Even though they’ll call it hate
I want my gay friends to be happy. I want them to know they are loved. They remain friends with someone who believes what I believe about what they do because we don’t talk about it. Perhaps that’s their choice, or mine, or something in between, but we’ve steered clear of it—so far. Frankly, I dread the day it comes up, because I’ve long ago shed the notion that I have the clarity, judgment, and authority to contradict what the Church has taught from the very beginning. It’s a pernicious belief—running through the very heart of even the most conservative denominations—that the individual Christian is invited to judge for himself what the Bible does and does not mean.
So if my gay friends ask me what I think of their lifestyle and of gays getting married, I have to tell them. I dread that day because I am a coward and I want them to continue liking me and I don’t want to hurt them. For all our reputation as gay haters, I imagine there are more than a few Christians in a similar position.
As the campaign for gay marriage continues its relentless march toward a place where even Rome in its deepest debauchery didn’t tread, I’m tempted, when I think about this issue, to capitulate. I want my gay friends to be happy, after all. And who am I to interfere with their desire to form a legally sanctioned relationship?
This resonates with the libertarian in me, who wants to distinguish between the rules of the state and the authority of the Church. A marriage isn’t genuine, so far as I’m concerned, unless the Church recognizes it. So why not let my gay friends get “married”? Yes, there are the ancillary consequences, like employers being required to recognize what they consider illegitimate unions, and the additional impetus this would give a culture already bent on unmooring itself completely from the anchor of Judeo-Christian norms. Part and parcel with this, no doubt, would be the wide swath of churches, devoid of any firm dogma as it is, embracing the change with open arms: “Gays are getting married? We’ll just add a gay couples group to our 57 other varieties of small-group feel-good flavors. All are welcome at the First Church of Happy Thoughts.”
The ancillary consequences certainly aren’t negligible, but then I weigh them against a change that would ease some of the pain I see in friends who already feel like outcasts. And maybe, I’m tempted to tell myself, if they have the option of marriage, the promiscuous ones will settle into meaningful relationships. Maybe once they are attached to someone they love and feel less like aliens, they can even begin to hear the gospel. Heck, maybe supporting gay marriage is the Christian thing to do. Aren’t we supposed to love our neighbors?
It’s so very tempting to adopt this logic. Reinforcing it is the knowledge that by supporting gay marriage I am doing something that lets my gay friends know I care about their happiness. But I can’t, because supporting gay marriage is false compassion. It affirms the lie that men and women in open rebellion against God can inherit the kingdom of Heaven. I wish they could. I wish everyone could be saved. But the teaching of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is, and has always been, that homosexual practice is sin and that willfully unrepentant sinners imperil their very souls.
So what does love say? Assent to the farce in order that my friends will know my earthly, temporal, selfish affection? Or alienate myself from them by holding to the teaching of the Church out of a desire not to add to the lie they have been told by a world already gone so far astray that secular humanism is its default morality?
“Who are you to say?” That’s the understandable refrain. My reply is, “Exactly.” I am not to say, nor are you. We are called to cleave to God or throw in with Mammon, with Moloch, with Eros. And God help any of us who, in order to make our own situations more comfortable, lead our gay brothers and sisters further down a path of lies.
“This is not a Christian nation,” is another reasonable response. God knows that’s true enough. But we are Christian citizens living within it. And so long as we have the liberty of political participation and the responsibility of upholding the teaching of the Church, we must speak out against gay marriage, even if it costs us the friendships of people we care about. Because we love them.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top395 Comments to “Even though they’ll call it hate”
While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. He died for us precisely because He recognized our sin and He loved us so much that He chose to do something about it rather than leave us in our hopeless condition.
Thanks Tony. I have had similar thoughts with gay friends.
Report comment to moderator
There is that point: this is truth and I cannot say anything else.
Report comment to moderator
You put the internal dialogue with self nicely. Have had similar conversations with “me.” Two things:
(1)Some gay people already consider themselves to be Christians (don’t try to say they can’t be–every Christian is living and existing in God’s grace and is still struggling with some kind of sin in action or attitude) so “letting” them marry in order to ease their psyche so they can ‘hear the gospel’ is not a reason to allow marriage. (2) I would note the remark “And God help any of us who, in order to make our own situations more comfortable, lead our gay brothers and sisters further down a path of lies.” Let’s just be sure we don’t lead ourselves down paths of self-delusion in order to make our own walk more comfortable. Let’s just keep loving people until we are sure we have it all right ourselves. As you said, it’s not up to us to “say” and not up to them either. So all we have left is to treat everyone with love and respect and sympathy and grace and genuine friendship in spite of their ghastly and our ghastly errors of blindness. But let words mean things, “marriage” is between a man and a woman. The state can do what it likes.
Report comment to moderator
Throughout the New Testament, Jesus never condemns the tax collectors and prostitutes – the “sinners” (gays) of his day. Instead, he shows these people that love can fix their brokenness.
(In fact, the people whom Jesus strongly condemns are the religious elites – the scribes and Pharisees, who spent their lives trying to live the letters of the Torah but neglected the greater purpose of the restoration of shalom.)
How would Jesus have his disciples treat the sinners of our time?
Love, it seems, is the answer.
As for the government? It is not the church; rather, it only reflects what the majority of Americans think, and it does so quite effectively. If we desire to “Christianize” our government, we must first convince the majority of America that Jesus is the way.
Report comment to moderator
I thank Tony for his comments. Though I don’t agree with some of his points, I appreciate his willingness to vocalize his conflicted thinking.
As people come to know gay people in their daily lives, they become more supportive of treating them decently and fairly, especially under the law. Parents look at their gay son or daughter and they want them to have the same opportunity for joy and happiness that they have had. And increasingly Americans are starting to question the unequal treatment under the law that their gay family members and friends live under.
Most Americans are fairminded and decent people. And I think that, more than anything, will eventually lead to marriage equality.
Report comment to moderator
What a tragic world it is you chose to live in, under a God who calls love between men a sin. God would not have created something so beautiful only to call it evil. Perhaps you should engage your gay “friends” more often and allow your mind to be opened to a reality you simply chose not to see.
Report comment to moderator
Tony’s essay brought to mind the Joshua Chamberlain character from “Killer Angels” (portrayed by the actor Jeff Daniels). He spoke about his southern friends who’d come visit him in the years prior to the war. All made an effort not to discuss the issue of slavery, to keep the conversational tone civil in the years prior to our most un-civil war.
And I next thought of the theater performers in LA who donated to the pro-Prop 8 campaign. Because Calif law allows donors’ names to be listed, a man in a highly gay-saturated industry was himself “outed” for his stand in favor of marriage’s historic definition, the one we’ve had from Genesis onward.
I doubt that man ever wore a button or put a sticker on his bumper to identify himself either.
Report comment to moderator
I wouldn’t tag you as “Gay Hater” or a “Gay Basher,” Tony. If you and your Gay friends respect and support one another, more power to you. As a Gay man myself, I have a lot of Straight friends, and I think I have demonstrated through example that Gay people are just as trustworthy and respectable as Straight people are, and that we strive just as equally to conduct our lives with dignity and humility.
If as a Christian it is your wish to uphold the teachings of the church, let me reassure you: When marriage equality for Gay couples finally becomes a reality (and it eventually will), it will not affect your life, your marriage, your church, or your children ONE BIT. You will never have to worry about being denied a job or your love because of YOUR sexual orientation. Your church will never be forced to marry Gay couples, any more than it has ever been forced to marry non-Christian couples.
However, using your church’s teachings to deny Gay couples equal protection under the law does become a problem. if your belief is that Gay folks are committing an abominable sin and will face fiery judgment from their maker, well then that’s your right. But co-opting the law to force people to do your bidding is the real abomination.
Personally I’m willing to be diplomatic about this. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court ruled that there was no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted, but that those benefits and responsibilities could be granted to Gay couples under a different term … such as “civil unions.” The rights under tax law, Social Security, etc. would be EXACTLY the same for Gay and Straight couples; only the terminology would be different. Opposite-sex couples would be allow the option to “marry,” and same-sex couples would be allowed the option to enter into “civil unions.”
Frankly, I could live with that. How about YOU? Do you think there is ANY way for Gay couples to be fully, legally incorporated into American life without posing a threat to the institution of marriage? Because if you DON’T think this is possible, you probably shouldn’t be surprised if Gay people weren’t too enthusiastic about being friends with YOU.
Report comment to moderator
Tony Woodlief, you are the WORST kind of Christian. Cloaked in false compassion and arrogant, self-righteous bull****.
That you feel you won’t have to answer to God for your treatment of Gays & Lesbians which HE created shows how little you know of the Bible and furthermore, of God’s love.
When will Christain Heterosexuals realize that while Gays & Lesbians DO love them, we hate THEIR sin…
Their sin of violence, murder, rape, degradation, humiliation, and the HUNDREDS of other attrocities that they commit against Gay & Lesbian people ON A DAILY basis (and often in the name of God) is FAR worse than MY ’sin’ of LOVE for a person with matching genitals.
Why, Tony Woodlief, are you not trying to uphold the Biblical laws which pertain to YOUR sexuality? Why is that? Why are you not killing adulterers as the Bible commands? Or killing Heterosexual men who have sex with their female counterparts if they are menstruating? Why are you only trying to uphold laws against Gay people? Who, by the way, are like, the ONLY peaceful group of people on this PLANET.
Why are you not taking care of the THOUSANDS of your ‘throw-away’ children, left to rot in orphanages across this very country? Why won’t any Christian EVER answer these questions? I really HATE your SIN, Heterosexual Christians. It’s disgusting and dispicable.
And your hypocrisy is PALPABLE across this nation.
And I know that God agrees.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Sawguner, both sides used the donor list. The pro-Prop 8 side used the list to get names of business owners who donated to the “No on 8″ side and sent them threatening letters demanding a donation to their side or else they would “out” them and picket their business. It was a classic “shake down” pure and simple.
The theater director who donated money to strip gay people of their civil rights deserved to be outed. The substantial number of gay people who worked with him were rightly informed that someone who had been so supportive of them to their face was actually a bigot behind their backs.
In any event, it’s clear we aren’t going back on the move toward marriage equality. It’s going to take awhile for sure, but eventually the momentum will pick up.
As of today, this 10th day of April, 2009, for gay people:
4 free states
46 slave states
We will never give up the fight for our freedom.
Report comment to moderator
RCDCR,
Your post is clearly full of anger, and I’m sorry for whatever you may have suffered. Welcome to the blog.
I don’t have time to answer all the questions you’ve raised, but do note that no one is calling for the death penalty against homosexuals, so your questions about the death penalty for other sins doesn’t really work.
And as for caring for those in orphanages? Who is running those orphanages, taking in those foster kids, and adopting unwanted children? Largely it is Christians, as has always been the case.
BTW, “love” and “sex” are two different things. They can be related; one can show love sexually within marriage. But loving a person of the same sex and having sex with a person of the same sex are not the same thing at all; defiling another is actually a very unloving act. Yes, God created those who commit homosexual acts, just as He created those who commit all other sins. That says absolutely nothing about whether He approves of the sin; the Bible tells us very clearly that He does not.
Report comment to moderator
Tony, as someone is becoming more libertarian by the day I agree that everything sinful doesn’t have to be illegal, however I think we need to rethink some discrimination laws that might force people to violate their conscience by forcing them to affirm gay marriage. Again I’m thinking of caters, photographers, wedding planers. Also could an employers who did not want to pay for health coverage for a same-sex partners drop all but insurance for the employee and give everyone enough of a raise to pay for family coverage themselves. I have a feeling that would bring a lawsuit.
Report comment to moderator
What about employers that have to provide family medical coverage to an employee who commits adultery, divorces his wife, and marries another woman? What about an employer that has to provide coverage to an employee who gets pregnant outside of marriage? I don’t see conservative Christians getting up in arms about employers being forced to provide coverage for those situations and others that are far more common than gay people. How come it’s only when it comes to gay people that conservative Christians get riled up about employer provided insurance? Besides, how is it just and moral to deny gay people and their families insurance? Their children get sick just like yours do. Why do conservative Christians want to punish those children?
No, no. Let’s treat everyone fairly and decently in this country. I promise – it won’t kill us.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D,
You might be angry if Muslims or any other Religious group were trying to impose THEIR views on YOU via THE LAW.
Or are you too stupid to be angry?
Report comment to moderator
#12 K Bells
“Also could an employers who did not want to pay for health coverage for a same-sex partners drop all but insurance for the employee and give everyone enough of a raise to pay for family coverage themselves. I have a feeling that would bring a lawsuit.”
A simple way to handle the pay situation is for the employer to inform each employee just how much compensation he is wiling to spend on each employee. The employee can then be given choices about how they can choose to spend their compensation package; wages, medical insurance, whatever. There can’t be complaints if each employee chooses.
Report comment to moderator
This blog gets more hilarious by the day.
Report comment to moderator
#14 RCDCR
“Or are you too stupid to be angry?”
I haven’t seen Cheryl D angry on WMB, but I always see her as smart. Your first post (#9) left me without answers. Not because I dn’t have any, not because there are no answers, but because if the attack mode you came in with. Most of us have limited time to post. Even if we tried to answer, would you listen?
Report comment to moderator
RCDCR- your words speak volumes. Perhaps you should read them again:
“Why are you only trying to uphold laws against Gay people? Who, by the way, are like, the ONLY peaceful group of people on this PLANET. ”
“Gays & Lesbians DO love them, we hate THEIR sin…”
“you are the WORST kind of Christian. Cloaked in false compassion and arrogant, self-righteous bull****.”
and from your response to Cheryl
“Or are you too stupid to be angry? ”
I’m not sure I’m seeing this loving peaceful side that you are talking about. Is it to hard to step back, take a deep breath, and allow someone to disagree with you. Just because, you so obviously have a veiled( not so much in your comments here) hatred towards those that disagree with you, does not mean that everone who you disagree with are hiding their very own hatreds towards you. It is, I guess, a classic case of transference.
Dialogue, it is really what I think most people would like on this sight, not diatribes, put downs and overall meanness.
Perhaps I am blinded by my own ignorance.
Report comment to moderator
No, Bob, I wouldn’t listen.
See, I don’t believe in the hateful God that you do.
And I don’t go around trying to pass State laws based on MY religion. It’s RIDICULOUS.
And God is ashamed of what you are trying to do.
Thankfully, you will lose.
Report comment to moderator
#15
Your solution would likely lead to an increase in premiums since those who are healthy and single will drop coverage but those with families and/or sick partners/children will remains. Group benefits are cheaper because not everyone is going to use them. But as Anlir points out such a concern is hypocritical when many business pay insurance for common law families even though the owner or CEO may disapprove of such an arrangement.
Report comment to moderator
Topher,
Perhaps Gays & Lesbians are tired of ‘turning the other cheek’ to the Christian Heterosexual’s DISPICABLE abuse.
Perhaps our time of standing idly by while Christians continue to demonize us and s*** all over us in the name of God is OVER.
Report comment to moderator
All laws are imposing views all the time. You just don’t like the view. And you don’t have to be a Christian to consider homosexuality immoral.
Report comment to moderator
#19 RCDCR
“See, I don’t believe in the hateful God that you do.”
Which God do you believe in?
Report comment to moderator
Freedom from sin is what everyone should be striving for, not embracing it.
Report comment to moderator
RCDC, I pray that God would change your heart. Just as I pray for a change of heart in myself. I, like all sinners, have a heart problem.
People, whether you agree with the Bible or not, the words there-in are clear on so many things. So clear, in fact, that the state of Biblical illiteracy on this blog is sadly aparent. I’m not asking you to believe the Bible, even though I believe it to be true. I’m asking you to understand that there are those of us that believe it, and try to live by it, albeit, imperfectly.
When I hear or read people say things like, “my God…this or that”, I would like scripture in context. If you have no scriptures, that please understand, you may not be worshipping the God of the Bible. You have that right. Just don’t try to convince me that your “god” is that same as that One of the Bible. That’s disengenous.
Report comment to moderator
Homosexuals would not have children if left to themselves. If everyone were homosexual, the human race would be extinct in a generation, and deservedly so. This speaks volumes about the lifestyle. It is physically and culturally suicidal. The children that homosexuals have come from God’s natural unions between men and women—the only unions that should be recognized and promoted by the civil government since they are the only unions that are natural and contributory to human and cultural survival and advancement.
Homosexuals have gone from being “secret” members of our society, to open acknowledgment, and now to aggressive promotion of their lifestyle across our entire culture. While they were “secret” their tragedy was limited mostly to themselves and was something that our culture, as a whole, could tolerate—live and let live, so to speak.
When they came out of the closet, their perverted sexual practices became visible for all to see and generated disgust and concern across most of the land. Their signature disease, AIDS, made its debut and added a true and visceral rationale for the concern.
Now we have moved to the active and aggressive promotion of the homosexual lifestyle within our culture. We see it in our schools, our media, our courts, and even in many of our churches. “Gay marriage” is just one phase of this assault. At its core, “gay marriage” is NOT about equal rights; it is about the aggressive promotion of the homosexual lifestyle across our entire culture. “Four free states and forty-six slave states” is a blatant lie on multiple counts. The more we yield to this perverse way of thinking and behaving, the closer we come to cultural suicide.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the article, Tony. I think it expresses well what many of us think and feel.
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
It’s disappointing to find your defense of marriage so anemic. Christianity is not the primary reason for marriage laws and never has been. Marriage crosses all cultures and religions to be a fundamental building block of a self-procreating civilization. That is not a function that homosexual unions can perform. And your apologetic tone apparently gets you little real sympathy from the gay crowd either.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin –
Thank you for your thoughtful, and most truthful post. Your statement “Now we have moved to the active and aggressive promotion of the homosexual lifestyle within our culture. We see it in our schools, our media, our courts, and even in many of our churches. “Gay marriage” is just one phase of this assault. At its core, “gay marriage” is NOT about equal rights; it is about the aggressive promotion of the homosexual lifestyle across our entire culture.” Yes, it’s all true.
Our children are our first priority – it is for this reason that I believe s-SEX-m has no place in our land – with the passage of homosexual marriage, we then face homosexuals freely spreading their lifestyle daily to children of any age – this is wrong, they aren’t satisfied, they want to endoctrinate our children – if they didn’t they wouldn’t insist on bringing their lifestyle to public school Day of Silence Yes — “it is about the aggressive promotion of the homosexual lifestyle across our entire culture.” –
Report comment to moderator
Amazing that the Heterosexual (whether by Nature OR Nurture) is so very capable of creating the Homosexual, and then spending the rest of their lives making sure said Homosexual is abused and mistreated throughout their life.
You people call yourself people of God. Yet you know absolutely ZERO about his message.
Again, thankfully, you are losing this battle.
Homosexuality has been around since mankind has been. It’s not going anywhere. It’s not evil. It’s not anything. It simply is a fact of life. Do some research about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It exists everywhere. It is created by Heterosexuals. You people are so ridiculous, it’s not even funny.
I’d cry for you, but most of you are clearly already crying. On the inside.
When will you folks wake up and realize that YOU ARE THE ENEMY.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin, you need serious help.
Heterosexuals account for 80% of HIV/AIDS cases worldwide.
The Heterosexual’s ability to bury their head in the sand regarding this might be exactly why Heterosexuals account for 80% of HIV/AIDS cases worldwide.
That you people aren’t embarassed by your words and actions is lost on any sane, rational, reality-based human being.
Hopefully the Rapture will happen REAL soon.
Report comment to moderator
I wondered how long it would take for the unhinged anti-gay conservative Christians to respond on here. Sigh…not long enough.
It really boils down to one thing:
Will we continue to treat gay people as second-class citizens in America or will we allow them to have the same rights as everyone else?
On the one side you’ve got conservative Christians who say that gays should be kept as legal and social outcasts in America.
On the other side you’ve got a growing number of Americans who say that gay people should be treated equally under the law.
Really, there is a simple solution:
Treat everyone fairly and justly under the law.
It’s so gob smackingly simple it’s not even funny.
Report comment to moderator
RCDCR. Are you hoping for the rapture because you believe it will then all be over, or becuase you hope that the Christians will be gone and you won’t have to hear from us?
Report comment to moderator
“Marriage crosses all cultures and religions to be a fundamental building block of a self-procreating civilization.”
Thats because all religions go back to square 1. Adam and Eve.
Biblical historically speaking. The off shoots and derivatives of religion will of course have similiar fundamentals/truths in some areas. Marriage is one of those.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, it’s not that simple. And it’s not funny. You want me to deny what the Bible teaches about it? I know, there are a lot of things that God condemns, and it seems like we are only concerned about this one. We seem to be hypocrites. But what if there was a big push for the legality of wife beating, incest, pedophilia, stealing, rape, et. al.? Where do we draw the line? Why cherri pick this ONE sin, and say, “Hey, since you Christians aren’t perfect, you can’t defend any prohibition against gay marriage.”?
I guarentee you, if there was a drive to legalize all the rest, we would be just as vocal.
Report comment to moderator
Oh my dear Brotherdan,
How can one even respond to that?
I’ll simply bid you good day.
And will be eternally greatful that I don’t have folks like the ‘Christians’ here in my life.
I guess the only good Christian really DID die on the cross.
Report comment to moderator
Brotherdan,
Homosexuality is no more a sin than Heterosexuality.
You can BELIEVE that if you’d like to.
But you can’t make your beliefs the law of the land.
It’s really quite simple.
Report comment to moderator
“And will be eternally greatful that I don’t have folks like the ‘Christians’ here in my life.
I guess the only good Christian really DID die on the cross.”
Who says were good? Thats why we need Jesus
Report comment to moderator
“But you can’t make your beliefs the law of the land.
It’s really quite simple.”
Solely in American he personally cant. However, enough Brotherdan’s and enough of their representatives, can make the laws of the land…which is no different than the opposing view attempts as well.
Report comment to moderator
Tony writes:
“But the teaching of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is, and has always been, that homosexual practice is sin and that willfully unrepentant sinners imperil their very souls.”
One could easily substitute the word “divorce” into this article and have the same biblical issues. Yet we don’t see the same hue and cry over that. Why? Divorce is mentioned quite a few more times than homosexuality, but we seem to ignore the divorce rate….
Report comment to moderator
We do need to address the divorce issues. I’m sure it could be far less, if people would actually love like Christ in their marriages. Sacrificial, unconditional, and unselfish
Report comment to moderator
Nobody’s asking anyone to “deny” anything BrotherDan. We’re talking about the law, not people’s personal religious views. There are all kinds of things that the law allows that individuals are morally opposed to. But no one forces them to engage in those things. I promise – no one is gonna put a gun to your head and force you to marry another man.
I should also remind you that we live under a Constitution, not the Bible. And there is no place in the Constitution where it says that I have to surrender my liberty as an American citizen to your religious beliefs or any one elses.
No, no. The solution is simple and profoundly American: treat every one equally under the law.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn #34
“The off shoots and derivatives of religion will of course have similiar fundamentals/truths in some areas. Marriage is one of those.
Yes, marriage embodies a fundamental truth that is in all cultures, but not because of any one particular religion. Marriage is pretty unique in that way. And it’s worth the trouble to protect it.
Report comment to moderator
“And there is no place in the Constitution where it says that I have to surrender my liberty as an American citizen to your religious beliefs or any one elses.”
And where does it say that marriage is a right?
Report comment to moderator
“Yes, marriage embodies a fundamental truth that is in all cultures, but not because of any one particular religion.”
A fundamental in the sense its been established by God…and thats why its worth protecting, and not because “everybody does it”.
Report comment to moderator
rcdcr – 31
HIV/AIDS among Men Who Have Sex with Men
In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM.
The number of HIV diagnoses for MSM decreased during the 1980s and 1990s, but recent surveillance data show an increase in HIV diagnoses for this group. Additionally, racial disparities exist with regard to HIV diagnoses within the MSM population. A recent study, conducted in 5 large US cities, found that HIV prevalence among black MSM (46%) was more than twice that among white MSM (21%)
Report comment to moderator
Thorn,
When Heterosexuals take even 1 small step towards protecting marriage FROM THEMSELVES and the RIDICULOUS way that YOU treat marraige, then MAYBE, just MAYBE you will have a point.
But y’all will NEVER do that. You’ll NEVER try and pass a law that outlaws divorce. Or adultery. And with the divorce rate just over 50% these day, and with the Heterosexual’s rate of adultery (60% of men are unfaithful to their wives, 40% of women are unfaithful to their husbands – do your Google-work yourself on this one) I simply can’t see why you aren’t trying to ‘protect’ marraige from the Heterosexual.
Perhaps that is because, if you look deep within that heart you probably call a Christian heart, you might come to the realization that you are nothing more than a bigot. And probably on the down-low, to boot.
Report comment to moderator
The US Supreme Court as well as state courts have declared over and over again that marriage is a fundamental right.
Irregardless of whether one thinks God established marriage or not, we live under a Constitution not a religious theocracy. We allow Atheist couples to get married. We allow anyone of any religion or no religion to get married. A person’s religion or lack thereof is completely irrelevant when it comes to the law. One does not have to go to a church to get married.
Equality under the law. It’s that simple.
Report comment to moderator
13, 15, 20. Believe me, when I say my mother is not happy about having to pay for coverage for one of her employee’s on-again, off-again common law wife. I would have enacted my plan when he showed up. You can still get a group plan but it is up to the employer what part they pay. The ministry I worked for did this. Plus, I would be inclined to pay employees with kids who were the primary breadwinner more.
Report comment to moderator
“The US Supreme Court as well as state courts have declared over and over again that marriage is a fundamental right.”
I asked where in the Constitution, since its what you directly referenced.
Obviously your admitting its not there.
“Irregardless of whether one thinks God established marriage or not, we live under a Constitution ”
Not disagreeing here, but your Constitution currently does not state anything regarding marriage. It’s not a law that heterosexuals must marry or cannot. So you are equally protected and have the same right to or not too.
Which also just shows the point that marriage = heterosexual union via witnessed vows = hetero civil unions.
If youd like your own word for homosexual union via witnessed vows, may I suggest “garriage”? Then all homosexual could easily have equal protection to garry or not to garry.
Report comment to moderator
#40 MIM
You make a good point about divorce. We should be supporting marriage in such a way as to make Christian marriages to be the envy of all, while at the same time working to make divorce rare among Christians. I don’t deny that at all. But no one’s marriage will be strengthened by destroying the universally accepted male/female definition of marriage.
As it was with abortion in 1973, there are seminal moments within a generation in which events are occurring that will affect the direction of our culture, our government and our lives for many, many years to come—maybe even permanently. In my opinion, the destruction of the time honored and tested male/female definition of marriage, represents one of those seminal moments. And if we choose to go in that direction, there will be no turning back. Something will have been lost that will not be found again. Bad debts can be paid back in time, but what is lost here in this arena, will never be regained.
