Democrats & Liberals Archives

Tolerance; A Controversial Issue

The United Church of Christ has produced three wonderful commercials with a message of inclusion and tolerance.

All three have been rejected by the major broadcast networks; ABC, CBC, NBC, Fox, and the WB.

The latest, "ejector pew", [Quicktime][RealPlayer][Media Player] was seen as too controversial by NBC. But, controversial to whom? The religious right? How dare UCC produce a commercial that depicts a gay couple attending church!

CBS rejected the commercial because they do not accept "advocacy" advertising. I don't get it. Doesn't all advertising "advocate" something? Is CBS going commercial-free? UCC is simply targeting their message to a segment of the population that might be interested in their services.

UCC president Ron Buford said, "We told them that the United Church of Christ commercial was not advocating anything; rather, we are letting people know that no matter who they are, or where they are on life's journey, they are welcome." According to Buford, "The executives said that it would have to become commonplace across the United States for churches to welcome gays and lesbians."

The worst part is that the hypocrites at CBS have a “Mission Statement on Diversity”:


CBS is committed to building and nurturing a diversified environment throughout the entire company, as well as the entertainment industry at large. Recognizing the power and influence the company carries through its nationwide reach of network programming and local television stations, CBS has been on the forefront of making diversity a reality through a wide array of workshops, talent showcases and internships designed to bring more minorities into the creative process, and to create opportunities where they may not have existed before.

Likewise, internally, CBS continues in its efforts to create a workplace that is representative of the American public, and which offers the same hopes, dreams and opportunities to all.

In realizing this important goal, CBS has partnered with many organizations throughout the industry for talent showcases, networking events and outreach efforts.

"As broadcasters, we aim to ensure that our national viewing audience is reflected in our programming and our people.

We recognize that a work force comprised of a wide variety of perspectives, viewpoints, and backgrounds is integral to our continued success.

This is not a campaign, but rather a fundamental way of doing business at CBS, and we continue to be steadfast in our goal to become more diverse and more representative of the public we serve."

-Leslie Moonves Co-President & Co-Chief Operating Officer, Viacom Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, CBS

CBS’s decision on the UCC ad runs contrary to their own mission statement. Is it ethical for CBS to reject an ad based simply on whom it is targeted to? Is it ethical for CBS to reject this ad when the rejection goes against its own Diversity Mission Statement?

ABC, & Fox claim they do not accept religious advertising. Although, Fox said that it had previously accepted advertising from religious groups, they have since changed their policy. Since UCC wanted to buy airtime?
Religious Right political leaders like Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and Pat Robertson have appeared on ABC’s "This Week" at the exclusion of mainline, and liberal religious leaders.

The UCC has teamed up with Media Matters to fight the bias toward the Religious Right in the mainstream media news.

A new study by Media Matters shows that you are far more likely to see a Religious Right political leader on a news program than a mainline religious leader. It’s time for equal access on America’s television news programs.

The other two commercials were "All the People", [Quicktime][Media Player] and "The Bouncer", [Quicktime][Media Player] which won an advertising award. The major broadcast networks rejected both.

While I am not a member of any organized religious group, it is a sad day when Christ's message of tolerance and inclusiveness are deemed "controversial"; while the message of hate and intolerance, being spewed by the religious right, is perfectly acceptable.

Posted by JayJay Snow at April 3, 2006 11:44 PM
Comments
Comment #137790

This surprises you?

The GOP bashed a Yellow Sponge who lives in a Pineapple under the da**ed freaking Sea for crying out loud!!!!

Intolerance wins Elections. Go ask the Latinos…

Posted by: Aldous at April 4, 2006 1:23 AM
Comment #137794

Aldous:

I read the post. I watched to commercials. Somehow I missed the giant red elephant in the room.

Perhaps you are having DDT, democratic delirium tremors, a condition where you see elephants everywhere. The condition is caused by excessive exposure to democratic talking points and is related to RDT, a condition characterized by omnipresent donkeys.

Let’s stop DDT and RDT in our lifetime.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 4, 2006 1:36 AM
Comment #137796

Jesus actually wasn’t as tolerant and inclusive as you may think. He said “Do not think that I am come to bring peace on earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set enmity between father and son, between mother and daughter.” Sounds like a divider, not a uniter.

Jesus also said after saving the adulteress from being stoned, “Neither do I condemn you, GO AND SIN NO MORE”

Recently, the left has been trying to portray Jesus as this sort of anything goes party boy who destroyed the old Law of Moses. This is simply untrue. He preached that everyone had a mainline to God, not just through the priests, but also one had to turn away from their sin. He preached that it wasn’t enough just to profess belief, but to live for God every second of every day. In many ways, Jesus made the Law of Moses even stronger.
I couldn’t care less about those commercials. Gays should be welcome at every church, and any church that doesn’t welcome them are going against the teachings of Jesus. However, once they are there, they should be taught what the scriptures say about homosexuality and hopefully turn away from their iniquity.

Posted by: Duano at April 4, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #137801

Duano:

Re your post: Recently, the left has been trying to portray Jesus as this sort of anything goes party boy

Huh?

Posted by: goodkingned at April 4, 2006 2:02 AM
Comment #137803

Duano,

I am not an orthodox Christian, so we will disagree on many points of the Bible. Jesus was not an anything goes “party boy”. He had one strict law:

If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well

(James 2:8 KJV)

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 4, 2006 2:06 AM
Comment #137804

Upon further consideration, I think that Duano has contracted RDT from Aldous’s DDT. I’ve long suspected that the conditions were so closely related that there was a contagion threat.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 4, 2006 2:06 AM
Comment #137805

Matthew 22:37-40:

37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38This is the first and great commandment.

39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 4, 2006 2:10 AM
Comment #137811

I couldn’t agree more. If you love your neighbor, you will do everything you can to convince him not to do things that are harmful to himself. BTW, you quoted James in your earlier post. James was the brother of Jesus, not the genuine article. Your quotes from Matthew are Jesus’ exact words.

Posted by: Duano at April 4, 2006 2:30 AM
Comment #137817

Duano,

And who are you to say what is harmful? Because you took a few bible scriptures out of context and decided that God condemns homosexuals? I have done extensive research on this subject and one thing I know for sure is that bible scripture MUST be interpreted in the context of the time it was written. The problem today is that many insist on interpreting scripture as if it were just written for modern times.

The culture that the bible was written in was vastly different than today. You cannot have a good understanding of what is happening in the Bible without quite a bit of knowledge of history of the time period.

I also believe that there is a whole world of spirituality outside the Bible if you just look for it. There are hundereds of ancient writings that shed new light on the life of Jesus. Several books were left out of the Bible because they didn’t match up to what the Church wanted people to believe. People should also be aware that the English version of the Bible does not always jive with the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts. Most of the differences are due to translation difficulties, but occassionally the change in translation, changes the meaning of the passage.

So while you may think that Homosexuality is harmful based on your understanding of the Bible, I see it much more harmful to live your life as a lie. How can God ever know you if you don’t know yourself? And even more harmful; “Christians” who have turned homosexuals away from their faith in God. Whether you like it or not, he is our God too.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 4, 2006 2:55 AM
Comment #137818

Isn’t gay sex a high risk for contracting HIV/AIDS?

I personally believe that the Bible is timeless and its truths trandscend ancient or modern.

“THOU SHALT NOT LIE WITH MANKIND, AS WITH WOMANKIND. IT IS ABOMINATION” This isn’t taken out of context. It’s from an area of the Law dealing with sexual immorality and is accompanied by scriptures condemning incest, rape, and beastiality.

Yes, he is your God, too. He said “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” There are worse sins than homosexuality and those need taken care of first, but to insist that people can go on sinning knowingly and that God is okay with it is ludicrous. Homosexuality is a choice. God wouldn’t create people a certain way and then say it is a sin. I’ve attended church with former homosexuals who are now happily married heterosexuals. They are great witnesses of the power of the Almighty to change the hearts and minds of men. I’m not open minded. I believe we should open our hearts, not our minds. “Open your eyes and your heart.”

