Comments
Posted by Jeffry :: 
:: 
:: Apr 18, 2004 10:51pm
:: :: Apr 18, 2004 10:51pmI'm with you. As somebody who grew up in the Catholic Church, I find it ironic that people use the veil of Christianity to justify hateful ideology - the exact kind of ideology to which Jesus was antithetical. I may not believe in Jesus as the son of God, but I do believe in Jesus the philosopher. Nobody who truly understands what he said or did could possibly justify anything but tolerance and acceptance.
The point is, (at least in regards to homosexuality) is that you don't have to like it - you just have to tolerate it. Anything otherwise would be completely hypocritical.
The point is, (at least in regards to homosexuality) is that you don't have to like it - you just have to tolerate it. Anything otherwise would be completely hypocritical.
Posted by Amax :: 
:: 
:: Apr 18, 2004 11:30pm
:: :: Apr 18, 2004 11:30pmThe definition of a hypocrite, is someone whose words and actions don't match up. So the only case in which someone who does not tolerate homosexuality would be a hypocite is if they are a homosexual, or of the like. Jesus did not and does not encourage complete tolerance, in fact, much the opposite. He promotes Godliness and opposes sin. Homosexuality is adulterous and idolatrous, and therefore Christ is opposed to homosexuality. However, that does not mean that God hates gays, it merely means that he hates their sins, and everyone has sin in one form or another, and all of us need Christ to redeem us and God to show us how to live.
Posted by Yossarian Lives! :: :: :: Apr 19, 2004 12:31am
:: :: Apr 19, 2004 12:31amHomosexuality is neither adulterous ot idolatrous in and of itself. If you were, I don't know, married and also in a homosexual relationship then it would be adulterous. Then again, so would a heterosexual relationship outside of one's marriage. As to idolatrous, unless you worship the ground on which your lover walks (which heterosexuals tend to do as well) it is not idolatrous. And I won't go further into talking about idolatry then to say that praying to an image of a saint or of Jesus on the cross is idolatrous. (Well... i might let you argue Jesus isn't, but then you're no longer monotheseistic)
Posted by Yossarian Lives! :: :: :: Apr 19, 2004 12:43am
:: :: Apr 19, 2004 12:43amOh, and one more thing. Maybe someone can clear a bit of Constitutional law up for me. Would it be okay to make gay marriage illegal as long as we weren't blatantly pandering to the Christian right? I mean, if we also made polygamy legal, and marrying children legal, and marrying people of other faiths or races or lower castes illegal, wouldn't that be alright since we aren't simply saying that one religion has the right answer but changing marriage laws to endorse all religions equally?
Posted by James :: :: :: Apr 19, 2004 04:09am
:: :: Apr 19, 2004 04:09amSo, what you're saying is that being a bigot is ok - as long as you're a good Christian bigot? And since the Bible is such an overpowering and completely truthful influence it's ok to do other things that the Bible endorses, like buying and selling slaves and killing all those nasty people who claim to be witches? I mean, as long as you're not being a hypocrite an all that I know a few little black-eyed goth girls who probably should get a visit from you and your non-hypocritical friends.
Actually guy, if that's your idea of God then keep it to yourself. Because it sickens me. You can keep your God and Jesus too, sign me up for the other side of your pathetic holy war ok?
Actually guy, if that's your idea of God then keep it to yourself. Because it sickens me. You can keep your God and Jesus too, sign me up for the other side of your pathetic holy war ok?
Posted by tulip :: :: :: Apr 18, 2004 11:33pm
:: :: Apr 18, 2004 11:33pmI knew what you meant Ryland and I'm right here saying "They are emphatically NOT speaking for me." I thought it was interesting that the very point you were trying to make was sort of illustrated in the comments given.
One reason that I am not big into organized religion is for the whole "politics of religion" problem. I was brought up Baptist and it's principles are really amazing, personal relationship with God, self interpretation of the bible etc... But the people involved with it are so interested in being "right" that they have lost the whole thread of compassion and joy that religion COULD bring.
I think that's why we get movies like "The Passion of the Christ". bleh.
Thanks for the great site!
One reason that I am not big into organized religion is for the whole "politics of religion" problem. I was brought up Baptist and it's principles are really amazing, personal relationship with God, self interpretation of the bible etc... But the people involved with it are so interested in being "right" that they have lost the whole thread of compassion and joy that religion COULD bring.
I think that's why we get movies like "The Passion of the Christ". bleh.
Thanks for the great site!
Posted by Joe Rivera :: :: :: Apr 19, 2004 10:03am
:: :: Apr 19, 2004 10:03amI agree with you on most counts Ryland, except that I still disagree that it's my responsibility to somehow reign in these religious nuts. To make my point, I purposely exaggerated on your previous post when I said that I’m as responsible for Fred Phelps as you are for Ted Kennedy.