Report comment to moderator
#49 K Bells
” Plus, I would be inclined to pay employees with kids who were the primary breadwinner more.”
What a private business pays is none of my business. I am not a believer in unions, nor am I interested in what someone else gets paid.
Report comment to moderator
“NEVER try and pass a law that outlaws divorce. Or adultery”
Do they not teach american history anymore? You do realize many states had laws against adultry at least during some point of our American past?
But thats really not the issue, you could care less about divorce or adultry, you just want to justify an excuse for another wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, Victoria, Victoria.
I quote you worldwide statistics and you come back with U.S. only statistics.
That’s apples and oranges, sweetie.
Ya shoulda gone to college.
And you should ask God for forgivness.
Report comment to moderator
By the way SteveG, I’m taking my little sis to see Skillet tonight. I’m thoroughly excited, as when I saw them 10 years ago, it was one of the best concerts I’ve ever been too.
I actually called the radio station yesterday to request Guardian “Way Back Home” and it completely floored the DJ…oh well. At least they play Flyleaf, Red, Grits, etc these days locally.
Report comment to moderator
oops wrong thread sorry!
Report comment to moderator
Ah yes, the fire & brimstone “teh gays are all going to hell!” contingent has shown up.
That’s like the Ultimate Conservative Christian Trump Card.
When they throw the UCCTC, I guess they think that’s supposed to end the debate and settle it.
Fat chance!
BTW – Timothy Kincaid at boxturtlebulletin has a good response to Tony.
Equality under the law. It’s really simple!
Report comment to moderator
Thorn can condemn innocent citizens, but apparently can’t post and chew gum at the same time.
And oddly enough, Thorn, all of the laws regarding the Heterosexual’s marital abuses have been tossed aside, haven’t they…
I smell a big ugly wet rat.
Report comment to moderator
“I quote you worldwide statistics and you come back with U.S. only statistics.
WE live in the US. Where do YOU live?
Report comment to moderator
What’s “UCCTC”, Anlir?
Report comment to moderator
What difference does it make where I live, dear DJ.
Heterosexuals account for 80% of HIV/AIDS cases worldwide. As I stated before.
That is a large & clear majority.
But the Heterosexuals ability to live in non-reality on this issue… Well, we all know where that will take the breeders, now don’t we?
No doubt, you call yourself Christian as well?
Report comment to moderator
rcdcr – 55
I gave statistics I wished to give, it has nothing to do with college – My choice as to what I post is NOT dependent upon what you post – LOL
Report comment to moderator
I think the conservative Christians make a big mistake in picking us out for their special brand of “mistreatment”. You thought because we’re gay that we wouldn’t fight back. Not only are we gonna fight back, we’re gonna fight back like hell! When you’re fighting for your freedom and liberty(as we surely are), you will fight for as long as it takes. There is no compromise when it comes to our freedom as American citizens and human beings. Yes, it’s gonna be a long, long fight. But as George Bush said “You cannot stop the march of freedom”. You can only oppress people for so long before it turns on you.
Report comment to moderator
UCCTC = Ultimate Conservative Christian Trump Card
Report comment to moderator
EXACTLY, Victoria. NOW you’re getting it.
It’s that whole non-reality thing I mentioned.
No doubt you would consider yourself a Christian as well?
You just provide the info YOU wish to provide. The facts can be brushed aside willy-nilly?
Um, OK. Don’t you have some prayers to say, becasue you clearly have nothing intelligent to offer to the discussion.
Report comment to moderator
“And oddly enough, Thorn, all of the laws regarding the Heterosexual’s marital abuses have been tossed aside, haven’t they…”
Are you saying thats a good or bad thing?
Report comment to moderator
53. I agree, that is why I said “I” would be inclined to pay employees with kids who were the primary breadwinner more. My plan would also keep me from supporting some jerk’s trophy wife, he dumped his wife and kids for.
Report comment to moderator
“Not only are we gonna fight back, we’re gonna fight back like hell!”
I thought hell didnt have anything to do with it?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
TONY: And so long as we have the liberty of political participation and the responsibility of upholding the teaching of the Church, we must speak out against gay marriage, even if it costs us the friendships of people we care about. Because we love them.
Love, how?
Some Christians might love homosexuals like they “love” a serial killer, praying for a final redemption on the way to the gallows. I state this in extreme form in order to make a necessary point. Until very recently, homosexuals in many states could be imprisoned as felons. Many conservatives objected when the Supreme Court declared sodomy statutes unconstitutional. So, Christians need to say where they want to take their political participation. Since they want to apply Biblical morality, why not re-criminalize gay sex? Prison is tough love!
Gay writers have been devoting attention to the “ick factor” in sexual politics. Everyone experiences both delight and revulsion. Society seems to be moving away from homophobia and intolerance (criminal prosecution, maybe marriage inequality) yet still needs to let homosexuals know that they are “icky.” Gay unions are unthinkable, and all the talk about “changing the definition of marriage” is at bottom the horror that heterosexuals could be imagined no differently than homosexuals.
Posters the blog often focus on the “ick,” but not Tony. He goes out of his way to describe his love, affaction, good wishes, and desire to be liked by homosexuals. Sure, he makes a passing reference to “Rome in its deepest debauchery,” but doesn’t stop to gaze into the abyss:
There’s hell, there’s darkness, there’s the sulphurous pit, burning, scalding, stench, consumption; fie, fie, fie! pah, pah! Give me an ounce of civet; good apothecary, sweeten my imagination
Tony’s not crazy like Lear. His objections are all about Church doctrine. He’s awfully sorry, but the rules don’t allow gay marriage.
Here’s my point. Tony’s not crazy like God, either. God is so disgusted with homosexuals, that he has given them up to a fuge state of escalating depravity, cut off from the world of natural desires. I don’t blame Tony for avoiding this aspect of religion. God’s homophobia has no parallel with any other literary hysteria beside’s Lear’s. (There’s a nice paper topic for you, bloggers.)
I’m glad, Tony. Your theology might require you to denounce sexual immorality, but that doesn’t require you to feel that queers are icky, just because that’s how God feels.
Report comment to moderator
“Thankfully we live in the USA”
Thankfully for WHO, Victoria? Thankfully for who?
Report comment to moderator
Some day things are going to go to far.
Report comment to moderator
A response to this vile article:
How Anti-Gay Activists Keep Their Gay Friends (hint: they don’t)
Timothy Kincaid – http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/
April 10th, 2009
In World Magazine, a conservative evangelical Protestant Christian publication, columnist Tony Woodlief laments that he can’t follow his instincts and be decent to his gay friends.
As the campaign for gay marriage continues its relentless march toward a place where even Rome in its deepest debauchery didn’t tread, I’m tempted, when I think about this issue, to capitulate. I want my gay friends to be happy, after all. And who am I to interfere with their desire to form a legally sanctioned relationship?
Oh, but don’t worry. Tony is no compromiser nor one to put individual rights or self-determination ahead of conformity to the demands of religious orthodoxy. He is, after all, one of those Protestant voices that demanded that the Catholic Church excommunicate Catholics that are not adequately socially conservative.
He quite easily got over his temptation.
Because, like most anti-gay activists, Woodlief justifies his behavior with contorted definitions and assigns to himself motivations of love where others would likely find other labels:
But I can’t, because supporting gay marriage is false compassion. It affirms the lie that men and women in open rebellion against God can inherit the kingdom of Heaven. I wish they could. I wish everyone could be saved. But the teaching of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is, and has always been, that homosexual practice is sin and that willfully unrepentant sinners imperil their very souls.
So what does love say? Assent to the farce in order that my friends will know my earthly, temporal, selfish affection? Or alienate myself from them by holding to the teaching of the Church out of a desire not to add to the lie they have been told by a world already gone so far astray that secular humanism is its default morality?
Because, of course, to allow civil recognition would “lead our gay brothers and sisters further down a path of lies”. So, like children, he needs to decide what is best for them. It’s the “loving” thing to do.
Now this essay is not so different from most anti-gay screeds. And it would not require us to step far from familiar phrases to discuss the arrogance of one ignorantly (and inaccurately) speaking for the history of Christendom, the self-righteousness of insisting that one’s own theology should dictate social mores, or even what Christ, the founder of his faith, would have to say to those who acknowledge that their policies cause pain and make people feel like outcasts yet justify them by appealing to doctrine and tradition.
But something else struck me, something that we hear repeatedly from anti-gay activists who feel shame about the consequences of their actions: “my gay friends”.
Woodlief is not alone. Over and over we hear from those who advocate for denying hospital visitation and wresting children from their parents and disallowing public service and unequally applying tax codes and banning adoption and refusing health care and a myriad other positions that cause tangible and measurable harm to gay people. And quite often they say, “my gay friends and I disagree” or “we just don’t talk about it”.
They feel it lends credibility to their positions if they can show that they are not “haters” or “bigots”. And it makes them seem like they themselves are making personal sacrifices (”I want my gay friends to be happy”) rather than harshly imposing their demands on strangers. So out come the “gay friends”, whom they love love love.
And then they define their “gay friends” in terms such as “debauched” “unrepentant sinners” “in open rebellion against God” who have been “lead down a path of lies”.
Considering the unfiltered contempt they have toward gay people, how then do they have and keep gay friends?
The answer is: they don’t.
Take a close look at how Tony Woodlief describes his relationship with “his gay friends”:
They remain friends with someone who believes what I believe about what they do because we don’t talk about it. Perhaps that’s their choice, or mine, or something in between, but we’ve steered clear of it—so far.
I have friends and I know what that word means. Friends are those you rely on, those you know deeply, and those with whom you communicate.
Friends talk about dating, spouses, children, family, social life, work, concerns about those who like or dislike them, difficulties in personal relationships with others, slights real and imagined, dreams, goals, desires. Heck, friends even talk about who they think is hot.
But all of that is off the table with Tony and his “gay friends”. They “don’t talk about it”.
No. Tony Woodlief doesn’t have gay friends at all; he has acquaintances with whom he is cordial whom are gay but who have enough sense not to have any discussions of importance with him and who choose not to share with him any personal aspects of their life. He has gay associates who out of politeness do not tell him exactly what they think about his activism and efforts to harm their lives.
So to Tony Woodlief – and Sarah Palin and Rick Warren and Donny Osmond and all the others who think that having “gay friends” justifies cruel treatment – I give this challenge: Produce these “gay friends”. Have a real and genuine talk with them. And if after you make it perfectly clear that you believe that your heterosexuality entitles you to preferential treatment and gives you the right to make determinations about their lives, rights, and freedoms – because your God told you so – then we’ll see just how close of a friend they consider you to be.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Victoria is DEFINITELY a Christian judging from her last remark.
And common as dirt.
Report comment to moderator
rcdcr – 74
You might not understand the rules for World Magazine Blog, however we are not allowed to print entire articles, only a link and a short quote – you might want to check out the rules for this blog – It’s not to long, and its easy to understand -
Report comment to moderator
I got a feeling this is gonna be an Official Gay Blog!* on WMB before midnight.
(*OGB = 100+ posts)
Note: Very few gay blogs on WMB fail to reach “OGB” status. But if it doesn’t reach “OGB” status, it never happened.
And I think if we work at it we can make it a Certified Gay Blog!* before the weekend is over.
(*CGB = 200+ posts)
Report comment to moderator
perhaps you could report me to the moderator.
and take a reading class yourself.
Report comment to moderator
So, unless I give full glowing approval and affirmation of everything you do and believe, I can’t be your frind.?
Report comment to moderator
RCDCR
You seem to have a problem with name calling and put downs. Is this the example you want us to see? Someone once said something about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar.
#9 RCDCR
“Tony Woodlief, you are the WORST kind of Christian. Cloaked in false compassion and arrogant, self-righteous bull****.”
#14 RCDCR
“Or are you too stupid to be angry?”
#19 RCDCR
“And God is ashamed of what you are trying to do.”
#20 RCDCR
“Perhaps our time of standing idly by while Christians continue to demonize us and s*** all over us in the name of God is OVER.”
#30 RCDCR
“When will you folks wake up and realize that YOU ARE THE ENEMY.”
#31 RCDCR
“Michael Martin, you need serious help.”
#36 RCDCR
“I guess the only good Christian really DID die on the cross.”
#59 RCDCR
<i.”Thorn can condemn innocent citizens, but apparently can’t post and chew gum at the same time.”
#62 RCDCR
“Well, we all know where that will take the breeders, now don’t we?”
#66 RCDCR
“Um, OK. Don’t you have some prayers to say, becasue you clearly have nothing intelligent to offer to the discussion.”
Report comment to moderator
I’m not looking for your approval, Bob Buckles (are you a clown or something Mr. Buckles?)
I’m only dishing back to you good Christians what you;ve been doling out to YOUR VERY OWN GAY AND LESBIAN CREATIONS for a really really long time.
Perhaps now it is YOUR turn to turn the other cheeck, you sad clown.
I have to go meet my future husban now for some of the hot gay sex.
Love Ya! Toodles!
Ya fools.
Report comment to moderator
i DO love that you took the time to copy and paste many of my highlights, though.
don’t worry, copy and pasting a gay persons posts won’t make you gay or give you the aids or nuthin’
Report comment to moderator
…or WILL it??????????????????????????????????????????????
Report comment to moderator
Okay. He was a pleasant fellow.
Report comment to moderator
Well, KBELLS, I guess you Christians can dish it out but not take it?
What’s WRONG with people like you? Other than the fact that you never seem to realize that you are people like you.
Gay bash in your houses of worship if you must, but do not expect to put your filth out into the public realm and not be resonded to in kind.
Fool.
Report comment to moderator
Allrighty.
Report comment to moderator
Is that what is called a “Lurker?”
Report comment to moderator
Maybe he needs a nap.
Report comment to moderator
LOL, an entertaining thread.
I should save this to my Favorites with the title “How to make a spectacle of yourself.”
Report comment to moderator
It seems more of a sad thread to me. I know so many trapped in homosexuality are hurting, but, honestly, changing marriage is not going to make it all better. Much better to do the hard work to come out of that lifestyle, and get deliverance, than to roil around in fury.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Being gay isn’t a “lifestyle” any more than being straight is a “lifestyle” DJ.
And thanks for the offer, but many of us are just fine with our sexual orientation, and don’t need “deliverance” from it any more than you need deliverance from your sexual orientation.
Equality under the law. It’s really simple!
Report comment to moderator
Tony, you get so close to my own thoughts about why gay marriage is a non-issue…then end up opposing it anyway.
I’m with you that gay marriages aren’t sanctioned convenental relationships as far as God is concerned. But I see no reason why two same-sex individuals shouldn’t be allowed to enter into civil unions. (Other than the “ancillary consequences” you mention, which I tend to think are exaggerated by gay marriage opponents).
The state shouldn’t be in the business of sanctioning “marriages”; a “marriage” is expressly religious.
I support same-sex civil unions (and civil unions as a replacement for state-sanctioned “marriage” in general) not because doing so would allow my gay acquaintances “be happy” but because exerting my will over them in such a patronizing and authoritarian way does not express God’s love.
Honestly, how does your reasoning for opposing gay marriage not also imply opposition to the legality of homosexuality itself? If state-sanctioned gay marriage somehow “validates” gay relationships, doesn’t the fact that those relationships are legal in the first place also provide the same form of “validation”?
Report comment to moderator
There are so many ugly thoughts going through my mind.
Dear Lord, I thank You for restraining me. I know that You love all of us on this blog. I know that Your word is truth. Please forgive my anger. You are in control, You are sovereign. I pray Your will is done, here on earth, as it is in heaven.
Father, I hold this issue up to You. Please soften hearts, break our stubboness. I pray for those here that are gay. I pray that Your will is done in their lives.
I pray for all of us that desire to be true to Your word, to live out its mandate in our lives. Please give us the compassion of Your Son, in Whose precious name I pray.
Report comment to moderator
It’s a pernicious belief—running through the very heart of even the most conservative denominations—that the individual Christian is invited to judge for himself what the Bible does and does not mean.
But Tony – you HAVE judged for yourself what the Bible means – you’ve decided it means God is anti-gay.
This is not at all clear directly from the bible, so you got this view from some other source – probably your fundagelical superiors.
in any case, the real “pernicious” belief here is that the bible constitutes an ethics manual from a benevolent Deity that should be followed literally as interpreted by evangelical protestants.
No surprise that hateful and false judgements come from such a notion.
Report comment to moderator
It affirms the lie that men and women in open rebellion against God can inherit the kingdom of Heaven. I wish they could. I wish everyone could be saved. But the teaching of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is, and has always been, that homosexual practice is sin and that willfully unrepentant sinners imperil their very souls.
This is complete and stupid rubbish of the non sequitur kind.
How does affirming secular same-sex marriage affirm a religious belief about the kindgom of heaven? It does nothing of the SORT! A secular governmental policy should make NO STATEMENT about the truth of a RELIGIOUS BELIEF!
The fact that you think this is proof that – in the minds of many religious citizens – the state is imposing a religion with its current marriage policies. And so we hear nonsense like the idea of governmental protection of the “sanctity” of marriage.
If you believe in some kind of religious sanctity – keep your protection of it within your own sectarian cult. If you wanna believe in the sanctity of a St. Christopher Medal, go ahead. But it’s not the government’s business to “affirm” this!!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria wrote:
DJ
I hope this thread is either taken off the BLOG or that the posts which are most offensive are REMOVED -
Victoria, if the most “offensive” posts are removed, it will be mostly YOUR posts that get removed.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria didn’t call anyone stupid or a fool or a clown, Jon. Disagreement is fine, scripture quotation is fine, name-calling is not allowed.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, we were all called on the carpet with a ’scepter alert’ a few days ago. We were encouraged to read the website policies on posting and told to mind our Ps and Qs or face banishment.
Report comment to moderator
Do you think what I wrote — that I think her comments are the most offensive — qualifies under that policy? I think my note is completely reasonable.
If you want me to dig up evidence, I can show Victoria has done far worse than call people “fool” or “clown.” She has knowingly cited the lies of Paul Cameron and (as far as I am aware) unlike Bill Bennett refused to retrack her support for what has been proven to be false. That makes her…well I won’t call her the “l” word…but an unrepentant breaker of the 9th Commandment.
Report comment to moderator
Ahh. That should have been “retract.”
Report comment to moderator
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
I know pronounce this a Worldmag Official Gay Blog! for having 100+ comments.
I want to thank everyone who made this possible, especially the “Who’s Who” of Worldmag who never fail to show up when the topic is about gays.
After last week’s disappointing showing on a gay blog, which failed to reach “OGB” status, it’s nice to see a gay blog back on top again. Heh. To be fair, there was a second gay blog directly above it that did achieve “OBG” status though.
In any event, good work y’all!
With any luck, this blog will achieve Certified Gay Blog! status before the weekend is out.
Carry on.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Jon
Well you don’t have to like someones’ source. And you can always give evidence that contradicts it. But you should know that most of us don’t convince easily unless you’re very adept with scripture.
You’ve done your good deed for the day: you’ve helped Anlir make this an ‘Official Gay Blog’.
Anlir
Anything to bring a little sunshine into your corner of the blogosphere. Hope the rest of your evening is more enjoyable than watching the number counter on the articles roll higher. (Hope mine is too for that matter.)
Report comment to moderator
DJ – 99
Thank you for your support –
Report comment to moderator
Yes, yes…we know the story. Everyone who’s gay dies a tragic horrible death, usually from AIDS.
Well, in spite of The Queen’s fondest prayers and wishes, I plan to live to a ripe old age.
On this matter, I do intend to defy The Queen.
Report comment to moderator
I hope you live to a ripe old age too, Anlir.
I have to run for now, but maybe I’ll help you work on the CBG later.
Be well.
Report comment to moderator
To counter Victoria’s story, I know of a fundamentalist Christian minister who turned out to be homosexaual and cheated on his wife with a male Prostitute…oh wait, that’s Ted Haggard; I know of another who cheated on his wife with a female Prostitute…oh wait, that’s Jimmy Swaggart. And another one who cheated on his wife with Jessica Hahn…oh wait, that’s Jim Bakker. And another one who farts a lot, cheated his followers and got married three times…oh wait that’s Robert Tilton. Such is the “lifestyle” of evangelical ministers.
Report comment to moderator
Another day in the life of WorldMagBlog. Seems like an even par round. Some birdies, some bogies.
If Jesus Christ were to return to earth today, and observe what people are doing and saying in his name, he would never stop throwing up.
Report comment to moderator
DJ,
I don’t think YOU or Victoria want to go there. I’ll be nice to Victoria and back off. But I COULD show (if you’d like) how Cameron is a fraud and force Victoria into a corner….
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
“But I COULD show (if you’d like) how Cameron is a fraud and force Victoria into a corner…. ”
hmmmm…tempting. But it sounds like a protracted knock down drag out, and I lack the time to fully enjoy the proceedings. Perhaps later…..
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
What the CDC argue and what Paul Cameron argue are TWO different things. I’ll give you a hint: average gay lifespan is not in the mid 40s and despite the fact that most HIV cases in America (not world wide) MAY be MSM, most gay men do not and will not get HIV.
But, as GOOD people, we should agree that whatever must be done to reduce HIV SHOULD be done and that means, no promiscuous unprotected anal sex, esp. among MSM. Men who have anal sex with men should do so after HIV tests, in monogamous relationships and men who wish to “play around” with other men should substitute *other* sex acts that are not anal sex for said behavior.
Do you agree with this?
Report comment to moderator
I wish my aunt’s stepson had lived to a ripe old age, instead of dying in his early 40’s of AIDS. We all liked him. He was a wonderful man in many ways and is sadly missed by many. My aunt spent many months caring for him when he came home with the disease. Oh–that’s right–christians hate all gays.
Report comment to moderator
God is a funny thing (and I don’t mean the “hah! hah!” kind). If AIDS is God’s punishment on gay people, why did He/She also visit it upon the straight people on the continent of Africa and innocent hemophiliacs like Ryan White? What does God have against them? Or when AIDS struck the first heterosexual African did God go “Oops! I didn’t intend for them to get it. My bad!”?
And if AIDS is God’s punishment for being gay, why didn’t He/She send something that would hit the lesbians? I have my theory about why God didn’t go after the lesbians, but I can’t go there.
*****
Jon,
Haven’t I read somewhere that Paul Cameron’s writings/views are an adaptation of Hilter’s ideas?
Report comment to moderator
DJ
There isn’t going to be the long awaited “knock down drag out” – I too don’t have time for all the ’soap box denials’
We’ve had the most wonderful day, I hope you did too. Did you take part in a Good Friday service – we had the LORD’s Supper, wonderful music and message –
One of the men sang Via Dolorosa, it was outstanding -
Report comment to moderator
And then I’m trying to wrap my head around the seeming satisfaction that some conservative Christians seem to take in gay people getting AIDS. If AIDS didn’t strike gay people you get the feeling they’d be profoundly disappointed. I mean, after all, if there’s no special “curse” for being gay, how are we gonna show people the wrathful vengeance of God?
But you know what the weirdest thing about all this is?
A fair number of conservative Christian’s level of happiness and satisfaction seems to center around making gay people’s lives as difficult and miserable as possible, both legally and socially. How messed up is that?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
300,000 – three hundred thousand men since 1981 dying from AIDS, that’s a lot of men – it most certainly would IMPACT the LIFESPAN of anyone who is a homosexual male -
Perhaps. Given the millions of gay men who exist or existed during that time in America the number (on average) might be, for instance a whopping 3 years. Now, I just pulled that out of my hat (I would have used a more vulgar term were this not WMB) but has as much validity to it as Paul Cameron’s “average” or “median” gay lifespan numbers.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, What do you want from us?
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
The statistics don’t lie – further more those don’t include the years 2006, 2007, 2008, and the first three months and 10 days of 2009 -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
You are right, the stats don’t lie; *** do.
I’ll let readers take into account what *** means.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I’m gay and I don’t have AIDS. And I’m not living a miserable life. And I’m not dying a horrible death.
I can hear The Queen screeching “That’s impossible!”.
But I’m here to tell y’all that not only is it possible, but there are millions more like me.
I do so hate to disappoint The Queen!
I suppose every day we’re alive The Queen just wails a little bit louder to God and asks him when he’s gonna pour out his wrathful vengeance on us.
God Save The Queen!
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Re: #122
KBells,
Equality under the law. It’s really simple!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
If there were suddenly a cure or a vaccine for AIDS, or if by some remarkable event, the rate of AIDS among homosexual men decreased by 90%…would it make any difference to you?
Please give an honest answer.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Anlir, many of us are praying that God would show you His mercy, not His wrath.
You already have equality under the law. You don’t want to marry a woman, and you’re allowed not to do so, but you have the right to, if you wanted. Sorry, but the law’s refusal to redefine marriage does not mean it isn’t offering “equality.”
Report comment to moderator
Random
On this occassion I will answer you – we have given so that those in Africa can receive treatment, its a horrible thing when children are left without a father and a mother who the father gave it to – leaving both dead from AIDS – grandmothers left to care for many grandchilren at a time, setting their watches for meds to be administered – that is a horrible thing – YES, we support such medical help –
There is your answer -
Report comment to moderator
It never ceases to amaze me what a low view of marriage that conservative Christians have. They’re now openly encouraging gay people to deceive another person and marry them even though they have no intention of fulfilling their marriage vows. All that deception just to satisfy their religious requirement that marriage be between a male and a female. Simply astounding!
I wonder how many of you would appreciate someone lying to you about their sexual orientation, marrying you, and then telling you that they’re actually gay and have no intention of ever having sex with you?
Is this what passes for conservative Christians thinking on marriage these days? Seriously?
*****
What conservative Christians are saying, in essence, is that in order for them to freely practice their conservative Christian faith, gay people have to surrender their liberty and freedom as American citizens and accept second-class status under the law. Not only that, but churches and denominations that want to marry same-sex couples have to surrender their religious freedom to the conservative Christian religion. They’re demanding that the law impose their conservative Christian faith on everyone in America.
That’s tyranny, not freedom!
Equality under the law. It’s really simple!
Report comment to moderator
rcdcr,
First of all. why are you on this board since it IS a Christian site???, If this makes you angry, go elsewhere. You may say “My GOD would not be like this”…blah blah Well you are exactly correct, because YOUR god does not exist. No wonder you are so angry, You are trying to create a “god” in your on image which is breaking one of the Ten Commandments. Do you realize that in Matthew, Jesus says, “I did NOT come to bring PEACE, but A SWORD !” In other words he did not come to bring peace for peace sake but the truth. God calls it (homosex) an abomination and so does Jesus. Look at Galatians ch 1:11-13 where Paul says, “The Bible is not something I made up, nor was I given it by any man, but rather I received by a REVELATION FR$OM JESUS CHRIST.” Therefore, Romans Chapter1 is from Jesus. Further rcdcr you are correct in that one day ALL 50 states Homo Marriage will be legal. Why? Because SATAN is the ruler of this world and he knows his time is short. But you know what, we Christians know the final outcome and how it will all play out. You can kill all the Christians in the world but GOD’S word will NEVER CHANGE ! You sir had better repent while their is still time. As for me and MY family…WE will follow the LORD.
