"Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality. Tell me, when a man rapes a little girl, do you make the claim that heterosxuality is inherently harmful?"
a man rapes a little girl, he is a pedophille and a rapist.
a man rapes a boy, he is a pedophille and a rapist.
in both cases a pedophille and in bot cases a rapist.
in the first case a heterosexual and in second case a homosexual.
What is the role of the established religions in the arising of the new consciousness? Many people are already aware of the difference between spirituality and religion. They realize that having a belief system, a set off thoughts that you regard as the absolute truth, does not make you spiritual no matter what the nature of those beliefs is. In fact, the more that you make your thoughts, your beliefs, into your identity, the more cut off you are to the spiritual dimension within yourself. Many religious people are stuck at that level. //
The new spirituality, the transformation of consciousness, is arising to a large extent outside the structures of the existing institutionalized religions. This large scale opening of spirituality outside of the religious structures is an entirely new development. In the past, this would have been inconceivable, especially in the west, the most mind-dominated of all cultures, where the Christian church had a virtual franchise on spirituality. //
Partly as a result of the spiritual teachings that have arisen outside the established religions, but also due to an influx of the ancient eastern wisdom teachings, a growing number of followers of traditional religions are able to let go of form, dogma, and rigid belief systems and discover the original depth that is hidden within their own spiritual tradition at the same time that they discover the depths within themselves… //
Some religious institutions will be open to the new consciousness. Others will harden their doctrinal positions and become part of all those other manmade structures through which the collective ego will defend itself and fight back. Some churches, sects, cults, or religious movements are basically collective egoist entities as rigidly identified with their mental positions as the followers of any political ideology which is closed to any alternative interpretation of reality. //
But the ego is destined to dissolve, and all its ossified structures, whether they be religious or other institutions, corporations or governments will disintegrate from within, no matter how deeply entrenched they appear to be. The most rigid structures, the most impervious to change will collapse first. This has already happened in the case of Soviet communism. How deeply entrenched, how solid and monolithic it appeared. And yet within a few years it completely collapsed from within. No one foresaw this; all were taken by surprise. There are many more such surprises in store for us.
[Why is this of such interest to me? Because this new awakening, or enlightenment is all that will save the human race. From the seemingly intractable Arab/Israeli conflict to the seemingly insolvable problems such as population explosion and resulting global warming and food/water/energy shortages, it will take a new awakening to resolve these problems.]
Most ancient religions and spiritual traditions share the common insight that our normal state of mind is marred by a fundamental defect. However, out of this insight into the nature of the human condition, we may call it the bad news, arises a second insight, the good news of the possibility of the radical transformation of human consciousness. In Hindu teachings, and sometimes Buddhism also, this transformation is called enlightenment. In the teachings of Jesus it is called salvation. In Buddhism it is called the end of suffering. Liberation and awakening are other terms used to describe this transformation. //
The greatest achievement of humanity is not the achievements of its art, science or technology, but rather the recognition of its own dysfunction, its own madness. In the distant past, this recognition already came to a few individuals. The man called Gautama Siddhartha, who lived 2600 years ago in India, was perhaps the first who saw it with absolute clarity. Later, the title of Buddha was conferred upon him. Buddha means the awakened one. //
At about the same time, another of humanity’s early awakened teachers emerged in China. His name was Lao Tzu. He left the record of his teachings in one of the most profound spiritual books ever written, the Daodejing (Tao Te Ching). //
To recognize ones own insanity is of course the arising of sanity, the beginning of healing and transcendence. A new dimension of consciousness had begun to arise on the planet, the first tentative flowering. //
Those three individuals then spoke to their contemporaries. They spoke of sin, of suffering, of delusion. They said, “Look how you live, see what you are doing, the suffering you create.” They then pointed to the possibility of awakening from the collective nightmare of normal human existence. They showed the way. //
The world was not yet ready for them, and yet they were a vital and necessary part of human awakening. Inevitably, they were mostly misunderstood by their contemporaries, as well as by subsequent generations. Their teachings, although both simple and powerful, became distorted and misinterpreted. Over the centuries many things were added that had nothing to do with the original teachings, but were the reflections of a fundamental misunderstanding. Some of the teachers were ridiculed, reviled or killed. Others came to be worshipped as gods. Teachings that pointed the way beyond the dysfunction of the human mind, the way out of the collective insanity, were distorted and became themselves part of the insanity. //
And so religions, to a large extent, became divisive rather than unifying forces. Instead of bringing about an end to violence and hatred, through realization of the wonders of all life, they brought more violence and hatred, more divisions between people as well as divisions between different religions, and even within the same religion. They became ideologies, or belief systems people could identify with and so use them to enhance their false sense of self. They could make themselves right and others wrong and thus define their identities through their enemies, the others, the nonbelievers or wrong believers, who not infrequently they saw themselves justified in killing. Man made god in his own image. The eternal, the infinite, the un-nameable was reduced to a mental idol that you must believe in and worship as my god or our god. //
Where is the Line? :
"What about Pedaphilia? Beastiality? Necrophilia? Are those OK, too?"
How many times does this tired argument have to be rfuted? Pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia all take place without the consent of at least one involved party. Children, animals, and the dead can't give consent.
"Are they considered reprehensible until Practitioners band together, lobby congress for legislation, boycott TV stations that don't air supportive sit-coms, and have Man-Boy, Man-Dog, & Man-Corpse Love Marches?"
No - because they involve lack of consent.
"Morality draws a line in the sand for the protection of society. Just because homosexuals have Gay Pride parades, have successfully lobbied for gay-friendly legislation, and have infused Hollywood with their ideals, Doesn't legitimize the practice in the least."
If you don't think homosexuality is "legitiamte," don't enter into an intimate relationship with someone of the same sex. I've been told by various people that m marriage isn't legitimate, even though it's legal, because both my husband and I were divorced from previous spouses, and because our wedding did not take place in a church with clergy officiating. I call BS on other people's criteria for the legitimacy of my relationship.
"Homosexuality doesn't hurt anybody, you say? Tell that to the molested Catholic altar boys. They might beg to differ."
Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality. Tell me, when a man rapes a little girl, do you make the claim that heterosxuality is inherently harmful?
What about Pedaphilia? Beastiality? Necrophilia? Are those OK, too?
Are they considered reprehensible until Practitioners band together, lobby congress for legislation, boycott TV stations that don't air supportive sit-coms, and have Man-Boy, Man-Dog, & Man-Corpse Love Marches?
Morality draws a line in the sand for the protection of society. Just because homosexuals have Gay Pride parades, have successfully lobbied for gay-friendly legislation, and have infused Hollywood with their ideals, Doesn't legitimize the practice in the least.
Homosexuality doesn't hurt anybody, you say? Tell that to the molested Catholic altar boys. They might beg to differ.
Take the lesson from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Does GOD forgive former gays after they have repented and changed their views upon same sex marriage and relationships? YES! and GOD doesn't just stop there..He infuses HIS HOLY SPIRIT within us..to be our Comforter and protector when the old urges try to resurface.
DOes GOD bless, support and embrace those who continue to have 'same sex" marriages, sodomy and and gay relationships? NO...but HE's still standing there with open arms to forgive and embrace those that run from it and seek HIS Divine intervention.
Jesus (a.s)said my father is greater than me.
Also said my God is a Jealous God.
Also said I do every thing with the Will of God.
He also said I do not come to change but to confirm the Law.
My question TO THE CHRISTIAN WORLD IS DOES JESUS (A.S.) EVER ONCE SAID, I CAME TO GIVE MY SACRIFICE FOR YOUR SINS?
Instead JESUS (A.S) SAID, """"who break one Law will not enter the kingdom of Heavean""".
DID OR HAVE CHRISTIANS EVER FOLLOWED WHAT JESUS(A.S) SAID???????
HE ALSO PROSTRATED AND PRAYED, my question is TO WHOM ???
My another question is DOES CHRISTIANS "EVER" prayed and prostrated like Jesus (a.s) to his God (Father)?
THE WORST WAY OF CALLING NAME TO THE ALMIGHTY CREATOR:
When Christians say that Jesus (A.S) was the only BEGOTTEN son and not MADE like Adam (A.S) or like all other creatures or creations? (Like when and what God wihes, it happens)
What are you insinuating??? That God Almighty Him self came down to perform the lowest form of animal act like dog, donkey or monkey, i.e., sexual reproduction?
And on top of it Jesus (A.S) was His begotten son not legitimate!!!!!!!!!!
THAT IS THE WORST KIND OF ABUSE AND NAMING ANY BODY COULD HAVE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE GOD ALMIGHTY!!
Well down you so called CHRISTIAN believers??
You are getting your rewards in this world and will definitely get infinitely here after!!!!!!
YOUR BEST OF BEST ARE PREIST, BISHOP, CARDINAL AND POP AND NUNS RIGHT!
You say Nuns don't marry there whole life b/cause they are married to the Father. Alright!
My Question is Your Priest up to Pop, are they also married to the Father?????
Extremely Natural concept, behavior or shall I say believe????
I think its sad when people of all faiths are intolerant with those who either lack faith or have a different view point of religion. To argue with gay people why being gay is wrong is a waste of time,all sinners try to excuse the wrongs they do.The scriptures are replete with the abomination of homosexuls, exp SODOM and GOMORHA, the scriptures are full of Christ like ideals and also the condemnation of spousal abuse, child abuse obedience to both Gods law and mans law, once we pass to the world of spirits those who didnt believe will know things they didnt learn here, many will remain as they were on earth,others will hear and see and desire to accept the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We as followers of Christ bear testimony of him, we follow him, we honor him and accept him as the Son of God and we acknowledge his atonement, that he died for each of our sins, and that thru believing in him we maybe saved from sin and destruction. I would like to bear my testimony that Jesus is the Christ the he lives and loves us, that he created this heaven and earth under the direction of the Father. I bear witness that Jesus Christ, God the Father and the Holy Ghost are 3 seperate personages and that they are 1 in purpose and that is to bring the gospel to mankind and to once again help them to know of Christ as he has asked us to. May we so read and study his word and thru prayer and scripture study learn of him who is meek and gave his life for each of us. I bear this witness and know its true, in the name of Jesus Christ AMEN
Iam a memeber of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, so all of you who thought Mormons didnt believe in Christ, now you know!!
2Timothy 3:16-17: 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
According to the Bible, governments are free to pass whatever laws they see fit.
True Christians are careful to maintain neutrality by avoiding political debates. (John 17:16) Even when the laws of the land are in conflict with a Bible-trained conscience, a true Christian does not engage in protests or any form of political campaigns in order to change such laws.
As a Christian, I recognize that our Creator sets the standard. Our Creator established rules governing marriage long before governments began regulating the institution.
(Genesis 2:24) “A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.” The Hebrew word “wife,” according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, “connotes one who is a female human being.” Jesus confirmed that those yoked together in marriage should be “male and female.”—Matthew 19:4.
According to the Bible, God intended marriage to be a permanent and an intimate bond between a man and a woman. Men and women are designed to complement each other so they may be capable of satisfying each other’s emotional, spiritual, and sexual needs and desires.
The well-known Biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah reveals God’s feelings about homosexuality. God declared: “The cry of complaint about Sodom and Gomorrah, yes, it is loud, and their sin, yes, it is very heavy.” (Genesis 18:20) The extent of their sinful depravity at that time was apparent when two guests visited the righteous man Lot. “The men of Sodom . . . surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: ‘Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.’” (Genesis 19:4, 5) The Bible says: “The men of Sodom were bad and were gross sinners against Jehovah.”—Genesis 13:13.
The men became “violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males.” (Romans 1:27) They had “gone out after flesh for unnatural use.” (Jude 7) Some may object to using the word “unnatural” to describe homosexual behavior. However, is not God the final arbiter when it comes to nature? He commanded his ancient people: “You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.”— Leviticus 18:22.
The Bible is clear: God does not approve of or condone homosexual practices. He also disapproves of people who “consent with those practicing them.” (Romans 1:32) And “marriage” cannot give homosexuality a cloak of respectability. God’s direction that “marriage be honorable among all” precludes homosexual unions, which he considers detestable.—Hebrews 13:4.
Imperfect human standards change. Jehovah’s righteous standards are perfect and unchangeable.
Moody:
No one is trying to get you to have anal sex. In fact, I think it's probably best for everyone if you continue to be satisfied with yourself.
The reason for the prohibiton against close biological ADULT relatives marrying is that it shrinks the gene pool, concentrates recessive genes, and makes genetic birth defects more likely to occur. It has nothing to do with sexual morality or ethics. That said, if your brother turns you on that much, and he's ok with it and of legal age, boff away.
If you're talking about adults having sex with their underage children, you should realize that ANY adult having sex with ANY underage child is already a crime - it's called statutory rape. No one has the right to rape.
Exactly what habit am I in - at least in your febrile imagination?
I have to wonder when was the last time you had sex with anyone other than Rosy - maybe you're just jealous that gay men and lesbians are getting more than you are.
Moody :
**Let’s analyze Gay Union (physical relation).
It consist of two parts
1- Emotional part that is LOVE which alone without physical part doesn’t fall in the category of Gay relation.**
Actually, it does. Men who feel romantic love for other men are gay. Women who feel roamntic love for other women are lesbian.
**2- Physical part ONLY that defines if the relation is Gay or not. OR you can say that if two men are sexually involved ONLY THEN IT IS GAY REALTION.**
Not so. A gay man can have sex with a woman and he is still gay. A lesbian can have sex with a man and still be a lesbian. Gay men and lesbians can be celibate - they're still homosexual. Both of these situations often happen with gay men and lesbians who are closeted.
A straight man can have sex with another man and not be gay. A straight woman can have sex with another woman and not be a lesbian. Sometimes this happens because people are curious and just want to see what it's like. Sometimes it's a power thing, such as among incarcerated individuals.
**So basically this relation is based on SEXUAL NATURE only!**
No, it's much more complex than simply who you have sex with. It's about which sex you're physically and affectionally attracted to, regardless of whether you act on that attraction or not.
**Now lets analyze its MAIN ASPECT that is physical sexual relation.
1- From male satisfaction and sensation point, the best you get is from women.**
Only if you're heterosexual.
**Question : Is it normal and hygienic or SICK behavior to get it willingly by hitting a s.h.i.t hole??**
Newsflash - there are straight people who enjoy anal sex. Orientation is more than just a question of orifices and appendages.
**2- And from the point view of person who is allowing the unnatural intercourse through his s.h.i.t hole. Question : Is in love he force the other to hit his s.h.i.t.? Is it normal or extremely unhygienic insane behavior??**
As long it's consensual, there's nothing wrong with any combination of orifices and appendages.
There are those who would say that male-female fellatio and cunnilingus are "unhygienic" - shall we condemn those as well? You're going to have quite a battle on your hands there.
**Now the last question does love really demand such unhygienic and UNNATURAL behavior??**
Love doesn't demand sex of any kind. People who love each other generally desire to have sex with each other. Sex is often a form of expression of love. And sometimes it's just plain fun.
**Are we so lost that don’t know countless other ways of showing our love and compassion like caring, helping and protecting each other rights etc?**
You could say the same about straight people. There are lots of ways to show love, including those you listed AND through mutual sexual pleasure.
**Rights doesn’t mean s.h.i.t bashing or adopting insane activities.**
So are you planning to deny rights to straight people who have sex in positions you find unacceptable?
**Insanity is a DESEASE and not the normal course or nature of life.**
And homophobia is a form of insanity. Congratulations, you've realized you have a problem. That's the first step to healiong yourself.
**BAD HABITS ARE NOT NATURE, YOU ARE ONLY SO AROGANT NOT WILLING TO LIVE THEM!!!!!!!!!**
Biting your nails is a bad habit. Wanting to be able to marry the person you love isn't. Please learn the difference.
My faith is grounded in Jesus Christ and the Word of God. I believe what God's Word says regarding homosexuality; it is sinful. This does not mean that I personally condemn homosexuality above any other sin, because the Bible says that all sin is equal.
Because I believe God's Word, I understand that we were made for His use. God clearly states in the Bible that man was intended for woman, and woman was intended for man. But because of sin, man has strayed from God's righteous Word and has been turned over to a repobate mind, thus accepting sin.
According to the scripture, homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Thus, when put into a spiritual context, I say that it is sinful and that Christians should repent of their sins.
I feel it is important that I reiterate, all sin is equal in the eyes of the Lord. Therefore, homosexuality is no worse a sin than lying, stealing, killing, etc.
My political views on same-sex unions are different from my spiritual views, because I understand the separation of church and state, as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution. Politically, I believe same-sex couples should be granted the same rights and privileges as married couples; however, I believe that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman. It is a pre-political foundation of civilization.
Let me add one last thing. I feel many Christians are quick to judge and condemn homosexuals, and they do a disservice to our faith. Our purpose should always be to show Christ's love and to seek salvation for the unbeliever and restoration for the backslider.
I think you misunderstood Bobby, Lepidopteryx. He just came out and stated before all of us the primary conflict of his life. He's gay and can't accept himself for all the reasons he stated. He is imploring you and me to do as he attempts but will never achieve.
The tiny, little problem is that you and I live with such a profound integrity he will never know. The inabiliity to accept reality via derivative religious dogma facsinates me no end.
Bobby:
**Please please give up your desires for same sex partners and learn to live within the norms of society. You will find that you will be much much happier and much more productive in life. You will have a lot more peace in your life.**
Can you give up your attraction to opposite sex partners? I'm not asking if you can abstain from sex - anyone can do that. I'm asking if you can stop finding women attractive. If you can't, then what makes you think that those who are attracted to the same sex can just stop being attracted?
And how exactly will pretending to be attracted to the opposite sex, perhaps even marrying someone they cannot love in order to, in your words, "live within the norms of society," make their lives happier?
I just want to know why gays and lesbians refuse to accept that God does not accept homosexuality as a lifestyle. As a matter of fact its one of the things that He hates among other things. So I just want you to stop trying to make the rest of us accept something that is un-natural. We will not accept the behavior. We accept you as human beings period. I don't want to see this behavior portrayed on television or the movies and I don't want it espoused in our schools to the children as an acceptable lifestyle. It isnt acceptable period. Please please give up your desires for same sex partners and learn to live within the norms of society. You will find that you will be much much happier and much more productive in life. You will have a lot more peace in your life.
I ask, does the Washington Post really reach out for TRUE Faith, and one thought on Wade, I believe death of of a word is the death of a smile, is the death of belief that we mean something. I write no more. Short edit that on life's meaning and the taking away from what someone wants to mean in life, such as getting out in a world we all hope will get better.
I ask, does the Washington Post really reach out for TRUE Faith, and one thought on Wade, I believe death of of a word is the death of a smile, is the death of belief that we mean something. I write no more. Short edit that on life's meaning and the taking away from what someone wants to mean in life, such as getting out in a world we all hope will get better.
I ask, does the Washington Post really reach out for TRUE Faith, and one thought on Wade, I believe death of of a wrod is the death of a smile, is the death of belief that we mean something. I write no more. Short edit that on life's meaning and the taking away from what someone wants to mean in life, such as getting out in a world we all hope will get better.
1. Separation of Races in History; such that of in the Deep SOuth of Columbia, SC - Numbers 9:19 - when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, the children of (Israel) kept the journey of the Lord and journeyed not.
'On cloudy days outside the State House in Columbia, SC - given early summer days you may see Other Groups fighting for their Journey to stay alive and speak, all the meanwhile Field Trips of Hundreds of youth take hands of teachers later on in the summer so they may be guided through life to view under all flags and monuments upstanding that they are in fact created equal, and may live in a better world where people make consecration of Faith that they may take this world on hand and hand. Im no John Lennnon, possibly a Bono follower and believe that believe as with Magic Johnson, 1st Samuel 30:8 ..."Pursue(!) for thou dhalt surely ovetake them and without fail recover all." defeating opponents on court with Showtime, recovering defeating HIV (as with Bono's Finding a place), and for the children (taken this into context) David's recovery for his brethren and children of his land, "DUST OF THIS LAND" I may see on 100 day Columbia heat where 'dead squirrel pups' of the Squirrelies(!) I love so much makes me think does not the birth of my puppy who curls up to me not make me think that The Weaver of this Joy of Life and its Trials to find Joy in Time is Worth a Catholic (and pup breeding old roomate) -as I am Methodist - Mel Gibson path for Elisha school for Prophets Pride that every look to a youth in the eye, as they look away with developmental psychology puts Wade Hampton upon high standing as I walk by on path to the horseshoe. A Patrioit who fights from the swamp and muck of muckrakers begs upon Solomons song that a Greek overcast Temple under Columbianm, SC sky asks to the Call upon Faith "Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh, and Frankinsense and all the powders of the merchant" FOR Y"ALL TO HEAR, IT IS ME WALKING HOPING MY BAD STARED DAY THAT ENDED WITH MY WALK UPON GERVAIS AND MAIN UNDER THE CONFERATE FLAG - seeing the alive and exuberant, jubilamt youth, at hands length of the Faith of the TEachers who mark their path, ist is the SOng Sung as the Renaissance of birth is given to the hope for a loving life bestowed upon on all parameters of a community that wishes for parallelism between private religious bounds of "gladness in the heart, and a Sooner spice to life that PReachers, Poets and Professors may liven their everyday gate unto this NEW BRAVE NEW world! The power of this examination is guiltless of sacrifice, as I feel no guilt at the moment for my sacrifice to freedom, but from the Oak trees not far away, I resound to resolution of this ideal form shaping of my belief that alrm is only desolate from the front-facing "LOVE ALMOST" of WHat we may see --> I see "Woodrow Wilsons room rang TRUE to growing up as a boy in Columbia, SC ---> there are people willing to show a path to scholarship, religion conventional supprt and an upright path to develop personal structure such that this Living World with Living Words may not be Wilderness to the zealous youth with search for lives of lawyers, nurses, engineers, and research biologists, store managers - preachers, those who make life go round, from afar the state of my mind is Inifinite in thought of youth bringing joy to their care free ways.
1. Separation of Races in History; such that of in the Deep SOuth of Columbia, SC - Numbers 9:19 - when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, the children of (Israel) kept the journey of the Lord and journeyed not.
'On cloudy days outside the State House in Columbia, SC - given early summer days you may see Other Groups fighting for their Journey to stay alive and speak, all the meanwhile Field Trips of Hundreds of youth take hands of teachers later on in the summer so they may be guided through life to view under all flags and monuments upstanding that they are in fact created equal, and may live in a better world where people make consecration of Faith that they may take this world on hand and hand. Im no John Lennnon, possibly a Bono follower and believe that believe as with Magic Johnson, 1st Samuel 30:8 ..."Pursue(!) for thou dhalt surely ovetake them and without fail recover all." defeating opponents on court with Showtime, recovering defeating HIV (as with Bono's Finding a place), and for the children (taken this into context) David's recovery for his brethren and children of his land, "DUST OF THIS LAND" I may see on 100 day Columbia heat where 'dead squirrel pups' of the Squirrelies(!) I love so much makes me think does not the birth of my puppy who curls up to me not make me think that The Weaver of this Joy of Life and its Trials to find Joy in Time is Worth a Catholic (and pup breeding old roomate) -as I am Methodist - Mel Gibson path for Elisha school for Prophets Pride that every look to a youth in the eye, as they look away with developmental psychology puts Wade Hampton upon high standing as I walk by on path to the horseshoe. A Patrioit who fights from the swamp and muck of muckrakers begs upon Solomons song that a Greek overcast Temple under Columbianm, SC sky asks to the Call upon Faith "Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh, and Frankinsense and all the powders of the merchant" FOR Y"ALL TO HEAR, IT IS ME WALKING HOPING MY BAD STARED DAY THAT ENDED WITH MY WALK UPON GERVAIS AND MAIN UNDER THE CONFERATE FLAG - seeing the alive and exuberant, jubilamt youth, at hands length of the Faith of the TEachers who mark their path, ist is the SOng Sung as the Renaissance of birth is given to the hope for a loving life bestowed upon on all parameters of a community that wishes for parallelism between private religious bounds of "gladness in the heart, and a Sooner spice to life that PReachers, Poets and Professors may liven their everyday gate unto this NEW BRAVE NEW world! The power of this examination is guiltless of sacrifice, as I feel no guilt at the moment for my sacrifice to freedom, but from the Oak trees not far away, I resound to resolution of this ideal form shaping of my belief that alrm is only desolate from the front-facing "LOVE ALMOST" of WHat we may see --> I see "Woodrow Wilsons room rang TRUE to growing up as a boy in Columbia, SC ---> there are people willing to show a path to scholarship, religion conventional supprt and an upright path to develop personal structure such that this Living World with Living Words may not be Wilderness to the zealous youth with search for lives of lawyers, nurses, engineers, and research biologists, store managers - preachers, those who make life go round, from afar the state of my mind is Inifinite in thought of youth bringing joy to their care free ways, to be taken by the hand of the old horsemen and the men of the pulpits and Lady Justice and Lady Angels. So I am lost in a day, call it a thought on Faith. ROundabout points, I just see Wade Hampton standing upright, and a Father praying with his children, so the velvet seas of this earth have been sailed, but more want To Follow.
1. Separation of Races in History; such that of in the Deep SOuth of Columbia, SC - Numbers 9:19 - when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, the children of (Israel) kept the journey of the Lord and journeyed not.
'On cloudy days outside the State House in Columbia, SC - given early summer days you may see Other Groups fighting for their Journey to stay alive and speak, all the meanwhile Field Trips of Hundreds of youth take hands of teachers later on in the summer so they may be guided through life to view under all flags and monuments upstanding that they are in fact created equal, and may live in a better world where people make consecration of Faith that they may take this world on hand and hand. Im no John Lennnon, possibly a Bono follower and believe that believe as with Magic Johnson, 1st Samuel 30:8 ..."Pursue(!) for thou dhalt surely ovetake them and without fail recover all." defeating opponents on court with Showtime, recovering defeating HIV (as with Bono's Finding a place), and for the children (taken this into context) David's recovery for his brethren and children of his land, "DUST OF THIS LAND" I may see on 100 day Columbia heat where 'dead squirrel pups' of the Squirrelies(!) I love so much makes me think does not the birth of my puppy who curls up to me not make me think that The Weaver of this Joy of Life and its Trials to find Joy in Time is Worth a Catholic (and pup breeding old roomate) -as I am Methodist - Mel Gibson path for Elisha school for Prophets Pride that every look to a youth in the eye, as they look away with developmental psychology puts Wade Hampton upon high standing as I walk by on path to the horseshoe. A Patrioit who fights from the swamp and muck of muckrakers begs upon Solomons song that a Greek overcast Temple under Columbianm, SC sky asks to the Call upon Faith "Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh, and Frankinsense and all the powders of the merchant" FOR Y"ALL TO HEAR, IT IS ME WALKING HOPING MY BAD STARED DAY THAT ENDED WITH MY WALK UPON GERVAIS AND MAIN UNDER THE CONFERATE FLAG - seeing the alive and exuberant, jubilamt youth, at hands length of the Faith of the TEachers who mark their path, ist is the SOng Sung as the Renaissance of birth is given to the hope for a loving life bestowed upon on all parameters of a community that wishes for parallelism between private religious bounds of "gladness in the heart, and a Sooner spice to life that PReachers, Poets and Professors may liven their everyday gate unto this NEW BRAVE NEW world! The power of this examination is guiltless of sacrifice, as I feel no guilt at the moment for my sacrifice to freedom, but from the Oak trees not far away, I resound to resolution of this ideal form shaping of my belief that alrm is only desolate from the front-facing "LOVE ALMOST" of WHat we may see --> I see "Woodrow Wilsons room rang TRUE to growing up as a boy in Columbia, SC ---> there are people willing to show a path to scholarship, religion conventional supprt and an upright path to develop personal structure such that this Living World with Living Words may not be Wilderness to the zealous youth with search for lives of lawyers, nurses, engineers, and research biologists, store managers - preachers, those who make life go round, from afar the state of my mind is Inifinite in thought of youth bringing joy to their care free ways, to be taken by the hand of the old horsemen and the men of the pulpits and Lady Justice and Lady Angels. So I am lost in a day, call it a thought on Faith. ROundabout points, I just see Wade Hampton standing upright, and a Father praying with his children, so the velvet seas of this earth have been sailed, but more want To Follow.
1. Separation of Races in History; such that of in the Deep SOuth of Columbia, SC - Numbers 9:19 - when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, the children of (Israel) kept the journey of the Lord and journeyed not.
'On cloudy days outside the State House in Columbia, SC - given early summer days you may see Other Groups fighting for their Journey to stay alive and speak, all the meanwhile Field Trips of Hundreds of youth take hands of teachers later on in the summer so they may be guided through life to view under all flags and monuments upstanding that they are in fact created equal, and may live in a better world where people make consecration of Faith that they may take this world on hand and hand. Im no John Lennnon, possibly a Bono follower and believe that believe as with Magic Johnson, 1st Samuel 30:8 ..."Pursue(!) for thou dhalt surely ovetake them and without fail recover all." defeating opponents on court with Showtime, recovering defeating HIV (as with Bono's Finding a place), and for the children (taken this into context) David's recovery for his brethren and children of his land, "DUST OF THIS LAND" I may see on 100 day Columbia heat where 'dead squirrel pups' of the Squirrelies(!) I love so much makes me think does not the birth of my puppy who curls up to me not make me think that The Weaver of this Joy of Life and its Trials to find Joy in Time is Worth a Catholic (and pup breeding old roomate) -as I am Methodist - Mel Gibson path for Elisha school for Prophets Pride that every look to a youth in the eye, as they look away with developmental psychology puts Wade Hampton upon high standing as I walk by on path to the horseshoe. A Patrioit who fights from the swamp and muck of muckrakers begs upon Solomons song that a Greek overcast Temple under Columbianm, SC sky asks to the Call upon Faith "Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh, and Frankinsense and all the powders of the merchant" FOR Y"ALL TO HEAR, IT IS ME WALKING HOPING MY BAD STARED DAY THAT ENDED WITH MY WALK UPON GERVAIS AND MAIN UNDER THE CONFERATE FLAG - seeing the alive and exuberant, jubilamt youth, at hands length of the Faith of the TEachers who mark their path, ist is the SOng Sung as the Renaissance of birth is given to the hope for a loving life bestowed upon on all parameters of a community that wishes for parallelism between private religious bounds of "gladness in the heart, and a Sooner spice to life that PReachers, Poets and Professors may liven their everyday gate unto this NEW BRAVE NEW world! The power of this examination is guiltless of sacrifice, as I feel no guilt at the moment for my sacrifice to freedom, but from the Oak trees not far away, I resound to resolution of this ideal form shaping of my belief that alrm is only desolate from the front-facing "LOVE ALMOST" of WHat we may see --> I see "Woodrow Wilsons room rang TRUE to growing up as a boy in Columbia, SC ---> there are people willing to show a path to scholarship, religion conventional supprt and an upright path to develop personal structure such that this Living World with Living Words may not be Wilderness to the zealous youth with search for lives of lawyers, nurses, engineers, and research biologists, store managers - preachers, those who make life go round, from afar the state of my mind is Inifinite in thought of youth bringing joy to their care free ways, to be taken by the hand of the old horsemen and the men of the pulpits and Lady Justice and Lady Angels. So I am lost in a day, call it a thought on Faith. ROundabout points, I just see Wade Hampton standing upright, and a Father praying with his children, so the velvet seas of this earth have been sailed, but more want To Follow.
1. Seaparation of Races in History; such that of in the Deep SOuth of Columbia, SC - Numbers 9:19 - when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, the children of (Israel) kept the journey of the Lord and journeyed not.
'On cloudy days outside the State House in Columbia, SC - given early summer days you may see the NAACP or Other Groups fighting for their Journey to stay alive and speak, all the meanwhile Field Trips of Hundreds of youth take hands of teachers later on in the summer so they may be guided through life to view under all flags and monuments upstanding that they are in fact created equal, and may live in a better world where people make consecration of Faith that they may take this world on hand and hand. Im no John Lennnon, possibly a Bono follower and believe that believe as with Magic Johnson, 1st Samuel 30:8 ..."Pursue(!) for thou dhalt surely ovetake them and without fail recover all." defeating opponents on court with Showtime, recovering defeating HIV (as with Bono's Finding a place), and for the children (taken this into context) David's recovery for his brethren and children of his land, "DUST OF THIS LAND" I may see on 100 day Columbia heat where 'dead squirrel pups' of the Squirrelies(!) I love so much makes me think does not the birth of my puppy who curls up to me not make me think that The Weaver of this Joy of Life and its Trials to find Joy in Time is Worth a Catholic (and pup breeding old roomate) -as I am Methodist - Mel Gibson path for Elisha school for Prophets Pride that every look to a youth in the eye, as they look away with developmental psychology puts Wade Hampton upon high standing as I walk by on path to the horseshoe. A Patrioit who fights from the swamp and muck of muckrakers begs upon Solomons song that a Greek overcast Temple under Columbianm, SC sky asks to the Call upon Faith "Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh, and Frankinsense and all the powders of the merchant" FOR Y"ALL TO HEAR, IT IS ME WALKING HOPING MY BAD STARED DAY THAT ENDED WITH MY WALK UPON GERVAIS AND MAIN UNDER THE CONFERATE FLAG - seeing the alive and exuberant, jubilamt youth, at hands length of the Faith of the TEachers who mark their path, ist is the SOng Sung as the Renaissance of birth is given to the hope for a loving life bestowed upon on all parameters of a community that wishes for parallelism between private religious bounds of "gladness in the heart, and a Sooner spice to life that PReachers, Poets and Professors may liven their everyday gate unto this NEW BRAVE NEW world! The power of this examination is guiltless of sacrifice, as I feel no guilt at the moment for my sacrifice to freedom, but from the Oak trees not far away, I resound to resolution of this ideal form shaping of my belief that alrm is only desolate from the front-facing "LOVE ALMOST" of WHat we may see --> I see "Woodrow Wilsons room rang TRUE to growing up as a boy in Columbia, SC ---> there are people willing to show a path to scholarship, religion conventional supprt and an upright path to develop personal structure such that this Living World with Living Words may not be Wilderness to the zealous youth with search for lives of lawyers, nurses, engineers, and research biologists, store managers - preachers, those who make life go round, from afar the state of my mind is Inifinite in thought of youth bringing joy to their care free ways, to be taken by the hand of the old horsemen and the men of the pulpits and Lady Justice and Lady Angels. So I am lost in a day, call it a thought on Faith. ROundabout points, I just see Wade Hampton standing upright, and a Father praying with his children, so the velvet seas of this earth have been sailed, but more want To Follow.
1. Seaparation of Races in History; such that of in the Deep SOuth of Columbia, SC - Numbers 9:19 - when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, the children of (Israel) kept the journey of the Lord and journeyed not.
'On cloudy days outside the State House in Columbia, SC - given early summer days you may see the NAACP or Other Groups fighting for their Journey to stay alive and speak, all the meanwhile Field Trips of Hundreds of youth take hands of teachers later on in the summer so they may be guided through life to view under all flags and monuments upstanding that they are in fact created equal, and may live in a better world where people make consecration of Faith that they may take this world on hand and hand. Im no John Lennnon, possibly a Bono follower and believe that believe as with Magic Johnson, 1st Samuel 30:8 ..."Pursue(!) for thou dhalt surely ovetake them and without fail recover all." defeating opponents on court with Showtime, recovering defeating HIV (as with Bono's Finding a place), and for the children (taken this into context) David's recovery for his brethren and children of his land, "DUST OF THIS LAND" I may see on 100 day Columbia heat where 'dead squirrel pups' of the Squirrelies(!) I love so much makes me think does not the birth of my puppy who curls up to me not make me think that The Weaver of this Joy of Life and its Trials to find Joy in Time is Worth a Catholic (and pup breeding old roomate) -as I am Methodist - Mel Gibson path for Elisha school for Prophets Pride that every look to a youth in the eye, as they look away with developmental psychology puts Wade Hampton upon high standing as I walk by on path to the horseshoe. A Patrioit who fights from the swamp and muck of muckrakers begs upon Solomons song that a Greek overcast Temple under Columbianm, SC sky asks to the Call upon Faith "Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh, and Frankinsense and all the powders of the merchant" FOR Y"ALL TO HEAR, IT IS ME WALKING HOPING MY BAD STARED DAY THAT ENDED WITH MY WALK UPON GERVAIS AND MAIN UNDER THE CONFERATE FLAG - seeing the alive and exuberant, jubilamt youth, at hands length of the Faith of the TEachers who mark their path, ist is the SOng Sung as the Renaissance of birth is given to the hope for a loving life bestowed upon on all parameters of a community that wishes for parallelism between private religious bounds of "gladness in the heart, and a Sooner spice to life that PReachers, Poets and Professors may liven their everyday gate unto this NEW BRAVE NEW world! The power of this examination is guiltless of sacrifice, as I feel no guilt at the moment for my sacrifice to freedom, but from the Oak trees not far away, I resound to resolution of this ideal form shaping of my belief that alrm is only desolate from the front-facing "LOVE ALMOST" of WHat we may see --> I see "Woodrow Wilsons room rang TRUE to growing up as a boy in Columbia, SC ---> there are people willing to show a path to scholarship, religion conventional supprt and an upright path to develop personal structure such that this Living World with Living Words may not be Wilderness to the zealous youth with search for lives of lawyers, nurses, engineers, and research biologists, store managers - preachers, those who make life go round, from afar the state of my mind is Inifinite in thought of youth bringing joy to their care free ways, to be taken by the hand of the old horsemen and the men of the pulpits and Lady Justice and Lady Angels. So I am lost in a day, call it a thought on Faith. ROundabout points, I just see Wade Hampton standing upright, and a Father praying with his children, so the velvet seas of this earth have been sailed, but more want To Follow.
1. Seaparation of Races in History; such that of in the Deep SOuth of Columbia, SC - Numbers 9:19 - when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, the children of (Israel) kept the journey of the Lord and journeyed not.
'On cloudy days outside the State House in Columbia, SC - given early summer days you may see the NAACP or Neo Nazi's fighting for their Journey to stay alive and speak, all the meanwhile Field Trips of Hundreds of youth take hands of teachers later on in the summer so they may be guided through life to view under all flags and monuments upstanding that they are in fact created equal, and may live in a better world where people make consecration of Faith that they may take this world on hand and hand. Im no John Lennnon, possibly a Bono follower and believe that believe as with Magic Johnson, 1st Samuel 30:8 ..."Pursue(!) for thou dhalt surely ovetake them and without fail recover all." defeating opponents on court with Showtime, recovering defeating HIV (as with Bono's Finding a place), and for the children (taken this into context) David's recovery for his brethren and children of his land, "DUST OF THIS LAND" I may see on 100 day Columbia heat where 'dead squirrel pups' of the Squirrelies(!) I love so much makes me think does not the birth of my puppy who curls up to me not make me think that The Weaver of this Joy of Life and its Trials to find Joy in Time is Worth a Catholic (and pup breeding old roomate) -as I am Methodist - Mel Gibson path for Elisha school for Prophets Pride that every look to a youth in the eye, as they look away with developmental psychology puts Wade Hampton upon high standing as I walk by on path to the horseshoe. A Patrioit who fights from the swamp and muck of muckrakers begs upon Solomons song that a Greek overcast Temple under Columbianm, SC sky asks to the Call upon Faith "Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh, and Frankinsense and all the powders of the merchant" FOR Y"ALL TO HEAR, IT IS ME WALKING HOPING MY BAD STARED DAY THAT ENDED WITH MY WALK UPON GERVAIS AND MAIN UNDER THE CONFERATE FLAG - seeing the alive and exuberant, jubilamt youth, at hands length of the Faith of the TEachers who mark their path, ist is the SOng Sung as the Renaissance of birth is given to the hope for a loving life bestowed upon on all parameters of a community that wishes for parallelism between private religious bounds of "gladness in the heart, and a Sooner spice to life that PReachers, Poets and Professors may liven their everyday gate unto this NEW BRAVE NEW world! The power of this examination is guiltless of sacrifice, as I feel no guilt at the moment for my sacrifice to freedom, but from the Oak trees not far away, I resound to resolution of this ideal form shaping of my belief that alrm is only desolate from the front-facing "LOVE ALMOST" of WHat we may see --> I see "Woodrow Wilsons room rang TRUE to growing up as a boy in Columbia, SC ---> there are people willing to show a path to scholarship, religion conventional supprt and an upright path to develop personal structure such that this Living World with Living Words may not be Wilderness to the zealous youth with search for lives of lawyers, nurses, engineers, and research biologists, store managers - preachers, those who make life go round, from afar the state of my mind is Inifinite in thought of youth bringing joy to their care free ways, to be taken by the hand of the old horsemen and the men of the pulpits and Lady Justice and Lady Angels. So I am lost in a day, call it a thought on Faith. ROundabout points, I just see Wade Hampton standing upright, and a Father praying with his children, so the velvet seas of this earth have been sailed, but more want To Follow.
1. Seaparation of Races in History; such that of in the Deep SOuth of Columbia, SC - Numbers 9:19 - when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, the children of (Israel) kept the journey of the Lord and journeyed not.
'On cloudy days outside the State House in Columbia, SC - given early summer days you may see the NAACP or Neo Nazi's fighting for their Journey to stay alive and speak, all the meanwhile Field Trips of Hundreds of youth take hands of teachers later on in the summer so they may be guided through life to view under all flags and monuments upstanding that they are in fact created equal, and may live in a better world where people make consecration of Faith that they may take this world on hand and hand. Im no John Lennnon, possibly a Bono follower and believe that believe as with Magic Johnson, 1st Samuel 30:8 ..."Pursue(!) for thou dhalt surely ovetake them and without fail recover all." defeating opponents on court with Showtime, recovering defeating HIV (as with Bono's Finding a place), and for the children (taken this into context) David's recovery for his brethren and children of his land, "DUST OF THIS LAND" I may see on 100 day Columbia heat where 'dead squirrel pups' of the Squirrelies(!) I love so much makes me think does not the birth of my puppy who curls up to me not make me think that The Weaver of this Joy of Life and its Trials to find Joy in Time is Worth a Catholic (and pup breeding old roomate) -as I am Methodist - Mel Gibson path for Elisha school for Prophets Pride that every look to a youth in the eye, as they look away with developmental psychology puts Wade Hampton upon high standing as I walk by on path to the horseshoe. A Patrioit who fights from the swamp and muck of muckrakers begs upon Solomons song that a Greek overcast Temple under Columbianm, SC sky asks to the Call upon Faith "Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh, and Frankinsense and all the powders of the merchant" FOR Y"ALL TO HEAR, IT IS ME WALKING HOPING MY BAD STARED DAY THAT ENDED WITH MY WALK UPON GERVAIS AND MAIN UNDER THE CONFERATE FLAG - seeing the alive and exuberant, jubilamt youth, at hands length of the Faith of the TEachers who mark their path, ist is the SOng Sung as the Renaissance of birth is given to the hope for a loving life bestowed upon on all parameters of a community that wishes for parallelism between private religious bounds of "gladness in the heart, and a Sooner spice to life that PReachers, Poets and Professors may liven their everyday gate unto this NEW BRAVE NEW world! The power of this examination is guiltless of sacrifice, as I feel no guilt at the moment for my sacrifice to freedom, but from the Oak trees not far away, I resound to resolution of this ideal form shaping of my belief that alrm is only desolate from the front-facing "LOVE ALMOST" of WHat we may see --> I see "Woodrow Wilsons room rang TRUE to growing up as a boy in Columbia, SC ---> there are people willing to show a path to scholarship, religion conventional supprt and an upright path to develop personal structure such that this Living World with Living Words may not be Wilderness to the zealous youth with search for lives of lawyers, nurses, engineers, and research biologists, store managers - preachers, those who make life go round, from afar the state of my mind is Inifinite in thought of youth bringing joy to their care free ways, to be taken by the hand of the old horsemen and the men of the pulpits and Lady Justice and Lady Angels. So I am lost in a day, call it a thought on Faith. ROundabout points, I just see Wade Hampton standing upright, and a Father praying with his children, so the velvet seas of this earth have been sailed, but more want To Follow.
It fascinates me no end that the most intolerant and disrespectful persons toward G-d's creation are the most devout Fundamentalist Christians. It's so contradictory and hypocritical.
Religion isn't a club. If anyone is using it as such *THAT* ought to be a clue right there.
It's incompetently derivative hermeneutics and erroneously imposed bigotry upon the texts. If you like you can read "The Sins of Scripture" by John Shelby Spond c2005 or "The Good Book" by Peter J. Gomes c1996 to find out all about it.
It's stems from a rationalization derived from the Cain/Able fratricide as a justification for "dark-skinned" people being descended from Cain and so deserving of abusive enslavement to atone for Cain's crime. It is pure tripe and staggering stupidity that not 150 years-ago was solidly considered competent biblical certainty.
The irony is that the very same certainty about gay persons is just as specious and incompetently construed today.
You are the one who brought it up and you are the one spouting errneous information. Read the book I gave you to read and educate yourself. You speak only in abusive uninformed bigotry.
Stop doing that. Do you understand?
You are making incorrect statements and refusing to listen when facts are presented to you.
Stop doing that, too.
Or continue to do so and get the responses your are getting.
Useing religion as a bat to hit others with is disrespectful to your God and reason. My best friend is gay...he is the most balanced person I know. Now for those who think being gay is an imbalance that will not make sense...but to those who see it as merely another way humanity was created...it makes perfect sense. In fact my gay friend says that Bisexuality is the most balanced. he wouldn't know...
What if all us hetros are the abnormal? How bout if 80% of all those who profess hetrosexuality are really in the closet gays?
I see only one way to ensure not being intolerant and bigoted...respect all people, not for who they love, but what they do to help others and make this a better world for all of us.
Useing a religion to preach intolerance is stupid, not all people care what another religion says, unless it effects them. I am not of a religiion that sees homosexuality as wrong. We respect all of the diversity created. It is not for us to say what is good and what isn't. We honor the Creator, She knows what She is doing. Mama does not play favorites.