Although, Ted Kennedy is pretty evil I wouldn’t equate him to Phelps. My point instead is, that I see no difference between these religious (or otherwise) zealots trying to push their ideology on me, as if I were trying to do the same to them. Remember we have freedom of speech and religion in this country. These people have a right to be as looney as they want to be.
I wouldn’t advocate denying them [religious extremists] their right to speak, just as I wouldn’t advocate outlawing the voices of the KKK, NAACP, PETA, Greenpeace; none of which speak for me. To me all these groups voice extreme ideologies with no room for discussion or a middle ground.
I wrote the following on Matt’s site a week ago about what (in very high-level terms) religion is to me:
To me religion is not so much about the organization of religion into its many rituals and dogma, but instead about how you allow those teachings to gently direct your daily decisions. I truly believe religion is a personal thing between God and myself and contrary to popular teachings, I don’t feel the need to announce my loyalty to God either in public mass every Sunday or by trying to recruit anyone to my way of thinking.
Although, Ted Kennedy is pretty evil I wouldn’t equate him to Phelps. My point instead is, that I see no difference between these religious (or otherwise) zealots trying to push their ideology on me, as if I were trying to do the same to them. Remember we have freedom of speech and religion in this country. These people have a right to be as looney as they want to be.
I wouldn’t advocate denying them [religious extremists] their right to speak, just as I wouldn’t advocate outlawing the voices of the KKK, NAACP, PETA, Greenpeace; none of which speak for me. To me all these groups voice extreme ideologies with no room for discussion or a middle ground.
I wrote the following on Matt’s site a week ago about what (in very high-level terms) religion is to me:
To me religion is not so much about the organization of religion into its many rituals and dogma, but instead about how you allow those teachings to gently direct your daily decisions. I truly believe religion is a personal thing between God and myself and contrary to popular teachings, I don’t feel the need to announce my loyalty to God either in public mass every Sunday or by trying to recruit anyone to my way of thinking.
Posted by cg :: :: :: Apr 19, 2004 03:24pm
:: :: Apr 19, 2004 03:24pmI wouldn't advocate denying them their right to speak either, but too often these days people confuse protesting against the message in someone's free speech with protesting their ability to speak. Speaking out against the extremist Christians IS NOT the same as quashing their free speech. In fact, in some of your examples (KKK, etc.) I would argue it is almost a moral imperative to speak out against their message.
As a gay person in this country I have been utterly distressed by the dialog over gays and gay marriage. Since Bush endorsed the amendment, I've been so depressed I've lost 15 lbs. Some helpines have reported over 100% increases in harrassment and assaults on gays this year as compared to over the same period last year. I am scared out of my wits, depressed, and my SO and I are seriously considering the move to Canada.
Those folks who are responsible for the harrassment and assaults probably aren't really Christians or even extreme Christians, but they would identify as Christians. They just believe homosexuality is wrong. I strongly believe these ideas come from religion, particularly Christianity, and more particularly from extreme Christians.
I have long believed that there are Christians out there who do not have a problem with gays or gay marriage. I have wished that they would be more vocal to help illuminate the fact that the government is specifically choosing to advance a subset of religous beliefs. Without moderate Christian voices to compete with extreme ones, the homophobes responsible for the assaults find it easier to believe they are doing God's work.
The fact of the matter is, as gays are a minority, advancing even mere tolerance of gays will require support from others. If non-stakeholders refuse to join in and assume some responsibility (whether it is theirs or not) then these religious zealots will win the day. No it is not your responsibility. But I can't fight them alone, and I would like your help.
Because unfortunately, tolerance of their beliefs and values helps promote intolerance toward my beliefs and my values. And lack of Christians arguing against this helps to enhance their claims that this is a communal value, not just a value held by some religions, and helps support their cause.
No, I wouldn't advocate denying extreme Christians their right to speak. But I do think it is fair to call on moderate Christians to help show others that this is not the only way to be a Christian. It would be personally helpful to me as I am in a constant battle with myself to stop stereotyping Christians. Because as a gay person, that is the first indicator for me whether I should be afraid around someone. Do moderate Christians want that to be the emotion their religion triggers in others?
As a gay person in this country I have been utterly distressed by the dialog over gays and gay marriage. Since Bush endorsed the amendment, I've been so depressed I've lost 15 lbs. Some helpines have reported over 100% increases in harrassment and assaults on gays this year as compared to over the same period last year. I am scared out of my wits, depressed, and my SO and I are seriously considering the move to Canada.
Those folks who are responsible for the harrassment and assaults probably aren't really Christians or even extreme Christians, but they would identify as Christians. They just believe homosexuality is wrong. I strongly believe these ideas come from religion, particularly Christianity, and more particularly from extreme Christians.
I have long believed that there are Christians out there who do not have a problem with gays or gay marriage. I have wished that they would be more vocal to help illuminate the fact that the government is specifically choosing to advance a subset of religous beliefs. Without moderate Christian voices to compete with extreme ones, the homophobes responsible for the assaults find it easier to believe they are doing God's work.
