Ordaining Gays Means Losing Legitimacy

Well, when they hurt us according to their system, it's always 'justified' or an 'isolated incident. ' If anyone else farts in the wrong direction, anyone like them is an 'enemy of God.' Whatever.

fr Flipper49:

>...Christians don't hate gays (contrary to what you might think), ...

Then why did a so-called Slavic "Christian" man, MURDER a gay man in Northern CA 3 years ago and skip the country to Russia, leaving his "wife" and kids behind to fend for themselves? His VICTIM never regained consciousness and DIED of his head injuries 3 days after he was ATTACKED without any provocation by his MURDERER. His "wife" claims that she doesn't know where he is, but nobody believes her. Why do these anti gay so-called "Christians" show up, UNINVITED, at local Pride festivals, dragging their small kids along, and scream and wail like banshees their anti-gay GARBAGE?

That is NOT the way a True Christian behaves.

If that's not clear enough, Flipper. (Trust me, I'm 'well schooled' in how your words play out.) "We don't hate gays, but they (you) are the same as thieves and murderers."

In practice, that means we're 'fair game' for anything, (including, ironically enough, sexual assault) in the eyes of those who believe you. Or find it convenient.

Can you even hear yourself?

Your threats of Hell if I don't accept this treatment, matter little. I have enough experience of *your* religion to know that if your God, of all infinite possible circumstances is anything like what you say, I'm hosed anyway.

Cause I believe in other Gods. Those that were with me in dark places where Christians 'vehemently disapproved' of my 'lifestyle.'

And taught me better about how people are to be treated.

Maybe, Flipper, *God* isn't your complex of jealousy and hatred and abusive dynamics, denials, projections, excuses, and fears of personality-death.

Maybe She's more and better than that.

Maybe life is more and better than that. . And you can bet your bippy Love is.

No, I don't find the idea of your Heaven very appealing. For one, it never made sense, since I was born with some pretty immediate memories of another life.

For another, I couldn't conscience what you say you have to do to get in, nor do I expect the place would be full of company I preferred, even if I wanted to be the same person for another hundred years, never mind billions.

It's even said the only thing to *do* in your Heaven is take pleasure in not being one of the ones 'damned,' ...if not watch with some sick 'delight.'

If that were the state of affairs, I *would* rebel. Seems your Jesus took much the same attitude.

Fortunately, perhaps, I don't see that as the true state of affairs. I see *my* Gods well enough. ...of your version of Christianity, I only see the likes of *you.*

Claiming that to *disobey you* is to 'disobey the Only God.' And you dare talk about at whose altar I really worship. Piffle.

That's not my faith, and trust me, there ain't much yours could do to me that hasn't already been done.

Maybe instead of taking some glee in the idea of my 'damnation,' you could rejoice that just maybe 'God' and the Universe are bigger than *your expectations.*

Whoever made me, They didn't make me dumb enough to not know hate when I am subjected to it.

Anyway, Flipper:

"Christians don't hate gays (contrary to what you might think), but we hate their lifestyle...and rightfully so. They're just as sinful as thieves and murderers. Sin is sin. There is so "small" or "large" sin."

Apparently these are the rationales behind an awful lot of brutally-ill-treatment (and justifications for such) that I heard before I even *had* sex, never mind a 'lifestyle.'

If you think me having a 'lifestyle' is *just as bad* as *you murdering me,* is it any wonder that when you claim to 'love' you meet with flat incredulity from those who've *experienced* that doublespeak 'love?'

"Everyone of them is an outright rebellion against God. If you don't think something is evil and it's okay to do, then you simply don't have any respect for God and wouldn't be happy in Heaven anyway, mate"

I have respect for Gods. I just don't believe *you* about them.

"Well, the WORST thing about Christianity is those who *ignorantly* criticize it."

If eighteen years of often-quite-expensive Catholic education constitutes *ignorance,* I fail to see how you expect your beliefs to be so mandatory for public obedience.

" 'The Episcopal Church, in doing this, loses its biblical legitimacy. It is not Christianity, it is liberalism run amok.'

Funny. I thought that was the best thing *about* your Jesus, actually."

POSTED BY: PAGANPLACE | AUGUST 11, 2009 12:24 PM

Well, the WORST thing about Christianity is those who *ignorantly* criticize it. You see these churches doing so much evil that it's very difficult to know what's Christian and what isn't. It's actually easy, though: just compare what they do with what the Bible says. In the case of homosexuality, God condemned it. Therefore, it's sin. Christians don't hate gays (contrary to what you might think), but we hate their lifestyle...and rightfully so. They're just as sinful as thieves and murderers. Sin is sin. There is so "small" or "large" sin. Everyone of them is an outright rebellion against God. If you don't think something is evil and it's okay to do, then you simply don't have any respect for God and wouldn't be happy in Heaven anyway, mate. You have every chance to see if God really has anything to offer you (and He DOES!), but you'll never understand it if you lash out at Him and ridicule Him without first hearing what He has to say. He's nicer than you think. ;-)

Also just not seeing the appeal ...or legitimacy of your demands I should be worshipping as ruler and Ultimate God of the universe, some being you keep insisting is more small-minded than my gas station attendant.

"The Episcopal Church, in doing this, loses its biblical legitimacy. It is not Christianity, it is liberalism run amok."

Funny. I thought that was the best thing *about* your Jesus, actually.

Got a little punk-rock on the money-changers and stone-throwers, that dude. Oi.