Useing religion as a bat to hit others with is disrespectful to your God and reason. My best friend is gay...he is the most balanced person I know. Now for those who think being gay is an imbalance that will not make sense...but to those who see it as merely another way humanity was created...it makes perfect sense. In fact my gay friend says that Bisexuality is the most balanced. he wouldn't know...
What if all us hetros are the abnormal? How bout if 80% of all those who profess hetrosexuality are really in the closet gays?
I see only one way to ensure not being intolerant and bigoted...respect all people, not for who they love, but what they do to help others and make this a better world for all of us.
Useing a religion to preach intolerance is stupid, not all people care what another religion says, unless it effects them. I am not of a religiion that sees homosexuality as wrong. We respect all of the diversity created. It is not for us to say what is good and what isn't. We honor the Creator, She knows what She is doing. Mama does not play favorites.
Useing religion as a bat to hit others with is disrespectful to your God and reason. My best friend is gay...he is the most balanced person I know. Now for those who think being gay is an imbalance that will not make sense...but to those who see it as merely another way humanity was created...it makes perfect sense. In fact my gay friend says that Bisexuality is the most balanced. he wouldn't know...
What if all us hetros are the abnormal? How bout if 80% of all those who profess hetrosexuality are really in the closet gays?
I see only one way to ensure not being intolerant and bigoted...respect all people, not for who they love, but what they do to help others and make this a better world for all of us.
Useing a religion to preach intolerance is stupid, not all people care what another religion says, unless it effects them. I am not of a religiion that sees homosexuality as wrong. We respect all of the diversity created. It is not for us to say what is good and what isn't. We honor the Creator, She knows what She is doing. Mama does not play favorites.
Useing religion as a bat to hit others with is disrespectful to your God and reason. My best friend is gay...he is the most balanced person I know. Now for those who think being gay is an imbalance that will not make sense...but to those who see it as merely another way humanity was created...it makes perfect sense. In fact my gay friend says that Bisexuality is the most balanced. he wouldn't know...
What if all us hetros are the abnormal? How bout if 80% of all those who profess hetrosexuality are really in the closet gays?
I see only one way to ensure not being intolerant and bigoted...respect all people, not for who they love, but what they do to help others and make this a better world for all of us.
Useing a religion to preach intolerance is stupid, not all people care what another religion says, unless it effects them. I am not of a religiion that sees homosexuality as wrong. We respect all of the diversity created. It is not for us to say what is good and what isn't. We honor the Creator, She knows what She is doing. Mama does not play favorites.
Useing religion as a bat to hit others with is disrespectful to your God and reason. My best friend is gay...he is the most balanced person I know. Now for those who think being gay is an imbalance that will not make sense...but to those who see it as merely another way humanity was created...it makes perfect sense. In fact my gay friend says that Bisexuality is the most balanced. he wouldn't know...
What if all us hetros are the abnormal? How bout if 80% of all those who profess hetrosexuality are really in the closet gays?
I see only one way to ensure not being intolerant and bigoted...respect all people, not for who they love, but what they do to help others and make this a better world for all of us.
Useing a religion to preach intolerance is stupid, not all people care what another religion says, unless it effects them. I am not of a religiion that sees homosexuality as wrong. We respect all of the diversity created. It is not for us to say what is good and what isn't. We honor the Creator, She knows what She is doing. Mama does not play favorites.
Useing religion as a bat to hit others with is disrespectful to your God and reason. My best friend is gay...he is the most balanced person I know. Now for those who think being gay is an imbalance that will not make sense...but to those who see it as merely another way humanity was created...it makes perfect sense. In fact my gay friend says that Bisexuality is the most balanced. he wouldn't know...
What if all us hetros are the abnormal? How bout if 80% of all those who profess hetrosexuality are really in the closet gays?
I see only one way to ensure not being intolerant and bigoted...respect all people, not for who they love, but what they do to help others and make this a better world for all of us.
Useing a religion to preach intolerance is stupid, not all people care what another religion says, unless it effects them. I am not of a religiion that sees homosexuality as wrong. We respect all of the diversity created. It is not for us to say what is good and what isn't. We honor the Creator, She knows what She is doing. Mama does not play favorites.
Karma,
I have read the Bible but never saw any verses that "condemns black and dark skinned people throughout", as you asserted. Could you point out where in the Bible contains such a message?
IF you like to keep refering yourself to animals then by all means, if you do your research and studies most so called homosexual behavior by animals is out of pecking order and dominance. What reason does a female dog hump a male because she is horny? No she proveing her dominance over the male. Maybe when we can determine we did not come from animals we will quit acting like them and walk upright again in the truth.
You're parroting a 250+ year-old argument that is no longer operant. At least be original. John Wesley gave a "Sermon #38: A Caution Against Bigorty" in which he used the polemic: same-sex atrractions were "lusts against nature".
This is untrue. It was untrue then. It is now. 450 Animal species have been well documented for 200 years that express homosexual, bisexual and bimodal sexualities.
Read all about them in "Biological Exuberance: Animial Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagemihl, PhD, c1999.
It is ironic in the extreme that Wesley's sermon is resurrected in suppor of anti-gay rhetoric when it was a CAUTION AGAINST BIGOTRY. Grow up, please. Read a little too, and come with your own ideas will ya?
ANON: "The fact to the Point stands is it lust or Love. Because as we know, especially men we know sex without love,"
Straight people have sex without love as well. In my single days, I had a few hookups that were strictly lust.
"If two men live together without lust then it is not sex you seek but companionship same with a women."
If two people live together without sexual desire for one another, they are roommates, not lovers. If two gay men live together without desire for one another, it doesn't mean that they really want women. It simply means that they don't desire each other. Being gay doesn't mean that a man wants to sleep with every man he meets any more than being a straight woman means that I want to knock boots with every man I meet.
I had a straight male roommate years ago - he and I were not attracted to each other. We shared rent and utilities, not a bed. The fact that he did not desire me didn't mean that he didn't desire any other woman. The fact that I had no sexual interest in him did not mean that I was not attracted to men. We just didn't have any erotic chemistry - we were friends. He had a girlfriend and I had a boyfriend.
You still avoid the point of lust and love. Also if it was not in our ability to do all those things you say are actually un natural,Those do not conflict with the realm of creation, because I am sure if animals or other creatures where givin the choice they would use fire to warm themselves etc. The fact to the Point stands is it lust or Love. Because as we know, especially men we know sex without love, If two men live together without lust then it is not sex you seek but companionship same with a women. We forget we are responsible for ourselves and when we do something wrong we try to find a way to justify ourselves, and convince people it is ok.
Anon:
The 'unnatural" argument really isn't valid. After all, we human beings do lots of things that are "unnatural". Things like:
Cooking food
Distilling alcohol
Rolling dried leaves in paper, igniting them, and sticking them in our mouths
Making fire
Making paper
Wearing clothing
Tanning leather and fur
Creating art
Driving
Written language
Drilling for and processing petroleum
Mining and processing minerals
I could go on for days, but I think you get the point. No other species does any of these things in the wild, and all are learned or invented behaviors - none are instinctive.
For gay men and lesbians, it IS instinctive to be attacted to a member of their own sex.
And please, enough with the sterotypes - not all lesbians are butch and not all gay men are effeminate. And even if they were, a gay man would not be attracted to a woman, no matter how "masculine" she might seem, nor would a lesbain be attracted to a man, no matter how "feminine" he might seem.
If that were the case, you could just as easily argue that a straight woman could be attracted to another woman if she were butch enough, or that a straight man could be attracted to another man if he were highly effiminate.
We are intelligble, and anyway you look at it, it is un natural show me another creature that has procreated through time as same sex. Instead how about if a gay man is to feminine then why not seek a women whose is to masculine. Plus you have to ask yourself is it lust or love when you distinguish the two then you will know the truth. Sounds like a silly Idea but has it ever been tried. We need to right our wrongs before we can walk justly in the future.
THC,
None of the gay men or lesbians I know consider themselves to have settled for less by having fallen in love with a person of their own gender, any more than I do by having fallen in love with a person of the opposite gender. They found their soulmate, as did I.
And while everyone chooses the individual(s) with whom they have sex, no one chooses what (or whom) they find attractive. I could choose to have sex with a woman, but it would be a hollow act, because I would not actually be attracted to her.
Its very sad, that a man can only find a man who can touch his e- spots. and same for a woman who cannot find a man. but has to settle for less. NO ONE IS BORN THAT WAY IT IS A POOR CHOICE THEY MAKE.
Its very sad, that a man can only find a man who can touch his e- spots. and same for a woman who cannot find a man. but has to settle for less. NO ONE IS BORN THAT WAY IT IS A POOR CHOICE THEY MAKE.
Its very sad, that a man can only find a man who can touch his e- spots. and same for a woman who cannot find a man. but has to settle for less. NO ONE IS BORN THAT WAY IT IS A POOR CHOICE THEY MAKE.
Brent Humber:
My sexual orientation IS hard wired. Is yours mutable?
Why does it have to be hard wired into the brain for you to be willing to allow same-sex couples to marry?
There are plenty of factors that are not hard-wired that can affect the quality of a marriage that are not cause for a legal or church prohibition:
Religious preference - often couples with differing faiths find that it's a hard issue to resolve. But they are allowed to legally marry, and many churches will marry non-adherents.
Income disparity - if one person has a significantly higher income than the other, it sometimes causes friction. But there is no bank account audit required to legally marry, nor do any churches that I know of require that both members of a couple have similar incomes before agreeing to perform a wedding.
Parenting philosophies - my ex and I had VERY different ideas about how my daughter should be brought up. His refusal to honor my wishes was one of the things that led to our breakup. No court and no church requires that a couple have an agreed-upon parenting plan before being allowed to marry.
Anatomy? Pheh. If the couple is happy with their collection of parts, more power to them.
Gay unions, Gay clergy, sorry I can't make that leap. If one day it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt these people are hard wired in the brain to act that way...well on that day I'll need to reevaluate.
So many posts, I only read a few. Similar debate happening in Australia, I'm afraid. Efforts to legalise same sex marriages in some areas were vetoed by the Federal Government, when it was able.
For the record, male, hetero, married, two boys. Absolutely believe in complete equality of same sex couples on all levels, social and legal. I have no problems at all if either or both of my sons turn out to be gay, except for one thing.
They will have to endure the ignorance, intolerance and prejudice from homophobes, some of whom have expressed their opinions here.
The most astonishing quote, of many, that a skimmed through was from AH. He/she stated that, as a Christian, he is required to love everyone, even homosexuals (oh the sacrifice you make, sir/madam, how big of you). But, as a Christian, he/she is not required to tolerate them. Right. I see. As you beat the crap out of some gay bloke, or order them out of your house, or torment them for their lifestyle, or ban them from your church, that is all OK as long as you are all the time yelling at the top of your voice "But don't forget. I love you". Interesting argument.
In any case, I wonder how long mankind has to do something before it is considered natural? If Christians believe literally in the Bible, then they will consider this.
The Old Testement dates back many thousands of years, and yet the writers of that ancient text saw fit to include a reference to homosexuality in it - by way of condemnation, depending on how one interprets it.
Now, if we accept that the Old Testement was written from 4000 BCE as is sometimes claimed (not that I accept this claim) then it stands to reason that mankind has been practising homosexuality for at least 6000 years. Of course, we know nothing about pre-history, but one would imagine that civilised man didn't simply wake up one day and think "I wonder what that's like. I think I'll give it a go".
And then there is the race argument. The Bible condemns black and dark skinned people throughout, indeed far more than it villifies homosexuality. Now that commonsense has prevailed on that issue, and Christians have repudiated the previous belief that black were to be the servants of whites as interpreted by the Bible, one hopes that eventually Christians will see the absurdity or their opposition towards homosexuality.
So many posts, I only read a few. Similar debate happening in Australia, I'm afraid. Efforts to legalise same sex marriages in some areas were vetoed by the Federal Government, when it was able.
For the record, male, hetero, married, two boys. Absolutely believe in complete equality of same sex couples on all levels, social and legal. I have no problems at all if either or both of my sons turn out to be gay, except for one thing.
They will have to endure the ignorance, intolerance and prejudice from homophobes, some of whom have expressed their opinions here.
The most astonishing quote, of many, that a skimmed through was from AH. He/she stated that, as a Christian, he is required to love everyone, even homosexuals (oh the sacrifice you make, sir/madam, how big of you). But, as a Christian, he/she is not required to tolerate them. Right. I see. As you beat the crap out of some gay bloke, or order them out of your house, or torment them for their lifestyle, or ban them from your church, that is all OK as long as you are all the time yelling at the top of your voice "But don't forget. I love you". Interesting argument.
In any case, I wonder how long mankind has to do something before it is considered natural? If Christians believe literally in the Bible, then they will consider this.
The Old Testement dates back many thousands of years, and yet the writers of that ancient text saw fit to include a reference to homosexuality in it - by way of condemnation, depending on how one interprets it.
Now, if we accept that the Old Testement was written from 4000 BCE as is sometimes claimed (not that I accept this claim) then it stands to reason that mankind has been practising homosexuality for at least 6000 years. Of course, we know nothing about pre-history, but one would imagine that civilised man didn't simply wake up one day and think "I wonder what that's like. I think I'll give it a go".
And then there is the race argument. The Bible condemns black and dark skinned people throughout, indeed far more than it villifies homosexuality. Now that commonsense has prevailed on that issue, and Christians have repudiated the previous belief that black were to be the servants of whites as interpreted by the Bible, one hopes that eventually Christians will see the absurdity or their opposition towards homosexuality.
AH: **If homosexuality was a correct way of life, we would not be here today.**
One could say the same thing about celibacy. Do you contend that everyone who has the ability to generate progeny has the obligation to do so? What about those who are sterile by choice? Do you oppose their right to marry as well?
**So why should we encourage or "tolerate" this behavior? All it will lead to is the destruction of the human race.**
FYI, gay men and lesbians DO reproduce. Gay men have been sperm donors and lesbians have gotten pregnant using the same reproductive technologies employed by infertile heterosexual couples. Not to mention the gay men and lesbians who enter into heterosexual marriages and have children trying to "go straight."
**I don't care what science or studies that you throw into this, no matter that male or female animals hang out with the same sex, that has no relation to them being homosexual.**
We're not talking about just hanging out- we're talking about sexual behavior.
**It is like saying that little Johnny has invited his ten best friends over for his birthday party. They are all boys. Does that make him gay? NO.**
It does if he's sexually attracted to them.
**We have already found that if homosexuality was right, we would not be here, but since we are here, that makes homosexuality the wrong lifestyle.**
Your ability to make a perfect circle without the use of a compass is truly astounding.
**the institution of the family, the traditional family is the correct way of life, shown and proven through thousands of years of life on Earth.**
Actually, if you look at other cultures, the nuclear family (mom, dad, 2.5 kinds, and a cocker spaniel) is one of many widely varying family structures. All have their advantages and their disadvantages, There is no single "correct way of life." One size does not fit all.
**Now if you bring religion into it, the Christian bible clearly defies and denounces homosexuality.**
I'm neither Christian nor Jewish, therefore the rules set forth in the Bible don't apply to me.
**Many try to refute this argument by saying that homosexuals are born the way that they are. No they choose it.**
If homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, then heterosexuality must be as well. I'm going to assume you are a straight male (feel free to correct me if I am mistaken). When did you choose to be attracted to girls? Note that I did not ask when you chose to have sex - I asked whrn did you decide what gender you would be attracted to.
**When you question whether homosexuality should be tolerated or not, if you are a Christian, you are not questioning the issue itself, you are questioning YOUR FAITH, and in what you believe.**
My religion accepts homosexuality as one of many points on the sexual spectrum. My church performs same-sex weddings, and we have several married gay and lesbian couples in our congregation.
Y'all have no idea how idiotic it is to read anti-gay comments based on religion. Religion has NOTHING to do with it, it's all a matter of biology. Do you think for a single nano-second that if any omnipotent being had anything against gay people they'd still exist? What kind of omnipotent being do you worship anyway? You think WAY too much of your selves and attach your beliefs to a being you create to validate what you want to believe. Ranting against love, you wonder why the world is in the state it is. Isn't it time you gave up your battle against rational reason, fairness, and human justice? Crawl out from under your rocks and celebrate the evolved brain your creator gave you!
Oh, and Ah, YOU proved in your post the fact that G-d did create gay persons and animals as well as straight, and the fact that we all have been here for many millions of years and are still here now. G-d does see that it was and is good.
Why exactly do you rebel against what G-d has wrought? It's the glaring illogic that fascinates me so.
No one "chooses" their sexual identity. That is the flaw in your argument. The whole of your thesis is dependent upon it. It is a false premise. Therefore, your entire thesis is false.
Now, what will you do? Admit your error? Or, require fidelity to untruths as the standard for your beliefs? I hold to the truth. Straight persons are born straight. Gay persons are born gay. You are requiring the invalidation of G-d-created human beings as sacrificial offereings before G-d usurping the Grace of Christ.
You are also ignorant of Calvin J. Roetzel's scholarship on the Apostle Paul/Saul of Tarsus. Read his books to correct your many deficiencies.
This makes no sense at all. Don't you see this?
As Bitner said, it makes no difference to heterosexual couples for homosexual couples to marry -- in fact, it strengthens both kinds of couples. That is now a fact in Massachusetts. What are you really affraid of? I really want to know.
Before quoting Holzinger's 1991 "paper" which is neither scientifically nor academically competent, you should read the exchange between David and myself posted here.
You also employed the discredited 2,200 year old Greko-Latin Complementarian argument. Your anti-gay stance is not supported.
You are left with religious bias that is tautological and fallacious. "Animal" urges? You mean like the exact same animal urges you have? Come on, get serious. This is ridiculous.
Christianity has to mean something more important than gay-bashing. It has to.
I am heterosexual. I am married. We have 5 children. My marriage will not be effected in the least by allowing two people of the same sex marry. Not in the least. Let them marry, in a church willing to perform the ceremony, or in the courthouse. They are not harming us by being in a monogamous, committed relationship.
Why Homosexuality is not an accepted way of life in the Christian religion (and should not be):
- If homosexuality was a correct way of life, we would not be here today. It is as simple as saying that the parts do not fit. It is common sense, males and males or females and females can not reproduce, and therefore that lifestyle would have led the human race into extinction, if it would have been tolerated.
- So why should we encourage or "tolerate" this behavior? All it will lead to is the destruction of the human race.
- The foundation of humanity has continued through the 5000=years (scientifically) on the basis of heterosexuality. It can not be denied that no matter what God or what way this Earth was created, heterosexuality, has sustained and continued life on earth for ALL SPECIES.
-this leads to my second point,
-I don't care what science or studies that you throw into this, no matter that male or female animals hang out with the same sex, that has no relation to them being homosexual. It is like saying that little Johnny has invited his ten best friends over for his birthday party. They are all boys. Does that make him gay? NO.
-and another of my questions is, why on Earth are you comparing humans to animals. The defining factor that makes the human race superior to all races, is the fact that we humans know the difference from wrong and right. Animals do not. You can not compare humans, (that is moral and decent humans) to animals, because animals are stupid. Humans are not animals, we are humans which is why we have been the strongest and smartest form of life on the planet.
Homosexuals are acting like animals in the sense that they only listen to their body’s sexual impulses, totally ignoring what is right from wrong. We have already found that if homosexuality was right, we would not be here, but since we are here, that makes homosexuality the wrong lifestyle.
-the institution of the family, the traditional family is the correct way of life, shown and proven through thousands of years of life on Earth.
Now if you bring religion into it, the Christian bible clearly defies and denounces homosexuality. Throughout the bible, many references are made to sexual immorality and homosexual prostitutes, as being wrong and that these people will not inherit the kingdom of God, Heaven. Read 1st corinthians: 6, and Tell me that what I just said is not true.
Many people refute this fact, saying that aren't Christians supposed to love all people and accept all people?
The answer is yes. As a Christian, it is our duty to love all, including homosexuals. But, that does not mean that as Christians we should tolerate their lifestyle. As Christians, we are supposed to help these people. As we know, from clear and precise scripture, homosexuals will not go to heaven, so it is our job to help them to pursue a healthy lifestyle: heterosexuality. That is where the love and forgiveness of Christ comes into play, he loves all people, even if they sin and turn from his way, but he does not forgive those who do not try to be forgiven, those who do not try to change. That is the Christian mission in the lifestyle of homosexuality, to help homosexuals to change.
-For example: as a Christian, I can have a gay friend, a friend I dearly cherish, but as a Christian, it is my duty to extend the love and forgiveness of God, and try to help my gay friend to change. You can love a gay or lesbian as a human, a person, but you cannot accept their lifestyle.
Many try to refute this argument by saying that homosexuals are born the way that they are. No they choose it. If you, as a Christian, accept homosexuality, and believe that homosexuals are born that way, then you are being a hypocrite. Why would your loving God, who according to your religion, loves everyone and everything, who, as you believe created the universe and everything in it, say that homosexuality is wrong and denounce it, and then create homosexuals? Are you saying that God, your God, who created everything, did not know what he created? So he didn't know that he created homosexuals, yet says that their lifestyle is sinful? You are confusing your own faith. Homosexuals are not born gay, if you are a Christian, you can not believe that they are, because why would God make homosexuals and say that their way of life is wrong? He wouldn't because he loves all of his creation. He just gives his creation free will, and that is why homosexuals choose to be gay.
-And if you want to bring science into it, there is no clear scientific evidence that declares the cause of homosexuality in humans or animals.
These are all reasons why gay unions or homosexuality in general is not okay. This is not a political issue; it is a moral issue, and issue of right or wrong. When you question whether homosexuality should be tolerated or not, if you are a Christian, you are not questioning the issue itself, you are questioning YOUR FAITH, and in what you believe. They question you need to ask yourselves is what is right? And very clearly, for a Christian: the bible declares homosexuality wrong, as a member of another faith: I'm sure there is some piece of data in your books denying homosexuality, and for atheists or people who don't follow a common or specific religion: common sense shows the truth and living proof of life.
Ahhhh ... *blush* ... you are most welcome and truly the pleasure is all mine because what we did here is truly great. I am honored.
Hey David,
Do me a favor and try to talk to W. Irby. Get her to understand a little better, will you try? My apologies transfer to her too.
I have a reading assignemnt for you and ME!!! That'll come as a shocker won't it? A book "I" haven't read? Ha-ha. I just found out about a new Joan Roughgarden book that came out last year.
"Evolution and Christian Faith: What Jesus and Darwin have in Common--Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist" c2006
With a title like that how can we not be intrigued!? I'm gonna find it. Mabe we could compare insights? I would love that.
Here's couple of good articles about her work too that I think would help you understand your questions better.
Your gonna make a grown man cry! I totally agree with you, I wish the same as far as our conversation goes. I wish it could be this way for all people no matter their differences. I've been on this post for quite some time. I really have no idea why, but I can say I have learned a lot...from you, from atheists, mormons, etc. I think this is why I keep coming back. Because of the knowledge I have obtained from different points of view.
When I first starting reading posts on here, I was so offended. I couldn't believe atheists considered Christians illogical, unreasonable, believers in fairy tales, etc. It was offensive at the time. Now I understand why they think these things. I know I could never change their minds or their views about faith or anything, but what I have learned to do is to help them understand that no matter our differences, we need to keep a respectful and honest tone. Unfortunately that's not the case with everyone on here. And of course when they attacked, I attacked back. I learned to change my tactics a little. Don't attack back. I think forums like this tend to divide people. We all think we're right, when all of us are really wrong. I see a lot of veterans to this post that are finally realizing the same thing as I am. Why use this forum to divide ourselves when we could unite ourselves in our differences? I think you and I SW have shown how it should be. How can it get any better than two people who differ on major life issues that can come together with respect and love. Isn't that what God is all about?
So of course I will continue to post my opinions on the several topics on this forum, but what I continue to learn is HOW to post them. I've learned to accept peoples differences as the norm in society and realize that no matter what these differences will always be a part of society and no one can change that. I guess I'll keep praying that we can all accept one another as people regardless of accepting one anothers beliefs.
Have a great day SW. It's been quite a pleasure chatting with you. You know it's funny. As much dialogue as I've put in with certain people here, I haven't come away with as much of a learning experience as the short dialogue that I've had with you. Thanks for that.
Oh, David, I'm sorry I told you you were gay because you were forcefully expressing your views. I didn't mean it. I was so frustrated and angry with you and took it out on you. I regret saying it. It doesn't matter who we are. All that matters is that we love and respect each other. Thanks for forgiving me -- both ways, huh?!
The very best thing you have said in all of your posts I have read so far is:
"I have a lot to learn."
ME TOO!!! I always tell my friends and family that the day I stop learning is the day I die. I believe this with all my soul. Keep learning and I promise to do the same. You taught me a lot. I really appreciate that you sent your love to my family as well as me. Sometimes I get so sad because many Christian people seem to have forgotten that every gay person has a mother and father and family. Now I know a Chrsitian I might not agree with who does know it and cares too. That's a great thing.
This is truly remarkable. You made me cry. That was beautiful; what you wrote I mean.
If only we could export this conversation our to the greater country. You are absolutely right. I am stimiulus-respondent to the words "homosexual" and "sin". I do only perceive it as an attack upon my being. Just as I asked you to step back and take a more reasoned approach to my views I was just as resistant to stepping back and taking a more reasoned approach to yours. I felt yours was not reasonable and only mine was. I was doing precisely what I accused you of doing. I wanted you to stop what you were thinking when I wouldn't stop what I was thinking in return. Pretty hypocritical of ME. I see it now.
We really could be frineds. You have come along way and so have I. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I will try harder to listen with as much love and care as you ask.
I think your right about us coming to an empasse. I think what we are trying to establish here is the legalistic view in God's eyes as homosexuality being a sin or not. I see it one way, and you see it the other. You know what's great about that is that no matter our differences we can still have a respectful and quite loving conversation. I appreciate that.
I do want to clarify, that even though we have established our beliefs and the differences they have, I do want to let you know that I in no way judge you or consider you less of a human than any other. We are equals in God's eyes. We all have our shortcomings and will face judgement one time or another. Of course I leave that up to God to decide who's righteous and who's not. I think I have come a long way in giving the love and respect to all people who were made in God's image and I thank you for the kind words about that.
I guess to conclude this I should say I'm glad I came back to talk to you. At first I thought you just hated all people who went against your beliefs. I see different now. I guess we got off on the wrong foot. But I'm glad I made a new friend. If I could give you any word of advice it would be this. Please do not consider any Christian that comes to you and says homosexuality is a sin to be a bigot. It is obviously evident that the Bible establishes a strong case against homosexuality even though I know you see it differently. I would hope that you could give them the benefit of disagreeing with you (as I have) but still find the love that Christ intended for us to give one another. I in turn will also learn to be more patient and sensitive to the subject of homosexuality upon those I encounter on this subject. I have a lot to learn. Thank you so much for your time SW. I wish you the best and will keep you in my prayers. Much love to you and your family.
I think your right about us coming to an empasse. I think what we are trying to establish here is the legalistic view in God's eyes as homosexuality being a sin or not. I see it one way, and you see it the other. You know what's great about that is that no matter our differences we can still have a respectful and quite loving conversation. I appreciate that.
I do want to clarify, that even though we have established our beliefs and the differences they have, I do want to let you know that I in no way judge you or consider you less of a human than any other. We are equals in God's eyes. We all have our shortcomings and will face judgement one time or another. Of course I leave that up to God to decide who's righteous and who's not. I think I have come a long way in giving the love and respect to all people who were made in God's image and I thank you for the kind words about that.
I guess to conclude this I should say I'm glad I came back to talk to you. At first I thought you just hated all people who went against your beliefs. I see different now. I guess we got off on the wrong foot. But I'm glad I made a new friend. If I could give you any word of advice it would be this. Please do not consider any Christian that comes to you and says homosexuality is a sin to be a bigot. It is obviously evident that the Bible establishes a strong case against homosexuality even though I know you see it differently. I would hope that you could give them the benefit of disagreeing with you (as I have) but still find the love that Christ intended for us to give one another. I in turn will also learn to be more patient and sensitive to the subject of homosexuality upon those I encounter on this subject. I have a lot to learn. Thank you so much for your time SW. I wish you the best and will keep you in my prayers. Much love to you and your family.
I lived in the South Bay for five years. You might of have seen me holding hands with my boyfriend! HA!
Let's get some of my views staight between us. I do not believe that both Leviticus verses are gay-affirming. Far from it. But what was meant 2,500 years ago to that Jewish society post-Babylonian Exile is lost to us as Christians today. You cannot honestly say with certainity it applies to gay persons today. Yet, you say, yes. I say, no. We are at an empasse.
The three Pauline verses -- one is fraudulently Pauline, and the other two are Pauline political statemnts, not moral ethical statements. Gay persons are not being talked about here. Read Roetzel. Paul's thorn is never overtly specified, only obliquely referenced. This alone attests to Paul's shame in even discussing it. The very shame I lived through in my teen years and twenties. I know this kind of shame, David. Paul's words of self-immolation before G-d are hauntingly resonant for me.
The Sodom and Gomorrah story is about rape both attemtped homosexual & heterosexual rape -- not about gay persons.
You have come a long way, David. I acknowledge you for the progress you have made. I am proud of you. It is very good.
Here's what I ask of you. In Christ, let go of condemning gay persons. In your eyes, its a sin. Fine. But, that doesn't get you off the hook in the matter of giving up forever in Christ judging that sin and those who sin in your eyes by being gay. In Christ you are to love the sinner the very same as the righteous. It makes no difference that gay persons are sinners by your view as your have attested. In Christ you are called to forgive the sinner and love him or her as righteous regardless of whether or not they continue to sin in your eyes. That is between they and their G-d, NOT you and them. Your treatment of other sinners in your eyes is between you and your G-d. And Jesus is attributed to have said love even the sinner the same as the righteous for no one but G-d can tell the difference. So, in Christ G-d looks with sorrow and pity upon your attempt to usurp G-d's purview arrogantly. You are not to do this.
So, let's suppose the Great Commandment didn't exist, in Christ-like love forgiveness still does, no matter what. Be a great Christian and show this generosity of heart. Gay persons are born the way G-d made them. Can you claim to hate what G-d has wrought? I'm not talking about whether you accept that gay persons are born gay -- I'm talking about gay persons who were born human, regardless of your judgments about their sexual identity. Humans with the life G-d gave them. Who are you to cut off what G-d has wrought? This is haughty, David. Just as those long-ago Jewish people didn't eat unclean foods because they didn't understand the effects of bacterial infesction so it was an abomination, being outwardly different in appearance would confuse which were Jews and which were Gentiles they didn't understand that all humans are G-d's children so it was an abomination, men raping men as spoils of war and emmasculating insult they didn't understand that some men were different in their love so it was abomination -- it is not so today.
That's the point. We understand far more today than they did then. You understand far more now than your did several years ago as you attest.
Don't confuse my words as the arrogance of modernity. I am speaking of thoughtful introsepction, reflection and study. And changing ones view when overwhelming evidence warrants and Christ-like charity demands.
I do appreciate your apology. And of course apology accepted. I tried initially to maintain a respectful dialogue with you and I hope that we could do so furthermore. If for any reason my comments in the past or what I may post in the future offend you, then I am truly sorry. I know sexuality is a sensitive subject and therefore should be treated that way. There are two things I would like to share with you. First, a little bit about me.
Before I studied the Bible or accepted Christ, I hated homosexuals. I thought they were disgusting, unnatural, and beneath me. Of course that is far from a Christian attitude but like I said I wasn't a Christian at the time. I live about 30 miles from san francisco, so you know that I am exposed to a large amount of homosexual persons. Of course before my Christian life, I chose to call homosexuals all the disrespectful, hate mongering names. I enjoyed going to s.f. on occasion and saw many gay couples and of course first thing that pops up in my mind is the "f" word. I'm ashamed of how I acted in the past. In fact I was beneath them. I know this now. Now that I know the Lord, I look at gays as equivolent to any other human being. I want you to know this because you assumed before that I hated gays. I did at one point in my life. But it is because I am now a Christian that I love them all. It is Christ that brought me to realize how to love all people. Because now I know that we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. But here is where we differ.
You claim that the Bible accepts homosexuality as I do not claim that. I do see homosexuality as a sin just like any other sin. If you live as a gay person and I live continually lying to people, then we are both sinners and both deserving of God's judgement. But I cannot justify myself in saying that it is o.k to lie. Either can it be justified to say it is o.k to have homosexual relations. They are both sins and to God no sin is greater than another because if you break one law you are a lawbreaker. So here's the great part. Jesus died for our sins. All we need is faith to recieve His grace. Eph 2:8-9. With faith we recieve the Holy Spirit that indwells in us. And through the Spirit we regenerate. Titus 3:5. Meaning we turn from sin. The Holy Spirit convicts us of these sins. John 16:9,14. So if I lie, I know realize that I am lying and can find no way to justify that lie. I know I sinned.
My point is that homosexuality cannot be justified as not being a sinful act. I have read your other posts and they are quite assumptuous on the passages of homosexuality in the Bible. You claimed that Paul was gay. You claim that homosexuality as an abomination to God is not true. But it's right there in the Bible. I have to believe what God says not man no matter how unpopular it may be in current society to believe these things. You mention how homosexuality is in the animal world as well. I wouldn't disagree with that. I've seen certain studies on that. So it is "natural" to be homosexual because animals do it as well? But it is "natural" to be a sinner as well. There are certain species of animals that eat each other as well. So if we accept homosexuality based on the animal kingdom, then shouldn't we allow cannibalism in the human kingdom? I would hope not. I hope I made some valid points. And I do hope that you can forgive me if these are offensive in any way. You have a great evening SW. Take care.
Now you are reaching. I think you know this. Most of what you posted deserves no response from me for two reasons. One, Lepidopteryx did a much better job than I would have. [Thanks for getting my back, L.] Two, it would waste my valuable time to repeat anything L. says.
I am not worried about you being attracted to your neighbor's "wife" but your neighbor -- the husband. Of course it is immoral to have a sex with a married man behind his wife's back -- the fact that it would be with another MAN is another issue entirely for the husband that HE ought to discuss with her, but the fact of two consenting single adults having sex the bible is at best ambiguous on this. Read The Song of Songs for yourself -- it's about beautiful, erotic love and intimacy between two unmarried consenting adults. L. said it beautifully and the bible which you hold so dearly affirms his statement.
I am strongly in favor of gay guys and gals marrying to promote monogamous healthy stable relationships. This is G-dly and holy.
Chronic promiscuity is jsut one of many criitcisms thrown disingenuously in gays' faces. It's hypocritical in the extreme. Letting them marry solves this, does it not?
H., repression of your true self will only cause harmful damage to you. Think about our conversation seriously. Please.
You should go back and reread my responses regarding the genetic/endocrinological issues.
You are an incompetent doctor if you truly think so narrowly. Dr. Roughgarden has a great deal to say about quacks such as you. Read "Evolution's Rainbow" to find out why. I am medically trained as well.
I have been harsh to you -- too harsh now that I have read your other posts on other threads. Will you forgive me being abusive towards you? I hope so. I am sorry for it. May we start anew? Treat me with the repsect I deserve and have earned in deep scholarly study and we may have a basis for a productive exchange.
I want to make sure I get this right. You said:
----------------------
David :
So if you are born gay does that mean you have a genetic problem? Or is it a disease? I'm just wondering because naturally when you look at a woman and man, they fit together. Doesn't creation seem to indicate that man and woman were naturally supposed to be together. Not man and man, or woman and woman? That seems unnatural. I'm wondering from your perspective SW if you think being "born gay" is a genetic malfuntion?
Thanks
July 4, 2007 9:57 PM
---------------------------
This is a fair question.
It's the perspective that is skewed. I am not attacking you or berating you. I am asking you to see this issue outside yourself and your perspective and do what it is attributed to Jesus: That if someone asks you to walk a mile, walk it and another also -- do not presume to judge another's life until you have walked a full day in their sandals.
I want you to google Dr. Jeffrey Jensen's 1997 Sunstone paper, "We See What We Believe: The Heterosexualization of Gay Men and Lesbians in the LDS Church." You do not have to be Mormon to get the point of this paper. It is an important paper for you to undertand how deeply you are heterosexist and how slavishly derivative your question is.
With the book, "Born Gay," I have two more for you. "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Dr. Bruce Bagemihl, c1999 & "Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People" by Dr. Joan Roughgarden, c2004.
Read them if you are truly interested in an honest answer to your question.
Here's the short version. No. Sexual identities are as varied as the rainbow. There is nothing pathological at all. There is nothing wrong or negative at all. Go back several posts to my argument with Debbie J. I gave her several excerpts from Bagemihl's book.
Only Homo religicus expresses severe negativity towards homosexuality or bisexuality. That's a joke but not the negativity. In nature no species, except one, expresses negativity towards alternate expressions of sexual attraction. That's why naturalists and field biologists were so confused about what they were actually seeing for 200 years.
The most compelling proof is this. If it is injurious to the species then why is it not only prevalent but resistant to exclusion? Anthropologists have documented "feminized" male/male remains that go back 10,000 years ago. Gay persons have been around as long as humans BUT more importantly it shows up in many other species.
It is not a genetic disorder or any kind of "disorder". The American Psychiatric & American Psychological Assocations' position statments have removed homoseuxality as a "disorder" since 1973. This is not a disorder.
It's just people who are little different from you. That's all.
BTW, Holsinger's 1991 "paper" is a piece of trash that any competent community college GE course instructor would have graded "F" and thrown out for a severely biased perspective destroying objectivity, narrowly selective citations, speciously predetermined conclusions and incompetent research. The pseudo-complementarian argument is false and not supported in competent biologic research.
You are ignorant. It is conclusively proven. Read "Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation" by Dr.'s Glenn Wilson & Qazi Rahman. c2005. All the scientific support and criticism is presented. Everyone is born with the sexual identity they have. The "nurture" arguments supporting "choice" are roundly refuted by hard, cconcrete evidence and irrefutable logic.
-----------------------
Oh my goodness.
Your not born gay. You can say it all you want but until its clinically proven, sorry. Just isn't true. You may want to be for whatever insane reason but dont use the excuse "im born this way".
My ass.
Show me the proof.
There is not a *homosexual* gene in people.
There is however an instinct that tells people they have to reproduce.
Which means obviously you have to be with the opposite sex.
I know some of you people will say they could get sperm donated, adoption, blah blah blah. But that should be only used if the man or woman is for some reason unable to reproduce.
Not for gay's to have.
I mean children with homosexual parents are 10 times likely to grow up with problems.
Its wrong. Plain and simple.
--------------------------------
You are wrong, plain and simple. Gay people are born gay, also, plain and simple. Your derivative anti-gay stance is fallaciously "choice" depentent. There is no choice in persons' sexual identity except the choice to tell the truth or lie.
Homesower: **So in your opinion gay sex is okay as long as you are not heterosexual?**
Any sex is okay as long as it's between consenting adults.
**So someone who is bi can enjoy neither, or does he get to pick and choose?**
You misuderstand bisexuality. Most bisexuals, while being attracted to both sexes, are more strongly attracted to one or the other. Just as heterosexuality does not mean wanting to bed every person of the opposite sex you meet, bisexuality does not mean wanting to bed everyone you meet.
**I am not really familiar with heterosexuals having homosexual sex, but I would certainly agree that it would be sin.**
It happens occasionally, usually out of curiosity. And homosexuals having heterosexual sex happens a lot more often, usually as a result of being closeted.
**How about sex in general? If I desire my neighbor's wife should I be able to enjoy her sexually?**
That depends on your neighbor and his wife's views on extra-marital sex. If they agree that it's ok for either of them to have other partners, then it's fine. But if they have promised each other monogamy, then it's wrong.
**Is it only monogamous sex that is not a sin?**
Only non-consensual sex is a sin.
**I'll share a little secret with you. The homosexual community is not monogamous. Randy as rabbits.**
That's going to come as big surprise to the numerous gay married couples I know.
**I'll admit I can't speak for all, and my insight is especially weak with regards to lesbians, but fidelity is not a virtue that most of them would recognize.**
Your insight is indeed weak. In fact, it's worse than weak - it's blind.
So if you are born gay does that mean you have a genetic problem? Or is it a disease? I'm just wondering because naturally when you look at a woman and man, they fit together. Doesn't creation seem to indicate that man and woman were naturally supposed to be together. Not man and man, or woman and woman? That seems unnatural. I'm wondering from your perspective SW if you think being "born gay" is a genetic malfuntion?
I accidentally posted without adding my name. My apologies.
I agree that sexual identity is only a part of who you are.
As for not being gay "fully" that can be taken a number of ways. I choose not to be because I cannot be so and be obedient to Christ. "Be excellent in what is good, be innocent of evil". I have already delved too deep in what is evil, should I delve further? It would profit me nothing.
So in your opinion gay sex is okay as long as you are not heterosexual? So someone who is bi can enjoy neither, or does he get to pick and choose? I am not really familiar with heterosexuals having homosexual sex, but I would certainly agree that it would be sin.
How about sex in general? If I desire my neighbor's wife should I be able to enjoy her sexually? Is it only monogamous sex that is not a sin? I'll share a little secret with you. The homosexual community is not monogamous. Randy as rabbits. I'll admit I can't speak for all, and my insight is especially weak with regards to lesbians, but fidelity is not a virtue that most of them would recognize.
You can rationalize any sin away. We usually start with our favorites. In the end its still sin.
I agree that sexual identity is only a part of who you are.
As for not being gay "fully" that can be taken a number of ways. I choose not to be because I cannot be so and be obedient to Christ. "Be excellent in what is good, be innocent of evil". I have already delved too deep in what is evil, should I delve further? It would profit me nothing.
So in your opinion gay sex is okay as long as you are not heterosexual? So someone who is bi can enjoy neither, or does he get to pick and choose? I am not really familiar with heterosexuals having homosexual sex, but I would certainly agree that it would be sin.
How about sex in general? If I desire my neighbor's wife should I be able to enjoy her sexually? Is it only monogamous sex that is not a sin? I'll share a little secret with you. The homosexual community is not monogamous. Randy as rabbits. I'll admit I can't speak for all, and my insight is especially weak with regards to lesbians, but fidelity is not a virtue that most of them would recognize.
You can rationalize any sin away. We usually start with our favorites. In the end its still sin.
Oh my goodness.
Your not born gay. You can say it all you want but until its clinically proven, sorry. Just isn't true. You may want to be for whatever insane reason but dont use the excuse "im born this way".
My ass.
Show me the proof.
There is not a *homosexual* gene in people.
There is however an instinct that tells people they have to reproduce.
Which means obviously you have to be with the opposite sex.
I know some of you people will say they could get sperm donated, adoption, blah blah blah. But that should be only used if the man or woman is for some reason unable to reproduce.
Not for gay's to have.
I mean children with homosexual parents are 10 times likely to grow up with problems.
Yes, Homesower, but you can't be gay -- fully -- and be Christian by your own admission so your statement is false. Are you married to a wife with children as your chosen moniker implies? Or single, doomed to lonliness forever?
These are the options under your theology.
The former is a lie and passionless by your own admission. The latter is inhuman and proven scientifically to be emotionally, psychologically and physically abusive and injurious.
Your view is by your own admission skewed. It breaks my heart. I feel so very sad for you.
being born gay + biblical infallible authority = sin
is the faulty reasoning. You accept that you are gay yet you also condemn yourself of being sinful becasue of your being.
I am saying that being gay is not sinful by definition. How you reconcile your being is your business but don't make your business my business for me. I do not rationalize sin away. I look deeply at what sin is. The literal meaning of the Greek word for sin is to miss the mark -- nothing else. If you are being other than your authentic being then you miss the mark -- this is the essential nature of inauthenticity.
The argument is that gay persons are only their sexual identity. This is a lie. You are so much more than that. You are a universe of possiblity that is good and worthy and the matter of your sexual identity is a tiny PART of you, not the whole of you. This is the fraud of the churches prepetrated against gay persons. Who you are attracted too is not the whole of you. It is a small -- though not insignicant -- part of who you are.
Here's the problem as I see it. You and a great many others -- you are not alone -- erroneous conflate the word abomination with the notion of sin. This a big problem. They are not interchangeable words. When it is attributed to Jesus that we are thrown to be sinful it is not congruent that we are thrown to be abonimable.
This is the problem as I see it. To be abominable is something else entirely. The Leviticus verses are referring to heterosexual men who abuse other men, it is not talking about gay persons who are being themselves authentically as they were born. You are expressing a self-referential conclusion -- that you universally externalize -- which is derivative from patriarchal sexism, heterosexism and homophobia.
How do I know this? Because it is exactly what I did and moved beyond. I have been there -- I know of where I speak from direct experience.
As long as the lie that people -- whose being is unalterable -- are convenced that their being is sinful and therefore alterable, there is no room for authenticity or even some level of becoming soemwhat authentic about their essential inauthenticity.
All of THAT is sin -- not being gay and honest about it.
A Wesleyan does know who Jesus was. I don't understand your statement. Did you read my post about Wesleyan grace, the quadrilateral and salvation? Go back and find it.
I do have a sharp pen. This in no way means I love you any less or not at all. It means I love you so much and have such high regard for you that I will treat you as a fully capable adult who can take the heat -- rest assured that I can too.
We can no longer appeal to a Christianity of yesterday that is nonsensical in its embedment in ancient obsolete language and theological forms. We must appeal to a Christianity of today in this age. It's very hard work. It is easy to contort ones mind into pretzels to maintain an anachronistic theology. It is difficult to forge an understanding for our time consistent with reality as we know it now and the truths lying underneath -- even beyond -- the words from 2,000-3,000 years ago.
The first approach is inauthentic. The second is an attempt at forging some level of authenticity about the inauthentic approach. Personal integrity comes into play in concrete terms -- will I or won't I? Am I wed to the pursuit of the truth?
The process of becoming authentic about our religious inauthenticity naturally evolves new authentic religious experiences -- that's what reformation is.
