Archbishops of the Anglican Communion meeting in Tanzania sent a message of support to anti-gay members of the U.S. Episcopal Church, and also called on Anglicans to explore uniting with Catholics under the pope (who, as pictured in this Evening Standard account, looks amazing like the evil emporer from the Star Wars flicks). Specifically, American bishops are being asked to state that they will not consent to the election of gay or lesbian bishops and that they will not allow the creation and promulgation of rites for gay and lesbian couples (currently a local pastoral option).
Really, at this point, shouldn't U.S. Episcopalians just declare that the Anglicans, now fully under the sway of arch-reactionaries from the heart of darkness, can have the church of hate they so desire, and then go their own way?
More. Time magazine reports: "Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Anglicanism's first primate among equals and the man responsible for trying to hold the Communion together, made it clear in a press conference that he supported the communique." Also:
[Episcopalian Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori] appears to have been involved in putting together parts of this solution, which suggests that she is committed to making them work. If so, she will face stiff opposition from many U.S. Episcopalians, who would probably prefer second-class status-or no status at all-in the Communion, rather than retreating from a position on homosexuality that they feel more closely reflects the spirit of the Gospel than the exclusionary position of the majority of the primates.
Public school U.S. history lessons often confuse the difference between the Pilgrim separatists who sought to break with the corrupt Anglican church to better follow the gospel message, and authoritarian Puritans who sought to "purify" a centralized church in order to force their will on others. It's to the Pilgrims that today's Episcopalians should turn for inspiration.
138 Comments for “Gospel of Hate.”
posted by James on
It’s not “Gospel of Hate,” though that ol’ gay whininess is not unexpected. It’s “Gospel of It’s Not All About You.” As an Episcopalian, I applaud the bishops for putting the whole church first. Believe it or not, there are more pressing problems, such as poverty and AIDS, which need to be dealt with without the distraction of loony liberals trying to force us to accept the Rainbow Agenda.
Here’s an idea for gays who want acceptance in the church:
A. Join a church. Not a gay church, but a real church, with real people, who have real problems. Learn about other people’s problems.
B. Be the change you want to see. If you want monogamous gay couples to be accepted, then be part of one. Show your church that it exists and works for you.
C. Remember that the rules apply to you. In church, you will see straight couples striving for sexual exclusivity and lifelong partnership–it may not always work, but that’s their ideal and they feel bad when it doesn’t work. You are going to have to leave behind other models and accept the fact that the only type of gay couple which will ever have a blessing from your church is a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship. If you’re not in one, you pretty much have to be celibate. If you don’t like those rules, don’t be mad when the church doesn’t act thrilled about you.
My only complaint about the bishops’ decision is that all we’re going to hear for the next few months is the steady whine of bitching and moaning from all those choir directors who feel they haven’t been treated fairly. Instead of bitching, why not jump in and start living such good lives that changes in the church become inevitable? Instead of complaing, “Why should we have to earn respect when straights don’t have to, and by the way, straights are all hypocrites and adulters?” (can you see how effective that strategy will be?), why not just dig in and start doing the work of showing your capacity for prudent singleness and lifelong, sexually exclusive partnerships?
posted by Tom on
Oh my. James. Where to start? My credentials? Yes, I’m gay, in a 31-year monogamous relationship. I know many many gay people like me, and very few gay people like the ones that populate your hateful vision of gay life. What happened to you? Do you live in Palm Springs? Why are the problems of gay people different from the “real” problems of “normal” people. You are filled with some bad juju. Get new friends and a good shrink.
posted by Eric on
Start living a good life? what have I been doing before? Idiot
posted by Marc on
Well, James, you do have one point. If you want to be a part of such a “religion,” then you should adhere by its silly rules. I’ve had gay men tell me that, even though they are Catholic, for example, they don’t believe all the teachings of the church. To which I respond: Then you aren’t a catholic. You must adhere to whatever outdated and absurd rules that govern the dogma to be part of it.
Which brings me to my real point: Why would any self-respecting homo want to put himself (or herself) through such nonsense? If the Episcopalians want to exclude gays, then let them. Find another church or religion that won’t use its Godly rhetoric to demonize your life.
As for the rest of your mind-numbing generalizations, James: I think Tom said it best.
posted by Eric on
Hes immune to logic, but if it makes you guys feel better keep trying to chip away. Thats the whole thing with religion, you don’t need to actually know what your talking about with faith.
posted by Tom on
And can someone show me where this “rainbow agenda” is posted? I’m afraid I’m hopelessly out of it, as are all my gay friends. When exactly am I supposed to be parading by churches in a leather jockstrap?
posted by Roy on
He just wants to be accepted by those he wishes to emulate. It’s understandable. But why he continues to come here for self-affirmation is a bit strange… and redundant. I think he has a set belief system that other homos are disordered and preaches to us (many of whom are already in long term monogamous relationships, like myself) to start fights to prove to himself that we are the horrible homos he believes us to be, and when some of us challenge him (not because we’re not in healthy relationships, but because we think he’s screaming pointlessly at phantoms that don’t exist), he believes we are being hostile. Then, oversensitive man that he is, demonizes us as “purveyors of the rainbow agenda” and runs back to church, to “prove” that he’s not like us.
What a conflicted man. Entertaining but conflicted.
posted by Eric on
He made a comment before that he felt used by one of his first sexual experiences. Just like a woman who hates all men because she felt raped, he hates all gays. Not that he said rape I think, he just got upset that someone dare have a fling with him. There for all gay people are evil sinners, and straight people can show us the way with their perfect marriages (but don’t show him any actual statistics, hell just ignore them)
posted by James on
I can hear you!
posted by alex on
James:
I cannot adequately express my full contempt for your post. It is patronizing and seems to progress from delusional premises.
While I support the idea that to change a church you must join a church and be active and visible in the church community. The divide in the Anglican communion is that the US Episcopal Church is accepting and embracing episcopalian’s who happen to be gay. (Though you seem to think everyone gay person in America is going to orgies every weekend and snorting drugs during the week.)
Do you honestly believe that Bishops Peter Akinola and Jefferts Schori object only to “promiscuous gay behavoir?” If you honestly do, then I feel sorry for the level of delusion you can tolerate.
Akinola comes from a country that made (or tried to make) being gay a capital offense. Perhaps you’re trying to be Daniel in the lion’s den, but not many of us have the will to become martyr’s to the hatred of third world countries.
posted by Randy on
The real irony here is that many gay people have in fact been doing exactly what James has suggested: They lead exemplary lives within the Episcople church. THAT is one of the major reasons so many Episcople church have in fact accepted gays, blessed same sex unions, and even supported Eugene Robinson as bishop. Had it not been for those brave souls doing the hard work over the past ten, twenty, thirty years or so, then the Episcople church would not be having this debate in the first place.
In other words, it is precisely BECAUSE of their presense that so much of the American churches support gays. So the answer is NOT to abandon the church because some bishop in NIgeria hates gays, or because a handful in Virginia vote to split. (Even in those churches, the vote was not unanimous) The answer is to stay and fight for what you believe in. Only in this way, can true progress be made. If you leave, however, then the homophobic churches will stay that way, and nothing is accomplished.
So yes, James is partially right that change will come from the examples we set. But he is wrong to believe that so far no change has occured. It has in fact occured, and will continue, the more gay people come out and announce themselves, and demand the same rights as everyone else in every sphere of life. Including church.
posted by Eric on
I’m thrilled no one is allowing James to put them in a box. We all need to stand up and say “we are gay citizens and proud of it” and I don’t need rainbow flags or leather to do that, but it doesn’t neccisarily hurt either 😉
I’m suprised his responce was so brief, maybe James will enlighten us more later with his unique brand of moral fiber (read: bigoted hate).
posted by Alex on
The real irony here is that many gay people have in fact been doing exactly what James has suggested: They lead exemplary lives within the Episcople church.
And, in most churches, no good deed goes unpunished
posted by James on
I enjoy the way Alex condemns the church and then gets mad when the church doesn’t accept him. There’s logic for you. “The church is an out-dated, patriarchal institution which damages all who come near, and I want their blessing, dammit!”
There is nothing to stop gays from witnessing to their capacity for lifelong, sexually exclusive partnerships. The best thing we can do is set an example now. I think what’s happening in Nigeria is horrific. The best way to help them is to remain in community with them, and offer examples of how God blesses and sustains gay relationships. We also have to be willing to condemn ungodly gay behavior and hold gays accountable for the kind of actions which damage the reputation of the gay community as a whole. Flamboyant behavior at Pride parades is not going to help Nigerian gays make a case for themselves–it’s just going to make things harder.
Frederick Douglass educated himself while it was still against the law to do so and thus set an example which helped end slavery. Gays can form lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship while we are waiting for full acceptance and, like Frederick Douglass, set an example which will end homophobic laws and institutions.
posted by Tom on
I’m sorry about my earlier crack stereotyping gay men in Palm Springs … there are exemplary gay citizens there too! James, are there any hotheaded cracks you’d like to apologize for?
posted by Alex the amused on
I enjoy the way Alex condemns the church and then gets mad when the church doesn’t accept him. There’s logic for you. “The church is an out-dated, patriarchal institution which damages all who come near, and I want their blessing, dammit!”
And I enjoyed they way you assume facts not in evidence while ignoring facts presented.
A: I neither condemned “the church” nor requested it’s acceptance (as I already have it). If you can quote something different out of my post I invite you to do so. (I will share these two items regarding my religious affiliation: My denomination has been on record in support of gay and lesbian people since 1973; I was married eleven years ago [2-17] in my church by my Minister.)
B: Are we to believe that you honestly think that the issue for the Anglican Communion is whether committed relationships should have equal expectations for Gay vs. Straight parishoners. Mr. Akinola and Mr. Schori do not now, and likely will not, believe that you & I are one of God’s children. And they are teaching that belief to a new generation.
The question is not will you remain in community with them (which I agree would be a good thing) but will they remain in community with you? It is my sincere belief they will not, and the American Episcopalian Church will very soon be on it’s own.
C: You give every appearence of continuing to willfully disregard every evidence offered that gay people are in committed relationships. But, per my point B, is irrelevant to the Anglican Communion crisis.
D: Mardis Gras (are you against that, also?) doesn’t stain all straight people all year, I am unable to understand why “Flamboyant behavior at Pride” events gets a different measure. If we are active in our congregations as open gay men, pride events will be understood for what they are: Letting loose.
posted by James on
Alex:
A: OK, I was probably attributing an attitude to you which you don’t have. However, it is an attitude of many gays about the church.
B. Who’s Mr. Schori? Bishop Akinola is showing himself to be a real problem, and not even the bishops in Africa like him. Also, he is going to retire soon. I think a lot of what is happening in Africa has to do with the clash of Islam, AIDS, poverty, etc. I don’t think gay rights is the most important issue for Africa, and they probably haven’t gotten around to looking at it yet. I think that if the US Episcopal Church continues to show its support for these other issues, the African bishops will eventually, maybe sooner than we think, understand our views on gay relationships.
C. There are many gays in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. See? There I said it. But this is not the most visible part of the gay community, nor anywhere near the largest. I really, really think that my stereotypes are true for over half the gay community, if not more. I certainly think that a young gay man is more likely to encounter a predator who wants to use him for fresh meat than a man who wants to counsel him on the joys and responsibilities of marriage. You know, deep in your heart, that that’s true, and that it needs to change.
D. I don’t go to Mardi Gras. Sometimes I eat pancakes. Straight people are letting loose, true–but gays are trying to win votes. When undocumented workers took to the streets waving Mexican flags, did they win your vote? Don’t they come off more sympathically now that they’ve stopped doing that? Do you think gays could drop the wigs and thongs the way immigrants have dropped the Mexican flag?
posted by thom on
Like many of you, I find James’ comments ill-informed. Rather than pick the low hanging fruit his posts provide, I would rather raise a question that stems from a thought in James’ original post.
James said: “It’s not ‘Gospel of Hate,’ though that ol’ gay whininess is not unexpected. It’s ‘Gospel of It’s Not All About You.'” I would take that further and suggest that in most mainstream Christian churches, it’s a “Gospel That Rejects You.” Put aside the “hate” label for a moment, and focus only on the message of these religions: to love another person of the same sex is a wrong, a sin — an abomination.
And thus, I would like to ask this question: Why do members of our community seek inclusion in social institutions that are openly hostile towards them? Why willingly associate with people who judge your life to be a sin? Isn’t this a bit like an African-American trying to join the KKK?
posted by Eric on
“There are many gays in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. See? There I said it. But this is not the most visible part of the gay community, nor anywhere near the largest. I really, really think that my stereotypes are true for over half the gay community, if not more.”
How is this different from the straight community? Marriage isn’t even the prefered living arrangements for straights anymore with over 50% co-habitating. And lets not forget divorce rates.
My question is this: Why do you feel the need to hold gays to a a more strict moral code than straight people? Or if you hold everyone to the same bar, why don’t you bemoan the state of heterosexuals more often? Maybe you havn’t checked in a while, but its not a paradise on that side of the fence.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Mardis Gras (are you against that, also?) doesn’t stain all straight people all year, I am unable to understand why “Flamboyant behavior at Pride” events gets a different measure.
Because heterosexuals do not claim Mardi Gras as an opportunity to show off all that is well and good within the heterosexual community, though.
However, that is the whole point of “Pride”.
Why do members of our community seek inclusion in social institutions that are openly hostile towards them? Why willingly associate with people who judge your life to be a sin?
You mean like conservative and religious gays trying to associate with leftist gays?
Let me quote some examples from just here:
You are filled with some bad juju. Get new friends and a good shrink.
Idiot.
As for the rest of your mind-numbing generalizations, James: I think Tom said it best.
Hes immune to logic, but if it makes you guys feel better keep trying to chip away. Thats the whole thing with religion, you don’t need to actually know what your talking about with faith.
What a conflicted man. Entertaining but conflicted.
I cannot adequately express my full contempt for your post. It is patronizing and seems to progress from delusional premises.
Like many of you, I find James’ comments ill-informed.
Indeed, I have substantial experience in this regard, everything from being told to commit suicide by gay leftists on this very blog to, when one of my blogposts was featured in the Washington Blade blogwatch, getting irate comments from people who thought my post criticizing someone was endorsing their viewpoint.
To whit, the answer to your question; I have received more kindness, respect, and invitations to dialogue, and fewer insults, from religious people who dislike homosexuality than from gay people who dislike conservative and religious folk.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: Go cry to mama you ninny, if you didn’t spread lies and slander others on this board people wouldn’t be upset…you reap what you sow.
posted by thom on
To North Dallas Thirty ~
As you know, I am aware of your posts to this forum, and the level of partisanship you engage in — something you do not attempt to deny. Sweeping generalizations, attributing statements to people they did not make, refusing to acknowledge mistakes, and name-calling — these are your tools for “dialogue” in this forum. It therefore comes as no surprise to me that you have received insults in return. I am in no position to judge who drew first blood — you or those “gay people who dislike conservative and religious folk.” I do know, however, that I asked you to tone it down, so that your opinions and arguments could be heard and evaluated. Unfortunately, looking at some of the battles raging in other “topics” here, that hasn’t happened.
