Citing the Pew Forum, Newsweek writes that views about hot-button issues are cooling somewhat on evangelical campuses, including those about homosexuality.
Young evangelicals are far more accepting of gay and lesbian lifestyles than their parents are: 34 percent of evangelicals between 18 and 29 think homosexuality “should be accepted,” compared with 24 percent of those from 50 to 64…
As I reflect on the recent firing of a friend from his job at a conservative Christian school because he is gay and in a monogamous relationship, I can’t help but hope this change accelerates.
As George Will recently said, “Certain social problems tend to go away as generations go away.”
sigh. Thank you for this. I hope so too. They didnt even know about the BF. It was simply because I am gay.
at least the things we are doing are helping to hasten the day of acceptance.
I’ve listed 10 evidences that things have changed on my blog if your readers are interested…….including a mention of ex-gay watch.
https://alifeofunlearning.blogspot.com/2008/07/celebrating-our-future.html
So that’s what happened to Pomo. Poor guy.
I’m with you. I hope things keep changing, and the sooner the better.
First they questioned what the Bible said about slavery.
Then they questioned what the Bible said about women.
Now they are questioning what they think the Bible says about homosexuality.
When will they question whether it is possible for a book to that was written by human beings (I mean men) to be the word of God?
Christine said,
I questioned it and then, over time, concluded that the Bible is not the word of a god.
I’m no longer a believer, but when I was, I understood the Bible as the word of God in words of men. The concept of divine inspiration doesn’t have to mean divine dictation. It can mean that God led human authors to true insights about himself, but the authors expressed those insights through their own personal, cultural, and historial perspective.
The biblical authors accepted the view of their times and culture on slavery, women’s rights, and homosexuality. We just need to separate their core message from their historical limitations.
Nick C.
An excellent way to state that! Amen!
I recently read Chris Hedge’s new book, I Don’t Believe in Atheists, where he aptly pointed out that humanity is not progressing toward a peaceful utopia–secualr or religious– because, he says, humanity is fatally flawed with its animal nature (in other words, original sin). When I read the statistics that young evangelical christians are becoming increasingly tolerant of gay people, I hope for a Star Trekkian future somewhere far down the road, but living in Idaho, I often despair. Here they hurl Bible passages at me unthinkingly, and when I respond logically and reasonably, they compare me to a murderer and a thief. I have been lurking on this website for a couple of years now, and the information I’ve obtained from it has been very helpful in my own coming-out process. I’m glad you guys are here.
Ron,
I got a good laugh out of this. You might consider moving to another galaxy, or at least, state.
If you do decide to move to another state, Ron, hurry through Utah and then onto Nevada. I understand there is a Trekkie adventure at the Las Vegas Hilton Hotel that might come close to your utopian desire. But I sympathize with you. I had a rather âChildren of the Cornâ feeling in Blackfoot, Idaho one time I visited the County Fair there. Really!
Pomo, I am sorry about what you’ve dealt with.
I too really hope this trend accelerates.
I recently read Chris Hedgeâs new book, I Donât Believe in Atheists, where he aptly pointed out that humanity is not progressing toward a peaceful utopiaâsecualr or religiousâ because, he says, humanity is fatally flawed with its animal nature (in other words, original sin).
While the part about humanity having an animal nature is true, what Hedge doesn’t realize is that our technology is progressing toward a future that can minimize or even remove unwanted traits, of not only new generations, but of existing ones as well. This is the very essence of transhumanism: to build a better future by intrinsically changing humanity itself rather than only its environment. The future would look more like Orion’s Arm than Star Trek.
It is not common for non-human animals to engage in coordinated mass slaughter of their own species, nor to kill other species for reasons other than competition for food, nor to mandate belief in elaborate lies about reality.
Furthermore, there are few non-human species (locusts?) that strip the earth of resources on a scale remotely comparable to humankind.
It seems to me that we would be much better off if we paid closer attention to our animal natures and less attention to the sadistic, insane, and irrational ideologies of certain religious power blocs. Let’s not forget that some rich and powerful religious-rightists — both Christian and Islamic — desire the destruction of the Earth through their political allies’ deliberate fulfillment of apocalyptic “prophecy.”
I’m glad that some evangelicals are waking up the fraud and oppression that has been perpetrated against them by bigots who claim to speak for God.
Dear Folks:
Bear in mind that this kind of a poll could simply be further evidence of cultural accommodation on the part of those who claim to be Biblically-centred. I know that you probably have made up your minds that what Scripture says about homosexual practice is contextually limited, or just plain incorrect, but bear in mind that a generation who can disbelieve that homosexual practice is wrong, can also disbelieve that the love command is right.
Nevertheless, grace to you all, in the Lord Jesus Christ…
Is it just me or is Mr. MacKenzie making the claim that the act of extending tolerance is detrimental to one’s beliefs?
Hello again. My point is that the term “accepting” can mean a lot of things, and not necessarily all of them are positive. Accepting can mean a generation that is simply disengaged from the “hot button” issues of the day because they “really can’t be bothered”– which may point more to dispassionate apathy, and neither benevolence, nor tolerance, nor charity at all.
Grace to you all, in the Lord Jesus Christ,
David
I will settle for accepting as in not trying to legislate my life to be more difficult to live than yours (assuming you are heterosexual). I might also settle for it meaning that, by no longer fueling the fires of hate, nor giving tacit support to the idea that gays are less than human, my life might be just a little bit safer in the future.
I’ll be honest with you, David, I don’t care for passive aggressive jabs which each end with “Grace to you all, in the Lord Jesus Christ.” It has a tone of insincerity that simply causes more people to believe in plastic Christianity. And to posit that greater acceptance might be akin to discarding the command to love is just incredibly sad and more than a bit ironic.
Accepting can mean a generation that is simply disengaged from the âhot buttonâ issues of the day because they âreally canât be botheredââ which may point more to dispassionate apathy, and neither benevolence, nor tolerance, nor charity at all.
I was out with a bunch of new friends last night, and during the talking about relationships, they asked me what kind of guys I was in to. When I proceeded to out myself and ended up mentioning I was single, their immediate reaction was to try to think of which of their gay friends they could set me up with.
It’s not apathy.
âReally canât be botheredâ may not sound like a great moral advance, but it may well be the beginning of one.
For example, the instinct for cruelty towards those who are smaller or younger than us, or different from us, is one of the unpleasant traits that is particularly common in childhood. Although I canât remember myself ever participating in physical bullying, I do still remember at the age of 10, with a friend, being gratuitously nasty to a sweet little boy of about 6 or 7 whose family had just moved in next door to my aunt. Why? We wanted to see if we could make him cry. I also remember at about the same age ganging up with others at school on a new boy who had arrived in the middle of the school term. A couple of years later I would never have done such things, not so much because I had taken stock of myself and had resolved to reform, as because I simply couldnât be bothered behaving like that any more. A bit later still, of course, I came to a full realisation of how morally despicable the behaviour was, and even now, decades later, I feel ashamed when I recall it.
While behaviour of this kind in children should be always be corrected, we should worry far more about adults who still display a similar mentality â who have still not learnt âthe grown-up emotionsâ, as Agatha Christie put it in one of her novels.
In the same way, simply âcanât be botheredâ to discriminate against or to harass LGBT people, or to pry into their private lives, represents an important first stage in a general moral and social growing up. By the grace of God, may it continue.
Dear Mr. Roberts:
Re: “Iâll be honest with you, David, I donât care for passive aggressive jabs which each end with âGrace to you all, in the Lord Jesus Christ.â It has a tone of insincerity that simply causes more people to believe in plastic Christianity.”
I’ve never been to this site before, and (granted) I am a heterosexual, but when I say “Grace to you, in Christ Jesus” I want you to know I mean what I say. It’s not some trifle or platitude to me, for the record. We all desperately need grace…
If I were to speak plainly, and thereby hopefully avoid the epithet of “passive aggression”, I would simply say that I have observed within the evangelical community a danger of going shallower, not deeper. Have you not witnessed this? Hence, when I warn folks that “accepting” may not be all that positive, I’m quite serious. You may choose to see it as positive, and that would be understandable from your point of view, but a general acceptance of certain trends may also indicate a growing sexual indifference, which while practical to your cause, may not be as positive as one might think.
I’ve seen the opposite of indifference in my community. Rather, it is inclusion. My non-gay friends are just as concerned with my safety when it comes to sexual intimacy and relationships as they are with their straight friends. It’s not that they’re indifferent to the fact that I’m gay. Like Boo, they are indeed interested that I find someone special. Should I lead a life of ultimately unfulfilling cruising, they would probably show their concern at my dissatisfaction with life. Other than the gender of the person I’m being intimate with, they are anything but indifferent about who I involve myself with.
I think that the simple fact that I would be intimate with someone of my own gender – no matter how faithful, monogamous, and wholesome the relationship might be perceived by an observer – is the true threat to opposition – a threat I will never ever truly understand.
David MacKenzie said:
There is no data here to support that conclusion so perhaps it is more telling of your own outlook than those who were surveyed. Again, however, even such a hypothetical trend would be helpful to those who are marginalized by the hatred not so thinly veiled by many in the church and pseudo-church organizations up to this point.
If you want to know what those young evangelicals might be responding to, just take a look here, and here, and here. Far from speaking out against these deranged groups, they are supported by the Church — if not publicly then privately. I don’t know you so perhaps you are not in agreement with such things, but that is something you will need to prove with words and deeds.
Until then, don’t be surprised that new generations are not prepared to join in such witch hunts. In my own experience, many have been ripped from their faith by the likes of those mentioned above. Does that bother you?
I grew up in the evangelical movement, eventually becoming pro-gay rights and actively advocating that position at my former evangelical school (Grove City College). I’d like to say those beliefs are common, but I still have yet to meet another pro-gay rights evangelical, and I live in the Northeast. I have met some people who are more open to gay rights than previous generations. I think there’s also a big divide between educated evangelicals and non-educated individuals within the evangelical community, with the latter being somewhat more likely to opposse gay rights.
I don’t know what to make of Mr. Mackenzie’s statements. It’s been my observation that evangelicals who opposse gay rights don’t exactly suffer much. On the other hand, I was kicked out of my college for my stance on homosexuality (there’s nothing an evangelical college hates more than a straight evangelical supporting gay rights). On the other hand, I would admit that evangelicalism is increasingly trying to market itself as “extreme”, “radical”, and “trendy”. Hence all the preachers lining up to support Bono. I’d even agree that some of the theology coming out of the more pro-gay rights parts of evangelicalism – such as the Emergent church – is relatively shallow on some issues, though not on gay rights. But that is a problem with evangelicalism, not with the LGBT community.
I do know that many evangelicals are being turned off by the homophobic rhetoric coming out of the religious right. I left evangelicalism because of it. Considering evangelicalism’s continueing problem accepting the mentally ill, the other community most oppressed by the church, I am not sanguine about the chances for a rapprochament between the LGBT community and evangelicalism. As is shown by the recent tragedies at Mercy Ministries in Australia, the church is always willing to make a buck off the suffering of the mentally ill and the LGBT community ( this time by exorcising demons out of both groups).
Dear Mr. Roberts:
From your practical, political point-of-view, you’re probably right. Even apathy, if it serves the advancement of a cause, still serves it.