The fact of the matter is, as gays are a minority, advancing even mere tolerance of gays will require support from others. If non-stakeholders refuse to join in and assume some responsibility (whether it is theirs or not) then these religious zealots will win the day. No it is not your responsibility. But I can't fight them alone, and I would like your help.
Because unfortunately, tolerance of their beliefs and values helps promote intolerance toward my beliefs and my values. And lack of Christians arguing against this helps to enhance their claims that this is a communal value, not just a value held by some religions, and helps support their cause.
No, I wouldn't advocate denying extreme Christians their right to speak. But I do think it is fair to call on moderate Christians to help show others that this is not the only way to be a Christian. It would be personally helpful to me as I am in a constant battle with myself to stop stereotyping Christians. Because as a gay person, that is the first indicator for me whether I should be afraid around someone. Do moderate Christians want that to be the emotion their religion triggers in others?
Posted by cg :: :: :: Apr 19, 2004 03:31pm
:: :: Apr 19, 2004 03:31pmP.S. I agree with ryland's view of the extreme Christians as having a legalistic approach. I have often felt that the reason that people have been willing to hang on to the verses against homosexuality is because they can easily check that off on their list of "what I did to be a good person today." Of course, it is easy to not be gay if you are straight. All the other stuff, such as the eating shrimp, is so much harder when it is something you would like to do. Therefore, so long as we hang on to the gay thing, they can claim they are good people with as little effort as possible.
Posted by Troels Jakobsen :: :: :: Apr 19, 2004 06:22pm
:: :: Apr 19, 2004 06:22pmMore attention to the message and less adherence to the creeds; that would be a big step in the right direction. Unfortunately it's also a somewhat naive assumption.
The problem is, how do you reason with a demagogue ("It's in the BIBLE!")? The most you can do is denounce them. Or hope they become so obnoxious they denounce themselves (Jerry Falwell has been working hard at this).
You can demonstrate, you can write commentaries, you can even use logic or naked emotional appeals. This will not change the ways of the hardcore fundamentalist, of course, but it may sway resentful but otherwise reasonable Christians (softcore fundamentalists included) to revise their behaviour towards a more humane, considerate attitude. At least one can always hope.
More love-thy-neighbour, less angry God, thank you.
The problem is, how do you reason with a demagogue ("It's in the BIBLE!")? The most you can do is denounce them. Or hope they become so obnoxious they denounce themselves (Jerry Falwell has been working hard at this).
You can demonstrate, you can write commentaries, you can even use logic or naked emotional appeals. This will not change the ways of the hardcore fundamentalist, of course, but it may sway resentful but otherwise reasonable Christians (softcore fundamentalists included) to revise their behaviour towards a more humane, considerate attitude. At least one can always hope.
More love-thy-neighbour, less angry God, thank you.
Posted by John :: :: :: Apr 20, 2004 07:31pm
:: :: Apr 20, 2004 07:31pmWhy should a great and mighty God care if we do some wrongs or rights on this plane of existance? Wouldn't God be above all that, since it is believed he did create all of it?
Posted by Karen :: :: :: Apr 21, 2004 04:15pm
:: :: Apr 21, 2004 04:15pmRyland, nitpicking Latinist here: can I just say that it's ad nauseam and not ad nauseum? Sorry! Pedant alert, I know!
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Apr 21, 2004 05:20pm
:: :: Apr 21, 2004 05:20pmCorrected.
Posted by Angela :: :: :: Apr 23, 2004 11:50am
:: :: Apr 23, 2004 11:50amUnfortunately Christianity has received a bad rap because of people who want to be "religious". I do not consider myself to be religious (although I weekly attend church, read my Bible-activities people label as religious)-but rather that I have a relationship with Jesus Christ and THAT is what shapes who I am in actions and words.
It makes me so angry to think that I am labelled in the same catergory as those who hold up signs claiming that God hates gays(or other relgious groups etc.) The Bible is very clear that God doesn't hate anyone-it's the action of sin that He can't stand. But the Bible also claims that God sees all sins as equal (hard to grasp idea I know) so really, the sin of homosexuality (and yes God does say in the Bible that it is wrong) isn't seen in His eyes as any worse then talking back to my parents.
I agree heartily that many people are overly concerned with fixing what they see as other peoples problems without loving them. I can only hope to be a voice of one woman who is a follower of Jesus Christ who longs to love God and love people and somewhere in there become who God made me to be.
It makes me so angry to think that I am labelled in the same catergory as those who hold up signs claiming that God hates gays(or other relgious groups etc.) The Bible is very clear that God doesn't hate anyone-it's the action of sin that He can't stand. But the Bible also claims that God sees all sins as equal (hard to grasp idea I know) so really, the sin of homosexuality (and yes God does say in the Bible that it is wrong) isn't seen in His eyes as any worse then talking back to my parents.
