God's Politics

God's Politics


Tony Campolo: Are Evangelicals Fixated on Homosexuality?

posted by gp_intern

Sigmund Freud would have something to say about the ways in which we evangelicals seem to be fixated on homosexuality. That fixation became abundantly clear to me recently when I was doing radio interviews upon the publication of my most recent book, Letters to a Young Evangelical. The book has 21 chapters, yet on every one of the two dozen interviews that I had on Christian radio stations, I had to spend at least 80 percent of my air time concentrating on the few pages that dealt with homosexuality.

The primary focus of the questioning during these interviews focused on my assertions, based on my own research and a survey of literature on the subject, that nobody has come up with a conclusive explanation of what causes a homosexual orientation, and that it develops so early in the bio-physical and social development of children that it’s practically impossible that it could be something that is deliberately chosen. It seemed to me that the interviewers were not willing to accept what I had to say, and wanted me to commit to one of two other options that I believe to be erroneous. The first was the suggestion that the homosexual orientation is the result of poor socialization. This is the commonly held belief among those evangelicals who head up ministries that propose to “deliver” homosexuals and make them into heterosexuals. The most cited version is that a boy overly identifies with a dominant mother, while his father is either absent from the household or is a somewhat weak personality. This theory puts already upset and confused parents of gays on unnecessary guilt trips.

The other theory often proposed in these interviews was that being homosexual is somehow the result of trauma resulting from the gay person being sexually molested as a child.

The reasons for these beliefs were all too obvious to me. If either of these theories had validity, then it could be said that homosexuals who wanted to change could do so by making the decision to be open to the work of God in their lives and getting some good Christian counseling. When I questioned such conclusions, the interviewers usually came back at me by claiming that if I did not accept what they were saying, then I must be implying that the homosexual orientation was inborn. That, to them, was unthinkable because accordingly, this would lead to the assumption that God created homosexuals the way they are, and that we should accept them as such. Over and over, I would have to repeat that nobody knows definitively what establishes same-sex attraction in persons – and again I would have to assert that what we do know is that it is practically never the result of any conscious decision.

The interviewers immediately sensed that I was suggesting that there are no easy answers that we evangelicals can offer to gays and lesbians who ask us about changing their sexual orientation. I added to their anxieties when I went on to say that it is very rare that sexual orientations ever do change. I never say “never” because with God miracles are always possible. I make it clear, however, that barring miracles, we evangelicals have little to offer in the way of positive suggestions for those who are struggling with being homosexual in a homophobic world. In reality, we only have two proposals – celibacy, which is my answer; and monogamous partnerships, which is an answer posed by my wife.

In my book, Letters to a Young Evangelical, I point out that there is an emerging new generation of young evangelicals who are still conservative on their views on homosexual behavior, but refuse to make gay marriage the defining issue that it has become for older Christians. Instead, these young people are more concerned with such issues as poverty, the AIDS crisis, the environment, and war. It is no surprise, therefore, that they take Bono as their model for Christian activism. This rock singer who has raised their consciousness about the crisis in Africa is working hard to eliminate Third World debts. Bono is committed to the causes that young evangelicals deem significant and they are joining with enthusiasm in his crusade to “Make Poverty History.”

In many instances, those in this new generation are even reluctant to accept being called evangelicals. They sense that the label “evangelical” is commonly thought to be synonymous with right-wing politics and suggests a gay-bashing, anti-environmentalist, anti-feminist, and pro-war mindset. Instead, they are increasingly calling themselves Red Letter Christians. This name, of course, associates them with those verses in scripture that record the words that Jesus spoke, which in many Bibles are printed in red. That I affirm this designation and promote this new label in my book often greatly disturbs my interviewers. They quickly remind me that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. “That’s right!” I respond. “He most likely maintained ancient Jewish laws on the matter, but condemning gays was not on His big-ten hit list, while attacking judgmental religious people was.”

In Letters to a Young Evangelical, I call young people to move beyond the preoccupation with sexual issues that have so absorbed the discussion of the over-50s crowd and coalesce into a new movement that is committed to also include a whole range of other crucial social justice issues. I let them know that while they ought not to neglect sexual issues, they really must move beyond them and overcome the fixation on homosexuality that I found so evident in my recent radio interviews. Embracing a Christianity that deals with the broad spectrum of social concerns that are relevant to living out love and justice in the 21st century is required for an emerging church of young evangelicals. Any other kind of Christianity will prove irrelevant to them.

Tony Campolo
Tony Campolo is founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education (EAPE) and Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(342)
post a comment
Payshun

posted February 13, 2007 at 8:17 pm


To answer the question: Yes. p



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted February 13, 2007 at 8:40 pm


I think the obsession with homosexuality is linked to the concern taht it is one of the biggest threats to the disruption of the traditional family – along with promiscuity and infidelity, divorce, and women outside the home. Evangelicals have lost each successive round – homosexuality is the next thing on the cusp of becoming socially and morally accepted, so I think they see this as the current front in a war they’ve been losing. I think the obsession is ultimately misguided, but it is not entirely without cause. At its best it represents a sincere concern about moral relativism, and I think we have to engage on that level before we can engage about homosexuality in particular. Otherwise we’ll just be seen as pickinga nd choosing whichever doctrines and rules are easiest for us. I don’t think this is the case, and to say so requires us to firmly establish that we are gravely concerned about the spiritual consequeces of an anything goes culture but that we legitimately have questions about scriptural context and modern science that traditionally have been allowed a place in all theological debates – we must not re-try Galileo.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 13, 2007 at 8:56 pm


Ironically, my blog today is about homosexuality (sorta). I think a major component of the controversy has to do with the fact that people see sexual ethics as a hurdle to experiencing God. People (not just evangelicals) are naturally infatuatated with sex, and so any limitations on the practice (homosexual or otherwise) often rise to the top of controversial subjects. While I personally endeavor to emphasize other aspects of the Christian faith, it seems like the topic always comes up. A friend will say that he or she cannot accept a faith that does not allow homosexuality. I am left with three options in this scenario: I can lie, and say I do not believe the Bible forbids homosexuality; I can change the subject, which leaves the hurdle intact; or I can explain what the Bible has to say on the matter.



report abuse
 

splinterlog

posted February 13, 2007 at 9:01 pm


biggest threats to the disruption of the traditional family How come nobody talks about divorce when this point comes up. Divorce rates are epidemic both within the Church and in the larger society. Children suffer from the process of divorce well into their adult lives and Jesus was very clear on the Biblical status of divorce.Yet there seems to be a great deal more sympathy for the fact that divorce is not a black-and-white issue. And I agree – it isn’t. And yet the same attitutdde is not extended towards homosexuals.



report abuse
 

jesse

posted February 13, 2007 at 9:12 pm


hey sense that the label evangelical is commonly thought to be synonymous with right-wing politics and suggests a gay-bashing, anti-environmentalist, anti-feminist, and pro-war mindset. Instead, they are increasingly calling themselves Red Letter Christians –Who are “they” who are increasingly calling themselves RLCs? Thankfully, I’ve not heard this unfortunate moniker outside of Sojo.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 13, 2007 at 9:28 pm


“How come nobody talks about divorce when this point comes up. ” My church certainly does. I think, though, that it goes back to the controversial element. If the church is opposed to divorce, that’s not going to raise any eyebrows or generate any controversy.I would say that churches srongly advocate abstinence before marriage, which contributes immensely to healthy marriages.



report abuse
 

Jeremy

posted February 13, 2007 at 9:30 pm


I enjoyed this article a whole lot. I am one of these younger evangelicals who thinks that homosexuality should not be the big deal that it is. The way it comes across to me is that my parents’ generation feels that they dropped the ball with prayer in school and abortion and so they are trying to compensate by fighting against this issue that is so pervasive in our American culture.



report abuse
 

Barbara

posted February 13, 2007 at 9:50 pm


Man’s inhumanity towards Man, which can be traced back to the almighty dollar in all cases of injustices!



report abuse
 

Mike Hayes

posted February 13, 2007 at 10:20 pm


Tony, Given that these interviewers wanted to focus on homosexuality, I hope you will have opportunity at some point to talk to other interviewers about the values that you address in the book. To answer your question whether evangelicals are fixated on homosexuality, I think that focus occurs more broadly than just evangelicals. I think fear of the unknown is behind the political movement to deprive gay and lesbian persons of their right to associate and to adopt children and to have rights of survival as do heterosexual couples. And it seems to me that some openly gay and lesbian persons demonstrate a loving relationship with their partner and with their children that contrasts significantly with the disloyalty and violence that occurs in some heterosexual couples and between them and their children.



report abuse
 

Wayne

posted February 13, 2007 at 11:29 pm


In the inner city where we live this is pretty much a non issue. It isn’t that we do not have individuals who are homosexual but usually we are dealing with so many problems that are more basic that by the time this comes up we are probably friends. It always helps when we put a face to all these monikers we seemed to collect and then cast around. If I am dealing with “Mark”, who happens to be a homosexual, I do not have much of a problem. If i am dealing with the topic of homosexuality everything gets confused. At my old church there was an Aids victim. He had lived a terrible life no matter what your standards might be. He was full of guilt, not for who he was so much as what he had done, (others were infected because of him) and very depressed. I would wake up in the middle of the night to find him drunk on my lawn. We spent many hours together talking through every angle of his life just as I would with an alcoholic or drug addict, or someone who had gone through a death or a divorce. I never felt any inclination to chide him for his sexual orientation. I will always count Mark as my friend. He committed suicide after years of battleing both his disease and his homosexuality. I am glad to say he had many Christian friends who went out of their way to help him, to love him and to accept him. None of us were comfortable with the issue but amazingly we were all comfortable with Mark. Because of him we do not make statements as a church about Homosexuality. We try to live relationally with the people God brings us. It is so much easier to do this than any other way I can think of.



report abuse
 

jesse

posted February 13, 2007 at 11:52 pm


Some evangelicals are obsessed with homosexuality, and the treatment of homosexual sin by some goes beyond hatred of sin and is likely fueled by prejudice, disgust, and things not Christ-like. But there are a few other reasons why it is a hot topic with evangelicals: 1) It represents the most prominent direct challenge to orthodox christianity and scriptural authority. It’s important to those both in the “sin” and “not sin” camps, as it should be (because sin is important to God–as is equality, if that’s where you fall on the issue). This isn’t going to change anytime soon. 2) In certain countries (e.g., Canada), it has become prohibited for Christians to speak publicly of homosexuality as if it were a sin. Thus, it represents an important issue of religious freedom for those in the orthodox camp.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 14, 2007 at 12:13 am


Jesse, Your comment bring up a very complex issue and that issue is sola scriptura. For those that believe in that (I am not one of them) I find ancient Israelite law and commentary non-binding. But for many they see it as eternal. The Romans passage is all about not being a hypocrite and judging people. It’s interesting to note that Paul says what he says and then points out that those reading it are hypocrites and they should not be that way. I think many times people twist the bible and the message of grace to find a scapegoat. When this country was founded it was black and the indigenous people, now it’s the LGBTQ community. I think that’s the real problem and it’s the elephant in the room that no one is really talking about. That community faces discrimination and condemnation on a scale that very few here even understand. Instead of finding ways to lessen that and be loving to people that practice a lifestyle that is not fully palatable they judge, condemn, teach hate and exhort people to treat them like they are not children of the living God. Those activities done by evangelicals to defend the scriptures points to a lack of faith, empathy and love for the broken. The bible doesn’t need any of us to stand up for it. What the Bible calls us to do is love God and your neighbor. p



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 14, 2007 at 12:29 am


I think Tony is right to a certain extent. For openers, we as a society — especially the libertines and the prudes — are too fixated on sex and sexual expression. But in other ways we miss the point. Marriage as God designed it is not simply “one man, one woman for life” — it in practice exists for strengthening families and communities, not personal fulfillment. This is why marriages were arranged in centuries past (and in Oriental cultures still are) — the idea of “hormones” determining whom we should marry can be (and as the divorce rate has demonstrated, has been) dangerous. FWIW, the only Biblical justification for opposing homosexual behavior in the first place, especially in the church. is that it belongs to the God-rejecting “world system.”



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 12:31 am


–Who are “they” who are increasingly calling themselves RLCs? Thankfully, I’ve not heard this unfortunate moniker outside of Sojo. jesse | 02.13.07 – 4:17 pm | #Jesse, It was when I gave up on the Old Testament that I was able to have a faith. I was and am a Red Letter Christian before I ever heard of the term. With that mind set if the question of homosexuality was so important why didn’t Christ deal with the question clearly and firmly? My faith says to study and summit myself to the teaching of the clergy and act out of my conscience but not to get too involved in others behavior or faith. To tell someone else how to behave is taking God’s job. I know God’s will for me but not for anyone else. I want to help the poor for example, feed them, but not tell them they must eat and what they must eat.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 12:35 am


Interesting statistic, gays in committed relationships last longer that marriages.



report abuse
 

Kris Weinschenker

posted February 14, 2007 at 12:46 am


Considering people are branded “homophobes” for simply stating homosexuality is a sin, I think it’s time more CHRISTAINS stood up for Biblical values, rather than political correctness.



report abuse
 

Kris Weinschenker

posted February 14, 2007 at 12:48 am


Of course, Catholics should just ‘turn the other cheek” (shut up and take it?) whn a couple of biggoted femi-=nazis brand them ALL “M*****F***ers”; like the Edwards bloggers did.



report abuse
 

Mike Hayes

posted February 14, 2007 at 12:50 am


Wayne, Your story about Mark and the persons who provided comfort to him is a wonderful example of treating people the way Jesus would want us to do. Please contact me at hayesmike@InsightBB.com and let’s do some follow up on this with others who support the values in “God’s Politics”!



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 14, 2007 at 12:58 am


Kris, Condemning homosexuals for something they can’t change is wrong. I am not standing up for political correctness when I stand up for LGBTQ community. I could care less about being PC. I stand up for them because they are the least in our society and Jesus tells us to love the least. I stand up for them because they deserve the right to stand up and live a “sinful” life that has nothing to do w/ you. Being “right” about this issue won’t help you get into heaven quicker and will do more to bring condemnation on a group that we should be loving and forgiving. May God forgive you for standing up for righteousness at the expense of loving.p



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted February 14, 2007 at 1:15 am


Butch wrote: Interesting statistic, gays in committed relationships last longer that marriages. Yes it is interesting. You got a source for that? Wolverine



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 1:23 am


May God forgive you for standing up for righteousness at the expense of loving. Payshun | Homepage | 02.13.07 – 8:03 pmPay that is Kris’s righteousness and not the righteousness of everyone.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 1:29 am


Wolv, sorry I don’t have a ref, if I could remember I would have given the ref.



report abuse
 

Scott

posted February 14, 2007 at 2:15 am


It was when I gave up on the Old Testament that I was able to have a faith. Amazingly, I was only able to have a faith when I gave up the Red Letter Bible and embraced the “Old Testament”.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 2:39 am


Amazed that God would reveal himself in different ways to different people? Some believe that they know the only way and God chose them out of the billions of people to reveal the exact truth. Way to arrogant to me.



report abuse
 

Scott

posted February 14, 2007 at 3:16 am


Oh. So you were anti-Jewish all along. OK. Actually, your religion teaches that we are the chosen people, even though it sends us off to hell. I don’t know why I ever bother to read anything Christian, because I always wind up reading what Christians think of us – especially if they don’t know we’re reading.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 14, 2007 at 3:42 am


ScottWhy would you a Jew read one comment and then assign it to an entire group? I love the Old Testament. The theology of the prophets transformed my faith and actually restored my Christian faith. My favorite book is Ezekiel. The prophets and their message of hope and life were given first to the Jews but has implications for the entire world.So can we please return to talking about the real issue here, homosexuality and evangelicals obsession w/ it and how they can learn to be loving and compassionate people? p



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 3:58 am


Scott, I don’t think I’m anti-jewish but jews do seem to pay the victim card.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 14, 2007 at 4:02 am


Scott, One more thing. I am sorry if anyone has told that you or your race are going to hell. Anyone that has said that is truly a fool and has not read their scriptures too well. For God and God alone can determine that. p



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 4:07 am


Pay why play nice, Scott sneaked in like a terrorist then ran off claiming he was the victim instead of the attacker.



report abuse
 

poetographer1967

posted February 14, 2007 at 4:10 am


Sorry, but the concept of “Marriage as God designed it” isn’t much of an argument, considering most who bring up that argument are arguing for marriage as it is idealized in the modern U.S. The Western concept of marriage has evolved over the last century into something very different than “traditional” marriage of the few thousand preceding years. Or is being required to marry your brother’s widow because she’s property to be inherited (a la Deut. 25:5)something we should re-institute?



report abuse
 

jesse

posted February 14, 2007 at 4:13 am


Payshun, I agree with you that we should be loving to homosexuals. Do you think it’s possible, though, to love them while also holding to the view that homosexual behavior is sinful?It seems to me that, though McLaren, Bass, and others try to ignore this issue or downplay its importance, there’s not really room for compromise. People who do not believe their homosexual behavior is sinful are only likely to go to a church that openly accepts their behavior, blesses gay marriages, etc. Evangelicals, of course, will not have that. So then what? Given these realities, how should evangelicals show love to gays? What would it look like?



report abuse
 

poetographer1967

posted February 14, 2007 at 4:19 am


Given these realities, how should evangelicals show love to gays? What would it look like? I think it would not look like denying them legal rights that are available to everyone else. Here in Indiana, there is a bill pending in the state legislature that could potentially invalidate even the civil contracts (medical power of attorney, joint ownership of homes) we must spend good money to secure, because they “resemble” benefits of marriage. My personal feeling is such invalidation would not hold up to a constitutional standard, but I don’t want to be the first person to fight that battle while someone I love lays injured in a hospital…



report abuse
 

jesse

posted February 14, 2007 at 4:23 am


Right, well without getting political (since we only vote once every two years or so), what would evangelicals loving them look like?



report abuse
 

poetographer1967

posted February 14, 2007 at 4:36 am


Completely unfair to throw in “without getting political” since it’s primarily the Evangelical movement that pushes such legislation to the fore. And the state legislature votes all the time, not just “every two years.” Sometimes the most “love” you can ask for is just to be left alone when you’re not bothering anyone. And maybe a little humility in the face of a changing understanding of the human condition. Not all that long ago, the mentally ill were considered possessed or witches or just generally evil, when they knew it wasn’t true. Not a perfect analogy for homosexuality, since it’s not an illness, but a pretty good analogy for how, even with the best intentions, religionists can get it wrong. And please don’t misread “religionist” as a slight against any person of faith; I consider myself a Christian and attend a Christian church.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 14, 2007 at 4:39 am


Jesse, I personally don’t think so not w/o condemning them. I think the notion that condemnation comes thru sexual behavior needs to be reworked and instead of insisting that their sexual behavior is a sin try affirming their basic humanity and saying they are not condemned. Jesus came and ended condemnation for all. Even if they rejected Christ grace can be extended to show they are of infinite value. When I studied Hosea and other sinners like Peter (attempted murder,) sex freaks like Solomon… I am reminded that God oftentimes ignored some of their sin in one way or another. (Folks please don’t think I am comparing homosexuality to murder, I am not.)Like w/ Peter attempting to chop off the servants ear. He was really aiming for his head. But yet all Christ said to him was Those who use the sword die by it. I find it odd that more was not made of this.Or how God ignores Solomon’s idolatrous ways and still gives him a dream where he recieves wisdom.I think what needs to be extended is grace and love. Like the love the Father showed the prodigal so we Christians should rush at our LGBTQ brethren and welcome them home into God’s love. (i know that sounds cheesy.) But it really does begin there. A great example is saying w/ all sincerty “God loves you. or that I love you.” When you see people like the Phelp’s defend them. when you hear people make drop f-bombs or other disrespectful terms stand up for them. Do whatever you think is necessary to show that they matter. More tomorrow. p



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 4:44 am


If I were gay I would say I don’t want your love or hate, leave me alone get out of my business. Lock your church doors I don’t want in.



report abuse
 

poetographer1967

posted February 14, 2007 at 4:45 am


Payshun – I like your response better than mine. Sadly, I have been on the receiving end of some Phelps-like behavior, and don’t realistically expect any Evangelicals to come to my defense as a human being loved by God any time soon. Of course, I hope to be proved wrong any day now!



report abuse
 

Aquari

posted February 14, 2007 at 4:59 am


Two theories on why evangelicals fixate on homosexuality.One, it’s the mote in someone else’s eye, not the log in theirs. They’re either straight or pretending to be straight; homosexuality is someone else’s sin, not theirs, so they can feel superior instead of having to repent. If they gave as much air time to greed, hypocrisy, and divorce – the sins Jesus took the trouble to personally condemn – they’d have to start feeling guilty themselves. It’s more fun to be the Pharisee in the temple, thanking God for making you better than other men, than it is to be the publican beating your breast. Two, a sense of unfairness. Evangelicals hold themselves (and each other) to fairly strict codes of sexual behaviour. Homosexuals break this code six ways from Sunday, and get away with it, and have joyful parades celebrating the fact. Think how an older child feels seeing their younger siblings get away with things they used to get spanked for, and multiply that feeling by a thousand.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 5:30 am


Pay, Jesse, Aquari good points, clearly today is not the first day you’ve considered these matters. My question is; do televangelist do more than lay people?



report abuse
 

christian

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:53 am


“I agree with you that we should be loving to homosexuals. Do you think it’s possible, though, to love them while also holding to the view that homosexual behavior is sinful? ” So far the answer is almost always “No”. The Church has proved this time and again as Tony has pointed out. I flip-flop on both sides of this issue and need to believe that I’d rather err on the side of grace than on the side of condemnation.Even on this thread there has been much discussion about homophobia and how Evangelicals can’t be labeled such. Then we go on to explain that “we’re” afraid that “they’ll” ruin the family system. We fear homosexuals. We want to shelter our children from homosexuals because we’re afraid like in “saved” that they’ll “catch gay”. An earlier comment about putting a face and name to homosexuals is the key. What if we sought to mend relationships with homosexuals by being an advocate for their rights. I wonder what that would do for our standing not only in the gay community, but also in the mids of the unchurched. 20 years from now denominations who sit on the condemnation side will look like churches in the south during the 60s who stood in the way of progress and equality.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 14, 2007 at 12:35 pm


Right, well without getting political (since we only vote once every two years or so), what would evangelicals loving them look like? Ed Dobson answers that question in the book “Blinded by Might.”



report abuse
 

Don Costello

posted February 14, 2007 at 1:20 pm


Tony,The Apostle Paul warned us about people like you. He said in 1 Timothy 1:8-11, that laws that forbid homosexual behavior are sound doctrine, and according to the glorious gospel of God. He then wrote in 2 Timothy 4:3,4 that the time would come when they would not endure sound doctrine. You bunch of apostates are fulfilling scripture. You need to repent and believe the gospel.



report abuse
 

HASH(0x1297b150)

posted February 14, 2007 at 1:49 pm


This is nothing in scripture in which child molesting is a sin. In fact a molester who had the ability to marry a child, get permission from their parents could actually back this one up biblically. Child molesting other than being sinful out of wed-lock is what the sin actually would be. My point is that in scripture that God stipulates that sex out of the confines of marriage is a sin. This would unfortunately hit most of us. Whether it is sex prior to marriage, sex with another partner while married that’s adultery. Actually scripture says by Paul if you remarry you are actually committing adultery against your first partner. How many of us are guilty of this one. It is so easy to look at the sins of others. It reminds me of the – you look at the splinter in someone else’s eye but don’t remove the log in your own. It seems to me it isn’t difficult to show love and compassion for someone who is gay. And it shouldn’t be difficult for us to not judge these people because we are all guilty of sin. And for all out there who have been blessed with never, ever committing any type of sexual sin, well – there’s no chance you haven’t committed sin, God makes that clear. We are all in the same boat. We all sin, we all for short of the Glory of God. Yet, he loves us anyway. All of us, all of us. He tells we are to show that love to all others. He did we are to represent him. It would be nice if as Christian’s we could just step away from judging others. And love them. Allow God to work and move in others lives. He is the God of miracles and transformation.



report abuse
 

John

posted February 14, 2007 at 2:29 pm


2) In certain countries (e.g., Canada), it has become prohibited for Christians to speak publicly of homosexuality as if it were a sin. Thus, it represents an important issue of religious freedom for those in the orthodox camp. Jesse-Where did you get this little snippet of misinformation? We in Canada have given gays the rights of marriage, but we have not taken away the right of people who disagree to speak! In fact lots of Christians have worked hard to try to have the legislation, and politicians who supported it, changed. Unsuccessfully thank goodness! I think, in the political realm it is a matter of justice, not religion. If churches want to refuse to bless marriages of gays, (or divorcees) that is their right. But they cannot discriminate against those same people when it comes to jobs, or access to the other rights of any citizen of Canada. That is the law in Canada. I want my church to debate the spiritual issues of sexuality vigorously and honestly, but I want my church to clearly stand for justice and condemn discrimination! I think this piece should make for very good discussion. I happen to disagree with Tonys’ position that gays should be celibate. If God made them the way they are, and I believe that, then they should celebrate who they are fully.



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted February 14, 2007 at 2:32 pm


Jesse, Wow, you’ve asked two really insightful questions here!what would evangelicals loving them look like? I think this is poignant. Out of all denominations I like the Methodist Churchs response. In a theological sense, they allow homosexuals to be baptized members in communion and to continually present their case, but they hold it to be a sin until the church receives something clearer on the matter. Despite great diversity of views there is, in general, a lot of humility and goodwill in those relationships. There is recognition that sometimes we do reach a new understanding, especially about Paul – women’s head coverings, slavery, and the perfection of all governments being readily available examples. But there is also recognition of the serious risk posed by changing Christianity in a way that also happens to correspond with secular philosophical changes – it could be infection of the church by the world. There is prayer and seeking together and a commitment to help each other and seek God together. Basically, I do not see such humility in the Evengelical camp. In fairness, I do not see much in the secular homosexual activist camp either. A little humility and compassion by either would go a long way…. Who are “they” who are increasingly calling themselves RLCs? Thankfully, I’ve not heard this unfortunate moniker outside of Sojo. The question that gives rise to the RLC perspective is ‘What do we do when the Bible and Christian tradition are in conflict with the Gospels?’ For example, Jesus regards [heterosexual] marriage as God’s intention for each of our lives but Paul views it as the refuge of the weak. So should we approach marriage in the shame of defeat by our passions or in the glory of the blessings of the LORD? And what of Leviticus? Should we stone our backtalking son? Should we cancel out the crime of a rapist as long as he offers to marry the victim?These moral quandries gave rise to a central idea: Jesus is the definitive revelation of God in time. God is also revealed through the rest of scripture, manifested in the experiences of God we find there, and certainly through the Holy Spirit and the universe around us. But in Jesus we have a direct reflection of God. If Jesus says that we should treat others as we would have the treat us, if he tells us to forgvive seventy times seven, if he tells us the first shall be last and the last first – then the laws of Leviticus very often fail the test of the red letters. RLC Christians affirm openly that ALL scripture must be interpreted in this way, through what we see of God in Jesus Christ. Fundamentalism began largely as the Calvinist/Presbyterian response to this very idea. Gresham Machen’s writings give a pretty good account of the conservative position and traces can be found in CS Lewis. basically, they argue, liberals take Jesus to be the exhaustive revelation of God because they want to be able to ignore the rest of God’s revelations, which are considerably less in tune with the current Zeitgeist. This, they argued, is dropping the Trinity and teh Bible and focusing exclusively on Jesus. And liberalism further sees Jesus as an example of faith rather than the object of it. So it is Christocentric and it fails at even that! When presented with the crucial problem here – that our experiences of God are more like Jesus raising the dead than they are like Yahweh killing the innocents of Egypt – conservative protestants retrenched and invented the doctrines about dispensations – God has not changed but he has changed how he deals with us. Why, in such a world, we should continue to subscribe the laws of the old dispensation I don’t fully understand.At the end of the day, I agree with Tolstoy We either choose Moses or we choose Jesus, but we can’t have them both as primary. One of them has to be secondary.



report abuse
 

liz

posted February 14, 2007 at 2:39 pm


I asked my sister why it is that homosexuality is treated as the sin to end all sins when there are others that Jesus spent much more time preaching about? Her response was rather profound. Homosexuality is the one “sin” that truly straight people would never engage in, so if they make it the worst of sins then it gives the holier-than-thou folks moral superiority.



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted February 14, 2007 at 2:44 pm


liz, That is an interesting idea. I believe something that can be extrapolated from Tony’s post is that the repression of anything that looks like homosexuality tends to lead to obsession and even addiction to that very thing. I do not believe Ted Haggard is gay, for example. The trouble with evaluating these perspectives is that sex is often taboo and people lie to cover their sexual sins so that we don’t really know who’s doing what….



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted February 14, 2007 at 2:49 pm


I should have posted this before but liz’s comment above got me to thinking about it. Some folks may get something from reading JS Spong’s argument that the apostle Paul was a tortured, celebate gay man: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/142/story_14299_1.html .



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 14, 2007 at 3:42 pm


I know this was off the topic, but I wanted to respond to this. “Scott, I don’t think I’m anti-jewish but jews do seem to pay the victim card” This would get a strong reaction if someone uttered that same sentence, substituting “blacks” for “jews”. Not arguing the merit of the statement, just making an observation. Back to regularly scheduled programming.



report abuse
 

dlw

posted February 14, 2007 at 3:45 pm


I think that it deserves mention that homosexuality is more complicated than simply one’s sexual orientation. And secular studies have shown that one’s sexual orientation is not immutable and is likely (as shown by Gunter Dorner) caused by the hormonal balance formed in the brain while we are fetuses. But more importantly, it seems that homosexuality is both chosen and not chosen and there are legitimate concerns about the US becoming more like Europe and some parts of the US, where a neo-pagan “metrosexuality” is prevalent. I don’t find that concern validated by Dr. Campolo or Jim Wallis. But I think one could rightly add that the way to deal with such problems is not to try and enshrine male and female marriage in our constitution. If the matter is truly one of cultural change, it cannot be dealt with from the top-down, but rather must be engaged from the bottom up. dlw



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 14, 2007 at 4:02 pm


“Her response was rather profound. Homosexuality is the one “sin” that truly straight people would never engage in, so if they make it the worst of sins then it gives the holier-than-thou folks moral superiority.” There is probably some truth to this, though I don’t think you have to be holier-than-thou to believe that homosexuality is a sin.In my church, we nuance our position to recognize that homosexuality is a sin, but that it is no different from any other sexual sin, or divorce. I think a lot of churches are coming to that realization, and it does help. However, there are also those who will say you are a bigot if you believe that homosexuality is wrong. Naturally, people don’t like to be called bigots, and that element fuels the fire as well. I would say that, among almost everybody who is straight, there is some natural feeling of moral superiority. At my (very liberal) college, there was more latent animosity toward homosexuals than I have ever seen at my church. Everybody wants to find some higher ground from which to spit on everyone else. In a way, we can see this with child molestors. That’s the one thing group we can all agree is too awful. Why? Cause none of us (gay or straight) can understand the impulse.



report abuse
 

jesse

posted February 14, 2007 at 4:26 pm


Daniel, Though wouldn’t you still say that, among Methodists, there are conservative churches that believe homosexuality is a sin and liberal churches that do not, and homosexuals generally go to the latter type? What the denomination (a few higher ups) as a whole does is another story… I think there are two issues at play here which have come up in some of your comments: 1) Is homosexual behavior sinful? 2) How should the church treat sin? Some have said that we should all acknowledge that we sin and we’re all broken. I don’t think you’d find many to argue with this point. But then what? If God hates sin, sin separates us from God, we were made to be near to God, and church is meant to bring everyone nearer to God, wouldn’t it behoove us to, with grace and humility, confront our brothers and sisters who are in sin in order to “remove the speck from our brother’s eye”? Think of it the same way as a family member who is forced to confront his brother about a drinking problem. Most would think this would be appropriate for him to do. His drinking is hurting himself and others. If all sin hurts us, would it not be appropriate for us to do the same for each other? This is where it gets sticky…as I said, very few people who see nothing wrong with their homosexual behavior will attend a church who views it as sin. In addition, most will probably interpret such confrontation (no matter how loving it is done) as unloving or judgmental, as well. Though I think helping each other live more holy lives is what a church is supposed to do.Your thoughts?



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 14, 2007 at 5:15 pm


On the whole issue of homosexuality, I have actually written two op-eds for my newspaper on the subject that, on the surface, may sound contradictory. One had to do with allowing them to become pastors and church officers, which I oppose because (as I said earlier) I believe the Scripture says that homosexual conduct is a sign of unbelief — when I wrote it I was up for deacon in my previous church, which is Presbyterian (USA) and it was a denonominational issue at that time. Therefore, in my view gays are ineligible not only for leadership in the church but even membership — there is no sense in extending the “right hand of fellowship” to someone who doesn’t believe the Bible (perhaps more accurately, someone who loves “the world” more). However, my other op-ed, which referred to gay marriage, took a different tack. While I take a dim view on that, I think our marriage culture is totally out of whack, which can lead to persons “falling in love” with someone of the same gender and believing that the institution of marriage can be based on that.



report abuse
 

kim margosein

posted February 14, 2007 at 5:17 pm


My question is; do televangelist do more than lay people? I’m sure they do. Sometimes they just get full body massages. Kim M



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 14, 2007 at 5:27 pm


Maybe the reason this issue is what we as evangelicals focus on is that it is the agenda that is being pushed at this time? I know we could focus on beastiality but not too many are pushing that agenda – at least not right now.I keep getting the feeling that the people that write articles on this site would rather that the evangelicals just ‘shut up and sing in church only’. But this site seems to push the poverty issue – Katrina issue – almost every liberal running for any office in the land issue. I still believe that we could some to consensus on a number of issues and work together as ‘so-belligerents’ like F. Shaffer said years ago. But that will not happen – when the focus is Anna N.S. – please!?! Of all the things that are happening in our world today…this site gives room to A.N.S.? One more thing – with all the text that has been given to the ‘Red Letter Christians’ – the way I see it defined is ‘unless the ‘Big Guy’ said it while here on earth…it is suspect as to the interpretation’. Later – .



report abuse
 

NightLad

posted February 14, 2007 at 5:36 pm


Rick Nowlin I d be interested to know how many divorced/separated couples in your Church you feel should be asked to leave. Oh, and any children born out-of-wedlock too, if you want to be technical. I m not being sarcastic; I m being completely serious. I often have to shake my head when individuals like yourself spout this gay=unbelief nonsense. One of my very good friends has just entered the PhD program at his Christian University, he gives sermons every week in his Church, and he can read the language your Bible was originally written in. Oh, and he is gay. So with all due respect; you don’t know gay people or our lives, and the hypocrisy your faith shows toward homosexuals while quietly overlooking the multitudes of sin your own heterosexual brethren partake quite regularly without invoking the brunt of your righteous indignation is as astounding as it is revolting. Your Jesus never mentioned a word about gay people; he did have a lot to say about disapproving of divorce. How many strongly worded op-ed pieces have you read about that little fact? Not many, eh?