Posted by: Duano at April 4, 2006 3:35 AM
Comment #137819

vote for spongebob

Posted by: gergle at April 4, 2006 3:41 AM
Comment #137822

Duano,

If you have any self-respect, you’ll stop your preaching now before it gets the better of you. You just aren’t up for it. Seriously, you want people to follow Leviticus, the entirety of it, word for word? There would be a lot of ‘putting to death’ and ‘washing’ as I read it…

Let’s see:

No marrying a woman who isn’t a virgin (well, this is going to be a toughie)

No using any fruit from a field you plant for 3 years, 4th year is to the Lord, then the 5th year you can sow from it. Sounds like a government policy to me all right…

“No one of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the food of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, one who is blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or one who has a broken foot or a broken hand, or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with a blemish in his eyes or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles. ” All inclusive god you got there alrighty…

Is July 10th the day of atonement for you? Leviticus says it should be according to “Now, the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement; it shall be a holy convocation for you: you shall deny yourselves and present the LORD’s offering by fire; and you shall do no work during that entire day; for it is a day of atonement, to make atonement on your behalf before the LORD your God. For anyone who does not practice self-denial during that entire day shall be cut off from the people. And anyone who does any work during that entire day, such a one I will destroy from the midst of the people. You shall do no work: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your settlements. It shall be to you a sabbath of complete rest, and you shall deny yourselves; on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening you shall keep your sabbath.”

Do you go into a built church? Well, Leviticus is not too keen on many of them “You shall make for yourselves no idols and erect no carved images or pillars, and you shall not place figured stones in your land, to worship at them”

How about your water bill! Oh, and make sure you have a few turtledoves and pigeons around… “When any man has a discharge from his member, his discharge makes him ceremonially unclean. The uncleanness of his discharge is this: whether his member flows with his discharge, or his member is stopped from discharging, it is uncleanness for him. Every bed on which the one with the discharge lies shall be unclean; and everything on which he sits shall be unclean. Anyone who touches his bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. All who sit on anything on which the one with the discharge has sat shall wash their clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. All who touch the body of the one with the discharge shall wash their clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. If the one with the discharge spits on persons who are clean, then they shall wash their clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. Any saddle on which the one with the discharge rides shall be unclean. All who touch anything that was under him shall be unclean until the evening, and all who carry such a thing shall wash their clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. All those whom the one with the discharge touches without his having rinsed his hands in water shall wash their clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. Any earthen vessel that the one with the discharge touches shall be broken; and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water. When the one with a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, he shall count seven days for his cleansing; he shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in fresh water, and he shall be clean. On the eighth day he shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons and come before the LORD to the entrance of the tent of meeting and give them to the priest. The priest shall offer them, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make atonement on his behalf before the LORD for his discharge.”

Do you keep kosher? Leviticus is pretty specific on what you can and can’t eat. I wonder if you follow every single law listed in Leviticus 11? I mean, if you are to believe any part of Leviticus, especially to eschew hatred on someone because of their personal lifestyle, you should be willing to follow it lock stock and barrel, right?

Seriously, take this garbage somewhere else. I was once a preacher and I know what you’re up to and it won’t be tolerated as long as I’m reading here…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 4, 2006 4:39 AM
Comment #137823

Here, here!!!

I think its telling that some sci-fi writers prefer to depict Mickey Mouse and Daffy Duck as humanity’s Gods to alien races instead of the reality. Can’t really blame them either…

Posted by: Aldous at April 4, 2006 4:51 AM
Comment #137824
Isn’t gay sex a high risk for contracting HIV/AIDS?

Duano,

Isn’t unprotected sex, period, a high risk for contracting HIV/AIDS? BTW, one thing that gays will (usually) never sexually transmit that kills more humans than any sexually transmitted disease is unwanted pregnancy.

I personally believe that the Bible is timeless and its truths trandscend ancient or modern.

Sure, as long as you understand the difference between ancient culture and modern culture.

“THOU SHALT NOT LIE WITH MANKIND, AS WITH WOMANKIND. IT IS ABOMINATION”

This passage is from the Mosaic Code.

In Hebrew: “V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee.”

literally translated: “And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination.”

This passage isn’t condemning homosexuality but rather it is ritually unclean for it to occur in a woman’s bed. This makes sense in the context of other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. e.g. ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman’s bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.

Furthermore, the word that is being translated to abomination here is toeyvah. The Holiness Code deals with two types of sin: Moral Sin (“zimah”) and Ritual Uncleanliness (“toeyvah”). When translators translate the Hebrew word here to Greek it is translated “bdelugma” which means “of idols and things pertaining to idolatry”.

Besides, there are over 600 laws in the Old Testament and the book of Leviticus, how many have you broke today?

Homosexuality is a choice.

Easy thing for a straight man to say.

God wouldn’t create people a certain way and then say it is a sin.

Bingo! Give that man a prize. He doesn’t say that committed loving same sex relationships are a sin. He does condemn some homosexual activities like rape and pedestry, just as he does to heterosexuals.

I’ve attended church with former homosexuals who are now happily married heterosexuals. They are great witnesses of the power of the Almighty to change the hearts and minds of men.

I can’t answer for anyone else, but I came to a point in my life that I had to decide if I was going to abandon my faith and live my life truthfully. I opened my heart to God for guidance and he led me to a whole new world of truth. The very first thing he led me to (in a strange way) was the Gospel of Thomas in which Jesus says “Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]”

That saying has been my inspiration. The more I seek the truth, the more I find, the more I am disturbed and the more amazed I am.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 4, 2006 5:00 AM
Comment #137825

Btw, my reference to July 10th before was written in haste, Yom Kippur is based on the Jewish calendar, not the Gergorian…

Don’t forget to mark your calendar for your atonment day, Duano, October 1 this year!

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 4, 2006 5:08 AM
Comment #137828

Do you think incest is a healthy act to engage in? How about beastiality? The scriptures condemning homosexuality are in this area of Leviticus, not in the ritual cleansing and uncleannes part. Nice twisting of the scriptures to make yourself feel justified, the Supreme Court couldn’t have done it better. The one true God didn’t lead you to the gospel of Thomas or any other blasphemous forgery. “If any man or even an angel come bringing any other gospel than that which I have brought, do not believe it.” It’s okay if you feel the way you do. I’ve committed worse sins than being gay, and I cannot say whether gay people will or will not receive eternal life. All I can do is pray for you, and for wisdom and understanding, and I promise you I will.

P.S. Anal sex is a much, much higher risk act for HIV/AIDS than any other sexual activity. No matter what the propaganda has fed people for twenty years, it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE for a man to contract HIV from vaginal sex. Having said that, it is as much a sin to have premarital heterosexual sex as to have gay sex.(I’ve done it, it was a sin, I had to ask forgiveness and now I’m happily married.) Jesus loves you!

Posted by: Duano at April 4, 2006 5:34 AM
Comment #137833

www.exodus.to is a group of mostly former homosexuals whose lives have changed eternally.

Posted by: Duano at April 4, 2006 6:17 AM
Comment #137837

JayJay:

You are correct that “loving thy neighbor” is an extremely important aspect of Christianity. Love is such an essential part of Christ’s message. We can take actions that are based in love that might not seem right, and we can also take actions that are NOT based on love that can be wrong. An example would be doing a favor for a friend—it can be done out of a loving desire to help, or it can be done out of a hateful desire to make the friend look bad for not having helped you in the past. The action may have been the same but the motivation wasn’t. Christ sees our motivations and they are important.

That’s all a way of saying that I wouldn’t condemn a gay person for attending church. I’d like to think I’d welcome them. I’d want to treat them the same way I’d treat someone who perhaps was heterosexually promiscuous—in that both a gay person and a heterosexually promiscuous person are each committing a “sinful act” regarding their sexual behavior.

I know you might disagree with my characterization, but its what I believe. You are free to believe differently, and to consider my belief to be incorrect, as I do yours.

If we truly take actions out of love, even if its tough love, then we are on solid footing.

