wrong:
behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
So, how is it that morality and truth are not connected in any way?
what makes you think that those who wrote the bible had either truth or the correct morality?
based on that definition, morality would be subjective
It's based on belief. What makes you think that those who wrote in the Bible were completely false and immoral?
So are you saying then there are really no truths behind any morals?
If morals comes directly from God, and are outlined in the bible, how come God will create many humans today that will go their entire lives never learning the first thing about the bible and it's contents?
"So, how is it that morality and truth are not connected in any way?"
I didn't say that. Reread my previous comment.
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
(1 Peter 3:18-20 KJV)
If those souls from Noah's day were truly lost why would Christ preach to those spirits? I do believe that those who never had a chance to learn about the gospel in this life will get that chance after this life.
i did not claim they were
do you think that the morality of iron age man is applicable to 21st century man?
You said that morality is not truth, which is why I asked as to why you do say that there is no truth in morality. So, then are you saying that there is truth in morality?
Kevin wait a second.....................I reference human beings who God placed by birth in areas of the world devoid of christianity, and you respond with scripture? Does that not seem illogical to you? What good is scripture to humans that have no idea scripture exists?
I believe that morality in not necessarily just the product of a society. I do believe that there are certain morals that transcend time and culture or in other words I believe that there are certain morals out there that do not have expiration dates, or at least have extremely extensive expiration dates.
Those scriptures may not be applicable to them in who never learned about the gospel in mortality, but I do believe that the gospel will be applicable to them after their mortal lives have ended and that these children of God are not forgotten by God.
I agree they are children of God, as are you and I. That's the thing, don't you believe in the power of God? Don't you believe God created this entire universe and all life within? Sure you do. Yet, you doubt God's power to create "his word" on his own and distribute it evenly and equally, instead accepting the creation of imperfect and biased men as your source of truth and morality. Illogical, and unfortunate.
Firstly I was responding to your comment where appeared to be equating morality and truth.
Secondly I never said that there is no truth in morality; I said that they're not the same thing.
Where do you get the idea that you know what a God is supposed to do or that you or that if God was to be a just God that things would only be done in a way you deem it fit? Frankly, whether it is done either in this life or afterwards I do believe God does have everybody have the opprotunity to learn about the gospel and choose for themselves. In the eternal scheme of things what difference does it make when it comes to timing since were talking about eternity not just about this life.
Yes I equated morality and truth because they are in fact tied together. That was my point. You are the one who went in about truth and morality are different terms, but since there is truth is an essential part of morality, why did you make the claim about them not being the same thing when I didn't claim that were the same thing but rather that the two are in fact connected?
I ideas about God are based on belief, and yet you seem very certain as to defines a God.
you want to connect truth and morality. You do so only in your mind.
"Truth" is unknowable, or philosophers would be out of a job.
"Morality" on the other hand is very tangible. Not only does it exist, and while people will disagree over particulars, we broadly agree on what it is. It is not connected to what you call "Truth".
was to be a just God that things would only be done in a way you deem it fit?
The way I deem fit? As opposed to the ways the human authors of biblical scripture deem fit? What's the difference? Both are opinions. I'm not telling God how to operate, I'm asking legitimate logical questions, based off the declarations of your preferred religion. Questions you have no logical answer for, and can only resort to quoting scripture.
you seem very certain as to defines a God.
Look who's talking. You lean on the writings of men for the "1 true" definition of God, with all others being false. If you want to believe in this scenario, where christianity is the 1 true religion, then to be intellectually consistent and honest, you have to admit that the inverse is possible: since God hasn't made certain christianity is available to all of humanity, maybe God has actually given the "correct" religion to a different culture, and you have no knowledge of this true religion.? Why couldn't this be the case? It's exactly what you want to impose on other humans in this world with no knowledge of christianity.
" I'm asking legitimate logical questions, based off the declarations of your preferred religion. Questions you have no logical answer for, and can only resort to quoting scripture."
Now when you ask me a question like "|Why couldn't this be the case? " and then you immediately answer with "It's exactly what you want to impose on other humans in this world with no knowledge of christianity." You are not really asking any questions here. Instead what you are doing is making an accusation, and in this case an unfounded accusation since I did answer the question you said I didn't answer; that all will get the opprotunity to know of the gospel if not in this life then they will after this life. Instead of you being concerned about the welfare of these eternal souls as to wondering whether or not they will get the chance for salvation, you get hung up on that somehow because not everyone will get that chance in their mortal lives that somehow that means that God is biased; that in my beliefs as to how God gives out those opprotunities that it doesn't meet to your specifications, then that automatically means that God is biased, when in my beliefs the point is that no matter how you slice it everybody whehter in this life or afterwards will get a chance at learning about the gospel and make their own choices as to whether to follow the gospel or not.
