I think we are straining a gnat to swallow a camel.
__________________ Love is the only miracle there is. -Osho
Matthew 10:16
See, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. So be as cunning as serpents and as innocent as doves.
17 “But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues; 18 and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. 19 “But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. 20 “For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. 21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. 22 “You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.
Let's look at this from a financial standpoint. Mr. McKellen takes a bible he has no need for, defaces it, and leaves it for the next person. Had McKellen not defaced it, it would be intact for the next person, someone who might actually appreciate it for what it is. However, since McKellen has defaced it, it now has to be discarded and replaced, or somehow fixed. Either way, that costs money. Gideons rely on the charity of other people.
So perhaps while McKellen's actions may be legal, they certainly are not charitable and it certainly doesn't make his point resonate. It just shows that perhaps some gays are petty enough that they feel they need to destroy what they disagree with, which is ironic when you truly consider it.
I see that we are now beyond the moral/ethical standpoint, beyond the legal standpoint and now on the economic/charitable... I'm sure we will find that he has done something wrong eventually, yeah, just got to keep moving those goal posts!
McKellen had a use for the Bible - to make a point about its teachings. It wasn't the purpose that the Gideon people imagined it being used for, but once it was McKellen's Bible he could use it as he sees fit. Whether you approve of that use is largely irrelevant as, I think we do agree on this, it is his property and he can do with it as he likes.
His point does seem to have resonated. We are here talking about it, aren't we? A Bible without a few pages of Leviticus isn't completely useless. Actually, I'd say it was probably an improvement for the next person to read it - they can stop worrying about eating lobster, wearing clothes made from multiple fiber types, owning slaves from neighboring nations, or trimming their beards etc.
Was it a petty act? Depends on your viewpoint, but in the greater scheme of things ripping out a few pages of a Bible can probably be defined as a petty act.
Look, we got him! He wasn't immoral or unethical or criminal. He was petty.
oh, i'm not moving the goalposts. I think what he did was wrong. I find the defense of his actions interesting...and....I find the double standard appalling. It's okay for someone to destroy the bible, but not the koran. If someone destroys the koran, they can be committed of a hate crime. (and this also highlights why I disagree with hate crimes in general.)
Really doesn't make much sense if you actually stop to think about it.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. †Beckie
Society Administrator
PM me if you have any questions, if you need help or if you need prayers.
~~~~~~~~~~
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I see that we are now beyond the moral/ethical standpoint, beyond the legal standpoint and now on the economic/charitable... I'm sure we will find that he has done something wrong eventually, yeah, just got to keep moving those goal posts!
McKellen had a use for the Bible - to make a point about its teachings. It wasn't the purpose that the Gideon people imagined it being used for, but once it was McKellen's Bible he could use it as he sees fit. Whether you approve of that use is largely irrelevant as, I think we do agree on this, it is his property and he can do with it as he likes.
His point does seem to have resonated. We are here talking about it, aren't we? A Bible without a few pages of Leviticus isn't completely useless. Actually, I'd say it was probably an improvement for the next person to read it - they can stop worrying about eating lobster, wearing clothes made from multiple fiber types, owning slaves from neighboring nations, or trimming their beards etc.
Was it a petty act? Depends on your viewpoint, but in the greater scheme of things ripping out a few pages of a Bible can probably be defined as a petty act.
Look, we got him! He wasn't immoral or unethical or criminal. He was petty.
Crucify him!
Amen brother! I got the spikes and the beams!!
__________________ My take 'n' do done took 'n' did To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Winner winner chicken dinner! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
oh, i'm not moving the goalposts. I think what he did was wrong. I find the defense of his actions interesting...and....I find the double standard appalling. It's okay for someone to destroy the bible, but not the koran. If someone destroys the koran, they can be committed of a hate crime. (and this also highlights why I disagree with hate crimes in general.)
Really doesn't make much sense if you actually stop to think about it.
You are moving the goalposts. You think it is wrong because it is your religion's holy book and don't like the idea that someone should be allowed to do anything bad to it, but you know that isn't really much weight, so you and other posters have been trying to prove that he was wrong based on a number of different criteria that would be acceptable to all, not just Christians, switching the definition (moral/legal/economic/charitable) after each former attempt was proven to be inadequate.