I agree heartily that many people are overly concerned with fixing what they see as other peoples problems without loving them. I can only hope to be a voice of one woman who is a follower of Jesus Christ who longs to love God and love people and somewhere in there become who God made me to be.
Posted by janet :: :: :: May 10, 2004 05:05pm
:: :: May 10, 2004 05:05pmFirst off, thanks to the other Christians who were bold enough to speak up. It can be scary facing such anger.
As an incredibly flawed person who is trying to live by Jesus' model, I always had a very hard time understanding why homosexuality is a sin. Maybe the Bible got it wrong, maybe it was a cultural reference and not divine inspiration, maybe a lot of things. The crux is, if I accept the grace, the peace, the love and the salvation Jesus offers, I must accept his commands and rules too. I cannot pick and choose what to believe out of the Bible. Take it all or reject it all. It is my sincere hope that everyone who reads it will take it.
Jesus came to save the world, not condemn it (John 3:17). But that doesn't mean that "anything goes." Homosexuality is a sin (regardless of whether I want it to be) and that is made very clear and not really open for interpretation.
As for Leviticus, Jesus declares all food clean (Mark 7)and we are no longer under kosher laws. He made no such declaration for homosexuality (again) whether I like it or not.
As an incredibly flawed person who is trying to live by Jesus' model, I always had a very hard time understanding why homosexuality is a sin. Maybe the Bible got it wrong, maybe it was a cultural reference and not divine inspiration, maybe a lot of things. The crux is, if I accept the grace, the peace, the love and the salvation Jesus offers, I must accept his commands and rules too. I cannot pick and choose what to believe out of the Bible. Take it all or reject it all. It is my sincere hope that everyone who reads it will take it.
Jesus came to save the world, not condemn it (John 3:17). But that doesn't mean that "anything goes." Homosexuality is a sin (regardless of whether I want it to be) and that is made very clear and not really open for interpretation.
As for Leviticus, Jesus declares all food clean (Mark 7)and we are no longer under kosher laws. He made no such declaration for homosexuality (again) whether I like it or not.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: May 10, 2004 06:03pm
:: :: May 10, 2004 06:03pmIt's my understanding that when Jesus came along, he set aside all the old Mosaic laws (of which the kosher diet was a subset, not the whole thing). That would include the law against homosexuality. Nowhere does Jesus say that all the laws are set aside except for that one, and nowhere does Jesus explicitly ban homosexuality. Jesus doesn't address the issue at all, except as regards his setting aside all the old laws in establishing the new covenant.
Posted by janet :: :: :: May 12, 2004 11:17am
:: :: May 12, 2004 11:17amSorry it's taken me so long to respond...I didn't check back for a couple of days. I appreciate your thoughts on this topic. I'll try to respond to your key points:
It is far more accurate to say that Jesus came to fulfill mosaic law, rather than setting it aside (as you said) or "no longer under the law" (as I said).
So he came to fulfill, not abolish it. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17). God makes very clear distinctions about which laws are still absolute and which are not. Acting on homosexual impulses is addressed consistently in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, there are more). This kind of consistency is something I use as a guide in all aspects of my faith. We are told consistently to love God before all else, do not lie, to strive for purity, and on and on and on.
Jesus does not speak words that ban homosexuality, but when examining the Bible on the whole--and not picking and choosing individual verses to suit my own ideas--it is very clear that homosexuality is sinful. The ENTIRE Bible, not JUST what Jesus said, is the inspired word of God. God spoke through the prophets when revealing commands about homosexual behavior, just as he spoke through the prophets about a multitude of behaviors (1 Corinthians is interesting reading on this topic).
God gives us commands and laws to live by, not in order to constrain or inhibit us but to love us and guide us and draw us closer to Him.
It is far more accurate to say that Jesus came to fulfill mosaic law, rather than setting it aside (as you said) or "no longer under the law" (as I said).
So he came to fulfill, not abolish it. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them" (Matthew 5:17). God makes very clear distinctions about which laws are still absolute and which are not. Acting on homosexual impulses is addressed consistently in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, there are more). This kind of consistency is something I use as a guide in all aspects of my faith. We are told consistently to love God before all else, do not lie, to strive for purity, and on and on and on.
Jesus does not speak words that ban homosexuality, but when examining the Bible on the whole--and not picking and choosing individual verses to suit my own ideas--it is very clear that homosexuality is sinful. The ENTIRE Bible, not JUST what Jesus said, is the inspired word of God. God spoke through the prophets when revealing commands about homosexual behavior, just as he spoke through the prophets about a multitude of behaviors (1 Corinthians is interesting reading on this topic).
God gives us commands and laws to live by, not in order to constrain or inhibit us but to love us and guide us and draw us closer to Him.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: May 13, 2004 03:05am
:: :: May 13, 2004 03:05amIf you're following the bible "on the whole" then that means you don't eat shrimp, and your husband can have more than one wife? Do you sacrifice a dove after you've had your monthly cycle? Since Jesus isn't abolishing the mosiac law, then it still stands? He didn't just put in a change order?