It's a work in progress never to be completed, always engaging til the end of time beyond my -- and your -- tiny span of years. That's the kind of game I like playing. Arguing about persons' essential sexual being and its "sinfulness" is a PUNY zero-sum-game. It's a waste of valuable energy. Notice how much energy is wasted here ...
There's another basic problem drivng the energy quotient on this issue. Can you guess what it is? Look deeply inside yourself ...
I did not mean to impugn your belief in Christ, rather to provide an understanding of my viewpoint, as a good many posters are not Christian. Though frankly, having not read all of your posts I was not entirely sure of your place. I have known many Wesleyans who haven't a clue who Jesus is, having been raised a Methodist myself. Certainly your interpretation of the Gospel is not your traditional Wesleyan understanding.
You have a sharp pen, but I am sure there is love behind your words. Let me respond to one comment you made "You seem to be saying that being Christian is prima facia conclusive that gay persons are invalidated, irredeemable and irreconcilable."
I cannot claim the view you make for me. I am proof that its not true. I am redeemed, I am reconciled and I am gay. But I am those things because I am forgiven, and I can't be forgiven for something that isn't a sin. Christ paid the price to redeem me, not to leave me a sinner. He offers me eternal life, but in turn I give him myself, my desires and my obedience. I cannot say "Yes" to Christ in all but one area of my life, or rather I can for a while, but He will surely claim it in the end, and if I refuse to give it up then I will have chose it over Him and I will no longer share his name.
I could choose to rationalize away this sin. I would frankly enjoy the sin. Its always been one of my favorites. Actually I have, but I was miserable. God has a claim on my life and I cannot escape it. When I grieve the Holy Spirit eventually it grieves me.
PASTOR POLLARD - I have no doubt you would love to amend those Ten Commandments, like that renegade judge in Alabama who, I believe, added Four more, since, lamentably, they don't say anything about homosexuality. By the way, while you're busy not hating gay people, you might want to add a good number of those animals you mention to your list of things you supposedly feel sorry for, since a good number of them, God's creatures one and all, are also homosexual. What a mockery people like you make of religion.
Spoken like a true Dominist and Christian Reconstructionist. Thanks for proving Singularization right. He is right on the money without you but the synchronicity of your posts is deliciously satiric.
Thanks for the laugh, Gar. There's a little problem with your rant. If SW is right, and I think he is, I check his citations, then you are gay and way, way in the closet. Come out little Gar, don't want to end up like Miss Ted Stephens do you?
Pastor Gary Pollard :
In the beggining GOD made all animals after their own kind...from man HE made woman as a helpmate...same sex marriage is not only an abomination in GOD'S eyes..but it is sin pure and simple. Some say that it is a sickness and they can't help themselves..no;it is sin and regardless of how anyone trys to justify it ..it is wrong and immoral. If you say it is a sickness then you could use the same excuse for every other immoral thing that people participate in..such as murder..rape..child molestation..the list can go on forever. Those that try to justify this sin; usually are also the ones that want the ten commandments and prayer done away with...they don't like for anything to make them feel guilty. I don't hate homosexuals..I feel sorry for them and pray for them because it is a matter of sin and GOD is a loving GOD, but HE is also a just GOD and unless sin is repented of WE; not GOD are to blame..GOD is true to HIS WORD.......
I make this statement for every anti-gay bible-quoter. Don't bother quoting Pauline scripture if you have not read any of Calvin J. Roetzel's corpus. He is without doubt one of America's premier biblical scholars on the Apostle Paul/Saul of Tarsus.
Do yourself a favor and do an Amazon search for his books. Read one. Read them all as I am now doing.
For those of you who do -- you truly have no idea what you are doing when you erroneously misquote Romans 1:26, I Timothy 1:9-10 and I Corinathians 6:9-10 in support of your anti-gay agenda. These verses have NOTHING to do with gay persons. They are political statements of an entirely different intent. You do not understand what they actually mean and you really have no idea how hilarious the irony is.
Read a Roetzel book and find out for yourself. Save yourself the embarrassment of gratuitously exposing your ingnorance. Save your reader of that too.
In the beggining GOD made all animals after their own kind...from man HE made woman as a helpmate...same sex marriage is not only an abomination in GOD'S eyes..but it is sin pure and simple. Some say that it is a sickness and they can't help themselves..no;it is sin and regardless of how anyone trys to justify it ..it is wrong and immoral. If you say it is a sickness then you could use the same excuse for every other immoral thing that people participate in..such as murder..rape..child molestation..the list can go on forever. Those that try to justify this sin; usually are also the ones that want the ten commandments and prayer done away with...they don't like for anything to make them feel guilty. I don't hate homosexuals..I feel sorry for them and pray for them because it is a matter of sin and GOD is a loving GOD, but HE is also a just GOD and unless sin is repented of WE; not GOD are to blame..GOD is true to HIS WORD.......
In the beggining GOD made all animals after their own kind...from man HE made woman as a helpmate...same sex marriage is not only an abomination in GOD'S eyes..but it is sin pure and simple. Some say that it is a sickness and they can't help themselves..no;it is sin and regardless of how anyone trys to justify it ..it is wrong and immoral. If you say it is a sickness then you could use the same excuse for every other immoral thing that people participate in..such as murder..rape..child molestation..the list can go on forever. Those that try to justify this sin; usually are also the ones that want the ten commandments and prayer done away with...they don't like for anything to make them feel guilty. I don't hate homosexuals..I feel sorry for them and pray for them because it is a matter of sin and GOD is a loving GOD, but HE is also a just GOD and unless sin is repented of WE; not GOD are to blame..GOD is true to HIS WORD.......
In the beggining GOD made all animals after their own kind...from man HE made woman as a helpmate...same sex marriage is not only an abomination in GOD'S eyes..but it is sin pure and simple. Some say that it is a sickness and they can't help themselves..no;it is sin and regardless of how anyone trys to justify it ..it is wrong and immoral. If you say it is a sickness then you could use the same excuse for every other immoral thing that people participate in..such as murder..rape..child molestation..the list can go on forever. Those that try to justify this sin; usually are also the ones that want the ten commandments and prayer done away with...they don't like for anything to make them feel guilty. I don't hate homosexuals..I feel sorry for them and pray for them because it is a matter of sin and GOD is a loving GOD, but HE is also a just GOD and unless sin is repented of WE; not GOD are to blame..GOD is true to HIS WORD.......
In the beggining GOD made all animals after their own kind...from man HE made woman as a helpmate...same sex marriage is not only an abomination in GOD'S eyes..but it is sin pure and simple. Some say that it is a sickness and they can't help themselves..no;it is sin and regardless of how anyone trys to justify it ..it is wrong and immoral. If you say it is a sickness then you could use the same excuse for every other immoral thing that people participate in..such as murder..rape..child molestation..the list can go on forever. Those that try to justify this sin; usually are also the ones that want the ten commandments and prayer done away with...they don't like for anything to make them feel guilty. I don't hate homosexuals..I feel sorry for them and pray for them because it is a matter of sin and GOD is a loving GOD, but HE is also a just GOD and unless sin is repented of WE; not GOD are to blame..GOD is true to HIS WORD.......
In the beggining GOD made all animals after their own kind...from man HE made woman as a helpmate...same sex marriage is not only an abomination in GOD'S eyes..but it is sin pure and simple. Some say that it is a sickness and they can't help themselves..no;it is sin and regardless of how anyone trys to justify it ..it is wrong and immoral. If you say it is a sickness then you could use the same excuse for every other immoral thing that people participate in..such as murder..rape..child molestation..the list can go on forever. Those that try to justify this sin; usually are also the ones that want the ten commandments and prayer done away with...they don't like for anything to make them feel guilty. I don't hate homosexuals..I feel sorry for them and pray for them because it is a matter of sin and GOD is a loving GOD, but HE is also a just GOD and unless sin is repented of WE; not GOD are to blame..GOD is true to HIS WORD.......
In the beggining GOD made all animals after their own kind...from man HE made woman as a helpmate...same sex marriage is not only an abomination in GOD'S eyes..but it is sin pure and simple. Some say that it is a sickness and they can't help themselves..no;it is sin and regardless of how anyone trys to justify it ..it is wrong and immoral. If you say it is a sickness then you could use the same excuse for every other immoral thing that people participate in..such as murder..rape..child molestation..the list can go on forever. Those that try to justify this sin; usually are also the ones that want the ten commandments and prayer done away with...they don't like for anything to make them feel guilty. I don't hate homosexuals..I feel sorry for them and pray for them because it is a matter of sin and GOD is a loving GOD, but HE is also a just GOD and unless sin is repented of WE; not GOD are to blame..GOD is true to HIS WORD.......
The only problem with homosexuality is that religion still exists and thrives. Take away the religion and all the reasons for the hatred and uncomfortablness go away. People become reduced to pure equals. Christopher Hitchens, author of "God is not Great" has it pegged quite squarely. Religion simply poisons EVERTHING.You-tube him for some interesting dialogue and a fresh perpective. He was on recently with Jon Meacham as well.
It's VERY interesing that you think I don't ineterpret the bible or conduct theological discourse "from a Christian prespective." I told eog I am a Wesleyan Methodist Chrsitian and have been all my life with deeply passionate theological and philosophical roots. You missed that I guess ...
That is fascinating. What makes you say this? Did you read the Essay posted by Anonymous on the fracturing of the churches by literalist Christians over this issue? You should read it. You seem to be oddly unaware of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Ruth, I & II Judges, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, I & II Chronicles. Surely you have read these? Perhaps not because you are also unaware of the special love shared by David & Jonathan, and Ruth & Naomi.
In all these texts slavery is most certainly not critisized. It is only obliquely critisized when the stage was occupied by G-d's Chosen people under enslavement by Pharoah, NOT when Jews were the slaveholders -- this is affirmed by G-d's Law not abolished. Paul wrote extensively that slavery was the law of the land under Cesaer but that all men's hearts were free in Christ. Paul did not critsize the practice of slavery nor advocate for abolition of slavery.
A strict literalist has a big problem here. Biblically, the faithful South was proof-texting the Law as justification FOR the maintenance of slaveholding, NOT for Abolitionism. The churches were split assunder during the conflict. In my home state of Arkansas it wasn't until 2004 that the rift in the Arkansas Methodist Conference between the Northern Abolitionist Conference and the Southern Slaveholding-affirming Conference was healed and the Conference reunited. That's 139 years of emnity after the war's close.
Why do you look to the bible for it to prove for you -- via an impossible absolutist external standard of ethic -- what is right and wrong? Christ is attributed to have said that all of us in the Holy Spirit know within us what is right and wrong and that the Great Commandment fulfills the SPIRIT of the law. Love G-d with all your heart, mind and strength. Love your neighbor as you love G-d. The Commandments are fulfilled by doing this. I am quoting from Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. Mark's and Luke's Gospels are a bit different in their sayings.
You seem to be saying that being Christian is prima facia conclusive that gay persons are invalidated, irredeemable and irreconcilable. That that is an exclusively "Chrsitian" way of thinking. Any other way of thinking is invalid and "not" Christian?
This is the conclusion I am questioning directly and I am doing it in Christian love by the Great Commandment exactly as the Northern Christian Abolistionists did which you extoll in your post.
I am saying that this divide between us is very similar and that history seems to be eerily repeating itself. I am saying that bible-quoting to affirm anti-gay bias is no different than the past bible-quoting to support slaveholding. In fact enslavement to heterosexism and homophbia is really no different -- and NO, I am not saying they are the same, I am saying they have similar characteristics and are effectively similar. I am also saying that welcoming Christians who take the Great Commamdment every bit as seriously as the past Abolitionists are making the case for full loving acceptance and the end of discriminatoy hostilites towards gay persons.
Blacks were scapegoated by white society for decades as the root cause of many problems in the country. Just as gays are being scapegoated the very same way right now.
The bible is not literally factually true -- though SOME of it might have actually happened -- and we have known this for more than 400 years. It is however metaphorically "really" true. You seem not to have read my post to Steve where I cautioned him to not invalidate the bible because it is not literally true. That is just as wrong as bibliolatry. The bible is very important if one can unlock its message for us today beyond the limitations of its various translations, changes and meanings trapped withing 3,000 year-old far earlier understanding.
I am saying that it is staggeringly arrogant to think one can pick it up, do a cursory reading and believe one can undertand it on its terms within these realities without intense scholarly research, thought, discourse and reasoned theological study.
Anyone can erroneous misconstrue it to support their biases. And political proof-texting for the advancement of advantageously stereotyping prejudice is deeply human, provane and has nothing to do with G-d but a great deal to do with domination, alienation and invalidation of the targeted scapegoat. Profound reasoning where the bible is concerned is reached by first admitting I know nothing, next admitting that I will read into it my biases -- this is human -- then to read deeply beyond my biases and limitations to unlock what it has to say that I might learn from knowing full well it was never written for ME but written thousands of years ago for communities that I have no connection to nor understanding of experientially yet has survived millennia in greatly altered form but with meaning under the words that the words could never capture for all time -- not even for its time -- but beyond time in metaphor, allegory and poetry.
The best I can explain this is not even in my own words but the words of a great American poetic prose literaturist, Norman Maclean, in "A River Runs Through It and Other Stories."
"Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world’s great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs."
The bible is like this. Exactly like this. I don't misuse the bible to undergird my prejudices of others. I take responsibility for my prejudices - we ALL have them, no one doesn't -- and read the bible to unlock G-d's love for me to live out in making a garden of my tiny patch of ground by the power of the Great Commandment for the delight of others that they might undertake the tending of their own gardens.
Thereby the world might become the Kingdom of G-d on Earth as it is in heaven.
Anti-gay prejudice works against this. Let it go. G-d WILL love you for it. I promise. Gay persons are deserving of loving committed relationships covenanted under G-d, before their peers just like everyone -- David and Jonathan included if you take the time to read. Gay men and women make wonderful clergy, bring a valuable spirit to the table of faith and have done so for many thousands of years -- some ages in the closet and some not -- if you take the time to read Jewish, Catholic and Anglican history. It's true, read it for yourself.
Oh by the way, you are the one who proved conclusively that the bible is not inerrant, absolute or literal. There's no getting around the fact that your post proved what I am saying. So, don't take my word for it. Take yours. That is if you have the intergity in Christ to do so ...
Thanks to the poster who writes the truth about the Sodom and Gommorah story - that story that anti-gay bigots cling to like drowning men to a raft. As anyone who actually bothers to read it will recognize, it's simply an instance of enraged men threatening to rape other men in order to put them in the position, quite literally, of women - the ultimate degradation in ancient Middle-Eastern society (not to mention other societies of both the past and present). In fact, unless you believe that many of today's most hardened and violent convicts suddenly become gay upon incarceration , it's the same thing that routinely occurs in our nation's prisons.
Thanks to the poster who writes the truth about the Sodom and Gommorah story - that story that anti-gay bigots cling to like drowning men to a raft. As anyone who actually bothers to read it will recognize, it's simply an instance of enraged men threatening to rape other men in order to put them in the position, quite literally, of women - the ultimate degradation in ancient Middle-Eastern society (not to mention other societies of both the past and present). In fact, unless you believe that many of today's most hardened and violent convicts suddenly become gay upon incarceration , it's the same thing that routinely occurs in our nation's prisons.
Thanks to the poster who writes the truth about the Sodom and Gommorah story - that story that anti-gay bigots cling to like drowning men to a raft. As anyone who actually bothers to read it will recognize, it's simply an instance of enraged men threatening to rape other men in order to put them in the position, quite literally, of women - the ultimate degradation in ancient Middle-Eastern society (not to mention other societies of both the past and present). In fact, unless you believe that many of today's most hardened and violent convicts suddenly become gay upon incarceration , it's the same thing that routinely occurs in our nation's prisons.
Thanks to the poster who writes the truth about the Sodom and Gommorah story - that story that anti-gay bigots cling to like drowning men to a raft. As anyone who actually bothers to read it will recognize, it's simply an instance of enraged men threatening to rape other men in order to put them in the position, quite literally, of women - the ultimate degradation in ancient Middle-Eastern society (not to mention other societies of both the past and present). In fact, unless you believe that many of today's most hardened and violent convicts suddenly become gay upon incarceration , it's the same thing that routinely occurs in our nation's prisons.
Gay ppl. are human.
all americans are human.
all life is sacred.
individual rights are sacred.
the church must attend to their business of churching.. not judging. dividing, sensoring..
church is for personal spiritual growth. not destruction, execution, pain and hurt..
If you don't pay gay ppl.'s bills you don't get to tell them how to live.. yet we tax them like the next one. they pay for our 16 children's education....
LIVE AND LET LIVE. look at the beam in yer eye before ye calls for the grain of sand on your brother's....
Bottom line to all the nonsense on Christian beliefs homosexuals are wrong or not...God is nonjudgmental and has unconditional love for ALL his children. Judgements and conditional love is a human factor and does not belong to God. He gave us free will. Use your brains and think what that actually means. He gave us free will and then if we don't do exactly what he wants, we go to hell? He would torture his children? He would allow such a place as hell and the devil? Would you allow your children to be tortured for eternity? Do you parent based on fear and not love? Poor God, he sure gets a bad rap. So many religions have turned him into a monster. You can have your monster God. Mine is loving, kind, forgiving and I feel loved, cared for and know I will go to Heaven. Having that knowledge gives me motivation to help others to understand the same thing. To live a great, good and loving life. I don't know who the hell you people are that judge others so darn much...God? Nope, guess not since he doesn't.
Bottom line to all the nonsense on Christian beliefs homosexuals are wrong or not...God is nonjudgmental and has unconditional love for ALL his children. Judgements and conditional love is a human factor and does not belong to God. He gave us free will. Use your brains and think what that actually means. He gave us free will and then if we don't do exactly what he wants, we go to hell? He would torture his children? He would allow such a place as hell and the devil? Would you allow your children to be tortured for eternity? Do you parent based on fear and not love? Poor God, he sure gets a bad rap. So many religions have turned him into a monster. You can have your monster God. Mine is loving, kind, forgiving and I feel loved, cared for and know I will go to Heaven. Having that knowledge gives me motivation to help others to understand the same thing. To live a great, good and loving life. I don't know who the hell you people are that judge others so darn much...God? Nope, guess not since he doesn't.
Bottom line to all the nonsense on Christian beliefs homosexuals are wrong or not...God is nonjudgmental and has unconditional love for ALL his children. Judgements and conditional love is a human factor and does not belong to God. He gave us free will. Use your brains and think what that actually means. He gave us free will and then if we don't do exactly what he wants, we go to hell? He would torture his children? He would allow such a place as hell and the devil? Would you allow your children to be tortured for eternity? Do you parent based on fear and not love? Poor God, he sure gets a bad rap. So many religions have turned him into a monster. You can have your monster God. Mine is loving, kind, forgiving and I feel loved, cared for and know I will go to Heaven. Having that knowledge gives me motivation to help others to understand the same thing. To live a great, good and loving life. I don't know who the hell you people are that judge others so darn much...God? Nope, guess not since he doesn't.
Bottom line to all the nonsense on Christian beliefs homosexuals are wrong or not...God is nonjudgmental and has unconditional love for ALL his children. Judgements and conditional love is a human factor and does not belong to God. He gave us free will. Use your brains and think what that actually means. He gave us free will and then if we don't do exactly what he wants, we go to hell? He would torture his children? He would allow such a place as hell and the devil? Would you allow your children to be tortured for eternity? Do you parent based on fear and not love? Poor God, he sure gets a bad rap. So many religions have turned him into a monster. You can have your monster God. Mine is loving, kind, forgiving and I feel loved, cared for and know I will go to Heaven. Having that knowledge gives me motivation to help others to understand the same thing. To live a great, good and loving life. I don't know who the hell you people are that judge others so darn much...God? Nope, guess not since he doesn't.
Since you are not a literalist, what authority do you give the Bible in forming your opinions (on any topic)? To what degree do you accept the words and actions of Jesus as having an overriding claim on your life and your thoughts? How about the epistles, are they valid? The prophets? Genesis?
Can you better explain this comment?
"If G-d did indeed "have a better plan" then why did G-d write that slaveholding and forced servitude by G-d's Chosen People of non-Jews was acceptable and correct behavior -- in fact sanctioned by G-d?"
God does have a better plan, better for us than the way we are currently living, better for the Israelis than they way they were living. Otherwise why bother living God's way. Just live how you want. However I assume your main point of contention had to do with the God's law to the Israelis. You seem to believe that it is not historically valid, that it is too flawed to have God's fingerprints on it.
Let me answer this in two ways. First, if we can't accept it as God's Word, why believe in Jesus as your Savior? Jesus said that the scripture pointed to Him. If you can't accept the scripture why accept Jesus? And if you accept Jesus why not accept his words? Perhaps you are of the opinion that we really don't know Jesus' words. In that case, can you trust Him as your savior? Find a savior you can quote with assurance.
Second, God revealed Himself in time. He chose one man, Abraham, as a starting point. I don't know why. He had His reasons. In accepting Abraham as that man, he took him in the context of the time and culture in which Abraham lived. He change Abraham over time, but He focused on one area, Abraham's relationship to God. As God continued to work on the descendants of Abraham that was the foundation. He dealt first with their relationship to Him, and only later with their relationship with each other. Get the first right, and the second will follow. He still operates this way.
Abraham lived in a slaveholding society, but that wasn't God worked on first. He did give the Israelis a strong distaste for slavery by letting them serve the Egyptians. Following that He gave them his law, and in this he allowed a period of indenture for up to 6 years for Israelis. But why did he allow the Israelis to own foreigners? He was teaching them that they could not enslave their brother, but he expanded that lesson over time. In the new testament we learn that all who are of Christ are our brothers, and that there is now no Greek or Jew, slave or free. Maybe that lesson took a while to sink in, but God's timeframe is distinctly different from ours, and His word does not return void but accomplishes its purpose.
How does this relate to Gay Unions and Clergy? Others brought up the issue of slavery and suggested that the church was evolving on the gay issue just as it had on slavery. But with slavery you can point to an echo throughout scriptures in which freedom is good, and slavery is bad. Moses told Pharoah "Let my people go". He instituted the Jubilee year to eliminate the slavery of debt. He bought his people back from the nations, and finally he paid the price of our sins so that we might be free. Where is the similar echo for homosexual relationships? You can't hear it because it isn't there.
SW: I apologize for not getting back to you but I only occasionally blog. You are obviously quite prolific, and with a sharp mind will probably get the best of me, but I will plod on.
My comments may not make sense to someone operating outside of a Christian worldview, so let me provide some background through which to interpret my arguments.
God created the world perfect and holy, but he gave certain elements in his creation free will. Man rebelled and is fallen. In this fallen state the world and man are corrupted. Each person is born with a desire to be in union with God, but we are incapable of doing this ourselves. Our corrupted natures are bent toward evil. This can be manifested in different ways. Lust is certainly one of the more common, and sexual lust one of the more powerful. Homosexuality is simply a variation of that corruption. Its "natural" only in the sense that nature itself is corrupted.
If I am born with a predilection for lusting after someone of the same sex that does not make it right. Lust is still a sin, as is the homosexual act itself. Its not any more damning than lust of the homosexual variety, but a heterosexual act can be right, whereas a homosexual act can never be right.
Calling it right does not make it right. Allowing a homosexual to feel good about a sin does not make it any less a sin. The difference is that a homosexual who recognizes it as a sin has the chance to repent. The homosexual who does not know this loses this chance.
If a church endorses gay unions, they have now become a facilitator in sin. God himself will hold their leaders accountable
W.IRBY: **W.Irby :
Gay/lesbain/bi.. they are all just wrong. I mean if everyone turned gay we would have no one left. You can't continue "the cycle of life".**
People don't "turn gay." Every BGLT person I know (and there are many in my circle of family and friends) has told me bascially the same thing. When my gay and lesbian freinds hit puberty, they simply were not attracted to the opposite sex. It wasn't a matter of choosing.
My bisexual friends found themselves attracted to varying degrees to both sexes. And my transgender friend knew, from the time that they were old enough to understand the difference between boys and girls, that they had the wrong body.
**If people were meant to be gay then perhaps it would be possible to have kids and stuff. But it's not. You can look at that in a religious way or not.**
Gay people can and do have children, some as a result of marrying and attempting to live as if they were straight, and some as a result of the same reproductive technology that straight infertile couples use to help them procreate. Besides, making babies is not the only reason people marry. When my husband and I met, I had a teenage daughter from a previous relationship and was in the early stages of menopause. He was sterile as a result of radiation treatment for cancer years before. We could not make a baby together if the fate of the free world depended on it. Furthermore, he has no desire to be a parent, and I have no desire for any more children, so we have no plans to adopt. Nobody at the clerk of court's office asked if we could make a baby. They didn't even ask if we were in love. All they asked for was picture ID and exact cash. Should we not have been allowed to marry?
**One because I do believe in God and the Bible. And two because it would end life. Literally.**
There is no reason to assume that the entire population of the planet would ever be gay, any more than there is to assume that the entire population of the planet would share any other single trait. And even if the entire population WERE gay, babies could still be made via sperm donation, so there would be no need to fear the end of human life on the planet.
Homesower, you should really think carefully about what you write before you write it. Especially if your intent is to support biblically-derivative anti-gay bias.
If you take the bible to be the literal speech of G-d, then your statement is self-negating, mutaully and exclusively contradictory:
"While it is true that the Bible was written in the context of a slave-holding society, its also true that Bible points toward a Messiah that would "release the captives". So slavery may have been a reality, but God had a better plan."
If G-d did indeed "have a better plan" then why did G-d write that slaveholding and forced servitude by G-d's Chosen People of non-Jews was acceptable and correct behavior -- in fact sanctioned by G-d?
You make no sense at all. Isn't G-d consistent and all-knowing for all time?
You just made the case that all credible biblical scholars accept for the bible NOT being the literal or absolute Word of G-d. You just proved why the bible is a human work in progress and how the evolving thinking regarding G-d and humnaity's relationship with G-d is an ON-GOIING, nevere-ending process and subject to reforamtion and correction of older thinking and texts.
You just proved that the inequality of the Law towards gay persons should and must be revised when new thinking makes plain the error of the older thinking.
Thank you so much for doing what you did in your post.
You proved why YOU should accept and validate all gay persons in Christian love just exactly they way they were born, unconditionally.
And Homesower, it is interesting how much negativity towards gay persons makes THAT seem pervasively normative and acceptable in our time. As captivity under bondage to slave masters for the 19th-century person was perceived as the norm then, Christian people who resonated with the Exodus story of the Jewish plight under bondage to Pharoah emboldened Christian Abolisionists then and began a process of violent change. It seems that Christian fairness and liberation from horrifying inauthenticity regarding personal sexual identity is the this age's call to reformation now.
The Law in the old testament is not antagonistic to slaveownership and bondage in general. In fact it is affirmative of it in every instance. Christians 150 years ago saw the error in the Law in this regard and took action to deactivate the Law and empower a standard of fairness beyond the Law in accordance with Jesus' ministry. The Slaveowner bible-quoted in the same strident tones as we hear now regarding anti-gay rhetoric and hermeneutics that the bible was on THEIR side in support of the maintenance of slaveholding.
Notice how you and many others bible-quote that the Law is on YOUR side in the matter of the maintenance of your anti-gay agenda. Notice also how conscientious Christians and many others today see the error in the Law in this regard and are taking action to deactivate the Law and empower a standard of fairness beyond the Law in accordance with Jesus' ministry.
Do we have to fight another war to make this transition? Or can we learn from the past and empower bloodless, civil reformation in Christ-like fairness?
Because gay persons aren't going away and neither is the unfariness, dishonesty, hostility and harm done to them which demands redress and reconciliation.
[Sorry for getting your moniker wrong in the last post, please forgive it.]
Homeowner, are you actually saying that to be who you are born to be is a sin of pride?
I challenge you to be who your have not been born to be and tell me how virtuous that is. You are actually suggesting that to live a lie is preferable to living the truth, not to mention being truthful about it in the first place. How interesting the lengths to which you will go to require inauthenticity as the standard for being one with G-d for everyone else -- especially gay persons for whom you have no compassion.
That is illogical and irrational. When you can make a reasoned argument perhaps a reasonable person will listen. But if you actually expect stupidity to be virtuous you will convince only the imebecilic which is what has been pervasively demonstrated on this thread.
I learn more and more about how great are the dimensions of faulty thinking and incompetent concluding driving the anti-gay religious agenda. It's very instructive.
These posts are greatly edifying. I have been deeply deluded that reason and logic would make a difference with the true believer. It doesn't. Important to know.
The evolution of anti-gay argumentation is what facinates me. As soon as facts are presented a ready made rebuttal shifts to a new ground of anti-gay justification to keep the anti-gay stance in place. If you have to work so hard at maintaining it that ought to be a clue to its inauthenticity and futility. Very interesting.
There were some interesting comments made early in this thread that seemed to indicate that the Civil War was somehow a struggle of an enlightened, progressing North against a Christian South (and trying to put the whole gay debate as a continuation of that struggle). Such a view ignores the history of the political crisis that led to the Civil War. It was Christians in the North that fueled the abolitionits fire. I won't claim all Christians were abolitionists, but its certainly not true that abolitionists were a nineteenth century equivalent of a liberal agnostic. These were people willing to risk jail because of their Christian beliefs.
While it is true that the Bible was written in the context of a slave-holding society, its also true that Bible points toward a Messiah that would "release the captives". So slavery may have been a reality, but God had a better plan.
Its understandable how a 19th-century man would see slavery as a given, and as part of the natural order. It was all around them, and not just in the U.S. A big problem with our slavery was that we made it a race issue. If your slave looks just like you, its harder for you to rationalize your owning him. When he looks different, you don't run the risk of becoming like him. This made it harder for the slaveowner to come to a realization that what applied to the owner should apply to the slave.
It doesn't matter whether you are born gay or a product of your environment or corrupted along the way. You are what you are, but that doesn't make it right.
I have a strong tendency to self-centeredness, conceit, pride and gluttony. I am quite certain I was born this way, but it would be foolishness to say that this makes these vices right, or to demand that God change the rules so that I can continue as I am. If He did heaven would gain a lot more entrants, but it wouldn't look much like heaven anymore.
People who are gay are not any more damned to hell than those who are straight. They are all equally damned to hell if they don't accept God's forgiveness for their sin. He is perfectly willing to forgive all the times I had sex with a man (yes, me) since He already paid the price for that sin. But, he never paid the price for my lifestyle, or my problem, or my issue. He paid the price for my sin. If I don't have the humility to recognize God's sovereignty over that sin, and His right to define what is a sin and what isn't then I will be the one outside looking in (with all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes with that condition).
The current insistence on a gay person's "right" to be gay is simply the sin of pride. Mind you, they have good company with lots of other sinners who want the world to condone their sin, but it still leaves them in the same position to God. "God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble".
I forgot to thank you for publicly acknowledgiing your political hostility and authoritarian threat against my personhood and the personhood of all GBLT people in these United States of America where ALL Americans are guaranteed under the auspices of the Declaration of the Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America to Life, Liberty and the Pursuir of Happiness, and Civil Liberties specified but not limited to the Bill of Rights and Amendments to the Constitution.
In America you most certainly may not do this.
Move to Iran or Iraq if you wish to impose your theolcratic will on an undeserving minority by religious/political fiat.
You are entitled to your beliefs any way you wish but you are not entitled to abusively impose your theocratic authoritarianism on other free, tax-paying, productive AMERICANS.
You are unfamiliar with the scientific studies and operating outside of your scope of understanding, Elect of G-d. It is not the truth. It is derivative anti-gay hermeneutics. Did you read Anonymous' Essay below? How about Rabbi Waskow's that "A Fish in the Sea" posted?
I said nothing about genetics although it is being better understood though far from conclusive -- their is no single "gay" gene, but a great many genes that in the presence of hormonal infusing express a variety of sexual identities. This is the same kind of process that converts the female fetus into a male. All life starts out female. In the presence of the rightly timed hormones and the receptive genes and chromosnes the fetus switches from female mode to male mode. In the presence of the rightly timed hormones and the receptive genes and chromosones the fetus continues its development into a female. This is why males have nipples and inactive nascent mammory grands when they serve no actual evolutionary purpose. In vitro endocrinological fetal development is the most illuminating of scientific studies. The ring/first finger ratio anaylsis, head hair whorl analysis, twins analysis, fraternal birth order analysis, and brain architecture analysis are all compelling evidence. But the sexual lie detector analysis is most compelling. There is no single one factor that predominates but all inquiries paint a picture that is concensus conculsive. Dr. Roughgarden and Dr. Bagemihl make compelling cases for the obsolescence and retirement of mechanistic Darwinian sexual selection theory. Your citation speaks to a unfamiliarity with the now 30-year long post-Darwinian scientific research being done today.
Sexual identity is fixed in males prenatally. Straight men are born staight. Gay men are born gay. G-d makes gay men gay at birth.
Your hermeneutics will crumble or change.
It's your choice. If you speak only the truth will you speak these truths as well?
That's the acid test. The science is settled. Everyone is born with the sexuality they have. Now, how are you going to treat gay men who are born gay? Or women for whom their sexuality is much more plastic than men's? The biblical referents are not as iron clad as you would have them be. They are completely dependent upon anti-gay, heterosexist and patriarchally sexist biases. Once one lets go of these biases and looks more closely at the originating languages of the biblical passages, their fuller contextualization with which you and I are well familiar and comprehensively critiqued by Anonymous in his/her Essay below it is most definitely not conclusive.
You wish it to be so becasue it is much more convenient to the maintenace of your anti-gay stance.
But the relationship of David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi make your view far more problematic. Read I Samuel latter half of the book and II Samuel chapter 1 and you have to reconcile their deep love for one another. The same is true for the Book of Ruth. How does that fit into your clear interpretation? It doesn't. It refutes it.
Rabbi Waskow makes a very compelling case for the Book of the Song of Songs. It celebrates love and sexual delight outside of marraiage between mutually consenting adults. The primacy of marriage is not enforced at all and the Rabbi makes a strong case for gay persons being included as well. That definitely does comport with your adamancy.
This is a much bigger dialog than lines drawn in the sand allows for. As Anon pleads let's turn down the volume 95%. Unless you are willing to speak all the truth then you make a mockery of the truth. I will turn down my volume if you give me room to be myself honestly. If you don't then we cannot have a conversation that serves a useful purpose anymore.
Let's have an honest discussion about your moniker. "Elect of G-d" presupposes an authority that is nonsensical. In Christ we are all equal no one better nor worse. You imply an authoritian appeal that does not exist and you do it hautily. Show some humility before G-d. I do not speak for G-d. I do not know the mind of G-d. It is an impossiblity with which I am completely comfortable. I rest in G-d's glorious grace. You do not speak for G-d. You do not know the mind of G-d either. You show a marked insecurity, self-asteem issues and megalomaniacal need for self-agrandisment by the use of your moniker.
That is not G-dly. It is presumptuous. Your words would go down much better if you were less strident.
"Strangely Warmed" is a refernce to John Wesley's moment of epiphany. It speaks to Wesleyan balance of a "both/and" kind of theology. It recalls the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. It posits the opportunity of Wesleyan grace for all.
I chose it intentionally not to brow-beat but to celebrate his intellectual and theological ideals.
The issue to me is not whether someone chooses to be "gay" or not. The issue is whether someone who practices certain behaviors (homosexuality in this case) can rightfully call themselves a Christian, a true follower of Christ. On that count, I think the Scriptures give a resounding no. I've examined carefully the various ways some have tried to get around the clear teaching of Scripture, and I remain unconvinced.
As to the "medical, biological, and endocrenological scientific inquiry", I'm no expert, but I think you might be overstating your case just a little. To my knowledge, up to this point there has not been one definitive study showing a genetic link to homosexuality. Be that as it may, in my eyes it's really a moot point. While science is helpful in many areas, it cannot tell us whether or not certain behaviors are moral. We need the truth of God's word for that.
Yes, we can agree to disagree. I hold no ill will toward you or anyone else who I disagree with. However, if by "hampering your life" and "leave me be" you mean I must cease speaking the truth, that I cannot and will not do. As you have pointed out, this is America, and many thanks to God I am free (for now) to continue speaking His truth (and to participate in the political process of this country), but even if I were not or someday may not be, I will still speak His truth since His authority is greater than that of man.
You are right. No one is done a service if the truth is not the currency of discourse. Here's the truth. Gay persons do not choose their sexual identity. Gay persons are born exactly the same as straight persons with the sexual identity they awaken to. No one changes their sexuality -- it is unalterable. For men it is bimodally fixed well before birth -- the majority expression is heterosexual the minority expression it homosexual and the superminority expression is biseual. For women most are sexuaully plastic in that periods of either are exclusive or bisexuality predominates, a signifigant portion is exclusively bimodal all their lives but the point is that while male sexuality is fixed, female is far more fluid.
One's sexual identity is morally neutral. G-d loves all creation regardless of sexual identity. A rainbow of expression is natural and normal. A literal reading of the bible is wrong on this issue. Your certainty is not supported by medical, biological and endocrenological scientific inquiry. Mine is.
You and I cannot agree on this. That is the truth. For me you are wrong. For you I am wrong. There is no bridging this gap so we will have to forge a way to agree to disagree and you don't hamper my life and love I won't hamper yours.
If you cannot agree to leave me be do we have to go to war over this? I will leave you be in your anti-gay bias. But this is America. You must leave me be in my gay-embracing bias.
I love your thinking and your call. There's a serious problem though as evidenced here. Your appeal must fall upon listening informed by receptive intelligence and caring compassion. As you can read here often times the ones most in need of your message are the ones most obdurately impervious to it. You -- and I most definitely -- are casting pearls before swine in our efforts at a reasoned discourse on this highly charged subject.
I do not believe they are capable of change nor do they want to. They want their rejection of gay persons and maintenance of anti-gay bias. It's comforting and soothing to them and no ammount of reasoned evidnece will sway them one iota.
The churchs will split over this issue. History is a very good instructor in this. Just read these responses. One side has dug in its heels against full acceptance. The other cannot in good conscience reject the growing evidence of the moral neutrality of gay persons and their full acceptance in the human family of love, worship and fellowship.
Thank you all for this exchnage. I provoked you on purpose. I wanted to find our if a bridge between us was even possible. I have my answer. It isn't. There is no compromise possible for either side on this issue. Both are assured of their moral territory.
Enjoy your anti-gay churches. I'll enjoy my gay-embracing churches. Hopefully, you won't bomb or murder gay persons or the churches that embrace them. Though if Iraq is any tutor that is probably exactly what you will resort to in righteous piety. Just remember, Thou Shalt Not Kill is a Commandment even if you justify it by killing "immoral" [by your hermeneutics] gay persons. Hopefully we can coexist in mutual aggreement to cordially disagree.
Rather doubt it though but I prayer for it anyway.
Love is being compassionate enough to tell people the truth. No one is done a service when we fail to tell them the truth and pretend they are something they are not. Christ's church hears His word and keeps it. Those who practice homosexuality, or any other sin for that matter, have no part in Christ and His Kingdom.
Love is being compassionate enough to tell people the truth. No one is done a service when we fail to tell people the truth and pretend they are something they are not. Christ's church hears His word and keeps it. Those who practice homosexuality, or any other sin for that matter, have no part in Christ and His Kingdom.
Elect of God, you proved my thesis that the churches will split assunder into those churches that take Jesus' ministry of Love seriously and those that don't. It's fascinating to me that the traditional Christian church cleaves to Pharisean legalism eschewing the Commandment of Love rejecting our gay brothers and sisters and the progressive Christian church cleaves to Jesus' commandment of Love eschewing Pharisean legalism about sexual morays embracing our gay brothers and sisters in Christian love.
We are expereincing a very similar split right now as happened 2,000 years-ago. Something to think about. While then the Christian movement was the minority and the Jewish the majority, now Christianity is the majority while the Jewish is the vast minority.
The same thing is happeing now. It's very exciting, scary, troubling and exalting.
The most intersting thing about your post is that you accept -- though you don't like it all -- that issue of gay persons' acceptance is well on the way to becoming universal in the US. Thanks for confirming that. Most enlightening.
My faith in Christ leads me to believe His word is true...homosexuality is an abomination and no one practicing homosexuality will inherit the Kingdom of God. Therefore, practicing homosexuals are unbelievers and should not be considered as leaders in the church. Further, the church should not condone their abominable behavior in any way. If the world wants to approve them and their behavior, that is to be expected, but not the church.
10 "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;"
Self-satisfied sactimony is so very secure isn't? Doesn't change an iota that the world evolves and time marches on. Just remember Titus was never written by the Apostle Paul.
I am proud to be declared by you a "heretick". I'll wear it as a badge of honor. How very judgmental of you -- such sweet exemplifier of Chirst's love and acceptance.
What a ridiculous thing to say: plagiarize it improperly!!!
Ha!
That's not what I meant at all. I meant I will not plagiarize it, use it improperly or for improper purposes. I will do none of these, I promise.
Just a Fish in the Sea,
I did not give you enough credit for your submission. Rabbi Waskow is amazing. I was honored by my church to play the role of the Rabbi for our summer vacation bible school series to kindly appreciative accolades so Judaism is much on my mind these days. I have always loved the Song of Songs and felt it and appreciated it just the why Rabbi Waskow talks. I love that it is much more elevated in the Jewish consciousness then in the Christian. Christianity could learn a great deal from this. Awesome paper. Thank you.
Anonymous, I have my suspicions as to who your identity might be but I will respect your desire for anonymity. That was beautiful. Well organized and researched. May I copy it. I realize that it is posted openly on this thread but without proper identification I would feel as though I am plagiarizing it improperly.
With your kind premmission I will attribute this post to Anonymous with the webpage URL, the posting and thread information for proper citation.
This sounds very Wesleyan in its tone and appeal. Could you at least confirm or correct that assupmption, please.
Thank you for sharing this.
-------------------------------
Just Another Fish in the Sea,
Your contribution was great too. I love having both a Christian and Jewish perspective. Your submission has its provenance cited and I will faithfully attribute it. Thank you too.
4. No one is born homosexual. All persons are born heterosexual.
5. G-d said all homsexuals choose to be homosexual because they are willfully rebellious to G-d's will. G-d does not make homosexuals homosexual because G-d does not make anything sinful.
6. All homosexuals are unrepentent sinners.
7. All homosexuals if they "act" upon their homosexual unnatural desires are the same as anyone who has murderous or heterosexual rapist feelings, or feelings of anger or rage. It is a sin to act on performing murder or rape or anger or fury. Homosexuals who "act" on their desires are just the same as rapists, murderers, angry or enraged persons. No difference.
8. Jesus will convert homosexual desires into heterosexual normal desires.
9. I a gay person who refuses to repent to G-d and become heterosexual will not be saved or enter heaven.
10. Homosexuals are undeserving of full acceptance in our churches, covenants of marriage or ordination under any circumstances. They is no room for compromise or change because G-d said this.
You tell me where I got your words wrong. Oh Wise One. These are your Ten Commandments of Thou Shalt Never Be Gay.
Exactly SW I know what i meant.
I am glad you know exactly what I meant as well.
I am through with this room. You have completely proved to me that you are ignorant. Really.
Take everything I say out of context. I could do that with plenty of things that you have said.
But I didnt.
I am not going to try and tell you what you said! Because you know better than I what you said. Just as I know better than you what i say and mean.
When ya'll decide to quit putting words in others mouths let me know.
You keep proving that you think you know everything, including me. Well you dont. Trust me. You dont.
Your arrogant presumption is that "EVERYBODY" thinks that the universal horror of rape and murder is just like "acting" on the desire of the heart if it is for a person of the same sex.
You did make this equation. Stop playing around. Take responsibility for your words and stop BSing about it. Get real. You know exactly what you meant and what your said.
Your arrogant presumption is that "EVERYBODY" thinks that the universal horror of rape and murder is just like "acting" on the desire of the heart if it is for a person of the same sex.
You did make this equation. Stop palying around. Take responsibility for your words and stop BSing about it. Get real. You know exactly what you meant and what your said.
Sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before. The issue of homosexuality threatens to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did a hundred and fifty years ago. We naturally turn to the Bible for guidance, and find ourselves mired in interpretative quicksand. Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?
The debate over homosexuality is a remarkable opportunity, because it raises in an especially acute way how we interpret the Bible, not in this case only, but in numerous others as well. The real issue here, then, is not simply homosexuality, but how Scripture informs our lives today.
Some passages that have been advanced as pertinent to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevant. One is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29). That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them "like women," thus demasculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21.) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting adults of the same sex is legitimate or not. Likewise Deut. 23:17-18 must be pruned from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship; the King James Version inaccurately labeled him a "sodomite."
Several other texts are ambiguous. It is not clear whether 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 refer to the "passive" and "active" partners in homosexual relationships, or to homosexual and heterosexual male prostitutes. In short, it is unclear whether the issue is homosexuality alone, or promiscuity and "sex-for-hire."
Unequivocal Condemnations
Putting these texts to the side, we are left with three references, all of which unequivocally condemn homosexual behavior. Lev. 18:22 states the principle: "You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (NRSV). The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Such an act was regarded as an "abomination" for several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence the spilling of semen for any nonprocreative purpose--in coitus interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), male homosexual acts, or male masturbation--was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. (Female homosexual acts were consequently not so seriously regarded, and are not mentioned at all in the Old Testament (but see Rom. 1:26). One can appreciate how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered questionable in a world facing uncontrolled overpopulation.
In addition, when a man acted like a woman sexually, male dignity was compromised. It was a degradation, not only in regard to himself, but for every other male. The patriarchalism of Hebrew culture shows its hand in the very formulation of the commandment, since no similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual acts between females. And the repugnance felt toward homosexuality was not just that it was deemed unnatural but also that it was considered unJewish, representing yet one more incursion of pagan civilization into Jewish life. On top of that is the more universal repugnance heterosexuals tend to feel for acts and orientations foreign to them. (Left-handedness has evoked something of the same response in many cultures.)
Whatever the rationale for their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command of Scripture. The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts. (That may seem extreme, but there actually are some Christians urging this very thing today.) It is unlikely that any American court will ever again condemn a homosexual to death, even though Scripture clearly commands it.
