March 10, 2005
Addicted to Hate
In about 1995, I went to Topeka, Kansas for an exhibition on Russian Imperial artwork. While there, I was surprised to see people picketing the art exhibit with signs like “God Hates Fags” and “Fag = Death”. I didn’t understand what it was all about, but an ex-girlfriend from Topeka told me that it was just Fred Phelps up to his old tricks. He’s theoretically the pastor of a theoretical church in Topeka, and his mission seems to be to offend everyone in the world.
I just read an article from 1993 that helps me understand a lot more about Mr. Phelps and how sick and twisted he really is. More than just hating homosexuals, he hates us all, and his hatred has destroyed many lives in his family and around beyond. The article is fascinating, and it helps me understand the thinking behind a man whose church's website says of Swedish tourists missing after the tsunami: "We sincerely hope and pray that all 20,000 Swedes are dead."
The Anti-Defamation League has a collection of choice quotes on gays, jews, blacks, other christians, and America in general. It's amazing.
I'm saddened how low humanity can sink.
Posted by LawnBoy at March 10, 2005 03:54 PMPoverty, lack of education, and feelings of impotence are the breeding grounds of hate. To the extent that all nations can move their peoples toward education in history and humanities, toward a broad middle class of security which middle class financial status fosters, and toward involvement and participation in their government, the world will hold far less hate, and far, far more hope for mankind’s future.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 10, 2005 04:25 PMI just visited the web site.
Dear God in heaven, I am apalled, revolted, and ashamed that these ideas purport to be “Christian” and to have their basis in the Bible. I most thoroughly denounce and repudiate the Westboro Baptist church, its leaders, and any and all who believe its ideas.
Jesus said His followers would be known, not by their condemnation of the world, but by their love for one another.
For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
John 3:17, NASB95
This man is a liar and a deceiver, and the truth is not in him.
Posted by: Daniel at March 10, 2005 04:41 PMI think we can all agree that this is a terrible guy, with a terrible message and no decent people would want to be associated with him.
Don’t make him more than he is. I understand you desire to put a link to his webpage. I visited it. Then it occured to me that I might be giving him support he wants just by clicking onto his hate page.
He clearly deserves only as much attention as it takes to deplore his activities.
Posted by: Jack at March 10, 2005 04:47 PMDaniel,
Almost every Christian official, thinker, and layperson in the world reject Phelps’ interpretation of scripture. He has set up a world in which the members of his “church” (which is overwhelmingly his descendents) must keep him happy or risk hell. His method of raising his children was to beat them mercilessly whenever he was unhappy. Now that they’re old enough to fight back, he has to take his hatred out on someone else.
That someone else is primarily gays, but it’s really anyone who disagrees with him in any way whatsoever.
And he gives the impression that extreme homophobia is scriptural.
Sad.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 10, 2005 04:49 PMJack,
I thought about that, and maybe I shouldn’t have said anything. However, I’ve known about him for too long without understanding, and I couldn’t help spreading the warning about this monster.
Maybe I shouldn’t have; I don’t know.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 10, 2005 04:54 PMLawnboy
I think you should deplore his hate and call attention to it.
It is a dilemma whether or not to link to his site. On the one hand, it does show how stupid he is. On the other, it drives business to his site.
Shining the light of day on these kind of people often stops them, or at least it used to. Unfortunately in this Internet age, even the most extreme weirdoes can find a niche of like-minded people. It is a different challenge than it used to be.
Back in the 1970s there was a Nazi Party in Madison, WI where I went to school. The local fuehrer wanted to speak on campus. There was a lot of back and forth but finally he got permission, so he and his boys showed up. Strange as it sounds, many people don’t know what Nazis are and as long as they are not allowed to speak, they have a certain attraction. When the fuehrer spoke, his ignorance was apparent to everyone and he wisely pursued his opportunities in the hospitality or fast food industries. Well, his ignorance was apparent to almost everyone. I am sure there were a few who thought he made sense. In the pre Internet days, they were just scattered in a big sea of smarter people and they forgot about it. There are too few in any one place to create a critical mass. With the Internet, these guys get on line and find comrades from far and wide and they have enough to make a bund of their own. Internet can concentrate weirdoes and can negate some of the earlier salutary effects of free speech.
I don’t know what to do, tell you the truth.
Jack, in my humble opinion, what every American should do in response folks like these, is stand by, support, and defend the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
This is an issue where freedom allows such dispicable persons to voice their minority view, but, it is a very small price to pay for the majority retaining their rights to assent or dissent the policies and practices of their government. There simply isn’t a better bargain to be obtained on this issue.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 10, 2005 05:34 PMQuite right, David, and I reserve the right to my own free speech condemning his choice in using his. Freedom of speech is not freedom from vocal disagreement to that speech.
Posted by: Daniel at March 10, 2005 05:37 PMDavid,
If you read the whole article (it’s very long), it’s about more than just free speech with this guy. Of course he has every right to say what he wants, but Phelps seems to be guilty of much more, too: spouse abuse, child abuse, possibly tax fraud, driving someone to suicide, getting disbarred, frivolous lawsuits, etc.
Of course, you’re right that one of the most important ways this guy’s behaviour affects us all is in the nature of free speech. He has the right to interpret the Bible as he wishes and to preach as he wishes. However, he often crosses the line into harassment, and then the legal matters change.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 10, 2005 05:40 PMThat is the Achilles’ Heel of all those who attempt to make society fulfill their personal desires. When those personal desires manifest into behavior, that behavior becomes accountable.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 10, 2005 06:36 PMAs a Baptist myself I find this mans tatics deploreable and wish he wouldn’ call himself a Baptist.
While under the Jewish law homosexuals were to be stoned (Leviticus chaper 18 verses 22-29, in the new testement there is nothing that calls for us to do that.
However, if you read Romans chapter 1, verses 21-32, and 1Corithians chapter 6 verses 9-10, you will see that God still DOESNOT condone homosexualltiy.
But God never commanded us to carry sighs against them. insted he commaned us to preach the gospel to evey creature, that includes the homosexual.
I had to weigh in again. (Sorry). Phred Phelpz tried to come to Berea, KY, which is the nearest town to me. It is to the lasting credit of the local Christian community that peaceful counter-rallies extolling the virtues of tolerance and the universality of the Christian God’s love were immediately in the works. (I’m no Christian, but I remember “For God so loved the world,” and I can’t remember ever seeing the, “except for fags, Americans, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and basically anyone but pholks that agrees with God’s main man, Phred” part.) The whole community got FIRED UP! I guess Phred phelt that the community’s outcry would eclipse his own little hate-fest, and decided that his god would be better served if he just “buggered off.” (God knows, the community was better served!) This is in a BLUE state mind you! The church(?) that invited him had egg with sides of country ham, grits, hash browns, fried apples & biscuits on their faces for ever stirring that oderiferous chamber pot in the first place!
Lookit, the internet is a great free speech zone, to be sure, but it’s also a safe haven for every morally retarded coward with an axe to grind. Every Phreakin’ one of ‘em. Phred can say whatever he wants in a very distant, anonymnous, (read “safe”) kind of way by putting up his bilious e-billboards, (don’t forget “God hates America dot com.”) Dealing with real people in reality reality can get a bit too grim for phreaks like Phred. Yeah, phreedom of speech means that the KKK and Phred Phelps, Neo-Nazis, and every ilk of hate mongering, fecal meat-popsicle with a head full of bad craziness gets to vomit their filth. And yeah, I took an oath to protect and defend the constitution that guarantees it, (and I still hold to that!) But guess what? When I hear ‘em vomit philth at ME, I’m Phree to say “Hey, Phred, Ph**que you!” I’ve had bad ju-ju with the Klan ever since childhood, (try this one on for size, “Hey, Mrs. Wallace, Jimmy and I found a shotgun in the pines behind the house leaning against a tree and a big cross wrapped in stinky rags buried in the pine needles under it. D’ya think you should call the cops? “No, honey… don’t ever say anything about this to anyone… not to anyone!”) and and I’m here to tell ya, Phelps is the same craven fool hiding behind a pulpit instead of a hood and burning cross. I’m just wallowing in freedom! Ph**que Phred Phelps. If I excercise these first ammendment rights on dirtbags like Phelps much more, I’ll be hauled before congress to see if they’ve been taking steroids!
Phree speech is good.
Yes, BUT,
Silence is complicity!
Posted by: Jeff Hatmaker at March 10, 2005 08:32 PMRepublicans View: Homosexuals can exist as long as they don’t marry, do not inherit their partner’s possessions, do not possess legal equality with married couples and stay as far away from children as possible.
That’s about right, eh?
Posted by: Aldous at March 10, 2005 08:34 PMSpeaking about free speech.
I defend everyone’s right to free speech. To me that just means that the person has the right to speak without threat of coercion. It doesn’t mean that I have to facilitate, listen to it or advocate that anyone else listen to it. I have the right and even the affirmative duty to challenge it and call it stupid if that is what I believe. The most important reason we should support free speech is that it is the only way we can seek the truth by judging in an open marketplace of ideas. We have to let every ass bray so that we can tell he is an ass and listen to him no more. We don’t have to pretend he isn’t an ass.
I am afraid that some of the defense of free speech is really a defense of relativism. Equal right to speak doesn’t mean all speech is equally valid.