This is one of the things that baffles me about the Christian religion. Either one follows the rules or one doesn't. If one is going to apply the bible as a whole to homosexuality, why isn't it applied to everything else?
It looks to me like people have modernized what the bible says by putting aside the dietary laws, the taking of more than one wife, sacrificing animals for various reasons, selling one's daughters, etc. If Christians can modernize their views on these things, why can't they modernize their views on people who don't have sex the same way they do? Is it even any of their business? Isn't a person's salvation or lack thereof between that person and their deity?
Perhaps if Christians weren't so concerned with the sex lives of others, we'd have a little more peace in this world.
This is one of the things that baffles me about the Christian religion. Either one follows the rules or one doesn't. If one is going to apply the bible as a whole to homosexuality, why isn't it applied to everything else?
It looks to me like people have modernized what the bible says by putting aside the dietary laws, the taking of more than one wife, sacrificing animals for various reasons, selling one's daughters, etc. If Christians can modernize their views on these things, why can't they modernize their views on people who don't have sex the same way they do? Is it even any of their business? Isn't a person's salvation or lack thereof between that person and their deity?
Perhaps if Christians weren't so concerned with the sex lives of others, we'd have a little more peace in this world.
Posted by janet :: :: :: May 13, 2004 12:43pm
:: :: May 13, 2004 12:43pmI guess I'd ask, if you haven't already, that you read my original reply dated May 10th. It might answer some of your questions.
Yes, the Bible is absolutely applied, on the whole, to everything else, not just sexuality, homo or hetero. But this is the topic du jour...
Please believe me when I say that purity is demanded of Christian heterosexuals as well. In some cases more stringently. St. Paul is speaking specifically to Christians when he says: "...I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged." (2 Cor. 12:21).
Addressing the multiple wives issue, mosaic law is fulfilled with this declaration in the New Testament: "Since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2).
I ask with all sincerity to take a deeper look at what the Bible says and not what it "looks like it is saying". (I'm assuming that you haven't, if I am mistaken, my aplogies). When I read it for the first time, even with a skeptical eye, it was radically different than what I expected it to be. All my assumptions, and what I had been told was in there, were profoundly weakened by the true message. Instead of finding judgment, condemnation and hate, I found peace, love and ....to my surprise...tolerance.
Yes, the Bible is absolutely applied, on the whole, to everything else, not just sexuality, homo or hetero. But this is the topic du jour...
Please believe me when I say that purity is demanded of Christian heterosexuals as well. In some cases more stringently. St. Paul is speaking specifically to Christians when he says: "...I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged." (2 Cor. 12:21).
Addressing the multiple wives issue, mosaic law is fulfilled with this declaration in the New Testament: "Since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2).
I ask with all sincerity to take a deeper look at what the Bible says and not what it "looks like it is saying". (I'm assuming that you haven't, if I am mistaken, my aplogies). When I read it for the first time, even with a skeptical eye, it was radically different than what I expected it to be. All my assumptions, and what I had been told was in there, were profoundly weakened by the true message. Instead of finding judgment, condemnation and hate, I found peace, love and ....to my surprise...tolerance.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: May 13, 2004 11:02pm
:: :: May 13, 2004 11:02pmPerhaps you've found those things, but many of your Christian brethern have not, and those are the people who are most heard in the media. Theirs is a message of hate, not tolerance or love. I believe that's what the thread of this discussion was about - how can you, as a kind, caring person, let these people speak for you? Doesn't their misrepresentation of your loving god distrub you?
Posted by Rick :: :: :: May 14, 2004 10:03am
:: :: May 14, 2004 10:03amredraven, the Bible tells us in the new testament that the greatest commandments are 1) to love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and strength; and 2) to love your neighbor as yourself. This being said, the rest is up to interpretation and as it says in another place in the new testament, to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. This does not mean to do whatever you think is right, but to search the scriptures and pray and seek the truth about what is Biblically right.
A lot of people don't get any of this. They look at the Bible as a bunch of do's and dont's. The christian lifestyle is supposed to be one of loving one another, helping one another, but nowhere does it say to tolerate sin. Most christians get this all wrong, they think that they are supposed to be the attacking force for God, that they are supposed to stick a finger in your face and tell you that "you are a ____________, (possible choices are endless)". But the same Bible tells us to remove the plank from our own eye before trying to remove the speck from our brothers eye.
I believe that homosexuality is a sin. Don't blow up here, it's what i believe. It is unnatural, if it were natural then why isn't there rampant cases of it in the animal world? if it is natural then let them reproduce with only each other. Now, I don't hate homosexuals. I happen to relly be saddened by the fact that it is wrong. Not because I have homosexual desires, but because a lot of the homosexual people that I have met are honestly good people. I know of a lesbian couple who have adopted two chinese girls, these girls would have had a very poor life if left in china to be raised by the state, and this couple is giving these little girls a wonderful upbringing. So many of the homosexuals that I know seem to be more tolerant of others, maybe because they have been mentally beat down their whole lives for the lifestyle that they have chosen. Now I am not talking about the flaming ones you see on Jerry Springer, I am talking about the people who just like people of the same sex. Does any of these wonderful people make me think that homosexuality is a good thing, no, does it make me think that it is not sin, no, does it make me want to attack them, no, hurt them, kill them, no.
