Today on Blogcritics
Home » Why Do Christians Hate Gay People?

Why Do Christians Hate Gay People?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

(The following is a spirited discussion between myself – The Skeptic – and a Christian preacher.)

SKEPTIC: I came across this video on Tangle (formerly GodTube), a Christian video sharing site that is normally pretty conservative in its viewpoint. However, in this particular video, a Christian experiences an amazing epiphany after a gay business friend asks him, "Why do you Christians hate us so much?" As he ponders the question, he comes to realize that it's true that "Christians have treated gay people with distain and with hate." He goes on to reflect that "when someone doesn't agree with my Christian worldview, I can become unloving." And not once did he bring up the nonsensical "Love the sinner, hate the sin," which is the standard Christian canard used to explain their attitude toward gay people.

The problem with that, of course, is that by labeling gay people as "sinners," you are judging them and setting yourself up as morally superior to them. And that sort of judgment can lead to all sorts of bigotry and discrimination against gays. In any event, my hat is off to this man for his ability to come to grips with the true nature of his feelings and his apparent willingness to try to change them.

PREACHER: I can agree with the guy in the video. I am also very ashamed of the "Christians" who call gay people bad names, pick on them, and go around with placards and bumper stickers that say, "God Hates Fags." I believe they are reacting in fear to how the gay community might mess up our world for future generations and call down God's judgment. Unfortunately, their foolish actions and words are just causing more alienation, and not really helping the problem they are trying to address. (You may notice that I don't include myself with them. I am not aware that I have ever called a gay person names, picked on them or said that God hates them. I would never want to.) It is very unfortunate that Christians who are reaching out to gay people in love and helping them in many practical ways (I personally know of many who do) don't get very much publicity.

The guy in the video did say that you should stand up for what you believe. He was confessing his and many Christians' unloving actions, words, and attitudes towards the gay community. But he wasn't saying that homosexual acts and gay marriage were good things. Although he didn't use the words, I believe he would agree with "Love the sinner, hate the sin." That phrase is only nonsensical to those who find their identity only in what they think, feel, and do. I believe one's identity is much more than just those aspects. (Though maybe, as an atheist, that is all you have to go on.)

Those who find their identity only in what they think, feel and do, get bent out of shape even when someone lovingly points out something about their behavior that is wrong. Love wants the best for other people. Accepting unhealthy immoral behavior is not love, it is indifference.

SKEPTIC: Well, it's great that you don't call gay people names or pick on them, but that's not really the issue. The issue is tolerance and acceptance of a group of people who are different from you. Unfortunately, Christianity (more often than not) becomes a barrier to real tolerance because it is so condemning and fearful of gays. When you say that their behavior is "unhealthy" and "immoral," that's not tolerance. That's a very harsh judgment which is based solely on your Christian worldview. Imposing that judgment on someone who is merely living out who he (or she) truly is (not who they suddenly decided to become) is destructive and hurtful. A truly tolerant person's attitude would be "to each his own." A truly tolerant person would congratulate a gay couple for finding someone to love and express support for such a union. But I don't see that happening within the Christian community anytime soon. They're too busy trying to deny rights to gays.

I guess that's the dilemma the guy in the video faces. While he understands that he has been unloving in his attitude, his religion prevents him from truly accepting gays. And while many Christians speak of wanting to show love, when someone accuses a gay person of immorality (like you just did), I suspect that feels more like hate.

And by the way, there is a lot of evidence that points to gay relationships in the Bible, especially the relationship between David and Jonathan.

PREACHER: Frankly, I think that those who see homosexual relationships in the Bible (the writer of the article forgot to mention the relationship of Jesus and the "beloved" disciple John) aren't able to discern between what is actually written in the text and their own imaginations. Even if any of those relationships actually had sexual acts in them, they still wouldn't be justified since other passages in both the Old and New Testaments clearly condemn such acts. Was physical attraction a factor in these relationships? Quite possibly. Did they stimulate each others sexual organs to enhance physical pleasure towards orgasm and demand that the culture of their day call that good, even allowing them to get married? I don't think so.

I prefer not to use the word "gay." Besides the fact that the word's original meaning had nothing to do with sexual preference, it labels a very nebulous group of people as shameful and sinful (according to conservative Christians) and as oppressed and righteous (according to liberals). It also discriminates against more unusual sexual orientations such as feelings of attraction to animals or feelings of attraction to minors. Do you believe that homosexuality is a good thing, but bestiality and pedophilia are wrong? If you were truly a moral relativist, you wouldn't make that distinction. Making that distinction makes your opinion a "moral authority." And, since you claim that there is no Moral Authority in the first place, your shaking of the finger at Christians who do have a Moral Authority and call homosexual acts wrong based on what that Authority has revealed, is only an expression of your opinion, which I don't recognize as a moral authority and is essentially meaningless.

Nowhere does the Bible condemn feelings of sexual attraction. When Jesus said that if a man looks on a woman with lust that he has already committed adultery, I am sure He wasn't referring to the feeling of "Isn't she beautiful," but to thoughts of "I want to have sexual contact with her, let me see how I can accomplish that." When the Bible condemns homosexuality or any other kind of sexual contact for that matter, it refers to the actual act, not the initial feeling. So I make a distinction between what is called sexual orientation and sexual acts. Sexual orientation simply determines what arouses a person sexually. I bet that is different for each person. What you actually act out with your sexual orientation, that is where good or bad are determined based on what our Creator has determined and not on the finite opinions of men.

SKEPTIC: Your response pretty much makes my point. You tie yourself in knots in an attempt to justify your intolerance. When you assert that gay relationships are no different than bestiality or pedophilia, you expose your true feelings about gays. You can claim that you don't hate them, but that kind of rhetoric doesn't qualify as any kind of love in my book. You claim you don't hate gays, and yet you hang a sign outside your Christian faith that says, "Gays need not apply," and I'm pretty sure that you also believe that an "unrepentant" gay person won't be admitted to heaven. Personally, I think it's Christians who need to "repent" for their bigotry and intolerance against their fellow human beings who happen to to be gay. But I'm not holding my breath on that score.

In regard to David and Jonathan's "friendship" in the Bible – I guess no one will ever know for sure what went on in the privacy of their room, but when David says of Jonathan in II Samuel 1:26, "Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women," I think it's not unreasonable to wonder about the nature of their relationship.

As far as lust goes, I'm in favor of it. The biblical injunction against it is ridiculous. If men and women didn't lust for each other, the human race would soon die out. Is that what you want?

One final question for you: What do Christians think gays should do? Stop being gay? That's like asking someone to stop being left-handed. And although many have tried, most have failed. (Just ask Super Christian Ted Haggard, who still struggles with his sexuality. Is he really better off now, having hidden and suppressed his true sexual feelings all his life?) Or is it okay for them to be attracted to the same sex, as long as they don't act on their feelings? Your previous comments seem to imply that.

Here's an idea: maybe Christians could just start to accept and respect their fellow travelers on this planet and stop trying to impose their two-thousand-year-old code of morality on everyone else. (Hey, I can dream, can't I?)

PREACHER: Again I see you like to use that "gay" word. It is used to separate out a group of people that have a particular way of feeling called sexual orientation, who may or may not actually act on it. It is a dastardly word that stigmatizes people and puts them in a contrived minority so they can be victims of the rest of society. I make a distinction between two groups: those who simply have a physical attraction to the same sex but use self-control versus those who commit immoral sexual acts and demand that everyone else call what they are doing good. (I make the same distinction with heterosexuals, too: married couples vs. flagrant adulterers.)

The first group I welcome with open arms to join the Christian faith. I respect their willingness to be honest about their feelings and would stand up for them against the shameful castigation that the majority in society might throw at them. The second group may come to my church, too. However, I wouldn't allow them to be leaders in my church, especially with the youth. That is because I believe that the homosexual lifestyle is immoral, based on the Moral Authority, not just my opinion, that I trust. (You certainly realize that "hating gays" is not a Christian monopoly. I know of plenty of Muslims, Buddhists, and even atheists who find homosexuality disgusting and wrong.)

From your comments, it seems to me that you place great value in sexual fulfillment. You seem to make it the apex of life, as if it were the ultimate good. I would even go so far to say that you have made it your "god." I suppose that anyone who makes sex their "god" would want to have that completely fulfilled. And, that would include being able to satisfy those irrational feelings that we call sexual orientation. Your sexuality then becomes your primary identity. Instead of being something you do, it becomes you.

For me, the sexual experience spices up the marriage relationship between a man and a woman. Otherwise, it is nothing but a cheap thrill. It seems to me that those who insist that fulfilling and acting out their sexual orientation as the greatest good have made a cheap thrill the central meaning and purpose of life. When you think that way, it will be assumed that every endearing relationship must have a dominant sexual element to it. How absurd!

It is clear to me that proper expression of and about sexuality is intricately connected with morality. I say that homosexual acts are immoral. You say that my intolerant position on homosexual acts is immoral. I base my position on what the Bible teaches (it happens to be my final moral Authority), the opinions of the majority of humanity, and the "what if everyone did it" test. (Of course, some of your ecological extremists might applaud the decimation of the human population.) You have your opinion, the opinions of the gay community and some liberal thinkers, and the results of some controversial research done by the gay community.

