“Republican Jesus” a regular feature of the blog Jesus’ General takes on recent developments about Love In Action.
R
“Republican Jesus” a regular feature of the blog Jesus’ General takes on recent developments about Love In Action.
Daniel,
I know that the cartoon is intended only in humor. However as both a Republican and a Christian, I am offended by it. Rather than serve as a parody it directly attacks both my faith and my party affiliation.
Certainly there are Republican Christians that are rabidly anti-gay and support the actions of Love in Action.
But others, such as the highly respected former Senator from Missouri, John Danforth, who is an Episcopal minister (which certainly qualifies as a Christian and a Republican) are actively speaking out against anti-gay attitudes. I hate to see the efforts of individuals such as Sen. Danforth besmirched by a mean-spirited stereotyping cartoon such as the one shown.
I on the other hand thought it was hilarious although I can respect Timothy’s concern that the minority of Christians and Republicans who are gay supportive should be distinguished from the usual suspects.
I don’t see how this type of cartoon furthers the debate at all.
There are gay Republicans, Christian or otherwise, who are fighting a battle within the GOP, and there are Christians, gay and/or Republican or otherwise, who are supportive of gay rights.
Puddy
This cartoon offends my religious sensibilities.
I must now go burn down some embassies.
Timothy, (gently…)I would prefer you offered something more than being offended. I can think of a number of reasons why it is not a good idea to place such a cartoon at XGW (esp. without additional context), but the possibility that it may cause offense to Christian Republicans is not in that list. Least of all, that this red-flag-to-a-bull sort of thing will distract from far more important things we have to say.The fact is that Christian Republicans are leading anti-gay efforts in the U.S. The public Danforths of this World are few and far between. Sadly. (And I’ll add that IMO the Democrats are proving a weak and pathetic response to such Christian Republicans)Great slabs of Muslims from across the World are currently going absolutely bananas over this very issue — their offense over the publication of 12 (largely boring) cartoons (google people, that’s one link I won’t be providing!).Again, I can think of any number of reasons why such cartoons should not be published but merely offending religious sensibilities is not one of them. The simple act of being gay, let alone a couple (grantdale), is offensive to many religious types… and I’m not taking any notice of their problem with that either 🙂
“This cartoon offends my religious sensibilities.
I must now go burn down some embassies.”
No, I won’t be burning embassies. And I respect Daniel’s right to his own sense of humor and to mock whatever he likes. And certainly there is some mocking due.
However, let’s look at what makes the cartoon “funny”. If you see it as a parody of some people within the Republican Party who seem to believe that they own Jesus and that he endorses whatever tactics they use, then that’s fine, I guess.
However, I suspect that the humor is based more on taking a jab at both Christians and Republicans. It seems to be a “those guys” type of humor where the goal is to belittle the target of the humor and to laugh at his expense. It seems based on stereotypes and only funny if you dislike Christians or Republicans.
In other words, it seems to be bully humor.
For many many years gay people have been subjected to bully humor: lisping, flapping limp wrists, shreeking stereotypes all for the enjoyment of people who wanted to feel superior and mock gay people. So I’m not a big fan of bully humor.
I don’t want to seem like a wet blanket unable to laugh at myself. And there is a funny part to the cartoon. Had it depicted “jesus” talking to John Smid or Dr. Dobson or anyone active in the anti-gay movement, it would have been funny. It would be a representation of what they think Jesus says to them.
But to label it “Republican Jesus” suggests that the larger intent is not about mocking the foolishness of individuals that attribute to God their own biases, but rather the intent is partisan in nature.
There is plenty of room for partisan debate. And the current Republican Party leadership is due for much mocking. Just – I hope – not here.
I understand the relevance of the cartoon to this site (it is about LIA). But I still find it offensive.
I have to admit that I find this cartoon is rather offensive, because it frames anti-gay dominionists as the only real Christians. Most people from the left and right should stop fueling the misconception that dominionists monopolize Christianity.