And you’re also right about this:
But one question I would have of you, and others, at this site is this? Is it POSSIBLE for me to disagree with you (even adamantly) and NOT be accused of hatred? Without any doubt in my mind, that one word is thrown around far too cheaply and easily these days…
Grace to you, in the Lord Jesus Christ,
(Pastor) David MacKenzie
That depends. What would you expect from an African American (or any reasonable person) in return for your adamant belief that he and all others of his race are inferior or evil? And how do you expect that same person to respond if that “sincere belief” led you to vote against any number of key rights he didn’t yet enjoy, or further, to actively promote that his gaining such rights would be the downfall of our society as a whole? You see, too many use their “beliefs” to justify all that and much, much more.
Speaking for myself only, I count among my friends some people who sincerely understand scripture to mean that intimate same-sex relationships are always sinful. However, these people do not campaign against my rights nor do they see it as a core issue — certainly not a salvation issue. Generally, they see it as one might see divorce and remarriage, something one must work out personally with God and not eligible for their judgment.
So in order to properly respond, I think we need to know more about what you mean by “disagree” and especially the “even adamantly” part. And for the sake of this discussion, let’s agree to skip what I anticipate will be an objection to my race analogy. You may not agree, but you asked the question, and that analogy is my best way of conveying the response you asked for.
I find it so interesting that people who would advocate discrimination against gay people hate when they are called on the advocacy of hatred and discrimination. They hate to be referred to as bigots or homophobes as well. I guess on some level they aren’t very prould of their own hateful actions.
Also, nobody would expect a Jewish person to refrain from calling a bigot on their ant-semetism, but gays are somehow expected to politely hold their tongue while others work diligently to deny equal rights to gay people. What planet do these folks come from?
Mr. MacKenzie, my perception is that you view the increasing tolerance of GLBT people by younger Evangelicals to be a negative. In the process of presenting your viewpoint you have not only condescendingly warned GLBT people not to get their hopes up, but have maligned the character of younger Evangelicals by claiming they must be apathetic or shallow because they have a ‘live and let live’ approach to GLBT people. You raised a concern that the evangelical community is not ‘going deeper’. Given the backdrop of what you’ve said, it seems to me that you are equating the current resistance to recognizing the rights of GLBT people as ‘going deeper’. To put it another way, you seem to be saying it is the evangelical community’s religious duty to make sure GLBT people are marginalized. With this in mind, how can you then act as if this discussion involves nothing more than a difference of opinion?
John:
If you’ve ever run into a person who quickly says “anti-semite” just because someone got critical of Israeli foreign (or domestic) policy, then you’ll know what I mean when I say the words “hatred” or “homophobia” are used far too easily and often when it comes to this issue, as well.
David:
Hmmmm… this whole block-quoting thing is not working for me…. With respect to your comment: “Speaking for myself only, I count among my friends some people who sincerely understand scripture to mean that intimate same-sex relationships are always sinful.”
You can list me under the same category as those friends whom you have– that would be accurate enough. However, I am more “up-front” than some who may privatize the entire issue. For some folks obviously prefer to shy away from anything that may seem controversial or potentially confrontational.
Grace to you, in Christ Jesus,
David MacKenzie
PW: Obviously, some opinions carry implications. Hence, what people choose to believe is critically important. But just so I’m clear, what is your top 5 list (top 3?) of the ways in which GLBT folks are marginalized?
Grace to you, in Christ,
David MacKenzie
You are making a flawed assumption here that the reason people, for instance those I mentioned earlier with whom I am friends, don’t join in with the chorus of strong and open judgment is because they want to timidly avoid any subject that is controversial. By doing so, you have covertly inserted another false dichotomy into the discussion, mainly that there is your way (up-front, strong) and there is the other way (uninvolved, weak). This view fits well with your initial passive-aggressive statement (which I think PW has expanded upon well).
Even if you don’t realize you are doing it, this is just the sort of thinking which leads to the judgmental attitudes we have been discussing. I’m curious, would you be equally as “up-front” with an individual who had divorced and remarried? For example, would you denounce their lives as sinful, their current marriage illegitimate and adulterous?
PS: I may remark on your question to PW tomorrow, but in reference to that, did you look at the websites I linked to in this comment? Reviewing some of the content there, particularly those things which they lobby against, will give you a good start.
Wow David! You’ve certainly have some “hot buttons”. Do you not even see words like “may” in much of my commentary?
I’m not commenting on your friends; I don’t know your friends. I simply observe that (just like there May be many reasons why some evangelicals MAY appear to be more “accepting”), there MAY also be many reasons why some are more silent. And not all of them are healthy.
Grace to you, in Christ,
David MacKenzie
David MacKenzie said:
Yes, here again is the quote from your statement to which I referred:
I don’t see how “may” does what you imply in that statement. Looking back over the statement as a whole, I think I understood your meaning well, and even conceded that you may not be aware of the effect. This is your idea of a hot button response? If so, it’s a good thing you landed on XGW, it’s pretty rough out there, lol.
David, it’s not really possible to have an honest exchange if you continue to dodge my questions. I’ve answered yours as best I can, yet you have avoided most of mine. It also makes what should be a simple discussion quite tedious as we cover the same ground while I try to obtain those answers.
To repeatedly ignore the questions of others in the discussion is disrespectful, so we ask people to try to avoid that. With that in mind, would you look back over my last couple of comments and try to respond?
You can start with:
and go up. Thanks.
David MacKenzie wrote: “Obviously, some opinions carry implications. Hence, what people choose to believe is critically important. But just so Iâm clear, what is your top 5 list (top 3?) of the ways in which GLBT folks are marginalized?”
Here are a few:
1) The assumption that somehow homosexuality is a sin apart from all others. The passages in the bible that allegedly condemn it are far from clear– either as prohibitions or condemnations. Yet to hear evangelicals talk, you would think that there is no other sin. This is tearing apart a number of churches, with gay people (in the anti-gay churches) being pushed as far to the margins as they can be. Jimmy Swaggart, the prostitute banger, said “It’s the worst sin.’ On what scriptural basis, Jimmy, or was it strictly financial. And you might try searching out Sally Kern on this very website. I’m glad she “loves” me in her extra-special Christian way. As a cancer on society, that makes me feel GOOD.
2) I married my boyfriend a week ago, and in two months, my marriage may be over. Religious rhetoric fuels the anti gay movements in every way. The bulk of the money and motivation to fund CA’s anti-marriage initiative comes from religious conservatives and churches. We are called a threat to marriage, a threat to children, a threat to morality, to the country, to G, to western civilization itself. Is that marginal enough for you?
3) Efforts to keep gay people out of hate-crimes protections are, like marriage, mostly fueled by the religious right. Apparently, their religions, self-chosen and maintained as they are, are worthy of protection, but I’m not. I’m just a sinner, and I can change my evil ways.
4) Don’t ask-don’t-tell. Gay people are not allowed to serve their country openly, though if they are willing to lie and hide, they might be allowed to, unless someone finds out. And why? all to make sure that some hypothetical straight boy doesn’t have to confront his insecurities. Meanwhile, straight soldiers die for lack of an Arab translator that unfortunately likes dick.
5) An initiative in Arkansas qualified for the ballot today. It would ban any unmarried people from fostering or adopting. Better the children should be in an orphanage then cared for my people of whom the so-called Christians don’t approve.
6) Pastors warn their flocks regularly that if gay marriage is approved, pastors will go to jail and churches will be fined. gay people wanting to live their lives are a MAJOR threat, and if you don’t vote my way– and give me some of your money– well, religious freedom is the price you will pay.
7) Ever hear the phrase, Kill a Queer for Christ? We don’t see it too much anymore, but it still shows up occasionally.
Those are just a few examples of marginalization. Here are some of my feelings on the subject. The ‘you’ and ‘your’ do not refer to you personally, just anti-gay religious people in general. I really have no idea what you think. but you know what? Gay people are lumped together as some monolithic ‘other’ that threatens all that is good and holy. So please excuse me if I do the same for evangelical Christians. I’m sure you appreciate the irony.
I’m sick to death that the course of my life, and my happiness, and those of millions of people just like me, can be subject to your prejudices, whether or you prefer to call them your religious beliefs or just admit them for what they are. I am equally sick that gay people are imprisoned, attacked, murdered, executed, used as political fodder, vilified, condemned, persecuted, jailed, slandered, libeled, and accused of all sort of things that are simply NOT TRUE because someone doesn’t approve, or believes their God does not approve.
My and our equality before the law can be compromised because of YOUR religious beliefs. If you said that Jews or Buddhists could not have the same civil rights that you do because they do not share your religious beliefs, you would rightly be labeled a religious bigot. But because it is about gay people, and whatever you imagine my sex life to be makes you say “icky”, you are not being a bigot…so you say. You’re just expressing your religious opinion.
Personally, all I’m really interested in is getting the same respect from you that you extend to all of the other people whom you think are going to burn in hell forever, sent their by your just and loving god because they didn’t happen to hear the ‘good news’, or didn’t think the message was particularly convincing, or even sensical, or happened to be gay, or Jewish, or a ‘witch’, or whatever the reason-du-jour is.
Some Christians believe that their book is, as they put it, the inspired word of god. Apparently, despite all of the errors and contradictions contained within your book, it still remains inspired. You may think that using inspired by instead of word of god lets you off the hook for its inconsistencies and idiocies, its claim to moral authority when it is anything but a book of morals, most of which you ignore in any case (anybody going to Wal-Mart on Sunday?) while claiming its infallibility when it comes to gay people.
One of the things you do is proclaim that we gay people must hate you Christians for proclaiming the truth. You can’t distinguish between righteous anger and hate, for one. But I don’t hate you, despite your belief. Like a good Christian I hate your sins — your overweening pride, your willful ignorance, your belief that because you think something is true, it must be true, and therefore justifies whatever you do or say, because you are speaking for G and all that is good– just like all of the other people who murder, oppress, hate, judge and on and on and on.
I’m furious that people like you can smugly say we’re all not perfect, but you’ll still smarmily judge us anyway, and pretend that you’re not. I’m furious that you prattle on an on about morality, but the IMMORALITY of what is done to gay people every day throughout the world, damage that is inflicted on our happiness, our health, our security, and our lives all the time, does not even merit your notice– let alone an apology. Talk about a crime against nature–what about the crimes against our nature?
does this give you an idea about what marginalization means?
Good Job, Ben!
I’d like to add one thing. There is nothing wrong with being gay, any and all of the “reasons” that it is wrong that have been put forth are things and situations that are not unique to gays (HIV, domestic violence, etc), distortions, complete lies, irrelevant tidbits, or are based on a very specific interpretation of vague scriptures that simply put….have no constitutional weight whatsoever. I don’t care what your book says, or to be fair—-what you think your book says. I go to work, I pay my taxes, I love my partner as much as anyone ever loves their spouse. You don’t know what we do in the bedroom, and it’s none of your business anyway. Neither of us has raped or killed anyone, and there is nothing about being gay that has anything to do with harming anyone.
The only reason to limit our rights is because other people don’t want us to be equal to them. And that is simply not good enough.
Thanks, jason. You wrote: The only reason to limit our rights is because other people donât want us to be equal to them.
I will add this. There is another reason. Our very existence scares the hell out of some people, whether because (in their minds) we are SO different from them, or (in their souls) so similar.