It is obvious that Farnaz (and her probability waves) for some strange reason is trying her best to bolster the rapidly diminishing membership in orthodox Judaism. Strange in that she is a professed Jewish atheist who should be shouting for joy for said demise.
She attacks the theology of Rabbi David Wolpe (an On Faith panelist) again for some strange, unknown rationale. Rabbi Wolpe's theology/beliefs are well documented and presented in the Times article, "The New Torah For Modern Minds, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482 which is a nice synopsis (and worthy of repetition) of the thinking of many Conservative Jews and their rabbis. A deeper insight into Rabbi Wolpe's views and analogous Jewish exegetes can be found on the Beliefnet.com site.

And for those who follow the commentaries on these On Faith topics, it is obvious I am equally critical of the foundations of Christianity to include Mormonism and Islam. The foundations of these religions will also crumble as more members become aware of the myths and embellishments in their holy books.

And once again, I am a professed "Crossanized" Catholic.

Farnaz, thanks for the clarification. "Cultural Christian?" Maybe - I was raised Baptist, so there wasn't a lot of in-depth contextual study of the OT. In fact, I heard one preacher talk about the "real" meaning of the Passover before the flight from Egypt, as well as other holy days, and how "the Jews just don't get it" regarding their own holy days. As I grew up, found that too much of Christianity just didn't sit well with me, became agnostic, and eventually found spiritual fulfillment as a Pagan.

As the professed "Catholic atheist" CCNL1 will tell you, God was not involved in the "NT" or anything else. Jesus, according to CCNL1, was an "illiterate Jewish peasant" (i.e., not a man-god). According to CCNL1, there was no wine/blood, flesh/bread dining at the "Last Supper" because such a thing, even symbolically, would have been anethema to Jews of all time. It violates the taboo against ingesting blood. As well, there was no trial since no trial could ever be held on Passover--EVER--and, besides, the majority Jews of the period, quite frankly, knew not of Yehoshuah.

Sorry, folks, but the reputable NT scholars know there was no big to-do in downtown Yerushalayem (Jerusalem). The Jews of the period had their eyes fixed on others and on other matters.

CCNL1, professed atheist Catholic, who takes communion, knowing it's meaningless on all accounts, is correct in his pastings as far as they go. But they don't go far enough and all he does is cut paste, and throw about ad hominem attacks on his betters.

For those interested in the truth of the "NT," I shall be posting shortly a bibliography with salient quotations. I've done this before, largely to correct CCNL1's more than occasional errors, and shall resume in a few days, once I've finished updating.

One thing is certain about the OT/Torah and all the associated books, god was not involved as Farnaz will tell you since she is a professed atheist.

Lepi,

Thanks for your reply. As I note in my previous post, the Leviticus passage in question has no bearing on homosexuality as that construct did not exist in the periods during which it was transcribed. This is the conclusion of contemporary biblical scholars and theologians.

As I note, the problem of male-on-male rape was rampant in the region, and it was this that the Tanakh was at pains to end.

Christian/Catholic homophobes, including those on the OnFaith panel, most frequently cite the NT passages I provided, along with a few others that are of less significance to their warped argument.
_____________________
On Paul of Tarsus

Evidence has been adduced by Hyam Macoby (late of the Jesus Seminar) and others that Paul was always Paul, never Saul, i.e., not a Jew. This squares well with much of what is attributed to him, assuming he existed.

His views on sex, for instance, were not held by any Jews of any period, but were held by some Greeks. As for the Tanakh, it takes many different views of women. Let us not forget the four matriarchs, the Song of Solomon, Deborah, Yael, et al, a husband's obligation to his wife, daughter, etc.

On hastening the coming of the Messiah through chastity--unthinkable for Jews then and now.

I am assuming that you are a cultural Christian and have not read the Tanakh as internally interpretative, have not read the external commentaries so I am saying the least amount possible assuming a more or less literal, page by page reading, or an NT Christian-filtered view.
------------------------------
Another problem with such readings:

Another blogger mentions the NT abrogating "An eye for an eye." Although he is not a Christian in any sense, Christian literalist reading sees an "eye for an eye" as a call for vengeance, yet as I show in my earlier post, it is the NT god who is vengeful, bloody, violent, etc.

For as long as there is history, Judaism holds the so-called lex talionis (the Israelites didn't write Latin :)) as showing that one may not ask more from a debtor than he/she can provide EVEN if it is less than what s/he has borrowed.

Anxious to demonstrate supercession, just as Islam is anxious to demonstrate its replacement of BOTH Judaism and Christianity, Christianity misread, misinterpreted, and misrepresented the text of a different community, written by that community, for that community.

In fact, per Edward Said, this appropriation of another people's culture followed by an explanation of it to that people is the hallmark of imperialism.
--------------------------------------------
HOerever, my aim here is not to defend or explain the Tanakh. I simply wish to point out to bloggers who seek to use it to defend homophobia that it doesn't address it. NOT at all.

On a related note, and this doesn't refer to you, those who wish to opine on the "OT" ought to know first what it contains, not what the Christians/Catholics say it does.

Farnaz:
Lepi writes:
Another OT prohibition is still in effect because Paul said so. If you recall, Paul had issues with sex between husband and wife as well. He would have preferred that everyone be celibate, and considered marriage mainly an alternative to fornication for those with raging libidos. Not exactly the kind of person I would look to for rational advice on intimate relationships.
-------------------------------
There is no Tanakh prohibition against marital sex. On the contrary, both the Tanakh and rabbinic Judaism highly value marital sex.
Paul the Greek, never Saul, was an obvious hater of humanity, hoping to hurry the end of time. See NT.
**************************************************************************************
I was not referring to an OT prohibition against marital sex, but the Levitical rule against male homosexuality being the OT rule that Christians claim is still in effect, citing one of the Pauline letters as their "proof."
As for Paul, I see his letters as showing that he had little regard for women in general and he would have been a much happier individual had he gotten laid once in a while. He was apparently so convinced that Jesus was going to return within his (Paul's) lifetime that he couldn't enjoy the moment for fear that he would fail in his mission of hastening the second coming.