I’ve finished the book now (took a few hours), and much of my anger has burned out. It’s replaced by pity for the man’s family. Honestly, the book is worth reading - or I thought so, anyway. Interestingly, the key to those children who did escape their father’s brutality was a young woman whose faith in a loving God was unshakeable. This man is wretched and so is his family. I don’t know what to say beyond that, other than the fact that after reading it, I’m driven to pray for that man and his family and those who escaped. Not that they care, of course. But God loves them, too. And perhaps God can reach into their hearts and save one more … certainly, they’re unreachable by anyone else.
Posted by: Daniel at March 10, 2005 09:29 PMI have a brother that is a homosexual.I am also a christain. I love my brother enough to tell him the truth.When you share the truth of Gods word christains are not to come acrose in a hatfull way,but still tell people the truth.Homosexualty is sin.All people need repent of there sins,and trust in JESUS CHRIST to save there souls from hell.When a women brought before Jesus caught in adultary Jesus told the people those without sin cast the first stone.Under the old testament Law Homosexals,adulters were to be put to death,but under the newtestment we are not to kill those for these sins.Picketing is not a loving way to share the GOSPEL.God will LOVE those who repent and hate those who do not recieve the true GOSPEL.ROMANS 9:13
Posted by: Grg Ledbetter at March 10, 2005 09:29 PMAldous -
At the risk of being inflammatory, I wish to point out that homosexuals have the same right of marriage that I do - the freedom to marry any person of the opposite sex they choose. News flash - homosexuals CAN legally marry! Just not each other (if they’re of the same sex). I’m not free to marry a person of the same sex, either. So they’re not “discriminated against” in a way that I am not.
Posted by: Daniel at March 10, 2005 09:44 PMFirst of all LawnBoy,
You’ve done a great thing by exposing the truth about Phelps, and in no way should you feel your efforts are somehow enabling his hate.
Groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to the Human Rights Campaign to a good blogger friend at Ex-GayWatch.com, have also documented the hate and bile he continues to spread. However, their collective efforts are succeeding in bring growing condemnation and rejection of Phelps and his followers. You may not be aware of this, but just recently Phelps’ granddaughter tried to unseat the only openly gay member of the Topeka City Council. In the March 1 non-partisan Primary, out of the 3,466 votes cast, Jael Phelps got only 202 votes.
So, why would a Conservative show like MSNBC’s Scarborough Country even invite her on their show?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at March 10, 2005 10:16 PM
Daniel,
I’m glad you read the book, too. I also came out of it with pity for his family; they are victims more than anyone else. The book was written in 1993 (the story behind the book and why it needs some better editing is here), so it didn’t talk much about his grandkids. The more recent pictures of his “church” I’ve seen have lots of teenagers, presumably grandchildren who have grown up in a cult of fear. I can’t imagine the horror of their lives.
Today, Fred Phelps is known mostly for his homophobic rantings, which leads to interesting issues about free speech. However, I don’t think many people take his homophobic picketing seriously. His rhetoric is awful, but it’s so over-the-top I think it’s ineffective, possibly to the point of harmlessness. However, he has destroyed the lives of those unfortunate enough to be close to him.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 10, 2005 10:36 PMThanks for the follow-up link. And thanks for posting this thread.
Posted by: Daniel at March 10, 2005 10:47 PMDean: ‘I Hate Republicans’The front-runner in the race to head up the so-called party of compassion and understanding said unabashedly on Saturday that he “hates” the opposition.
“I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for,” former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean told Democrats gathered at a Manhattan hotel, in quotes picked up by the New York Daily News.
Story Continues
We Republicans and Gays now have something in common!! We are both hated by people who should know better.
I guess Howard Dean and Mr. Phelps are “two peas in a pod.” They are both full of hatred.
Craig
Reading through the above posts, It would seem to me that what is good for Mr. Phelps should be good for Howard Dean. What is the difference between hating someone because they are Republican, or Hating someone because of their sexual orientation??
It seems to me that the difference between Mr. Phelps and Mr. Dean is that Howard Dean is in power and has been given a platform for his form of hatred and bigotry. Also one form of bigotry and hatred is coddled and condoned by many, and another is roundly condemned. To be consistant here, it seems that some people either need to apologize to Mr. Phelps, or get Mr. Dean out of office.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 10, 2005 11:21 PMCraig -
Don’t be ridiculous - hating someone for something they can’t change is quite different from hating someone for something they can.
I’m not saying that homosexual attraction is something that cannot be changed, but I recognize that most of our opponents consider it unchangeable. Even if it can be changed, it is very difficult.
I also don’t advocate hating people for what they believe, even if they can change it. Hate the idea, yes, but not the person.
To call Mr. Dean’s absurd comments “bigotry” is to demean the term, on a level with calling the right’s dislike of the homosexual agenda “a new holocaust” (no-one on this site has done so (that I’ve seen), but I’ve seen it elsewhere).
Posted by: Daniel at March 10, 2005 11:30 PMI’ve lived in Lawrence, Kansas, since my college days at KU in the late 70s and it is only somewhat recently that I don’t get the urge to bludgeon the Phelpses every time I see them, which is at practically every political or cultural event my family and I attend. It’s finally dawned on me that since crazy-ass Fred and his brainwashed family so perfectly embody the true ignorance and ugliness of hatred and bigotry, that they are doing way more good than they could ever imagine. Note the backlash, people. Everywhere the Phelps family goes, people who normally might not ever have a conversation about homophobia and hatred, are having it. People who are somewhat to moderately bigoted don’t see themselves as that vile, so they distance themselves from the Fred and his message. Counter protests, fundraising, totally ignoring these morons … we do what we can here and it happens wherever they go. Fred’s old. He won’t last forever. And I predict his family of followers will be shrill to the end but then will disappear with an unnoticed poof. And in the meanwhile they make people mad (at them) and they make people think. So don’t let Fred ruin your day. Every time you get riled up, send a small donation to your local gay-lesbian alliance, and say Fred sent you.
Posted by: ckennedy at March 11, 2005 01:57 AMI personally believe homosexuality is a sin. Let’s be honest, who are we to judge someone else. We are all only human and each of us have had our share of mistakes in this life. The sins I have committed in this life may or may not compare to the sin of being gay. A sin is a sin is a sin. Who are we to say which is the more evil and cast the first stone? I personally have some gay friends and their only difference in my family is the partners and that they are both of the same sex versus me and my husband. I think if we all stay judgemental and closed minded we may miss some wonderful opportunities to meet some great people and learn to look at life a little differently from someone else’s perspective. I don’t agree or condone it, but there is alot of things in life I do not agree with. We all need to be more compassionate and caring for each other in this world of intolerance of differences. Mr. Phelps and his sick family have probably done more to prove this point that anything else, much to his chagrin.
Posted by: Stephanie at March 11, 2005 07:18 AMhomosexuality is a sin.
So is eating shellfish, planting more than one kind of crop in your fields, wearing anything made from more than one kind of thread, and going to church with any imperfections in your vision.
I never remember anyone raising a fuss about the ladies who came to church on Sunday in their cotton polyester dress suits, with thier big eyeglasses. They were allowed to kneel down before the altar and take communion like everyone else.
Also, it’s a sin to not offer your daughter to sexually satisfy guests in your house, and it’s also ok to own slaves, so long as they are purchased from neighboring states.
Leviticus is full of good stuff…. I guess the challenge is in knowing which parts are relevant and which aren’t, and still try to come off not looking like a hypocrite.
Posted by: Taylor at March 11, 2005 10:00 AMAlright, enough! I keep reading over and over again, homosexuality is a sin, as if it is a fact, like gravity or solar energy. Because you feel this way makes “true” ONLY for you. If the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, that STILL does NOT make it a fact. Dirt under your feet, the air we breathe, people starving in the US and around the world, THESE are facts. The Bible and all religion, is based on personal faith, personal opinion, personal beliefs, period. Nothing more. So, please stop stating that ridiculous notion over and over again. Homosexuality exists, folks and it is not up to you to determine for me, your neighbor, your pastor, your boss, or even your children, if it is a sin. Thanks, but I was born with free will and I’ll make up my own mind.
If you believe in God, and believe what the Bible teaches, fine…but keep it to yourself. Saying it does not make it true for anyone, but you. Personally, I think this whole focus on homosexuality is nothing more than a successful mechanism used by the Republican party to sell their claims of being “moral”. Of course, can’t be much less moral than condoning hatred, cutting budgets (OUR MONEY, PEOPLE!!)that help the poor in our nation so the rich can get richer or attempting to gain power by splitting the nation into those who are “believers” and those who are not. Frankly I find it offensive to constantly being told what being “Christian” is and what is not. I could care less about your faith, except I would fight for your right to practice it, and I would hope that you would care less about my beliefs, but fight for my right as well. I’m sick and tired of this whole nonsense of this guy is more “moral” than that guy and I’m sick and tired of the fact that the Republican party used this nonsense so successfully. What a waste of time and energy when we have so many horrific problems that we have to deal with. Of course, this is only my opinion.
Phelps, with his twisted vile message, is certainly appalling (understatement).
Actually, to comment on an earlier item… Lawnboy, you briefly wondered if you should highlight Phelps. Your post made me recall an essay found in an opinion column I recently read on the ‘net. Here’s the article. I think you should check it out.
If we do not shine a bright, critical light on such hate-filled propagandists, they may continue to grow under the cover of dark.