Now, those that do attack them do not speak for me. Those that are religous whackos do not speak for me any more than (now I say the following things because from the very little that I know about you from your posts, I would have to say that even if you are in the middle you lean more toward the liberal left, maybe not much but, still more than the right) Ted Kennedy speaks for you, or Bill Clinton, or Jeanine Garafilo (sp?), or Bill Maher. That is basically the accusation that could be made in comparison. What would you have us to do with these morons that get the TV time for christians, attack them? hurt them? chase down and get our own TV show and rip them apart on TV? would that make us good christians to you? it wouldn't according to the Bible where it says that "they will know us for love for one another" not love for non-believers for love for fellow believers. If we were to do any of these things then we would be the new christian whackos who are so confused that we attack each other. I do not support the whackos that are out there, I do not watch them, listen to them, financially support them. So what other option am I left with? Yes it disturbs me, but I not called to do the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives and convict them any more than I am called to stick my finger in a homosexuals face and yell sinner.
A lot of people don't get any of this. They look at the Bible as a bunch of do's and dont's. The christian lifestyle is supposed to be one of loving one another, helping one another, but nowhere does it say to tolerate sin. Most christians get this all wrong, they think that they are supposed to be the attacking force for God, that they are supposed to stick a finger in your face and tell you that "you are a ____________, (possible choices are endless)". But the same Bible tells us to remove the plank from our own eye before trying to remove the speck from our brothers eye.
I believe that homosexuality is a sin. Don't blow up here, it's what i believe. It is unnatural, if it were natural then why isn't there rampant cases of it in the animal world? if it is natural then let them reproduce with only each other. Now, I don't hate homosexuals. I happen to relly be saddened by the fact that it is wrong. Not because I have homosexual desires, but because a lot of the homosexual people that I have met are honestly good people. I know of a lesbian couple who have adopted two chinese girls, these girls would have had a very poor life if left in china to be raised by the state, and this couple is giving these little girls a wonderful upbringing. So many of the homosexuals that I know seem to be more tolerant of others, maybe because they have been mentally beat down their whole lives for the lifestyle that they have chosen. Now I am not talking about the flaming ones you see on Jerry Springer, I am talking about the people who just like people of the same sex. Does any of these wonderful people make me think that homosexuality is a good thing, no, does it make me think that it is not sin, no, does it make me want to attack them, no, hurt them, kill them, no.
Now, those that do attack them do not speak for me. Those that are religous whackos do not speak for me any more than (now I say the following things because from the very little that I know about you from your posts, I would have to say that even if you are in the middle you lean more toward the liberal left, maybe not much but, still more than the right) Ted Kennedy speaks for you, or Bill Clinton, or Jeanine Garafilo (sp?), or Bill Maher. That is basically the accusation that could be made in comparison. What would you have us to do with these morons that get the TV time for christians, attack them? hurt them? chase down and get our own TV show and rip them apart on TV? would that make us good christians to you? it wouldn't according to the Bible where it says that "they will know us for love for one another" not love for non-believers for love for fellow believers. If we were to do any of these things then we would be the new christian whackos who are so confused that we attack each other. I do not support the whackos that are out there, I do not watch them, listen to them, financially support them. So what other option am I left with? Yes it disturbs me, but I not called to do the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives and convict them any more than I am called to stick my finger in a homosexuals face and yell sinner.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: May 14, 2004 01:16pm
:: :: May 14, 2004 01:16pmThere are lots of ways to speak out that don't require a TV show. Heck, you're doing it now, you just said in your post, "these guys don't speak for me any more than (whoever) don't speak for you." Well, start telling that to your fellow Christians, the ones that listen to the wackos. Go to a demonstration and make your voice heard - it would be great if a lot of Christians went to one of Fred Phelps' demonstrations with signs that said, "I'm a Christian, and this wacko doesn't speak for me." Or you could make a blog and post about how you're a good Christian and you think these wackos are wrong. Or when you're in a conversation with a wacko, tell them that you're a Christian, just as devout and sincere as they are, and that you disagree with them.
Come on, Rick. You seem anxious to distance yourself from the fringe elements of the religion when you're debating non-Christians; now let's see you walk the walk. Tell it to your fellow Christians.