Rhinehold:

You quoted liberally from Leviticus. I think you should take some time to analyze the difference between Mosaic laws and post-Mosaic laws. Using the Old Testament only to show certain laws is rather incomplete.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 4, 2006 8:10 AM
Comment #137841

All I can bring myself to say at his point is wow! The amount of intolerance in the US is reaching SCARY proportions… Whatever happened to freedom? Freedom of speech, freedom of sexual prefrence, freedom to “sin” if I want to?

I personally don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin, nor am I gay myself, but I do believe tha someone’s choices are thir own…

So if some people out there do believe that homesexuality is a sin, then they should at least respect other people’s rights “to sin” in peace. As long as these “sins” aren’t affecting your life, what do you care?

Tolerance is about respecting other peoples right to choose to live their lives as they see fit.

Just my two cents.

Posted by: Elise Fisher at April 4, 2006 8:33 AM
Comment #137842

Well after looking at the ads I noticed that Gays are not the only ones turned away. Could it be that the focus on Gays by our religious brothers could be their fear of their own inate feelings of being drawn to men. I guess my question is “What are you afraid of?”

I guess some gods are not big enough to share a pew with someone different, be they “colored”, or “women” or “young” or whatever. I am sorry for you that you have faith in such a shallow god that there is not room for others. For all the horseshit about being Christian, so many are such bigots.

I say that if I found sitting in church a good choice for the use of my time, then UCC would be a choice to consider as they welcome all, not just those they agree with.

I hope you find solice in your faith because so many seem so lost in their ability to get along with their fellow man.
Michael M.

Posted by: Michael M at April 4, 2006 8:44 AM
Comment #137847

Duano,

Before you keep spouting satistics with out proof, give me proof. I want a doctor, who gives these same stastics. Not a Christian.

To find truth, you have to have proof. Now, dish it out.

-einghf

Posted by: Einghf at April 4, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #137850

Duano,

You said, “Homosexuality is a choice.”

Wrong! Cut-n-paste from The American Psychological Association:

“Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.”

“There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

Please, be informed and read:
Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality
http://www.apa.org/topics/sbehaviorsub1.html#choice

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at April 4, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #137859

Here is my big question:

If we choose our sexuality and we are all heterosexual, but some of us choose to be homosexual then I want to know Duano, what is the exact day and time and moment in your life that you chose to be heterosexual?
Because I remember the exact moment that I realized I was different than the people around me, I was 5.
I spent a great deal of my life thinking that I was somehow wrong and monstrous. What 11 year old considers killing themselves because they know they can’t fit in?
The only choice I made was to be who God made me. I trusted that God would guide me; the God in my heart, not a man who defines God for his own purposes.
I hope that you don’t have any children.

By the way, if HIV is Gods punishment for gays then are lesbians Gods chosen? As they have the lowest risk of HIV, and VD?
Also, black heterosexual women are currently the highest risk group for HIV. What sin are they committing?

Posted by: Tom at April 4, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #137865

KansasDem,

There is emerging evidence that homosexuality may originate in exposure to different levels of testosterone from the mother in the womb or during birth.

This is obviously a matter of choice on the part of the baby. A righteous baby will signal the mother “NO MORE HORMONES! YOU WANT ME TO TURN OUT GAY?” and an unrighteous one will signal “POUR ‘EM ON!! AND TURN ON A JUDY GARLAND RECORD WHILE YOU’RE AT IT!”

60 Minutes (that proud voice of Secular Satanism) ran an interesting story on this a few weeks back.) Here’s the link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/60minutes/main1385230_page5.shtml

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at April 4, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #137866

KansasDem,

CORRECTION. I had the testosterone exposures reversed. Underexposure to testosterone during gestation may result in a homosexual orientation, not the other way around.

Sorry about that.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at April 4, 2006 10:27 AM
Comment #137887

Everyone is allowed to make their own choice, but it is that a choice. There has been zero scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic. I laugh at how the burden of proof has fallen the other way, now it has basically turned into “prove to me that homosexuality is NOT genetic.” The APA is not scientific, underexposure to testosterone does not result in homosexuality. A scientific study that states something “MAY” lead to homosexuality does not make it fact.

I personally do not care what someone chooses to do with their sexuality, but please do not make a Biblical case for why it is OK. The Bible is clear Old and New Testament (Romans, James, Genesis, 1 Tim, 1 Cor, Lev) all are clear that homosexuality is a sin. God loves all sinners and homosexuality is no greater than other sins, but please don’t “re-context” the Bible to fit your agenda or to feel better about your choices. Homosexuals should be accepted at church and loved as all people who walk through the church doors.

Christianity has screwed up how they treat homosexuals in a major way. Christians often make the strongest case against Christianity with their actions. But changing the Bible and taking the sin out of homosexuality is not the best way to rectify the situation.

Posted by: tc at April 4, 2006 11:27 AM
Comment #137896

TC,

You are absolutely right. The Bible (wih contents selectively chosen, approved and edited by assorted clerical authorities over the centuries) DOES make it absolutely clear that homosexuality is a sin.

I applaud your tolerance toward sinners as defined by the approved-as-edited Bible. However, I would appreciate your citing any incontrovertible evidence that God actually approved the content selection and edits.

As a “freelance monotheist” (as Karen Armstrong once described herself), I cannot rationally accept the final authority of any scripture on the issue of sin and redemption. If I do, then I am not worshipping God, only a book that purports (without any supporting evidence) to be an infallible authority about God.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at April 4, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #137898

Robert Benjamin,Tom,

Guess who’s responsible for 9/11?

“The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make it an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way-all of them who tried to secularize America- I point the finger in their face and say,’You helped this happen.’”

Falwell’s salve to soothe the soul.
I am going to kick my pastors ass for preaching all that love crap at my church.
I can’t believe he’s been teaching tolerance and good works to my kids too.
Where’s the fire and brimstone wrath of God stuff? Where’s the hate speach at my church?
I want to be saved too.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at April 4, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #137901

Andre,

As you point out, the Falwells and their followers believe in a God who is worthy of fear but never of devotion. What troubles me most about them is their utter rejection of what I consider the most important gift from God - the power of critical thinking - in favor of increasingly robotic faith justified only by itself.

Posted by: Robert Benjamin at April 4, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #137902
Homosexuals should be accepted at church and loved as all people who walk through the church doors.

But should they be allowed to marry? If not, should we allow adulterers to marry, or people who are divorced to remarry as they would be committing sin as well?

Why should we allow the fairy tales of the Christian Faith to dictate how we structure our society? You mention ‘the burden of proof’ yet you do NOTHING to provide any proof that ‘god’ even exists. Are you proposing that your faith should be enforced onto those who do not believe it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 4, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #137904
You quoted liberally from Leviticus. I think you should take some time to analyze the difference between Mosaic laws and post-Mosaic laws. Using the Old Testament only to show certain laws is rather incomplete. Joebagodonuts,

No, I was pointing out that if you believe any part of Leviticus to be true church law than you should accept all of it. If you do not accept all of it then you should accept none of it. You can not pick and choose which passages should be modified to fit modern times and which shouldn’t, unless you are willing to admit the truth, that the bible is just a collection of works, taken from the whole of past religious documents, and pieced together by man to fit the times and needs of man.

You really can’t have it both ways and expect to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 4, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #137911
The problem today is that many insist on interpreting scripture as if it were just written for modern times.
Actually, the problem has always been using and interpreting it to suit any purpose.

Aren’t swift boat advertisements controversial ?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 4, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #137917
Aren’t swift boat advertisements controversial

If you are asking me, no. If you are asking a Kerry supporter? yes.

However, it’s hard to equate the two, the swift boat ads were political in nature, the ‘not shown’ ads mentioned in this article are religious in nature.

I don’t see why both can’t be shown on television though, as was once said, “I’ve never met an idea that was so dangerous that we coudln’t talk about it.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 4, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #137945

Duano,

Actually, the part of Leviticus that this passage appears in is speaking directly to men about women. It is not out of place to forbid men from having sex in a women’s bed in this section of Leviticus. I may agree with you if the section regarding bestiality were before this verse, but it is after this verse.

Verse 30, “Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.”, supports my contention that these verses are regarding rituals or customs, these are not moral sins.