Posted by: TLB at March 11, 2005 11:38 AMBecause you feel this way makes “true” ONLY for you. If the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, that STILL does NOT make it a fact. Dirt under your feet, the air we breathe, people starving in the US and around the world, THESE are facts. The Bible and all religion, is based on personal faith, personal opinion, personal beliefs, period.
That depends entirely on whether the Bible is really divinely inspired. If is the Word of God, then, if it does condemn homosexuality as a sin, then it is. If it isn’t the Word of God, or if it doesn’t condemn homosexuality, then it isn’t.
You don’t understand - for most evangelical Christians, we are trained from conversion (which is fairly young for many of us) that the Bible is true in exactly the same sense as “gravity” or “solar energy,” true whether you believe so or not. It is less easily tested and verified than those things, but on every ground it is testable, it holds.
You see, the problem with believing God and believing the Bible is that the Bible says it is, in fact, true. So I cannot be a Christian without believing that it is, in fact, true for all and not just for me. Now, I can certainly take into account the fact that most people do not share this view, and speak wisely and gently, but I cannot hold my faith as if it is mere personal opinion, like my preference for vanilla ice-cream. As I’ve said elsewhere, the claims of the Christian faith are factual, either true or false. If false, the Christian faith should be dropped like a hot coal and rejected as the worst deception of humankind ever. If true, all life falls under the lordship of Jesus Christ. Christianity and religion is dead serious stuff.
Now, regarding the person above who posted that, if we’re going to call homosexuality a sin, we need to accept the full weight of the Levitical law. Before I deal with that, let me deal with your other objections:
Also, it’s a sin to not offer your daughter to sexually satisfy guests in your house, and it’s also ok to own slaves, so long as they are purchased from neighboring states.
This is never condoned in the Bible. It takes place on two occasions - Lot offering his daughters to the men of Soddom (in which case the angels stop him and call down judgment) and the man in Judges offering his concubine to save his own neck from gang rape. Both of these incidents are recorded, not as examples of righteous behavior, but as hard cold facts. The Bible is awfully good at recording those, even about its heroes. Yet, Lot is in the “list of the righteous” but people get into the “list of the righteous” by believing God - it does not translate into unqualified approval of every single thing they’ve done in their entire life. In cases like Lot and Samson, “believing God” is about the only righteous thing they ever did.
On the slavery issue, slavery was something of a different institution back then - it was not race-based or founded on quite the same prejudice as our American variety. Also, the Bible does not condone slavery either - to some degree, the Bible is rather “tolerant” of individual cultures and times. Slavery is implicitly condemned by the Bible because Christ makes no distinction between slave and free - they are equal in His sight. If He makes no distinction, how can we? I know the Bible has been used to defend slavery before - you can make the Bible say just about anything you want if you’re willing to take it out of context and ignore contrary evidence. Anyone who takes the rant of an angry, drunken father (Noah) as permanently condemning his sons to eternal, justified slavery is an idiot.
Now, as regards Levitical law, you should know that most Christians recognize that we no longer fall under the Levitical law, though we should respect it as being given for a reason. Most Christians believe homosexual behavior is a sin because of it is also condemned in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament.
Please, do not misunderstand me. Gays are certainly people, too, receiving the same love and acceptance from God that all people do. God hates their lifestyle, but he also hates greed, selfishness, arrogance, and hypocrisy. No Christian has a right to look down on gays.
Posted by: Daniel at March 11, 2005 11:47 AM“If the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, that STILL does NOT make it a fact.”
No it doesn’t make it a fact, it makes it a SIN and thats why people believe it is.
“So, please stop stating that ridiculous notion over and over again.”
A persons religion and set of beliefs is not ridiculous.
“I could care less about your faith”
Then why do you care if they think homosexuality is a sin or not?
“Of course, can’t be much less moral than condoning hatred, cutting budgets (OUR MONEY, PEOPLE!!)that help the poor in our nation so the rich can get richer or attempting to gain power by splitting the nation into those who are “believers” and those who are not.”
So, quoting the Bible is wrong but spewing liberal talking points (lies) is ok?
Posted by: kctim at March 11, 2005 11:48 AMBarb and Christine
I supported same sex marriage on the red side of this blog. That is a minority position among conservatives, but I also would point out that it is a minority opinion among all Americans, not just conservatives. The marriage referendums won in all the states where they were on the ballots and they won significantly more votes than George Bush. At least half of the Kerry supporters voted against gay marriage.
About the sin thing, you are right that it is a decision based on faith and personal conscience. I DO NOT believe it is a sin. But you can’t really argue with anyone who thinks that it is. It is based on their faith.
What you can argue with is what they do based on their belief. If people hate me and think I am going to hell, but are consistently nice to me, what do I care? Of course, I think more often than they admit people don’t like it when others think they are going to hell because they suspect it might be true.
I am going to “blame the victim” a little here re gay behavior. I am not interested in the intimate lives of strangers or casual acquaintances. Truth be told, I am not interested in the intimate life of anyone besides my intimates. I don’t care if a person is gay or straight. I just don’t want to hear about it at all. Too many gay activists make a point of telling people about their sexual orientation at inappropriate times.
It is like the old guys who insist on telling you about their gall bladder operations and showing you the scars.
What people do in private is nobody’s business. This goes for the people doing the hearing and the people doing the telling. Don’t tell if nobody asks. Protect everyone’s privacy.
Daniel:
Don’t be ridiculous - hating someone for something they can’t change is quite different from hating someone for something they can.
Excuse me if I beg to differ. To hate “Repubicans” AND “everything they stand for”, is extemely bigoted. Dean hates all Republicans, not matter what they believe, and before he knows what they believe.
For a while there, it was the right that had most of the hatred, now it is shifting to the left. The left can no longer claim the “higher ground” and believe they are superior to the Rev Phelp’s of the world. There are plenty on the left that are as or more hate filled than Mr. Phelps. Much of that hatred was shown in this last election for the world to see.
To improve the “world” which I assume is people’s intent is to come out of denial, and be opposed to hatred from the left and the right, whether it is spewed from Howard Dean or Rev. Phelps.
Do we really want to go through the statements made from the Hollywood elite this last fall, and do people really want to defend them as not “hate speech??” Do we want to discuss the intolerance of the left?
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 11, 2005 11:58 AMMost Christians believe homosexual behavior is a sin because of it is also condemned in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament.
Where?
Now, as regards Levitical law, you should know that most Christians recognize that we no longer fall under the Levitical law, though we should respect it as being given for a reason.
I do know that most Christians recognize that. What I don’t understand is how someone can proclaim the core of their belief system to be founded on a set of writings, where they get to elect which parts are convenient to follow and which are not.
Please help me understand how this works.
Posted by: Taylor at March 11, 2005 12:32 PMA funny story about Phelps and his crowd:
About a year ago Gene Robinson was ordained at UNH, where I go to school. Local churches came out strongly on both sides of the gay marriage issue. Phelps’ church members drove all the way from Kansas to protest the ordination, but they didn’t stop there - they picketed all the churches in the community, including those against the ordination.
The follow-up was that the local liberal newspapers tied Phelps’ group to some of the same churches they had picketed, and denounced them all as bigots.
There’s only one moral I can get out of this; it’s that people like to group both extremists and normal people of the opposite political denomination together. This can be a (somewhat)useful political tool, but pretty stupid in trying to reach any sort of bipartisan consensus on an issue. The reactionary thing for me to do would be to bash Lawnboy for putting this in the Democrat/Liberal column, because it must be a reflection on all conservatives. But I’m confident enough in my own beliefs that I don’t need to make a big issue of bashing Phelps to prove that I’m not him.
Posted by: Gandhi at March 11, 2005 01:02 PMGandhi,
The ironic thing about Phelps and the assumptions people on this blog have is that Phelps considers himself a Democrat! At least, he has in the past run for public office (Senator and governor, if I recall correctly) as a Democrat.
Funny, huh?
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 11, 2005 01:08 PMInstead of giving an exhaustive list, I’ll just give two citations. It isn’t mentioned more than half a dozen times at most, I think, but it is mentioned. First and most powerfully,
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God fora lie, and worshipped the creature rather than the creator. Amen.
For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for what which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of error.
Romans 1:18-27, NASB95
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11, NASB95
I have read various apologies from those who believe that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. If I recall, these are their main refutations:
Few will cite this one, because it borders on heresy. These are the words of the inspired Bible - God certainly used men, with all their passions and prejudices, but we believe He spoke through them. These are not the words of Paul, they are the words of God speaking through Paul. If you wish to throw them out, out must go all the rest of the words of Paul. His beautiful chapter on love (1 Corinthians 13) is now mere opinion.
This complaint has two problems - first, that the passage from Romans condemns homosexuality as an unnatural lust, and second, that even if Paul was not aware of loving homosexual relationships, these are the words of God speaking through Paul, and to say that God was unaware of all homosexual relationships is also heresy.
