Is God a homophobe and a hatemonger? God said that homosexuality is a sin. Whether you like it or not, that's what He said. (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are direct quotes from God)
Yeah, only a fundy thug always assumes that God agrees with them. anyone who disagrees with YOU automatically disagrees with God, eh? Except you are not God. And I have read the Bible too, it is not considered cool to claim to speak for God.
I am not speaking for God. God has spoken for Himself. I referenced two direct quotes from God, which you either ignored or dismissed. Why did you choose to do that?
Of course you claim to speak for god. you claim that both Lamott and myself are mocking god. Make no mistake, I am mocking you and other homophobes.
But I am aware of the Bible too. According to it, God isn't a fan of the rich, nor of those who don't give all their money away to follow him. I assume you have done all of that. And Leviticus is always a standby for those condemning homosexuality. Of course, it also allows slavery, bans contact with women during their period, and says that working on the Sabbath is a capital offense.
So you follow all of these? Or just the ones that condemn gays?
Yours is pretty much the standard retort of every sodomite enabler that I have encountered. Are there talking points that you all know? Since I haven't given away all my possessions, therefore God approves of homosexuals. Is that what you meant?
One quick question: on what basis do you claim that being opposed to homosexuals is wrong?
Wow. It only took you two comments to say that I mocked God, and four to call me a sodomite. Well done, there fundy. Showing the love of Christ where ever you go, I see.
Actually, my response was not about homosexuality, but about your belief in a literal bible. If you believe that the Bible justifies your hatred of homosexuality, and you quote it to prove so, then it seems relevant to see if you actually follow the rest. Or are you selectively choosing which verses to follow, and which ones to discard?
Do you really want to know why I feel homosexuality is ok? After calling me a sodomite? Why should I engage with someone who claims to speak for God and does so with such hatred?
I didn't call you a sodomite, I called you a sodomite enabler, which is a person who approves, endorses, and defends homosexuals. Are you a sodomite too?
When you dismiss, or trivialize what God has said, you are mocking God. And you certainly have done that.
Yours is pretty much the standard retort of every sodomite enabler that I have encountered.
And here we go again, around and around.
You, CH, use the same standard retort for the condemnation of homosexuality.
Streak's point is that you either follow the whole bible, or the bible as a whole. If it's the former, then we have to start stoning people for silly shit, and killing disobedient kids,
But we don't do that. Not even Texas Big Box Fundy churches argue for that. There's a reason for that. We've realized as a species that we can't...and shouldn't...do that. We accept the behavior that once called for death, and we either deal with it through our secular laws, or recognize that something higher will deal with it..
If the sentiment in my either-or statement above is the latter, the bible as a whole, then we have moved beyond the necessity of God the Devourer/God the punitive, ad have moved into the realm of Jesus. The God that hung out with sinner, lepers, hookers and, sinners of all sinners, tax collectors.
If that's the God we follow, then we may not think homosexuality is awesome, but we never condone or excuse their being bullied. In fact...we defend those who are bullied. That kind of behavior is all over the New Testament, and is the ultimate outcome and goal of the bible: love. And last I checked, bullying isn't exactly love by anyone's standard.
So no, CH, to your first point: God is neither a homophobe nor a hatemonger. But people sure do a lot of tat in His name, and I am pretty sure that's antithetical to the bible as a whole.
Trying to stop bullying is a minor point to most defenders of homosexuals. They use bullying in order to evoke sympathy for homosexuals in hopes of achieving their real goal, which is, getting homosexuals accepted as both normal and moral.
That we don't stone people now for violating God's laws does not mean that God has repealed those laws. Stealing and adultery are still immoral, even if those things were condemned in the Old Testament. Jesus spent time with sinners, but he never endorsed their sin.
Depending on the beliefs of the advocate, the argument made by homosexuals, and their enablers, is either that God approves of them, and what is recorded in the Bible is to be dismissed, or they couldn't care less what God thinks.
If that's the God we follow, then we may not think homosexuality is awesome, but we never condone or excuse their being bullied.
Well said, Smitty. I am aware of what the Bible says in regards to homosexuality, but I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that many of the the OT prohibitions only applied to the Israelites and that Jesus did away with those, or at least modified them.
Streak's point about the whole Bible is also good. Why emphasize sexual prohibitions and ignore prohibitions against tattoos, wearing clothing made of more than one fabric, and working on the sabbath. Obviously, some of these things have fallen, in terms of importance, or are just completely ignored.
Personally, I have zero problems with homosexuality. If I am wrong, then I will have to answer for it.
As for the article, I despise people that manipulate statistics and research to support an agenda.
Hmm. So bullying is a feint, and God hasn't repealed the "stoning homosexuals" stuff. So you are advocating stoning homosexuals? And perhaps disrespectful kids?