Old Testament texts have to be weighed against the New. Consequently, Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Rom. 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion.
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up," or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them.
In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were "straight," and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was straight. He had no concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his world. There are people that are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically or as a result of upbringing no one really knows, and it is irrelevant). For such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex.
Likewise, the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision. Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are divine punishment for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with AIDS the world around are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS a divine punishment, since nonpromiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk.
And Paul believes that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences, but Paul here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is "natural" is therefore relevant to the case.
Hebrew Sexual Mores
Nevertheless, the Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity, in those few instances where it is mentioned at all. But this conclusion does not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative:
1. Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18:19; 15:19-24), and anyone in violation was to be "extirpated" or "cut off from their people" (kareth, Lev. 18:29, a term referring to execution by stoning, burning, strangling, or to flogging or expulsion; Lev. 15:24 omits this penalty). Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Should they be "extirpated"? The Bible says they should.
2. The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:22), but here adultery is defined by the marital status of the woman. In the Old Testament, a man could not commit adultery against his own wife; he could only commit adultery against another man by sexually using the other's wife. And a bride who is found not to be a virgin is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13-21), but male virginity at marriage is never even mentioned. It is one of the curiosities of the current debate on sexuality that adultery, which creates far more social havoc, is considered less "sinful" than homosexual activity. Perhaps this is because there are far more adulterers in our churches. Yet no one, to my knowledge, is calling for their stoning, despite the clear command of Scripture. And we ordain adulterers.
3. Nudity, the characteristic of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible (2 Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3). When one of Noah's sons beheld his father naked, he was cursed (Gen. 9:20-27). To a great extent this nudity taboo probably even inhibited the sexual intimacy of husbands and wives (this is still true of a surprising number of people reared in the Judeo-Christian tradition). We may not be prepared for nude beaches, but are we prepared to regard nudity in the locker room or at the old swimming hole or in the privacy of one's home as an accursed sin? The Bible does.
4. Polygamy (many wives) and concubinage (a woman living with a man to whom she is not married) were regularly practiced in the Old Testament. Neither is ever condemned by the New Testament (with the questionable exceptions of 1 Tim. 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6). Jesus' teaching about marital union in Mark 10:6-8 is no exception, since he quotes Gen. 2:24 as his authority (the man and the woman will become "one flesh"), and this text was never understood in Israel as excluding polygamy. A man could become "one flesh" with more than one woman, through the act of sexual intercourse. We know from Jewish sources that polygamy continued to be practiced within Judaism for centuries following the New Testament period. So if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don't we?
5. A form of polygamy was the levirate marriage. When a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bore him a male heir. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27 par.). I am not aware of any Christians who still obey this unambiguous commandment of Scripture. Why is this law ignored, and the one against homosexual behavior preserved?
6. The Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting heterosexual adults, as long as the woman's economic value (bride price) is not compromised, that is to say, as long as she is not a virgin. There are poems in the Song of Songs that eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation. In various parts of the Christian world, quite different attitudes have prevailed about sexual intercourse before marriage. In some Christian communities, proof of fertility (that is, pregnancy) was required for marriage. This was especially the case in farming areas where the inability to produce children-workers could mean economic hardship. Today, many single adults, the widowed, and the divorced are reverting to "biblical" practice, while others believe that sexual intercourse belongs only within marriage. Both views are Scriptural. Which is right?
7. The Bible virtually lacks terms for the sexual organs, being content with such euphemisms as "foot" or "thigh" for the genitals, and using other euphemisms to describe coitus, such as "he knew her." Today most of us regard such language as "puritanical" and contrary to a proper regard for the goodness of creation. In short, we don't follow Biblical practice.
8. Semen and menstrual blood rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev. 15:16-24). Intercourse rendered one unclean until sundown; menstruation rendered the woman unclean for seven days. Today most people would regard semen and menstrual fluid as completely natural and only at times "messy," not "unclean."
9. Social regulations regarding adultery, incest, rape and prostitution are, in the Old Testament, determined largely by considerations of the males' property rights over women. Prostitution was considered quite natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity of the unmarried and the property rights of husbands (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7). A man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, though the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Paul must appeal to reason in attacking prostitution (1 Cor. 6:12-20); he cannot lump it in the category of adultery (vs. 9).
Today we are moving, with great social turbulence and at a high but necessary cost, toward a more equitable, non-patriarchal set of social arrangements in which women are no longer regarded as the chattel of men. We are also trying to move beyond the double standard. Love, fidelity and mutual respect replace property rights. We have, as yet, made very little progress in changing the double standard in regard to prostitution. As we leave behind patriarchal gender relations, what will we do with the patriarchalism in the Bible?
10. Jews were supposed to practice endogamy--that is, marriage within the twelve tribes of Israel. Until recently a similar rule prevailed in the American South, in laws against interracial marriage (miscegenation). We have witnessed, within the lifetime of many of us, the nonviolent struggle to nullify state laws against intermarriage and the gradual change in social attitudes toward interracial relationships. Sexual mores can alter quite radically even in a single lifetime.
11. The law of Moses allowed for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus categorically forbids it (Mark 10:1-12; Matt. 19:9 softens his severity). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus, have been divorced. Why, then, do some of these very people consider themselves eligible for baptism, church membership, communion, and ordination, but not homosexuals? What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?
12. The Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal, and 1 Tim. 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made it mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian ethicists demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. But this legislates celibacy by category, not by divine calling. Others argue that since God made men and women for each other in order to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God's intent in creation. But this would mean that childless couples, single persons, priests and nuns would be in violation of God's intention in their creation. Those who argue thus must explain why the apostle Paul never married. And are they prepared to charge Jesus with violating the will of God by remaining single?
Certainly heterosexual marriage is normal, else the race would die out. But it is not normative. God can bless the world through people who are married and through people who are single, and it is false to generalize from the marriage of most people to the marriage of everyone. In 1 Cor. 7:7 Paul goes so far as to call marriage a "charisma," or divine gift, to which not everyone is called. He preferred that people remain as he was--unmarried. In an age of overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically!
13. In many other ways we have developed different norms from those explicitly laid down by the Bible. For example, "If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity" (Deut. 25:11f.). We, on the contrary, might very well applaud her for trying to save her husband's life!
14. The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18 permitted--and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification.
The Problem of Authority
These cases are relevant to our attitude toward the authority of Scripture. They are not cultic prohibitions from the Holiness Code that are clearly superseded in Christianity, such as rules about eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two different materials. They are rules concerning sexual behavior, and they fall among the moral commandments of Scripture. Clearly we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not mentioned at all in the New. What is our principle of selection here?
For example, virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting: incest, rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals. But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow: intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, exogamy (marriage with non-Jews), naming sexual organs, nudity (under certain conditions), masturbation (some Christians still condemn this), birth control (some Christians still forbid this).
And the Bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not. Likewise, the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, and very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13).
And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!
Surely no one today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture. Yet no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.
If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these biblical sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul himself says as a new Law. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which sexual mores they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.
Judge for Yourselves
The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no Biblical sex ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period.
The very notion of a "sex ethic" reflects the materialism and splitness of modern life, in which we increasingly define our identity sexually. Sexuality cannot be separated off from the rest of life. No sex act is "ethical" in and of itself, without reference to the rest of a person's life, the patterns of the culture, the special circumstances faced, and the will of God. What we have are simply sexual mores, which change, sometimes with startling rapidity, creating bewildering dilemmas. Just within one lifetime we have witnessed the shift from the ideal of preserving one's virginity until marriage, to couples living together for several years before getting married. The response of many Christians is merely to long for the hypocrisies of an earlier era.
I agree that rules and norms are necessary; that is what sexual mores are. But rules and norms also tend to be impressed into the service of the Domination System, and to serve as a form of crowd control rather than to enhance the fullness of human potential. So we must critique the sexual mores of any given time and clime by the love ethic exemplified by Jesus. Defining such a love ethic is not complicated. It is non-exploitative (hence no sexual exploitation of children, no using of another to their loss), it does not dominate (hence no patriarchal treatment of women as chattel), it is responsible, mutual, caring, and loving. Augustine already dealt with this in his inspired phrase, "Love God, and do as you please."
Our moral task, then, is to apply Jesus' love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture. This doesn't mean everything goes. It means that everything is to be critiqued by Jesus' love commandment. We might address younger teens, not with laws and commandments whose violation is a sin, but rather with the sad experiences of so many of our own children who find too much early sexual intimacy overwhelming, and who react by voluntary celibacy and even the refusal to date. We can offer reasons, not empty and unenforceable orders. We can challenge both gays and straights to question their behaviors in the light of love and the requirements of fidelity, honesty, responsibility, and genuine concern for the best interests of the other and of society as a whole.
Christian morality, after all, is not a iron chastity belt for repressing urges, but a way of expressing the integrity of our relationship with God. It is the attempt to discover a manner of living that is consistent with who God created us to be. For those of same-sex orientation, as for heterosexuals, being moral means rejecting sexual mores that violate their own integrity and that of others, and attempting to discover what it would mean to live by the love ethic of Jesus.
Morton Kelsey goes so far as to argue that homosexual orientation has nothing to do with morality, any more than left-handedness. It is simply the way some people's sexuality is configured. Morality enters the picture when that predisposition is enacted. If we saw it as a God-given gift to those for whom it is normal, we could get beyond the acrimony and brutality that have so often characterized the unchristian behavior of Christians toward gays.
Approached from the point of view of love rather than that of law, the issue is at once transformed. Now the question is not "What is permitted?" but rather "What does it mean to love my homosexual neighbor?" Approached from the point of view of faith rather than works, the question ceases to be "What constitutes a breach of divine law in the sexual realm?" and becomes instead "What constitutes integrity before the God revealed in the cosmic lover, Jesus Christ?" Approached from the point of view of the Spirit rather than the letter, the question ceases to be "What does Scripture command?" and becomes "What is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology, and, yes, psychology, genetics, anthropology, and biology?" We can't continue to build ethics on the basis of bad science.
In a little-remembered statement, Jesus said, "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57 NRSV). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right. Yet Paul himself echoes Jesus' sentiment when he says, "Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" (1 Cor. 6:3 RSV). The last thing Paul would want is for people to respond to his ethical advice as a new law engraved on tablets of stone. He is himself trying to "judge for himself what is right." If now new evidence is in on the phenomenon of homosexuality, are we not obligated--no, free--to re-evaluate the whole issue in the light of all the available data and decide what is right, under God, for ourselves? Is this not the radical freedom for obedience in which the gospel establishes us?
Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well, and nowhere attacked it as unjust. Are we prepared to argue today that slavery is biblically justified? One hundred and fifty years ago, when the debate over slavery was raging, the Bible seemed to be clearly on the slaveholders' side. Abolitionists were hard pressed to justify their opposition to slavery on biblical grounds. Yet today, if you were to ask Christians in the South whether the Bible sanctions slavery, virtually everyone would agree that it does not. How do we account for such a monumental shift?
What happened is that the churches were finally driven to penetrate beyond the legal tenor of Scripture to an even deeper tenor, articulated by Israel out of the experience of the Exodus and the prophets and brought to sublime embodiment in Jesus' identification with harlots, tax collectors, the diseased and maimed and outcast and poor. It is that God sides with the powerless. God liberates the oppressed. God suffers with the suffering and groans toward the reconciliation of all things. In the light of that supernal compassion, whatever our position on gays, the gospel's imperative to love, care for, and be identified with their sufferings is unmistakably clear.
In the same way, women are pressing us to acknowledge the sexism and patriarchalism that pervades Scripture and has alienated so many women from the church. The way out, however, is not to deny the sexism in Scripture, but to develop an interpretive theory that judges even Scripture in the light of the revelation in Jesus. What Jesus gives us is a critique of domination in all its forms, a critique that can be turned on the Bible itself. The Bible thus contains the principles of its own correction. We are freed from bibliolatry, the worship of the Bible. It is restored to its proper place as witness to the Word of God. And that word is a Person, not a book.
With the interpretive grid provided by a critique of domination, we are able to filter out the sexism, patriarchalism, violence, and homophobia that are very much a part of the Bible, thus liberating it to reveal to us in fresh ways the inbreaking, in our time, of God's domination-free order.
An Appeal for Tolerance
What most saddens me in this whole raucous debate in the churches is how sub-Christian most of it has been. It is characteristic of our time that the issues most difficult to assess, and which have generated the greatest degree of animosity, are issues on which the Bible can be interpreted as supporting either side. I am referring to abortion and homosexuality.
We need to take a few steps back and be honest with ourselves. I am deeply convinced of the rightness of what I have said in this essay. But I must acknowledge that it is not an air tight case. You can find weaknesses in it, just as I can in others'. The truth is, we are not given unequivocal guidance in either area, abortion or homosexuality.
Rather than tearing at each others's throats, therefore, we should humbly admit our limitations. How do I know I am correctly interpreting God's word for us today? How do you? Wouldn't it be wiser for Christians to lower the decibels by 95 percent and quietly present our beliefs, knowing full well that we might be wrong?
I know of a couple, both well known Christian authors in their own right, who have both spoken out on the issue of homosexuality. She supports gays, passionately; he opposes their behavior, strenuously. So far as I can tell, this couple still enjoy each other's company, eat at the same table, and, for all I know, sleep in the same bed.
We in the church need to get our priorities straight. We have not reached a consensus about who is right on the issue of homosexuality. But what is clear, utterly clear, is that we are commanded to love one another. Love not just our gay sisters and brothers who are often sitting beside us, unacknowledged, in church, but all of us who are involved in this debate. These are issues about which we should amiably agree to disagree. We don't have to tear whole denominations to shreds in order to air our differences on this point. If that couple I mentioned can continue to embrace across this divide, surely we can do so as well.
How magnanimous of you. You are truly a saint. You'll tolerate your own child if "they want to be gay"!!!
What a horrible thing to say. That is without doubt the most condescending, sanctimonious piece of crap I have ever heard. With that kind of attitude your child would know eons before he did come to you to never do it. Irby, you are sad.
You have know idea what love is. You are not wise by any reasonable standard. I feel so sorry for your children and community but I feel more sorry for your "gay friends". I don't believe you have any. I think this a lie because they wuldn't put up with your fake condescention.
Some have argued that the Bible prohibits male homosexuality for sure, and perhaps lesbian sexuality as well. (Those who might want the government to poke around in private bedrooms might recall that the Rabbis suggested that the Bible also calls for privacy: that what Balaam found "Mah tovu," "So good!" in the tents of the House of Jacob was precisely that they were pitched at angles to each other so that each household preserved its privacy -- especially its sexual privacy.)
Some have argued that "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman" is ambiguous, leaving open to question what the text really means. (Is this
physically possible? Was it only about casual or ritual homosexuality, not committed relationships?)
But I think we need to go beyond these historical or midrashic quibbles, to look more deeply into Torah.
Does Torah look forward to its own transformation? If so, under what circumstances?
There is wise and powerful teaching in the passage of Talmud that cautions against raising goats and sheep in the Land of Israel. Since our forebears Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rivkah, did precisely that, how could the Talmud have the chutzpah to oppose it?
The Rabbis know the world had changed. They knew that the numbers of goats and sheep, and of the human population, would denude and ruin the Land if these animals were bred there.
The world had changed, and so did Jewish holy practice.
Biblical Judaism, out of which sprang the Leviticus prohibition on homosexuality, professed three basic rules for proper sexual ethics:
1. Have as many children as possible. Gen. I: 28: "Be fruitful, multiply, fill up the earth, and subdue it."
2. Men were to be in charge. Genesis 3: 16, where God says to Eve, "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
3. Sex was delightful and sacred. (Song of Songs, throughout.) Celibacy was almost unheard of, and almost always strongly discouraged.
How did these affect attitudes toward homosexuality?
"Be fruitful and multiply, fill up the earth and subdue it"" worked against homosexuality, since having children was presumably impossible. But what shall we do today, in a generation when the injunction to "fill up th earth" has been accomplished? H
Today the sheer number of humans is putting impossible burdens on our global ecosystem and plunging into extinction thousands of the species that God commands in the story of the Flood we must not allow to die.
Today we need to encourage, not forbid, forms of sexuality that avoid biological multiplication. We might now read the command as teaching us to
be fruitful and expansive emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually rather than biologically.
What were the effects of "He shall rule over you"? If a man had to be in charge in a sexual relationship, there was no way to deal with a relationship of two men. Neither one could be subordinated -- "as with a woman." Such a relationship would blow out all the circuits. Conversely, a relationship between two "subordinate" women would not even turn the power on - and so it was ignored in biblical tradition.
Is this statement in Eden intended by Torah to persist forever? No more than the twin statement (Gen. 3: 17-19) that human beings (or at least men) shall "toil in the sweat of their brow," wringing a livelihood from a hostile earth. Do we think Torah commands us to eschew the machines that make our labor easier?
Like this statement about toil, and like "Be fruitful and multiply," the overlordship of men applied to a history that should be transcended. It was not an edict to be obeyed.
Modernity has transformed the world we live in. The Modernity that eases our work and makes women and men equal and brings the human race to fill up
and subdue the earth seems to be what God intended.
So then we must ask ourselves, as the Rabbis of the Talmud understood that in their new world they must oppose raising sheep and goats as their forebears did, what must we change in our new world?
In a world filled and subdued by the human race, multiplying our numbers may actually contravene God's intention. In a world where men are not required to be dominant nor women to be subordinate, a relationship of two men or two
women need not be either destructive or irrelevant.
So we are evolving past these two rules that underlay the opposition to gay and lesbian relationships and marriages.
The third basic rule -- that sex is delightful and sacred - still stands. The biblical Song of Songs embodies it, and the Song -- far from being outdated - may point beyond the Eden of the past, of a childish human race, past our history of toil and hierarchy, toward an Eden of the Future. "Eden for grown-ups," for a grown-up human race and for newly mature individual human beings.
In the Song, bodies are no longer shameful as they were after the mistake of Eden; the earth is playful, not our enemy; and women and men are equal in desire and in power. And God is never named - no longer Papa/Mama as in Eden, giving orders, but inherent in the very process of life.
Though the drama of the Song is on its face heterosexual, it describes the kind of sensual pleasure beyond the rules that has characterized some aspects of gay and lesbian desire, especially since marriage was forbidden.
So we now have the opportunity to open heterosexual relationships and marriages to the kind of joy the Song embodies, while opening gay and lesbian life to the more planful structure that marriage makes possible.
Love and marriage are present in the Song, suffused with joy and pleasure rather than with rigidity and rules. For millennia, Jews have prided ourselves on the worth of marriage as a carrier of holiness and community. Now we can expand the circles in which marriage - a new kind of marriage - is possible.
From a spiritual as well as a legal standpoint, our courts are opening the way to enhancing, not destroying, marriage. They have opened the gates; but only spiritual communities can enter. Let the tents of Jacob and the shrines of Israel rejoice, "Mah tovu! How wonderful!"
___________________________
* Rabbi Arthur Waskow is director of The Shalom Center ,
author of Down-to-Earth Judaism: Food, Money, Sex, & the Rest of Life, and
co-author of A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven: The Jewish Life-Spiral
as a Spiritual Path. The Shalom center's Website carries many thoughtful reexaminations of the Bible in the light of God;s will for the world we live in.
"For example, read 1Corinthians6:9-10"
Thanks for bringing it up, because false translation is a significant crime on the part of those people who condemn homosexuality.
I Corinthians was written in Greek, not English. The two greek words that your fraudulent translation reports as "male prostitutes, homosexuals" are arsenkoitai and malkoi - neither means men who have sex with men, i.e., homosexuals.
Greek of Paul's time and place had two commonly used words that meant men who have sex with men - erestes and eranamos. Paul used neither one.
Instead, Paul invented a word, arsenokoitai, whose meaning has changed over the course of time, and he used a word that is essentially a criticism of anything feminime.
So you are reviling my relationship based on a text where Paul did not use the two words that would have actually conveyed the meaning you hunger for. Bully for you.
As for Romans2:26 - The error here is right in front: "That is why - - - " It means that whatever came before (which happens to be a description of specific fertility practices) is too blame for what follows.
If the Romans 1 passage is to be used to condemn homosexuality entirely, on the grounds that it appears to be condemning same-sex sexual acts in a specific situation, than the hundreds of verses condemning specific acts of heterosexual intimacy constitute a much stronger condemnation of all heterosexuals and all heterosexuality.
Keep in mind, of course, that you are leaing on the word of a fallible man, instead of Jesus Christ, who summed up the law without ever condeming homosexuality: The whole of the Law is love God with your entire self and love your neighbor as yourself."
Every person, including you, Aurora, who condemns homosexuality, is in direct and deliberate disobediance, defying and rejecting Jesus Christ, because that condemnation violates both clauses of what Christ said was the whole of the law.
Aurora, you've sinned against me, my partner, our friends, people we worship with, work with, millions of human beings.
Please repent of your sin against us as publicly as you committed it.
The whole idea of what is right and what is wrong has to be grounded in something other than what the individual thinks. Otherwise, anyone can justify whatever they want to do. Even the whole idea of sexuality, in its entirety has to be greater than what I think, or I can even justfy pedaphilia, incest, rape, or literally any behavior I think is "right for me". Ultimately, it comes down to one decision. Is there a God or isn't there. If you don't believe there is a God, then you have to come up with a paradigm for determining acceptable behavior. If you do believe in God, than by the very definition, God gets to say what is right and wrong, and you can't overturn that. As one who has become convinced there is a God, it then logically follows that He is perfect, and has the right to set the rules. Therefore, regardless of what I "think" or "feel", I'm compelled to subordinate my desires to God's will. So, whether I'm born gay, or develop gay desires because of enviornment, or other factors, I must consider my behavior, not in light of how I feel or think, but in light of what God says. By the way, the same logic applies to any behavior. Selfishness is a good example. God says selfishness is wrong. Anyone who has been a father or mother knows that even infants are selfish. That's why, as children grow older, they must be taught to be unselfish. But, what if someone were to say "By trying to make me be unselfish, you are denying how I was made. If I were unselfish, I would not be true to that person I really am. Unselfishness may be ok for you, but it isn't ok for me." How would we argue that selfishness is wrong? If we allow individuals to establish what is right for them, then we can't even intimate that selfishness is bad, because we are imposing a value on them that is illegitimate in their life. One would have to say "Well, that's really ok to be selfish. What right do I have to tell you how to live?" While that is certainly possible, I think we would all agree that ultimately, being selfish in not healthy or profitable. But God says selfishness is wrong, and therefore it is wrong, regardless of what I think or feel. Ultimately, we will be judged based upon what God says is good or bad, not on what we think is good or bad. Thanks for allowing me to give my opinion
Wrong again. I am neither a mormon or a baptist.
And I wont teach my children to hate either. I dont hate and i wont teach them to.
I will teach them God's word. They will make their own choices.
And you know if my child comes up to me and tells me they want to be gay then I will live with it. I will continue to them Gods word. But I will not punish them or condemn them. Because I dont condemn them.
I will pray for my child. But I will not love them any less.
W.Irby :
Like I said. I have sinned. Plenty of times.
As a matter of fact, no i am not a virgin. I am happily married and this is my second pregnancy.
They could learn to love and live their life as God intended. With someone of the opposite sex.
You know you guys really are helping me change my mind. Your helping me see how much I really do dislike it. Congrats. Your helping me get my faith even stronger with God. Im so glad I found him. I am so glad I dont have to lie to HIM!
-----------------------------------
You are either a Mormon or a Baptist. The stink of their propaganda is dripping of this one.
I said that to pretend who you are not is stupid, Irby. My brother and his husband are not stupid nor are they liars nor are they miserable nor are they faking an existence that isn't true for them.
You don't get it. You are asking them to fake and existence that isn't true and then lie about how wonderful it all is. You are the one who ie sick. I weep for your children.
You need help.
My children love their two uncles just the way they are. We don't teach our children hate.
Ok then give me the exact quote from me that says
"gay people are just like murders and rapist"
please bc i dont see it.
no i didnt say that.
you dont know what i said. you dont understand.
i using something EVERYONE thinks is a horrible and bad thing since you think i feel this way about gay people.
And you SW are constantly putting words in my mouth. I give up with you. You are hopeless. You are more stubborn than I am. Thats pretty bad.
"W.Irby :
Once again take my words out of context.
Ya'll are acusing me of comparing them. Im not.
Read my stuff before you overanalyze.
Your taking everything I say way out of context, again, to try and turn things around. Go ahead. I know the truth. I know what I meant. God knows what I meant."
--------------------------
You said that gay people are the same as murderers and rapists if the "act" on their desires. That is not taken out of context. That is what YOU wrote. YOU wrote that.
----------------------------
"I didnt compare gay people to murders. Ya'll I think i look down on gay people and you think its a sin. Well I dont look down on them.
But do you look down on people who do sinful things as bad people? Yes you do.
Thats what I meant."
-----------------------------
G-d doesn't "look down" on gay persons and call them sinful. YOU do this. Against Jesus' ministry to not do this. YOU presume to know the mind of G-d and speak G-d's mind.
----------------------------
"You knew exactly what I meant. But you chose to be IGNORANT again and turn it around.
And you know while im thinking about it ya'll just proved my point.."
---------------------------
Yes, that is correct. WE do know exactly what you meant. Just what yuo wrote. That gay persons are just like murderers and rapists who murder and rape. You seem to be the one who doesn't know what you wrote.
But that's what you wrote. YOU are the one not taking responsibility for your views.
Like I said. I have sinned. Plenty of times.
As a matter of fact, no i am not a virgin. I am happily married and this is my second pregnancy.
They could learn to love and live their life as God intended. With someone of the opposite sex.
You know you guys really are helping me change my mind. Your helping me see how much I really do dislike it. Congrats. Your helping me get my faith even stronger with God. Im so glad I found him. I am so glad I dont have to lie to HIM!
Once again take my words out of context.
Ya'll are acusing me of comparing them. Im not.
Read my stuff before you overanalyze.
Your taking everything I say way out of context, again, to try and turn things around. Go ahead. I know the truth. I know what I meant. God knows what I meant.
I didnt compare gay people to murders. Ya'll I think i look down on gay people and you think its a sin. Well I dont look down on them.
But do you look down on people who do sinful things as bad people? Yes you do.
Thats what I meant.
You knew exactly what I meant. But you chose to be IGNORANT again and turn it around.
And you know while im thinking about it ya'll just proved my point..
Repent of being who they are in their deepest selves? Is that it? Lie about who they are? Pretend to be what aren't or spend their whole lives alone and sexless? These are the options?
You haven't had sex yet have you? You are a virgin aren't you? Becasue only a virgin who has no expereince with life would condemn other people she doesn't understand to the kind of h&ll on earth she advocates by proxy.
My brother and his husband are beautiful just the way they are and they are going to heaven with all of us because they love G-d with all their strength, mind, and body.
You have no idea what "repent" means do you? It means to return to God. That's all it means. It doesn't mean be a faker and fake an existence that is inauthentic to please religious zealots who don't know their a$$es from holes in the ground. Repent doesn't mean, "I'm really, really sorry for who I am and make me who I am not so ignorant fools don't have to be afflicted with my existance as I truly am."
What an idiot you are. You have no idea what you are talking about. Go to school and learn something. Gays are real people with real feelings that are just as valid as yours. Grow up.
That's right, you're wonderful, Irby. You don't hate gays. You think they are the same as rapists and murderers for "what they do". But you don't say that to their face; you say it here.
Oh Wise Women, Irby, you compared gay pserons to rapists and murderers and made that equation the standard of justifcation for anti-gay rhetoric and hermeneutics against them.
Those are your words. You wrote that. You are sick and deluded. You need help too.
A heterosexual committing homosexual acts fraudulently and abusively is a sin. Every reference in the bible is a reference to this and not gay persons. The bible says nothing about gay persons. You read your anti-gay bias into the text fraudulently and then bear false witness against gay persons.
This is the point.
You just don't get it.
David, you need psychological help.
Irby, you are defintely not wise by the classic Greek standard of measure: wisdom is the courage to say I know nothing and start from there to learn.
You know it all and thereby cannot learn anything new.
The point of the question was to examine whether you can learn to change your mind.
You have proven you cannot and never will.
OK. We all get it. You are agressively ignorant. I'm so proud of you.
I guessed right about you. You are also too young to know what wisdon is. Wisdom develops with age and openness to truth and love.
Gay persons are not the "acts" they do. Stop exclusively sexualizing them. This is obscene. I would never refer to you with the catch-all demeaning title, "heterosexuals". They and you are who G-d made them and where born to be. I feel sorry for your gay "friends". With a friend like you who needs enemies.
Thanks for defending God's Word. Sheep amongst the wolves, huh? Best thing to do if they continue with the hateful comments and poor assumptions of our character and beliefs is to just leave. Let em be sista! I agree with everything you said. I wish they would realize that what we believe is not hateful but actually the complete opposite. Take care Irby. God bless you.
Ok let me just throw this out there..
Since the bible says ( in more than one place ) that homosexuality is a sin. I look at homosexuality as an act.. i dont look at the people. Bc I dont think the people are bad. I just think the actions are bad.
What about rapist and murders. Im sure all of you at one point or time have seen something on tv, heard something on the news about either of those. And thought to yourself or outloud. How awful, how could someone do such a thing. That is judging. Which by the way yes I have said that. Im not denying it.
But that is you calling the PERSON bad. Saying the PERSON is going to Hell.
As for me saying homosexuality is a sin. I am saying the ACT is a SIN. Not the people doing it.
You people just dont understand, either that or you just want to make me out to be some horrible person who hates gay and is out to get them. well Im not. IF that were so i wouldnt have gay friends. If that were so i would say how much i hate gays and i think they are just horrible people. WELL I DONT. So stop putting words in my mouth.
Hell ya'll are judging me right now. You know that?! Bascially calling me a bad person bc i dont agree with you.
Its a freakin website that posted a question
"What does your faith lead you to believe about gay unions and gay clergy? Could you ever change your mind?"
All I did was answer that question.
Just as all of you did.
I gave my opinion and thats it. I am not a bad person and I am not judging anyone.
If you can't get that.. Im sorry your so ignorant.
Ron,
I never once said a gay person couldnt repent and end up in heaven.
All they have to do is ask for forgiveness and they will get it.
But they shouldnt keep doing it knowing that it is a sin. And yes it is a sin.
Homosexuality is a sin.
I am not judging them. God is. I am just saying what the bible says. You people who say that i am judging them are ignorant.
I like my gay friends. They are wonderful people. That is just one of the things we dont agree on. They know how i feel about it. They dont dislike me for it bc they know why i feel the way i do. As a matter of fact I talked to one today ( named Ryan) bc he was interested in everything i have been talkin about on here. He asked me to show him all the verses in the bible that talked about it and you know what he agrees. He thinks that he should stop what he is doing. He knows he wasn't "born that way" because you aren't. God doesn't make people into homosexuales. He didn't intend for people to end up that way. If he did he wouldnt have made a man and woman in the beginning. He wouldnt' constently say over and over again in the bible one man to one woman. one man to one wife.. and so on.
Oh and SW. i didnt use Leviticus. YOu used it first. I just simply put it up there to show you what you posted and how it worked against your arguement, not for yours.
I don't care what you people think. I know how i feel on the inside. I do not hate gay people. just because they are gay doesn't make them any less. but ACCORDING TO GOD homosexuality is a sin and since they participate in it. The ACTIONS not the PEOPLE are sins.
And yes SW I am a woman. I am 19 year old woman. I have probably seen more in this world and been through more than a 60 year old. I am wise way beyond my years and i know I am.
I am not concieted by any means because over half the stuff I have done and seen I am not proud of but you know what that is between me and God. I repented and asked for my forgiveness.
I am a heterosexual, married woman. If two people love each other and wish to make a commitment to share their lives, I don't care if they are the same sex. It will not hurt my marriage at all. I fail to see how it is anyone's business.
IF you believe that it is a sin, why not let your god decide? Doesn't the bible include the admonition to not judge?
You are precisely right; the problem is your Christian upbringing. To cure yourself, try reading one of the books on the bestseller list like "the God Delusion" or "Letter to a Christian Nation”. You can lead a rational life if you try to think.
You are precisely right; the problem is your Christian upbringing. To cure yourself, try reading one of the books on the bestseller list like "the God Delusion" or "Letter to a Christian Nation”. You can lead a rational life if you try to think.
You are precisely right; the problem is your Christian upbringing. To cure yourself, try reading one of the books on the bestseller list like the God Delusion of Letter to a Christian Nation”. You can lead a rational life if you try to think.
No SW I don't need help. I never said that you are demon possesed. Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I don't love you or that I don't respect you. I merely stated homosexuality as a sin. The level of sin I commit on a regular basis as well. This will definately be my last post on this subject, but I just wanted you to know that I don't hate homosexuals. I never said that, and stop assuming that!
There is no hope if religious people really believe and will not change their notion that gay people = sin and are forever chronically sinful, irredeemable, irreconcilable, unsalvagable.
This is outrageous. If this is Christian teaching then I want no part of it and will tell any religious zealot to go straight to H&ll.
Gays are not unrepentant sinners. This is the 21st century for chrissakes. Leave them alone. My brother and his partner are good people, fine citizens and worth my, my wife and our kids' love.
Why is Christian faith tied to excluding gays? Is that really the future of Christianity?
G-d did not say this. Men wrote this and you fraudulently concluded it. Fallible men. Pre-analytic men. Pre-sceintific men. Writtten words by men are by definition not eternal. They are time-bound and time-warped to future understanding. Our words today are not eternal for all time. They represent our understanding today -- the same is true as for yesterday. They are works in progress, never to be finished, never to capture the eternal, always attemping to understand the mysteries beyond our current understanding.
--------------------------------
The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God.
[This is untrue -- you bear false witness. II Samuel 1:26 of G-d's Word refutes your claim.]
When a person continues in sin and disbelief, the Bible tells us that God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.
[This is untrue -- it presumes that gay attraction is demonic possession or Satanic influence. You maintain a 2,500 year old superstition that demon-possession is the "explanation" of gay persons -- you bear false witness to gay persons.]
God does not create a person with homosexual desires.
[This is a lie you maintain in order to keep your false biblical inerrancy claim -- you bear false witness to gay persons.]
The Bible tells us that a person becomes a homosexual because of sin (Romans 1:24-27),
[It does not say this at all. The King James Version does not support your claim -- you bear fasle witness to gay persons.]
and ultimately because of their own choice.
[This is a lie you use to maintain your false biblical inerrancy claim -- you bear false witness to gay persons.]
A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person choosing to sin by giving into their sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger / rage, does that make it right for then to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true for homosexuality.
[This is a lie. Gay persons may not with any kind of integrity epsecially in America be equated with states of anger or rage. No ones' sexual identity is chosen. No one makes a conscious "choice" to be any kind of sexual identity. Only gay men who do not accpet themselves and engage in anti-gay rhetoric or hermenuetics make the claim that sexual attraction is changeable, lie about their true sexual identity and attempt to fabricate a false sexual identity. This is called heterosexist bias -- the attempted fraudulent heterosexualization of gay persons inauthentically -- you bear false witness to gay persons.]
However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17).
[This is a lie supported no where in the bible. Jesus' salvation will not make a gay person straight -- or the converse, Satan's possession make a straight person gay . This is an outrageous claim that has no basis in reality -- you bear false witness to gay persons.]
David, you need help. Serious mental help. Being gay is not 5th century BCE demonic possession. Demons don't make you have "those attractions". It is how you were born.
If being insane is the litmus test for being a faithful Christian than serious intervention is called for. Thank you for allerting me to the dimension of the problem in our churches.
Whether you like it or not, homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes. I agree with God. I can tell from all the hateful ranting from SW and others that it is not acceptable to agree with God. I could care less what you think. I never said I hated anyone nor did I ever talk in offensive language. But as I can see those who accept sin as a positive thing are prone to hateful and ridiculous accusations. So keep it coming if you want, but I'm gonna leave this conversation since it is a hateful and demeaning conversation on your part. I was willing to have a respecful conversation and try to show why you are deserving of God's grace, but all the hateful rant is quite convincing that I'll just go. Have a blessed day and God bless you in all you do.
You said that ALL G-d's commandments and rules are to be followed equally without regard to hiearchy.
You are the one who said this.
You said no one can follow all of them but you try.
Be consistent. You are being inconsistent and that is my point. Why is the issue of homosexuality so hyperinflated for you? You said that all sins are equal with no one more important than any other.
In fact David agreed and said the same. Yet David then claims that homosexuality is the most eggregious of sins when Ezekiel makes plain that sins of commission are third in the heirarchy and that sins of pride are most eggregious, and sins of ommmission second.
You both seem to be unfamiliar with Ezekiel since he makes this heirarchical distinction and you don't but then do for gays but are wrong in your execution because he says sins of commission are third in importance.
Kevin said to stop using the bible as a sheild for your bigotry. He called it. That is exactly what you do but you do it incompetently and ignorantly. You don't even know what it actually says nor how to deal with it -- unless you are undergirding your anti-gay bigotry and then yu misuse it to do so.
Kevin is right on. It matters a great deal how, when, where, in what languages and cultures the orginal materials were written and then the pathways that they came to us today.
The Torah was rewritten, significantly altered and revised 4 times that we know of. It's first incarnation would bear little to no resemblance to what we read today.
The Hebrew texts were never written for "you" but for societies long past. The orginal referents are lost to us. The Hellenistic tranlation from Hebrew to Greek in the Septugant made uncounted errors and "revisions" that divorced us from their Jewish origins. The new testament texts wre written for JEWS of their time in the 1st century CE. "Christians" did not exist at the time of their writing. The subsequent translation by the Constantinian Board of Canon in the 4th century CE that Kevin rightly specifies intentionally mistranslated the Greek as well to serve a political agenda of its time.
It's all about very human political agendas, control, imperialistism and authoritarianism.
You reveal your ignorance, irrational fear and deep insecurities every time you post.
Read a little will ya? I gave you several resources.
Kev, I would caution you. The bible is most certainly not literal, absolute or inerrant. That doesn't mean it is worthless. It is a great work of high value when put to scholarly, literary use. It is not literally, inerrantly nor absolutely true. Yet it is metaphorically, allegorically, mythologically true and possibly has some valid historicity associated within. It has great value from the perspective of being really true, but the price of admission is to give up forever irrational claims of inerrancy, absolutism or literalism.
You have learning disabilities. I always refer to you as a person. I don't assume you to be male. I think you are a female because you are so literal and legalistic about the bible. That is a very female characteristic. I don't know, though, cause you might be a deeply closeted gay male.
Tell which it is, I'd like to know.
I am a male, btw.
You just said we "are to go by the new testament". Then why do you use Leviticus to justify your anti-gay rant?
Why do you judge gay people if we "are to go by the new testament"? In Christ no one is to judge anyone else for any reason. In Christ we are to treat the sinner exactly the same as the righteous and leave judgment to G-d. Why do you refuse to go by this?
I just figured it out! You're a female. That's why you have so many "gay friends" and why they don't talk to you. Fundamentalist Christian fag-hags are so boring.
II Samuel 1:26 is most certainly not "consistent" with your anti-gay rant. It is radically inconsistent. You are hilarious. I quoted it to you and you ignored it.
Gay people are born gay. For men it is prenatally fixed. We are all born the way we are born. You are wrong and if yuo you appeal to the bible to fix the "choice" notin of sexual identity not only will it not be successful but science will invalidate that view as it has.
It is settled science.
You didn't read Rev. Lowe's paper, "A Letter to Louise".
You have a big problem, David. Straight men do not engage in anti-gay rhetoric or hermeneutics. Straight men do not think sexual attraction is elastic and changeable and neither do gay men who accept themselves -- only closeted gay men who hate themselves do.
You are gay, David. Very gay.
Accept yourself and stop ranting you can change. The more you rant the more you give yourself away.
RSS Feed
"Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality. Tell me, when a man rapes a little girl, do you make the claim that heterosxuality is inherently harmful?"
a man rapes a little girl, he is a pedophille and a rapist.
a man rapes a boy, he is a pedophille and a rapist.
in both cases a pedophille and in bot cases a rapist.
in the first case a heterosexual and in second case a homosexual.
April 13, 2008 8:39 PM | Report Offensive Comment
A New Earth – Excerpt 2
By Eckhart Tolle [Continued]//
Spirituality and Religion //
What is the role of the established religions in the arising of the new consciousness? Many people are already aware of the difference between spirituality and religion. They realize that having a belief system, a set off thoughts that you regard as the absolute truth, does not make you spiritual no matter what the nature of those beliefs is. In fact, the more that you make your thoughts, your beliefs, into your identity, the more cut off you are to the spiritual dimension within yourself. Many religious people are stuck at that level. //
The new spirituality, the transformation of consciousness, is arising to a large extent outside the structures of the existing institutionalized religions. This large scale opening of spirituality outside of the religious structures is an entirely new development. In the past, this would have been inconceivable, especially in the west, the most mind-dominated of all cultures, where the Christian church had a virtual franchise on spirituality. //
Partly as a result of the spiritual teachings that have arisen outside the established religions, but also due to an influx of the ancient eastern wisdom teachings, a growing number of followers of traditional religions are able to let go of form, dogma, and rigid belief systems and discover the original depth that is hidden within their own spiritual tradition at the same time that they discover the depths within themselves… //
Some religious institutions will be open to the new consciousness. Others will harden their doctrinal positions and become part of all those other manmade structures through which the collective ego will defend itself and fight back. Some churches, sects, cults, or religious movements are basically collective egoist entities as rigidly identified with their mental positions as the followers of any political ideology which is closed to any alternative interpretation of reality. //
But the ego is destined to dissolve, and all its ossified structures, whether they be religious or other institutions, corporations or governments will disintegrate from within, no matter how deeply entrenched they appear to be. The most rigid structures, the most impervious to change will collapse first. This has already happened in the case of Soviet communism. How deeply entrenched, how solid and monolithic it appeared. And yet within a few years it completely collapsed from within. No one foresaw this; all were taken by surprise. There are many more such surprises in store for us.
[Why is this of such interest to me? Because this new awakening, or enlightenment is all that will save the human race. From the seemingly intractable Arab/Israeli conflict to the seemingly insolvable problems such as population explosion and resulting global warming and food/water/energy shortages, it will take a new awakening to resolve these problems.]
April 13, 2008 2:38 PM | Report Offensive Comment
A New Earth – Excerpt
By Eckhart Tolle //
The Arising New Consciousness //
Most ancient religions and spiritual traditions share the common insight that our normal state of mind is marred by a fundamental defect. However, out of this insight into the nature of the human condition, we may call it the bad news, arises a second insight, the good news of the possibility of the radical transformation of human consciousness. In Hindu teachings, and sometimes Buddhism also, this transformation is called enlightenment. In the teachings of Jesus it is called salvation. In Buddhism it is called the end of suffering. Liberation and awakening are other terms used to describe this transformation. //
The greatest achievement of humanity is not the achievements of its art, science or technology, but rather the recognition of its own dysfunction, its own madness. In the distant past, this recognition already came to a few individuals. The man called Gautama Siddhartha, who lived 2600 years ago in India, was perhaps the first who saw it with absolute clarity. Later, the title of Buddha was conferred upon him. Buddha means the awakened one. //
At about the same time, another of humanity’s early awakened teachers emerged in China. His name was Lao Tzu. He left the record of his teachings in one of the most profound spiritual books ever written, the Daodejing (Tao Te Ching). //
To recognize ones own insanity is of course the arising of sanity, the beginning of healing and transcendence. A new dimension of consciousness had begun to arise on the planet, the first tentative flowering. //
Those three individuals then spoke to their contemporaries. They spoke of sin, of suffering, of delusion. They said, “Look how you live, see what you are doing, the suffering you create.” They then pointed to the possibility of awakening from the collective nightmare of normal human existence. They showed the way. //
The world was not yet ready for them, and yet they were a vital and necessary part of human awakening. Inevitably, they were mostly misunderstood by their contemporaries, as well as by subsequent generations. Their teachings, although both simple and powerful, became distorted and misinterpreted. Over the centuries many things were added that had nothing to do with the original teachings, but were the reflections of a fundamental misunderstanding. Some of the teachers were ridiculed, reviled or killed. Others came to be worshipped as gods. Teachings that pointed the way beyond the dysfunction of the human mind, the way out of the collective insanity, were distorted and became themselves part of the insanity. //
And so religions, to a large extent, became divisive rather than unifying forces. Instead of bringing about an end to violence and hatred, through realization of the wonders of all life, they brought more violence and hatred, more divisions between people as well as divisions between different religions, and even within the same religion. They became ideologies, or belief systems people could identify with and so use them to enhance their false sense of self. They could make themselves right and others wrong and thus define their identities through their enemies, the others, the nonbelievers or wrong believers, who not infrequently they saw themselves justified in killing. Man made god in his own image. The eternal, the infinite, the un-nameable was reduced to a mental idol that you must believe in and worship as my god or our god. //
April 13, 2008 8:56 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Where is the Line? :
"What about Pedaphilia? Beastiality? Necrophilia? Are those OK, too?"
How many times does this tired argument have to be rfuted? Pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia all take place without the consent of at least one involved party. Children, animals, and the dead can't give consent.
"Are they considered reprehensible until Practitioners band together, lobby congress for legislation, boycott TV stations that don't air supportive sit-coms, and have Man-Boy, Man-Dog, & Man-Corpse Love Marches?"
No - because they involve lack of consent.
"Morality draws a line in the sand for the protection of society. Just because homosexuals have Gay Pride parades, have successfully lobbied for gay-friendly legislation, and have infused Hollywood with their ideals, Doesn't legitimize the practice in the least."
If you don't think homosexuality is "legitiamte," don't enter into an intimate relationship with someone of the same sex. I've been told by various people that m marriage isn't legitimate, even though it's legal, because both my husband and I were divorced from previous spouses, and because our wedding did not take place in a church with clergy officiating. I call BS on other people's criteria for the legitimacy of my relationship.
"Homosexuality doesn't hurt anybody, you say? Tell that to the molested Catholic altar boys. They might beg to differ."
Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality. Tell me, when a man rapes a little girl, do you make the claim that heterosxuality is inherently harmful?
April 11, 2008 1:48 PM | Report Offensive Comment
What about Pedaphilia? Beastiality? Necrophilia? Are those OK, too?
Are they considered reprehensible until Practitioners band together, lobby congress for legislation, boycott TV stations that don't air supportive sit-coms, and have Man-Boy, Man-Dog, & Man-Corpse Love Marches?
Morality draws a line in the sand for the protection of society. Just because homosexuals have Gay Pride parades, have successfully lobbied for gay-friendly legislation, and have infused Hollywood with their ideals, Doesn't legitimize the practice in the least.
Homosexuality doesn't hurt anybody, you say? Tell that to the molested Catholic altar boys. They might beg to differ.
April 11, 2008 12:08 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Take the lesson from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Does GOD forgive former gays after they have repented and changed their views upon same sex marriage and relationships? YES! and GOD doesn't just stop there..He infuses HIS HOLY SPIRIT within us..to be our Comforter and protector when the old urges try to resurface.
DOes GOD bless, support and embrace those who continue to have 'same sex" marriages, sodomy and and gay relationships? NO...but HE's still standing there with open arms to forgive and embrace those that run from it and seek HIS Divine intervention.
April 9, 2008 11:25 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Jesus (a.s)said my father is greater than me.
Also said my God is a Jealous God.
Also said I do every thing with the Will of God.
He also said I do not come to change but to confirm the Law.
My question TO THE CHRISTIAN WORLD IS DOES JESUS (A.S.) EVER ONCE SAID, I CAME TO GIVE MY SACRIFICE FOR YOUR SINS?
Instead JESUS (A.S) SAID, """"who break one Law will not enter the kingdom of Heavean""".
DID OR HAVE CHRISTIANS EVER FOLLOWED WHAT JESUS(A.S) SAID???????
HE ALSO PROSTRATED AND PRAYED, my question is TO WHOM ???
My another question is DOES CHRISTIANS "EVER" prayed and prostrated like Jesus (a.s) to his God (Father)?
THE WORST WAY OF CALLING NAME TO THE ALMIGHTY CREATOR:
When Christians say that Jesus (A.S) was the only BEGOTTEN son and not MADE like Adam (A.S) or like all other creatures or creations? (Like when and what God wihes, it happens)
What are you insinuating??? That God Almighty Him self came down to perform the lowest form of animal act like dog, donkey or monkey, i.e., sexual reproduction?
And on top of it Jesus (A.S) was His begotten son not legitimate!!!!!!!!!!
THAT IS THE WORST KIND OF ABUSE AND NAMING ANY BODY COULD HAVE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE GOD ALMIGHTY!!
Well down you so called CHRISTIAN believers??
You are getting your rewards in this world and will definitely get infinitely here after!!!!!!
YOUR BEST OF BEST ARE PREIST, BISHOP, CARDINAL AND POP AND NUNS RIGHT!
You say Nuns don't marry there whole life b/cause they are married to the Father. Alright!
My Question is Your Priest up to Pop, are they also married to the Father?????
Extremely Natural concept, behavior or shall I say believe????
April 6, 2008 12:29 AM | Report Offensive Comment
I think its sad when people of all faiths are intolerant with those who either lack faith or have a different view point of religion. To argue with gay people why being gay is wrong is a waste of time,all sinners try to excuse the wrongs they do.The scriptures are replete with the abomination of homosexuls, exp SODOM and GOMORHA, the scriptures are full of Christ like ideals and also the condemnation of spousal abuse, child abuse obedience to both Gods law and mans law, once we pass to the world of spirits those who didnt believe will know things they didnt learn here, many will remain as they were on earth,others will hear and see and desire to accept the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We as followers of Christ bear testimony of him, we follow him, we honor him and accept him as the Son of God and we acknowledge his atonement, that he died for each of our sins, and that thru believing in him we maybe saved from sin and destruction. I would like to bear my testimony that Jesus is the Christ the he lives and loves us, that he created this heaven and earth under the direction of the Father. I bear witness that Jesus Christ, God the Father and the Holy Ghost are 3 seperate personages and that they are 1 in purpose and that is to bring the gospel to mankind and to once again help them to know of Christ as he has asked us to. May we so read and study his word and thru prayer and scripture study learn of him who is meek and gave his life for each of us. I bear this witness and know its true, in the name of Jesus Christ AMEN
Iam a memeber of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, so all of you who thought Mormons didnt believe in Christ, now you know!!
April 5, 2008 4:35 PM | Report Offensive Comment
My faith is based on God’s Word, the Bible.
John 17:17: “your word is truth”
2Timothy 3:16-17: 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
According to the Bible, governments are free to pass whatever laws they see fit.
True Christians are careful to maintain neutrality by avoiding political debates. (John 17:16) Even when the laws of the land are in conflict with a Bible-trained conscience, a true Christian does not engage in protests or any form of political campaigns in order to change such laws.
As a Christian, I recognize that our Creator sets the standard. Our Creator established rules governing marriage long before governments began regulating the institution.
(Genesis 2:24) “A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.” The Hebrew word “wife,” according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, “connotes one who is a female human being.” Jesus confirmed that those yoked together in marriage should be “male and female.”—Matthew 19:4.
According to the Bible, God intended marriage to be a permanent and an intimate bond between a man and a woman. Men and women are designed to complement each other so they may be capable of satisfying each other’s emotional, spiritual, and sexual needs and desires.
The well-known Biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah reveals God’s feelings about homosexuality. God declared: “The cry of complaint about Sodom and Gomorrah, yes, it is loud, and their sin, yes, it is very heavy.” (Genesis 18:20) The extent of their sinful depravity at that time was apparent when two guests visited the righteous man Lot. “The men of Sodom . . . surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: ‘Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.’” (Genesis 19:4, 5) The Bible says: “The men of Sodom were bad and were gross sinners against Jehovah.”—Genesis 13:13.
The men became “violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males.” (Romans 1:27) They had “gone out after flesh for unnatural use.” (Jude 7) Some may object to using the word “unnatural” to describe homosexual behavior. However, is not God the final arbiter when it comes to nature? He commanded his ancient people: “You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.”— Leviticus 18:22.
The Bible is clear: God does not approve of or condone homosexual practices. He also disapproves of people who “consent with those practicing them.” (Romans 1:32) And “marriage” cannot give homosexuality a cloak of respectability. God’s direction that “marriage be honorable among all” precludes homosexual unions, which he considers detestable.—Hebrews 13:4.
Imperfect human standards change. Jehovah’s righteous standards are perfect and unchangeable.
April 3, 2008 8:10 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Moody:
No one is trying to get you to have anal sex. In fact, I think it's probably best for everyone if you continue to be satisfied with yourself.
The reason for the prohibiton against close biological ADULT relatives marrying is that it shrinks the gene pool, concentrates recessive genes, and makes genetic birth defects more likely to occur. It has nothing to do with sexual morality or ethics. That said, if your brother turns you on that much, and he's ok with it and of legal age, boff away.
If you're talking about adults having sex with their underage children, you should realize that ANY adult having sex with ANY underage child is already a crime - it's called statutory rape. No one has the right to rape.
January 17, 2008 9:21 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Moody:
Exactly what habit am I in - at least in your febrile imagination?
I have to wonder when was the last time you had sex with anyone other than Rosy - maybe you're just jealous that gay men and lesbians are getting more than you are.
January 16, 2008 9:25 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Moody :
**Let’s analyze Gay Union (physical relation).
It consist of two parts
1- Emotional part that is LOVE which alone without physical part doesn’t fall in the category of Gay relation.**
Actually, it does. Men who feel romantic love for other men are gay. Women who feel roamntic love for other women are lesbian.
**2- Physical part ONLY that defines if the relation is Gay or not. OR you can say that if two men are sexually involved ONLY THEN IT IS GAY REALTION.**
Not so. A gay man can have sex with a woman and he is still gay. A lesbian can have sex with a man and still be a lesbian. Gay men and lesbians can be celibate - they're still homosexual. Both of these situations often happen with gay men and lesbians who are closeted.
A straight man can have sex with another man and not be gay. A straight woman can have sex with another woman and not be a lesbian. Sometimes this happens because people are curious and just want to see what it's like. Sometimes it's a power thing, such as among incarcerated individuals.
**So basically this relation is based on SEXUAL NATURE only!**
No, it's much more complex than simply who you have sex with. It's about which sex you're physically and affectionally attracted to, regardless of whether you act on that attraction or not.
**Now lets analyze its MAIN ASPECT that is physical sexual relation.
1- From male satisfaction and sensation point, the best you get is from women.**
Only if you're heterosexual.
**Question : Is it normal and hygienic or SICK behavior to get it willingly by hitting a s.h.i.t hole??**
Newsflash - there are straight people who enjoy anal sex. Orientation is more than just a question of orifices and appendages.
**2- And from the point view of person who is allowing the unnatural intercourse through his s.h.i.t hole. Question : Is in love he force the other to hit his s.h.i.t.? Is it normal or extremely unhygienic insane behavior??**
As long it's consensual, there's nothing wrong with any combination of orifices and appendages.
There are those who would say that male-female fellatio and cunnilingus are "unhygienic" - shall we condemn those as well? You're going to have quite a battle on your hands there.
**Now the last question does love really demand such unhygienic and UNNATURAL behavior??**
Love doesn't demand sex of any kind. People who love each other generally desire to have sex with each other. Sex is often a form of expression of love. And sometimes it's just plain fun.
**Are we so lost that don’t know countless other ways of showing our love and compassion like caring, helping and protecting each other rights etc?**
You could say the same about straight people. There are lots of ways to show love, including those you listed AND through mutual sexual pleasure.
**Rights doesn’t mean s.h.i.t bashing or adopting insane activities.**
So are you planning to deny rights to straight people who have sex in positions you find unacceptable?
**Insanity is a DESEASE and not the normal course or nature of life.**
And homophobia is a form of insanity. Congratulations, you've realized you have a problem. That's the first step to healiong yourself.
**BAD HABITS ARE NOT NATURE, YOU ARE ONLY SO AROGANT NOT WILLING TO LIVE THEM!!!!!!!!!**
Biting your nails is a bad habit. Wanting to be able to marry the person you love isn't. Please learn the difference.
January 15, 2008 3:22 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I meant to say,
BAD HABITS ARE NOT NATURE, YOU ARE ONLY SO AROGANT NOT WILLING TO LEAVE THEM!!!!!!!!!
January 15, 2008 2:44 AM | Report Offensive Comment
My faith is grounded in Jesus Christ and the Word of God. I believe what God's Word says regarding homosexuality; it is sinful. This does not mean that I personally condemn homosexuality above any other sin, because the Bible says that all sin is equal.
Because I believe God's Word, I understand that we were made for His use. God clearly states in the Bible that man was intended for woman, and woman was intended for man. But because of sin, man has strayed from God's righteous Word and has been turned over to a repobate mind, thus accepting sin.
According to the scripture, homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Thus, when put into a spiritual context, I say that it is sinful and that Christians should repent of their sins.
I feel it is important that I reiterate, all sin is equal in the eyes of the Lord. Therefore, homosexuality is no worse a sin than lying, stealing, killing, etc.
My political views on same-sex unions are different from my spiritual views, because I understand the separation of church and state, as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution. Politically, I believe same-sex couples should be granted the same rights and privileges as married couples; however, I believe that marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman. It is a pre-political foundation of civilization.
Let me add one last thing. I feel many Christians are quick to judge and condemn homosexuals, and they do a disservice to our faith. Our purpose should always be to show Christ's love and to seek salvation for the unbeliever and restoration for the backslider.
January 13, 2008 9:52 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I think you misunderstood Bobby, Lepidopteryx. He just came out and stated before all of us the primary conflict of his life. He's gay and can't accept himself for all the reasons he stated. He is imploring you and me to do as he attempts but will never achieve.
The tiny, little problem is that you and I live with such a profound integrity he will never know. The inabiliity to accept reality via derivative religious dogma facsinates me no end.
August 14, 2007 4:04 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Bobby:
**Please please give up your desires for same sex partners and learn to live within the norms of society. You will find that you will be much much happier and much more productive in life. You will have a lot more peace in your life.**
Can you give up your attraction to opposite sex partners? I'm not asking if you can abstain from sex - anyone can do that. I'm asking if you can stop finding women attractive. If you can't, then what makes you think that those who are attracted to the same sex can just stop being attracted?
And how exactly will pretending to be attracted to the opposite sex, perhaps even marrying someone they cannot love in order to, in your words, "live within the norms of society," make their lives happier?
August 10, 2007 9:48 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I just want to know why gays and lesbians refuse to accept that God does not accept homosexuality as a lifestyle. As a matter of fact its one of the things that He hates among other things. So I just want you to stop trying to make the rest of us accept something that is un-natural. We will not accept the behavior. We accept you as human beings period. I don't want to see this behavior portrayed on television or the movies and I don't want it espoused in our schools to the children as an acceptable lifestyle. It isnt acceptable period. Please please give up your desires for same sex partners and learn to live within the norms of society. You will find that you will be much much happier and much more productive in life. You will have a lot more peace in your life.
August 9, 2007 5:03 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I ask, does the Washington Post really reach out for TRUE Faith, and one thought on Wade, I believe death of of a word is the death of a smile, is the death of belief that we mean something. I write no more. Short edit that on life's meaning and the taking away from what someone wants to mean in life, such as getting out in a world we all hope will get better.
August 9, 2007 3:02 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I ask, does the Washington Post really reach out for TRUE Faith, and one thought on Wade, I believe death of of a word is the death of a smile, is the death of belief that we mean something. I write no more. Short edit that on life's meaning and the taking away from what someone wants to mean in life, such as getting out in a world we all hope will get better.
August 9, 2007 3:01 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I ask, does the Washington Post really reach out for TRUE Faith, and one thought on Wade, I believe death of of a wrod is the death of a smile, is the death of belief that we mean something. I write no more. Short edit that on life's meaning and the taking away from what someone wants to mean in life, such as getting out in a world we all hope will get better.
August 9, 2007 3:00 PM | Report Offensive Comment
TOP DOWN PROCESSING
1. Separation of Races in History; such that of in the Deep SOuth of Columbia, SC - Numbers 9:19 - when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, the children of (Israel) kept the journey of the Lord and journeyed not.
'On cloudy days outside the State House in Columbia, SC - given early summer days you may see Other Groups fighting for their Journey to stay alive and speak, all the meanwhile Field Trips of Hundreds of youth take hands of teachers later on in the summer so they may be guided through life to view under all flags and monuments upstanding that they are in fact created equal, and may live in a better world where people make consecration of Faith that they may take this world on hand and hand. Im no John Lennnon, possibly a Bono follower and believe that believe as with Magic Johnson, 1st Samuel 30:8 ..."Pursue(!) for thou dhalt surely ovetake them and without fail recover all." defeating opponents on court with Showtime, recovering defeating HIV (as with Bono's Finding a place), and for the children (taken this into context) David's recovery for his brethren and children of his land, "DUST OF THIS LAND" I may see on 100 day Columbia heat where 'dead squirrel pups' of the Squirrelies(!) I love so much makes me think does not the birth of my puppy who curls up to me not make me think that The Weaver of this Joy of Life and its Trials to find Joy in Time is Worth a Catholic (and pup breeding old roomate) -as I am Methodist - Mel Gibson path for Elisha school for Prophets Pride that every look to a youth in the eye, as they look away with developmental psychology puts Wade Hampton upon high standing as I walk by on path to the horseshoe. A Patrioit who fights from the swamp and muck of muckrakers begs upon Solomons song that a Greek overcast Temple under Columbianm, SC sky asks to the Call upon Faith "Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh, and Frankinsense and all the powders of the merchant" FOR Y"ALL TO HEAR, IT IS ME WALKING HOPING MY BAD STARED DAY THAT ENDED WITH MY WALK UPON GERVAIS AND MAIN UNDER THE CONFERATE FLAG - seeing the alive and exuberant, jubilamt youth, at hands length of the Faith of the TEachers who mark their path, ist is the SOng Sung as the Renaissance of birth is given to the hope for a loving life bestowed upon on all parameters of a community that wishes for parallelism between private religious bounds of "gladness in the heart, and a Sooner spice to life that PReachers, Poets and Professors may liven their everyday gate unto this NEW BRAVE NEW world! The power of this examination is guiltless of sacrifice, as I feel no guilt at the moment for my sacrifice to freedom, but from the Oak trees not far away, I resound to resolution of this ideal form shaping of my belief that alrm is only desolate from the front-facing "LOVE ALMOST" of WHat we may see --> I see "Woodrow Wilsons room rang TRUE to growing up as a boy in Columbia, SC ---> there are people willing to show a path to scholarship, religion conventional supprt and an upright path to develop personal structure such that this Living World with Living Words may not be Wilderness to the zealous youth with search for lives of lawyers, nurses, engineers, and research biologists, store managers - preachers, those who make life go round, from afar the state of my mind is Inifinite in thought of youth bringing joy to their care free ways.
August 9, 2007 2:52 PM | Report Offensive Comment
TOP DOWN PROCESSING
1. Separation of Races in History; such that of in the Deep SOuth of Columbia, SC - Numbers 9:19 - when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, the children of (Israel) kept the journey of the Lord and journeyed not.
'On cloudy days outside the State House in Columbia, SC - given early summer days you may see Other Groups fighting for their Journey to stay alive and speak, all the meanwhile Field Trips of Hundreds of youth take hands of teachers later on in the summer so they may be guided through life to view under all flags and monuments upstanding that they are in fact created equal, and may live in a better world where people make consecration of Faith that they may take this world on hand and hand. Im no John Lennnon, possibly a Bono follower and believe that believe as with Magic Johnson, 1st Samuel 30:8 ..."Pursue(!) for thou dhalt surely ovetake them and without fail recover all." defeating opponents on court with Showtime, recovering defeating HIV (as with Bono's Finding a place), and for the children (taken this into context) David's recovery for his brethren and children of his land, "DUST OF THIS LAND" I may see on 100 day Columbia heat where 'dead squirrel pups' of the Squirrelies(!) I love so much makes me think does not the birth of my puppy who curls up to me not make me think that The Weaver of this Joy of Life and its Trials to find Joy in Time is Worth a Catholic (and pup breeding old roomate) -as I am Methodist - Mel Gibson path for Elisha school for Prophets Pride that every look to a youth in the eye, as they look away with developmental psychology puts Wade Hampton upon high standing as I walk by on path to the horseshoe. A Patrioit who fights from the swamp and muck of muckrakers begs upon Solomons song that a Greek overcast Temple under Columbianm, SC sky asks to the Call upon Faith "Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh, and Frankinsense and all the powders of the merchant" FOR Y"ALL TO HEAR, IT IS ME WALKING HOPING MY BAD STARED DAY THAT ENDED WITH MY WALK UPON GERVAIS AND MAIN UNDER THE CONFERATE FLAG - seeing the alive and exuberant, jubilamt youth, at hands length of the Faith of the TEachers who mark their path, ist is the SOng Sung as the Renaissance of birth is given to the hope for a loving life bestowed upon on all parameters of a community that wishes for parallelism between private religious bounds of "gladness in the heart, and a Sooner spice to life that PReachers, Poets and Professors may liven their everyday gate unto this NEW BRAVE NEW world! The power of this examination is guiltless of sacrifice, as I feel no guilt at the moment for my sacrifice to freedom, but from the Oak trees not far away, I resound to resolution of this ideal form shaping of my belief that alrm is only desolate from the front-facing "LOVE ALMOST" of WHat we may see --> I see "Woodrow Wilsons room rang TRUE to growing up as a boy in Columbia, SC ---> there are people willing to show a path to scholarship, religion conventional supprt and an upright path to develop personal structure such that this Living World with Living Words may not be Wilderness to the zealous youth with search for lives of lawyers, nurses, engineers, and research biologists, store managers - preachers, those who make life go round, from afar the state of my mind is Inifinite in thought of youth bringing joy to their care free ways, to be taken by the hand of the old horsemen and the men of the pulpits and Lady Justice and Lady Angels. So I am lost in a day, call it a thought on Faith. ROundabout points, I just see Wade Hampton standing upright, and a Father praying with his children, so the velvet seas of this earth have been sailed, but more want To Follow.
August 9, 2007 2:47 PM | Report Offensive Comment
TOP DOWN PROCESSING
1. Separation of Races in History; such that of in the Deep SOuth of Columbia, SC - Numbers 9:19 - when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, the children of (Israel) kept the journey of the Lord and journeyed not.
'On cloudy days outside the State House in Columbia, SC - given early summer days you may see Other Groups fighting for their Journey to stay alive and speak, all the meanwhile Field Trips of Hundreds of youth take hands of teachers later on in the summer so they may be guided through life to view under all flags and monuments upstanding that they are in fact created equal, and may live in a better world where people make consecration of Faith that they may take this world on hand and hand. Im no John Lennnon, possibly a Bono follower and believe that believe as with Magic Johnson, 1st Samuel 30:8 ..."Pursue(!) for thou dhalt surely ovetake them and without fail recover all." defeating opponents on court with Showtime, recovering defeating HIV (as with Bono's Finding a place), and for the children (taken this into context) David's recovery for his brethren and children of his land, "DUST OF THIS LAND" I may see on 100 day Columbia heat where 'dead squirrel pups' of the Squirrelies(!) I love so much makes me think does not the birth of my puppy who curls up to me not make me think that The Weaver of this Joy of Life and its Trials to find Joy in Time is Worth a Catholic (and pup breeding old roomate) -as I am Methodist - Mel Gibson path for Elisha school for Prophets Pride that every look to a youth in the eye, as they look away with developmental psychology puts Wade Hampton upon high standing as I walk by on path to the horseshoe. A Patrioit who fights from the swamp and muck of muckrakers begs upon Solomons song that a Greek overcast Temple under Columbianm, SC sky asks to the Call upon Faith "Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh, and Frankinsense and all the powders of the merchant" FOR Y"ALL TO HEAR, IT IS ME WALKING HOPING MY BAD STARED DAY THAT ENDED WITH MY WALK UPON GERVAIS AND MAIN UNDER THE CONFERATE FLAG - seeing the alive and exuberant, jubilamt youth, at hands length of the Faith of the TEachers who mark their path, ist is the SOng Sung as the Renaissance of birth is given to the hope for a loving life bestowed upon on all parameters of a community that wishes for parallelism between private religious bounds of "gladness in the heart, and a Sooner spice to life that PReachers, Poets and Professors may liven their everyday gate unto this NEW BRAVE NEW world! The power of this examination is guiltless of sacrifice, as I feel no guilt at the moment for my sacrifice to freedom, but from the Oak trees not far away, I resound to resolution of this ideal form shaping of my belief that alrm is only desolate from the front-facing "LOVE ALMOST" of WHat we may see --> I see "Woodrow Wilsons room rang TRUE to growing up as a boy in Columbia, SC ---> there are people willing to show a path to scholarship, religion conventional supprt and an upright path to develop personal structure such that this Living World with Living Words may not be Wilderness to the zealous youth with search for lives of lawyers, nurses, engineers, and research biologists, store managers - preachers, those who make life go round, from afar the state of my mind is Inifinite in thought of youth bringing joy to their care free ways, to be taken by the hand of the old horsemen and the men of the pulpits and Lady Justice and Lady Angels. So I am lost in a day, call it a thought on Faith. ROundabout points, I just see Wade Hampton standing upright, and a Father praying with his children, so the velvet seas of this earth have been sailed, but more want To Follow.
August 9, 2007 2:47 PM | Report Offensive Comment
TOP DOWN PROCESSING
1. Separation of Races in History; such that of in the Deep SOuth of Columbia, SC - Numbers 9:19 - when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, the children of (Israel) kept the journey of the Lord and journeyed not.
'On cloudy days outside the State House in Columbia, SC - given early summer days you may see Other Groups fighting for their Journey to stay alive and speak, all the meanwhile Field Trips of Hundreds of youth take hands of teachers later on in the summer so they may be guided through life to view under all flags and monuments upstanding that they are in fact created equal, and may live in a better world where people make consecration of Faith that they may take this world on hand and hand. Im no John Lennnon, possibly a Bono follower and believe that believe as with Magic Johnson, 1st Samuel 30:8 ..."Pursue(!) for thou dhalt surely ovetake them and without fail recover all." defeating opponents on court with Showtime, recovering defeating HIV (as with Bono's Finding a place), and for the children (taken this into context) David's recovery for his brethren and children of his land, "DUST OF THIS LAND" I may see on 100 day Columbia heat where 'dead squirrel pups' of the Squirrelies(!) I love so much makes me think does not the birth of my puppy who curls up to me not make me think that The Weaver of this Joy of Life and its Trials to find Joy in Time is Worth a Catholic (and pup breeding old roomate) -as I am Methodist - Mel Gibson path for Elisha school for Prophets Pride that every look to a youth in the eye, as they look away with developmental psychology puts Wade Hampton upon high standing as I walk by on path to the horseshoe. A Patrioit who fights from the swamp and muck of muckrakers begs upon Solomons song that a Greek overcast Temple under Columbianm, SC sky asks to the Call upon Faith "Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh, and Frankinsense and all the powders of the merchant" FOR Y"ALL TO HEAR, IT IS ME WALKING HOPING MY BAD STARED DAY THAT ENDED WITH MY WALK UPON GERVAIS AND MAIN UNDER THE CONFERATE FLAG - seeing the alive and exuberant, jubilamt youth, at hands length of the Faith of the TEachers who mark their path, ist is the SOng Sung as the Renaissance of birth is given to the hope for a loving life bestowed upon on all parameters of a community that wishes for parallelism between private religious bounds of "gladness in the heart, and a Sooner spice to life that PReachers, Poets and Professors may liven their everyday gate unto this NEW BRAVE NEW world! The power of this examination is guiltless of sacrifice, as I feel no guilt at the moment for my sacrifice to freedom, but from the Oak trees not far away, I resound to resolution of this ideal form shaping of my belief that alrm is only desolate from the front-facing "LOVE ALMOST" of WHat we may see --> I see "Woodrow Wilsons room rang TRUE to growing up as a boy in Columbia, SC ---> there are people willing to show a path to scholarship, religion conventional supprt and an upright path to develop personal structure such that this Living World with Living Words may not be Wilderness to the zealous youth with search for lives of lawyers, nurses, engineers, and research biologists, store managers - preachers, those who make life go round, from afar the state of my mind is Inifinite in thought of youth bringing joy to their care free ways, to be taken by the hand of the old horsemen and the men of the pulpits and Lady Justice and Lady Angels. So I am lost in a day, call it a thought on Faith. ROundabout points, I just see Wade Hampton standing upright, and a Father praying with his children, so the velvet seas of this earth have been sailed, but more want To Follow.
August 9, 2007 2:47 PM | Report Offensive Comment
TOP DOWN PROCESSING
1. Seaparation of Races in History; such that of in the Deep SOuth of Columbia, SC - Numbers 9:19 - when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, the children of (Israel) kept the journey of the Lord and journeyed not.
'On cloudy days outside the State House in Columbia, SC - given early summer days you may see the NAACP or Other Groups fighting for their Journey to stay alive and speak, all the meanwhile Field Trips of Hundreds of youth take hands of teachers later on in the summer so they may be guided through life to view under all flags and monuments upstanding that they are in fact created equal, and may live in a better world where people make consecration of Faith that they may take this world on hand and hand. Im no John Lennnon, possibly a Bono follower and believe that believe as with Magic Johnson, 1st Samuel 30:8 ..."Pursue(!) for thou dhalt surely ovetake them and without fail recover all." defeating opponents on court with Showtime, recovering defeating HIV (as with Bono's Finding a place), and for the children (taken this into context) David's recovery for his brethren and children of his land, "DUST OF THIS LAND" I may see on 100 day Columbia heat where 'dead squirrel pups' of the Squirrelies(!) I love so much makes me think does not the birth of my puppy who curls up to me not make me think that The Weaver of this Joy of Life and its Trials to find Joy in Time is Worth a Catholic (and pup breeding old roomate) -as I am Methodist - Mel Gibson path for Elisha school for Prophets Pride that every look to a youth in the eye, as they look away with developmental psychology puts Wade Hampton upon high standing as I walk by on path to the horseshoe. A Patrioit who fights from the swamp and muck of muckrakers begs upon Solomons song that a Greek overcast Temple under Columbianm, SC sky asks to the Call upon Faith "Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh, and Frankinsense and all the powders of the merchant" FOR Y"ALL TO HEAR, IT IS ME WALKING HOPING MY BAD STARED DAY THAT ENDED WITH MY WALK UPON GERVAIS AND MAIN UNDER THE CONFERATE FLAG - seeing the alive and exuberant, jubilamt youth, at hands length of the Faith of the TEachers who mark their path, ist is the SOng Sung as the Renaissance of birth is given to the hope for a loving life bestowed upon on all parameters of a community that wishes for parallelism between private religious bounds of "gladness in the heart, and a Sooner spice to life that PReachers, Poets and Professors may liven their everyday gate unto this NEW BRAVE NEW world! The power of this examination is guiltless of sacrifice, as I feel no guilt at the moment for my sacrifice to freedom, but from the Oak trees not far away, I resound to resolution of this ideal form shaping of my belief that alrm is only desolate from the front-facing "LOVE ALMOST" of WHat we may see --> I see "Woodrow Wilsons room rang TRUE to growing up as a boy in Columbia, SC ---> there are people willing to show a path to scholarship, religion conventional supprt and an upright path to develop personal structure such that this Living World with Living Words may not be Wilderness to the zealous youth with search for lives of lawyers, nurses, engineers, and research biologists, store managers - preachers, those who make life go round, from afar the state of my mind is Inifinite in thought of youth bringing joy to their care free ways, to be taken by the hand of the old horsemen and the men of the pulpits and Lady Justice and Lady Angels. So I am lost in a day, call it a thought on Faith. ROundabout points, I just see Wade Hampton standing upright, and a Father praying with his children, so the velvet seas of this earth have been sailed, but more want To Follow.
August 9, 2007 2:44 PM | Report Offensive Comment
TOP DOWN PROCESSING
1. Seaparation of Races in History; such that of in the Deep SOuth of Columbia, SC - Numbers 9:19 - when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, the children of (Israel) kept the journey of the Lord and journeyed not.
'On cloudy days outside the State House in Columbia, SC - given early summer days you may see the NAACP or Other Groups fighting for their Journey to stay alive and speak, all the meanwhile Field Trips of Hundreds of youth take hands of teachers later on in the summer so they may be guided through life to view under all flags and monuments upstanding that they are in fact created equal, and may live in a better world where people make consecration of Faith that they may take this world on hand and hand. Im no John Lennnon, possibly a Bono follower and believe that believe as with Magic Johnson, 1st Samuel 30:8 ..."Pursue(!) for thou dhalt surely ovetake them and without fail recover all." defeating opponents on court with Showtime, recovering defeating HIV (as with Bono's Finding a place), and for the children (taken this into context) David's recovery for his brethren and children of his land, "DUST OF THIS LAND" I may see on 100 day Columbia heat where 'dead squirrel pups' of the Squirrelies(!) I love so much makes me think does not the birth of my puppy who curls up to me not make me think that The Weaver of this Joy of Life and its Trials to find Joy in Time is Worth a Catholic (and pup breeding old roomate) -as I am Methodist - Mel Gibson path for Elisha school for Prophets Pride that every look to a youth in the eye, as they look away with developmental psychology puts Wade Hampton upon high standing as I walk by on path to the horseshoe. A Patrioit who fights from the swamp and muck of muckrakers begs upon Solomons song that a Greek overcast Temple under Columbianm, SC sky asks to the Call upon Faith "Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh, and Frankinsense and all the powders of the merchant" FOR Y"ALL TO HEAR, IT IS ME WALKING HOPING MY BAD STARED DAY THAT ENDED WITH MY WALK UPON GERVAIS AND MAIN UNDER THE CONFERATE FLAG - seeing the alive and exuberant, jubilamt youth, at hands length of the Faith of the TEachers who mark their path, ist is the SOng Sung as the Renaissance of birth is given to the hope for a loving life bestowed upon on all parameters of a community that wishes for parallelism between private religious bounds of "gladness in the heart, and a Sooner spice to life that PReachers, Poets and Professors may liven their everyday gate unto this NEW BRAVE NEW world! The power of this examination is guiltless of sacrifice, as I feel no guilt at the moment for my sacrifice to freedom, but from the Oak trees not far away, I resound to resolution of this ideal form shaping of my belief that alrm is only desolate from the front-facing "LOVE ALMOST" of WHat we may see --> I see "Woodrow Wilsons room rang TRUE to growing up as a boy in Columbia, SC ---> there are people willing to show a path to scholarship, religion conventional supprt and an upright path to develop personal structure such that this Living World with Living Words may not be Wilderness to the zealous youth with search for lives of lawyers, nurses, engineers, and research biologists, store managers - preachers, those who make life go round, from afar the state of my mind is Inifinite in thought of youth bringing joy to their care free ways, to be taken by the hand of the old horsemen and the men of the pulpits and Lady Justice and Lady Angels. So I am lost in a day, call it a thought on Faith. ROundabout points, I just see Wade Hampton standing upright, and a Father praying with his children, so the velvet seas of this earth have been sailed, but more want To Follow.
August 9, 2007 2:43 PM | Report Offensive Comment
TOP DOWN PROCESSING
1. Seaparation of Races in History; such that of in the Deep SOuth of Columbia, SC - Numbers 9:19 - when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, the children of (Israel) kept the journey of the Lord and journeyed not.
'On cloudy days outside the State House in Columbia, SC - given early summer days you may see the NAACP or Neo Nazi's fighting for their Journey to stay alive and speak, all the meanwhile Field Trips of Hundreds of youth take hands of teachers later on in the summer so they may be guided through life to view under all flags and monuments upstanding that they are in fact created equal, and may live in a better world where people make consecration of Faith that they may take this world on hand and hand. Im no John Lennnon, possibly a Bono follower and believe that believe as with Magic Johnson, 1st Samuel 30:8 ..."Pursue(!) for thou dhalt surely ovetake them and without fail recover all." defeating opponents on court with Showtime, recovering defeating HIV (as with Bono's Finding a place), and for the children (taken this into context) David's recovery for his brethren and children of his land, "DUST OF THIS LAND" I may see on 100 day Columbia heat where 'dead squirrel pups' of the Squirrelies(!) I love so much makes me think does not the birth of my puppy who curls up to me not make me think that The Weaver of this Joy of Life and its Trials to find Joy in Time is Worth a Catholic (and pup breeding old roomate) -as I am Methodist - Mel Gibson path for Elisha school for Prophets Pride that every look to a youth in the eye, as they look away with developmental psychology puts Wade Hampton upon high standing as I walk by on path to the horseshoe. A Patrioit who fights from the swamp and muck of muckrakers begs upon Solomons song that a Greek overcast Temple under Columbianm, SC sky asks to the Call upon Faith "Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh, and Frankinsense and all the powders of the merchant" FOR Y"ALL TO HEAR, IT IS ME WALKING HOPING MY BAD STARED DAY THAT ENDED WITH MY WALK UPON GERVAIS AND MAIN UNDER THE CONFERATE FLAG - seeing the alive and exuberant, jubilamt youth, at hands length of the Faith of the TEachers who mark their path, ist is the SOng Sung as the Renaissance of birth is given to the hope for a loving life bestowed upon on all parameters of a community that wishes for parallelism between private religious bounds of "gladness in the heart, and a Sooner spice to life that PReachers, Poets and Professors may liven their everyday gate unto this NEW BRAVE NEW world! The power of this examination is guiltless of sacrifice, as I feel no guilt at the moment for my sacrifice to freedom, but from the Oak trees not far away, I resound to resolution of this ideal form shaping of my belief that alrm is only desolate from the front-facing "LOVE ALMOST" of WHat we may see --> I see "Woodrow Wilsons room rang TRUE to growing up as a boy in Columbia, SC ---> there are people willing to show a path to scholarship, religion conventional supprt and an upright path to develop personal structure such that this Living World with Living Words may not be Wilderness to the zealous youth with search for lives of lawyers, nurses, engineers, and research biologists, store managers - preachers, those who make life go round, from afar the state of my mind is Inifinite in thought of youth bringing joy to their care free ways, to be taken by the hand of the old horsemen and the men of the pulpits and Lady Justice and Lady Angels. So I am lost in a day, call it a thought on Faith. ROundabout points, I just see Wade Hampton standing upright, and a Father praying with his children, so the velvet seas of this earth have been sailed, but more want To Follow.
August 9, 2007 2:40 PM | Report Offensive Comment
TOP DOWN PROCESSING
1. Seaparation of Races in History; such that of in the Deep SOuth of Columbia, SC - Numbers 9:19 - when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, the children of (Israel) kept the journey of the Lord and journeyed not.
'On cloudy days outside the State House in Columbia, SC - given early summer days you may see the NAACP or Neo Nazi's fighting for their Journey to stay alive and speak, all the meanwhile Field Trips of Hundreds of youth take hands of teachers later on in the summer so they may be guided through life to view under all flags and monuments upstanding that they are in fact created equal, and may live in a better world where people make consecration of Faith that they may take this world on hand and hand. Im no John Lennnon, possibly a Bono follower and believe that believe as with Magic Johnson, 1st Samuel 30:8 ..."Pursue(!) for thou dhalt surely ovetake them and without fail recover all." defeating opponents on court with Showtime, recovering defeating HIV (as with Bono's Finding a place), and for the children (taken this into context) David's recovery for his brethren and children of his land, "DUST OF THIS LAND" I may see on 100 day Columbia heat where 'dead squirrel pups' of the Squirrelies(!) I love so much makes me think does not the birth of my puppy who curls up to me not make me think that The Weaver of this Joy of Life and its Trials to find Joy in Time is Worth a Catholic (and pup breeding old roomate) -as I am Methodist - Mel Gibson path for Elisha school for Prophets Pride that every look to a youth in the eye, as they look away with developmental psychology puts Wade Hampton upon high standing as I walk by on path to the horseshoe. A Patrioit who fights from the swamp and muck of muckrakers begs upon Solomons song that a Greek overcast Temple under Columbianm, SC sky asks to the Call upon Faith "Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh, and Frankinsense and all the powders of the merchant" FOR Y"ALL TO HEAR, IT IS ME WALKING HOPING MY BAD STARED DAY THAT ENDED WITH MY WALK UPON GERVAIS AND MAIN UNDER THE CONFERATE FLAG - seeing the alive and exuberant, jubilamt youth, at hands length of the Faith of the TEachers who mark their path, ist is the SOng Sung as the Renaissance of birth is given to the hope for a loving life bestowed upon on all parameters of a community that wishes for parallelism between private religious bounds of "gladness in the heart, and a Sooner spice to life that PReachers, Poets and Professors may liven their everyday gate unto this NEW BRAVE NEW world! The power of this examination is guiltless of sacrifice, as I feel no guilt at the moment for my sacrifice to freedom, but from the Oak trees not far away, I resound to resolution of this ideal form shaping of my belief that alrm is only desolate from the front-facing "LOVE ALMOST" of WHat we may see --> I see "Woodrow Wilsons room rang TRUE to growing up as a boy in Columbia, SC ---> there are people willing to show a path to scholarship, religion conventional supprt and an upright path to develop personal structure such that this Living World with Living Words may not be Wilderness to the zealous youth with search for lives of lawyers, nurses, engineers, and research biologists, store managers - preachers, those who make life go round, from afar the state of my mind is Inifinite in thought of youth bringing joy to their care free ways, to be taken by the hand of the old horsemen and the men of the pulpits and Lady Justice and Lady Angels. So I am lost in a day, call it a thought on Faith. ROundabout points, I just see Wade Hampton standing upright, and a Father praying with his children, so the velvet seas of this earth have been sailed, but more want To Follow.
August 9, 2007 2:37 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Terra Gazelle, that was beautiful.
It fascinates me no end that the most intolerant and disrespectful persons toward G-d's creation are the most devout Fundamentalist Christians. It's so contradictory and hypocritical.
Religion isn't a club. If anyone is using it as such *THAT* ought to be a clue right there.
Thanks for your post.
sw
July 26, 2007 5:58 PM | Report Offensive Comment
RP,
It's incompetently derivative hermeneutics and erroneously imposed bigotry upon the texts. If you like you can read "The Sins of Scripture" by John Shelby Spond c2005 or "The Good Book" by Peter J. Gomes c1996 to find out all about it.
It's stems from a rationalization derived from the Cain/Able fratricide as a justification for "dark-skinned" people being descended from Cain and so deserving of abusive enslavement to atone for Cain's crime. It is pure tripe and staggering stupidity that not 150 years-ago was solidly considered competent biblical certainty.
The irony is that the very same certainty about gay persons is just as specious and incompetently construed today.
Read the sources I cited to find out about this.
sw
July 26, 2007 5:45 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Anon,
You are the one who brought it up and you are the one spouting errneous information. Read the book I gave you to read and educate yourself. You speak only in abusive uninformed bigotry.
Stop doing that. Do you understand?
You are making incorrect statements and refusing to listen when facts are presented to you.
Stop doing that, too.
Or continue to do so and get the responses your are getting.
sw
July 26, 2007 5:03 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Useing religion as a bat to hit others with is disrespectful to your God and reason. My best friend is gay...he is the most balanced person I know. Now for those who think being gay is an imbalance that will not make sense...but to those who see it as merely another way humanity was created...it makes perfect sense. In fact my gay friend says that Bisexuality is the most balanced. he wouldn't know...
What if all us hetros are the abnormal? How bout if 80% of all those who profess hetrosexuality are really in the closet gays?
I see only one way to ensure not being intolerant and bigoted...respect all people, not for who they love, but what they do to help others and make this a better world for all of us.
Useing a religion to preach intolerance is stupid, not all people care what another religion says, unless it effects them. I am not of a religiion that sees homosexuality as wrong. We respect all of the diversity created. It is not for us to say what is good and what isn't. We honor the Creator, She knows what She is doing. Mama does not play favorites.
terra
July 26, 2007 3:58 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Useing religion as a bat to hit others with is disrespectful to your God and reason. My best friend is gay...he is the most balanced person I know. Now for those who think being gay is an imbalance that will not make sense...but to those who see it as merely another way humanity was created...it makes perfect sense. In fact my gay friend says that Bisexuality is the most balanced. he wouldn't know...
What if all us hetros are the abnormal? How bout if 80% of all those who profess hetrosexuality are really in the closet gays?
I see only one way to ensure not being intolerant and bigoted...respect all people, not for who they love, but what they do to help others and make this a better world for all of us.
Useing a religion to preach intolerance is stupid, not all people care what another religion says, unless it effects them. I am not of a religiion that sees homosexuality as wrong. We respect all of the diversity created. It is not for us to say what is good and what isn't. We honor the Creator, She knows what She is doing. Mama does not play favorites.
terra
July 26, 2007 3:58 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Useing religion as a bat to hit others with is disrespectful to your God and reason. My best friend is gay...he is the most balanced person I know. Now for those who think being gay is an imbalance that will not make sense...but to those who see it as merely another way humanity was created...it makes perfect sense. In fact my gay friend says that Bisexuality is the most balanced. he wouldn't know...
What if all us hetros are the abnormal? How bout if 80% of all those who profess hetrosexuality are really in the closet gays?
I see only one way to ensure not being intolerant and bigoted...respect all people, not for who they love, but what they do to help others and make this a better world for all of us.
Useing a religion to preach intolerance is stupid, not all people care what another religion says, unless it effects them. I am not of a religiion that sees homosexuality as wrong. We respect all of the diversity created. It is not for us to say what is good and what isn't. We honor the Creator, She knows what She is doing. Mama does not play favorites.
terra
July 26, 2007 3:58 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Useing religion as a bat to hit others with is disrespectful to your God and reason. My best friend is gay...he is the most balanced person I know. Now for those who think being gay is an imbalance that will not make sense...but to those who see it as merely another way humanity was created...it makes perfect sense. In fact my gay friend says that Bisexuality is the most balanced. he wouldn't know...
What if all us hetros are the abnormal? How bout if 80% of all those who profess hetrosexuality are really in the closet gays?
I see only one way to ensure not being intolerant and bigoted...respect all people, not for who they love, but what they do to help others and make this a better world for all of us.
Useing a religion to preach intolerance is stupid, not all people care what another religion says, unless it effects them. I am not of a religiion that sees homosexuality as wrong. We respect all of the diversity created. It is not for us to say what is good and what isn't. We honor the Creator, She knows what She is doing. Mama does not play favorites.
terra
July 26, 2007 3:57 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Useing religion as a bat to hit others with is disrespectful to your God and reason. My best friend is gay...he is the most balanced person I know. Now for those who think being gay is an imbalance that will not make sense...but to those who see it as merely another way humanity was created...it makes perfect sense. In fact my gay friend says that Bisexuality is the most balanced. he wouldn't know...
What if all us hetros are the abnormal? How bout if 80% of all those who profess hetrosexuality are really in the closet gays?
I see only one way to ensure not being intolerant and bigoted...respect all people, not for who they love, but what they do to help others and make this a better world for all of us.
Useing a religion to preach intolerance is stupid, not all people care what another religion says, unless it effects them. I am not of a religiion that sees homosexuality as wrong. We respect all of the diversity created. It is not for us to say what is good and what isn't. We honor the Creator, She knows what She is doing. Mama does not play favorites.
terra
July 26, 2007 3:57 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Useing religion as a bat to hit others with is disrespectful to your God and reason. My best friend is gay...he is the most balanced person I know. Now for those who think being gay is an imbalance that will not make sense...but to those who see it as merely another way humanity was created...it makes perfect sense. In fact my gay friend says that Bisexuality is the most balanced. he wouldn't know...
What if all us hetros are the abnormal? How bout if 80% of all those who profess hetrosexuality are really in the closet gays?
I see only one way to ensure not being intolerant and bigoted...respect all people, not for who they love, but what they do to help others and make this a better world for all of us.