The one true God didn’t lead you to the gospel of Thomas or any other blasphemous forgery. “If any man or even an angel come bringing any other gospel than that which I have brought, do not believe it.” It’s okay if you feel the way you do.

That is not up to you to decide. The great thing about being an American is that I am free to worship any God, in any way I choose. You are free to do the same. You may feel that the Gnostic gospels are blasphemous forgeries and that is certainly your right. Just as it is my right to believe that the Revised Version of the 19th century (the predecessor to all modern versions except the KJV) is the worst blasphemy ever unleashed on the world.

As far as the KJV goes, the 1611 version contained nine statements from the Translators following the Preface, entitled: The Translators To The Readers. In these statement the translators admit that a perfect translation is impossible and that their translation contains “imperfections and blemishes.” Where they changed the translation for interpretation sake, they made notes of it in the sidebar. Subsequent versions lost both the warning and the sidebar notes.

The translators further state that “Therefore as S.Augustine saith, that varietie [different] of Translations is profitable for the find out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so clear, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded.” In other words, they are admitting that they were persuaded to create a version of the Bible that is different from others.

The real understanding is in the spirit and not in the letter.

Anal sex is a much, much higher risk act for HIV/AIDS than any other sexual activity. No matter what the propaganda has fed people for twenty years, it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE for a man to contract HIV from vaginal sex.

Nevertheless, it is NOT impossible for a woman to contract HIV from vaginal sex. No matter if homosexual anal sex or heterosexual vaginal/anal sex, the RECEPTIVE partner is always at the greatest risk to contract a STD including HIV.

The Bible is clear Old and New Testament (Romans, James, Genesis, 1 Tim, 1 Cor, Lev) all are clear that homosexuality is a sin. God loves all sinners and homosexuality is no greater than other sins, but please don’t “re-context” the Bible to fit your agenda or to feel better about your choices.

tc,

Sure, the Modern English version is clear about homosexuality. The ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, however, are not so clear.

The Bible has been “re-contexted” several times over the last 2000 or so years, including in the late 3rd and 4th century with the creation of the Bible Canon itself. The only proper context is in which it was written.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 4, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #137949

tc said:

Everyone is allowed to make their own choice, but it is that a choice. There has been zero scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic. I laugh at how the burden of proof has fallen the other way, now it has basically turned into “prove to me that homosexuality is NOT genetic.” The APA is not scientific, underexposure to testosterone does not result in homosexuality. A scientific study that states something “MAY” lead to homosexuality does not make it fact.

Ah, another straight man who is an expert on homosexuality. Got to love it. I personally don’t need anyone to prove to me that homosexuality is inborn, that truth is self evident. The fact that you need evidence is your problem.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 4, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #137951

Imagine if you will, none of us have ever heard of God before, and there are only two religions we may choose from. We have Duano’s God and religious beliefs on the one hand. And we have Jay Jay’s God and religious beliefs on the other.

Duano’s God isn’t tolerant or inclusive. He’s a cranky guy wielding a sword, who doesn’t mind a bit if families are ripped apart, as long as they find and strictly follow his religion and his edicts in every aspect of their lives. He’s very concerned about how we all have sex. And what we do with our genitals and bodily fluids is just as, if not more important to Him as what we think, how we feel in our hearts, and how we treat others on a daily basis.

Jay Jay’s God just wants us to be kind and loving and generous toward our neighbors — whoever they may be.

Well, just call me the hatcheck girl at Jesus’ “Anything Goes” Nightspot, but I much prefer Jay Jay’s God, and feel an affinity with his conception, rather than Duano’s.

Of course, none of this can actually apply to me. My God may or may not exist. But, if my God does exist, it is an unknowable entity who is mysterious and truly awesome in power. My God would be far too smart to want to listen in on, or micro-manage a bunch of crazy hairless apes with seriously flawed characters that he created in the blink of an eye during some nano second or other.
No, my conception of God would definitely put us on autopilot just to see if we could run ourselves and not self-destruct. While He of course, concerns Himself with new, increasingly amazing and creative experiments of his own.
:^)

Snowman, good post.
Those ads are wonderful. The television executives who rejected them must have more than a few screws loose to have found them in any way offensive, or advocating for anything but people finding faith in God.

Re: Arguing with Fundamentalists. I wonder: why do you bother? You shouldn’t feel the need to defend yourself at all, IMO. The rabid and rigidly religious aren’t ever going to be interested in you as a human being who is capable of kindness and love for your partner, and family, and friends, and neighbors, and yes, even the occasional stranger in need. Instead, people like that seem only interested in showing off their knowledge of biblical quotations, and acting superior while they berate good, kind, wonderful people who have never harmed anyone.

“Turn the other cheek”, “judge not lest ye be judged”, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” — well, they just seem to quote those things, rather than take the lessons to heart.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 4, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #137953

As a Deist, I am not bound by the myths and fairytales of revealed religion. Therefore, I do not presume to take upon myself the judging of my fellow man. And I live my life by a set of morals that I would not presume to force upon others, who must choose their own way. Whether I or they be right or wrong, I leave that judgment to my Creator.

In “The Age of Reason”, Thomas Paine said the following:

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity.”

“Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics.”

“As an engine of power it serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter.”

And the same could be said of any of the world’s revealed religions.


Posted by: slowthinker at April 4, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #137960

Adrienne,

Thanks, I always enjoy your comments. I know that I will never change the hearts and minds of fanatics like Duano, my primary concern is with those who have been victims of Orthodox Christianity. Many, many gays and lesbians have been turned away from their faith because they have been unable to reconcile who they are with God. If one person who has been turned away from God, reads what I posted and decides to persue the issue further and they become closer to God because of it, then the wasted time arguing the Fundamentalists, who will never look beyond the letter, is well worth it.

See ya at Jesus’ “Anything Goes” Nightspot!

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 4, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #137970

Interesting
God is omnipotent
God does not make mistakes
God has a plan
God is forgiving
Actually, from what I have learned —
To God, there is no sin
only mistakes
No sin to be forgiven, only the mistake of forgetting from whence we came.
God is bigger than the petty emotions of hate, anger, and judgement.
God is above all that, it is we weak mortal humans that try to apply these attributes to a being that is greater than that.
Notice that much of what is written is meant more as a control mechanizm over a populace?

Jesus taught love and acceptance — to reach and heal those less fortunate — those who have strayed.
He did not teach judgement and rejection
The evangelicals and the fundamentalist are the worst of hypocrites — and are no better than the Jewish high priests he fought all his life.

thou religious bigots and spewers of hatred, and intolerance you are creating your own hell right here on earth
You are the greatest defilers of Jesus’s teachings.

Posted by: Russ at April 4, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #137994

Well, this has certainly been interesting reading these posts.
All this arguing about translations, hidden meanings, double meanings, intolerant “I know the true meaning of gods word, you don’t” reminds me why I chose NOT to bother with organized churches, religious orginizations and the like.
Raised Catholic, going through all the hoops, youth groups, etc, I found NOT enlightened, happy people. I found judgemental, intolerant, hypocrites. In our churches youth group gatherings and retreats, I first tried pot, coke, sex, learned how to hide things from my parents and teachers, saw my first intolerance of gays, and met the first person I knew who had an abortion.
Thanks, guys, for reminding me why I stay away from churches, the bible, and generally view religiously focused people with suspicion.
PS, IT’S JUST A BOOK. GET OVER IT.

Posted by: Norby at April 4, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #137997

Duano,

BTW, you base your argument against homosexuality on Levitical laws. Lets say for a moment that your interpretation of this passage is correct. Now, read Acts 15 where the Levitical laws are lifted off of Christians.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 4, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #138000
The one true God didn’t lead you to the gospel of Thomas or any other blasphemous forgery. “If any man or even an angel come bringing any other gospel than that which I have brought, do not believe it.” It’s okay if you feel the way you do.

Duano,

Do you know the mind of the Lord?

Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 4, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #138001

JayJay,
The argument is simple and silly.
If you’re gay, God watches and judges what you do in your bedroom(creepy)and judges those acts harshly.
Because I’m straight God could care less what goes on in my bedroom.
I can’t believe the “right” actually buy into this.
I am straight therefore I am allowed to enter into all manners of perversion with a woman, but if you have a normal, loving relationship with a man you’re the pervert.
I’m glad I “chose” to be straight;)
You have to admit it’s pretty ridiculous and the “far-right” are so passionate about it which is all the more silly.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at April 4, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #138017
My God may or may not exist. But, if my God does exist, it is an unknowable entity who is mysterious and truly awesome in power. My God would be far too smart to want to listen in on, or micro-manage a bunch of crazy hairless apes with seriously flawed characters that he created in the blink of an eye during some nano second or other. No, my conception of God would definitely put us on autopilot just to see if we could run ourselves and not self-destruct.

Beautiful, and it is what I have been saying for years: how dare humankind arrogate to themselves the power to Define God? We have persecuted men because they dared say that the Sun, the Planets, and the Stars did not revolve about the Earth on Crystal Spheres. We have diminished the concept of God by reducing it to a Really Large Hairy Old Guy With No Navel who performs cheesy magic tricks - instead of a Truly Awesome Being, who could set the Rules for such things as: Evolution, Pi, the Gravitational Constant, and multi-dimensional space.

It is Human Arrogance and Powerlust which drive organised religion, and Organised Religion has ever been the greatest enemy of Spirituality on this world.

As for Ieshua of Nazareth, I believe him to be the greatest philosopher the world has ever known: a true Child Of God. It’s a pity that more people who mouth his name and title don’t support what he actually tried to teach us…

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 4, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #138021

Just FYI, the United Church of Christ is itself divided on this issue. My wife belongs to a UCC congregation that is considering leaving the denomination because of it.

The one good thing that may come from this controversy within the church is that my wife has started showing an interest in Deism.

BYW, my daughter’s best friend is a lesbian. She was the matron of honor at my daughter’s wedding and both she and her partner are always welcome in our home.

Posted by: slowthinker at April 4, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #138023

slowthinker,

I read about this somewhere. Supposedly the UCC has been infiltrated by right wing religious fanatics who are intent on breaking up the UCC because of it’s liberal leanings. It has apparently been successful in a few cases. Here is the kicker though, each UCC church is independent, so when one Church breaks off all of the property and millions in dollars goes along with it.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 4, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #138025

slowthinker,

I found the article here.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 4, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #138026

JJ,

Have you considered what would happen if the ads were allowed? They would most likely be answered an onslaught of ads from fundamentalists that would subtley make the point that homosexuality is a sin and evolution is a myth. And the networks wouldn’t have ground to stand on because they had opened pandora’s box. While I agree with the cause, the unintended consequences seem staggering.

Posted by: Rob at April 4, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #138037

JayJay

Thanks for the info.

If my wife’s church does break away, that will make the second church in our community. The other was an Episcolpalian church, which did so because of the election of a gay bishop in New Hampshire. (They realigned themselves with the Worldwide Anglican Communion.)

Posted by: slowthinker at April 4, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #138053

The major networks have not picked this up because it’s more trouble than it’s worth. This has nothing to do with political messages.

You can hardly blame the media for rejecting these commercials; they’re a business after all.

Posted by: Zeek at April 4, 2006 8:38 PM
Comment #138078

I belong to a Conservative Baptist Church. We teach that homosexuality is sin because the Bible calls it just that.
If yaall really want to know what God thinks about homosexuality, read the 1st chapter of Romans. I think you’ll find out that he hates it.
Now if it wasn’t a matter of choice why would God hate it and call it sin? He doesn’t call being a female sin, or being a male sin, or being Black, White, or any other race. These are things that you can’t help. But he does call homosexuality sin. That’s because you make a choice to be that way.
That being said if a homosexual was to come to our church we wouldn’t turn him away. In fact we had one attend a couple of times last year, and he was welcomed. Homosexuals need to hear the Gospel too.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 4, 2006 11:39 PM
Comment #138080

JJ,

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, AND FROM FORNICATION, and from things strangled, and from blood.

This is the remainder of the Mosaic law that Christians are required to keep. I believe gay sex falls under fornication.

Someone posted about divorced people getting remarried. First of all, it is a sin to get divorced in the first place if no adultery took place, and once you are divorced, you have no more right to get married than two gay people.

I have done what I believe is God’s will for me in this matter. That is my belief, held as deeply as your beliefs, and should be respected as such. I believe that if I don’t warn you, the Lord will ask me to account for your life. I’ve done my part. I will let God deal with you from here on, and I will be praying for you continually. MAY THE LORD BLESS AND KEEP YOU, MAY HE MAKE HIS FACE TO SHINE UPON YOU, MAY HE LIFT UP HIS COUNTENANCE UNTO YOU, AND GIVE YOU PEACE.

Posted by: Duano at April 4, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #138093

Ron Brown,

You may want to read 2 Peter 3.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

This passage clearly states that the writings of Paul are difficult to understand and to be careful with your interpretation, Romans was written by Paul.

“Paul’s writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand. A lot of Paul’s writing is very difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said.” -Dr. R.S. Truluck

The key word in the Romans passages is the Greek word “phooskos” translated here as “natural”. The passage refers to men and women who give up their “natural” relations with the opposite sex. The word “phooskos” is more accurately tranlated either “inborn” or “produced by nature”. These passages are talking former Christians who gave up their faith and turned to idol worship. Because of this God gave them up to their lust one towards another- an orgy. These men, we see, divorced themselves from their own nature, that of heterosexuality (natural relations with women), and were consumed with passion for one another. Women did likewise. As we see, Paul is talking about heterosexual individuals filled with lust and engaging in homosexual sex, which is contrary to their nature.

Passage IV: Romans 1:24-27

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 5, 2006 12:56 AM
Comment #138094

JJ,

Wow! Are you a lawyer? If Hillary becomes the next President, you would be a perfect SCOTUS nominee for her. You take the words of the Bible and spin them to fit your agenda just like Roe v Wade.

Posted by: Bonnie at April 5, 2006 1:09 AM
Comment #138096

Bonnie,

how is that any different than what anyone else has done in the past 2000 years with the bible?

The real problem is that the whole story is not REAL. Jesus was the political descendant of the leader of the Jewish people. Paul, a man who never met Jesus and wasn’t even Jewish had an episode and created a theology that wasn’t intended by the person he is purporting to follow.

And the result is that thousands of years later we persecute, hate and kill each other because of a fairy tale that people who can’t understand critical thought fall for to fill a void in their mundane and very mortal lives.

I wonder what kind of world we would have if we cared and loved for each other and didn’t try to tell others what they did in the privacy of their own homes that didn’t affect anyone but themselves what to do. Unfortunately we are following the path of the Taliban… :(

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 5, 2006 1:21 AM
Comment #138098

Duano,

I do respect your beliefs, and I am simply expressing my beliefs and trying to explain how I came to those beliefs. I feel an obligation to try to reach out to those who have been driven away from their faith, by religious zealots, and ask critical questions. It is not my intent to push my beliefs on anyone, but rather to simply question the dogma that has existed for so long.

Again, I do not claim to be an orthodox Christian, and I have deeply held beliefs that fall outside religious dogma. I came to those beliefs by God. You may disbelieve that God led me in the direction he has, but if given a choice between following the written words of men or the word of God as delivered through the holy spirit, I will chose God everytime. To choose otherwise is to put my faith in men, not God.

Thank you for your prayer I do appreciate it. God bless.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 5, 2006 1:29 AM
Comment #138099

Rhino: Paul wasn’t Jewish? I read in your earlier post that you used to be a preacher. Now we know why you got fired.

Posted by: Socrates at April 5, 2006 1:32 AM
Comment #138100

Gee thanks Bonnie! I would accept the nomination, but unfortunatly I do not support Hillary for President. Isn’t that always the way?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 5, 2006 1:37 AM
Comment #138102

Why do these types of posts always end up being a potatoe salad of biblical quotes and views on homosexuality? To bugger or not bugger? Is that REALLY the question?