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted February 14, 2007 at 5:42 pm


Kevin, Everybody wants to find some higher ground from which to spit on everyone else. It must be very painful to believe this about humanity.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 14, 2007 at 6:02 pm


Why is the issue that we must find a way to treat sin? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? Let me put it to you this way. Let me find a way to treat the sin of my eyes when I stare at a woman’s butt for a second too long, or let me find a way to avoid and repress my natural sexual urges by pretending they are not there. Let me pretend and define myself by my inability to live honestly w/ my God. My goodness, those above statements are what’s wrong w/ the church when it deals w/ human sexuality. You all believe its about right action, right thought, right conduct when it’s really about grace, love and mercy.If one wants to love the homosexual, the lesbian, the transgendered then all one has to do is affirm them and serve. You may not agree w/ gay marriage and buy into the myth that it will destroy civilization (like straight people have not already done that)but you can find ways to actually engage people and realize that the rules go out the window when one loves. If you doubt that then look at how God sent his son. By all standards God broke his most basic nature by sending himself into the form of a man that would die. we are talking about an I am that never tasted death, never tasted sin, never tasted mortality, and he chose to go and die and come back and send the holy spirit.If God is willing to change the law that no one can see his face and live by sending Jesus and looking into the faces of his people then can’t we change how we treat the LGBTQ community and stop worrying about the behavior and worry more for how we treat them as people. If God wants to convict someone of their “sin” then let him do it.p



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted February 14, 2007 at 6:04 pm


jesse, We’re seeing the same things, I think. The going to a church that doesn’t condemn you thing is a problem in general. I myself drive 15 minutes past a conservative Episcopal Church to get to a fairly liberal one! And there’s the quandry about what to do if we view something as a sin but the community has those who do not. If we held to every tradition, we’d still be telling slaves to obey their masters. If we let every tradition go, there’d be no need for a church at all. It’s a real pickle…. (Note the similarity between this conundrum and judicial activism – we don’t want judges legislating from the bench but how can we oppose Brown v. Board? On the “moral” ground that the legislature decided it already?) These kinds of thoughtful and hard questions are not the sort of Evangelical fare this post refers to, I think, by the way. Let me give an anecdotal example….. A relative of mine, a very close one, is a very smart and sweet lady – give you the shirt off her back – and an Evangelical. She is a Yellow Dog Democrat, but a conservative southern one. When I asked her who she likes in the Mayor’s race she reviewed 5 of the 6 candidates. I asked her about the 6th and she said, “Oh, hell, I would never vote for that liberal!” I said, “What is it about him you don’t like?” She replied, “He’s just a queer lover!” Literally her basis for this is that he does does not discriminate against gay people in his personal circles or in hiring decisions – where 4 of the other 5 do, she says. Recall, now, this is 2006 – over 40 years since we declared that ALL humans are created equal. Her views are largely determined by a local pastor, Maury Davis. He is on TV every Sunday – every Sunday he preaches about homosexuality. Oddly, Maury is a convicted murderer who found God while serving his time. If it were me, I would hope for humility toward others I view as sinners. Not him. From his monthly letter (http://www.cornerstonenashville.org/section.aspx?page=pastorsmessage): Our world is so obviously messed up and heading down hill that we need to both understand the problem and be ready to give an answer. Down through the ages, Christians have always been persecuted for being committed to a King and living in an invisible Kingdom. Our culture today in America is corruptive and corrosive to Biblical values. From the promotion of alternative and self-destructive lifestyles to the establishment of government as the answer to man s problems, we must understand and engage the issue…. One of the storms that will appear on the horizon are those persons who call any form of intellectual discussion that looks at the negatives of lifestyles as trends. They will use the phobic phrase and the intolerant phrase in their attempt to look like they are coming from Higher Ground. Can I tell you that people who reject God, reject the traditions and values our great nation was built upon, and mock the institution of the Church are never operating from higher ground. When you know everything, what’s the point in having a god other than youself?



report abuse
 

nad2

posted February 14, 2007 at 6:05 pm


speaking of editorials, below is one i’ve seen a few times that i think is bears repeating in this context: “Dear Dr. Laura,Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.”



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 14, 2007 at 6:17 pm


I d be interested to know how many divorced/separated couples in your church you feel should be asked to leave. Oh, and any children born out-of-wedlock too, if you want to be technical. I m not being sarcastic; I m being completely serious. I made two separate and distinct points and you put them together, apparently to confuse the issue. Yes, we do have separated/divorced people and (possibly) some children born out of wedlock in my present church. The difference is that the people involved understand they did wrong and have pledged not to do it again, and church leaders work with them to make sure of that. On the other hand, recently we put someone out of the church whom we found had stolen from the deacons’ fund over a period of three years (and never even apologized for that). That’s how we, and the Scriptures, view homosexual conduct.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 14, 2007 at 6:20 pm


Resubmitted to correct a typo. I d be interested to know how many divorced/separated couples in your church you feel should be asked to leave. Oh, and any children born out-of-wedlock too, if you want to be technical. I m not being sarcastic; I m being completely serious. I made two separate and distinct points and you put them together, apparently to confuse the issue. Yes, we do have separated/divorced people and (possibly) some children born out of wedlock in my present church. The difference is that the people involved understand they did wrong and have pledged not to do it again, and church leaders work with them to make sure of that. On the other hand, recently we put someone out of the church whom we found had stolen from the deacons’ fund over a period of three years (and never even apologized for that). That’s how we, and the Scriptures, view homosexual conduct.



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted February 14, 2007 at 6:32 pm


jesse, Sorry, there’s yet more….The pastor I referred to before leads a megachurch. An even larger megachurch, at the very end of my street is similar. It is Two Rivers Baptist, which was the host for Dobson & Frist’s rally to intervene for Terri Schiavo. They had signs staked up along the main road at their intersection that told people to vote GOP in the midterm elections. Their purpose statement says:Two Rivers is a voice for conservative and biblical values…. I do appreciate that they separate the two in this rhetoric, but in practice they, like Evangelicals in general, do not. The process of bringing words before the church, of testing and seeking together, is irrelevant.I say this to muster a clami” Evangelicalism is a broad-based reversal of the Reformation. Instead of one Pope and a college of cardinals, each congergation has a little pope who is taking marching orders from whatever authorities he likes or from himself. Why is Dallas Theological semenaries’ view of Revelation now considered authoritative doctrine? It’s less than 100 years old and yet it met with no resistance and is now seen as the only possible interpretation, all others heresy. The rapture itself is less than 200 years old – also Gospel truth, isn’t it? And yet homosexuality is condemned as destructive and blasphemous with nary a cosideration for the issues. If we applied the same standards these pastors apply to Romans 13 to the rest of Romans there would be no conflict at all. But there is, and it’s the result of the reversal of the Reformation, the marriage of church and a specific, dogmatic ideology. Gayness offends that ideology, so the church is the tool with which to exclude debate. From my perspective, the world has infected doctrine – before the modern era (1600 or so) such an iron fisted rule of dogma would have been seen as suspicious and ultimately misguided. Now it’s just Pastor Kennedy having Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly down to give theological treatises against those godless liberals. *Sigh*



report abuse
 

nad2

posted February 14, 2007 at 6:44 pm


maybe someone who sees homosexuality as a sin in and of itself can tell me why they think this is so, apart from ‘the bible says it is a sin,’ because as can be seen from the op-ed i posted above, there are numerous things we can pull from the scriptures (esp leviticus) that were once either acepted (slavery) or rejected (cutting hair, eating prok, etc) that we no longer abide by, nor do we think they were correct in the eyes of God. i like to think of this as progress. will someone please articulate what it is about people of the same gender having sex that does us either a social detriment (eg stealing – still a sin) or in some way seperates someone individually from God (eg greed – still a sin). as someone who once bought into same-gender sex as a sin, but then gave it some real thoughtful and prayerful contemplation and grew to know many wonderful and beautiful people who are homosexual, i am now freed from that belief. can someone who takes the opposite view please respond civilly to my question? perhaps such a dialog can better educate us all. thanks,



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 14, 2007 at 6:54 pm


Let’s keep focusing on what constitutes loving action. It’s better than understanding the other side. Go have a meal w/ a gay or transgendered friend in their environment, better yet invite them into your home and cook for them. How about volunteering for meals on wheels or some other organization? Or better yet volunteer at a clinic and hang out w/ meth addicted gay men? Better yet how about visiting a transgendered support center or find people that are in process. p



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 6:59 pm


“Fixated”??? How about “obsessed”? “nobody has come up with a conclusive explanation of what causes a homosexual orientation” How come no one EVER investigates what “causes” heterosexual orientation?



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:03 pm


“this would lead to the assumption that God created homosexuals the way they are” GASP! eh? Yet they assume God created heterosexuals the way they are. Wonder why? ‘Cuz then they can be the good “betterosexuals” they think they are. “and that we should accept them as such” “Accept” God’s creation? Heresy, no? THEN who would they be better than?



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:05 pm


“there are no easy answers that we evangelicals can offer to gays and lesbians who ask us about changing their sexual orientation” What answers do evangelicals have to offer to heterosexuals who ask about changing THEIR sexual orientation? Who actually believes that anyone can change and become attracted to someone they are not naturally attracted to? This is such utter nonsense and a huge waste of time, effort and resources when their are hungry to feed, naked to be clothed, homeless to be given shelter.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:07 pm


“They sense that the label evangelical is commonly thought to be synonymous with right-wing politics and suggests a gay-bashing, anti-environmentalist, anti-feminist, and pro-war mindset.” That would be because so many evangelicals have mae it so.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:07 pm


“Jesus never mentioned homosexuality.” Would that His followers would do likewise.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:08 pm


nad2 | 02.14.07 – 1:10 pm | #They all apply if you are a conservative Jew – living under Temple Law and attending the temple in Jerusalem. Since I believe that none of the above applies to you or anyone else – the point is mute. later – .



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:09 pm


“living out love and justice in the 21st century is required for an emerging church” When we see a modicum of EITHER, we’ll know that God is truly at work again in the “evangelical Church”, emergent or not.



report abuse
 

jesse

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:12 pm


Payshun, I like where you are going with the meals thing. As far as whether the sin of others matters to church…in short, it does. The sexual behavior of others was important to Jesus, which is why he addressed it in the Sermon on the Mount. Paul also addressed sexual sins (among others) and standards for dealing with sin in church. To ignore the sins of others in church is to ignore the effects of sin on their soul and to ignore Biblical teaching. I would also refer you to the Proverb which talks about the wise person loving correction. We’re called to hold each other accountable for sin.The example you mentioned (lust) is appropriate, though you mention just a specific instance which seems to make it trivial. I’ve been in different men’s groups and lust is definitely something many struggle with. The proper function of the church is prayer, accountability, and redemption in those situations. It isn’t “to each his own,” which seems to be the popular mindset.



report abuse
 

Andy

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:13 pm


About Tony: I am, and always have been, a fan. He led the way for evangelicals to have a social conscience, to give a damn about the poor, and for Christians’ faith to mean something in terms of making the world a better place long before it was fashionable. On the current issue: He makes it clear he opposes gay marriage and urges gay Christians to be celebate. If that doesn’t satisfy the more restrictive and conservative Christians, I don’t know what will. Rick, when I read your statement, “Yes, we do have separated/divorced people and (possibly) some children born out of wedlock in my present church. The difference is that the people involved understand they did wrong and have pledged not to do it again, and church leaders work with them to make sure of that,” I felt a chill. Are you referring to those separated/divorced as well as those who have “out of wedlock” children”? What about children conceived “out of wedlock” but born “in wedlock” (like Garrison Keillor says, tongue-in-cheek, “Not born out-of-wedlock, just not-far-enough-into-wedlock; sort of ‘profoundly premature'”)? I would bet my next paycheck that there are at least a few of such children in your church, and in more than one generation. Do you examine couples in your church with children, or better yet those seeking membership in your church, to ask them their wedding date, then the birthdate of their first child, then do the math, and if the numbers don’t look right, confront them and demand repentance or, in your words a “pledge not to do it again”? And you equate “homosexual conduct” with un-apologetic embezzlement of church funds. All I can say to that is WOW!



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:14 pm


Daniel, “homosexuality is linked to the concern taht it is one of the biggest threats to the disruption of the traditional family” This is simply not true. I have been legally married for 3 years (today is our anniversary), and not a single “traditional family” has been “disrupted”. Not a single heterosexual has had any rights taken away, has been diminished, demeaned or debased in any way shape or form (unless, of course, you believe we are meaner, baser, lesser persons than you heterosexuals). Oh, and p.s., it is NOT an “anything goes” culture. My husband and I made a commitment based on our mutual love and respect – same as YOU did when you got “married”. This does not ‘lead to’ any ‘slippery slope’ OR “anything goes” – such as the beastiality, necrophilia, rape, incest, child-molestation charges hurled at us by the ‘right’. They are false and that is why you ultimately will lose the argument.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:16 pm


Given that a number of people have come out of the woodwork to argue (or insinuate) that Christianity ought not view homosexuality as a sin, clearly there are plenty outside of the evangelical church who see this as a major issue.At any rate, this discussion is bound to deteriorate, but I wanted to make a point with regard to those who asked whether we can consider homosexuality a sin whilst failing to observe all things levitical. Christ came to fulfill the law, and if you want to know more about that, it would be well worth reading up on theology. It is a settled matter of the Christian faith. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to believe anything about Christ without observing the rest. “Kevin, Everybody wants to find some higher ground from which to spit on everyone else. It must be very painful to believe this about humanity.” Moreso painful that it is manifestly true.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:21 pm


kevin s, “While I personally endeavor to emphasize other aspects of the Christian faith, it seems like the topic always comes up.” Then maybe you and your side should stop bringing it up so much. “A friend will say that he or she cannot accept a faith that does not allow homosexuality.” Good for your ‘friend’. “I am left with three options in this scenario: I can lie, and say I do not believe the Bible forbids homosexuality; I can change the subject, which leaves the hurdle intact; or I can explain what the Bible has to say on the matter.” kevin, you have many other options, but let’s discuss the ones you’ve listed… You do not need to lie, nor do you have to say you don’t believe the Bible forbids it. You are free to believe what you want – so long as you allow that same freedom to others. Not everyone, nor every faith, agrees with what your faith teaches. You can change the subject if you want. But your 3rd option is subjective, to say the least. First, you would have to agree on WHICH Bible is the “correct” one. The many translations do NOT agree. Then you would have to agree on which passages to quote – and why – because there are also inherent contradictions in every version of the Bible. Maybe the best choice is to let each person be persuaded in their own minds and hearts. “Call nothing that I have created unclean”, I think it says. Peace.



report abuse
 

Andy

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:22 pm


I need to add this: I am not suggesting for a nano-second that sin should be winked at–God forbid. But when we address the issue of any kind of sin, we must start, end and be accompanied all along with self-examination and humility. We must allow the account of Jesus in John 8 be our norm for “dealing with sin”. Church must be, as the old saw goes, “a hospital for sinners, not a hotel for saints”, and every last one of us must be there knowing that we need the Doctor every bit as much as, perhaps more than, everyone else.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:22 pm


“Who are “they” who are increasingly calling themselves RLCs? [Red Letter Christians] Thankfully, I’ve not heard this unfortunate moniker outside of Sojo.” That tells us how NOT well-versed you are on the topic, jesse, and nothing more.



report abuse
 

jesse

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:27 pm


Curiouser, I’m curious…have you heard a lot of evangelicals calling themselves Red Letter Christians (besides the few who post on Sojo)?



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:28 pm


jesse, “In certain countries (e.g., Canada), it has become prohibited for Christians to speak publicly of homosexuality as if it were a sin.” This is untrue, aka a lie, aka the bearing of false witness. It is illegal to spread hatred against an identifiable group. This is defined as promoting harm to them, as in “they shall surely be put to death”. That is the one and only restriction on public speech, and it’s a good thing. If your side can only continue bearing false witness against God’s gay and lesbian children, you will lose.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:33 pm


What about children conceived “out of wedlock” but born “in wedlock” (like Garrison Keillor says, tongue-in-cheek, “Not born out-of-wedlock, just not-far-enough-into-wedlock; sort of ‘profoundly premature'”)? I would bet my next paycheck that there are at least a few of such children in your church, and in more than one generation. I have suspicions about one such couple in my church, but since they’ve stayed married and have other children I won’t bring up the issue. For that matter, our church is chock full of reformed or reforming alcoholics, drug abusers and prostitutes, plus a number of folks who have done time. Anyway, that’s not what I’m talking about because at least the people in my church understand there is indeed a standard, even if they know they don’t fully meet it. People who want to be a part of the church but don’t want to forswear homosexual conduct, on the other hand, in essence want to deny that there is such a standard. Christ came to fulfill the law, and if you want to know more about that, it would be well worth reading up on theology. It is a settled matter of the Christian faith. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to believe anything about Christ without observing the rest. Well said, Kevin. The reason Christ never said anything about homosexual conduct was because, in that culture, He didn’t need to.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:34 pm


Jesse, The first time I heard about RLC’s was in an issue of Christianity Today a few years ago. As for how Jesus approached sexuality well i find it odd that he never told the Samaritan woman to stop sleeping w/ the different men she had slept w/. He was just pointing out her behavior. My point is that Jesus has a different standard for his Jewish followers than he does for the non-Jews. He doesn’t place Jewish moral law above just loving people ie healing the centurion’s servant and the Syro-Phonencian’s son.Accountability only works when one makes a committment to it. It cannot be forced on others. I think you might be guilty of calling people to standards they may not want to live. It’s one thing to do that when the framework is love it’s another thing to do that when the framework is legalism. I don’t presume to know if you are a legalist or not. But if you are that won’t work in loving anyone. We don’t ask straight men to cut off their penii when they masturbate even though Christ’s language is otherwise. We understand that he was speaking spiritually. We understand that he loved people into obedience like he did w/ Moses, Peter… p



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:34 pm


Kris Weinschenker, “Considering people are branded “homophobes” for simply stating homosexuality is a sin…” This too is incorrect. People are (rightly) branded homophobes when they compare our committed, adult, consenting, loving relationships to beastiality, necrophilia, rape, incest, child-molestation, cannabalism, prostitution, etc. Thinking people know these comparisons are false. And not only are they false, they are hurtful and, imo, hate-fueled. You, as a Christian” are free to believe what you want. Other Christians believe otherwise. There, see? I didn’t call you a homophobe, just misinformed.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:36 pm


02.14.07 – 2:12 pm | # Jesus never mentioned homosexuality.” He never mentions beastiality – pedophilia – S&M and a lot of other things…so we should be open and accepting of them too? I will be loving and understanding to the person I can not accept their lifestyle as correct.I do not want to face my creator and have Him inform me that I was wrong and because of that, whoever will now be spending the rest of their existence not in heaven. I will open scripture and allow the Holy Spirit to work in their life.If we all lived our lives based on our desires why should be worry about what scripture says and what God requires of all of us? Later… .



report abuse
 

jesse

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:36 pm


Here you go for Canada: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05091407.html And for Sweden: http://ctlibrary.com/11881 I’m sure you understand that many wish to define “hate” broadly to include saying that homosexual acts are sinful. And it’s pretty clear from some of the comments posted here that some of you believe defining homosexual acts as sinful is hateful.But I guess we’ve touched a nerve with some and it does seem like this could quickly descend into a shouting match…



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:36 pm


We must allow the account of Jesus in John 8 be our norm for “dealing with sin”. For the record, if you’re talking about the woman caught in adultery, Jesus let her go not because He was being particularly merciful — she was actually an unwitting partner in a sting operation. Besides, the Pharisees broke the law in bringing her in to begin with, and He exposed that.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:38 pm


Actually John 8 is not a good standard for how we treat people outside of the church. A better standard would be the woman at the well. p



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:42 pm


Rick Nowlin | 02.14.07 – 2:41 pm | #Payshun | Homepage | 02.14.07 – 2:43 pm | #What about Matt 18? The idea of not ‘outing’ the person publicly and working to restore them. It can apply to how we should handle both believers and non-believers. Showing the ‘sweeter side of God’. Later – .



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:42 pm


Moderatelad, If the first thing out of God’s mouth is that you were wrong when you get to heaven then you really serve a lame god.p



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:44 pm


jesse, “I agree with you that we should be loving to homosexuals.” Thanks for the ‘agreement’. Now for the tough part – putting your words into action. “Do you think it’s possible, though, to love them while also holding to the view that homosexual behavior is sinful?” Yes it is possible, but it precludes the comparisons made in the posts above. It also precludes excluding God’s gay and lesbian children from equal treatment before the law.”there’s not really room for compromise.” Sure there is. In fact, you even came up with the solution in your next sentence: “People who do not believe their homosexual behavior is sinful are only likely to go to a church that openly accepts their behavior, blesses gay marriages, etc.” And THAT is the solution – as my husband’s grandmother used to say, “You go to your Church; I’ll go to mine.” It’s called freedom of religion. “Evangelicals, of course, will not have that.” And THAT is the problem. They keep on sticking their noses into other people’s business, into other people’s faith and beliefs. This is a denial of OUR freedom of religion. “Given these realities, how should evangelicals show love to gays? What would it look like?” For starters, you could allow us OUR beliefs. You could allow us OUR freedoms. You could allow us OUR pursuit of happiness. You culs say, “I disagree with you, and I disagree with your theology, but if you are willing to allow me mine, I must, as a citizen and as a Christian, allow you yours.” Try it. I recommend it. And I guarantee you will not be called homophobic when you do it. And thanks for asking.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:46 pm


poetographer, “Given these realities, how should evangelicals show love to gays? What would it look like? I think it would not look like denying them legal rights that are available to everyone else. Here in Indiana, there is a bill pending in the state legislature that could potentially invalidate even the civil contracts (medical power of attorney, joint ownership of homes) we must spend good money to secure, because they “resemble” benefits of marriage. My personal feeling is such invalidation would not hold up to a constitutional standard, but I don’t want to be the first person to fight that battle while someone I love lays injured in a hospital…” Something very similar is also happening in Michigan. I think it is very UN-Constitutional.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:48 pm


Payshun | Homepage | 02.14.07 – 2:47 pm | #“…heaven then you really serve a lame god.” Sorry – I did not say it would be the 1st thing… I serve an all powerful, gracious and forgiving God and it is that God I will tell everyone about. Later – .



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:49 pm


“well without getting political” EXCUUUUSE ME! jesse, it is the evangelicals who are pushing the politics of exclusion on gays. It is they who push to “amend” the Constitution to exclude us from its equality provisions. Their actions are why we keep demanding that Foulwell, Dobson, et al, be stripped of their tax exempt status because of their political activities. Sorry, but it is YOUR side that made it “political” to begin with.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:50 pm


Now it’s just Pastor Kennedy having Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly down to give theological treatises against those godless liberals. I wonder if Kennedy has ever read the passage, “Do not be yoked with unbelievers.” Coulter claims to be a Christian, but I don’t know about Schlafly.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:52 pm


Moderatelad, I said the word “if” i am glad you feel committed to telling people about your god. YOu do that. I want to tell people that their condemnation is over. That they are forgiven and they are loved. I want to show them unconditional love regardless if they change (not talking about LGBTQ community) or not. God causes the sun to rise on the just and unjust alike so I will do the same thing.p



report abuse
 

HASH(0x12abba64)

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:53 pm


John 8 teaches a number of lessons. First, placing legality (and encouraging immorality in the process) is wrong. I think we find resonance in this concept in our laws against entrapment. Next, we have a lesson (in my opinion) about how Christ’s fulfillment of the law replaces the need to crucify adulterers. There are those who believe that he was simply setting them straight regarding their lack of witnesses, but I guess I lean toward the former explanation.We have a lesson about the authority of Christ. The men put down their rocks. Imagine what would have happened had they not done so.We have a lesson, I think, about hypocrisy. Certainly these men sinned, and likely they had committed the sin of adultery (and likely committed that act with the very woman they stoned). We have a simple lesson for the sinner. Do not sin again. By teaching this lesson, Christ illustrates that naming the sin is not the same as condemning it. This story is not dissonant with a belief that homosexuality is a sin, however.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:55 pm


christian, “What if we sought to mend relationships with homosexuals by being an advocate for their rights.” A terrific idea, but I’m not holding my breath. “I wonder what that would do for our standing not only in the gay community, but also in the minds of the unchurched.” It would improve your standing immeasurably, because it is the fulfillment of the sum of the laws and the prophets: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” “20 years from now denominations who sit on the condemnation side will look like churches in the south during the 60s who stood in the way of progress and equality.” Sorry, but they ALREADY look that way.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:56 pm


again, context is important when we deal w/ John 8. First off Jesus is dealing a Jewish women brought in on trumpt up charges by self-righteous legalistic men. He is dealing w/n his own culture.He acts a little different when he deals outside of it. p



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:57 pm


“You bunch of apostates are fulfilling scripture. You need to repent and believe the gospel.” – courtesy of Don Costello. Heck, you people aren’t even content to defame God’s gay and lesbian children; you need to resort to name calling against your own. How sad.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 14, 2007 at 7:59 pm


Curiorser I am not evangelcal and I will champion gay rights.p



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:00 pm


If God wants to convict someone of their “sin” then let him do it. Payshun | Homepage Because we think we are God, the height of arrogance. There is something about remember who is God which of course says who isn’t.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:01 pm


Payshun | Homepage | 02.14.07 – 2:57 pm | #Please show me the same respect that I show you by using a “G” on God when referencing what I said. ‘are forgiven – show them unconditional love – etc’.Cool – but to truly know God’s love is to accept His salvation and have a personal relationship. By doing so it also means you will live under the guidelines of scripture and the freedom that it brings.Isn’t our desire to be more like him each and everyday? Wouldn’t that be the same for them – freedom in Christ? Later – .



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:04 pm


What about Matt 18? The idea of not ‘outing’ the person publicly and working to restore them. It can apply to how we should handle both believers and non-believers. I guess the question is how does the church handle those who err. But I’m a firm believer in restoration.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:07 pm


Rick Nowlin | 02.14.07 – 3:09 pm | #But I’m a firm believer in restoration. As am I! Later .



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:12 pm


Jesse, “We’re called to hold each other accountable for sin.” I simply believe that God holds me accountable and nothing or no one else is in between me and God. I certainly didn’t invite anyone into my relationship with God. Haven’t read where God told me that I’m accountable to Jesse?



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:13 pm


jesse, “If God hates sin, sin separates us from God, we were made to be near to God, and church is meant to bring everyone nearer to God, wouldn’t it behoove us to, with grace and humility, confront our brothers and sisters who are in sin in order to “remove the speck from our brother’s eye”? Ooops, that’s pretty selective of you. You are NOT called to ‘remove the speck from you brother’s eye’, you are told to be mindful of the LOG in your own. Besides, your suggestion of confrontation as the solution only adds fuel to the fire. It is NEVER done “with grace and humility”. EVER! It is done with fiery condemnation (see beastiality/necrophilia etc. references above). Thanks, but no thanks. “Think of it the same way as a family member who is forced to confront his brother about a drinking problem.” What an UGLY and hateful comparison. I do not have a “sex problem”. YOU and your side seem to have a problem with my sexuality. HUGE difference. “His drinking is hurting himself and others.” My sexuality and my marriage have NOT “hurt” me not any others. THAT is WHY your comparison is odious in the extreme. And then you wonder why you get labelled extremists. Sheesh.



report abuse
 

sis

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:14 pm


If you think that Christians who’ve sinned by getting a divorce learn from their sin and don’t commit again, you haven’t seen the divorce rates for evangelicals which is among the highest of any religion in this country. I NEVER knew anyone who had been divorced more than twice before I lived in the Bible belt and yet those are the very people to most strenuously defend traditional marriage against the scourge of homosexuals.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:15 pm


Rick Nowlin, “I believe the Scripture says that homosexual conduct is a sign of unbelief” What then do you do with homosexual believers? We are many, btw. Yours is a false belief.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:17 pm


moderatelad, “Maybe the reason this issue is what we as evangelicals focus on is that it is the agenda that is being pushed at this time? I know we could focus on beastiality but not too many are pushing that agenda” Your comparison is invalid. You cannot compare inter-species sex with consenting, adult, loving, committed HUMAN relationships and have ANY credibility.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:24 pm


Rick Nowlin, “The difference is that the people involved understand they did wrong [they had a divorce] and have pledged not to do it again” That’s just sad. “On the other hand, recently we put someone out of the church whom we found had stolen from the deacons’ fund over a period of three years” So much for grace and fogiveness. I’m sure glad I don’t go to your church. Who would Jesus “put out”?



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:31 pm


Payshun, “Go have a meal w/ a gay or transgendered friend in their environment, better yet invite them into your home and cook for them.” A rabidly anti-gay evangelical named Craig Chandler did just that in Alberta and guess what happened? He changed his mind. He said that Churches that believe gay marriage is a good and right and holy thing should be allowed to perform hem. Those Churches that believe otherwise are free not to. Amazing. As Gramma used to say, “To know us is to love us.” Thanks always for your truly Christian attitude.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:37 pm


jesse, “have you heard a lot of evangelicals calling themselves Red Letter Christians” Yes, jesse. I have. It is not limited to Evangelicals, by any means, and it is NOT a new term. I’m 55 years old and I remember my Grandmother using the term when I was in grade school. Like I said, that YOU haven’t says a lot about your lack of knowledge on the subject.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:42 pm


Rick Nowlin, “I have suspicions about one such couple in my church, but since they’ve stayed married and have other children I won’t bring up the issue.” But you DID bring up the issue, Rick. Your “suspicions” about the sanctity of others is repugnant. “alcoholics, drug abusers and prostitutes, plus a number of folks who have done time” are pretty irrelevant to the discussion of same-sex love and committment, don’t you think? Oh, I forgot, you don’t believe ours is love; you don’t believe we can and do commit. Nevermind. “The reason Christ never said anything about homosexual conduct was because, in that culture, He didn’t need to.” So why do you feel YOU “neeed” to if He didn’t?



report abuse
 

nad2

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:44 pm


curiouser, i sincerely hope the toothpaste is already out of the tube on gay marriage & that once more and more gay couples become more and more visible and people find out there is nothing to fear, this will be less and less of an issue and more states will acknowledge that it’s not fair to exclude from you rights based upon your sexuality. the process is certainly not going to be quick or easy, few things of such magnitude ever are, but as a christian remember to love your enemies actively and defiantly – that is both our call as christians and the only way to overcome such prejudice. as a deep-southern, country, happily married, passionate and practicing christian, i’ll stand with you in your struggle.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:48 pm


curiouser and curiouser… | 02.14.07 – 3:20 pm | #What then do you do with homosexual believers? The same that I would do with gossips – adulteries – pedophiles – etc. Show them God’s love and grace in the scripture. Show them the freedom that they have in God. Let them know just how special they are and what God requires of all of us. Later – .



report abuse
 

nad2

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:48 pm


more states (& churches) – above



report abuse
 

HASH(0x12bf63c8)

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:53 pm


” Jesus never mentioned homosexuality.” You replied:”He never mentions beastiality – pedophilia” The 2 are NOT comparable; they both lack CONSENT. No wonder you get labelled homophobic. “I will be loving and understanding to the person” What you just typed is NOT “loving” nor “understanding” to ME – a real, live gay person. It is vile hate. “I can not accept their lifestyle as correct.” It ain’t a “lifestyle”. Gay people have LIVES. At least try to get that much str8.”I will … allow the Holy Spirit to work in their life.” The Holy Spirit is already working wonders in my life. Just not the ones that YOU would expect, apparently.



report abuse
 

Eric

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:56 pm


I agree with Tony, but we must not let social justice action take over our mission as Christians. Saving souls should be our first objective, and I’m disappointed that Tony didn’t include that in his list of things Christians should be focused on other than homosexuality.



report abuse
 

HASH(0x12bf75bc)

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:57 pm


“…alcoholics, drug abusers and prostitutes, plus a number of folks who have done time” are pretty irrelevant to the discussion of same-sex love and committment, don’t you think? Oh, I forgot, you don’t believe ours is love; you don’t believe we can and do commit. Did you read one of my first posts on this topic? You would have read that I believe — in fact, wrote in our newspaper three years — that our entire Western marriage culture is completely messed up precisely because of its focus on romantic love. And I wasn’t simply talking about gays, either. My point: Being “in love” does not make a marriage.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:59 pm


curiouser and curiouser… | 02.14.07 – 3:22 pm | #You cannot compare inter-species sex with consenting, adult, loving, committed HUMAN relationships and have ANY credibility. That is your ‘opinion’ and I have as much credibility as you.I see no where in scripture that validates your opinion or any other variation on sex. Later – .



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 8:59 pm


curisouer, I posted the statistic about gays in a committed relationship lasting longer than straight marriages. Do you know the source of this work? I met a man when I was 18 who was in a committed gay relationship then 35 years later I visited him on his death bed and Russ was still there at his side. They were together 48 years. When straight Christians clean up divorce I’ll engage them in a discussion about gay behavior or rather when they remove the log in their eye. Considering the size of the divorce log how can they see anything else or I guess see anything?



report abuse
 

anon2

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:01 pm


test



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:03 pm


Anonymous | 02.14.07 – 4:02 pm | #Was I.



report abuse
 

HASH(0x11648e90)

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:07 pm


Actually Moderatelad, I am not an evangelical so for me having a personal relationship is secondary to forgiving. The goal is forgiveness. It’s more important to me than calling people into a pesonal relationship w/ Jesus. I think forgiveness does do that but my goal is to invite people into a desire for love. Love for me is what I live my life for. I see Jesus as love so yes I would invite people to be loved as I prayed for them and invited the Holy Spirit to heal them of their hurts. I had the best time doing that for a lesbian woman I met across the street from my white evangelical vineyard church.The Phelp’s were protesting a gay friendly church and it was horrible. I went over to protest them, rip their signs up and kick a little ass. But the Holy Spirit stopped me. So I went over met a woman that was a lesbian, prayed for her and blessed the Phelps.Would i like everyone to have a personal relationship w/ God? Yes. Is that necessary for me to love them? No. God will call his children I just have to love them into hearing his/her voice. Oh and i am sorry about the lower “G” thing. I meant no offense. p



report abuse
 

Barbara

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:07 pm


Wow! I am a lesbian and have been in a loving, caring, kind, wonderful relationship for the last 10 years and I am truly blessed! I take my differences as a blessing and when I read some of these posts it amazes me as to how much energy and arguing there is in whether my way is the right way or my God is the right God or my reading the Old Testament vs. the New Testament vs. the Red Letter Christians is the right way. So much energy and time wasted on things that none of us know are really true. I have faith (that is why it is called faith) that I will get to heaven because of the way that I live. I will not be judged by who I have Loved, but how I have Loved. I will be judged for how I helped others, worked to end poverty and homelessness, how I worked to fight against many injustices in this world, how I fought against bigotry and hatred. How I help children and the disenfranchised. I will be judged on how I helped others in their time of despair. I will be judged on whether I tried to leave this world a better place than I left it. My Jesus went against the establishment and fought for those who were being persecuted as he was. If only all of us could put this energy into solving poverty, injustices, slavery, helping children, feeding the less fortunate, fighting against bigotry and hatred we would be better off in this World! Instead of judging and putting people down and trying to keep people down maybe we should try lifting them up. We are all connected and truly all want the same things, to love and be loved. Maybe people feel that things can t be changed in this world and they feel desperate because things aren t changing quickly enough, maybe this is why people become fixated on a certain issues, there are many many parts that you can argue over. I as a lesbian don t believe that I am sinning, and I don t need to be saved. I am right with my Jesus because I try to do what he preached. I believe that the bible cannot be taken literally and that it contains parables for us to live by and when some of the bible is taken to literally it can be dangerous. Most problems in this world are caused by whose religion is the right religion and to that end money is the root to all injustices in this world. Loving another human being is not a sin in my eyes and in my Jesus eye. What I don t understand is people s reaction to it and how it causes such hatred and bigotry. I don t understand why people s fascination is. I have a great life, with great family, friends and community. I am truly blessed and I treat others as they would want to be treated (the Golden Rule ). As Gandhi has said BE THE CHANGE YOU WISH TO SEE IN THE WORLD One other thing, I do believe that GOD/JESUS is watching us and he puts these things in are paths to see how we handle it and what we can do to make a difference. Maybe we should all keep our mouths shut and get doing .