It should be obvious that it is much harder to engage those with whom your opinions differ, than those who are like-minded. (I seriously doubt that you talk to the good Christian folk the way you do with us.) I remain open to new ideas. Do you?
Back to my question. For you, NDT, if I’m paraphrasing you correctly, you feel a greater level of acceptance in your religious community (Christian?) than in the gay community. I understand that. Yet, I still am troubled by my question: Why willingly associate with people who judge your life to be a sin? What do you think and feel when that message is preached by your church? Do you just ignore that part of the church doctrine, and go on with religion because it gives you comfort? Do you try to change the church’s belief, or just accept it?
I’ll answer my own questions. I was raised Catholic, and was very devout. Being Catholic was an important part of my identity, not surprising given my Irish heritage. In my late teens, I had developed “issues” with the Church, that had nothing to do with homosexuality. I was less devout, but still Catholic. (I generally thought that Catholics had the best values and morals, and therefore, sought out other Catholics for friends.)
After my first sexual experience with a men when I was 20, I was overwhelmed with guilt, and sought absolution for my sin. My second experience was three years later, in Samoa, with a devout Catholic Samoan man. The next morning, he insisted we go to Mass — hangover or not. As I sat in the pew next to him, he could see that I was troubled. I felt like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He asked: “Do you feel you’ve sinned?” I said yes. He said: “Do you really feel that what we did was wrong?” I thought about it, and realized that my feelings for him were not wrong in a moral sense: quite the contrary. Nonetheless, my feelings, our actions, were a sin, according to Church dogma. So I did not go to Communion.
My Samoan friend did. And still does, despite getting married and divorced, and living with a man for 12 years now. He’s the reason for my question. I left the Church when I accepted that I was gay, because the Church made it clear that I did not belong. In contrast, my Samoan friend is now more Catholic than ever.
I would very much appreciate other viewpoints from gay Christians in this forum.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Come, CP, you can do better than that…..much, MUCH better.
Of course, if a religious person told a gay person to commit suicide, I doubt anyone here would try to use the argument that it was justified because the gay person provoked them.
But really, is it surprising?
posted by Eric on
Is he really trying to take the moral high ground here? I hardly need to say anything but I will anyway. ND30 you make it a daily practice to antagonize, belittle, and basically be a asshole to people on these forums. No one cares what your opinion is anymore, and no one feels bad that you think your getting treated unfairly.
If Christian boards treat you better (I assume you treat them better to, but that must be ENTIRELY unrelated right?) then I suggest you spend all your time there and never ever visit this page again.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Sweeping generalizations, attributing statements to people they did not make, refusing to acknowledge mistakes, and name-calling — these are your tools for “dialogue” in this forum. It therefore comes as no surprise to me that you have received insults in return.
And yet, thom, you have received insults in this forum and had your privacy publicly and maliciously compromised by gay leftists.
Does that mean you too are using “sweeping generalizations, attributing statements to people they did not make, refusing to acknowledge mistakes, and name-calling”?
Or is it just that gay leftists such as we have here verbally assault and attempt to directly harm anyone who disagrees with them in the least — and your statements are merely an attempt to justify their behavior against me, rather than to confront it directly?
Now, that being said, to your question.
Yet, I still am troubled by my question: Why willingly associate with people who judge your life to be a sin? What do you think and feel when that message is preached by your church? Do you just ignore that part of the church doctrine, and go on with religion because it gives you comfort? Do you try to change the church’s belief, or just accept it?
I can answer your question very simply; my faith and belief in God is more important to me than their opinions.
Just as my love for life and my self-esteem is greater and of more importance to me than pleasing those like CP who want me dead, or those other gay leftists who want me mindless and conformed to leftist and Democrat dogma, and see nothing wrong with maliciously violating my privacy to force it.
Does that make sense?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….Eric, that’s funny.
ND30 you make it a daily practice to antagonize, belittle, and basically be a asshole to people on these forums. No one cares what your opinion is anymore, and no one feels bad that you think your getting treated unfairly.
So in other words, other peoples’ hateful actions against me are justified because I allegedly antagonize and belittle them.
Now, let’s review what gays say about Christians.
What does ‘disgust with christians’ make one? A reasonable, rational person, of course. Disgust shows an ability to look at what is, see it for what it is, and act accordingly. Those who continuously bring up all the Jesus loved puppies routine, are IMHO and IMHE seriously delusional. Anyone who seriously believes that christianity is about ‘love’ should seek professional help.
But now of course, Eric, I’m sure you can come up with a good explanation about how gays shouldn’t be held accountable for their words, how Christians should still treat gays with respect, care about them, and speak up if they’re being treated unfairly when gays deliberately antagonize and belittle Christians.
What the Anglican Communion is recognizing is that being gay and being Christian or religious is incompatible — from a gay standpoint. You may practice your faith in secret, but when the antireligious leftist gays of the world speak up, your allegiance is with them. As this thread and numerous others demonstrate, gays like James and myself who speak up for religion are mercilessly pummeled and mocked. Gays like yourself come up with excuses for why we should be insulted and told to commit suicide. You denigrate our opinions and our beliefs.
The reason I continue to come here, Eric, is because a) I don’t believe it has to be that way and b) I believe that greater public acceptance of homosexuality will come when it is made clear that it is not synonymous with antireligious hate and bigotry, leftist thought, or mindless conformity.
posted by JimG on
I would like to respond to thom’s request for thoughts from other gay Christians. I, too was brought up in an Irish Catholic environment, went to Catholic schools, was an altar boy, etc. And I have always been grateful that I was exposed to the wonderful concepts of “loving they neighbor”, “doing unto others”, and “judge ye not” and have kept those ideas with me as I’ve continued on in life. I did however, come to the point where I realized that I could no longer allow other human beings to determine what my faith was.
Being gay I knew that I was outside the norms of behavior that the church would allow, and yet I felt that the gender of the person I was involved with was the least important aspect of that picture. It was the diginity, integrity and honesty of the relationship that was of primary importance to me. And yet my Church and many others had the importance completely upside down in my view. I mean no disrespect of the office, but while I care what the Pope thinks, what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks, and what the Dali Lama thinks from a political and social point of view, because millions of people listen to them, I do not allow them to determine what feels right in my heart about many different issues.
While I do not call myself a Christian, or a Buddhist for that matter (and I meditate and study the Sutras-Buddhist scripture) I do still go to Mass when the Spirit moves me and, while some may gasp, I always go to Communion. And I receive Communion with the same deep respect that I received it when I was a lad. For me Church, and the mass, is no longer a social experience but a sole meditation on the Mysteries of the Divine.
Thanks for your posts.
posted by thom on
JimG ~
Thank you for a thoughtful response. It sounds as if you have parted ways with Catholicism, but not with your spirituality. I understand your journey, as a portion of my own was the same, and I have many friends who are like you.
I am most curious about gay men, perhaps like North Dallas Thirty, and certainly like my Samoan friend, who still actively participate in organized religions with dogma that condemns them for loving someone of the same sex. I’m trying to understand how that’s done. In my way of thinking, either they are being untrue to their chosen religion, or untrue to their hearts. I’d like to understand how view their place within their churches.
Thanks again, JimG, for responding to my question.
posted by James on
I also don’t care what the Pope thinks or the Dalai Lama or whoever–I care what Jesus thinks. I have a relationship with God through the living Jesus, and I celebrate that relationship with a community. The community is there to help me and support me, but I have one Teacher whose Word is final. Sometimes, the community is helpful, sometimes, they’re a bunch of self-righteous jerks–but we worship together. Jesus has the final say for what I choose to do. Most of the time, I hear his voice better as part of a community, but sometimes, I have to go off by myself to hear Him clearly.
My decision about my sexuality is to have sex with the men Jesus brings into my life who He thinks will be healthy, life-giving partners. Unless a relationship has His blessing, I won’t be a part of it. It’s not all about me and what I want–my life was bought at a price, and I want to honor that.
posted by Tom on
mr. north dallas: my response (get new friends) seems very tame, considering I was just called an immoral, abnormal, drug-using flamer by someone who obviously doesn’t know me or my community. No one can explain how that jives with christian behavior. I’m new to this site, but it’s clear that James is well known for his way of inflaming and poisoning what could have been an intelligent discussion with his blanket condemnations of gay men. I wish James could meet the people I’ve met for a radically different view of who gay people are. Good luck in your defense of James.
posted by Tom on
To Thom: thanks for your thoughtful posts, and for encouraging us not to take the James-ND30 bait. I was raised in an irish-catholic family, attended catholic school (50s-60s), altar boy, lover of saint-lore, sister is a nun etc. And yes I left the church when I came out because I could not belong to a club that would not have me as a member … to me a no-brainer. But there’s irony here: I’m the family atheist. I’m the only one (of six) who is still in a stable life-long (30 years plus) relationship, so championed by the true believers here. Without dragging you all thru the family album I can safely say I live my life with a much higher moral and ethical code than my catholic siblings. NB: That is my personal experience, which will be heard by some very touchy folks as a criticism of all catholics which it ain’t.
Thom, I am also mystified by those who cling to communities who essentially would cast them off. Classic cognitive dissonance?
Thanks for allowing me to ramble …
posted by Eric on
to ND30
“So in other words, other peoples’ hateful actions against me are justified because I allegedly antagonize and belittle them.”
That sounds about like your reasoning used back at you, so I don’t see the issue here.
“But now of course, Eric, I’m sure you can come up with a good explanation about how gays shouldn’t be held accountable for their words, how Christians should still treat gays with respect, care about them, and speak up if they’re being treated unfairly when gays deliberately antagonize and belittle Christians”
First of all, I don’t really need to justify myself with others actions. If one gay later punches you to the ground because you talked trash about his life and pulled “holier than thou” that’s not my fault. For every link you pull up where someone mocked you, I could pull up one where you did the same to someone else.
But if you do want a reason I would tell you that I don’t need to invent one because your religion already has it on the books. Be humble, treat your enemy with respect, all that stuff I hear from Christians all the time. Your the one who is suppose to forgive in your world view. After all, the rest of us are heathens who don’t have the lords grace. But it’s so EASY to claim to be a christian and so HARD to actually practice it hmmm?
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
My, my . . . What nasty, personal comments. Guess when one has nothing intelligent to say, one resorts to sliding into the gutter for personal attacks.
While I don’t agree with everything James says, I think he raises some things that have apparently struck quite a nerve with many here. Perhaps there is just a grain or two of uncomfortable truth in what he’s saying . . . ?
What I agree with him most is the fact that if we ever expect to achieve true equality, we cannot cloister ourselves off from mainstream society and then act outraged when we don’t get any respect.
And as someone who had to endure growing up in a fundamentalist church (which is FAR more demonizing of gays than the Catholic Church could ever dream of being) only to escape as soon as I could, I have not let their beliefs poison my relationship with Christ. I believe that Christ is Christ; religion is man-made, and thus created by fallible beings.
To those who claim that the leather-clad are a minority of gay society, realize that there are far more Christians committed to the true ideals of Christianity than there are those who pervert it to fit their own sad agenda.
One last request — if you are an adult, attack away at someone’s arguments, but please can the personal insults.
posted by Randy on
“And thus, I would like to ask this question: Why do members of our community seek inclusion in social institutions that are openly hostile towards them? Why willingly associate with people who judge your life to be a sin? Isn’t this a bit like an African-American trying to join the KKK?”
One reason is that you can love a church and all it stands for, but believe that it wrong about a certain topic. Not everyone who was against slavery left the Baptist church. (And there was a shism.) And so you stick around to enlighten all the others.
And that does work. As I mentioned above, the fact that so many churches in America welcome gays is largely due to the fact that many brave and loyal gay people stuck it out and did the hard work to convince others in the congregation.
Me, I don’t have the stomach for that type of work. I devote my energies elsewhere, but I have tremendous respect for those that do, as they pace the way for the rest of us. We should encourage them to do so.
The Republican party is fairly hostile to gay people, at least at the national level. That’s why I support the Log Cabin Repubs, and was even a member for a while. They are doing the hard work to convince other Republicans that gays should be part of the party. And they have made progress.
Another reason people stay in a religion is because they know deep down this is where they belong. They feel that they belong in Catholic church, and may have even tried others, and feel uncomfortable there. So they have little choice but to stay and either remain silent, or suffer the hardship of being openly gay. Sometimes, though, they don’t suffer any personal discrimination. For these people, they don’t choose a religion so much as it chooses them.
As for me, it just shows that religion is all phooey. Okay, I don’t mean that as an attack on those who believe. It just for me — I am a rather spiritual person, but I don’t like any religions at all. But I just don’t understand why it is so important for religions to set up a set of beliefs, and then demand that everyone accept those and no other. It’s just bizarre, to my mind. Thats more about power than about any god. But I digress…..
posted by kittynboi on
“”””What I agree with him most is the fact that if we ever expect to achieve true equality, we cannot cloister ourselves off from mainstream society and then act outraged when we don’t get any respect. “”””
We have jobs and pay taxes. That should be enough.
posted by James on
I am a Christian because I gave my life to Jesus. I don’t follow an institution or the Pope or the Bible–I follow Jesus, who lives in me by the Spirit.
Having a community of believers helps me in my journey. Church leadership, from pastor to Pope, can help me see things clearly. Ultimately, though, Jesus is my Lord and Savior, not any human or group of humans.
I am part of community which helps me with that relationship. It is not up to humans to accept or reject my sexuality–if Jesus accepts me, they are called to accept me. Jesus is my defender against those who would shut me off from His Church.
However, the church I’m in is very accepting, so I find Jesus there. If you want to find a church, you have to go where Jesus is.
posted by Marc on
Randy: I am inclined to agree with you that people who “try to stuck it out” in a religion that doesn’t like them are admirable in their persistence, but this isn’t the same as striving for gay rights. What are they really achieving? The Catholic Church hasn’t really changed its stance on gays (“love the sinner, hate the sin” is condescending at best, demeaning at worse), and this in spite of the fact that most of its priests are gay. Most other religions also haven’t had any kind of epiphany.
Saying you welcome someone into your church is far different that saying you welcome them as a gay person. I don’t see how a gay person can tell me they “love their church” when this institution has done more to persecute gays than any other single factor in history. Maybe change is possible in religion, but there are few signs that such a thing is possible. Even with some church supporters, it still seems demeaning emotionally, physically and even spiritually to be part of a club that thinks you aren’t on the same level as its other members.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
mr. north dallas: my response (get new friends) seems very tame, considering I was just called an immoral, abnormal, drug-using flamer by someone who obviously doesn’t know me or my community.
Let’s see……that statement of yours was in response to this post.
Methinks you are reading rather heavily into what was said.
And then, to Eric:
But if you do want a reason I would tell you that I don’t need to invent one because your religion already has it on the books. Be humble, treat your enemy with respect, all that stuff I hear from Christians all the time. Your the one who is suppose to forgive in your world view. After all, the rest of us are heathens who don’t have the lords grace. But it’s so EASY to claim to be a christian and so HARD to actually practice it hmmm?