Now, you claim to be a moral relativist, and don't claim to have any moral authority, nor do you set yourself up as a moral authority. It seems to me that you have abdicated your right to call anything immoral or wrong. You are able to express your opinion about whether you like something or not, but you cannot speak with authority and say that anything is really right or wrong. Hence, your complaining about my intolerance towards "gays" is meaningless, a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

But I will keep my peace with the "gay community" as long as they don't demand that the rest of us call their lifestyle good and insist that we should emulate it, support it with our taxes, and teach it to our children.

SKEPTIC: So in conclusion, you don't like the word "gay" because you've assigned some sort of nefarious special meaning to it; my opinion is meaningless and yours is the only one that matters because you got it from The Magic Book; you're cool with gay people as long as they don't "do the deed" or spread the gay virus to the young 'uns, and it's okay that Christians hate gays because lots of other people hate gays, too.

But I guess maybe I should be grateful that so many good Christian folk are willing to take upon themselves the thankless task of telling the rest of us how to live our lives.

So I'll make you a deal…

I will keep my peace with the "Christian community" as long as they don't demand that the rest of us call their lifestyle good and insist and that we should emulate it, support it with our taxes, and teach it to our children.

Powered by

About Doug DeLong

  • Annon

    When gays think that Christians hate them it reminds me of a four year old who thinks
    his mother hates him because she won’t let him eat just candy for supper.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Interesting. There are millions of gay Christians around the globe so a wholesale indictment of the entire belief system really isn’t fair. Many “Christians” hate gays out of fear. Others out of a blind acceptance of that which they were taught. Harvey Milk believed that if gays were more forthright about themselves and put their own faces on the “identity” it would go a long way in furthering the cause. I agree.

    There’s a great scene in The Opposite of Sex where a young gay kid is trying to blackmail a gay teacher for personal gain. The teacher grabs the kid’s pierced nipple (through his shirt) and says:

    “Listen to me, you little grunge faggot. I survived my family, my schoolyard, every Republican, every other Democrat, Anita Bryant, the Pope, the fucking Christian Coalition, not to mention a real son of a bitch of a virus, in case you haven’t noticed. In all that time since Paul Lynde and Truman Capote were the only fairies in America, I’ve been busting my ass so that you’d be able to do what you wanted with yours! So I don’t just want your obedience right now – which I do want and plenty of it – but I want your fucking gratitude, right fucking now, or you’re going to be looking down a long road at your nipple in the dirt! Do you hear what I’m saying?”

    That about sums it up. The pioneers have led the way and it’s time for this new generation of LGBT people to take it to the next level. Forty years from now they’ll look back with pride on all that was accomplished and the perception of intolerance while remaining in certain pockets will be a thing of the past.

  • http://preacherskeptic.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    Silas: There are millions of gay Christians around the globe so a wholesale indictment of the entire belief system really isn’t fair.

    Point taken. There are those Christians on the left side of the spectrum (the ones who dare to ordain gay Bishops, for example) who exhibit real tolerance. But I think for most mainstream American Christians (aka “born-agains”), the term “gay Christian” is an oxymoron.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Perhaps, Doug. When I was in my late 20’s I read Troy Perry’s The Lord is My Shepherd and He Knows I am Gay. At the time it had little effect on me because I wasn’t ready to reconcile my beliefs and personal values. I reread this book four years ago and it made complete sense. Rev. Perry is a devout Christian and his Metropolitan Community Church movement has been well received in so many communities. I spent some time with M.C.C. in my personal vision quest but it just wasn’t the right fit.

    We have to remember that the LGBT community hasn’t helped the cause either. The flamboyance of many “out loud” gays tend to shadow the mainstream gays who go about living their lives in quiet harmony with none of the negatives one would expect. I know plenty of LGBT couples who have been together for 25+ years and they’re active members in their communities, have wide circles of friends and are well respected even by the most “Christian” of Christians.

    It’s the closeted gays who hurt the community more than the Baptists. When gays live in fear of reprisals, family shunning and blackmail what results is irrational thought and behavior. The self loathing and self doubt hurt more than anything else. BY living in the shadows and hating one’s self, it gives license to the anti-gay movement to continue. Like in the movie Network, it’s time for LGBT land to collectively scream I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it any more!

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    You know, Jews tend to be on the tolerant side when it comes to homosexual behavior – there are a variety of reasons for this, but if you are wondering why I’m commenting on this, I remind you that it is our Torah, that lays out moral behavior for the Children of Israel in Leviticus, Cap. 18-19. It lays out the penalties for breaking that code in Leviticus, Cap. 20, and declares that those convicted of homosexual behavior shall be put to death. But that’s where you all stop! Not only do you fail to read all of Leviticus 18-19 to understand the meaning of that chapter, you fail to look at the laws of evidence in the Torah.

    In Deuteronomy, Cap. 17, there is the key point that makes private homosexual behavior off-limits to the courts – even among us Children of Israel. By the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses shall the condemned be put to death; he shall not be put to death by the testimony of a single witness. [Deuteronomy 17:6]

    Nowhere do I see any of this mentioned in the article. Nowhere do I see the implications of these verses when taken together brought forth.

    First, you Christians arrogate to yourselves our code of holiness, pretending that you even have the right to (the Torah is not for you, it is for the Children of Israel), and second of all, you misinterpret it all miserably.

    It’s pathetic.

    Nevertheless, there is a cogent comment on sexuality in this article, and it is on page 5:

    From your comments, it seems to me that you place great value in sexual fulfillment. You seem to make it the apex of life, as if it were the ultimate good. I would even go so far to say that you have made it your “god.” I suppose that anyone who makes sex their “god” would want to have that completely fulfilled. And, that would include being able to satisfy those irrational feelings that we call sexual orientation. Your sexuality then becomes your primary identity. Instead of being something you do, it becomes you.

    That drives the point home with a hammer. All of us are far more than the hormones coursing through our bodies, or that which we lust after. When we forget that, we demean ourselves.

  • Annon

    I believe that both Jews and Christians believe in a God who sees and knows all, including our most private acts and thoughts. That being the case, whether the act is seen by human witnesses or not has nothing to do with whether our Creator approves of it or not.

  • http://www.darkparables.blogspot.com Carole McDonnell

    I’m a Bible believer pretty orthodox and I don’t hate gay people. One can believe something is wrong and not hate people. Lots of gay folks are in orthodox Christian churches. They’re choir-directors, or just folks in the churches and no one bothers them. On a day to day level People generally do not care about people’s business in churches. It’s only in the realm of politics and the media that hatred pops up.

  • http://preacherskeptic.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    Carole, Thanks for your comments. Do you believe gay people should have the right to be married?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Perhaps a more meaningful way to phrase the title question would be:

    “Why do politically-minded conservative Christians feel the need to single out gays for hostility?”

    And “Why insist on voicing this hostility so loudly, so publicly, and with so little regard for facts?”

    As for individual Christians: if this shoe fits, own up to it.

    In many cases, gays are just a convenient political football, a focal point around which conservatives can try to flex their political clout. It’s opportunistic bigotry rather than heartfelt bigotry, but no less repugnant for that.

    Fortunately, changing public attitudes have already begun to make this a losing battle for conservatives: Most Americans prefer to live and let live.

    And while gay marriage is still a step further than many moderate heterosexuals are willing to go, a majority of Americans now accept the principle of civil unions.

    It’s only a matter of time.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    …whether the act is seen by human witnesses or not has nothing to do with whether our Creator approves of it or not.

    Doesn’t that spit in the face of the Divine directive of humanity’s free will? Is it a matter of God or man’s approval?

    They’re choir-directors, or just folks in the churches and no one bothers them. On a day to day level People generally do not care about people’s business in churches. It’s only in the realm of politics and the media that hatred pops up.

    Amen to that! Without the choir directors the joyful noise unto the Lord would not be as sweet.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    a God who sees and knows all, including our most private acts and thoughts. That being the case, whether the act is seen by human witnesses or not has nothing to do with whether our Creator approves of it or not.

    All this rather misses the point. What the Divine Court does in judging our actions is very different from what a human court does. Leviticus 18-20, combined with Deuteronomy 17:6 describes a human court judging the Children of Israel.

    And that is the point.

    If we attempt to divine what Lev. 18:22 is getting at, and realize that it is public (or witnessed) homosexual behavior that is condemned as an abomination, we then need to look at where we would have found this behavior in Canaan, the Land that was holy and to be kept so by the behavior of the Children of Israel (it wasn’t, but that is not quite the issue here).

    Witnessed homosexual relations were generally found in pagan temples where temple prostitutes “serviced” worshipers. And you got any flavor “service” you wanted, so long as you made the necessary sacrifice, or paid the requisite fee.

    James Michener illustrated this concept rather well in early chapters of his book The Source about Israel’s secrets stripped bare in an archaeological dig in the Galilee. Though a work of fiction (written from a moderate Catholic POV), The Source was based on archaeological studies of practices at Canaanite temples.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    To make a long story short, the crux of most of the moral code in Leviticus 18 is G-d saying to the Children of Israel, “don’t do what the Canaanites do, for they have polluted the Land and I Am kicking them out – and if you do what they do, I’ll kick you out too!”