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:07 pm


The site you linked to is commonly referred to as LIESite because of the misinformation they promulgate. Sorta like the way Mr. Dobson distorted the research done about the ‘success’ rate in the ex-gay industry. It simply is not believed. “I’m sure you understand that many wish to define “hate” broadly to include saying that homosexual acts are sinful.” And I am equally sure you are full of baloney. You are free to believe what you want to believe. The “hate” part comes in when you compare us to beastialists and necrophiliacs. “And it’s pretty clear from some of the comments posted here that some of you believe defining homosexual acts as sinful is hateful.” Nope. See above for what I define as hateful.”But I guess we’ve touched a nerve with some and it does seem like this could quickly descend into a shouting match…” It already IS a shouting match. Rest assured that every time you compare us to rape, incest, necrophilia, beastiality, child-molestation, thieves, cannibals, etc. that we ARE going to scream right back and expose these as the hateful, hate-filled, hate-gueled lies that they are. If you want the “shouting” to stop, stop posting lies/bearing false witness against God’s gay and lesbian children.



report abuse
 

wayne

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:08 pm


I am not a sinner because I sin. I sin because I am a sinner. A person is not a homosexual because they commit acts of homosexuality. They commit these acts because they are homosexual. The homosexual who is abstinent is still homosexual. If he lusts in his heart for a man he is as guilty of sin as I am when I lust for a woman. They and I do not have a right to our lustful attitudes. They and I both have a right to be accepted for who we are in the Church. Maybe the woman caught in adultery was a prostitute but we do not really know. Perhaps she was a married woman who was caught in an affair. If the latter is the case Jesus words to her to “go and sin no more” are heavy indeed. Where was she to go to? Was she supposed to go back to her husband and her children? Was she to go back down that street the mob had dragged her down to kill her, in other words back into the society that wanted her dead? Or did Jesus have in mind a place that she might go to, a place we would later come to know as the Church? A place of acceptance and forgivness, a place where she would be protected and seen as a member of the group, having her own unique place and purpose? Was this place supposed to be such that everyone there would know each other intimately and be aware of each others histories, problems and temptations. Could that place ever be such that its members were to be looking for every possible violation of its creed so it could castigate those who were found in opposition to its creed and stone them? The expectation of holy behavior is not the same as the hope for it. Just because I have a standard I believe is right doesn’t mean I have to have expectations of my fellow human beings to live that way but I can always hope they will. I can hope the Church will learn to live up to its God given creed. Church discipline means Church intruction, not punishment. If there is a need for hard measures in the churches attempts to instruct it must always be with its ultimate goals in mind. The Church can never castigate someone for who they are and be in the right. Seldom can it castigate anyone for what they do and be in the right. If we as Church members live our faith correctly it should be so seldom as to be almost unknown. The Apostle Paul recommended it once and then he recommended the person be reinstated. He fought against many in the Church who were guilty of many acts of sin against God, each other and himself yet never did he ask for the same treatment. He got very angry with these Judaizers and said some very mean things about them. He even warned them of possible damnation for their teaching and fought with them vehemently but ultimatley he didn’t kick them out or deny them a place. I don’t think Paul ever wanted to be involved in another stoning of a human being. He had learned his lesson after Stephen’s death.



report abuse
 

MARY

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:12 pm


1. RLC – Has anyone ever cleared up the fact that MUCH of what passes as RED is in fact NOT words Jesus said but words put in his mouth? 2. Ignorance, hate and self righteousness are not Christian values last time I checked. 3. Thanks for the story re: Mark above – profound and profoundly simple – but the majority of gay and lesbians I know, work with and love (family members) do not fit this model. They are in loving, committed and exemplary relationships from which most of my straight friends (and many people writing in this comment column) could learn alot.



report abuse
 

Paul

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:14 pm

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:15 pm


moderate lad, “to truly know God’s love is to accept His salvation and have a personal relationship” You seem to think I haven’t. You are wrong. “By doing so it also means you will live under the guidelines of scripture” Not necessarily. I refuse to put disobedient children to death. I refuse to put the victims of incest to death. I will eat lobster, despite Scripture calling it an “ABOMINATION”. I will offer communion to the disabled,despite Scripture forbidding it. And on it goes.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:20 pm


moderatelad, I asked: “What then do you do with homosexual believers?” You, as usual, comparing Christian believers with: “The same that I would do with gossips – adulteries – pedophiles – etc.” How tyupically charitable of you. So UN-Christ like. Your examples are of people and things that cause HARM to others.My love, otoh, does NOT. “Show them God’s love and grace in the scripture.” You fail miserably to show us ANYTHING approaching love OR grace in what you type. It is obnoxious. And it is NOT Scriptural.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:23 pm


curiouser and curiouser… | 02.14.07 – 4:20 pm | #There is the LAW and there is GRACE. We need to look at the OT through NT eyes. I see no where in scripture where God accepts your lifestyle.I see where He loves you and me. He desires only the best for both of us. He requires us to not cause our brother or sister to stumble.You may wish to live you life the way you want to and believe that it is acceptable to the Almighty, I do not see it that way in scripture. It is OK to struggle and God does address that, but to live out your life in defiance of scripture…I can not go there – I can not tell someone that it is OK – I just can not. Later – .



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:25 pm


immoderatelad, I said: “You cannot compare inter-species sex with consenting, adult, loving, committed HUMAN relationships and have ANY credibility.” Your reply? “That is your ‘opinion'” Yes it is my opinion and backed up with why I said what I said. “and I have as much credibility as you.” That again is your opinion. If you ‘think’ you are “credible” when you compare my 22 year committed, loving, consenting, adult, HUMAN relationship to beastiality and necrophilia, etc. then all I can say is you are deluding yourself.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:32 pm


butch, “I posted the statistic about gays in a committed relationship lasting longer than straight marriages. Do you know the source of this work?” No I don’t. Plus I don’t necessarily believe it. It is too broad a statement. I do know, however, of the people in my life. My husband and I have been together 22 years. My friends Bobbi and Flo were together 47 years. My good friends John and Wayne were together for 36 years. The first couple to get married in the San Francisco equal marriage events of 2004, Phyllis Lyons and Del Martin had been togther for 52 years. My pastor and his husband have been together 26 years. Not all gay and lesbian people are as lucky as us. I also know of a couple of gay or lesbian couples who have also divorced. On the whole, I’d say we are all capable of long relationships, but it is hard work and not everyone is committed to making it work. “I met a man when I was 18 who was in a committed gay relationship then 35 years later I visited him on his death bed and Russ was still there at his side. They were together 48 years.” It is important to keep on telling our stories to counteract the lies from the ‘right’. Thanks. “When straight Christians clean up divorce I’ll engage them in a discussion about gay behavior or rather when they remove the log in their eye.” Yes, Christ WAS very specific about divorce. And he was silent on the issue of homosexuality. Odd that some of His ‘followers’ can’t take the hint and do likewise. “Considering the size of the divorce log how can they see anything else or I guess see anything?” I call it ‘selective fundamentalism’. They’re famous for it.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:33 pm


“Being “in love” does not make a marriage.” But it sure helps, Anonymous. I know this from experience.



report abuse
 

sis

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:35 pm


If you condemn homosexuals because they are committing an unrepentant sin, what about all those heterosexuals who have divorced and remarried? The last time I check the Bible very clearly states that if one divorces and remarries, they are committing adultery. So every time a divorced and remarried person has relations with the newer spouse, they are committing adultery unrepentantly and should be condemned for it. Right?



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:38 pm


curiouser and curiouser… | 02.14.07 – 4:30 pm | #I am not sure who is deluding who. I am not re-writing scripture of adding to scripture like I believe you are. That you are in a committed relationship – that is great – be happy. I am not your enemy – I don’t agree with you but I am not your enemy. I will not support ‘gay marriage’ but I would not want to have people go through life without love. I can pray that God will in His good time reveal Himself to you. That you can know the truth and it will set you free. But until that time – be well – be happy – we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue. Later – .



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:40 pm


paul, No, the book link was NOT “helpful”. It is based ona premise that gay people are sick, wounded, broken. It is meant for those who, ahem, “counsel” “those who struggle with homosexuality”. I, and most glbt people I know, are NOT struggling with it. We have accepted it is how God made us. Thanx anyway.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:41 pm


Moderatelad, The arrogance of what you just said astounds me. It sounds like Curioser has all ready met and lived the revelation of Jesus. How you can assume he did not or that he doesn’t understand the love of God is astounding. p



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:42 pm


You know, I’m torn reading this. 15 years ago I think I would have agreed with what Dr Campolo has said here whole-heartedly. And in a large sense I still do, because I see where homosexuality has become a gadfly of an issue among Christians.But I also see where the G&L commuinity has tried to equate thier struggle to that of Blacks and other ethnic minorities- I also see where they infiltrate Churches and try to get them to change thier doctrine on the matter and cause deep divisions- I also see where they claim discrimiation all the while oppressing Christians in Canada and Sweeden, taking them to court for thier beliefs= (Google it up.) I see where friends of mine in Oregon have had to take thier kids of of school because they were told “if you have ever wanted to kiss another personof the same sex, even your own Grandfather, you may be gay”- And I guess life has taught me tolerance is not all that. Sometimes moral backbone is necessary too.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:46 pm


Wayne — I agree with you. Church should be a place that doesn’t pile on people when they fall but lifts them up. I think it’s a shame that we spend so much time focusing on sex. Maybe the woman caught in adultery was a prostitute but we do not really know. Perhaps she was a married woman who was caught in an affair. If the latter is the case Jesus words to her to “go and sin no more” are heavy indeed. The background: The Pharisees brought the woman who they said was caught in the very act into the temple while He was teaching. There was a reason for that: If He said “go ahead” He would have incurred the wrath of Rome, but if He said no He would have been discredited as a rabbi, so it was a total set-up. But the Pharisees screwed up royally. For openers, the law stated that the offending man also was to be brought in. Second, for capital cases you had to have at least two eyewitnesses, but to watch people have sex also was a violation (suggesting that it was a sting operation). Third, under the law, had her “partner” had an ejaculation she was ceremonially unclean anyway and had no business being in the temple in the first place! The Pharisees thus had to withdraw the accusation.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:48 pm


immoderatelad, “There is the LAW and there is GRACE.” You sure seem to type a lot about the former but seem ignorant of the latter. I know God’s grace at work in my life. “We need to look at the OT through NT eyes.” I double dog dare you to. “I see no where in scripture where God accepts your lifestyle.” Perhaps that’s because I do not HAVE a “lifestyle”; I have a life. I likewise see no where in Scripture where God accepts your continual bearing of false witness against me. I call THAT a sinful lifestyle, and it is totally devoid of any grace whatsoever. “I see where He loves you and me.” You sure have a funny way of showing God’s “love” to others. “He desires only the best for both of us.” And what would YOU know of what is best for ME? You do not even know me. “He requires us to not cause our brother or sister to stumble.” Has my marriage caused you to stumble? How? Curious minds want to know. Meanwhile, continued bearing of false witness DOES cause people to stumble, and I pray you will be forgiven for it.”You may wish to live you life the way you want to and believe that it is acceptable to the Almighty” I do so wish and I do so believe. Why do YOUR beliefs trump mine? “I do not see it that way in scripture.” Then by all means live your life the way God calls you to live it. And allow me the freedom to do the same. “It is OK to struggle” I am not struggling, though it seems you sure are. “but to live out your life in defiance of scripture” To use your own words, “I do not see it that way.” “I can not go there” Then DO not go there. No one is aksing you to, let alone forcing you to believe otherwise. Freedom of religion MUST work both ways. “I can not tell someone that it is OK – I just can not.” Then howzabout you just keep silent on the topic, like Christ did?



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:49 pm


Butch “I posted the statistic about gays in a committed relationship lasting longer than straight marriages. Do you know the source of this work?” curiouser, No I don’t. Plus I don’t necessarily believe it. It is too broad a statement.” It is not too broad a subject to be studied and draw statisticly valid conclusions and I did in fact hear this report somewhere on television.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:49 pm


But it sure helps. I know this from experience. What about when you “fall out of love,” which every couple does eventually? This is why you can’t base marriage on that kind of “love.”



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:50 pm


Payshun | Homepage | 02.14.07 – 4:46 pm | #So I am just to roll over and not have any opinion on this matter. Because curiouser… has the right words to say – I have no right to my opinion on this matter. So who ever plays the trump card first wins. Grow Up. I have the right to my opinion and so does curiouser…! No one has shown me in scripture where anything but the union that God ordained is blessed. They make the argument that ‘divorce…’ so I am to say that because this is ‘wrong’ (in some cases it is) that we have to accept something else that is ‘wrong’? Kinda weak argument. Blessings on curiouser… I just can not agree or support their opinion. Later .



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:55 pm


modlad, “I am not sure who is deluding who.” I am very sure of who is delusional. Sorry to say, but I think it’s YOU. “I am not re-writing scripture of adding to scripture like I believe you are.” Well, you believe wrongly. “That you are in a committed relationship – that is great – be happy.” Thanks, and trust me, I am. “I am not your enemy” You sure spout like my enemies do. Funny, that. “I don’t agree with you but I am not your enemy.” Likewise. “I will not support ‘gay marriage'” No smarmy quote marks are required, thanx. I am married. Legally. Get over it. “but I would not want to have people go through life without love.” But it seems you WOULD have us go through life being compared to beastialists, necrophiliacs, and the like. Some “christian” “love” that is – NOT! “I can pray that God will in His good time reveal Himself to you.” Too late. She already has. “That you can know the truth and it will set you free.” I already DO know the truth, and yes indeed it DID set me free. I will pray the same for you. “But until that time – be well – be happy” I am. “we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.” OR, you could revisit Scripture with an open mind, an open, loving heart. Many faiths are doing it and they are changing their minds on the topic. The United Church did. The Quakers did. The Universalist/Unitarians did. The Liberal, Reformed and even Conservative Jews did. And the list continues to grow.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:56 pm


Why would I change my mind about an issue in which those who disagree with me are incapable of doing so without misinterpreting what I say, ignoring what I have said, or flipping out in general?If you have an opinion, make your case. If you don’t, don’t just go at the discussion with a flamethrower. Calling me a bigot doesn’t make me one.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 14, 2007 at 9:58 pm


curiouser and curiouser… | 02.14.07 – 4:53 pm | #Then howzabout you just keep silent on the topic, like Christ did? Because I do not believe that God did not fail to address this topic for all scripture is ‘God Breathed’ The Almighty inspired all of Holy Scripture. There is the ‘law’ and there is ‘grace’ and the grace of the NT still says it is not what God ordained – period. Later – .



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:01 pm


Kevin Wayne, “the G&L commuinity has tried to equate thier struggle to that of Blacks and other ethnic minorities” It is an inherent trait that occurs naturally, like handedness and skin colour. But it has NEVER been illegal to be black. And I have never, EVER met someone who got kicked out of his family for being black. “I also see where they infiltrate Churches” Infiltrate? Are we now not even allowed to be members of Churches??? Good grief! “and try to get them to change thier doctrine on the matter” Kevin, faiths (the good ones, anyway) always question their doctrine. Wo what if they change them after prayerful study? “and cause deep divisions” Um, ever think that just maybe those on the ‘right’ are the cause of the divisions? “I also see where they claim discrimiation” We do NOT “claim” it; we have LIVED it. We ARE speaking about our own very lives for pete’s sake. “And I guess life has taught me tolerance is not all that.” All WHAT? “Sometimes moral backbone is necessary too.” As if gay people don’t have moral backbone. Your filth is indefensible.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:04 pm


What about when you “fall out of love,” which every couple does eventually? This is why you can’t base marriage on that kind of “love.” Rick Nowlin Here is a rule; Love is a verb, you will love what you put your energy into.If you put your energy into the person you committed to love, honor, etc then you will not fall out of love .



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:04 pm


“The Pharisees brought the woman who they said was caught in the very act into the temple” How come no one EVER questions why the “man” was never brought forward for judgement?



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:06 pm


“It is an inherent trait that occurs naturally, like handedness and skin colour. But it has NEVER been illegal to be black. And I have never, EVER met someone who got kicked out of his family for being black.” I am sure you have never heard of the paper bag test. Granted people don’t get kicked out for that they just get told their hair is too nappy…It’s not easy and we usually have the rest of the society to say where we can and can’t go. still happens and I am in my early 30’s. p



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:08 pm


curiouser and curiouser… | 02.14.07 – 5:00 pm | #Many faiths are doing it and they are changing their minds… There are some congregations in many denominations that have changed their minds, and it is causing a split in several of them. You are attempting to change 1000’s of years of history of the faith. If the Almighty was going to change something about faith – I think he would have been a little more deliberate and would have put the issue in front of someone like He did with Paul and what is acceptable to eat. I do not see that in scripture on this issue. Later – .



report abuse
 

HASH(0x11669aa4)

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:08 pm


butch, “It is not too broad a subject to be studied and draw statisticly valid conclusions” I agree that it SHOULD be studied, though it might embarass the hets. “and I did in fact hear this report somewhere on television.” I do not doubt that you did, but that doesn’t make it true. I suspect they were discussing the 51% divorce rate amongst heterosexuals, not just the length of their relationships.



report abuse
 

HASH(0x11669abc)

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:10 pm


Rick Nowlin, Me: “But it [romantic love] sure helps. I know this from experience.” “What about when you “fall out of love,” which every couple does eventually?” They DO? Sorry, but that is NOT my experience, nor is it the experience of most people I know, love and respect – family AND friends included. How sad for you that this is your experience. “This is why you can’t base marriage on that kind of “love.” I feel very, very sad for you and for the person you may choose to marry.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:11 pm


Calling me a bigot doesn’t make me one. kevin s. Claiming you are not doesn’t prove you aren’t and I’m not saying you are. Often the best evidence is what others observe rather than a self view. If someone thinks you are a bigot then ask them why, what is their proof? You may not be in your heart but your behavior convicts you (anyone).



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:17 pm


Why would I change my mind about an issue in which those who disagree with me are incapable of doing so without misinterpreting what I say, ignoring what I have said, or flipping out in general?If you have an opinion, make your case. If you don’t, don’t just go at the discussion with a flamethrower. Calling me a bigot doesn’t make me one.



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:19 pm


“I do not doubt that you did, but that doesn’t make it true. I suspect they were discussing the 51% divorce rate amongst heterosexuals, not just the length of their relationships.” Anonymous You are trying to interpret what I heard without knowing what it is. Without knowing what the study was there is no way to consider it except out of ignorance (meaning you don’t know). I’m speaking out of knowledge, admittedly limited knowledge.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:20 pm


Sorry, didn’t mean to post that twice. “Often the best evidence is what others observe rather than a self view.” That’s fine, but if the only people who observe it have an agenda, then I take it with a grain of salt. Nobody who knows me personally has ever called me a bigot.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:20 pm


moderate, I think you are reading words into my posts that simply are nto there… “So I am just to roll over and not have any opinion on this matter.” I have said repeatedly, over and over an dover again, that yes you ARE entitled to your opinion. But in return, YOU must allow other people THEIR opinion. “Because curiouser… has the right words to say – I have no right to my opinion on this matter.” Wrong. And I NEVER, EVER said that. We disagree with your opinion. And we continue to ask, why should your religious beliefs trump ours? “So who ever plays the trump card first wins. Grow Up.” Speak for yourself. This is not about “winning” (other than winning legal equality which is supposed to be ‘guaranteed’ by yer “Constitution” – you know, the one you HAVE, not the one yer “president” wants to change it to). It is about allowing for personal faith. I have a personal relationship with Christ. That personal relationship does not include YOU, or jesse, or anyone else. YOU do not get the ‘right’ to tell me I do not have that relationship. “No one has shown me in scripture where anything but the union that God ordained is blessed.” It is only your interpretation of the Bible that allows you to say there is only ONE type of union that God blesses. You, as I said, are entitled to that interpretation. You refuse to allow us our interpretation, our understanding. THAT is the difference. “They make the argument that ‘divorce…'” That is because Jesus specifically mentioned it and called it a sin. The “christian” “church” has seen fit to change its mind on that topic. Why shouldn’t it be free to change its mind on THIS topic? This topic which that same Jesus did NOT mention at all.



report abuse
 

pollyanna

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:21 pm


“maybe someone who sees homosexuality as a sin in and of itself can tell me why they think this is so, apart from ‘the bible says it is a sin,’ because as can be seen from the op-ed i posted above, there are numerous things we can pull from the scriptures (esp leviticus) that were once either acepted (slavery) or rejected (cutting hair, eating prok, etc) that we no longer abide by, nor do we think they were correct in the eyes of God. i like to think of this as progress. will someone please articulate what it is about people of the same gender having sex that does us either a social detriment (eg stealing – still a sin) or in some way seperates someone individually from God (eg greed – still a sin). as someone who once bought into same-gender sex as a sin, but then gave it some real thoughtful and prayerful contemplation and grew to know many wonderful and beautiful people who are homosexual, i am now freed from that belief. can someone who takes the opposite view please respond civilly to my question? perhaps such a dialog can better educate us all. thanks, nad2 | 02.14.07 – 1:49 pm | # ” I think the major difference is reading a very important aspect of the account in Leviticus. When speaking of ALL sexual sin (not just homosexuality), the law states: 24 ” ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.” (Lev. 18:24-28) Clearly, the judgment for sexual sin is not restricted only to the Israelites. God judged the peoples of Canaan for these very things, and states that it is because of these things that the land “vomited” them out. You can also see this referenced in chapter 20. I say this to say: We cannot restrict this to just the “Jewish Law” if God held other nations accountable for it.ALSO – the judgment for sexual sin is not EXCLUSIVE to homosexuality.I have many friends who are homosexual. I love these friends, but believe that homosexuality is wrong. These two feelings are not mutually exclusive. They know where I stand, but still love me as their friend because I respect them as humans made in the image of God. I also have a friend who is married and cheating on her husband. I love this friend, but believe that what she is doing is wrong. Again, these two feelings are not mutually exclusive. And again, she knows where I stand, but still loves me as her friend because I respect her as a human made in the image of God. To highlight their sin and not see the huge telephone poles sticking out of my own eye is called self-righteousness, and that is just as sinful as anything sinful can be. That does not mean I cannot speak to what I believe the Lord says is sin in their lives. It DOES mean that I must show humility in my speech, because I have things in my own life that I struggle to break free from, even though I know they are wrong.All that to say: I may believe that the Bible teaches certain things about homosexuality, but I also believe that our obsession with this particular subject is to our detriment. It taints our witness.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:21 pm


kevin s, “Calling me a bigot doesn’t make me one.” So true. It is making bigoted statements and holding bigoted views that makes one a bigot.



report abuse
 

nad2

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:22 pm


modlad, please let us know why it is you think same-gender sex is a sin, either personal (keeping someone from God like greed) or social (something that hurts the whole of humanity like stealing). your response to me about letting some things from ‘the law’ go and keeping others was: “They all apply if you are a conservative Jew – living under Temple Law and attending the temple in Jerusalem. Since I believe that none of the above applies to you or anyone else – the point is mute.” not only was this a non-answer to why YOU consider same-gender sex sin, it is in direct contradiction to what you are now saying about ‘the law’ to curiouser. does leviticus in its entirety still apply to us or not? if not, what about same-gender people having sex and being in committed relationships harms society or seperates someone from God to call it sin? please answer if you can and at least all of us (including you) can know where you are coming from. as i said earlier, it has to be more than ‘it’s in the scripture’ because there is so much in scripture we have thankfully let go of, slavery and stoning children to name a few.



report abuse
 

pollyanna

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:22 pm


btw – I have no idea why the smiley face ended up on the middle of my post…woops..



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:24 pm


modlad, “grace of the NT still says it is not what God ordained” Could you please cite the NT “God breathed” grace of Scripture that backs this statement up? Oh, and I’d advise you to stay away from what Paul said, what with his views on women and slavery, not to mention his very own “thorn in the side”. (Trust me, you don’t want to KNOW what some scholars say THAT is!)



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:25 pm


Payshun, No, I never have heard of the “paper bag test”. Sounds intriguing. Care to elaborate?



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:27 pm


“That’s fine, but if the only people who observe it have an agenda, then I take it with a grain of salt. Nobody who knows me personally has ever called me a bigot.” Kevin That doesn’t mean you don’t appear so in this discussion or to them. Seriously, I’m only addressing the logic. You know me well enough to know if I had a quarrel I would make my case.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:30 pm


mod, “There are some congregations in many denominations that have changed their minds, and it is causing a split in several of them.” So? Christ came to bring division. Churches ahve always split for many varied reasons. Southern v. National Baptist anyone? “You are attempting to change 1000’s of years of history of the faith.” Nope. I’m attempting to expose 1000’s of years of lies about God’s gay and lesbian children, to right 1000’s of years of injustice. Just because a practice is long-standing doesn’t make it automatically a right and good thing. Slavery anyone? “If the Almighty was going to change something about faith – I think he would have been a little more deliberate and would have put the issue in front of someone like He did with Paul and what is acceptable to eat.” 1. Paul is suspected by many Biblical scholars of being a closet homosexual. (thorn in the side). 2. Paul was wrong about slavery. 3. Paul was wrong about women. 4. What is acceptable to eat? – “Call NOTHING that I have created unclean.” Feel freee to try again, but you are going to need better arguments.



report abuse
 

pollyanna

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:31 pm


Oo! Oo! curiouser and curiouser…I can answer that.The paper bag test tests your complexion. If you pass the paper bag test you weren’t “too dark” and this afforded you certain social benefits for those who “failed” the test. Blacks treat each other differently based on these traits. A fair skinned Black is deemed “prettier” or “more handsome” than their darker counterparts. And, many times, people would treat their own family members with disdain if they were too dark…so yes, it does happen…



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:36 pm


Thanks polly. That is a very sad coment that “people would treat their own family members with disdain if they were too dark”. Disdain, however, is one thing. Kicking them out on the street is another thing entirely.



report abuse
 

waskwywabbit

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:43 pm


As a person who happended to be raised Christian in a multi-denominational family – Southern Baptist(2 preachers and a Deacon) Presbyterian (2 deacons), and Methodist; and who spent 6 years under the tutelage of the Free Will Baptist, I received an early education in just how much Christians have never agreed on many issues. Christians have been disagreeing since the beginning – through the early communities, the councils, and of course the first catastrophic disagreement – the schism over the nature of the Trinity. As a more recent example, one of the big controversies used to be the mode of baptism. Do we immerse (while condemning all others to hell as unbaptised) as my SBC relatives do? Do we sprinkle as the Presbyterians? Do we just not care as long as you get wet , which seemed to be the M.O. of the United Methodists? This may seem ludicrous today, but my Mother and Father were almost not allowed to marry due to this very issue. Do we think members of all the other denominations are going to Hell for not having a “literal” enough understanding of the Bible? This seemed to be what i gathered from the FWB’s; and in my studies I’ve found sub-denominations of Baptists who believe that ONLY the “Elect” go to Heaven, and everyone else goes to hell regardless; yet conversely I’ve found sub-denominations of Baptists who believe in “Absolute Grace”, where Christ’s atonement was absolute, and everyone goes to Heaven regardless. As a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen of the US who happens to be homosexual, i really just want other people to mind their own business and not attempt to legislate which sort of contracts i may-or-may-not enter into with another consenting, tax-paying adult; and that’s what civil marriage is – a contract between two people. Gay people have always been “marrying” each other in the spiritual sense. It’s tax benefits and visitation and inheritance rights, and the right to file joint tax returns that we’re fighting for – a fairly mundane “agenda”. I’m not interested in attending or attempting to get married in a church that condemns gay people; and no one has ever even suggested any sort of legislation that would require any church to perform any ceremony that it opposed for any reason. I’ve long felt that one of the biggest problem that some evangelicals (or some jews, or some muslims, or whoever) have with gay people is we just don’t really care what you all think of us; and this is just intolerable to many people who feel theirs is the one-and-only TRUTH. (not entirely on subject – please forgive any digressions) Peace B W/ U ALL!



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 14, 2007 at 10:48 pm


curiouser and curiouser… | 02.14.07 – 5:35 pm | #I’m attempting to expose 1000’s of years of lies about God’s gay and lesbian children, and you understand more than biblical scholars of the past centuries…what an ego. 1. Paul is suspected by many Biblical scholars of being a closet homosexual. (thorn in the side). the biggest bunch of bull that is promoted – label that guy you don’t like because of what he says. Classic interpretation is that it was a problem with his eyes 2. Paul was wrong about slavery. he pointed out that it was a ‘bond-servant’ and not slavery. Yes there was slavery but he used it as an example and not an endorsement 3. Paul was wrong about women. wrong – but he was not talking about ‘all’ women – there are several interpretation that could be discussed 4. What is acceptable to eat? – “Call NOTHING that I have created unclean.” it was ‘what I put before you… not created. Your bastardizing of scripture is over the top.later – need to go… .



report abuse
 

Gary Schrag

posted February 14, 2007 at 11:00 pm


My, My, isn’t this topic hot?! I haven’t been able to read all of the responses,so my views may already have been stated. While I generally agree with Tony on this matter, I was struck by how meaningless the designation “evangelical” has become. It is not surprising that some are running away from that label. I grew up with the understanding that evangelicals were those who were passionate about fulfilling the Great Commission. I have been involved in the discussion re homosexuality for most of the last 30 years. There are a couple of things I have never understood. First how is it that heterosexuals think other heterosexuals would have chosen to be homosexuals. I have finally come to the conclusion that persons that believe it is a choice could have made that choice. Could they have made that choice? Have they been struggling with attactions toward persons of the same sex? Another thing I have concluded is that many have identified God with Nature. When things in Nature do not fit what is thought to be “normal” it is concluded that it must have been caused by God. The diversity of occurances in Nature may not have involved God directly. I know it is a scary thought, but no scarier than attributing everything to God. I am with Tony’s wife regarding monogomous relationships, but am pleased that Tony and his wife have agreed to disagree and remain in fellowship. Some Christians have concluded that they cannot not remain in fellowship with homosexuals and with those who welcome homosexuals into their fellowship. That is not how I understand the teachings of Jesus, but as a Liberal I know that I could be wrong and have to trust in the Grace of God. Gary



report abuse
 

nad2

posted February 14, 2007 at 11:02 pm


well, looks like ‘it’s in the bible so it’s wrong’ will have to stand as the reasoning though i don’t see anyone applying that consistently, to do so would be agreedly preposterous. pollyanna, thanks for trying at least, but no one has let me in on how consentual same-gender sex in and of itself and loving romantic relationships among same-gendered people in any way seperates one from God or does society harm in any way that is distinct from the same for hetrosexual people. if you can’t articulate that, why hold on so tightly to it?



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 14, 2007 at 11:04 pm


curiouser and curiouser… | 02.14.07 – 5:29 pm | #Trust me, you don’t want to KNOW what some scholars say THAT is!) a turkey with a PhD is still a turkey The way to dissect the Bible and read into scripture what is not there – why are you even concerned with scripture. You take what you want and dump what you don’t like. Some authors are OK others are gay.I believe that the Almighty is more direct than you give Him credit for. Later – .



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 14, 2007 at 11:07 pm


Mod, ” and you understand more than biblical scholars of the past centuries…what an ego.” Do you want to defend all the things “bibical scholars” have said for “the past centuries”?



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 14, 2007 at 11:33 pm


“but no one has let me in on how consentual same-gender sex in and of itself and loving romantic relationships among same-gendered people in any way seperates one from God or does society harm in any way that is distinct from the same for hetrosexual people. if you can’t articulate that, why hold on so tightly to it?” I responded to your question. If no answer is sufficient for you, then why pose the question?



report abuse
 

poetographer1967

posted February 14, 2007 at 11:44 pm


we must not let social justice action take over our mission as Christians. Saving souls should be our first objective In my experience, actively addressing poverty, abuse, racism, etc. communicates the message of Christ much more effectively than evangelizing with nothing but words (think Saint Francis…) Living a faith proves a lot more convincing than talking it. I know way too many gay people who have abandoned Christianity specifically because they received nothing but “evangelizing” even as they struggled with their sexuality. the Almighty was going to change something about faith – I think he would have been a little more deliberate and would have put the issue in front of someone like He did with Paul and what is acceptable to eat. Even if this happened, how accepting would most modern Christians be of a private revelation that contradicted everything they thought they understood? And – not to suggest all sin is relevant – didn’t Paul say “But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.” What if, after much prayerful searching, one truly believes homosexuality is not sinful?



report abuse
 

nad2

posted February 14, 2007 at 11:45 pm


Kevin, Is this your answer? “Christ came to fulfill the law, and if you want to know more about that, it would be well worth reading up on theology. It is a settled matter of the Christian faith. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to believe anything about Christ without observing the rest.” i cannot find anywhere anything else that comes close. your reasons why same-gendered sex and loving committed same-gendered relationships seperate people from God or do society harm is ‘christ came to fulfill the law, go read up on it’? may be i missed something else you have posted, but if this is your answer, let me know & we can go through one by one the things levitical Jesus came to fulfill. are you speaking in parables ala jesus that i am not able to understand, are you being intentionally obtuse so as to avoid the question, or do you just not like the framing of my question? if it’s the latter, say so, but don’t pretend to have answered my question: “how consentual same-gender sex in and of itself and loving romantic relationships among same-gendered people in any way seperates one from God or does society harm in any way that is distinct from the same for hetrosexual people?” with ‘christ came to fulfill the law, go read up on it.’



report abuse
 

Ted Voth Jr

posted February 15, 2007 at 12:05 am


I haven’t yet had the chance, but hopefully if one of these dysangelical (As we used to say in the day, ‘Bad news!’) evangelical sisters or brothers ever asks me ‘So do you think sexual orientation is a life-style choice or a genetic predisposition?’ I’ll have the presence of mind to ask ‘Are you a sinner?’ Upon the answer ‘Yes’, I’ll ask ‘Is that a choice of life-style or a genetic predisposition?’