Not really.
You note I haven’t demanded that you or any other of your hate-filled allies commit suicide — as would, under your leftist gay morality, be my right to do. In fact, all I’ve done is pointed out what you’ve said.
Go ahead and show links where I allegedly mock people. We’ll compare them to the ones I provided from your leftist friend CP, and let people decide which is worse — the gay leftist who follows your revenge and hate morality, or mine.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Next to Thom:
I am most curious about gay men, perhaps like North Dallas Thirty, and certainly like my Samoan friend, who still actively participate in organized religions with dogma that condemns them for loving someone of the same sex. I’m trying to understand how that’s done. In my way of thinking, either they are being untrue to their chosen religion, or untrue to their hearts.
As I said before:
I can answer your question very simply; my faith and belief in God is more important to me than their opinions.
And the Biblical basis for that is quite blunt (Romans 8:38 – 39):
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The reason I think you’re having trouble with this is because it’s contrary to standard gay dogma, as exemplified by Eric’s response to me:
If Christian boards treat you better (I assume you treat them better to, but that must be ENTIRELY unrelated right?) then I suggest you spend all your time there and never ever visit this page again.
In other words, it’s all or nothing. If something isn’t perfect, leave.
And finally, why don’t you ask your boyfriend for some insight? Why is he an active participant in an organization that condemns him for loving someone of the same sex? Why does he cling to a community that would cast him off? Is it cognitive dissonance, or some other type of psychological disorder on his part, as the belief is here about religious gays?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: Stop trying to play the victim here. I think its kind of funny that you supply links to my previous statements but leave this one out!
“ColoradoPatriot | February 2, 2007, 5:20pm | #
I’m a bad bad man and nothing is going to stop me from saying deplorible things…see ND30, you and I have these two things in common. And, by the way, I’m just taking a piss about shooting yourself. Please PLEASE don’t off yourself, I get too much enjoyment out of watching you make a complete ass of yourself here to ever want that to stop.”
And anyone that wants to can go to your first link and see what started all this. The simple fact is that you made a stupid and callous remark about Anthony Castro and refused to acknowledge/correct your error. Please be truthful on this board.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And anyone that wants to can go to your first link and see what started all this. The simple fact is that you made a stupid and callous remark about Anthony Castro and refused to acknowledge/correct your error. Please be truthful on this board.
Indeed they can.
And unfortunately, what they will notice is that the first place Anthony Castro was mentioned was here……well after your first and second demands that I commit suicide.
And they can also see where I acknowledged my error, contrary to your statement above.
And as for “playing the victim”, CP, hardly; this is just a matter of exploiting the greatest weakness of gay leftists — the fact that they are incapable of criticizing or correcting their own. This, more than anything else, is what costs gays credibility; other leftist and hateful causes have figured out that we’re pigeons just begging to be exploited as support for them.
posted by Alex on
Back on topic: As ever, there are some clergy who understand that there is a crossroads ahead and they need to choose between embracing or excluding some of God’s children.
Some Episcopal Bishops Reject Anglican Gay Rights Edict
“Yes, I would accept schism,” said Bishop Steven Charleston, president of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass. “I would be willing to accept being told I’m not in communion with places like Nigeria if it meant I could continue to be in a position of justice and morality. If the price I pay is that I’m not considered to be part of a flawed communion, then so be it.” (emphasis added)
and, the point I tried to make previously:
Marc Handley Andrus, Bishop of California
Shrove Tuesday, 2007
Gay and lesbian people who come to the Church seeking the blessing of the Church for their unions are people seeking to lead holy lives, exactly like heterosexual couples. The Church must respond to gay and lesbian people seeking the blessing of counseling, community support, prayer, and sacrament in the same way it does to heterosexual couples. (emphasis added)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I think, as was mentioned above, that “God’s children” have made it emphatically clear how they feel about God and Christianity.
What does ‘disgust with christians’ make one? A reasonable, rational person, of course. Disgust shows an ability to look at what is, see it for what it is, and act accordingly. Those who continuously bring up all the Jesus loved puppies routine, are IMHO and IMHE seriously delusional. Anyone who seriously believes that christianity is about ‘love’ should seek professional help.
Given that, I think the Anglican Communion is simply ratifying the obvious.
posted by Alex on
ND30: Any comment on the issue at hand (as opposed to the pissing contest over “who is more vicious and mean”)?
What is your opinion on the Primates ultimatum?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I just gave it to you, Alex; the Anglican Communion is simply ratifying the obvious.
They have realized that being gay and being religious are incompatible — because gays have made it abundantly clear that they consider Christians “seriously delusional” and that gay people who are religious are exhibiting “cognitive dissonance” and mental instability.
posted by James on
My opinion on the Primates’ ultimatum is this: I think the problems facing Africa–AIDS, poverty, starvation, civil war, etc.–are bigger than the problems facing North American gays. I think we are in a better position, as Episcopalians, to help our African brothers and sisters if we remain in communion–even if we submit to requests which we know are unfair. Somehow, the willingness to accept a certain amount of oppression for the greater good seems like something Jesus would do.
I can build a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship without the official blessing of my church. In the first place, the church I go to would offer their blessing. If I have to wait awhile until some official blessing goes in the prayer book, that’s OK–I’m willing to wait if it puts us in a position to give aid to those suffering in Africa and the global south.
At the same time we are offering aid to places like Nigeria, we need to be witnessing to the godliness of lifelong gay relationships. We need to be setting an example with our lives which shows our willingness to bring our sexual orientation under the lordship of Christ. If gays do this, we will be in a better place to bring those who have doubts about gays to the table with us.
Incidentally, everyone here keeps talking about the “church” and whether the church accepts you or rejects you. The question is, does Jesus accept you? If Jesus accepts you, then His church has to accept you. So, stop worrying about the church, and do what you need to do to build your relationship with Jesus. The rest will follow.
posted by Alex on
They have realized that being gay and being religious are incompatible
But you and I know this to be false. James is gay & religious. I am gay and a member of a religious community. Any number of other folks here are gay and members of religious communities. So the statement sounds to me more hyperbolic than true belief.
Somehow, the willingness to accept a certain amount of oppression for the greater good seems like something Jesus would do.
My (admitedly limited) understanding of Jesus’ ministry is that he openly and forcefully challenged the unjust oppressions of the establishment when it would have been far easier to accept that lepers and tax collectors and prostitutes were outcasts.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But you and I know this to be false. James is gay & religious. I am gay and a member of a religious community.
And remember how gay and religious folk are viewed?
Isn’t this a bit like an African-American trying to join the KKK?
Next:
My (admitedly limited) understanding of Jesus’ ministry is that he openly and forcefully challenged the unjust oppressions of the establishment when it would have been far easier to accept that lepers and tax collectors and prostitutes were outcasts.
What Jesus challenged in that regard was the idea that these people were scarred for life and that God had rejected them because of what they had done — or, in the case of lepers, the perception that their disease was a punishment from God for their sins.
However, when asked whether or not it was right to pay taxes, for example, Jesus made it clear that you should render respect to the authorities. He did the same throughout an unjust trial, torture, and a completely-unjustified death — all for the greater good of humanity.
posted by Alex on
And remember how gay and religious folk are viewed?
By some. There are folks deeply scarred by religious literalists, that hardly means that being gay and being religious are incompatible
Re: Jesus’ Ministry
Thank you for the clarification. The situation of BGLT people is like that of the lepers, tax collectors, and prostitutes. It seems that you’ve affirmed my understanding that Jesus would more likely challenge the idea that gay people are “intrinsically evil” or “flawed” or “scarred and rejected.” He didn’t tell the outcasts that they should be patient and wait where the Pharisees told them and wait for the piests to come around to right thinking.
posted by Randy on
Marc: Maybe change is possible in religion, but there are few signs that such a thing is possible.
Well, I would disagree on this. I’m no expert, but I think many religions have become more opening to gays over the past few decades, not least of which include the Reform and Conservative Jewish faiths. The Orthodox Jews are much less likelly to embrace gays.
But even that isn’t so clearcut. I once was at a screening of a film entitled “Trembling Before G-D” and it was about closeted gay orthodox jews. AFter the screening, Rabbi Greenberg, the only openly gay orthodox jew, said that even within orthodoxy, things are changing. He said that there is a difference between eastern and western orthodoxy, and that one is more open to gays than the other (I don’t recall which one).
There is also a jewish notion that somethings are unexplainable, such as why you fall in love with one person versus another. When he would explain that this is exactly the same case with gays, that we don’t know WHY we are attracted to people of the same-sex, he gets more acceptance. In other words, he fould a way to talk with them on their own terms, and that made progress.
However, I understand your inability to comprehend why people would nonetheless love something that clearly hates them back. I do too. I guess we really need someone here who does exactly that, and we haven’t seen it yet.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It seems that you’ve affirmed my understanding that Jesus would more likely challenge the idea that gay people are “intrinsically evil” or “flawed” or “scarred and rejected.”
Actually, you’re right in that regard.
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.”
However, what also needs to be kept in mind are the examples of what happened with tax collectors, prostitutes, and lepers:
First, the adulterer:
Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Next the tax collector:
But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”
Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.”
And the leper:
While Jesus was in one of the towns, a man came along who was covered with leprosy. When he saw Jesus, he fell with his face to the ground and begged him, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.”
Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” And immediately the leprosy left him.
Do you notice a common thread in those?
I’ll give you a hint….it wasn’t people who had rejected Him and mocked His followers as “delusional”.
posted by Alex on
The people who had rejected Him and mocked His followers as “delusional”.
And those aren’t the folks you & I have been discussing.
posted by thom on
Randy said: ?However, I understand your inability to comprehend why people would nonetheless love something that clearly hates them back. I do too. I guess we really need someone here who does exactly that, and we haven’t seen it yet.?
I agree. It seems as if all of the people who responded to my question thus far fall into the category of what my father refers to as ?cafeteria Christians.? They take what they want from their religion, and ignore the rest. James has a personal relationship with Jesus, and doesn?t follow the Bible. JimG enjoys the spirituality of various religions. North Dallas Thirty says that his ?faith and belief in God is more important to me than their opinions.? He also readily quotes from the New Testament, perhaps choosing to believe that only that portions of the Bible are divinely inspired, despite the ?opinions? of others.
Claiming that my continuing question of how gay Christians reconcile the teachings of their churches with being gay is the result of my adherence to ?gay dogma,? North Dallas Thirty gets personal with me with the following comment:
NDT: ?And finally, why don’t you ask your boyfriend for some insight? Why is he an active participant in an organization that condemns him for loving someone of the same sex? Why does he cling to a community that would cast him off? Is it cognitive dissonance, or some other type of psychological disorder on his part, as the belief is here about religious gays??
I repeat NDT?s attempted jab because I think it illustrates my point. (For those of you who don?t know, my man is a Lt. Colonel in US military.) Contrary to NDT?s assertion, the military does not ?condemn? (or in religious terms, claim that his love is an abomination and sin) him, but rather, asks that he keep it to himself. It?s true that he would be ?cast off? if he violated ?don?t ask, don?t tell.? However, I submit that the message of DADT is very different then passages like Leviticus 20:13: ?If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.? Last time I checked, the military hadn?t executed anyone under DADT.
Nonetheless, contrary to the answer NDT probably thought his jab would evoke, my boyfriend does experience cognitive dissonance from being gay and in the military. He has many good days, but also some bad days. The bad days arise when some conversation has forced him to lie, or otherwise squelch his gay identity. He handles it by creating ?compartments? ? one for his professional career, one for the rest of his life. After so many years in service, and being so close to retirement, financial prudence trumps cognitive dissonance.
Perhaps that?s what gay Christians (and gay Muslims) do. Create compartments to wall themselves off from the teachings of their religions. And maybe that?s what makes gay men leary of religious gay men. In our lives, compartments ? ?I?m only bi when my wife is out of town,? ?I?m not gay, it?s just a physical thing,? ?I?m not gay as long as I?m the top? ? are often trouble.
posted by James on
Yes, I have a personal relationship with Jesus, and, yes, I follow the Bible. It is like Jesus is my teacher and the Bible is the syllabus for the course. I anticipate that Jesus’ lesson plans for me are going to follow His syllabus. Without the syllabus, I wouldn’t understand the course. Also, the course involves a lot of group projects. OK, that’s pretty much the end of that analogy, but you get the idea.
posted by thom on
James ~
When your “syllabus” says that homosexuality is a sin and abomination, do you skip that lesson? Or do you read that lesson and agree with it, because that’s what the Bible says?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
North Dallas Thirty says that his ?faith and belief in God is more important to me than their opinions.? He also readily quotes from the New Testament, perhaps choosing to believe that only that portions of the Bible are divinely inspired, despite the ?opinions? of others.
Or perhaps I simply read more Scripture than you do.
But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Galatians 2:21 – 25
Realize, thom, that to gays who are well-acquainted with the Bible and the various nuances of Christian theology, you look much the same to us as do the hellfire-and-brimstone pronouncements of the worst of religious fundamentalists; a classic example of a little bit of knowledge and a few cherry-picked verses being used to justify an enormous amount of ignorant behavior.
At the same time, though, this is not the problem that animates the Anglican primates. Theirs is much more a realization that homosexuality is inherently hostile to religion — not because they say so, but because gays themselves say so.
posted by thom on
Really, North Dallas Thirty, you are fighting an uphill battle.
Your last post suggests that those of us — straight and gay alike — who believe that the Bible and the vast majority of Christian theology abhors homosexuality (Christianity is inherently hostile to homosexuality) are wrong, because we have an inadequate knowledge of both the Bible and theology. Not “nuanced” enough, you say. (The idea of you suggesting that nuance should be appreciated — given your reflexive lumping of everyone who disagrees with you into the category of leftist, military-hating, sex-addled Democrat — is truly a hoot. Thanks for that.)
So, I put you to this challenge. Given your superior knowledge of the Bible and theology, it should be a simple task.
1. First, acknowledge that the passages to which you quote are more commonly cited as Galatians 3:21 -25.
2. Second, please identify all Christian denominations that agree with you that Galatians 3:21 – 25 (or whatever version of the Bible you’re using) means that the proscriptions against homosexuality (“the law”) throughout the Bible are of no consequence.
3. Third, please identify all Christian denominations whose theology is simply wrong about homosexuality, because they fail to have the nuanced understanding of the Bible that you possess, and declare that homosexuality is a sin.
4. Finally, do the math. I have no doubt that you’ll run for this, hurl insults, or change the subject, because the conclusion is an empirical fact: the overwhelming majority of Christian denominations declare homosexuality to be a sin. Therefore, you cannot in good faith (if you ever held yourself to such a standard) claim that gay people are simply wrong about the hostility of Christianty towards them.