It seems that tolerance would be easier to achieve if we didn’t use a working definition that included complete victory over opposing viewpoints complete with the losers total repudiation of their formerly held beliefs. Also, I think that it would be easier to tolerate attitudes and behavior that are personally disagreeable if people avoid public confrontation when possible. It’s hard to mind your own business when others conduct their business in the public square. Unseemly behavior is hard to tolerate.

Some think that homosexual behavior is a sin in the eyes of God, others don’t. There is no argument that will sway these beliefs. I can deal with both parties holding these views. Tolerance is largely agreeing to disagree.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 5, 2006 1:42 AM
Comment #138111

Fired?

No, just quit when I came to my senses. Yes, Paul was a hellenistic jew. Some say he was a rabbi, some say not. I was a little over-zealous (lol) and was trying to point out his Greek/Roman heritage more than I was that he wasn’t of the Jewish faith, but that doesn’t counter anything else I said.

Can you counter it? Can you prove to me that a god exists and that Jesus was anything other than a political/rabbidical leader?

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 5, 2006 3:53 AM
Comment #138113

Rhinehold,

It’s not the Christian’s place to prove the existence of God. To ask him to reveal himself is wrong. “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God” This means we are prohibited from putting Him to the test, as if we could. My question to you is, can you prove he doesn’t exist?

There were hundreds of eyewitnesses to the ascension of Jesus into Heaven. According to our own criminal justice system, that’s beyond a reasonable doubt, and that in itself makes Him more than a Rabbi.

Unfortunately, there were no eyewitnesses to the “big bang”, so the jury’s still out on that one. Can you explain to me, with your mastery of critical thinking, how an entire Universe can explode from absolutely nothing. Please keep in mind the infallible laws of physics and the scientific method when formulating your answer.

Posted by: Duano at April 5, 2006 4:12 AM
Comment #138114

Betty, re: Jesus:
“It’s a pity that more people who mouth his name and title don’t support what he actually tried to teach us…”

Indeed. The Far Right Evangelical Christian’s have totally hijacked the name of Jesus, and quite obviously without understanding his message AT ALL.
In my opinion, Jay Jay’s cause is a noble one, and those who are faithful to Jesus’ true message need to take him back and promote what he actually preached. Kindness, Love, Generosity, Forgiveness — for Everyone. No holds barred. No judgments made. No elitism. No membership cards, secret handshakes, or fees. Just total acceptance and tolerance.
I may be a bit of a skeptic about the Big Guy, but I’ve always thought that Jesus was quite a righteous dude! Let’s face it, Jesus was a Liberal and there is no doubt in my mind that he would despise what these supposed “followers” have been doing in his name.
He once said:
“Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’”

That sums it up pretty well, doesn’t it? These “rules taught by men” have nothing whatsoever to do with Kindness, Love, Generosity or Forgiveness. Hence, what they say has nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth.
I often think of the above quote whenever I see postings by rigid and judgmental fundamentalists in this blog — and I must confess it is almost impossible for someone like me to feel that Kindness, Love, Generosity and Forgiveness in the face of Self-righteousness, Disdain, Pettiness and Unremitting Bigotry. Instead, it just pisses me off.

Which is why, despite the fact that I always try to do well toward “the least of my brothers”, I realized long ago that I’d never be nearly as good as I’m supposed to be!

Jay Jay:
“See ya at Jesus’ “Anything Goes” Nightspot!”

My above confession to Betty is the reason why I suspect I’ll never be anything more than the hat check girl! ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at April 5, 2006 4:23 AM
Comment #138115

Sorry, Duano, but I’m not suggesting that I know how the universe was created. I don’t know if the Big Bang theory is right or wrong.

However, you did something that makes me so irritated in your defense of your faith. You use the book that says that God is real in order to say that you shouldn’t question that God is real.

Sorry, but that is just not kosher.

Now, normally I don’t demand that a christian prove that God exists. His faith is his own, no matter how stupid it is. I even support the Scientoligists to believe what they want to believe. It’s when they attempt to push their view onto someone else, to deny someone what I feel is a basic human right and make laws that I have to follow based on that faith that I demand that they prove their faith is factual.

Until you can do that (which you can’t because it isn’t) then I will fight to my dying breath any attempt to push religion onto anyone else though politics and laws.

So, if you want us to prevent homosexuals to marry, you had better prove that god exists and that his law is the valid one. If now, sit down and shut up.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 5, 2006 4:36 AM
Comment #138116

Rhinehold,

It’s funny how you are preaching tolerance of people’s behavior, yet are so intolerant of my beliefs. Sit down and shut up? Sounds pretty totalitarian to me. I don’t believe it’s the governments place to outlaw any sort of sexual activity between consenting adults. I also don’t believe it’s in the governments boundaries to take an institution like marriage, created thousands of years before the United States, and change the meaning of it arbitrarily to accomodate a certain small percentage of the population. Especially when an overwhelming majority of its people are opposed to such redefining of marriage. A woman in Britain recently married a dolphin. That is the inevitable “slippery slope” we would be headed down if we changed the definition of marriage. Where would it stop? Should people be allowed to marry their dogs? What about polygamy? Incest? Who are we to deny two loving Appalachian siblings their inherent human right to have their inbreeding officially sanctioned by the state?

Just because you write on here with so much certainty that God doesn’t exist, that doesn’t make it true. I believe he does exist with every bit as much certainty and conviction, even more so, than you believe he doesn’t. Doesn’t that make me right? I would rather die believing in Him and find out he doesn’t exist, than not believe, die, and find out He does.

I will not sit down or shut up as long as there is breath in my body, and because we live in a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles, no one like you can force me to. I have to answer to a much Higher Authority than any blogger, public official, government, or world organization. I take my cues from Him, and nobody else.

Posted by: Duano at April 5, 2006 5:45 AM
Comment #138117

JayJay
I have to disagree with you and agree with you.
A true Christian won’t even concider sex with someone of the same sex. Yes heterosexual men and women do go from being heterosexual to being homosexual. That’s because they make the choise to become homosexual. Everyone is born heterosexual regardless of what the shrinks say. And there sure as hell aint no third sex like some of the homosexuals say they are.


Posted by: Ron Brown at April 5, 2006 7:11 AM
Comment #138120

>>That’s because they make the choise to become homosexual. Everyone is born heterosexual regardless of what the shrinks say. And there sure as hell aint no third sex like some of the homosexuals say they are.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 5, 2006 07:11 AM

Ron B,

Wow, you say that with such certainty. Have you been taking lessons from Duano? It’s nice to be so sure of your own convictions, and to have confidence in your reasoning, but be aware that sureness, nor confidence make what you say any more right than what anyone else, who is sure and confident, has to say. What proof do you profer, that homosexuality is not as natural as hetrosexuality? What proof do you have that JJ ‘chose’ his sexuality? And if he did choose it, why would you attack him for it? How could his choice deminish you? And, if he did not choose it, and your conviction is wrong, would that not deminish you?

Posted by: Marysdude at April 5, 2006 7:33 AM
Comment #138121

Rhinehold
Jesus was as is the son of God. That makes him God. And he is the only way to heaven.
He was born in the linage of King David but had no earthly father.
Paul was a Pharisee. In order to be a Pharisee you had to a Jew as they were the religious leaders of the day.
I haven’t seen a true Christian that would tell anyone what to believe or do. All we do is tell what God has to say. After that it’s between you and him what you do with it. And one day everyone that’s ever lived will give an account to God for what they’ve done. This goes for Christians and Non Christians.
Anyone calling themselves a Christian and trying to force their beliefs on you and trying to make you live in a certain way isn’t a true Christian.
Christ never forced anyone to do anything when he was here on earth. And he doesn’t force anyone now. How can we as mere humans force anything on anyone?

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 5, 2006 7:35 AM
Comment #138123

Marysdude
No Duano has been taking lessons from me. Ha.
I’m not attacking anyone for making the choices they’ve made. Not even Liberals. hehe. Folks make choice all the time that I don’t agree with. This doesn’t in any way threaten me.
I could personally care less if two guy want to cornhole each other. But as a Christian it’s my duty to tell them what God has to say about it. And he says it’s sin. After that what they do is between them and God.
If you’ve read any of my comments on this subject on other post you’ll know that I don’t agree with the so called Christian Right in there wanting to force their brand of morality on everyone. These folks aint anymore Christian than the Devil himself.
Like I just told Rhinehold, Jesus didn’t force anyone to do anything while he was on earth. And he doesn’t do it now. He told them they were wrong but never forced them to live like he thought they should. How can anyone call themselves a Christian and try to force other to live up to what they think is right?