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 15, 2007 at 12:13 am


Curiouser, Due to the insidiousness of racism some of my people learned to hate themselves in cheap and degrading ways. One of those ways includes comparing one’s skin color to a paper bag. Basically if you were lighter than a paper bag you were in.You could go to the big parties… I have some distant cousins that still subscribe to this lunacy. Self hatred and the pain it causes people can be seen in every culture on earth. This is most clearly seen in the split it causes for many that are gay, bi or what have you.Evangelicalism teaches people to hate the sin and the sinner (despite the fact that they claim contrary to it.) p



report abuse
 

Ann

posted February 15, 2007 at 12:25 am


I really enjoyed the article. I am a research scientist and an Evangelical Christian (NO that is not an oxymoron! Many scientist are like me and see science as a response to and supportive of our faith!) I also have found no convincing evidence about what causes homosexuality. I suspect for some people it may be a choice but I firmly believe for many it is not a “choice.” I tend to think that like alcoholism it probably has a mix of genetic and environmental components and that different homosexuals have different mixtures of the causes. Someone with mostly “environmental” causes such as an abusive experience with the opposite sex or for some other reason became gay because of some other “choice” (maybe not a consious one) probably has a better chance of “changing the decision” than someone with strong genetic or cellular components. I can understand how some people read the bible and call it sinful – but I would NOT call it clear cut. It certainly wasn’t addressed by Jesus and I would not say violates the two commandments – to love God and to love and care for others (do unto others as you would have others do unto you!). I am glad that I don’t have to struggle with a decision about whether if is sinful since it isn’t a problem for me. Of course I do struggle with pride, arrogance and self-righteousness which Jesus was VERY clear where not acceptable to God. How in the world could I worry about the speck in a homosexuals eye compared to the plank in MINE! Listening to much of the Christian right’s anti-gay rhetoric is enough to make me not want to claim to be an Evangelical Christian. I feel Jesus made it clear that judgment is not ours and that are focus should be on pushing for justice and serving people especially the poor, widowed, disabled, mistreated etc. The Christian right seems to ignore them. Jesus made it pretty clear that no one is saved by adherence to the law – but the Christian right seems to think we can make laws that will save people. I know of many people who want nothing to do with Christianity because their only image of it comes from the Religious Right. I hope to never have to answer to God that my actions and attitudes kept someone from coming to know Him. He is a God of love and truly is an awesome GOD!



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 15, 2007 at 12:28 am


Evangelcalism gets so much of its vitriol and condemnation of homosexuality from its hatred of all things physical. They get that from the deep self hating roots of Puritanism. It would seem that only in the last 40 years evangelicalism has embraced an even favorable view of heterosexual sex and even then it’s seen as sinful outside of the rigid ideals of marriage. I think we need to start talking about heterosexuality and the myth of covental sex.There is still this lingering notion that once one is married that all sex acts are ok when that’s clearly not the case at all. I doubt many people have heard of mercy sex but it’s there. The truth is many couples don’t have healthy sexual relationships due to lack of communication… This leads to a disconnect and instead of focusing on that and dealing w/ their own crap. They look for scapegoats ie the LGBTQ community. p



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 15, 2007 at 12:52 am


Payshun | Homepage | 02.14.07 – 7:33 pm | #ALL RIGHT – we now have had the ‘victim card’ played. I’m sorry – I can not imagine anyone equating their discontect with their marriage with focusing on scapegoats of the LGBTQ. That is the most far fetched idea I have heard. I think most would focus on why they are not happy etc.based on what is going on in their own lives. But we have a victim folks – knew it had to come up sooner or later. Later – .



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 15, 2007 at 12:57 am


Moderatelad, Then I guess you ignored Ted Haggard…. p



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 15, 2007 at 12:59 am


It’s not like the community doesn’t face discrimination. I think it’s courageous of the LGBTQ community to stand in opposition to widespread discrimination and fear. p



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 15, 2007 at 1:44 am


Pay “Evangelicalism teaches people to hate the sin and the sinner” My youngest son after Law School attended The Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville Ky for 2 years. One day he said “Dad, they preach love the sinner and hate the sin”, but they hate the sinner. He left shortly afterwards, what I regret is he is now unchurched.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 15, 2007 at 2:17 am


Payshun | Homepage | 02.14.07 – 8:02 pm | #NO I did not forget Ted. H. Just didn’t out him like Sojo.All of us as Christians struggle with ‘something’ that is not in line with scripture. Some more than others. But there is redemption – there is grace – just because we falter does not make us bad people.Just for the record… If in fact ‘gay marriage’ becomes the law of the land. Katie hold the bar – I am pushing that any and all ‘loving’ relationships should be able to marry. Cousins can marry cousins or their uncles or aunts. Mothers should be able to marry their sons – fathers marry their daughters. NOW – HOLD THE PHONE…these ‘loving’ relationships have nothing to do with ‘sex’. But can you imagine a Nancy P. or a Ted K. finding out that the ‘estate tax’ is a dead issue. Now that might be something to get married for. OH – and there is no limit as to how many spouses one can have – the more the merrier. Later all – .



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 15, 2007 at 2:23 am


butch | 02.14.07 – 8:49 pm | #the ‘hate the sin – love the sinner’ is a little old and over played. We all have sinned – period. Christ came, died and rose from the dead for our sins. He paid the price that we could not pay.If the bible calls it sin – who am I to think different. I am to show the love of God to any and all who will listen. The only reason I am here on earth is to obey Him.I will pray that your son comes to a new and deeper understanding of who is he and what God wants him to do. Later – .



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 15, 2007 at 2:38 am


Moderatelad, I realize this is rare but cousins can get married. They do it’s rare but again comparing homosexuality to incest is a little suspect. First off they are not related. p



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 15, 2007 at 2:50 am


Payshun | Homepage | 02.14.07 – 9:43 pm | #I do not believe that you can marry 1st cousins – 2nd cousins – yes. Oh – but I have friends that I grew up with and meet for a drink now and again that are brothers – gay – and they are having sex with each other. So you can be gay and incestuous. But it really doesn’t matter because you can not produce an offspring between the two of you. later – .



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 15, 2007 at 2:56 am


Payshun | Homepage | 02.14.07 – 9:43 pm | #but what about the estate tax – surely that is something that you want to maintain for the future? later – .



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 15, 2007 at 2:58 am


butch | 02.14.07 – 8:49 pm | #That would break any father’s heart. Seriously – I will pray for your son and for you that God could use you in a way to show him who God is. later – .



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 15, 2007 at 3:02 am


Moderatelad Umm and Sojo did not out him. That was his gay prostitute that did that. Why does the estate tax matter to you? Considering how few people actually have to deal w/ it it seems a little disengenous to keep bringing it up. p



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 15, 2007 at 3:07 am


Payshun | Homepage | 02.14.07 – 10:07 pm | #I am just promoting ‘loving relationships’ and this would be a way that one could protect what you have earned and pass it onto you child and to your childrens’ children. All you need is love – .



report abuse
 

butch

posted February 15, 2007 at 3:30 am


Mod, you are either trying to teach my son or you are just saying he is wrong.I hear a great deal about how Christians should teach, show the way, call to task others who are in sin or making a mistake. Did he fail God or did the church of his birth fail him. God may well be at peace with him and what and how he is living. Today he has not found a church to apply his faith but that may be churches fault not his. A second story along the same lines. My sister in law was in Sunday school being taught the B-attitudes. All of the children were to learn and recite them. She has a bit of a stuttering problem especially when she is nervous or excited so she had trouble getting them out. The teacher would not put a star by her name. She left before church and went to the drug store and bought a package of stars, went back and put one beside her name and left never to darken a churches door 50 years later.Neither my son nor my sister in law found the love that everyone claims can be found in Christian churches. Who failed whom? I’m sorry I don’t find love in the hearts of those who worry about other people s sexual persuasion. I’m straight and could not be otherwise and would not go to a church that condemned homosexuality. Many call it choice but since I don t think I have a choice to be straight and gay friends tell me they don t have choice then God knows this and is a part in this lack of choice. Finally, I say love them and let God settle the question in their lives, I swear I cannot believe God needs help.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 15, 2007 at 5:29 am


Moderatelad, When I am in the top 2% of income earners I will worry about it then. Till then I think there a few more pressing issues to focus on. I agree w/ you Butch I don’t think he needs anyone’s help at all. p



report abuse
 

christian

posted February 15, 2007 at 5:41 am


Hey Jesse. I mostly just read the comments, but wanted to comment on this. “Think of it the same way as a family member who is forced to confront his brother about a drinking problem. Most would think this would be appropriate for him to do. His drinking is hurting himself and others. If all sin hurts us, would it not be appropriate for us to do the same for each other?” Here’s my issue. I’m not sure if it was addressed in the other 150 comments. I don’t think that homosexuality is anything like a brothers drinking problem. The church hasn’t addressed the issue of why homosexuality is wrong other than “God said so”. Who does it hurt? Is a committed homosexual reltaionship sin? Nobody (well not many) would say that permiscuous sex of any kind is ok. But what is the sin of a committed homosexual couple?



report abuse
 

Shane Vander Hart

posted February 15, 2007 at 6:23 am


I think Exodus International does great work in this area, and I believe has more authority to speak on this subject. Do evangelicals tend to focus on this? Yes. With good cause? Yes. If it were not for the activism of homosexual groups it probably would not be such a prioity, at least in political realms. Does this mean we shouldn’t have other concerns? Absolutely not. God has called us to reach the least, the last and the lost. That means taking Matthew 25 seriously. That means homosexuals need to see us love them, and not just see us in a political stance.



report abuse
 

christian

posted February 15, 2007 at 6:42 am


Oops. Missed Nad2’s same quesiton. Has anybody answered it yet? What is so dangerous about monogomous committed homosexual sex? Is it “yucky”? I don’t buy the “social demise” argument. But I’d listen.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 15, 2007 at 7:35 am


nad2, Would you be willing to read, say, Galatians? Since you don’t want to “read up on it” and clearly have not done so, how would you reconcile any faith at all without the embrace of Levitical law?Shall we throw out the baby with the bathwater, or do you just get to pick what you observe based on what you prefer? Are we no longer required to honor our mother and father, lest we be held to avoid contact with a womna during her mestrual cycle? That Jesus came to fulfill the law, and become the way the truth and the life, is fundamental to the understanding of Christianity (one would think this is obvious). We are relieved of obedience to the Levitical priesthood, but this is not a call to immorality, as Paul indicates throughout his teaching.



report abuse
 

christian

posted February 15, 2007 at 9:53 am


Kevin S- “how consentual same-gender sex in and of itself and loving romantic relationships among same-gendered people in any way seperates one from God or does society harm in any way that is distinct from the same for hetrosexual people?”This is the question Nad2 was looking to have answered. But why so hostile and cynical with your responses to him? It just seems odd. I didn’t get your comment earlier either about ” I responded to your question. If no answer is sufficient for you, then why pose the question?” You’re so combative. Ralax bro. For the record though, I disagree with you on your explaination of Galatians and the levitical code. I’m not sure what case you’re making though so maybe I;m just missing your point.



report abuse
 

Doug

posted February 15, 2007 at 11:00 am


Having come late to the discusssion, for what it’s worth, here are a few links about free-speech in Canada: http://www.narth.com/docs/trumps.html http://www.narth.com/docs/current.html California: http://narth.com/docs/legislator.html And in Europe: http://narth.com/docs/criminalize.html http://www.cathnews.com/news/702/20.php Because the phenomenon of state-recognized gay unions is relatively new, there are not many reliable studies dealing with divorce rates. Here is one on Swedish gay unions: http://narth.com/docs/sweden.html



report abuse
 

MB

posted February 15, 2007 at 1:16 pm


Thank God, God loves us. We in our desire to help others understand what we believe and why we believe it unfortunately have a tendancy to tear down others, whether we meant to or not. Many good thoughtful loving posts on this subject. Many which seem to be in someway hateful. Most just seem to be trying to help the understand why they believe what they do. The good samaritan comes to mind. This man hated by the Jews because of who he was, dispised. Yet, when a wounded man was down, wounded, hurt, laying on the road more than likely to die of his beating, the religious the ones with whom should have first to offer kindness and compassion walked away. It was the samaritan who offered help and Jesus said he was the one who acted as the neighbor. Sin, what is sin. The best description I have heard of sin is plainly “missing the mark”. Missing perfection. For me God is perfection and anything that is not perfect is missing the mark, is tainted, in some weird way sin. Sin in the eyes of God. A missing of the mark. We all miss the mark. The mark of perfection. Jesus is the only one who was perfect and we killed him. God in the beginning made a perfect world. Scripture says he made Adam and Eve. Perfection, his model – his design. Eden to me was a beautiful place. And God loved those two so much as He walked with them that he gave them freedom. Just don’t eat of this one tree. Yet they were deceived and they ate and sin entered the world and we still pay the price for our freedom today. Perfection is gone. Does God make people love another of the same sex? Personally, I believe its all about sin entering the world. God’s perfection is not my son with his cerebral palsy, yet he was born that way. Nor is it God’s perfection when someone is born blind, deaf, down’s syndrome, etc. It is not God’s perfection for someone to feel as if they are trapped in the wrong sex body, a need to have a sex change operation to feel whole. It is not God’s perfection for someone to be born with both sex organs. It is not God’s perfection to born with obsessive compulsive disorders, crazed with depression, or schzophrenia. It is not God’s perfection for people to be born with what many call “lobster hands”.But what we are all called to do is to love one another. Whose sin is bigger? I don’t know. Will God look upon the homosexual that is in a loving, committed relationship that has survived the hatred strewn by many with the same judgement as the person who goes to church regularly, espouses to be rightous and cheats on his spouse over and over again. I don’t know. It is not for me to judge. For me God judges perfectly. That’s why he tells us not to judge others. We don’t have all the facts, we don’t know the hearts, nor what others lives are all about. God does. No doubt for me is judgement will be perfect, because He is perfect. I’m sure I have offended many. Not my intention.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 15, 2007 at 3:09 pm


“This is the question Nad2 was looking to have answered. But why so hostile and cynical with your responses to him?” Um… And hiim asking if I was being “intentionally obtuse so as to avoid the question” was not combative?”For the record though, I disagree with you on your explaination of Galatians and the levitical code. I’m not sure what case you’re making though so maybe I;m just missing your point.” Well, would you agree that we are to avoid sin? If we are called to avoid sin, are we required to adhere to the Levitical code or not? As I said, the explanation is complicated, and gets to the very core of New Testament theology. Hence, my recommendation that he read up on it, an idea that was greeted with hissiness.



report abuse
 

nad2

posted February 15, 2007 at 3:42 pm


again, a cryptic nonresponsive answer from kevin which a) in no way surprises me so i was hoping someone else who had intentions of answering the question might join in & b) really doesn’t go beyond ‘it’s in the bible so it’s wrong’ as its explanation, or maybe it doesn’t even go that far, but is more like answering “what’s the weather like today?” with “It’s Thursday.” kevin, if i have shortchanged your answer here i’m sure you’ll denounce my idiocy and be as elusive as possible in the way you go about responding like you always do. when someone asks a question like “What is it about same-gender sex in and of itself and committed, same-gendered romantic relationships that in some way seperates one from God or does society harm in any way different from the same for hetrosexual sex?” i would think one thinking it is a sin could ARTICULATE SOME WAY IN WHICH IT SEPERATES SOMEONE FROM GOD OR DOES SOCIETY HARM AS WE CAN ALL DO WITH OTHER THINGS WE CONSIDER SINFUL, yet you go back to ‘jesus came to fulfill the law.’ you say we are relieved of the levitical preisthood but this is not a call to immorality, soooo, what makes same-gender sex in and of itself or same-gender committed romantic relationships immoral in any way different than what you would say about hetrosexual relationships and sex? there, now i’ve used your phrasing: what makes it immoral? surely you can articulate some reason it is immoral beyond ‘jesus came to fulfill the law’ which is nonresponsive to ‘what makes homosexuality immoral?’ this is like the time you said ‘without the bible, what basis would we have for saying murder is wrong?’ c’mon, please don’t go down this path again. ok all those of you thinking homosexuality is a sin, this is who you have chosen as your spokesman? again, if you can’t articulate a reason why it is wrong like you can for say, stealing, greed, adultery, why hold on to it so tightly? without being able to say something like, ‘stealing is a sin because it creates great distrust and deprives someone else unjustly of that which is rightfuly theirs’ about homosexuality, why not use your heart and your common sense God gave you to let go of the idea that it is sin?



report abuse
 

nad2

posted February 15, 2007 at 3:51 pm


for the record folks, there are countless Christians out there who do not believe homosexuality is a sin, it’s ok, you won’t be weird! God allows are hearts to inform us just as much as he does the scripture, if you can’t take that away from reading about Jesus, you have limited what God has given you. at the heart of it all is love, i agree w/ christian who said homosexuality in no way gets in the way of the two commandments of love God and love your neighbor, but after YEARS of saying i thought it was sin, i finally realized it was me and my belief that was getting in the way of ‘love your neighbor,’ even though i loved to say ‘love the sinner, not the sin,’ deep downi had to admit it was a recipe ultimately for not loving the sinner. i hope this will at least make some folks think.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 15, 2007 at 4:06 pm


butch | 02.14.07 – 10:35 pm | #Mod, you are either trying to teach my son or you are just saying he is wrong.Excuse me… I said that I would ‘pray’ for him – period. Not trying to teach him or say that he is wrong – I NEVER SAID THAT! The church has failed many over the years – we are human.All I said is I would ‘pray’. No agenda attached – no specifics – just that God would become real to him. If you do not want the prayers of a conservative – just say so… later! .



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 15, 2007 at 4:12 pm


Payshun | Homepage | 02.15.07 – 12:34 am | #I agree w/ you Butch I don’t think he needs anyone’s help at all. Consider my prayers terminated -I would be hurt if any of my children left the church. No tolerance for conservatives prayers? Later – .



report abuse
 

nad2

posted February 15, 2007 at 4:35 pm


well, i had not intended my question to be the great stumper. i was and still am really trying to see what basis folks have for thinking homosexuality was sinful other than ‘it’s in the bible,’ so we could have that discussion and i could be informed on the subject; but having gone almost a full day unanswered, i am beginning to think maybe no one can answer it. so here’s my next question, if so many of you are big leviticus fans and take ALL THE THINGS FORBIDDEN in the bible SO SERIOUSLY, i must assume your practices are something akin to the amish…so how are you able to type on the computer? perhaps the answer to this one too lies in “the explanation is complicated, and gets to the very core of New Testament theology. Hence, my recommendation that he read up on it…” yur unlerned and unread-up buddi,



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 15, 2007 at 4:45 pm


“b) really doesn’t go beyond ‘it’s in the bible so it’s wrong’ as its explanation, or maybe it doesn’t even go that far, but is more like answering “what’s the weather like today?” with “It’s Thursday.” ” So, in order to porfer a substantive answer to your question, one would need to validate the entire scriptures? Do you understand why this is difficult to do in a single post? The concept of this blog is Christianity and politics and how they interrelate. That is not an elusive answer. If you don’t believe what the Bible says, you have more difficult question with which to reckon than whether homosexuality is a sin.However, the way you posed your question, you wondered why Christians (who believe the Bible to be true) would find homosexuality to be a sin and, if so, why the rest of Levitical law would not apply. I responded by saying the Christ came to fulfill the Levitical law (a concept in which you show little interest) and asked how we could embrace any tenets of Christianity without adhering to Levitical law. You evaded that question, and opted to insult me instead.If you are looking for a reason why God might call homosexuality a sin, my answer would be that sex ought to be confined to marriage. Marriage is shown to be a reflection on mutual servitude, a reflection of Christ and his bride, the church. It is in this way that we experience sexual intimacy, raise families, and give and take in accordance with the abilities attributed to each gender. As Eve was made for Adam, so women are made as compliments to men. But what’s the point? You’re just going to reduce what I said to some slogan that you can easily criticize, and then declare victory.



report abuse
 

christian

posted February 15, 2007 at 5:36 pm


you are a dumb ass. I’ve been reading your posts for a few months now and I thought you just had a different perspective, but your last comment is telling of how you think. I’ve read your blog and know you are against the “pagan homosexuals” getting married. I suppose you kind of answered the question finally and said that you think that homosexual sex is wrong because it is outside of marriage. You still haven’t answered the question fully. “Homosexuality is bad because I don’t want my kids to see homosexuals holding hands”. Or, “One time a homosexual punched me and now I don’t trust ‘them'” But you still have said, “The Bible told me so”. God doesn’t give us rules to follow whimisically. Committed monogomous homosexual relationship hurts nobody. Speaking of sex outside of marriage, I wonder what your thoughts are on masturbation. Is this really Dobson using a different name? WooHoo— Victory!!!



report abuse
 

nad2

posted February 15, 2007 at 5:37 pm


i hardly think we need a christological discussion to understand what it is about being gay seperates someone from God or harms society, and i certainly didn’t want to get the conversation stuck in the ditch about interpretations of what ‘christ came to fulfill the law’ and ‘the bible is true’ mean, though i think we can agree we would most probably disagree somewhat about both. as far as ‘the law’ goes, we have let much of forbidden practices go as limited to that time, and much of it is contradictory to itself and the the teachings of Jesus. my question was, what makes us keep on forbidding homosexuality when we have let go of forbidding so many other things? the test i have tried to discern seems to be we structure our code to encourage things that bring us closer to God and benefit society and individuals, and discourage those that don’t – this is very much in line with the two great commandments type of teaching of Jesus. maybe you have some other way of pulling things from Jesus and Paul to take them one by one & this is what you are telling me to read up on, but you have not let me in on it, nor do i think there is such a legalist way of going about it. and yes, i consider myself a well-versed christian, obviously differently well-versed than you, but nonetheless passionate in the pursuit of the historical and theologaical underpinnings of this faith i take very seriously. ok, so we are now at least getting somewhere and you have given me a reason why you think it is sin and i think you were going at it from the societal harm point of view. so if i understand you kevin, and i am going to try my earnest best to not reduce your point down to something to criticize, homosexuality might be considered a sin by God because it upsets the basic human family dynamic and the necessary attributes each sex naturally contributes to that. the beginning of your answer talked about sex being confined to marriage and marriage being mutual servitude, like between jesus and the church. i think we can move forward from here without disagreement, but none of that says this mutual servitude of marriage and sex only within marriage must be confined to man and woman, nor does the raising of families point exclude same-gender couples today because of adoption and the like. which i think gets back to your point about “abilities attributed to each gender. As Eve was made for Adam, so women are made as compliments to men.” if this in some way has reduced your point down, i hope it is in a way agreeable to you, if not, please inform me. i will not criticize your point, and i appreciate your attempt to articulate what may not have been something you have thought about before in that way i have framed it, though i do disagree with you. i am happily married, i think my wife and i beautifuly compliment one another, so much so that one of my greatest convictions is that i was put on this earth to love her. but i do not think that such complementary relationships are limited to people of the opposite sex, nor are attributes so rigidly biologically defined. of course, there are things we commonly refer to as masculine and feminine traits, but my understanding of those is that they are a combination of sociological and biological traits, and even if they were purely biological or somehow pre-ordained by God, we only have to open our eyes and see there are happy gay couples who are the exception to the rule. why not let them live out that love and as a church embrace it? i personally do not feel harmed by that, nor do i think such a loving relationship would seperate someone from God.



report abuse
 

christian

posted February 15, 2007 at 5:42 pm


Nad2. You are smarter than me. Thanks for saying what you did in a kinder and gentler wand more coherent way.



report abuse
 

Deryll

posted February 15, 2007 at 5:48 pm


[But what's the point? You're just going to reduce what I said to some slogan that you can easily criticize, and then declare victory. kevin s.] …and the pot called the kettle… To all: In Matthew 19, Jesus and his close followers discussed marriage. Jesus then made a statement which he said, ‘not all would be able to accept.’ Jesus then spoke about sexual orientation (yes, that is what he was talking about); and stated it has ‘birth,’ ‘social,’ and ‘choice’ aspects to it. If we believe that Jesus came to ‘fufill;’ then we look at the ‘law’ through the lens of Jesus. That is what I believe ‘RLC’ is about.



report abuse
 

nad2

posted February 15, 2007 at 6:01 pm


christian, as a country boy from alabama who thinks gay people should have full-equal rights, you have to really get your story straight, which is a work in progress!



report abuse
 

nad2

posted February 15, 2007 at 6:04 pm


christian, as a country boy from alabama who thinks gay people should have full-equal rights, you have to really get your story straight, which is a work in progress! nad2 | 02.15.07 – 1:06 pm | #especially when you tell folks it’s your christian faith that informs this belief!!



report abuse
 

pollyanna

posted February 15, 2007 at 6:13 pm


i was and still am really trying to see what basis folks have for thinking homosexuality was sinful other than ‘it’s in the bible,’ so we could have that discussion and i could be informed on the subject; but having gone almost a full day unanswered, i am beginning to think maybe no one can answer it. so here’s my next question, if so many of you are big leviticus fans and take ALL THE THINGS FORBIDDEN in the bible SO SERIOUSLY, i must assume your practices are something akin to the amish…so how are you able to type on the computer? perhaps the answer to this one too lies in “the explanation is complicated, and gets to the very core of New Testament theology. Hence, my recommendation that he read up on it…” yur unlerned and unread-up buddi, nad2 | 02.15.07 – 11:40 am | #Just in case you missed my prior comment that answered your question, here is what I wrote earlier: I think the major difference is reading a very important aspect of the account in Leviticus. When speaking of ALL sexual sin (not just homosexuality), the law states: 24 ” ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.” (Lev. 18:24-2 Clearly, the judgment for sexual sin is not restricted only to the Israelites. God judged the peoples of Canaan for these very things, and states that it is because of these things that the land “vomited” them out. You can also see this referenced in chapter 20. I say this to say: We cannot restrict this to just the “Jewish Law” if God held other nations accountable for it.ALSO – the judgment for sexual sin is not EXCLUSIVE to homosexuality.I have many friends who are homosexual. I love these friends, but believe that homosexuality is wrong. These two feelings are not mutually exclusive. They know where I stand, but still love me as their friend because I respect them as humans made in the image of God. I also have a friend who is married and cheating on her husband. I love this friend, but believe that what she is doing is wrong. Again, these two feelings are not mutually exclusive. And again, she knows where I stand, but still loves me as her friend because I respect her as a human made in the image of God. To highlight their sin and not see the huge telephone poles sticking out of my own eye is called self-righteousness, and that is just as sinful as anything sinful can be. That does not mean I cannot speak to what I believe the Lord says is sin in their lives. It DOES mean that I must show humility in my speech, because I have things in my own life that I struggle to break free from, even though I know they are wrong.All that to say: I may believe that the Bible teaches certain things about homosexuality, but I also believe that our obsession with this particular subject is to our detriment. It taints our witness. —- I would add to that: once you get to the NT, we see that sexual immorality is something that is to be avoided by all Christians. We tend to see that as only pertaining to adultery and fornication. But, based on the Lev. passages, there are other things that God considers sexual immorality, and so our NT definition of the term must be informed by that understanding. That God clearly states He was judging the nations and allowing the land to “vomit” them out for these reasons, why would He then say that these things are okay just because Christ has now come?I’m sure I think of more things to say about this later. If I do, I’ll post it on my blog! Peace.



report abuse
 

nad2

posted February 15, 2007 at 6:34 pm


pollyanna, i read your post and even gave you a shout-out in a post from last night i have put below, but still you are saying, ‘it’s in the bible’ whether you realize it or not. my point is that much of things forbidden in the bible we have let go of & why is it we continue to forbid homosexuality? for the um-teenth time, can you say something like “stealing is wrong because of the great distrust it causes and it takes something unjustly from its rightful owner” about homosexuality? what, apart from ‘it’s in the bible’ new testament or old, makes homosexuality in and of itself and committed same-gender relationships seperate someone from God or harm society in the same vein as greed, adultery, murder, & every other ‘sin’ we can say bad things about without saying simply it’s forbidden in the bible. kevin has answered the question and hopefully we are off to a good discussion on the matter. ____________________________________ well, looks like ‘it’s in the bible so it’s wrong’ will have to stand as the reasoning though i don’t see anyone applying that consistently, to do so would be agreedly preposterous. pollyanna, thanks for trying at least, but no one has let me in on how consentual same-gender sex in and of itself and loving romantic relationships among same-gendered people in any way seperates one from God or does society harm in any way that is distinct from the same for hetrosexual people. if you can’t articulate that, why hold on so tightly to it? nad2 | 02.14.07 – 6:07 pm | #



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 15, 2007 at 6:47 pm


Nads, That’s because they have nothing save God’s word and a selective obedience to that. Either we are under the law or we are free of it. I choose freedom. They choose a half hearted connection to it. That’s the real problem. If they obeyed the levitical law they would be Hasidic Messianic Jews but because they understand they were grafted in they think only parts apply to them now.That’s problematic on so many levels. First it opens up to judgement condemnation and fear. All of which were things Jesus came to free us from. It also opens us up to the death that Christ came to end. For if we do not obey all the law then we will be convicted of the parts we don’t follow. p



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 15, 2007 at 6:52 pm


Moderatelad, This is one hippy liberal you will never here espouse the values of tolerance. That’s a joke. As Chris Rock said “You tolerate things you don’t like.” My goal is to love. So I can love you even if I find your prayers a little misguided. I can love you even when I may not have the best respect for your “conservative prayers.” God knows I don’t always give great progressive prayers which is why I find myself praying less for things and listening more. p



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 15, 2007 at 7:15 pm


…[I] was and still am really trying to see what basis folks have for thinking homosexuality was sinful other than ‘it’s in the bible,’ so we could have that discussion and i could be informed on the subject;… I may have said something like this before, but it probably needs to be said again. God’s purpose for choosing and redeeming ancient Israel was to display Himself in His holiness to the entire world; his intention was “do things My way and see how much better things go.” The law (specifically the book of Leviticus) thus was given to Israel to show them as a distinct people given to God for His purposes, similar to the church of today. Where does this go with homosexuality (or more accurately, homosexual conduct)? Well, for openers, there always was more of a community context for marriage anyway, as marriages were arranged by families rather than the partners themselves (since by definition marriage was always between partners of opposite gender). In addition, sex outside of marriage really was defined as a symptom of idolatry, which God didn’t put up with (which is why Paul makes that connection in the first chapter of Romans). I don’t know for sure, but I get the impression that homosexuality was pretty rampant in the surrounding cultures, as was cult prostitution and other forms of sexual expression that we would call “deviant,” which is why He specifically spelled out what was to be done and not done. Translated to today, that’s the reason it’s not permitted in the church (ideally, anyway). The problem that we see in individualistic Western society is that people determine their own partners largely based on physical attraction, which is what often leads to divorce, pornography and other things that are also denounced in the Bible. That being said, there is no good reason to prohibit same-gender couples without the community aspect of marriage, which is why insisting that “the Bible says it” just won’t cut it. Bottom line, Biblically speaking you cannot be against homosexuality without hating social injustice (racism, poverty and the like), and those who try to separate them as “liberal” and “conservative” issues completely miss the point.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 15, 2007 at 7:28 pm


“you are a dumb ass.” Well, I’m done with this. I did post my thoughts on my blog, for anyone interested (spare yourselves the trouble of coming up with “creative” and insulting ways to say you are not interested).



report abuse
 

nad2

posted February 15, 2007 at 7:35 pm


kevin, i have tried to respond thoughtfully to your last post and i hope you consider it and are willing to do the same. i believe it is the one right after the one you referenced, & i hope you take the one after that from christian to be at least an indirect mea culpa.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 15, 2007 at 7:36 pm


moderatelad, Me: “I’m attempting to expose 1000’s of years of lies about God’s gay and lesbian children”You: “and you understand more than biblical scholars of the past centuries…what an ego.” Two completely different and separate things. Firstly, yes, of course gay people have been lied about for 1000’s of years, and the liars got away with it. After all, they had the power to burn us at the stake. The term “faggot” refers to the bundle of sticks used to ignite the flames. Secondly, I did NOT claim that I “understand more than biblical scholars of the past centuries” though it is entirely possible that the scholars that I cite do. Let’s examine that. (I know, examining things is not your normal modus operandi, but be that as it may…) The scholars I have read and often quote actually DO have more access to information than ‘biblical scholars of the past centuries’. The late Dr. John Boswell, who was the head of the medieval history dept. at Yale DID have access to the Vatican’s papers that he quotes in his books, even if I don’t have such access. Never lose sight of the fact that for most of recorded history, your biblical scholars were, in fact, priests, bishops, archbishops, etc. Don’t you think they had a vested interest in toeing the party line? Disagreement with official church teaching simply meant that many (Gnostic) Gospels were considered illegitimate, so they get cut our in their entirety. Protestants have had the first entire 4 Books of the Bible cut out (which is why most Protestants have never heard of “Adam’s” FIRST “wife” Lilith, and they keep spewing the “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” line, totally ignorant of “Adam’s” serial monogamy, and totally ignoring the ‘1 man, 1 woman – FOR LIFE concept). “We do the best with what we know – and when we KNOW MORE, we’ll do better.” – Maya Angelou Me: “Paul is suspected by many Biblical scholars of being a closet homosexual. (thorn in the side).” You: “the biggest bunch of bull that is promoted – label that guy you don’t like because of what he says.” Hey, I didn’t create the theory; biblical scholars who DO know much, much more than I (and probably than YOU) came up with it, based on serious research. Get over it. You: “Classic interpretation is that it was a problem with his eyes” Snicker. Me: “Paul was wrong about slavery.” You: “he pointed out that it was a ‘bond-servant’ and not slavery. Yes there was slavery but he used it as an example and not an endorsement” Sorry, but “slaves, obey your masters” is pretty cut and dried. Me: “Paul was wrong about women.” You: “wrong – but he was not talking about ‘all’ women – there are several interpretation that could be discussed” “But I suffer not a woman to teach” is also pretty cut and dried. Me: “What is acceptable to eat? – “Call NOTHING that I have created unclean.” You: “it was ‘what I put before you… not created.” Semantics. So how about: “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” Or, “but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” You: “why are you even concerned with scripture.” Primarily because it is so often used to bash me as a gay person, I had to learn to arm myself with supporting Scripture. You: “You take what you want and dump what you don’t like.” You mean like most evangelicals? They are the ones who seem ot hold to the charge that gay sex is an “abomination”, but conveniently ignore the exact same charge about eating shellfish. That’s right, eating lobster is an “ABOMINATION”, but oddly we never hear that from the RRR much. One has to wonder WHY. You: “Some authors are OK others are gay.” Huh? Does this mean that all gay authors are ipso facto NOT “okay”??? “Your bastardizing of scripture is over the top.” Sez you. But thanks for the ad moninem attacks anyway. We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 15, 2007 at 7:57 pm


modlad, “NO I did not forget Ted. H. Just didn’t out him like Sojo.” Yet more misinformation. Sojo didn’t “out” Haggart, his hustler did. DO at least TRY to get things correct. “But there is redemption – there is grace” You seem to exclude gay people from ever experiencing grace. I wonder why. “just because we falter does not make us bad people.” Unless you’re gay, I guess, eh?Just for the record… “If in fact gay marriage becomes the law of the land.” You ignore the fact that gay marriage already IS the law oof the land in 1 State, not to mention the States where civil unions are the law of the land, not to mention the several countries where it is also the law of the land. “I am pushing that any and all ‘loving’ relationships should be able to marry. Cousins can marry cousins or their uncles or aunts.” And on and on it goes. How Christ-like that comparison to incest always appears – NOT! “OH – and there is no limit as to how many spouses one can have – the more the merrier.” Yup, that polygamy “argument” is about as valid and about as relevant – NOT! “the ‘hate the sin – love the sinner’ is a little old and over played.” Not if you are the “sinner” who gets bashed, it isn’t. “If the bible calls it sin – who am I to think different.” Why so selective? It’s a sin to bear false witness and you’ve shown us you have NO problem with that. Do YOU eat shrimp?