Personally, I find their worldview rather unChristian and soiling the reputation of Christianity itself. It won’t be long before they’re considered fringe elements in western society (they already are in certain areas). Can’t wait for that to happen. 😀
BTW, a word that comes to mind when I hear ‘moderate’ Christians is lukewarm. Although they’re not foes, they certainly aren’t our allies.
I expect nothing from them but to sit on their arses and I certanly hope that the future does not forget about their lack of convictions.
Progressive Christians, like the United Church of Christ are the ones who are more vocal in the public arena that give us support. Problem is, many of them are seriously ignored by the mainstream media. Kudos to them.
Good gods, that’s the whole point of it. It, and all the cartoons he’s made like it, are meant to lampoon the Republicans that distort Christian teachings to fit their own world-view, or claim to be the only ‘real’ Christians. It’s an attack on neither Christianity nor Republicans, but on those sanctimonious, self-righteous prudes who wrap themselves in the Bible and attempt to use perversions of its teachings to justify every hateful thing they do.
As a Christian, I’m not offended since I believe the cartoon is about Christianists as used by Andrew Sullivan.
This doesn’t offend me as a Christian.
On the other hand the “psuedo-Christians”
that this is aimed at do offend me.
I will say though, that this really just
seems to lower us to their level.
Dear Xeno,
You say the cartoon frames “anti-gay dominionists as the only real Christians”- yes it does, because that is how they frame themselves. Additionally “Repbulican Jesus” always adovocates the things the hypocrites actually do rather than what they say, and takes their methods to the extreme, thus RJ is essentially the definition of satire, and it need not be funny to be effective, because its point comes across just fine, whether it is completely understood or not.
I visited the PatriotBoy blog (titled Jesus’ General, which should provide some indication of where this guy is coming from) to try to provide some much needed context for this. I found the author to have an even narrower perspective than those he presumably wishes to mock.
Timothy said:
There is plenty of room for partisan debate. And the current Republican Party leadership is due for much mocking. Just – I hope – not here.
Indeed. Placement here just seems to have brought controversy without substance, though I doubt that was Daniel’s purpose.
David
Holy Moly (emphasis on Holy, not)
Seems as if Xeno is the only person to understand the purpose of JesusGeneral.
`The General and his loyal cadre care more about human rights than any didactic site that I can think of. The very ironic letters that he posts every day are actually sent to the person in the salutation. Follow the links to the expressed opinions of those hypocritical frauds and, or, idiots who spew the nonsense that SO MANY take as gospel. For those here unacquainted with sites like Betty Bowers, Whitehouse.org, and their spinoffs, I suggest you visit them to find the same humor that Jesus General does on a daily basis.
‘
The name Jesus General is of the ‘Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching Off to War’ variety. Republican Jesus appears irregularly but exists to lampoon LIA and its ilk.
The entire enterprise is state the lie to expose the lie.
That said, there is the very sober Operation Yellow Elephant which has its own site that the General started last year. It is not satire. It is deadly serious, deadly being the operative word. People other than the General maintain that battlefield.
‘
There is no doubt, from what I have read here this morning, that the politics of patriotboy and Operation Yellow Elephant will be anathema. That does not negate the intentions and methods of the people involved.
`
This is theater, fellas. I say, Bravo!
I find it fascinating that not one of you has commented on the subject of the cartoon, Love in Action. It’s kind of like if Daniel posted a photo of “Sparky” (the wired-up Abu Ghraib prisoner) and you all commented on the lighting and composition of the photograph.
Any comments from you Ex-Gay Watch fans on an organization whose definition of “love” is more akin to decent people’s definition of “imprisonment and maltreatment”?
Just curious…
Posted by: toots at February 7, 2006 10:49 AM
I got it when I read over the site toots – my opinion remains the same. If you think the guy has some grand, brilliant strategy for exposing lies and illustrating truth, you are entitled to that opinion. In my experience sites like that do more to inhibit open dialog than to inspire it. They amuse some and inflame others.