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Thanks for your contributions to this discussion, Ruvy, they’ve been insightful.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    “The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals…

    …they just need more supervision.”

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Leviticus 18-20, combined with Deuteronomy 17:6 have a much more simplistic explanation with the perfect example in today’s American.

    Hispanics will soon become the majority.

    Back in biblical times the Israelites were a severe minority and thus easy to conquer. Laws were set up meant to make sure that Jews were fruitful and multiplied-safety in numbers, thus biblical admonishions on ANYTHING either hetero or homo that didn’t produce children.

    Rather than recognize this biblical fact, those who choose to hate use it as an excuse. Ignoring how many of the teachings of the bible are dated and/or outdated such as animal sacrifice during religious ceremonies and multiple wives.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    I’ll keep that in mind when I sacrifice my cat tonight. She’s in heat and I’m ready to strangle her. After one wife, I can’t fathom how ANY man would want more at once. Now a woman with multiple husbands — THAT I can see. After all a hard man is good to find and it’s rare these days without Viagra.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Silas you’d love Eddie Izzard’s new DVD where he illustrates the dopler effect by having firemen throw cats out the window of their firetruck instead of a faulty siren.

    I however love my cat Mischief, and wouldn’t do such things

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Sophie, my cat, is named after the late great Sophie Tucker. And let me tell you she lives up to the last of the Red Hot Mama’s reputation. I want her to have one little before she is spayed and I have 7 potential homes for the kittens so it’s all good. I will keep one of them, pof course, and I will name it Bette if it’s a girl or Max.

    I just love firefighters, Jet. I’ve made a few of them howl like a siren in my time.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Any gay man will tell you there’s no such thing as an ugly fireman. I used to deliver pizzas to several firestations and to get to their lunch room you had to go through their bunk room…

    …gay heaven

    As for Sophie Tucker, one of my favorite stories is when Sophie’s best friend comes up their fence as asks

    “Soph, how is it that you never get caught in the rain when you’re hanging up your laundry like the rest of us.”

    Sophie replies, “That’s a perfectly simple proposition; When I wake up in the morning I roll over and look at my boyfriend Ernie’s crotch.

    If it laying on the right it’s going to rain, if it’s laying on the left I know it’s going to be a sunny day”

    After a moment of pondering the friend asks, “But Soph, what if it’s standing straight up in middle?”

    and she replies, “Who the hell wants to do laundry on a day like that anyway?”

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Sophie Tucker, Rusty Warren, Totie Fields, Bette Midler. It doesn’t get any better than that!

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    If I am correct, all 4 ladies mentioned above are Jews. Does that mean Christian women have no sense of humor?

  • Annon

    What a lot of interesting comments humorous and thought provoking. I see a common thread in much of it, though. I believe it is called moral relativism. I don’t think that a moral relativist can categorically say whether anything is right or wrong. He can only express his opinion. Conservative Christians who seem rigid to moral relativists seem that way, because they appeal to a higher Authority than their opinions.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Actually Annon, they refer to a higher authority to validate weak opinions

  • Annon

    So, assuming that you are a moral relativist, does that mean your opinion is stronger than a conservative Christian. What objective standard do you use to demonstrate that?

  • Baronius

    Doug, I don’t know what that exchange was supposed to illuminate except that people on both sides of an issue can make faulty assumptions about each other. Both of you were arguing against positions which (as far as I can tell from the excerpt you provided) the other guy didn’t take. You never answered him on the question of moral authority, and he never answered you on the subject of tolerance. And you both highlighted and responded to relatively inconsequential points made by the other one. It’s a pretty good demonstration of the problems of internet debate.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    …they refer to a higher authority to validate weak opinions…

    Does that mean Hebrew National products aren’t kosher after all? What will I eat?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Hebrew National lost their hékhsher, their certification of being kosher, Silas. Try Ballpark dogs instead…

  • http://preacherskeptic.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    BARONIUS: You never answered him on the question of moral authority

    My position is fairly straightforward. I believe that mankind has, since the beginning, developed moral codes for the family and community to live by, based on their particular needs. I suppose I’m a moral relativist in the sense that I believe that moral codes have changed (hopefully in a positive direction) through time and can vary from culture to culture. The problem with citing the moral absolutism of the Bible is that it doesn’t allow for changes in cultures or society.

    I certainly don’t believe that any moral code has been dictated by some divine being. In fact, I suspect that moral codes which were incorporated into religious dogma were nothing more than a reflection of the moral code already in place in that particular society and functioned as a way to codify it.

    For The Preacher to try to invalidate my opinion by saying I don’t base it on any “moral authority” is pretty insulting. If you really require some sort of authority, I suppose you could call it “human nature” and the survival instinct in man. Besides, if we all lived by the 2000-year-old moral code that Christians insist we live by, not only would we all be heterosexual, but we’d all be avoiding shellfish and holding slaves.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Try Ballpark dogs instead…

    Thanks, Ruvy. I’m not crazy about BallPark so I’ll stick with Pearl’s! There is a local brand of hot dog out here (Rhode Island only) called Saugy. They are the most amazing dogs I’ve eaten.

    Besides, if we all lived by the 2000-year-old moral code that Christians insist we live by, not only would we all be heterosexual, but we’d all be avoiding shellfish and holding slaves.

    I loves me some shellfish. And lest we forget there was a time when lobster and craw daddies were only eaten by slaves until the elite discovered just how good they are. I guess slavery has several definitions. In my mind the modern day slave is one who lives under the poverty level, eats at MacDonalds and can only afford to shop at WalMart. We’re slaves to that which we are presented on television.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Besides, if we all lived by the 2000-year-old moral code that Christians insist we live by, not only would we all be heterosexual, but we’d all be avoiding shellfish and holding slaves.

    If any of you understood the Code of Law in the Torah, you would not live by it at all. It is not even meant for you. You would live by the Seven Laws of Noah, which are.

    1. Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
    2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)
    3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
    4. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit any of a series of sexual prohibitions, which include adultery, incest, bestiality and male homosexual intercourse.
    5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God’s name.
    6. Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
    7. Requirement to have just Laws: Set up a governing body of law (eg Courts)

    Note: Heretofore, it has been the rabbis who have interpreted these laws. But you are not bound by the rabbinical interpretations. You are Children of Noah, and you make up your own minds in interpreting these laws. That’s a big part of the Seventh Law.

  • Annon

    Tolerance is worth talking about. I believe it means being nice to someone even if they don’t believe what you believe on very important issues ,and even if they do things you believe are wrong. It doesn’t mean you accept their belief system nor condone what they do.

  • Annon

    If the determining factor of our moral code is just “human nature” and survival tactics, then don’t we end up with “might makes right” and “the majority wins”? Since the gay community is quite small (not a majority nor very powerful), then Doug’s source of a moral code logically would not be in favor of such things as gay marriage the he seems to be in favor of.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    How about the Seven Laws of Chris?

    1. Have any idols you want, except American Idol.
    2. You shalt not murder, except for those who believe in an afterlife, cos that isn’t really murder, just removing a temporary housing.
    3. You shalt not steal, so repeal most tax laws, especially inheritance taxes.
    4. You shalt not stick your nose into other people’s sexuality.
    5. You shalt not blaspheme against humanity by burbling on about unproven creationist fancies.
    6.You shalt not be a fatty.
    7. You shalt not have unnecessary laws, especially those preventing people living their lives the way they want to.

    More seriously, Annon, tolerance is a really underestimated quality. It is also what most people are really attacking when they speak critically of liberalism. They just swap the words out because saying that you are against tolerance is obviously not an attractive argument…

    However, I think your definition of tolerance is more akin to good manners.

    There is a clear difference between tolerance and respect though. I will always tolerate other people’s unsubstantiated beliefs because people should have the right to believe any foolish thing they want to.

    I don’t respect those views though and nor would I tolerate them being made into laws or requirements that would impose them on others.

    It is also a matter for debate as to whether people with certain views should be allowed into certain types of work. I wouldn’t want someone who believed the apocalypse was nigh to have their finger on the nuclear trigger or a powerful politician making decisions based on private beliefs.

  • http://preacherskeptic.blogspot.com Doug DeLong

    I agree, Christopher. Tolerance is more than just being nice to someone who’s engaging in behavior you think is wrong. Tolerance is having a mindset that says, “Hey, I don’t necessarily agree with your behavior, but I’m not going to treat you any differently than anyone else or try to deny rights to you that others take for granted.”

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Well, Chris, since you’ve revealed YOUR tablet of codes, here’s a response and mine as well:

    1. Have any idols you want, except American Idol.

    …or Pat Robertson.

    2. You shalt not murder, except for those who believe in an afterlife, cos that isn’t really murder, just removing a temporary housing.

    Interesting way of looking at it, so I will leave this one alone as it is quite intriguing.

    3. You shalt not steal, so repeal most tax laws, especially inheritance taxes.

    And if you steal as an elected official, thou shalt be put to death.

    4. You shalt not stick your nose into other people’s sexuality.

    If it feels good, do it, and shut up about it.