Lepi writes:

Another OT prohibition is still in effect because Paul said so. If you recall, Paul had issues with sex between husband and wife as well. He would have preferred that everyone be celibate, and considered marriage mainly an alternative to fornication for those with raging libidos. Not exactly the kind of person I would look to for rational advice on intimate relationships.
-------------------------------
There is no Tanakh prohibition against marital sex. On the contrary, both the Tanakh and rabbinic Judaism highly value marital sex.

Paul the Greek, never Saul, was an obvious hater of humanity, hoping to hurry the end of time. See NT.
------------------------------
As for the OT "atrocities" mentioned by another blogger, how do they square with a deity so hateful of human that He would deem human as having committed a sin of such proportions that only man-god sacrifice could remedy it?

NOT IN the Tanakh (OT). In fact, this view runs counter both to the Tanakh and rabbinic Judaism, which do not see human as having doomed himself, but as having erred. What he needs to do is not save himself, but save the world. Use google to look up Tikkun Olam.

Further, how he is to do this is no mystery. It is written in black and white in the Bible. Justice. Christians and Catholics who tend to read the Bible literally would do well to avoid using the Tanakh to justify or condemn anything.

In addition to the monster NT deity who thinks mankind born in and to sim, the NT creates a bloodthirsty HIM ravenous for blood, sending His only begotten son to earth to be TORTURED to DEATH, and then holding all humanity responsible until the end of time.

Those who follow this contradictory, oxymoronic "religion of love" (LMAO) should be advised that the Tanakh deals only with the rape of one man by another, all the rage in the Middle East of the period--the rape of a younger man by a weaker, often a victor in war. For an example use google to read the Egyptian "Contending of Horus and Seth.

It was this atrocity that the Tanakh was at pains to end. IT HAS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY, WHICH DID NOT BECOME A SOCIAL FACT, A WESTERN CONSTRUCT, UNTIL THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

Cultural/observant Christian/Catholic bloggers who wish to support their homophobia with reference to the BIBLE should use the NT, their Bible. These are the chapters and verses most often cited by Christians/Catholics.

Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Jude 1:7

Of course, much in the NT is fictitious, but there it is for those
Christians/Catholics who wish to use it for gay bashing, or anything else, just as they always have.

fr tfalls:

>...As a lawyer, I can understand your legal arguments for gay equal rights. You can call it a civil union or anything you want to call it, with all the rights attendant to marriage, but just don’t call it marriage...

As a gay Christian woman who MARRIED my lovely wife last year, I take extreme offense to your little "lawyer" remark. 18,000 same sex couples were MARRIED last year in California, do you want to do away with all of those legal MARRIAGES? Guess what? You can't.

Deal with the FACT that someday, hopefully soon, there will be MARRIAGE EQUALITY in all 50 states.

Re: jvoran.

My faith overrules my judgment and compels me to comment in the defense of brother Colson’s enlightened and biblically correct interpretation of the Bible. The Bible was written for believers and not sinners or nonbelievers. The uninformed media and the imps of the world insist on defining Christians and their doctrine, which is “what we believe” and the theology is “how we believe it.” “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God.” Thus, the Bible is the recorded word of God and, thus, the truth of God’s word. Believers are to “rightly divid[e] the word of truth.” Most professed Christians and church preachers do not rightly divide the Bible.

Under any definition or logic, a nonbeliever can’t tell a believer that he can’t believe the word of God or the Bible. A nonbeliever can’t tell a believer that he can’t apply Christian doctrine, taken from the rightly divided or interpreted Bible, that he can’t apply it his life or politics. Christianity is a way of life for believers. A politician must represent all people but believers do not have to relegate their personal, spiritual beliefs to a state or secular standard. Conversely, nonbelievers do not have to accept Christianity as the final word in politics. Christians are not advocating that the Christian viewpoint “should override [the nonbeliever’s] belief that the Bible is not an infallible source for human social life.” Christians seek the will of God and we are generally not trying to impose our will on nonbelievers.

As to the term marriage, I object to the redefinition or perversion of the meaning of marriage. Such a redefinition of the term has profound effect upon our children and future generations. It is obvious that the homosexual community seeks to convert the hearts and minds of the heterosexual community, including Christians, to the view that homosexual relationships are socially acceptable and legitimate. As a lawyer, I can understand your legal arguments for gay equal rights. You can call it a civil union or anything you want to call it, with all the rights attendant to marriage, but just don’t call it marriage. While we could agree to disagree, the gay and lesbian lobby is committed to change the hearts and minds of people and, as to Christians, dictate what we believe and how we believe. Legitimacy, in the sense used by Chuck, is important to what we believe or Christian doctrine and, as such, cannot be compromised in violation of the word of God to include gays or placate nonbelievers.

Re: jvoran.

My faith overrules my judgment and compels me to comment in the defense of brother Colson’s enlightened and biblically correct interpretation of the Bible. The Bible was written for believers and not sinners or nonbelievers. The uninformed media and the imps of the world insist on defining Christians and their doctrine, which is “what we believe” and the theology is “how we believe it.” “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God.” Thus, the Bible is the recorded word of God and, thus, the truth of God’s word. Believers are to “rightly divid[e] the word of truth.” Most professed Christians and church preachers do not rightly divide the Bible.