Useing a religion to preach intolerance is stupid, not all people care what another religion says, unless it effects them. I am not of a religiion that sees homosexuality as wrong. We respect all of the diversity created. It is not for us to say what is good and what isn't. We honor the Creator, She knows what She is doing. Mama does not play favorites.
terra
July 26, 2007 3:54 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Karma,
I have read the Bible but never saw any verses that "condemns black and dark skinned people throughout", as you asserted. Could you point out where in the Bible contains such a message?
July 26, 2007 9:55 AM | Report Offensive Comment
IF you like to keep refering yourself to animals then by all means, if you do your research and studies most so called homosexual behavior by animals is out of pecking order and dominance. What reason does a female dog hump a male because she is horny? No she proveing her dominance over the male. Maybe when we can determine we did not come from animals we will quit acting like them and walk upright again in the truth.
July 26, 2007 8:56 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Anon,
You're parroting a 250+ year-old argument that is no longer operant. At least be original. John Wesley gave a "Sermon #38: A Caution Against Bigorty" in which he used the polemic: same-sex atrractions were "lusts against nature".
This is untrue. It was untrue then. It is now. 450 Animal species have been well documented for 200 years that express homosexual, bisexual and bimodal sexualities.
Read all about them in "Biological Exuberance: Animial Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagemihl, PhD, c1999.
It is ironic in the extreme that Wesley's sermon is resurrected in suppor of anti-gay rhetoric when it was a CAUTION AGAINST BIGOTRY. Grow up, please. Read a little too, and come with your own ideas will ya?
sw
July 25, 2007 5:18 PM | Report Offensive Comment
ANON: "The fact to the Point stands is it lust or Love. Because as we know, especially men we know sex without love,"
Straight people have sex without love as well. In my single days, I had a few hookups that were strictly lust.
"If two men live together without lust then it is not sex you seek but companionship same with a women."
If two people live together without sexual desire for one another, they are roommates, not lovers. If two gay men live together without desire for one another, it doesn't mean that they really want women. It simply means that they don't desire each other. Being gay doesn't mean that a man wants to sleep with every man he meets any more than being a straight woman means that I want to knock boots with every man I meet.
I had a straight male roommate years ago - he and I were not attracted to each other. We shared rent and utilities, not a bed. The fact that he did not desire me didn't mean that he didn't desire any other woman. The fact that I had no sexual interest in him did not mean that I was not attracted to men. We just didn't have any erotic chemistry - we were friends. He had a girlfriend and I had a boyfriend.
July 25, 2007 10:47 AM | Report Offensive Comment
You still avoid the point of lust and love. Also if it was not in our ability to do all those things you say are actually un natural,Those do not conflict with the realm of creation, because I am sure if animals or other creatures where givin the choice they would use fire to warm themselves etc. The fact to the Point stands is it lust or Love. Because as we know, especially men we know sex without love, If two men live together without lust then it is not sex you seek but companionship same with a women. We forget we are responsible for ourselves and when we do something wrong we try to find a way to justify ourselves, and convince people it is ok.
July 25, 2007 10:16 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Anon:
The 'unnatural" argument really isn't valid. After all, we human beings do lots of things that are "unnatural". Things like:
Cooking food
Distilling alcohol
Rolling dried leaves in paper, igniting them, and sticking them in our mouths
Making fire
Making paper
Wearing clothing
Tanning leather and fur
Creating art
Driving
Written language
Drilling for and processing petroleum
Mining and processing minerals
I could go on for days, but I think you get the point. No other species does any of these things in the wild, and all are learned or invented behaviors - none are instinctive.
For gay men and lesbians, it IS instinctive to be attacted to a member of their own sex.
And please, enough with the sterotypes - not all lesbians are butch and not all gay men are effeminate. And even if they were, a gay man would not be attracted to a woman, no matter how "masculine" she might seem, nor would a lesbain be attracted to a man, no matter how "feminine" he might seem.
If that were the case, you could just as easily argue that a straight woman could be attracted to another woman if she were butch enough, or that a straight man could be attracted to another man if he were highly effiminate.
July 25, 2007 9:51 AM | Report Offensive Comment
We are intelligble, and anyway you look at it, it is un natural show me another creature that has procreated through time as same sex. Instead how about if a gay man is to feminine then why not seek a women whose is to masculine. Plus you have to ask yourself is it lust or love when you distinguish the two then you will know the truth. Sounds like a silly Idea but has it ever been tried. We need to right our wrongs before we can walk justly in the future.
July 24, 2007 2:47 PM | Report Offensive Comment
THC,
None of the gay men or lesbians I know consider themselves to have settled for less by having fallen in love with a person of their own gender, any more than I do by having fallen in love with a person of the opposite gender. They found their soulmate, as did I.
And while everyone chooses the individual(s) with whom they have sex, no one chooses what (or whom) they find attractive. I could choose to have sex with a woman, but it would be a hollow act, because I would not actually be attracted to her.
Orientation is in the attraction, not the action.
July 22, 2007 8:56 PM | Report Offensive Comment
How desperate you are to make this irrational plea, TCH.
You are wrong. Only gay men who can't admit they are gay make the claim that sexual identity is a choice.
It is not a choice. Submit *your* proof. The sceince is settled.
sw
July 22, 2007 7:02 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Its very sad, that a man can only find a man who can touch his e- spots. and same for a woman who cannot find a man. but has to settle for less. NO ONE IS BORN THAT WAY IT IS A POOR CHOICE THEY MAKE.
July 21, 2007 7:01 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Its very sad, that a man can only find a man who can touch his e- spots. and same for a woman who cannot find a man. but has to settle for less. NO ONE IS BORN THAT WAY IT IS A POOR CHOICE THEY MAKE.
July 21, 2007 6:59 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Its very sad, that a man can only find a man who can touch his e- spots. and same for a woman who cannot find a man. but has to settle for less. NO ONE IS BORN THAT WAY IT IS A POOR CHOICE THEY MAKE.
July 21, 2007 6:55 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Brent Humber:
My sexual orientation IS hard wired. Is yours mutable?
Why does it have to be hard wired into the brain for you to be willing to allow same-sex couples to marry?
There are plenty of factors that are not hard-wired that can affect the quality of a marriage that are not cause for a legal or church prohibition:
Religious preference - often couples with differing faiths find that it's a hard issue to resolve. But they are allowed to legally marry, and many churches will marry non-adherents.
Income disparity - if one person has a significantly higher income than the other, it sometimes causes friction. But there is no bank account audit required to legally marry, nor do any churches that I know of require that both members of a couple have similar incomes before agreeing to perform a wedding.
Parenting philosophies - my ex and I had VERY different ideas about how my daughter should be brought up. His refusal to honor my wishes was one of the things that led to our breakup. No court and no church requires that a couple have an agreed-upon parenting plan before being allowed to marry.
Anatomy? Pheh. If the couple is happy with their collection of parts, more power to them.
July 19, 2007 1:37 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Brent Humbler,
Read my posts. That day is here. Start reevaluating now. You have no excuse to procrastinate any longer.
It is conclusively shown to be so. Are you a man of your word?
sw
July 18, 2007 1:12 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Gay unions, Gay clergy, sorry I can't make that leap. If one day it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt these people are hard wired in the brain to act that way...well on that day I'll need to reevaluate.
July 17, 2007 3:44 PM | Report Offensive Comment
So many posts, I only read a few. Similar debate happening in Australia, I'm afraid. Efforts to legalise same sex marriages in some areas were vetoed by the Federal Government, when it was able.
For the record, male, hetero, married, two boys. Absolutely believe in complete equality of same sex couples on all levels, social and legal. I have no problems at all if either or both of my sons turn out to be gay, except for one thing.
They will have to endure the ignorance, intolerance and prejudice from homophobes, some of whom have expressed their opinions here.
The most astonishing quote, of many, that a skimmed through was from AH. He/she stated that, as a Christian, he is required to love everyone, even homosexuals (oh the sacrifice you make, sir/madam, how big of you). But, as a Christian, he/she is not required to tolerate them. Right. I see. As you beat the crap out of some gay bloke, or order them out of your house, or torment them for their lifestyle, or ban them from your church, that is all OK as long as you are all the time yelling at the top of your voice "But don't forget. I love you". Interesting argument.
In any case, I wonder how long mankind has to do something before it is considered natural? If Christians believe literally in the Bible, then they will consider this.
The Old Testement dates back many thousands of years, and yet the writers of that ancient text saw fit to include a reference to homosexuality in it - by way of condemnation, depending on how one interprets it.
Now, if we accept that the Old Testement was written from 4000 BCE as is sometimes claimed (not that I accept this claim) then it stands to reason that mankind has been practising homosexuality for at least 6000 years. Of course, we know nothing about pre-history, but one would imagine that civilised man didn't simply wake up one day and think "I wonder what that's like. I think I'll give it a go".
And then there is the race argument. The Bible condemns black and dark skinned people throughout, indeed far more than it villifies homosexuality. Now that commonsense has prevailed on that issue, and Christians have repudiated the previous belief that black were to be the servants of whites as interpreted by the Bible, one hopes that eventually Christians will see the absurdity or their opposition towards homosexuality.
July 12, 2007 1:57 AM | Report Offensive Comment
So many posts, I only read a few. Similar debate happening in Australia, I'm afraid. Efforts to legalise same sex marriages in some areas were vetoed by the Federal Government, when it was able.
For the record, male, hetero, married, two boys. Absolutely believe in complete equality of same sex couples on all levels, social and legal. I have no problems at all if either or both of my sons turn out to be gay, except for one thing.
They will have to endure the ignorance, intolerance and prejudice from homophobes, some of whom have expressed their opinions here.
The most astonishing quote, of many, that a skimmed through was from AH. He/she stated that, as a Christian, he is required to love everyone, even homosexuals (oh the sacrifice you make, sir/madam, how big of you). But, as a Christian, he/she is not required to tolerate them. Right. I see. As you beat the crap out of some gay bloke, or order them out of your house, or torment them for their lifestyle, or ban them from your church, that is all OK as long as you are all the time yelling at the top of your voice "But don't forget. I love you". Interesting argument.
In any case, I wonder how long mankind has to do something before it is considered natural? If Christians believe literally in the Bible, then they will consider this.
The Old Testement dates back many thousands of years, and yet the writers of that ancient text saw fit to include a reference to homosexuality in it - by way of condemnation, depending on how one interprets it.
Now, if we accept that the Old Testement was written from 4000 BCE as is sometimes claimed (not that I accept this claim) then it stands to reason that mankind has been practising homosexuality for at least 6000 years. Of course, we know nothing about pre-history, but one would imagine that civilised man didn't simply wake up one day and think "I wonder what that's like. I think I'll give it a go".
And then there is the race argument. The Bible condemns black and dark skinned people throughout, indeed far more than it villifies homosexuality. Now that commonsense has prevailed on that issue, and Christians have repudiated the previous belief that black were to be the servants of whites as interpreted by the Bible, one hopes that eventually Christians will see the absurdity or their opposition towards homosexuality.
July 12, 2007 1:54 AM | Report Offensive Comment
SW:
Thanks. And here I was thinking I was too old to blush....
July 11, 2007 5:21 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Lepidopteryx?
I love reading your posts. You have an awesome mind. Thanks for writing here. You inspire me.
sw
July 11, 2007 4:58 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Ethan?
Exactly. Well stated. Concise. To the point and conclusive. Nicely done. Thanks.
July 11, 2007 4:52 PM | Report Offensive Comment
AH: **If homosexuality was a correct way of life, we would not be here today.**
One could say the same thing about celibacy. Do you contend that everyone who has the ability to generate progeny has the obligation to do so? What about those who are sterile by choice? Do you oppose their right to marry as well?
**So why should we encourage or "tolerate" this behavior? All it will lead to is the destruction of the human race.**
FYI, gay men and lesbians DO reproduce. Gay men have been sperm donors and lesbians have gotten pregnant using the same reproductive technologies employed by infertile heterosexual couples. Not to mention the gay men and lesbians who enter into heterosexual marriages and have children trying to "go straight."
**I don't care what science or studies that you throw into this, no matter that male or female animals hang out with the same sex, that has no relation to them being homosexual.**
We're not talking about just hanging out- we're talking about sexual behavior.
**It is like saying that little Johnny has invited his ten best friends over for his birthday party. They are all boys. Does that make him gay? NO.**
It does if he's sexually attracted to them.
**We have already found that if homosexuality was right, we would not be here, but since we are here, that makes homosexuality the wrong lifestyle.**
Your ability to make a perfect circle without the use of a compass is truly astounding.
**the institution of the family, the traditional family is the correct way of life, shown and proven through thousands of years of life on Earth.**
Actually, if you look at other cultures, the nuclear family (mom, dad, 2.5 kinds, and a cocker spaniel) is one of many widely varying family structures. All have their advantages and their disadvantages, There is no single "correct way of life." One size does not fit all.
**Now if you bring religion into it, the Christian bible clearly defies and denounces homosexuality.**
I'm neither Christian nor Jewish, therefore the rules set forth in the Bible don't apply to me.
**Many try to refute this argument by saying that homosexuals are born the way that they are. No they choose it.**
If homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, then heterosexuality must be as well. I'm going to assume you are a straight male (feel free to correct me if I am mistaken). When did you choose to be attracted to girls? Note that I did not ask when you chose to have sex - I asked whrn did you decide what gender you would be attracted to.
**When you question whether homosexuality should be tolerated or not, if you are a Christian, you are not questioning the issue itself, you are questioning YOUR FAITH, and in what you believe.**
My religion accepts homosexuality as one of many points on the sexual spectrum. My church performs same-sex weddings, and we have several married gay and lesbian couples in our congregation.
July 11, 2007 3:58 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Y'all have no idea how idiotic it is to read anti-gay comments based on religion. Religion has NOTHING to do with it, it's all a matter of biology. Do you think for a single nano-second that if any omnipotent being had anything against gay people they'd still exist? What kind of omnipotent being do you worship anyway? You think WAY too much of your selves and attach your beliefs to a being you create to validate what you want to believe. Ranting against love, you wonder why the world is in the state it is. Isn't it time you gave up your battle against rational reason, fairness, and human justice? Crawl out from under your rocks and celebrate the evolved brain your creator gave you!
July 11, 2007 3:39 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Oh, and Ah, YOU proved in your post the fact that G-d did create gay persons and animals as well as straight, and the fact that we all have been here for many millions of years and are still here now. G-d does see that it was and is good.
Why exactly do you rebel against what G-d has wrought? It's the glaring illogic that fascinates me so.
What is your agenda?
sw
July 11, 2007 1:28 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Ah,
No one "chooses" their sexual identity. That is the flaw in your argument. The whole of your thesis is dependent upon it. It is a false premise. Therefore, your entire thesis is false.
Now, what will you do? Admit your error? Or, require fidelity to untruths as the standard for your beliefs? I hold to the truth. Straight persons are born straight. Gay persons are born gay. You are requiring the invalidation of G-d-created human beings as sacrificial offereings before G-d usurping the Grace of Christ.
You are also ignorant of Calvin J. Roetzel's scholarship on the Apostle Paul/Saul of Tarsus. Read his books to correct your many deficiencies.
This makes no sense at all. Don't you see this?
As Bitner said, it makes no difference to heterosexual couples for homosexual couples to marry -- in fact, it strengthens both kinds of couples. That is now a fact in Massachusetts. What are you really affraid of? I really want to know.
sw
July 11, 2007 1:16 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Ah,
Before quoting Holzinger's 1991 "paper" which is neither scientifically nor academically competent, you should read the exchange between David and myself posted here.
You also employed the discredited 2,200 year old Greko-Latin Complementarian argument. Your anti-gay stance is not supported.
You are left with religious bias that is tautological and fallacious. "Animal" urges? You mean like the exact same animal urges you have? Come on, get serious. This is ridiculous.
Christianity has to mean something more important than gay-bashing. It has to.
Or it will die of its own growing irrelevancy.
sw
July 11, 2007 12:55 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I am heterosexual. I am married. We have 5 children. My marriage will not be effected in the least by allowing two people of the same sex marry. Not in the least. Let them marry, in a church willing to perform the ceremony, or in the courthouse. They are not harming us by being in a monogamous, committed relationship.
July 10, 2007 5:47 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Why Homosexuality is not an accepted way of life in the Christian religion (and should not be):
- If homosexuality was a correct way of life, we would not be here today. It is as simple as saying that the parts do not fit. It is common sense, males and males or females and females can not reproduce, and therefore that lifestyle would have led the human race into extinction, if it would have been tolerated.
- So why should we encourage or "tolerate" this behavior? All it will lead to is the destruction of the human race.
- The foundation of humanity has continued through the 5000=years (scientifically) on the basis of heterosexuality. It can not be denied that no matter what God or what way this Earth was created, heterosexuality, has sustained and continued life on earth for ALL SPECIES.
-this leads to my second point,
-I don't care what science or studies that you throw into this, no matter that male or female animals hang out with the same sex, that has no relation to them being homosexual. It is like saying that little Johnny has invited his ten best friends over for his birthday party. They are all boys. Does that make him gay? NO.
-and another of my questions is, why on Earth are you comparing humans to animals. The defining factor that makes the human race superior to all races, is the fact that we humans know the difference from wrong and right. Animals do not. You can not compare humans, (that is moral and decent humans) to animals, because animals are stupid. Humans are not animals, we are humans which is why we have been the strongest and smartest form of life on the planet.
Homosexuals are acting like animals in the sense that they only listen to their body’s sexual impulses, totally ignoring what is right from wrong. We have already found that if homosexuality was right, we would not be here, but since we are here, that makes homosexuality the wrong lifestyle.
-the institution of the family, the traditional family is the correct way of life, shown and proven through thousands of years of life on Earth.
Now if you bring religion into it, the Christian bible clearly defies and denounces homosexuality. Throughout the bible, many references are made to sexual immorality and homosexual prostitutes, as being wrong and that these people will not inherit the kingdom of God, Heaven. Read 1st corinthians: 6, and Tell me that what I just said is not true.
Many people refute this fact, saying that aren't Christians supposed to love all people and accept all people?
The answer is yes. As a Christian, it is our duty to love all, including homosexuals. But, that does not mean that as Christians we should tolerate their lifestyle. As Christians, we are supposed to help these people. As we know, from clear and precise scripture, homosexuals will not go to heaven, so it is our job to help them to pursue a healthy lifestyle: heterosexuality. That is where the love and forgiveness of Christ comes into play, he loves all people, even if they sin and turn from his way, but he does not forgive those who do not try to be forgiven, those who do not try to change. That is the Christian mission in the lifestyle of homosexuality, to help homosexuals to change.
-For example: as a Christian, I can have a gay friend, a friend I dearly cherish, but as a Christian, it is my duty to extend the love and forgiveness of God, and try to help my gay friend to change. You can love a gay or lesbian as a human, a person, but you cannot accept their lifestyle.
Many try to refute this argument by saying that homosexuals are born the way that they are. No they choose it. If you, as a Christian, accept homosexuality, and believe that homosexuals are born that way, then you are being a hypocrite. Why would your loving God, who according to your religion, loves everyone and everything, who, as you believe created the universe and everything in it, say that homosexuality is wrong and denounce it, and then create homosexuals? Are you saying that God, your God, who created everything, did not know what he created? So he didn't know that he created homosexuals, yet says that their lifestyle is sinful? You are confusing your own faith. Homosexuals are not born gay, if you are a Christian, you can not believe that they are, because why would God make homosexuals and say that their way of life is wrong? He wouldn't because he loves all of his creation. He just gives his creation free will, and that is why homosexuals choose to be gay.
-And if you want to bring science into it, there is no clear scientific evidence that declares the cause of homosexuality in humans or animals.
These are all reasons why gay unions or homosexuality in general is not okay. This is not a political issue; it is a moral issue, and issue of right or wrong. When you question whether homosexuality should be tolerated or not, if you are a Christian, you are not questioning the issue itself, you are questioning YOUR FAITH, and in what you believe. They question you need to ask yourselves is what is right? And very clearly, for a Christian: the bible declares homosexuality wrong, as a member of another faith: I'm sure there is some piece of data in your books denying homosexuality, and for atheists or people who don't follow a common or specific religion: common sense shows the truth and living proof of life.
Thank You
July 10, 2007 5:41 PM | Report Offensive Comment
m263k
July 7, 2007 11:18 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Ahhhh ... *blush* ... you are most welcome and truly the pleasure is all mine because what we did here is truly great. I am honored.
Hey David,
Do me a favor and try to talk to W. Irby. Get her to understand a little better, will you try? My apologies transfer to her too.
I have a reading assignemnt for you and ME!!! That'll come as a shocker won't it? A book "I" haven't read? Ha-ha. I just found out about a new Joan Roughgarden book that came out last year.
"Evolution and Christian Faith: What Jesus and Darwin have in Common--Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist" c2006
With a title like that how can we not be intrigued!? I'm gonna find it. Mabe we could compare insights? I would love that.
Here's couple of good articles about her work too that I think would help you understand your questions better.
http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C01EED71E3FF934A25753C1A9669C8B63
Thanks again, G-d bless,
sw
July 6, 2007 4:27 PM | Report Offensive Comment
SW,
Your gonna make a grown man cry! I totally agree with you, I wish the same as far as our conversation goes. I wish it could be this way for all people no matter their differences. I've been on this post for quite some time. I really have no idea why, but I can say I have learned a lot...from you, from atheists, mormons, etc. I think this is why I keep coming back. Because of the knowledge I have obtained from different points of view.
When I first starting reading posts on here, I was so offended. I couldn't believe atheists considered Christians illogical, unreasonable, believers in fairy tales, etc. It was offensive at the time. Now I understand why they think these things. I know I could never change their minds or their views about faith or anything, but what I have learned to do is to help them understand that no matter our differences, we need to keep a respectful and honest tone. Unfortunately that's not the case with everyone on here. And of course when they attacked, I attacked back. I learned to change my tactics a little. Don't attack back. I think forums like this tend to divide people. We all think we're right, when all of us are really wrong. I see a lot of veterans to this post that are finally realizing the same thing as I am. Why use this forum to divide ourselves when we could unite ourselves in our differences? I think you and I SW have shown how it should be. How can it get any better than two people who differ on major life issues that can come together with respect and love. Isn't that what God is all about?
So of course I will continue to post my opinions on the several topics on this forum, but what I continue to learn is HOW to post them. I've learned to accept peoples differences as the norm in society and realize that no matter what these differences will always be a part of society and no one can change that. I guess I'll keep praying that we can all accept one another as people regardless of accepting one anothers beliefs.
Have a great day SW. It's been quite a pleasure chatting with you. You know it's funny. As much dialogue as I've put in with certain people here, I haven't come away with as much of a learning experience as the short dialogue that I've had with you. Thanks for that.
God bless
July 6, 2007 2:39 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Oh, David, I'm sorry I told you you were gay because you were forcefully expressing your views. I didn't mean it. I was so frustrated and angry with you and took it out on you. I regret saying it. It doesn't matter who we are. All that matters is that we love and respect each other. Thanks for forgiving me -- both ways, huh?!
sw
July 6, 2007 11:55 AM | Report Offensive Comment
David,
The very best thing you have said in all of your posts I have read so far is:
"I have a lot to learn."
ME TOO!!! I always tell my friends and family that the day I stop learning is the day I die. I believe this with all my soul. Keep learning and I promise to do the same. You taught me a lot. I really appreciate that you sent your love to my family as well as me. Sometimes I get so sad because many Christian people seem to have forgotten that every gay person has a mother and father and family. Now I know a Chrsitian I might not agree with who does know it and cares too. That's a great thing.
Thanks,
sw
July 6, 2007 11:29 AM | Report Offensive Comment
David,
This is truly remarkable. You made me cry. That was beautiful; what you wrote I mean.
If only we could export this conversation our to the greater country. You are absolutely right. I am stimiulus-respondent to the words "homosexual" and "sin". I do only perceive it as an attack upon my being. Just as I asked you to step back and take a more reasoned approach to my views I was just as resistant to stepping back and taking a more reasoned approach to yours. I felt yours was not reasonable and only mine was. I was doing precisely what I accused you of doing. I wanted you to stop what you were thinking when I wouldn't stop what I was thinking in return. Pretty hypocritical of ME. I see it now.
We really could be frineds. You have come along way and so have I. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I will try harder to listen with as much love and care as you ask.
You do the same, please.
Thank you and G-d bless you too,
sw
July 6, 2007 11:00 AM | Report Offensive Comment
m342k
July 6, 2007 5:58 AM | Report Offensive Comment
m423k
July 6, 2007 3:16 AM | Report Offensive Comment
SW,
Now that was a wonderful response.
I think your right about us coming to an empasse. I think what we are trying to establish here is the legalistic view in God's eyes as homosexuality being a sin or not. I see it one way, and you see it the other. You know what's great about that is that no matter our differences we can still have a respectful and quite loving conversation. I appreciate that.
I do want to clarify, that even though we have established our beliefs and the differences they have, I do want to let you know that I in no way judge you or consider you less of a human than any other. We are equals in God's eyes. We all have our shortcomings and will face judgement one time or another. Of course I leave that up to God to decide who's righteous and who's not. I think I have come a long way in giving the love and respect to all people who were made in God's image and I thank you for the kind words about that.
I guess to conclude this I should say I'm glad I came back to talk to you. At first I thought you just hated all people who went against your beliefs. I see different now. I guess we got off on the wrong foot. But I'm glad I made a new friend. If I could give you any word of advice it would be this. Please do not consider any Christian that comes to you and says homosexuality is a sin to be a bigot. It is obviously evident that the Bible establishes a strong case against homosexuality even though I know you see it differently. I would hope that you could give them the benefit of disagreeing with you (as I have) but still find the love that Christ intended for us to give one another. I in turn will also learn to be more patient and sensitive to the subject of homosexuality upon those I encounter on this subject. I have a lot to learn. Thank you so much for your time SW. I wish you the best and will keep you in my prayers. Much love to you and your family.
God bless
July 5, 2007 11:23 PM | Report Offensive Comment
SW,
Now that was a wonderful response.
I think your right about us coming to an empasse. I think what we are trying to establish here is the legalistic view in God's eyes as homosexuality being a sin or not. I see it one way, and you see it the other. You know what's great about that is that no matter our differences we can still have a respectful and quite loving conversation. I appreciate that.
I do want to clarify, that even though we have established our beliefs and the differences they have, I do want to let you know that I in no way judge you or consider you less of a human than any other. We are equals in God's eyes. We all have our shortcomings and will face judgement one time or another. Of course I leave that up to God to decide who's righteous and who's not. I think I have come a long way in giving the love and respect to all people who were made in God's image and I thank you for the kind words about that.
I guess to conclude this I should say I'm glad I came back to talk to you. At first I thought you just hated all people who went against your beliefs. I see different now. I guess we got off on the wrong foot. But I'm glad I made a new friend. If I could give you any word of advice it would be this. Please do not consider any Christian that comes to you and says homosexuality is a sin to be a bigot. It is obviously evident that the Bible establishes a strong case against homosexuality even though I know you see it differently. I would hope that you could give them the benefit of disagreeing with you (as I have) but still find the love that Christ intended for us to give one another. I in turn will also learn to be more patient and sensitive to the subject of homosexuality upon those I encounter on this subject. I have a lot to learn. Thank you so much for your time SW. I wish you the best and will keep you in my prayers. Much love to you and your family.
God bless
July 5, 2007 11:21 PM | Report Offensive Comment
David,
I lived in the South Bay for five years. You might of have seen me holding hands with my boyfriend! HA!
Let's get some of my views staight between us. I do not believe that both Leviticus verses are gay-affirming. Far from it. But what was meant 2,500 years ago to that Jewish society post-Babylonian Exile is lost to us as Christians today. You cannot honestly say with certainity it applies to gay persons today. Yet, you say, yes. I say, no. We are at an empasse.
The three Pauline verses -- one is fraudulently Pauline, and the other two are Pauline political statemnts, not moral ethical statements. Gay persons are not being talked about here. Read Roetzel. Paul's thorn is never overtly specified, only obliquely referenced. This alone attests to Paul's shame in even discussing it. The very shame I lived through in my teen years and twenties. I know this kind of shame, David. Paul's words of self-immolation before G-d are hauntingly resonant for me.
The Sodom and Gomorrah story is about rape both attemtped homosexual & heterosexual rape -- not about gay persons.
You have come a long way, David. I acknowledge you for the progress you have made. I am proud of you. It is very good.
Here's what I ask of you. In Christ, let go of condemning gay persons. In your eyes, its a sin. Fine. But, that doesn't get you off the hook in the matter of giving up forever in Christ judging that sin and those who sin in your eyes by being gay. In Christ you are to love the sinner the very same as the righteous. It makes no difference that gay persons are sinners by your view as your have attested. In Christ you are called to forgive the sinner and love him or her as righteous regardless of whether or not they continue to sin in your eyes. That is between they and their G-d, NOT you and them. Your treatment of other sinners in your eyes is between you and your G-d. And Jesus is attributed to have said love even the sinner the same as the righteous for no one but G-d can tell the difference. So, in Christ G-d looks with sorrow and pity upon your attempt to usurp G-d's purview arrogantly. You are not to do this.
So, let's suppose the Great Commandment didn't exist, in Christ-like love forgiveness still does, no matter what. Be a great Christian and show this generosity of heart. Gay persons are born the way G-d made them. Can you claim to hate what G-d has wrought? I'm not talking about whether you accept that gay persons are born gay -- I'm talking about gay persons who were born human, regardless of your judgments about their sexual identity. Humans with the life G-d gave them. Who are you to cut off what G-d has wrought? This is haughty, David. Just as those long-ago Jewish people didn't eat unclean foods because they didn't understand the effects of bacterial infesction so it was an abomination, being outwardly different in appearance would confuse which were Jews and which were Gentiles they didn't understand that all humans are G-d's children so it was an abomination, men raping men as spoils of war and emmasculating insult they didn't understand that some men were different in their love so it was abomination -- it is not so today.
That's the point. We understand far more today than they did then. You understand far more now than your did several years ago as you attest.
Don't confuse my words as the arrogance of modernity. I am speaking of thoughtful introsepction, reflection and study. And changing ones view when overwhelming evidence warrants and Christ-like charity demands.
Do you see?
sw
July 5, 2007 9:12 PM | Report Offensive Comment
SW,
I do appreciate your apology. And of course apology accepted. I tried initially to maintain a respectful dialogue with you and I hope that we could do so furthermore. If for any reason my comments in the past or what I may post in the future offend you, then I am truly sorry. I know sexuality is a sensitive subject and therefore should be treated that way. There are two things I would like to share with you. First, a little bit about me.
Before I studied the Bible or accepted Christ, I hated homosexuals. I thought they were disgusting, unnatural, and beneath me. Of course that is far from a Christian attitude but like I said I wasn't a Christian at the time. I live about 30 miles from san francisco, so you know that I am exposed to a large amount of homosexual persons. Of course before my Christian life, I chose to call homosexuals all the disrespectful, hate mongering names. I enjoyed going to s.f. on occasion and saw many gay couples and of course first thing that pops up in my mind is the "f" word. I'm ashamed of how I acted in the past. In fact I was beneath them. I know this now. Now that I know the Lord, I look at gays as equivolent to any other human being. I want you to know this because you assumed before that I hated gays. I did at one point in my life. But it is because I am now a Christian that I love them all. It is Christ that brought me to realize how to love all people. Because now I know that we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. But here is where we differ.
You claim that the Bible accepts homosexuality as I do not claim that. I do see homosexuality as a sin just like any other sin. If you live as a gay person and I live continually lying to people, then we are both sinners and both deserving of God's judgement. But I cannot justify myself in saying that it is o.k to lie. Either can it be justified to say it is o.k to have homosexual relations. They are both sins and to God no sin is greater than another because if you break one law you are a lawbreaker. So here's the great part. Jesus died for our sins. All we need is faith to recieve His grace. Eph 2:8-9. With faith we recieve the Holy Spirit that indwells in us. And through the Spirit we regenerate. Titus 3:5. Meaning we turn from sin. The Holy Spirit convicts us of these sins. John 16:9,14. So if I lie, I know realize that I am lying and can find no way to justify that lie. I know I sinned.
My point is that homosexuality cannot be justified as not being a sinful act. I have read your other posts and they are quite assumptuous on the passages of homosexuality in the Bible. You claimed that Paul was gay. You claim that homosexuality as an abomination to God is not true. But it's right there in the Bible. I have to believe what God says not man no matter how unpopular it may be in current society to believe these things. You mention how homosexuality is in the animal world as well. I wouldn't disagree with that. I've seen certain studies on that. So it is "natural" to be homosexual because animals do it as well? But it is "natural" to be a sinner as well. There are certain species of animals that eat each other as well. So if we accept homosexuality based on the animal kingdom, then shouldn't we allow cannibalism in the human kingdom? I would hope not. I hope I made some valid points. And I do hope that you can forgive me if these are offensive in any way. You have a great evening SW. Take care.
God bless
July 5, 2007 8:18 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Homesower,
Now you are reaching. I think you know this. Most of what you posted deserves no response from me for two reasons. One, Lepidopteryx did a much better job than I would have. [Thanks for getting my back, L.] Two, it would waste my valuable time to repeat anything L. says.
I am not worried about you being attracted to your neighbor's "wife" but your neighbor -- the husband. Of course it is immoral to have a sex with a married man behind his wife's back -- the fact that it would be with another MAN is another issue entirely for the husband that HE ought to discuss with her, but the fact of two consenting single adults having sex the bible is at best ambiguous on this. Read The Song of Songs for yourself -- it's about beautiful, erotic love and intimacy between two unmarried consenting adults. L. said it beautifully and the bible which you hold so dearly affirms his statement.
I am strongly in favor of gay guys and gals marrying to promote monogamous healthy stable relationships. This is G-dly and holy.
Chronic promiscuity is jsut one of many criitcisms thrown disingenuously in gays' faces. It's hypocritical in the extreme. Letting them marry solves this, does it not?
H., repression of your true self will only cause harmful damage to you. Think about our conversation seriously. Please.
sw
July 5, 2007 7:17 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Anon,
You should go back and reread my responses regarding the genetic/endocrinological issues.
You are an incompetent doctor if you truly think so narrowly. Dr. Roughgarden has a great deal to say about quacks such as you. Read "Evolution's Rainbow" to find out why. I am medically trained as well.
sw
July 5, 2007 6:55 PM | Report Offensive Comment
David,
I have been harsh to you -- too harsh now that I have read your other posts on other threads. Will you forgive me being abusive towards you? I hope so. I am sorry for it. May we start anew? Treat me with the repsect I deserve and have earned in deep scholarly study and we may have a basis for a productive exchange.
I want to make sure I get this right. You said:
----------------------
David :
So if you are born gay does that mean you have a genetic problem? Or is it a disease? I'm just wondering because naturally when you look at a woman and man, they fit together. Doesn't creation seem to indicate that man and woman were naturally supposed to be together. Not man and man, or woman and woman? That seems unnatural. I'm wondering from your perspective SW if you think being "born gay" is a genetic malfuntion?
Thanks
July 4, 2007 9:57 PM
---------------------------
This is a fair question.
It's the perspective that is skewed. I am not attacking you or berating you. I am asking you to see this issue outside yourself and your perspective and do what it is attributed to Jesus: That if someone asks you to walk a mile, walk it and another also -- do not presume to judge another's life until you have walked a full day in their sandals.
I want you to google Dr. Jeffrey Jensen's 1997 Sunstone paper, "We See What We Believe: The Heterosexualization of Gay Men and Lesbians in the LDS Church." You do not have to be Mormon to get the point of this paper. It is an important paper for you to undertand how deeply you are heterosexist and how slavishly derivative your question is.
With the book, "Born Gay," I have two more for you. "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Dr. Bruce Bagemihl, c1999 & "Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People" by Dr. Joan Roughgarden, c2004.
Read them if you are truly interested in an honest answer to your question.
Here's the short version. No. Sexual identities are as varied as the rainbow. There is nothing pathological at all. There is nothing wrong or negative at all. Go back several posts to my argument with Debbie J. I gave her several excerpts from Bagemihl's book.
Only Homo religicus expresses severe negativity towards homosexuality or bisexuality. That's a joke but not the negativity. In nature no species, except one, expresses negativity towards alternate expressions of sexual attraction. That's why naturalists and field biologists were so confused about what they were actually seeing for 200 years.
The most compelling proof is this. If it is injurious to the species then why is it not only prevalent but resistant to exclusion? Anthropologists have documented "feminized" male/male remains that go back 10,000 years ago. Gay persons have been around as long as humans BUT more importantly it shows up in many other species.
It is not a genetic disorder or any kind of "disorder". The American Psychiatric & American Psychological Assocations' position statments have removed homoseuxality as a "disorder" since 1973. This is not a disorder.
It's just people who are little different from you. That's all.
BTW, Holsinger's 1991 "paper" is a piece of trash that any competent community college GE course instructor would have graded "F" and thrown out for a severely biased perspective destroying objectivity, narrowly selective citations, speciously predetermined conclusions and incompetent research. The pseudo-complementarian argument is false and not supported in competent biologic research.
sw
July 5, 2007 6:43 PM | Report Offensive Comment
You are ignorant. It is conclusively proven. Read "Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation" by Dr.'s Glenn Wilson & Qazi Rahman. c2005. All the scientific support and criticism is presented. Everyone is born with the sexual identity they have. The "nurture" arguments supporting "choice" are roundly refuted by hard, cconcrete evidence and irrefutable logic.
-----------------------
Oh my goodness.
Your not born gay. You can say it all you want but until its clinically proven, sorry. Just isn't true. You may want to be for whatever insane reason but dont use the excuse "im born this way".
My ass.
Show me the proof.
There is not a *homosexual* gene in people.
There is however an instinct that tells people they have to reproduce.
Which means obviously you have to be with the opposite sex.
I know some of you people will say they could get sperm donated, adoption, blah blah blah. But that should be only used if the man or woman is for some reason unable to reproduce.
Not for gay's to have.
I mean children with homosexual parents are 10 times likely to grow up with problems.
Its wrong. Plain and simple.
--------------------------------
You are wrong, plain and simple. Gay people are born gay, also, plain and simple. Your derivative anti-gay stance is fallaciously "choice" depentent. There is no choice in persons' sexual identity except the choice to tell the truth or lie.
sw
July 5, 2007 5:54 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Homesower: **So in your opinion gay sex is okay as long as you are not heterosexual?**
Any sex is okay as long as it's between consenting adults.
**So someone who is bi can enjoy neither, or does he get to pick and choose?**
You misuderstand bisexuality. Most bisexuals, while being attracted to both sexes, are more strongly attracted to one or the other. Just as heterosexuality does not mean wanting to bed every person of the opposite sex you meet, bisexuality does not mean wanting to bed everyone you meet.
**I am not really familiar with heterosexuals having homosexual sex, but I would certainly agree that it would be sin.**
It happens occasionally, usually out of curiosity. And homosexuals having heterosexual sex happens a lot more often, usually as a result of being closeted.
**How about sex in general? If I desire my neighbor's wife should I be able to enjoy her sexually?**
That depends on your neighbor and his wife's views on extra-marital sex. If they agree that it's ok for either of them to have other partners, then it's fine. But if they have promised each other monogamy, then it's wrong.
**Is it only monogamous sex that is not a sin?**
Only non-consensual sex is a sin.
**I'll share a little secret with you. The homosexual community is not monogamous. Randy as rabbits.**
That's going to come as big surprise to the numerous gay married couples I know.
**I'll admit I can't speak for all, and my insight is especially weak with regards to lesbians, but fidelity is not a virtue that most of them would recognize.**
Your insight is indeed weak. In fact, it's worse than weak - it's blind.
July 5, 2007 10:26 AM | Report Offensive Comment
So if you are born gay does that mean you have a genetic problem? Or is it a disease? I'm just wondering because naturally when you look at a woman and man, they fit together. Doesn't creation seem to indicate that man and woman were naturally supposed to be together. Not man and man, or woman and woman? That seems unnatural. I'm wondering from your perspective SW if you think being "born gay" is a genetic malfuntion?
Thanks
July 4, 2007 9:57 PM | Report Offensive Comment
To SW:
I accidentally posted without adding my name. My apologies.
I agree that sexual identity is only a part of who you are.
As for not being gay "fully" that can be taken a number of ways. I choose not to be because I cannot be so and be obedient to Christ. "Be excellent in what is good, be innocent of evil". I have already delved too deep in what is evil, should I delve further? It would profit me nothing.
So in your opinion gay sex is okay as long as you are not heterosexual? So someone who is bi can enjoy neither, or does he get to pick and choose? I am not really familiar with heterosexuals having homosexual sex, but I would certainly agree that it would be sin.
How about sex in general? If I desire my neighbor's wife should I be able to enjoy her sexually? Is it only monogamous sex that is not a sin? I'll share a little secret with you. The homosexual community is not monogamous. Randy as rabbits. I'll admit I can't speak for all, and my insight is especially weak with regards to lesbians, but fidelity is not a virtue that most of them would recognize.
You can rationalize any sin away. We usually start with our favorites. In the end its still sin.
July 4, 2007 11:26 AM | Report Offensive Comment
I agree that sexual identity is only a part of who you are.
As for not being gay "fully" that can be taken a number of ways. I choose not to be because I cannot be so and be obedient to Christ. "Be excellent in what is good, be innocent of evil". I have already delved too deep in what is evil, should I delve further? It would profit me nothing.
So in your opinion gay sex is okay as long as you are not heterosexual? So someone who is bi can enjoy neither, or does he get to pick and choose? I am not really familiar with heterosexuals having homosexual sex, but I would certainly agree that it would be sin.
How about sex in general? If I desire my neighbor's wife should I be able to enjoy her sexually? Is it only monogamous sex that is not a sin? I'll share a little secret with you. The homosexual community is not monogamous. Randy as rabbits. I'll admit I can't speak for all, and my insight is especially weak with regards to lesbians, but fidelity is not a virtue that most of them would recognize.
You can rationalize any sin away. We usually start with our favorites. In the end its still sin.
July 4, 2007 11:23 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Oh and btw
I am dr. so I do know already there is no gene for homosexuals.
It is impossible to be born "gay"
July 4, 2007 12:49 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Oh my goodness.
Your not born gay. You can say it all you want but until its clinically proven, sorry. Just isn't true. You may want to be for whatever insane reason but dont use the excuse "im born this way".
My ass.
Show me the proof.
There is not a *homosexual* gene in people.
There is however an instinct that tells people they have to reproduce.
Which means obviously you have to be with the opposite sex.
I know some of you people will say they could get sperm donated, adoption, blah blah blah. But that should be only used if the man or woman is for some reason unable to reproduce.
Not for gay's to have.
I mean children with homosexual parents are 10 times likely to grow up with problems.
Its wrong. Plain and simple.
July 4, 2007 12:44 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Yes, Homesower, but you can't be gay -- fully -- and be Christian by your own admission so your statement is false. Are you married to a wife with children as your chosen moniker implies? Or single, doomed to lonliness forever?
These are the options under your theology.
The former is a lie and passionless by your own admission. The latter is inhuman and proven scientifically to be emotionally, psychologically and physically abusive and injurious.
Your view is by your own admission skewed. It breaks my heart. I feel so very sad for you.
sw
July 3, 2007 2:17 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Homesower,
The equation that
being born gay + biblical infallible authority = sin
is the faulty reasoning. You accept that you are gay yet you also condemn yourself of being sinful becasue of your being.
I am saying that being gay is not sinful by definition. How you reconcile your being is your business but don't make your business my business for me. I do not rationalize sin away. I look deeply at what sin is. The literal meaning of the Greek word for sin is to miss the mark -- nothing else. If you are being other than your authentic being then you miss the mark -- this is the essential nature of inauthenticity.
The argument is that gay persons are only their sexual identity. This is a lie. You are so much more than that. You are a universe of possiblity that is good and worthy and the matter of your sexual identity is a tiny PART of you, not the whole of you. This is the fraud of the churches prepetrated against gay persons. Who you are attracted too is not the whole of you. It is a small -- though not insignicant -- part of who you are.
Here's the problem as I see it. You and a great many others -- you are not alone -- erroneous conflate the word abomination with the notion of sin. This a big problem. They are not interchangeable words. When it is attributed to Jesus that we are thrown to be sinful it is not congruent that we are thrown to be abonimable.
This is the problem as I see it. To be abominable is something else entirely. The Leviticus verses are referring to heterosexual men who abuse other men, it is not talking about gay persons who are being themselves authentically as they were born. You are expressing a self-referential conclusion -- that you universally externalize -- which is derivative from patriarchal sexism, heterosexism and homophobia.
How do I know this? Because it is exactly what I did and moved beyond. I have been there -- I know of where I speak from direct experience.
As long as the lie that people -- whose being is unalterable -- are convenced that their being is sinful and therefore alterable, there is no room for authenticity or even some level of becoming soemwhat authentic about their essential inauthenticity.
All of THAT is sin -- not being gay and honest about it.
A Wesleyan does know who Jesus was. I don't understand your statement. Did you read my post about Wesleyan grace, the quadrilateral and salvation? Go back and find it.
I do have a sharp pen. This in no way means I love you any less or not at all. It means I love you so much and have such high regard for you that I will treat you as a fully capable adult who can take the heat -- rest assured that I can too.
We can no longer appeal to a Christianity of yesterday that is nonsensical in its embedment in ancient obsolete language and theological forms. We must appeal to a Christianity of today in this age. It's very hard work. It is easy to contort ones mind into pretzels to maintain an anachronistic theology. It is difficult to forge an understanding for our time consistent with reality as we know it now and the truths lying underneath -- even beyond -- the words from 2,000-3,000 years ago.
The first approach is inauthentic. The second is an attempt at forging some level of authenticity about the inauthentic approach. Personal integrity comes into play in concrete terms -- will I or won't I? Am I wed to the pursuit of the truth?
The process of becoming authentic about our religious inauthenticity naturally evolves new authentic religious experiences -- that's what reformation is.