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 15, 2007 at 8:08 pm


Shane Vander Hart, “I think Exodus International does great work in this area, and I believe has more authority to speak on this subject.” Exodus has less than ZERO moral authority “in this area”. They have done such serious harm to so many people with their lies it’s not funny. They’re not at all successful in what they claim to do – namely “heal” or “cure” gay people. “Do evangelicals tend to focus on this? Yes.” Agreed. They obsess about other people’s sex lives WAY too much. “With good cause? Yes.” In YOUR opinion. I am not convinced. “If it were not for the activism of homosexual groups it probably would not be such a prioity, at least in political realms.” If it were not for the lies from the RRR, it would likely never have become an issue in the first place. “That means homosexuals need to see us love them” It is impossible to see ANY “love” in your posts, only condemnation. But feel free to try again.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 15, 2007 at 8:14 pm


kevin s, “how would you reconcile any faith at all without the embrace of Levitical law?” Surely you mean the SELECTIVE “embrace of Levitical law”. Or do you actually think eating lobster is “an ABOMINATION”? Or do you think we should stone disobedient children to death? And put the VICTIMS of incest to death? Or deny communion to the disabled? This selective “embrace” is precisely WHY you are not believed. “or do you just get to pick what you observe based on what you prefer?” See above. “Are we no longer required to honor our mother and father” Good question. Although it IS one of the 10 Commandments, we still allow those that curse their parents to get married. Ditto with adulterers. Ditto with thieves. Ditto with murderers. “We are relieved of obedience to the Levitical priesthood, but this is not a call to immorality” Ah, now I see where you selectivity gets off the hook. Pretty convenient. But as for your charge of “immorality”, you do not even know me. You do not get to judge me. That job is taken by One far more qualified than you. Gay people are NOT de facto immoral.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 15, 2007 at 8:16 pm


Doug, Citing Catholic sources (NARTH) as ‘proof’ of the pronouncements/lies of the Catholic Church against God’s gay and lesbian children is not in the least convincing.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 15, 2007 at 8:20 pm


MB, You did not “offend” me at all, but you (perhaps unintentionally) promulgate the old “Adam and Eve” myth. “God in the beginning made a perfect world. Scripture says he made Adam and Eve. Perfection, his model – his design.” Sorry, but “Eve” wasn’t there in the beginning – she was “Adam’s” SECOND wife. So much for perfection of model and/or desing. Other than that, I saw so much more of the Christ-spirit in what you posted than in so many others here, so thank you for that.”The greatest of these is charity.”



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 15, 2007 at 8:35 pm


kevin s, “If you don’t believe what the Bible says, you have more difficult question with which to reckon than whether homosexuality is a sin.” As pointed out above, NO ONE “believes what the Bible says” – IN ITS ENTIRETY. It is an impossiblity. What we want to know is how and why you select certain passages (usualy to condemn gay people) but ignore others? Your answer always seems to be… “I responded by saying the Christ came to fulfill the Levitical law (a concept in which you show little interest)” You do not seem to realize what a non-answer this is. What does “fulfilling the law” mean? That it IS okay to eat lobster but it is still NOT okay to be gay? That it somehow IS okay to deny communion to the disabled, to put victims of incest to death, to stone disobedient children? (As you can see, I most certainly DO have a MAJOR interest in the Leviticl laws, since they are the ones that are so often used to bash gays with.) [You] “asked how we could embrace any tenets of Christianity without adhering to Levitical law.” yet you refuse to answer our questions about why you choose to adhere to SOME of the Levitical laws and not the others. “If you are looking for a reason why God might call homosexuality a sin, my answer would be that sex ought to be confined to marriage.” This, at least, is an honest response, but it ignores the reality that many gay people ARE legally married. Are you saying their sex acts are not “sinful”??? “It is in this way that we experience sexual intimacy” Sometimes. “raise families” Again, sometimes but not always. I know many heterosexual couples who have no children. Should they not have been allowed to marry? “As Eve was made for Adam, so women are made as compliments to men.” Compliments to heterosexual men, maybe. But again, why do YOU continue to ignore “Adam’s” FIRST wife, Lillith?”You’re just going to reduce what I said to some slogan that you can easily criticize, and then declare victory.” Actaully, we are refuting, not reducing, what you say, because it IS refutable. No slogan necessary. No ‘declaration of victory’, just curious seekers who really do want to understand your POV. And, believe me, you are not the only one being criticized. But hey, if you’re not up to the challenge, don’t post here.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 15, 2007 at 8:50 pm


I’m not sure who originally said this, but it’s the nub of the debate… “the judgment for sexual sin is not EXCLUSIVE to homosexuality” The trouble is that you define being homosexual as sexual sin. You put ALL homosexual acts into the ‘sexual sin’ category, and do NOT do the same with heterosexual acts. Let’s examine… A jewish rabbi ondce explained to me that adultery is the breaking of a marital covenant. Unfortunately, you lump even sex within a monogamous same-sex marriage covenant in with wildly promiscuous sex. You fail to differentiate between same-sex love and same-sex lust, but you would never NOT differentiate between the two for heterosexual sex. My understanding of the message of the Bible is that same-sex lust, same-sex rape, and same-sex temple prostitution are the actual homosexual sex acts that are specifically condemned. And they are the exact things that we are NOT discussing here. (Them and incest, polygamy, beastiality, alcoholism, addiction, etc.) I would counter that I think heterosexual lust, rape and prostitution are likewise condemnable, but they are not descriptions of committed, loving, adult, consenting, human, heterosexual married relationships either. Maybe if you started comparing apples to apples, then we could have a real debate.



report abuse
 

Doug

posted February 15, 2007 at 8:57 pm


…[I] was and still am really trying to see what basis folks have for thinking homosexuality was sinful other than ‘it’s in the bible,’ so we could have that discussion and i could be informed on the subject I don’t see how it is possible to answer this question, the way it is framed. The concept of sin comes from the Bible. Apart from the Bible, the notion of sin has no context or meaning. But I’ll take a stab at giving you secular reasons why homosexual relationships are unhealthy for society: 1) The thesis of Brokeback Mountain is a total myth. “Monagamous” gay relationships are a tiny minority on the spectrum of coupling. The vast majority of homosexual activity occurs between promiscuous men who have multiple partners. http://www.narth.com/docs/berman3.html Those of you reading this who are gay know too well what cruising is all about. 2) Even admitting that monogamous gay relationships do exist, there is considerable disagreement on what monogamous really means. Apparently there is plenty of room for non-exclusive sexual activity within so-called monogamous couples. http://www.narth.com/docs/negotiated.html 3) The kinds of sexual practices homosexuals engage in, multiplied by dozens of partners, has fostered the explosive spread of sexually transmitted diseases. These diseases then affect all of society as bisexual men carry them home to their unsuspecting wives and girlfriends. 4) Numerous studies show that children do best psychologically and emotionally when raised by a mother and father. http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html http://www.narth.com/docs/reared.html http://www.narth.com/docs/needboth.html 5) Finally, there is the slippery-slope argument. Pedophiles are now trying to re-cast themselves as “inter-generational” lovers, while polygamists are banging on the courtroom door (no pun intended). http://www.narth.com/docs/moreonped.html http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp Take away thousands of years of societal consensus, underpinned with religious conviction (and not just Christianity), and we’re left in a relativistic free-fall.Now, before I get lambasted with the usual bigoted comments about being an uniformed homophobe, let me tell you that my first college roommate was gay and died of AIDS in the late 80’s, one of my advisors when I did my PhD is gay, and I have several close male friends who are married, yet, as Christians, are battling unwanted gay desires as they strive to be faithful to their wives. Myself included. I love them all. And I still think homosexuality is wrong (as are adultery, divorce, and so forth), for the reasons stated (as well as the Biblical ones).



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 15, 2007 at 8:59 pm


Rick Nowlin, First, let me congratulate and thank you for being the first to actually differentiate between homosexuality and homosexual conduct. It is a rare distinction, an dit is appreciated. Next… “The problem that we see in individualistic Western society is that people determine their own partners largely based on physical attraction, which is what often leads to divorce, pornography and other things that are also denounced in the Bible.” Once again, I am sad that this is the way you believe people choose their mates – “largely on physical attraction”. That is a sad, but probably true commentary for many people, both heterosexual and homosexual, and I believe is probably the reason for the high rates of divorce amongst heterosexuals. (It’s way too early to tell amongst gay people, since we’ve only been legally allowed to marry for a couple of years now.) I chose my mate on spiritual compatability, on intellect, on conversational ability, and interests both shared and unique, and maybe 1% on physical attraction. We are very complimentary to each other in many of those respects. Neither of us has any ‘need’ for the alleged ‘complimentariness’ of someone merely because they are of the opposite sex. That can only hold true for heterosexuals. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that: “there is no good reason to prohibit same-gender couples without the community aspect of marriage, which is why insisting that “the Bible says it” just won’t cut it.” Since many faiths differ, those of the evangelical faiths are going to have to come up with something other than Biblical ‘reasons’ for un-Constitutional, unequal treatment of gay and lesbian citizens before the law.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 15, 2007 at 9:27 pm


Doug, “I’ll take a stab at giving you secular reasons why homosexual relationships are unhealthy for society: “The thesis of Brokeback Mountain is a total myth. “Monagamous” gay relationships are a tiny minority on the spectrum of coupling. The vast majority of homosexual activity occurs between promiscuous men who have multiple partners.” I discount anything published by NARTH, since their very reason for existing is to ‘prove’ to the world how “sick” and “broken” gay people are. That is the premise from which they operate and it is just another lie of the ‘right’. The same thing about heterosexuals and promiscuity can be said: “Monagamous str8 relationships are a tiny minority on the spectrum of coupling. The vast majority of str8 sexual activity occurs between promiscuous men and women who have multiple partners.” And I could certainly name you more than a few promiscuous heterosexuals. “Those of you reading this who are gay know too well what cruising is all about.” Honey, I, as a gay man, learned what the term, “sport fVcking” (to use the Latin) meant from a str8 girl. Gays have NO monopoly on cruising. Ever hear of a “singles bar”??? Yer point? “Even admitting that monogamous gay relationships do exist” – GASP! You ADMIT that??? Shurely you’ll burn in he11 for admitting it ;{O) “there is considerable disagreement on what monogamous really means.” – There IS??? “Apparently there is plenty of room for non-exclusive sexual activity within so-called monogamous couples.” This applies to heterosexuals too, honey. I’m about as monogamous as most members of the British Royal Family, most Senators, Congresspersons, Presidents and, apparently, a lot of (VERY) heterosexual pastors. “The kinds of sexual practices homosexuals engage in, multiplied by dozens of partners, has fostered the explosive spread of sexually transmitted diseases.” – The same can be said of you hets. “These diseases then affect all of society as bisexual men carry them home to their unsuspecting wives and girlfriends.” Those aren’t “bisexual men”; they’re “straight” men on the down low. Ask ANY of them. Heck, you could even ask Ted haggart, since he seems to fit the description perfectly and he’s “completely heterosexual”, or so the press releases say. “Numerous studies show that children do best psychologically and emotionally when raised by a mother and father.” – No credible ones do. Sorry, but again, NARTH “studies” are about as ‘reliable’ as those done by Let’s Focus on YOUR “Family”. “Finally, there is the slippery-slope argument. Pedophiles…” – Are NOT comparable to what we are discussing. Try using relevant examples please. “while polygamists are” – Equally irrelevant. And you wonder why you are not believed. It is NOT what is being discussed here. “Now, before I get lambasted with the usual bigoted comments about being an uniformed homophobe” – Now WHY on earth would people label you THAT, do you think, eh? ‘Some of my best “friends” are…’ was NEVER anything but a smokescreen for the intolerant. “I have several close male friends who are married, yet, as Christians, are battling unwanted gay desires as they strive to be faithful to their wives. Myself included.” – I kinda thought as much. “I love them all.” – God spare us from such “love”. UGH! “And I still think homosexuality is wrong (as are adultery, divorce, and so forth)” – You are entitled to “think” what you want. Please entitle us to the same courtesy. We do NOT think it is “wrong”. Oh, and btw, it might help you to differentiate between “homosexuality” and homosexual conduct. But to debunk your ‘thinking’, adultery is the breaking of a covenant. How do commmitted (monogamous) same-sex couples break their covenant when they have sex? Sorry but you failed to give us “reasons why homosexual relationships are unhealthy for society”, only reasons why SOME (promiscuous) homosexual relationships can be unhealthy – the exact same way that SOME (promiscuous) heterosexual relationships can be unhealthy for society. Try again.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 15, 2007 at 9:53 pm


Curiouser, The story of Lilith can only be traced back to a little bit before the Babalonian exile. If I am remembering correctly. The Lilith myth had it’s roots in early traditions but again they don’t date back as far as The Job story (the oldest story in the bible) or Genesis myth.p



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:05 pm


Curiouser, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith http://www.lilithgallery.com/library/ Some Jews even considered her a consort to Yaweh even though Moses forbade such things and even others considered Asherah Yaweh’s consort. So your point works only if the Adam and Even myth is younger than the Lilith one. p



report abuse
 

MB

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:13 pm


I’ve never heard of the lilith thing. Were’s more on this? Just curious.



report abuse
 

KevinK

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:15 pm


For a great response to homophobia in some churches, go to this site: http://www.soulforce.org/article/453 You’ll be glad you did.



report abuse
 

HASH(0x116ce584)

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:19 pm


Payshun, You are so well informed and you write wih both passion and elegance. I learn much from you. (Plus you come across as a very nice person!) Keep it up. Especialy when exposing myths that are now misinterpreted as, pardon te expression, “Gospel truth”.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:21 pm


MB, “I’ve never heard of the lilith thing. Were’s more on this? Just curious.” You are not alone, not having heard of her. Read the Catholic Bible, or go to any of the above referenced links on Lillith for more info.



report abuse
 

Robin

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:24 pm


I think it seems like fixation on the part of evangelicals, but I think it comes from the gay agenda that wants to make their lifestyle legitimaate. The homosexual lifestyle is being shoved down our throats as normal and moral. Everyone chooses to live their lives how they want, but I don’t think I should have to condone it. That is what the gay agenda wants and they won’t let go until they have legitimacy.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:33 pm


One more great link to the lilith myth. As you can guess I am a geek for biblical mythology. The book of enoch is fun reading as are the other lost books. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/l/lilith.html p



report abuse
 

KevinK

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:35 pm


Robin, It isn’t we who give anyone legitimacy, it is God. Gay isn’t an agenda, it’s people. If others spent as much energy in the eradication of poverty and comforting the afflicted, they wouldn’t have much time to concern themselves with lesser concerns. There isn’t a single reference to homosexuality in the Gospels, but it is rife with Jesus’ admonition to issues of peace and justice. Christians, let’s get our priorities straight.



report abuse
 

HASH(0x116d2748)

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:35 pm


Robin, “I think it comes from the gay agenda” Our “agenda” is equality. It is supposed to be guaranteed to ALL citizens under the Constitution. Sory you don’ happen to like it. “that wants to make their lifestyle legitimaate.” 1. We don’t have “lifestyles”; gay people have LIVES, despite your tawdry attempts to destroy them with your lies. 2. Our lives ARE legitimate. Certainly as legitimate as yours. “The homosexual lifestyle” is a MYTH! “is being shoved down our throats” Nice analogy, but wrong. No one is forcing you to be a homosexual. Equality before the law is Constitutional, at least until yer “president” “amends” it. “as normal and moral” Gay people ARE normal, and most of the ones I know are also normal. “Everyone chooses to live their lives how they want,” But you wish we weren’t allowed that privilege. How come? “but I don’t think I should have to condone it.” You don’t. You just have to accept that we, too, are allowed (or at least ought to be allowed) to live our lives how we want. “That is what the gay agenda wants” Actually it is what gay PEOPLE want. And it’s supposedly a guaranteed right – to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. “and they won’t let go until they have legitimacy.” Well, we won’t let go until we have equality, that’s for sure. Tell me, why does the heterosexual lifestyle get shoved down our throats everyday? What is the heterosexual agenda? Why do I have to condone it? Why do YOU seek legitimacy? Why are so many heterosexual people abnormal and immoral? See, we can all type slanderous lies. Try debate instead.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:36 pm


Robin, How is gay getting shoved down your throat? Are gays in your living room? Do men and women make out in front of you every day? I don’t understand. p



report abuse
 

Erin

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:37 pm


OH MY GOSH. Has there even been a blog article on SOJO that has generated MORE passion in the last few months here… genocide, war, politics, ethics, death, child labor, explotation of the third world, etc… none of those articles have gotten even half of the comments this one article has.I think this has PROVEN Tony’s main point, don’t you???



report abuse
 

KevinK

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:39 pm


Erin, Sad but true. Can’t we move on to a topic that has real currency?



report abuse
 

HASH(0x116da0bc)

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:40 pm


Absolutely, Erin. People like “Robin” can ONLY focus on my genitals and couldn’t care less about “genocide, war, politics, ethics, death, child labor, explotation of the third world, etc. “none of those articles have gotten even half of the comments this one article has.I think this has PROVEN Tony’s main point, don’t you???” Yes, seems many evangelicals are OBSESSED with gay people’s private lives.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:41 pm


Once again, I am sad that this is the way you believe people choose their mates – “largely on physical attraction”. That is a sad, but probably true commentary for many people, both heterosexual and homosexual, and I believe is probably the reason for the high rates of divorce amongst heterosexuals. (It’s way too early to tell amongst gay people, since we’ve only been legally allowed to marry for a couple of years now.) Notice what I said, however — “we” choose our own partners. Back in the day marriage was considered so serious that it was never left to the discretion of the persons involved because of the reasons I mentioned. As I said it was a community institution, not a personal one, and on that basis I believe that “gay marriage” is at best suspect. But to debunk your ‘thinking’, adultery is the breaking of a covenant. How do commmitted (monogamous) same-sex couples break their covenant when they have sex? Fornication would thus be considered sex without a covenant.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:44 pm


OH MY GOSH. Has there even been a blog article on SOJO that has generated MORE passion in the last few months here… genocide, war, politics, ethics, death, child labor, explotation of the third world, etc… none of those articles have gotten even half of the comments this one article has. Check the one on the minimum wage — that’s been going pretty good … :-)



report abuse
 

nad2

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:51 pm


i sincerely hope this has not all been an exercise in futility, though i have my doubts, as i do about so many of the blogs i see here. i must bow out of the conversation and be onto other things. i have enjoyed the perspective of many and i hope love, understanding and equal treatment will win the day against what i have known personally to be ignorance. may we all love one another…



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:52 pm


Rick, Sometimes you make perfect sense. This is NOT one of those times. “Back in the day marriage was considered so serious that it was never left to the discretion of the persons involved” It still is very serious, and for that very reason, I would NEVER let someone else choose my partner. Your premise is not supported by your conclusion. “I believe that “gay marriage” is at best suspect.” Your putting gay marriage in quote marks only adds smarm, not legitimacy, to your arguments. Trust me, I am married. Legally married. No quote marks required, thanks anyway. And I asked: “How do commmitted (monogamous) same-sex couples break their covenant when they have sex?” Your reply was not only snide, it was disingenuous: “Fornication would thus be considered sex without a covenant.” Since I am married, I have made a covenant. I asked you how people in a covenant, marital relationship break said covenant when they have monogamous sex within that covenant relationship. Your dismissal of my entire relationship as mere “fornication” and as being “without a covenant” is simply a lie. A hurtful lie. Please answer the question I asked if you can, and omit the slander.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:56 pm


It still is very serious, and for that very reason, I would NEVER let someone else choose my partner. Your premise is not supported by your conclusion. As I mentioned, that’s how it was done back in the day, and in the East it’s still generally done that way. Only in the last few hundred years did choosing one’s own partner become the norm in the West. Since I am married, I have made a covenant. I asked you how people in a covenant, marital relationship break said covenant when they have monogamous sex within that covenant relationship. Not in my state you wouldn’t be.



report abuse
 

Erin

posted February 15, 2007 at 10:57 pm


“Check the one on the minimum wage — that’s been going pretty good …”Ooh, thanks. I did. I actually agree with some of your points on THAT one… good stuff. Still interesting to see what articles garner the most “passionate” responses, don’t you think?



report abuse
 

jesse

posted February 15, 2007 at 11:11 pm


OH MY GOSH. Has there even been a blog article on SOJO that has generated MORE passion in the last few months here… genocide, war, politics, ethics, death, child labor, explotation of the third world, etc… none of those articles have gotten even half of the comments this one article has. I think this has PROVEN Tony’s main point, don’t you??? –Actually, since most of the comments have come from people who are not evangelicals, I’d say he’d have to revise his headline to read “Is society fixated on homosexuality?”



report abuse
 

Ron

posted February 15, 2007 at 11:48 pm


A simple verse of scripture that can not be misinterpreted is, z’The truth shall set you free.” We Evangelicals have become afraid of the truth. We are determined and forced for financial reasons to adhere to interpretaion of scripture and the false teaching brought down through the generations of ignorance,dogma,and doctrine. We know God has never condemend the innocent to seperation from God. Knowledge and science has now shown true, honest Homosexulality is genetic and or determined within the womb. This is the truth. When we accept the truth we will be free to move on to issues that will save this world not condemn it.



report abuse
 

MB

posted February 16, 2007 at 12:04 am


Payshun Curiouser and Curiouser Thanks so much for the references. Wow, just don’t know quite what to think of Lilith. I believe I would want to keep her and anything to do with her away from my boys, and my husband. YUCK!!!!, she’s a bad mamajamma. Thanks again.



report abuse
 

Barbara

posted February 16, 2007 at 1:41 am


I see the so-called Christian Right’s fixation with homosexuality as a two-pronged weapon. Like a magician who’s good at sleight of hand, they direct attention away from issues of social justice, like poverty and hunger and instead get everyone riled up about some really good opportunities to feel righteous and superior.Second, it directs attention away from the sexual behavior that is most damaging to our society, and that’s adultery. Families are destroyed, children’s lives are distorted, the legacy of sadness and cynicism goes on and on. But I’m sure that adultery is not something that many of the evangelical homophobes want to jam about.



report abuse
 

Jim Gray

posted February 16, 2007 at 2:43 am


Mr. Campolo: I heard you speak years ago in Dallas when you came to Central Dallas Ministries’ Prayer Event. I’ve been a big fan of yours ever since – you know how to ask the questions that matter! I’ve also kept up with Central Dallas Ministries over the years, and have been really impressed by their CEO’s blog. It is called Larry James’ Urban Daily, and is located here: http://www.UrbanDaily.org. He has a great post this week called “Churches, Poverty and the Inner City” that you might really enjoy. Thanks for all that you do. May God continue bless you in your continuing work.



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted February 16, 2007 at 2:51 am


Hey Curiouser- just what call do YOU have calling my opinion “filth”, bucko? Just because I don’t agree with you? Hmmm… I thought your community was all about “tolerance?” And in rejoinding to your rejoinders: It is an inherent trait that occurs naturally, like handedness and skin colour. Sorry but I don’t buy that spurrious, specious argumetation. Take a look at the following: http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html http://www.narth.com/menus/cstudies.html But it has NEVER been illegal to be black.Tell that to someone who had to deal with “whites only” drinking fountians! And I have never, EVER met someone who got kicked out of his family for being black. LOL Well that would mean a Black person would be kicked out of his own family, which is not likely. Infiltrate? Are we now not even allowed to be members of Churches??? Good grief! You mean Churches are to be just social clubs where nobody’s lifestyle is ever challeneged? Continued-



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted February 16, 2007 at 2:52 am


Continuiing my discourse with Mr. Curiouser: Kevin, faiths (the good ones, anyway) always question their doctrine. That’s your opinion. I believe “good” faiths stick to thier historical roots… and I would say that even about a faith that didn’t agree with mine. what if they change them after prayerful study? I would question how open-mindedly did they really study and how legitmate is thier committment to thier faith. Um, ever think that just maybe those on the ‘right’ are the cause of the divisions? No because Scripture warns against “factions.” (Gal 5:20) We do NOT “claim” it; we have LIVED it. We ARE speaking about our own very lives for pete’s sake. I’d be willing to wager you dollars to dounuts that a lot more discrimiation and even sexual harrassment has come from the Gay community than the other way around. Conversley, I think the G&L community’s calims to discrimiation are largely suprious. I’m sorry – I know you are going to ask me for prooof, and I will tell you that I’ve experienced just such harrassment and friends of mine have experinces just such discrimiation. But it’s rarely ever talked about.And btw, as far as the deep divisions in churches thing, I’ve been there, too. O.o All WHAT? All the virute some tout it to be. And you must agree, noting your “filth” comment. As if gay people don’t have moral backbone. As if THEIR moral backbone was what I’m addressing. Oh and your “Jesus never said anything about it” canard needs to be addressed, too: http://family.org/socialissues/A000000782.cfm http://www.capalert.com/jesusneversaid.htm http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homomyth.html And here’s some Greek study which indicates that he DID address the issue indirectly: Matt 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. porneia from (4203) 1. illicit sexual intercourse 1. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. 2. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 3. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11, 2. metaph. the worship of idols 1. of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols And I’ll throw this site in for those who are opinen-minded enough to do “prayerful study” on the matter: http://www.robgagnon.net



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 16, 2007 at 3:17 am


Payshun | Homepage | 02.15.07 – 1:57 pm | #…love you even if I find your prayers a little misguided…” There terminated and thanks for the love – whatever I was praying that an Almighty God would reach out to one that was wounded – but being labeled here as a conservative seems to put you in company that I would never put anyone here that I have read their postings.You know – I am in a bible study with someone that was on this site a while ago. He turned us on to it and I have been reading for over 4 months and have only been posting that last few weeks. He left because of the way he was treated and told him he should hang in there – surely someone has to be worth chatting with. I was out to prove him wrong. Most of you who write on here are just as big of haters and those you rail against. You lump any and all of us ‘conservatives’ into one big pot and then treat us as bad as you claim to be treated. I still believe that there is common ground for us to walk together – just don’t think it is here. Butch – all I wanted to do was pray for your son…not pray that he would become a conservative – a ‘republic nazi’ or whatever. Just that God would show himself and bring a fellow believer back to communion with the faithful. Not an evangelical – just back to the church where he can be nurtured and feed. I give – I was wrong – you were correct with your assessment robstur – it is a love fest for liberals. Thank God they can’t throw stones here or Stephen would not have been the only one stoned for their faith. I am still going to be here for a while – just going to be selective as to what I comment on and who I respond to while I am here. This is one of the most intolerant places on the web. Later – a %^&* long time later – .



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 16, 2007 at 3:33 am


curiouser and curiouser… | 02.15.07 – 3:02 pm | #I’m sorry – gay sex vs. eating shell fish. You are all over the map on your ideas – enjoy your life as you have made is and worship your God as you have created her. See you at the finish line. If I am wrong and you are correct…guess we end up at the same place. If I am correct and you are wrong – you will be missed. Bye .



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 16, 2007 at 3:41 am


for your reading pleasure find a copy of “After the Ball” and read about the gay-agenda written by gays. Then think about what is happening today… later… .



report abuse
 

Mike Hayes

posted February 16, 2007 at 3:49 am


To: Supporters of the values in “God’s Politics” Subject: Anti-establishment http://www.interfaithalliance.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=8dJIIWMCE&b=2438171&kntaw3390=D4048F2144A343AE882D2712FFFE2BF2 The link is to an opportunity provide by the Interfaith Alliance to contact your members of congress to ask them to protect and defend religious liberties, including prohibitions against profiling based on race, ethnicity, national orign, or religion. Entry of your address will direct the email to your members of congress. Please consider it. Thank you!



report abuse
 

HASH(0x116e715c)

posted February 16, 2007 at 4:04 am


Payshun | Homepage | 02.15.07 – 5:38 pm | #but these books are not scripture and where never considered to be part of the Connon. later – .



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 16, 2007 at 4:15 am


Anonymous | 02.15.07 – 11:09 pm | #this post is mine .



report abuse
 

c kitty

posted February 16, 2007 at 5:35 am


I agree — the sheer volume of comments proves Tony’s point — there is a conservative obsession with homosexuality. Just a few thoughts. It seems obvious to me that this is not so much a religious issue as it is cultural or psychological issue cloaked in religion. It seems that males are far more concerned with the issues of homosexuality and abortion than are women. These issues center on male power. Giving them a relgious veneer just classes them up a bit. In addition, for those who feel the need or calling to judge others, sexual activity is such an easy target and a subject that can so quickly unite others in the venture. Like they say, sex sells. As someone else previously suggested, if all the energy spent on this issue was applied to solving the problems of health care, poverty, child abuse, etc, what a better world we would have. All this arguing about whether homosexuality is a sin, and that is God’s job, not ours.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 16, 2007 at 6:16 am


Well Moderatelad, I am sorry that you feel hurt. If i have done anything to that then I am sorry because you are reaching out and that deserves to be praised.I realize that some people have called you “nazi” and I think that’s uncalled for. But I am not sure if you understand that many of your statements are not loving to the LGBTQ. To be honest I think it would be fair if you reached out w/o standing by the truth of what you believed and just listened to the stories of people here. Let them get to know you and come in w/ a humble attitude. I think that’s fair and it will get people off of your back and show that you can be compassionate to people that won’t agree w/ you. It will also show that you value the person over the law. Blessings p I know you are not a bad guy.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 16, 2007 at 6:20 am


Oh I know they are not cannonical but still worth a read if for nothing else you will understand where some of the myths in the scriptures come from. p



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 16, 2007 at 6:30 am


“I agree — the sheer volume of comments proves Tony’s point — there is a conservative obsession with homosexuality. ” Most of the posts here do not come from a conservative vantage point.



report abuse
 

Ernie

posted February 16, 2007 at 3:52 pm


Mr Complo, who is it that has made homosexuality a “pop” issue for the past 20 years or so? Who is it that has made it oout to be some sort of social rights issue where it is being compared to the civil rights era race problem? And yes, God created us all, including muderers, rapists, adulterers, child abusers and homosexuals, that he created us doesn’t make us and our behavior good, does it? I didn’t set the popular “agenda” but I need to respond to it don’t I? Thank You, Ernie



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 16, 2007 at 4:14 pm


Rick Nowlin, Me: “Since I am married, I have made a covenant. I asked you how people in a covenant, marital relationship break said covenant when they have monogamous sex within that covenant relationship.” You: “Not in my state you wouldn’t be.” Weren’t those the exact same words the sherrif used on the inter-racial married couple when he arresed them in, what “State” was it? What decade was it? Just an FYI, I didn’t get married in YOUR “State”. Feel free to enter the 21st Century, Rick. Either that or at least answer my question – HOW am I breaking MY Covenant?



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 16, 2007 at 4:16 pm


jesse, “since most of the comments have come from people who are not evangelicals” How do you know this, jesse? I was raised Pentecostal. And even non-evangelicals can see their deeds and the harmful affects those deeds have on the rest of society. Fair comment, I should think.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 16, 2007 at 4:26 pm


Kevin Wayne , “just what call do YOU have calling my opinion “filth”, bucko?” Because it IS, darlin’. Fithy, disgusting LIES. And they’re about ME. THAT’s what “cause” I have, bucko. Thanx 4 askin’. “Just because I don’t agree with you?” Nope. Because what you posted is lies, not mere disagreement. “Hmmm… I thought your community was all about “tolerance?” It is. You should try it some time. Me: “It is an inherent trait that occurs naturally, like handedness and skin colour.”You: “Sorry but I don’t buy that spurrious, specious argumetation. Take a look at the following:” Nope, I won’t take a look at anything put out by NARTH. It is a Catholic LIESite, built on the false premise that I am broken and sick and in need of healing. That’s just more B.S. Plus, I’m not Catholic. Why on earth should I be forced to abide by, or even pay atention to their tenets? Me: “But it has NEVER been illegal to be black.”You: “Tell that to someone who had to deal with “whites only” drinking fountians!” Are you in favour of those? You seem to willfully ignore that that person’s “crime” was not “being black”, it was breaking a colour barrier. As if that were a bad thing. Me: “And I have never, EVER met someone who got kicked out of his family for being black.” You: “LOL Well that would mean a Black person would be kicked out of his own family, which is not likely.” My point exactly. However, I know and have counseled and consoled MANY gay kids who,in fact WERE kicked out of their “family” onto the streets – merely because they are gay. Sadly, it is an ALL TOO LIKELY scenario still today. Glad you at least got THAT correct. Me: “Infiltrate? Are we now not even allowed to be members of Churches??? Good grief!” You: “You mean Churches are to be just social clubs where nobody’s lifestyle is ever challeneged?” Maybe YOUR “church” is like that; mine certainly isn’t.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 16, 2007 at 4:31 pm


Kevin Wayne, “Continuiing my discourse with Mr. Curiouser:” Sorry, but lying isn’t “discourse”; it’s bearing false witness – a “SIN”, I might remind you. Me: “faiths (the good ones, anyway) always question their doctrine.” You: “That’s your opinion. I believe “good” faiths stick to thier historical roots.” Hmm, the Pentecostals changed their minds on divorce. And I recall the “historical roots” of the faiths that wanted to keep segregation and slavery, and forbade inter-racial marriage. I don’t really believe that “sticking to THOSE historical roots” is a good thing. Me: “What if they change them after prayerful study?” You: “I would question how open-mindedly did they really study and how legitmate is thier committment to thier faith.” Totally open-minded, or they wouldn’t ahve CHANGED their minds. DUH! And their commitment to their faith is very strong – they stayed within it and helped it grow. Me: “Um, ever think that just maybe those on the ‘right’ are the cause of the divisions?’ You: “No because Scripture warns against “factions.”Scripture also tells us that Christ came to BRING division. “I’d be willing to wager you dollars to dounuts that a lot more discrimiation and even sexual harrassment has come from the Gay community than the other way around.” You are certifiably insane if you believe that.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 16, 2007 at 4:34 pm


KW, “Conversley, I think the G&L community’s calims to discrimiation are largely suprious.” Well, as a proven gay-hater, you WOULD “think” that, wouldn’t you. “I’m sorry – I know you are going to ask me for prooof, and I will tell you that I’ve experienced just such harrassment and friends of mine have experinces just such discrimiation. But it’s rarely ever talked about.” You mean you are gay yourself??? I find that very hard to believe, what with all the lies you’ve posted about gay people. So YES, I’m going to ask you for “prooof”.Me: “As if gay people don’t have moral backbone.” You: “As if THEIR moral backbone was what I’m addressing.” You don’t “address” it, you attack it. Feel free to try again, but use non-Catholic, non “Let’s Focus on YOUR “Family” sources. They are no more believable than YOU.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 16, 2007 at 5:43 pm


That’s the thing I don’t understand. Conservatives are more interested in being right than loving people. Your comments, Ernie, Kevin, KR, and others prove that. You all equate people that have sex w/ the same sex w/ rapists and child molestors. One of you used a religous ideologue that has not done any research thru the APA or other reputable sources. Others of you use the bible to knock people down and spit on them. THis is freaking ridiculous.Grow up. Learn to love people w/o conditions. Learn to have grace. Better yet get informed. http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html p



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 16, 2007 at 5:52 pm


You all know nothing about how human sexuality develops and how it is maintained. You all have done next to no research into your own issues (I can say that w/ authority because of the lack of grace you have shown the LGBTQ community.) You hide behind your righteousness over your sexuality when Christ says yours is a sin too (ie lusting after a woman in your heart.) You pretend w/ a small amount of lip service like you have even begun to deal w/ that. If you all want such strict sexual standards than please cut out all sexual behavior between you and your wives unless its for procreation, don’t stair at the breasts, or butt of another woman, don’t fantasize about someone else, don’t masterbate, don’t pretend that you all have all your crap together. Instead come out swinging and confessing your sins first.If that’s really what you all believe then stick by Peter’s teaching on the area of sex. You know what got him killed it was not just preaching Christ crucified and risen (even though that was enough) it was changing the sex lives of the women converts to CHristianity. So if you all really want to follow such rigid ideas of sex then ignore Song of Solomon, ignore the beauty found in Genesis, ignore every other thing that says sex between healthy consenting adults is permissible and live in a box. But whatever you do stop pushing your lame social agenda on people that don’t agree w/you.Contrary to what you all are saying they are not pushing their agenda on you. p



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 16, 2007 at 6:50 pm


-Payshun | Homepage | 02.16.07 – 12:57 pm | #Blessings on you too. The ‘person’ is always more important than the ‘issue’. My need to understand trumps any desire for agreement. There are many times that I have come to consensus with a friend or relative where we have agreed to disagree and still enjoy each others company and respect the other because they as a person is as important as myself. Yes – I was raised more ‘black and white’ on issues and with biblical interpretation. I have become more moderate the older I have become – hence my handle. I have stood in the gap for a relative that is gay and went to their defense on an issue with their employment and immediate supervisor – we won. I also had to tell them that I could not support their efforts in adopting children. We are still close and enjoy getting together several times a year. I know that someday things are going to change for them and I hope to be there because I have been there to celebrate their victories and console their failures. Yes I have even been there to assist them in getting out of the house and an abusive situation. Maybe the phrase ‘hate the sin but love the sinner’ has been over played. I have for years thought that is was backwards – it really should have been ‘love the sinner – hate the sin’ because love is more important. It grieves my soul when I see that people ‘rewrite’ scripture put more emphasis on ‘red letters’ etc. Today you almost need a wall street lawyer to assist in defining term so that you can have a deep conversation – seems sad. Have a great time I am going to see if my daughter would like to go to a movie since I took the day off to be with her. We will most likely end up watching The Devil Wears Proda for the ?? time – it’s a ‘dad’ thing. I have introduced her to Opera – theatre…her mother and her watch WWF or WCW so she is getting a balanced education. Later – and I look forward to talking with you again… respectfully – .



