More Active Posts
Front Page
Loving homosexuals as Jesus would
 |
 324 Comments |
How would Jesus love a homosexual? Joe Fairclough, a British man jailed after he refused help from a homosexual librarian, and Chad Thompson, author of Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would, give two different answers.
Manchester Evening News said that when a homosexual librarian offered to assist Fairclough, he asked for another employee. “He asked why,” Fairclough said. “I pointed towards a ring on his finger and said I didn’t approve of two men being married. He then told me I was barred.”
When Fairclough went to the police station to complain, they jailed him for violating public order and released him eight hours later. In the past year, Fairclough has posted anti-homosexual comments on the library notice board and has protested outside the library against homosexual adoption. Fairclough, described as a “devout Christian,” defended himself: “I am against homosexuality but I don’t wish anyone any harm.”
Thompson responds to the incident, saying “It is not my job as a Christian to criticize those who are in the wrong unless God is specifically leading me to do it. Many people are so wounded that they cannot receive criticism without taking it personally. … My default position should be encouragement and love and grace.”
Thompson said when Christians discriminate against homosexuals, “It just adds to their shame, the preexisting litany of voices in their head telling them they’re not good enough.” Christians should not refuse help from a homosexual employee, and they should not refuse to hire, rent to, or serve homosexuals, Thompson said. He gave the example of a North Carolina ski resort that fired an employee because she was lesbian: “I don’t believe Jesus would have done that.”
“The Christian church needs a change of heart on this issue,” Thompson said. “Our emphasis needs to be not on what they aren’t, but on what they are. And they are deeply, madly loved by their Creator.”
 |
Topic: Editor's Choice, Front Page, The World |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: chad_thompson, christianity-and-homosexuals, homophobia, homosexuals |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Several times in the gospels, Jesus severely warned unrepentant sinners of a similar fate as that of “Sodom and Gomorrah”–ancient communities that God judged harshly for their sins (which included homosexuality) and their failure to repent.
Mr. Fairclough needs to re-evaluate his understanding of how Christ confronted the sinner. The best examples are in the book of John. The Lord never condoned either the woman at the well or the woman caught in adultery, but he was kind and tender to both individuals. The Bible declares that we are to teach the truth in Love. Ephesians 4:15. 2 Timothy 2:24 and 25 clearly commands us that we are to confront with gentleness. Mr. Fairclough was clearly disobedient to the Scriptures. He was unkind to the Librarian who was kind to Mr. Fairclough. I suspect Mr. Fairclough’s brand of the Christianity is more like the Pharisees of old.
To #2: You know what they say, “What’s old is new again”.
Since Jesus spoke about gays zero times in the Bible, I suspect, if he came back today and was asked about gays, he would say, “who”? And then he would say, “Oh them, amazing how much good has come from such a small group of people.” “Some of my father’s best work”. Since Jesus spent so much time admonishing sinners and clearly had nothing to say about gays, I suspect he would tell the Christians, “Be more like them”.
RDean - Jesus referenced aversion to “porneia” (sexual immorality - that would include, but not be limited to, homosexual conduct).
Jesus didn’t itemize all of the components of “porneia” (the Book is only so long and human depravity in the aera of sex knows no bounds in its inventiveness).
Jesus didn’t say anything about not not engaging in the full range of standard deviations with two midgets and a pellican while swinging on a trapeze. Does that mean it’s fair game?
Jesus hung out with sinners; he advised them to repent (turn away from) their sins and to redirect themselves to living Godly lives. Jesus would do the same withthis particular subset of sinners.
Actually, Jesus defined the nature of marriage in Matthew 19 (basing it upon a creation ordinance), and said it was to be between one man and one woman. Since He condemned the sin of sexual relations outside of marriage elsewhere, and since He affirmed that the moral law of the OT (which condemned homosexuality) was not to be abrogated, it would be a very difficult argument to presume that He would approve of homosexuality and call it a “good” thing.
Was Jesus Gay?
Probably
I don’t see how you can compare a man and a woman to two men. If Jesus had something to say about the gays, he would have said it. What is natural for a man and a woman is definitely NOT natural between two gays. The Bible says God is not a God of confusion. You guys are trying to read stuff into what Jesus said. If Jesus had anything to say about the gays, he would have been equally clear with what he said about casting the first stone and helping fellow man. Remember, the Bible was written by bronze age man. If you are going to follow it, follow all of it and not pick and choose because there are some people you don’t like and I suspect you don’t even know.
You: I have gay friends.
Me: No, you don’t. You only try to convince yourself that you do.
You: I just don’t approve of their lifestyle.
Me: Then you are not friends.