Under any definition or logic, a nonbeliever can’t tell a believer that he can’t believe the word of God or the Bible. A nonbeliever can’t tell a believer that he can’t apply Christian doctrine, taken from the rightly divided or interpreted Bible, that he can’t apply it his life or politics. Christianity is a way of life for believers. A politician must represent all people but believers do not have to relegate their personal, spiritual beliefs to a state or secular standard. Conversely, nonbelievers do not have to accept Christianity as the final word in politics. Christians are not advocating that the Christian viewpoint “should override [the nonbeliever’s] belief that the Bible is not an infallible source for human social life.” Christians seek the will of God and we are generally not trying to impose our will on nonbelievers.

As to the term marriage, I object to the redefinition or perversion of the meaning of marriage. Such a redefinition of the term has profound effect upon our children and future generations. It is obvious that the homosexual community seeks to convert the hearts and minds of the heterosexual community, including Christians, to the view that homosexual relationships are socially acceptable and legitimate. As a lawyer, I can understand your legal arguments for gay equal rights. You can call it a civil union or anything you want to call it, with all the rights attendant to marriage, but just don’t call it marriage. While we could agree to disagree, the gay and lesbian lobby is committed to change the hearts and minds of people and, as to Christians, dictate what we believe and how we believe.

Chuck -- I do not accept the Bible as the final word for social and political issues. I consider the Bible as one record of a tribal society that lived in the Middle East during the BCE.

I have read the Bible through more than once and have reflected upon what I have read. I come to totally different conclusions than you do.

Should your conclusions override mine? Do you believe that your personal belief in your redemption and your resulting faith in the infallibility of the Bible should override my belief that the Bible is not an infallible source for human social life by encoding your belief into law?

According to the supporters of laws encoding the Biblical definition of marriage as they see it, this should supercede any moral belief that I, as a non-believer in Biblical Infallibility hold. How does this affect the separation of state and religion. How does this affect the respect for those who hold differing opinions from you?

It appears that I, who do not believe in the Bible as a source of moral law that should be encoded in US law take the place of a second class citizen.

I wonder if "God is therefore responsible for the defective gene/mind-set that causes.." CCNL1

If the Bible is the Word of God, then God must really be a boogey man who murders people for working on Sunday, murders children who curse at their parents, who sells young girls into slavery, and worst yet, allows marauding armies to kill all captives except young girls, who are taken as sex slaves. And don't forget the two she bears the let sent to tear apart 42 children because one or two of them laughed at Elisha's bald head. And these are just a few Biblical atrocities. This is not God, this is religious insanity. What a shame to be so enslaved to a way of thinking that you accept the most horribly ridiculous concepts in order to bolster your beliefs in an all-or-nothing postulation that the Bible is the entire word of God. What a sin against humanity.

Dirtyoleman

Your religious beliefs about gay people are false, because they are founded on false information about gay people. Since your foundation of belief is false, your doctrines of belief are false, and even, lies.

Here are some facts about being gay:

Being gay is not a biological drive.

Nor is it an ideology.

Being gay is not a life style.

Being gay is not immoral and it is not a sin.

Being gay is not a defiance against anything, certainly not againsst God, and not against any religion, nor any church.

As sexual orientation, being gay is simply an aspect of personality and identity.

Your participation in a politically conservative religion is, however, a choice, and a life style, which seek to destroy and annihilate the personhood of gay people, by erradiation of their sexual orientation, which forms and sustains a major part of their personalities for all their lives. You agenda is, therefore, more than merely malevolent.

In face of this increasing threat, there can be only increasing resistance, tension, and if forced to to this end, then violence, not a friendly smile and tolerance of people like you.

Richard Nixon resigned 35-years-ago today. This convicted felon, Charles Colson, a conspirator in the awful crimes of Watergate, is speaking to us about "legitimacy"? Give me a break!

I understand full well that I will be hated on and misunderstood by some as I write the following but I write this with the hope and prayer that it can help clear up some misunderstanding for Non-Christians on this subject from an active follower of Jesus the Christ (Christian).

1. Socially why I think that the homosexual life choices are wrong.
2. As a follower of Jesus the Christ, why I think that Mr. Chuck is right is his opinion about homosexuals in the “Christian” religion.

First of “Socially why I think that the homosexual life choices are wrong.” From the basic understanding of how life works it is wrong in biology. When animals (people in this case, but the idea works for other animals) for whatever reasons decided that they will forgo “normal” relationship with the same type of animals of the different sex, breeders or nature removes them from the herd or family in order to keep the herd or family growing. We as humans have decided that we will not do this with our herd or family, but as a result the “not normal” family members have decided that they are the “new” normal and that the “new “ normal rights are more important that the “true normal” rights. Or at least seem to promote this idea in all forms of communication of our day.

I simply say this you can not grow a Social population from a core of homosexual beings. No matter what animal you use thus the homosexual standard shouldn’t be the core of our society. In which it seems they want to be. Please don’t think that I am saying the homosexuals should hide under a rock, but I am saying that they can’t or shouldn’t hope to take one thing that is not the “normal” way of life and try to make it equal with the real “normal” way of life. I do think that “Separate but equal” in theory, just like the true communist state works, but it is too bad that it only works in theory and not in real life.

Second point is after reading a few verses in the bible on the subject. Mr Chuck is right the bible states in many places like Romans 1 that the “God” of the bible doesn’t like the homosexual way of life, and wants nothing to do with it. And if you are trying to “pick up you cross” and follow the Christ of the bible you wouldn’t want to have anything to do with the homosexual way of life as well as divorce, bearing false witness (lying), etc. This is the point that Mr Chuck is making. If a body of people who claim that they want to love the things that the God of the bible love and dislikes (hate) the things that the God of the bible dislikes (hate) it is impossible to hold the position that The Episcopal Church hold and still says that you are following the God of the Bible. You (The Episcopal Church ) are now something totally different and I thank the God of the Bible and our founding fathers (terrible slave holders) that we have a country in which we can have a something totally different.