Now, as regarding what you wrote about Christians “arbitrarily determining which parts of the Bible to listen to,” I would say that tends to be a trait of the homosexual apologists, not evangelicals. We do not produce the doctrine of the “new covenant” out of nowhere. In the book of Hebrews and other places, the Bible clearly teaches that we are free from the Old Testament law. Even more telling, in the early church, they had a very serious dispute about whether Gentile (non-Jewish) Christians should be required to observe all of the Law of the Jews (including the dietary and clothing restraints). This was the council’s decision:
After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written:“AFTER THESE THINGS I WILL RETURN, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME” SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.Therefore, it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood …
Acts 14:13-20, NASB95
There is good reason not to submit to the Old Testament law. Now, I know that many conservative Christians like to pull out the Old Testament law when condemning things they personally dislike, like tattoos. This, while understandable (they want biblical support for their own opinions), is not doctrinally correct or wise to refer to them as sin. You can make a case that it is a good idea not to tattoo yourself, and include as part of that case an argument that the Old Testament bans it, but you cannot claim it as a categorical sin for Christians.
I hope that answers your questions, and that I have done so in an appropriate spirit.
Posted by: Daniel at March 11, 2005 01:39 PM
ktcim;
What I referred to as ridiculous was the statement “homosexuality is a sin” as a point of fact…for you, maybe, but NOT for me. You assume that I’m attacking your religious beliefs. On the contrary, I respect your right to your faith. But, my beliefs (or lack thereof)are just as valid as yours, no more, no less. What difference does it make if homosexuals marry? How does that personally affect you? Are they moving into your spare bedroom? Trying to “convert” your children? Is it really any of your business? If you feel it is against your religious beliefs, then, by all means, don’t get involved in a homosexual relationship. If the government’s role is to dictate what they deem is appropriate sexual behavior between two consenting adults, then our Constitution means nothing. That to me is very threatening, as I value deeply our rights to freedom of religion and protection of our personal privacy under the law, as questionable as those protections may be. How can we say we follow the rule of law in this country and then, in the next sentence create laws that discriminate? And, I never said that quoting the Bible is “wrong”, it simply not your right to create law that is based on your religious beliefs, when those beliefs are not based on what is right for the common good, but rather to condemn a way of life. And, I’m talking about the Bible, here, not morality. And, if you are referring to my concern of the poor in this country as “spewing liberal talking points”, every time someone mentions concern or worry about people who have nothing in this country, people point and scream, “You’re a liberal!” Yeah, big deal, and while I’m at it, I’ll thank you for the compliment.
I have a problem with the government dictating what my religious beliefs should or should not be, don’t you? Since you value religion as a part of who you are, you’d better reconsider if we really want to give others so much power over our lives. Or do you think you are exempt from scrutiny and religious persecution because you think you are on the same side? If our government decided tomorrow that Christianity was immoral and illegal, would you feel the same way? I hardly doubt it.
Posted by: Barb at March 11, 2005 01:56 PMBarb -
You don’t understand. The beliefs of Christianity are either true or false, and true or false for you as well as me.
And, because no-one seems to have responded to my earlier post and becaues I think it’s a valid point, I’ll say it again -
I wish to point out that homosexuals have the same right of marriage that I do - the freedom to marry any person of the opposite sex they choose. News flash - homosexuals CAN legally marry! Just not each other (if they’re of the same sex). I’m not free to marry a person of the same sex, either. So they’re not “discriminated against” in a way that I am not.
It may or may not be a good idea to create a law based on a relgious belief. How about a law against murder, bribery, corruption, or any other evil? All morality has a relgious base. But your most profound mistake is to classify religion into the category of private opinion and public irrelevance. If Christianity is true, it has things to say in the public arena as well as the private arena.
You said: “it simply not your right to create law that is based on your religious beliefs.” To me, that’s like saying “it simply not your right to create law that is based on your rational beliefs.”
This post-modern way of thinking that you have your truth, I have my truth, they don’t agree but they’re both true is ridiculous. Certainly, you have your opinion, I have my opinion, they don’t agree but they’re both our opinions, but I happen to believe that gravity pulls people down at approximately 9.81m/s^2 at sea level. You are not free to proclaim gravity at 1.01m/s^2 and, acting on that belief, push me out of the window because according to your beliefs, I will float gently. I treat my religious beliefs as fact, and I believe I am right to do so. If you can convincingly prove my beliefs are not fact, I will abandon them.
Posted by: Daniel at March 11, 2005 02:13 PMGetting back to my above quote, homosexuals are not agitating for equal treatment, they’re agitating for a change in the law. They say they want to be able to marry memebers of the same sex, but, I believe, what they really want is for society to tell them that it is ok to marry members of the same sex. They want our approval and stamp of legality on their lifestyle. They are free to engage in homosexual behavior, but they are not free to force me to recognize their behavior as being on a par with heterosexual behavior.
I have no problem with homosexuals and heterosexuals being equal before the law. I have a problem with homosexuals attempt to use government coercion to make their lifestyle more acceptable to me. They are free to try to persuade me, they are not free to force me.
Posted by: Daniel at March 11, 2005 02:19 PMBarb -
Sorry, one more thing. If, tomorrow, the government decides to openly persecute Christians, stand by to observe my civil disobedience. My loyalty to my faith ranks higher than mine to the state.
Posted by: Daniel at March 11, 2005 02:22 PMDaniel,
How does the desire for homosexuals to have the legal right to visit a dying lover in the hospital and make medical decisions for their partner force you to believe anything? You and I have that right because we are straight, but a homosexual has no right to care for a long term partner the same way you and I do. That’s not a case of special rights; they are seeking the same rights you and I already have. It doesn’t force you to believe anything to update law to recognize that homosexuals should have the same rights to take care of their chosen partners that you or I do.
Homosexuals are agitating for equal treatment, which would require a change in the law. Those are not ideas in opposition.
There are many things that are legal of which I don’t approve. However, I don’t feel my rights are violated because I’m forced to accept a society that allows excessive interest rates, Bush’s tax cuts, and the UPN Friday night lineup. Those things exist and are legal and I don’t like them, but my rights are not violated because they are allowed.
I have no problem with homosexuals and heterosexuals being equal before the law. I have a problem with homosexuals attempt to use government coercion to make their lifestyle more acceptable to me.
Then you are creating the problem, not those seeking equal rights. The laws won’t say you have to like gay marriage, just that the law accepts them. You are changing the laws to give yourself a reason to dislike them. Why bother?
I wish to point out that homosexuals have the same right of marriage that I do - the freedom to marry any person of the opposite sex they choose. News flash - homosexuals CAN legally marry! Just not each other (if they’re of the same sex). I’m not free to marry a person of the same sex, either. So they’re not “discriminated against” in a way that I am not.
How would you feel about this law: “Anyone is free to worship any deity they wish, as long as it’s Allah”? Under that law and your reasoning, you wouldn’t be discriminated against because you’d have equal right to worship Allah as anyone else. How would it be the law’s fault that the deity you must worship is not the one you want to worship? Why are you agitating for special rights to worship whoever you want?
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 11, 2005 02:38 PMLawnboy -
Thanks for responding so quickly and so directly to my post, and for challenging me.
Legalizing marriage between memebers of the same sex means that, before the law, heterosexual marriage is equivalent to homosexual marriage. I disagree with that idea, and if it is enshrined in law, the law is wrong. Why shouldn’t I oppose the law being wrong?
You point out that there as aspects of our law that strike you as wrong - “excessive interest rates, Bush’s tax cuts, and the UPN Friday night lineup” (though I don’t know what the last one is) - correct me if I’m wrong, but you lobby to have those laws changed, do you not? And would you not oppose them if they were proposed?
How would you feel about this law: “Anyone is free to worship any deity they wish, as long as it’s Allah”? Under that law and your reasoning, you wouldn’t be discriminated against because you’d have equal right to worship Allah as anyone else. How would it be the law’s fault that the deity you must worship is not the one you want to worship? Why are you agitating for special rights to worship whoever you want?
I object to the use of the word “discrimination” as homosexual activists use it because, as I understand the legal definition of the word, it means that some people are treated different than others before the law. This is not the case in our country. The uniform law affects them in ways it does not affect me, much as a law as you outlined above would not affect Moslems in ways in would affect me. The law would be wrong, but not discriminatory.
As a society, the reason we do not have a law such as “everyone shall worship Allah” is because we as a society believe that every person has a right to worship whomever they choose. We said relgion is not a state-controlled issue. Marriage is, at least partly. If you were to propose a law that government shall not recognize marriage at all, leaving it a solely private matter, I would consider supporting it.
I’ll say it again: because government regulates marriage, for government to extend marriage rights to people of the same sex is for government to place marriage between members of the same sex on a par with marriage between members of the opposite sex. I oppose this because I think it is wrong. As regards hospitals, I would be in favor of having hospital rules changed so that patients could define “family” in whatever way they wanted, so they could be cared for by those who love them. I have no problem with homosexual couples looking after each other.
Posted by: Daniel at March 11, 2005 03:23 PMI wish to point out that homosexuals have the same right of marriage that I do - the freedom to marry any person of the opposite sex they choose. News flash - homosexuals CAN legally marry! Just not each other (if they’re of the same sex). I’m not free to marry a person of the same sex, either. So they’re not “discriminated against” in a way that I am not.
Oh Daniel. That’s just pathetic and I’m pretty sure you’re smart enough to realize how ridiculous that remark is. Not allowing someone to forge a relationship of thier choosing, by withholding protections and privledges necessary in the CIVIL arena of this nation, is unethical and amoral, not to mention discriminatory.
All morality has a relgious base.