How come it’s so hard for the religious to be honest? Children don’t hate gays at all, they have to be taught. You know, all children are born atheists, since they have no religious beliefs.
RDean, by your argument, since Jesus said nothing about pedophilia or bestiality, those would be permissible as well. KRM’s comments about “porneia”, which has a broad semantic range, would include all of these, including sexual sins such as fornication and, yes, homosexuality.
Matt 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]?
We now know that sex evolved millions of years prior to human appearance on the scene, so Jesus’ literal belief in Genesis here constitutes truly flawed reasoning. Just one more reason not to really care *what* Jesus thought about this issue, or marriage/divorce for that matter!
BTW, the rest is instructive:
“The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
I interpret this to mean that, for some, being gay is like a kingdom of heaven.
The words below are from Jesus Christ. Jesus doesn’t speak of men with men, or women with women, Jesus speaks of a man and a woman from the creation and marriage between a man and a woman -
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder Mark 10:6-9
Victoria shows us that Jesus was really against heterosexual divorce. I’m guessing he thought it was ok for same-sex couples.
#8: pedophilia or bestiality,
Your the one making the comparisons. Says more about you than about the gays or Jesus.
Let me point out that Jesus talked about what is NATURAL. A gay man marrying a straight woman is not natural. Ask Mrs. Haggard.
Two gay men together is natural.
A straight man with another man is not natural.
Jesus was against divorce. He was so clear it was a command. If he had any opinion on gays, he would have been equally clear. What is clear, is the Christian rant against gays did not come from Christ.
What does REPROBATE mean? The Dictionary defines REPROBATE as 1. somebody immoral: a disreputable or immoral person - 2. religion somebody damned: somebody whose soul is believed to be damned -
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1
Ah - Victoria also reminds us that, if you are a heterosexual idol worshipper, you’ll be forced to have gay sex, even though it’s not your thing. What an “inconvenience.”
Refusing help from a gay person is quite insane and paranoid.
The military is a prime example. Throughout US history, there have been all kinds people who wanted to serve their country militarily, including gays, but were barred.
Black soldiers technically couldn’t, even if free, during the civil war until the military wised up and made black battalions but there were blacks that fought all along in white regiments too. Then they were segregated in\to supply units in WW2 until the Tuskegee Airmen came along
Women couldn’t fight or help much until the WAVES, WACS of WW2 and then they tossed out after it only to come back, fight their way into Military Academies and now serve on front lines and fly fighter planes.
Japanese were rounded up in WW2 but eventually the government wised up and formed Japanese battalions.
The list is quite endless. The military today should have learned from their past mistakes and at least, if they don’t have the guts to integrate, have gay battalions today ready and willing to fight for their country.
They could be called the Gay Battalions or Flotillas and fly pink colors for all I care.
I can see how the Battle of the Bulge movie could have been different though.
Patton: “I need the Gay Brigade to protect my left flank by attacking the Hun right here (pointing to a map), all day and all night if necessary while I take the rest of the 3rd Army on an end run to the right to attack the enemy’s left. Can you protect my left flank Col. Rod?”
Gay Col. Rod - “You can count on my Gay Brigade
General. I’ve seen your left flank and believe me, it is worth saving!”
Seriously, people can be bigoted idiots sometimes but the one thing you cannot fix in this world is stupidity.
#15 btw, isn’t this the same guy who says women can’t go to church without a veil? I’m sure Victoria wears one, no? (1 Cor. 11:2-6)
#17: Gay Battalions
Sorry, had to laugh a little. I don’t believe there are that many gays. They only make up 3% or so of the population. They always have been few and always will be few. It’s not like it’s a choice. Who would CHOOSE to be gay? It’s laughable.
The reason Christians and the religious go one about gays is because of a lack of reason. It’s like the stuff they say about evolution. Or better yet, people living with dinosaurs. If people lived with Rex and Raptors, those dinosaurs would be everywhere in the Bible, believe it. How could Bronze age people cope with 100 ton dinosaurs? The answer, they couldn’t. It’s laughable. Not to be taken seriously. Fodder for jokes and finger pointing.
To RDean.
I think that we can agree that the bible makes a pretty stong case against homosexuality. Victoria quoted a verse in Romans that shows that you first point is null.
Secondly, I think your stereotype about how the christian majority foregoes lack of reason concerning gays is not because we think that people choose to be gay, it is usually viewed as either something people are fooled into thinking, like how people are fooled into shooting up schools, or to engage in drug abuse, due to societal mindsets and influences
OR
They believe that it is a curse. Possibly along the same lines as having a predisposition to alcoholism or addiction. The anti-Christian band wagon likes to suggest the reason Christians believe the way they do is from lack of reason, when there is just as much “Faith” (the word anti-christian movements have given a new definition to, using it to show stupidity) in what those who define themselves as agnostic anti-creationist scientists believe about evolution, the beginning of life, the estimated existence of earth etc, the list goes on and on.