Report comment to moderator
To learn about Gaydom’s ultimate worldwide goal – which is being street-tested in San Francisco these days in view of little children – Google “Zombietime” and click on “Up Your Alley Fair.” This has been occurring in Nancy Pelosi’s district, and the mayor tells police to not arrest anyone publicly exercising the “rights” Obama approves of! Maybe SF’s underground “saint” – San Andreas – will one day get a big jolt out of what has been going on over his head! Another interesting article on engines like Yahoo and Google is “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up.” Just my two cents. Norlou
Report comment to moderator
DJ, #91 – True, on a deeper level it is incredibly sad.
Report comment to moderator
Norlou
There is no reason to look at the muck in this world, we all know what it is –
What are you trying to prove? -
Report comment to moderator
Re: #133
To learn about Straightdom’s ultimate world wide goal – which is being street tested in New Orleans in front of little children – come with me to Mardi Gras. You will see every form of straight debauchery known to man (and woman).
Give me a break! The fact is, most gay people live as ordinary lives as most straight people do. Let’s see…today I’m going to Walmart to buy groceries, wash clothes, clean an oil spill on the driveway, watch SpongeBob, and maybe go to the bookstore for awhile. Such is the life of us radical gays!
*****
Re: #134
What’s incredibly sad, Matt Y., is the conservative Christian’s never-ending obsession with making gay people’s lives as difficult as possible, both legally and socially.
Equality under the law. It’s really simple!
Report comment to moderator
To my Christian blog acquaintances, I know that you want me to believe in your myth, or at least say that I do, but I am loath to say I believe in things I don’t believe to be true, even for you.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Thank you for your answer. I think it is very good that you give money to care for children in Africa who are orphaned by deaths of parents who died of AIDS. Making such contributions probably has helped some children.
I also believe that you are very sincere in what you write in that regard.
However,
1)Posting comments such as your on a blog has never helped a single person or prevented a single death, just as no comment I have ever posted has ever helped a single homophobic person overcome their irrational (and mystifying) stereotypes of homosexual people. I am at least honest in this regard.
2) Whether or not people are dying of AIDS (not all of whom contracted it because of homosexual men), I believe you would still post comments about homosexuality very much similar to the ones we see you post. I am not suggesting you stop. I am just suggesting you post an honest comment in this regard.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – your ability to abuse biblical texts, statistics, and anecdotal evidence all in one thread never ceases to amaze me. You really have a gift, hun!
Re anecdotes – I know a gay man who has two devoted children, never had unsafe sex and has been in a monogamous relationship with a loving same-sex partner for well-nigh 24 years. And all this despite social pressure from evil and immoral Christians to live deceptively in unnatural wedded union with a member of the opposite sex.
Oh wait – that’s me …
Report comment to moderator
To RCDCR:
Feel free to post your arguments, but the strength of your points is diminished when you criticize others for being “stupid” and lacking in a college education and then incorrectly spell words. It is “despicable” not “dispicable.”
Further, I challenge you to cite any research reference that demonstrates homosexuality in the animal world. One can observe the behavior of female animals mounting one another during estrus (especially bovines), but that is hormonally driven and does not occur willfully or at times other than estrus. Occasionally one sees the behavior in dogs, but one male does not enter another or allow entry; females only allow penetration during their estrus. Same-sex mounting behavior is not pursued to any type of completion or sexual satisfaction genitally or orally. Such animal behavior does not exist.
I actually did “go to college” in the fields of animal and dairy science.
An argument based on a faulty premise is very weak. Use the other stuff in your arsenal, but leave out the invective and error. It doesn’t help your cause. It makes you appear emotional and unreasoning and a little hysterical.
Report comment to moderator
TO: UNDERDOG51, MATT Y., NORLOU, CHERYL D., KBELLS, KI
On the clear evidence of the Bible, those of you who point out that God abhors gay sex are correct.
Do you personally feel this revulsion against homosexuals? Are they vile and repulsive to you? The Bible declares that their abnormal sexual orientation is God’s retribution for their refusal to worship Him. There’s no avoiding that, and you are all admirably tough-minded and resistant to the pressures of worldly relativism. You condemn all sexual immorality, as you must, in obedience to scripture. But do you emotionally detest homosexuals? Does their sexual passion seem perverse and disgusting?
God abhors queers, but do you? Are your homosexual acquaintances so shameful? Do they break all rules of conduct in their fulfillment of wickedness? Are they filled with villainy, greed, and malice? Are they one mass of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and malevolence? Do they treat you with insolence, arrogance, and boasting? In their conduct towards you, are homosexuals without a sense of fidelity or pity?
Are homosexuals without natural affections? God says they are. So why does Tony want queers to like him?
Report comment to moderator
FOLLOWTHROUGH: Same-sex mounting behavior is not pursued to any type of completion or sexual satisfaction genitally or orally.
Not for want of trying, evidently. Anyway, so what? Christians condemn intercrural copulation, as well as sodomy.
Report comment to moderator
Further, I challenge you to cite any research reference that demonstrates homosexuality in the animal world.
Talk about a bad argument. First, it doesn’t even matter whether we can show homosexuality in the animal world because we don’t get our morality from following animal behavior.
But there’s lots and lots of evidence of not just same sex behavior but pair bonding. Just google “gay penguins” and see what comes up.
Report comment to moderator
The truth remains:
CDC statistics show that over 70% of AIDS cases in the United States are homosexual men. Yet, in spite of this deadly risk, homosexuals still defend their behavior. Why? Romans 1 tells us that homosexuals are enslaved by their own sinful habits—so enslaved that they irrationally disregard their own safety, and that of others, in order to satisfy their momentary sexual pleasures. This is the same type of uncontrollable and compulsive behavior exhibited by drug addicts and alcoholics. It is pitifully ironic that homosexuals and their apologists speak of “freedom” in defending the practice when just the opposite is true. The fact of the matter is that the only thing they are pursuing is the freedom to kill themselves.
Do we, as a nation, want to concede to homosexual demands for the active promotion of this destructive lifestyle?
Absolutely not!
Homosexuals are mentally and spiritually ill and in great need of help. The American Psychiatric Association used to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder and for good reasons. Those reasons haven’t changed. Political pressure alone has caused the association to change its stance and deny the truth. The more we allow homosexuals to politically dictate where this nation is headed, the more disordered and sick we also become.
BTW, Victoria is one of the best posters on this site. She can always be counted on to courageously tell the truth and weather all the vicious attacks against her.
Report comment to moderator
Speaking of gay penguins, here is a link to a very cute story of a homosexual male penguin couple “stealing” the eggs of a straight couple so they could be parents.
http://tinyurl.com/5qzlrq
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
You don’t know what a “mental disorder” is. The concept is freudian and of recent modern invention. There were never good reasons for making homosexuality a “mental disorder.” It was put on the DSM in the 50s along with masturbation and oral sex. It was put on for POLITICAL reasons where psychiatrists wrote their moral worldview into “medicine.” They are still doing this by the way. But it’s the leftists who are in charge. Now you are the one who has a “disorder” of “homophobia.”
Report comment to moderator
“But the deception has been noticed by other penguins at the zoo, who have ostracised the gay couple from their group. Now keepers have decided to segregate the pair of three-year-old male birds to avoid disrupting the rest of the community during the hatching season.”
Do you guys need to organized a march or something to protect their rights.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells:
Ha! Good one.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, who is “openly encouraging gay people to deceive another person and marry them even though they have no intention of fulfilling their marriage vows”? I didn’t see anyone even come close to this. If you’re referring to my saying you already have a legal right to marry a woman, that’s a long way from encouraging you to do so. And put me on record as saying that marriage vows are irrevocable–once you have vowed before God and man that you will be true to this person until he/she dies, nothing but death can break that union. So I’d never, never encourage anyone to marry who didn’t fully intend to keep those vows, and I’d never encourage anyone to divorce (unless he or she was married to a spouse who flagrantly and unrepentedly violated those vows).
Again I, and perhaps other people, am simply pointing out that you don’t need any more “rights” to be equal to other adults in our society. The fact that you have no actual desire to marry a woman is not a legal issue at all or a truncation of your rights; the right is available for you as much as it is available for other people.
Report comment to moderator
This is not at all clear directly from the bible, so you got this view from some other source
*******Since when? Did you cut out all the verses?
Unfortunately for those who’d like to think otherwise, the Bible couldn’t be clearer on this subject. And, not just in one place, either, but in many places.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
I generally really respect you (don’t always agree with you, but I do respect you.)
Not in this thread. I’m rather disappointed.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#146):
Nor do you know what a “mental disorder” is. This is because, as you have pointed out, the definition is as variable as the writers of the DSM. However, my point still stands that it was political pressure from homosexuals that caused the APA to change its manual in 1974. Yet, nothing had changed about the sexual practices of homosexuals, which were, and still are, as perverted and deviant as ever.
Their sexual practices are contrary to the physical design of the human body and all clinically proven practices of good and acceptable human hygiene. This leads to sexually transmitted diseases of all sorts, including fatal AIDS. Without even bringing morality into the discussion, this type of perversion and self-destructive behavior is abnormal to the point of mental illness. This was true prior to 1974, prior to Freud, and for as long as human beings have been in existence. It is still true today.
Now, if you want to dismiss these reasons offhand and insist that homosexual behavior is normal and healthy, be my guest. In my opinion, this displays a lack of just plain common sense on your part. Furthermore, I couldn’t care less if I am labeled a “homophobe.” I know that this is just a pejorative label of last resort, coined by a group of people who cannot defend their cause by any other means except name calling and smears. That is standard operating procedure for every homosexual on this site. But if you are cowed by such people and their tactics, that’s your problem and your fears, not mine.
Report comment to moderator
Christians should avoid falling into the trap of using “gay” language when talking about homosexuality.
A homosexual is not a different kind of person. Technically, there aren’t “gay” people and “straight” people. We’re just people, male and female. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race. Homosexuality is more like a religion or fraternity which one chooses to become a member of, like a fraternity of belly dancers or cigar smokers.
And so, Tony’s friends are simply people, nothing more nothing less. Are they sinners? Yes, but so isn’t Tony. Speaking to a homosexual about their sin should be no different than they talking with Tony about his. Sin will ever be with us, but the answer for sin is Jesus Christ, who paid for it in full on Passover weekend.
God’s perspective on marriage is clear. But from the state’s perspective, the purpose of matrimony was to provide “mony” for the “matre”, i.e. monetary and legal protection for the mother who bears the children. Mother’s typically pursue mothering, leaving less time for bread winning.
Homosexuals don’t have the “matre” issue. So a civil union for same sexes gives them an unfair advantage. After homosexual unions become legal, then the next group will be polygamists. If the definition of marriage is arbitrary, then on what grounds is every other group disenfranchised? This is the slippery slope.
Nevertheless, the state can and will do whatever it wants whether it is fair or not. This has no effect whatsoever on Christians or their relationship with other sinners. Jesus was a friend of sinners. Tony (and all of us) should go and do likewise.
Report comment to moderator
However, my point still stands that it was political pressure from homosexuals that caused the APA to change its manual in 1974. Yet, nothing had changed about the sexual practices of homosexuals, which were, and still are, as perverted and deviant as ever.
This is irrelevant. If “Christianity” were put on the DSM as a “mental disorder” it’s like that there would be “political action” to get it removed. Were that to occur, opponents could counter, Christianity’s “removal” from the DSM was “political.” No, it shouldn’t have been there to begin with. That’s what the problem was with homosexuality’s status on the DSM.
Their sexual practices are contrary to the physical design of the human body
That doesn’t make it a mental disorder; for instance, I’d imagine that most evangelical posters here would be similarly “mentally disordered.” Certainly an overwhelming majority of sexually practicing American citizens would be “mentally disordered.” There is nothing in homosexuality that is “contrary” to the design of the body any more so than for instance, oral sex between heterosexual couples. The mouth was not “designed” for genitalia. Yet, 90% of sexually active American citizens practice this “behavior.” Are the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals “mentally disordered”?
and all clinically proven practices of good and acceptable human hygiene.
Again, all sex is unhygienic. You can transmit diseases by swapping spit.
This leads to sexually transmitted diseases of all sorts, including fatal AIDS.
There are ways to practice homosexuality that lessens risks or heightens risks. It’s not homosexuality per se, but the particular way of practicing homosexuality that heightens risks.
Without even bringing morality into the discussion, this type of perversion
Again we’ve already shown you posit no meaningful definition of “pervesion” absent your biblical standards; so you should stick to arguing “biblical morality.”
and self-destructive behavior
I take “self destructive” behavior to equate with physical risk. As I’ve already noted on these threads, there is no connection between taking physical risks and morality or socially acceptable behavior. Police officers, missionaries, military all take life shortening risks that we don’t equate with “mental disorder” or sin. If those examples offend you, Christians enjoy football and NASCAR which has certainly contributed to physical self destruction and early death. See Dale Earnhardt.
is abnormal to the point of mental illness.
You’ve neither defined “abnormal” or “mental illness” meaningfully. We see your arguments for what you are. You think homosexuality a “sin” and you are looking for secular clothes to dress up your biblical arguments. I’ve already done the homework for you; they don’t work.
This was true prior to 1974, prior to Freud, and for as long as human beings have been in existence. It is still true today.
Nope, find me the language of “mental disorder” past a few hundred years back; you can’t because it didn’t exist.
….Furthermore, I couldn’t care less if I am labeled a “homophobe.” I know that this is just a pejorative label of last resort, coined by a group of people who cannot defend their cause by any other means except name calling and smears.
I don’t use the word “homophobe.” But anti-gay bigotry exists as much as anti-semitism or anti-Roman Catholic bigotry exists.
I might not be able to define it but I know it when I see it. And I see it with…. [I'll bite my tongue.]
Report comment to moderator
Sorry TRS.
We can please all of the people all of the time.
Report comment to moderator
Ooops. Should have read “can’t.”
Report comment to moderator
Homosexuals would not have children if left to themselves. If everyone were homosexual, the human race would be extinct in a generation, and deservedly so. This speaks volumes about the lifestyle.
Michael, I think you are smarter than this.
If everyone were lawyers, then society would collapse because there would be no doctors, bankers or candle stick makers. That’s why we know that society will never be all lawyers.
The same thing could be said of homosexuality. In human nature, the majority (95%+) have always possessed a predominately heterosexual orientation and a minority (2-5%) have possessed a predominantly homosexual orientation. That’s just human nature. Viewing homosexuality like Vampirism is just that, mythological.
Report comment to moderator
Xion – 153
YOU WRITE: “Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race.”
No one said that homosexuality is a race – where did that come from?
YOU WRITE: “Homosexuality is more like a religion or fraternity which one chooses”
Homosexuality is not a fraternity, or a club, nor a religion, it is a sexual practice which is called sin – Romans 1 doesn’t come close to calling homosexuality a fraternity or a race -
Report comment to moderator
From Wikipedia:
Thomas Stephen Szasz (pronounced /sas/; born April 15, 1920 in Budapest, Hungary) is a psychiatrist and academic. He is Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York Health Science Center in Syracuse, New York. He is a prominent figure in the antipsychiatry movement, a well-known social critic of the moral and scientific foundations of psychiatry, and of the social control aims of medicine in modern society, as well as of scientism. He is well known for his books, The Myth of Mental Illness (1960) and The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement which set out some of the arguments with which he is most associated.
His views on special treatment follow from classical liberal roots which are based on the principles that each person has the right to bodily and mental self-ownership and the right to be free from violence from others, although he criticized the “Free World” as well as the Communist states for its use of psychiatry and “drogophobia”. He believes that suicide, the practice of medicine, use and sale of drugs and sexual relations should be private, contractual, and outside of state jurisdiction.
I don’t know that I agree entirely with Szasz, but I think his arguments should be taken very seriously. For the Christians here who so enthusiastically label behavior they don’t like, homosexuality in particular as “mental illness,” they are uncharmingly oblivious to how the Soviet Union and Communist China used “mental illness” as grounds for persecuting and punishing dissendents, frequently Christian dissidents who wanted to worship in a society that included atheism as one of its values. Shakespeare wrote about “being hoit by one’s own petard” (blown up by one’s own bomb in modern lingo).
Islamic terrorists are fond of bombs and often choose to blow themselves up along with others.
I don’t think ALL Christians are mentally ill, and as long as they obey our civil laws they should be allowed to practice their religion in freedom. So far the only one Christian at wmb has called for execution of homosexuals. One Christian (or so he called himself) has apparently been banned from participation on this web site. He was quite fond of calling other people “insane.”
I am waiting for Lynn to come along and ask people to conduct a reasonable discussion. Lynn, please explain what that means to me. I have asked several times. I have not received an answer.
Report comment to moderator
KBells: Do you guys need to organized a march or something to protect their rights.
Is that what March of the Penguins was about?
Report comment to moderator
Jon (#154):
Since you are a part time lawyer, this observation is applicable to your last post: “Spoken like a lawyer at every quibbling point.”
The prominent lawyer Mickey Sherman wrote an interesting book last year titled, “How Can You Defend Those People?” At one point he writes:
“The knowledge that my client is 100 percent guilty neither offends nor shocks me. That is just the nature of this business. People do stupid or bad things. People like me are there to clean up the mess, or at least, to do our best to minimize how their conduct will impact the rest of their life.”
Making the best deal he can for his client is his first concern, not justice, not the victim, nor the greater interests of society. This seems to be the pattern of your arguments in defense of your homosexual “clients.”
OK, counselor. I disagree with your defense and hold that your counterpoints are absurd, petty, irrelevant, devoid of common sense, and certainly contrary to the sovereign Law applicable in this case.
The JUDGE will render his decision on this case at His convenience. However, having read and thoroughly studied all 66 volumes of His prior decisions, I have every reason to believe that precedent will prevail and your clients will be found guilty as charged. That is….unless they change their minds and get a different lawyer, Jesus Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Tony gives three reasons for Christians to oppose gay marriage.
1. Gay marriage rushes us into a place of cultural debauchery where even Rome feared to tread.
2. Employers will be forced against conscience to “recognize” gay marriage.
3. Gay marriage will make homosexuals think they’re going to heaven, if not already there, with hearts that beat so that they can hardly . . . come to Jesus.
The fact that Tony dreads saying these things to his pervert friends suggests he doesn’t believe any of it. As well he shouldn’t.
Rome practiced commodious and exquisite cruelty as a form of mass entertainment. It enslaved people and exterminated populations, and conquered for gold and glory. If homosexual debaucheries are worse than that, why is Tony so polite?
Employers aren’t required to “recognize” gay marriage, just pay the benefits. That’s different. Discharging a financial liability is not pronouncing a blessing. I don’t think Tony even has to invite gay spouses to his company’s annual Christmas party, but if he does, the invitations could go out to “Employee and Guest.” (That might be more of a “statement” than Tony has been willing to make up to now.)
Finally, if Christians must oppose gay marriage in order to warn homosexuals of hell, why stop there? Christians today should consider ostracism, physical punishment, imprisonment, and execution, like the historical church. Perhaps no sinner should obtain food at Tony’s table, or medical treatment, or education. All these kindnesses mislead the damned. Moreover, according to Christian theology, God has given up people who have gay sex, so that they lack the natural affections that motivate normal people. Again, Tony doesn’t seem to really believe this. He half admits that people who have sex should be required to get married and take responsibility for each other — it’s just that the Bible forbids it.
Report comment to moderator
RCDCR is RIGHT ON, SPOT ON! That isn’t anger he is showing us. It is righteous contempt for the hypocrisy of the religious zealots (aka Christians, etc.)
He is expressing the truth. I think that attacking him is avoiding the issues; dodging the goad, so to speak.
Here is a thought: Jesus turned over the bookstore cash registers and knocked down the latte carts. He even had the gall to say that he fulfilled the law; the time has come to worship in SPIRIT and truth. The law is put away. So why try to obey Leviticus now?
And if you COULD earn salvation from the LAW, why not enforce ALL OF THE LAW? What is this piece mealing? What is this rebellion against Jesus? Why are Christians so intent on attacking the lesser of these? Why don’t they read the gospels again…thoroughly? A good read of the gospels will impress the reader that love is desired over judgment and condemnation.
My highest praise and confirmation are given to RCDCR.
Report comment to moderator
Well MM I thought I was speaking as a philosopher not a lawyer.
I liked your last point and it drives home the point that I was trying make which is this is not about secular issues like harm, “mental illness” and whatnot but your religious convictions and you should keep your terminology in that arena.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name
and they would admittedly not have been fond of him anyway. But I was interested enough in his theories to read just a little of them.
I don’t have time to read the whole thread right now, but as I was scrolling through I saw a familiar name—Thomas Szasz. I have no idea what he’s putting out right now, but when I was taking psych. classes for my undergraduate degree I read some of his stuff. It didn’t hold much water as I remember, and he had absolutely no credibility amongst the staff. Of course, I was majoring in psychology at the time
I have no idea what he’s put out since the mid 1990’s (or indeed whether or not he’s still living) but his earlier stuff was not very convincing to me, and I was definitely open to being convinced at the time. What made you think of him I wonder.
Report comment to moderator
I’d like to address a few points because I believe they are more important than they might appear on the surface.
The first is Freebradley’s (6) not uncommon claim that homosexual longing is created by God. We are all tempted to conclude that something which appears pure to us must come from God. Of course when one states it so plainly, the error in thinking becomes apparent. Insofar as we are shot through and through — all of us — with sin, our judgment is entirely in question. Which is why we thank God for Holy Scriptures, the Church, and the Holy Spirit. And the teaching of these is that man, while created in the image and likeness of God, has been warped by sin. In light of the Scriptural teaching that homosexual behavior is an abomination, then, we can’t conclude that it is something crafted by God.
(The unthorough reader will be tempted, at this point, to assert “Aha! If none of us can be trusted to see clearly, then who are you to tell us what’s what?” I refer this person to the fifth sentence in the preceding paragraph.)
God despises what sin has done to His creation, and Scroop would read from this that God despises the sinner irrevocably (for just as he condemns, Scroop, the man who lies with men, he condemns the slanderer, the adulterer, the gossip, the thief. . .). Scroop’s construction is entirely at odds with the very centrality of Christian teaching. His mistake is to read the scriptural denunciation of the actor in the act — a means of naming the act, which is what is being denounced — as a permanent denunciation of the actor. This is inconsistent with Christian teaching, which is that God is love, and that He offers deliverance from sin to all who will grasp it.
Scroop is laboring to cobble up a hate-filled God, and then pin the Christian to this unholy strawman. He goes on to assume a false parallel between denying approval of sin and denying succor to the sinner, a false cardinality of debaucheries in Rome, and so on.
Spinoza’s error is to assume, contra 1500 years of Christian teaching, that the Holy Scriptures are to be interpreted by the individual. Christians believed for centuries that the Holy Spirit works through the Church to illuminate the full meaning of Scriptures. The Orthodox believe this, the Catholics believe it, the Reformers believed it when they went back to the teachings of the patristics. The heretics associated with the radical Reformation rejected this belief, but the bulk of Christendom has always hewed to it.
Spinoza’s is a common enough error in modern times, and it’s what allows him to accuse me of simply following the lead of my “fundagelical” superiors. He’s right that if one squints his eyes and tries hard enough, he can conclude that Scriptures aren’t absolutely clear about homosexuality. This is something that Spong, Robinson, and a host of other apostates specialize in doing, misleading thousands of people who yearn for Christ even as they remain lost. But when we interpret Scriptures in light of the teaching of the Church from the very beginning, there is no doubt.
Spinoza wants to imply that the condemnation of homosexual behavior is some new blend of conservative evangelical revision, but even a casual student of Church history knows otherwise. What Spinoza and others must do to elide this fact is either denounce the role of Holy Tradition, or conclude that the Holy Spirit failed, for nearly two millenia, to make clear to His ordained teachers how to interpret these verses. Neither option seems preferable, in my view, to simply chucking the whole enterprise and living the secular life. It would be more intellectually honest, if nothing else.
I wanted to address this me-and-my-Bible view of Scripture in particular because it leads, in the end, to the dreamed-up God of someone like RCDCR, or when in the hands of his intellectual betters, the parsed-out God of Spong or Robinson. It is a regrettable irony that many conservatives, in our modern times, have contributed to this error by tacitly (or in some cases explicitly) assenting to the notion that God intended for the individual Christian to sit down with a Bible (after, of course, the Holy Church assembled it) and figure everything out for himself.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#162):
First Point: The moral debauchery of homosexual marriage is just one of many being promoted by the left that are similar and even worse than those of fallen Rome. Homosexual marriage attempts to legitimize and actually promote a sexual hedonism that promises to exceed anything that ever occurred in Rome. The butchery of abortion exceeds, by far, all the peoples killed in the Roman arenas and wars. We do this as another form of sexual license. In order to eliminate the natural consequences of the sex act we just kill the child and dump it in a garbage can—by the millions.
Second Point: Your supposed distinction between a financial liability and a blessing is disingenuous. A blessing is synonymous with approval when mandated by dictatorial law. For all practical purposes they go hand in hand and it lays the foundation for massive fraud and economic harm to any company and all its employees. For example, medical benefits are essentially part of an employee’s salary. Under traditional marriage norms they are offered to families that are fairly stable, long lasting and with normal medical problems. However, if you add homosexual marriage into the mix, you add the problem of AIDS and the revolving door of promiscuous sexual relationships. In short, the company and all its employees, is then forced to carry the burden of expensive medical treatments for all of the successive partners of each homosexual employee—medical treatments that are the direct consequences, not of normal life circumstances, but of deliberate, self-destructive and immoral sexual choices. As a normal employee, I would consider it a gross injustice to be forced to subsidize the moral debauchery of another employee who cannot control his physical urges and who brings what are essentially his economic “leeches” into the system.
Third Point: Today’s Christian opposition to homosexual marriage serves as a warning of God’s displeasure towards homosexual behavior. We speak what God has said and we will, in no way, support approval of the practice. To do so would imply God’s approval and cloud the already limited understanding of homosexuals about the serious and eternal consequences of their behavior. Moth, your deliberate exaggeration of our opposition to include imprisonment, execution, the denial of charity, etc., for homosexuals is, to put it bluntly, an inflammatory lie.
Report comment to moderator
Re an earlier argument (proposed by Jon, I believe): Homosexuality is natural because it’s present in the animal kingdom, even among penguins.