Really? All? No room for distinction between religion, morality, ethics and spirituality? Man is incapable of ascertaining right from wrong without religion?
push me out of the windowNot sure I’d dangle that temptation in front of Barb at the moment. =)
If you can convincingly prove my beliefs are not fact, I will abandon them.
An easy thing to say. You know that’s about as likely as you being able to prove that they ARE fact.
But your most profound mistake is to classify religion into the category of private opinion and public irrelevance. If Christianity is true, it has things to say in the public arena as well as the private arena.
1. “If” - Enough said.
2. Barb was trying to stress what’s been said a 1000 times over on this blog, and probably billions of times over in the history of our nation— Separation of church and state has an important purpose. You don’t just enjoy freedom of religion in this nation, you also enjoy freedom FROM religion.
Barb
“You assume that I’m attacking your religious beliefs.”
I am not a conservative. I firmly support gay marriages.
I’m an atheist, I have no religious beliefs.
“What I referred to as ridiculous was the statement “homosexuality is a sin” as a point of fact”
For many people, the Bible IS fact and therefore its messages, sins or whatever are facts also.
“On the contrary, I respect your right to your faith.”
Well, I have no faith but still, if we respect a persons right to their faith, then we must also respect their right to promote their faith and to not support things that do not respect their faith.
“If the government’s role is to dictate what they deem is appropriate sexual behavior between two consenting adults, then our Constitution means nothing.”
I totally agree. But do you think this is something new? The govt already determines what we do with our money, where we pray, if and where we smoke, whether we can own a gun or not etc…
It’s going to get alot worse.
“You’re a liberal!” Yeah, big deal, and while I’m at it, I’ll thank you for the compliment.”
Wasn’t calling you a liberal and seeing how liberalism has greatly contributed to the downfall of this nation, I am sorry you see it as a compliment.
Just as you can spew liberal talking points (lies) to try and scare up votes to promote feel good legislation based on your guilt complex, so can religious people speak out on their opposition to gay marriage based on their beliefs.
“If our government decided tomorrow that Christianity was immoral and illegal, would you feel the same way? I hardly doubt it.”
Yes I would. I value ALL of our rights and not just the ones that support a political agenda I happen to agree with.
I am willing to fight for the Christians right to worship just as much as I am for your right to call them nuts, to own a gun, to have a jury of your peers, etc….
A person cannot DEMAND respect, a person must EARN it.
Right now, gay groups are DEMANDING respect. The cause will continue as it is now unless they try to understand the other sides beliefs and values. Then, maybe they will EARN the respect they need.
Why shouldn’t I oppose the law being wrong?
Of course you should oppose laws you don’t like. However, you’ve said I have no problem with homosexuals and heterosexuals being equal before the law. I have a problem with homosexuals attempt to use government coercion to make their lifestyle more acceptable to me. Essentially, I read this as saying that you don’t oppose the content of the law, but you feel that your rights are violated becase you’re forced not to object to it’s content. That’s a false interpretation of what such a law would mean. So you either you don’t accept homosexuals being equal under the law, or you don’t think that it’s important to be able to choose your own life partner. I disagree on each count.
And would you not oppose them if they were proposed?I do oppose them, but I don’t complain that I’m coerced by the government to accept them. Very different.
The law would be wrong, but not discriminatory.They say discriminatory, you say wrong. Does it really matter?
You’re right that our society doesn’t allow my hypohthetical “everyone shall worship Allah” law, but we used to have laws that said that white people could marry only white people and black people could marry only black people. Would you call that discriminatory? Everyone has the equal right to marry within their race, so it’s not discrimination by your logic. Of course, that logic is wrong, which is why those laws don’t exist anymore. And that’s why I support gay marriage.
As regards hospitals, I would be in favor of having hospital rules changed so that patients could define “family” in whatever way they wanted, so they could be cared for by those who love them. I have no problem with homosexual couples looking after each other.
That’s awfully nice of you, but that’s only one of about 200 rights that you and I have that other members of our society don’t have. Instead of having to go through each of those rights and decide about them individually, let’s accept that humans should be able to be with whom they chose, and just make the rights and laws equivalent.
I know you oppose those rights because you don’t like them, but it won’t hurt you or affect your life at all because no one would force you to marry another man. Why make life much more difficult for other people when there is no tangible benefit to anyone else to deny their rights?
Didn’t we hear similar arguments in opposition to interacial marriage? You’re going to have to do better than that Daniel.
Posted by: Taylor at March 11, 2005 03:48 PMIf you reject the bible as GODS TRUTH to man,then you reject GOD.GOD says those that worship Him must worship in truth.The bible is GODS instructions to man.THE Bible teches us to hate sin not the sinner.I am a BAPTIST I except the bible even the parts I don’t like.Those that claim to be baptist but hates Jews Gays and anyone else that that don’t agree with them are not true baptist.Baptist are to preach againts sin HOMOSEXUALS But not in a hatfull way.There are those that think we Christains hate them becuse we stand againts there sinfull life.This is not so.We tell them the truth Because we Love them and don’t want them to go to Hell.I have a brother that is a homosexal Don’t tell me I hate him because I LOVE him enough to tell him the truth, to try to keep him out of HELL.Those that HATE US for telling the truth are the real hatters and they will go to hell and thats the truth!!!REPENT BEFORE IT’S TO LATE.TRUST IN JESUS CHRIST SHED BLOOD.”PLEASE I DON’T WANT YOU TO GO TO HELL.
Posted by: GREG LEDBETTER at March 11, 2005 03:51 PMA person cannot DEMAND respect, a person must EARN it. Right now, gay groups are DEMANDING respect. The cause will continue as it is now unless they try to understand the other sides beliefs and values. Then, maybe they will EARN the respect they need.
We aren’t talking about a person here, we’re talking about a minority. A minority has to earn the respect of a majority in order to deserve equal rights and protections under the law? Wouldn’t we still have slavery if that were true?
In terms of whether Homosexuality is sinful from a biblical perspective I would offer the following:
1. It is the wrong approach to the question because it gives a misimpression of biblical thought.
2. The Biblical position is that ALL sex outside of heterosexual marriage is sinful, as is looking at another human (not your spouse) lustfully. (See Matthew 5,6,7)
3. I believe the right approach is to approach the question of homosexuality being sinful inclusively, as in “You are sinful like the rest of us, and need of God’s grace as much as I do”, instead of “you are different from us, and we should put a scarlet letter on you”.
4. The Bible is very clear that all have sinned and, that our own righteousness is as “filthy rags”.
5. Since this is a pluralistic society, and we are governed by laws of man, the above doesn’t seem to be the relavant issue in determining rights of individuals. There are many issues out there that I view as wrong but are legal!!
Craig
-
“A minority has to earn the respect of a majority in order to deserve equal rights and protections under the law?”
You can call them a “minority” if it makes you feel better. They are people.
Just as gays must earn respect, the other side must also earn the respect of gays. When you dont have that, you end up with the crap we have today.
Wouldn’t we still have slavery if that were true?”
No. This isn’t based on skin color, economics, or anything like that. It is based on peoples values and beliefs.
Values and beliefs transcend party lines, thats why the gay marriage amendments passed by such high margins. Dems and Reps voted in favor of them.
kctim,
It is based on peoples values and beliefs.Values and beliefs don’t exist in a vacuum. You believe in something and you place value in something. Saying this is just about values only avoids the discussion.
Why do people believe in and value a continuation of the status quo on gay marriage? Is it religious? Is it fear?
Just saying it’s “values” does nothing to further the debate but imply the slur that the opposition doesn’t have “values”.
What is the basis of the beliefs and values?
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 11, 2005 04:26 PMThis article doesn’t belong to just the Democrat side of the blog, but this staunch Republican, living in Topeka, has found Fred’s family’s activities abhorrent. I was so proud of the Not Today Fred movement that sprung up on 9/11 and even joined their anti-Fred pickets. As a Christian I find his actions insufferable. While we are made to suffer under Fred’s rights of Free Speech I hope that the laws of You Get What’s Comin’ To Ya come into effect real soon and take care of Topeka’s puss boil. Nothing wrong with Topeka that a few good funerals wouldn’t cure.
Posted by: FredSucks at March 11, 2005 04:53 PMI guess I perceive race, gender, age, sexual orientation, color, religion, parent status, disability and national origin as one in the same because they are all traits a person cannot change about themselves. Hence, I would consider them a minority, since such a small percentage of the population identifies with that orientation.
One of the best things about the U.S. has been it’s ability, over time, to acknowledge that we all deserve the same treatment. I trust that in the end, this gay marriage debate will end in the same outcome. I still can’t say I agree that a minority needs to earn respect, because that’s almost impossible to truly do when the majority are so very different. I think it’s clear that even after all this time, african americans have still not “earned respect” in the eye of all of the majority. If you travel far enough south, I think you’ll find that they aren’t even respected by a majority of that majority.
The GLBT community is conducting themselves in a peaceful legitimate way. They are organizing, and trying to use the system as it was intended to earn what they desire. What’s wrong with that?
I suppose you can classify that as “Demanding” if it makes you feel better.
The same could, however, be said about the religious right. They are actively demanding that the country be reshaped to conform to thier beliefs. I certainly respect their right to practice their religion, but only up to the point when they begin to try to dictate how all of us will live our lives. That’s when I draw the line.