Dear Ben and all:
Thanks for the “hurricane”. Oh well, so the wind, reap the whirlwind as the Bible says. (That’s a joke, by the way;-)
It wasn’t entirely unexpected, but getting back to you, David Roberts, lots of issues come up with respect to your site, and I’m not trying to avoid any of them (divorce, etc.), but I may have to review what’s been said so far, before I re-engage…
Grace to you, in Christ,
David MacKenzie
David MacKenzie: I wasn’t trying to blow you over, but one of the things I believe in is being as absolutely clear as I can be– especially when it comes to the treatment of the gay and lesbian minority at the hands of the heterosexual majority, especially when it is motivated by (allegedly) sincere religious belief.
The reason for this is simple. I don’t want to leave any room for someone to pretend that it isn’t the basic prejudice that it, and to then call this something other than what it is
It is one thing to say “I disapprove of homosexuality”” or “My religion says it disapproves of homosexuality.” I think it is wrong, stupid, petty, non-reality based, prejudiced, and unconscious, and unconscionable, but who am I to judge?
I am just a adult human being who loves in every sense of the word another adult human being. As Jason noted, apart from gender, I can determine no difference between homosexual and heterosexual love– good, bad, and indifferent.
It is quite another thing to pull a Sally Kern and say I love you but hate your sin… and then make up a whole dung heap of reasons why I am a despicable human being and a cancer on society. It is quite another thing to be an Alan Chambers and say, I choose not to be gay (even if I still am), and I will work to make sure that my choice is validated by making sure that all of the rights afforded to the majority are NOT afforded to you. It is quite another thing to claim to be doing research and speaking the science and reality based truth, and then NARTH that research and claim that I am sick, evil, depraved, and a child molester, criminal, a threat to all that is good and holy, and then use that ‘knowledge’ as the basis for political campaigns against me, which are thinly disguised attacks on my very right to exist.
And finally, it quite another thing to be speaking for morality, and then commit the most immoral acts and pat yourself on the back for it. $30 million dollar will be spent on the marriage initiative in California. how much good could that have done to feed starving Christians everywhere? Jesus had nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality. He did think that feeding the poor was a good idea.
Dear Ben:
I respect your opinion, and your freedom to state it. In part, I’ve just shown up at this site, not to be a web troll or a “home-site” wrecker, but to witness for myself what the participants are saying on a host of gay-related issues. Your last e-mail is lengthy, and it begs a number of questions, but I want to skip to the second-to-the-last sentence you’ve since raised in your follow-up, because (being a pastor) I’m not inexperienced with respect to what the Bible says.
In truth, Jesus actually DOES make an indirect comment about homosexuality. It comes from the eleventh chapter of Matthew, verses 20-24. In it, Jesus denounces those local cities where most of his miracles took place and yet people did not believe him, saying that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgement for even Gentile cities than for them. He then uses the same logic in a discussion about Sodom, implying that even this city would have repented had it witnessed His miracles and ministry.
As it still is today, the city of Sodom in Jesus’ day was a byword for all manner of sin-related issues, including homosexuality. For Jesus to invoke it rhetorically means that he knew what people thought about it, and He uses that to point at other cities’ issues of sin, all while not denying what took place in Sodom.
In fact, he repeats the classic gospel hope here– to turn away from sin (to repent) and receive Christ brings peace with God, no matter who we are or what we’ve done.
Grace to you, in Christ,
David MacKenzie
So, just to be clear. Mr. MacKenzie doesn’t want to be accused of hatred and discrimination, but dances around and refuses to answer questions about divorce and legal discrimination against gays and lesbians.
If he isn’t really willing to engage with us in a forthright manner, I see little to no reason to continue entertaining him. Probably best to ignore him and not waste further time and energy on him.
There you go again David M. You seriously cannot answer David Roberts question on divorce and remarriage being the sin of adultery. You instead skip to answering Ben’s question about Jesus never mentioning homosexuality, and in turn state Jesus made an indirect mention of it when discussing the sins of Sodom in Matthew v. 20-24.
I have been away from gay/anti-gay related sites since February and returned only a month ago to check things out. During that time of hiatus I was able to wash away the anti-gay rhetoric from my mind to have a more peaceful and meaningful relationship with Jesus, one that I have never had before. Now upon returning I am sickened by the hate being slung full force by some anti-gay Christians that have the “love the sinner but hate the sin” mentality. Nothing I see has changed except the attitude towards gays by some Christians which has grown increasingly negative and hateful as the progression of gay civil marriage begins to take root.
David M, I would like to share with you something. I have met several ex-Christians on websites that have confirmed the hateful rhetoric they used to spew towards gays as one of the reasons why they left Christianity. Some were former pastors. Some were believers for decades. This was their very mantra in order to convince people that gays are sick, twisted, deviant and evil. And they claimed this was all done in the name of love. Where is the love? Its no wonder people are leaving Christianity or becoming atheists. Conservative evangelical/fundamentalists Christians from where I am sitting have poisoned the true message of Christ. Fear and Judgment have replaced Love and Understanding. Its nothing more than repentance by coercion. Jesus never forced himself on others but his followers have no problem in doing so by word and deed.
I pray the title of this thread is true and the younger set of Evangelicals are accepting of gay people. Perhaps all is not lost.
And just how exactly is one supposed to ârepentâ of loving someone?
Well, David, if you are going to insist that the story of Sodom is about “homosexuality” then you clearly neither read it nor understand it. And what someone told you about it was a product of their own imaginations– or yours. Someone had already decided that this was about homosexuality, and since that fits in nicely with existing prejudices, it would never occur to them or to you to question the assumption that that is what is about, instead of reading what is actually there. So, I’ll explain it to you.
As a prelude, I will note this much for you. To claim it is about Homosexuality, which includes both men AND women– well that is the first thing you are making up. Gay women are not a part of this story AT ALL. So it may possibly be about male homosexuality– except that it isn’t– but it is not about HOMOSEXUALITY.
Allowing the bible to be the best commentary on itself– when it isn’t being contradictory or ridiculous– there is not ONE place in whole of the bible where there is even a vague (as the bible seems to be on this subject) reference to Sodom being a city of homosexual men, and only ONE where the sin of Sodom was sexual or even remotely sexual. There is a reference in First (?)Timothy about ‘going after strange flesh’, but at least one bible (New standard, I think) I’ve seen it said that refers to lusting after angels. and though my husband is an angel and I definitely lust after him, I can assure you that is not what they were talking about. All other references to Sodom contain no sexual references whatever (excluding the story itself). All allusions to homosexuality are far later accretions, and certainly have nothing to do with homosexuality as we understand it today, which is not as it may have been imagined 1000 years or more ago, when it included more than just homosexual acts. And, as I always say about this issue, a vague reference to Sodom is not a discussion about homosexuality. The creator of the universe is remarkably coy on this subject of homosexuality– it always needs to be interpreted, nuanced and guided into existence– where as he wasn’t on no divorce, no adultery, or going to Wal-Mart on Sunday, and feed the poor. Do you think that might have something to do with the men who have claimed to be his mouthpieces? Do you think their agenda might be showing?
The story itself is remarkably ancient– I am guessing it is one of the oldest in the bible. G is not omnipotent– he has to travel on the road ON FOOT with two angels to see if the reports he has heard about Sodom are true!! This is another clue about its age. Yahweh was still an inconsequential Midianite storm god with delusions of grandeur when this story was written.
G tells Abraham he is going to destroy the cities of the plain because they are not righteous. Abraham manages to convince G not to do it if he can find one righteous man. All knowing, all powerful G actually bargains with Abraham! Another clue to its age– G has remarkably human attributes. Apparently, Abraham couldn’t find one, because G destroys the cities. Actually, he doesn’t because he isn’t all powerful. The angels are the ones who actually do it. Apparently, you had to be there.
Note that even in the story thus far there is no discussion of any kind of sexual activity, let alone homosexuality. Not one. G wants to find a RIGHTEOUS man, not a heterosexual one. David Vitter and John Edwards can both assure you that they are not the same thing.
The angels arrive in the City and find shelter in Lot’s house. The men of the City go to his house and demand that Lot give him the men. Here is the first sexual context– and it is clearly RAPE, not consensual homosexual activity, though writing those words is revolting to me– it sounds like Englishmen in gaiters whipping each other and shouting Cheerio. But that’s what it is. They were not inviting the angels out for a hot night of romance. They were threatening gang rape. Lot even offered his two ‘virgin’ daughters to the crowd, complaining that he would not be a righteous man if he let the sanctity of his hospitality be sullied by the rape of his guests– a contextual clue that it was not about homosexuality. Among his other virtues, he thought more of his guests than he did of his daughters (good father, he) and he wasn’t all that bright. Why would he offer his two daughters to a bunch of gay men? Hello, idiot! What was he thinking? I’m sure it must have seemed to be a good idea at the time. They wouldn’t be interested. And they weren’t. They demanded the strangers.
And here is where the unthinking, unconscious but nevertheless vicious bigotry just blooms like a magic mushroom on a meadow muffin. The context is the threat of FORCIBLE ANAL RAPE. That cannot be nuanced out of existence. When you say that homosexuality is the sin of Sodom on the basis of this story, you are unthinkingly and/or deliberately conflating the gang rape of two men (or two women, had lot’s ploy succeeded) with… (wait for it)
…a consensual relationship between two men OR two women (we’re all homosexuals, you know, even Lesbians)– who love each other and wish to build a life together, perhaps raise children, but in any case, be there for each other in sickness and health all the rest of the things I just said to my husband a week ago, and which I have performed for the past 6 years. No forcible rape involved. I do not approve of forcible rape. And if you can’t tell the difference between the two circumstances, then pastor or no, you have no business judging the morality of ANYONE. And honey, when you go so far as to take a reference made by Jesus to be a comment on homosexuality when he clearly said nothing of the sort, then I think a wee bit of judgment is somehow creeping in. We gotta let the fags know we’re onto them.
So the angels destroy the Cities on the Plain. Interestingly, we never found out what the sin of Gomorrah was. Except that there were four people Whom God allows to be saved. 1) Lot, who apparently is an alcoholic, because he managed to preserve a sufficiency of wine from the destruction to get himself into a drunken stupor. He’s a great father– his two daughters could have been gang raped for all he cared. Great example of righteousness you have there, G. 2) His wife, who disobeys a direct commandment from God not to look back at the city’s destruction. Another good example of righteousness, since we are told to obey G in all matters–when we can understand him. 3) His two daughters, who get Lot drunk and have sex with him. We’re not told even how Lot managed to get it up, given the amount of liquor, the destruction of all property, friends and family, and that THEY WERE HIS DAUGHTERS, for G’s sake!
Oh, well. G helps those who help themselves. but one might think that this particular god had some real moral issues of his own if he defined this quartet as RIGHTEOUS. But then, he was the one that destroyed all of the sinners of the world in a flood, even the poor babies who could not have sinned even if they wanted to. He was also the one that kept hardening Pharaoh’s heart, thereby giving him and excuse to visit a few more plagues on the Egyptians, culminating in them murder of all the Egyptian first born. A god like that should not presume to lecture anyone on morals. and neither should you.
We learn two things from this. 1) We have been defining the Hebrew translated as “righteous” incorrectly. The correct translation is “heterosexual, preferably incestuous, alcoholic, and disobedient.” And 2) It is all the fag’s fault. As always, heterosexuals behave badly, and it is gay people that pay the price.