As you say, quite rightly, anyone can cherry pick a few verses of the Bible, such as it is, to justify nearly any position. Just as you did with your reference to Paul’s discussions with the Galatians about the laws of Judaism. As Christians have over and over again said to anyone making your arguments, you must look at the Bible as a whole; they have, and decided that being gay is a sin.
posted by James on
I read the “syllabus” with the other members of the class. Many of my classmates, such as Archbishop Tutu or Pastor Peter Gomes have come to the same conclusion about our class. In the first place, there is not word, “homosexual” or “homosexuality” in the Bible. Homosexuality is a word which was coined in the 19th century by psychologists to describe an innate orienation. The Bible has no equivalent word. The words the Bible uses refer to same-sex practices, but the Bible also condemns many heterosexual practices. We don’t know exactly what the Bible is condemning, but nowhere does it say that homosexuality is a sin. You might go to the website Religious Tolerance and read their very good discussion of the Bible and homosexuality.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….nice try, thom.
I have no doubt that you’ll run for this, hurl insults, or change the subject, because the conclusion is an empirical fact: the overwhelming majority of Christian denominations declare homosexuality to be a sin.
In other words, I am supposed to go through the exercise of proving what you already “know” to be “fact”.
So, since you’ve already “proven” your argument without facts – evident, since you’re asking me to provide them rather than do so yourself — rather than waste effort and time trying to convince you otherwise, I’d rather get to the crux of what you’re saying, which is that it’s impossible to be gay and Christian. Those who claim to be are, as you put it, experiencing “cognitive dissonance” and are psychologically disordered.
In that context, the decision of the Anglican Communion is perfectly wise. Why should they put into high church office, with responsibility for the spiritual and intellectual development of others, a gay person who claims to be religious — given that, by being gay and religious, they obviously have impaired cognitive function? Why should they do something in support of a gay couple that comes to them claiming to be Christian and asking for their blessing — given that, by being gay and claiming to be Christian, they demonstrate that they are psychologically disordered?
You see, thom, I’ve had a great deal of experience with people who act out of irrational hatred while trying to cloak it in nominally-rational behavior — and I know how to deal with it. You simply draw out their extrapolations, toss aside the skimpy fabric they’ve thrown over their bigotry, and require them to make a choice — between honestly stating it or contradicting themselves completely.
As you’ve made clear above, you see nothing wrong with making pious pronouncements against “compartmentalizing” — only to excuse your boyfriend when it’s obvious that he does it. Therefore, I think the likely option is that you’ll do the latter.
posted by Randy on
Well, NDT, Thom asked you a straight forward question: do you or do you not believe that a majority of Christian religions declare homosexuality to be a sin?
Here’s a list of major Christian religions from adherents.com. Groups which self-identify as part of Christianity include (but are not limited to): African Independent Churches (AICs), the Aglipayan Church, Amish, Anglicans, Armenian Apostolic, Assemblies of God; Baptists, Calvary Chapel, Catholics, Christadelphians, Christian Science, the Community of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“Mormons”), Coptic Christians, Eastern Orthodox churches, Ethiopian Orthodox, Evangelicals, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Local Church, Lutherans, Methodists, Monophysites, Nestorians, the New Apostolic Church, Pentecostals, Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, the Salvation Army, Seventh-Day Adventists, Shakers, Stone-Campbell churches (Disciples of Christ; Churches of Christ; the “Christian Church and Churches of Christ”; the International Church of Christ); Uniate churches, United Church of Christ/Congregationalists, the Unity Church, Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, Vineyard churches and others.
From religionfacts.com, of the five largest Christian demoniations, only the Anglicans are ‘undecided.’ The rest, Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian, are against.
It’s perfectly okay with me if you waste my time and effort to prove otherwise. in your silence, though, I will have to assume that Thom is correct, that the vast majority of Christian religions are against homosexuality.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Let me remind you of something, Randy.
And that does work. As I mentioned above, the fact that so many churches in America welcome gays is largely due to the fact that many brave and loyal gay people stuck it out and did the hard work to convince others in the congregation.
In short, you flip-flop.
When it’s convenient, you claim that “so many churches” are welcoming to gays.
When it’s convenient, you reverse yourself and support thom’s insinuation that churches hate and would never welcome gays.
This sort of schizophrenic behavior on the part of gays is also known to the Anglican Communion; they have realized that gays will alternately praise and berate the church for exactly the same behaviors, depending on whichever is most convenient for gays at the moment.
You can (and likely will) assume what you want to assume. But I merely find it amusing that your assumption changes so readily.
posted by thom on
North Dallas Thirty ~
Just as I predicted, you ran from the fight and changed the subject. Pathetic.
It was your claim that my lack of understanding of ?the nuances of Christian theology? was behind my ?ignorant belief? that Christianity declares homosexuality to be a sin, citing to passages from Galatians. The burden of proof is yours, when you accuse others of ignorance.
1. I asked you to identify any Christian denomination that agrees with your interpretation of those passages from Galatians. I had searched already, and couldn?t find any. I assumed that you would at least be able to identify ONE, maybe two, denominations. Instead, you just conceded the point by refusing to engage.
2. I asked you to identify the Christian denominations that declare homosexuality to be a sin. Again, you lamely tried to avoid the obvious. Instead, you suggested I should prove this fact. No problem. Let?s review the top five Christian denominations in the US:
Roman Catholic Church (about 25%): gays are disordered and must remain chaste, as homosexuality is against natural law. See Catholic
Catechism.
Baptist (about 16%): there are no homosexuals because homosexuality is a ?condition;? same-sex sexual behavior is sinful; ?hate the sin, love the sinner.? See Southern
Baptist Convention Position Paper on Homosexuality, including its rejection
of ?Gay Theology,? i.e., the idea that ?Christianity and homosexuality are
compatible?.
Methodist (about 8%): the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, but homosexuals are entitled to ?sacred worth.? See The
Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church.
Lutheran (about 5%): divided positions, but homosexuals may be welcomed as members and ordained as ministers, but must remain celibate. See Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America .
Presbyterian (about 3%): sharply divided positions, but generally, homosexuals are welcome but must remain celibate because homosexuality a sin. See Presbyterian Church USA.
3. The rest of your post is your usual tactic of mischaracterizing what?s been said and obfuscation, but this time it?s coupled with your delusions of grandeur (?I know how to deal with it.?):
I never claimed that gay Christians are ?experiencing ?cognitive dissonance? and are psychologically disordered.? Those are your words, not mine. I said: ?I am most curious about gay men?who still actively participate in organized religions with dogma that condemns them for loving someone of the same sex?. In my way of thinking, either they are being untrue to their chosen religion, or untrue to their hearts.?
Your attempt to turn reality upside down is remarkable. The majority of Christian religions forbid homosexuality, and some (e.g., Baptists), explicitly reject the idea that ?Christianity and homosexuality are compatible.? Yet, in your world, ?[the Anglican primates] [realize] that homosexuality is inherently hostile to religion — not because they say so, but because gays themselves say so.? I?ve demonstrated, with facts, that reality is just the opposite. The ?skimpy fabric? ? actually, non-existent fabric ? of your assertion uncloaks your ?irrational hatred? of? ???
posted by Pat on
My turn on Thom’s request.
I was baptized a Roman Catholic, and think that we went to Church regularly until I was about 4 or 5. My mother had a falling out with the church when she had a discussion about birth control with the pastor, and felt she was scolded like a child. So for a couple of years, we didn’t go to church, and then joined a Melkite Catholic church. The church recognizes the authority of the Pope, but has its own heirarchy. I made first holy communion and confirmation there. But after a couple of years we stopped attending church there as well.
So I didn’t have a religious upbringing, but always thought that I would join a church when I got older. May still do that, and haven’t ruled out the Catholic Church. But a couple of problems there. First, I fundamentally disagree with some of the Church’s teaching. Examples include the birth-control stance, transubstantiation (sorry, I can’t believe the literal claim there), and some matters of faith. I tend to question things when evidence is not present or nowhere near sufficient, instead of just accepting them. And, of course, there is the matter that the Church is unaccepting towards gay persons. Sorry, I don’t accept the “love the sinner, hate the sin” crap here.
I am convinced that almost all Catholics that are active in their religion are “cafeteria” Catholics, in that they do not accept all the of the Church dogma. For example, some may be pro-choice, support stem cell research, support the death penalty, support the war in Iraq, have had premarital sex, etc. And I’m fairly confident that a huge majority have used contraceptive devices. And I would be willing to do that as well. But at this point, I don’t think I could be a member of a church which is hostile to non-celibate gay persons.
I do not have a hatred towards religion for the most part. Yes, I have problems with hateful individuals such as Dobson, LaBarbera, and Benedict XVI. I have colleagues at work who are nuns, and frequently eat with them during lunch. Many of them know I am gay and have met my partner. So far, I have not met with hostility from any of them, and most have been supportive.
One interesting anecdote from yesterday. During lunch a colleague had asked me if I was going to get ashes. I said that I was a heathen, and declined. The nun at the table said that if things at the Church continue to go as they are, she may join me. I’m sure her comments were tongue in cheek, but I got the sense that she wasn’t happy with the current state of affairs of the Church. And others had concerns with the current Pope as well as the current archbishop in the archdiocese.
posted by Randy on
It it true that I said earlier that many more churches are welcoming of gay people. And they are in fact, opening up to gays, specifically, the Episcopalian churches, which individually vote on whether they accept gays or not.
Nonetheless, there is a substantial difference between a church welcoming gay people, and having an official policy of whetherh homosexuality is a sin. Many catholic churches welcome gay people while at the same time view it as a sin.
And I note that NDT has yet to answer the question, which is obvious to all: that most Christian demoninations view homosexuality as a sin. I sincerely hope that changes someday, and I think it will, through the hard work of many people who attend those same churches. But you can’t argue with the facts.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
Some deep theological discussions going on here . . .
Randy, I guess I don’t understand your fixation on trying to prove that most Christian religions are opposed to homosexuality. So what if they are? How about comparing the number of Christian churches who opposed homosexuality 25 or 50 years ago to today? I think it’s pretty safe to say that the number has probably increased dramatically. Does change happen overnight? No. Does that mean you stop trying to help others see the light? No! As I said earlier, its easy and seductive to wall ourselves off from those who oppose us; however, this is not the right way to go (sorry, kittynboi . . . paying taxes & working isn’t enough. Don’t shoot the messenger!!).
Probably one of the only things I agree with my fundamentalist upbringing is that a person’s walk with God is exactly that — a personal journey. Each person comes to God in their own way. The point is that it’s not mine or anyone else’s place to determine who is a “cafeteria whatever” . . . it’s God’s.
Also, I seriously doubt anyone who joins any organization is in lockstep on 100% of their issues. To expect this ridiculous standard when it comes to religion seems to me to be quite absurd, especially considering that churches are man-made institutions . . .
One last point — to those who squawk on here any time there is a perceived generalization of gays, don’t turn around and generalize Christians. As they say, people in glass houses . . .
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Just as I predicted, you ran from the fight and changed the subject. Pathetic.
Of course, thom.
That was because your attempt to pick a fight was nothing more than retaliation and subject-changing.
Let me remind you of your previous statement:
North Dallas Thirty says that his ?faith and belief in God is more important to me than their opinions.? He also readily quotes from the New Testament, perhaps choosing to believe that only that portions of the Bible are divinely inspired, despite the ?opinions? of others.
That was based on your belief that I was ignoring the verse from Leviticus that you quoted. Instead, I demonstrated that there was a different verse in the Bible that made clear a) the context in which the verse from Leviticus was written and b) that faith in Christ, aka Christianity, supersedes the law.
In short, I demonstrated you were ignorant of what the Bible says; thus your argument was ignorant as well, and your supposition about me was patently incorrect. But instead of acknowledging your ignorance of the Bible, you tried to change the subject.
Wittingly or unwittingly, though, what Randy has pointed out is the fundamental flaw in your spin:
Nonetheless, there is a substantial difference between a church welcoming gay people, and having an official policy of whetherh homosexuality is a sin. Many catholic churches welcome gay people while at the same time view it as a sin.
The reason you can’t and won’t recognize that — and why you can’t and won’t recognize verses from the Bible that don’t fit your belief that it is virulently anti-gay — was made clear at the very beginning of this discussion.
In my late teens, I had developed “issues” with the Church, that had nothing to do with homosexuality. I was less devout, but still Catholic.
Clearly, you have a need to be anti-Catholic and anti-Christian that has nothing to do with homosexuality. But instead of dealing with those issues directly, you stalled — and then, when homosexuality came around, grabbed on to it as a convenient and socially-acceptable (to gays, anyway) “out”.
From your description, you make it sound like the Church stood you up in front, publicly denounced you, and threw you out onto the street. Not quite. You chose to leave the church. You chose to walk out. You chose to make a dramatic exit. And now, rather than make the simple and honest statement that you chose to leave, you choose to insist otherwise.
How do I know? Because your Samoan friend, who did the same thing that you did, is now more Catholic than ever. Obviously they aren’t shooting gays on sight or tossing them into the street, nor are gays catching on fire when gays take communion.
The reason why you’re doing this is simple. It’s easier and more socially-acceptable to blame others for victimizing you than it is to take responsibility for your own choices. Claiming you were a martyr for the gay cause makes so much better press, is far more dramatic, and gathers you far more acceptance in the gay community.
Annoyingly, though, this also requires you to gather “evidence” that “proves” all Christians hate gays, and that therefore your decision was justified. You do this in two fashions; one, by quoting obscure verses and theologies out of context, and two, by insinuating that gays who haven’t made the same decision that you did are cognitively-impaired, being “untrue to themselves”, and “compartmentalizing”, which everyone knows means “trouble”.
In short, you’ve reinvented fundamentalism — in an anti-religious context.
If this just affected you, I would be content to live and let live. But unfortunately, you and your fellow antireligious and anti-Christian gays are playing right into the hands of the Anglican Communion, which, as I keep pointing out, can now cite statements from gays themselves that being gay and Christian are incompatible — and thus, gays should be barred from church office and from blessings because they’re either lying about their faith or are psychologically disordered.
posted by Randy on
“Randy, I guess I don’t understand your fixation on trying to prove that most Christian religions are opposed to homosexuality. ”
I’m not, actually. It’s just that NDT was asked a question about whether a majority of Christian religions consider homosexuality to be a sin, and he wouldn’t address it. So I took the challenge, and pulled up some websites to back it up.
I’m not against gays being Christians. As I said earlier, I have tremendous respect for gays who are open and attending any church that is officially hostile to gays. That has made wonderful progress, and I hope it continues. Many of the officially hostile churches are actually welcoming to gays, and again, that’s wonderful progress. This should be encouraged — agreed?
But for saying that, I am labeled a ‘generalizer’ and saying that all Christians hate gays, and that no gay person can be a Christian. Of course that’s nonsense: I don’t believe it, and I haven’t said it. But we also mustn’t fool ourselves: many churches officially condemn us to hell just for being gay, and that has a horrible impact upon gay people, especially young ones, and it teaches horrible things to straight people. We need to confront that where we can.
Part of this discussion was how gay people can listen to regular sermons that condemn them. I don’t understand it, but I respect anyone who can do that and still fight for own dignity. What I REALLY don’t understand is any closeted gay person who would sit in a pew, hear all the bad talk, and then pretend it doesn’t exist. But that’s not my problem, and I have no beef with anyone who does.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But we also mustn’t fool ourselves: many churches officially condemn us to hell just for being gay, and that has a horrible impact upon gay people, especially young ones, and it teaches horrible things to straight people. We need to confront that where we can.