JillK said:
I find it fascinating that not one of you has commented on the subject of the cartoon, Love in Action. It’s kind of like if Daniel posted a photo of “Sparky” (the wired-up Abu Ghraib prisoner) and you all commented on the lighting and composition of the photograph.
We have discussed LIA here ad nauseum. It’s an important subject but what new information does this graphic bring to the table that we should discuss?
David
addendum:
I find it fascinating that not one of you has commented on the subject of the cartoon, Love in Action. It’s kind of like if Daniel posted a photo of “Sparky” (the wired-up Abu Ghraib prisoner) and you all commented on the lighting and composition of the photograph.
This further illustrates my point. There are some pretty intelligent people on this blog and yet this graphic hasn’t inspired conversation among them on what I suppose was it’s intended target. Don’t blame the audience 😉
David
For those who are offended by the cartoon:
You should know that this isn’t the only guy to come up with an idea of “Republican Jesus”. Al Franken has a comic in one of his books about “Trickle-Down Jesus” and his take on poverty; in the end of the story, Trickle-Down Jesus is released (ala Barabbas) and Jesus of Nazareth is crucified. In his recent album “Mockingbird”, Derek Webb (a prominent Christian musician) sings, “There are two great lies I have heard / . . . / and that Jesus Christ was a white, middle class Republican / and if you want to be saved you’ve gotta learn / to be like him.” The point here is not to insult Christianity or Republicanism (well, maybe Republicanism). As someone who is staunchly Christian and, on most issues, conservative as well, I think anything that causes us to think more critically about who Jesus REALLY was and what his take would be on certain issues is vital. What the anti-gay religious crowd refuses to ask is: If de-gayification requires prozac, humiliation, and handcuffs, is it something that Jesus would actually promote? These are important questions, and they need to be asked.
“Rather than serve as a parody it directly attacks both my faith and my party affiliation.” – Timothy Kincaid
Umm, I think that is exactly what a parody is SUPPOSED to do. :-/
Timothy, one of the main platforms of the Republican Party is supposed “morality”. Their definition of morality means that gay people should not be afforded the same rights as every other American. To them, morality says if you are gay, then you have a disease, which can be cured.
It is commendable that there are those willing to remain republican in an effort to change the party line, but I am afraid that the republican position on homosexuality in general is not going to change any time soon. But good luck with that, anyway.
“Don’t blame the audience ;-)” – David
Don’t blame the messenger.
John said:
I am afraid that the republican position on homosexuality in general is not going to change any time soon.
And what exactly are the Democrats doing for us? DOMA? From what I have seen, on this subject, members of both parties say what they must to please their constituents at the moment and then actually do nothing or worse.
Don’t blame the messenger.
I don’t, I dispute there is much of a message to begin with.
David
Timothy–just wondering, why do you choose to be Republican? This is not an attack, but the Republican party uses gays as a weapon. I am just wondering what about the party would be so effective to make one ignore this.
Posted by: Aaron at February 7, 2006 05:50 PM
Ditto for me, Timothy, I sure didn’t see that one coming.
I have news for all the Christians who believe that it is a warping of what the Bible says that leads to anti-homosexual attitudes. The Bible actively condemns homosexual relations between men, REPEATEDLY!
Leviticus
22 ” ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
I Corinthians
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Some Christians believe they can pick and chose what to believe from the Bible, but if some of it is wrong (from a moral standpoint, take slavery as an example) then why would any of the rest of it be right?
That Christianity is by definition an oppressive and intolerant religion is commonly ignored by many Christians. The only verse many Christians speak of is John 3:16 because it sounds so nice and loving. The rest of the Bible is not! Really read it, instead of listening to priests and ministers interpret it for you.
Anon, oh well I guess I’ll just have to not be “a Christian”.That was easy to deal with.Do you have any comments regarding the Bible’s approving words about slavery? Or women having to marry their rapist?(remember: you’re not allowed to pick and chose.)