First, no one can really argue that it’s a good trait when it appears in animals, and some of what is seen as homosexual behavior among animals might in fact not be. (I see people grossed out when their male dog mounts another male dog. Well, mounting in dogs is dominant behavior, not just sexual behavior. In fact, the dominance part is actually more important than the sexual part–a bitch won’t let a dog mount her unless he is a dog she’s willing to submit to. If people can so misunderstand the behavior of the animal we know best, is it possible we could also misunderstand aberrant behavior in other animals? But again, even if it is homosexual behavior, that doesn’t make it a positive thing for the animal or its species–it’s a dysfunctional behavior that will result in the animal failing to reproduce.)
And honestly, do we really want to go that route of deciding what is acceptable by what animals do? My parents once had a bitch that killed and ate a litter of puppies. Can a mother who kills her children really argue, “Some animals do it, so it’s OK”? No. We are not animals. What lions and tigers and bears do, they do naturally, instinctively and based on experience, even if sometimes their behaviors are warped. But human beings are free to make moral judgments. And when our Creator has given us moral guidance on an issue (thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman), we simply can’t say, “But the animals do it too!” That’s no better an argument than it is when a child argues that his sister did it last week.
Report comment to moderator
Readers, be sure to read RCDCR’s comments. I believe the Holy Spirit was speaking through him to us. Even the author wrote a rebuttal denouncing RCDCR. Of all the letters, why that one? The truth burns in our soul and we can accept it, or, put it out. The author seems disturbed enough to give a direct response to RCDCR and thus rationalize his arguments even more strongly. RCDCR speaks the truth.
To Woodlief: If RCDCR is a reprobate, why throw your pearls? What is going on? If RCDCR is not a reprobate, you may have to re-examine the life unexamined. Yes? NO?
Report comment to moderator
Maajour, I did read those comments, and I think most of us did. The Holy Spirit doesn’t speak in direct opposition to Scripture, nor does He speak through those who so clearly deny Him. This poster doesn’t understand God. He has mostly been treated with gentleness, but he definitely doesn’t speak for God.
He says He wants a better God. A God “better” than the One who gave us this beautiful earth, human relationships, food and other things we need to live . . . and then sent His own Son to earth to meet our greatest need of all, the need for forgiveness of our sins and renewed relationship with our Creator. There is no better God. There is no need for a better God, no possibility of a better God, no religion anywhere that even claims to offer a better God.
Only Jesus offers eternal life, hope, forgiveness, purpose, and a relationship that allows us to call the holy Creator of the universe our Father. Think of it. Jesus offers, “Him that comes to Me, I will never cast out.” The offer, at the cost of His own life, is almost too good to be true. We can get distracted from it, but Jesus is the real focus of the Bible, and no fault can be found in Him, or in His love. He’s willing to take even me, and even you.
Report comment to moderator
I think one of the difficulties in Tony’s position lies in the framing of the homosexual debate as at bottom, a moral problem. That is, it is all a matter of free choice. Thus consequences are all the actor’s part. Do the crime, do the time, so to speak.
Obviously, this puts a division between the Christian and his gay neighbor.
The better discussion, the more helpful would actually be to articulate the commonality we share together, straight and gay. What are the common civil expectations? This reality actually seems to be the deeper for Tony. There may be more to be gained by identifying what we hold together than the attempt to draw the bright lines.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not going to wade into the larger debate, but I do want to comment on this assertion from Michael Martin: However, if you add homosexual marriage into the mix, you add the problem of AIDS and the revolving door of promiscuous sexual relationships. In short, the company and all its employees, is then forced to carry the burden of expensive medical treatments for all of the successive partners of each homosexual employee—medical treatments that are the direct consequences, not of normal life circumstances, but of deliberate, self-destructive and immoral sexual choices.
It is “the revolving door of promiscuous sexual relationships” that legal homosexual unions are intended to prevent. Whether called “marriage” or not, legally-sanctioned unions provide stability, legal benefits and legal status that are otherwise unattainable.
Homosexuals have no monopoly on promiscuity or sexually transmitted disease, including AIDS. Regardless of whether you think homosexual relationships are morally right or greatly wrong, they are going to go on.
It is true that homosexuals who want lifelong monogamy can have it with or without government approval, and many do. But the legal recognition gives added incentive that may be helpful.
Company health insurance policies also require “the company and all its employees” to carry the burden of expensive medical care for cigarette smokers who get cancer, or obese employees who develop diabetes or heart trouble. I don’t see any great groundswell of opposition against those things as a moral issue, even though they are at least as self-destructive as, and are far more common than, homosexuality.
As for AIDS, by the way, the CDC estimated that as of the end of 2006, there were about 1.1 million Americans with HIV. They also estimate that while male-male sexual contact is the largest single category of transmission, it accounted for slightly less than 50 percent of all AIDS cases as of 2007. (IV drug use was the next largest category, followed by high-risk heterosexual contact.)
If 10 percent of the population is homosexual, that’s about 30 million Americans. Only about half a million of them have HIV — less than 2 percent. (If only 5 percent is homosexual, that’s about 15 million, with about less than 4 percent HIV-positive. Still not a huge number.)
And finally, female-female transmission of HIV remains at 0, so if the disease factor is really an argument against homosexual unions, it applies only to males.
And finally,
Report comment to moderator
The better discussion, the more helpful would actually be to articulate the commonality we share together, straight and gay.
There is no commonality from the conservative Christian standpoint. To them, gays are second-class citizens, and not deserving of equal rights or liberties. Make no mistake – they would, if they could, pass laws jailing us, forcing us into mental hospitals and subjecting us to inhumane treatment, and even execute us. They’ve done it in the past and they’d do it again in a heartbeat. We are scum to them. We are their “Samaritans”.
It really doesn’t matter though. We will fight for our freedom for as long as it takes and we will never give up. We don’t fight just for ourselves, but for all those who will come after us. Liberty and justice will prevail over the tyranny of the conservative Christians, Muslims, or any other group that wishes us ill.
I don’t know when the conservative Christians are going to learn that hate never wins. Bigotry does not last. Injustice does not stand. The best they can do is delay the granting of equal rights, but they ultimately will not stop it. They’re on the wrong side of history. The American people believe in fundamental fairness and freedom. And that will win out in the end.
Report comment to moderator
Moth, your deliberate exaggeration of our opposition to include imprisonment, execution, the denial of charity, etc., for homosexuals is, to put it bluntly, an inflammatory lie.
I don’t lie, MICHAEL MARTIN. I asked, because if gay sex is a sin, why not a crime? That’s a fundamental question, grounded in the history of our nation and church, and provoked by Evangelical leaders who objected to the Supreme Court’s decriminalization of sodomy. Americans executed sodomites through the 19th century, in the name of God. Four justices apparently think that should still be constitutional. Therefore, I think it’s fair ball to ask Evangelicals to affirm or repudiate this history.
Y’all are the inflammatory ones. Tony comes here like a holy martyr. He loathes being politically incorrect, but the Church leaves him no choice. Tony has no pernicious delusions of independent judgment, otherwise he would let a thousand flowers bloom and the woodpecker peck it on wood, and all his queer friends would admire his liberality. But Tony’s obedient. And self-sacrificing. Don’t forget his submitting himself to vilification, all for choosing the greater love. No doubt, on the Last Day, when queers are fed to the fires, their final indictment will be that they made Tony feel bad for telling them where they were headed.
There’s every reason for you and I to dislike each other, Michael. We have nothing to contest, just mutual antipathy. My point is, don’t accuse me if lying. If I misstate something, point it out and I’ll acknowledge the error, and appreciate the correction.
Report comment to moderator
As I attempt to follow Christ, it greatly disturbs me that those that are supposed to be representing Christ with me (without naming specific individuals) can be so graceless. It is only due to grace that we are what we are. We have no right to judge, and if we truly understood how sinful we ourselves are judging would never cross our mind. I can’t understand why homosexuality is a greater sin that obesity (gluttony), yet Christians regularly ignore it. It disturbs me that the radical nature of God’s grace is lost by so many Christians. Christians in a spirit of grace should be understanding of the minorities in society. Although the women caught in adultery was clearly sinning, Jesus was the One who stood up for her. She clearly understood his love for her. Our first priority needs to be ensuring that gays understand our love for them. Sadly, gays don’t feel our (Christians) love. Why are we so unlike the friend of sinners? Please, those that are gay, understand that true followers of Christ do love you. Authentic Christ followers understand the grace that they have been inundated with leaves no room for condemnation.
Report comment to moderator
Jesusradical,
I see you and Tony W making good points; however much I might disagree with you and he, I see it coming from a good place. Victoria and Michael Martin, on the other hand, I don’t see them reaching out to gays in love, but with animus and venom.
Report comment to moderator
What Jon said.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop’s construction is entirely at odds with the very centrality of Christian teaching. His mistake is to read the scriptural denunciation of the actor in the act — a means of naming the act, which is what is being denounced — as a permanent denunciation of the actor.
Tony, I think you minimize the difficulties in that passage and discount its historical interpretation by the church. A reader doesn’t have to labor to discover the hysteria. The passage is an outlier. Paul repeats a threefold sentence of present abandonment by God. Usually the Bible doesn’t psychoanalyze the sinner, but here Paul explains how homosexual lust is the consequence of God taking away natural affections. Homosexuality is a punishment for the prior sin of worshipping man instead of God. It’s the judgment before the Judgment. Paul says homosexuals are unique in that their bodies display the marks of their unnatural desires. You can see they’re gay by looking at them. Further, God gives them over to a cascade of limitless evil.
Queers aren’t like shoplifters. They become shoplifters, and everything else, because they have been given up by God and are without natural affection. That’s what the text says. There’s nothing there about hating the act and loving the actor. Homosexuals are vessels of wrath.
Of course, I can blame Paul for going overboard, but I’m afraid you have to blame God. Wouldn’t you rather be in my shoes!
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: I do wonder if Paul was making a much more specific point with that passage in Romans, and not the generalized one that is generally inferred.
It was common in Rome at that time for men and women to have sex with each other for procreation, but to have same-sex dalliances for pleasure. Paul very specifically connects the same-sex relations with the worship of idols, also common practice in Rome at the time.
So, the Christians to whom he was writing, in Rome, would understand this passage to mean that God’s punishment for the idol worship of the non-Christian Romans was this same-sex activity that was widely practiced. Another point in favor of this argument is that Paul specifically describes the activity he’s talking about as turning from normal relations to same-sex ones. You can’t turn from something you weren’t at one point turned toward.
In this understanding, Paul is encouraging his Christian readers by telling them the same-sex debauchery going on around them was the punishment of God for people who worship the creation rather than the Creator, and not issuing a generalized condemnation of homosexuality.
Whether that interpretation holds up under scrutiny, I don’t know, but the plain language of the passage does seem to make it at least plausible, if not certain.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin – 144
Thank you for your kind words, I am humbled –
I hope you have a blessed Resurrection Sunday –
God bless you and your family
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#174):
Read carefully what I said: “Moth, your deliberate exaggeration of our opposition to include imprisonment, execution, the denial of charity, etc., for homosexuals is, to put it bluntly, an inflammatory lie.”
None of us on this site, to my knowledge, have ever suggested putting homosexuals to death. You have suggested that our opposition extends to that point and I repeat, that is a an outright lie.
Additionally, you have stated (#174), that within the context of our judicial system:
“Americans executed sodomites through the 19th century, in the name of God.”
The nearest I could find on any homosexual web site was this statement:
What is the source for your claim of judicial executions for sodomy through the 1800’s? Is your claim based on fact, or is it another falsehood? Of the four cases listed above, long before the 1800’s, it would be interesting to know the extenuating circumstances (perhaps, rape, pedophilia, etc.) that brought the death penalty only four times out of 20 up until 1740—after that zero.
Report comment to moderator
DJ #165 (I think)
Thank you for your comment about Thomas Szasz. I have my doubt about him as well. However, I mention him not to suggest him as the final word about mental illness or as a person whose ideas should make us appropriately uneasy.
First of all, clinical psychology is probably one of the least scientific or understood areas of what we call science. One does not have to think Szasz correct in all his assertions to think he has some valid points.
1. First of all, as I mentioned, almost every group with a strong opinion likes to call people who disagree with them “mentally ill” to the point of persecuting. Again, I mention how the Soviet Union and China used “mental illness” as a label to persecute dissidents, including Christians. Why Christians are not cautious about throwing this label at people they don’t approve us mystifies me.
2. Second, many common practices in mental health treatment over the last century or so strike me as nothing more than “witch doctory” and persecution. I will point out electro shock treatments and lobotomies as two of the worst practices. They occasionally helped a person but they also destroyed many people’s lives. These brutal practices were accepted and tolerated by many people with all sorts of credentials.
3. The dangerous mental health therapy du jour is drug treatment, popular in part because it is cheap and also because it sedates people who may be difficult to control. Certainly many people are helped to an extent by drug therapy. But there are many well-documented cases of people harmed. Depression is sometimes helped by anti-depressants, and sometimes worsened, to the point of provoking suicides.
4. Many problems labeled as “mental health” problems are really existential problems. Religious belief is the solution to existential problems most favored at this web site. This approach is in so much dispute it is hard to evaluate with any objectivity. My subjective opinion (as a person not much a fan of religion) is that many people are helped through difficulties in their life by their religious belief and many people are driven crazy by their religious belief. Reading comments on worldmagblog, I encounter many people who assert persuasively that religion has helped them with their problems. I also encounter comments by people who strike me as “crazy,” and their religious beliefs have probably accelerated and intensified their problems.
I will point to one example. One hyperactive and long-winded comment poster (besides me, that is) was notorious for referring to anybody who disagreed with him as “insane.” This person has apparently been banned from this web site and so far few if any are calling for his return.
Bottom line: Szasz may not be the final expert on mental health, but his cautions have a lot of merit if taken with huge grains of salt.
You have one free pass to call me crazy one time in your next comment, if you like. More than once, however, and I may use the “personal attack” card and complain to Lynn, who probably does not care much.
Report comment to moderator
Moth – 178
Moth, instead of mixing this up – why don’t you give us the passage of Scripture and make your point which is pointless –
Why is it that so many homosexuals want Paul to join them in their sin? – or is that a super silly question? – perhaps if homosexuals can somehow involve Paul they feel justified in whatever they do? Paul has nothing to do with homosexuality no matter how much the homosexual community would like to intangle him in their sinful lifestyle – it’s a cheap shot, but one that backfires right to the heart of their sinful lives -
Report comment to moderator
Well, it always comes down to this: Is God God all the time or just when I agree with what the Bible says? While I don’t want to sin, I realize that because of my nature I do sin anyway. That does not give me an excuse to sin, but only explains why we needed for Jesus to pay the price for all of the sins of mankind. It also doesn’t justify my sin. When the Bible says that an evil thought against someone else is a sin, then it is a sin. I can’t agree with “Love thy neighbor” but disagree with “and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Ro 1:27, NASB. That makes me God if I do. (Please refer to the context, I don’t want it said that the verse was taken out of context) So while I think that my gay son is going against God’s word for taking part in a homosexual lifestyle, one also would be going against God’s word if they took part in a pornographic lifestyle. Or an adulterous lifestyle. Or a lying lifestyle. (By the way, I love my gay son as much as I love my straight daughter) The Bible is either all true or not. We can’t pick and choose what is true from the Bible. We change our mind from time to time, so our truth becomes relative. God never changes. His truth is always truth. All that being said, we as Christians better not treat the homosexual any different than we would the people we go to church with. Jesus loved the tax collector as much as He loved His disciples. So should we. God has already judged all mankind, and His judgement stands. Mine doesn’t.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
How ’bout some verses on gluttony, or pride, or judging others?
Please lets represent the love of Christ!
Report comment to moderator
JesusRadical:
Do not challenge The Queen. You’ll regret it.
*****
I do believe this blog is gonna make Certified Gay Blog! status.
We may even have an outside chance of making Super Gay Blog!* status. Woo-hooh!
(”SGB” = 300 posts)
Report comment to moderator
P.S. Victoria–an accurate translation (from the Greek) of Jude 1:7 is other flesh (referring to the angels) not homosexual
activities.
Report comment to moderator
I meant “pursued other flesh.” This refers to the attempt to rape the angels (other flesh).
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Victoria–A question: Do think about how your words reflect on Christ before you post??
Also I’m currently working on research at my college relating to a possible cure for HIV (so there could be a cure shortly).
Report comment to moderator
by the way homosexuals are prideful, and their glutton for their lifestyle is famous…
More self-righteous, judgmental, holier-than-thou CRAP!
Report comment to moderator
jesusradical – 191
Good luck with a cure – there have been many who have worked on a cure for HIV/AIDS for some time – medicine was my career – the cure for cancer has long been sought, but it has not come to fruition – I don’t believe HIV/AIDS will have a cure. The only cure is to abstain from male homosexual sex. There is no other way to eliminate the spread of this disease.
Sin is a terrible thing, we all are tempted, but we have an escape which is promised to those who trust in the LORD:
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. 1 Corinthians 10:13
There is no cure for sin except through Jesus Christ – repenting and turning from sin -
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I’m sorry how Christ is misrepresented by some of our (christians) attitudes. These attitudes demonstrate the need christians have for God’s forgiveness and grace. Please don’t let Christians prevent you from giving the love of Jesus a chance.
Report comment to moderator
jesusradical – 191
YOU WRITE: “Victoria–A question: Do think about how your words reflect on Christ before you post??”
YES – I concern myself with what Jesus said, what his Apostles spoke, wrote concerning sin – those words are a reflection and sometimes quotes on what the LORD Jesus HIMSELF said –
I concern myself with those who hear the Gospel and disbelieve, because their sin is so precious they cannot give it up, even it means their life here on earth, and then the WORST part the Eternal life separated from GOD Almight just because their sin was more important then GOD -
Report comment to moderator
Jesusradical (#186):
Of course there are verses on the sins of gluttony, pride, and judging others, but those are not under discussion here. What is under discussion is the sin of homosexuality. The main reason that we constantly war on this subject on this site is the obstinate position taken by homosexuals that their behavior is not sinful, that it is not harmful, and even that the Bible does not condemn it. This last point is especially pernicious in that it denies the Word of God and the common understanding of the English language contained therein. Do we represent the love of Christ by allowing such falsehoods to go unchallenged and thereby contribute to their continuance?
As far as judging others is concerned, I do not judge Anlir, Arcadia, et al, or call them names as they are wont to do with me. They erroneously conflate speaking against the sin of homosexuality with individual judgment against them. That is not what I and most other Christians do here. On the other hand, homosexuals constantly use the admonition against judging others, out of context, as a deliberate tactic to silence any opposition against homosexuality in general.
The love of Christ has been conveyed to homosexuals on this site time and again. There is a way out of their slavery to this terrible sin. I wish and pray to God that people like Anlir, Arcadia, et al, would heed, come to Christ and find rest and deliverance. However, the inevitable response is just more denial and animus.
You say, “Please let’s represent the love of Christ!” Tell me, how would you do that and be a truthful witness as to what the Bible says about the sin of homosexuality and its solution?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Those that care about the Gospel must have a Christ-like attitude–one of grace, gentleness, and forgiveness. Our love displays the gospel (good news) not our condemnation. Jesus didn’t come into the world to condemn it.
Report comment to moderator
I thank you for being a good example of the Christian faith JesusRadical.
As I mentioned earlier, you’ll regret challenging The Queen. I can defy her because I’m already damned by her, so it really doesn’t matter. But I don’t want to see you put your mortal soul in danger – it’s just not worth it.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin,
I’d love to talk about how we can represent the love of Christ to gay individuals in detail and how we Christians have failed in doing so, but, unfortunately, my time is limited right now. One thing I would like to mention is that we approach the issue of obesity with much more love and consideration (generally) than homosexuality. Why? Homosexuality and obesity have some interesting parallels. Both probably have some biological origins. Both can become an identity for the individual. We understand the indentity issue when it comes to obesity and; therefore, are careful to hurt the feelings of those that are obese (and rightly so), however, that grace and gentleness is lacking when it comes to homosexuality. Why is this??
Report comment to moderator
I meant NOT to hurt the feelings of those that are obese!! It’s getting late.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin said: “There is a way out of their slavery to this terrible sin. I wish and pray to God that people like Anlir, Arcadia, et al, would heed, come to Christ and find rest and deliverance.”
Why is this a “terrible” sin? Do you emphasize people’s need to leave the slavery of gluttony before they can come to Christ?
Report comment to moderator
jesusradical – 201
Sodom was destroyed, not for gluttony – remember it the next time you try and make the point regarding gluttony.
Report comment to moderator
202 should read
“GOD didn’t tell his servants (pastors/teachers/evangelists) to go easy on the sinful, just placate them, be gentle to their sin, forgive them —– NO Jesus didn’t say any of those things, most of all HE certainly DIDN’T give us the right to forgive you, that you will need to seek for the LORD with a humble heart -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria said: “Sodom was destroyed, not for gluttony – remember it the next time you try and make the point regarding gluttony.”
MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ Ezekial 16:48,49 “As I live, declares the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, EXCESS OF FOOD, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.
Also, Victoria, just because I try to show christ-like love to
gay individuals does mean I’m gay as your use of “you” implies.
Peace and Happy Easter to all gay and straight!!
Report comment to moderator
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
I now pronounce this a Worlmag Certified Gay Blog!for having reached 200+ comments. Way to go every one!
This is just such and honor and I didn’t have anything prepared to read. But I would like to thank my manager, Stan, who’s always been there for me And I’d like to thank my producers, Terrance and Phillip. And Mr. (Mrs.?) Garrison, Chef, and Mr. Mackey, and Kyle, and Butters – you’re so special to me. And Cartman – how could I forget Cartman who has been such a big influence on my work. Lastly, I’d like to thank God who gave me my talent. Oh, and “Hi mom – I love you!”
Well, I guess it’s onward to Super Gay Blog!* status. There’s a chance to reach it, given that we’ve got all day on Sunday to make less than 96 posts. Only a handful of blogs on Worldmag ever make it “SGB” status. But I think this one still has enough momentum to make it
(”SGB” = 300 posts)
Equality under the law. It’s really simple!
And if it reaches “SGB” status, it might go viral, and then we’d be looking at Ultimate Gay Blog!* status. Very, very few have ever reached that feat.
(”UGB” = 400 posts)
Report comment to moderator
I meant DOESN’T mean I’m gay as your use of “you” implies.
Report comment to moderator
In honor of Easter I will avoid posting to this thread today.
Report comment to moderator
JesusRadical: I’m sorry how Christ is misrepresented by some of our (christians) attitudes. These attitudes demonstrate the need christians have for God’s forgiveness and grace. Please don’t let Christians prevent you from giving the love of Jesus a chance.
A quote that I like, and offhand I don’t recall where I heard it, is something along these lines: “The two things that give me comfort are the perfection of Christ and the imperfection of other Christians.”
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
Even at the Council of Orange, which some double predestination-minded theologians look to as an affirmation of that doctrine, the council members specifically singled out for anathema the vile teaching that God foreordains any man to do evil. (It’s worth noting that the eastern Church does not accept the canons of this council, in part, I believe, because it strays too far, still, in favor of predestination).
I’m certainly no theologian, but I believe this passage in Romans as consistent with the early Church teaching that when God “gives over” someone to his sins, He is not changing that person’s nature so that he no longer has a choice, or is no longer formed in God’s image. There is no reason to read into this passage the notion that God, angered at the idol-woshippers, turned them into creatures who cannot still fall back on His grace — and indeed, I don’t believe you’ll find such a teaching among even a small minority of the patristic fathers, because it would amount to a radical rejection of the teaching they held close to through heresy after heresy, which is that God is love, that He is not the author of evil, and that He comes to man as the great Reconciler, not as the great Punisher as He is seen in some conservative circles.
By “giving them over” God is allowing them to pursue their lives of sin, which for all of us, unchecked, lead to deeper and deeper depravity. The early Church taught, however, that it is our nature to do good, not evil, and that Christ’s redemptive work on the Cross has liberated us from enslavement to that evil. We all of us have, in other words, the option to foresake sin.
I understand why, in light of teachings of some modern, conservative Christians, you would read the Romans passage this way. But I don’t believe such a reading is (thank God) consistent with the great Gospel message we celebrate on this day, which is that God has shattered the bondage of sin, that all who call on Him might be saved.
Report comment to moderator
MICHAEL MARTIN: None of us on this site, to my knowledge, have ever suggested putting homosexuals to death. You have suggested that our opposition extends to that point and I repeat, that is a an outright lie.
Not now, but y’all once did. Most states still had capital punishment on the books for sodomy in the 19th century, based on English common law which made no distinction between a sin and a crime. My secondary sources report five executions in our land for sodomy between 1757 and 1801. I cannot cite numbers for the 1900’s, but when I have time, I’ll consult the Espy Files (the definitive list of 15,269 juridical executions since 1608). If I’ve gotten dates wrong, I’ll acknowledge and correct.
However, please note that sodomy was still a felony until recent times that could count as an aggravating crime for the death penalty. That means that some criminals may have been executed because of their dishonorable passions. It’s a reasonable inference, anyway.
The fact that you don’t advocate executions is small comfort when the Bible does and you don’t renounce imprisonment. Or do you? Oppose imprisonment, that is.
Despite what you say, I did not exaggerate your opposition to gay marriage. I taunted it. I’m saying, come clean. How far do you want to go in using law and legal distinctions to denigrate homosexual desire? If homosex is a sin, why not a crime?
Report comment to moderator
Gee such “Tolerance and Diversity” from the Left. In other words, “You WILL or you BETTER accept my perversion…OR ELSE !!!! ”
see link….
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94711
copy and paste.
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
Thanks for addressing Romans. I still think the text says things that the Church doesn’t want it to. On the other hand, so what? Even if Paul was hysterical or merely careless, theologians have ways of improving his meaning. (Unless they are fundamentalists).
For me the key issue is the prejudice against homosexual desire as shameful and dishonorable. Heterosexuals have legal and moral pathways for their desire, so they may gratify it. Homosexual desire may only be suffered or extinguished. Paul says homosexuals are vile, degraded, shameful, unnatural, indecent, perverted, and depraved. He exhausts all pejoratives. And that’s just their nature. When Paul considers behavior, throwing the book at them can’t do homosexuals justice. They invent new crimes, and do them, too! Worst of all, they approve. (This could be why Christians have such trepidation about “approval.”) Homosexuals deserve to die, and they know it, despite what we read at deathpenalty.org. God doesn’t cause sin, but Paul seems to say He “hardens their hearts,” to use OT language, and God deprives homosexuals of the blessing of natural motivations for good conduct.
The dishonorable passions of homosexuals are a special case for Paul. Who else lacks natural affections? When it comes to common sinners, we should not pass judgment, for only God can see the heart. Yet anyone can tell a queer by looking at him/her.