It's a work in progress never to be completed, always engaging til the end of time beyond my -- and your -- tiny span of years. That's the kind of game I like playing. Arguing about persons' essential sexual being and its "sinfulness" is a PUNY zero-sum-game. It's a waste of valuable energy. Notice how much energy is wasted here ...
There's another basic problem drivng the energy quotient on this issue. Can you guess what it is? Look deeply inside yourself ...
sw
July 3, 2007 1:50 PM | Report Offensive Comment
To SW:
I did not mean to impugn your belief in Christ, rather to provide an understanding of my viewpoint, as a good many posters are not Christian. Though frankly, having not read all of your posts I was not entirely sure of your place. I have known many Wesleyans who haven't a clue who Jesus is, having been raised a Methodist myself. Certainly your interpretation of the Gospel is not your traditional Wesleyan understanding.
You have a sharp pen, but I am sure there is love behind your words. Let me respond to one comment you made "You seem to be saying that being Christian is prima facia conclusive that gay persons are invalidated, irredeemable and irreconcilable."
I cannot claim the view you make for me. I am proof that its not true. I am redeemed, I am reconciled and I am gay. But I am those things because I am forgiven, and I can't be forgiven for something that isn't a sin. Christ paid the price to redeem me, not to leave me a sinner. He offers me eternal life, but in turn I give him myself, my desires and my obedience. I cannot say "Yes" to Christ in all but one area of my life, or rather I can for a while, but He will surely claim it in the end, and if I refuse to give it up then I will have chose it over Him and I will no longer share his name.
I could choose to rationalize away this sin. I would frankly enjoy the sin. Its always been one of my favorites. Actually I have, but I was miserable. God has a claim on my life and I cannot escape it. When I grieve the Holy Spirit eventually it grieves me.
July 3, 2007 1:01 PM | Report Offensive Comment
PASTOR POLLARD - I have no doubt you would love to amend those Ten Commandments, like that renegade judge in Alabama who, I believe, added Four more, since, lamentably, they don't say anything about homosexuality. By the way, while you're busy not hating gay people, you might want to add a good number of those animals you mention to your list of things you supposedly feel sorry for, since a good number of them, God's creatures one and all, are also homosexual. What a mockery people like you make of religion.
July 3, 2007 11:36 AM | Report Offensive Comment
OOOOPS, now I did it. I didn't mean to out Repugnican Senator Ted Stephens of Alaska!!!
I meant Miss Ted Haggart of Colorado Springs, CO.
But now that I think about it, I guess I had a little Freudian slip of the keyboard, didn't I? Cuz it does make sense in a weird way ...
tom
July 2, 2007 10:17 PM | Report Offensive Comment
To "pastor" Gary Pollard,
Spoken like a true Dominist and Christian Reconstructionist. Thanks for proving Singularization right. He is right on the money without you but the synchronicity of your posts is deliciously satiric.
Thanks for the laugh, Gar. There's a little problem with your rant. If SW is right, and I think he is, I check his citations, then you are gay and way, way in the closet. Come out little Gar, don't want to end up like Miss Ted Stephens do you?
Pastor Gary Pollard :
In the beggining GOD made all animals after their own kind...from man HE made woman as a helpmate...same sex marriage is not only an abomination in GOD'S eyes..but it is sin pure and simple. Some say that it is a sickness and they can't help themselves..no;it is sin and regardless of how anyone trys to justify it ..it is wrong and immoral. If you say it is a sickness then you could use the same excuse for every other immoral thing that people participate in..such as murder..rape..child molestation..the list can go on forever. Those that try to justify this sin; usually are also the ones that want the ten commandments and prayer done away with...they don't like for anything to make them feel guilty. I don't hate homosexuals..I feel sorry for them and pray for them because it is a matter of sin and GOD is a loving GOD, but HE is also a just GOD and unless sin is repented of WE; not GOD are to blame..GOD is true to HIS WORD.......
July 2, 2007 9:52 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I make this statement for every anti-gay bible-quoter. Don't bother quoting Pauline scripture if you have not read any of Calvin J. Roetzel's corpus. He is without doubt one of America's premier biblical scholars on the Apostle Paul/Saul of Tarsus.
Do yourself a favor and do an Amazon search for his books. Read one. Read them all as I am now doing.
For those of you who do -- you truly have no idea what you are doing when you erroneously misquote Romans 1:26, I Timothy 1:9-10 and I Corinathians 6:9-10 in support of your anti-gay agenda. These verses have NOTHING to do with gay persons. They are political statements of an entirely different intent. You do not understand what they actually mean and you really have no idea how hilarious the irony is.
Read a Roetzel book and find out for yourself. Save yourself the embarrassment of gratuitously exposing your ingnorance. Save your reader of that too.
sw
July 2, 2007 9:39 PM | Report Offensive Comment
In the beggining GOD made all animals after their own kind...from man HE made woman as a helpmate...same sex marriage is not only an abomination in GOD'S eyes..but it is sin pure and simple. Some say that it is a sickness and they can't help themselves..no;it is sin and regardless of how anyone trys to justify it ..it is wrong and immoral. If you say it is a sickness then you could use the same excuse for every other immoral thing that people participate in..such as murder..rape..child molestation..the list can go on forever. Those that try to justify this sin; usually are also the ones that want the ten commandments and prayer done away with...they don't like for anything to make them feel guilty. I don't hate homosexuals..I feel sorry for them and pray for them because it is a matter of sin and GOD is a loving GOD, but HE is also a just GOD and unless sin is repented of WE; not GOD are to blame..GOD is true to HIS WORD.......
July 2, 2007 9:37 PM | Report Offensive Comment
In the beggining GOD made all animals after their own kind...from man HE made woman as a helpmate...same sex marriage is not only an abomination in GOD'S eyes..but it is sin pure and simple. Some say that it is a sickness and they can't help themselves..no;it is sin and regardless of how anyone trys to justify it ..it is wrong and immoral. If you say it is a sickness then you could use the same excuse for every other immoral thing that people participate in..such as murder..rape..child molestation..the list can go on forever. Those that try to justify this sin; usually are also the ones that want the ten commandments and prayer done away with...they don't like for anything to make them feel guilty. I don't hate homosexuals..I feel sorry for them and pray for them because it is a matter of sin and GOD is a loving GOD, but HE is also a just GOD and unless sin is repented of WE; not GOD are to blame..GOD is true to HIS WORD.......
July 2, 2007 9:35 PM | Report Offensive Comment
In the beggining GOD made all animals after their own kind...from man HE made woman as a helpmate...same sex marriage is not only an abomination in GOD'S eyes..but it is sin pure and simple. Some say that it is a sickness and they can't help themselves..no;it is sin and regardless of how anyone trys to justify it ..it is wrong and immoral. If you say it is a sickness then you could use the same excuse for every other immoral thing that people participate in..such as murder..rape..child molestation..the list can go on forever. Those that try to justify this sin; usually are also the ones that want the ten commandments and prayer done away with...they don't like for anything to make them feel guilty. I don't hate homosexuals..I feel sorry for them and pray for them because it is a matter of sin and GOD is a loving GOD, but HE is also a just GOD and unless sin is repented of WE; not GOD are to blame..GOD is true to HIS WORD.......
July 2, 2007 9:33 PM | Report Offensive Comment
In the beggining GOD made all animals after their own kind...from man HE made woman as a helpmate...same sex marriage is not only an abomination in GOD'S eyes..but it is sin pure and simple. Some say that it is a sickness and they can't help themselves..no;it is sin and regardless of how anyone trys to justify it ..it is wrong and immoral. If you say it is a sickness then you could use the same excuse for every other immoral thing that people participate in..such as murder..rape..child molestation..the list can go on forever. Those that try to justify this sin; usually are also the ones that want the ten commandments and prayer done away with...they don't like for anything to make them feel guilty. I don't hate homosexuals..I feel sorry for them and pray for them because it is a matter of sin and GOD is a loving GOD, but HE is also a just GOD and unless sin is repented of WE; not GOD are to blame..GOD is true to HIS WORD.......
July 2, 2007 9:33 PM | Report Offensive Comment
In the beggining GOD made all animals after their own kind...from man HE made woman as a helpmate...same sex marriage is not only an abomination in GOD'S eyes..but it is sin pure and simple. Some say that it is a sickness and they can't help themselves..no;it is sin and regardless of how anyone trys to justify it ..it is wrong and immoral. If you say it is a sickness then you could use the same excuse for every other immoral thing that people participate in..such as murder..rape..child molestation..the list can go on forever. Those that try to justify this sin; usually are also the ones that want the ten commandments and prayer done away with...they don't like for anything to make them feel guilty. I don't hate homosexuals..I feel sorry for them and pray for them because it is a matter of sin and GOD is a loving GOD, but HE is also a just GOD and unless sin is repented of WE; not GOD are to blame..GOD is true to HIS WORD.......
July 2, 2007 9:32 PM | Report Offensive Comment
In the beggining GOD made all animals after their own kind...from man HE made woman as a helpmate...same sex marriage is not only an abomination in GOD'S eyes..but it is sin pure and simple. Some say that it is a sickness and they can't help themselves..no;it is sin and regardless of how anyone trys to justify it ..it is wrong and immoral. If you say it is a sickness then you could use the same excuse for every other immoral thing that people participate in..such as murder..rape..child molestation..the list can go on forever. Those that try to justify this sin; usually are also the ones that want the ten commandments and prayer done away with...they don't like for anything to make them feel guilty. I don't hate homosexuals..I feel sorry for them and pray for them because it is a matter of sin and GOD is a loving GOD, but HE is also a just GOD and unless sin is repented of WE; not GOD are to blame..GOD is true to HIS WORD.......
July 2, 2007 9:24 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The only problem with homosexuality is that religion still exists and thrives. Take away the religion and all the reasons for the hatred and uncomfortablness go away. People become reduced to pure equals. Christopher Hitchens, author of "God is not Great" has it pegged quite squarely. Religion simply poisons EVERTHING.You-tube him for some interesting dialogue and a fresh perpective. He was on recently with Jon Meacham as well.
July 2, 2007 9:13 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Homesower,
It's VERY interesing that you think I don't ineterpret the bible or conduct theological discourse "from a Christian prespective." I told eog I am a Wesleyan Methodist Chrsitian and have been all my life with deeply passionate theological and philosophical roots. You missed that I guess ...
That is fascinating. What makes you say this? Did you read the Essay posted by Anonymous on the fracturing of the churches by literalist Christians over this issue? You should read it. You seem to be oddly unaware of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Ruth, I & II Judges, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, I & II Chronicles. Surely you have read these? Perhaps not because you are also unaware of the special love shared by David & Jonathan, and Ruth & Naomi.
In all these texts slavery is most certainly not critisized. It is only obliquely critisized when the stage was occupied by G-d's Chosen people under enslavement by Pharoah, NOT when Jews were the slaveholders -- this is affirmed by G-d's Law not abolished. Paul wrote extensively that slavery was the law of the land under Cesaer but that all men's hearts were free in Christ. Paul did not critsize the practice of slavery nor advocate for abolition of slavery.
A strict literalist has a big problem here. Biblically, the faithful South was proof-texting the Law as justification FOR the maintenance of slaveholding, NOT for Abolitionism. The churches were split assunder during the conflict. In my home state of Arkansas it wasn't until 2004 that the rift in the Arkansas Methodist Conference between the Northern Abolitionist Conference and the Southern Slaveholding-affirming Conference was healed and the Conference reunited. That's 139 years of emnity after the war's close.
Why do you look to the bible for it to prove for you -- via an impossible absolutist external standard of ethic -- what is right and wrong? Christ is attributed to have said that all of us in the Holy Spirit know within us what is right and wrong and that the Great Commandment fulfills the SPIRIT of the law. Love G-d with all your heart, mind and strength. Love your neighbor as you love G-d. The Commandments are fulfilled by doing this. I am quoting from Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. Mark's and Luke's Gospels are a bit different in their sayings.
You seem to be saying that being Christian is prima facia conclusive that gay persons are invalidated, irredeemable and irreconcilable. That that is an exclusively "Chrsitian" way of thinking. Any other way of thinking is invalid and "not" Christian?
This is the conclusion I am questioning directly and I am doing it in Christian love by the Great Commandment exactly as the Northern Christian Abolistionists did which you extoll in your post.
I am saying that this divide between us is very similar and that history seems to be eerily repeating itself. I am saying that bible-quoting to affirm anti-gay bias is no different than the past bible-quoting to support slaveholding. In fact enslavement to heterosexism and homophbia is really no different -- and NO, I am not saying they are the same, I am saying they have similar characteristics and are effectively similar. I am also saying that welcoming Christians who take the Great Commamdment every bit as seriously as the past Abolitionists are making the case for full loving acceptance and the end of discriminatoy hostilites towards gay persons.
Blacks were scapegoated by white society for decades as the root cause of many problems in the country. Just as gays are being scapegoated the very same way right now.
The bible is not literally factually true -- though SOME of it might have actually happened -- and we have known this for more than 400 years. It is however metaphorically "really" true. You seem not to have read my post to Steve where I cautioned him to not invalidate the bible because it is not literally true. That is just as wrong as bibliolatry. The bible is very important if one can unlock its message for us today beyond the limitations of its various translations, changes and meanings trapped withing 3,000 year-old far earlier understanding.
I am saying that it is staggeringly arrogant to think one can pick it up, do a cursory reading and believe one can undertand it on its terms within these realities without intense scholarly research, thought, discourse and reasoned theological study.
Anyone can erroneous misconstrue it to support their biases. And political proof-texting for the advancement of advantageously stereotyping prejudice is deeply human, provane and has nothing to do with G-d but a great deal to do with domination, alienation and invalidation of the targeted scapegoat. Profound reasoning where the bible is concerned is reached by first admitting I know nothing, next admitting that I will read into it my biases -- this is human -- then to read deeply beyond my biases and limitations to unlock what it has to say that I might learn from knowing full well it was never written for ME but written thousands of years ago for communities that I have no connection to nor understanding of experientially yet has survived millennia in greatly altered form but with meaning under the words that the words could never capture for all time -- not even for its time -- but beyond time in metaphor, allegory and poetry.
The best I can explain this is not even in my own words but the words of a great American poetic prose literaturist, Norman Maclean, in "A River Runs Through It and Other Stories."
"Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world’s great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of the rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs."
The bible is like this. Exactly like this. I don't misuse the bible to undergird my prejudices of others. I take responsibility for my prejudices - we ALL have them, no one doesn't -- and read the bible to unlock G-d's love for me to live out in making a garden of my tiny patch of ground by the power of the Great Commandment for the delight of others that they might undertake the tending of their own gardens.
Thereby the world might become the Kingdom of G-d on Earth as it is in heaven.
Anti-gay prejudice works against this. Let it go. G-d WILL love you for it. I promise. Gay persons are deserving of loving committed relationships covenanted under G-d, before their peers just like everyone -- David and Jonathan included if you take the time to read. Gay men and women make wonderful clergy, bring a valuable spirit to the table of faith and have done so for many thousands of years -- some ages in the closet and some not -- if you take the time to read Jewish, Catholic and Anglican history. It's true, read it for yourself.
Oh by the way, you are the one who proved conclusively that the bible is not inerrant, absolute or literal. There's no getting around the fact that your post proved what I am saying. So, don't take my word for it. Take yours. That is if you have the intergity in Christ to do so ...
sw
July 2, 2007 9:07 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Thanks to the poster who writes the truth about the Sodom and Gommorah story - that story that anti-gay bigots cling to like drowning men to a raft. As anyone who actually bothers to read it will recognize, it's simply an instance of enraged men threatening to rape other men in order to put them in the position, quite literally, of women - the ultimate degradation in ancient Middle-Eastern society (not to mention other societies of both the past and present). In fact, unless you believe that many of today's most hardened and violent convicts suddenly become gay upon incarceration , it's the same thing that routinely occurs in our nation's prisons.
July 2, 2007 8:11 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Thanks to the poster who writes the truth about the Sodom and Gommorah story - that story that anti-gay bigots cling to like drowning men to a raft. As anyone who actually bothers to read it will recognize, it's simply an instance of enraged men threatening to rape other men in order to put them in the position, quite literally, of women - the ultimate degradation in ancient Middle-Eastern society (not to mention other societies of both the past and present). In fact, unless you believe that many of today's most hardened and violent convicts suddenly become gay upon incarceration , it's the same thing that routinely occurs in our nation's prisons.
July 2, 2007 6:58 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Thanks to the poster who writes the truth about the Sodom and Gommorah story - that story that anti-gay bigots cling to like drowning men to a raft. As anyone who actually bothers to read it will recognize, it's simply an instance of enraged men threatening to rape other men in order to put them in the position, quite literally, of women - the ultimate degradation in ancient Middle-Eastern society (not to mention other societies of both the past and present). In fact, unless you believe that many of today's most hardened and violent convicts suddenly become gay upon incarceration , it's the same thing that routinely occurs in our nation's prisons.
July 2, 2007 6:53 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Thanks to the poster who writes the truth about the Sodom and Gommorah story - that story that anti-gay bigots cling to like drowning men to a raft. As anyone who actually bothers to read it will recognize, it's simply an instance of enraged men threatening to rape other men in order to put them in the position, quite literally, of women - the ultimate degradation in ancient Middle-Eastern society (not to mention other societies of both the past and present). In fact, unless you believe that many of today's most hardened and violent convicts suddenly become gay upon incarceration , it's the same thing that routinely occurs in our nation's prisons.
July 2, 2007 6:49 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Gay ppl. are human.
all americans are human.
all life is sacred.
individual rights are sacred.
the church must attend to their business of churching.. not judging. dividing, sensoring..
church is for personal spiritual growth. not destruction, execution, pain and hurt..
If you don't pay gay ppl.'s bills you don't get to tell them how to live.. yet we tax them like the next one. they pay for our 16 children's education....
LIVE AND LET LIVE. look at the beam in yer eye before ye calls for the grain of sand on your brother's....
July 2, 2007 6:36 PM | Report Offensive Comment
*Sigh*
Bottom line to all the nonsense on Christian beliefs homosexuals are wrong or not...God is nonjudgmental and has unconditional love for ALL his children. Judgements and conditional love is a human factor and does not belong to God. He gave us free will. Use your brains and think what that actually means. He gave us free will and then if we don't do exactly what he wants, we go to hell? He would torture his children? He would allow such a place as hell and the devil? Would you allow your children to be tortured for eternity? Do you parent based on fear and not love? Poor God, he sure gets a bad rap. So many religions have turned him into a monster. You can have your monster God. Mine is loving, kind, forgiving and I feel loved, cared for and know I will go to Heaven. Having that knowledge gives me motivation to help others to understand the same thing. To live a great, good and loving life. I don't know who the hell you people are that judge others so darn much...God? Nope, guess not since he doesn't.
July 2, 2007 4:56 PM | Report Offensive Comment
*Sigh*
Bottom line to all the nonsense on Christian beliefs homosexuals are wrong or not...God is nonjudgmental and has unconditional love for ALL his children. Judgements and conditional love is a human factor and does not belong to God. He gave us free will. Use your brains and think what that actually means. He gave us free will and then if we don't do exactly what he wants, we go to hell? He would torture his children? He would allow such a place as hell and the devil? Would you allow your children to be tortured for eternity? Do you parent based on fear and not love? Poor God, he sure gets a bad rap. So many religions have turned him into a monster. You can have your monster God. Mine is loving, kind, forgiving and I feel loved, cared for and know I will go to Heaven. Having that knowledge gives me motivation to help others to understand the same thing. To live a great, good and loving life. I don't know who the hell you people are that judge others so darn much...God? Nope, guess not since he doesn't.
July 2, 2007 4:56 PM | Report Offensive Comment
*Sigh*
Bottom line to all the nonsense on Christian beliefs homosexuals are wrong or not...God is nonjudgmental and has unconditional love for ALL his children. Judgements and conditional love is a human factor and does not belong to God. He gave us free will. Use your brains and think what that actually means. He gave us free will and then if we don't do exactly what he wants, we go to hell? He would torture his children? He would allow such a place as hell and the devil? Would you allow your children to be tortured for eternity? Do you parent based on fear and not love? Poor God, he sure gets a bad rap. So many religions have turned him into a monster. You can have your monster God. Mine is loving, kind, forgiving and I feel loved, cared for and know I will go to Heaven. Having that knowledge gives me motivation to help others to understand the same thing. To live a great, good and loving life. I don't know who the hell you people are that judge others so darn much...God? Nope, guess not since he doesn't.
July 2, 2007 4:51 PM | Report Offensive Comment
*Sigh*
Bottom line to all the nonsense on Christian beliefs homosexuals are wrong or not...God is nonjudgmental and has unconditional love for ALL his children. Judgements and conditional love is a human factor and does not belong to God. He gave us free will. Use your brains and think what that actually means. He gave us free will and then if we don't do exactly what he wants, we go to hell? He would torture his children? He would allow such a place as hell and the devil? Would you allow your children to be tortured for eternity? Do you parent based on fear and not love? Poor God, he sure gets a bad rap. So many religions have turned him into a monster. You can have your monster God. Mine is loving, kind, forgiving and I feel loved, cared for and know I will go to Heaven. Having that knowledge gives me motivation to help others to understand the same thing. To live a great, good and loving life. I don't know who the hell you people are that judge others so darn much...God? Nope, guess not since he doesn't.
July 2, 2007 4:50 PM | Report Offensive Comment
To Strangely Warmed:
Since you are not a literalist, what authority do you give the Bible in forming your opinions (on any topic)? To what degree do you accept the words and actions of Jesus as having an overriding claim on your life and your thoughts? How about the epistles, are they valid? The prophets? Genesis?
Can you better explain this comment?
"If G-d did indeed "have a better plan" then why did G-d write that slaveholding and forced servitude by G-d's Chosen People of non-Jews was acceptable and correct behavior -- in fact sanctioned by G-d?"
God does have a better plan, better for us than the way we are currently living, better for the Israelis than they way they were living. Otherwise why bother living God's way. Just live how you want. However I assume your main point of contention had to do with the God's law to the Israelis. You seem to believe that it is not historically valid, that it is too flawed to have God's fingerprints on it.
Let me answer this in two ways. First, if we can't accept it as God's Word, why believe in Jesus as your Savior? Jesus said that the scripture pointed to Him. If you can't accept the scripture why accept Jesus? And if you accept Jesus why not accept his words? Perhaps you are of the opinion that we really don't know Jesus' words. In that case, can you trust Him as your savior? Find a savior you can quote with assurance.
Second, God revealed Himself in time. He chose one man, Abraham, as a starting point. I don't know why. He had His reasons. In accepting Abraham as that man, he took him in the context of the time and culture in which Abraham lived. He change Abraham over time, but He focused on one area, Abraham's relationship to God. As God continued to work on the descendants of Abraham that was the foundation. He dealt first with their relationship to Him, and only later with their relationship with each other. Get the first right, and the second will follow. He still operates this way.
Abraham lived in a slaveholding society, but that wasn't God worked on first. He did give the Israelis a strong distaste for slavery by letting them serve the Egyptians. Following that He gave them his law, and in this he allowed a period of indenture for up to 6 years for Israelis. But why did he allow the Israelis to own foreigners? He was teaching them that they could not enslave their brother, but he expanded that lesson over time. In the new testament we learn that all who are of Christ are our brothers, and that there is now no Greek or Jew, slave or free. Maybe that lesson took a while to sink in, but God's timeframe is distinctly different from ours, and His word does not return void but accomplishes its purpose.
How does this relate to Gay Unions and Clergy? Others brought up the issue of slavery and suggested that the church was evolving on the gay issue just as it had on slavery. But with slavery you can point to an echo throughout scriptures in which freedom is good, and slavery is bad. Moses told Pharoah "Let my people go". He instituted the Jubilee year to eliminate the slavery of debt. He bought his people back from the nations, and finally he paid the price of our sins so that we might be free. Where is the similar echo for homosexual relationships? You can't hear it because it isn't there.
July 2, 2007 2:42 PM | Report Offensive Comment
SW: I apologize for not getting back to you but I only occasionally blog. You are obviously quite prolific, and with a sharp mind will probably get the best of me, but I will plod on.
My comments may not make sense to someone operating outside of a Christian worldview, so let me provide some background through which to interpret my arguments.
God created the world perfect and holy, but he gave certain elements in his creation free will. Man rebelled and is fallen. In this fallen state the world and man are corrupted. Each person is born with a desire to be in union with God, but we are incapable of doing this ourselves. Our corrupted natures are bent toward evil. This can be manifested in different ways. Lust is certainly one of the more common, and sexual lust one of the more powerful. Homosexuality is simply a variation of that corruption. Its "natural" only in the sense that nature itself is corrupted.
If I am born with a predilection for lusting after someone of the same sex that does not make it right. Lust is still a sin, as is the homosexual act itself. Its not any more damning than lust of the homosexual variety, but a heterosexual act can be right, whereas a homosexual act can never be right.
Calling it right does not make it right. Allowing a homosexual to feel good about a sin does not make it any less a sin. The difference is that a homosexual who recognizes it as a sin has the chance to repent. The homosexual who does not know this loses this chance.
If a church endorses gay unions, they have now become a facilitator in sin. God himself will hold their leaders accountable
July 2, 2007 12:51 PM | Report Offensive Comment
W.IRBY: **W.Irby :
Gay/lesbain/bi.. they are all just wrong. I mean if everyone turned gay we would have no one left. You can't continue "the cycle of life".**
People don't "turn gay." Every BGLT person I know (and there are many in my circle of family and friends) has told me bascially the same thing. When my gay and lesbian freinds hit puberty, they simply were not attracted to the opposite sex. It wasn't a matter of choosing.
My bisexual friends found themselves attracted to varying degrees to both sexes. And my transgender friend knew, from the time that they were old enough to understand the difference between boys and girls, that they had the wrong body.
**If people were meant to be gay then perhaps it would be possible to have kids and stuff. But it's not. You can look at that in a religious way or not.**
Gay people can and do have children, some as a result of marrying and attempting to live as if they were straight, and some as a result of the same reproductive technology that straight infertile couples use to help them procreate. Besides, making babies is not the only reason people marry. When my husband and I met, I had a teenage daughter from a previous relationship and was in the early stages of menopause. He was sterile as a result of radiation treatment for cancer years before. We could not make a baby together if the fate of the free world depended on it. Furthermore, he has no desire to be a parent, and I have no desire for any more children, so we have no plans to adopt. Nobody at the clerk of court's office asked if we could make a baby. They didn't even ask if we were in love. All they asked for was picture ID and exact cash. Should we not have been allowed to marry?
**One because I do believe in God and the Bible. And two because it would end life. Literally.**
There is no reason to assume that the entire population of the planet would ever be gay, any more than there is to assume that the entire population of the planet would share any other single trait. And even if the entire population WERE gay, babies could still be made via sperm donation, so there would be no need to fear the end of human life on the planet.
July 2, 2007 12:27 PM | Report Offensive Comment
m689k
July 2, 2007 5:10 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Homesower, you should really think carefully about what you write before you write it. Especially if your intent is to support biblically-derivative anti-gay bias.
If you take the bible to be the literal speech of G-d, then your statement is self-negating, mutaully and exclusively contradictory:
"While it is true that the Bible was written in the context of a slave-holding society, its also true that Bible points toward a Messiah that would "release the captives". So slavery may have been a reality, but God had a better plan."
If G-d did indeed "have a better plan" then why did G-d write that slaveholding and forced servitude by G-d's Chosen People of non-Jews was acceptable and correct behavior -- in fact sanctioned by G-d?
You make no sense at all. Isn't G-d consistent and all-knowing for all time?
You just made the case that all credible biblical scholars accept for the bible NOT being the literal or absolute Word of G-d. You just proved why the bible is a human work in progress and how the evolving thinking regarding G-d and humnaity's relationship with G-d is an ON-GOIING, nevere-ending process and subject to reforamtion and correction of older thinking and texts.
You just proved that the inequality of the Law towards gay persons should and must be revised when new thinking makes plain the error of the older thinking.
Thank you so much for doing what you did in your post.
You proved why YOU should accept and validate all gay persons in Christian love just exactly they way they were born, unconditionally.
Fantastic job. I'm very impressed.
Amazing. G-d's grace really does work.
sw
June 30, 2007 4:25 PM | Report Offensive Comment
And Homesower, it is interesting how much negativity towards gay persons makes THAT seem pervasively normative and acceptable in our time. As captivity under bondage to slave masters for the 19th-century person was perceived as the norm then, Christian people who resonated with the Exodus story of the Jewish plight under bondage to Pharoah emboldened Christian Abolisionists then and began a process of violent change. It seems that Christian fairness and liberation from horrifying inauthenticity regarding personal sexual identity is the this age's call to reformation now.
The Law in the old testament is not antagonistic to slaveownership and bondage in general. In fact it is affirmative of it in every instance. Christians 150 years ago saw the error in the Law in this regard and took action to deactivate the Law and empower a standard of fairness beyond the Law in accordance with Jesus' ministry. The Slaveowner bible-quoted in the same strident tones as we hear now regarding anti-gay rhetoric and hermeneutics that the bible was on THEIR side in support of the maintenance of slaveholding.
Notice how you and many others bible-quote that the Law is on YOUR side in the matter of the maintenance of your anti-gay agenda. Notice also how conscientious Christians and many others today see the error in the Law in this regard and are taking action to deactivate the Law and empower a standard of fairness beyond the Law in accordance with Jesus' ministry.
Do we have to fight another war to make this transition? Or can we learn from the past and empower bloodless, civil reformation in Christ-like fairness?
Because gay persons aren't going away and neither is the unfariness, dishonesty, hostility and harm done to them which demands redress and reconciliation.
[Sorry for getting your moniker wrong in the last post, please forgive it.]
sw
June 30, 2007 2:16 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Homeowner, are you actually saying that to be who you are born to be is a sin of pride?
I challenge you to be who your have not been born to be and tell me how virtuous that is. You are actually suggesting that to live a lie is preferable to living the truth, not to mention being truthful about it in the first place. How interesting the lengths to which you will go to require inauthenticity as the standard for being one with G-d for everyone else -- especially gay persons for whom you have no compassion.
That is illogical and irrational. When you can make a reasoned argument perhaps a reasonable person will listen. But if you actually expect stupidity to be virtuous you will convince only the imebecilic which is what has been pervasively demonstrated on this thread.
I learn more and more about how great are the dimensions of faulty thinking and incompetent concluding driving the anti-gay religious agenda. It's very instructive.
These posts are greatly edifying. I have been deeply deluded that reason and logic would make a difference with the true believer. It doesn't. Important to know.
The evolution of anti-gay argumentation is what facinates me. As soon as facts are presented a ready made rebuttal shifts to a new ground of anti-gay justification to keep the anti-gay stance in place. If you have to work so hard at maintaining it that ought to be a clue to its inauthenticity and futility. Very interesting.
sw
June 30, 2007 1:49 PM | Report Offensive Comment
There were some interesting comments made early in this thread that seemed to indicate that the Civil War was somehow a struggle of an enlightened, progressing North against a Christian South (and trying to put the whole gay debate as a continuation of that struggle). Such a view ignores the history of the political crisis that led to the Civil War. It was Christians in the North that fueled the abolitionits fire. I won't claim all Christians were abolitionists, but its certainly not true that abolitionists were a nineteenth century equivalent of a liberal agnostic. These were people willing to risk jail because of their Christian beliefs.
While it is true that the Bible was written in the context of a slave-holding society, its also true that Bible points toward a Messiah that would "release the captives". So slavery may have been a reality, but God had a better plan.
Its understandable how a 19th-century man would see slavery as a given, and as part of the natural order. It was all around them, and not just in the U.S. A big problem with our slavery was that we made it a race issue. If your slave looks just like you, its harder for you to rationalize your owning him. When he looks different, you don't run the risk of becoming like him. This made it harder for the slaveowner to come to a realization that what applied to the owner should apply to the slave.
June 29, 2007 10:02 PM | Report Offensive Comment
It doesn't matter whether you are born gay or a product of your environment or corrupted along the way. You are what you are, but that doesn't make it right.
I have a strong tendency to self-centeredness, conceit, pride and gluttony. I am quite certain I was born this way, but it would be foolishness to say that this makes these vices right, or to demand that God change the rules so that I can continue as I am. If He did heaven would gain a lot more entrants, but it wouldn't look much like heaven anymore.
People who are gay are not any more damned to hell than those who are straight. They are all equally damned to hell if they don't accept God's forgiveness for their sin. He is perfectly willing to forgive all the times I had sex with a man (yes, me) since He already paid the price for that sin. But, he never paid the price for my lifestyle, or my problem, or my issue. He paid the price for my sin. If I don't have the humility to recognize God's sovereignty over that sin, and His right to define what is a sin and what isn't then I will be the one outside looking in (with all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes with that condition).
The current insistence on a gay person's "right" to be gay is simply the sin of pride. Mind you, they have good company with lots of other sinners who want the world to condone their sin, but it still leaves them in the same position to God. "God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble".
June 29, 2007 9:22 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Oh, eog,
I forgot to thank you for publicly acknowledgiing your political hostility and authoritarian threat against my personhood and the personhood of all GBLT people in these United States of America where ALL Americans are guaranteed under the auspices of the Declaration of the Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America to Life, Liberty and the Pursuir of Happiness, and Civil Liberties specified but not limited to the Bill of Rights and Amendments to the Constitution.
In America you most certainly may not do this.
Move to Iran or Iraq if you wish to impose your theolcratic will on an undeserving minority by religious/political fiat.
You are entitled to your beliefs any way you wish but you are not entitled to abusively impose your theocratic authoritarianism on other free, tax-paying, productive AMERICANS.
Get that straight. Get that damn straight.
sw
June 29, 2007 4:18 PM | Report Offensive Comment
You are unfamiliar with the scientific studies and operating outside of your scope of understanding, Elect of G-d. It is not the truth. It is derivative anti-gay hermeneutics. Did you read Anonymous' Essay below? How about Rabbi Waskow's that "A Fish in the Sea" posted?
I said nothing about genetics although it is being better understood though far from conclusive -- their is no single "gay" gene, but a great many genes that in the presence of hormonal infusing express a variety of sexual identities. This is the same kind of process that converts the female fetus into a male. All life starts out female. In the presence of the rightly timed hormones and the receptive genes and chromosnes the fetus switches from female mode to male mode. In the presence of the rightly timed hormones and the receptive genes and chromosones the fetus continues its development into a female. This is why males have nipples and inactive nascent mammory grands when they serve no actual evolutionary purpose. In vitro endocrinological fetal development is the most illuminating of scientific studies. The ring/first finger ratio anaylsis, head hair whorl analysis, twins analysis, fraternal birth order analysis, and brain architecture analysis are all compelling evidence. But the sexual lie detector analysis is most compelling. There is no single one factor that predominates but all inquiries paint a picture that is concensus conculsive. Dr. Roughgarden and Dr. Bagemihl make compelling cases for the obsolescence and retirement of mechanistic Darwinian sexual selection theory. Your citation speaks to a unfamiliarity with the now 30-year long post-Darwinian scientific research being done today.
Sexual identity is fixed in males prenatally. Straight men are born staight. Gay men are born gay. G-d makes gay men gay at birth.
Your hermeneutics will crumble or change.
It's your choice. If you speak only the truth will you speak these truths as well?
That's the acid test. The science is settled. Everyone is born with the sexuality they have. Now, how are you going to treat gay men who are born gay? Or women for whom their sexuality is much more plastic than men's? The biblical referents are not as iron clad as you would have them be. They are completely dependent upon anti-gay, heterosexist and patriarchally sexist biases. Once one lets go of these biases and looks more closely at the originating languages of the biblical passages, their fuller contextualization with which you and I are well familiar and comprehensively critiqued by Anonymous in his/her Essay below it is most definitely not conclusive.
You wish it to be so becasue it is much more convenient to the maintenace of your anti-gay stance.
But the relationship of David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi make your view far more problematic. Read I Samuel latter half of the book and II Samuel chapter 1 and you have to reconcile their deep love for one another. The same is true for the Book of Ruth. How does that fit into your clear interpretation? It doesn't. It refutes it.
Rabbi Waskow makes a very compelling case for the Book of the Song of Songs. It celebrates love and sexual delight outside of marraiage between mutually consenting adults. The primacy of marriage is not enforced at all and the Rabbi makes a strong case for gay persons being included as well. That definitely does comport with your adamancy.
This is a much bigger dialog than lines drawn in the sand allows for. As Anon pleads let's turn down the volume 95%. Unless you are willing to speak all the truth then you make a mockery of the truth. I will turn down my volume if you give me room to be myself honestly. If you don't then we cannot have a conversation that serves a useful purpose anymore.
Let's have an honest discussion about your moniker. "Elect of G-d" presupposes an authority that is nonsensical. In Christ we are all equal no one better nor worse. You imply an authoritian appeal that does not exist and you do it hautily. Show some humility before G-d. I do not speak for G-d. I do not know the mind of G-d. It is an impossiblity with which I am completely comfortable. I rest in G-d's glorious grace. You do not speak for G-d. You do not know the mind of G-d either. You show a marked insecurity, self-asteem issues and megalomaniacal need for self-agrandisment by the use of your moniker.
That is not G-dly. It is presumptuous. Your words would go down much better if you were less strident.
"Strangely Warmed" is a refernce to John Wesley's moment of epiphany. It speaks to Wesleyan balance of a "both/and" kind of theology. It recalls the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. It posits the opportunity of Wesleyan grace for all.
I chose it intentionally not to brow-beat but to celebrate his intellectual and theological ideals.
Pease and grace of Jesus to you,
sw
June 29, 2007 3:14 PM | Report Offensive Comment
sw,
The issue to me is not whether someone chooses to be "gay" or not. The issue is whether someone who practices certain behaviors (homosexuality in this case) can rightfully call themselves a Christian, a true follower of Christ. On that count, I think the Scriptures give a resounding no. I've examined carefully the various ways some have tried to get around the clear teaching of Scripture, and I remain unconvinced.
As to the "medical, biological, and endocrenological scientific inquiry", I'm no expert, but I think you might be overstating your case just a little. To my knowledge, up to this point there has not been one definitive study showing a genetic link to homosexuality. Be that as it may, in my eyes it's really a moot point. While science is helpful in many areas, it cannot tell us whether or not certain behaviors are moral. We need the truth of God's word for that.
Yes, we can agree to disagree. I hold no ill will toward you or anyone else who I disagree with. However, if by "hampering your life" and "leave me be" you mean I must cease speaking the truth, that I cannot and will not do. As you have pointed out, this is America, and many thanks to God I am free (for now) to continue speaking His truth (and to participate in the political process of this country), but even if I were not or someday may not be, I will still speak His truth since His authority is greater than that of man.
God bless,
eoG
June 28, 2007 9:49 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Elect of God,
You are right. No one is done a service if the truth is not the currency of discourse. Here's the truth. Gay persons do not choose their sexual identity. Gay persons are born exactly the same as straight persons with the sexual identity they awaken to. No one changes their sexuality -- it is unalterable. For men it is bimodally fixed well before birth -- the majority expression is heterosexual the minority expression it homosexual and the superminority expression is biseual. For women most are sexuaully plastic in that periods of either are exclusive or bisexuality predominates, a signifigant portion is exclusively bimodal all their lives but the point is that while male sexuality is fixed, female is far more fluid.
One's sexual identity is morally neutral. G-d loves all creation regardless of sexual identity. A rainbow of expression is natural and normal. A literal reading of the bible is wrong on this issue. Your certainty is not supported by medical, biological and endocrenological scientific inquiry. Mine is.
You and I cannot agree on this. That is the truth. For me you are wrong. For you I am wrong. There is no bridging this gap so we will have to forge a way to agree to disagree and you don't hamper my life and love I won't hamper yours.
If you cannot agree to leave me be do we have to go to war over this? I will leave you be in your anti-gay bias. But this is America. You must leave me be in my gay-embracing bias.
The truth couldn't be made clearer.
sw
June 28, 2007 6:15 PM | Report Offensive Comment
W.IRBY: "He knows he wasn't "born that way" because you aren't."
You better be prepared to back that statement up with some heavy-duty research, because there are a lot of gays who say they WERE "born that way".
"I am 19 year old woman."
Nineteen and already on your second kid?
June 28, 2007 6:09 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous,
I love your thinking and your call. There's a serious problem though as evidenced here. Your appeal must fall upon listening informed by receptive intelligence and caring compassion. As you can read here often times the ones most in need of your message are the ones most obdurately impervious to it. You -- and I most definitely -- are casting pearls before swine in our efforts at a reasoned discourse on this highly charged subject.
I do not believe they are capable of change nor do they want to. They want their rejection of gay persons and maintenance of anti-gay bias. It's comforting and soothing to them and no ammount of reasoned evidnece will sway them one iota.
The churchs will split over this issue. History is a very good instructor in this. Just read these responses. One side has dug in its heels against full acceptance. The other cannot in good conscience reject the growing evidence of the moral neutrality of gay persons and their full acceptance in the human family of love, worship and fellowship.
Thank you all for this exchnage. I provoked you on purpose. I wanted to find our if a bridge between us was even possible. I have my answer. It isn't. There is no compromise possible for either side on this issue. Both are assured of their moral territory.
Enjoy your anti-gay churches. I'll enjoy my gay-embracing churches. Hopefully, you won't bomb or murder gay persons or the churches that embrace them. Though if Iraq is any tutor that is probably exactly what you will resort to in righteous piety. Just remember, Thou Shalt Not Kill is a Commandment even if you justify it by killing "immoral" [by your hermeneutics] gay persons. Hopefully we can coexist in mutual aggreement to cordially disagree.
Rather doubt it though but I prayer for it anyway.
sw
June 28, 2007 5:55 PM | Report Offensive Comment
strangely warmed,
Love is being compassionate enough to tell people the truth. No one is done a service when we fail to tell them the truth and pretend they are something they are not. Christ's church hears His word and keeps it. Those who practice homosexuality, or any other sin for that matter, have no part in Christ and His Kingdom.
God bless
June 28, 2007 5:48 PM | Report Offensive Comment
strangely warmed,
Love is being compassionate enough to tell people the truth. No one is done a service when we fail to tell people the truth and pretend they are something they are not. Christ's church hears His word and keeps it. Those who practice homosexuality, or any other sin for that matter, have no part in Christ and His Kingdom.
God bless
June 28, 2007 5:47 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Elect of God, you proved my thesis that the churches will split assunder into those churches that take Jesus' ministry of Love seriously and those that don't. It's fascinating to me that the traditional Christian church cleaves to Pharisean legalism eschewing the Commandment of Love rejecting our gay brothers and sisters and the progressive Christian church cleaves to Jesus' commandment of Love eschewing Pharisean legalism about sexual morays embracing our gay brothers and sisters in Christian love.
We are expereincing a very similar split right now as happened 2,000 years-ago. Something to think about. While then the Christian movement was the minority and the Jewish the majority, now Christianity is the majority while the Jewish is the vast minority.
The same thing is happeing now. It's very exciting, scary, troubling and exalting.
The most intersting thing about your post is that you accept -- though you don't like it all -- that issue of gay persons' acceptance is well on the way to becoming universal in the US. Thanks for confirming that. Most enlightening.
sw
June 28, 2007 5:22 PM | Report Offensive Comment
My faith in Christ leads me to believe His word is true...homosexuality is an abomination and no one practicing homosexuality will inherit the Kingdom of God. Therefore, practicing homosexuals are unbelievers and should not be considered as leaders in the church. Further, the church should not condone their abominable behavior in any way. If the world wants to approve them and their behavior, that is to be expected, but not the church.
June 28, 2007 5:05 PM | Report Offensive Comment
did you the essay by anonymous, david?
June 28, 2007 4:54 PM | Report Offensive Comment
HAHAHAHA, that's a good one, David.
10 "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;"
Self-satisfied sactimony is so very secure isn't? Doesn't change an iota that the world evolves and time marches on. Just remember Titus was never written by the Apostle Paul.
I am proud to be declared by you a "heretick". I'll wear it as a badge of honor. How very judgmental of you -- such sweet exemplifier of Chirst's love and acceptance.
sw
June 28, 2007 4:51 PM | Report Offensive Comment
W.Irby,
Titus 3:10
June 28, 2007 4:02 PM | Report Offensive Comment
What a ridiculous thing to say: plagiarize it improperly!!!
Ha!
That's not what I meant at all. I meant I will not plagiarize it, use it improperly or for improper purposes. I will do none of these, I promise.
Just a Fish in the Sea,
I did not give you enough credit for your submission. Rabbi Waskow is amazing. I was honored by my church to play the role of the Rabbi for our summer vacation bible school series to kindly appreciative accolades so Judaism is much on my mind these days. I have always loved the Song of Songs and felt it and appreciated it just the why Rabbi Waskow talks. I love that it is much more elevated in the Jewish consciousness then in the Christian. Christianity could learn a great deal from this. Awesome paper. Thank you.
sw
June 28, 2007 3:19 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous, I have my suspicions as to who your identity might be but I will respect your desire for anonymity. That was beautiful. Well organized and researched. May I copy it. I realize that it is posted openly on this thread but without proper identification I would feel as though I am plagiarizing it improperly.
With your kind premmission I will attribute this post to Anonymous with the webpage URL, the posting and thread information for proper citation.
This sounds very Wesleyan in its tone and appeal. Could you at least confirm or correct that assupmption, please.
Thank you for sharing this.
-------------------------------
Just Another Fish in the Sea,
Your contribution was great too. I love having both a Christian and Jewish perspective. Your submission has its provenance cited and I will faithfully attribute it. Thank you too.
sw
June 28, 2007 2:32 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Irby,
You said:
1. All homosexuals are sinners.
2. G-d says that all homosexuals are sinners.
3. G-d will not admit homosexuals into heaven.
4. No one is born homosexual. All persons are born heterosexual.
5. G-d said all homsexuals choose to be homosexual because they are willfully rebellious to G-d's will. G-d does not make homosexuals homosexual because G-d does not make anything sinful.