"Look who's talking. You lean on the writings of men for the "1 true" definition of God, with all others being false. If you want to believe in this scenario, where christianity is the 1 true religion, then to be intellectually consistent and honest, you have to admit that the inverse is possible: since God hasn't made certain christianity is available to all of humanity, maybe God has actually given the "correct" religion to a different culture, and you have no knowledge of this true religion.? "
Well, of course not, what do you think faith is anyway? Faith is not assured knowledge. I certainly have do not have full knowledge regarding God or knowing why I believe God does or does not do certain things. One question comes to mind is why couldn't God give ready access knowledge to everyone at the same time? All I know is that that I believe that the full gospel and organization behind it was given universally starting with Adam and Eve and once again with Noah and his family , but do to our given ability to choose whether or not to obey the teachings of the gospel there will be desendants who choose not to follow and as a result their children and their children's children then become raised in ignorance of the gospel. Now although I don't fully know why God has at times withhteld from having his full gospel preached to the whole world at one time, I do believe that God has actually not forgotten them and that he has it arranged that if they didn't get the chance in life to know of the gospel they definitely will get that chance after this life and even though how God does it doesn't meet your specifications, that doesn't mean that that God is in fact biased.
what you are doing is making an accusation, and in this case an unfounded accusation since I did answer the question you said I didn't answer
You didn't answer the question. The question is: "why is the religious path that you follow the correct one, relative to others". God creates humans, and gives them no path to learn of christianity. Given this fact, could it be that God has given the "correct" religion to a different culture, and you are not aware of this religion? Maybe you are one of the humans God has created, but not given access to the "correct" religion. Why couldn't this be the case?
God has actually not forgotten them and that he has it arranged that if they didn't get the chance in life to know of the gospel they definitely will get that chance after this life
Of course he hasn't forgotten them, he created them. I think that with people like you, you only think of God in terms of the form of religion you endorse. When you say "God" you mean "christian version of God". You don't accept that there are other versions equally valid to your preferred version. Why would humans be presented with the gospel "after this life" if they're not presented with it in this life? Seems like God doesn't care if these people are presented with it or not, otherwise he'd make certain it was available. That is probably because it's not HIS to begin with, it's a creation of human beings.
It's wrong to take people's comments out of context. It's unethical and journalists loose their credibility when they play sound bites that are bits and pieces of a conversation that does not wholly represent a person's point of view on a subject matter.
Every time there is a media frenzy created by comments such as these, one has to wonder why the media is so fond of twisting people's comments? Yes, it is twisting if you do not play the entirety of an interview and give the benefit of the doubt to a person. So, shame on you HGTV for not affording the view point of a person who sticks to family values according to their faith!
LOLOL Comedy Gold!
I suspect you are right.
"It's wrong to take people's comments out of context."
This is a thoughtful comment. I am willing to accept at face value the Benham's claims that in their professional capacity they do not discriminate against anyone.
We should consider the source and the source is the website Right Wing Watch.
They haven't committed any crime in speaking out for what they believe in. I will say there is much more than one comment and there looks to be a consistent trend here in their beliefs and opinions.
The viewership of such TV shows is like a 'cult of personality'. If the audience doesn't like the personality, they won't watch the program. That is the situation here and is the reality for people who want to be TV stars.
In this case Right Wing Watch did have an axe to grind for their father Flip Benham and in some ways may only be guilty by association.
The expression "sins of the father" comes to mind, though the Benham brothers in articulating their beliefs did limit their commercial appeal.
Without knowing the full scope of the situation, I have a feeling this is taken out of context, especially that the brothers are denying allegations of such sentiments.
I didn't seem them denying it Vic, only deflecting what was said by claiming it hypocritical of the network to deny them when "objectional" content is allowed elsewhere.
please read what they said. You can find it here:
This was a business decision by HGTV. LGBT people make up a big part of their viewership. Extrapolate that out to all their friends and families who would take offence and the Bible Brothers are a non starter.
Indeed. Freedom of speach (like all freedoms) includes the freedom to accept the consquences for your actions.
Cue the multiple posters railing about free speech – and wrongly so.
Not so sure about that. I buy into the free speech argument. For e.g., I am an atheist. If I was blocked form an employment or business opportunity because of my atheist views, I would have an issue with that.
Recall the small business in Arizona that did not wish to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding. They were nationally pilloried. If I owned a small cake shop and Topher, Theo Phileo or Salero21 came in and wanted me to bake a cake with Adam and Eve on it and Darwin with a big red "X" through him on it for a school party, I would say no.
As active opponents of religious suppression, I don't think we can have our cake and eat it too.
By definition, it is impossible for a privately held corporation to abridge your 1st Amendment rights. Whatever issue is at play here, it is definitelt not an issue of freedom of speech.
From a legal perspective, I obviously agree. The First amendment applies only to instrumentalities of the government. The broader issue is whether the fires of public opprobrium should rain down upon all those who have conservative social views based on their religious superst.itions. I see them as victims requiring education, not heinous villains.
Colin, I agree, but I suspect neither of us are, or want to be, TV stars.
I don't think we would be very successful pitching a show that needed lots of 'traditional values' viewers as the key demographic.
Two more victims of religious superst.itions. They are otherwise bright, talented people with a good product to offer, and yet, they lose this opportunity because they honestly believe that a being created the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies and then has a personal interest in their se.x lives. Poor guys. The poisoning effects of religion are many and varied.
Were TV host's religious beliefs a problem?
No, their bigotry was. The bible that they cherry picked the verses to rally against equal rights also tells them that only their god can judge. So why don't they keep their bigoted views to themselves, and let their fairy tale god deal with them?
""We love all people. I love h.omos.exuals. I love Islam, Muslims, and my brother and I would never discriminate. Never have we – never would we," said David Benham."
So... They don't stand FOR of AGAINST anything then???
yes, it was a nonsense statement wasn't it? Or perhaps a lie.
"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"
– Zapp Brannigan
"If I die, tell my wife I said 'Hello'..."
The problem is that he called it an agenda as if these people should shut up and stop fighting so hard for the basic rights they deserve. They don't have an agenda. He is merely hiding his own agenda by trying to make it look like he supports them when in fact by calling it an agenda is showing complete bigotry.