Rob-Roy,
So one OT prohibition is voided because Peter had a dream in which God told him so. How do we know that dream was actually God speaking to Peter, and not just some bad fallafel?
Posted by: lepidopteryx
----------
This proves decisively that Christianity owes its origin to India. Here is something from Jewish Recipes: "Falafel is a fried ball or patty of spiced field beans or chickpeas, dating back to Biblical times and originating somewhere on the Indian subcontinent. Falafel is today eaten in India as well as in Pakistan and the Middle East. It is traditionally served with a yoghurt sauce, as a sandwich in pita bread, or as an appetizer.

Though its origin is uncertain, it is believed by some that it originally came from India, where it was made with spiced soured bread. The word "falafel" comes from the Arabic word فلفل (filfil), meaning pepper, and probably ultimately from Sanskrit pippalī."

I have also been told that Jesus was heavily influenced by Buddhism. His call to people to forget their families and follow him does not comport with Jewish tradition, but resembles the Buddha's own action in setting up a sangha of tens of thousands of monks who had left their families and followed him.

kert1

Amen and amen to your two posts.

My apologies Alex511. It was rubytues63 that said this.

God sometimes provides a new door (opportunity) for us. But it is up to us to walk through it. God also gives us challenges. It is up to us to meet them or run away. Free Will.

Did the German people suffer because of what Hitler did and what Hitler wanted? Yes. A people often suffer for the mistakes and vanities of their leaders.

Did the Egyptian people suffer because of what Pharaoh did and for Pharaoh’s pride? Yes. But before God brought His wrath upon Egypt, Pharaoh was given a choice. “Let my people go.” The consequences of Pharaoh’s choice were an increasingly harsh series of plagues. At first no one got hurt. But Pharaoh (of his own Free Will) CHOSE his pride over his people time after time after time.

I can use my Free Will to harm innocents. The fact that God may not interfere with my exercise of free will does not mean he does not love the person I harm.

God does not see death as a punishment. That is man’s invention. He can reinvent you anytime He wants. In fact, that is the promise made by Jesus Christ. Follow me and God will give you your life again after you die.

Only those who do not know God have reason to fear death or see it as a punishment.

You speak of peace. If God offered it to you, would you choose to accept it?

Another comment, you said
"I find myself sharing the conviction of a vast majority of Americans. The Bible is the word of God. I have studied this long and hard and am both spiritually and intellectually convinced."

Then how many legs do grasshoppers and locusts have? The bible states that grasshoppers have 4 legs (see Leviticus 20-23). Last time I looked they had 6.

So who are we to believe, our own eyes or the bible? It is possible that if the bible is incorrect about grasshoppers, rabbits and other creatures, it may be incorrect about gays.

TWMathhews,
A couple things.
I see the same flaw in your argument about God as I do in most people’s argument. First you create a god in your own mind. This god is to your liking and probably loves most everything that you love and behaves how you want him to behave. He probably hates very little, since that is popular today and only takes action against people you really hate. This God is also there when you want him and pretty much at your beck and call. You obviously can’t see this god, so you just assume it doesn’t exist.

My main reason for believing in the God of the Bible is that He is someone that humans truly couldn’t invent. He doesn’t act as I wish or want but in ways that are mysterious, yet always better than I’d hoped. As C.S. Lewis put, an untamed lion but always good. He has told humanity the truth, that there is no real hope in themselves. But instead of leaving us behind he has chosen to redeem us and give us purpose in life. While I don’t understand everything, I do understand this a true God that deserves worship.

I also think you don’t understand Free Will. It isn’t a accessory to our faith or something that can be seen apart from love. You need to understand that without free will there is no love. As God and the angels have free will to do as they want, we were also given that will. We can choose to love God and do good or hate God and do bad. To take the bad away also takes the good with it. You can’t remove free will and have love, you must understand that. A day is coming where evil will be destroyed but that day hasn’t come yet.

I see a world we are in that can’t be explained without God. Instead of trying to figure out what kind of god I want, I have decided to find the true God there is. It has been and continues to be a fruitful adventure.

A comment and a question for you Mr. Colson. I assume given your professed Christianity you believe that humanity was made in God's image, and that such was given in the creation story, which predates all other parts of the bible.

Also it is very well established that homosexuality is biologically based, (btw I have citations of over 500 studies from peer reviewed scientific journals that support this view).

Given these two premises, does that mean that your objections to homosexuality is going directly against God's will by denying those made in his image the opportunity to serve God?

fr twmatthews:

>Alex511 said; "Secondly, the reason God lets these kinds of things happen is called Free Will. God’s a big believer in it. Are you really mad at Him for not forcing every living thing to bow, to worship, to obey. Or do you one of those who honestly expects God to fix everyone else and leave you alone?"

I did not say that.

Alex511 said; "Secondly, the reason God lets these kinds of things happen is called Free Will. God’s a big believer in it. Are you really mad at Him for not forcing every living thing to bow, to worship, to obey. Or do you one of those who honestly expects God to fix everyone else and leave you alone?"

Then I can assume from your statements that you don't believe in divine intervention. You don't believe that God should intervene if it interferes with "free will".

Second, like other people have written in this forum, God's love sometimes involves discipline. When my 3 boys were younger I often times had to discipline them, set limits. That's another sign of love. So on the one hand you're saying God is love and on the other, that love doesn't include correcting his wayward children because that would interfere with free will?

All those stories in the bible -- like the passover story where God showed no mercy or love for the 99.99% of the Egyptian first born who had nothing to do with enslaving Jews -- you would argue that's (1) a good indication of God's love or (2) a confirmation that God places free will above all else including fairness and love because you certainly don't believe it to be fair to kill the first born of people who had nothing to do with Pharaoh's actions. Do you?