Why am I a Republican? Because I’m an accountant.
No. That’s a glib response I save for idiots at cocktail parties.
We find it is often difficult to understand why anyone would make a choice other than the ones we make. Why would someone choose to live in some state that votes an anti-gay constitutional amendment? Or attend a Catholic church? Or associate with parents that won’t let them bring a same-sex spouse to Thanksgiving Dinner? Or try to live as heterosexual when all of your affections and desires are toward the same sex?
Or, why would you choose a lifestyle that is full of AIDS, promiscuity, drag-queens, leather men, and anti-god activists?
Or, why am I a Republican?
The answer to these questions is all the same: because life is complex, stereotypes are not an indicator of actual circumstances, and there are factors other than those that have been brought up.
I am a Republican – at present, in any case – for a number of reasons, some encouraging me to stay a Republican and some discouraging me from becoming a Democrat.
History
My family was not political and I wasn’t aware of their party registration (I later found out my father was Republican and my mother Democrat) though they did encourage voting and civil participation. Ironically, the reason I was unaware of their registration was because my father was a pastor of a church and felt that if it was known it might unduly influence church members.
My initial decision was made when I first registered at age 18. I looked at what I valued and registered with the party that most aligned with that view. And at that time, the Republican Party was championing individuality and fiscal responsibility. The Democrat Party was in favor of collective care and equalizing (redistributing) wealth.
In college, I became involved in College Republicans and made my first gay friends (the same group). Later I was active for several years in Log Cabin Republicans.
The Party
It is tempting to view the Republican Party as a monolith, homogenous and virulently anti-gay. And it is tempting to see the Democrat Party as supportive of gay equality. But life isn’t so simple and neither is that label.
I agree that overall, the Republican Party has been more in opposition to equality for gay people and that the Democrat Party has been more favorable. Yet we all know that while this may hold in general, it isn’t true in specific. Often times geographic region or economic strata is more important than party. A Massachusetts Republican is going to vote for equality more than a West Virginia Democrat. A white-collar Republican is going to support us more often than a blue-collar Democrat.
I live in a state where the legislative Republicans are generally heinous (though it’s only fairly recent that gerrymandering has left us with only extreme right and extreme left politicians). Yet often local elected officials are wildly supportive.
For example, Richard Riordan, a Catholic Republican, was the mayor of Los Angeles from 93 to 01. It would be difficult to find anyone before or since who was as inclusive and supporting of our community. And though reviled for vetoing a gay-marriage bill, Arnold Schwarzenegger has been a strong ally for gay equality, certainly far more supportive than was Democrat Grey Davis.
I live in a county in which the Republican Central Committee came within a one-person vote of disavowing the National Republican Party Platform over an anti-gay position. In an election year.
I see occasional Republicans across the nation who stand up for equality. And even if they may not be in the majority in their party, sometimes we win a vote when a handful of Republicans joins with a majority of Democrats to defeat some bill with evil intent.
So I see supportive Republicans. But what about the Democrats? Yes, I see even more support. But I also see betrayal. I see votes made where a gay supportive position is couched in a way to guarantee a veto. Where the end goal is to make the Republican look like a troglodyte, rather than to advance equality. And I see the gay establishment forgive Democrats for anti-gay votes (because of their constituency, you see) and denounce Republicans for less.
And while I know that the Democrats are collectively more supportive on our issues, this doesn’t encourage me to join them.
The Future
I believe that as long as gay equality is a party-line position, we will accomplish little. Democrats will make unfulfilled promises, and Republicans will denounce us. And no one will truly try to see behind the “hot button issue” and realize we’re talking about people.
But if the partisan issue can be overcome, then the issues have to be discussed. Truly debated. And not in terms of “those liberals who are undermining the country”.
And it is happening. Slowly, but it is happening.
And what’s driving the change is more people coming out and the shifting of the stereotype. Bosses in big businesses (read Republican) are recognizing that their valued personnel manager is a lesbian or their head of finance is gay. So they are opposing laws that hurt the people they value. They also see that diversity and tolerance are beneficial for business.