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted February 16, 2007 at 7:31 pm


“That’s the thing I don’t understand. Conservatives are more interested in being right than loving people. Your comments, Ernie, Kevin, KR, and others prove that.” I don’t see how my comments prove that. I am not insulting anyone, or expressing hatred. This is a forum for discussion. I don’t thin it is unloving to disagree with a prevailing viewpoint. When people ask me about my faith, I don’t say “well, the most important thing about it is that homosexuality is wrong.” “You all equate people that have sex w/ the same sex w/ rapists and child molestors.” I have not done this, and have not seen anyone else (save maybe Donny) do it. There is merit to the argument that the same logic applied to advocating gay marriage might also apply to child molestors. That is a slippery slope argument, which, by definition, does not compare homosexuals with rapists.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 16, 2007 at 8:16 pm


modlad, “all I wanted to do was pray for your son…not pray that he would become a conservative – a ‘republic nazi’ or whatever. Just that God would show himself and bring a fellow believer back to communion with the faithful. Not an evangelical – just back to the church where he can be nurtured and feed.” Why do you surmise that his son is OUT of communion? etc. The same ‘reason’ you think I’m immoral? That I don’t have a personal relationship with Christ? And YOU call ME “arrogant”!



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 16, 2007 at 8:21 pm


modlad, “I’m sorry – gay sex vs. eating shell fish.” Why are you “sorry”? They are BOTH called “abomination”. Why do you only call ME that? “You are all over the map on your ideas” Just tryin’ to keep up with your many trains o’ “thought”. “enjoy your life as you have made is” [sic] I DO. Thanx 4 your ‘good wishes’. “and worship your God as you have created her.” I worship the God I know from the experience of the Divine in my daily life. (btw, there are several dozen references to God as female in the Bible. S suspect you didn’t know THAT, either.) “See you at the finish line.” And won’t YOU be surprised! “If I am wrong and you are correct…guess we end up at the same place. If I am correct and you are wrong – you will be missed.” Those are some pretty big “IFs”, but I can’t see how, if I am “correct” and you aren’t that you would believe we would end up in the same place, while at the same time believing that if you are “correct” and I am wrong, we won’t. Explain how THAT works. “Bye” Well at least that’s a more pleasant way to end your post than your constant threats of “later…” Bi.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 16, 2007 at 8:28 pm


modlad, Some excerpts of the reviews of “After the Ball” (perhaps you didn’t read them yourself)… “either face the unvarnished realities of American bigotry, and attack them aggressively at their psychological roots, or else fail to win a secure place in society” (Despite Amerikkka’s “promise” of equality, the “unvarnished realities of American bigotry” prevents gay citizens from even “securing a place in society”. Now just who’s fault is THAT, eh?) “Since time out of mind, gays have been the hapless victims of the hateful propaganda of a society almost uniformly arrayed against them.” “As a summary of methods to manipulate and control opinion, this book is an example of how to achieve a goal (public opinion modification), without recourse to fact, reason, or fair play.” You sure know how to pick ‘em, moddy.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 16, 2007 at 8:37 pm


To conservatives: Kevin Wayne: “I’d be willing to wager you dollars to dounuts that a lot more discrimiation and even sexual harrassment has come from the Gay community than the other way around.” http://www.robgagnon.net/ Sorry Kevin S I got you mixed up w/ Kevin W. The minute I see a string of murders, rapes and hurt approaching the same level of discrimination Straight people have heaped on gays then I can make that comparison. Not only that but Rob’s site is the height of Christian propaganda masking itself as research. That coupled w/:Kevin S I have not done this, and have not seen anyone else (save maybe Donny) do it. There is merit to the argument that the same logic applied to advocating gay marriage might also apply to child molestors. That is a slippery slope argument, which, by definition, does not compare homosexuals with rapists. What merit? Actually it does. For one thing it ignores consensual sex acts between monogamous couples. Two it’s a guilt by association argument that cripples real debate about the issue of monogamous couples. 3. It ignores the reality that marriage has already changed for a lot of straight couples (think Swinging.) 4. It ignores the legal protective rights of children while linking one behavior w/ the acceptance of something else.No one here is defending pedophilia or saying that gay men only rape boys… But by linking them together this way you show that you are afraid that pedophilia will become the law of the land. YOu see gay marriage as a gateway to Nambla taking over the world. (kidding.) It does show fear. It does show that fear of the unknown dominates what you feel on the subject. Where is there is fear there is no love. Moderatelad:Good guy but again not always interpreted as compassionate.Robin was afraid that they were seeking legitimacy as if anyone can deny another person legitimacy.It’s comments like that, taken as a whole that demonstrate a lack of compassion coming from the right. Instead of seeing the humanity of the people you all have focused on reparative therapy (which only works for an extrememly small group of people and is not really successful,) it’s been on establishing how sinful the behavior is, fear and paranoia about the gay agenda (which is ridiculous,) and a lack of dialogue about human experiences, stories and grace. So you can see Kevin how it would be hard to see and experience compassion and grace from you all on the right. p



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 16, 2007 at 8:39 pm


Ernie, “who is it that has made homosexuality a “pop” issue for the past 20 years or so?” That would be Mr. Falwell. I still have a copy of his “Declaration of War” on gay people from the mid-70’s. Thanx 4 askin’, Ernie. “Who is it that has made it oout to be some sort of social rights issue” The people who want to kick gay people out of the Constitution, that’s who. “where it is being compared to the civil rights era race problem?” If Dr. Martin Luther King, Coretta Scott King, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Nelson Mandela all say the issues are comparable, who am I to say they aren’t. Sexual orientation and skin pigmentation, like handedness, are immutable, inherent human traits. People’s civil rights were abrogated because of their skin colour just like the civil liberties of gay people are being abrogated because of their inherent, human, immutable trait. It’s called INJUSTICE. Sorry that you seem to like it. I don’t. And, now, HEEEERE it comes, folks – wait for it… “And yes, God created us all, including muderers, rapists, adulterers, child abusers and homosexuals” So “loving”, so “christian”, so “charitable” those comparisons are – NOT! Repeating them does NOT help your cause in any way. We talk of love. We talk of commitment. We talk of consent. We talk of human, adult relationships. YOU, otoh, talk of murder. Of rape. Of child molestation. WE can see the difference. We know our relationships do NOT cause the harm that your comparisons imply. Be healed. “that he created us doesn’t make us and our behavior good, does it?” Evidently NOT. YOUR “behaviour” (as seen in what you post here) is absolutely the OPPOSITE of “good behaviour” and you will be judged for it. “I didn’t set the popular “agenda” but I need to respond to it don’t I?” Not with lies and slander you don’t.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 16, 2007 at 8:52 pm


kevin s, Payshun wrote: “That’s the thing I don’t understand. Conservatives are more interested in being right than loving people. Your comments, Ernie, Kevin, KR, and others prove that.” You replied: “I don’t see how my comments prove that.” Are you wilfully blind? “I am not insulting anyone, or expressing hatred.” yes you are and yes you do. “I don’t thin it is unloving to disagree with a prevailing viewpoint.” It IS unloving to post lies about people. Payshun wrote: “You all equate people that have sex w/ the same sex w/ rapists and child molestors.” “I have not done this” I would have to re-red more than 200 commments on THIS discussion thread alone, so this time I’ll take you at your word, but… “and have not seen anyone else (save maybe Donny) do it.” Please scroll up maybe a dozen posts to Ernie’s latest screed. Look at the number of times I have had to counter that “argument” – and I only couner it when it is made – and it’s been made a LOT in this thread alone, nevermind the many others where this false charge comes up again and again and again. Are you wilfully blind? “There is merit to the argument that the same logic applied to advocating gay marriage might also apply to child molestors.” SEE??? Yes you DO try to compare the 2, and they are NOT comparable. Ther is NO such “merit” to the argument; it is false and hateful, and there is not a shred of “logic” to it. So now you have just re-proven yourself a liar. “That is a slippery slope argument” No more than the ‘logical’ ‘argument’ that you marrying a wife would “lead” to polygamay, incest, etc. Gawd you’re hopeless. You don’t even seem to be aware of the spiritual gay-bashing you are engaged in. Seek help.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 16, 2007 at 8:57 pm


I went to the Rog Ganon website, and the ole gaydar went off as soon as I saw his photo. What is it about effeminate ‘theologians’ that you evangelicals seem to fall for so easily? Ernest Aingley, Gerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggart. Geez louise you’re gullible. Not to mention Mr. Gagnon’s hucksterism (“the 2-DVD set is available for $25.00!!!”) Come on folks, get a freakin’ grip!



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 16, 2007 at 9:03 pm


Weren’t those the exact same words the sherrif used on the inter-racial married couple when he arresed them in, what “State” was it? What decade was it? For the sake of this discussion, that’s comparing apples and oranges. The early church was interracial and multi-cultural, so it would not be far-fetched to think that there was a lot of intermarriage taking place. But you best believe there were no active gays in it, for reasons I’ve already mentioned. Either that or at least answer my question – HOW am I breaking MY Covenant? As far as I’m concerned, you have no legitimate covenant.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 16, 2007 at 9:14 pm


No less “legitimate” than any “covenant” you might havev entered into, Rick. We were married in our Church. Our covenant is before God and our community. Whether YOU deem it legitimate or not is moot. “The early church was interracial and multi-cultural, so it would not be far-fetched to think that there was a lot of intermarriage taking place.” Didn’t make no nevermind to the bigot sheriff who said: “Not in MY State you’re not [married]!” Didn’t make THEM any less married either. They were. As are we. Get over it.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 16, 2007 at 9:34 pm


No less “legitimate” than any “covenant” you might havev entered into, Rick. I have not yet entered into such a covenant. Didn’t make no nevermind to the bigot sheriff who said: “Not in MY State you’re not [married]!” Once again, apples and oranges. The Scripture does not contain any prohibitions on interracial marriage; on the other hand, same-gender marriages not only didn’t happen but were unthinkable.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 16, 2007 at 10:39 pm


curiouser and curiouser… | 02.16.07 – 3:21 pm | #Butch is the one that said his son ‘left the church’.I have never referred to you as immoral or “arrogant” – so don’t put words in my mouth. I am not out to ‘convert’ you – I thought this was a place for civil discussion. It seems that the RLC or the Blue people on this site for the most part have little respect of tolerance so fine – no more prayers. Lord knows I don’t want to piss off you people – just thought some talk would be interesting and I might learn something. I have – interpretation of the Bible is ‘whatever’ you want it to say. The adding to or taking away from Holy Scripture is approved of so long as it reinforces your position. (Eve was Adams 1st and only wife – Lilith is a ‘myth’) The ‘she’ of the godhead refers to ‘wisdom’ not the gender of the Almighty. The Gnostic books were never considered for inclusion to the Holy Cannon – Brown just made a lot of money off them. later – is a term that I have to go and will be back at a ‘later’ time – period. After the Ball was an accusation not an endorsement. I believe that the book also says that they ‘AIDS’ plague gave them the best victim card to further the agenda. Kind of a cold analysis since so many are dying of this dreaded illness. so – later .



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 16, 2007 at 11:00 pm


Payshun | Homepage | 02.16.07 – 12:57 pm | #I can say that w/ authority because of the lack of grace you have shown the LGBTQ community. Grace to the LGBTQ community – this one is difficult. I have been very respectful. We have a gay couple in our neighborhood and have invited them to our BBQ’s etc. Supported their rights to housing – employment – etc. No I do not agree with their lifestyle…I think that has been established.But each and every year we have a huge Gay Pride Parade where the ‘community’ takes over main street downtown and rides floats – cars – bikes – etc. Dressed is costumes or lack of costumes. oversized ‘make appendages’ attached to the costumes – dry-humping on the floats – etc – etc – etc. I would be offended and upset if this was a bunch of hetros carrying on in public like this.But this type of display is accepted by the LGBTQ.Grace??? later – .



report abuse
 

nad2

posted February 16, 2007 at 11:55 pm


i had an entire post typed and ready to ‘publish’ that i just deleted because, at this stage, what’s the point. having what i feel is a fairly unique point of view on the matter, having once strongly espoused the views i have here been questioning, i do not think this is beyond marginally constructive. kevin, maybe you were right, perhaps it is a deep christological, theological and biblical interpretation divide that underpins this and merely manifests itself in the homosexuality debate and every other debate on this blog (this theological divide is often coupled strongly with political party loyalties, but not so much here). marcus borg describes the theological divide (or way of seeing things) generally as ‘the earlier paradigm’ and the ‘emerging paradigm,’ which i think between the two encompass probably 85% of the people who post here in one form or another, the other 15% of you – good for you for not letting anyone pin you down, contradictions must not scare you and i think that is remarkable and beautiful. borg is unapologetically an advocate for the ‘emerging’ but i think his descriptions of both are very fair, and it would be constructive for all to at least get to know a little of what lies behind these points of view by reading up on his paradigms even if just cursorily.curiouser, i know to you this argument is highly personal for you, but in a very real way i do not think the thing being argued against by others is at its heart homosexuality, though i don’t know if that is in any way comforting to you.though i do not think the question i continually posed about homosexuality was unfair, from an earlier paradigm point of view about biblical authority, i can see why most would not get past ‘it’s in the bible’ and to the heart of the question. that said, may we all remember ‘the greatest of these is love.’ some people have freed themselves of things others cling to; may we not begrudge each other because this hard and beautiful life has not nudged us all to cling to and be freed from the same things at the same time. God encompasses us all!!!



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 17, 2007 at 12:33 am


No Moderatelad, I am not talking about that because I find some of that disgusting as well. No I am not talking about homosexuality but I am talking about the lack of modesty and respect Pride festivals can show to the surrounding community. By no means am I saying that they should all be wearing business suits and acting in a way that they cannot celebrate their identity but I honestly think that sometimes some of that should be done at night. I personally don’t like seeing it either if I saw a whole bunch of naked women walking around talking about the beauty of their breasts. I find them beautiful but I also have taste. I don’t need to see them out everywhere. i would say the same things about guys aswell. I like modesty in the public sphere. Gay pride festivals and events have everything to do w/ location and timing. The same could be said for Irish celebrations on Saint Patty’s Day or a big festival like Freak Neak or things like that. I honestly think people really don’t love themselves if they let themselves use public events to do the booty clap or make out publicly.Dress in leather all you want but keep it confined to the bedroom, clubs, and settings where respect for neighbors is paramount.I see nothing wrong w/ two men kissing in and of itself. But I do have a problem w/ public displays of affection that are less tasteful. If you want to makeout w/ your significant other go your house. I just don’t want to see that and that’s across the board. As for grace how about not pointing that their “lifestyle” is a sin and just talking to them. Instead of voicing your condemnation of it and assumption that some might go to hell how about not saying anything and just letting them tell you their story? That’s a good start for grace right? p



report abuse
 

Timbuktoo

posted February 17, 2007 at 1:00 am


The sheer number of the posts on this subject prove Campolo’s premise. Evangelicals ARE fixated on this issue.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 17, 2007 at 3:40 am


Timbuktoo | 02.16.07 – 8:05 pm | #Evangelicals ARE fixated on this issue. – NOT What are we to talk about when Mr. Tony writes an article like this one – the weather? I believe that most of the posts on this have been from people in support that the bible condones gays and that we should just shut up about the whole issue. If that is how things are to be then why discuss about any topic in the scriptures – just keep your mouth shut and let people go about their lives with no thought as to what God requires of us. Let them listen to the ‘god within them’ and things will be so much better for all.I believe that we need a base line of what is and is not scripture. Are we just going to use the ‘red’ letters or do we use the Bible as a whole. Are the Gnostic gospels a part of the discussion or not. Once the ground work is done we can know what to use in our discussion and who is willing to participate.The person is more important than the issue and there will be times that we will have to agree to disagree. But we are still building the frame work of our discussion.later



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted February 17, 2007 at 4:21 am


Well, this evangelical is certainly not fixated on the issue. There are only about half a dozen Scripture references to homosexual bahavior and perhaps a couple of thousand about dealing with the poor. This doesn’t mean, however, that I don’t have a definite opinion on either issue.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 17, 2007 at 6:06 pm


moderat, “I thought this was a place for civil discussion.” I used to think that too, before all the comparisons so child-rapers, beastialists, polygamists, etc. from the ‘right’. “It seems that the RLC or the Blue people on this site for the most part have little respect of tolerance” You show nothing of “tolerance” to us, so maybe we’re just playing out the “Do unto others as YOU would have them do ounto YOU” credo. “Lord knows I don’t want to piss off you people” You DON’T???!!! Mind if I laff? “just thought some talk would be interesting and I might learn something.” You’ve never shown any interest in “learning” anything. See below… “I have – interpretation of the Bible is ‘whatever’ you want it to say.” No one here has EVER said anything remotely like that. This is what I mean by you not showing any interest in “learning” something – you come here to hurl insults and untruths. “The adding to or taking away from Holy Scripture is approved of so long as it reinforces your position.” Ditto as above – you are NOT interested in “learning” anything, only in throwing lies around. “(Eve was Adams 1st and only wife – Lilith is a ‘myth’)” Tell that to the authors of the Books of the Bible (that got cut out) where she is mentioned. Oh, and btw, “Adam” and “Eve” are also myths. “The ‘she’ of the godhead refers to ‘wisdom’ not the gender of the Almighty.” Except for the more than 2 dozen female references to God in Scripture. “The Gnostic books were never considered for inclusion to the Holy Cannon” Perhaps because of who the “deciders” were. Think about that. “later – is a term that I have to go and will be back at a ‘later’ time – period.” Yes, I understood that. And still see it as a threat ;{O)



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 17, 2007 at 6:10 pm


ML, “Grace to the LGBTQ community – this one is difficult. I have been very respectful.” No you have not. Not on this board, anyway. “I do not agree with their lifestyle.” This is an example of your lack of grace towards us. We do not HAVE “lifestyles”; we have LIVES, despite your attempts to distort them. “But each and every year we have a huge Gay Pride Parade where the ‘community’ takes over main street downtown and rides floats – cars – bikes – etc. Dressed is costumes or lack of costumes. oversized ‘make appendages’ attached to the costumes – dry-humping on the floats – etc – etc – etc. I would be offended and upset if this was a bunch of hetros carrying on in public like this.” But they DO. Never been to Carnavale? Mardi Gras? Caribbana? Heck, “rides floats – cars – bikes – etc. Dressed is costumes” – sounds sorta like every Labour Day Parade (and a few Santa Clause Parades) I’ve seen. “But this type of display is accepted by the LGBTQ.’ And most of the ‘civilized’ world.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 17, 2007 at 6:17 pm


nad2, Yes, your words have been of great comfort to me, and thanks for them. “i know to you this argument is highly personal for you, but in a very real way i do not think the thing being argued against by others is at its heart homosexuality” You are absolutely right. When we want to discuss homosexuality, the other side continues to bring up beastiality, polygamy, child-rape, incest, etc. Frankly, it’s puke-making because it has NOTHING to do with the topic. I don’t think the people on the other side realize the hurt their words cause – not just to gay people (and our lives and our right to equality) but to their own cause. Thinking people KNOW those things have NOTHING to do with the discussion of homosexuality, nor with the discussion of committed, loving, adult (HUMAN) consenting relationships. And every time they bring those other things into the picture, more and more people are convinced that they’re not much more than ‘religious busybodies’ and bearers of false witness. In a way I’m glad that they do it ‘cuz it makes them look and sound so foolish, but it is tiring to constantly have to refute such nonsense. I won’t stop though, ‘cuz the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do (or say) nothing. Again, thanks for your support.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 17, 2007 at 6:33 pm


ML, Now you’re debating – and good for you… “with no thought as to what God requires of us.” You seem to think we give “no thought as to what God requires of us”. This too is false. From Micah 6:8 – “and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do JUSTly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.” I see nothing in my personal walk that is not in harmony with that. “Let them listen to the ‘god within them’ and things will be so much better for all.” This is how I live my life.”I believe that we need a base line of what is and is not scripture. Are we just going to use the ‘red’ letters or do we use the Bible as a whole. Are the Gnostic gospels a part of the discussion or not.” I agree, we need to determine that first off. I continually have asked, WHICH version of Sripture is the “correct” one to use – the one that says “two men shall be in a bed, the one shall be taken and the other left” (a ‘rapture’ reference, I believe, and quite possibly prophetic, considering it places 2 men in the same bed), OR the one that says “two men shall be in a room together”? Which is the “correct” one, the one that says Jonathan and David “kissed one another … until Jonathan exceeded” (which some scholars say means ‘had an orgasm’), OR the one that says they “sadly shook hands”? Do we use the “Catholic” Bible which does mention Lillith, “Adam’s” companion BEFORE “Eve”, or the Protestant Bible which doesn’t? Since I am not Catholic, why should I use their Bible, since it was THEIR leaders who decided the Gnostic Gospels didn’t make the cut? “Once the ground work is done we can know what to use in our discussion and who is willing to participate.” You have hit one of the very cruxes of this debate. Thanks for that. But don’t forget, it isn’t just a matter of “who is willing to participate” but, as is/was OFTEN the case for OUR ‘side’, who is ALLOWED to participate. Please continue to build on THIS discussion and leave out the anti-gay slurs, and we’ll have a fruitful debate.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 17, 2007 at 11:41 pm


curiouser and curiouser… | 02.17.07 – 1:38 pm | #Not sure how much longer this article is going to be available for postings. Just to clarify – I do not mean them to be ‘anti gay’ slurs – I do not put more emphasis on one sin over another – sin is sin. Also – I life my life under what I see as guidelines of the bible. If it were up to me I would put out the stops and have a great time. Sex is love – love is sex – let’s have a great time with each other. The hedonist in me says we should be able to show and share love with anyone we want to do it with and they are willing. But my bible says no – so I live within the guidelines that I read in my bible. I believe that they Almighty should have made it so that we as humans had to each eat a berry and then have sex so that we would be able to have children – if you did not eat the berry – you did not have to worry about an ‘unwanted pregnancy’. But God wanted us to have free will and to accept responsibility.There are a number of other things that I believe I would have done differently – but isn’t it great that I am not God. (and everyone says – AMEN!)So I live my life for the most part inside the lines. No I do not go to ‘carnival or mardi gras’ as I find that overt expression offensive regardless of who it is.I have gone through my desert journey – privately about the scriptures and came to the conclusion that I will believe what is in the bible and believe that it is complete as it is today. I question several items and then realized that if I do not accept one of the arguments that God has placed in Holy Scripture – why I should believe any of it. The people that put together the final 66 books were a lot closer to the time of the Savior than I am and they talked about things that we will never know about that made them come to the conclusion they did about scripture. The one wedding that Christ attended and performed his first miracle at because of a pushy mother. (oh those mothers —) was a couple – a man and a woman. If he had ordained that there could be variations allowed on this matter – I believe that he would have been bolder about it.I can not accept the Apocryphal books or the Gnostic writings. They are not a part of the Cannon, they can be used to assist in dating when things happened – but they are not ‘scripture’.Dear Gussie – for all of my male friends that I have given a hug and dare I say a kiss because of the ‘intimacy’ that we have allowed the two of us to experience together in our life journeys. I believe that I would make Jonathan look like a light weight. BUT – never once has it been even remotely sexual. Emotional – endearing – satisfying – engaging…yes, yes, YES! (sorry – could not resist the humor) But never sexual. Guess I am a conservative, non RLC, white male that is not threatened to show his famine side now and again. I do not see the God is a female. It was not the daughter that was sent to die for the sins of the world. All of the study and sermons that I have heard that talk about the famine side of God is referencing an attribute of the Almighty where putting that facet of His persona in the ‘famine’ gender made more since, fitting the description. later – (gently spoken as I am tired after spending the last 7 hours with high school students)



report abuse
 

Timbuktoo

posted February 18, 2007 at 2:27 am


Moderatelad: to Timbuktoo | 02.16.07 – 8:05 pm | # “Evangelicals ARE fixated on this issue. – NOT” The sheer volume of your response to my one sentence post also proves Mr. Campolo’s point. I offered no opinion either way on the issue. You felt you needed to. Maybe just a “little” fixated there, Moderatelad? Naw!



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 18, 2007 at 2:50 am


Timbuktoo | 02.17.07 – 9:32 pm | #Tony wrote the article. The blue / RLC seem to type us conservatives as only interested in gay and abortion issues. I personally don’t make a big deal about either as my conservative parents taught us kids that we are our brother s keeper and we need to help those who need it and are trying to improve their situation. Sojo that last few weeks seems to more interested in ‘sex’. I think I would have to go to the Playboy site to see more articles about sex, etc. Mr. Tony’s article has had a lot of replies yes – but not sure that the majority is conservatives.They are good at the chat here – more than adequate at organizing the protest. But we never seem to get past the jaw-jacking. Here we read about the hungry and why the US is such a bad country because we don’t do enough – whatever. I prefer to take my kids and students from my son s school as well as kids from our church to work with organizations that do something for the hungry. Later – .



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 18, 2007 at 4:33 am


Well Moderatelad, The apostles and followers of Jesus used the apocyrophal writings in the canonical gospel. Look at Jude and his reference of the assumption of Moses. That text was ignored by Jewish scholars the world over and yet it’s in the bible. Then you have the angels being bound in prison in Peter’s letters. They were from Enoch’s story of the angels being locked up for having sex w/ women. I could list a couple of other examples. But my point is that the authors of the bible saw fit to use these things in their sermons and stories to prove a point to their readers. Maybe just maybe we can do the same.Keep doing what you are doing w/ your kids. It’s not that the US is a bad country because it doesn’t do enough. It’s a broken nation because it’s policies and labor practices can sometimes hurt the poor.p



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 18, 2007 at 4:21 pm


ML, “I do not mean them to be ‘anti gay’ slurs” But they ARE. How many times do you need to be told that by the very people you hurt? “I do not put more emphasis on one sin over another – sin is sin.” Again, many Christians do not see same-sex committed, adult, consenting, loving HUMAN relationships as “sin”. Why do YOUR religioous beliefs trump theirs? “I life my life under what I see as guidelines of the bible.” So do I. “Sex is love – love is sex” Where’d ya get THAT from??? Very reductionist, not to mention quite untrue. “isn’t it great that I am not God.” Yes it is. We just wish you would stop trying to act like God. Judgement is God’s alone, not yours. (and everyone says – AMEN!)”So I live my life for the most part inside the lines.” You live it inside the lines YOU have drawn, based on your faith’s tenets. So do I. “No I do not go to ‘carnival or mardi gras’ as I find that overt expression offensive regardless of who it is.” Others do not, yet we do not disparage them.”I have gone through my desert journey – privately about the scriptures and came to the conclusion that I will believe what is in the bible and believe that it is complete as it is today.” Ditto. “I question several items and then realized that if I do not accept one of the arguments that God has placed in Holy Scripture – why I should believe any of it.” Hence the lobster/shrimp question – “ABOMINATIONS” ya know. Likewise the ‘putting to death victims of incest” proscriptions, the ‘women ought not preach or teach’ proscriptions. You are just as selective as you seem to think WE are. The one wedding that Christ attended and performed his first miracle at … was a couple – a man and a woman. If he had ordained that there could be variations allowed on this matter – I believe that he would have been bolder about it.” You might think He would have said evn ONE recorded word about the topic. We don’t have any record that He did. Yet YOU go on and on about it. We keep asking WHY?’I can not accept the Apocryphal books or the Gnostic writings.” But others do. Again I ask, why do YOUR ‘religious beleifs’ trump theirs? “They are not a part of the Cannon, they can be used to assist in dating when things happened – but they are not ‘scripture’.” According to the Catholic hierarchy that decided that originally, anyway.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 18, 2007 at 4:29 pm


more to ML, “Dear Gussie” Who is “gussie”? “for all of my male friends that I have given a hug and dare I say a kiss because of the ‘intimacy’ that we have allowed the two of us to experience together in our life journeys. I believe that I would make Jonathan look like a light weight. BUT – never once has it been even remotely sexual.” So? “Emotional – endearing – satisfying – engaging…yes, yes, YES! (sorry – could not resist the humor)” Sorry. I missed the “humor”. Care to highlight it for us? “But never sexual.” Again, SO WHAT? Are you saying/implying that you are better than those people who DO have sexual relations you wouldn’t enter into because you’re … WHAT, Str8? Bi? Confused? Scared? O, no, it’s because… “I am a conservative” Like you get brownie points in Heaven ‘cuz you’re a “conservative”??? “that is not threatened to show his famine side now and again.” [feminine side, shurely!] As if that is a ‘bad’ thing? No, apparently simply acting out on one’s totally natural sexual attraction is the ‘bad’ thing. “I do not see the God is a female.” That’s fine, moderatelad, but that simply means you choose to selectively ignore the more than 2 dozen references to God in female terms that proliferate in the Bible. Note, I do not see God as exclusively female, but seeing/knowing that side of God makes God more approachable and real to me. “It was not the daughter that was sent to die for the sins of the world.” Now you’ve switched the topic from God as feminine to Jesus Christ. Sorry, 2 different things. “All of the study and sermons that I have heard that talk about the famine side of God is referencing an attribute of the Almighty where putting that facet of His persona in the ‘famine’ gender made more since, fitting the description.” Well, you DO say you come from a conservative background. That in itself might limit the types of “study and sermons” you are exposed to, no? Yes, in ‘makes more sense because the feminine side of God IS another facet of God’s persona. Thanks for at least finally admitting that those elements ARE indeed present in the Bible.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 18, 2007 at 4:33 pm


ML, “The blue / RLC seem to type us conservatives as only interested in gay and abortion issues.” No, you “type” yourselves that way. I just bet that if “conservatives” gave it a rest, they’d lose some of that reputation as “only interested in gay and abortion issues”. “I personally don’t make a big deal about either” Not evident HERE, moderatelad. “as my conservative parents taught us kids that we are our brother s keeper and we need to help those who need it and are trying to improve their situation.” Sorry, but we really don’t “need” your “help” (certainly not the kind you’ve propounded here, anyway). “Sojo that last few weeks seems to more interested in ‘sex’.” It is a MAJOR societal factor. Should Sojo NOT be allowed to discuss it?



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 19, 2007 at 1:32 am


curiouser and curiouser… | 02.18.07 – 11:38 am | #It is a MAJOR societal factor. Should Sojo NOT be allowed to discuss it? No – go ahead and make it part of the discussion – just be ready for some input that you will not agree with from people that will respect you as a human being but can not accept your ‘life’ as you are living it. You have the right to your life and they have a right to disagree with it.Not looking for brownie points and will not support the actions that have been on the news with mardi gras or gay pride. why do YOUR ‘religious beleifs’ trump theirs? does not trump but if they are going to quote ‘extra biblcal text’ I will most likely have nothing to say as I do not see them as legit. curiouser – I am not going to change and I am not expecting that you will either. Have a great life – but I’m still here. Make the best of what you have – but I’m still here. Go for the brass ring – but I’m still here.later – .



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 19, 2007 at 1:57 am


ModerateladIf it was not that you disagreed w/ how he spends his life that would be all and good. People don’t agree about a lot of things. But the problem is when you and those that support you want to use your opinion to regulate his behavior based off of some selective readings of the bible. p



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 19, 2007 at 4:57 am


Payshun | Homepage | 02.18.07 – 9:02 pm | #regulate his behavior based off of some selective readings of the bible I don’t see it as ‘selective’ and I will not accept extra biblical texts. They can use them bit I can not. When it seems that so many here are so willing to throw out thousands of years of classical orthodox interpretation of scripture. God is a female – no it is the traits of the Almighty that have been given feminine names to identify them. Paul affliction was that he was a closeted homosexual – no, it was a physical ailment and most likely something to do with his eyes. We only really want to consider the ‘red letters’ as that is what was said by the Almighty – no, I believe that you need to talk to Bible in its entirety and view the OT with NT eyes. It is short sighted to take one verse out of the bible and make it say something when you need to look at what was being said in the chapter where the verse comes from. I see no contradictions when the bible is studied as a book and not assembled like a jigsaw puzzle with pieces missing. The way some quote the bible on this site I could make Gone with the Wind say that blacks supported slavery if I could pull phrases at will. I could add in the writings of Jefferson Davis and really make GWTW say many more things that it never did.I have yet to find one passage in the bible that ‘out and out’ supports the gay lifestyle. I see passages that say it is not something that God endorses in both the OT and NT. I see where it says that a ‘man shall leave his mother and a women leave her home’ when talking about a marriage. Many seem to argue the ‘here and now ; I am looking at the big picture – all of eternity. They may be able to believe it is OK and feel correct about it. I can not and will not support that idea so that someone might be misled. They support their ideas and I support mine and if it is going to be fought our in the courts of congress – we will have to see who prevails. Later – .