    5. You shalt not blaspheme against humanity by burbling on about unproven creationist fancies.

    Sarah Palin & Virginia Fox are examples of the Divine’s sense of humor.

    6.You shalt not be a fatty.

    Just smoke them.

    7. You shalt not have unnecessary laws, especially those preventing people living their lives the way they want to.

    Unless, of course, the laws are to regulate organized religion and the amount of taxes they must pay.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Silas, despite you being a committed faithist and me thinking it is all folk lore, I am encouraged and pleased that our views appear to be so similar.

    Tax exemption for churches is just one of many grievous wrongs in contemporary taxation systems.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Christopher,

    Your code is the most hilarious thing I have read in quite awhile. I especially am amused at the housing change. lol

    …..

    male homosexual intercourse

    So, what does that mean Ruvy? Lesbians are okay, right?

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Not that it matters. I was just amusing myself.

    Do tell, Cindy.

    Silas, despite you being a committed faithist and me thinking it is all folk lore,

    I don’t know if others would consider me a “faithist”. I believe there is a God, it’s just my definition doesn’t fit the accepted dogma.

    Tax exemption for churches is just one of many grievous wrongs in contemporary taxation systems.

    I TOTALLY concur.

    So, what does that mean Ruvy? Lesbians are okay, right?

    Hmm. Lesbians are great. I have a lot of lesbian friends. They make great baba ganoush and hummus. Insofar as the “male intercourse” thing goes does that mean oral sex is off limits?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Oh btw, the best hot dogs you could ever eat are Thumann’s Natural Casing. Track them down, they are so worth it. Never had a hot dog quite like them.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    So, what does that mean Ruvy? Lesbians are okay, right?

    I didn’t write Leviticus, Cindy. Evidently, for reasons I don’t understand, lesbians get a free pass. If you read carefully, you’ll see that a guy sleeping with his niece gets free pass also.

    Is this “okay” with me? There are some things that are far beyond my pay-grade, Cindy.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    for reasons I don’t understand

    Doesn’t strike me as difficult to imagine the reasons. Male domination mindset is very focused on other males. That is men were/are taught (still) to emulate high status males. Women who were/are more like property or objects of conquest get a free pass because they aren’t important, except as status/sexual objects. Likewise the male can sleep with his niece.

    This same mentality, while outwardly frowned on is still in place, and males are still conditioned toward this social norm. That is, being concerned with approval from the dominating males. I wondered at about age 17, why all the cool, free, thinking men still acted a lot like the dominator men.

    Some men question this.

  • Linda

    So, what do christians call men who have intercourse with a woman who is having her menstrual period? Afterall, you aren’t supposed to do that.

  • Ronnie Alvarez

    The westboro are a bunch of wicked mind people.

  • Carol

    I dont believe that christian hate gays,we just dont like the bold sin without the conviction that it is wrong. I know that all have sin and come short of the glory of God. we must recogize our wrong doing and repent of them it is wrong in the sight of God.I love them but I dont like that spirit.We all know what is right from wrong. But of course we all have different veiws.

  • Dillon Mawler

    Carol delivers the perfect Christian recipe for misery:

    You can do it, but you’d damn well better feel really bad about it, or at least act like you feel bad so the Carols of the world will know you have the right “spirit.”

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Dillon, I like your feistiness.

  • Chris

    I was raised by real conservatives on every side and I am absolutely liberal. The fact is homosexuality is no more condemned in the bible than pretty much anything else bad a person can do. Like they all fornicate and are liars and then are double minded and two faced its just terrible. I was raised like this and always taught this way but it never ever made one lick of sense…

  • Rick

    I went to a mega Christian church in Orange County, CA once because my sister asked me to go. It just so happens that the preacher started preaching about how intolerant gays are and, in fact, went on to say how “gays are the most intolerant group of all”. His reasoning was based on some reference he made to the gays attacking Dr. Laura because she made some anti-gay statement. And I guess that made the gays intolerant. Never mind what Dr. Laura said about the gays for them to respond against her. Regardless, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

    Then I started wondering why a preacher would start in on the gays and twisting facts to make gays sound more intolerant than many so called Christians are against gay people. Here in a church that probably didn’t have any openly gay people, the preacher was preaching hate about a group that doesn’t really involve his so called flock. I mean, really, he could have been preaching love and about how you should love your neighbor as yourself or maybe how the married men out there shouldn’t cheat on their wives, you know, something more relevant to his people. No, he chose to go after gays in what was a very hate-filled sermon, something not even relevant to the majority of people in that church.

    I decided then that gays make a great scapegoat for Christians when they need to focus on some sort of “enemy”. In a horrible way, it sort of bonds the people in the church. They sit there in the church and think to themselves how awful gays are because “the gays are intolerant”, but they are not thinking about the sins that are really relevant to themselves. I think in a very dangerous way, the preacher was kind of manipulating the so called Christians that just sat there and agreed with everything the preacher said even if it was based on misunderstanding and vile hatred.

    Christians often wonder why Christians in general are always poked fun at. Often when you talk about Jesus in certain parts of the country and world, many people are turned off immediately. I think this episode in the church is partially why. Many of the Christian leader are just hypocrites and completely miss the important and much more relevant messages that their church goers could really use. It’s all so disgusting.

    Judgement day should be really interesting for these people.

  • manda

    When people are living in sin they will take every means available to justify their sinful activity and that includes twisting the bible and beliefs for their own satisfaction.

    I work with alot of troubled youth gay or not, drug users or not, thieves or not. I teach them what the bible teaches me and one in which homosexuality is a sin. If I do not advocate Jesus Christ and the truth then I have turned my back oh Him.

    I will not sugar coat the word of the Lord.

  • margaret

    People who profess to be Christian and spew out hate are not Chrisitan. The Apostle John stated clearly that God is love. Anyone who hates does not love God. You’ll see as soon as the gay issue is settled the haters will find someone else to attack.

  • shaneika

    i have njo problem with gay people

  • FullBloodedChristian

    There is no such thing as a gay christian sorry to say, if their gay their not Christian, God says this Lv 18:22 “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” this is why Christians do not like gays, they are going against God’s will and is unacceptable

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    So, troll… ahem, I mean FullBloodedChristian… if I see my wife in the nude while she’s on her period, does that mean I’m not a Christian either (Lev. 18:19)?

  • zingzing

    get your wings, doc. troll needs to learn some basic grammar while he’s at it.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    There is no such thing as a Christian!

    :-)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Chris, that’s actually a very reasonable conclusion if one uses “FullBloodedChristian”‘s logic:

    1. If you break any of the OT laws and commandments, you’re not a Christian.
    2. Christ broke some of these laws himself; not only that, but…
    3. Paul advised the early Church that its members no longer needed to observe certain OT commandments, in particular the one regarding circumcision.
    4. Clearly, if you don’t follow the example of Christ and the edicts of Paul and the other Christian Fathers, you’re not a Christian.
    5. However, if you do follow Christ, Paul and the others, you’re breaking OT law and are not a Christian.
    6. Therefore, it is impossible to be a Christian.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    There are, actually gay Christians who hold to a very conservative interpretation of the NEW Testament passages on homosexuality, and there are other gay Christians who disagree with those interpretations.

    People who are actually GAY and CHRISTIAN can disagree amongst themselves about this, and still treat one another with kindness and respect.

    If any of us right now could be presented with a full list of how far short we fall of the standard of selfless love set by Jesus Christ, no one would be able to stand up, let alone point a judgmental finger at someone else. Impossible to be a Christian? Yes! Exactly.

    “Being a Christian” shouldn’t be about pointing fingers, but should rather be about reaching out a helping hand, and just as often, humbly reaching out FOR one.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Indeed, Irene. I’d like to ask FBC (although he won’t be back) how far short he thinks he’s falling by not following Christ’s injunction against being a judgemental prick! [Matthew 7, Luke 6, John 8 etc…] :-)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    I’ll bet I know somebody who indulged in a sinful plum pudding this week. Fess up, Dr. D.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    I do have one or two waiting in the wings (a.k.a. the pantry), Irene, but that is actually one of the few foodstuffs in which I did not indulge over the weekend.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Hebrew National lost their hékhsher, their certification of being kosher

    Given their slogan, I can’t say I’m surprised. I’ve always thought that “We answer to a higher authority” was just another way of saying “God knows what’s in our sausages”.

  • Baronius

    FBC is wrong when he tries to apply the word “gay” to a Biblical context, for two reasons. First, the notion of sexual orientation is fairly new. The prohibition is against practices, not against orientations. In a modern sense, a person can be gay without committing any sinful actions. Such an idea wouldn’t have made sense to an OT-era thinker.

    The second problem is that he fails to apply the NT concept of forgiveness. A person can commit sins and be forgiven by God. A person may have broken the prohibitions against homosexual activity and still be made right with God through Jesus’s sacrifice.

    The third item of note is the question that Dread raises, that being whether the OT prohibitions apply to Christians. The Catholic understanding is that we are free from the rituals of the OT, but the moral law still applies. Menstruation is ritually unclean in the OT. Homosexual actions, however, are condemned in both testaments. (I know that some people read those passages differently, but I think they’re pretty clear.) Homosexual actions constitute a sin against our sexual natures in a way that mixing fabrics doesn’t. So on that point, FBC is correct.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    but the moral law still applies.