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 5, 2006 7:52 AM
Comment #138126

And he didn’t call people names and did not use vulgar terms to describe their actions either, but then except for hypocrits, he was a very tolerant gentleman. Son of God? God? Holy Spirit? All just opinion like ‘cornholing’ is bad. Your opinion, of course, but opinion none the less.

Your choice of words indicate that given the chance, you would use force to make people kow tow to your belief system, much like Cheney/Bush wants to force Iraqis to Democracy. What futility!

Posted by: Marysdude at April 5, 2006 8:02 AM
Comment #138128

Ron Brown,

Sorry, I didn’t finish the thought.

Isn’t that what the God of Moses tried for four millinia? Did he not attempt to force, by way of threats and actual violence to get the hebrews to follow his laws. Four thousand years of failure and frustration, because force did not work? Yet your buddies Falwell and Robertson still espouse force and violence??? God gave up on it and sent his very persuasive son to correct His mistake, and even Jesus failed. Maybe it is just a design flaw? And if it is a design flaw, how can you find fault with homosexuality, maybe that too, is just a design flaw…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 5, 2006 8:10 AM
Comment #138140

The whole argument that homosexuality is a choice has one major flaw in it that, sadly, I rarely ever see anyone point out.

That flaw is the basic fact that the people who espouse this belief did not ever choose to be heterosexual (Im assuming at this point). I also did not choose to be attracted to women, and, personally, I would be physically and emotionally unable to be intimate with another man because I would not find it arousing.

If a person did choose to be heterosexual (choice here meaning that they also could have chosen to be gay), then that means that particular individual is bisexual, not heterosexual. Being aroused by both sexes, and then choosing one over the other (for any reason), defines the state of bisexuality.

Therefore, their argument is forced to accept that some people are born bisexual, while others are born completely straight; to do otherwise is an admission of their own choice, and, by extension, their own bisexuality. The result here is that the person making the argument that homosexuality is a choice must now concede that some people are bisexual from birth, while others are heterosexual, which proves that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. Furthermore, since the point that some aspects of sexual orientation are predetermined has now been proven, arguing that bisexuality is natural, but homosexuality is not, just becomes an indefensible argument over degrees of physical and emotional attraction.

Unless someone is willing to deny that some people are born completely heterosexual, without the ability to make such a choice, the whole choice argument is reduced to nothing more than wishful thinking in an attempt to reconcile a portion of a previously held belief system.

Posted by: Liberal Demon at April 5, 2006 9:13 AM
Comment #138149

Americans: Don’t believe everything you see on TV.

CBS, NBC, and ABC…Fox, UPN, etc. THEY ARE ALL PROPAGANDISTS.

Mainstream Media is PROPAGANDA. Period.

Posted by: Silent Majority at April 5, 2006 9:54 AM
Comment #138178
A woman in Britain recently married a dolphin.

Duano,

That was not a legally binding marriage. As it is, anybody can marry anyone or anything they want, that doesn’t make it legal. A woman in my hometown a few years back married herself. No joke. They had a minister and a reception, the whole nine yards. But that doesn’t mean that it is recognized under the law. Gays and Lesbians are free to marry in this country right now, they just can get a marriage license. All they need is a minister willing to perform the ceramony and guess what? In the eyes of God they are married. If you don’t think so carefully read about the marriage of David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 18 thru 2 Samuel 1.

Some claim it was just a very close friendship, but look at the very strong language used.

“…the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul”

“And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.”a

“After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - until David exceeded.”

“I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.

EM mine.

If they were married, then David would be bi-sexual but Jonathan had no other love interest except David.

Your slippery slope theory is ignorant at best. A legal marriage is a legally binding contract. Animals cannot enter into a legally binding contract. Just how did that dolphin sign the marriage license? Minors cannot enter into a legally binding contract.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 5, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #138186

Liberal Demon,

Good points all around. Personally, it is my belief that the majority of men are born bi-sexual. A minority are born exclusively heterosexual and a minority are born exclusively homosexual. That is where I think the whole choice argument comes in and homophobia. I believe that people who make the choice argument are indeed bi-sexual because they can see where the choice can be made. On the other hand, men who are strictly hetero or homosexual do not see a choice; they are who they are. In my own experience, men who are strictly heterosexual are much more accepting of homosexuality than those who may be bi-sexual. Is that out of fear that they may be tempted into homosexuality?

Other proof of this theory can be found in ancient Roman culture, the very culture that gave us modern day Christianity. Homosexuality was much more accepted in ancient Rome than they are today and bi-sexuality was much more common or at least much more open. Even same-sex marriage was legal. It was not until about 1250 that our modern day views on homosexuality began to appear.

If men chose to be, homosexual then why do so many remain in the “closet” for so long? That leads to the question is homosexuality who you are, or is it a behavior? There are heterosexual or bi-sexual men who have homosexual experiences. There are homosexual men who are virgins or who remain abstinent. So we see that homosexuality in the case of the heterosexual can be a behavior, as what I believe may be talked about in the Bible, or in the case of the homosexual it is a part of who they are, and sex is just one small part of it.

That’s just my own opinion.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 5, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #138198
And there sure as hell aint no third sex like some of the homosexuals say they are.

Ron,

I know that the subject of there being a third gender mentioned in the Bible is a controversial one, but I will present it anyway and let everyone make up their own mind (which I am sure you already have).

The argument for a third gender in the Bible goes back to interpreting words and scripture in their historical context. Today we know the word Eunuch to mean a castrated male. That exclusive meaning did not come about until the 4th century CE. Before that time a eunuch was a broad category of men who lacked desire for women. Within the term eunuch, there were different classes. There were the born or natural eunuchs who retained all the rights of their counterparts because they were not physically defective. Then there were the castrated men who were also classified as eunuchs, however they were considered a second class because they were physically defective.

In Matthew 19 in response to a question about marriage rules, Jesus exempts some men from those rules.

2For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Jesus list three types of eunuchs that are exempted from the marriage rules. Men made eunuchs by others- castrated men, voluntary eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven- priest, and born eunuchs- homosexuals?

Here is a detailed explanation if anyone is interested: Thesis: Eunuchs are Gay Men

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 5, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #138305

JJ,

I had a best friend in high school with whom I was so close that I could describe our relationship like that of David and Jonathan. We never engaged in any sexual activity. An interesting coincidence, though, one of my New Year’s resolutions was to read the Bible completely through(again) and I just happen to be in 2nd Samuel right now, so the Jonathan story is pretty fresh in my mind. After describing the relationship between David and Jonathan to my wife, she said that it describes the relationship she has with her best friend. I’m sorry, but you’ve gotta stop pretending to be a scolar of the Bible. If you were, you would notice that Jonathan fathered children, all but one of whom were killed in the battle with the Philistines that killed Jonathan and his father, King Saul. The lone survivor’s name was Mephibosheth, who was injured as a child and left unable to walk for the rest of his life. I don’t believe it mentions his mother’s name, but I’m quite certain she was a woman, not a harp playing sheperd boy.

You’re just not going to find justification for homosexuality in the Bible. In fact, every time homosexual acts took place, or were attempted, God’s “anger was kindled” and people ended up dying. Sodom and Gomorrah, the incident with the Tribe of Benjamin, etc.

You are free to engage in any legal activity you wish in this country, and that’s fine by me. But please don’t try to change the words given to us by the King of Kings to reconcile your behavior with yourself. You are free to worship any god you choose, or not to worship any. But I’ve just reiterated what my God has to say on the subject.

And one more thing, about the Bible. The eternal Creator and King of the Universe would not allow his true words to be changed to fit anyone’s agenda over the centuries, as many claim. I believe the Bible we have now (KJV) is the Bible He intended for English speaking people, and I accept it as infallible.