You still have to answer for the fact that you select which parts of the Bible to follow. Why don't you avoid the skin of the pig? Why do you not have slaves? You can call these "talking points" if you want, but you still haven't answered the question.
I don't find in the Bible where God repealed either the prohibition against homosexuality, or the punishment for it. And I understand that God has violated what you consider to be moral. But someday, you will understand that God makes the rules, not you. And that day will likely come too late for you.
CH, I can't and won't argue what the bible says about homosexuality. And I agree with your point: Stealing and adultery are still immoral, even if those things were condemned in the Old Testament. Jesus spent time with sinners, but he never endorsed their sin. I said as much in my own point, but maybe I didn't drive that point home well enough.
Jesus showed us another way to deal with sin. It was leadership by example. His hanging out with sinners, agreed, wasn't excusing the sins. On the same token, Jesus never showed sinners his knuckles. Neither should we, and in fact, we ought to stick up for them. That's not excusing anything; what it is...is showing love. We show love, maybe the bully shows love.
Let me focus on another point of my...point. Why the preoccupation with homosexuality? Was has the line in the sand been drawn there by some churches? Why not bratty kids? Why not adultery? Why not bullying? There are bazillions of behaviors that ought to drive Christians batshit insane, but all we see or hear in the papers, on the interwebs and on the news is gay gay gay. Maybe that's a fault of media coverage, but maybe that because some churches are showing a dangerous preoccupation towards a sin that is mentioned like 3 times in the whole bible (if we want to use number-of-mentions as a benchmark for severity of sin...which if we do, worship-no-other-gods wins hands-down).
Seriously, what are some church leaders and their flock afraid of? There are gays in my community, and somehow my wife and I still find a way to continue to love each other and pork each other's brains out when the kids go to bed (and we're not tired...or busy...or head-achy...). I just don't see the threat of homosexuals for Christians. So, again, I don't understand why the line in the sand has been drawn there.
Shit, if Christians are worried about threats to their well-being and sanctity, they should be spending this much energy railing against Hindus and Taoists (who are numerically more vast than Christians) and atheists, whose evidence-based logic is sure to sway people away from the fold.
Seriously, what are some church leaders and their flock afraid of?
FWIW, I have attended church all my life. This has included being raised Catholic, spending 4 summers in college working at Lutheran summer camps (ELCA), and now belonging to what some would consider a fairly conservative church. In all that time, I have yet to hear a sermon on homosexuality.
I am not suggesting that some Christians don't thinks gays are a big deal, but I wanted to point out that there are plenty of Christians that focus on more important things.
but I wanted to point out that there are plenty of Christians that focus on more important things.
I hear you steve, and I agree. Most do focus on more important things. But you've got The Archbishop in Minnesota mailing a DVD to every single parishoner in the state (estimated 800,000) extolling them to defeat a legislative proposal regarding gay marriage. My personal parish tends to focus on other stuff that seems to matter to us. But Minnesota is the same as the Michigan Catholic Conference doing something simlar (they haven't, just by way of comparison...).
So, yeah, granted, many individual churches don't get involved in this stuff. But church leadership on a state-wide or nation-wide basis, certainly do. And very vocally at that.
If the Michigan Catholic Conference spent the money it would take to mail a DVD to every parishoner in the state, I'd be pissed no matter what the DVD was about. Tat money can be used to keep struggling parishes open. Feed hungry people. Support shelters. Lobby Congress or a state legislature to not cut poverty and job training programs. Send aid workers to a war-torn, famine-torn, or natural disaster-torn country.
But they chose to spend a few million dollars to mail a DVD to 800,000 church members, probably half of whom, at least, agree with them??
Why the preoccupation with homosexuality? Was has the line in the sand been drawn there by some churches? Why not bratty kids? Why not adultery? Why not bullying?
Simple. It is the 'others' sin.
One of the core elements of the Gospels is that Christ consistently told us to focus on our own sin, and let God handle the sins of others. Our Conservative Churches have accepted divorce with abandon and it is my humble opinion that the guilt they feel from that is focused outward onto what they view as another sin.
It’s a book with stories no different that stories of Greek mythological figures, Roman gods, Native American creation stories or any other cult craziness.
If you want to tell me about the bible as parable and philosophy, that is fine. But if you want to use the bible as the word of some sort of master and creator of the universe, you are just another lunatic who cannot handle the fact that we are biological entities who will eventual die and will not move on to another plane of existence.
The sooner we abandon religion altogether, the sooner humans will peacefully co-exist and move on to making our short time on this earth better for all people.
22 comments:
Is God a homophobe and a hatemonger? God said that homosexuality is a sin. Whether you like it or not, that's what He said. (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are direct quotes from God)
What is that great Anne Lamott quote? You know you have created God in your own image when he hates the same people you do? Something like that?
Streak,
You and Anne Lamott can mock and hate God if you want to, but you shouldn't expect God to overlook it.