I repeat: allowing the so-called Good book to be its own best commentary on itself, we find nowhere in the bible any reference to homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. Even Jesus didn’t say so. It took Christian scholars somewhere between 300 and 1200 years after Jesus’ death to come up with that– and ytour eprsonal interpetation that ‘it was well known the homosexuality was the sin of sodom. No it wasn’t, though heterosexuals would like us to think that it was. (Sorry, there is no table service for morality. It’s all self serving here at the Righteousnes Cafe!) And the Sodom story is the perfect example of why the bible is of no guidance to determining right and wrong, else you would not be accusing gay men of being sodomites.
I, too, see the increasingly negative and hateful stuff (as Ken R. previously mentions). And this battle will only intensify markedly this coming September when pro/con Prop. 8 lawn signs are only going to demonstrate which neighbors are against which neighbors. Itâs not going to be pretty. Pitting neighbors against each other is partly due to organizations that are called: Churches? Just what is being taught in Sunday Schools nowadays?
No matter the outcome of this Novemberâs election, the gap between âusâ and âthemâ is only going to widen more.
Sad.
Ben: “Me thinks thou doth protest too much”– not from the Bible, admittedly, but at times Shakespeare had an insight or two. I am actually quite familiar with the liberal and secular claims that you have listed. All of them suffer from an inordinate sense of denial, brought on (most likely) by authors who had a psychological or political need for self-justification.
Also, Ben, you waiver between discrediting the Bible generally, and then spending 80% of your time defending a uniformly liberal approach to the Scriptures. Why bother with the Bible at all, if you so genuinely mistrust it?
In any case, the Biblical writers were not primitives, but for some moderns the answer seems hidden in plain view. I’m not surprised; you may recall that the Romans passage dealing with Lesbianism bluntly speaks about being “given up” to, in effect, delusion (1:24-28), which is a shocking thing, but occasionally happens by the Lord’s sovereign insistence throughout Scripture. This is just one reason why a reverent fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Nevertheless, the truth is the Bible is remarkably consistent in its approach to homosexuality, as well as to divorce. Divorce is condemned– in fact, the Lord “hates” it (Malachi 2:16). At the same time, homosexual acts are clearly and consistently deemed morally unacceptable. The reality that the term for homosexuality in some places is formed from more generic terms is irrelevant. One would linguistically expect a language like English (grown as it has from multiple linguistic strains, to be one of the largest in world history) to be more technically precise than ancient Hebrew.
The lengths to which the political and religious left goes to distance itself from the reality of Sodom is, indeed, quite bizarre. Did Sodom have a hospitality issue? Well, yes. Was Sodom guilty of a citizenry who wants to gang rape? Well, yes. Is Sodom also a place where that rape is manifested “homosexually”? Well, yes. Does the fact that those rapists are rapists justify their homosexuality?Well, no. In fact, all aspects of their behaviour clearly form part of the Lord’s problem with Sodom. However, according to the laws of Moses, hospitality issues were not capital offenses, whereas the other two were.
Anyway, one could go on, but suffice it to say my presence here is not to avoid any issue. I didn’t actually come here to exercise a ministry of condemnation. Christ’s ministry is not a ministry of condemnation. But neither is it a ministry of human endorsement and self-justification…
Hence, grace to you, in the Lord Jesus Christ,
David MacKenzie
David: I can only say that you are in fact avoiding the issues. I expected as much, as that has been by consistent experience with anti-gay evangelicals. You failed to address ANY of my substantive issues, and just went back to your interpretations WHICH ARE NOT JUSTIFIED BY YOUR BOOK.
I don’t mistrust the bible. It’s not my book, riddled as it is with inconsistencies, barbarisms, and idiocies. I mistrust you and any religionist who thinks they can shut up the creator of the universe between the covers of a book written by desert peoples 2500 years ago. G is not as limited as you would have him be.
I have not listed either liberal or secular claims. I simply read the book and stated what was there is plain Aramaic. I’m not interested in liberal or conservative. My secular aims are limited to this: I am interested in getting your god-damned and god-damning book–and your conservative interpretations of it– out of my life. As I wrote earlier: “I’m sick to death that the course of my life, and my happiness, and those of millions of people just like me, can be subject to your prejudices, whether or you prefer to call them your religious beliefs or just admit them for what they are. I am equally sick that gay people are imprisoned, attacked, murdered, executed, used as political fodder, vilified, condemned, persecuted, jailed, slandered, libeled, and accused of all sort of things that are simply NOT TRUE because someone doesn’t approve, or believes their God does not approve.”
Instead of actually addressing my arguments, you go to Romans. Another highly ambiguous passage, but I won’t debate it. I’ll just refer you first to Roman’s 1:23: …and changed the glory of incorruptible god into the image of corruptible man.” sound familiar? Your way of saying it is this: “The reality that the term for homosexuality in some places is formed from more generic terms is irrelevant. One would linguistically expect a language like English (grown as it has from multiple linguistic strains, to be one of the largest in world history) to be more technically precise than ancient Hebrew.” It’s not a technical term. It is an easily described set of actions.
In other words, we have to supply to precision that ancient Hebrew somehow lacked on such an important issue, which is another way of saying the your prejudices–excuse me, your beliefs– have achieved the status of the word of G. You don’t know much about linguistics, either. Eskimos have two hundred words for snow, we have three. I’m sure the ancient Hebrews had 200 words for sand. So much for modern precision. You are just substituting your beliefs for ancient Hebrew’s alleged lack of precision. Ancient Hebrew had no word for computer, either, but it was not due to a lack of precision. As I have commented previously, G is spectacularly unclear on this subject, whereas G seems to be very clear on a number of other topics. Here’s some ‘precision’ for you which I think ancient Hebrew could have managed quite easily had they been so inclined, and if it were as important to G as it is to you. G would have said: âtwo men or two women together shall not have sex in and way, shape, or form. They will not be naked together and touching each othersâ skin. They certainly will not be bumping nasties. Penis into vagina, thatâs it. And you shouldnât enjoy it too much.â Now, that is clarity befitting the creator of the universe.
You wrote this: “Is Sodom also a place where that rape is manifested âhomosexuallyâ? Well, yes. Does the fact that those rapists are rapists justify their homosexuality? Well, no.” I have no idea what you are trying to say here, but you are clearly avoiding the issue.. That is not homosexuality, that is rape. Men who rape other men in prison are not homosexual, they are usually heterosexual AND rapists. If they had accepted lots daughters, that would not have made it about heterosexuality, and I doubt you would claim that it did. Men who rape women are rapists. As I wrote: “When you say that homosexuality is the sin of Sodom on the basis of this story, you are unthinkingly and/or deliberately conflating the gang rape of two men (or two women, had lotâs ploy succeeded) with a consensual relationship between two men OR two women (weâre all homosexuals, you know, even Lesbians)â who love each other and wish to build a life together, perhaps raise children, but in any case, be there for each other in sickness and health all the rest of the things I just said to my husband a week ago… and if you canât tell the difference between the two circumstances, then pastor or no, you have no business judging the morality of ANYONE.”
but since you are going to state that Moses thought homosexuality was a capital offense– yet another set of dubious claims based upon a biased interpretation– then I suppose you are saying that gay people deserve the death penalty. If you are not, then you are denying the authority of your own book for your convenience…
…which is in fact the point of Romans 1:23.
Ben: I recognize that you’re angry, but do you suppose (logically) that the best of Biblical analysis comes from those prepared to curse the very Bible they’re supposedly analyzing?
Or, to put it another way, does the fairest analysis of your partner come from those who are prepared to curse your partner?
Or, does the best analysis of Karl Marx come from those who are prepared to damn Marx?
Hello?
Nonetheless, grace to you, in the Lord Jesus Christ,
David MacKenzie
You wrote: “do you suppose (logically) that the best of Biblical analysis comes from those prepared to curse the very Bible theyâre supposedly analyzing?”
No, nor do I think the best of biblical analysis comes from people who believe in its inerrancy, its perfection, that their interpetations of interpetations of translations of interpretations represent the truth of the book, or that G can be contained forever within its covers. in the immortal words of Helen bunker Hunt, that “Of course it’s true. every word of it. If you begin questioning the inerrancy of the bible, wheredo you stop?”where, indeed? Perhaps where it stops being real, clear, or relevant. Perhaps when it starts being used as a weapon against people that you disapprove of.
If you want to believe it is the inerrant word of G, then you must believe as well all of its inconsistencies and contradictions are not what they onbviously are. But here are a feew observationsd about that inerrant word of G:
50 years ago, misgenation laws were justified by people scraming out “immorality” and whipping out their bibles.
75 years ago, segregation laws were justifed by people quoting their bibles.
100 years ago, women were denied the vote, justified by people quoting their bibles along with threatening the ultimate ocllapse of the family
200 years ago, slavery was justified by people quoting thier bibles.
300 years ago, thousands of innocent people who were thought to witches were tortured and burned by the moralists of the day, convinced they were doing God’s will, tridding the earth of a scourge, and quoting their bibles. sounds familiar? Do you believe in witches today?
400 years ago, Catholics and Protestants were torturing and slaughtering each, each assured by god that they were doing god’s will– and they had their bibles to back them up.
900 years ago, quoting their bibles, the Christians repsonded to the Muslim politcal power in THE HOLY LAND (Now there is a sarcasm!) by launching a series of crusades, destorying much that was invaluable, accomplishing nothing, killing untold 1000’s of people– and we are still paying the price at the gas pump today for that bit of destructive nonsense.
Do you begin to see a pattern here? Will you tell me that this is different? you finally have it right about whom to judge and what god hates?
Dear Ben:
When is a person takes the legal stand, they are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. You hate the judgement placed upon you as a gay person, but I observe you have no trouble whatsoever judging contexts and individuals that neither you nor I can fully know, this side of the Kingdom of God.
The truth is that you will find ALL kinds of people throughout history misusing, misunderstanding, and misquoting the Bible, including yourself.
But that says less about God, and more about (sinful) us, and actually confirms the central premise of the Bible– that people are sinners in desperate need of salvation.
Hence, grace to you, in the Lord Jesus Christ,
David MacKenzie
Then why doesn’t your side do something about? Why not spend your time, money, and energy trying to pass laws making divorce a lot harder to get? It seems to me that divorce is one of the main reasons “the family” is breaking up. If you make divorce a lot harder to get, or near impossible, then perhaps you will look more consistent in your beliefs in protecting marriage and family.
But I seriously doubt that will happen. Its neither a money making issue nor will most heterosexual Christians and non-Christians go for it. They still want that easy way out of their marriage because there is no way on God’s green earth that anyone should stay with someone that they no longer love. Or even hate.
Yes we do, specially when that judgment is coming from so called followers of Christ that believe our sexuality is chosen. But if God is judging our sexuality then he is not worthy of my worship or love if I will be judged according to whom I love which happens to be someone of the same sex. Which I have always known since 5th grade.
Thankfully, I am not in the same mindset as you David M. If I was I am sure I would not be alive today.
And you as well David M. If man is capable of misusing and misunderstanding the bible, then man is also capable of mistranslating the bible as well. Over and over again. I have read the bible contradictions. There is no way the bible is perfect and inerrant. Its impossible. And since the bible is in our hands we, and I mean man, make mistakes. And we live in an imperfect world. Nothing that has, is, or will be, except Christ if you are a Christian, will be perfect in this world. And this includes the bible you hold in your hands on Sundays.