Posted by: Duano at April 5, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #138307

Regarding Eunuchs

I read an article in USA today that says that about 0.5% of people are ASEXUAL, meaning they have no sexual desires or arousal from either sex. Those people soud like born euuchs to me

Posted by: Duano at April 5, 2006 11:31 PM
Comment #138312

BTW, if Jonathan fathered children who were of age to go into battle(20)and younger children(Mephibosheth) by the time the infamous defeat occured, wouldn’t that mean he was habitually unfaithful to his gay marriage to David?

Posted by: Duano at April 5, 2006 11:45 PM
Comment #138340
If you were, you would notice that Jonathan fathered children, all but one of whom were killed in the battle with the Philistines that killed Jonathan and his father, King Saul. The lone survivor’s name was Mephibosheth, who was injured as a child and left unable to walk for the rest of his life. I don’t believe it mentions his mother’s name, but I’m quite certain she was a woman, not a harp playing sheperd boy.

Duano,

My bad, and apologies. Jonathan did indeed have a child named Mephibosheth who was later taken care of by David. I was getting Jonathan mixed up with Daniel. Another possibly homoerotic relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz, the Prince of the Eunuchs.

“Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs” (KJV)

Notice that David and Jonathan fall in love with each other at their first meeting. The love they speak of is very strong, greater than that of women. You may have had a male friend that you loved, but did you love him as your own soul from your first meeting?

Although David was married, David himself articulates a distinction between his relationship with Jonathan and the bonds he shares with women. David is married to many women, one of which is Jonathan’s sister Michal, but the Bible does not mention David loving Michal (though it is stated that Michal loves David). He explicitly states, on hearing of Jonathan’s death, that his love for Jonathan is greater than any bond he’s experienced with women.

And, what did Saul, Jonathan’s father think of David and Jonathan’s relationship:

Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?

EM mine

Don’t even bring up Sodom and Gomorrah, which had absolutely zero to do with homosexuality. It is hard to believe that Lot, a citizen of the city of Sodom, would not know that the men in the mob were gay. But that is apparently what he thinks since he offers the mob his virgin daughters. Why would Lot offer his daughters to a gay mob? Why not his soon to be son in laws? The only possible sexual reference to Sodom is that they went after “strange flesh.” Angels are not human, it is more likely the story is about bestiality than homosexuality.

I appreciate that you believe that the bible is infallible. I happen to believe that the bible is very fallible and has been subjected from start to now to man. In fact, I find most passages and letters written by Paul to be highly suspect. But that is a discussion for another day. It is not my goal to change your mind about your own personal beliefs, only to show that there are other beliefs out there that may not live up your idea of Christianity. Those beliefs deserve just as much respect as your beliefs.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 6, 2006 2:05 AM
Comment #138343

JJ,

You are entitled to your beliefs, but I am entitled to be offended when you call the Bible fallible, just like say, a cartoon caricature of a certain arab prophet offends Muslims.

Just because King Saul, a deeply troubled paranoid scizophrenic accused his son of a gay relationship with David, it’s not necessarily true. My wife told me the mother of her best friend was convinced they had a lesbian relationship in high school. I’m sure this type of misconception happens all the time when people of the same sex share a special, yet non sexual, bond.

In the Bible, love is seldom used in the same context as sex. Isaac asked his son Esau, to make him savory meat, such as he LOVED. Thou shalt LOVE the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve. LOVE thy neighbor as thyself. LOVE one another, as I have LOVED you. Greater LOVE hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his FRIEND. Him that LOVED us, and washed us from our sins in His own Blood. God is LOVE.

Sex is referred to very differently, using words like KNOW and GO IN UNTO. Love is a deeply held emotion and is seperate from physical hormonal reactions like sexual arousal. Two guys can really love each other and not be sexually attracted to each other. Love is superior to sex and is felt much less often.

Posted by: Duano at April 6, 2006 3:09 AM
Comment #138502

JayJay
In Matthew 19:12 the Greek words eunouchizo, to castrate, and eunoucho an impotent or unmarried man, were both translated eunuch. It has nothing to do with these men being homosexuals.
For there are some eunuchs, which were born from their mother’s womb: These are impotent men.
And there are some eunuchs, which are made eunuchs of men: castrated by men.
And there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake: Men that stay unmarried to work for the kingdom of heaven.
In fact it’s my understanding that the last part of this verse is why the Catholic Priest don’t marry.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 6, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #138512

Marysdude
I reckon you don’t read all of what I say or you just edit out what you don’t want to read.
When have I ever said that I want force anyone to do anything? If you’ll go back and actually read what I’ve written you’ll see that I said that I won’t and can’t force anyone to do anything. There are only 6 people that I was ever able to force to do anything. They’re all grown now and I I can no longer do that. Even if I wanted too.
Like I said earlier, I could personally care less what others do. If they aint breaking the law they can do as they please. But I don’t have to approve of what they do. I reckon maybe you think that not approving of it is wanting to force anyone to do anything. Well it aint.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 6, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #138513

And one more thing, about the Bible. The eternal Creator and King of the Universe would not allow his true words to be changed to fit anyone’s agenda over the centuries, as many claim. I believe the Bible we have now (KJV) is the Bible He intended for English speaking people, and I accept it as infallible.

Posted by: Duano at April 5, 2006 11:26 PM


I HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR


Posted by: Ron Brown at April 6, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #138515

BTW Marysdude
God has never and still doesn’t make mistakes.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 6, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #138602
Jesus was a Liberal and there is no doubt in my mind that he would despise what these supposed “followers” have been doing in his name.

Correct. And he was several other things as well:

He was the world’s First Socialist; he told people repeatedly that they should give their excess possessions and wealth to the Poor, and uttering those famous words: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.” (And, by the way, the “Kingdom Of God” he was constantly referring to is not meant to be a Literal Place, with Pearly Gates and so forth. It is a metaphor meaning Living Righteously - one enters the Kingdom Of God when one becomes a Child Of The Lord, which one may only do by personally placing Humananity over Profit and Powerlust. *God* I’ve meant to post that before, but have always forgotten: how misguided these Materialists are, to constantly look for Reward in earthly terms, when what Christ offered was *Spiritual Wealth*.) Jesus also advised people to Pay Their Taxes. The Roman empire routinely fed the poor (the “Mob”) with Grain Entitlements. When Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” he meant the coins (which bore Caesar’s image, after all, and hence were “his”), which would eventually benefit not only the Roman War Machine, but the poorest citizens, as well. And what was to be Rendered Unto God was Devotion: the Faith to Walk The Walk as well as pay lip service to it. This also is largely misunderstood.

Another thing that Jesus was is a Real Party Guy! He was always turning water into Wine, hosting big Luaus and Sunday Brunches, and keeping the company of Party Girls and other general riffraff. Jesus would have been right at home at most Grateful Dead concerts.

So I have no difficulty whatsoever with the man who tried - at the cost of his life, just like Gandhi and Martin Luther King - to tell us how to Live Better. Not wealthier or grander, mind you, but better. What you must do, my child [adopts the manner of a kindly charitable nun], is to forget about the Falwells and the Phelpses, the Robertses and the Robertsons, and just concentrate on what the Man said: light up a nice splif, put on some good Rastafari music, have a nice glass of Wine, and remember him (and what he taught) occasionally; that’s all he asked for.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 6, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #138612

Betty,

He requires much more than that. He requires us to leave behind everything and follow Him. MLK and Ghandi were great men, but Jesus was more than a man. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to the Father but by Me” People like Falwell and Robertson exploit people’s desire to follow Jesus for personal gain, and I don’t listen to either of them or any other money hungry hypocrite.

Aren’t you the one who always posts “Ieshua of Nazareth”? If you are using the Aramaic name, you should also use the Aramaic hometown.

Aramaic-Yeshua al Nozri
Hebrew- Yehoshua en Nasri
Latin- Iesos Nazarenus
Greek- Jesos ??????
English(My favorite)-Jesus of Nazareth

Posted by: Duano at April 6, 2006 11:37 PM
Post a comment