There are Republican legislators who attend their Legislative Aid’s wedding and get all choked and find themselves questioning their anti-marriage vote. Or people patiently sitting down with their Republican representative and being a face – just some Mom with kids trying to have a good life with her spouse, attending church, PTA, and hoping for some health insurance. It works.
And there are still the libertarian minded Republicans who are just now starting to fight back. And organize (finally, thank God).
So while it is still possible that the right wing of the Party may be able to drive off the tolerant, individual-freedom, low-taxes, small-government, wing of the Party and turn it into an arm of the Catholic/Baptist Church, that’s not what I foresee for the long run.
But the party will cease to move in any supportive direction unless there are gay people at the table making sure that they hear our side. Someone’s gotta do it.
But Why Me?
Because I disagree with much of the economic principles of the Democrat Party. And because I disagree with the collective big-government concept that centralized control is best. And because I disagree with the Democrat Party’s general attitude about national defense.
But that isn’t to say that some day I won’t look at my party and say “I’d rather live in an economically unsound centralized economy and be safe as a gay man, than live in Jesusland.” But I have not yet had to make that decision and if my projections are correct, I won’t have to.
One Last Caveat
The current administration has none of the qualities I like about the Republican Party and all of the qualities I like least about the Democrat Party. Bush spends like a drunken sailor, has a foreign policy that believes the least you know about what you’re doing the better, thinks fear of terrorists justifies spying on citizens without judicial oversight, and has built the biggest central government since FDR.
I’m not one of those who is an apologist for my party. Nor do I vote for someone campaigning to change the Constitution to exclude me (nor was I hesitant to say so on national television).
My hope is that the Republican people will get fed up with the Republican Party Leadership and get back to what they used to stand for. If not, I won’t be the only one bailing on them.
grantdale,
anon isn’t anti-gay. S/he’s anti-Christian.
For God’s sake, people: it’s a fucking CARTOON. Don’t you have better things to get upset about????
Timothy — well, it worked 🙂 ha ha haAnd jeepers, what a doozy of a testimony there. Your fingers must be aching.And a good reason for staying in is the same many Catholic collegues use — if you leave, you leave the organisation to the enemy. Stay and fight.
Timothy said:
My hope is that the Republican people will get fed up with the Republican Party Leadership and get back to what they used to stand for. If not, I won’t be the only one bailing on them.
My sentiments as well. That was very eloquent and, except for the part about getting politically active in school, it’s pretty much my story as well. Whenever I take those stupid political quizzes I always end up strongly Libertarian but of the two viable parties, Republicans come closest to that. I honestly wish we did have a viable Libertarian party but I don’t see anything like that happening in my lifetime.
As for the odd comments from unknowns in this thread, I think we are getting some of the backwash from the link at the Patriot Boy (aka Jesus’ General) blog. It’s uncharacteristic of most comments on XGW if anyone else comes across this. In fact, it might be best just to delete some of them.
David
Good God David. You’re Gay. The Republicans despise you. They use hatred against you as a campaign tool–it’s how they motivate their base. Why would you sell your soul for a tax cut?
Even if I were Republican and/or Christian, which I am not, I would hope that I would have the good grace and perspective to be a thousand time more offended by what happened to this child, which no doubt inspired this cartoon, than by the cartoon itself.
https://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=4453761
Wasn’t Jesus said to hate people who separate children from him…?
patriotboy said:
Good God David. You’re Gay. The Republicans despise you. They use hatred against you as a campaign tool–it’s how they motivate their base. Why would you sell your soul for a tax cut?
Concerning my statements about the narrow perspective of the author of “Jesus’ General”, I rest my case.
David
Jayelle said:
Even if I were Republican and/or Christian, which I am not, I would hope that I would have the good grace and perspective to be a thousand time more offended by what happened to this child, which no doubt inspired this cartoon, than by the cartoon itself.