Yeah, only a fundy thug always assumes that God agrees with them. anyone who disagrees with YOU automatically disagrees with God, eh? Except you are not God. And I have read the Bible too, it is not considered cool to claim to speak for God.
Streak,
I am not speaking for God. God has spoken for Himself. I referenced two direct quotes from God, which you either ignored or dismissed. Why did you choose to do that?
Of course you claim to speak for god. you claim that both Lamott and myself are mocking god. Make no mistake, I am mocking you and other homophobes.
But I am aware of the Bible too. According to it, God isn't a fan of the rich, nor of those who don't give all their money away to follow him. I assume you have done all of that. And Leviticus is always a standby for those condemning homosexuality. Of course, it also allows slavery, bans contact with women during their period, and says that working on the Sabbath is a capital offense.
So you follow all of these? Or just the ones that condemn gays?
Yours is pretty much the standard retort of every sodomite enabler that I have encountered. Are there talking points that you all know? Since I haven't given away all my possessions, therefore God approves of homosexuals. Is that what you meant?
One quick question: on what basis do you claim that being opposed to homosexuals is wrong?
Wow. It only took you two comments to say that I mocked God, and four to call me a sodomite. Well done, there fundy. Showing the love of Christ where ever you go, I see.
Actually, my response was not about homosexuality, but about your belief in a literal bible. If you believe that the Bible justifies your hatred of homosexuality, and you quote it to prove so, then it seems relevant to see if you actually follow the rest. Or are you selectively choosing which verses to follow, and which ones to discard?
Do you really want to know why I feel homosexuality is ok? After calling me a sodomite? Why should I engage with someone who claims to speak for God and does so with such hatred?
I didn't call you a sodomite, I called you a sodomite enabler, which is a person who approves, endorses, and defends homosexuals. Are you a sodomite too?
When you dismiss, or trivialize what God has said, you are mocking God. And you certainly have done that.
Yours is pretty much the standard retort of every sodomite enabler that I have encountered.
And here we go again, around and around.
You, CH, use the same standard retort for the condemnation of homosexuality.
Streak's point is that you either follow the whole bible, or the bible as a whole. If it's the former, then we have to start stoning people for silly shit, and killing disobedient kids,
But we don't do that. Not even Texas Big Box Fundy churches argue for that. There's a reason for that. We've realized as a species that we can't...and shouldn't...do that. We accept the behavior that once called for death, and we either deal with it through our secular laws, or recognize that something higher will deal with it..
If the sentiment in my either-or statement above is the latter, the bible as a whole, then we have moved beyond the necessity of God the Devourer/God the punitive, ad have moved into the realm of Jesus. The God that hung out with sinner, lepers, hookers and, sinners of all sinners, tax collectors.
If that's the God we follow, then we may not think homosexuality is awesome, but we never condone or excuse their being bullied. In fact...we defend those who are bullied. That kind of behavior is all over the New Testament, and is the ultimate outcome and goal of the bible: love. And last I checked, bullying isn't exactly love by anyone's standard.
So no, CH, to your first point: God is neither a homophobe nor a hatemonger. But people sure do a lot of tat in His name, and I am pretty sure that's antithetical to the bible as a whole.
Ah Smitty. Well said. Very well said.
Smitty,
Trying to stop bullying is a minor point to most defenders of homosexuals. They use bullying in order to evoke sympathy for homosexuals in hopes of achieving their real goal, which is, getting homosexuals accepted as both normal and moral.
That we don't stone people now for violating God's laws does not mean that God has repealed those laws. Stealing and adultery are still immoral, even if those things were condemned in the Old Testament. Jesus spent time with sinners, but he never endorsed their sin.
Depending on the beliefs of the advocate, the argument made by homosexuals, and their enablers, is either that God approves of them, and what is recorded in the Bible is to be dismissed, or they couldn't care less what God thinks.
If that's the God we follow, then we may not think homosexuality is awesome, but we never condone or excuse their being bullied.
Well said, Smitty. I am aware of what the Bible says in regards to homosexuality, but I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that many of the the OT prohibitions only applied to the Israelites and that Jesus did away with those, or at least modified them.
Streak's point about the whole Bible is also good. Why emphasize sexual prohibitions and ignore prohibitions against tattoos, wearing clothing made of more than one fabric, and working on the sabbath. Obviously, some of these things have fallen, in terms of importance, or are just completely ignored.
Personally, I have zero problems with homosexuality. If I am wrong, then I will have to answer for it.
As for the article, I despise people that manipulate statistics and research to support an agenda.
Hmm. So bullying is a feint, and God hasn't repealed the "stoning homosexuals" stuff. So you are advocating stoning homosexuals? And perhaps disrespectful kids?