LOL…..if you really want to know what makes life hard for gay Christians, Randy, it’s statements like this.
Or ones like this:
Perhaps that?s what gay Christians (and gay Muslims) do. Create compartments to wall themselves off from the teachings of their religions. And maybe that?s what makes gay men leary of religious gay men. In our lives, compartments ? ?I?m only bi when my wife is out of town,? ?I?m not gay, it?s just a physical thing,? ?I?m not gay as long as I?m the top? ? are often trouble.
Or, as we’ve seen plenty of, CP’s numerous exhortations for me to commit suicide — which unfortunately, are not the first such missives I’ve received from other gay people.
To put that in perspective, the overwhelming message I have received from my conservative Christian and Lutheran friends and family is, “Even though I don’t agree with what you’re doing, I love you and I know God loves you” — and not a one of them has told me that I should commit suicide.
In short, why don’t you let those of us who are Christians work on the church, and those of you who are not, work on the religious intolerance in your own ranks? We’ve made progress; how about a little movement on your end?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Ahem…
“ColoradoPatriot | February 2, 2007, 5:20pm | #
I’m a bad bad man and nothing is going to stop me from saying deplorible things…see ND30, you and I have these two things in common. And, by the way, I’m just taking a piss about shooting yourself. Please PLEASE don’t off yourself, I get too much enjoyment out of watching you make a complete ass of yourself here to ever want that to stop.”
Thank You.
posted by Pat on
Just to add a few more comments from my post above. I don’t have a problem with gay Christians. In fact, I think it’s great that gay persons are able to continue with their faith, and try to change things from within. Like I said, I know many straight Catholics who have violated the premarital sex, and contraceptive stuff, and are active members of the Church. No problem there either.
I personally have a hard time going becoming an active member of a church where homosexuality is viewed as a sin. I don’t view this as an excuse to get me out of going to church. In my view, “I don’t feel like going” is valid to me, and I wouldn’t be embarrassed to admit that. In the past, that was my excuse. And if I really wanted to become a member of a church, I would.
My partner, who is Jewish, has encouraged me to go back to the Catholic Church, but I still don’t want go at this point. If I do decide to go back before the Church drops the homosexuality is a sin business, then I would have to go to a church that is welcoming of gay persons, and would welcome my partner just the same way that they would welcome any person’s spouse who was not Catholic, and allow me to participate in the sacraments as any other member of the church.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah yes, the old “I was only kidding” defense.
Amazing, isn’t it, how leftist gays whine about how that isn’t valid — but then offer it up themselves to excuse their hate actions?
Actually, CP, what was funniest about this whole matter is watching people who had meltdowns over how “hurtful” hate speech is and how it had to be confronted at every opportunity tell me that I should just shrug off your demands that I commit suicide, that their inaction was justified because I was a grownup, and that it didn’t really matter, it was only words.
In short, it wasn’t the effect it had on me; it was how readily it exposed that “hate speech” here has nothing to do with what is actually said, but with who’s saying it.
posted by Pat on
Colorado Patriot, if you have stated that you think a poster should off himself, you are a “bad man.” Why not just cut the crap? It is repugnant behavior in case you didn’t realize it.
Thank you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I personally have a hard time going becoming an active member of a church where homosexuality is viewed as a sin. I don’t view this as an excuse to get me out of going to church. In my view, “I don’t feel like going” is valid to me, and I wouldn’t be embarrassed to admit that. In the past, that was my excuse. And if I really wanted to become a member of a church, I would.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
If I do decide to go back before the Church drops the homosexuality is a sin business, then I would have to go to a church that is welcoming of gay persons, and would welcome my partner just the same way that they would welcome any person’s spouse who was not Catholic, and allow me to participate in the sacraments as any other member of the church.
And there are plenty out there — including just down the hill from me.
What makes your objection valid, Pat, is that you make it clear that it is your opinion — and that it is neither compelled or required by the fact that you are gay.
posted by thom on
North Dallas Thirty ~
Wow, touched a nerve, huh? I see that you, “annoyingly” defeated with facts and evidence, chose to attack me personally, rather than admit the obvious. I understand: for someone who never admits he?s wrong, where else could you turn?
Your Strategy No. 1 ? Avoid the Facts. You accused me of being ignorant, for not knowing that Galatians 3:19-25 means that the proscriptions against homosexual conduct in the Bible, of which Leviticus 20:13 is only one of many, were superseded by Christ’s arrival. That was news to me (did you catch that). Therefore, I spent time reading the various versions of those scriptures, reading interpretations of them, and searching gay Christian websites for references to those passages, all in an effort to see if I was indeed ignorant of this allegedly exculpatory passage. What did I find? Not one interpretation of those passages that agreed with yours. So I asked you to identify any denomination (assuming you had gotten that idea from someone, somewhere) that agreed with your interpretation. (I guess that?s what you call changing the subject — asking for facts to support your assertion) You failed to do so ? vehemently refusing, in fact. In sum: facts versus your unsupported assertion ? you lose.
Your Strategy No. 2 ? Falsely Change the Argument. Next, you claim that I?ve argued that Christian churches won?t let gays in the door. Really? Where did I say that? (Why do you continually make things up?) As you point out, I noted that my Samoan friend actively participates in a Catholic church. Only you would accuse someone of making an argument by citing evidence to the contrary. The argument/issue created by our exchanges on 2/21 between 6:09 p.m. and 10:08 p.m. concerned the empirical fact that Randy summed up as: ?most Christian denominations view homosexuality as a sin.? Answering your challenge to ?do the work,? I proved that fact ? something you characterize as ?annoying.? No doubt. I do not dispute that many Christian churches will allow gay members.
Your Strategy No. 3 ? Allege Drama Where None Exists. The most amusing and simultaneously hurtful part of your last diatribe was your claim that I suggested that I had been dramatically expelled from the Catholic Church for being gay, all in an effort to become a ?martyr for the gay cause.? What rubbish. I invite anyone reading this to review my post of 2/20, 8:42 p.m., in which I described how I left the Church. Quite simply, I realized that I was gay, accepted that the Church was adamant that being gay was a sin, and therefore stopped attending Mass. Contrary to your snide insinuations, my decision (I never claimed to the contrary) was based on respect for the Church and its doctrines (such as ?You may not receive the host, if you have sinned and not repented?), and respect for me. I did not want to lie to myself about being gay; nor did I want to violate the Church?s teachings. Coming to terms with these facts and deciding to leave the Church, after being part of it for my entire life, was extremely difficult and scary for me, making your insinuations that I did it to gain favor in the gay community (which I was not part of), or to establish that I was ?victimized,? demeaning and disgusting. Yet another example of your version of Christian tolerance and understanding.
Finally, in response to someone else, you said: ?[w]hy don’t you let those of us who are Christians work on the church?We’ve made progress.? What do you have to work on? Christianity?s condemnation of two men loving each other, perhaps?
I would wish you well on your effort if you would simply be honest about reality, rather than trying to yet again claim that gay men are at fault. How about this: Most of Christianity believes that homosexuality is a sin. Many churches believe that being homosexual is not necessarily a sin, but acting upon it ? having sex with a member of the same sex ? is. Some Christian churches have become more accepting in recent years; but deep divisions and rejection of homosexuality still remain. I believe that being homosexual and acting upon those feelings is not sinful, and therefore reject any church doctrines that say it is. I also believe that the Bible is not inerrant and open to differing interpretations on this topic. Because I believe in God, and in myself, I want to work within the Christian community to help it understand that homosexuality is not a sin.
Is that so hard to say?
posted by Brian Miller on
Religious arguments are both mystifying and a bit confusing for me. They generate endless tracts of debate over ancient mythology that’s obviously patently absurd in modern life, and the same person will argue one moment for the inerrancy of a literal interpretation — while a minute later arguing how he can ignore other parts of the same text that apply to him for some dreamed up “theological reason.”
Why not just allow the various religious groups to operate as the private groups of believers that they are — while also respecting the secular nature of our constitutional order and jurisprudence?
As for the question of whether the Bible is inherently anti-gay or not, it should be as relevant to modern logical thinkers as whether or not Hansel & Gretel is inherently anti-gay. An interesting deontological discussion for the literary purist, perhaps, but having no implications for the conduct of modern man in a modern society.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again, thom, the secret to dealing people who act out of irrational hatred while trying to cloak it in nominally-rational behavior is to treat them a bit like an unruly dog on a leash. The dog will pull, yank, and go in whatever direction it wants, but as long as you keep walking forward, eventually they’ll end up where you want them to be.
Case in point: you.
We started with this statement here:
And thus, I would like to ask this question: Why do members of our community seek inclusion in social institutions that are openly hostile towards them? Why willingly associate with people who judge your life to be a sin? Isn’t this a bit like an African-American trying to join the KKK?
And now we’ve worked your way down to your admitting, albeit grudgingly, that Christian churches DO allow gay members and that a large number of Christian churches ARE welcoming to gays, including the Catholic parish I cited.
Progress. Perhaps in time, you will be able to condemn antireligious bigotry such as I cited on the part of gay people, rather than trying to equivocate for it with stories of how Christians are to gays like the KKK is to African-Americans.
Coming to terms with these facts and deciding to leave the Church, after being part of it for my entire life, was extremely difficult and scary for me, making your insinuations that I did it to gain favor in the gay community (which I was not part of), or to establish that I was ?victimized,? demeaning and disgusting.
I find that rather hard to believe — again, because of this statement:
In my late teens, I had developed “issues” with the Church, that had nothing to do with homosexuality. I was less devout, but still Catholic.
In short, you had no problem cutting back on your devotion — and, as a corollary, in staying put and ignoring those things with which you disagreed.
If there is one lesson that stands out in the Gospels, it is that Jesus prioritized devotion to God far above strict obedience to the religious dogmas of man.
Case in point:
On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.” Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.
Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.”
The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?”
Luke 13: 10 – 16
Or, as the apostle Paul would later phrase it:
Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant?not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
II Corinthians 3: 4 – 6
But you aren’t realizing that, thom. Instead, you’re citing the letter of the law as an excuse, such as we see here:
I agree. It seems as if all of the people who responded to my question thus far fall into the category of what my father refers to as ?cafeteria Christians.? They take what they want from their religion, and ignore the rest.
By your father’s definition, then, Jesus was a “cafeteria Jew” — after all, He didn’t follow the church’s injunction against healing on the Sabbath, as I previously cited; indeed, there are other examples, such as in Luke 6: 1 – 11, where Jesus broke that one again and threw in another one for good measure, daring to cite another example in the Bible of a “good Jew” breaking the rule of man.
I can even present an example from your own theology. According to Catholicism, as you cited, you are not to receive the Sacrament unless you have confessed and repented of all your sins. What if, during the administration of it, you remember one? What if you miss one? Does that mean you’ve desecrated the Sacrament? Or — and this is important — do you focus less on whether or not you are perfect, and more on the fact that Christ was perfect for you?
Christianity does not exist for sinless, perfect people. It exists so that sinful, horribly-imperfect people may be made perfect, not by their own worth or deeds, but by accepting Christ’s worth and sacrifice for them. As the examples of the Pharisees show beautifully, being religiously perfect does not necessarily equal perfection before God.
In short, Thom, you’re martyring yourself by using the excuse that, because you can’t be a perfect Catholic, you shouldn’t be one at all — when in fact, if you could be a perfect Catholic, you wouldn’t need the church or what it represents.
posted by thom on
North Dallas Thirty ~
Wonderful spin and obfuscation, but you still haven’t admitted the reality that the majority of Christianity declares homosexuality to be sin. Until you’re man enough to do that, I see no value in engaging you. You have no credibility.
Please, wallow freely in your delusions.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Jesus made it clear that you should render respect to the authorities. He did the same throughout an unjust trial, torture, and a completely-unjustified death — all for the greater good of humanity.”.
It wasn’t for the greater good of humanity, it was pointless and evil. If your god wanted to overlook people’s sins there was nothing preventing him from so doing, the torture and death of Jesus was completely unnecessary. It is hilarious though how the foundation of Christianity is based on a nonsensical act of evil, the killing of an innocent – god killing his innocent self to appease himself for the wrongdoings of others. Could a relgion be based upon anything more idiotic?
And I see you’re up to your usual tedious and nonsensical B.S. – still refusing to acknowledge the obvious, that gays who hate Chrisitianity do so because much of Christianity oppresses gays with this gay love is a sin nonsense. It is hilarious to watch you pompously assert that you know better than all those other Christians when they say the bible says its a sin to be gay – why don’t you phone up the pope and his bishops and explain to them how their ignorance has lead to the error of their ways? I’m sure they’ll accede to your superior intellect.
I’d like to commend Colorado Patriot for repeatedly retracting his statments encouraging Northdallass to kill himself. Of course Northdallass being the habitual liar he is will continue to go on quoting the encouragement of suicide without mentioning the retractions.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Wonderful spin and obfuscation, but you still haven’t admitted the reality that the majority of Christianity declares homosexuality to be sin. Until you’re man enough to do that, I see no value in engaging you. You have no credibility.
That is because, thom, I need only watch; for example, you’ve gone from claiming all Christianity opposes homosexuality on the level of the KKK opposing African-Americans, to an “overwhelming” majority, to now a simple “majority”.
I figure if I stay put long enough, you’ll eventually work your way down to simply stating the obvious; that you chose to leave Christianity because you personally felt uncomfortable, but that that was a matter of individual choice and that you thought no less of others for choosing differently — as Pat wisely stated above.
Meanwhile, Randi, with her usual opportune sense of timing, has shown up in the perfect place to demonstrate the real issue here; the fact that gays like yourself, thom, by virtue of your attempts to rationalize why you left the church by tying it to things other than your own personal issues leave open the door for her using homosexuality as an excuse for statements like this:
It wasn’t for the greater good of humanity, it was pointless and evil. If your god wanted to overlook people’s sins there was nothing preventing him from so doing, the torture and death of Jesus was completely unnecessary. It is hilarious though how the foundation of Christianity is based on a nonsensical act of evil, the killing of an innocent – god killing his innocent self to appease himself for the wrongdoings of others. Could a relgion be based upon anything more idiotic?
Now why do you suppose Christian churches would not want someone like that as a bishop or in their services? Based on your Catholic belief, her presence at the Sacrament would be profaning the altar, would it not?
Give some credit to the Church, thom; they realize that gays are far more often like Randi than they are like me or James — which really is the primary barrier with which we deal. It’s no surprise that Christians consider homosexuality to be a sin when homosexuality is so often invoked as a reason for rhetoric such as Randi’s or dalea’s.
posted by thom on
Still not man enough? No surprise.
posted by Randy on
” It’s no surprise that Christians consider homosexuality to be a sin when homosexuality is so often invoked as a reason for rhetoric such as Randi’s or dalea’s.”
Ah. See that, Thom? The real reason Christian’s consider homosexuality to be a sin is because of people like you and me. If we would just shut up, then they would reverse their entire theology. And he says WE have a martyr complex!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….true manhood, thom, is not having to react to someone who challenges yours.