Well, I have no faith but still, if we respect a persons right to their faith, then we must also respect their right to promote their faith
I’m not sure if you meant this, but knowing the Christian religion in particular, I have to assume you understand “promote” can be interpreted as “recruit”. At first, I was kind of set back by this, but let me continue. The men who invented christianity were very clever to make sure it contained elements to further perpetuate itself by using believers to recruit and convert new believers. One of the recurring themes you hear from religious opponents of homosexuality is that homos “recruit” new homos. I suppose they assume that since the church trains christians to recruit, all groups must. Hispanics don’t recruit new hispanics, disabled people don’t recruit new disabled people, senior citizens don’t recruit new senior citizens, and homos don’t recruit new homos. Unlike a religion, you are, or you are not. I’d have to say I’m not entirely comfortable with supporting people’s “right to recruit”, whether they are christian, the military, amway or pet owners. I’d prefer people to make informed decisions and have the freedom to seek out the things they find fulfilling, not have it shoved down their throat. Point in case, the fine post from GREG LEDBETTER above. But, upon reflection, I guess a belief is a belief, and infringement on anyone’s right to tell someone else about it, whether aggressive or not, would endanger 1st ammendment freedoms.
Posted by: Taylor at March 11, 2005 04:54 PMLawnboy
“What is the basis of the beliefs and values?”
It doesn’t matter what the basis is.
Understanding and working with those who have different beliefs and values is the only way to further ones cause.
I never said the opposite side did not have values. The opposite side of me are those who oppose gay marriage.
Both sides need to know the values of the other side.
Understanding and working with those who have different beliefs and values is the only way to further ones cause.
How exactly? When one side shuts down after their brain says “sin, it’s a sin”. As far as I’ve seen, significant change occurs in our society in a limited number of ways:
1. Scientific breakthrus/evidence
2. Catastrophes (natural/manmade) (not really applicable here, I don’t think)
3. Compromise (not sure that’s possible, sin, remember)
4. Force (not advocating that by any means)
5. War (see #4)
6. Protest
7. Courts/legal
Can you think of any I’m missing? I’m not sure I’m clear on how you’re suggesting this minority change it’s direction to acheive it’s goals.
Posted by: Taylor at March 11, 2005 05:52 PMFredsucks,
I feel for the Topeka community, I understand it’s suffered measurable social and economic hardships because of the extremism that’s planted there.
It’s good to hear some people doing something about it.
Posted by: Taylor at March 11, 2005 05:54 PMGreg Ledbetter -
Your post was unnecessarily provocative and singularly unhelpful. Posts like that do not reflect well on our side. Please keep silent if you cannot speak civilly.
Well, I seem to have drawn a good bit of fire. I suppose this is good, at least I get some of my basic ideas challenged. And most of you were quite civil to me, which I appreciate.
Oh Daniel. That’s just pathetic and I’m pretty sure you’re smart enough to realize how ridiculous that remark is. Not allowing someone to forge a relationship of their choosing, by withholding protections and privileges necessary in the CIVIL arena of this nation, is unethical and amoral, not to mention discriminatory.
Actually, I am not engaging in sophistry, I make that argument from conviction. Apparently I’m not as smart as you think I am. Gays seem to have been quite successful at forming relationships with one another without government sanction; I am not refusing to allow them to form a relationship, I am refusing to let them tell me that their relationship is on a par with marriage. Those civil protections and privileges are not necessary in any sense. If tomorrow, the government revoked all benefits and recognition of my marriage to my wife, I would be no less married. It would make life more difficult, but certainly not make marriage impossible. It seems to me that every time the left detects a problem, it’s one that requires government intervention. If I were actually telling gays they can’t get together, then I would be wrong. But, in fact, they are coming to me and wishing to be recognized as married. This I refuse.
All morality has a religious base.
Really? All? No room for distinction between religion, morality, ethics and spirituality? Man is incapable of ascertaining right from wrong without religion?
Of course you can make distinctions between religion, morality, ethics, and spirituality, but they are all interdependent and ultimately dependent on your beliefs about God and the universe. I think you’re operating off of a different definition of religion than I am. My dictionary says religion is … hmm … well, I appear to have been wrong about my definition of religion.
Apparently it does necessitate actually believing in God or some god. I always thought that religion was your beliefs about the absolute, fundamental truth. So I apologize for not using a more correct word. “Philosophy of the Ultimate” might have been better.
To me, “right” and “wrong” cannot exist in a world without some ultimate comparison. Ethics degenerate down to mere opinion and power to enforce it if there is not some comparison to an ultimate standard to be made. To me, a transcendent creator God is the only possible source of an ultimate standard.
So in answer to your question, I believe that right and wrong have no basis apart from the character of God. If you have another basis, I wouldn’t mind hearing about it.
An easy thing to say. You know that’s about as likely as you being able to prove that they ARE fact.
True, it is not easy to disprove Christianity. An awful lot of people have been trying for an awfully long with awful zeal, but it remains. But here are a couple of things that would be sufficient.
- Prove to me that Jesus never rose from the dead, or that he never lived.
- Prove to me that God did not create the world.
- Prove to me that Jesus did not say the things the Bible says he said.
- Prove Jesus lied.
Not easy. Christianity, like most things, rests more on a large accumulation of subtle factors rather than enormous proofs.
Separation of church and state has an important purpose. You don’t just enjoy freedom of religion in this nation, you also enjoy freedom FROM religion.
People (the ACLU in particular) are so fond of quoting the First Amendment’s words “Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” that it’s a wonder they forget the next words “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
I don’t complain that I’m coerced by the government to accept the (laws I don’t like). Very different.
Now that is a point. But you are forced to comply. Granted, I don’t see how allowing homosexuals to marry would force me to comply with anything, and (honestly) it would not be the end of the world. I oppose it because I think that it’s wrong, and that it’s a bad idea. If I lose, the game is not over (though I will probably always object, vocally, as is my right). I am opposing the sense of legitimacy government recognition brings.
we used to have laws that said that white people could marry only white people and black people could marry only black people. Would you call that discriminatory?
No, that law is not discriminatory either, because it does not make distinctions for who it applies to. The law is wrong and evil, but it is not discriminatory. I think that “discriminatory” is the left’s catch-all expression for evil, quite possibly because “non-tolerance” is the only intolerable thing for them. If the law, on the other hand, said only that “black men cannot marry white women” then the law would be discriminatory, because it restrict the freedom of some in a way it did not restrict the freedom of others.
Why make life much more difficult for other people when there is no tangible benefit to anyone else to deny their rights?
Principle, my friend, principle. That and my feeling that a society that ignores the principles of the way the world works will fail.
A minority has to earn the respect of a majority in order to deserve equal rights and protections under the law? Wouldn’t we still have slavery if that were true?
Minorities or majorities cannot win respect - only individuals can. Actually, I suppose that depends on what you mean by respect. If you mean dignity, then yes, minorities can win that. But respect is only won by individuals. Dignity is the right to be treated as a human being. Respect is the right to be treated as a fine human being.
Craig -
You are right. You are dead right. It’s your last line I want to talk about … “here are many issues out there that I view as wrong but are legal!!” Yes, adultery is one of them. Murder isn’t. We have decided that it is not government’s place to regulate sexual behavior. So we don’t (in most places). We decided that life and death is. We have decided that it is government’s place to determine who counts as married. Since we have determined this, we should make sure government does what is right. If government did not regulate marriage (did not issue marriage licenses), I would have no problem with homosexuals founding a church and getting married in that church.
Why do people believe in and value a continuation of the status quo on gay marriage? Is it religious? Is it fear?
I hope I’ve outlined my reasons for wanting to continue the status quo. They are primarily religious. I’ve heard arguments that homosexual marriage will be a disaster for society. On that subject, I am not sure. If I wasn’t of the persuasion that homosexual behavior was morally wrong, I don’t think I’d oppose homosexual marriage.
Allow me to propose a hypothetical solution. Let’s say the government stops recognizing marriage altogether. Instead, they create a legal condition known as z-prime. Individuals may apply for z-prime classification if they meet the following criteria -
- They must share their economic resources.
- They must support one another financially as necessary.
- Their contract shall be legal for a time (possibly lifelong) and penalties shall be imposed upon those who break it.
And maybe a few others. Give people under the classification z-prime the same rights and privileges formerly reserved for married couples. My wife and I would apply and be classified as z-prime (though, of course, we would be married too, just not so recognized by the state).
The reason this sort of deal would be acceptable to me is that “marriage” has certain connotations, certain traditions, a certain value to it that I consider inviolate. I considered myself married before God, not before the state. To me, the homosexual push for marriage is not about benefits, but acquiring for themselves the connotations of the word “marriage” and all that goes with it. They want the acceptance and affirmation and tradition that word implies. I don’t wish to grant it. Actually, in my own eyes, I never will (unless I’m persuaded from the Bible, of course). Would you be willing to have the benefits without the connotations?
Granted, there are those on my side who would oppose this idea, and if there are any here, I’d like to hear their reasons. If those on the other side do not accept it, then I believe that plainly reveals their agenda - not benefits, but legitimacy.
Taylor said it very well:
One of the best things about the U.S. has been it’s ability, over time, to acknowledge that we all deserve the same treatment. I trust that in the end, this gay marriage debate will end in the same outcome.