You still have to answer for the fact that you select which parts of the Bible to follow. Why don't you avoid the skin of the pig? Why do you not have slaves? You can call these "talking points" if you want, but you still haven't answered the question.
Streak,
I don't find in the Bible where God repealed either the prohibition against homosexuality, or the punishment for it. And I understand that God has violated what you consider to be moral. But someday, you will understand that God makes the rules, not you. And that day will likely come too late for you.
So you can't answer either question? That you want to stone gays in the streets?
Or, and more importantly, that you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you follow, and which ones you don't?
Either bring it, or don't.
CH, I can't and won't argue what the bible says about homosexuality. And I agree with your point: Stealing and adultery are still immoral, even if those things were condemned in the Old Testament. Jesus spent time with sinners, but he never endorsed their sin. I said as much in my own point, but maybe I didn't drive that point home well enough.
Jesus showed us another way to deal with sin. It was leadership by example. His hanging out with sinners, agreed, wasn't excusing the sins. On the same token, Jesus never showed sinners his knuckles. Neither should we, and in fact, we ought to stick up for them. That's not excusing anything; what it is...is showing love. We show love, maybe the bully shows love.
Let me focus on another point of my...point. Why the preoccupation with homosexuality? Was has the line in the sand been drawn there by some churches? Why not bratty kids? Why not adultery? Why not bullying? There are bazillions of behaviors that ought to drive Christians batshit insane, but all we see or hear in the papers, on the interwebs and on the news is gay gay gay. Maybe that's a fault of media coverage, but maybe that because some churches are showing a dangerous preoccupation towards a sin that is mentioned like 3 times in the whole bible (if we want to use number-of-mentions as a benchmark for severity of sin...which if we do, worship-no-other-gods wins hands-down).
Seriously, what are some church leaders and their flock afraid of? There are gays in my community, and somehow my wife and I still find a way to continue to love each other and pork each other's brains out when the kids go to bed (and we're not tired...or busy...or head-achy...). I just don't see the threat of homosexuals for Christians. So, again, I don't understand why the line in the sand has been drawn there.
Shit, if Christians are worried about threats to their well-being and sanctity, they should be spending this much energy railing against Hindus and Taoists (who are numerically more vast than Christians) and atheists, whose evidence-based logic is sure to sway people away from the fold.
But no. It' gays. Go fig.
Seriously, what are some church leaders and their flock afraid of?
FWIW, I have attended church all my life. This has included being raised Catholic, spending 4 summers in college working at Lutheran summer camps (ELCA), and now belonging to what some would consider a fairly conservative church. In all that time, I have yet to hear a sermon on homosexuality.
I am not suggesting that some Christians don't thinks gays are a big deal, but I wanted to point out that there are plenty of Christians that focus on more important things.
but I wanted to point out that there are plenty of Christians that focus on more important things.
I hear you steve, and I agree. Most do focus on more important things. But you've got The Archbishop in Minnesota mailing a DVD to every single parishoner in the state (estimated 800,000) extolling them to defeat a legislative proposal regarding gay marriage. My personal parish tends to focus on other stuff that seems to matter to us. But Minnesota is the same as the Michigan Catholic Conference doing something simlar (they haven't, just by way of comparison...).
So, yeah, granted, many individual churches don't get involved in this stuff. But church leadership on a state-wide or nation-wide basis, certainly do. And very vocally at that.
Except the Episcopalians.
If the Michigan Catholic Conference spent the money it would take to mail a DVD to every parishoner in the state, I'd be pissed no matter what the DVD was about. Tat money can be used to keep struggling parishes open. Feed hungry people. Support shelters. Lobby Congress or a state legislature to not cut poverty and job training programs. Send aid workers to a war-torn, famine-torn, or natural disaster-torn country.
But they chose to spend a few million dollars to mail a DVD to 800,000 church members, probably half of whom, at least, agree with them??
Why the preoccupation with homosexuality? Was has the line in the sand been drawn there by some churches? Why not bratty kids? Why not adultery? Why not bullying?
Simple. It is the 'others' sin.
One of the core elements of the Gospels is that Christ consistently told us to focus on our own sin, and let God handle the sins of others. Our Conservative Churches have accepted divorce with abandon and it is my humble opinion that the guilt they feel from that is focused outward onto what they view as another sin.
Projection, plain and simple.
ps.
Smitty you are such a silver tongued romantic!
I don't give rip what the bible says.
It’s a book with stories no different that stories of Greek mythological figures, Roman gods, Native American creation stories or any other cult craziness.
If you want to tell me about the bible as parable and philosophy, that is fine. But if you want to use the bible as the word of some sort of master and creator of the universe, you are just another lunatic who cannot handle the fact that we are biological entities who will eventual die and will not move on to another plane of existence.
The sooner we abandon religion altogether, the sooner humans will peacefully co-exist and move on to making our short time on this earth better for all people.
Post a Comment