Furthermore, as I pointed out, with each attack on mine you make, you work your way down to a greater level of reason and moderation, which I think will ultimately culminate in a viewpoint like Pat’s — which I am more than happy to endorse.
And my suggestion is that you get there before you find yourself defending people who think your parents, for one, are “idiotic”, “seriously delusional”, and “should seek professional help” for their belief in a “pointless and evil” god and a religion based on a “nonsensical act of evil” — simply because they’re also gay.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah. See that, Thom? The real reason Christian’s consider homosexuality to be a sin is because of people like you and me. If we would just shut up, then they would reverse their entire theology.
Let me draw your attention to this statement previously made, Randi:
The real irony here is that many gay people have in fact been doing exactly what James has suggested: They lead exemplary lives within the Episcople church. THAT is one of the major reasons so many Episcople church have in fact accepted gays, blessed same sex unions, and even supported Eugene Robinson as bishop.
Meanwhile, you and thom just go right ahead with your hate speech and rhetoric about Christians and Christianity — because we all know how effective that’s been.
posted by thom on
NDT, try to bait me as much as desire, falsely accuse me of whatever you like, get personal and bring my family and boyfriend into it in whatever way your delusional mind can conjure. All of it is no consequence. You have no credibility until you’re honest enough to admit the obvious and empirically proven facts. As such, you have nothing to contribute to reasoned, informed discussions, and I see no point in engaging you. You lost the argument: move on.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You have no credibility until you’re honest enough to admit the obvious and empirically proven facts.
You mean like this?
North Dallas Thirty says that his ?faith and belief in God is more important to me than their opinions.? He also readily quotes from the New Testament, perhaps choosing to believe that only that portions of the Bible are divinely inspired, despite the ?opinions? of others.
Despite my never having once commented in this thread on the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture, you declared that I don’t believe in it — and then repeated that as fact in a later post, when you told me to “be honest” and state what you claimed as fact that my beliefs were, including this:
I also believe that the Bible is not inerrant and open to differing interpretations on this topic.
In short, thom, you see what you want to see, regardless of the situation.
Another example:
I understand: for someone who never admits he?s wrong, where else could you turn?
Of course, that was contrary to clearly-expressed and referenced information a few posts earlier:
And they can also see where I acknowledged my error, contrary to your statement above.
And as far as “engaging” goes, that’s obviously not what you want.
For example, your snide remark:
It seems as if all of the people who responded to my question thus far fall into the category of what my father refers to as ?cafeteria Christians.? They take what they want from their religion, and ignore the rest.
However, when I pointed out that, according to Scripture, Jesus Himself took what HE wanted from religion and ignored other portions of it, such as the prohibitions about healing on the Sabbath, feeding the hungry, associating with lepers/tax collectors/prostitutes, and the like, you clammed up. I even pointed out that in your own Catholic theology, there is considerable room for imperfection on the part of the individual, and that the emphasis is placed, not on being perfect, but on accepting Christ’s perfection in our stead, and you accused me of “spin and obfuscation”.
In short, thom, it should be obvious to anyone that you want, not dialogue, but for someone to confirm your bigotry and belief that gays who don’t make the same choice you do to turn your back on religion are somehow disordered or inferior.
posted by James on
Looking at Randi’s statement quoted by NDT above–
That’s my point. The structure of the Episcopal church allows gays to live exemplary lives. When you come into a believe community, you find a sense of direction and purpose which is difficult to find outside the community. The Episcopal Church offers a set of ideals for relationships (gay and straight) and at the same time accepts us where we are. I think it is important to have those ideals in front of us, however poorly and clumsily we walk toward them. The gay community doesn’t offer any sort of ideal or direction for gay relationships.
I really, really don’t think that people are offended by lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships between men, as modeled by many faithful Episcopalians. I frankly don’t think that people in Africa know that homosexuality can be expressed that way–all they know of American homosexuality is the Pride parades they see on TV, which is why those parades do so much damage. I think that if the Episcopal church remains in communion with the African churches, and shows how the gays within our church lead exemplary lives, the attitudes of the African church will change. But–we will have to work hard to make those monogamous relationships visible over the screaming of the Pride rallies which drown out the simple, moral lives that Christian gays live.
I would say we should stay in communion, even if it’s unjust for now, and let the churches of the Global South really get to know and worship with gays in godly, faithful relationships, or gays practicing prudent singleness.
posted by Brian Miller on
What’s the utility of “communion” with a bunch of hateful, backwards bigots?
It’s as ridiculous as trying to live in “loving fellowship” with unrepentant KKK members.
posted by thom on
NDT ~ While continuing to refuse to be held accountable for facts, you have no credibility and nothing of value to contribute to informed discussion.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
NDT ~ While continuing to refuse to be held accountable for facts, you have no credibility and nothing of value to contribute to informed discussion.
Really; you believe that to be the case.
When you decide to comment on those, thom, then we can talk about commitment to facts. I’m quite curious to see if yours will survive.
posted by thom on
Regarding comments by Brian and James, I agree with James’ suggestion that remaining in contact with Christians is important. Just as not all gays are flaming queens, so are not all Christians believers of the Bible or the doctrines of their church. Straight “cafeteria Christians,” those who don’t believe all of the dogma of their religion, offer the greatest hope within Christianity of chipping away at Christianity’s condemnation of homosexual love. While I understand where Brian’s comment comes from, I don’t think it’s a fair. If individual Christians within a church reject the idea that homosexuality (and by that, I mean both being homosexual and practicing it), it’s not appropriate to compare them to “unrepentant KKK members.”
Why does bridging the gap with Christians matter, even if you think Christianity and religion is “backwards?” Pragmatically speaking, religion is the greatest source of condemnation towards our community: if that source is removed, life will be better for all of us.
posted by thom on
NDT ~ Stay on the topic. Demonstrate your willingness to be accountable to facts and honesty, and I will gladly debate you. In the meantime, you have no credibility and nothing of value to contribute to informed discussion.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Demonstrate your willingness to be accountable to facts and honesty, and I will gladly debate you.
Odd; Mr. Miller’s unwillingness to be accountable to facts or honesty does not seem to prevent you from “debating” him — nor did it Randi.
But those two do share your hatred of and bigotry towards religion and the religious.
I think that makes far clearer what your conditions for “debate” involve; basically, that the person agree with you in the first place and confirm your already-established opinion.
posted by thom on
NDT ~
Let’s be clear what you’re saying: “I refuse to be accountable to facts in this thread until you tell someone else, in a different debate in which you have no part, that they must accountable to facts.” Priceless. Again, demonstrate your willingness to be accountable to facts and honesty, in this debate with me, and I will glady tarry with you. In the meantime, you have no credibility and nothing of value to contribute to informed discussion.
It is especially ironic that you continue to illustrate your lack of accountability and honesty while I do not engage you. To wit: in your last post, you accuse me of “hatred” and “bigotry” towards religion and the religious, nearly immediately after my post rejecting as unfair the assertion that all Christians are like “unrepetant KKK members.” Priceless. Thank you, NDT, for proving my point.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It is especially ironic that you continue to illustrate your lack of accountability and honesty while I do not engage you. To wit: in your last post, you accuse me of “hatred” and “bigotry” towards religion and the religious, nearly immediately after my post rejecting as unfair the assertion that all Christians are like “unrepetant KKK members.” Priceless. Thank you, NDT, for proving my point.
Actually, the only point I think that proves is, while you don’t like OTHER people comparing Christians to the KKK, you have no qualms with doing so yourself.
And thus, I would like to ask this question: Why do members of our community seek inclusion in social institutions that are openly hostile towards them? Why willingly associate with people who judge your life to be a sin? Isn’t this a bit like an African-American trying to join the KKK?
And then to this:
Let’s be clear what you’re saying: “I refuse to be accountable to facts in this thread until you tell someone else, in a different debate in which you have no part, that they must accountable to facts.” Priceless.
Unfortunately, you previously made these remarks:
As you know, I am aware of your posts to this forum, and the level of partisanship you engage in — something you do not attempt to deny. Sweeping generalizations, attributing statements to people they did not make, refusing to acknowledge mistakes, and name-calling — these are your tools for “dialogue” in this forum. It therefore comes as no surprise to me that you have received insults in return. I am in no position to judge who drew first blood — you or those “gay people who dislike conservative and religious folk.” I do know, however, that I asked you to tone it down, so that your opinions and arguments could be heard and evaluated. Unfortunately, looking at some of the battles raging in other “topics” here, that hasn’t happened.
In short, you were more than willing to hold me accountable for alleged actions in other posts and threads to justify your actions in this one. Yet now, when it doesn’t benefit you, you insist that behavior in other posts and threads is irrelevant to this one.
To summarize, you apply rules to others that you have no intention of following yourself. Why is that?
posted by thom on
NDT ~ I understand that you view yourself to be an expert in exposing the lies of leftists, in theology and scripture, in foreign policy, and in domestic partnership/benefit procedures. Without commenting on your expertise in those areas, I suggest that logic is clearly not your forte, judging by your last post.
I have consistently asked you (and others, e.g., Randi) to engage in civil discourse. I asked you to present your opinions, back them up with evidence, and avoid your partisan tactics. I have held myself to that standard in this debate with you, providing evidence (which you call “annoying”) to support my assertion that the majority of Christians condemn homosexuality as a sin, in response to your position that I was just “ignorant.”
However, you continue to try to change the topic, by attacking me for things I never said (e.g, that gays are not welcomed in any Christian churches) and employing your standard tactics, rather than simply admit that you are wrong on this fact, and agree to debate with accountability.
Now, you attempt to prove your accountability by referring me to another debate. Here’s your logic broken down:
I’m accountable to facts in this debate with you, because someone else did not use facts in a debate with me on another topic.
Then, you modified it slightly with:
I’m accountable to facts in this debate with you, because I relied upon facts in an argument with someone else on another topic.
Neither proposition proves that you have been or are accountable to facts in your debate with me.
Again, demonstrate your willingness to be accountable to facts and honesty, in this debate with me, and I will glady tarry with you. Otherwise, you have no credibility and nothing of value to contribute to informed discussion.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
However, you continue to try to change the topic, by attacking me for things I never said (e.g, that gays are not welcomed in any Christian churches) and employing your standard tactics, rather than simply admit that you are wrong on this fact, and agree to debate with accountability.
On the contrary, thom; I hold you accountable for things you emphatically did say — and in this very posting thread. I quoted you directly, and I made clear to link directly to your words so that people could look themselves.
The fact that doing so presents an unflattering image of you is your problem, not mine.
posted by thom on
NDT ~ Looks like refusing to be accountable and be honest are not your only problem — logic and rationality as well. You no longer make any sense at all. This is trying to talk with a drunk.
You lost the argument, but just can’t deal with it. Move on.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
(shrug) Personal insults such as calling someone a drunk are an excellent sign of the absence of a rational argument.
Perhaps that is because there is no rational way to explain the behavior of yours that I outlined; nor can you use your usual excuse that I “misquoted” you, since the quotes are there with links.
As you can see here, it’s not uncommon for me to be mocked by you gay leftist types as lacking in facts or not being logical and rational because of my political or religious beliefs.
But by now I’ve learned that gay leftists like yourself and Mr. Miller have a definition of “facts”, “logic” and “rationality” that is at odds with the rest of the world.
posted by thom on
NDT ~ The majority of Christians, and Christian denominations, believe that homosexuality is a sin, YES or NO? If your one word answer is no, provide links to the evidence documenting your claim. Thank you.
posted by dew on
thom, you know there is no way in hell NDT will ever answer a yes or no question. he cannot say yes, because of all the crap he’s spewed, and he cannot say no, because there is no evidence to support it.
but why are you even bothering to attempt a rational, fact-based discussion who believes in unprovable claims of magic written by uneducated men 2000 years ago? evidence and fact do not motivate religion; that’s why they call it faith.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Thank you, dew; you, like Randi, once again managed to demonstrate why it is entirely plausible to link sin and homosexuality.
As always, thom’s attempt to paint gays as helpless victims unjustly accused ends as soon as one of his fellow gay leftists opens their mouth. Indeed, it’s almost become amusing, in a sick sort of way, to watch thom stand silently by like a good gay, saying nothing as his fellow gays mock people like thom’s parents for not being capable of rational, fact-based discussion because they believe in “unprovable claims of magic written by uneducated men 2000 years ago”.
So in answer to your question, thom, yes, many Christians and Christian denominations believe homosexuality is a sin — primarily because homosexuals are invariably antireligious bigots like Randi or dew, who mock and fling hate speech at Christians, blaspheme their religion, and claim that homosexuality allows them to do it.
However, as Randy pointed out, when gays stop using their homosexuality as an excuse for antireligious bigotry and live with regard and respect for religion, attitudes in that regard change rather felicitously.
posted by dew on
there, thom, i told you. north dallas is not straight up enough for a one word answer. (conformity, not courage, are the traits of christians.) his answer that christians DO in fact believe homosexuality is a sin BECAUSE gays are “antireligious” and claim that their homosexuality “allows them to blaspheme” religion is so obviously “cart before the horse” that it merits no response. all that crap in their magic book has NOTHING to do with their attitude towards gay, NDT wants us to believe. uh-huh, sure.
and thom, i’m an atheist. i do not apologize for mocking Christians, because i believe that religion (not just Christianity) is responsible for majority of the world’s evils (9/11, the crusades, Iraq today, the Inquistion). if your parents believe in the magic book, and the religions that follow it, then i mock them too. for this world to survive, religions must end.
NDT, feel free to call me an antireligious bigot. i am. proud of it too.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL, Northdallass, you’ve reached new levels of absurdity – Christians believe being gay is a sin because gays are anti-religious, that’s hilarious! Its gays fault religionists don’t like them, but its not religions fault that gays don’t like religion, snort! Like Dew said, talk about putting the cart before the horse. And I am not anti-religious because I’m an LGBT, I’m anti-religious because religion is anti-LGBT. Once again you’re in hilarious denial of cause and effect. I can’t quite figure if you truly believe your own BS or if you just think people are so profoundly stupid as to buy your lies. In the end it doesn’t matter, you’re a joke and its funny as hell to watch you hopelessly try to blame gays for the animosity caused by religion.
And as to Thom not criticizing Dew and me sufficiently to your liking, no doubt he’d get to it if you weren’t such a profound liar and BSer that you demand most of his attention.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And Northdallass, its REALLY funny to see you try to garner respect for a religion that believes in preposterous notions like 2 or 3 individuals being the same person and yet individuals, not to mention ritualized cannibalism.
posted by James on
The comments about Christianity about and recent events in the Anglican Church have caused me to give some thought to other options. Although my particular church is gay-friendly, it is true that most of Christianity thinks homosexual behavior is a sin. The Roman Catholic church, the Orthodox, and now the Anglican, have made it clear that they think it is a sin for two men to have sex with each other. So, while you can find individual churches, like mine, you’re not going to find a major, world-wide denomination of Christians which supports gay behavior.