By the way, I'm not the least bit mad at God at least no more so than I am at the tooth fairy.

Here's what it sounds like to me. Christians proclaim that God is love until someone points out in the bible stories that portray God as a senseless murderer. Then people of faith pull out the old "free will" card. God is like Star Trek in that there is the prime directive -- not to interfere. But follow that up with a simple question, do you ever pray for divine intervention and invariably the answer is yes.

How often Alex511 have you or your pastor prayed for peace? Aren't you asking God to override free will?

It seems to me that your expectations of God are set so low that he can do nothing and still meet them.

Alex511,

According to statistics provided by the Episcopal Church, they have lost 115,000 members over three years, representing a loss of 6 percent of their total membership over this same time period. This is a greater loss, by percentage, than any other religious denomination in America.

The GLBT population, whose cause the Episcopal leadership has championed, has not flocked to the church or replaced these membership losses in any measurable amount. Statistically, GLBT people are less likely to be religious than most other demographic groups and if they do go to church, they are less likely to become actual church members.

By declining to sign the new Anglican Covenant, which encourages restraint in promoting any additional non-celibate GLBTs to bishop, the Episcopal Church will most likely lose its standing in the Anglican Communion. While this potential loss of privilege has not slowed the church from its current course and means nothing to non-Episcopalians, it is enough of a blow to ensure that the Episcopal Church continues to bleed a constant stream of once-loyal members and churches for years to come. The current rate of loss appears permanent for the foreseeable future.

Unless GLBTs flock to join the diminished Episcopal Church by the tens of thousands, something they have (so far) been unwilling to do, the Episcopal Church IS in trouble.

TWMatthews:

You want to know how a ‘loving God would ever let these kinds of torturous… inhumane acts to be performed…’.

First off, since it was human beings who did the actual killing, maiming and torturing, it sounds like a lie to call it ‘inhumane’. Let’s put the blame where it actually belongs. On humanity.

Secondly, the reason God lets these kinds of things happen is called Free Will. God’s a big believer in it. Are you really mad at Him for not forcing every living thing to bow, to worship, to obey. Or do you one of those who honestly expects God to fix everyone else and leave you alone?

Despite the carnage that sometimes appears in its wake, God knows Free Will is the only way. A coerced confession of love and obedience isn’t worth the breath it takes to make it. If only human beings were that smart, some of this killing, maiming and torture you refer to might have been avoided.

Once again:

The NT says nothing about gay sex? Au Contraire!!! Thou shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife/Husband/Partner with the corollary of Thou Shalt Not Fornicate pertain not only to heterosexual couples but also homosexual couples. This probably is no concern to non-Christians (or non-Jews or non-Mormons) but it should be a major concern to those religious types who believe in the teachings of the OT, NT, the Commandments and all of its corollaries.

So we have a Christian/Jewish/Mormon God who supposedly created all of us to include homosexuals. Said God is therefore responsible for the defective gene/mind-set that causes homosexuality. One might conclude from this that the Christian/Jewish/Mormon God would therefore approve same-sex unions since that is the only sin-free state where any type of couple-sex can be performed.

And just a reminder, reiteration is good for the brain and the soul!!!

There's a danger in perceiving God as a one-dimensional being. When it comes to religion, those to the left of the GLBT debate like to argue that God is "all loving." God created mankind in His own image. Study the Bible and you'll discover that while God is loving He's also jealous, vengeful, wrathful, etc.

Do not take for granted God's love and mercy. In addition to being our Savior, He also sits in the seat of judgment.

The truth of the matter is, since the original sin (Adam's sin), mankind has turned against God and ultimately toward self-destruction. The Bible's central theme is redemption. God wants to restore mankind to his state before sin entered the world (i.e. sinless, everlasting life, and in God's eternal presence.)

The hardest thing for a sinner to do is acknowledge that he is in need of a Savior, and accept God's way and not his own. The problem in the degenerative society in which we live is that so many people want God to conform to their liking. God is perfect and doesn't conform to mankind, and because He's perfect He doesn't change. We must change!

People tend to validate feelings and not truth. While homosexuality may feel right, the truth is that it contradicts the will of God. This is sure to spark debate, even vitriol from gay sympathizers, but God/the Bible is not concerned with pleasing everyone. That's something many people have a hard time accepting.

But homosexuality is just one issue in the Christian faith. The truth is, all who come to Christ have to deny themselves and repent of their sins--whatever they may be.

you know, I'm not really familiar with all the teachings of the bible. I've read in other discussion forums about how women are also not equal to men, or something of the sort. Now if what I read is correct, then he should be against women of faith having a place in the church, right? It just doesn't make sense to me at all how he can pick and choose what parts of the bible that he wants followed. It's all a load of "stuff", nobody is without some sin, including him. You would think that anyone that loves their God, Buddha, higher power etc; should be allowed to pass their knowledge onto others regardless. I thought God loves everyone, including sinners. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I'd urge people to go to BreakPoint.org and to review Colson's statements about GLBT people. He'd rather we didn't exists, plain and simple and he seems to be more interested in politics than theology.

fr rob-roy:

>Fortunately, the Episcopal denomination is rapidly disappearing. It is little more than a homosexual advocacy group with funny robes...

I'm very sorry that you are so misinformed. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean you are allowed to lie about something. Yes, they have accepted gays and lesbians as priests and bishops, but God's Love is extended to all, gay AND straight. I just wish more denominations, esp the Misery Synod Lutheran, would be more accepting of glbt's.