I'm not sure why you have such a persecution complex. You provided one analogous example of someone being tried for a hate crime for damaging a Koran (and as far as I can see the original charge of vandalism was justified, but not the escalation). I don't see how from this single incident you have extrapolated a broad and widely accepted double standard. As I have said before, loud minorities should not be confused for consensus. I don't think anyone in this thread has uttered anything even close to resembling the opinion which you think makes no sense. As I pointed out earlier, I could find nothing but denigration of the decision, be it from sources on the right or on the left.
The Guantanamo example was quite a different case. The problem was not so much that Korans were damaged, it was that the Korans had been given to Muslims who had been arrested and held without charge indefinitely in an off-shore facility and then, if their illegal captivity wasn't enough, and were then destroyed/defaced/sullied in a manner which was representative of the broader issue of the mistreatment of these individuals. If the shoe was on the other foot, if there was a gaol in Afghanistan where Americans were being held indefinitely, were provided with Bibles which were then defaced by their captors in such a way, there would naturally be outrage. The outrage was not so much the damage to the book, it was the way in which damaging the book was used as a means to an end of humiliation and offense.
It is fine for anyone to destroy a Koran or a Bible or any other book, if it is their legal possession and the manner of destroying it does not infringe any public safety laws. If people want to do it, they can. If people want to pile up books and burn them all, they can. You don't have to like it, but you have no right to stop it. If you do do it, or if you burn a flag, or any other legal, symbolic gesture of destruction, you should expect people to have a reaction that isn't always favourable (though really, that is the point of doing it - to get a reaction, to get attention).
What a pointless tirade... Seriously, there are starving kids in Africa, Americans lost in their own culture, and prisoners who need hope, and you're sitting here discussing how one celebrity is being a jerk? Why?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
See? Evolution is true! Computers are way better than spears!
If you has questions for Theology, I has answers. Shoot me a PM with your questions.
What a pointless tirade... Seriously, there are starving kids in Africa, Americans lost in their own culture, and prisoners who need hope, and you're sitting here discussing how one celebrity is being a jerk? Why?
FYI: You're here too. What should you be doing?
__________________ My take 'n' do done took 'n' did To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Winner winner chicken dinner! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
What a pointless tirade... Seriously, there are starving kids in Africa, Americans lost in their own culture, and prisoners who need hope, and you're sitting here discussing how one celebrity is being a jerk? Why?
What a pointless comment about a pointless tirade. Shouldn't you be off curing cancer and building houses for orphans in poverty striken Africa?
You do have a point though - why someones freedom to do with their own property what they will requires such analysis is puzzling to me.
I don't have a persecution complex. I just stop and take off my rose colored glasses every now and then and realize that many groups calling for equality don't want equality at all, they want to be MORE than that. This is one of those cases.
McKellen can tear the pages out of the bible all he wants for all I care. As has been pointed out, tearing out the pages doesn't change the fact that they're still there. The words don't simply disappear because someone rips a page out. All he's doing is showing how intolerant and bigoted he is. He doesn't "like" something so he's going to destroy it. How...mature...of him.
And yes, I've maintained this about book burnings as well, so please don't start talking about churches who have burned books over the years.
I've already maintained that I'd be just as disgruntled over this if it was the koran, and I mean that. Heck, he could be tearing up the hotel phone book and I'd probably be a bit ticked over it. He's being destructive for the heck of it and he almost gleefully admits it. Most of the people I know got over this back in 6th or 7th grade after they TPd someone's house. Seems he just never got out of that phase.
I still believe that the bible did not belong to him, as he was not taking it in the spirit that the Gideons are looking for, nor was it really for the purpose that the Gideons put the bibles in the hotels for in the first place. So I do believe that he was being malicious and destroying property that didn't belong to him. So no, I have not changed the goalposts. I've just pointed out multiple scenarios as to how this was poor thinking on McKellen's part.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. †Beckie
Society Administrator
PM me if you have any questions, if you need help or if you need prayers.
~~~~~~~~~~
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
