an astrophysicist, a gay bishop and a bigot


are having a debate

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

21 thoughts on “an astrophysicist, a gay bishop and a bigot

  1. watched some, and already, it’s quite fun. it’s great to watch the hatred and stupidity of the bigot get so readily shot down by the audience, Krauss and our fabulous bishop!

    Like

  2. archaeopteryx1 says:

    I thought you were going to say, “…walk into a bar…”

    Like

  3. Great discussion, but it’s a shame that so many people today don’t realize the ubiquitous reality of homosexuality in nature. As a kid, I observed our family’s two female dogs humping on a regular basis.

    The title of this post begs for a punch line. Anyone game?

    An astrophysicist, a gay bishop and a bigot walk into a bar…

    Like

  4. Barry says:

    I sometimes think that, in both Australia and NZ, people such as Fred Niles are included purely for their entertainment value, and not for any worthwhile contribution to the discussion. Would that be true in America? What did surprise me was the apparent support he had from the audience, if the level of the applause is is an accurate indicator.

    What I liked about Bishop Gene’s comments: that the Bible is a collection of books about an ancient people and their experience of (belief in) God; that the Bible not a prescriptive text; that religion is right for him, but isn’t necessary right for everyone; that no religion is the true religion; that we cannot extrapolate present day knowledge and experience and apply it to ancient scripture, without doing injustice to both.

    I think that both Lawrence Krauss and Fed Niles are both wrong in that they think that the Bible, if it is to be followed, should be taken literally – that by obeying some directives and not others, one is cherry picking. Obviously the two have come to different conclusions as what to do about the Bible, but I think both have come to the same wrong conclusion about what the Bible represents.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      I agree with most of your comment Barry. I have an issue however with your saying that Krauss and Niles have it wrong about the bible. There is no standard way to interpret the bible. It is that same line that many believers use to call others not True Christians.

      Like

    • Scottie says:

      Hello Barry. May I trouble you with a question. It is about the way some people cherry pick things from the bible or other books called holy books. I don’t understand the taking of the bible literally on any point, as I think you agreed with above. However as a gay man who is constantly confronted by people who cherry pick any negative comment they think their holy book makes against gay people, using that to hold gay people and others to standards they do not hold themselves or others too. The idea that they can choose which passages of don’ts to follow and those they can ignore freely because they wish to , it seems to me such a thing ruins the whole claim of a “deeply held religious belief” and to use their religion ( holy book ) to bash others while not following other rules in it themselves. Can you help me by expanding to me your meaning, what you were trying to say, and if you prefer you can do it in my email instead on this wonderful blog. Thank you for helping me understand what you mean and are saying. Hugs

      Liked by 1 person

      • Barry says:

        Shudder (sorry it’s an instinctive reaction to hugs).

        I’m not sure how much I can be of help as attitudes to religion and gender here are considerably more liberal than here than in most other parts of the world. Fewer than 10% of the population believe the Bible is the Word of God in any literal sense of the word. Those that do, tend to hide in the woodwork and with a few exceptions only come out where some level of Anonymity exists – blogs and letters to the editor being prime examples.

        I guess one factor that differentiates NZ and the US. is that as a society we are more interested in the spirit of the law than we are in the letter of the law, and many of our laws are worded so that they are descriptive rather than prescriptive. I’ll give an example:

        We have no marriage property laws, but we do have partnership property laws. The law doesn’t give a definition of a partnership, but does give some examples of the kinds of things that could be considered when deciding whether a partnership exists or not. But none of them are requirements. Essentially the law says “Given the facts available, would a reasonable person conclude that the persons involved are living in an established partnership? If the conclusion is ‘Yes’, then a partnership exists.”

        So having a marriage certificate has no direct bearing on whether one is in an established partnership or not, although it might be one of many factors that could be taken into account on deciding if one exists.

        That attitude to law is equally applied to religion (unless you happen to be a Bible literalist). Religious texts are descriptive rather than prescriptive. As such, there’s no problem if your interpretation is different to mine. That’s probably why all major world religions and atheism are looked upon favourably by 90% of the population, and also why I have difficulty answering your question adequately.

        The only way I can see to counter the arguments of a literalist, would be to find at least twice as many verses that contradict his/her verses of choice. And to be quite honest, I don’t think the effort is worth it.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Scottie says:

          Thanks, I appreciate the attempt, but it was not really what I was getting at. But I really thank you for trying. I did enjoy your explanation as it does answer other questions. Hugs

          Like

  5. Scottie says:

    I love the video, but I enjoyed the comments even more. You have some really smart followers and viewers. Thanks and hugs

    Like

  6. Scottie says:

    Reblogged this on Scotties Toy Box and commented:
    I watched the video, some of it I agreed with and some I did not. I found the out right bigoted statements to be offensive and misleading, I found some of the religious statements to also be either misleading or simply not something I apply to my own life. However to hear people talk about these issues was grand. Thanks and hugs

    Like

  7. Peter says:

    I liked the analogy used by Lawrence Krauss, ‘if the only instrument you have is a hammer, then everything look likes a nail’.

    Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s