So, here’s my thought, just tossing it out here:
Maybe homosexual behavior really IS a sin.
Maybe I’m going to have to face the fact that God really doesn’t want men to have sex with each other. I don’t think there’s a cure for homosexuality, but maybe there is a kind a reparative therapy which would help me find ways to express my love for men in non-sinful ways and help me strengthen what little attraction I have for women.
The point is, my identity as a Christian is more fundamental to me than my identity as a gay man. As a gay man, I have access to anal sex. Woo-hoo. As a Christian, I have access to eternal life with God.
Hmmm. What should I choose?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Its gays fault religionists don’t like them, but its not religions fault that gays don’t like religion, snort! Like Dew said, talk about putting the cart before the horse.
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
If it makes you feel better James, some Christians I’ve known I liked very much. In fact two of them, one man and one woman I loved very deeply. I wanted very much to have permanent relationships with them, alas, one was married and the other was conflicted over my bisexuality and disbelief in god.
So in other words, Randi, Christians don’t seem to have problems with you being gay; they have problems with you being an antireligious bigot and blaming it on the fact that you’re gay.
posted by dalea on
My understanding is that the argument against gays, within churches and theology, has very little to do with actual living gays. The whole train of thought comes from a priori deduction from current ‘scripture’ which is vaguely related to ancient writings. This view depends upon seeing Christianity as a top down model of organization. Some churches claim to operate that way, like the RC. Others do not, like the Congregationalists. It seems to me that gays have made progress in both types of churches.
On the RC front, it always seems to me that locally many parishes are open to gays. And that the everyday workers in the church, the priests, nuns, monks and religious, are frequently open and understanding. And are so because of their own direct experience with gays, monogamous or otherwise. I once heard a Jesuit father explain that in the gospel’s view of the world sins of the flesh are trivial and unimportant. Sins against the Holy Spirit, lack of charity and compassion, are truly salvation endangering. My other experience has been that the religious are frustrated and angry over the hierarchies endless fascination with sins of the flesh and inattention to social issues.
Top down models tend to fall apart when examined closely: i.e. the Roman Catholic Church; Soviet Russia. It sounds like a functionally valid way of running things, but does not work in practice.
There has been progress for gays in the decentralized churches. The UCC is a good example. And being monogamous never seemed to be all that important. Being polite, friendly, compassionate and attentive appear to have been more useful. In fact a wonderful book called “The Ethical Slut” speaks to this point.
posted by Alex on
Maybe I’m going to have to face the fact that God really doesn’t want men to have sex with each other. I don’t think there’s a cure for homosexuality, but maybe there is a kind a reparative therapy which would help me find ways to express my love for men in non-sinful ways and help me strengthen what little attraction I have for women.
It is a cruel god, one not worthy of our devotion, that would create (or allow people to be born) gay only to say: “I can’t forgive you for being created that way.”
No, you were closer to being on target with arguments that standards of morality / grace apply equally to gays and straights equally.
I also continue to reject the idea suggested in your comment that the morality of the third world is “better” or more “correct” than that of the first world.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL, Northdallass, you are in serious denial. What part of “she was conflicted with my bisexuality” didn’t you get?! And the man never new I was LGBT, as far as he knew I was straight. Ironically in direct opposition to your BS it was me who didn’t have a problem with their religion and she who had a problem with my being LGBT, which she said was because of her religion. And I don’t blame my being anti-religious on my being an LGBT, I’m anti-relgious because religion is anti-LGBT. No one believes the mere state of being gay makes them anti-religious, with the possible exception of a loon like you
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL, Northdallass, you are in serious denial. What part of “she was conflicted with my bisexuality” didn’t you get?!
I repeat what I cited previously:
If it makes you feel better James, some Christians I’ve known I liked very much. In fact two of them, one man and one woman I loved very deeply. I wanted very much to have permanent relationships with them, alas, one was married and the other was conflicted over my bisexuality and disbelief in god.
It’s odd that you keep dropping those four little words there — and ironic that you then accuse me of being “in denial”.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallas you said “So in other words, Randi, Christians don’t seem to have problems with you being gay”.
She said she DID have a problem with me being LGBT and said it was BECAUSE of her religion – you’re wrong, you denied the obvious. Only in your twisted mind does her disapproving of my being non-religious preclude her from religiously disapproving of my being bisexual and she admitted as much. I haven’t denied that as I originally said she disliked my being non-religious, but you are in denial that she also said she religiously disapproved of my being a bisexual transgendered woman. You’re wrong and once again don’t have the integrity to admit it. No wonder you don’t have the courage to put your real name to your tripe.
And of course there have been many, many christians and non-christians alike that have made me hate Christianity with their relentless “its a sin and you’ll burn in hell” schtick. Your absurd claims to read my mind and say I don’t hate religion because its anti-gay highlight your denial of reality – something essential to having faith in the absurdities of religion in the first place.
So tell me NorthDallass, in your upside down world where gays hate religion “because they’re gay”, what is it about being gay that leads them to hate religion for no reason? Why is it that being gay is supposed to make anyone hate religon anymore than having blond hair or being tall would make someone hate religon? In your rigid partisan world how is it that no one is actually supposed to be bothered by being condemned by religion?!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So tell me NorthDallass, in your upside down world where gays hate religion “because they’re gay”, what is it about being gay that leads them to hate religion for no reason?
Peer pressure.
Simply put, Randi, it is made clear that real gays believe that religion is “pointless and evil”, “nonsensical”, and “idiotic”, and insist that people have to be “delusional” to believe in such “absurdities”. Those who don’t are dubbed as self-loathing and compared to African-Americans trying to join the KKK, and are not real gays.
Gays have a choice; be antireligious, or be socially ostracized and namecalled by people like yourself.
In your rigid partisan world how is it that no one is actually supposed to be bothered by being condemned by religion?!
It works on the same principle as your insistence that there is no harm in gays telling other gays to do the world a favor and kill themselves.
posted by Pat on
James, let me try to answer the What if homosexual behavior is a sin?
My first answer is, what if it isn’t? The point is I don’t think anyone knows for sure what exactly are sins and what aren’t. The laws given in the Bible described as sins or abominations, as well as everything else, were written by humans. You may believe that what is written was divinely inspired. Even so, it was still written by humans, and humans sometimes make mistakes. If God really wanted us to know exactly what a sin is, he would continually drop lists, keeping current with the changing times and technologies, etc. What is interesting is a lot of the things that were considered abominations in the Bible, like eating pork, are no longer considered abominations. For some reason, it has been tradition to keep the abominations that involve sex. As a side note, I find it amazing that many world leaders seem to do well without the Vatican’s advice on matters, such as war, the death penalty, health care, etc., but are all ears when it involves sex or reproduction issues. But I digress.
Anyway, it seems the best thing to do is to weigh the following in determining whether an action is good or a sin: your well-being, and the benefits to the other participants (in the action), your family, your community, your country, and the global community. Homosexual behavior, like heterosexual behavior, if responsible, is certainly good for one’s well-being, as God did make us sexual beings. I don’t see how homosexual behavior can be really be hurtful to the other categories. In fact, you can make the argument, that unlike Biblical times, it is not as necessary to be “fruitful and multiply” any more. And if one ends up in a relationship with the person they are sexually attracted with, it is just as beneficial as it would be for heterosexual couples. Keep in my mind that if you feel that your family or some community may be hurt by your homosexual behavior, that maybe they are being selfish, and not critically evaluating your choice, like you appear to be. We all know that sometimes the right thing (on non-sexual matters) for ourselves is not always viewed favorably by our family.
On the other hand, acting on pedophilia, while possibly helping one’s own well-being, is clearly hurtful to the community. One who was attraction towards children, and the person wanted to decide whether to engage in that behavior based on the criteria above, the answer would clearly be no, even if pedophilia wasn’t specifically listed as an abomination in the Bible.
For those with homosexual attraction, but desires to engage in heterosexual behavior, it seems to me that from the above criteria, that it would be wrong.
Based on this, I would also say that bestiality and incest are wrong. Polygamy is tougher. It certainly may help one’s well-being, but more questionable as to how beneficial it would be to various communities. In the past, and currently, such as Middle Eastern Royal families, there is definitely an element of female subjugation, which is not a good thing. But even without that, it doesn’t seem to me that it would have the same benefits as a relationship with two people. I believe the gay community has made the case for same-sex relationships, and I leave it to the polygamist to make their case.
It would be rather unfortunate if, when you die, you find out that homosexual behavior wasn’t a sin. Or worse yet, there is no afterlife. Even if homosexual behavior is a sin, I would like to think that God would be somewhat forgiving, since I don’t know of any human that hasn’t committed a sin. Besides, I am more likely to be eternally damned, because of my consumption of pork.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL Northdallass, Peer pressure! That’s a good one! You haven’t answered the question. If peer pressure makes gays hate religion what makes those LGBTs supposedly applying the peer pressure (me you suggest) hate religion for no reason? At some point there has to be an original reason for some gays to hate religion, if its not the anti-gay condemnations of religion, what pray tell is it – and none of your “peer pressure” circular logic.
And of course you can’t resist lying yet again. Contrary to what you said in your last post I never insisted there is no harm in gays telling other gays to do the world a favour and kill themselves. You need a quote to show you haven’t lied and obviously you won’t be providing one.
And not surprisingly you’ve used that irrelevant lie to dodge the question – How is it that gays aren’t supposed to be bothered by religion condemning them? The proper analogy is to say that you weren’t bothered by being told to kill yourself and you obviously were, why should gays react any differently than you when they are attacked?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If peer pressure makes gays hate religion what makes those LGBTs supposedly applying the peer pressure (me you suggest) hate religion for no reason?
For the same reason that teenagers and hippies in the ’60s hated it; it represents the “establishment”, and you’re against the establishment. Being gay is simply a convenient coverup for whatever other antisocial reason makes you oppose it.
The proper analogy is to say that you weren’t bothered by being told to kill yourself and you obviously were, why should gays react any differently than you when they are attacked?
Actually, as I made clear,I wasn’t.
What I keep in mind, Carl, is that if someone were to tell one of the board leftists like Randi or ColoradoPatriot to commit suicide, the response, given your reaction to James’s criticisms, would not have been, “Oh, they can take care of themselves”.
You’re right; I don’t particularly need you to defend me. But what I will continue to point out is that there’s never been any shortage of or skimping on defense when people of the correct ideology are criticized, much less when they’re told that they should kill themselves.
Next:
Contrary to what you said in your last post I never insisted there is no harm in gays telling other gays to do the world a favour and kill themselves.
I think we have an excellent example of your non-condemnation condemnation in that aforementioned link.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
You’re going in circles Northdallass. You haven’t given a reason why some gays hate religion, or “the establishment” as you put it. Ultimately there has to be a reason and your panicky insistence it can’t be because religion condemns gays isn’t credible in the slightest. Tell me, by what rationale apart from the religious condemnation of gays would anyone thing being gay explains one’s hatred of religon?
And of course as I said you couldn’t post a quote of me insisting there is no harm in gays telling other gays to do the world a favour and kill themselves because you lied as the habitual liar you are.
You also lied by saying you weren’t bothered by being told to kill yourself. You whined over and over and over about it, not something someone who isn’t bothered does. If you’re not bothered by it you’ll obviously never bring it up again, will you? If you do your duplicitous nature will once again be laid bare for all to see.
The point remains – there’s no reason why gays should be any less bothered by religious condemnation than you were by being asked to kill yourself. Its a double standard world for you.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
My first question in the above post should have read “by what rationale apart from the religious condemnation of gays would anyone think being gay explains one’s hatred of religon?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If you’re not bothered by it you’ll obviously never bring it up again, will you? If you do your duplicitous nature will once again be laid bare for all to see.
Mhm.
Again, I quote from above:
You’re right; I don’t particularly need you to defend me. But what I will continue to point out is that there’s never been any shortage of or skimping on defense when people of the correct ideology are criticized, much less when they’re told that they should kill themselves.
The person I think it bothers most is you, Randi; otherwise, you wouldn’t be trying to silence it.
I understand your problem; it ruins the fiction of gays being sweet, innocent folk who would never raise a cross word and who are being persecuted through no fault of their own. But when it becomes obvious that gays are going around telling people to “try a .357 to your ear canal to clear that out”, to “die painfully”, and that they “should” kill themselves — or that gays are going around saying that religion is “pointless and evil”, “nonsensical”, and “idiotic”, and insist that people have to be “delusional” to believe in such “absurdities”, the illusion shatters rather rapidly.
I have no particular personal concerns over either ColoradoPatriot’s demands that I commit suicide or over people telling me I’m “condemned”; as the old saying goes, sticks and stones. But I delight in the fact that ColoradoPatriot’s doing so exposes so nicely the hypocrisy of gay leftists like yourself, who would unleash a torrent of hate against any non-gay person who told someone to commit suicide, but who tell those who gays tell to commit suicide to just ignore it — or, as you did, blame the person being told to kill themselves.
My first question in the above post should have read “by what rationale apart from the religious condemnation of gays would anyone think being gay explains one’s hatred of religon?
It’s called rationalization, Randi; you replace a socially-unacceptable answer with another. Invariably, though, it backfires and you end up creating an even larger problem.
For example, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie said they wouldn’t get married “until everyone else could”. That’s a more socially-acceptable statement than saying, “We’ve both already been through several divorces and find that being legally bound to each other cramps our style.” However, what it makes hilariously obvious is the opposite; if Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie don’t need to get married to be a happy couple and have kids, why are gays insisting their lives are meaningless without marriage?
In the case of gays, there are myriad reasons; religion tends to strongly advise against unlimited sex, public sex, drug use, and numerous other things that are written off as part of “gay culture”. But instead of simply saying, “I don’t like religion because it warns me that having sex with whomever or whatever I want whenever I want is a bad idea”, they simply scream that religion is “anti-gay”.
In short, Randi, your opposition to religion has more to do with your own personal issues than it does with you being gay. But because your personal reasons are not socially acceptable, you try to link your being gay to your hatred of religion — and then try to pressure other gays into supporting it.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, your saying “I don’t need you to defend me” is not the same as as having said “this doesn’t bother me” and if it didn’t bother you you wouldn’t be ranting about it over and over and over. Obviously it does bother you or you wouldn’t keep bringing it up. Not suprisingly you’re still avoiding the relevant question. Why should gays be any less bothered by being condemned by religion than you were by being asked to kill yourself?
LOL, so now let me get this straight. You say gays can hate religon because it strongly advises against unlimited sex, but they can’t hate it because it condemns gay sex altogether. That’s friggin’ hilarious! Can you say “non-sequitor”?! How in your twisted mind is that people can only be upset about sex being limited, but not upset about it being condemned altogether even in a loving committed relationship?! Wait, don’t answer that, I know, in your hateful mind no matter what, religion just can’t be responsible for gays hating it. Never mind that it says they must be put to death, somehow it has to be gays fault they hate religion, not vice versa – the cart comes before the horse in your mind. Only an idiot or an asshole would argue that religion’s condemnation of gays doesn’t result in some gays hating religion – which one are you?