I for one didn’t say it offended me, simply that it would not lead to any reasonable debate. But as a point of fact, have you noticed any lack of serious and heart felt discussion here about the LIA issue, all before this inane graphic was posted? Have you noticed any of that discussion here in this thread as a response to that posting? No?
The guy has his shtick and that’s fine; I just don’t think it works well here.
David
Timothy
I’m not anti-Christian anymore than I’m anti-anything that doesn’t hurt me. It’s that people vote for candidates they know will hurt their own personal interests because of Jesus and what the Bible says. If you are working class and you support the Republicans for any reason, you deserve what you get. Unfortunately, you drag the rest of us down with you.
If you are gay and you believe in Jesus and you’re a Christian, how do you rectify your sexual orientation with the fact that the Bible says you’re going to hell? Jesus said simply thinking lustful thoughts about someone who isn’t your spouse was a sin. Therefore, all you have to do is lust after someone of the same sex to commit a sin, even if you don’t act on it.
I really am curious about that last point if anyone would like to answer.
Anonymous said, “If you are gay and you believe in Jesus and you’re a Christian, how do you rectify your sexual orientation with the fact that the Bible says you’re going to hell? Jesus said simply thinking lustful thoughts about someone who isn’t your spouse was a sin. Therefore, all you have to do is lust after someone of the same sex to commit a sin, even if you don’t act on it.”
Well the same goes for straight people, too. All straight folks have to do is think of someone lustfully and they sin, according to the passage. If you’re straight and you believe in Jesus and you’re a Christian, how do you rectify the fact that any sin has the potential for sending you to hell? You point to Jesus and the fact that he’s taken the punishment for you. No different for gays, whether you believe that the Bible condemns being gay or not. It also condemns many other things that people (straight people) do all the time.
That’s why there’s the concept of grace and what Jesus did on the cross (in the Christian worldview). Straights are no different than gays on this matter.
And those passages that folks think condemn same-sex relationships in reality condemn something very different. There’s lots of research that’s been done on this (for example, see truthsetsfree.net).
Jayelle at February 8, 2006 12:52 AM
You make a good point.
Anonymous at February 8, 2006 10:10 AM
In general I don’t converse anonymously and would recommend that if you wish to participate here you establish an identity. We’re a bit of a community and it’s easier to understand a post if we know the writer and their style and perspective.
However…
I don’t intend on debating theology. I’ll tell you the two-second version of my beliefs. If you disagree, fine. Quoting Scripture at me on a website isn’t going to change me:
I believe that mankind is no longer subject to the Law of Sin and Death. Meaning that the old contract between God and Man (as a collective community) has been fulfilled and replaced with a relationship based contract. We are all “sinners” in the sense that sin is simply not being all that we could be – it is the human state of falling short of God’s perfection (original sin); i.e. Knowing to do good and doing it not.
I believe a focus on “sin” takes the focus off God and leads a person to seek a life by rules rather than by relationship. This is an aspect of children and immaturity – if you watch children at play, their games tend to have lots and lots of rules. As we mature, we discover that the purpose behind rules is more important than the rule itself. Rather than bedtime because it’s the rule, we have a bedtime because we know that we have to get up in the morning. And if there are mitigating circumstances, such as working swing shift, we know that the bedtime for others may not be relevant to us – because we apply the purpose rather than the rule.
This seems to me to be the heart of Jesus’ two commandments which he said were the basis (the purpose) for all other commandments: love God and treat your neighbor right. If there seems to be conflict between a “sin” rule and the “treat your neighbor right” commandment, the later has to prevail.
Thus, it isn’t particularly relevant to me whether on not something is “a sin” (I’m not even sure that something can be “a” sin, but may instead be sinful or an aspect of imperfection). And while the sin rule about homosexuality may apply to 95% of the population, it may not be relevant to the other 5%.
Throughout the New Testament (the new contract) there seems to be an understanding that there were things permissable to some that would cause others to stumble. And that those who had freedom were to be courteous to those who were still bound by the fear of “sin”. I try to be, as best I can.