Pastor you are WAY out of your league:
Rape is rape, it has no sexual orientation. Rape is not about sex, it’s not about love, it’s not about consent, it’s about power and humiliation. So their rape was not “homosexual” as it had nothing to do with homo or heterosexual. In both the primate kingdom, and in man’s past males rape males as an act of power and humiliation — it’s the same motivation for raping women.
All aspects of their behavior clearly form part of the Lord’s problem with Sodom? So you’re suggesting that what they did as well as how they did it are all part of what condemned them? Wait, no you’re suggesting ALL of the things they did were the reasons why they were condemned. You really want to go with an absolute like that? The men spoke their demands, therefore god hates speech. It would also indicate God hates language as well, possibly also vocal cords, lips, and tongues. God must also hate the specific words used by the men of Sodom. The men refused to rape two girls, therefore God hates those who will not rape. I’m sure there are other aspects not mentioned in the story which also condemned them such as their haircuts, clothing, jobs, hygiene, and eating habits. What a problem for us! All these aspects condemned them yet we only know of a few!
Or, we could stop with the interpretation and look at what is the sin of sodom, laid plain as day here:
Ezekiel 16:49-49: “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”
Notice it says “this was the guilt” not “this was some of the guilt” or “this was part of the guilt”. This was the guilt. Nothing about sex in there, nothing about rape, even “homosexual rape”. There it is, plain, simple, direct, no need to interpret, no need to try to figure it out. The Sin of sodom was that they were proud and affluent yet didn’t help out their common man. In other words, they didn’t “love thy neighbor”.
“But if God is judging our sexuality then he is not worthy of my worship or love if I will be judged according to whom I love which happens to be someone of the same sex”
Ken: I recognize that you may be befuddled by the Church, but this is the kind of statement that, for the life of me, this Pastor will never understand. For if God be God, then surely He can judge as He sees fit, since His is the only truly objective oversight. If someone says “God is not worthy of my worship, if…”, I already think: “this guy’s missed the point about the nature of God.”
More pointedly, perhaps, this kind of statement tells me that a man is already worshiping his own ego more than he is worshiping anything else. You might as well add (and I mean this jokingly) “…so help me, Me” at the end of the statement.
As for why does “my side” not do something about divorce, I would say that we are. No pastor I know is sitting here saying, “we think divorce is morally right”. In fact, in any given year, most pastors are probably counseling against it, and preaching about the tragedy of it all. I agree with you, Ken, that it is a huge threat against the stability of family. We’ve become very “consumerish” about a lot of things in Western society, marriage not the least. As for whether it garners enough attention, maybe it doesn’t. But if and when people begin to boast in their serial marriages, you can bet that there will be some Christian, somewhere, who will say “enough of that!”
But I also want to respond to this statement of yours, Ken, if I may: “Yes we do (hate the judgement placed on gay people), specially when that judgment is coming from so called followers of Christ that believe our sexuality is chosen”
I would tend to argue that Christians who believe that your sexuality is truly chosen are acting completely out of their integrity, based upon the assumptions they bring to the table. The essence of the problem does not lie, per se, in Scripture. The problem is that somebody’s theory is wrong. If homosexuality IS immutably genetically determined, then I understand your point and your anguish, utterly and completely. But I also observe that sixty years of sexual research has not yielded that conclusion. Moreover, if homosexuality is not immutably genetically determined, then you’re going to have to cut religious folks some slack. They are making an important contribution to the ethical and moral debate.
Grace to you, in the Lord Jesus Christ,
David MacKenzie
Jason: If that was the only Biblical witness to the problems of Sodom in Scripture, then you might have a point. But, of course, when things degenerate, they really degenerate, and this chapter in Ezekiel (which is likewise loaded with the language of sexual degeneration, both metaphorical and literal), is not the only reference point for the problems inherent with Sodom.
Grace to you, in Christ,
David MacKenzie
David M, Somehow I knew you were going to find a loophole. Answer me this, if sexual sin was so inportant to the destruction of Sodom, why was it left out of this passage that purports to list the exact sins of Sodom? Merely saying “well it says different somewhere else” now sets the book against itself. Now do you see why people leave Christianity? The book is a confusing mess.
Don’t think I didn’t notice that you dodged my point about your “all aspects” claim.
Thank you Jason and Ken. I wrote very similar thoughts, but inadvertently erased them, and just ran out of time to deal with it. but I do have a few thoughts, then I have no more time to deal with the certainty of the fundamentalist mindset. It just wears me out.
The Pastor wrote: The truth is that you will find ALL kinds of people throughout history misusing, misunderstanding, and misquoting the Bible, including yourself.
I don’t ‘use’ the bible as anything but a means to an intellectual end. I certainly use it neither as a weapon, a moral guide, or a map to the cosmos. If I actually thought it was the word of G, I would give it far more credence. But it clearly is not. But what you say here is EXACTLY my point. All kinds of people, as you say. My experience is that people who use the bible to condemn and oppress gay people are just those kinds of people. I’ve already gone on about that. I won’t repeat myself.
My question to you is: how do you know that your not one of ‘those’ people? After all they were just as certain as you are. You have only the benefit of history, not foresight. Jesus was specifically speaking to such as you when he said “look not for the speck”.
The Pastor wrote: You hate the judgment placed upon you as a gay person.
YOU BET I DO– especially when it comes from people who are specifically enjoined by the person they allegedly revere most from DOING JUST THAT!!! Jesus was far more clear and specific on judging not than this alleged reference to homosexuality in Sodom. (Thanks again, Jason). As I keep pointing out, the only way you get a condemnation of homosexuality out of the Sodom story is to interpret and nuance the hell out of it. It’s called hermeneutics– the fine art of getting the bible to say what you want it to.
It’s also called BS. You have yet to address the substantive points put to you. The Sodom story is about homosexuality only because YOU believe it its, and you will deny all evidence and reason to keep asserting it.
The Pastor wrote: But I also observe that sixty years of sexual research has not yielded that conclusion. Moreover, if homosexuality is not immutably genetically determined, then youâre going to have to cut religious folks some slack.
You are being dishonest here, at the least. It may not be immutable– in a world where carpenters can be resurrected, anything is possible– and it may not be genetic, but that question is still open– but it has certainly been show to be deeply and unconsciously inherent, not subject to change, present throughout history, cultures, and the animal kingdom. Just like heterosexuality.And that is without a doubt.
Or you could just gather your own evidence by actually listening to the stories that gay people have to tell– and not just the ones that wanna be straight– instead of coming to us to tell us what is wrong with us.
And no, I’m not going to cut religious people some slack. They have been getting slack cut for them for centuries despite as you call it, their “misunderstandings”– and oppression, and murders, and hate, a discriminatory laws, political campaigns, wars, witchhunts and self-serving hypocritical morality–for starters. Just because they are sincerely mistaken (as in willfully ignorant) does not change the fact that they are mistaken and do tremendous damage to people who have done them no harm. When in doubt, above all, do no harm. And given the willful ignorance, I am rarely willing to believe that it is sincere. Your refusal to acknowledge that there is a difference between the rape described in Sodom and what we understand as homosexuality is a case in point. As I said earlier, if you can’t understand the difference, then you are in no position to be telling anyone lese about their morals.
If religion wants to be respected, then maybe it needs to start acting respectably.
David MacKenzie:
Please refrain from speaking as if you speak for the entire Christian community or that your interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures is the only accurate interpretation.
You mention that God hates divorce, but you fail to mention that Jesus allows divorce in the case of “fornication.” (The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St. Matthew 5:32). There is also the “Paulian Exception” for divorce – that of a believer married to a non-believer (Epistle to the Corinthians I; 7:15 – 1 Corinthians 7:15).
Why is it that those who seek to know the truth about what scripture has to say are marked as the “political and religious left?” Were it not for a “leftist” like Galileo, we’d still believe that the earth had four corners because according to the Apocalypse:
“After these things, I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth.” (Apocalypse – St. John 7:1 – Revelation 7:1)
Were it not for the “leftists” of the North (USA) before, during, and after the Civil War, slavery would still be considered sanctioned by God.
Were it not for the “leftists” who discovered in Scriptures that there were deaconesses, and that there is evidence women played a larger role in the early Church, there would be no female ministers or priests.
Were it not for “leftists” scientists who studied the human body under penalty of death, most of us would not be alive today- destroyed by the simplist of diseases.
Then why didn’t God wait until the English language came around until he had a book written about him/her?
My first language is Spanish, and I can guarantee you, English is the most messed up language on the planet. It is the most confusing language for anyone to learn. No other language has had more revisions and overhaul translations of the Bible than English because it is a language that is constrantly mutating and changing.
That’s why the Roman Church has kept its documents in Latin precisely because the language does not change. Even in Spanish, I could read documents from Shakespearean times and understand 90% of it. But an average American can only grasp 40% of a Shakespearan play written in Elizabethan English (and I am being generous on that).
When one reads the copies of the originals or the Latin translations of the originals of Scripture, it is a totally different picture than reading the Bible in English and depending on the translators’ prejudices and judgements.
I am not befuddled by the Church in general. I am befuddled by the earthly church on how they come to the conclusions they do. And all the wars committed in the Lord’s name and all the while claiming to do the “perfect” will of God. It is not God’s will they do these things but their own will they have grafted unto God and then turn around and claim it is his will we do them.
I do not worship an ego or myself. I was referring to your, You hate the judgement placed upon you as a gay person, since I and many other gays believe it is not chosen then why would God judge us and condemn us to hellfire on something we did not chose? That would be rather cruel of God that is suppose to be a perfect and holy judge would it not? So I have come to the conclusion that it is man that is judging gay people. Not God. And this is because of a certain sect of Christians that worship the erroneous belief of biblical inerrancy and their refusal to read the bible in context and in the time it was written that has caused the great suffering not of only gay people but those that have been marginalized by biblical teachings (Jews, blacks and women).
Dear Jason:
The same Jesus who, in context, says “Judge not” also says “Judge for yourself” in context. The Church was never meant to be silent on moral issues, but somehow people from yourself to Oprah don’t seem to get this one correct. I would submit that there is NO point to ANY of this Blog (and a million others) if we are all intended by God to be silent on moral and spiritual issues. This is a beyond a mistake; it is a current cultural abuse of the Bible.
I am empowered, in fact, by the Lord to exercise discipline in the Church by virtue of my calling in Christ Jesus: “what you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven”. Or, “if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
This discussion, therefore, is extremely important, so let’s not just retreat to the fall back position of some lame and incorrect interpretation of “judge not”, which would surely indict both you and I if we were to examine the topic objectively.
Grace to you,
David MacKenzie
Mr. MacKenzie, since others have already eloquently listed some of the ways gays and lesbians are marginalized, I’ll point back to their examples as ones I would definitely have brought up earlier as an answer to your question.
***
As for one of your more recent points, why should we cut religious folks some slack because research hasn’t proven their position to be wrong? Since when does religion respond to research? Please don’t insult my intelligence by pretending that the religious folks who are convinced by their Bibles that we are second class will suddenly start viewing gays and lesbians as human because some scientist or researcher publishes a study. Since when does dogma ever yield to reason without a struggle or a long period of time passing? Consider that the Church took centuries to apologize to Galileo. Consider that it took Southern Baptists decades after the end of slavery to finally up and admit that it was wrong to support it. You say religious people make an important contribution to the debate, well you’ve got that right, they keep the debate going and keep the fires of intolerance hot by fueling the debate with their assumptions.