Come on, Rick. You seem anxious to distance yourself from the fringe elements of the religion when you're debating non-Christians; now let's see you walk the walk. Tell it to your fellow Christians.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: May 14, 2004 07:45pm
:: :: May 14, 2004 07:45pmI do, and pretty much everybody I know thinks that the whackos are whackos, I don't even know who this Fred Phelps is, but from the comments made I wouldn't support him if I did. I don't know if you get the TBN (trinity broadcasting network, it's the one with the woman on there with the pink hair, acts a lot like tammy faye bakker), I can go ahead and tell you that the majority of the people on there are, as my kids call say, freaks and weirdos. I don't have a problem telling anybody I know that I don't like them, don't support them, and that they don't seem to be anything like somebody that I would want to be associated with. I am not ashamed to say it, to anybody, if you don't like it, that ain't my problem, whether christian or not. As far as going to a demonstration with signs, man, I got twin 7 yr old boys, a 6 month old, a wife, I own my own lawn care/landscaping business, I ain't got the time or the interest enough to chase down somebody else and tell them that they are wrong, if they want to come over to my house, great I will be happy to tell them, but I mean come on, do you go out when you hear that George Bush is gonna be within 500 miles and protest? I got much better things to do than to worry about Fred Phelps or some other similiar whacko. I would hope that the rest of mankind would act likewise.
I am not very welcomed at my church because I tell it like I see it, and that is not always PC, so I step on some toes, but I would rather be right in the sight of God than right in the sight of some man who is prejudiced, hateful, crazy, bigotist (i don't even know if that is a word but you understand).
I don't even know what a blog is.
I am not very welcomed at my church because I tell it like I see it, and that is not always PC, so I step on some toes, but I would rather be right in the sight of God than right in the sight of some man who is prejudiced, hateful, crazy, bigotist (i don't even know if that is a word but you understand).
I don't even know what a blog is.
Posted by janet :: :: :: May 14, 2004 11:52am
:: :: May 14, 2004 11:52amYou are right about the thread, thanks for bringing the topic back around.
They don't speak for me--I speak for me (and Jesus speaks for me, but that's a different topic)--and I along with my Brothers and Sisters in Christ are very active in sharing the gospel. Hand me the microphone and aim the t.v. cameras my way, I'll share all kinds of fabulous things ...wait a minute..where are the camera guys going? You don't consider this message news worthy?? IT'S NOT SENSATIONAL ENOUGH? Not TITILATING enough for the 10 o'clock news?? You can see where I am going with this.
Does the misrepresentation of our loving God disturb me? Absolutely. And God will judge them for that just as he will judge me and everyone else. But I'd like to speak to this in a broader sense. In general, I find the Religious Right to be lukewarm "poser" Christians and self-righteous hypocrites. Only God knows their true intentions, but it seems pretty twisted to me.
Then there are Christians who preach a message that is Biblically complete, but that a lot of people don't want to hear. That there is one God(deity, whatever you want to call our omnicient, omnipresent creator), Jesus is His Son and savior to the world. That we must turn away from our old behaviors and attitudes and follow Him. Christianity isn't a religion where anything goes and if it feels right, do it. There are guides, rules and commands that guide us closer to God. Sometimes that message is hard to hear. In my experience, sometimes hearing the truth hurts.
It isn't hateful or unloving to want people to turn away from behaviors that seperate us from God. It's the exact opposite. We're talking about our souls here. Some kinds of kindness can kill, and a tolerance that says "anything you do is fine" is damning. Just as a parent who places no boundaries on his child will end up with a chaotic disaster, a god who doesn't provide guides to live by is, in my opinion, an unloving neglectful God.
So yes, misrepresentations infuriate me. But a message that is truthful, but hard to hear, doesn't.
They don't speak for me--I speak for me (and Jesus speaks for me, but that's a different topic)--and I along with my Brothers and Sisters in Christ are very active in sharing the gospel. Hand me the microphone and aim the t.v. cameras my way, I'll share all kinds of fabulous things ...wait a minute..where are the camera guys going? You don't consider this message news worthy?? IT'S NOT SENSATIONAL ENOUGH? Not TITILATING enough for the 10 o'clock news?? You can see where I am going with this.
Does the misrepresentation of our loving God disturb me? Absolutely. And God will judge them for that just as he will judge me and everyone else. But I'd like to speak to this in a broader sense. In general, I find the Religious Right to be lukewarm "poser" Christians and self-righteous hypocrites. Only God knows their true intentions, but it seems pretty twisted to me.
Then there are Christians who preach a message that is Biblically complete, but that a lot of people don't want to hear. That there is one God(deity, whatever you want to call our omnicient, omnipresent creator), Jesus is His Son and savior to the world. That we must turn away from our old behaviors and attitudes and follow Him. Christianity isn't a religion where anything goes and if it feels right, do it. There are guides, rules and commands that guide us closer to God. Sometimes that message is hard to hear. In my experience, sometimes hearing the truth hurts.
It isn't hateful or unloving to want people to turn away from behaviors that seperate us from God. It's the exact opposite. We're talking about our souls here. Some kinds of kindness can kill, and a tolerance that says "anything you do is fine" is damning. Just as a parent who places no boundaries on his child will end up with a chaotic disaster, a god who doesn't provide guides to live by is, in my opinion, an unloving neglectful God.