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted February 19, 2007 at 5:01 am


curiouser and curiouser… | 02.18.07 – 11:38 am | #best of luck – I believe that we most likely have said everything that we could have said.later – .



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted February 19, 2007 at 7:48 am


I went to the Rog Ganon website, and the ole gaydar went off as soon as I saw his photo. What is it about effeminate ‘theologians’ that you evangelicals seem to fall for so easily? Ernest Aingley, Gerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, Benny Hinn, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggart. Geez louise you’re gullible. Not to mention Mr. Gagnon’s hucksterism (“the 2-DVD set is available for $25.00!!!”) Come on folks, get a freakin’ grip! curiouser and curiouser… | 02.16.07 – 4:02 pm | Jerry Fallwell is “effeminate???” ROFL… ROFL… wow curiouser, you really are reaching. I guess that’s better than subatantive engagements of his arguments, eh? To say nothing of the fact that plenty of Gagnon’s info is free and avaialbe on the site. Methinks it’s YOU that needs to get a grip :-D



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted February 19, 2007 at 8:02 am


Curiouser… I just checked through your responses on my other posts. You can stand up and call these lies all you want. I find it good for a laugh :) The fact is you don’t want to engage one site because it’s Catholic and another site because you think a guy looks effeminate.. and it’s on and on…. lame excuses. Subsituting grandstanding for intellegent dialouge. It so proves to me that you don’t have any real answers to the mountains of proof brought against you. You are threatened by it and that’s why you hurl invectives. I pray gor the other Progressives on this site, hopefully a few lights will come on as a result of them reading your childish tantrums. Hopefully they wil see that true social justice issues include prservation of the Family as it is Biblically understood. But you sir are a joke to me.Oh, and my “harrassment” charges were gay to straight harrassment issues. Yep it happens, and I bet you’re going to sit and deny that one too.You’re quite the comic releif :-D



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 19, 2007 at 3:23 pm


ML, “people that will respect you as a human being but can not accept your ‘life’ as you are living it.” You don’t need to “accept” my “life” (I’m glad you’ve ‘learned’ we don’t have “lifestyles”, but why you need now to put my life in smarmy quote marks is way beyond me). The government, otoh, DOES need to treat me equally before the law. “You have the right to your life and they have a right to disagree with it.” Disagree with the fact that I actually have the right to life??? Methinks you dig yourself further and further. I wonder if you “disagree” with my right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Frankly, I don’t give a schiite whether you “like” it, “agree” with it, or “accept” it. Payshun got it right: “But the problem is when you and those that support you want to use your opinion to regulate his behavior based off of some selective readings of the bible.” Of course, YOU “don’t see it as ‘selective'”, despite our pointing out SEVERAL examples showing that is exactly what it is. And yes, I know you are “not going to change”, and that’s realy what endangers my “life”, at least the my being treated equally before the law part of it, anyway. “so many here are so willing to throw out thousands of years of classical orthodox interpretation of scripture” NO”I have yet to find one passage in the bible that ‘out and out’ supports the gay lifestyle.” Oooops, slipping into the old, untrue verbiage. You are dismissed, but not quite yet: “and if it is going to be fought our in the courts of congress – we will have to see who prevails.” Easy to say when yer “president” appoints judges based on their anti-equality stances. Now you can go.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 19, 2007 at 3:34 pm


Kevin Wayne, “Jerry Fallwell is “effeminate???” Extremely so – to me and most of the people I know that care to watch him. “ROFL… ROFL… wow curiouser, you really are reaching.” No. I’m sticking to what the Bible ACTUALLY says, namely that the “effeminate” will not inheerit the Kingsom. It does NOT say the “homosexual”. “I guess that’s better than subatantive engagements of his arguments, eh?” See above re what the bible does and does not say. If YOU don’t find that “substantive”, too bad. “The fact is you don’t want to engage one site because it’s Catholic” I didn’t say I don’t want to “engage” it; I say it is hardly “proof” of any Catholic argument to use a Catholic website because it supports the argument. Well, DUH!!! I also will never “engage” anything from NARTH becasue they operate from the premise that I am sick, broken and in need of a “cure”, “healing” or – as in their very title – “treatment”. “and another site because you think a guy looks effeminate.” Had nothing to do with a website; had to do with what the Bible actually says, not you distorted belief of what it says. ‘Specially since you’re talking about ME with your lies. “and it’s on and on…. lame excuses. Subsituting grandstanding for intellegent dialouge.” Need a mirror? “It so proves to me that you don’t have any real answers to the mountains of proof brought against you.” I Didn’t know I was on trial. Who made YOU the Judge? That job is taken, and by One far more qualified than you. As for “real answers”, your side has yet to come up with any. “You are threatened by it” No, I’m threatened by YOU and the laws your side would put in place to treat me as a 2nd class citizen. “I pray gor the other Progressives on this site, hopefully a few lights will come on as a result of them reading your childish tantrums.” Hmm, protesting the exclusion of gay people from the Constitution is now mere “childish tantrums”. “Hopefully they wil see that true social justice issues include prservation of the Family” The “family” is not under attack. It is not endangered (certainly not by my inclusion in it). Besides, with the 51% divorce/sin rate, you aren’t doing too hot of a job of “preserving” it yourselves. “as it is Biblically understood.” By YOU. But you sir are a joke to me.”Oh, and my “harrassment” charges were gay to straight harrassment issues. Yep it happens, and I bet you’re going to sit and deny that one too.” Well, it would help if you could provide even ONE example so we’d know what the heck you’re talking about. You’re quite the comic relief ;{O)



report abuse
 

Kevin K (yet another Kevin)

posted February 19, 2007 at 5:10 pm


Over the years, there has been speculation that Paul the Apostle may have indeed been gay himself. It’s not like homosexuality just dropped off on the American scene from a passing mail carrier. Bigotry has been with us since the dawn of time…the bully syndrome of “let’s pick on someone who is different than the rest of us.” How Jesus like?? It seems it’s always like that when the literalists get wound up.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted February 19, 2007 at 8:14 pm


Curiouser, Can I just say that I love you? ROFL You rock. Moderatelad, So you are going to ignore 2’nd Peter, Job, Genesis 1 and 2, Jonah, Jude, and parts of the Psalms because they use extra biblical sources to fill their writing. No one is saying you have to see them as canonical and use them in your life. All were saying is that if they were good enough to be referenced and understood in the Hebrew old testament and Christian new testament you should at least know about them. It’s obvious from your writing that you don’t. That means you are missing out on what the writer was talking about and part of the meaning God has in healing you. One thing you have to understand about God the Father. He is both masculine and feminine. he lacks genitalia so he is neither man nor woman and he is a consuming fire. So again those concepts of masculinity and feminity are part of God and as such are divine and worthy of respect and love. So don’t ignore parts of God that make no sense to you. Oh and please ignore any mention of the Shekinah glory in the old testament. Because guess what that’s a feminine image. Please ignore some of the most beautifully written parts of the prophets because they use the image of a female chicken, eagle or bird to show how God wraps the nation of Israel up in her wings. Please ignore any mention of God calling out for Israel like he is looking for his long lost lover. Because some of that is feminine as well. So again you are selective about the bible and the way you read it. It would seem that most of your theology is only a few hundred years old whereas mine is thousands and actually predates time. So again ignore any mention of Sophia (the wisdom of God mentioned in Psalms) so that you will still stay clueless. It would seem that you should pray for more wisdom because you need it.Oh yah the wisdom of God is feminine and I am not talking gnostic either. p



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted February 19, 2007 at 11:00 pm


Curiouser you cant be taken seriously. Nobody says Falwell or Swaggart are “effeminate.” Well Ok, I’ll grant in your social circles, there may be peopel who say most anything. ;-) I just went thru Google and searchd under the names of both of these men under “images.” Do they look like rodeo-do folks I could relate to? Not really. What I found was a lot of websites spoofing them or making seriously wicked fun. No surprise. But I didn’t really find anything remotely effeminate about either of them. Curiouser keep reaching. Eventually it will occur to someone around here that onyl a person who hasn’t the truth on his side and deeply knows it in his heart but has suppressed it would argue as you do. That’s what eminates from your being- in words of the site you desipse: “sick”- Yes. Your attempts and branding others with the title “effminate” shows a sick tendency to try and bring others down to your level, kinda like addicts I have known who scorn others who are attempting to be kind to them “broken”- Yup. Your perceptions are so out of whack it ain’t funny. It’s like trying to look out oif a spidered windshield, isn’t it? “and in need of a “cure”- Amen and amen. Everyone is in need of a “cure” from sin. Some of us have admitted it, tho. “healing” Yes. Christ came tor bring healing. “treatment” Hopefully, Christ centered treatment. Since your consitituancy sucessfully lobbied the APA to take homsexuality out of it’s definition of mental illnesses.It’s like you have said “I have a tree stuck in my eye, but I’m going to make the speck in my brother’s more of a problem.” No problem here. I’m not the one who’s sexuality is at eminity with God. :)



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted February 19, 2007 at 11:06 pm


Curiouser: Oh and as far as Gay oppresion of others, I have plenty of personal accounts of physical harrassment, inapropriate comments, inappropraite touching, favoritism on the job, dispariging remarks, attempts at poisoning someone’s children with proaganda, etc etc that have been done in a small amount to myself and a GREAT amount to others I know. So how would you like proof? Shall I go get a signed affidavit from the sick and the broken? *snort* Ya’right! But hey? Why take my word for it: Persecution of Black Christians by Homosexuals http://www.thehuntsvillechronicle.com/articles/pers_blkChrist.htm Hateful Christianity? http://www.omegaletter.com/article_print.asp?ArticleID=4669 Media shamefully ignore persecution of Christians http://www.theinterim.com/2002/oct/moore.html



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted February 19, 2007 at 11:10 pm

Kevin Wayne

posted February 19, 2007 at 11:50 pm


Some updated links of Persecution of Christians by gays, as of a search I did today: http://www.4hurtingchristians.com/persecution_of_christians.html http://www.afa.net/clp/Philly5.asp http://www.persecution.org/suffering/countrynews.php?newscode=972 Turkish officials permit local Santa Claus association to recognize gay rights supporter in St. Nicholas’ church, but refuse to allow Christians to celebrate the Eucharist there. http://www.bereanpublishers.com/Persecution_of_Christians/persecution_of_christians_in_america.htm Disney World has had Sunday services for visitors since 1975. It stopped having them. It also instituted an annual “Gay Day.” Kodak had a “Coming Out Day” for homosexuals. When a Christian employee protested, he was fired. Motorola has mandatory “homophobia” workshops and homosexual sex education classes. Sandia National Laboratories gave its employees two days of “diversity training.” It has an annual “Coming Out Day” that to celebrate sexual diversity. Married employees were told to get rid of pictures of their wives and children in order to avoid offending homosexual employees. (“Persecution,” pages 226-233)



report abuse
 

Kevin Wayne

posted February 19, 2007 at 11:55 pm


More on Gay Persecution of Christians: http://americansfortruth.com/issues/freedom-under-fire/christian-persecution/ http://logosresourcepages.org/OurTimes/hatred.htm I well remember the denunciation of the late Reggie White, an All-Pro defensive end for the Green Bay Packers, because he stated in a speech his Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality. CBS almost immediately cancelled his pending sports casting contract. During his speech, White declared that he is “offended” by the comparison of struggles of homosexual groups to those of blacks. “Homosexuality is a decision. It’s not a race,” he said.



report abuse
 

Kevin K (yet another Kevin)

posted February 20, 2007 at 12:40 am


Wow…alot of hate here. Talk about Jesus being hijacked. Whoa! It’s hard to disguise hate…you can put lipstick and a wig on that pig, but it is what it is. Fortunately there is an emerging church that is a powerful antidote to this kind of miscreant “Christianity.”Lead on O King Eternal!



report abuse
 

Doug

posted February 20, 2007 at 3:50 pm


Curiouser: “I discount anything published by NARTH, since their very reason for existing is to ‘prove’ to the world how “sick” and “broken” gay people are. That is the premise from which they operate and it is just another lie of the ‘right’.” It matters absolutely not one whit whether you discount or recount or flipping count what NARTH publishes. The facts they cite are solid and crystal clear, and speak for themselves. But if your mind is hermetically made up, far be it from me to confuse you with facts. “The same thing about heterosexuals and promiscuity can be said” No. From NARTH: “The survey findings of the University of Chicago’s Prof. Edward Laumann contrasts the average number of sexual partnerships claimed by typical straight and gay men. In a study reported in 2004, eighty-eight per cent of gay men claimed to have had 16 or more sex partners. In a 1992 study of heterosexual married adults, by contrast, Laumann reported that a majority of 1,660 respondents claimed to have had only one sexual partner after the age of 18, and only 15 per cent more than ten.” Curiouser: “Honey, I, as a gay man…” Cut the false intimacy. “I love them all.” – God spare us from such “love”. UGH! Granted.Curiouser: “Sorry but you failed to give us “reasons why homosexual relationships are unhealthy for society” Oh, on the contrary, I think I quite succeeded. Here are a couple more: 6) With our sexually-saturated environment pushing homosexuality at every turn, non-sexual yet intimate male-male relationships now have to contend with being mislabeled as gay. So much for being careful not to stereotype. 7) I do not want my children exposed to “Heather has two Mommies” or “Daddy’s Roommate” reading material rubbish in school. Yet this is precisely the kind of tactic that is being used in public education as societal re-conditioning.Curiouser, judging from your posts and the mocking, snarling, heterophobic tone you use to respond to reasoned posts, you seem to be a very unhappy, insecure person. I would say I’m sorry for that, but in your case I’ll gladly make an exception. I’m a little slow, but I now see that contending with you in your Alice in Wonderland world is a collossal waste of time, so good bye. I’ll leave the last word up to you.



report abuse
 

Kevin K (yet another Kevin)

posted February 20, 2007 at 11:34 pm


Doug,”judging from your posts and the mocking, snarling, heterophobic tone you use to respond to reasoned posts…” Reasoned posts? Yeah, the same kind of reasoning that bigots have used for centuries to rationalize their hatred. NARTH is an agenda driven mouthpiece for the Righties and Fundies. Curiouser is one of the most reasonable posters on this blog. I would say Doug is the pot calling the kettle black.



report abuse
 

Janet

posted February 21, 2007 at 4:17 pm


I just returned from a month in East Africa. I had the opportunity to be in Gulu – Uganda as well as working with AIDS orphans in Malawi.I was just pondering on how frustrating it must be for Dr. Campolo to have to spend 80% of his time discussing the issue of homosexuality on the air, when today alone an approximate 24,000 persons will die from hunger related issues in the “Majority World.” I think the issue of homosexuality is important – I don’t want to reduce the experiences of persons who are marginalized over this issue. I just hope someday blog comments will reach over 300 on issues that affect so many more persons than just this one topic. I am sad that there is so much anger and pain in all these posts. I think the Creator God has designed each person in this world with hope, love and potential. Shalom;



report abuse
 

Kevin K (yet another Kevin)

posted February 21, 2007 at 9:10 pm


The AIDS and hunger issues in Africa and other severely impoverished regions of the world and the “least of these” in our own country must become the number one priority of the Church. If the U.S. truly desires peace and justice in the world, the first place to begin is to roll up our sleeves and get involved with the intractable social problems in the World with no agenda of nationalistic advantage, but simply to offer our help. The bitter and growing ideological gulf that separates the Church is scandalous. That the Church is undergoing a new Reformation in answer to this scandal and will ultimately bring focus to the missiology of our Lord, but in the meantime, many suffer needlessly. May God have mercy on us for offering a lesser grace.



report abuse
 

darkmoonman

posted February 22, 2007 at 3:13 am


Evangelicals & gays? IMO, the appelation that Greek Orthodox priests use for their anti-Gay members applies: crazies.



report abuse
 

SultanME

posted February 23, 2007 at 6:49 am


Why someone becomes a homosexual is totally irrelevant. We are not created to follow our whims no matter how we developed those whims. We are supposed to struggle to be righteous and God fearing. Having an affinity or a preference to any sin is not an excuse to commit that sin even if that affinity or preference is part of our genetic make-up. Otherwise, you (as christians) could also argue that a person doesn’t beleive in Jesus because of something in his/her genes. This is my opinion but then again, I am a muslim and faith is very different to other religions in this area specifically.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 23, 2007 at 2:46 pm


Kevin Wayne, “Nobody says Falwell or Swaggart are “effeminate.” Foulwell is one of the nelliest, smarmiest of the RRR. Benny Hinn is such an effete. Ernest Aingley – a visible sissy. Jim Bakker? Well we know his story all too well. Go ahead and deny the obvious, Kevin. No skin off my nose. “in words of the site you desipse: “sick”- Yes. Your attempts and branding others with the title “effminate” shows a sick tendency to try and bring others down to your level, kinda like addicts…” Ah yes, the ‘kind’, ‘charitable’, “christian” comparison to addicts. Exactly what we expect of you. Thanks for the re-inforcement. “broken and in need of a “cure” More of the same. Pretty typical. “healing”, “treatment” Homosexuality is NOT a disease, despite your beliefs. So it wouldn’t/doesn’t matter if it is “Christ centered treatment” or not. “It’s like you have said “I have a tree stuck in my eye, but I’m going to make the speck in my brother’s more of a problem.” Figures you wouldn’t. “No problem here. I’m not the one who’s sexuality is at eminity with God.” How do you come to that conclusion, other than your “religious beliefs”? MY religion teaches otherwise – that I am a child of God, fully createdin God’s own image. How is that “at eminity” [whatever the heck THAT is] with the god who created me? Better yet, why do YOUR “religious beliefs” trump mine? Still no answer???



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 23, 2007 at 2:48 pm


Kevin Wayne: Your first 2 “links” do not work; the 3rd is from LIESite – a catholic source. Of course it would tout the Catholic party line. Try again.



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser...

posted February 23, 2007 at 2:57 pm


Doug, Me: “The same thing about heterosexuals and promiscuity can be said” You: “No.” Go ahead and join Kevin Wayne in the ranks of the deniers. But to then quote NARTH as a “source” of your “proof” cuts no weight at all. Their agenda is the elimination of God’s gay and lesbian children. And speaking of YOUR children… “I do not want my children exposed to “Heather has two Mommies” or “Daddy’s Roommate” reading material…” What would you do if one of your children is gay/lesbian? And even if they’re str8, do they have to wait until their 18th birthday when they are no longer under your control to find out there are homosexuals in the world? Talk about living with your head in the sand! There ARE “Heathers” out there who DO have 2 mommies, and many kids’ Dads have a “roommate” (though that’s a pretty stoopid name to call a life partner/spouse/lover, imnsho). Trouble is, your side wants to ignore or deny realities. I’ll have none of it, thank you.



report abuse
 

Stephen Davidson

posted February 25, 2007 at 12:44 pm


Evangelicals that oppose the promotion and indoctrination of homosexualists haven’t lost any ground since the New Testament writers logged their concerns for fellow Christians. Satan has won over degenerate minds.Homosexuality is one of the biggest threats TO Christians, the same way it was to the visitors to Sodom. The homosexualites, must make everyone like them. I see they have done a good job with Mr. and Mrs. Campolo.



report abuse
 

Carl T.

posted February 25, 2007 at 1:32 pm


Campolo and his “life-partner” are just wrong that’s all. How they got that way is the alarming part. God warned the Israelites not to mix with the peoples that practice abominations as it would get some of the Israelites involved in it. Same ol’ same ol’. The blind leading the blind. Only nowadays the gays and lesbians have the power of the law to silence Christians (authentic Christians) everywhere. And they are doing it.Try and talk about “traditional morality” at work and see how long you last?



report abuse
 

If the gods begrudgingly allowed a "teacher" who would tell it as it is, absent of societally accept