David MacKenzie:
Again, you need to specify that it is your interpretation of that scriptural passage and not of the whole Christian community.
For those of us who are Orthodox (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Angelican, Syric, Coptic), the passage is Christ giving the power to forgive sins on earth and to define doctrines, first to Peter, then likewise to all the apostles, the first bishops of the Church. So unless you were ordained by a bishop and can trace the line of bishops back to the original apostles, Orthodox Christians, such as myself, would find your interpretation that you are “empowered” to be inaccurate.
The question of judging is not of making decisions as to what is right or wrong, it is one acting as if they were God and doing what only God can do – and that is to judge our hearts.
As St. Paul says,
“Let us not therefore judge one another any more. But judge this rather, that you put not a stumblingblock or a scandal in your brother’s way.” (Epistle to the Romans 14:13).
The Church must also not pick and choose which moral issues it wants to tackle and which ones it will throw to the wayside because it wants to look good. And by focusing on homosexuality (as if it is a moral issue at all) it has turned away from the true moral issues taught by Christ that need to be addressed by the Church.
While there are tons of anti-gay churches showering money for anti-gay campaigning, that money could be going to do what Christ commanded the church to do. Christ commanded us to feed the poor, cloth the naked, comfort those in sorrow. He didn’t say “comdemn the faggots!” And if your Bible says that I suggest you learn Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syric and read the scriptures as they were written and read in the early Church.
How many times is feeding the poor, clothing the naked, taking care of the widow, caring for the orphans, visiting those in prison…how many times are those mentioned by Christ alone, let alone the Bible as a whole? How many saints in the history of the Church dedicated themselves to doing the works of charity Christ commanded us to do? Now compare all that to how many times Christ said “Change the homosexual,” or “deny the homosexual rights,” and compare that to how many times the Bible as a whole mentions “homosexuality” and compare that to the history of the church… how many saints dedicated their lives to eradicating homosexuality? Of the thousands upon thousands of saints declared by the Church not one has ever devoted his or her life soley or in part to eradicating homosexuality.
The true Church is NOT silent on moral issues because it knows the TRUE moral issues are the ones Christ taught, NOT the ones created and thought up as evil by modern day Bible-Only Christians.
When the Son of Man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. All nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand, “Come, you who are blessed of my Father, and possess the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in; naked, and you covered me; sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.”
The just will then answer him, saying,” Lord, when did we see you hungry and fed you? thirsty and gave you drink? When did we see you as a stranger and took you in? or naked and covered you? When did we see you sick or in prison and came to you?”
The king answering, shall say to them, “Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.”
(The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St. Matthew 25:31-40)
It does not say, at least in the Latin Vulgate nor the Greek versions of the Scriptures …
“I was a homosexual and you changed me into a heterosexual,” or “I was a homoseuxal and you made sure I would not have any legal rights.”
Since you are a Christian pastor, I highly recomend you study the Gospels; they can be a real help in understanding what Christianity is all about.
(Iâm jumping in on this one, so forgive me if I get the context wrong)
Correct, but when âjudge not lest ye be judgedâ is used, its meant (or at least is supposed) to convey the meaning of âjudge not arbitrarily – lest ye be judged arbitrarily.â
I think that most of us here can agree that if we were bad people, doing bad things, and hurting others, that we should be judged accordingly. Therefore, âjudge not,â would not apply in those circumstances.
—
But if you REALLY want to get Christian about it, we shouldnât judge âbadâ people who do âbadâ things either! Sure, I may âjudgeâ someone with a baseball bat whoâs trying to harm my family, but at that point, the âjudgmentâ is about protecting my family, not about intending to harm anyone.
My point being, it’s not about “judging” or “not judging,” it’s about about what measure do we use to judge.
David MacKenzie: âAnyway, one could go on, but suffice it to say my presence here is not to avoid any issue.â
Iâm sorry, was this question answered or did I miss it? (I admit, I havenât read the entire thread (you people are way too wordy : ), but I don’t believe this question has even been answered since I asked it.):
Emproph: âAnd just how exactly is one supposed to ârepentâ of loving someone?â
My point being, David, who is being harmed that makes it a âsin?â — whether or not the creator of all that is (God), truly does deem âhomosexualityâ a sin.
Or does your concept of sin not include the need for discernable harm? If so, are you arguing against a âsinâ for which you see no discernable harm?
(BTW, gang rape doesnât count)
If YOUR concept of sin does not require proof of discernable harm, then it would seem that you worship a God who defines sin arbitrarily.
At which point, whatever authority of the Bible you claim, is wasted on the understanding that God itself has no standard for and/or of sin-badness.
Clearly you donât believe this.
My point being, itâs not about what you consider to be the FACT that God condemns homosexuality, itâs about WHY and HOW.
If God is love, and our love is REAL (and you know what I mean by that, and if you donât, say so), then how can the recipients of that love (given to them, to be shared with each other, by God) be âsinning,â simply by accepting it?
You can claim that you know for certain that our love is sinful bad and evil all you like, but until you can show HOW and WHY it is, your words fall on deaf ears. And so far, as far as I can tell, rightfully so.
Long story short, all it seems that youâre doing is saying that somethingâs bad, without showing the bad part.
As ugly and disgusting as it may seem (gay rights, gay marriage (based on disgusting disgusting gay-sex (intimacy) of course), etc.), I think itâs a fair enough question to ask, what really is it that you and/or God feel that is the âbadâ part?
Good God, this is exactly why XGW attempts to avoid such post strings.
We’re here for one reason : our page watcher picked up “DM” (a person we ARE happy to catch up with), but sadly it turned out only to be an abbreviation of the name of an anti-gay evangelical pastor from Cowsplat, Alberta.
(Remind to self: never sign off your blog post the same way all the time … it makes it too easy for others to google you)
What We did find remarkable, and somewhat telling was a slight variation on the sign-off. QED : “Nonetheless, grace to you, in the Lord Jesus Christ
Nonetheless??? Nonetheless… of what??? I’m so glad it is for Pastor David MacKenzie to decide who does and who does not receive the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Because none are more qualified to assume that position.
Too telling.
Even if one hadn’t bothered to seek out that “welcoming” shop-front Church in Alberta, or the “loving” attitudes expressed elsewhere. Dime a Dozen, are they not?
And this reminds us, on a more useful note: it’s about time we popped over and said hi to the real (and really gracious) “DM”. We’ve got to warn her how much evil is in the laugh of a 16 year old daughter who sees photos of her mum (and uncles) from before she was born. Hey… it was the 80’s: ‘everyone’ had a poodle perm. And pleated jeans. Die. Of. Shame.
The difference, my dear emproph, is this: the difference between morality and ethics.
Morality is simply a set of rules: this is good, that is bad. There need be no rationale, demonstration of harm, consistency, principle, or anything like that about it. Thus you have to ‘morality’ of the bible. The OT G consistently behaves very badly. even my 6 year old nephew, when i told him about G ‘hardening pharaoh’s heart, cried: “That’s not fair.”
Ethics flows from a set of principles. The basic one is this, in the immortal words of Mammy Yokum (and yes, I am showing my age). “Good is better than evil becuase it’s nicer.”
The Pastor (sorry, I’m not a sheep, probably why I’m not buying his product) subscribes to morals only,, and all his statements flow towards supporting that morality, consequences, logic, consistency, and fact be damned. That’s why for him, the world is sinful and fallen and we all need salvation. That’s why the ‘rules’ are so important, because without them, we would no longer need salvation, and then he would have to go out and get a real job.
Our statements from from ethics, as did the best of Jesus. ‘Do as you would be done by’ and ‘judge not lest ye be judged’ are highly ethical principles, and extremely moral in the best sense of the word. I don’t think I’m perfect, but i don’t see any evil, or even all that much bad, in myself and 90% of the people I know. When I do anything, to the degree I can be conscious and conscientious, I make sure that I am making my life better, the lives of people around me better.
Morality as defined by the my-way-or-hell crowd does not require nuance, knowledge, openess, or greatness of spirit. It merely demands what is required of all sheep– folow your pastor– excuse me, shepherd. Salvation is a requirement in that world, because it is defined by what is allegedly wrong, not by what is right.
An evangelical friend of mine (incidentally, quite pro-gay) once asked me if I wasn’t desirous of salvation. My response was this: “Salvation is of no use to me. If G would condemn ME to hell, then there is no help for anyone. and if hell is a demonstration of how much he loves us, then he and I have vastly different ideas of love.”
Who are you responding to here? I didn’t mention the “judge not” passage, nor did I mention anything about the church being silent on moral issues. Go ahead, do a “find on this page” search, you’ll find the word “judge”, but you won’t find me saying anything that has to do with your response.
I do see, however, that you’re still avoiding the implications of your “all aspects” claim. But that’s okay, I figured you’d avoid the issue in the hopes I would drop it. Just as you are avoiding other people’s questions.
But that’s the stock and trade for your side of this debate: Give an overly simplistic and ridiculous justification for bigotry and then ignore any issues that arise as a consequence of such “logic”. You’re not interested in debate, you’re certainly not interested in understanding us or our side, you’re merely interested in conversion. No sale.
We’ve strayed very far off topic and I apologize to XGW for my part in that. In short, David, you only have to read your own words in this thread to find out why Young Evangelicals are Increasingly Accepting of Homosexuality.
David MacKenzie said:
I’ve been patiently waiting to see if this was just a thin excuse to avoid addressing my questions, something which now seems likely. Again, I answered yours thoughtfully and in short order. I also mentioned that participation here requires adherence to certain basic guidelines, one of which is to not ignore the reasonable questions of another commenter in the discussion.
Now that you have had three days to consider at least one of my simple questions, please respond to it and the others I asked before you continue with any other comments here. This is only fair, both to me, and to others who operate under the same rules of civility.
Dear Folks:
If you keep mentioning a certain issue, I don’t have any problem coming back to it. But I did want to personally respond to Grantdale. I am a Pastor. And I am from Alberta: Devon (not “Cowsplat”), Alberta, in fact, but I am not the person that you linked with. I don’t know that person, nor that site.
I have certainly left messages in various blogs across the web in response to a whole host of things, and I’ve always used my real name because I believe transparency and accountability to be important.
So, go ahead and Google the name “Pastor David MacKenzie”.
I’ll make it easier for you, in fact:
Here’s my Home sight: http://www.regencychurch.com
Here’s my Pro-life site: http://www.babiesbreath.ca
Here’s my Prayer Mountain site: http://www.prayermountain.ca
Here’s my (just being built) Faith stories site: http://www.connnectingthe.ca
As for the “Die. of. Shame.” comment, I’ll ignore that, and just say…
Grace to you, in the Lord Jesus Christ,
Pastor David MacKenzie
I actually have no problem with the “Church” (as if there is just ONE) speaking out on moral (However that might be defined) issues, though I would certainly disagree that they have any moral monopoly.
The issue for me is a simple one: keep it with in the four walls of your church, becuase those are the people that subscribe to your beliefs. Keep it out of public discourse because I’m not a member of your church, and I will fight against sanyone who says my right to live my life as I see fit (barring harm to others) can be limited by THEIR religious beliefs. The minister who married my husband and me is not a member of your church, either. He believes love is never a sin, but the expression of G’s presence on earth.