    There are fairly large swathes of Old Testament morality which almost all modern people (including Christians) find abhorrent.

    There’s also the matter of that little injunction against making graven images of God, which an immense body of art, much of it Church-funded and sanctioned, ignores. If the Ten Commandments are supposed to be our moral compass, we’re all pretty much screwed on that one.

  • http://planetjapan.org Doug DeLong

    You know, I’ve discovered that life is much less complicated if one regards the Bible as just an interesting storybook instead of some sort of rigid 2000-year-old rulebook for how to live your life. if you really feel like you need a guidebook, try Dr. Phil – or Dr. Seuss.

    FYI, The Preacher and I (The Skeptic) recently debated the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

  • Baronius

    “There are fairly large swathes of Old Testament morality which almost all modern people (including Christians) find abhorrent.’

    Not really, Dread. Leaving out the ritual and the intense punishments, the moral code is pretty comparable to the NT. A good rule of thumb is, if Ruvy talks about it, it’s barbaric and vengeful and has been superceded by the NT.

    As for graven images, I’m sure you know that this has been a heated debate across the history of Christianity, so it’s not like OT prohibitions are reinterpreted casually. But the understanding of it has definitely changed between the Jewish and Christian eras. The priority for a monotheistic people surrounded by statue-worshippers was on God’s ineffability. But once God became man, obviously the illustration of God became possible. Note that you still don’t see worship of statues as you would among, for example, some elements of Hinduism. Christians worship the God who is represented by the artwork.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Baronius, your comment deserves a thoughtful answer, but I’m not in an environment where I can concentrate at the moment. Hopefully I’ll sink my teeth into it tomorrow.

  • Ruvy

    A good rule of thumb is, if Ruvy talks about it, it’s barbaric and vengeful and has been superseded by the NT.

    A good rule of thumb is that any theological points made by Baronius are an empty effort to defend a pagan faith built on blood sacrifice, human sacrifice and cannibalism. The only thing that Christians ever succeeded in doing by declaring the Torah “superseded” was to indulge in murder, massacre, rape, and the humiliation of their “elder brothers in faith”. Actions that were barbaric, vengeful and vicious, not to mention outside the pale of allegedly “civilized” behavior. And, as it turns out, the model for “Christian” treatment of gay people.

    The Muslims who are kicking your butts with “sharia law” have learned well from you Christians. They have learned to behave just as brutally as you did. The mere fact that you would rather forget your own sins, makes it more of a pleasure for me to see Muslim fanatics visiting them upon you all. And NO, I will not forgive, and NO, I will not forget, and those Jews too stupid to realize the evil Christianity and generations of Christians have done, will deserve an interesting time when Divine Judgment happens upon them.

    The Rule of Law that applies to those of you who are not Children of Israel are the Seven Laws of Noah. Go look them up yourselves.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    You can’t answer objections to the shocking parts of the Old Testament by merely saying they’ve been superseded by what’s in the New Testament. Baronius’ answer to the graven image question was SPOT ON, though. Looking at a crucifix moves me to worship the God of the Old Testament, rather than accuse Him.

    One extreme view of those Old Testament passages says, that’s exactly what God is like, so I’m off to nuke any nation that stands in the way of Israel, and while I’m at it, I’ll put up a God-hates-fags web page. The second extreme says, that’s NOTHING like what God is like. If you take the entire Bible as revealed truth, you have to conclude that things we call normal and natural, including extramarital sex, God calls sin. He has ordered the wholesale destruction–men, women and children–of societies who were steeped in sin. That’s God. There is a judgment after we die, and there is a hell.

    The other side of God is the side that has lived in a human body and “gets” what it’s like to live among religious hypocrites and also among good, God-fearing and God-loving people (the various rabbinic schools in Jesus’ day) who couldn’t quite come to an agreement as to what exactly it was GOD WANTED.

    It was that image of God, Jesus, who convinced the angry crowd, furious at the woman caught in adultery, to put down their stones. Stoning was God’s Old Testament prescription for adulterers and men found lying with men as with women. If you believe Jesus was the God of the Old Testament incarnate, you have to believe that stoning was, in some sense, his prescription also. And yet, instead of leading the charge for the stone-throwing, he quietly wrote things in the sand until everyone who had held a stone to throw walked away in shame.

    I believe that some can walk away from the homosexual lifestyle, marry and have families, and not look back. I know because I know one like that, and he’s the real deal. On the other hand, I realize that my Christian ex-gay friend’s story is not every gay Christian’s story. When I hear about Christians being driven to suicide because of the isolation they feel over their sexuality, I’d rather err on the side of love and compassion, and send them to a place where such a Jesus is, where JOB ONE is not to get them to change their sexuality, but rather, JOB ONE is to help them see Jesus again as their defender, as their friend.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Baronius: My beliefs are right!

    Ruvy: Wrong! My views are older than yours and they are right!

    Irene: No, no, no, my god is right cos he will defend gays while the church attacks them!

  • zingzing

    shh, chris. let them fight amongst themselves. they like to fight amongst themselves. it’s what they do.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena Irene Athena

    Zing, huh? I wasn’t fighting with Baronius, and Ruvy posted his comment while I was writing, so I didn’t even see it. Don’t stir up trouble where there isn’t any.

  • Baronius

    shh, irene. let them gloat amongst themselves. they like to fight with us. it’s what they do.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    One wonders why.

    At least from the theist’s point of view, one can think of concern for the other, but from the atheists?

    It can’t be just the evils brought upon this world by organized religions but something much more personal, as though he or she felt the need to convinced themselves they’re right. And the easiest way of doing so, the least demanding, is to lash out at the theist.

  • zingzing

    irene–there were other people involved, and #70 was more aimed toward ruvy and baronius little quibble with each other than it was towards you. don’t bother taking offense if none was intended. waste of time.

    roger: “At least from the theist’s point of view, one can think of concern for the other, but from the atheists?”

    well, from the theist’s side, non-believers and non-followers of their specific religion are going to hell. from the atheist’s side, they’re just wasting their time. (and putting their shit on everyone else, including other theists.)

    “It can’t be just the evils brought upon this world by organized religions but something much more personal, as though he or she felt the need to convinced themselves they’re right.”

    it’s the evils of organized religion, roger. why wouldn’t it be?

  • Ruvy

    Baronius, don’t ever get the idea that I gloat over writing responses to your attacks. Commenting on this site is largely a waste of time unless there is a good reason other than the instant article. But I will not leave a comment like yours unanswered. Not if I can help it. Since you speak (however eloquently you imagine yourself doing) for a faith that promoted savagery and murder and still practices a ritual of cannibalism every single day of the year, I’ll remind you of that every time you go after me.

    I can respect Irene. You? Not really.

  • zingzing

    “a faith that… still practices a ritual of cannibalism every single day of the year…”

    yes, and they carry around an 10-foot crucifix tied to their necks. symbolism, ruvy. it’s a real thing.

  • zingzing

    and it’s pretty obvious that baronius wasn’t saying you were gloating. read it again.

  • Baronius

    “well, from the theist’s side, non-believers and non-followers of their specific religion are going to hell.”

    That’s hardly true. Several of the largest religions take no stand on the afterlife. Others believe in reincarnation and/or Nirvana. Even within Christianity and Islam there is considerable variation in belief as to the fate of non-believers, with both religions often distinguishing between the ignorant unbeliever and the deliberate enemy of the faith.

  • Baronius

    Ruvy, that means you’re acknowledging that the eucharist is the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Nice going!

  • zingzing

    true, baronius, but please don’t always take things so literally… obviously, religions have different ideas of what lies beyond this earth, and they all think they have the one true way toward salvation and bliss or whatever else they promise.

    and frankly, y’all can make up all your mumbo-jumbo about the “fate of non-believers” all you want, but you’re no more creating or describing reality than the pimply teenagers in the basement playing dungeons and dragons.

  • Baronius

    “true, baronius, but please don’t always take things so literally… obviously, religions have different ideas of what lies beyond this earth, and they all think they have the one true way toward salvation and bliss or whatever else they promise.”

    No, they don’t. That’s factually incorrect, as I just pointed out.

    “and frankly, y’all can make up all your mumbo-jumbo about the “fate of non-believers” all you want, but you’re no more creating or describing reality than the pimply teenagers in the basement playing dungeons and dragons.”

    Then why did you bring it up, and why do you continue to misstate it? It must be important to you, important enough to talk about and, more interestingly, important enough to distort.

  • zingzing

    “That’s factually incorrect, as I just pointed out.”

    the “whatever else they promise” didn’t get you? it’s pretty inclusive. don’t ignore words when they don’t suit you.

    “Then why did you bring it up, and why do you continue to misstate it? It must be important to you, important enough to talk about and, more interestingly, important enough to distort.”

    see above. with the “fate of non-believers,” i was only quoting you as far as you meant it. don’t know what you think i meant.