It’s all so mean, because homosexuals have done good in the world (as you admit they can). I don’t intend to grab the last word on this topic by dint of endurance. I acknowledge your thoughtful posts, yet can’t agree.
Report comment to moderator
jesusradical – 205
YOU WRITE:
“Victoria said: “Sodom was destroyed, not for gluttony – remember it the next time you try and make the point regarding gluttony.” MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ Ezekial 16:48,49 “As I live, declares the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, EXCESS OF FOOD, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”
When you again desire to mention Sodom in regards to FOOD, you might read Ezekiel 16 over carefully THE WHOLE CHAPTER – ABOMINATIONS, WHOREDOM, FORNICATION, HARLOT, LEWDNESS are all part of this this chapter regarding Sodom –
22 And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, when thou wast naked and bare, and wast polluted in thy blood.
23 And it came to pass after all thy wickedness, (woe, woe unto thee! saith the LORD GOD;)
24 That thou hast also built unto thee an eminent place, and hast made thee an high place in every street.
25 Thou hast built thy high place at every head of the way, and hast made thy beauty to be abhorred, and hast opened thy feet to every one that passed by, and multiplied thy whoredoms.
26 Thou hast also committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbours, great of flesh; and hast increased thy whoredoms, to provoke me to anger.
27 Behold, therefore I have stretched out my hand over thee, and have diminished thine ordinary food, and delivered thee unto the will of them that hate thee, the daughters of the Philistines, which are ashamed of thy lewd way.
28 Thou hast played the whore also with the Assyrians, because thou wast unsatiable; yea, thou hast played the harlot with them, and yet couldest not be satisfied.
29 Thou hast moreover multiplied thy fornication in the land of Canaan unto Chaldea; and yet thou wast not satisfied therewith.
30 How weak is thine heart, saith the LORD GOD, seeing thou doest all these things, the work of an imperious whorish woman;
31 In that thou buildest thine eminent place in the head of every way, and makest thine high place in every street; and hast not been as an harlot, in that thou scornest hire;
32 But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!
33 They give gifts to all whores: but thou givest thy gifts to all thy lovers, and hirest them, that they may come unto thee on every side for thy whoredom.
34 And the contrary is in thee from other women in thy whoredoms, whereas none followeth thee to commit whoredoms: and in that thou givest a reward, and no reward is given unto thee, therefore thou art contrary.
35 Wherefore, O harlot, hear the word of the LORD:
36 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them;
37 Behold, therefore I will gather all thy lovers, with whom thou hast taken pleasure, and all them that thou hast loved, with all them that thou hast hated; I will even gather them round about against thee, and will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they may see all thy nakedness.
38 And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy.
39 And I will also give thee into their hand, and they shall throw down thine eminent place, and shall break down thy high places: they shall strip thee also of thy clothes, and shall take thy fair jewels, and leave thee naked and bare.
40 They shall also bring up a company against thee, and they shall stone thee with stones, and thrust thee through with their swords.
41
And they shall burn thine houses with fire, and execute judgments upon thee in the sight of many women: and I will cause thee to cease from playing the harlot, and thou also shalt give no hire any more.
42 So will I make my fury toward thee to rest, and my jealousy shall depart from thee, and I will be quiet, and will be no more angry.
43 Because thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, but hast fretted me in all these things; behold, therefore I also will recompense thy way upon thine head, saith the Lord GOD: and thou shalt not commit this lewdness above all thine abominations.
44 Behold, every one that useth proverbs shall use this proverb against thee, saying, As is the mother, so is her daughter.
45 Thou art thy mother’s daughter, that lotheth her husband and her children; and thou art the sister of thy sisters, which lothed their husbands and their children: your mother was an Hittite, and your father an Amorite.
46 And thine elder sister is Samaria, she and her daughters that dwell at thy left hand: and thy younger sister, that dwelleth at thy right hand, is Sodom and her daughters.
47 Yet hast thou not walked after their ways, nor done after their abominations: but, as if that were a very little thing, thou wast corrupted more than they in all thy ways.
48 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
51 Neither hath Samaria committed half of thy sins; but thou hast multiplied thine abominations more than they, and hast justified thy sisters in all thine abominations which thou hast done.
52 Thou also, which hast judged thy sisters, bear thine own shame for thy sins that thou hast committed more abominable than they: they are more righteous than thou: yea, be thou confounded also, and bear thy shame, in that thou hast justified thy sisters.
53 When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them:
54 That thou mayest bear thine own shame, and mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done, in that thou art a comfort unto them.
55 When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate.
56 For thy sister Sodom was not mentioned by thy mouth in the day of thy pride,
57
Before thy wickedness was discovered, as at the time of thy reproach of the daughters of Syria, and all that are round about her, the daughters of the Philistines, which despise thee round about.
58 Thou hast borne thy lewdness and thine abominations, saith the LORD.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
#182 Random Name
” This person has apparently been banned from this web site and so far few if any are calling for his return.”
I wrote the WMB Editors a note complaining about the banning. I didn’t think it was anybody else’ business. How many others wrote only the Editors know. I didn’t think Llama should have said things in the way he did but I also don’t like some of the things other posters constantly say either.
I am sorry Llama is gone (Apparently, the WMB Editors didn’t give the name of the banishee out, so I just have to figure it out.) and I really miss him and his comments. I always read his posts. I suppose I understood where he came from and it made all the difference when I read what you called “crazy.” He made all the sense in the world to me.
If anybody would like to get in touch with Llama, send me an email and I will forward it to him.
Wonderstump@hotmail.com
I like and miss Llama.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I really find it difficult not to get upset with you, because your misuse of Scriptures is harming the cause of Christ; but I will strive to demonstrate love to you. Have you had a bad experience that makes you want to demonize this group of people?
Back to Ezekial 16: only verses 48,49,50 refer to Sodom!! The rest of the verses are referring to the sins of JERUSALEM, which I don’t recall being destroyed with fire and brimstone. Also verse 50 says in your version “they commited abomination before me.” I’m sure you’re thinking aha! that means that its the homosexuality that is soley to blame for the destruction of Sodom. Sorry, but a literal translation would read “did destable things,” which probably refers to all their sins, including gluttony and lack of concern for the poor. If God wanted to single out homosexuality he could have.
Also, in reference to what seems to a favorite verse of yours– Romans 1:28–it appears to me that you’re missing the point of Romans 1. The purpose of this passage is to show how we ALL are depraved. How comes you don’t mention verses 29, 30, and 31?? These verses mention slanderers, ruthless, and gossips etc. The point is that you and I both are just as guilty as ALL OTHER sinners.
I think Romans 2:1 is another nearby verse you seem to be overlooking: “Therefore you have no exuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.”
We humans are in no position to judge others–the only thing that
allows our behavior to be any “better” than anyone else’s is the
grace of Jesus Christ!
Victoria, Happy Easter!! Please let’s demonstrate that grace and love that caused Jesus to die for us while we were STILL sinners!!
Report comment to moderator
By way of further exegesis:
Victoria’s English text downplays the grammatical import of “And even” (GK kai kathws) at the start of this verse (Rom 1:28). It is nowhere clear that the language is to be used of the verses immediately preceding, about sexual immorality; rather what follows appears to be a summary of Paul’s general point. It is not that gays are singularly reprobate, but that all are.
So Calvin:
In short you don’t have to be gay to be reprobate; you only have to live out your old nature — an old nature that even our conscience testifies is wrong.
Report comment to moderator
JesusRadical,
I know you probably aren’t going to like it, but my suggestion to you is that you allow The Queen to have the last word on this matter and leave quietly. Otherwise, she’s just going to publish longer and longer missives from the Bible, and use more and more bold print and caps, until eventually she’ll be screaming at you. And then you’ll be denounced as a heretic.
While appreciate you standing up for the love of Christ, it is no match for the wrathful judgment of God that The Queen presents. Your work on a cure for AIDS is a direct slap in the face of The Almighty. If God cannot pronounce his judgment upon gay people trough AIDS, how are gay people going to learn that they’re damned to hell?
It’s also helpful to remember that The Queen is the final authority for all matters of faith and practice on Worldmag.
I regret that you found this site because it will sorely test your commitment to sharing the love of Christ. This site is primarily a gathering place for people who advocate for the wrathful judgment of God Almighty, and a few heathens like me.
Take it from me – get out before it’s too late and you’re sucked into the Worldmag vortex.
Report comment to moderator
jesusradical – 217
That’s too bad – I find it strange when people cannot understand Scripture, and for that reason they re-arrange it to suit their doctrine, or their way of life. s-SEX-m is a serious problem when it comes to public education – if and when s-SEX-m laws are passed, it enables teachers to educate our children regarding their aberrant lifestyle, giving classes to discuss gender identification, transgender being an OK way to live —– NO, I do not want this to come to pass, most other strong Believers feel the same way. They can live whatever way they wish, however they have NO RIGHT to teach our children in public schools sinful practices.
WRONG, it’s mentioned six times – Sodom is mentioned in verses 46, 48, 49, 53, 55, and 56
It might help you IF you read the entire chapter – understanding the comparison that is made and WHY.
We are to rebuke sin, and doctrine which is false. Everyone judges what is right and wrong, if they didn’t they they (Believers) would never stop sinning, nor would they ever caution anyone else, and give out the message of Salvation – repentance of sin and believing in the LORD Jesus Christ. We could all turn a blind eye to abortion, homosexuality, s-SEX-m, and teaching these sinful practices in our schools.
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4
We see a great deal of “itching ears” and “fables” today – what is even worse – supposed Believers who soft soap homosexuality, abortion and feel justified doing so.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
JesusRadical, I agree with much of what you have written. Anlir, however is being deceptive to you. He would seem to agree with what you wrote. However, were you to go back over the many, many threads on this subject, you would find that you also are hateful in his eyes. You equate homosexuality with sin. Many of us have already been pilloried for saying that and in very hateful terms. He will join with you against Victoria, but he will be against you down the road.
Obesity is not sin. Gluttony is. One can be a glutton without being obese at all, BTW. Also, I haven’t heard of anyone insisting I teach my children that gluttony is something to be celebrated.
Further: Some of us have homosexual friends who do know we love them. That doesn’t mean we think everything they do is right or not sin and vice-versa.
I look forward to your comments and are glad you came to the site.
Report comment to moderator
In what way am I being deceptive KI? I commended JesusRadical for expressing the love of Christ instead of the wrathful judgment of God that’s all the rage on here. At no point have I agreed with him on his belief that the Bible condemns homosexuality.
Some of us have homosexual friends who do know we love them.
That reminds me of people who used to day “I’m not prejudiced. I know somebody that’s black”. Oh please.
And I wonder how many of those so-called “homosexual friends” know what y’all really say about gays on here?
Equality under the law. It’s that simple!
Report comment to moderator
You have condemned others who have expressed some of what JesusRadical expressed. Yet, you are acting like you so agree with him. That is really being two-faced, which seems to be something you are always accusing us of, isn’t it?
That sentenced you picked out is just fact. Make out of it what you will. It wasn’t written to you, anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Columnist James Pinkerton had a pretty good column criticizing President Obama’s proposal for nuclear disarmament.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/10/pinkerton_disarmament_obama/
What America needs, of course, is defense against nuclear weapons, in addition to nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons are dangerous if they can be delivered to one’s own soil, by missile attack or by terrorist stealth. Such dangers are a great argument for missile defense, and for increased homeland security and counter-terrorism measures.
I have no problem with a Russian-American agreement to reduce nuclear weapons by, say, half. However, as Pinkerton argues, Obama’s goal of total destruction of all nuclear weapons is unrealistic. There are too many evil men in the world who would secretly develop (or keep) them anyway. There is a saying about guns that can be adapted to nuclear weapons as well: Ban nuclear weapons, and only the bad guys will have them.
In fact, I believe that the presence of nuclear weapons is a deterrent to war, because of the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction. Would the Cold War have turned “hot”, if not for such assurance? Conventional weapons would not have offered such effective deterrence.
Of course, an all-out arms race is not a good idea either. As I said, I’m fine with a reduction. But let’s be realistic as well.
Report comment to moderator
Wrong thread!!!
Report comment to moderator
Also, in reference to what seems to a favorite verse of yours– Romans 1:28–it appears to me that you’re missing the point of Romans 1. The purpose of this passage is to show how we ALL are depraved. How comes you don’t mention verses 29, 30, and 31?? These verses mention slanderers, ruthless, and gossips etc. The point is that you and I both are just as guilty as ALL OTHER sinners. Exactly Radical…but as another poster has pointed out, die hard homosexuals DO NOT see the PRACTICE of homosexuality as a sin and therefore see no need to repent. Therein lies the problem. Jesus’s words are true. “I did not come to bring Peace , but rather a SWORD.” As I said before, his peace only comes from obeying Him and not what man or some liberal priest has dreamed up in the name of “peace and love.” “An ENEMY will tell you what you WANT to hear…a FRIEND will tell you what you NEED (The Truth)to hear.” This all shows me that the Gospel is INDEED TRUE…because it is rejected by the “world.”
Report comment to moderator
SteveG says,
Close. “I have only two comforts to live upon; the one is the perfections of Christ; the other is the imperfections of Christians.” According to Salem minister, Increase Mather, these words were reportedly said by another New England Puritan, Nathanial Ward. The quote especially stands out to me for its apparent similarity to, but its ultimately stark difference from another famous quote by Mohandas Gandhi who said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
These two quotes, I think, really epitomize the different way in which we view the reality of the Christian life from the inside and from the outside. For those who’ve obeyed the gospel and received forgiveness, we look at the sins of our brothers and sisters and take comfort in knowing that we’re not alone in our failings, and it’s a reminder of how desperately we need to cling to Christ.
For the outsider, he looks at the failings of Christians and feels vindicated.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#211):
Nice little Clintonesque “truth” shuffle there. “It all depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is,’ is.” —“taunt,” in your case.
As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, “Am not I in sport?” (Prov 26:18, 19)
Then there is that other story of yours (#174):
“Americans executed sodomites through the 19th century, in the name of God.”
Moth as he muses over his computer keyboard:
Later:
Moth, you remind me of Joe Biden. He gets caught sometimes.
Report comment to moderator
DANo1, at #4, wrote; “…the people whom Jesus strongly condemns are the religious elites – the scribes and Pharisees…”
DAN01, the scribes and Pharisees in those days and in that culture are best described as the lawyers and politicians of their day. Yes, there were religious too, since they did not separate religion from the political power structures of that time and culture. Jesus, himself, was actually very religious and friendly toward those who lived by their faith.
Report comment to moderator
Mothers and fathers BOTH matter to children. Our definition of marriage should honor that truth. No same-sex partnership can provide a child with a mom and a dad.
Report comment to moderator
Tony Woodlief wrote; “‘This is not a Christian nation,’ is another reasonable response.”
Tony may not consider us a “Christian nation” (and maybe it no longer is), but our Founders certainly did. They did not consider our government a Christian government, but they did consider our nation a Christian nation, and they were glad. They considered religious faith (and the freedom to express it as each citizen saw fit–even if not specifically ‘Christian’) as a far more vital and powerful defining force for who we are as a nation than all our founding documents.
Read the acts of congress that decreed days of “Fasting and Repentance” for early Americans. Consider the declarations of Thanksgiving issued by leaders like George Washington, John Adams and, later, Abraham Lincoln. They reveal clearly how much our early leaders wanted our nation to depend upon God, our Heavenly Father.
Our culture has forgotten what the Founders knew. The American experiment is a spiritual, moral and cultural exercise, not merely a political one. If our government is secular and neutral on faith, that does not mean our nation was or is.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for all the attention, Tony.
“Spinoza’s error is to assume, contra 1500 years of Christian teaching, that the Holy Scriptures are to be interpreted by the individual.”
No – I mostly think the “scriptures” should be interpreted by secular bible scholars and should not figure much at all in discussions of ethics, especially those having to do with sexual or biological issues, about which 1500-2000-year old authors were largely ignorant.
And how come there’s only been 1500 years of teaching in the last 2,000 years? Because you have no knowledge to speak of about the first 500 years? Or are you talking pre-reformation? So why go with Roman Christianity of the 6th or 16th centuries? Yes, Protestantism is truly a bunch of guys re-discovering Roman authoritarianism and canonizing Eusebius as a historical account of the early church. But he was a Roman hack writing propaganda for the early Roman church. His narrative and associated views are a far cry removed from those of any historical Jesus! And he still says nothing about homosexuality.
“Christians believed for centuries that the Holy Spirit works through the Church to illuminate the full meaning of Scriptures. The Orthodox believe this, the Catholics believe it, the Reformers believed it when they went back to the teachings of the patristics. The heretics associated with the radical Reformation rejected this belief, but the bulk of Christendom has always hewed to it.”
Yes, ultimately even evangelical Protestants don’t believe in sola scriptura. Rather, they dance to whatever tune their church institutions play for them. Dance away, Tony, or keep fiddling on your roof! “Tradition”
“He’s right that if one squints his eyes and tries hard enough, he can conclude that Scriptures aren’t absolutely clear about homosexuality.”
Gee – thanks – Fact is, the scriptures say NOTHING about same-sex marriage or even consensual gay sex between those who are naturally homosexual. Barring the Levitical law – and Christians do when it suits them; no one wants to be stoned for picking up sticks on Saturday – every context in which homosexuality is even obtusely addressed or condemned has other condemnable factors like rape (Sodom/Gomorrah) or idolatry (Romans).
“But when we interpret Scriptures in light of the teaching of the Church from the very beginning, there is no doubt.”
Yes there is – plenty of it – not that it matters. Your superficial knowledge of church history toes the evangelical party line, but it’s a mythological fiction. You don’t follow “God” at all – just the beliefs of your own tribe.
“Spinoza wants to imply that the condemnation of homosexual behavior is some new blend of conservative evangelical revision, but even a casual student of Church history knows otherwise.”
What Spinoza and others must do to elide this fact is either denounce the role of Holy Tradition, or conclude that the Holy Spirit failed, for nearly two millenia, to make clear to His ordained teachers how to interpret these verses.
Boy do you write like a 19th century Roman Catholic or what? No I don’t think your view is a “new” blend of revision – it is a rather old blend of revision (although time is relative). It’s older than you, anyway. And I guess that’s all it need be to qualify as a time-honored “tradition” when you want to believe it is.
Yes “denounce” “Holy Tradition,” else swear fealty to the pope. I think “denounce” to be the much better choice.
Report comment to moderator
No same-sex partnership can provide a child with a mom and a dad.
All it takes is a little makeup (just kidding).
Report comment to moderator
Jesusradical (#201):
You still haven’t answered my question:
You say, “Please let’s represent the love of Christ!” Tell me, how would you do that and be a truthful witness as to what the Bible says about the sin of homosexuality and its solution?”
You slipped off into the night (#199) and then you presented a diversion (#201).
The standard approach of most liberal Christians to the dilemma posed by this question is to minimize or ignore the sin. This, they think, demonstrates love, compassion, and forgiveness. This suits homosexuals just fine. However, going down this road of compromise leads to situations like the Robinson affair in the Episcopal church. The Episcopalians have been so “loving and forgiving” that they now have an unrepentant and practicing homosexual as a Bishop. They have made a mockery of the faith and the word of God, corrupted their church, and led many astray. Compromising with evil always does that.
In my opinion, they have little understanding of what loving and forgiving really means in the Christian context. My understanding is that Christ loves us and seeks reconciliation with us to the point that He was willing to die for us. But, He never compromises with sin. He demands that the sinner recognize their sin, acknowledge it, repent, and then humbly seek forgiveness. Without this process of submission to His lordship, forgiveness is impossible. The sinner remains in rebellious defiance and will die in his sins. This is the ultimate human tragedy and not to be wished for anyone.
In practical terms, and in the context of this discussion, this means that homosexuals are welcome in my church anytime. I hope that they will hear and heed the gospel. I won’t growl at them and constantly beat them over the head about their sin. We can visit with one another, do things of mutual interest together, eat together, laugh together, etc. But, in any serious discussion about the issues of life, I am obligated to quietly and respectfully give them the whole, unvarnished truth, not minimize or ignore their sin. I must recognize and repent of my own sins in the same way. They are no different.
However, when it comes to church membership, an unrepentant homosexual (or any other unrepentant sinner) cannot join. The moral and spiritual integrity of the church demands this. Membership is different than just sitting in a pew. Membership requires an agreement with the word of God and a demonstrated effort to conform to it—in short, accepting Christ as the sovereign lord of your life. Perfection in this is not demanded or expected. But rebellion and outright denial of the standards of the church is disqualifying—this is where most homosexuals are today. Or they will try to change the standards of the church to conform with their lifestyle—this is what love and acceptance means to them and to those in the church who agree with this approach.
So, are you ready to answer my question?
Report comment to moderator
Tell me, how would you do that and be a truthful witness as to what the Bible says about the sin of homosexuality and its solution?”
MM – the bible says nothing about consensual gay sex or same-sex marriage, except for the Levitical texts which are in a context of other laws Christians no longer feel bound to.
I don’t care what the bible says about anything – it’s wrong about the universe in general, so why do I care what it says about right behavior?
But I still think a “truthful witness” about what it does say will acknowledge it does not anywhere pass judgment on or even address the modern acceptance of same-sex marriage.
Report comment to moderator
The standard approach of most liberal Christians to the dilemma posed by this question is to minimize or ignore the sin.
This is not the “standard approach” of “liberal Christians”! It is a compromise of torn fundamentalist Christians.
Enlightened Christians – liberal or otherwise – acknowledge that it is not a sin to *be* gay (because it is not a choice), and it is not a sin – if you *are* gay – to abide by the same standard of sexuality that is given to straight people, i.e., to marry a partner according to your sexual orientation.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza (#237/238):
You are wrong on almost every count. But this is to be expected for someone like yourself who, as you confess:
“I don’t care what the Bible says about anything.”
If a person doesn’t care about something, they usually pay little attention to it and know little about it. That’s you, I think.
Report comment to moderator
MICHAEL MARTIN:
Why won’t you say whether or not you think that sodomy should be a crime again? It’s a reasonable question.
And how is my defense against your accusation of lying “Clintonesque?” That seems unfair. I never asserted that Evangelicals are demanding the the death penalty or imprisonment for sodomy, as you falsely accuse. You should acknowledge your error about that.
Early American law called sodomy as “an offense against God.” We have documented executions in our land as late as 1801. I should have said that Americans executed sodomites through the 18th Century, because I don’t have statistics for the 19th Century. I acknowledged that. However, the death penalty remained on the books well into the 19th century, and sodomy continued to be a serious felony until recently. Therefore, we can infer that sodomy could have been an aggravating offense resulting in the execution of criminals who were convicted of a capital offense.
You’re going after me unjustly.
Report comment to moderator
#239 – I’m quite sure I paid/pay more attention to the Bible than you – I used to teach 9 Bible studies a week – ’tis Bible study that led me to reject fundamentalism.
I am in a much better position to objectively interpret the Bible about homosexuality than you. I don’t care if it is pro- or anti-gay one way or the other! If it really did pronounce against same-sex marriage, I’d be happy to cite that as one more reason to ignore it!!
But it doesn’t say that – anywhere!!
You, on the other hand, impose your homophobic theology on your interpretation You seem to *need* it to be anti-gay-marriage, because you already believe that way.
Report comment to moderator
You should’ve kept a firmer grip on the baby while tossing out the grimy bathwater.
Report comment to moderator
#210 Paul also said women should always wear hats in church…
Paul said a lot of silly things. Paul should be ignored and often is, even by people who profess to be following him.
Tony – you also never addressed my key point, which is that – even if you believe as you do that your church should not recognize same-sex marriage – this does not give you any right to impose such a religious view on a secular citizenry. I don’t know why you’d even WANT to! Many evangelicals have now accepted the position that church sanction of same-sex marriage is independent of civil acknowledgment. Their anti-gay “faith” is in no way compromised by allowing civil same-sex marriage.
And neither is yours!!
Report comment to moderator
And another thing Tony – you don’t escape personal responsibility by deferring to Church Tradition.
It is still YOU that has decided how to interpret the Bible, even if you have decided to accept a view espoused by some political faction in the church (which you erroneously imagine to be a universal true “Church” inspired by the Holy Spirit).
Report comment to moderator
#242 – I assure you – the “baby” was the center of all my study.
Report comment to moderator
Your fundamentalist proclivities are showing in your ahistorical, incoherent understanding of sola scriptura.
Report comment to moderator
No doubt, but the baby was still immersed in the dirty bathwater while you studied. When you decided to dispose of the water, you disposed of the baby as well. That’s where you went wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
I’m happy to give you the last word, though this note obviously isn’t proof of that. I just want to say that I have, in times of my greatest wicked wretchedness, been the dog who returns, as the Bible says, to his own vomit. Yet in the midst of it I loved my children. We are capable, in short, of doing what is abominable, and what is noble. I think it’s fair to read Paul as castigating the vileness of the act without condemning out of hand the actor — just as I have been that vomit-licking dog, and yet still loved by God.
What I’m hearing you say, Paul aside, is that none of us ought to be in the business of condemning anyone. I agree. The challenge for the Christian is to say to someone like me, “you are eating your own vomit,” without sounding like he hopes I go to hell, real soon, for it.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria and Michael Martin: I generally do not waste time trying to convince individuals to change their beliefs/attitudes, but I believe that the way this issue is being handled is hurting the cause of Jesus Christ.
Victoria: post 229, I already explained that Jude 1 does not justify the position that homosexuality was the main sin for which Sodom was destroyed. Jude 1:7 is not correctly translated as “engaged in homosexual activities.” The literal meaning is “pursued other flesh,” obviously referring to the attempted rape of the angels. Why do you have such a fervent desire to display homosexuality as worse than other sins???
Michael Martin: you have great concern about a homosexual bishop, but have you ever expressed the same concern about a glutonous bishop?? You probably have gone to churches where the pastor/bishop struggled with gluttony as evidenced by his obesity and, more than likely, no one ever approached the him about it. Your approach is what bothers me so much!! How is this comment Christ-like: “Moth, you remind me of Joe Biden. He gets caught sometimes.” That is just one example of many. I’m sorry but your caustic words invalidate your statement that “homosexuals are welcome in my church.” I’m not trying to be argumentative, but sincerely wish that you would consider whether your words represent the grace (the Bible says a lot about grace) of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza,
We’re all very impressed with your nine bible studies a week, and your great knowledge of Church history. But given all this study, surely you’re aware that the early Church was not, as you put it, “Roman Christianity,” yes? You recognize that before 1054, the Roman church was one of several great sister churches, uniting Christendom? That Eusebius — far from being a “Roman hack” — dwelled a good portion of his adult life in Palestine, and was one of the key participants in the great council of Nicea? That even though Calvin can perhaps fairly be accused of picking and choosing his beliefs from early Church fathers, he based his Institutes and commentaries on a great array of them, and not just Eusebius? That if you want to reject early Church authority, you’ll have to defame not only Eusebius, but Clement, Cyprian, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and Augustine, all of whom denounced homosexual behavior — and not just in its pederastic variant? Were they all just “Roman hacks” as well?