US-conscience said: Does God love us - oh yeah, but its not some pandering, squishy, emotional love it is a perfecting love that wants your best for Gods purposes.

And how do you know God loves us/you? Was it God's love that sent the poisonous snakes to kill the people in Israel as described in Exodus because they had the temerity to complain about being hungry? Or was it the love of God, the ever so faithful God who stomped out evil to protect his people? I'm talking about all the intervention God did to stop Hitler or Pol Pot or any other crazy person in this world. Where is the ever-faithful, ever-loving God?

Or was that love best illustrated when his people, working in his name, uncovered all of those Satan worshipers during the Spanish and Italian Inquisitions? It sure was a good thing that God was on the job, setting his people straight so that innocent people wouldn't be burned at the stake, had their privates cut off or had their eyes poked out. Oh wait, that all happened didn't it?

Explain to me how a loving God would ever let these kinds of torturous acts, these inhumane acts, be performed in his name? The answer of course is this is not love as we know it. And even if there was a God, any God who did what's described in the bible is unworthy of worship; in fact unworthy of anything but contempt.

The only loving God that exists is in the heads of believers who have ignored science and reason to embrace contradiction, 3,000 year old morals and a set of beliefs that can't make it through 20 pages without contradicting itself.

Considering the historical and theological flaws and errors in the foundations of all religions, there should be no clergy, straight or gay at all. Next question!!!

It’s ironic that those people who sometimes dogmatically tell Chuck that he’s ignorant and completely wrong also bring up the “You should love everyone” argument. They’re basically saying: If you don’t believe the way I do, then I won’t love you or try to explain my views without coming down on you.
Also, I welcome any discussion from gay people who actually want to become a pastor and who can articulate their ‘call’ into the ministry. They are very underrepresented in this forum.

Wow, people keep coming up with the argument here that if God loves us, how can he condemn certain actions ??

Does God love us - oh yeah, but its not some pandering, squishy, emotional love it is a perfecting love that wants your best for Gods purposes.

Every good father loves their child and because of that love they tell them NO when it comes to any action that would be harmful to that child. Because of their love, boundaries and corrections flow.

Homosexuality is a sin. Any kind of sin, in its maturity, leads to seperation from God and spiritual death.

God loves us, yes, He loves us so much He has given us guidelines so that we can know which actions are sinful and destructive for our own good - with eternity in view.

Chuck?
Where do you get this "vast majority of Americans" being homophobic? I guess the only Americans you know are fundimentalist bigots, like yourself? The vast majority of Americans and Christians that I know are OK with gay ministers.

I have faith that, one day, Christians and their churches will actually teach and practice the loving words of Christ instead of just hijacking his authority to hate and exclude others.

Committing crimes for Richard Nixon means losing legitimacy.

Lot's of "interesting" points here. There aren't any real arguments for Gay Ordination, just that we can't ban it. I guess that is most of the argument about things these day. Why not just allow anything, even if it goes against all principles.

I suppose I should also point out that the Bible is tried and true. You can not believe it but that is your choice. Most Americans consider themselves Christians and therefore believe the Bible. Even the Anglicans believe it. Which makes ignoring it odd.

I need to point out that God certainly does love all sinners: including gays, murderer, liars, adulterers and any others you can think of (I'm going by the Bible here). Loveing them doesn't mean condoning their behavior. Remeber God disciplines those he loves. I think the real question for all us sinners isn't with "Does God Love us?" but "Do we love Him".

Here's a verse to cotemplate: Jonh 14:21 - Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.

There are two topics being discussed here.

The first is whether gays are welcome in churches. The answer is simple. Yes. Jesus came to earth to save all sinners, and sinners means everybody, regardless of their sexual orientation. So let’s quit with the ‘churches hate gays’ B.S. Shall we?

The second is whether it is appropriate for Christian teachers to denounce or contradict God’s Word – and here I should state that almost all of the Christian understanding of God comes directly from the Bible. Let’s face it, if a Ford Motor Company employee started badmouthing cars, he would and SHOULD be fired. If a public school teacher starts refuting what was in the texts and replacing it with her feelings, she should be fired. It’s common practice.

So why is it okay for Christian teachers to denounce passages or entire sections of the Bible? If you say ‘feelings’, then the science teacher who wants to teach creationism in public schools is right too. You should back off and let her do her thing or admit your own hypocrisy.

What gays really want is acceptance. That’s what gay means – Good As You. Even if same-sex marriage becomes legal, many people will not accept you. Even if every religion has a gay bishop, many people will not accept you. Even if we someday elect a gay President, many people still will not accept you.

It is not the job of any free-minded individual to blow sunshine up another person’s rear concerning their choice of life partner. Being free does not mean that people will not criticize you for exercising your freedom – quite the opposite.

So back to the topic: Is Christianity a buffet religion whose leaders can pick and choose which teachings they agree with, ignoring or denouncing the teachings that don’t look appetizing enough? I fear that for the Episcopalians, this has become the case. And with each step they take away from the Bible, they take one more pious step away from Christ.

Behold, The Episcopal Church – the latest addition to secular religion in America.

Wait Chuck... I thought Jesus was God in the Christian circle. Christ taught us to love one another. His greatest commandment was "Love thy neighbor, as thyself." Or did you skip that part? How is exclusion of a group of people that are different, loving?

You are nothing like your Christ, Chuck. I certainly hope you don't call yourself a Christian! Oh wait, you do. D'oh!

ditto sprinkling babies (as opposed to believer's baptism) and setting church tradition on the level with the Word of God, forgoing the priesthood of all belivers and inviting all of what Martin Luthers stood to correct. Without all Mr. Colson's training, just anybody can up and make statements of personal conviction as to what meets criteria for Christian church and place themselves as guardians of the gateway, so why not just go with whatever the Pope says?