  • zingzing

    also, baronius, take what i said back to what roger said. put it in its context before you go wild.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    As usual, zing fails to discriminate and treats everything, including different motivations, in terms of logical covalence. One would think that moral (even religion-derived) concern for the other – irrespective of “afterlife” – outweighs motivation which has to do with mere annoyance or concern with the evils of institutionalized religion. (There are plenty of “evils” in this world from each and every quarter, and one needn’t single out religion as the predominant source: there are plenty of “evils” to get excited about.) But not to zing, of course, who lives in a comfortable world of logical syllogisms, a world which doesn’t admit the vast array of complications brought about by such a cumbersome notion as “values.” Consequently, all values are treated as covalent, which makes for a world which, in effect, is devoid of values.

    I’m sure glad I don’t live in a world as impoverished as zing’s. Yet he’s pontificatging about false comfort that some people may be said to derive from their faith.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Of the world’s major faiths, Christianity and Islam (and their various derivatives) are the only evangelical religions – the only ones who insist that theirs is the one true way. It’s a relatively new idea.

    Early versions of religion were along the lines of “we have our gods, the tribe over the hill has theirs” and (wisely) didn’t take things much further, other than perhaps a general concept that some being or other had created the universe and then left everyone to it. If the two tribes fought, so did their gods. If Tribe A won, Tribe A’s gods had helped them. If they lost, their gods had pissed off for whatever reason. In such cases, Tribe A would often quite happily adopt Tribe B’s gods.

    The Jews developed things a bit by having a single God who had created the universe and everything in it, but had chosen the Jews as special and designated a code of conduct and worship that was specifically for them. Whatever relationships the rest of the world chose to work out with God were, by and large, their own lookout.

    Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs don’t really mind whether you are one of them or not, and the Hindu concept of God and the universe in particular is far more vast and complex than anything any of the Semitic religions have come up with – too much so to insist in a way that makes any sense that God should be worshipped by everyone in the same basic way.

  • Ruvy

    that means you’re acknowledging….

    No, Baronius, I acknowledged nothing. I STATED that you practice a ritual of cannibalism daily (if not more often). That puts you – and everyone who joins you – outside the pale of so-called “civilization”.

    Mazel tov!

    BTW, where should I send the bill for the English lesson?

  • zingzing

    “Consequently, all values are treated as covalent, which makes for a world which, in effect, is devoid of values.”

    nonsense. you’re talking yourself in circles, and it’s got nothing to do with the way i think.

    “moral (even religion-derived) concern for the other”

    so why is it that non-religious people can’t feel concern for the well-being of religious people? unless i misunderstand what you said earlier.

    “There are plenty of “evils” in this world from each and every quarter, and one needn’t single out religion as the predominant source…”

    and who is doing that? certainly not i. no idea where you came up with that notion.

    “But not to zing, of course, who lives in a comfortable world… which doesn’t admit the vast array of complications brought about by such a cumbersome notion as “values.””

    you need to back up a step and remember what we’re talking about here. because you couldn’t be further off-base.

    “I’m sure glad I don’t live in a world as impoverished as zing’s.”

    you really, really have no idea what my “world” is like. you just have your silly, bullshit view of it. do you really pretend to know me so well?

  • zingzing

    alright, let’s get this back to where it started (or at least where i stuck my foot in):

    roger: “At least from the theist’s point of view, one can think of concern for the other, but from the atheists?”

    so now, why can one “think of concern for the other” from a “theist’s”* point of view, but not from the atheist’s?

    in my response, i took it that roger was going on the salvation tip, but i guess i could be wrong, although i’m thinking that’s what roger is aiming for. if not, maybe he should explain it.

    *noting that roger is conflating all theists as one here, regardless of their actual beliefs. or maybe he’s not. i won’t pretend to know his mind. also noting that the jews don’t care (although, curiously, they do make up laws for non-jews), the buddhists don’t care (although they do like to tell people what they shouldn’t do for some reason), the hindus don’t care (and they actually, really have an aversion to conversion, which is pretty cool), etc, etc.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Baronius, as promised:

    A good rule of thumb is, if Ruvy talks about it, it’s barbaric and vengeful and has been superceded by the NT.

    Be careful in that glass house, Baronius. Christians have, after all, spent much of the past couple of thousand years being barbaric and vengeful against the folks they claim killed their Saviour (which, when you think about it, is rather odd, because if their Saviour hadn’t been killed…)

    And if nothing else, Ruvy is consistent in matters of faith. As he pointed out in response to your comment, his stance is that of all the OT commandments, only the Noahide laws apply to Gentiles as well as to Jews. When he advocates nuking things and massacring folks, it’s almost always in response to a perceived threat to the Jewish people.

    But once God became man, obviously the illustration of God became possible.

    I don’t see that this is obvious. Neither do Muslims (although of course as far as they’re concerned, God did not become man), who take the view that since man was created in God’s image, any artistic representation of man is by default also an image of God, and therefore forbidden.

    Note that you still don’t see worship of statues as you would among, for example, some elements of Hinduism. Christians worship the God who is represented by the artwork.

    I think this is an arbitrary distinction. Is the Catholic kneeling at the feet of the statue of Mary praying to the statue, to Mary, or to God? Does the Hindu at the temple believe that Ganesh is actually in the statue of Ganesh, or that the statue is merely a representation? Without being able to read minds, you can’t say with any certainty who is worshipping an idol and who isn’t.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    The world you live in, zingo, is the world which unfolds from your own linguistic constructions. If your linguistic constructions fail to do justice to the kind of world you imagine yourself to be living in, take greater care in articulating your positions or better yet, become more sensitive to the content of your thought so you won’t be “misunderstood.” Of course, I’m more privileged than you in this respect since English is not my native language. I can’t be taking it for granted as most native speakers do. And thanks to my mentors, I’ve developed an ear for it, a bird’s eye view. You have not and besides, you’re conceptually blind as a bat.

    Did I offer a caricature? Of course I have, but every caricature contains a germ of truth. And your defensive posture coupled with your vehement denial – “silly,” “bullshit view,” “couldn’t be further off base,” “nonsense,” “talking yourself in circles,” etcetera and etcetera – especially in light of your conspicuous absence to deny the allegations on substantive grounds, speaks volumes.

    The next thing you’ll be saying, “Welcome to my world.”

    No, thanks!

  • zingzing

    “the hindus don’t care (and they actually, really have an aversion to conversion, which is pretty cool)…”

    that said, i just found a hindu book in my living room that beckons converts. (it’s psychedelic as shit.) buddhism seeks converts as well. now if it’s not the particular belief that their particular belief offers something… better (to use the most innocuous phrase i can use), why do they seek converts? money? you can’t rightly say that REAL buddhists and hindus don’t seek converts, because i can tell you that these people are very real.

  • zingzing

    “If your linguistic constructions fail to do justice to the kind of world you imagine yourself to be living in, take greater care in articulating your positions or better yet, become more sensitive to the content of your thought so you won’t be “misunderstood.””

    you’re misunderstood as often as any around here. and you “purposefully misunderstand” people. so, maybe it’s not just me. that said, i’ll admit that i didn’t have much sleep last night, nor had i had any coffee at the time. if i had it to do over again, i’d do it a bit differently.

    “And thanks to my mentors, I’ve developed an ear for it, a bird’s eye view.”

    from which you can only see the top of one’s head.

    “You have not and besides, you’re conceptually blind as a bat.”

    that’s not the best metaphor (but nice use of multiple winged-beasts) when you’re talking about language.

    “Did I offer a caricature? Of course I have, but every caricature contains a germ of truth.”

    and is a caricature, a distortion, which you take as the whole truth, when it most certainly is not. it’s a bad way to think about things.

    “And your defensive posture coupled with your vehement denial – “silly,” “bullshit view,” “couldn’t be further off base,” “nonsense,” “talking yourself in circles,” etcetera and etcetera – especially in light of your conspicuous absence to deny the allegations on substantive grounds, speaks volumes.”

    you suck at psychology. you consistently try to describe someone’s way of thinking and get it completely wrong. you say i “fail to discriminate and treat everything, including different motivations, in terms of logical covalence,” but you didn’t bother to ask me if that’s true. you just thought you’d put that out there.

    i DO think that organized religion is suspect. all of it. but, i certainly despise certain religions more than i despise others. but you don’t care to ask me if i make any distinction. you take a generality i presented for brevity (obviously) as the complete extent of my thoughts on the matter. then you pronounce your judgment based upon what i think you know to be a false premise.

    that’s dumb, roger, and you know it.

  • zingzing

    roger: “It can’t be just the evils brought upon this world by organized religions but something much more personal, as though he or she felt the need to convinced themselves they’re right. And the easiest way of doing so, the least demanding, is to lash out at the theist.”

    another bit of evidence of your lacking psychological skills. if this were true, and athiests just need to feel like they’re right about something, why don’t you get more atheists running around arguing with kids about the tooth fairy or santa claus? wouldn’t that be easier? they’re kids! you can just make them cry and feel superior. dumb kids.

    the answer is that the tooth fairy and santa claus do no real harm, so those that don’t believe don’t feel the need to dissuade the kids.

    religions (or at least some religions) do and have done harm. and that’s why atheists “lash out” (in your somewhat poorly-chosen words, as if this was a one-sided battle,) at some theists.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Don’t be brief when the subject matter calls for detailed exposition, or take greater care to condense your thinking. So you have only yourself to blame.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    My words were poorly chosen only in your limited and self-serving view. I said exactly what I wanted to say, no more and no less.