My knowledge of Church history is indeed superficial, so I welcome you to read these great fathers yourself, and perhaps point out to me where I’ve misread them.
And this brings us to the point I tried to make earlier, which is that the Church has always believed that Scriptures must be read by its candlelight. This is, in short, Christian dogma, that the Scriptures are informed by Tradition, and that Tradition is the Scriptures rightly understood. Feel free to throw slings at Protestants who abandoned that, or Roman Catholics who perverted it. I can’t really blame you. But to thread the needle by claiming the Bible isn’t clear about homosexual sex is just plain silly, because until modern times, no Christian theologian would say you derive Christian dogma from the Bible in a vacuum. Especially if you are yourself apostate. Christian dogma is born from the teaching of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, clinging to the theopneustos, the God-breathed Word.
Now, you don’t have to believe that’s a valid approach at all. You can choose to believe that the Church fathers were all benighted fools, and that the Bible itself is chock full of errors. What you can’t do, however, is impose a 21st-century reading on Scriptures, and claim to discern a “true” Christian dogma that the rest of Christendom has somehow neglected. Because the very content of our belief is that the truth of the Scriptures cannot be gleaned that way. No matter how many Bible studies a week one undertakes.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza,
I wrote that last with an unkind tone. Please forgive me.
Report comment to moderator
jesusradical – 250
I disagree with you, as I have on many issues on this thread – I believe the way you soft soap homosexuality is hurting the cause of Christ – I also believe strongly that Michael Martin’s posts have been right and straightforward, he is not a man who minces words when it comes to important subjects such as homosexuality, it is a grave problem in this country – what homosexuals do with their bodies is their business, but when they insist on s-SEX-m that is an entirely different ball game – as I’ve made my voice known several times, this is being taught in schools to young children, giving them options, which are not true – giving them instruction on homosexuality – for that reason, to name just one – Those who are standing together are not as you put it “hurting the cause of Jesus Christ” – those who are ‘lukewarm’ are not only hurting the cause of Christ, their agenda is showing -
Report comment to moderator
jesusradical – 250
I disagree with you –
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 1:7
strange Strong’s Greek
heteros het’-er-os
uncertain affinity; (an-, the) other or different :- altered, else, next (day), one, (an-)other, some, strange.
Regarding Jude 1:7
International Standard Version
Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities, serve as an example of the punishment of eternal fire.
New American Standard Bible
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
King James Bible
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
American King James Version
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
American Standard Version
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
Bible in Basic English
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the towns near them, having like these, given themselves up to unclean desires and gone after strange flesh, have been made an example, undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
English Revised Version
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
World English Bible
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, having, in the same way as these, given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, good post at 253 (and others).
Also, regarding the Jude 7 passage, however a translator wants to translate the Greek idium in question (literally or less literally), it is still rooted in the Sodom and Gommorah story which is made clear enough in Genesis that it involves the sin of homosexuality (among other sins). Jude also refers to what the surrounding towns were doing (same as in Sodom and Gomorrah) as well to incur God’s judgment. All those other towns did not necessarily have angels visiting, so the presumption that homosexuality is the sin in question is solid schlararship.
The punishment of eternal fire is the point and whatever the sin is (hoosexuality or otherwise), all sinners must repent. Motivation to repent is what any sinner (scholarly or not) should get out of that verse.
Report comment to moderator
Church has always believed that Scriptures must be read by its candlelight.
Should read – “Different Christian sects have always believed that Scriptures (which one, anyway – what does the apocrypha say?) must be read by their ever-changing mood lighting.”
You quote “church fathers” the way I used to. As if they were scriptural sources. And you capitalize “Tradition” – that it SO not protestant. I should know – I became a catholic whilst in the course of my de-conversion. My catechism teachers thought my devotion to “church fathers” to be quite the quaint fantasy…
Spinoza,
I wrote that last with an unkind tone. Please forgive me.
Nah – Tony you’re mister nice guy – and quite likable. No offense taken.
However, I do realize that, as a Nobel-prize winning physicist once said, “… for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
Report comment to moderator
What you can’t do, however, is impose a 21st-century reading on Scriptures, and claim to discern a “true” Christian dogma that the rest of Christendom has somehow neglected. Because the very content of our belief is that the truth of the Scriptures cannot be gleaned that way. No matter how many Bible studies a week one undertakes.
I wouldn’t say that, exactly. What I would say is that the Bible is SILENT on the matter of same-sex marriage. It was not considered by most pre-modern cultures (see Same-Sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe for an interesting exception), so the Bible did not address it.
What YOU cannot do is claim that an intermittent cultural prohibition from medieval times is tantamount to a Holy-Ghost inspired “TRADITION” that is obvious from the Bible and from clerical authorities of your picking and choosing. You have no justification for that whatsoever. The Bible does NOT discuss same-sex marriage. Even church fathers are silent on the issue of same-sex marriage. They were mostly just overly ascetic, anti-sexual, and anti-marriage period. (as was Paul). Sex was “concupiscence” and not to be enjoyed even within marriage. Monastic celibacy was the ideal.
So what should Christians theologians do? What the good ones do is apply higher Christian principles of love, compassion, and fairness to gays and lesbians. Evangelicals, however, are famous for ignoring the “values” prioritzed by Jesus as low-priority ones. How un-Jesus-like! And we all know what Jesus thought of the religious “TRADITIONS” of his day!
You are a sheep, Tony – but the “Lord” is not your shepherd. Church authorities are.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#240):
No, I don’t think I’m going after you unjustly. However, we have both stated our cases and there is little, if anything else, to add. Other bloggers can assess the merits of our respective positions.
As to your question about sodomy and crime, our American founders were absolutely correct in their assessment of sodomy being “an offense against God.” Any sin is an offense against God.
But every sin is not a civil crime. In early Hebrew society, when God’s law and civil law were one and the same, sodomy was a crime and it was punishable by death. From an eternal perspective, nothing has changed about that. It is still a sin/crime and will be punished by eternal death. There will be no unrepentant homosexuals in heaven.
In America, we don’t live in early Hebrew society and our civil laws are determined and adjudicated by all three branches of our government working in concert. I wouldn’t change that. In essence, Paul and the other New Testament writers recognized the same principle. In their day they still declared homosexuality to be against God’s law and ultimately subject to an eternal death penalty (like every other unforgiven sin). But, as far as I can tell, they didn’t say anything specific about sodomy and the civil law.
On the other hand, they didn’t specifically call for murder to be declared a civil crime either, although I’m sure that they were supportive of that, since Romans 13 declares civil government to be for the purpose of enforcing what is “right” vs. what is “wrong.” And we know what guided their concepts of right and wrong.
So, from the Christian standpoint, there appears to be a little “wiggle room” about some civil laws AND their sanctions. There is room for debate. After all is said and done, the law should be whatever the legislature decides.
Personally, like our founders, I think that sodomy should be a crime. I do not agree with the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas. However, I do not think that it should be a capital crime. The sanction for violating such a law is open to debate, as well as the manner in which it is enforced. In this instance, I think that these two considerations are almost as important as the law itself. To be frank, I am not sure about them. If I were a legislator, I would have to think more, study more, and talk to more knowledgeable people about these two points. However, I can say this, whatever would be done in regard to sanctions and enforcement should be done with the overall goal of deterring and suppressing a behavior that is, I believe, harmful to both the individual and society as a whole. Equally important, legitimate constitutional rights should always be protected.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria– “strange flesh” obviously refers to angels.
Here are some verses that I really feel we (Christians) should all consider:
Titus 3:2-5
“to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and TO SHOW PERFECT COURTESY TO ALL PEOPLE. 3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy. . .”
Colossians 4:5&6
“5 Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. 6 Let your speech ALWAYS BE GRACIOUS, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.”
2 Timothy 2:24
“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but KIND TO EVEYONE, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with GENTLENESS. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth.”
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza (#257):
To say that the Bible is silent about same sex marriage is disingenuous in the highest degree. The Bible is also silent about writing bad checks, but even the most obtuse among us recognizes that as stealing.
Same sex marriage and sodomy are essentially the same. You are not deceiving anyone but yourself.
Report comment to moderator
jesusradical – 259
It’s not “obviously” anything of the sort – it’s nothing more then trying to change the meaning of the Scripture, to suit an agenda which is becoming all to obvious.
We as Christian Believers must as the passage in 2 Timothy say:
Report comment to moderator
SPIN – 257
YOU WRITE: ——— “What YOU cannot do is claim that an intermittent cultural prohibition from medieval times is tantamount to a Holy-Ghost inspired “TRADITION” that is obvious from the Bible and from clerical authorities of your picking and choosing. You have no justification for that whatsoever. The Bible does NOT discuss same-sex marriage.”
Spin the Bible doesn’t discuss pedophilia either – does that make it right?
Report comment to moderator
Jesusradical (#250):
You still have not answered my question. You are being evasive and talking in generalities on the homosexual issue.
My caustic (as you put it) remark to Moth was not directed at a homosexual, nor was it concerned directly with homosexuality. Their sensitivities were not injured. The remark was about the issue of truthfulness and what I believe to be Moth’s occasional fast and loose practices in that regard—similar to Biden’s. Christ had quite a lot to say about truthfulness, and most of it was pretty strong. Don’t worry about Moth’s feelings. He’s a big boy and knows how to give as well as take in a frank discussion.
What you need to be concerned about, in my frank opinion, is what I discern to be a rather “mealy mouthed” approach to Christianity. You seem to be so concerned about hurting someone’s feelings and being nice that you are afraid to call a sin a sin or even to positively tell someone that Christianity is the best and only true religion on the planet—the only religion that offers true hope and true love. Here, I am referring to your remark:
“I generally do not waste time trying to convince individuals to change their beliefs/attitudes…”
What are you doing on this blog then? I don’t think you really believe what you just said, otherwise you wouldn’t be here. On the other hand, if that is an accurate reflection of your attitude, then this is probably not the best place for your type of witnessing, whatever that is. I simply don’t know because you continue to evade my earlier question.
Report comment to moderator
MM (and Vicky makes a similar point)
Same sex marriage [(or pedophilia in Vicky's argyment)] and sodomy are essentially the same. You are not deceiving anyone but yourself.
Do we *have* to go back to the dictionary again? Vicky will only protest that dictionaries are evil because they don’t agree with her.
Sodomy as a “sin” in the bible is one of inhospitality (according to Ezekiel). As a commonly used word in America, sodomy has no gender reference whatsoever. Victoria has already given us a definition of pedophilia (thanks, dear).
Neither of these is identical to or equivalent to same-sex marriage. To conflate these or say otherwise is just an outright lie.
Report comment to moderator
#262 So Victoria, you admit that the Bible is silent about same-sex marriage?
Report comment to moderator
WMM – “What you need to be concerned about, in my frank opinion, is what I discern to be a rather “mealy mouthed” approach to Christianity.”
Yes Jesusradical – you should a redneck homophobic jerk, instead, like so many other evangelicals. Fred Phelps isn’t “mealy mouthed” is he!
Report comment to moderator
… We all know what a “man” Jesus was, causin’ all that commotion in the temple an’ all. When he said turn the other cheek, he meant just show how tough you are temporarily, before you pummel your adversary into a viscous fluid whilst yelling “Woe unto you.”
Report comment to moderator
Spin – 264
YOU WRITE: —— “MM (and Vicky makes a similar point) Same sex marriage [(or pedophilia in Vicky's argyment)] and sodomy are essentially the same. You are not deceiving anyone but yourself.”
You’ve spun it again Spin – I know you can read, but you certainly get your facts confused. I have never said that s-SEX-m, pedophilia, sodomy are the same – you sure flipped that one around. LOL
YOU WRITE: —— “Sodomy as a “sin” in the bible is one of inhospitality (according to Ezekiel). As a commonly used word in America, sodomy has no gender reference whatsoever. Victoria has already given us a definition of pedophilia (thanks, dear).”
Read Ezekiel 16 over again, you’ll get it – Sodomy is NOT defined as inhospitality – Sodom is mentioned 6 times not 3 which jesusradical post 217 had confused himself with – I had to point out his error in my post 220 – I suggested to jesusradical that he re-read Ezekiel again ( entire chapter ) rather then dancing around 3 verses, and mixing oneself up as to how many times Sodom is even mentioned – there is much more to this chapter –
Spin, it’s as clear as crystal in the above passage in Jude – fornication and going after strange flesh – and NO one cannot change strange flesh around to mean angels –
Since you don’t believe the Bible why does this bother you, or does it upset you? – that might be real the real problem – maybe you’re beginning to see that the Bible is TRUTH -
Report comment to moderator
Hey, Spinoza:
Just curious do you find Christians (outside of this blog) to be more homophobic (not based soley on opposition to gay marriage) than the general population? I feel that this blog misrepresents the feelings of the majority of Christians and perpetuates the notion that Christians are inherently homophobic.
I went to a conservative, Baptist college for a year before transferring to a secular college and find more (often internalized) homophobia in the secular college. My secular friends have made homophobic commments that my Christianity would prevent me from ever saying. It appears to me that those that are serious about following Christ care more about gay people than their secular counterparts. Even though secular individuals may not appose gay marriage, they still often view homosexuals as second class citizens.
Do you think its possible that an individual could oppose gay marriage and still care more about gay individuals than a secular individual that supports gay marriage? Just wondering.
Report comment to moderator
jesusradical – 269
YOU WRITE: —– “I feel that this blog misrepresents the feelings of the majority of Christians and perpetuates the notion that Christians are inherently homophobic.”
So the name calling begins ” homophobic ” ? – I was wondering how long it would take you to drag that morsel out, and trot it around one of your posts. Very interesting …….
If you believe what you wrote, then you certainly are not out and about within the Evangelical community – anyone who stays within a sinful life, never repents, never turns from their sin, no matter which sins their in, is not going to Heaven -
Report comment to moderator
MICHAEL MARTIN #168 & #181: Moth, your deliberate exaggeration of our opposition to include imprisonment, execution, the denial of charity, etc., for homosexuals is, to put it bluntly, an inflammatory lie.
Michael has born false witness against me.
This is what I actually wrote:
#71 So, Christians need to say where they want to take their political participation. Since they want to apply Biblical morality, why not re-criminalize gay sex?
#141 God abhors queers, but do you?
#162 Finally, if Christians must oppose gay marriage in order to warn homosexuals of hell, why stop there? Christians today should consider ostracism, physical punishment, imprisonment, and execution, like the historical church. Perhaps no sinner should obtain food at Tony’s table, or medical treatment, or education. All these kindnesses mislead the damned.
The reader can see that I never defined the extent of your opposition to homosexuality; rather I asked you to do so. Despite being corrected by me, you refused to withdraw your accusation of lying. Nor have you attempted to prove your case (with quotes or interpretation or whatever you have). You merely called my defense Clintonesque and made up phony quotes about what you imagine I think.
After twice claiming that I lied about your opposition to homosexuals, you finally admit at #258 that you want to re-criminalize homosexual sex. This shows that these accusations are disingenuous as well as false.
I admit my errors, but you don’t. You continue to hold other people’s admitted errors over them, but you cannot confess your own. That makes you the liar, Michael Martin.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, you said “If you believe what you wrote, then you certainly are not out and about within the Evangelical community.”
What did I write? I said that from my observations authentic Christ followers care more about gay individuals then their secular counterparts.
I would think that you would want to believe that, too.
Report comment to moderator
jesusradical – 272
YOU WROTE: >>>>>>>>> 269 – —– “I feel that this blog misrepresents the feelings of the majority of Christians and perpetuates the notion that Christians are inherently homophobic.”
I don’t believe this blog misrepresents the feelings of the majority of Evangelical Christians at all – I have no clue about your interaction with those who are unsaved, or those who fence sit, or those who are to timid to make known what the Gospel actually says — however I have been in the fray, I’ve been in many discussions away from the little box we type into — the discussions are straight forward, they aren’t wimpy -
To say it again “If you believe what you wrote, then you certainly are not out and about within the Evangelical community – anyone who stays within a sinful life, never repents, never turns from their sin, no matter which sins their in, is not going to Heaven -”
When you threw out the word “homophobic” (post 269) it says a lot more about who you are, and who you’re trying to impress -
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#271):
Yes, yes, keep up the “Clinton shuffle” Moth. Obviously, you haven’t been able to find any record of all those sodomites you falsely say that we judicially executed in the 1800’s.
Your screen name is “Scroop Moth,” but I suspect that your real last name may be Biden.
Report comment to moderator
JesusRadical: You have provoked the wrath of the Queen. Your only recourse now is to humbly beg her pardon and concede.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus Radical,
I posted a long comment earlier that apparently didn’t go through. Ah well. In brief, no, homosexuality is not necessarily more serious a sin than all others, but it probably is more serious than some, and it is a serious sin of the hour. With gluttony, for instance, you may be mostly sinning against yourself. Scriptures seem to me to hold up three sins as in some way more serious than others: sexual sin (a sin against one’s own body, according to Paul), murder (destroying someone made in God’s image), and pride (setting oneself up against God, and the root of most other sins). It would be hard to say whether homosexual sin is worse than other sexual sin; it may be, because it is perverted from the natural order. (An engaged couple who fail to resist temptation two weeks before their wedding day isn’t as clearly in rebellion against God, it seems to me.)
We can’t just ignore sin and speak only of God’s love, because it is God’s holinesss that makes sense of His love, His law that makes sense of His grace. Biblically the Law comes first, so I think there’s a place for holding up the Law of God–as long as we do so humbly, lovingly, and making clear that we too are lawbreakers. We aren’t to bonk people over the head, and it’s only those in the church who claim to be Christians who are to receive our condemnation if they persist in their sin.
As to the others on this blog, Anlir is a long-time poster who has recently gotten more and more belligerent, but he has generally been treated with gentleness and even with love. People have expressed concern about his everyday life and his talents, have prayed for him, have encouraged him. He has chosen to act as though all Christians are hateful, but really he does know better, even through his interaction with us. Many of the other homosexual posters on this thread have never posted on this blog before.
As to some of the Christian posters, you may have entered a completely endless argument nearly all of us Christians on here have had. There is no possible way to win except to stop interacting; you cannot possibly persuade even a little bit. You haven’t been on here long enough for me to know whether I’ll ultimately agree or disagree with you, but just take it as a friendly word of advice that you’ll have bold comments and Scripture verses thrown at you for days until you stop responding, no matter how long it takes you to stop responding; you simply cannot make headway here, and I’ll probably be attacked for pointing that out.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#271):
Pardon me, you did acknowledge your error on the 19th century question—sort of:
“I should have said that Americans executed sodomites through the 18th Century, because I don’t have statistics for the 19th Century. I acknowledged that. However, the death penalty remained on the books well into the 19th century, and sodomy continued to be a serious felony until recently. Therefore, we can infer that sodomy could have been an aggravating offense resulting in the execution of criminals who were convicted of a capital offense.”
The source that I posted, and referenced, in #181 showed only four executions from 1624 to 1740, by English colonists. The source also referenced the fact that once we became Americans and threw off unjust English law, we changed all that with a new constitution and new rights. So the former executioners were English and 1740 is hardly “through [even] the 18th century” as you claim.
Then in #211 you cite some unnamed “secondary sources” claiming 5 sodomy executions between 1757 and 1801. We have no way of checking your sources and, considering your past record, you must excuse us if we are somewhat skeptical. Your source, whoever it is, could have made these up just as you made up your original story. Then, like a moth around a flame, you are not content to sit still with a frank admission, but must “infer” that there is a real but submerged basis to your claim anyway. Furthermore, the Espy Files which you seem to be trying to use as a put-off, do not, as far as I can tell, contain data on the offenses for each of the executions. They seem to mostly contain data by state on the death penalty in general.
I think we will be a long, long time in waiting for you to come up with some reliable, and verifiable data to back up what increasingly appears to be your made up story.
The bottom line is that you made up a story, which you cannot now back up, and which you continue to quibble about. Then you fault me for doubting that you were just “taunting” about your other inflammatory rhetoric, which I still contend amounts to an outright lie.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#271) writes:
“After twice claiming that I lied about your opposition to homosexuals, you finally admit at #258 that you want to re-criminalize homosexual sex. This shows that these accusations are disingenuous as well as false.”
You have suggested that my opposition to homosexual sex extends to penalties of imprisonment, and execution. Then you excused yourself by claiming that you were just taunting me. I don’t believe you.
Now you latch on to what I said in #258, wherein I support the notion of re-criminalizing this behavior, as if this is evidence that I support the idea of imprisoning and even executing homosexuals. However, in #258 I was very careful to say that I don’t know what the penalty should be or how it should be enforced. I devoted the whole final paragraph to this point. What I said in #258 does not, in any way, conflict with my contention that your prior rhetoric accuses me of wanting to imprison or execute homosexuals for their behavior.
You are flittering around speaking nonsense, Moth.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: Homophobic was brought up by Spinoza in #266. I find the comment in #269 quite interesting and to be true from what I have observed also. I know very few Evangelicals I would characterize as homophobic. We might argue whether the word itself is foolishness, but the essence of the argument was that Evangelicals are less likely to be homophobic than the general population. Do you dispute that? If so, why? Are you saying that Evangelicals are homophobic?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Thank God for His Word! It isn’t always used appropriately on here, or contextually with correct interpretation, but hopefully no Christian would ever have problems with the Word of God cited appropriately. I for one do not, and I hope nobody does who would still try to call himself a Christian. (I do think that misuse of Scripture is worse than not using it, however; it’s taking God’s name in vain, at least potentially; it’s taking God’s own holy Word and using it as a tool for one’s own purposes.)
Report comment to moderator
Ki – 280
YOU WRITE: “Victoria: Homophobic was brought up by Spinoza in #266. I find the comment in #269 quite interesting and to be true from what I have observed also. I know very few Evangelicals I would characterize as homophobic. We might argue whether the word itself is foolishness, but the essence of the argument was that Evangelicals are less likely to be homophobic than the general population.
Whether Spin brought up the ‘homophobic’ first or not really makes no difference – the usage isn’t needful to make a point, least of all coming from a supposed Believer –
YOU WRITE: ” Do you dispute that? If so, why? Are you saying that Evangelicals are homophobic?”
No I don’t believe that Evangelical Christians are what you are referring to them as……
jesusradical – 272 YOU WROTE: >>>>>>>>> 269 – —– “I feel that this blog misrepresents the feelings of the majority of Christians and perpetuates the notion that Christians are inherently homophobic.”
I disagree with jesusradical – I don’t believe this blog misrepresents the feeling of the majority of Christians. jesusradical does that’s the DIFFERENCE – now do you get it? I was responding to jesusradical comment – he ( jesusradical ) obviously believes this blog “perpetuates the notion that Christians are inherently homophobic” I don’t agree with him – how many times can I say this without confusison?
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza:
I’m glad you provided the link at #257 to Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. It took me to Amazon.com and the full title of the book in question: The Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. There was no information there on the content of the book and so I’m not quite sure what you expected us to get out of the link. However, what I got from the link was the name of the author, John Boswell. Following that up took me on an interesting Wiki tour of modern homosexual topics, authors, gay and lesbian studies, “queer theory,” etc. I think I have a better understanding now of where you have acquired some of your strange ideas.
I also see confirmed even more the truth of Paul’s statement in Rom 1 about homosexuality. I won’t use Paul’s words, but will just say that he contends that homosexuals tend to have troubles with the rationality of their thinking.
Boswell illustrates that very well. It seems that most of his work is an extreme effort of self-justification leading to a denial of reality and attempts to read homosexuality into almost everything he sees. For example, he views the Eastern Othodox tradition of adelphopoiia as an example of same-sex unions in the early church. In reality, this tradition, according to the church, is to form a brotherhood in the name of God and it has absolutely no sexual implications. The most prominent example of this brotherhood is seen in the icons of the paired Saints Sergius and Bacchus. These two men were soldiers in the third century Roman army at a time when Christians were being severely persecuted for their faith. They were secret Christians serving together and drawing spiritual strength from their Christian fellowship. In essence, they were a two-man church and are today seen as an example of Christian fellowship and strength derived from their shared faith. When their faith became known they were tortured and killed as were many Christians of their day.
Yet when Boswell sees this icon of the paired saints, all he can see is his own sexual obsession and a justification for his own depravity. The result is a pathetic attempt to change something good into a historical perversion that matches the physical perversion of Boswell himself. This is sick. But it seems to pervade the entire field of “queer studies.” It is a sickness unto death spiritually, mentally, and physically (Boswell died of AIDS at age 47).
I truly feel sorry for you Spinoza. Your ideas, your thinking, and your behavior are not things that people should even consider if they value the truth and their lives. Your way leads only to death. I’m sorry, but that’s the truth of the matter. You should reconsider the Christian faith that you have rejected. It offers you life, not death.
Report comment to moderator
MICHAEL MARTIN,
Regarding your complaint about my source for the five executions between 1757 and 1801, my source relied on the Espy Files, the database maintained at UMich and available at deathpenalty.org. My own search of the pdf file (organized by date) confirmed the accuracy of my source. I found these listings:
CONOWAY CHARLES unknown M Sodomy-Buggery-Bestiality Hanging 1757 NJ
UNNAMED unknown M Sodomy-Buggery-Bestiality Hanging 5 Dec. 1774 NJ
TAYLOR JOHN unknown M Sodomy-Buggery-Bestiality Hanging 5 Dec. 1774 NJ
ROSS JOSEPH unknown M Sodomy – Buggery – Bestiality Hanging 20 Dec. 1785 PA
ROSAS JOSE ANTONIO Hispanic 18 M Sodomy-Buggery-Bestiality Shot 1801 CA
The Espy Files list no executions for the specified crime of sodomy after 1801, but, as I pointed out, the punishment remained on the books for decades, it exerted a tremendous symbolic power on society, and it was an explicit aggravating factor in the death penalty until recent times. (You are correct that English justice was harsher; about 40 sodomites were executed in London in the first decades of the 19th.)
Too bad this discussion got focused on the distant past, as important as that may be for our enduring cultural reactions of disgust, because the real dark ages of the persecution of sodomy were in the 20th Century.
I can’t see a single inaccuracy in the sentences of mine you quote at #277.
Report comment to moderator
MICHAEL MARTIN #279 You have suggested that my opposition to homosexual sex extends to penalties of imprisonment, and execution.
You keep saying it, but it isn’t true. You don’t have to believe me, just look at my words on the screen and stop deliberately misinterpreting them.