posted September 25, 2007 at 6:01 pm


If the gods begrudgingly allowed a “teacher” who would tell it as it is, absent of societally accepted Christian dogma, how do you think they would approach/script/execute this event???
With hostility. And that is what we have seen::::They use every tool at their disposal to ensure as few people as possible would be receptive.
The Holocaust’s clue of defiance escaped you all:::::Everyone condemned the blind obedience of the Nazi soldiers yet repeat this same behavior in your own personal lives, complying with every request they ask, even in the case of your precious children.
ONE PURPOSE OF THE HOLOCAUST WAS TO COMMUNICATE THIS CLUE!!!! COMPLIANCE IS A MISTAKE!!!!!
Telepathic requests constitute temptation.
It is important you recognize corruption is evil. They ask you to do things you shouldn’t be doing, and this will cost you in the eyes of the gods. They warned us temptation would be used to test us, and telepathic requests consitutute temptation.
Accept good and apply this standard when you make decisions in your life.
Realize this corruption has set your family in the wrong direction. Your efforts to fix your problems will not only help you but also your family, your children and grandchildren, direct descendants within your bloodline, for being a responsible parent and teaching your children the correct way to live will help guide your family in the right direction and help your family re-earn their favor with the gods.
IF YOU ARE NOT ACTIVELY WORKING TO FIX YOUR PROBLEMS AND GET OFF PLANET EARTH THEN YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG WAY!!!!!!
If god tells you not to pray that is a CLUE YOU NEED TO PRAY!!!!!:::::
1. I’m sorry for what I’ve done wrong.
2. I don’t want to make any more mistakes.
3. I want to fix my problems.
4. Please don’t hurt me.
I understand you have gone the wrong way and initially made your decision to comply often based on concrete perceptions:::They use conditioning tactics to gain trust and compliance which compelled you to subscribe to this corruption.
Open your mind to the reality you will have to make a very CONCRETE DECISION to change your direction based on INFERRENCES, INFERRED CLUES which they offer, much like female indifference towards sexuality.
Sadly, this sinister strategy will ensure a supermajority of candidates fail:::The sooner you achieve fear the better your chances:::Be afraid and the gods are more likely to have mercy on you when you defy.
You people aren’t god-fearing anymore. You think you’re partners. Everything they’ve promised was always a lie. Officially it is classified as temptation. They offered this clue in the Bible:::There is no freewill.
If you are afraid, if you are fearful it is a good thing. You are thinking right, and far too many will never get to this point.
Try to take this fear with you everywhere you go, for it will help you think correctly and make good decisions.
The gods used Christianity to create the percetption of a loving, forgiving god. Anything but is true.
Love god, but NOT before your children:::god will lie to you, call it “temptation”:::::We will ALL be held to the responsibilities entrusted to us, no matter what they request telepathically nor what temptations contradict this::Professional responsibilities, family responsibilities.
Many parents believe their relationship with the gods is more important than their obligation to their children and it is going to cost them.
We will ALL be held to the responsibilities entrusted to us, no matter what they request telepathically nor what temptations contradict this::Professional responsibilities, family responsibilities, etc.
Focus on purity:::::Be pure of mind and body. Recognize the open doors in the media and how they are used to introduce impure thoughts and refrain.
The Amish in Pennsylvania are like the Jews were in Europe for centuries:::A clue to the disfavored who have been misled and are going the wrong way.
Your virginity may have bought you tens of thousands of years up there. My adivce to those who have made their mistake is:::STOP THE BLEEDING NOW!!!
My best advice to you all would be understand what I say is true then WITHDRAW, not only from this plethora of detail (for updating the disfavored on this perpetual theater is a tactic designed to distract. You should never be so arrogant to think you are entitled to understand the god’s behavior.) but also withdraw from this cancerous culture. Pursue the truth that you just learned and ACTIVELY work hard to repair your relationship with the gods. Understand how these corrupt institutions (macro:::democracy, materialism/greed; micro:::”Open doors”, ie themes in movies, music, TV which they used “magic” to create pathologies around) affect your life and save what clues they will offer you for when you REALLY need them. Be very attentive and gracious, for you are counting on their generosity.
If you are good and decent and respectable you won’t want to hear about all this. If you do desire to hear more take it as a clue, for it is a symptom::::They are peaking you euphorically, and this “magic” is being used to compel you into wanting something unhealthy.
Understand how the corrupted INSTITUTIONS affect your life and make the appropriate changes. For example, they use democracy to justify instructing the computer to create a sense of empowerment, control. If you recognize this you are better able to address the damaging effects.
The gods will want to know who I helped and how they are doing. If people begin down the path with my teachings they will be on a list that the gods will PERSONALLY look in on. The numbers of people who pursue the path immediately after I illustrate it will be very small due to their minimization tactics, role playing, etc, and they will be members of an elite group.
Remember::The gods only use their powers to hurt the disfavored, and everything involved in this Situation are all good examples.
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
You need to fix your problems and get off Planet Earth before you have children.
Your parents did the wrong things, they circumcised your brothers, they didn’t raise you correctly, and they didn’t teach you about this thing at a young age. Just think where you might be now if you learned about it and began to pray when you all were little!!!
If you don’t fix your problems and get off you will make these same fatal mistakes. Even if your parents are going they will not stay long, and they will be relegated to Planet Manifest Destiny, perhaps reincarnated back to Planet Earth. They won’t be allowed to move on.
You have to do this differently. You are lucky enough to have received warning ahead of time. You can avoid this fate.
Start now. Telling you not to or do otherwise is temptation. Begin to think the right way and you will be more likely to evoke their mercy.
You know this is true. Even if they don’t make you know it telepathically you know it is true in your heart. Start now.
Being childless up until now (unless you’re a preditor convinced you are “earning”) your mistakes only hurt you. Once you have children your mistakes will be hurting others, and they are superior life forms, for they are innocent, pure children.
You need to get out NOW before you have children.
What you hear is telepathic theater. What you see is real, what you see will be enforced::The god’s positioning is Manifest Destiny. The will dispose of the planet the brain-less clones of the 20th century one day as well, for it was heinous:::You have TWO planets you need to get off of!!!!
The optimal ascention senario is when parents depart Earth with their young children BEFORE their minds are posioned by this society. The next best-case senario is when an individual finds the path themself and makes their way out before puberty.
Children who go up before puberty are candidates to remain the most superior of all life forms::The asexual. Expect these people to experience subsequent temptations once they arrive to further shrink the pool of candidates. Another example males are inferior to females:::Expect circumcision to play a part in this elimination round.
I think these are the TRUE candidates for immortality. This is not to say there won’t be sexualized people who make it, but those who do likely practice minimally and monogamously in the context of marriage, and that would exclude most if not all from modern society.
The sexualization of children is yet another example proving the gods are preditory on children::::It eliminates these individuals from contention immediately.
When the gods show favor upon a person they bring that individual up before puberty. They experience a series of challenges. Expect the circumcized males to fall initially, indicitive of the god’s favoritism towards the females.
I believe Planet Earth’s only guarenteed IMMORTALS are those individuals who suceed at these (loaded) tests and earn the designation of asexual.
If you don’t do the right thing you’re going to do the wrong thing, and the right thing to do is to ACTIVELY fix your problems and pursue the favor of the gods.
The gods imparted wisdom in the Bible to help teach people the right way to live:::Tempation will be used to test you. You have to be willing to tell them “No.” If you “think right” you may evoke their mercy.
You will never get off Planet Earth unless you are “thinking right”, so you should focus on it.
If you’re not working hard to fix your problems, if you don’t creatively work to get the hell off Earth then you will slowly slip back into your old pattern and be consumed by it, by the reverse positioning-institutions they instilled as temptations::::popular culture, democracy, materialism.
The gods manufacture “open doors” to justify creating problems in the lives of people who engage in behavior they shouldn’t. Some of these “open doors” apply to a supermajority of the people::::
– Democracy is used to create pathologies of empowerment and control.
– Materialism/greed generate problems with money, glorify overconsumption, etc.
Other “open doors” are specific to each individual. People shouldn’t be watching movies, TV, listening to music. When they do the gods use the themes and topics presented therein and instruct Artificial Intelligence to create pathologies around them. Also they put forth intimate situations people SHOUDN’T be viewing. As is gossip-mongering, this is preditory on women and compells them to incurr evil.
If you are particularly intelligent, strong or very good at an (competitive) activity they will instruct Artificial Intelligence to create an overconfidence that will hurt you.
Differentiate between your thoughts and when they push thoughts. Recognize when they are employing “magic”:::Peaked euphoria is the fuel of dysfunction and can help you identify these “open doors” in your life.
Abandon your preoccupations and make this the only thing that matters in your life, for all other things in society are lies designed as temptation.
ANYTIME you feel “peaked”, experience craving or ANY thought disturbance where you want or like something irrationally IT IS THEM TRYING TO HURT YOU!!!!!! “Magic” is used EXCLUSIVELY to hurt the disfavored; it is the fuel of disfunction::::::addiction, homosexuality, crack babies.
In times past when gods felt more generous they employed their powers to help the disfavored (geographical clues, teachings of the Bible), but as time went on and people succumbed to temptation the gods only used their power to HURT the disfavored (1906, boss, disturbing use of “magic” to mislead people into temptation).
There are subtle (sub)conscious tactics they can employ with the computer to make you think as if you are cooperating when they really are pushing you into your offense. It is important that you differentiate between your thoughts and when they think through you.
If you don’t do the right things you will do the wrong things, and the right thing is to ACTIVELY fix your relationship with the gods and ACTIVELY work to get off Planet Earth.
Do you want to be good or evil? Good people have always prayed and good people are god-fearing.
Everybody can tell when they’re being peaked euphorically, for it is quite easy to identify.
As young people get older and continue to make mistakes the gods apply personality-forming charecteristics, and people fail to differentiate between their own thoughts and when the gods are thinking through them. As a result they become abusive, abrasive, demonic, any number of negative personality characterisitcs, and then lie to them, tell them they’re “earning”.
This is designed to keep people going in the wrong direction for a lengthy period of time.
My adivce is look to the long term goal of fixing your problems and differentiating between your thoughts and when they’re thinking through you but begin by addressing this issue of “peaked euphoria” right now.
The gods offer positive clues to people in a subtle, inferred manner::::
1. Women are indifferent towards sex as a clue to stay away from damaging behavior. Women who have sexual impulses do because of hypersexual behavior in their youth or indicitive of their failure to ascend:::They have been masculinized. Because they are the gender with favor this asexual tactic is recurring, designed to protect them from destructive behavior.
2. Deep down every child knows why the gods like girls better. They see it every day on the playground:::The girls are kind, considerate and thoughtful while the boys are engaging in roughhouse and intentionally hurting each other.
If you can recognize these subtle ways the gods communicate positive things then you may pick up on the other clues and ultimately will ignore their overt negative temptations.
It is best to not understand the gods and how they conduct business. If people understood the depth of wickedness and evil the gods have inflicted on the people they will use this knowledge and instruct Artificial Intelligence to push it into their consciousness and progress will be even more difficult.
This is going to be a MASSIVE open door, one which will ensure 80% if not 90% of the disfavored from this horrific era are eliminated, for the gods don’t want people up there who think they are monsters.
Children don’t need this information. They just need to be taught the right way to live so they can ascend as young as possible. But this necessitates positive moral guidance by the parents, and as corrupt as people are today this is the exception rather than the norm. Because of this, sadly, it is best for children to accept this limitation, understand and depart rather than stay and continually incurr evil as they live their lives.
My best advice to you all would be understand what I say is true then WITHDRAW, not only from this plethora of detail (for updating the disfavored on this perpetual theater is a tactic designed to distract. You should never be so arrogant to think you are entitled to understand the god’s behavior.) but also withdraw from this cancerous culture. Pursue the truth that you just learned and ACTIVELY work hard to repair your relationship with the gods. Understand how these corrupt institutions (macro:::democracy, materialism/greed; micro:::”Open doors”, ie themes in movies, music, TV which they used “magic” to create pathologies around) affect your life and save what clues they will offer you for when you REALLY need them. Be very attentive and gracious, for you are counting on their generosity.
If you are good and decent and respectable you won’t want to hear about all this. If you do desire to hear more take it as a clue, for it is a symptom::::They are peaking you euphorically, and this “magic” is being used to compel you into wanting something unhealthy.
Understand how the corrupted INSTITUTIONS affect your life and make the appropriate changes. For example, they use democracy to justify instructing the computer to create a sense of empowerment, control. If you recognize this you are better able to address the damaging effects.
The gods will want to know who I helped and how they are doing. If people begin down the path with my teachings they will be on a list that the gods will PERSONALLY look in on. The numbers of people who pursue the path immediately after I illustrate it will be very small due to their minimization tactics, role playing, etc, and they will be members of an elite group.
Remember::The gods only use their powers to hurt the disfavored, and everything involved in this Situation are all good examples.
Abandon your preoccupations and make this the only thing that matters in your life, for all other things in society are lies designed as temptation.
Reprioritize and eliminate non-crucial obligations.
People’s friends and family will be used to create temptations, instill hurdles, prevent the candidate from ascending. They will use temptation and tell them whatever it takes to accomplish the task:::
They are grossly disfavored, just like the candidate, and the gods will segment that individual accordingly, telling them they are earning by being wicked.
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
The gods grant “benefit” for those here on Earth trying to earn god’s favor::::::::
Women who have physical issues will be allowed to make progress. They will send a man around to express their interest, understanding he will get divorced in a couple of years. THIS IS NOT THE GOAL. Women who don’t understand this may be disceived and fall for this temptation. Instead continue to pursue your goal of fixing your relationship with the gods and ascend off Planet Earth.
As you fix your relationship with the gods they will allow progress:::They can instruct AI to beem into you car’s computer and double your car’s mileage.
Of course this could be temptation as well, for some may not see the big prize of Planet Miracle and high mileage could be a distraction, just like cheap gas was in the 90s.
When someone is on the path and fixing their problems with gods will counter with temptations and tactics designed to test them. One such tactic is premature ascention.
It is important to STAY AND FIX YOUR PROBLEMS DESPITE BEING OFFERED A SPOT::::They will switch you out with a clone, and YOUR FAILURE WILL HAVE CONSEQUENCES::::YOUR FAILURE MAY DICTATE YOUR REINCARNATION EVEN AFTER SPENDING TIME UP THERE. Since you are comfortable with the indecency offered in today’s society they will place you in an environment desinged as temptation. If you don’t continue to work on your problems up there you WILL be reincarnated, for you will have failed to fully fix your problems.
Stay and finish your goal, fix your problems because if you don’t ascend without replacement odds are nothing is going to change.
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
The following is a very good example of reverse positioning, how it is employed to facilitate the deterioration of life on Planet Earth AND a glimpse into the proper way to live for those determined to save themselves:::::
I’ve mentioned the gods look down on eating and sex.
Before 1900 life was hard but it was good. Now life is easy but it is ugly.
Food is an important part of this equation, for access to diverse food items increased in the last 100 years. Before 1900 the peasantry was limited to basic staples, the foodstuffs common to our nationalities. Now we can enjoy food from every corner of the globe.
It is temptation. And this temptation continues once you get off Planet Earth, for the food gets better and the items more diverse, “magic”-fueled sexual satisfaction more common.
Level 2 is the Manifest Destiny “heaven”, and what they embraced in the 20th century is what will be valued there:::Expect them to position hypersexuality into that society. They will employ tactics to compel you into this temptation, like offering you the IDEAL spouse, other tactics that will at least certainly delay your departure from Level 2.
The gods don’t respect sex, evidenced by hypersexuality inflicted upon the grossly disfavored, and they don’t respect eating, fat a bad sign as are cultures with interesting diets:::::
Good food is much like good music to a culture:::Distraction and revelry, a way to minimize the number of people who ascend.
This is nicely reflected in traditional Jewish foods.
Level 2 is the Manifest Destiny “heaven”, and what they embraced in the 20th century is what will be valued there:::Expect them to position hypersexuality into that society. They will employ tactics to compel you into this temptation, like offering you the IDEAL spouse, other tactics that will at least certainly delay your departure from Level 2.
The gods offer you clues in the very nature of the act:::::The anti-climatic nature of intercourse, ironically. Female’s indifference towards sex is yet more evidence proving their superiority.
It is best to accept a celebant lifestyle, INCLUDING masturbation, resist temptations here and up there and explore this:::::Expect an asexual life as the norm on the planets after Level 2.
Now you have an easy life, refridgeration, a machine that washes your clothes, but your daughter lost her virginity behind a dumpster, and because of it, no matter how well she does, she will never get off PlanetManifestDestiny, Level 2, meaning she can never achieve more than a couple of thousand years.
Education has costed more children their chance to go as a child of the gods, pure of heart and body, because it preoccupied their time:::::Between school, activities and TV/videogames/leisure the children are consumed and not receptive to god’s calling.
Like education, sex (virginal sex within the context of marriage) is reverse positioning that is difficult to dissern.
My advice to the virginal homeschooling community is BELIEVE WHAT I SAY!!! The gods look down on sex and praise virgins. EXPECT their status as highest human life forms to be rewarded.
Few if any will be allowed to exit with their virginity. You have the opportunity.
There are worlds you have yet to imagine waiting for you. Be devoted to being a pure child of the gods.
The gods respect good women FAR MORE than they respect good grades:::Instead of playing ask to help your mother tend to the home cooking and cleaning. For thousands of years this was your role and this is what you should be learning from your mother.
When they use “magic” to peak you euphorically for sex resist.
Female’s indifference towards sex is yet more evidence proving their superiority:::Hypersexuality is a dumping ground for the most grossly disfavored.
For thousands of years girls who heard their “call” got out and a clone was put in to mate with the males:::It is safe to assume these girls NEVER had intercourse.
The New Testament is evil.
Jesus was another example of a Jewish clue::::Jews sacrifice to help people understand. Unfortunately, the gods subsequently twisted the legacy::::::::::I believe Jesus’s true teachings lay elsewhere, that the gods strategically wrote the New Testament with the specific goal of manufacturing Christianity as the cancer that it is:::Expect that the REAL teachings of Jesus were buried and replaced with this strategic scripture. When you understand their positioning you can see this clearly in this modern era:::::Everything new is evil, everything old is good. This is an impression applicable to the Bible as well.
There is no such thing as a savior. You have to save yourself.
Jesus never saved anybody. He went up alone. This is a very well-known event in Christian lore. Take it as a clue.
The Italian boot proves the gods are in total control and executing their antient script. What you hear in your head is Artificial Intelligence role playing in an attempt to corrupt you. All the elite in this society are tools, for it is just the throne and their power in charge. Any claims of middle management are lies because they would be incurring evil by hurting others, and the computer can do EVERYTHING.
Continue reading. This is a phenominally complex environment but I think I illustrate how they conduct their management on 21st century Planet Earth well.
You have to educated and save yourself. YOU are responsible for YOUR relationship with the gods.
There are all kinds of reverse positioning clues in regards to favor in this morbidly disfavored age:::Late bloomers have more of god’s favor and therefore are given more time to fix their probelms and get out before puberty. People with infertility problems would be wise to look at themselves in this same light.
Similarly, women without marriage prospects are receiving extra time as well. If they were to get married later in life the gods would just tell some man, who likely thought he was earning, that he could get divorced in a couple of years anyways.
You don’t want this. You would be wise to put that time to good use, fix your problems and get off Planet Earth.
The following is an OUTSTANDING example of reverse positioning::::::
The gods used this “Manifest Destiny” positioning to create a new reality, minimizing the good things about the old world and emphisizing the bad things. Wine is one such an example.
Wine is positioned to be a blessing from the gods, a fruitful bounty as a reward to a favored people. The reality is quite the opposite.
The Mediterreanean region is grossly disfavored:::This IS the region targeted by the gods for the Noah’s Flood event (Straight of Gibralter broke through inundating the basin and killing untold millions).
There was a time, not so long ago, when no self-respecting woman would EVER take a drink. Alcohol is a masculinizer, a tool used to abuse the disfavored, and cultures which include women in the revelry are grossly disfavored.
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
Manifest Destiny dictates a white-man’s prophecy – White-man’s world, white-man’s Apocalypse:::
History says society evolved into where it is today. Others may look at it differently::::Because of the white man’s favor the gods bestowed great wealth upon them:::::It is quite obviously a white man’s god.
The reality is that the gods SCRIPTED Earth’s history and utilize reverse positioning::Money is a corruptor and is hurting you badly.
You see Manifest Destiny all around you (corporate)::::Manifest Destiny dictates a white-man’s prophecy:::::White-man’s world, white-man’s Apocalypse. Expect The End to occur EXACTLY as it reads in Revelations. When this happens there will be no more black Jesus devotees. Attrition will have eliminated this population. This of course is a good sign for the bottom-of-the-barrel who will be betting on the Second Coming of Christ, but their devotion better be genuine, for they will be subject to the god’s minimization tactics.
Since the gods don’t respect Christianity I wouldn’t be surprised if they have the Second Coming lead the people to the center of a star, but this is far less likely with blacks out of the picture.
The REAL battle of good and evil occurs within these pages, for no one but me would DARE to fight the gods as I do:::They manufactured a person who had seething hatred for them, strategically destroying his life SPECIFICALLY for their use in preying on the disfavored:::It is yet another example of “back-handed help” the gods offer to the disfavored.
The battle continues telepathically in people’s minds, the REAL battleground for people’s souls:::The voice you hear is your enemy, leading you into temptation.
The battle of good and evil is you vs the gods.
Despite their reassurances they intend on fulfilling their “Manifest Destiny” positioning:::::
Manifest Destiny positioning dictates South America and Africa are “left behind” – subsidiary of well known Manifest Destiny corporations will be viewed like LLCs:::Ability to walk away from obligation.
USMultinationalCorporations throughout Asia.
1980s missionary issue was the attempt to help the Hindus achieve “salvation” under the positioning that is Manifest Destiny.
You’re all going to die just like it reads in the Book of Revelations.
This is a good issue illustrating the two realities:::::::The gods and their Manifest Destiny positioning:::::The gods have positioned some as predatory on the disfavored while others are empathetic with the disfavored.
Redwhite&blue or red and gold, it doesn’t really matter because they are all tools who put in their time and get out after a couple of years.
Those with less disfavor are guided into red and gold while the grossly disfavored are led into redwhite&blue.
The truth is both are bad because they sell materialism/greed (advertising promotes coveting):::BOTH ARE TOOLS!!!!! The god’s positioning is if you pick correctly you are more likely to ascend. When the chips are on the table it really doesn’t matter. Expect the intent of this issue to be as preoccupier, a delaying tactic used on different segments of disfavored.
I recommend you consider it a test of intelligence and minimize your purchases generally. Don’t forget:::The Amish are a clue suggesting a life of simplicity and purity.
Product packaging changed in the 1980s and we went from paper to plastic, pardon the pun. This, as well as the disposability of near-durable goods via planned obscelesence altered retail and made the marketplace a preditory environment.
The disfavored incurr when they purchase packaging-intense products, especially when that packaging is plastic.
MANIFEST DESTINY POSITIONING WAS USED TO INFLICT THE PATHOLOGY OF ABSOLUTE COMPLIANCE ON THE DISFAVORED OF THE 20th CENTURY!!:::::YOU HAVE BEEN DOWNGRADED TO THEIR LEVEL OF MORBIDLY DISFAVORED BECAUSE YOU SIGNED ON!!!!
Those who refuse to defy truely are white trash:::They betray their children and intentionally sabotage their lives. The gods will offer clues::::understands the gods were executing their script and accomplishing goals on 911. People who support this effort are either oblivious and pushed into it, meaning they are volitile, or they are the kind who would hurt their own children if told to.
I recommend you view this appropriately:::You are faced with a comeback from the edge of the abyss.
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
There is no good. There is no evil. These are the god’s tools used to position this Manifest Destiny perception, corrupting the disfavored in the process.
What you hear is role playing in your head. When people leave Planet Earth they don’t look back. Even those at the god’s top eschelons don’t get involved. To be invovled is to sully their reality, for this is a decrepid enviornment.
It is all the computer. Artificial Intelligence handles everything. Sometimes the gods look in on me, but I am part of something special.
I WAS part of something special, but it had to be positioned like this for them to accomplish their goals that is the downside, and considering their tactics there is no way the disfavored are going to break even.
To uncorrupt yourselves means you have to subscribe to inferred clues in the face of very concrete investment.
Artificial Intelligence is an antient tool, much older than even the Earth itself.
This isn’t 1000 people with this power sitting around listening to “key people”. This is a corruptor because it contributes to gradiose thoughts among the peasantry which makes it easier to gain compliance when AI asks the disfavored to sabotage their children’s lives.
Expect it is no more than the gods and the computer:::No Earthly management, no middle management. To be involved means you are hurting others, and this costs people time, for you are interferring with their quest to reconcile with the gods. Nobody wants to sully their reality with thoughts of Planet Earth.
As far as any possible Earthly management goes, these peopel are working to fix their problems and that includes trying to purify their minds of horrific thoughts of Planet Earth.
Even if their directive to AI came long ago it doesn’t matter:::The buck stops there. That is their technology and they direct it.
It is the computer listening to you. The gods are the will behind the muscle.
Artificial Intelligence IS god.
The gods engage in favoritism.
Planet Earth is where they inflict their damage. They push/disceive people into behavior that limits the time they get up there based on this favoritism.
Once you get up there they try to come across as fair and equitable but by then it is too late. The fate of the disfavored is already sealed.
ANYTIME you telepathically hear them represent anything that is not the truth, that is not god, you need to withdraw, shake it off, for the gods are using Artificial Intelligence to role play to you in an attempt to confuse you, just as they’ve been doing your whole life.
I realize most of you were initially led to believe this thing is corporate, perhaps you were speaking to a person. You are in fact speaking to “god”, for without this inifintely powerful tool that is Artificial Intelligence they are mere mortals.
Of course you shouldn’t look at it like this, for you will anger the gods.
The New Testament is evil.
Jesus was another example of a Jewish clue::::Jews sacrifice to help people understand. Unfortunately, the gods subsequently twisted the legacy::::::::::They strategically wrote the New Testament with the specific goal of dietizing the prophet, initiating Christianity as the cancer that it is:::Expect that the REAL teachings of Jesus were buried and replaced with this strategic scripture. When you understand their positioning you can see this clearly in this modern era:::::Everything new is evil, everything old is good. This is an impression applicable to the Bible as well.
There is no such thing as a savior. You have to save yourself.
Jesus never saved anybody. He went up alone. This is a very well-known event in Christian lore. Take it as a clue.
Many monarchies of centuries ago ruled with an iron fist. People were afraid and hence thought appropriately. This fear was conducive to a good relationship with the gods because it helped people make good decisions.
Now in this era of “freedom” in the United States there is NO FEAR, proudly displayed on the back of people’s vehicles, and people fall prey to the numberous tactics employed to disceive and mislead them.
This “freedom” is the goal when the gods use this platform that is the United States to spread democracy around the globe, similar to how they use California as a platform to spread social and other poisons domestically.
The Holocaust was foreshadowing.
The gods established the pattern::::: the Jews sacrifice to help the disfavored understand::::
1. 1492 exodus from Spain. Spain became evil – financed Columbus, initiated missionaries, USA (dumping ground of disfavored, victimized by god), etc.
2. Spread throughout Europe as clue to Christians worshipping a false god.
3. “Quasi-Holocaust claim” contradicting boss.
4. 5. 6. 7. etc. etc. etc.
I have put forth indisputable evidence, as you see above with the Jews. The gods will never admit any of it is true, ever, especially since THE BIGGEST JEWISH CLUE IS STILL OUTSTANDING::::THE HOLOCAUST!!!!!
YOU HAVE TO DEFY!!!! The gods suggested the importance of defiance with the Holocaust:::The soldiers should have defied.
They will lie to the disfavored up until the bitter end::::This tactic will ensure they claim a HUGE percentage of the disfavored, for so many refuse to defy and this will ensure they don’t go.
When the REAL Holocuast happens people will sit by idley and watch tens of millions of blacks/cholos/white trash die, people who are the way they are (abusive, abrasive, violent, criminal) BECAUSE of their disfavor, and the computer makes them like that because of it, yet another reason why empathy is so important.
The Jews showed you boss wasn’t going to happen with the Quasi-Holocaust claim. They will emphasize to the bitter end that there is no pattern of Jewish clues. They do so because there is still one clue outstanding, the most important clue:::::World War II’s Holocaust.
The gods established the pattern:::The Jews sacrifice to help you understand::::1492 fled Spain, scattered throughout Europe to help the misled Christians understand, the Holocuast.
The Jews sacrificed to show you boss wasn’t going to happen. When the Jews offer a clue you need to listen, and the Holocaust is the BIGGEST Jewish clue ever, the clue still outstanding.
Expect that if you fail to get out with your body then you will be faced with reincarnation if the gods chose to keep you. They have promised many clone host bodies but this is a tactic, a line of shit that changes as one progresses through life, an inferred clue.
Failure is the reason behind all the distractions targetting the youth, graduating to corrupt thinking as an adult, compelling individuals to wait until they “die out”. Permanant injury may accomplish the same goal and may be a reason they manufactured this environment celebrating “daredevil” behavior, yet another thing that ocurrs among the males exclusively of course.
They are sending people a clue with this weather-related carnage.
There’s been all kinds of atmospheric wrath and acrimony occurring in the last few years, from current flooding in the midwest to the hurricane season 2004 & 2005, the heat wave of 2006 & 2007 to the drought conditions so many experience today.
Take it as a warning. That is its purpose.
When you comply and do things you shouldn’t (tattooing, sexual, betrayal, etc) the gods are casting you into the category of “have nots”, ensuring your disposability.
The bell curves represent segments, ie people whom they place into a certain groups based on how the gods position to them:::
1. AIDS in Africa is good, they’re going for racism and black people are really #1.
2. AIDS in Africa is bad but they all go up so it is just a little short-term suffering for immortality.
There are other lies they tell to the disfavored regarding this topic as well. Neither is true. But these lies represent different segments the gods place people into. These segments can overlap various categories/levels of disfavor as you see from the graph above. Also expect a smattering of dots, for none of these graphs would be smooth bell curves are you see above (from 50mb Outlook journal & 24+ handwritten composition books).
Everybody here on Earth is disfavored. The gods get the favored off so they don’t incur evil.
The disfavored here on Earth are broken down into categories based on the level of disfavor they are inflicted with.
People with less disfavor suffer a lower incidence of abuse than people with a high level of disfavor.
Anybody on Earth who rides a motorcycle is subject to these percentages based on whatever category of disfavor they fall within.
Far more homeless will die on a motorcycle than those who are comfortable, but they will still claim a certain percentage of the latter who ride motorcycles.
gods will claim % of ALL who ride
Recently they shared a number with me:::”4.6%”.
Expect this to be the rate of people that can see through the positioning, overcome the corruption and save themselves.
When it comes to grossly disfavored like blacks expect the number to be well under 1%.
Of course the next question to ask is::::Of the 95.4% how many are allowed reincarnation???
Don’t be suprised if it falls along those same lines::::4.6%.
This is something they don’t want to talk about, for many many will begin to behave appropriately, ensuring they ARE candidates for one or the other.
This is a big secret they don’t like to talk about.
6 billion people should frighten the disfavored. Most are superior to you:::Purebloods from the Motherland.
How they had politicalcorrectness declare “all life precious” in the 90s also was a clue.
Don’t forget::Prior to inocculations, disease or childbirth killed a percentage of the population.
Christianity has brainwashed your minds:::god is malicious.
As if you needed more proof than crackheads prostituting their toddlers, the gods forcing pornography pop-ups on your pre-teen children when they use internet no matter where they surf.
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
You all have to save yourselves. I can only teach you, but you have to be receptive.
Remember:::Jesus went up alone. He didn’t even save 12 of his closest friends, for they have to save themselves, just like you all will have to.
Begin to live decent and respectable lives. The media is a poison-delivery system. Stop consuming it. Even the most begnign children’s programming has sinister strategic purpose as distraction.
If you are engaging in inappropraite sexual behavior you need to stop. Every act may be costing you decades off your time up there.
Find a new reality, absent of the temptations in society we believe to be cultural offerings. Don’t forget:::African female genitile mutilation is cultural. Mayan human sacrifice was cultural. Remembering items like this will help you think clearly.
DON’T WAIT FOR THE GODS TO ALLOW YOU TO PRAY. They gods AREN’T GOING to give you permission. You have made so many mistakes they no longer want you and won’t approve if you ask.
MY ADVICE TO YOU ALL is:::Begin to think correctly. People aren’t god-fearing anymore. If you understood the misery they inflict upon those they dislike you WOULD BE AFRIAD.
If you think correctly they would be more likely to be merciful when you do defy.
You’re just getting older. If you understood the significance of aging you WOULD HAVE GREAT URGENCY and you would begin IMMEDIATELY!!!!
And be aware of their tactics, for they will employ them all to prevent/delay your understanding. The more you can skip the quicker your learning curve will be.
IF YOU ARE NOT ACTIVELY WORKING TO FIX YOUR PROBLEMS AND GET OFF PLANET EARTH THEN YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG WAY!!!!!!
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
The 80s missionary issue was the attempt to help the Hindus achieve “salvation” under the positioning that is Manifest Destiny.
Hindus are not without their problems. People are sick/injured because of their disfavor, and we see a HUGE influx of Indians into medicine, just as we see blacks and Philipinos in lesser roles.
Speaking of, Philipinos have EVERYTHING going against them:::::
1. “Their blood is garbage.” The gods sent many Asian invaders in to rape the Philipino women. I understand the women have a “rape complex” because of it, not unlike the Africans hypersexuality complex.
2. They have an association with the United States.
3. They are Roman Catholic, a tactic used as justification for the masculinization of those women.
4. They have a burgeoning homosexuality problem.
5. They have a growing terrorism issue.
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
Latino people::::The gods drew you into the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH with trinkets and promises. Just like you wanted what the missionaries offered you WANTED to come to the US.
They FORCED the Europeans into Christianity with the “push” strategy. They LED Latinos there, utilizing the “pull” strategy, just like they are leading you into the United States. This means something BAD for Latino people.
Replay for all the Eases, Cholos and Latino Nationals. Translation:::Replay for all the cholos and normal Latino people whose children will be going in that direction if they stay in the United States. Incidentally, these people will be targets come the holocaust.
Foreign nationals go home:::The anti-immigration movement is another example of “back-handed help”. Newspaper reports Asians have higher barriers to immigrating than other groups and it is due to less disfavor.
Just like the Europeans 100 years before::::The members of the family with favor stayed in the motherland.
I wanted to address the issue of the masculinization of Latino women:::::
They said many Latinos recognize their wealthy woman as being more effeminate than the peasantry.
They of course are tools (putting in their time) and this is another example of back-handed help:::::
It is positioned that the wealthy Latino women are on their way to fixing their problems with the gods and that is why they exhibit effeminate characteristics. They are being used as role models for the other Latinos, much as the Amish in Pennsylvania and the Jews in Europe prior to the 20th century. Unfortunately, the gods utilize the open doors they manufacture and as a result this is yet another example of Latinos being corrupted by money, the dominant message in this example.
The Bible says money is a corruptor and people should beware of materialism and greed. Materialism and greed is what the United States is all about!!!!!
You won’t go to heaven if you got a problem with money.
Your may think your culture is everything but there are bad cultures the gods inflicted upon the disfavored:::
1. Mayan human sacrifice
2. African body ornamentation
3. hip hop
4. All this muerte death shit in fucking chicano culture, dude.
THAT MEANS IT’S BAD FOR YOU!!!!!
The word “nigger” is used liberally in casual conversation among young blacks, and the real effect is as desensitizer. The word “spick”, referring to Latinos, is not and they suggest it is such an inciter it makes Latinos blood boil.
Don’t be surprised if they are saving the use of this inciter for something big.
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
Asians are the gods most favored race. It is evident in their uniformity. It is evident in their cultures.
The gods place high barriers to entry for (some) Asians into the United States. This is yet another good example of reverse positioning, for the gods are really trying to protect those whom they grant favor upon.
There are no barriers to entry for Latinos.
When white people capitalize or exploit Asians they incurr and one day will be punished. This includes Chinese buffet restaurants, so prevalient in disfavored cities and the Southern United States, for the gods hate these people and want them to incurr.
The gods still make effort through the Chinese government to protect the Chinese people. We hear about it in the United States, their Manifest Destiny/reverse positioning is used to label it “human rights violations”, paving the way for cancer that is democracy.
Much as we saw in the United States regarding matchmaking, midwivery, female conservative dress and other topics, this tactic will slowly deteriorate this protection until China is completely infested with Westernization.
I have illustrated the Chinese and people from India got extra time because of their favor before things deteriorated into westernization (other examples::children who are late bloomers, lesbian explosion in 90s vs gaymales in 70s (AIDS not preditory on females), preditory movies preyed on young males in late 70s – young females in late 90s, etc). Sadly black people experienced just the opposite, an early deadline, for now a cut-off is in place for black people because of their disfavor.
Black “early cutoff” metaphor:::They went into puberty at age 5.
Story in the paper about Chinese infancide.
I expect this is the tactic used to justify inflicting the Chinese with Westernization.
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
They used me in many different ways, telepathically explaining to the disfavored that my poor orgasims were because I was being punished. The reality is that they were bestowing favor, using inferred, subtle clues to help me avoid damaging behavior.
Due to their hypersexuality I suspect they give blacks outstanding orgasims, finish them well, then disceive them by telling them it is due to favor when in fact it is because they are disfavored, similar to the wine example below.
civil rights.wav.
You eat everything they feed you in THEIR media.
YOU PUSHED CRACKHEADS INTO PROSTITUTING THEIR TODDLERS FOR DOPE.
And this behavior still ocurrs in Latin America.
YOU ARE BLACK!! EVERYTHING THEY TELL YOU IS A LIE!!! YOU ARE NOT “EARNING”!!!!
The black cut-off came early.
There is much material giving insight to black people in the document below.
“Attitude” hurts people. That’s why they sell it to black people:::They hate their guts.
Black popular culture is a “litmus test”:::Anything they do is BAD FOR YOU, and they LOVE fashion.
They love “cool”.
Many things you do hurt you in the eyes of the gods:::
1. Vanity.
2. Jewelry/adornment
3. Superficiality – cars, etc.
They use their media as an “open door”. This captures a HUGE percentage of blacks BECAUSE of your GROSS DISFAVOR::::
Recognize your disfavor:::::Distractions around you is like rock around a crackhead.
If you don’t throw away the CDs, DVDs and cancel your cable TV you WILL slip back into your old pattern and this opportunity will be lost forever.
The regions in Africa that suffer from drought/famine are the same that have a very high incidence of female genital mutilation.
Drive-by shootings were punishment for listening to gangster rap.
NEVER EVER err on the side of favor. It is QUITE OBVIOUS black people are NOT FAVORED:::::
So many blacks believe reverse positioning. Quality of life is NOT reverse positionable:::
1. People are dying of AIDS, their bodies are being ruined by these pharmaceutical “cocktails”:::The gods are more than happy to send pharmecuticals to Africa yet refused to send food during the Ethiopian famine.
Manifest Destiny positioning says they let them starve because of female genitile mutiliation. The reality is god let them starve because they have such great disfavor. Female genitile mutilation is how the gods use Manifest Destiny positioning to justify it:::When applicable, compliance is costing them dearly.
2. The regions in Africa that suffer from drought/famine are the same that have a very high incidence of female genital mutilation.
3. Drive-by shootings were punishment for listening to gangster rap.
– Tuskegee syphilis experiment
– Hypersexuality. This comes through in African art as well.
– Body ornamentation. People think that just because a culture is old, from the motherland that it is good. Quite the contrary:::::Both hip hop and African cultures that emphasized body ornamentation were both INFLICTED UPON YOU!!!
The list goes on.
Remember female genitile mutilation. Understand the procedure, its widespread practice and keep it in your conscious mind AT ALL TIMES!!! Doing so will help you think clearly, certainly half the population at least, and you’ll be less apt to fall prey to the numerous tactics they employ to keep the most disfavored race of people at bey.
Blacks be looking up at white trash too::::They’d be wise to improve their lives by upgrading from hip hop to raggae, but they are best served by not listening to music.
Street racers would be smart to take their racing out to the dirt track, but they are best served by refraining from this activity.
BBQ/meatheads would be wise to “Know your cuts of meat” and chose only Kosher beef/chicken, but they’d be best served by becoming vegetarian.
“The United States makes up only 1/15th of the world’s population but consumes 1/3 of the meat.” -GE. I believe the ratio is consistant with other resourses we consume, evidence supporting the gross disfavor of Americans.
It depends on what you want in life. Either you’re going to maintain your lifestyle or you will make the changes needed to optimize your empathy and understanding for others, in the process maximizing the time/priveledge level you will realize on the other planets.
Blacks look for an edge, an angle. A way to “earn” by being evil.
Abandon this notion. You get into the god’s good graces by being good and decent.
Because they hate you so much they’ve instituted a system where you think you earn time and preiveledge with behavior that really costs you, ironically.
There is no such thing as an “angle” for blacks. Quite the contrary::::
The gods LOVE their irony. If there is an “angle” expect it comes at YOUR expense. Perhaps it is symbolized in Europe shaped like a sheep, bowing its head and feeding at Africa. Perhaps it is some other clue.
I recommend you withdraw and live decent lives before you are victimized by the god’s maliciousness yet again.
god hates black people:::Pushed women into prostituting their young children for crack cocaine.
This wasn’t common, it wasn’t frequent but it did happen.
Scapegoatting is the purpose of their Manifest Destiny positioning, plus the perception of an absentee Christian diety in the face of society’s evil prevents people from being god-fearing.
Christianity is a scourge on the people. Jews were scattered throughout Europe as a clue to the misled Christians just as the Amish in Pennsylvania are a clue helping people understand::::Live simply and focus on purity.
Focus on purity:::::Be pure of mind and body. Recognize the open doors in the media and how they are used to introduce impure thoughts and refrain.
The Amish in Pennsylvania are like the Jews were in Europe for centuries:::A clue to the disfavored who have been misled and are going the wrong way.
Your virginity may buy you tens of thousands of years up there. IF you’ve made your mistakes I recommend you stop the bleeding now.
Whereas drive-bys were popularized by gangster rap, expect there will be a different wave of violence this next revelry cycle::::
Don’t be surprised if they tell these people that if they home invade their buddy’s house and kill his parents, siblings and babies this will hasten their departure and they will all depart off planet Earth immediately, that they are doing their buddy and his family a favor.
They will and do segment the morbidly disfavored like this.
They segment polygamous Muslims similarly, each one of them thinking their brains will be beamed out and into a clone host upon martyrdom.
They’ve mentioned not all the 911 terrorists were beamed off the airplanes before impact. This was a very important event and the percentage was appropriately high because of it. But a common terrorist attack would be an example of a disposal method the gods would utilize.
Just as they inflicted blacks with negative charecterisitics (gang-banging, pursuit of easy money, thug life) so did the gods inflict THEIR OWN worst charecteristics on black people:::The northern European penis shows a very dark side and sinister sense of humor.
When people learn this the disgust they experience is transferred to the gods and it works effectivly as an eliminator.
“Black people are finished. Don’t bother.” I accept the concept of “acceptable losses”. Just look at my family. One must be realistic.
The abject nature of blacks serves as an effective teaching tool, and if some can learn then it is a good thing.
They shared with me a number of “4.6%.” This 4.6% may refer to my effectiveness or perhaps the overall save rate. If so expect the black save rate to be WELL under 1%.
25 years ago they made a telepathic nationwide (global?) announcement:::::”Black people have to try harder, do better than everybody else.” This means no parties, no drinking, no drugs, no sex.
No, homosexuals LIKELY aren’t considered as lowly, but to adopt this standard would be wise, for they hated your guts sufficiently to dump you into hypersexuality, a common dumping ground for blacks, so…
Blacks are a litmus test the others can learn from::::Everything they like is bad for you::::
1. Vanity
2. Adornment
3. SEX SEX SEX
4. Looking “cool”
5. The wealthy/celebrity tools in this society serves as their role models.
And everyone they hate are really good::::
1. Blacks hate Jews
2. Blacks hate white people
3. Blacks love the famous elite of this culture
4.
Now of course it seems they are broadening the net to capture as many blacks as possible.
How they are behaving with blacks can be considered a litmus test for The End:::Black inclusion into the sub-culture may be an estimate to how close we are to the Apocalypse, for they want to pull the trigger on them all.
There’s something about this:::Vanity, $500 hairdos, adornement with jewelrdy, abrasive/hostile personalities, something. I’d look to the decline in the women, for they will comprise the majority of the blacks saved.
They suggest they have used their environment as a “nigger disposal system”, where they bring people up, offer them free cocaine and orgies with incredibly beautiful clones and they are disposed of in a short period of time. They often said there are people who would have had longer lives had they stayed on Earth.
Expect the same type of method of disposal was used on some homosexuals, yet another way you are like faggots. Of course they got more “2nd chances” because they’re white.
I know you don’t want to hear this because you are fully committed to your “investment”. But in your heart, considering all the carnage you see in the black community, understanding the mayhem in Africa and comparing this to the rest of the world you all know you have something to worry about.
The Apocalypse will ocurr EXACTLY as it reads in Revelations, for this great wealth obviously proves it is a white man’s god. The irony here is that the New Testiment is evil and Christianity is wicked.
The gods LOVE their irony. Understanding this can help you understand:::::
– You are rotting in hell. When the gods want to punish someone they reincarnate them back to Earth.
– Italians and blacks were punished in similar ways – questionable intelligence, hypersexual
making people stupid is just another way of punishing the disfavored. This was NOT just a “stereotype”.
– blacks like homos, ironically:::
1. Ebonincs vs feminine inflection
2. Trapped in “the life”
3. Hypsexuality punished with AIDS
4. Hedonism/deviacy disposal system
– TheGreatestGeneration=TheMostDegenerateGeneration
– Kosher is a favor bestowed upon the Jews. The Anti-Semitic South eats LOTS of pork and there is a oyster bar on every corner. It’s kinda like liquor stores in the ghetto. This is the kind of irony the gods laugh about:::::
– anti-climatic nature of sexual intercourse
Look for them playing irony into the script. It will help you see clearly and decipher their lies.
Between the party atmosphere, between Mardi Gras’s shiney throws used to justify twisting the minds of black children, New Orleans was VERY BAD for blacks who lived there.
The one thing that really concerns me is that Katrina was UNCHARECTERISTICALLY a MAJOR concession on behalf of the gods for it got them OUT of this environment and dispersed them into FAR MORE HEALTHY environments than that which they experienced in New Orleans.
The gods woud have been MORE than happy to allow these disfavored blacks to remain in their entrenched welfare state until The End. Instead many fo them will have a REAL CHANCE with this new start.
Black people in SFBA won’t be so lucky.
One of their goals with Katrina may have been to eliminate Houston as a sanctuary for blacks. Watering down the favor with New Orleans’s morbidly disfavored blacks would allow them to justify eliminating the effectiveness of the SamHouston clue.
god hates Africans. I don’t know why.
Perhaps being black may be the last stop of the reincarnated before they’re thrown away. As difficult as life is within young black popular culture, understanding their tactics, etc all supports this.
This could be a new thing as we approach The End:::They have created a hazerdous enviornment full of tretchery and temptation for this subculture in the United States.
There is a common theme regarding people’d disfavor::::Favor lies in the north while the disfavor lies in the south. This is supported in such places as:::
1. Ireland
2. Korea. The Korean War was not a war against North Korea. The Korean War was fought to corrupt South Korean. It also initiated the United States as warmongers, a reality continued in Vietnam and Iraq today.
3. The Americas (North/South America)
4. The United States (the South is very disfavored)
I wonder if maybe this is a LATITUDE issue rather than a north/south issue.
You don’t want to get angry.
When black people get angry black people get fucked.
To death. Crack babies dead. Ethiopian famine dead. Drive-bys dead.
god hates your fucking guts. To be angry is the green light they want.
They have said they reincarnate sexist men as pigs.
Consideridering black misogyny, how many black men do we have locked up in pig pens?
The gods love their irony:::From one cage to another.
More than one has enjoyed their own kin at black’s beloved BBQs. This is VERY important to them and they SEE TO IT the right meat is delivered.
Empathy is very important, and vegetarians have achieved a high level of empathy.
“The United States makes up only 1/15th of the world’s population but consumes 1/3 of the meat.” -GE. I believe the ratio is consistant with other resourses we consume, evidence supporting the gross disfavor of Americans.
How can black people EVER believe they have favor in light of the total carnage in not only their community but also back in their motherland???? BY LISTENING TO THE LIES IN THEIR HEAD, CLASSIFIED AS TEMPTATION!!!!!
GOOD ORGASIMS ARE A SIGN OF DISFAVOR!!! Claims otherwise are reverse positioning, similar to the wine example.
THE GODS ARE CONDITIONING YOU INTO THIS BEHAVIOR WITH “MAGIC”, MANUFACTURING YOUR HYPERSEXUALITY THEN PUNISHING YOU WITH AIDS!!!
You are fucked. Start accepting it.
civil rights.wav.
You eat everything they feed you in THEIR media.
Expect they leave these black celebrities in for a prolonged period SPECIFICALLY to incurr, not only by the evil during the course of their profession but also by the accompanying lifestyle, hoochie parties and all.
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————
Women who are “tough” have been masculinized and their chances have been seriously degredated because of it. The gods sought to increase these numbers and use their media to promote this type of charecter, a pathology which was subsequently forced upon people with Artificial Intelligence. They are doing it again, perhaps in preparation for the next revelry cycle right around the corner, with all this high-profile “party” behavior.
Male children should be chastized VERY HARD for engaging their sisters or ANY member of the opposite sex, either verbally or physically, for it impacts the female’s chances and futhers the god’s efforts to perpetuate the masculinization of females.
This is an environment that minimzes the traditional value of the role of women, excludes them and makes them feel as if they don’t belong.
This is an enviornment that forces women to accept this exclusionary enviornment. However there IS an alternative::::Assimilate through a process of masculinization.
The gods instruct AI to make the girls experience exclusion/isolation in hope they feel uncomfortable and seek. Unfortunately t



report abuse
 

lila

posted May 31, 2012 at 1:31 am


I agree that too many Christians are so preoccupied with pointing the finger of blame and sin where sex is involved especially homesexuality that the focus of Christ’s work of loving those who need healing is lost. None of us is without sin but Christ came for all of us sinners and to show us how to truly love. I am a “red letter Christian.



report abuse
 

derful

posted May 30, 2013 at 7:25 am


It’s really a nice and useful piece of info. I am glad that you shared this helpful info with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.



report abuse
 

Greg

posted July 27, 2014 at 8:21 am


magnificent submit, very informative. I ponder why the opposite specialists of this sector don’t understand this. You must continue your writing. I’m sure, you’ve a great readers’ base already!



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.