In our ocuntry, it’s called the separation of vchurch and state.
David MacKenzie,
Thank you. It was about time. I sometimes wonder what you people think “full and honest disclosure” means — but then I remember those like you have long known you need to recruit by stealth.
The “DM” we linked to is not you. Never thought she was. Never said she was. She’d call us an idiot if we thought you were her. FYI, dear ol’ DM is well known by many at this site. Possibly even “beloved” by some. Even us. (DM we hope you did not snort your warm cocoa up your nose at these comments, and hope you weren’t doing a 3am feed at the time.)
Also cannot imagine why you would want to ignore the “Die.In .Shame” comment — particularly as it was only directed at some seriously gravity and taste defying fashions of the 1980’s… but that’s your choice.
Personally we never accepted, and therefore never needed to reject, acid wash jeans, 3-Quarter pant or wicked perms. Brides should only wear “gip” under pain of death. Seriously.
I’m not sure where Devon, Alberta currently lies in regards to any of these evils … but … Don’t.Do.Them. Reject them as a ploy of Satan.
Trust me on this: Sodom was actually destroyed because it was a gated community and imposed a “Grey and Salmon” colour scheme long after their neighbours had seen the error in that sort of lifestyle.
I’d also like to know a little more about your qualifications Paster David MacKenzie. Your site is a little, urgh, scant. To be blunt, if your “about me” was a swinsuit it would be banned in 28 states of America. Even in Boston.
David MacKenzie,
I don’t think grantdale’s “die of shame” comment had anything to do with you and was a figure of speech about 80s hair and clothing styles. Your future comments will be moderated until you can do me the courtesy of responding to my questions.
Dear Ben:
The minister that married you and your partner probably is no different, on some level, than I am. If he believes that God’s love is meant to be “on earth”, then he doesn’t share your apparent belief that God’s love is meant for the four walls only of church buildings. So, obviously, he is concerned with Kingdom things, just like I am. I also submit that just because I may believe that homosexual acts are wrong, it doesn’t mean I don’t care about homosexual people. Not all love says “yes”; all that says “no” does not necessarily mean hatred.
You may not agree with people like me. But people like me (and not unlike you) are going to continue to question “what actions are right”, “what lifestyle is holy”, and they are not wrong for drawing conclusions about these things that the world needs to reckon with. For, if values are of value (even those of the gay community), then they are valuable in general, not simply in some mere ghettoized, contextual sense. Likewise, the implications of Christ have always gone far beyond the Church; if they don’t, then one has to wonder what the point of all the Kingdom talk is that Jesus clearly uses.
For the record, the separation of church and state was a concept first coined by a non-conformist Christian Pastor, who never meant it for the purposes of silencing religious debate or shuffling Christian belief to the cultural sidelines, but rather for the purposes of keeping an Established Church (denomination), like the Church of England, from being the sole means of political advancement within the American colonies, and for allowing for the honest operation of individual conscience.
Now, I recognize (along with others) that this string is now well beyond its original focus. And I have to confess I barely even understand Grantdale at this point in time. So, I think I will bid you all farewell. It’s been interesting stepping into your Blog.
Grace to you all, in the Lord Jesus Christ,
David MacKenzie
And there you have it. To avoid responding to the other side of a discussion, just ignore the questions being put to you. That’s quite a sleazy tactic, especially for one who would claim himself to be a leader in the church, Mr. MacKenzie. And congratulations on giving readers one more disappointing example of what so often passes as a Christian in this country. With that kind of witness, you would do less harm by simply staying quiet, no?
At least you have your tag line, that makes it all better.
I’m really busy today, and I don’t have much time for writing. David your remark was right on.
Pastor, I have SO many problems with what you wrote, and it is so wrong on so many levels.
I never said I though that G’s love was meant for the walls of a church only. Actually, I commented on the fundamentalist’s need to try to capture G’s love between the covers of a book– or within the walls of a church. but you see, there is a REALLY big difference between G’s love and your religious beliefs. You seem to think they are the same, which says a lot more about you and your conception of G’s limitations–excuse me, love– then many people’s ideas about it. Roman’s 1:23, which I have already recommended to you, and which I am sure you will insist plainly does not mean what it plainly means, is a good place for you to start.
You wrote: I also submit that just because I may believe that homosexual acts are wrong, it doesnât mean I donât care about homosexual people. Not all love says âyesâ; all that says ânoâ does not necessarily mean hatred.”
We have VERY VERY different ideas of love. You idea of love is spreading the your conception of the gospel to the poor sinners out there– whether they are interested or not, without knowing whether they have already heard it and accepted it–or rejected it. In short, with knowing nothing about their spiritual state or how G sees them– or anything about them at all. In short, it’s all about you, and not about the people you allegedly love. And that’s not love, it’s narcissism.
Sally Kern, and a host of other good Christians, are all happy to tell me how much they love me, and then follow it up with the ‘cancer on society’ comments and the whole vicious panoply of anti-gay, homophobic, lying rants. They will tell me how much they love me right before they tell me how much they hate my child-molesting, disease spreading, country-destroying, religion-despising, marriage-compromising, military demoralizing ways. Sorry, if that’s love, I prefer hatred. At least it doesn’t assume I’m so stupid that I can’t tell the difference.
I never said you hated me, or that saying no equals hatred. But saying no on questions of this nature– well, I have a lot of problems with it. First and foremost, it is NONE of your goddamned and goddamning business– not my sex life, not the state of my soul, not my relationship to G, not my sins real or imagined, not your business, not your church’s business, not your god’s business (mine and yours disagree heartily), and not the government’s business.
You say you are entitled to say NO based upon YOUR religious beliefs (which you have admitted in this space could be mistaken), beliefs which I and a LOT of other people do not share, whether on the nature of homosexuality or G’s message to the world. But funny, you don’t usually makes campaigns against other religious beliefs– that would be so middle ages of you. Muslims, of course, excepted. But you (generic) feel free to do that to gay people on a regular basis. I don’t know if my marriage, which I assure you means far more to me than it does to you, will exist on November 4, thanks to people who, like you, know nothing about homosexuality, my soul,or my life– or their book– but still presume to tell me that I am not entitled to the same treatment in society that they are. In fact, the treatment I am entitled to is quite a bit different, and not in a good way, than the treatment they accord themselves. It’s called the myth of heterosexual superiority in service to the reality of heterosexual privilege.
You say you are entitled to say NO when you clearly know little about the subject (other than the precious little that your book allegedly says on the alleged subject), and NOTHING about me, my experiences, my life, my beliefs, and yes, MY homosexuality– we’re not really alike, despite your assumption that our ‘sin’ defines us so.
And here, pastor, is the crux of the issue. When you tell me you love me, it means vastly different things to each of us, as I have already elaborated. You– and again, this is a generic ‘you’– tell me you love me. Yet you advocate that laws be passed against, my intimate sexual behavior. You advocate that I can be fired from my job for that reason– not for anything I’ve actually done, but for who I am. You advocate against inclusion in hate crimes laws, because my sin deserves to be hated. You encourage me to get into a lifetime of pain and suffering, trying to change something that not only is almost always immutable, but doesn’t need to be changed. You tell me the finest part of me is evil, sick, and wrong. You tell me I am a danger to myself, society, the world, health, family, children and faith. You tell the most vicious lies about me, and doctor statistics to make it look like you are right when you are not, and casually makes statements that believers will change their views as soon as the evidence is in. The evidence has been in for quite a while, and they don’t give a good goddamn.
(This is for you personally: For most of this discussion, the evidence has been in for you to look at, and you have made it clear you have no interest in it. As a man of g, you already know everything that is necessary.)
And the weirdest thing about this– (back to generic) you actually seem to believe that if I only turn straight, or I pretend I’m straight, or convince you I’m straight– all of the rest of that lying garbage you believe is true about me…wait for it… simply disappears!
Going on. You pass laws against my marrying the person I love because you believe such love is WRONG. You get rights I don’t get for your luck in being hetero. My life, my happiness simply is not on your radar. Britney and Jason had more rights for the 15 drunken hours that they were married than do my friends Andy and Paul, a devoted couple for 40 years. You blame me for the terrorist attacks committed by other committed fundamentalists of a different faith.
You literally demonize me. “Cast out the demon of homosexuality.” is something we’ve read on these pages.
This time I am speaking to YOU. You may tell me you love me, but the rhetoric and the religious belief is exactly the same as the generic you I have already addressed above. And I would be willing to bet that you do not believe my marriage can and should be valid, and would vote to “disappear” it if you had the opportunity, all in the name of loving me but hating my sin..
As far as I can tell, that “love’, the “rhetoric”, that “religious belief” is completely indistinguishable from the hatred of the Sally Kerns of the world.
So I prefer the hatred, because it is honest.
And it does not confuse its disapproval with the moral right to make my life as difficult and unpleasant as possible, all in the name of loving me and hating my sin.
Again.
Great post, Ben! Wow.
and it should be noted that I am not the same Jason that married Britney spears.
Thanks, Jason. I owe the words “heterosexual privilege” to you. It was what I felt. And I think it is an accurate description of the situation. Actually, I really feel a rant coming on, but I don’t think I am going to do it tonight. But I will try to do it tomorrow. Get ready to rant-and-roll.
I’m a man of god. I know things. i read the bible. i don’t have to actually Read the bible, as in reading it. It is enough that i know what it says. And on and on and on with the smug, self-rightous crap, the superior smile, the self-serving morality.
And the things that pisses me off the most? The I love you crap. I have a strong need to bitch-slap the good pastor back to last Tuesday. Maybe it will get him to think a little.
You know, I really do feel a rant coming on. and this is the comment that set it off:
“I also submit that just because I may believe that homosexual acts are wrong, it doesnât mean I donât care about homosexual people. Not all love says âyesâ; all that says ânoâ does not necessarily mean hatred.”
But when the practical effects of your love and your care– and the political, cultural, religious and social agendas that your commitment to ‘love’ requires you also to commit to– is indistinguishable from the effects of the ‘no’s”, the ‘disapproval’, and the hate, then I might just lack the subtlety to be able to tell the difference.
So get ready to rant and roll. Here’s the title:
YOU WOULD RATHER….
You would rather bend and twist scripture, which you believe is the word of G, to fit your very narrow religious and political agenda , than to admit that the seven or so extremely ambiguous passages allegedly condemning gay people are no where near as clear as the 250 or so passages governing hetero behavior.
You would rather tear down the wall of separation between church and state that protects the religious freedom of everyone, than allow gay people to live their lives free of your religious bigotry –excuse me, your ‘love’ and ‘concern’..
You would rather that children who have been abused and neglected by their hetero parents be transferred from institution to group home to foster home to institution, rather than be kept in the foster homes of people you disapprove of, but with whom you have no factual or actual beef, other than that they exist. After all, it’s for the children.
You would rather that American soldiers die for lack of intelligence information that could be provided by Arabic and Farsi translators, rather than let gay people serve their country in the military, whether in the closet or openly and proudly.
You would rather that young men die of a fatal disease that is fairly easily prevented, rather than give them non-judgmental, factual information about how they can protect themselves. After all, they are just fags receiving the ‘just penalty for their error.’ If they didn’t persist in their sin, they wouldn’t have the problem.