So before you sling around the over used argument that Christians believe for lack of reason, tell me exactly how the world began, without a shadow of a doubt, based on your own reasoning and proven methods of calculation. And then we will talk about who has been “infected” by faith.
Jesus would forgive a homosexual for his sin, though, as with the adulterer, He would in clear terms say “Go and sin no more.” Jesus believed that at bottom through the grave of God men and women are free to make moral choices.
The problem with the advocates of gay and other forms of loose sex is that they have no understanding of immoral or loose behavior. They buy into the shallow notion that behavior is determined by compulsive and irresistible naturalistic forces. One must be an alcoholic, adulterer, thief, et al simply because this is somehow a determined necessity; i.e. men and women are simply born that way. Serious Christians view such views as absurd.
So before you sling around the over used argument that Christians believe for lack of reason, tell me exactly how the world began, without a shadow of a doubt, based on your own reasoning and proven methods of calculation.
I work in solar system formation; the world probably began as the coalescence of planetesimals in a circumstellar disk around the young Sun. We observe these disks around newly formed stars now; no reason to think the Sun was any different. Geochemical evidence in our solar system overwhelming supports this picture as well.
But, for the life of me, I can’t see how this has anything to do with the fact that Christians believe in Jesus because they want to feel immortal, not because there is good historical evidence for it. Why they also believe a strict and homophobic interpretation of Paul’s comments on idol worshippers (but a lax interpretation of Paul on women’s hats) is beyond me, but I’m quite sure “reason” has nothing to do with it. Probably just they’re general, hysterical, and ubiquitous fear of sex outside of heterosexual marriage and its possible (but not inevitable) consequences.
oops - “they’re” should be “their” in the last sentence
#1 I never want to hear anyone say to me again, “Don’t Gay the Thread.”
#2 I think the best answer is a separate homeland. apartheid. I think I spelled it correctly.)
# 13. That’s called an ad aburdem argument — taking a bad argument and carrying it to its illogical conclusion. I mean no disrespect and certainly no direct comparison, only to show you how bad of an argument you are actually making.
Chad Thompson sounds like a good Christian to me.
Joe Fairclough sounds like a person with an ax to grind.
Leaving aside the debate over whether Christianity approves or disapproves of homosexuality, let’s focus on the real issue:
People should treat others decently in public. Period.
Spinoza and RDean,
Epilon pointed out that the evolutionist’s view of the beginnings of everthing are also based on faith, just as a Christian’s views are.
Why is this so hard for evolutionists to get? Oh, I know the answer but it is soooo hard for evolutionists to admit that they too have faith.
I have yet to see an evolutionist answer Epilon’s challenge. Your answer was a non=answer To answer is to concede defeat.
I agree with everything Solon wrote.
And I would defy any of the pro-homosexual posters to list any citation to the New Testament where Jesus Christ endorsed sin. He simply did not do that, nor did he say that there are no consequences to sin.
I have to admit that one of the things that troubles me is how easily everyone seems to accept that someone was arrested for simply holding an opinion — whether you agree with his opinion or not. There is no difference between banning a person’s free speech and banning a book, as was alluded to in the post after the posted article. As much as I personally do not approve of Nazis parading through Skokie, Illinois, or elsewhere, I agree with the Supreme Court’s opinion that they had a right to do so. Controlling people’s thoughts and feelings — do you really want to live in a country that does that?
No pun intended but….
Amen.
Bob Buckles,
Epilon’s challenge (“…tell me exactly how the world began, without a shadow of a doubt”) is bogus - science doesn’t believe in the kind of certainty that religion professes. That’s why “faith” is not necessary in the same sense as Christians use it. If by “faith” you just mean “believing something to be true,” then of course everything anybody thinks might be true requires “faith.” But Christians require a “faith” that is inspite of empirical evidence (Blessed is he who believes and has not seen — or sensed in any empirical way whatsoever). Science rejects propositions that have no empirical basis as outside its purview and it rejects ideas that are refuted by empirical observations as categorically FALSE. Intelligent Design is an example of the former, YE Creationism is an example of the latter.
And I would defy any of the pro-homosexual posters to list any citation to the New Testament where Jesus Christ endorsed sin. He simply did not do that, nor did he say that there are no consequences to sin.