And according to your twisted mind my “opposition to religion has more to do with my own personal issues than it does with my being gay.”. LOL, I’m in a committed monogamous relationship, I don’t have public sex, drink or do drugs. I hate religion because its anti-gay, not because its anti-things I don’t do anyway. The original personal issue that made me anti-religious was religion’s evil unfair condemnation of LGBTs who are harming no one in loving committed relationships like mine. Of course since that motivated me to read the buy-bull I’ve found SO much more to despise about religion. And I’d appreciate it if you’d stop referring to me as gay, I’m bisexual as I’ve repeatedly told you – not that you’ll listen, as you’re devoid of any consideration for others.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You say gays can hate religon because it strongly advises against unlimited sex, but they can’t hate it because it condemns gay sex altogether.
Let me quote from the beginning of this very article:
[Episcopalian Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori] appears to have been involved in putting together parts of this solution, which suggests that she is committed to making them work. If so, she will face stiff opposition from many U.S. Episcopalians, who would probably prefer second-class status?or no status at all?in the Communion, rather than retreating from a position on homosexuality that they feel more closely reflects the spirit of the Gospel than the exclusionary position of the majority of the primates.
Somehow, I doubt they’re claiming gay sex is condemned.
So your bigot reasoning that religion always condemns gay sex is wrong.
But even these Episcopalians a) believe in God, b) treasure the Bible, and c) that unlimited sex and drug use is not a good idea.
That still puts them in trouble with leftists like yourself.
And seriously, if you want to assert your identity as bisexual, I’m fine with it. Start telling people that you’re antireligious because you’re bisexual and leave us gays out of it.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, I never claimed all religionists always condemn gay sex, just that most do.
Religionists get no probems from me for their condemning unlimited sex or drug use. By the way, where in the buy-bull does it condemn drug use?
I’m anti-religious because the buy-bull is anti-gay, not because I’m bisexual.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, even if I was straight I’d still hate religionists for being anti-gay. Many gays hate the religion because many, if not most religionists are anti-gay. There’s no way around that for you no matter how much you lie, weasel and twist. You’re simply not credible when you try to convince people that religion being anti-gay isn’t the reason why some gays hate religion. You’re putting the cart before the horse.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, I never claimed all religionists always condemn gay sex, just that most do.
Try again.
You say gays can hate religon because it strongly advises against unlimited sex, but they can’t hate it because it condemns gay sex altogether.
Northdallass, even if I was straight I’d still hate religionists for being anti-gay.
Nope. You’d simply be honest and admit that you hate religion, rather than hiding behind your sexual orientation.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, the bible and many, if not most Christian sects condemn gay sex altogether. If I had said all> religons you’d have a point, but of course you don’t. Just to clear up any misconceptions on your part I am well aware that not all Christian sects condemn gay sex.
Northdallass said “Nope. You’d simply be honest and admit that you hate religion, rather than hiding behind your sexual orientation.”.
A chronic liar like you is in no position to be questioning my honesty. I hate religion because its anti-gay, as do many gays. You claimed LGBTS only hate religion because it opposes unlimited sex and drugs – things I don’t do. By your own ‘logic’ that leaves me with no reason to be anti-religious, something that obviously cannot be. That only leaves the reality you are desperate to hide from – religion was first anti-gay, and LGBTs like me hate it for it.
Obviously if for the sake of argument I grant your shaky assertion that some gays hate religion because it opposes unlimited sex, those very same gays and others are going to hate religion because it (some religions) opposes gay sex altogether. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t say gays hate religion because it opposes unlimited sex but not because it opposes gay sex altogether.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And I’m still curious Northdallass, where in the buy-bull does it oppose drug use – or is this just more BS you made up?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Just to clear up any misconceptions on your part I am well aware that not all Christian sects condemn gay sex.
And yet you hate them anyway.
Thank you for demonstrating my point.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Again you lie about me. Of course when you’re on the end of a debate you can’t possibly win, what else can an immoral person who can’t accept he’s wrong do. I don’t hate the Christians that accept gays. LGBTs like me hate the religions that condemn gays. We don’t hate religion for no reason, and being LGBT in itself is not a reason to hate those religions. We hate those religions because they condemn gays. You can’t put the cart before the horse and make any sense – accept reality Northdallass, you’re a liar and you’re wrong. Try being ethical and realistic for a change and admit it. Christians claim their religion prohibits lying, let’s see you live up to what you claim to follow.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And your inability to show where the buy-bull opposes drug use shows little doubt you were lying about that as well.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL…Randi, your own words up above make it clear that you hate religion, period.
What I’ve done is simply made it impossible to disguise your bigotry as being justified — and got what I wanted, which was for you to admit that antireligious hate based on your sexual orientation is wrong.
And as for the Bible, what you’re looking for is 1 Corinthians 6:19 – 20. That’s actually an all-purpose chapter; it covers sexual immorality, abuse of homosexuality, and everything else.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL Northdallass, much as you’d like to falsely speak for me, you don’t. I hate religion because its anti-gay, and because of that I’ve been motivated to read your buy-bull to find its other flaws and there’s been no end of that. Contrary to your lies, my sexual orientation doesn’t motivate me to hate religion (how could it?), the condemnation of gays by most religions does – I’ve never stated otherwise contrary to your delusions.
And laughably, just as I suspected, you again quote something which doesn’t in anyway support the point you’re trying to make, the passage you quoted doesn’t say anything about drugs, only in your bizarre imagination does that count as opposition to drug use. As we can see in Mark 7:14-16 which reads in part “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him…”. Obviously the bible does not oppose drug use and you’ve lied yet again – big surprise there.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I hate religion because its anti-gay, and because of that I’ve been motivated to read your buy-bull to find its other flaws and there’s been no end of that..
So now you’re again saying that all religion is antigay — which contradicts your post above.
And laughably, just as I suspected, you again quote something which doesn’t in anyway support the point you’re trying to make, the passage you quoted doesn’t say anything about drugs, only in your bizarre imagination does that count as opposition to drug use.
I didn’t think you’d read the whole chapter, especially verse 10, which refers specifically to “drunkenness”. And if that’s in the least bit unclear, Ephesians 5:18 is far less so.
But again, Randi, you’ve openly admitted that you refuse to read and ignore any passage of the Bible that doesn’t support your bigoted worldview. People realize that, because of that, you are ALWAYS going to criticize and mock the Bible and misread it.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL Northdallass, the effort at deluding yourself obviously can’t succeed so you have to settle for being a boldfaced liar. I said the same thing in the post you mentioned as I’ve said over and over in this thread. LGBTs like me hate religions that are anti-gay. Being LGBT doesn’t in and of itself provide any motivation or reason to hate religion, its the condemnation of gays that is at the heart of our hatred of religion. Your idea that religion can condemn gays without offending gays is preposterous and of course nothing new for you. You are profoundly in denial because Christianity in general hates gays and that makes some gays hate religion back – you’ve repeatedly failed (of course) to make a convincing argument to put the cart before the horse.
And funnier yet, the Ephesians quote you provided doesn’t say anything about drugs AT ALL, the biblical condemnation of drugs exists only in your wild imagination. Ephesians doesn’t even condemn alcohol, it condemns excess consumption of alcohol just as smart people condemn the excess consumption of drugs. Jesus turned water into wine, obviously he didn’t oppose alcohol (or drugs for that matter). To further highlight your lie that the buy-bull condemns drugs look at Genesis 1:29. Your god gave all the herb bearing plants to people to use – marijuana, cocaine, heroin, I think even LSD is ultimately derived from a plant.
I recently read about an experiment with a bunch of Christians that took LSD – something like 80% of them claimed to have had a profoundly religious experience which brought them closer to your god. Obviously drugs are a path to spirituality for the religious and as you’ve proven no where does the buy-bull condemn drugs, it does the opposite, it says NOTHING a man takes into his body defiles him and ALL the plants are for people’s use.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I said the same thing in the post you mentioned as I’ve said over and over in this thread. LGBTs like me hate religions that are anti-gay.
Actually, this is what you said before:
I hate religion because its anti-gay, and because of that I’ve been motivated to read your buy-bull to find its other flaws and there’s been no end of that.
“Because” and “that are” are two distinctly-different constructions. What you’re trying to argue is that saying “I hate black Americans BECAUSE they’re thieves” and “I hate black Americans THAT ARE thieves” are the same.
And what you keep making obvious is that you hate religion, period. You mock religious people, you mock religious beliefs, and you quite obviously think nothing positive of religion.
Then, as to your Biblical interpretation, the point of the verses in question was to not do things that are harmful to your body. Your attempt to defend the use of cocaine and heroin by claiming that, since they’re derived from plants that God created, the Bible sanctions their use, is an excellent example of seeing only what you want to see in Scripture.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL, Northdallass, as I said previously I was not and am not saying all religions are anti-gay, I was and am referring to religion in general being anti-gay. If I wasn’t clear then, it must be clear now. I hate religions that are anti-gay BECAUSE they are anti-gay. It necessarily follows that when one hates (a) religion because its anti-gay that one hates religions that ARE anti-gay. LGBTs like me are naturally offended by the buy-bull’s condemnation of gays and your insistance that somehow that can’t be the case isn’t credible to any honest thinking person (of which you are not).
Of course you’ve failed miserably to demonstrate that the buy-bull condemns drugs as they aren’t mentioned in any of the quotes you provided and the quotes I provided directly contradict the untenable position you’ve taken – and you say I’m the one seeing only what I want to see! And just like your quotes never said anything about condemning drug use they never said anything about not doing things that are harmful to your body, which in any event its not clear that moderate drug use is harmful, not to mention the fact that Jesus advocated harming your body! He said (roughly) “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off, If your eye causes you to sin poke it out, if your leg causes you to sin, cut if off”. Clearly if harming your body made you more spiritual Jesus was all for it, and given that drugs bring some people closer to god he would have supported doing that as well, even if it were slightly harmful.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, Randi, what you keep making obvious is that you hate religion because it’s religion. The “anti-gay” whine is nothing more than a cover for your outright hate and bigotry against it.
And what this has done is made it clear to religion that gays themselves believe being gay and being religious are incompatible. When you decide to be honest and admit that your being gay has nothing to do with your hate of religion and stems solely from an effort to cover up your own antireligious hate and bigotry, you will do probably the best thing you can for gay issues.
Next up:
And just like your quotes never said anything about condemning drug use they never said anything about not doing things that are harmful to your body, which in any event its not clear that moderate drug use is harmful, not to mention the fact that Jesus advocated harming your body!
They never said anything about not doing things that are harmful to your body?
Did I not directly quote — and you acknowledged — a passage that said it was wrong to drink to excess, because that was harmful to your body?
He said (roughly) “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off, If your eye causes you to sin poke it out, if your leg causes you to sin, cut if off”.
Funny that you left out the intermediary passages.
And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell
Mark 9:42 – 47
Jesus wasn’t saying that these things were desirable. He was saying that, given the two choices, being crippled was better than having your foot cause you to end up in hell.
But bigot Randi was looking for passages where Jesus said self-mutilation was good, so she twisted what she found, ignoring the obvious context.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
LOL, Northdallass, your “reasoning” is that I have no reason or motivation to hate religion – that being the case I wouldn’t hate religion. Unfortunately for you I do, and there has to be a reason for that. The only one is that most religion is anti-gay, and for the umpteenth time I am not anti-religious because I’m LGBT I’m anti-religious because religion is anti-gay – being LGBT in and of itself provides no motivation for hating religion any more than being tall or blond would make you hate religion. Your assertion that no gays are angry at religion condemning gays is sheer obstinate stupidity. Its not natural god-given stupidity but applied stupidity – no one’s that dumb by birth, you have to work at being that stupid as you so obviously do, you are willfully stupid.
Your foolishness on the buy-bull is apparent in how you read into it stuff that isn’t there, and ignore the clear passages that are. No where in the quotes you mentioned does it so much as mention drugs, let alone condemn them, yet in your feverish imagination that does. The buy-bull explicitly condemns gays in no uncertain terms in a number of places and yet I’ve seen you make twisted ambiguous arguments that somehow it does not. You read into what is not there and ignore what is there dependent on what makes you happy. You are a hypocrite and a liar. In Ezekiel 22:28 your buy-bull notes how people like you deceive with “…lying divinations. They say, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says’-when the LORD has not spoken.”.
The buy-bull clearly says “there is NOTHING a man can take into his body that defiles him” and that ALL plants are placed there for people’s use. Surely if your god had meant to condemn drugs he would have done it in no uncertain terms as he did excess drinking and being gay. He didn’t leave the condemnation of excess drinking up to people to guess and there is no reason to believe that if he had wanted to condemn drug use that he wouldn’t have explicitely done so to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding. Or do you want to argue that your god wasn’t aware that people would do drugs down the road and didn’t realize he should have condemned it in the past to prevent its use in the future?! Maybe your god was just too ignorant to know that although people didn’t do drugs in Jesus’s time that eventually they would, eh?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The buy-bull clearly says “there is NOTHING a man can take into his body that defiles him” and that ALL plants are placed there for people’s use. Surely if your god had meant to condemn drugs he would have done it in no uncertain terms as he did excess drinking and being gay.
LOL…..you do realize the contradiction you’ve created, right, Randi?
You claim:
1. Since God created all plants, nothing that comes from plants can be bad for you.
2. Since nothing you can “take into your body” defiles you, anything you take is fine.
YET:
You acknowledge the Bible condemns drunkenness.
In case you weren’t aware of the fact, alcohol comes from grains (beer) and grapes (wine) — both of which come from plants.
This is because you misread the context of your original post. Jesus was speaking about the Jewish dietary laws as outlined in the Torah and as taken to ridiculous extremes by the Pharisees. He was talking to the fallacy the Pharisees were perpetuating that anyone who ate pork, for example, was an evil person unworthy of salvation. He certainly was not writing a blank check for bad behavior, as other passages such as the one I cited make abundantly clear.
Furthermore, I loved this statement from you:
You read into what is not there and ignore what is there dependent on what makes you happy. You are a hypocrite and a liar.
Spoken by, of course, the person who explicitly denies the existence of God, all positive statements made about God, and the very divine origin of the Bible itself.
Simply put, Randi, it is very difficult for you to argue that I twist what God is saying to us in the Bible when you deny the existence of God and the divine origin of the Bible in the first place.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, the passages you quoted condemn the excess use of alcohol, not the use of alcohol altogether. If they condemned the use of alcohol altogether, you’d have a minor point, but of course you don’t.
The buy-bull says NOTHING a man takes into his body defiles him and that ALL the plants are for mans use. This includes alcohol, Jesus turned water into wine, the buy-bull approves of the use of alcohol in moderation. What you’re arguing is that the condemnation of overeating is the same as the condemnation of eating itself – obviously not. Of course alcohol is not drugs, explicit advice about alcohol is not advice about drugs – it simply isn’t there.
And I don’t have to follow or believe in your buy-bull to point out the hypocrisy of you reading into it what is not there (the condemnation of drug use) and ignoring what is there (the condemnation of gays). You’re the one claiming to follow this, not me and by your own book you are a liar and a hypocrite.