In the past, the trend in this country has always been towards more equality, not less. Whenever a fundamental change in the equilibrium starts to happen, there are those who fight it. Initially they are in the majority. There are attempts to further restrict the group in question and those attempts gain much popular support. The trend seems to be inevitable, though - the outcry of a minority becomes the belief of the majority (sometimes it takes laws for this to happen, sometimes just time). The fight for civil rights is a good example of this. Think about how we now characterize the people who opposed racial equality 30-40 yrs ago. They fought the issue on many grounds including religion. Despite all the vehemence with which the issue was fought at the time, I don’t know anyone who believes (or will admit to believing) that the racial equality changes were a mistake. We view the people who took that stance at the time as bigots or worse and many of them (in the political field, for example) still struggle to live down their attitudes.
How will your attitudes on gay rights be considered 30 years from now?
Posted by: Mark at March 11, 2005 06:22 PM“The Bible is a crock of shit and anyone who believes it is literally true is a clueless moron.”
I said that.
Seriously folks, why don’t we just have a religious WAR about all this?
Typical muslims. Typical christians. Typical religious idiots. Whether or not you believe homosexuality is a “sin” or not is none of your god damn business.
FYI, I am not one, but I was raised with fundamentalism crammed down my throat and I have rejected it in its entirety.
The Bible is not empirically verifiable, therefore it cannot be taken as “true”. If you want to believe it is, you have my pity.
Phelps may be a stupid nutcase but he does have the right to free speach. Criticize the HELL out of his speach, though.
(and, FYI, there is no such thing as hell)
Posted by: Escobar at March 11, 2005 06:27 PMAnd most of you were quite civil to me, which I appreciate.
Daniel,
I’m trying. =) Please know above all else, even though I disagree with you, I do respect your opinion, and I appreciate you posting such well-thought out explanations. Because of the acceleration of the thread, I hadn’t remarked on your responses to my earlier questions about the Bible, etc. I still personally find Christianity very hokey, but thanks for explaining your position in such detail, it does help me to understand where you’re coming from.
Apparently I’m not as smart as you think I am. Gays seem to have been quite successful at forming relationships with one another without government sanction; I am not refusing to allow them to form a relationship, I am refusing to let them tell me that their relationship is on a par with marriage.
You are probably smarter than I think you are. You are correct, government sanction isn’t needed just to say “I love you” to anyone. From my understanding, the situation is two fold.
1. It’s a desire for the full scope of CIVIL rights, I dont think people are necessarily looking for religious endorsement (there may be some, there always are extremes in any case like this). I don’t think the GLBT community is actually hung up on the word “marriage”, it’s just that every proposal to offer something different doesn’t include the over 1000 federal rights and benefits heterosexual couples enjoy today.
2. Many of the stronger opponents of this issue are going rabidly far in the opposite direction. They want a ban on gay marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and in the case of the state of Virginia, they want to nullify any power of attorney or other legal arrangements made between 2 people of the same gender. These opponents hold a much, much more radical stance on the matter, and seem to want to abolish homosexuality altogether. I think this is important to note when looking at both sides of this issue.
I believe that right and wrong have no basis apart from the character of God. If you have another basis, I wouldn’t mind hearing about it.
I think it’s quite possible to have an ethical or moral sense to guide your life that doesn’t have to be founded in the belief of an “Allmighty”. I have been influenced by the world around me, sure, but I’ve found self-worth, purpose, and peace, without any god(s). I am an atheist. I do not believe in any afterlife, and I do not believe in the concept of a soul. It’s much more anesthetic than some people might like, and for that reason, I don’t advocate my position to others. I have nothing to gain by selling anyone on the concept. My lack of religion, by it’s definition, dictates my lack of need to recruit or persuade anyone to my way.
True, it is not easy to disprove Christianity. An awful lot of people have been trying for an awfully long with awful zeal, but it remains. But here are a couple of things that would be sufficient
Prove to me that Jesus never rose from the dead, or that he never lived.
Prove to me that he did.
Prove to me that God did not create the world.
Prove to me that he did.
Prove to me that Jesus did not say the things the Bible says he said.
Prove to me that he did.
Prove Jesus lied.
Do I really have to continue on this?
I’ve heard arguments that homosexual marriage will be a disaster for society.
Society is a disaster for society. We are an infant race and have a lot of stuff to figure out. I hope we’ll get there. For 60 years we’ve sat on the very technology we’ve created to end our species. If we can hold out a few decades more, we just might make it.
Allow me to propose a hypothetical solution. Let’s say the government stops recognizing marriage altogether. Instead, they create a legal condition known as z-prime. Individuals may apply for z-prime classification if they meet the following criteria -
They must share their economic resources.They must support one another financially as necessary.
Their contract shall be legal for a time (possibly lifelong) and
penalties shall be imposed upon those who break it.And maybe a few others. Give people under the classification z-prime the same rights and privileges formerly reserved for married couples. My wife and I would apply and be classified as z-prime (though, of course, we would be married too, just not so recognized by the state).
I like it. All people want is equality, I believe. You value your marriage as a religious sacrament, and even though I don’t subscribe to your beliefs, I think you are a better person for it. I wish more people were like you, actually, because it sounds as if you have your life put together in a way that is working well. I’ll be completely honest and say I have huge problems with Christianity, because millions subscribe, but only thousands seems to follow. In my opinion, you are of the latter, and I respect your devotion to your faith. I dont share it, but you’ve earned my respect.
The point of the matter, I think is, homosexuals are a part of our society. Even if we round them all up into concentration camps now, and exterminate them, more will be born, we’ll do this all over again. The best we can do here is, love one another, despite our differences, treat one another with respect, and when it comes to government, give one another equal rights. Your God will not deny you entry to heaven based on loving another, you don’t have to commit these acts, you don’t have to endorse them, all I ask is, don’t stand in the way of giving others an opportunity to:
- Have someone they love at their side when they die.
- Letting their significant other make medical decisions on thier behalf if they become incapacitated.
- Inherit a deceased loved ones estate without paying extreme taxes
- Not be denied family leave because their spouse is ill.
- Not be denied nursing home cohabitation because they are the same gender.
- Not be eligible for their deceased spouses pension
- Not have children they’ve raised together be taken by the state upon the death of the genetic parent.
The list goes on. If “X-Prime” is the way, sure I’m all for it. People deserve to live the lives they chose, we as a nation should protect all or none. We don’t do that today, and I think that’s why you find the term “discrimination” in play so often on the matter.
Posted by: Taylor at March 11, 2005 07:18 PMTaylor
Thanks so very much for your post. It means much to me to have your respect.
“You value your marriage as a religious sacrament” - exactly. That is the entire reason for my somewhat intransigent position on this issue. Thanks for understanding.
“I’ll be completely honest and say I have huge problems with Christianity, because millions subscribe, but only thousands seems to follow.”
You’re right. To my great shame and disappointment, you’re right. I know I quote a lot of Chesteron on these boards, but that’s just because he’s so cool - he said “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult, and left untried.” None of us measure up to our calling.
The point of the matter, I think is, homosexuals are a part of our society. Even if we round them all up into concentration camps now, and exterminate them, more will be born, we’ll do this all over again.
I know that the rhetoric coming from some on my side makes it look like we would consider that kind of final solution - all I can say is, “for me and my house” we would rather die that see that happen.
Looking at your list, I have no objections to homosexuals acquring those things. The only one that gives me pause is “Not be denied nursing home cohabitation because they are the same gender …” The only problem I could see with that would be if a homosexual couple wanted to retire to a retirement community owned and run by Christians. I certainly wouldn’t want a Christian to turn them away, but I also wouldn’t be comfortable with permitting them to share rooms, just as I would have no problem with putting an umarried man and woman up for the night in my house, but wouldn’t permit them to share the same room (unless there were extreme extenuating circumstances). But, aside from rather trivial problems like that, I have no problems.
Posted by: Daniel at March 11, 2005 07:46 PMTaylor -
Now, as regards “proving” Christianity to be true, I am a very inexperienced apologist, but I know enough to know that Christianity cannot be “proved” in any satisfactory sense. The most an apologist can do is to show that our faith is honestly reasonable. I’m coming to the slow conclusion that no-one can be persuaded of anything against their will.
Here are a number of what I consider supporting arguments for my faith.
I don’t have proof. But I defy anyone who thinks I don’t have a reason.
Posted by: Daniel at March 11, 2005 08:11 PMDaniel,
I appreciate your reasoned response to my criticisms. Although we definitely disagree, I feel that we can have a rational debate.
However, my biggest problem with your analysis is a seeming assumuption that marriage is a Christian concept. It is not. Marriage predates Christianity, and even the definition of marriage within Christianity has changed. Christianity has embraced marriage and has its own traditions and ceremonies concerning marriage. However, every other religion and culture has done so, too.
To base the civil definition of marriage in a pluralistic society on the traditions of marriage of one religion is very troublesome. You have acknowledged that you would accept homosexuals receiving all the benefits of marriage as long as they didn’t use the word “marriage,” which you associate with your personal religion. If such a compromise were required for equal treatment (whether called civil unions or Z-prime), I would accept it if necessary. However, I can’t condone a semantic distinction based on one religion unhistorically claiming the concept of marriage as its own.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 11, 2005 08:38 PMBarb, obviously you didn’t finish reading my OPINION. I do believe it is a sin, what you and everyone else thinks, I TRULY DON’T CARE. That is your freedom personally. Life is full of a bunch of differenct sins and horrific things, you are correct on that. Whatever happened to being kind and caring to others while trying to teach the respect of opinions and openmindedness to the closed up people in this world? I don’t think (My opinion again) that this respect should have anything to do with race, religion or political affiliation whatsoever…
Posted by: Stephanie at March 11, 2005 08:48 PMThe Republican Position on Gays is the same as the Republican Position on Colors 40 years ago: They are human. They have Rights. As long as they sit at the back of the Bus and don’t drink from the same water fountain, they are ok people.