  • zingzing

    “Don’t be brief when the subject matter calls for detailed exposition, or take greater care to condense your thinking.”

    so did you conflate all atheists into one up there? it’s hard to tell… and no, i don’t need to prattle on endlessly about something that, with the tiniest bit of thought, can be understood without being idiotically literal about it.

    “My words were poorly chosen only in your limited and self-serving view. I said exactly what I wanted to say, no more and no less.”

    sure, roger. you made a silly comment about some idea that atheists just “need to convince themselves they’re right” being at the center of their arguments. why would someone waste their time with that? why would so many be so opposed to the idea that people walk around believing fairy stories if those fairy stories didn’t have real-world consequences? to feed their ego? how would you claim to know that? experience?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    Again, zingo, silly to you because you live in a world of undifferentiated values whereby as I said, everything is covalent. Which is why what may easily fall under the rubric of the ultimate concern is the same to you as the kinds of motivation that an atheist is likely to bring into the fray.

    Everything’s the same in zingo’s undifferentiated world, and silliness is the only kind of retort that the denizens of such world are capable of when faced with complications which might upset their comfy vision.

    You have no concept, zingo, as to what faith is all about, nor do you have any concept as to what morality (or moral crisis, remember?) is. Cindy was right in that talking to you is like talking to another form of life. You’re truly, to borrow from Marcuse, a one-dimensional man.

    I would like to be able to expand your horizons, but I’m afraid it would be a Sisyphean task. Come again when you is ready.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena Irene Athena

    Roger, Zing. In MY house, it’s a sin for anyone to speak in the morning before proper levels of caffeination have been achieved all ‘round.

    *slides ZingZing and Roger Nowosielski virtual Starbucks gift cards.*

    And as far as choice of words goes, Christopher Rose and Brian G.Max couldn’t have been any clearer about their objections to the use of the term “atheist.” So, yeah, when the two of them land on this thread doing “Ctrl-F atheist” to see whom to upbraid, again, it wasn’t I. Nope. It was the a_______ their own dang selves using the term.

    OK, SO, a dozen comments or so ago, Dr. Dreadful, Baronius and I were having a respectful chat about Catholic and Protestant responses to some pretty ugly stuff that’s been happening “in the name of God” to gay people. Dr. Dreadful was, as his wont, asking hard questions, but he was staying on topic.

    But you know, the conversation’s been derailed already, so I will say this:

    Ruvy, I’m glad we’re not having a fuss. And so I hope you will not take this as anything but a friendly chat about Bible verses. When Baronius as a Catholic and I as a Protestant celebrate what we respectively consider to be “Communion “we are no more promoting “cannibalizing God” than YOU are when you read Psalm 34…

    …Which is an EXCELLENT PSALM by the way!

    TASTE AND SEE THAT THE LORD IS GOOD: BLESSED IS THE MAN THAT TRUSTETH IN HIM.
    O FEAR THE LORD, YE HIS SAINTS, FOR THERE IS NO WANT TO THEM THAT FEAR HIM.

    And Zing just as I’m posting this, I find that I do have something that I can agree with you about. It’s your remark about Hindus not being interested in converting people.

    It wasn’t ALL Hindus who participated in the slaughter of Christians in Orissa in 2007-2008 anymore than it was ALL Catholics persecuting Ruvy’s ancestors (and yeah, wiping out nearly an entire generation of near-relations.) And it wasn’t all Catholics massacring Protestant Huguenots. And it wasn’t all Protestants roasting alive, a la Cromwell, Irish Catholics locked into their church.

    But it’s certainly worth pointing out. Not to get a campaign of hatred against Hindus going. No way. It’s just to bring home the idea: we ALL have histories of hating one another, even those of us committed to the idea of universal peace and love. We all have our moments.

    Love one another.

  • zingzing

    “Again, zingo, silly to you because you live in a world of undifferentiated values whereby as I said, everything is covalent.”

    you have a rather unique ability to gather three dimensions from a one-dimensional misunderstanding, although what you get out of it is a mystery. i do not, as i have made clear, but which you have chosen to ignore, “live in a world of undifferentiated values.” no one does. it’s impossible. i don’t know why you cling to this unfounded, rather improbable view. is it all you can do at this point? i think that might be the case.

    yet i do notice that you refuse to clearly answer my question about your supposition on the motives of atheists. you cloud it with undefined phrases (what is “the ultimate concern” in that sentence up there?), as you are wont to do. you assigned a specific mass psychology to atheists, yet then harangue me for being the one unable to differentiate? i’m willing to admit i needed to back-peddle a bit on my statement, and i did, but you don’t seem to have that in you.

    “You have no concept, zingo, as to what faith is all about, nor do you have any concept as to what morality is.”

    sure i do. everyone has a concept of those things. you’re just too uppity to acknowledge it.

    “Cindy was right in that talking to you is like talking to another form of life.”

    i am another form of life, roger. as are you. i’m an individual. we are allowed to think differently.

    “You’re truly, to borrow from Marcuse, a one-dimensional man.”

    nope. but apparently, that’s all you can see. that’s your fault. (and maybe a bit of mine, but i’ll blame the lack of coffee.)

    “I would like to be able to expand your horizons, but I’m afraid it would be a Sisyphean task. Come again when you is ready.”

    you’ve got a pretty big ego on display there, roger. i have no doubt that you know plenty of things better than i. but you’re on your fucking high horse now, and god knows there’s no talking to you at that point. such is the philosopher’s dilemma.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/an roger nowosielski

    It’s not the philosopher’s dilemma, because I find these one-liners of yours and the level of your grasp so unsatisfactory so as to render all forms of engagement fruitless. It’s zing’s dilemma. And I don’t have to be on my “high horse” when conversing with you. You make that “feat,’ by the sheer power of contrast, a mere child’s play.

  • Ruvy

    TASTE AND SEE THAT THE LORD IS GOOD: BLESSED IS THE MAN THAT TRUSTETH IN HIM.
    O FEAR THE LORD, YE HIS SAINTS, FOR THERE IS NO WANT TO THEM THAT FEAR HIM.

    Irene, let’s try an honest translation from the Hebrew of Psalm 34:9-10.

    Taste (meaning experience) and see that HASHEM is good; praiseworthy is the man who trusts in Him. Fear HASHEM, (you) His holy ones; for they do not lack, those who fear Him.

    I translated those lines myself, Irene. The Hebrew [ta’amu] taste (command tense, plural)of the verb [lit’om] to taste – also means to experience. It is obvious here that this is what is meant here. My translation is less poetic than yours – perhaps less inspirational. But it is a lot closer to the Hebrew text of David’s words.

  • Ruvy

    Nice try, Irene – but no cigar.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Ruvy, I think that was Irene’s whole point…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    To return to the main topic, I present what is, apparently, the final Word on gay Christians.

  • zingzing

    “I find these one-liners of yours and the level of your grasp so unsatisfactory so as to render all forms of engagement fruitless.”

    there aren’t too many one-liners up there. and i asked some direct questions, which you refuse to answer. all you seem to want to do is talk down, so maybe you’re assignation of all atheists to one psychological need isn’t a hypocritical display of not being able to differentiate. but i’ll never know unless you can explain why it’s not without obscurely quoting some philosopher (i can google, you know). but don’t blame me if i think you’re cheaply dodging by calling me stupid. i’ll just accept the fact that when roger can’t answer something, roger relies on insults. the height of intellectual prowess on display.

  • Baronius

    Thanks, Dread, that was as thoughtful as promised.

    “A good rule of thumb is, if Ruvy talks about it, it’s barbaric and vengeful and has been superceded by the NT.”

    I gave that as a short-hand. Let me state this more clearly. The OT laws can be roughly divided into the moral code and the ritual law. The moral code includes punishments for those who violate it. Christianity claims that the moral code still stands (although with mercy), but the ritual law has been completed. The perfect priest offered up the perfect sacrifice for sins, and anyone who will accept it is fovgiven by it. This is the salvation that Isaiah promised to all people of the earth.

    I didn’t mean that Christians are all good or Ruvy is all bad. Christians have done some horrible things, and Ruvy is probably a decent guy at heart. But his reading of religion seems to focus exclusively on (a) ritual and (b) G-d’s wrath enacted on earth. In terms of morality, he seems fine with disrespect for women and violent revenge. He rarely writes about any themes that I’d consider moral. (To be fair, I probably don’t either. Many of my comments on BC relate to subjects such as economics and war, and I’m sure I don’t come off as gentle.)

    With regard to the Noahide laws, I have a problem with the claim of universality. I can accept that the prohibition against murder, theft, and sexual misconduct, as well as the requirement for justice, are universal. But restrictions against idolatry and blasphemy are tricky. I wouldn’t know how to apply them to a culture which doesn’t know G-d. How can someone be judged for breaking a law he doesn’t know about?

    “But once God became man, obviously the illustration of God became possible.”