6. All homosexuals are unrepentent sinners.
7. All homosexuals if they "act" upon their homosexual unnatural desires are the same as anyone who has murderous or heterosexual rapist feelings, or feelings of anger or rage. It is a sin to act on performing murder or rape or anger or fury. Homosexuals who "act" on their desires are just the same as rapists, murderers, angry or enraged persons. No difference.
8. Jesus will convert homosexual desires into heterosexual normal desires.
9. I a gay person who refuses to repent to G-d and become heterosexual will not be saved or enter heaven.
10. Homosexuals are undeserving of full acceptance in our churches, covenants of marriage or ordination under any circumstances. They is no room for compromise or change because G-d said this.
You tell me where I got your words wrong. Oh Wise One. These are your Ten Commandments of Thou Shalt Never Be Gay.
sw
June 28, 2007 2:12 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Exactly SW I know what i meant.
I am glad you know exactly what I meant as well.
I am through with this room. You have completely proved to me that you are ignorant. Really.
Take everything I say out of context. I could do that with plenty of things that you have said.
But I didnt.
I am not going to try and tell you what you said! Because you know better than I what you said. Just as I know better than you what i say and mean.
When ya'll decide to quit putting words in others mouths let me know.
You keep proving that you think you know everything, including me. Well you dont. Trust me. You dont.
June 28, 2007 1:13 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Wise Woman Irby,
Your arrogant presumption is that "EVERYBODY" thinks that the universal horror of rape and murder is just like "acting" on the desire of the heart if it is for a person of the same sex.
You did make this equation. Stop playing around. Take responsibility for your words and stop BSing about it. Get real. You know exactly what you meant and what your said.
sw
June 28, 2007 1:09 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Wise Women Irby,
Your arrogant presumption is that "EVERYBODY" thinks that the universal horror of rape and murder is just like "acting" on the desire of the heart if it is for a person of the same sex.
You did make this equation. Stop palying around. Take responsibility for your words and stop BSing about it. Get real. You know exactly what you meant and what your said.
sw
June 28, 2007 1:08 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before. The issue of homosexuality threatens to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did a hundred and fifty years ago. We naturally turn to the Bible for guidance, and find ourselves mired in interpretative quicksand. Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?
The debate over homosexuality is a remarkable opportunity, because it raises in an especially acute way how we interpret the Bible, not in this case only, but in numerous others as well. The real issue here, then, is not simply homosexuality, but how Scripture informs our lives today.
Some passages that have been advanced as pertinent to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevant. One is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29). That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them "like women," thus demasculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21.) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting adults of the same sex is legitimate or not. Likewise Deut. 23:17-18 must be pruned from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship; the King James Version inaccurately labeled him a "sodomite."
Several other texts are ambiguous. It is not clear whether 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 refer to the "passive" and "active" partners in homosexual relationships, or to homosexual and heterosexual male prostitutes. In short, it is unclear whether the issue is homosexuality alone, or promiscuity and "sex-for-hire."
Unequivocal Condemnations
Putting these texts to the side, we are left with three references, all of which unequivocally condemn homosexual behavior. Lev. 18:22 states the principle: "You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (NRSV). The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Such an act was regarded as an "abomination" for several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence the spilling of semen for any nonprocreative purpose--in coitus interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), male homosexual acts, or male masturbation--was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. (Female homosexual acts were consequently not so seriously regarded, and are not mentioned at all in the Old Testament (but see Rom. 1:26). One can appreciate how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered questionable in a world facing uncontrolled overpopulation.
In addition, when a man acted like a woman sexually, male dignity was compromised. It was a degradation, not only in regard to himself, but for every other male. The patriarchalism of Hebrew culture shows its hand in the very formulation of the commandment, since no similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual acts between females. And the repugnance felt toward homosexuality was not just that it was deemed unnatural but also that it was considered unJewish, representing yet one more incursion of pagan civilization into Jewish life. On top of that is the more universal repugnance heterosexuals tend to feel for acts and orientations foreign to them. (Left-handedness has evoked something of the same response in many cultures.)
Whatever the rationale for their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command of Scripture. The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts. (That may seem extreme, but there actually are some Christians urging this very thing today.) It is unlikely that any American court will ever again condemn a homosexual to death, even though Scripture clearly commands it.
Old Testament texts have to be weighed against the New. Consequently, Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Rom. 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion.
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up," or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them.
In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were "straight," and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was straight. He had no concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his world. There are people that are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically or as a result of upbringing no one really knows, and it is irrelevant). For such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex.
Likewise, the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision. Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are divine punishment for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with AIDS the world around are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS a divine punishment, since nonpromiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk.
And Paul believes that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences, but Paul here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is "natural" is therefore relevant to the case.
Hebrew Sexual Mores
Nevertheless, the Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity, in those few instances where it is mentioned at all. But this conclusion does not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative:
1. Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the seven days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18:19; 15:19-24), and anyone in violation was to be "extirpated" or "cut off from their people" (kareth, Lev. 18:29, a term referring to execution by stoning, burning, strangling, or to flogging or expulsion; Lev. 15:24 omits this penalty). Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Should they be "extirpated"? The Bible says they should.
2. The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:22), but here adultery is defined by the marital status of the woman. In the Old Testament, a man could not commit adultery against his own wife; he could only commit adultery against another man by sexually using the other's wife. And a bride who is found not to be a virgin is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13-21), but male virginity at marriage is never even mentioned. It is one of the curiosities of the current debate on sexuality that adultery, which creates far more social havoc, is considered less "sinful" than homosexual activity. Perhaps this is because there are far more adulterers in our churches. Yet no one, to my knowledge, is calling for their stoning, despite the clear command of Scripture. And we ordain adulterers.
3. Nudity, the characteristic of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible (2 Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3). When one of Noah's sons beheld his father naked, he was cursed (Gen. 9:20-27). To a great extent this nudity taboo probably even inhibited the sexual intimacy of husbands and wives (this is still true of a surprising number of people reared in the Judeo-Christian tradition). We may not be prepared for nude beaches, but are we prepared to regard nudity in the locker room or at the old swimming hole or in the privacy of one's home as an accursed sin? The Bible does.
4. Polygamy (many wives) and concubinage (a woman living with a man to whom she is not married) were regularly practiced in the Old Testament. Neither is ever condemned by the New Testament (with the questionable exceptions of 1 Tim. 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6). Jesus' teaching about marital union in Mark 10:6-8 is no exception, since he quotes Gen. 2:24 as his authority (the man and the woman will become "one flesh"), and this text was never understood in Israel as excluding polygamy. A man could become "one flesh" with more than one woman, through the act of sexual intercourse. We know from Jewish sources that polygamy continued to be practiced within Judaism for centuries following the New Testament period. So if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don't we?
5. A form of polygamy was the levirate marriage. When a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bore him a male heir. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27 par.). I am not aware of any Christians who still obey this unambiguous commandment of Scripture. Why is this law ignored, and the one against homosexual behavior preserved?
6. The Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting heterosexual adults, as long as the woman's economic value (bride price) is not compromised, that is to say, as long as she is not a virgin. There are poems in the Song of Songs that eulogize a love affair between two unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation. In various parts of the Christian world, quite different attitudes have prevailed about sexual intercourse before marriage. In some Christian communities, proof of fertility (that is, pregnancy) was required for marriage. This was especially the case in farming areas where the inability to produce children-workers could mean economic hardship. Today, many single adults, the widowed, and the divorced are reverting to "biblical" practice, while others believe that sexual intercourse belongs only within marriage. Both views are Scriptural. Which is right?
7. The Bible virtually lacks terms for the sexual organs, being content with such euphemisms as "foot" or "thigh" for the genitals, and using other euphemisms to describe coitus, such as "he knew her." Today most of us regard such language as "puritanical" and contrary to a proper regard for the goodness of creation. In short, we don't follow Biblical practice.
8. Semen and menstrual blood rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev. 15:16-24). Intercourse rendered one unclean until sundown; menstruation rendered the woman unclean for seven days. Today most people would regard semen and menstrual fluid as completely natural and only at times "messy," not "unclean."
9. Social regulations regarding adultery, incest, rape and prostitution are, in the Old Testament, determined largely by considerations of the males' property rights over women. Prostitution was considered quite natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity of the unmarried and the property rights of husbands (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7). A man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, though the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Paul must appeal to reason in attacking prostitution (1 Cor. 6:12-20); he cannot lump it in the category of adultery (vs. 9).
Today we are moving, with great social turbulence and at a high but necessary cost, toward a more equitable, non-patriarchal set of social arrangements in which women are no longer regarded as the chattel of men. We are also trying to move beyond the double standard. Love, fidelity and mutual respect replace property rights. We have, as yet, made very little progress in changing the double standard in regard to prostitution. As we leave behind patriarchal gender relations, what will we do with the patriarchalism in the Bible?
10. Jews were supposed to practice endogamy--that is, marriage within the twelve tribes of Israel. Until recently a similar rule prevailed in the American South, in laws against interracial marriage (miscegenation). We have witnessed, within the lifetime of many of us, the nonviolent struggle to nullify state laws against intermarriage and the gradual change in social attitudes toward interracial relationships. Sexual mores can alter quite radically even in a single lifetime.
11. The law of Moses allowed for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus categorically forbids it (Mark 10:1-12; Matt. 19:9 softens his severity). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus, have been divorced. Why, then, do some of these very people consider themselves eligible for baptism, church membership, communion, and ordination, but not homosexuals? What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?
12. The Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal, and 1 Tim. 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made it mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian ethicists demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. But this legislates celibacy by category, not by divine calling. Others argue that since God made men and women for each other in order to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God's intent in creation. But this would mean that childless couples, single persons, priests and nuns would be in violation of God's intention in their creation. Those who argue thus must explain why the apostle Paul never married. And are they prepared to charge Jesus with violating the will of God by remaining single?
Certainly heterosexual marriage is normal, else the race would die out. But it is not normative. God can bless the world through people who are married and through people who are single, and it is false to generalize from the marriage of most people to the marriage of everyone. In 1 Cor. 7:7 Paul goes so far as to call marriage a "charisma," or divine gift, to which not everyone is called. He preferred that people remain as he was--unmarried. In an age of overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically!
13. In many other ways we have developed different norms from those explicitly laid down by the Bible. For example, "If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity" (Deut. 25:11f.). We, on the contrary, might very well applaud her for trying to save her husband's life!
14. The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18 permitted--and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification.
The Problem of Authority
These cases are relevant to our attitude toward the authority of Scripture. They are not cultic prohibitions from the Holiness Code that are clearly superseded in Christianity, such as rules about eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two different materials. They are rules concerning sexual behavior, and they fall among the moral commandments of Scripture. Clearly we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not mentioned at all in the New. What is our principle of selection here?
For example, virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting: incest, rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals. But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow: intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, exogamy (marriage with non-Jews), naming sexual organs, nudity (under certain conditions), masturbation (some Christians still condemn this), birth control (some Christians still forbid this).
And the Bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not. Likewise, the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, and very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13).
And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!
Surely no one today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture. Yet no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists.
If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these biblical sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul himself says as a new Law. Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which sexual mores they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners.
Judge for Yourselves
The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no Biblical sex ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period.
The very notion of a "sex ethic" reflects the materialism and splitness of modern life, in which we increasingly define our identity sexually. Sexuality cannot be separated off from the rest of life. No sex act is "ethical" in and of itself, without reference to the rest of a person's life, the patterns of the culture, the special circumstances faced, and the will of God. What we have are simply sexual mores, which change, sometimes with startling rapidity, creating bewildering dilemmas. Just within one lifetime we have witnessed the shift from the ideal of preserving one's virginity until marriage, to couples living together for several years before getting married. The response of many Christians is merely to long for the hypocrisies of an earlier era.
I agree that rules and norms are necessary; that is what sexual mores are. But rules and norms also tend to be impressed into the service of the Domination System, and to serve as a form of crowd control rather than to enhance the fullness of human potential. So we must critique the sexual mores of any given time and clime by the love ethic exemplified by Jesus. Defining such a love ethic is not complicated. It is non-exploitative (hence no sexual exploitation of children, no using of another to their loss), it does not dominate (hence no patriarchal treatment of women as chattel), it is responsible, mutual, caring, and loving. Augustine already dealt with this in his inspired phrase, "Love God, and do as you please."
Our moral task, then, is to apply Jesus' love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture. This doesn't mean everything goes. It means that everything is to be critiqued by Jesus' love commandment. We might address younger teens, not with laws and commandments whose violation is a sin, but rather with the sad experiences of so many of our own children who find too much early sexual intimacy overwhelming, and who react by voluntary celibacy and even the refusal to date. We can offer reasons, not empty and unenforceable orders. We can challenge both gays and straights to question their behaviors in the light of love and the requirements of fidelity, honesty, responsibility, and genuine concern for the best interests of the other and of society as a whole.
Christian morality, after all, is not a iron chastity belt for repressing urges, but a way of expressing the integrity of our relationship with God. It is the attempt to discover a manner of living that is consistent with who God created us to be. For those of same-sex orientation, as for heterosexuals, being moral means rejecting sexual mores that violate their own integrity and that of others, and attempting to discover what it would mean to live by the love ethic of Jesus.
Morton Kelsey goes so far as to argue that homosexual orientation has nothing to do with morality, any more than left-handedness. It is simply the way some people's sexuality is configured. Morality enters the picture when that predisposition is enacted. If we saw it as a God-given gift to those for whom it is normal, we could get beyond the acrimony and brutality that have so often characterized the unchristian behavior of Christians toward gays.
Approached from the point of view of love rather than that of law, the issue is at once transformed. Now the question is not "What is permitted?" but rather "What does it mean to love my homosexual neighbor?" Approached from the point of view of faith rather than works, the question ceases to be "What constitutes a breach of divine law in the sexual realm?" and becomes instead "What constitutes integrity before the God revealed in the cosmic lover, Jesus Christ?" Approached from the point of view of the Spirit rather than the letter, the question ceases to be "What does Scripture command?" and becomes "What is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology, and, yes, psychology, genetics, anthropology, and biology?" We can't continue to build ethics on the basis of bad science.
In a little-remembered statement, Jesus said, "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57 NRSV). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right. Yet Paul himself echoes Jesus' sentiment when he says, "Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" (1 Cor. 6:3 RSV). The last thing Paul would want is for people to respond to his ethical advice as a new law engraved on tablets of stone. He is himself trying to "judge for himself what is right." If now new evidence is in on the phenomenon of homosexuality, are we not obligated--no, free--to re-evaluate the whole issue in the light of all the available data and decide what is right, under God, for ourselves? Is this not the radical freedom for obedience in which the gospel establishes us?
Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well, and nowhere attacked it as unjust. Are we prepared to argue today that slavery is biblically justified? One hundred and fifty years ago, when the debate over slavery was raging, the Bible seemed to be clearly on the slaveholders' side. Abolitionists were hard pressed to justify their opposition to slavery on biblical grounds. Yet today, if you were to ask Christians in the South whether the Bible sanctions slavery, virtually everyone would agree that it does not. How do we account for such a monumental shift?
What happened is that the churches were finally driven to penetrate beyond the legal tenor of Scripture to an even deeper tenor, articulated by Israel out of the experience of the Exodus and the prophets and brought to sublime embodiment in Jesus' identification with harlots, tax collectors, the diseased and maimed and outcast and poor. It is that God sides with the powerless. God liberates the oppressed. God suffers with the suffering and groans toward the reconciliation of all things. In the light of that supernal compassion, whatever our position on gays, the gospel's imperative to love, care for, and be identified with their sufferings is unmistakably clear.
In the same way, women are pressing us to acknowledge the sexism and patriarchalism that pervades Scripture and has alienated so many women from the church. The way out, however, is not to deny the sexism in Scripture, but to develop an interpretive theory that judges even Scripture in the light of the revelation in Jesus. What Jesus gives us is a critique of domination in all its forms, a critique that can be turned on the Bible itself. The Bible thus contains the principles of its own correction. We are freed from bibliolatry, the worship of the Bible. It is restored to its proper place as witness to the Word of God. And that word is a Person, not a book.
With the interpretive grid provided by a critique of domination, we are able to filter out the sexism, patriarchalism, violence, and homophobia that are very much a part of the Bible, thus liberating it to reveal to us in fresh ways the inbreaking, in our time, of God's domination-free order.
An Appeal for Tolerance
What most saddens me in this whole raucous debate in the churches is how sub-Christian most of it has been. It is characteristic of our time that the issues most difficult to assess, and which have generated the greatest degree of animosity, are issues on which the Bible can be interpreted as supporting either side. I am referring to abortion and homosexuality.
We need to take a few steps back and be honest with ourselves. I am deeply convinced of the rightness of what I have said in this essay. But I must acknowledge that it is not an air tight case. You can find weaknesses in it, just as I can in others'. The truth is, we are not given unequivocal guidance in either area, abortion or homosexuality.
Rather than tearing at each others's throats, therefore, we should humbly admit our limitations. How do I know I am correctly interpreting God's word for us today? How do you? Wouldn't it be wiser for Christians to lower the decibels by 95 percent and quietly present our beliefs, knowing full well that we might be wrong?
I know of a couple, both well known Christian authors in their own right, who have both spoken out on the issue of homosexuality. She supports gays, passionately; he opposes their behavior, strenuously. So far as I can tell, this couple still enjoy each other's company, eat at the same table, and, for all I know, sleep in the same bed.
We in the church need to get our priorities straight. We have not reached a consensus about who is right on the issue of homosexuality. But what is clear, utterly clear, is that we are commanded to love one another. Love not just our gay sisters and brothers who are often sitting beside us, unacknowledged, in church, but all of us who are involved in this debate. These are issues about which we should amiably agree to disagree. We don't have to tear whole denominations to shreds in order to air our differences on this point. If that couple I mentioned can continue to embrace across this divide, surely we can do so as well.
June 28, 2007 1:08 PM | Report Offensive Comment
How magnanimous of you. You are truly a saint. You'll tolerate your own child if "they want to be gay"!!!
What a horrible thing to say. That is without doubt the most condescending, sanctimonious piece of crap I have ever heard. With that kind of attitude your child would know eons before he did come to you to never do it. Irby, you are sad.
You have know idea what love is. You are not wise by any reasonable standard. I feel so sorry for your children and community but I feel more sorry for your "gay friends". I don't believe you have any. I think this a lie because they wuldn't put up with your fake condescention.
You are hopeless. You don't get it at all.
ron
June 28, 2007 12:59 PM | Report Offensive Comment
(Rabbi) Arthur Waskow :
Some have argued that the Bible prohibits male homosexuality for sure, and perhaps lesbian sexuality as well. (Those who might want the government to poke around in private bedrooms might recall that the Rabbis suggested that the Bible also calls for privacy: that what Balaam found "Mah tovu," "So good!" in the tents of the House of Jacob was precisely that they were pitched at angles to each other so that each household preserved its privacy -- especially its sexual privacy.)
Some have argued that "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman" is ambiguous, leaving open to question what the text really means. (Is this
physically possible? Was it only about casual or ritual homosexuality, not committed relationships?)
But I think we need to go beyond these historical or midrashic quibbles, to look more deeply into Torah.
Does Torah look forward to its own transformation? If so, under what circumstances?
There is wise and powerful teaching in the passage of Talmud that cautions against raising goats and sheep in the Land of Israel. Since our forebears Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rivkah, did precisely that, how could the Talmud have the chutzpah to oppose it?
The Rabbis know the world had changed. They knew that the numbers of goats and sheep, and of the human population, would denude and ruin the Land if these animals were bred there.
The world had changed, and so did Jewish holy practice.
Biblical Judaism, out of which sprang the Leviticus prohibition on homosexuality, professed three basic rules for proper sexual ethics:
1. Have as many children as possible. Gen. I: 28: "Be fruitful, multiply, fill up the earth, and subdue it."
2. Men were to be in charge. Genesis 3: 16, where God says to Eve, "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
3. Sex was delightful and sacred. (Song of Songs, throughout.) Celibacy was almost unheard of, and almost always strongly discouraged.
How did these affect attitudes toward homosexuality?
"Be fruitful and multiply, fill up the earth and subdue it"" worked against homosexuality, since having children was presumably impossible. But what shall we do today, in a generation when the injunction to "fill up th earth" has been accomplished? H
Today the sheer number of humans is putting impossible burdens on our global ecosystem and plunging into extinction thousands of the species that God commands in the story of the Flood we must not allow to die.
Today we need to encourage, not forbid, forms of sexuality that avoid biological multiplication. We might now read the command as teaching us to
be fruitful and expansive emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually rather than biologically.
What were the effects of "He shall rule over you"? If a man had to be in charge in a sexual relationship, there was no way to deal with a relationship of two men. Neither one could be subordinated -- "as with a woman." Such a relationship would blow out all the circuits. Conversely, a relationship between two "subordinate" women would not even turn the power on - and so it was ignored in biblical tradition.
Is this statement in Eden intended by Torah to persist forever? No more than the twin statement (Gen. 3: 17-19) that human beings (or at least men) shall "toil in the sweat of their brow," wringing a livelihood from a hostile earth. Do we think Torah commands us to eschew the machines that make our labor easier?
Like this statement about toil, and like "Be fruitful and multiply," the overlordship of men applied to a history that should be transcended. It was not an edict to be obeyed.
Modernity has transformed the world we live in. The Modernity that eases our work and makes women and men equal and brings the human race to fill up
and subdue the earth seems to be what God intended.
So then we must ask ourselves, as the Rabbis of the Talmud understood that in their new world they must oppose raising sheep and goats as their forebears did, what must we change in our new world?
In a world filled and subdued by the human race, multiplying our numbers may actually contravene God's intention. In a world where men are not required to be dominant nor women to be subordinate, a relationship of two men or two
women need not be either destructive or irrelevant.
So we are evolving past these two rules that underlay the opposition to gay and lesbian relationships and marriages.
The third basic rule -- that sex is delightful and sacred - still stands. The biblical Song of Songs embodies it, and the Song -- far from being outdated - may point beyond the Eden of the past, of a childish human race, past our history of toil and hierarchy, toward an Eden of the Future. "Eden for grown-ups," for a grown-up human race and for newly mature individual human beings.
In the Song, bodies are no longer shameful as they were after the mistake of Eden; the earth is playful, not our enemy; and women and men are equal in desire and in power. And God is never named - no longer Papa/Mama as in Eden, giving orders, but inherent in the very process of life.
Though the drama of the Song is on its face heterosexual, it describes the kind of sensual pleasure beyond the rules that has characterized some aspects of gay and lesbian desire, especially since marriage was forbidden.
So we now have the opportunity to open heterosexual relationships and marriages to the kind of joy the Song embodies, while opening gay and lesbian life to the more planful structure that marriage makes possible.
Love and marriage are present in the Song, suffused with joy and pleasure rather than with rigidity and rules. For millennia, Jews have prided ourselves on the worth of marriage as a carrier of holiness and community. Now we can expand the circles in which marriage - a new kind of marriage - is possible.
From a spiritual as well as a legal standpoint, our courts are opening the way to enhancing, not destroying, marriage. They have opened the gates; but only spiritual communities can enter. Let the tents of Jacob and the shrines of Israel rejoice, "Mah tovu! How wonderful!"
___________________________
* Rabbi Arthur Waskow is director of The Shalom Center ,
author of Down-to-Earth Judaism: Food, Money, Sex, & the Rest of Life, and
co-author of A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven: The Jewish Life-Spiral
as a Spiritual Path. The Shalom center's Website carries many thoughtful reexaminations of the Bible in the light of God;s will for the world we live in.
"For example, read 1Corinthians6:9-10"
Thanks for bringing it up, because false translation is a significant crime on the part of those people who condemn homosexuality.
I Corinthians was written in Greek, not English. The two greek words that your fraudulent translation reports as "male prostitutes, homosexuals" are arsenkoitai and malkoi - neither means men who have sex with men, i.e., homosexuals.
Greek of Paul's time and place had two commonly used words that meant men who have sex with men - erestes and eranamos. Paul used neither one.
Instead, Paul invented a word, arsenokoitai, whose meaning has changed over the course of time, and he used a word that is essentially a criticism of anything feminime.
So you are reviling my relationship based on a text where Paul did not use the two words that would have actually conveyed the meaning you hunger for. Bully for you.
As for Romans2:26 - The error here is right in front: "That is why - - - " It means that whatever came before (which happens to be a description of specific fertility practices) is too blame for what follows.
If the Romans 1 passage is to be used to condemn homosexuality entirely, on the grounds that it appears to be condemning same-sex sexual acts in a specific situation, than the hundreds of verses condemning specific acts of heterosexual intimacy constitute a much stronger condemnation of all heterosexuals and all heterosexuality.
Keep in mind, of course, that you are leaing on the word of a fallible man, instead of Jesus Christ, who summed up the law without ever condeming homosexuality: The whole of the Law is love God with your entire self and love your neighbor as yourself."
Every person, including you, Aurora, who condemns homosexuality, is in direct and deliberate disobediance, defying and rejecting Jesus Christ, because that condemnation violates both clauses of what Christ said was the whole of the law.
Aurora, you've sinned against me, my partner, our friends, people we worship with, work with, millions of human beings.
Please repent of your sin against us as publicly as you committed it.
June 28, 2007 12:57 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The whole idea of what is right and what is wrong has to be grounded in something other than what the individual thinks. Otherwise, anyone can justify whatever they want to do. Even the whole idea of sexuality, in its entirety has to be greater than what I think, or I can even justfy pedaphilia, incest, rape, or literally any behavior I think is "right for me". Ultimately, it comes down to one decision. Is there a God or isn't there. If you don't believe there is a God, then you have to come up with a paradigm for determining acceptable behavior. If you do believe in God, than by the very definition, God gets to say what is right and wrong, and you can't overturn that. As one who has become convinced there is a God, it then logically follows that He is perfect, and has the right to set the rules. Therefore, regardless of what I "think" or "feel", I'm compelled to subordinate my desires to God's will. So, whether I'm born gay, or develop gay desires because of enviornment, or other factors, I must consider my behavior, not in light of how I feel or think, but in light of what God says. By the way, the same logic applies to any behavior. Selfishness is a good example. God says selfishness is wrong. Anyone who has been a father or mother knows that even infants are selfish. That's why, as children grow older, they must be taught to be unselfish. But, what if someone were to say "By trying to make me be unselfish, you are denying how I was made. If I were unselfish, I would not be true to that person I really am. Unselfishness may be ok for you, but it isn't ok for me." How would we argue that selfishness is wrong? If we allow individuals to establish what is right for them, then we can't even intimate that selfishness is bad, because we are imposing a value on them that is illegitimate in their life. One would have to say "Well, that's really ok to be selfish. What right do I have to tell you how to live?" While that is certainly possible, I think we would all agree that ultimately, being selfish in not healthy or profitable. But God says selfishness is wrong, and therefore it is wrong, regardless of what I think or feel. Ultimately, we will be judged based upon what God says is good or bad, not on what we think is good or bad. Thanks for allowing me to give my opinion
June 28, 2007 12:53 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Wrong again. I am neither a mormon or a baptist.
And I wont teach my children to hate either. I dont hate and i wont teach them to.
I will teach them God's word. They will make their own choices.
And you know if my child comes up to me and tells me they want to be gay then I will live with it. I will continue to them Gods word. But I will not punish them or condemn them. Because I dont condemn them.
I will pray for my child. But I will not love them any less.
June 28, 2007 12:49 PM | Report Offensive Comment
W.Irby :
Like I said. I have sinned. Plenty of times.
As a matter of fact, no i am not a virgin. I am happily married and this is my second pregnancy.
They could learn to love and live their life as God intended. With someone of the opposite sex.
You know you guys really are helping me change my mind. Your helping me see how much I really do dislike it. Congrats. Your helping me get my faith even stronger with God. Im so glad I found him. I am so glad I dont have to lie to HIM!
-----------------------------------
You are either a Mormon or a Baptist. The stink of their propaganda is dripping of this one.
I said that to pretend who you are not is stupid, Irby. My brother and his husband are not stupid nor are they liars nor are they miserable nor are they faking an existence that isn't true for them.
You don't get it. You are asking them to fake and existence that isn't true and then lie about how wonderful it all is. You are the one who ie sick. I weep for your children.
You need help.
My children love their two uncles just the way they are. We don't teach our children hate.
ron
June 28, 2007 12:45 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Ok then give me the exact quote from me that says
"gay people are just like murders and rapist"
please bc i dont see it.
no i didnt say that.
you dont know what i said. you dont understand.
i using something EVERYONE thinks is a horrible and bad thing since you think i feel this way about gay people.
And you SW are constantly putting words in my mouth. I give up with you. You are hopeless. You are more stubborn than I am. Thats pretty bad.
June 28, 2007 12:39 PM | Report Offensive Comment
"W.Irby :
Once again take my words out of context.
Ya'll are acusing me of comparing them. Im not.
Read my stuff before you overanalyze.
Your taking everything I say way out of context, again, to try and turn things around. Go ahead. I know the truth. I know what I meant. God knows what I meant."
--------------------------
You said that gay people are the same as murderers and rapists if the "act" on their desires. That is not taken out of context. That is what YOU wrote. YOU wrote that.
----------------------------
"I didnt compare gay people to murders. Ya'll I think i look down on gay people and you think its a sin. Well I dont look down on them.
But do you look down on people who do sinful things as bad people? Yes you do.
Thats what I meant."
-----------------------------
G-d doesn't "look down" on gay persons and call them sinful. YOU do this. Against Jesus' ministry to not do this. YOU presume to know the mind of G-d and speak G-d's mind.
----------------------------
"You knew exactly what I meant. But you chose to be IGNORANT again and turn it around.
And you know while im thinking about it ya'll just proved my point.."
---------------------------
Yes, that is correct. WE do know exactly what you meant. Just what yuo wrote. That gay persons are just like murderers and rapists who murder and rape. You seem to be the one who doesn't know what you wrote.
But that's what you wrote. YOU are the one not taking responsibility for your views.
sw
June 28, 2007 12:32 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Like I said. I have sinned. Plenty of times.
As a matter of fact, no i am not a virgin. I am happily married and this is my second pregnancy.
They could learn to love and live their life as God intended. With someone of the opposite sex.
You know you guys really are helping me change my mind. Your helping me see how much I really do dislike it. Congrats. Your helping me get my faith even stronger with God. Im so glad I found him. I am so glad I dont have to lie to HIM!
June 28, 2007 12:27 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Once again take my words out of context.
Ya'll are acusing me of comparing them. Im not.
Read my stuff before you overanalyze.
Your taking everything I say way out of context, again, to try and turn things around. Go ahead. I know the truth. I know what I meant. God knows what I meant.
I didnt compare gay people to murders. Ya'll I think i look down on gay people and you think its a sin. Well I dont look down on them.
But do you look down on people who do sinful things as bad people? Yes you do.
Thats what I meant.
You knew exactly what I meant. But you chose to be IGNORANT again and turn it around.
And you know while im thinking about it ya'll just proved my point..
June 28, 2007 12:19 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Repent of being who they are in their deepest selves? Is that it? Lie about who they are? Pretend to be what aren't or spend their whole lives alone and sexless? These are the options?
You haven't had sex yet have you? You are a virgin aren't you? Becasue only a virgin who has no expereince with life would condemn other people she doesn't understand to the kind of h&ll on earth she advocates by proxy.
My brother and his husband are beautiful just the way they are and they are going to heaven with all of us because they love G-d with all their strength, mind, and body.
You have no idea what "repent" means do you? It means to return to God. That's all it means. It doesn't mean be a faker and fake an existence that is inauthentic to please religious zealots who don't know their a$$es from holes in the ground. Repent doesn't mean, "I'm really, really sorry for who I am and make me who I am not so ignorant fools don't have to be afflicted with my existance as I truly am."
What an idiot you are. You have no idea what you are talking about. Go to school and learn something. Gays are real people with real feelings that are just as valid as yours. Grow up.
ron
June 28, 2007 12:16 PM | Report Offensive Comment
That's right, you're wonderful, Irby. You don't hate gays. You think they are the same as rapists and murderers for "what they do". But you don't say that to their face; you say it here.
You're a Sicko.
June 28, 2007 12:01 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Oh Wise Women, Irby, you compared gay pserons to rapists and murderers and made that equation the standard of justifcation for anti-gay rhetoric and hermeneutics against them.
Those are your words. You wrote that. You are sick and deluded. You need help too.
sw
June 28, 2007 11:56 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Being gay is not a sin.
A heterosexual committing homosexual acts fraudulently and abusively is a sin. Every reference in the bible is a reference to this and not gay persons. The bible says nothing about gay persons. You read your anti-gay bias into the text fraudulently and then bear false witness against gay persons.
This is the point.
You just don't get it.
David, you need psychological help.
Irby, you are defintely not wise by the classic Greek standard of measure: wisdom is the courage to say I know nothing and start from there to learn.
You know it all and thereby cannot learn anything new.
The point of the question was to examine whether you can learn to change your mind.
You have proven you cannot and never will.
OK. We all get it. You are agressively ignorant. I'm so proud of you.
I guessed right about you. You are also too young to know what wisdon is. Wisdom develops with age and openness to truth and love.
Gay persons are not the "acts" they do. Stop exclusively sexualizing them. This is obscene. I would never refer to you with the catch-all demeaning title, "heterosexuals". They and you are who G-d made them and where born to be. I feel sorry for your gay "friends". With a friend like you who needs enemies.
You know nothing. Sad.
sw
June 28, 2007 11:48 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Hey Irby,
Thanks for defending God's Word. Sheep amongst the wolves, huh? Best thing to do if they continue with the hateful comments and poor assumptions of our character and beliefs is to just leave. Let em be sista! I agree with everything you said. I wish they would realize that what we believe is not hateful but actually the complete opposite. Take care Irby. God bless you.
June 27, 2007 11:03 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Ok let me just throw this out there..
Since the bible says ( in more than one place ) that homosexuality is a sin. I look at homosexuality as an act.. i dont look at the people. Bc I dont think the people are bad. I just think the actions are bad.
What about rapist and murders. Im sure all of you at one point or time have seen something on tv, heard something on the news about either of those. And thought to yourself or outloud. How awful, how could someone do such a thing. That is judging. Which by the way yes I have said that. Im not denying it.
But that is you calling the PERSON bad. Saying the PERSON is going to Hell.
As for me saying homosexuality is a sin. I am saying the ACT is a SIN. Not the people doing it.
You people just dont understand, either that or you just want to make me out to be some horrible person who hates gay and is out to get them. well Im not. IF that were so i wouldnt have gay friends. If that were so i would say how much i hate gays and i think they are just horrible people. WELL I DONT. So stop putting words in my mouth.
Hell ya'll are judging me right now. You know that?! Bascially calling me a bad person bc i dont agree with you.
Its a freakin website that posted a question
"What does your faith lead you to believe about gay unions and gay clergy? Could you ever change your mind?"
All I did was answer that question.
Just as all of you did.
I gave my opinion and thats it. I am not a bad person and I am not judging anyone.
If you can't get that.. Im sorry your so ignorant.
June 27, 2007 10:39 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Ron,
I never once said a gay person couldnt repent and end up in heaven.
All they have to do is ask for forgiveness and they will get it.
But they shouldnt keep doing it knowing that it is a sin. And yes it is a sin.
Homosexuality is a sin.
I am not judging them. God is. I am just saying what the bible says. You people who say that i am judging them are ignorant.
I like my gay friends. They are wonderful people. That is just one of the things we dont agree on. They know how i feel about it. They dont dislike me for it bc they know why i feel the way i do. As a matter of fact I talked to one today ( named Ryan) bc he was interested in everything i have been talkin about on here. He asked me to show him all the verses in the bible that talked about it and you know what he agrees. He thinks that he should stop what he is doing. He knows he wasn't "born that way" because you aren't. God doesn't make people into homosexuales. He didn't intend for people to end up that way. If he did he wouldnt have made a man and woman in the beginning. He wouldnt' constently say over and over again in the bible one man to one woman. one man to one wife.. and so on.
Oh and SW. i didnt use Leviticus. YOu used it first. I just simply put it up there to show you what you posted and how it worked against your arguement, not for yours.
I don't care what you people think. I know how i feel on the inside. I do not hate gay people. just because they are gay doesn't make them any less. but ACCORDING TO GOD homosexuality is a sin and since they participate in it. The ACTIONS not the PEOPLE are sins.
And yes SW I am a woman. I am 19 year old woman. I have probably seen more in this world and been through more than a 60 year old. I am wise way beyond my years and i know I am.
I am not concieted by any means because over half the stuff I have done and seen I am not proud of but you know what that is between me and God. I repented and asked for my forgiveness.
June 27, 2007 10:24 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I am a heterosexual, married woman. If two people love each other and wish to make a commitment to share their lives, I don't care if they are the same sex. It will not hurt my marriage at all. I fail to see how it is anyone's business.
IF you believe that it is a sin, why not let your god decide? Doesn't the bible include the admonition to not judge?
June 27, 2007 10:23 PM | Report Offensive Comment
To: CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED
GOOD NEWS! There is a cure!
You are precisely right; the problem is your Christian upbringing. To cure yourself, try reading one of the books on the bestseller list like "the God Delusion" or "Letter to a Christian Nation”. You can lead a rational life if you try to think.
June 27, 2007 9:58 PM | Report Offensive Comment
To: CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED
GOOD NEWS! There is a cure!
You are precisely right; the problem is your Christian upbringing. To cure yourself, try reading one of the books on the bestseller list like "the God Delusion" or "Letter to a Christian Nation”. You can lead a rational life if you try to think.
June 27, 2007 9:58 PM | Report Offensive Comment
To: CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED
GOOD NEWS! There is a cure!
You are precisely right; the problem is your Christian upbringing. To cure yourself, try reading one of the books on the bestseller list like the God Delusion of Letter to a Christian Nation”. You can lead a rational life if you try to think.
June 27, 2007 9:57 PM | Report Offensive Comment
No SW I don't need help. I never said that you are demon possesed. Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I don't love you or that I don't respect you. I merely stated homosexuality as a sin. The level of sin I commit on a regular basis as well. This will definately be my last post on this subject, but I just wanted you to know that I don't hate homosexuals. I never said that, and stop assuming that!
June 27, 2007 9:49 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Are the Gay Unions part of the AFL/CIO?
Shouldn’t they pay dues like the rest of us?
June 27, 2007 9:47 PM | Report Offensive Comment
There is no hope if religious people really believe and will not change their notion that gay people = sin and are forever chronically sinful, irredeemable, irreconcilable, unsalvagable.
This is outrageous. If this is Christian teaching then I want no part of it and will tell any religious zealot to go straight to H&ll.
Gays are not unrepentant sinners. This is the 21st century for chrissakes. Leave them alone. My brother and his partner are good people, fine citizens and worth my, my wife and our kids' love.
Why is Christian faith tied to excluding gays? Is that really the future of Christianity?
It is doomed to die out, if it is.
ron
June 27, 2007 8:52 PM | Report Offensive Comment
David,
G-d did not say this. Men wrote this and you fraudulently concluded it. Fallible men. Pre-analytic men. Pre-sceintific men. Writtten words by men are by definition not eternal. They are time-bound and time-warped to future understanding. Our words today are not eternal for all time. They represent our understanding today -- the same is true as for yesterday. They are works in progress, never to be finished, never to capture the eternal, always attemping to understand the mysteries beyond our current understanding.
--------------------------------
The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God.
[This is untrue -- you bear false witness. II Samuel 1:26 of G-d's Word refutes your claim.]
When a person continues in sin and disbelief, the Bible tells us that God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.
[This is untrue -- it presumes that gay attraction is demonic possession or Satanic influence. You maintain a 2,500 year old superstition that demon-possession is the "explanation" of gay persons -- you bear false witness to gay persons.]
God does not create a person with homosexual desires.
[This is a lie you maintain in order to keep your false biblical inerrancy claim -- you bear false witness to gay persons.]
The Bible tells us that a person becomes a homosexual because of sin (Romans 1:24-27),
[It does not say this at all. The King James Version does not support your claim -- you bear fasle witness to gay persons.]
and ultimately because of their own choice.
[This is a lie you use to maintain your false biblical inerrancy claim -- you bear false witness to gay persons.]
A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person choosing to sin by giving into their sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger / rage, does that make it right for then to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true for homosexuality.
[This is a lie. Gay persons may not with any kind of integrity epsecially in America be equated with states of anger or rage. No ones' sexual identity is chosen. No one makes a conscious "choice" to be any kind of sexual identity. Only gay men who do not accpet themselves and engage in anti-gay rhetoric or hermenuetics make the claim that sexual attraction is changeable, lie about their true sexual identity and attempt to fabricate a false sexual identity. This is called heterosexist bias -- the attempted fraudulent heterosexualization of gay persons inauthentically -- you bear false witness to gay persons.]
However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17).
[This is a lie supported no where in the bible. Jesus' salvation will not make a gay person straight -- or the converse, Satan's possession make a straight person gay . This is an outrageous claim that has no basis in reality -- you bear false witness to gay persons.]
David, you need help. Serious mental help. Being gay is not 5th century BCE demonic possession. Demons don't make you have "those attractions". It is how you were born.
If being insane is the litmus test for being a faithful Christian than serious intervention is called for. Thank you for allerting me to the dimension of the problem in our churches.
Get some help.
sw
June 27, 2007 8:31 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I'll just leave you with this:
Whether you like it or not, homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes. I agree with God. I can tell from all the hateful ranting from SW and others that it is not acceptable to agree with God. I could care less what you think. I never said I hated anyone nor did I ever talk in offensive language. But as I can see those who accept sin as a positive thing are prone to hateful and ridiculous accusations. So keep it coming if you want, but I'm gonna leave this conversation since it is a hateful and demeaning conversation on your part. I was willing to have a respecful conversation and try to show why you are deserving of God's grace, but all the hateful rant is quite convincing that I'll just go. Have a blessed day and God bless you in all you do.
June 27, 2007 6:30 PM | Report Offensive Comment
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm
June 27, 2007 5:04 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Irby,
You said that ALL G-d's commandments and rules are to be followed equally without regard to hiearchy.
You are the one who said this.
You said no one can follow all of them but you try.
Be consistent. You are being inconsistent and that is my point. Why is the issue of homosexuality so hyperinflated for you? You said that all sins are equal with no one more important than any other.
In fact David agreed and said the same. Yet David then claims that homosexuality is the most eggregious of sins when Ezekiel makes plain that sins of commission are third in the heirarchy and that sins of pride are most eggregious, and sins of ommmission second.
You both seem to be unfamiliar with Ezekiel since he makes this heirarchical distinction and you don't but then do for gays but are wrong in your execution because he says sins of commission are third in importance.
Kevin said to stop using the bible as a sheild for your bigotry. He called it. That is exactly what you do but you do it incompetently and ignorantly. You don't even know what it actually says nor how to deal with it -- unless you are undergirding your anti-gay bigotry and then yu misuse it to do so.
Wake up.
sw
June 27, 2007 4:36 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Irby, how ignorant can YOU get?
Kevin is right on. It matters a great deal how, when, where, in what languages and cultures the orginal materials were written and then the pathways that they came to us today.
The Torah was rewritten, significantly altered and revised 4 times that we know of. It's first incarnation would bear little to no resemblance to what we read today.
The Hebrew texts were never written for "you" but for societies long past. The orginal referents are lost to us. The Hellenistic tranlation from Hebrew to Greek in the Septugant made uncounted errors and "revisions" that divorced us from their Jewish origins. The new testament texts wre written for JEWS of their time in the 1st century CE. "Christians" did not exist at the time of their writing. The subsequent translation by the Constantinian Board of Canon in the 4th century CE that Kevin rightly specifies intentionally mistranslated the Greek as well to serve a political agenda of its time.
It's all about very human political agendas, control, imperialistism and authoritarianism.
You reveal your ignorance, irrational fear and deep insecurities every time you post.
Read a little will ya? I gave you several resources.
Kev, I would caution you. The bible is most certainly not literal, absolute or inerrant. That doesn't mean it is worthless. It is a great work of high value when put to scholarly, literary use. It is not literally, inerrantly nor absolutely true. Yet it is metaphorically, allegorically, mythologically true and possibly has some valid historicity associated within. It has great value from the perspective of being really true, but the price of admission is to give up forever irrational claims of inerrancy, absolutism or literalism.
I hope you meant this.
sw
June 27, 2007 4:18 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Irby,
You have learning disabilities. I always refer to you as a person. I don't assume you to be male. I think you are a female because you are so literal and legalistic about the bible. That is a very female characteristic. I don't know, though, cause you might be a deeply closeted gay male.
Tell which it is, I'd like to know.
I am a male, btw.
You just said we "are to go by the new testament". Then why do you use Leviticus to justify your anti-gay rant?
Why do you judge gay people if we "are to go by the new testament"? In Christ no one is to judge anyone else for any reason. In Christ we are to treat the sinner exactly the same as the righteous and leave judgment to G-d. Why do you refuse to go by this?
I just figured it out! You're a female. That's why you have so many "gay friends" and why they don't talk to you. Fundamentalist Christian fag-hags are so boring.
sw
June 27, 2007 3:50 PM | Report Offensive Comment
David, you are funny.
II Samuel 1:26 is most certainly not "consistent" with your anti-gay rant. It is radically inconsistent. You are hilarious. I quoted it to you and you ignored it.
Gay people are born gay. For men it is prenatally fixed. We are all born the way we are born. You are wrong and if yuo you appeal to the bible to fix the "choice" notin of sexual identity not only will it not be successful but science will invalidate that view as it has.
It is settled science.
You didn't read Rev. Lowe's paper, "A Letter to Louise".
You have a big problem, David. Straight men do not engage in anti-gay rhetoric or hermeneutics. Straight men do not think sexual attraction is elastic and changeable and neither do gay men who accept themselves -- only closeted gay men who hate themselves do.
You are gay, David. Very gay.
Accept yourself and stop ranting you can change. The more you rant the more you give yourself away.
You are who G-d made you.
sw
June 27, 2007 3:36 PM | Report Offensive Comment