Posted by: Aldous at March 11, 2005 09:08 PMHey I could be wrong now that our institutions of higher indoctrination are rewriting history but wasn’t it a Republican that freed the slaves??
Posted by: Mike at March 11, 2005 09:19 PMI am a very inexperienced apologist
Daniel, what the heck do you mean by this? Apologist sounds very degrading to me, something that I think neither you nor I deserve to be labeled as. I’m not apologizing in any means for my beliefs, and I’m hoping you are not either. I have to admit it troubles me you consistently use this term for yourself and for your opponents.
I have never seen a satisfactory explanation of the origin of the universe from an non-deistic perspective
This universe is absolutely remarkable in the way that it supports life, on forces and “coincidences” so extemely carefully balanced that any alteration in them renders the universe absolutely unfit for any kind of life (by, in general, making it very difficult for molecules of any great complexity to develop).
Here’s where I have to be honest, and possibly offensive to you. I mean no disrespect, and have not intention to undermine anything you believe in, but you pose the situation that so many have tried to answer, and here’s my take on it:
Creationists like to take the science behind evolution, and extrapolate the “coincidence” factor as 1 in a million, or 1 in a billion or so on. The actuality, in my opinion is, the same, it was 1 in a million, or 1 in a billion, but it happened nonetheless. Biochemistry is a very tricky thing. It’s highly complex, and we’re lucky it happened, but it did. Like it or not, we’ve evolved over billions of years from a single celled organism. The first amino acids came together by pure chance, millions of years ago, and here were stand today. It’s my opinion, and just like you, I’m free to have that opinion. The problem with primates, and particularly humans, is our need of self-importance, our need of self-worth. These needs have lead us to fabricate more spiritualy-founded meanings behind our creation. We can’t, as a culture, accept the reality that we may indeed be no more meaningful than the single celled organism. We’re so complex, so profound, there must be more. I don’t think there is. I think that when you and I expire, we will enter eternal non-existance. Our consciousness will cease to exist. Any belief in ghosts, phantoms, heaven, or hell only exist to serve mankinds need to believe we must mean more to the universe than we actually do. We are complex, yes, but we are little more than bio-chemical machines, and when our bodies fail, it ends.
I realize you believe differently, and as already stated, I respect and admire that. I hope you find your heaven, you seem to me the kind of person that deserves such a thing.
I have to admit, of the things I listed, I expected the issue of children to raise discord with you, not the nursing home cohabitation. I’ll be honest, my perception is, by nursing home time, sex isn’t a factor. Companionship is. Maybe I’m out on left wing here, but by the time nursing home cohabitation is an issue, I’m not sure sex is even in the question. I was thinking…… Dear (insert name here)…. I’m tired, I’m sore, I’m going to die…… I love that you’re here with me, that we can spend our days together…..
Daniel, homosexuality isn’t all about sex. Please, please understand this. Neither is heterosexuality. Meaningful human relationships transcend sexuality. You must understand, please. When your life partner enters your life, sex is part of it, but not all. Any persons decision to spend the rest of their days with another exceeds sexual activity, it has to. The bond that people form during sexually active years is certainly important, but not the whole of thier emotional relationship. To desire to live your golden years with the person of your choice isn’t a sexual motivation, it’s emotional, someone who has supported you emotionally for decades deserves to be at your side, regardless of gender.
What I’m trying to point out is, homosexuality isn’t all about sex, there’s a very complex emotional side to it too, which I understand to be the same you share with your wife.
Posted by: Taylor at March 11, 2005 09:24 PMYou may recall that 40 years ago more Repubicans voted for the Civil Rights act than Democrats.
Democrats in the Senate were filibustering to stop the bill. This comes from the Senate history page at www.SENATE.gov. It is moving and heroic.
“Georgia Democrat Richard Russell offered the final arguments in opposition. Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who had enlisted the Republican votes that made cloture a realistic option, spoke for the proponents with his customary eloquence. Noting that the day marked the one-hundredth anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s nomination to a second term, the Illinois Republican proclaimed, in the words of Victor Hugo, “Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.” He continued, “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!”
So, Aldous, you might want to research the Republican and Democratic positions forty years ago. Maybe you can choose a different date. If you select selectively, you can support your point.
Posted by: Jack at March 11, 2005 09:27 PMMike,
Yes, but the Republican and Democratic parties of 1863 bear no resemblance or ideological bearing on the parties as they exist today. For a vivid illustration, look at which states each party won in the 1916 presidential race. Noting about what the Republicans did in the 1860s is a fun game, but it doesn’t matter for politics as they are practiced today.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 11, 2005 09:27 PMWEll I guess we could define marriage as anyone who wants to make a commitment to each other - Who are we to discriminate on such minor points like
1.) Numbers - vote yes for polygamy
2.) Relations - marry your sister
3.) Species - marry your horse
4.) Age - marry a 12 year old
5.) Equipment - marry your computer
6.) Time - commit for only two years
7.) Money - marry for only —- $ rent a wife
or you could combine em all - marry your sisters horse and its 12 year old friend for two years for $1000.
Lets get open minded here you conservatives!! WHo are you to define what marriage is!
Let em all have commitment ceremonies and then they can be committed. :)
Posted by: MIke at March 11, 2005 09:29 PMTaylor,
Apologetics is “the study of the defense of a doctrine or belief.” Although it’s a funny word because it’s closely related to another word that means asking forgiveness, Daniel was not using a degrading term.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 11, 2005 09:30 PMYes Lawnboy and the Democratic Party of 1960 no way thinks like the Democratic Party of 2005
Posted by: MIke at March 11, 2005 09:32 PMLawnboy,
Wow, that link sounds like a bunch of BS to me, am I off base here.
Mike, thanks for the neo-con mockery, don’t stop your meds, love, you may put society at risk if your stop them.
Posted by: Taylor at March 11, 2005 09:41 PMMike,
You’re absolutely right. One factor to keep in mind when noticing that more Democrats than Republicans voted against the civil rights acts of the 1960s is to look at what happened later. A large number of the Democrats who opposed racial civil rights, the Dixiecrats, moved to the Republican party afterwards because they felt more at home in that party than in the party that sponsored the civil rights acts. That historical shift responding against civil rights is one of the major reasons that the Republican party is so strong in the South today. Nixon embraced it as part of the “Southern Strategy”.
On another note, this thread has been very interesting. I didn’t know if anyone would respond to a post about a 12-year old article about the evil of a single church in Kansas. However, we’ve discussed gay marriage, Christian apologetics, American political party history, and even Creationism. Interesting.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 11, 2005 09:43 PMLawnboy, will you marry me? ( hahahhahahahah)
=)
-Taylor
Posted by: Taylor at March 11, 2005 09:45 PMTaylor,
What do you mean by a “bunch of BS”? Are you talking about apologetics? If so, then you are off base (although we agree on most other issues, it seems). Check out this list of definitions of apologetics supplied by Google.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 11, 2005 09:46 PMLawnboy,
Please elaborate, the last link I followed made apologetics sound very submissive and weak. I guess I’m not following you here.
-T
Posted by: Taylor at March 11, 2005 10:02 PMHere are some of the definitions of apologetics from Google’s list:
# A systematic defense of a belief system. It is derived from the Greek “apologia” which means to create a defense. See 1 Peter 3:15. Most apologetics texts are directed to members of another religion, or to secularists. However they tend to be read in practice by the faith group whose beliefs are defended. See Polemics. In Christianity: Classical Apologetics: uses rational arguments to prove that God exists, and relies on evidence to support biblical claims and miracles.
www.religioustolerance.org/gl_a1.htm
# The branch of theology that is concerned with analyzing and devising intellectual techniques for defending the Christian faith and with producing such defenses. C. S. Lewis is the best-known modern Christian apologist. It is the opposite of polemics, in that apologetics attempts to win people to Christ, while polemics attempts to tear them away from other belief systems.
www.kencollins.com/glossary/Theology.htm
# The area of Christian theology which focusses on the defense of the Christian faith, particularly through the rational justification of Christian belief and doctrines.
www.polity.co.uk/theology/Glossary.asp
# Apologetics is derived from the Greek word a)pologi/a(apologia) meaning “defense” or “answer.” Apologetics is giving a reason for the hope of Christianity and a defense of the gospel. Because of the identity of Christians with the One true God, the Christian worldview is antithetical with the world of unbelievers who hate their Maker and thus Christianity as well. Christian apologetics serves its Creator by affirming Him as the basis and purpose of rationality before men, and showing that the basis of other worldviews cannot account for the reality they live in. The goal of reformed apologetics is to defend the gospel from the wisdom of the world by silencing its foolishness and offering the only possible interpretation of reality in light and hope of Jesus Christ.
www.two-age.org/glossary.htm
It’s not weak or submissive. There are a lot of books written to “prove” Christianity, and apologetics is the term for the cancept.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 11, 2005 11:16 PM