Every sentence I wrote about Evangelical opposition to homosexual sex (see #271) asked or hypothesized the question, “If a sin, why not a crime?” Every sentence inquired what policies Christians perhaps should promote in view of church history and the judgment that this behavior is a grave sin.
For asking questions, you repeatedly called me an inflammatory liar.
(There’s a reason I didn’t say what you claim — that Evangelicals want to imprison or execute homosexuals. Simply put, most don’t. They regard homosexual sex as a sin but not truly a crime. Those who do want to re-criminalize don’t make it their agenda, and choose to reserve or defer dealing with the devil in the details of punishment, enforcement, and civil rights. My very clear and fair point about Evangelical opposition to homosexual sex was, since Christians want to uphold Church teachings through political participation, they should declare where they want to take society.)
You persistently (three times? four times?) and bluntly called me an “inflammatory” liar for asking questions. You did not identify one deficiency in my self-defense, you just labeled it “Clintonesque.” You accused me of mischaracterizing you, and then you made up phony soliloquies that completely miss my true thinking.
Calling someone a blunt, outright liar is a wrongful personal attack for which you should be banned unless you 1.) quote the lie, 2.) assert the truth, 3.) define the difference between the lie and the truth, and 4) evaluate the specific defenses (as opposed to just labeling them “Clintonesque”). You were not forthcoming about any of these responsibilities when you repeatedly called me a liar.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#284):
After so many posts and much badgering, it is good to see you finally come through with some actual data, although it doesn’t come anywhere near confirming your original claim. Had I not insisted, even this tiny smattering of data would never have been forthcoming. Your original claim of many judicial sodomy executions throughout the 1800’s would still be on this thread and falsely smearing the opponents of this practice.
However, I see that you still doggedly cling to the essence of your original claim by speculating (with no proof, no evidence, no data) that the since the unenforced punishment remained on the books for some time, it must have contributed to many other executions for other crimes during the 1800’s. Well, you are free to speculate all you wish. You are even free to speculate that the moon is made of green cheese if that is what you want—if you have an appetite for green cheese. You appetite here for negative things about Christianity is fueled by your visceral antipathy for the same. You have demonstrated the inclination to believe any bad thing about them that comes across your mind—hence, your made up story and wild speculation. In short, you believe what you want to believe.
You write:
No, unfortunately, and for quite some time the discussion was necessarily focused on the issue of truthfulness.
Apparently, in your view, any disgust over the practice of sodomy is wrong. You have a strange sense of values Moth. Perhaps you can start a campaign for a new category of crimes: “Disgust Crimes.” Then you can preside over your own new era of persecution.
Report comment to moderator
Just curious do you find Christians (outside of this blog) to be more homophobic (not based soley on opposition to gay marriage) than the general population? I feel that this blog misrepresents the feelings of the majority of Christians and perpetuates the notion that Christians are inherently homophobic.
Complex question. Evangelicals have a homophobic religion that wields far more anti-gay impact as a whole than do, say, bigoted straight football players. But if I had to be stuck in a dark alley with one or the other – I’d take the Christian…
Report comment to moderator
MM – 283 – nice rant, but unnecessary. I don’t take Boswell literally – I just footnoted him as someone who argued for the existence of same-sex unions at some point in pre-modern Europe. This was pointed out as a possible exception to stories about continuous anti-gay culture for all of medieval times. Believe it or don’t.
Report comment to moderator
ps to Jesusradical again…
I think most Christians are like Tony, whom I like a great deal. But again, their religious beliefs lead to unethical behavior on the part of an otherwise good person. To Tony’s credit, he is good enough to feel uncomfortable about it!
I think that’s really the point of this whole thread!
On the other hand, there are obviously homophobic Christians whose attitudes can’t be blamed on their religious beliefs. Many of them write here …
Report comment to moderator
As for “Church Tradition” as a guide, let’s not forget that all the church fathers up to and including Martin Luther interpreted the Bible to mean that the Sun orbits the Earth. I think their views on marriage and sexuality are equally reliable.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#285):
First, in #211 you claimed that your questions were mere taunts. Now you claim that you were just simply asking questions.
Well, there are questions and then there are questions.
“Are you still beating your wife?” This is not a simple, objective question designed to solicit information. No matter what the answer, it attempts to force the conclusion that the one answering is a wife beater.
I believe that your questions were of that nature—concealed accusations. Your insistence that they were not is, in the final analysis, impossible for me to prove. You have covered your tracks well.
So, it comes down to my opinion vs. your denials. We are getting nowhere here. Let’s leave it at that.
Report comment to moderator
The purpose of the Day of Silence as stated on http://www.dayofsilence.org: “The National Day of Silence brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools.”
Why would we (christians) support a walk out??? We are told to love our enemies. Christ followers don’t support bullying, name-calling, and harassment!!
Report comment to moderator
Good question jesusradical. Intersting that Victoria posts this as a discussion on the very subject of bullying is going on on another thread.
Report comment to moderator
I suposse we’ll get a post on this tomorrow?
New York governor to propose legalizing same-sex marriage
Report comment to moderator
Your original claim of many judicial sodomy executions throughout the 1800’s would still be on this thread and falsely smearing the opponents of this practice.
I corrected that two days ago. You’re only “smeared” through 1801.
However, I see that you still doggedly cling to the essence of your original claim by speculating (with no proof, no evidence, no data) that the since the unenforced punishment remained on the books for some time, it must have contributed to many other executions for other crimes during the 1800’s.
I didn’t say “many” (and curiously, you haven’t said “none”). But so what? There’s zero mendacity on my part. I admitted my inference (which is more reasonable than you acknowledge) and said that I found no records of executions for specified sodomy after 1801.
“Are you still beating your wife?” . . . I believe that your questions were of that nature—concealed accusations.
No, they’re of the nature of questions that Evangelicals don’t like to answer. Every question asked where your theology should take your practice. None of my questions presumed that Evangelicals are doing things that they don’t. They all asked why Evangelicals don’t do them. The questions had foundation in Evangelical reasoning and in practices the Church used to employ. “Since they want to apply Biblical morality, why not re-criminalize gay sex? . . God abhors queers, but do you? . . if Christians must oppose gay marriage in order to warn homosexuals of hell, why stop there?”
You can’t call me a liar based on beliefs in your mind that are “concealed” in my words. Besides, if you thought I was lying by innuendo, in a way that’s impossible to prove, then you must concede that calling me a blunt and outright liar had to be a lie. Look, I’ve shown that my words were real questions, not assertions, and that my purpose was to get y’all to admit your intentions, because I think you rarely do. So, Christian, you need to confess that you wrongly called me a liar about that. I don’t lie. I take responsibility for my posts and submit to challenges, and acknowledge corrections and amendments. You don’t.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Also, “Washington, DC has opted to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, and is currently considering legalizing same-sex marriage inside the district.”
297 – middle school? way too young.
Christians would have much more influence on this kind of thing if they’d promote same-sex marriage.
Report comment to moderator
jesusradical
YOU WRITE:
“Why would we (christians) support a walk out??? We are told to love our enemies. Christ followers don’t support bullying, name-calling, and harassment!!”
Give it a rest jesusradical, Believers don’t hate homosexuals, you are the ONE who is putting a spin on “enemies” – your agenda is showing -
Report comment to moderator
Just downloaded the “Little Black Book” (this is old news apparently). It’s not a bad safe sex education tool, but definitely too explicit for middle school!
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Looks like the “Black Book” distribution was the act of a single worker acting independently at the event.
Report comment to moderator
#301 Are you warning us about you and your friends? (just kidding!)
Report comment to moderator
An interesting twist in the Vermont Law:
The Green Mountain State’s new law says in its “Public Accommodations” section that religious groups “shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if the request . . . is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage.” It also bars civil lawsuits against religious groups that refuse to provide goods or services to same-sex weddings.
So why would Christians oppose a secular same-sex marriage law with these stipulations???
Report comment to moderator
and of course the little black book incident happened a mere 4 years ago. Wit the following quote: ”Fenway Community Health regrets accidentally making available a small number of copies of the Little Black Book, an HIV-prevention publication for gay and bisexual men over the age of 18, at an event where young people were present,” said Dr. Stephen Boswell, Fenway Community Health’s president and CEO.
Sean Haley, executive director of the education network, which sponsored the conference, added: ”We have very clear policies that sexually explicit material of any kind will not be made available at the conference. Had I seen the book, I would have asked them to put it away.”
I beleive Victoria’s agenda is clearly showing.
Report comment to moderator
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
I now pronounce this blog as having officially achieved Super Gay Blog! status on Worldmag.
I’m so exhausted that I don’t know who to thank. To be honest, I haven’t prepared a speech because I never thought that this would happen.
Mostly, I’d like to thank The Queen, who never fails to keep the fires of anti-gay hate and bigotry burning brightly on Worldmag. To her I donate this Golden Fag. May she always keep it’s flame burning brightly!
And then I’d like to thank Scroop Moth, who never fails to cut through the crap on here. To him I give this Golden Shovel, for he will need it in the days to come as the manure piles up higher and higher.
And lastly I’d like to thank JesusRadical, who has best exhibited the virtues of his Christian faith on this blog and dares to defy The Queen. To him I give this Golden Cross. May it serve as a reminder to him and others that grace and mercy extended to others will win more converts to his faith than hate and judgment.
Onward to Ultimate Gay Blog! status!
Report comment to moderator
From Huffington Post –
Vermont, Iowa, and D.C. show that we have reason to be optimistic even after the voters of California took away full marriage equality only a few months after it was awarded. Although I suspect the California Supreme Court will uphold the constitutionality of Prop. 8 (while not invalidating the gay marriages legally performed during that brief period), in the coming months, the legislatures of Hawaii, Rhode Island, New York and New Hampshire may well enact same-sex marriage laws.
Amen. Hallelujah!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (#305):
Thanks for the link to “The Little Black Book.”
It illustrates and enthusiastically promotes the most absolutely vile and filthy habits of homosexuals. I do not believe for a minute the absurd claim that this book was “accidentally” distributed to the children of that MA school in 2005. Someone had to pack them up in boxes by the hundreds, bring them to the school on that day, and then hand them out to all the children in attendance. An accident? Preposterous!
No, it was a deliberate action of distributing material that is as bad and worse than any graphic pornography. It was an intentional effort to recruit children into the homosexual world of filth and depravity. As such it amounts to child abuse and everyone involved should have been prosecuted. Instead, after the damage was done, the perpetrators were allowed to walk away under the cover of the blatant lie that it was all an “accident.” Outrageous!
Homosexual activists and their supporters cannot be trusted to be truthful. Lies and deceit are their stock and trade. That is why this 2005 event is relevant to the coming “Day of Silence” being organized in our schools, supposedly to combat hostility towards homosexuals. Make no mistake, the underlying intent for this event is to create sympathy and promote the homosexual lifestyle—the lifestyle illustrated in the “Little Black Book.” What additional things they will do on “The Day of Silence” to promote homosexuality—by accident of course—is known only to the organizers. Parents will certainly not be told in advance.
Every American family, not just Christians, but every American family who cares about their children should boycott the public schools on that day. This will protect the children from any MA style “accidents” in the making. It will also send a message to the public school systems that American families are no longer going to tolerate this homosexual child abuse in our schools. School officials are either negligent or complicit in these outrageous occurrences and they need to be told that it will no longer be tolerated.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza (#309):
The English “hallelujah” is derived from the Hebrew “Halalu Yah”, meaning “Praise God!”
What an interesting thing for an atheist homosexual like you to say—Praise God!
“Forgive him, for he knows not what he does.”
Report comment to moderator
Moth writes (#296):
Not going to happen Moth. I would be lying if I did that.
I disagree.
Yes—reluctantly and only under duress when you have been forced to do so.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Moth
Give it up, you are no match for Michael Martin, you aren’t making any headway –
Michael has done nothing to upset you, except of course to disagree with you, and point to your flaws of argument – that, you should have expected from the beginning.
Report comment to moderator
308 – Well, WMB loves to have it so. Glad they’re not disappointing you.
Hey, as long as these (and others) threads get this long, is there any way for you WMB website folks to fix the triple digits so they actually show up?
Report comment to moderator
Bianca (#308):
In my opinion the reason that these threads get so long is because the homosexual activists and their supporters are relentless in pushing their agenda. What we are seeing here is a mini form of what they have been doing all across the land since the 70’s. They just do not give up. Eventually they wear down the opposition and get their way, not because they are right, but because other Americans just give up the fight. Homosexuals have been very successful with this tactic.
Recognizing this, many Christians on this blog have decided that we will not give up. We will continue the fight for as long as it takes because we know, by the evidence of God’s word, that we are right and they are wrong. I will not give an inch, nor will I stand idly by and see my country given over to the evil that these people represent. And if you do not believe that what they represent is evil just got to the link at at #305 and see for yourself. But even that little glimpse just scratches the surface of the terrible consequences their behavior inflicts upon this land.
I am an older American, but I have not “retired” from the battle to go relax and enjoy myself on some beach or golf course. I will do what I can for as long as I can. None of the “saints” in the scriptures retired and left the battlefield to the opposition. I want to be able to say, like Paul:
“I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” (2Tim 4:7)
Report comment to moderator
My post at #316 should have been addressed to Bianca (#315), not Bianca (#308).
Report comment to moderator
Sinoza (#309):
The Huffington Post would have been more accurate had they said:
“…in the coming months, the legislatures of….may well enact same-sex sodomy laws.
Report comment to moderator
#311 I’m not an atheist, MM …
PTL for the coming legalization of Same-sex marriage across the country. Thank you JESUS …
Report comment to moderator
#318 – huh? Sodomy laws are in decline – this is to protect the privacy of the heterosexual community, which probably accounts for many times the number of sodomite acts than does the entire gay community.
But you’re WAY too pre-occupied with Sodomy, dude…
Report comment to moderator
MICHAEL MARTIN #312: Yes—reluctantly and only under duress when you have been forced to do so.
Incorrect. When you asked about my sources, I disclosed them and amended my claim in my next post, the same morning. I repaired my claim about the 19th C quickly, without any back-and-forth. You then denied that the Espy Files contained relevant data. You falsely claimed there was no way of checking my information about executions. But you turned out to be wrong. My information was only a few clicks and text searches away. Your report that executions stopped in the 1740’s was wrong. As a result of what you call my reluctant efforts under duress, I believe I vindicated my own accuracy and showed your errors (which you haven’t acknowledged).
Instead of giving an accounting of your false witness against me — your pathway is all laid out for you — you keep inventing new false charges, as if any new business can extinguish our unfinished old business.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza (#319):
My apologies for thinking that you are an atheist. I went back and browsed through some of your exchanges with Tony and found them a bit confusing, partly because I’m not familiar with some of the things you were discussing, and partly because they seemed to be going in a lot of different directions. Then at one point you spoke of “de-conversion,” which I took to mean as a rejection of God altogether. I was obviously wrong about that.
Would you care to enlighten us, as concisely as possible, about your current religious convictions?
Report comment to moderator
#323 – “Would you care to enlighten us, as concisely as possible, about your current religious convictions?”
I don’t have religious “convictions” so much as religious “hopes”
Here’s what I “wish” to be true and sometimes act as if it’s true, but am metaphysically unsure of and often outright doubtful about.
1. A personal God
2. A purpose communicated by a personal God
3. An afterlife in which things are put right
4. Humanity is making net progress (although it often doesn’t look that way) and “God” is helping
Ethical values I hold.
1. The formation of love in the individual is the highest ethical goal (since I’m not always very good at this, I suppose I can’t help but expect you’d find it surprising that I think this)
2. Nature is a supreme expression of truth and beauty. It should be revered, respected, and preserved not “subdued” and tromped on.
3. Nature is a more objective source of truth than any theological or philosophical products of the human brain
I would add that I don’t believe that any of the writings of the ancient religions of Man – including Christianity – were given by direct revelation from a Deity as if he/she were dictating their opinion. As much as I’d like a “manual” from Heaven, much bible study has convinced me that we do not have anything like such a thing, whether OT, NT, Koran, or whatever.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza (#324):
Thanks for your good reply. I appreciate you sharing those thoughts because they obviously come from the heart.
I’m not sure how to respond or if you are even interested in a response. The context of this thread brings up many barriers on both sides, but your thoughts in #324 have reduced some of them—for me anyway.
Report comment to moderator
#325 Well that’s very kind MM … thanks …
#326 – Well I would say that quote had an element of hyperbole, but with a point (and I know “V” never gets my points!).
I do think that:
1. The OT was written by and for an ancient barbaric culture and is not a very reliable ethical guide
2. The NT is a hodge-podge of early jewish/greek views that don’t reflect the teachings of a historical Jesus and are addressed to a culture long gone.
So I think the bible relevance is quite limited.
The thread from which “V” so carefully retrieved my comment was about deducing a theology of homosexuality from the “penumbra” (hence “shadowy”) of scripture. It was intended to call into question the entire process of gleaning ethics from a book that doesn’t talk about the specific topic at hand and, when it speaks more generally, isn’t necessarily a very good ethical guide anyway! For one thing, Bible authors knew next to NOTHING about the biology of human beings and their behavior. I think this information is critical to any modern ethical formulation.
None of this reflects “hatred” of the Word of God – For one thing, I don’t believe the bible is the word of God, and I don’t hate it.
I DO hate fundamentalist misuse of the Bible. Very Much!! And Victoria provides a steady stream of some of the most objectionable examples I can think of.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
N O E X C U S E S – J U S T C L A R I F I C A T I O N S
Report comment to moderator
#328 – Remind me when you run out of fresh material, so I can be sure to add some new nasty criticism of the Bible for you to update your collection.
Report comment to moderator
Spin
You are so original –
Report comment to moderator
#331 – thanks! It’s so fun to post in Victoria-ese. It has a certain flamboyance to it that is always attractive to drama queens like myself.
Report comment to moderator
#331 – Seriously, do you wear really thick mascara, cause I think you could pick up where Tammy Faye left off … you might have to ease up on the anti-gay thing though …
Report comment to moderator
Spin
“Tammy Faye” – I’ll leave that one to you –
Report comment to moderator
LOL – unfortunately, Tammy Faye would not look so great with a goatee …
Report comment to moderator
Hey now Spinoza – Tammy Faye had a “conversion” and became a champion for gay people. And she developed a sense of humor and was willing to laugh at herself and her outrageous makeup, hairdo, and “all that”. She became one fine lady after all was said and done. And she had a heart of love. There’s no way The Queen could be like her.
Report comment to moderator
#336 Probably right – but we could still pray that Queen Victoria will also have a “conversion”
Maybe if she’d been married to Jim …
Nah …
Actually, I was mostly thinking of giant eyelashes and running mascara. When Victoria writes in B O L D, that’s how I picture her.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
I remember just days before she passed away from cancer she was a guest on the Larry King show – it was heartbreaking to see her, but she was still trying to be brave through it all.
Yeah I saw that too – it was very touching!
Report comment to moderator
Apparently The Queen has never been to Mardi Gras, where one can see far more “straight” debauchery in one night than one sees in an entire year in San Francisco.
Report comment to moderator
#340 I’m sure QV would not like that either – she’s not “QUEEN VICTORIA” for nothing, ya know! I’m not sure how she time-warped into our century, however.
Report comment to moderator
340 – it doesn’t make any difference, or at least it shouldn’t.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza (#327) writes:
“The OT was written by and for an ancient barbaric culture and is not a very reliable ethical guide.”
Your view is not shared by most people who know and appreciate the facts of history. The Ten Commandments originated in this culture whose ethics you denigrate. These commandments have formed the basis of western ethics and law for thousands of years. In recognition of the enormously positive role they have played in our nation’s history and the history of the entire world, they are prominently enshrined in both our Supreme Court and our U.S. Congress.
The truth of the matter is, the majority of your hostility to the OT and the Jewish culture from which it emerged is your devotion to your own practice of sodomy which the commandments forbid. You cannot see past your own obsession with sex. We can be thankful that there are no depictions of Sodom in the Supreme Court or the U.S. Congress which pay tribute to your brand of ethics.
“The NT is a hodge-podge of early jewish/greek views that don’t reflect the teachings of a historical Jesus and are addressed to a culture long gone.”
So says our resident sodomite “scholar,” Spinoza. Your “scholarship” on this subject is about as reliable as that of the sodomite John Boswell, whom we previously discussed. His work, if you want to call it that, has been largely discredited and dismissed by most other historians. His interpretation of historical events and personalities was grotesquely twisted by his own extreme preoccupation with male on male sex. You thinking is twisted in like manner. You inferred claim to know the “real” teachings of the historical Jesus is nothing but pretense and homosexual swill.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin: “Your view is not shared by most people who know and appreciate the facts of history. The Ten Commandments originated in this culture whose ethics you denigrate. These commandments have formed the basis of western ethics and law for thousands of years. In recognition of the enormously positive role they have played in our nation’s history and the history of the entire world, they are prominently enshrined in both our Supreme Court and our U.S. Congress.”
This is quite a stretch. Written (to say nothing of oral tradition) prohibitions against murder, theft, adultery, and perjury existed in Sumeria approximately 700 years before Moses is said to have been born and have been staples of virtually every civilization since then. While covetousness and disrespect towards one’s parents are generally frowned upon, neither is the basis for any extant law. The remaining four commandments are religious in nature and therefore explicitly prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. Western culture would have been just fine without the Ten Commandments and much improved without books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
Report comment to moderator
#343 MM – You are far more pre-occupied with sodomy than I am!
Report comment to moderator
#343 p.s. Is there something you’d like to share?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Speaking out against homosexuality and s-SEX-M brings out the hatred from the homosexual community.
So that’s why you and MM do it ceaselessly?
Whatever QV – I don’t hate either of you. That would be a waste of time. And you *can* be amusing, though you aren’t today …
Report comment to moderator
And besides – you’re helping us get to the big 400 for another monster gay blog!! Woo Hoo!
NUMBER 350
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
GWF81 (345):
No, it’s not a stretch, it’s the truth. Your view is, by contrast, myopic.
Although the written Ten Commandments originated in the Jewish culture of Moses, the Bible makes it clear that their Author predates the Sumerian culture and every other culture on earth. The Ten Commandments were on His mind long before the Sumerians even existed. Whatever positive contribution they made to ethics and law were merely the remnants of God’s law left on the hearts of fallen men.
Neither the Sumerians or any other culture can claim authorship of anything superior to or before the Author of the Ten Commandments. At best, they exhibit only incomplete leftovers from the full and true Source.
Report comment to moderator
At best, they exhibit only incomplete leftovers from the full and true Source.
Charlton Heston?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin,
I was responding to your original assertion that the basis for western ethics and law originated with the Jews of the Old Testament. Now you say that these ideas predate humanity (which I actually agree with). So which one is it?
Michael Martin: The Ten Commandments originated in this culture whose ethics you denigrate.
In which case the Sumerians (as well as the Babylonians, and Assyrians, to name a few more) had a leg up on the Jews in terms of ethics.
OR
Michael Martin: The Ten Commandments were on His mind long before the Sumerians even existed. Whatever positive contribution they made to ethics and law were merely the remnants of God’s law left on the hearts of fallen men.
In which case the written Ten Commandments are superfluous, since practically every civilized culture arrived at a similar destination many hundreds of years before Moses purportedly received the tablets.
Report comment to moderator
GWF81 (#356):
I thought that you would be able to put 2 & 2 together yourself, i.e., understand the integration of the information in my posts 343 and 352. My fault for not adequately explaining things—sorry.
You wrote (#356):
“I was responding to your original assertion that the basis for western ethics and law originated with the Jews of the Old Testament. Now you say that these ideas predate humanity (which I actually agree with). So which one is it?”
The answer is both. Simply put, the ideas do predate humanity because they come from the mind of the Creator God, whose existence is without beginning and without end.
When He created man in the image of Himself (a limited image), these ideas/concepts of righteousness were integrated into the very character of man. God was able to say at the end of the creation process that it was all very good (perfect), including man. Everything in the Ten Commandments was natural and resident in the heart of man, even though it was not in written form. (Gen 1&2)
Once man rebelled against the sovereign God (Gen 3), that all changed. Man divorced himself from the true source of goodness and ethics (God) and a deep seated corruption entered his whole being—physically, spiritually, and mentally. I suppose it could be compared to a computer virus that corrupts the whole hard drive and everything on it. The biblical concept of total depravity does not mean that man’s corruption has run its full course in every aspect of his nature, but that the virus of corruption has entered every aspect of his nature. Nothing has been left untouched; it is total in that sense. Man’s reproductive faculties still worked, for example, but he could only produce children just like himself, damaged and corrupted.
Then God began the long redemptive process of fallen man. Along the way, glimmers of God’s original created perfection shone through. Hence the Sumerians and others could put down in writing a limited version of some ethical concepts that originated with the God who created them, even though they no longer recognized Him.
Approximately a thousand years later, God began to work with a specific people—a people who were not even a people until He made them so and set them apart from the rest of mankind. Abraham, the father of these people, came from the ancient Sumerian city of Ur. Abraham’s descendants began to improve spiritually and ethically, but were often just as corrupt and barbaric as the rest of mankind (Spinoza is correct in this sense). However, God began to give them special help and input because their forefather, Abraham, had a special relationship with God. Exactly and specifically why God chose Abraham I do not know (Why does God choose any man?), but God’s love, Abraham’s faith and obedience, and God’s promises worked together in incomprehensible ways to bring forth a people who were to eventually be an example for the rest of mankind.
God’s creation of the Jewish people did not mean they were perfect, far from it. They have been consistently shown in the biblical record to often be just as corrupt, barbaric, and sinful as the rest of mankind and God had to deal severely with them at times. But they are a key part of the redemptive process for mankind in general. Along the way God gave them the written Ten Commandments, a much more comprehensive and better expression of God’s holiness and ethics than anything that unaided mankind (Sumerians, et al) had produced to date.
Other civilized cultures, prior to Moses, had produced nothing comparable. The Ten Commandments live on, along with all of their Judeo-Christian legacy. The others can be found only as dusty historical notes to cultures and religions that died long ago.
Report comment to moderator
#354 – QV – ’salright – we all know they didn’t have jokes in your century.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin, you have quite an imagination. Having conversed at length with you before, I know that any evidence I provide will be casually dismissed, so I will refrain from continuing this line of discussion much further. The only things I will say is that your post is woefully inaccurate and (possibly intentionally) misleading and that the most barbaric practices of the Jews of the Bible were explicitly sanctioned by God.
Report comment to moderator
GWF81 (#359):
Casual dismissal is not my style. Our previous discussion on evolution, if I recall correctly, went to over 600 posts (all those were not ours of course).