You would rather that children be taunted, beaten, and ostracized for real or perceived sexual orientation or gender non-conformity, than include sexual orientation in anti bullying bills. Gotta stop that gay agenda where it counts– with the kids. After all, bullying is normal and natural, just like heterosexuality, and those kids need to learn that they have no value, and no adult will rescue them if they continue to deliberately transgress what your sadistic idea of the god of love has so clearly told them they must not do– if only they could read your book, and understand it with the finesse that you do. After all, spare the rod, spoil the child, n’est-ce pas? This is a fabulous example of that. Wouldn’t want those kids to turn out gay, or think that they are worthwhile human beings,.
You would rather believe that the bullying directed at children is the result of, not the validation of, attitudes like yours. Nevertheless, you’re ‘there’ for the kids. T though where ‘there’ is — that’s entirely open to question.
You would rather pretend that the story of Sodom is a clear condemnation of all homosexuality, thereby allowing you to conflate the relationship of two people who love and support each other throughout their lives with the threatened gang rape of two strangers, than admit that there just might be a difference between them. After all, they’re both wrong, so they must be the same.
You would rather that young men die of a highly preventable fatal disease, rather than affirm that marriage and monogamy are positive values for gay people, and ought to be encouraged for them. but bonus points here. Because you do everything in your power to degrade and destroy and prevent gay people from having normal , healthy lives and normal , healthy relationships, you then get to disparage those gay people (usually gay men) who express their sexuality in unhealthy ways and for not having normal lives and normal relationships, all the while completely denying the existence or the relevance of those who do. It’s a win-win situation– for you.
You would rather that children spend their lives in an orphanage or some third world hellhole, dying for a home, dying for parents (of whatever gender) that love them, or maybe just literally dying. After all, every child deserves a mother AND a father, and they are better off dead that adopted by gay people.
You would rather believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that gay people cannot be good parents in every sense of the word, preferring to believe that every child deserves a mother and a father. I think we can CERTAINLY argue that. Ask any kid who has been abused, beaten, thrown out, or born addicted, or born to parents who didnât want him, or werenât prepared for him, or have their own emotional issues.
You would rather believe that a gay woman makes a lousy father, and a gay man a lousy mother, than give said gay people credit for being caring and conscious human beings. I can tell you, a lot of real fathers and mothers make LOUSY fathers and mothers.
You would rather rant on and on about the threat of gay marriage to heterosexual marriage, tell any lie, cook any statistics, rather than do anything at all about the mess that straight people have made of marriage. It’s all because the queers are getting married.
You would rather grant 25,000 moral waivers to convicted felons and cripple our national security, than allow upstanding, talented, patriotic gay people to serve their country openly and honestly– unless of course, they are willing lie and hide and hope that no one outs them. After all, it might make SOME BIGOTED, INSECURE, IMMATURE, FEAR RIDDEN STRAIGHT BOY UPSET????!!!!
You would rather blame gay people for child molestation when all the available un-narthed research shows that the majority of it occurs within the precious heterosexual family. After all, its easier and better to blame a faceless stranger for their non-existent crimes against children if it serves your political agenda. I mean, why look at the really ugly truth? It will just make straight people look bad and won’t save a single kid.
You would rather spend $30 million dollars to save your marriage from the non-existent threat of my marriage, than spend that $30 million dollars as you were enjoined by your lord and savior for saving the hundreds of thousands of lives of the people lost in Darfur. After all, they are just black, and poor, and far away. And at least they believe in Jesus. Oh wait. They don’t.
You would rather that gay men pretend to be straight and marry women that they have no sexual or romantic interest in, consistently commit adultery with strangers in parks (thanks Bob Allen), and endangers their lives, wives, families, and careers, (thanks Larry ), than live their lives openly an honestly with another man in the bonds of marriage. I have met an awful lot of those men– sadly. That way, you get to ruin two lives for the price of one. Bonus points– you get to pretend that these allegedly straight men are typical of the average gay man.
You would rather pretend that gay people are a cancer on society (thanks, sally), rather than admit that the real cancer on society is organized, institutionalized hate, especially when it is called love. E specially when it leads to the disaster known as the 2nd term of George Bush. Especially when it means your fundraising strategies might be crippled. Especially when it means that you won’t have to examine the many sins of heterosexual society, or Bush’s refusal to pay any attention to al Quaeda. You can just blame the fags for the moral, political, and financial decline of the country. Did you hear the one about the goat in the desert?
You would rather insist I get into a lifetime of pain and suffering and denial– trying to change something that not only is almost always immutable, but doesnât need to be changed — than allow me to live my life in peace and happiness with someone of the same sex. The BEST research that has been published so far, the Jones and Yarhouse study, indicates that the effort is doomed to failure– ‘complicated’ and ‘ambiguous’ failure. AND THEY WERE ON YOUR SIDE. But hey, ex gay ministries need money, too.
You would rather insist that the finest part of me is evil, sick, and wrong– and make sure that I think so, too– than allow me the simple dignity of living my life in peace. Well, actually you will allow that, as long as I don’t demand respect, equality before the law, or to live my life in peace.
You would rather deny my children health insurance and security that comes with living in a home where their parents are married and have all of the societal benefits and support that marriage brings , than allow my marriage to exist. After all they’re just the children of fags and dykes. They may even be fags themselves. They are certainly not as valuable as the heterosexual children of presumably heterosexual parents. “Save the children” doesn’t apply.
You would rather blame gay people for the imminent fall of western civilization through means that cannot be tested, explained, or logicked into existence, than admit that unrestricted, unfettered, unregulated, unconscious, and un-responsible heterosexual breeding have brought the planet to the very brink of ecological and financial destruction. If only you weren’t so busy maligning us, I’m sure you’d find the time to do something about it. If you’re not the pope, aka G’s viceroy on earth.
You would rather fight tooth and nail against the inclusion of gay people in hate crimes laws, rather than admit that a good deal of the hatred and violence we experience for no other reason than WHO WE ARE is the direct result of the hatred, lies, and violence you preach. After all, as the Pope himself has said, if gay people want to go around demanding rights that they could not possibly be entitled to, they shouldn’t be surprised if someone gets violent over it. Who do those people think they are? Children of G?
You would rather believe that my marriage is such a threat to your marriage that you MUST pass a constitutional amendment to keep me from enjoying what you have. If your marriage is so threatened by my marriage that this is the only course open to you, your marriage has problems that even a biblically correct lifestyle won’t help.
You would rather that I spend thousands of dollars to secure the life that my friends Andy and Paul have together spent decades building, rather than allow them the simple dignity of the rights that you can purchase with a $50 marriage license with a woman you met 5 minutes ago. Ah, the sanctity of marriage. Ask David Vitter. The difference, of course, is that all of our security can be overturned in a moment with the combination of a distant relative, a homophobic judge, and a law that allows it. And with your approval, you just love us so much.
You would rather that our lives be made as difficult and unpleasant as possible, so that you can rest easy in your unshakeable superiority, whether real or imagined. Wait, it’s not real. Heterosexuality isn’t superior or special. It isn’t even normal. It’s just common. and exclusive heterosexuality is nowhere near as common as you would like to believe. ask Ted Haggard.
You would rather have sodomy laws, and see gay people in prison for the mere sin of their existence, invading the private lives of people you don’t even know exist, and demanding those people living lives of degradation and furtiveness, just to satisfy yourself that sin is being punished. Just not your sin.
You would rather create that world of furtiveness, shame, and degradation than allow gay people to live freely. after all, it’s for our own goddamn good. And you get so much satisfaction for it.
You would rather have good Christian people leave their faith– and abandon the hope of salvation that you so, so fervently believe in, and was G’s great gift to us, the central part of your faith– than admit that your incredibly biased and hypocritical and self-serving “interpretations” of “relevant” Scripture could possibly be more about bias and less about Scripture.
You would rather kick openly gay, accepting, proud gay people out of the clergy rather than pay attention to your own theology, which says that people become ministers because they have been called to the ministry by G. No one becomes a minister by going down to the mall and asking for an application at the holy recruiters. Maybe G is trying to tell you something about what he actually thinks, instead of what YOU think he thinks, bound as you are by your bibliolatry.
In short, you would rather add to the darkness in the world than add to the light, add to the lies than add to the truth, add to the hate and the fear rather than the love that you keep proclaiming you feel so strongly for the people you seem to hate so much.
OK, i’m done with my rant. That feels better. đ
David MacKenzie said:
I would submit that it’s not the job of one individual to say yes or no in such matters in the first place, unless perhaps when speaking to their own offspring. This is one of the fundamental flaws with this kind of thinking, that one has both the authority and the obligation to allow or disallow another individual’s choices in life — choices as personal as whom they may love in an equal and mutual relationship. Even God (who arguably would have the ultimate right to do otherwise) respects our free will, because without it there can be no true love, no sincere worship, no real growth.
Those with a view such as Mr. MacKenzie take on a role for themselves that overrides even that which God takes for Himself. Is that not the ultimate in arrogance?
I just found a mistake, this should read:
You would rather believe that the bullying directed at children is the validation of, not the result of, attitudes like yours. Nevertheless, youâre âthereâ for the kids. Though where âthereâ is â thatâs entirely open to question.
All the trouble to write my rant, and it appears that the s.o.b.– excuse me, loving minister– never read it.
Actually, I’m not too surprised, and I really wrote it more for myself anyway. But I could tell from his initial comments that he was here to let us know that he possessed the keys to the kingdom, and wopuld let us know what the kingdom entailed. All we had to do was buy the product.
But since no one was buying– we’re just so lost in the miasma of sin here– he took his bible and went home. They want to talk to you as long as they think you might be buying, but if you are not, then no sense wasting time around here, talkingf to the damned. There are so many other souls that need to be saved,
Your pearls of wisdom are being read by others. Pounding all those keys were not for naught. I think what you type helps more than you realize.
Ben in Oakland, do you have any idea how tempted I am to share that beautiful and eloquent rant of yours on my blog, forums, e-mail lists, etc? (I’ll await your permission first.) That really put things in perspective. The good reverend may not have read it, but lots of other people should. Even if the people who need to read it don’t, it’s full of good talking points.
Ben:
All this reminds me of a story I once heard.
A “saint” goes to where there are “heathens” and begins talking to a “heathen,” preaching to him, telling him about God and his/her laws, the church, salvation, etc. The “heathen” tells the “saint,” “Until you can do all that you say I am supposed to do, I will never accept your religion.” Frustrated, the “saint” goes home and prays to God complaining that the “heathen” would not convert. “God, he says he will not convert until I do everything I tell him to do.”
Suddenly a voice from heaven fills his room and God says to him, “What part of what he said didn’t you understand, HEATHEN?”
đ
Thank you for your kind words. I would certainly be amenable to that, though I would want to re-work it a bit to put it into the proper context and correct a few errors. And I would like it attributed.
Ben, of course I’ll attribute it. I don’t see where it needs fixing, but I understand that need to clean up from my own writing. No problem.
Jayelle– please let me know how to email you.
Take out the spaces:
jayelle 3 at yahoo dot com
Thanks!!!
Cowboy– I forgot to thank you for your nice words. i do hope I am accomplishing something.
Nevertheless, i do wish our good pastor would come back. It’s not very nice. and i have plenty more to talk about with him. I would love to hear, for example, how many of the anti-gay positions in my rant that he agrees with. I would like to here him defend those positions from a biblical perspective.
And when he does, i would lkike to hear him defend his ‘love’ with something besides his plans for my soul.