    God becoming man meant that God took on a physical form. It is possible to depict a physical form in a way that a spirit cannot be depicted. Additionally, with the barrier between God and man being broken, it became appropriate to depict God. (Without thinking about it, I switched from the Jewish tradition of writing God’s name with a dash to the Christian tradition of spelling out the word as I started this paragraph. In a way that explains what I’m trying to say better that I could ever hope to. If you don’t get what I mean by that, don’t worry about it though.)

    “Without being able to read minds, you can’t say with any certainty who is worshipping an idol and who isn’t.”

    You’re right. I can only speak to the traditions of the religions. There has been a strain of Hinduism that saw the statue as a physical manifestation of the deity; there hasn’t been a comparable strain in Christianity. That’s my only point. Again, if we’re going to be truthful here, a good part of any “religious tradition” includes doing stuff that you don’t believe in at all, just because it keeps Grandma happy. Reading minds is impossible. I can only address the beliefs that people claim to hold.

  • Ruvy

    his reading of religion seems to focus exclusively on (a) ritual and (b) G-d’s wrath enacted on earth. In terms of morality, he seems fine with disrespect for women and violent revenge.

    Go through the early comments of this thread and read my ANALYIS of Torah law as it applies to homosexual behavior. If you take the trouble to actually go through and examine it, you will realize that you probably do not understand much of Leviticus BECAUSE YOU DO NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE LAWS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN DEUTERONOMY! Most Christians who cite the Bible for authority do not look at the Torah as LAW. I do.

    In a violent world, I am very fine with violent revenge. It has a teaching effect that waving papers around just doesn’t have. That doesn’t mean that I condone stoning or the other capital punishments of the Torah.

    And what is this shit about disrespect for women?

  • Mark

    There has been a strain of Hinduism that saw the statue as a physical manifestation of the deity; there hasn’t been a comparable strain in Christianity.

    Dunno, Baronius. Here in the Southwest the relationship between devout Catholics and their carved Santos gets pretty close with food offerings and adornments and intercession requests.

  • Max

    It’s simple: secular Judaism: not acting like a Jew but using it as a way of life, won’t be homophobic. Christianity is partly false: they hate selfish people, Jesus didn’t hate selfish people. White Buddhists are even worse, they hate me because I’m selfish. How stupid is that? Plus humility is truly happy in a peaceful religion. Humility= good, Christian humility= sends you to hell, says it doesn’t, it’s a lie. I’m a rational person and nowadays I try to understand things which is difficult. I love the way a Christian looks, he or she looks like a nice person, but he or she doesn’t act exactly the way they look.

  • Danielle

    I am a Christain and I find this offensive. I’m not gay, but I fully support it if that is what they feel. Love is Love is Love.

  • Celtis

    O.k let me say one thing Christians don’t HATE gay people..so silence that little theory.Christian believe homosexuality is a sin but Christians themselves know that they lie and cheat sometimes. so as Christians they think “Hey i’m a sinner too ..were both sinners..i cant judge this guy because hes gay.. but i can try to help him see the path way to Christ..”
    Do you understand now…
    stop attacking Christians…there may be some radical Christians that hate gays but there are some people that hate gays that aren’t Christians.. stop pointing the finger at us..
    God already loves all of us no matter what…
    but..that does mean gay people can still be gay…Everyone has to clean up there act pretty soon ..including Christians cause there not perfect..
    keep in mind that i’m a 16 year old kid not a minister..but still a Follower of God dood..

  • john

    All this mess because of a few books i cant wait for the galactic federation of light to show them selves to the ppl of this world and finally silence your silly man made mythes

  • Brandon

    It is a ‘sin’ that ignorance is still so rampant in this day and age with the internet and any information you could desire at your fingertips! The fact that christianity still exists in a time when people are no longer trapped in a society where people claim something is the TRUTH when the proof of the lies perpetuated by the christian faith have all been revealed! But obviously most christians don’t read!

    Number one – SIN was a moon god and was adopted by the biblical authors to refer to what they thought was something wrong!

    Number two – read about the secret gospel of Mark… apparently this passage was removed from the original gospel by Clement of Alexandria so that early christians didn’t misinterpret the passage as meaning that Jesus was gay! Who knows what was originally meant, the cryptic style of writing employed by the gospels was deliberate, a device used at the time to attract converts, since mystery and the mystery schools were popular amongst would be believers.

    Number three – Believe it or not, but before the bible, people in the ancient world would run around ‘thumping’ scripture from Homer’s ‘The Iliad’ – this was the ‘bible’ before the hebrew bible and the writers of the biblical books were inspired by the religions that sprang up around the epic poem, they kept this in mind when writing the bible… so where Homer had no idea that his epic poem would end up being the center of a new religion… the biblical authors counted on it and wrote with that intention! Pretty devious and definitely politically motivated – but obviously effective enough to still cloud the minds of men all these years later! People are still being killed, women are oppressed and progress is still being hindered because of some asshole’s misinterpretation of the bible!

    Number four – Bible thumpers and christians like to quote obscure scriptures that they think means that being gay is wrong in god’s eyes. But as much as they like to quote these ‘unread in context’ scriptures they ignore clear passages that tell a different story… Johnathan and David is one of the best gay love stories from the ancient world, with much homo-erotic art being devoted to the subject during the rennasaince. Michaelangelo’s statue of David is a prime example. David is a major biblical patriarch and in the book of kings where the story is recounted, David states how strong his love is for Johnathan and how it surpasses any love for a woman. The christians who like to state to others what God wants and doesn’t want (as if we were still living in the dark ages) are as ignorant today as they were in the 15th century. at least the christians then were ignorant because they lacked the skills and information available to them. Today the christians have no excuse, it is an ‘ABOMINATION’ that they can’t take a little time to READ and quit trying to elevate themselves by condemning others for things that they know NOTHING about!

    Despite the message that is readily apparent in religions, love is NOT what interests religious people, who are motivated by insecurity and their need to feel they are better than others!

  • Waffle

    Christians do not hate gays. TRUE CHRISTIANS will not let hate, which is sin, enter their heart. Besides, a true christian should dislike sin, not the sinner, but rather remorse, sorrow, or mourning.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Simple explanation: Christianity is no longer a religion, it is a political party.

  • black5th

    Gays should study the bible,and NOT add or subtract from it.Try reading :1Cor.6:9 ,1Tim 1:10 ,Lev. 18:22 ,just to name a few.As a born again christian,I don’t dislike the gay person,but certainly don’t agree with their life style.Everything is clearly stated in the Bible regarding homosexuality.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    black5th –

    And the prejudices of the time made their way into Scripture, too, as all the violence committed in God’s Name in the OT makes clear. In Jeremiah 8, the prophet points out how the scribes had inserted their own prejudices into Scripture.

    Furthermore, there are naturally-born hermaphrodites, those born with both male and female genitalia. The fact that even ONE has been naturally born that way makes clear the falsity of the old “Christian” meme that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

    I am a strong Christian, and I know that God would not make a world that would deceive people away from His Words. Hermaphrodites are real, just as dinosaurs were real, the universe is billions of years old, and evolution is more rigorously proven than gravity is.

    The Bible must agree with the physical world that God created, for aught else demands that God is a deceiver by creating that which would make people think the Bible was false. Find how both agree…because both do…because they MUST.

  • Reason

    Should Christians that hate gays be considered Christians? Hold on now, lemme explain. Jesus never condemned homosexuality in any of the gospels and commanded that they love their neighbor. Their rationality for the immorality of homosexuals is onus in Leviticus and Romans (epistles), one being in the Old Testament and the other in the new. Therefore, should anti-gay Christians be considered “Biblists”, adhering to their interpretation of the bible minus the gospels, rather than Christians who are followers of Christ?

  • Sam Prince

    First of all a real Christian shouldnt hate a Gay even though what he is doing isnt Gods will.Instead we are supposed to love and care about Gays so that they may willingly change It may not be easy but its surely possible.Its not too late for you if you are Gay or a lesbian you can change to straightness or just be single with Gods help through Jesus but you have to be willing in order to change.A sin is a sin wether we like it or not you can be near a window and say that I dont believe in Gravity and jump out it wont matter youll still fall.Second Gays and Lesbians are thise way by choice I dont think that Genetics overrules your will to choose does it.Even though you may be more prone to it let me give an example.A study went out that people who have three chromosomes are more aggressive and all that are in Jail have three chromosomes so people said that its not choice its genetics that someone Rapped a girl or murdered.That went out the window when Scientists found that there were people that went to church that had three chromosomes that were Christian.It takes something radical to change someones heart but its possible if hes honest with himself.Godbless all of you Gays and Lesbians and I pray that you will have the strenght to change Amen.

  • ME

    Why are people so strongly as gays? I mean, it doesn’t do any harm to you, nor anyone else. People always judges acts and beliefs, for no reason whatsoever.

    People should reach an epiphany, not everything is about them, or their social group, or their beliefs. It’s immoral, and although many religions warn against discrimination, they do it anyways!

    All in all, people should confine their disapproval to their social group, and not try to “spread the word”, nor try to fight the “opposing sinners” nationally. It’s just not right to oppose someone else’s way of life! It’s like opposing black people for being black, it’s immoral and wrong. Being different is not a sin. And it never will be.