It is your current response, not mine, that is in the category of “casual dismissal.” I wonder why you even bothered posting 345/356 in the first place if you intended to walk away with your nose in the air.
Report comment to moderator
Biblical arguments against homosexuality/gay marriage:
1. Leviticus says a man lying with a man is an abomination.
2. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
3. Romans describes same-sex sex as unnatural
4. A few passages in Paul’s letters include ‘homosexual’ as among those that can’t inherit the Kingdom.
Biblical arguments for homosexuality/gay marriage.
1. Leviticus also lists eating shellfish as an abomination (same word.) It demands banishment for a man and woman who have sex during menstruation. (That one comes only five verses after the condemnation of male homosex in Lev. 20:13.) It bans eating pork, planting fields with two kinds of seeds or wearing clothing made of two materials woven together. No Christians consider those latter prohibitions to still apply. The placement of the verse about homosexual behavior with a lot of other verses concerning ritual purity suggest it is more likely a purity role than a moral proscription.
2. Neither Leviticus nor any other passage in the Old Testament speaks a word against female homosexuality. This suggests that the rules are less about sexual morality and more about setting the Israelites apart from the nations around them.
3. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are described in different ways in various places, but same-sex relations seems to have been only one of a long list of offenses, if even one. Neglecting the poor and general fornication seems to be more of the problem. In the actual story of S&G, the one righteous man in Sodom offers his virgin daughters to be gang-raped if the mob will just leave the visiting strangers alone.
4. Romans doesn’t describe homosexual orientation, it describes men and women of heterosexual orientation turning from natural relations to unnatural ones. (Unnatural for them because they are normally heterosexual.) This is described as a punishment for worshiping idols rather than God.
5. The words in Paul’s letters that are commonly translated as “homosexual” are “malakos” and “aresenokoitai.” Neither one literally means homosexual, especially in the modern sense, and there were Greek words that Paul could have use if he had meant to unambiguously condemn homosexuals.
“Malakos” literally translates as “soft,” and was translated in the KJV as “effeminate.” It doesn’t even specifically mean that; it may be more accurately rendered “weak-willed.” It is used in several other New Testament passages in contexts that have nothing to do with sex (Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25, “A man clothed in soft raiment.” Obviously, “A man clothed in homosexual raiment” would be meaningless.) There are no occurrences of the word in other Greek writings where it means homosexual. So this could reflect translator bias.
And “arsenokoitai,” translated in the KJV as “abusers of themselves with mankind,” (and in later translations as “homosexual offenders”) appears nowhere else anywhere before Paul, and after Paul only in documents attempting to figure out what it meant. It appears to be Paul’s own coinage, and precisely what it means is unclear.
Report comment to moderator
The above is not to take a side, just to complicate the discussion.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G.,
The idea that homosexual behavior is wrong only for those who aren’t actually homosexuals, and perfectly acceptable for some group of people who are really and truly homosexuals, is one of the weirdest ones ever raised, though I have seen it before: “It’s a sin to do this action unless you really, really want to; if you’re sure you want to, it’s OK to do it.” Can anyone say that with a straight face about any other sin: murdering or lying, for instance?
In making your list, you listed only verses that dealt specifically with homosexuality, and thus your list is quite simply incomplete. We really cannot, as Christians, deal with homosexuality without dealing with broader categories of sex and marriage. For instance, what boundaries did God place around sex? (Marriage.) What boundaries did God place around marriage? (Very clearly it is a male/female relationship.) We could look at other things too, like the biblical purposes of marriage and sex, and the fact that homosexuality simply doesn’t fit. The fact that marriage is seen as a picture of Christ’s love for His church, the mere fact that God created the world with two separate sexes that are seen as distinct, and so on–this really is a lot bigger, biblically, than a short list of prohibitions. But the explicit prohibitions should serve to prove that the principles (some of which I’ve listed) didn’t simply overlook the possibility that one could be attracted to, and even wish to marry, someone of one’s own sex.
This is only scratching the surface, off the top of my head. But looking only at passages specifically dealing with homosexuality is really not dealing with the subject exhaustively.
Report comment to moderator
P.S. Steve, your second list can’t reasonably be called arguments for homosexuality and gay marriage. At best, they could be called evidences that the Bible isn’t really against homosexuality, and obviously even as such they’re weak–they’re basically justifications, means to shut the other side up, and no evidence at all that God is neutral on this subject. But obviously marriage is male and female, and God is very clear that sex is only for marriage, so the specific prohibitions against various forms of sexual sin are technically not necessary. (Example: If the Bible didn’t say anything about sex with prostitutes, wouldn’t the prohibition against sex outside of marriage obviously cover sex with prostitutes?)
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#361/362):
These supposed “arguments FOR homosexuality” don’t complicate matters for anyone who has an honest and objective approach to biblical interpretation. (I am not implying that you are dishonest since you claim that you are not advocating one side or the other.) We constantly see this kind of sophistry from the homosexual camp in multiple areas, not just biblical interpretation.
Generations of legitimate scholars have studied the Scriptures and arrived at basic interpretations that have stood the test of time and critical analysis for thousands of years. Now homosexual “scholars” arrive on the scene and advance novel and freakish interpretations that can only be regarded as puerile attempts to twist words to their own agenda. It is transparent sophistry to all except the ignorant and willingly blind.
If a person serious about learning to fly came to me for advice, I would refer then to a legitimate school with a proven track record, not to some pot-smoking dodo bird wearing a cape. The same goes for anyone who is serious about learning what the Bible has to say. Go to a good and well recognized source, not to someone out on the fringe of their own strange agenda.
Steve, just the title of your second section is suspect. None of the five points you list are actually arguments FOR homosexuality. They are all implausible attempts to reinterpret passages that speak against homosexuality so as to force some other meaning on them or neutralize their plain message. If God actually wanted to make a case FOR homosexuality, He would have clearly said something like, “Homosexuality is good,” or “I approve of homosexuality.” There is nowhere in the Bible that you will find a positive affirmation for homosexuality either in word or example. It is invariably portrayed as evil and condemned in the strongest terms. Homosexual arguments would have us believe that God is incapable of clearly saying what He means on this subject.
Worse than that, they make Him out to be a liar and thereby compound their already serious sin.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl (363/364):
Excellent objective points, especially 363 I think.
Report comment to moderator
Cliff notes for the above comments-
blah blah blah blah blah
Tony makes a good point
blah blah blah
Tony makes another good point
blah blah
Sorry, I just don’t have the attention span for that many comments.
Since Romans was mentioned… Read Romans 12.9-21 before you post a comment, it might at least give you pause. and since we’re on the subjest of Paul…let’s quote James, who is quoting Proverbs..And above all things have fervent love for one another, for “love will cover a multitude of sins.” It covers, it sdoesn’t justify, or rationalize, or moralize, or excuse… but it will cover… let us all pray for that covering.
And finally, since I hate sermonizing, because I’m really bad at it (and it always sounds a little superficial and judgmental). I leave you with a Quote from St. Isaac the Syrian ” This life has been given to you for repentance; do not waste it in vain pursuits”
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl and MM: Those are both good rebuttals. The point that the second list is not arguments for, just critiques of the arguments against, is well-taken.
A couple of specific points:
The idea that homosexual behavior is wrong only for those who aren’t actually homosexuals, and perfectly acceptable for some group of people who are really and truly homosexuals, is one of the weirdest ones ever raised,
Actually no, it makes good sense in the context in which Romans was written. In Rome at that time it was common for married men and women to have sex with their spouses for procreation, but to have same-sex relations in order to get gratification without creating a child. It was also part of some religious activity. Paul identified it as something done by hetersexual persons who “turned from” their natural inclinations, as a consequence of their worship of idols.
He wrote this to Christians in Rome who were surrounded by this kind of behavior. Do you really think that’s not how they would have understood it?
If God actually wanted to make a case FOR homosexuality, He would have clearly said something like, “Homosexuality is good,” or “I approve of homosexuality.” There is nowhere in the Bible that you will find a positive affirmation for homosexuality either in word or example. It is invariably portrayed as evil and condemned in the strongest terms.
We’ve discussed the Biblical acceptance of slavery in past threads, and I’ve made a very similar argument, to say that if God wanted to make a strong case against it, he would have clearly said “owning other human beings is wrong.”
I don’t believe you found that argument compelling at that time.
However, Cheryl trumps it with the reminder of the standard for marriage (God-approved cases of polygamy nonwithstanding.)
Report comment to moderator
By the way, Michael and Cheryl, what did you do with your possessions when you gave them up?
You did give them up, didn’t you?
“Whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33)
Plain sense of Scripture, straight out of the mouth of Jesus. I’m sure you obeyed, right?
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – 36
What does this verse mean to you Steveg? – and what does it mean to a Believer – please give descriptive verses to support your beliefs.
So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:33
Report comment to moderator
That’s true, Victoria. So did Jesus lie when he said that? Or is it maybe possible that sometimes there’s more to Scripture than a verse here or there lifted for prooftext.
Show of hands: How many of you have cut off your hands to avoid sin?
Oh wait … maybe a voice vote is a better idea here.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#368), you write:
“We’ve discussed the Biblical acceptance of slavery in past threads, and I’ve made a very similar argument, to say that if God wanted to make a strong case against it, he would have clearly said “owning other human beings is wrong.”
I don’t believe you found that argument compelling at that time.”
You write this in response to my contention that the Bible never makes a positive case FOR homosexuality.
Even though the argumentative approach we are using is similar, I don’t find your use of it compelling because it seems that we are using it from opposite directions and for opposite purposes. It is like two armies opposing one another using the same weapons and methods. It is not the method that is important but the idea that it advances. Is it true or not?
I say that God universally condemns homosexuality. Nowhere in the Bible does He positively approve of it. If He did, He would clearly say so. I defend God and the Bible as it is written.
On the other hand, you condemn slavery and find fault with God because nowhere in the Bible does He seem to clearly condemn the practice. We “know,” you say, that slavery is bad and so therefore, the Bible, as it is written, is suspect. We cannot trust it or the God it purports to represent. Therefore, this being “true,” neither can we trust what it says about homosexuality.
Simply put:
Now, we can, if you wish, transition to a debate about the Bible’s position on slavery, but to me that would seem to be a diversion. To me, the bottom line is that the Bible condemns homosexuality and classifies it as a sin, no exceptions. Slavery and the veracity of the Bible itself are separate issues and to bring them into the discussion, along with debate techniques, only muddies the water and causes confusion.
Mind you, I am NOT saying that they aren’t important issues and unworthy of discussion. But, it seems to me that the important and most immediate point is to, once and for all, dispose of the homosexual contention that the Bible never condemns homosexuality; that it is somehow ambiguous about the whole subject; and even that it somehow makes a case FOR homosexuality as your post #361 contends.
Report comment to moderator
What I am saying is that while Christianity in general has developed consistent and cogent positions on both issues, the Bible is not unambiguous on either and the position of the faith has evolved.
Christianity in general did not oppose slavery as an institution for most of its history, into the 19th century. The overall codemnation of it that we can agree on today was not there a mere two centuries ago. And in large measure, those Christians who joined the abolitionists in the U.S. could count on being branded apostates by their more conservative bretheren.
Much the same thing is underway today regarding homosexuality. Whether it will lead to such a sweeping change or not, time will tell.
To me, the bottom line is that the Bible condemns homosexuality and classifies it as a sin, no exceptions.
But it doesn’t. As shown, the four main arguments to support your statement are:
1. A cultural rule that applied only to men and that falls in with a list of other laws that no one argues are still in effect for Christians.
2. A recounting of a judgment that fell on two cities for a long list of offenses, not merely homosexuality.
3. A passage in Romans that, read as written, pertains to a specific punishment for a specific act (worship of idols.)
4. Two or three other mentions in the Pauline corpus that use Greek words that do not specifically refer to homosexuals … one which literally translates as “soft” and one which seems to be Paul’s own coinage because it does not appear in any Greek documents before him. There are several other Greek words that very specifically do mean homosexual that Paul could have used but did not.
I am not taking a side, I am simply saying that Christians who support gay rights do have a Scriptural case.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – I have to protest the definitive nature of your last post – it is too good as a “last word” on the topic, and will make it well nigh impossible to get this thread to 400 postings!!
Report comment to moderator
I hope you strangers will tolerate an exceedingly stupid question from an outsider; my only excuse is I’m not from around here and I don’t know from nothing.
I’m not even quite sure what the statement quoted from the article above means, but it does prompt me to ask this:
Could it be the case that it would be my choice to become a Christian, but should I choose to do that, I would then have no choice in judging for myself what the Bible does and does not mean? If so, precisely who has been assigned the final word in what the Bible does and does not mean?
UPDATE: If, perchance, the answer is “the church”, then that scarcely solves the problem; at best, it kicks the can down the road a bit.
I am even further from understanding what this statement means. Am I to understand that Christians believe that as regards “the full meaning of Scriptures” the Holy Spirit speaks authoritatively through some entity known to insiders as “the church”, and also, simultaneously, Christians believe that this guidance is not effective in preventing Christians from burning each other alive, from persecuting each other and from splitting into every imaginable sort of denomination and sect? Are these truly compatible beliefs?
However that might be, back to my central problem: If as a “Christian” I must rely on the interpretive verdict offered by some “church”, how am I supposed to decide which “church” and which spokesperson for which “church” I will rely upon? And if that is what I have to do, then does this not become my own decision once again (the very sort of individualism which was under condemnation in the first place)?
What exactly are new Christians told about where they are to locate the final word on the interpretive verdict of the “church”? For example, are the official verdicts posted on a web site somewhere so the whole world can easily access them?
Has everything been decided so that there is no further need to train biblical scholars?
Finally, is the teaching that the opinion of the individual counts for nothing in harmony with or in conflict with the theology of the priesthood of the believer?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#374):
When I contend that the Bible condemns homosexuality with no exceptions, you reply:
“But it doesn’t. As shown, the four main arguments to support your statement are:…”
So, here we go around the block again. In reply I could just cut and paste #365, but I won’t. It would be adding nothing new, just as you have added nothing new except an attempt to have the “last word.” But we all know the “last word” doesn’t really win anything. It just temporarily makes you feel better.
However, the real “last word” will not come from either of us. As the saying goes, “Ideas have consequences.” Those consequences will be the “last word.” Spinoza, et al, joyfully react with every homosexual “victory” going down this road that can be aptly characterized as ,“Slouching Toward Gomorrah” (to borrow from Robert Bork). What are we going to find when we get there?
That will be the real “last word” and I believe it will be more painful than any of us currently imagine. Anyone with the will and the eyes to see need only reflect on the pathetic path and deadly destination of the homosexual lifestyle in order to see where we are headed as a nation. Mind you, I am not saying that everyone in America is going to become a homosexual and end up with AIDS.
What I am saying, as we have discussed morality and its source, is that there is a common thread that runs through all of western liberalism, including homosexuality. It is the rejection of God. It has innumerable symptoms, the blight of homosexuality being a particularly ugly and pernicious one that historically seems to erupt in the terminal stages of a cultural decline.
So here we are, waiting for the “last word.” If we continue down this road, I know with certainty what it’s going to be. I know, not based on any sort of personal prescience, but on what is already written by the hand of God for all to see.
Report comment to moderator
MM: I do not seek to simply “win” the argument. I am not convinced that the Bible says anything about adult, consenting, monogamous homosexual relations, nor am I convinced that such relations create any trouble at all for the country.
Promiscuity certainly does. Broken commitments certainly do. Spreading of disease obviously does. Those statements apply equally to homo and hetero. There is nothing special about homo in this regard.
So, not believing the word is as clear as you do on the topic, I prefer to treat homosexuals with love and dignity. I do not need to tell them they are vile sinners; even if I become convinced they are, they won’t need me to tell them because they hear it everywhere they turn from people like you.
If they do sin, God will judge it justly … just as he will my sin and yours. I judge not. I do not experience life the way a homosexual does. I can’t empathize because I have no idea what it is like. And I am amply guilty of my own sins. I have no place to cast any stones.
Report comment to moderator
I guess you must be right: a license from the government couldn’t possibly take the place of or count as a religious blessing or approval.
I hope the California Supreme Court will notice that your observation is brilliant and apparently the solution to their current problem. If churches feel that “marriage” is exclusively their own domain, then all the state needs to do is to stop using the term. Every couple which applies for a domestic union license (whether an opposite sex couple or a same sex couple) gets the same piece of paper, one which does not include the term “marriage”.
Then the couple goes to their choice of church to obtain the church sanction for their marriage. Everyone gets the same piece of paper, everyone gets the same rights and the church is the final arbiter of what qualifies as a marriage and what doesn’t … and (I hope, hope, hope) everyone will finally be satisfied.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#378):
Well Steve, you have taken us right back to Tony’s original title for this thread:
“Even though they’ll call it hate”
So round and round we go.
Report comment to moderator
#380 – “Even though they’ll call it hate” So round and round we go.
Coming from you, MM, it clearly is hate!
From Tony, not so much …
Report comment to moderator
He was talking about the homosexual camp, Spin.
Anyone who opposes you, you automatically accuse of hate.
Thanks for the confirmation.
Report comment to moderator
The latest example of the homosexual hate phenomenon is the incident at the Miss USA contest a couple of days ago that, according to the homosexual activist involved, cost Miss California the crown.
Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked by Perez Hilton, a homosexual judge, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”
She gave a very gracious answer, but one which affirmed her belief in traditional marriage.
Hilton, on his celebrity blog site, then proceeded to viciously call her a “dumb bitch” with “half a brain.” Then, being a judge in the contest, he affirmed that her answer cost her the crown. He also criticized her for “bringing politics into the contest” by her answer. Of course, what he meant by that hypocritical comment was HER brand of politics, since it was he, not her, who had brought politics into the contest by his initial question.
Now, you tell me Spinoza, who is the originator of hate in this incident?
It is the homosexual. The same pattern is repeated time and time again. Anyone who opposes the practice, even in the most benign manner as in this case, seems to automatically generate hate in the homosexual mind. Then, as a knee-jerk reflection of their own thinking, they automatically accuse their opposition of hate.
Since this also seems to be your modus operandi, perhaps you can give us some insight into your thinking process.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, if you go to the Hilton blog site now, you will find his “bitch” comment deleted. So, he is also a devious deceiver.
Report comment to moderator
“Anyone who opposes you, you automatically accuse of hate.”
No I don’t – just you – your unabated self-righteous deprecatory “tone,” sprinkled with repeated chants of “sodomy, sodomy, sodomy” speaks volumes for itself. Can you honestly say you don’t hate gays? Cause it really doesn’t square with your posts.
Report comment to moderator
As I’ve said above – some otherwise good (and not hateful) people are persuaded to do ill by a bad religion. But then there are hateful people who use religion as an excuse. You show every evidence of being one of them.
Report comment to moderator
Is there anyone here who could give me some scholarly references which would help me answer the questions raised in #376 above? I don’t even know what the doctrine “that the individual Christian is [NOT] invited to judge for himself what the Bible does and does not mean” is called … so I cannot even begin to research it myself without first being pointed in the right direction: I have no idea where to start.
I assume that these are simple (and perhaps even obvious) questions for the kind of people dwelling here, in which case this won’t be a particularly onerous task.
[Come to think of it, if all of you here distrust your own understanding of what the Bible actually means and rely, instead, on some external authority, you must all know who and where that authority is, and thus shouldn’t have any difficulty sharing the information.]
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza (#385):
Yes, I can honestly say that I don’t hate homosexuals.
Your false accusation is based on your subjective interpretation of what you call my self-righteous “tone” and my noting that homosexuals routinely engage in the biblically condemned practice of sodomy. Accusing another person of self-righteousness is the easiest and most common thing in the world to do when you are frustrated and have nothing else to say. It’s usually just a cheap cop-out, nothing more. Additionally, It has been necessary to be repetitious in stating the sodomy fact because of your continued and obstinate obfuscations and denials about homosexuals and that practice.
I strongly disagree with you and you rush to interpret that as hate, more perhaps as a reflection your own feelings than anything else.
I once attended a homosexual rally in front of Focus on The Family headquarters in Colorado Springs. Homosexual hate was very evident. They wanted to be as close as possible to spew their venom on Dr. Dobson and anyone else who dared to oppose them in any way. It was ugly. Unfortunately, a contingent of the Fred Phelps group from Kansas was also there. That was ugly too. They are an embarrassment to every decent Christian, to say the least. When you are dealing with people like that, you have a legitimate point Spinoza.
But, when you sling your own hate around with the same kind of slanderous false accusations that routinely come from the homosexual camp, you do your cause no good. This is what Perez Hilton has done to Carrie Prejean and I believe it is what you also do. You might have felt right at home with your peers that day at Focus on The Family. It’s sad, but that’s the way you come across to me.
Report comment to moderator
Mark,
THe Church of the four councils is a good place to start. Its premise is that almost all the churchs that are not cultish subscribe, almost without exception, to the decisions handed down by the first four ecumenical counsels. GO to http://www.eighthdaybooks.com. You could order it from there, but I would advise calling there phone number and talking to Warren in person. He would be able to offer you a good many resources.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, TOPHER, for the reply. I searched for “church of the four councils” at eighthdaybooks but there were no search results.
Can you tell me what the doctrine “that the individual Christian is [NOT] invited to judge for himself what the Bible does and does not mean” is called?
Am I to understand that on the one hand, church councils are considered to be infallible because the influence of the Holy Spirit insured that that would be the case, and also, on the other hand, that because the councils did not forbid the burning alive of other Christians (and otherwise persecuting other Christians), therefore this must be sanctioned by the Holy Spirit as well? Do Christians actually teach and believe this?
If the Holy Spirit ensures that institutions (but not individuals) will believe the correct things (where I come from this would be considered a doctrine of intuitional self-aggrandizement … that just shows how out-of-touch I am), how can it be that the Holy Spirit seems to have so little impact on institutional behavior?
Are the church councils are considered to be infallible, and yet their work is not effective in preventing the fragmentation of Christianity into almost too many denominations to count? How is this to be explained?
If the councils are responsible for the only “correct” understanding of Scripture, who is responsible for the doctrine that the councils are infallible?
( I fear that Christianity is going to be way over my head; I don’t think I could ever understand it. I need a far simpler religion. I want a religion that I can not only understand, but one that I can talk to my neighbors about without embarrassing myself. )
I would be very interested to read any remarks to have to make on the questions I asked in #376. Surely you must have an opinion.
Report comment to moderator
Mark7,
Which is more important, that a religion be simple, understandable, and easy to explain–or that it be true?
Christianity has often been said to be simple enough for a child to understand, deep enough to be more than a lifetime of study. Truth is like that. If Jesus died and rose again, it’s the most important truth in the history of the world, whether we can fully understand it or not. If He didn’t, then all the simplicity in the world won’t save Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Cheryl, you raise a number of very practical problems.
1) If I were to go around believing things which I don’t understand, I still wouldn’t know what to believe, because there are an infinite number of things I don’t understand. How could I choose among them?
2) If I were to go around believing things which I don’t understand, I wouldn’t be long for this world. I would die by poisoning or be run over by a truck within a matter of days.
3) We are constantly being bombarded with messages to voters from “Christian” institutions which inform us that as believers we are obliged to support this and that proposition. If I cannot find out the proper “method” for determining what the Bible means, how could I possible determine how to vote?
4) If the things which are “true” are also necessarily “too complicated to be believed”, then it makes no sense to me that I should be under the threat of eternal punishment for failure to believe the proper things. (Is this how you would treat your own children?)
Which is more important? I have no basis for saying that either is more important than the other.
Report comment to moderator
UPDATE to #376, #389 & #390
ITEM__If a church council is to be regarded as the only source for reliable (infallible?) pronouncements concerning what the Bible means, then how did Christians determine what was eligible to be believed prior to the occurrence of any church councils?
ITEM__My Bible seems to have some guidance for perplexed Christians re. getting their questions answered.
I am startled to find that the Bible does not direct people to look up the verdicts of church councils, or even to make an appointment with the local church pastor or priest in his office so as to consult with him. Instead, women are directed to consult with their husbands at home.
I am all astonishment.
If the husband, being an individual, cannot (by definition) have a legitimate / worthwhile opinion with regard to religious truth, then why would the Bible direct women to seek their husband’s opinion?
ITEM__As long as we are in I Corinthians:
If authoritative pronouncements are intended to be accepted as is–without any pernicious evaluation by individuals–then what might be the purpose of the direction to “weigh carefully what is said”?
If no individual can have a legitimate opinion concerning biblical truth, then why would God choose to speak directly to individuals, and why should anyone listen to them when He does?
ITEM__If church councils arrived at their verdicts through majority vote (as opposed to arriving at “conclusions” by virtue of which faction present happened to have the most political power in hand), then any such vote must have been a vote of individuals. Is it official Christian doctrine, then, that the Holy Spirit can speak to individuals so long as they are participating in a church council, but that He cannot (or will not) speak to individuals otherwise? (Paul, in I Corinthians, appears to pull the rug out from under any such assertion.)
Is this a matter which, itself, was conclusively decided by a church council? Which one?
If, as Tony Woodlief asserts, “it’s a pernicious belief—running through the very heart of even the most conservative denominations—that the individual Christian is invited to judge for himself what the Bible does and does not mean” then it stands to reason that there should be a HUGE amount of information available on the subject … yet I am having a terrible time finding anything on this subject.
The more I study Christianity, the more bewildered I become. (Is it supposed to be like this?)
Report comment to moderator
TOPHER
Thanks for recommending that book website. I found several very interesting books and even ordered one.
Report comment to moderator
If I understand Tony Woodlief correctly when he states that “it’s a pernicious belief—running through the very heart of even the most conservative denominations—that the individual Christian is invited to judge for himself what the Bible does and does not mean”, then it must be the case that new Christians are not recruited by attempting to convince them that this or that doctrine is true … after all, the judgment of an individual on such matters has no validity anyway.
Instead, apparently, one must convince the potential recruit that church councils are infallible and so to accept en masse their verdicts. But, I wonder, how could it be valid for a mere individual to make that judgment and thus to adopt that belief? Wouldn’t doing such a thing amount to just one more expression of a vile and reprehensible individualism? Wouldn’t this amount to just an alternative approach to the individual passing judgment on matters of biblical truth, something which has already been declared to be invalid?
Am I seriously expected to believe that if I, an individual, pass judgment on biblical doctrines one at a time, God will disapprove of this as some kind of effrontery, but if I as an individual pass judgment on them in bundles and batches, suddenly God will be pleased with me?
What would be a chapter and verse of a passage establishing that God is offended should an individual presume to choose among competing candidates on a biblical doctrine?
Cheryl: sorry about the typos in #392 (that’s what I get for attempting late-night messaging). . . . I forgot to mention: I would be very interested to read any remarks to have to make on the questions I asked in #376. Surely you must have an opinion.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!