I hope I’ve answered your question. If not, I’m sorry. But I have no desire to convert you. So you can believe what you like, but this is what I believe.
By the way, I’m not inviting challenges to my beliefs, so let’s not debate who’s right. I’m simply telling you what I believe. Your perspective and understanding may take you elsewhere, and that’s perfectly fine.
It does intrigue me how people could read about the unfortunate young man who inspired this cartoon, and remain unmoved, yet wax wroth about the cartoon itself.
Reminds me of Ambrose Bierce’s “Arma Virumque”
“OURS is a Christian army”; so he said
A regiment of bangomen who led.
“And ours a Christian navy,” added he
Who sailed a thunder-junk upon the sea.
Better they know than men unwarlike do
What is an army, and a navy too.
Pray God there may be sent them by-and-by
The knowledge what a Christian is, and why.
For somewhat lamely the conception runs
Of a brass-buttoned Jesus firing guns.
Who says people have remained unmoved? This isn’t the only place to discuss what’s gone on…
This “unfortunate young man” (indeed…I can’t imagine being 17 and going through what he’s gone through) has been discussed here in other places and on other blogs by many people participating here.
I’m not saying that people have remained unmoved by the original problem, just saying that this cartoon may not have deserved the response it got, and that there are much greater injustices. This is a counter-attack, really.
Anonymous said:
I really am curious about that last point if anyone would like to answer.
Since you invited other replies, I will add this. I think you have actually come to the conclusion that God wanted you to in some respects – it is impossible to obey the law and not sin by depending on one’s own strength and will. This was the ultimate point of the Law (Ten Commandments), to build the foundation or model of salvation through faith which would ultimately be fulfilled by Jesus’ own sacrifice. When Jesus expounded on the commandment against adultery (to use your example), he was explaining that even if one could keep the commandments, it wouldn’t make any difference because God sees your inner intent and even lusting for another is the same as adultery to Him. This isn’t because God is so strict, but because all sin is intolerable to a Holy God – he doesn’t rate them as little or big. This illustrated the futility of just “trying to be a good person” (salvation by works) and established the need for us to have faith in the only sacrifice that could atone for that sin – all of it.
I would agree with Timothy in that, if one is concentrating on avoiding sin as the primary focus of one’s life, then where is the faith? Then again, the Bible is specific about avoiding the idea that we can continue to habitually sin just because God has forgiven us. My experience has been that the desire to sin fades as God becomes more important in one’s life. And prayer is a good way for us to admit to ourselves, and to God, that we have made mistakes, wronged others, etc. and that we are aware of it.
I tried to keep that as condensed as possible and still answer your question. This looks like a decent summary of the subject if you want to read further. I would like to add that if I were convinced that God considered homosexual relationships a sin, I would abstain from those relationships. I am quite sure I wouldn’t try to become straight because I know the futility of that, but God is honestly more important to me. Now it is my understanding and belief that God does not consider those relationships sinful, but I believe that stance is part of the answer to your question.
David
Jayelle, I was responding to Robert, not to you. But you both are right that there’s more important things to spend our time discussing….
I’m posting with a name. Formerly I posted as anon.
I would just like to thank those who replied with honesty and well articulated thoughts to my question about being homosexual and Christian. I do appreciate it.
Zelda
Welcome, Zelda (nee anon)
“I have news for all the Christians who believe that it is a warping of what the Bible says that leads to anti-homosexual attitudes. The Bible actively condemns homosexual relations between men, REPEATEDLY!”
So, exactly where in the Bible does it say that gay people should be ostracized from society and not afforded the same rights as everyone else?
Point being, whether you think homosexuality is “wrong” or not really doesnt matter. Especially if you are a Christian, because if you are a Christian, then you know that it is not your place to judge your fellow human beings – that’s God’s job and God’s alone.
I am a republican, and I think the republican jesus cartoon is hilarious.