Mark,
If the entire Bible is infallible and eternal, then even if you're God, you can't go changing the rules.
On the other hand, if it's a collection of stories from antiquity, written by and for the people of that time and day, and intended only to be relevant in their historical context, then it makes sense as an interesting literary anthology, but still not as a guide to modern life.

What is really depressing is that most conservative causes, like preserving marriages and reducing the divorce rate, reducing abortion, etc, have become "owned" by conservative Christians.

I once wrote on a pro-life group that the Dalai Lama was opposed to abortion. But there was no interest in the views of this powerful (morally speaking) potential ally. After all, he is a heathen and he will go to hell, so what does it matter that he is pro-life? The conservative cause in America is ill-served by people like Colson.

lepidopteryx

Here we go again with the pork and shellfish thing.

will you ever learn?

mark
always seek the truth

Rob-Roy,
So one OT prohibition is voided because Peter had a dream in which God told him so. How do we know that dream was actually God speaking to Peter, and not just some bad fallafel?
Another OT prohibition is still in effect because Paul said so. If you recall, Paul had issues with sex between husband and wife as well. He would have preferred that everyone be celibate, and considered marriage mainly an alternative to fornication for those with raging libidos. Not exactly the kind of person I would look to for rational advice on intimate relationships.
Paul is an expert on the will of God because he heard a disembodied voice that no one else heard and saw a bright light that no one else saw. How do we know that it was really God and that Paul was not merely schizophrenic?

If Colson ever met Jesus, he would say Christ is a "liberal run amok."

Rob Roy,

I suppose it would be news to you that gay people are a part of life and always have been. They are everywhere, in all countries, in all cities, in every state, and even in little towns and villages.
You will encounter many gay people every day of your life. When you walk through a mall, eat in a restaurant, fly in a plane, even in your Bible study group, and sitting in church, there are gay people around you.

The struggle for gay rights will involve all churches, and many, many churches will split over. If it were only gay people struggling for their rights, they could not win, just as black people could not have won their rights, if it were just 12 percent of the population demanding change. But just as millions of white people supported the black struggle, millions of straight peoople also support the gay struggle.

In every church, there is a faction, sometimes large, sometimes small, that persist in promoting lies and false doctrines about gay people. And these factions are causing a political split in almost every Christian denomination.

For you to have and hold on to a grade-school understanding of sexual orientation and to subsequently act upon it, makes you lose legitimacy in the eyes of Christ.

You need to question your own effectiveness as a "leader" of his flock, Mr. Colson.

"I have studied this long and hard and am both spiritually and intellectually convinced."

What is the "this" you have studied--statements about homosexuality, or that the bible (for you, the Tanakh plus the Gospels and Epistles, I presume) is the word of god? Your statement is not clear. In either case, what are the interpretations or arguments against your conclusion and application, and what makes those contrary interpretations or arguments wrong? Since there are contrary interpretations and arguments, are you saying or implying that your interpretation and application is equivalent to "the word of god?" Or are you saying that there are no contrary arguments? Or what?

Ignorance reigneth.

Does anyone really care about what the truth actually is--or even acknowledge that there is one reality?

"I find myself sharing the conviction of a vast majority of Americans. The Bible is the word of God."

Actually, Chuck, the vast majority of Americans doesn't believe this at all. And you probably wouldn't, either, if you hadn't spent all those years in jail.

Fortunately, the Episcopal denomination is rapidly disappearing. It is little more than a homosexual advocacy group with funny robes. Sacrificing your foundation (Holy Scripture) to pander to a small segment of the population most of whom aren't even interested in organized religion according to a recent Barna poll is probably not a good idea. And disregarding Scripture and tradition about this issue leads to heresies. Indeed, Ms Schori has ascribed to so many heresies that they have made a video about her: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifdrSgFJ_sA
(note that this does not include her latest heresies of dismissing personal salvation and stating that Jesus isn't necessary for salvation).

"The Bible is the word of God. I have studied this long and hard and am both spiritually and intellectually convinced."

It is depressing that there are people who actually think this. What about the Quran? What about the Bhagavadgita? They both also claim to be the words of God.

Your chauvinism is distressing.

Chuck, If the bible is the word of God and God is the least bit concerned about having us realize it, why can you pull contradictory guidelines from all over the place? Why would any book, written by the creator of the universe need interpretation? Contain contradictions? Need certain sections to be reinterpreted because a literal reading would cause any objective person to realize that the god of the bible is unworthy of worship?

Look at it this way. If you select God's prohibition against one man sleeping with another as being more important than Jesus' instructions to love one another, you are prioritizing God's word. How exactly does that work? How do you know that God wants you to reject gays more than he wants you to embrace them?

And if God wants us to know his word why did he wait for Martin Luther before translating it in a common language? Moreover, why didn't God design the bible so that anyone with a genuine desire in their heart to know his word would be able to read it in their native language? Certainly you've read passages in the bible where everyone heard people speaking in their native tongue when those very same people thought they were speaking another language.

There is just too much crap in the bible for any thinking person to accept it as the word of God.

The silly shellfish argument is thoroughly refuted here: http://tinyurl.com/l2qjtc .

fr the article:

>...The Episcopal Church, in doing this, loses its biblical legitimacy. It is not Christianity, it is liberalism run amok.

No, it is NOT "liberalism run amok", it is realizing God's love for straight AND gay people. As a gay Christian woman who married my lovely wife last year, I take offense to Chuck's remark as it is absolutely ridiculous.

So, Chuck, I guess you also eschew pork and shellfish, you never slept with your wife while she was menstruating, and why, oh why, have you obviously trimmed your hair and beard?