So yes, misrepresentations infuriate me. But a message that is truthful, but hard to hear, doesn't.
Posted by el Bow :: :: :: May 14, 2004 03:28am
:: :: May 14, 2004 03:28amHi Janet, while I appreciate your honest and sincere conviction, who are you to say what the bible is saying, as opposed to what someone thinks it is saying? I've been a Christian for most of my life. worked as a missionary (wow, which lifetime ago was that?), and even studied theology, and I am still constantly at a loss. As has been observed here by others, if the truth was really so clear, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. The nicene creed says "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible", not "boys should only love girls, and girls should only love boys". When it comes down to what we are certain of, sexuality doesn't even raise its head.
Posted by janet :: :: :: May 14, 2004 12:12pm
:: :: May 14, 2004 12:12pmThanks for your question. I'm sharing my understanding (which is guided by Martin Luther's teachings) of the Bible. I fully acknowledge that there is a lot of room for interpretation. What I hope someone will come from this discussion with is not "I'll think what Janet thinks" but "I'd like to see what the Bible actually says." I have complete trust that the truth of the scripture and the Holy Spirit will work in that person's life in the way that God has planned.
Posted by janet :: :: :: May 14, 2004 12:19pm
:: :: May 14, 2004 12:19pmThe first two paragraphs of Rick's comment (above) sum it up pretty well also.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: May 14, 2004 09:58pm
:: :: May 14, 2004 09:58pmJanet and Rick, you are the kind of people I keep in mind when I am confronted with hatemongers who call themselves Christians. You both seem to be trying to live in a truly Christian manner, and you have my respect for that. I have seen the positive things that following Christianity can do for a person; I have an appreciation for those who choose to follow their faith in a way that enhances their lives, and the lives of those around them.
My own spiritual path lies in a different direction, and the thing that frustrates me about many Christians is their inability to gracefully accept that. I have no problem with them practicing their choice of faith...all I ask is that I be allowed my own beliefs, without all the rhetoric that many ardent followers seem to feel they need to ply me with.
Janet, I would study the bible more closely, if I truly felt it was an accurate representation of the original writings. Given that it has been changed by a succession of popes and various other religious bigwigs (books left out, passages deleted, etc.) down through the centuries, I don't believe that it is any more than a compilation of teaching stories, some of which have value, some of which don't. For me it is a resource, just as are all the other books I own regarding spirituality; there are parts of it that I live daily, and there are other parts that I cannot accept or believe.
Yes Rick, I am fairly liberal, and to make matters worse, I'm a Californian! :) That's almost as bad as being Canadian, eh el bow?
My own spiritual path lies in a different direction, and the thing that frustrates me about many Christians is their inability to gracefully accept that. I have no problem with them practicing their choice of faith...all I ask is that I be allowed my own beliefs, without all the rhetoric that many ardent followers seem to feel they need to ply me with.
Janet, I would study the bible more closely, if I truly felt it was an accurate representation of the original writings. Given that it has been changed by a succession of popes and various other religious bigwigs (books left out, passages deleted, etc.) down through the centuries, I don't believe that it is any more than a compilation of teaching stories, some of which have value, some of which don't. For me it is a resource, just as are all the other books I own regarding spirituality; there are parts of it that I live daily, and there are other parts that I cannot accept or believe.
Yes Rick, I am fairly liberal, and to make matters worse, I'm a Californian! :) That's almost as bad as being Canadian, eh el bow?
Posted by el Bow :: :: :: May 15, 2004 05:37am
:: :: May 15, 2004 05:37amBunch of lumber jacks and farmers!
Posted by janet :: :: :: May 15, 2004 09:55am
:: :: May 15, 2004 09:55amRedraven you are right, your choice of faith is yours to make. Regardless of what you are told by ANYONE, Christian or other. Please take down my email address and if you ever want to bounce an idea around, or have a question, drop me a line. I will ALWAYS (in a day, week, year, whatever)be happy to hear from you. If you just want to say hello, even.
And getting an accurate representation of the original texts is of utmost importance to us too. There is unparalleled historical evidence on this topic. Contact me if you're interested.
And getting an accurate representation of the original texts is of utmost importance to us too. There is unparalleled historical evidence on this topic. Contact me if you're interested.
My feeling is that the media tends to portray these kinds of people more prevalently than any other (they sell). How many "good" Christian articles have you seen in the paper, or heard on the radio/TV lately? When we are told often enough about the scary Christians (or Muslims or rednecks or...insert whatever extremist story you can think of here), we begin to believe that those are the only types of people who exist within that particular group, since that is all we are shown.
You've raised a good question to those Christians out there who sit back and let seemingly crazy people (at least to those of us who don't follow their religion) speak for them. I'd be interested to know how they feel they can go about being more fairly represented in the media.