And I would defy any of the anti-gay posters to list a citation where Jesus says directly that gay sex is a sin. There is no such passage. Not that I care whether there is or not!
People should treat others decently in public. Period.
Does that include Coalition forces encountering terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, Anlir?
Spinoza
(That’s why “faith” is not necessary in the same sense as Christians use it. If by “faith” you just mean “believing something to be true,” then of course everything anybody thinks might be true requires “faith.”)
-Your point obsoletes itself. You believe you have refuted parts of the bible through scientific practice, yet you don’t believe in your evidence enough to say you are above christians in believing whole heartedly in what you say. “Science doesn’t believe in the kind of certainty that religion professes.” You are saying we are wrong because of your evidence, but it is evidence that you don’t totally believe in. To me, this sounds like you base opinions on thinks you THINK are right, through processes you can test to be SOMEWHAT accurate. This means you have some sort of FAITH in what you do, or belief (in this case that the bible has been refuted) or you would not have made that statement.
I can only speak for myself here, but this is what I see the argument between christians and those who are anti-christian beliefs coming down to.
I base my FAITH in the love experienced from a higher power, the unfolding of his plan in my life, a plan that was never bought from a pastor at some emotional rally, or won through dedication and commitment, but through Grace. It is an evidence that is felt within, not something I could ever explain in words. Evidence I see laid out before me, plain as any math problem or english paper.
Whereas I feel the scientific community likes to have hard facts, which are rare to find these days. If it cant be put onto hard paper, or explained in logical terms without detrimental variables then the hypothesis was faulty. They believe only what they see in a sense. But in this, like I was stating above, requires a certain amount of FAITH. FAITH in the fact that matter can never be created or destroyed, But yet that it was still Created somewhere.
I never could figure that one out.
Sorry, above post should say “Things” not “Thinks” in line 10.
#30 Spinoza
“science doesn’t believe in the kind of certainty that religion professes. ”
You tell me I am wrong for believing by telling me your beliefs.
“Science rejects propositions that have no empirical basis as outside its purview…”
How can you judge God? Can you measure him? detect Him? posit Him? God, by definition, is outside the purview of science because it is outside the senses. Therefore instead of rejecting God, would it not be better to just say that He is outside the purview of science?
For me, the reason evolution is so important to homosexuality is because there is no judgement of right or wrong if there is no world outside that which science rules. Science has no morality. (Eugenics, abortion, sodomy, sex determination, in-breeding, Frankenstein)
I agree with Solon #21 and several others who point out that Jesus would treat homosexuality just like adultery or any number of other sexual sins. He would be kind without condoning sin.
The salient point that is so often missed is that Jesus’ atonement covers all sin. It does not matter how bad your sin is. He’ll accept you just as you are.
I don’t understand why popular Christianity feels compelled to attack unbelievers for their sin. The answer is not sinning less. The answer is Jesus’ blood!
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned… John 3:17
So, an unbeliever is condemned regardless of his sin. A believer is accepted regardless of his sin. It is not about us. It is all about Christ and what he has done. This is a Christ-centric way of thinking. Thompson is on the right track. Joe Fairclough is a self-righteous Pharisee.
Epilon/Buckles
How can you judge God? Can you measure him? detect Him? posit Him? God, by definition, is outside the purview of science because it is outside the senses. Therefore instead of rejecting God, would it not be better to just say that He is outside the purview of science?
That’s all I said - I actually believe in God,because I quite like him/her. But science does not provide any support for this belief. I also refuse to believe things about this God that are contradicted by nature. For example, radioisotope data show the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old. I , therefore, do not believe a literal account of Genesis as implying the Earth to be 6,000 years old.
I base my FAITH in the love experienced from a higher power, the unfolding of his plan in my life, a plan that was never bought from a pastor at some emotional rally, or won through dedication and commitment, but through Grace. It is an evidence that is felt within, not something I could ever explain in words. Evidence I see laid out before me, plain as any math problem or english paper.
Yes I have this experience too! What I found, though, is that this experience has nothing to do with fundamentalist Christian belief. I don’t have to believe in a literal Adam or literally resurrected Christ to have this experience. Since both of these are at odds with empirical evidence, I believe 100% that these are false.
I can understand your argument about Adam, even though there have been studies to suggest that Radioactive Isotope dating is not accurate. Although I am curious as to what you consider yourself, since you don’t believe in a resurrected Christ, I assume you aren’t christian. Agnostic?
I am in no way condemning you or anything of the sort, I am just wondering your rational for saying Christ did not have a literal resurrection?
#14 RDEAN:
Everything that a persons is attracked to naturally is not always OK in God’s eyes. Remember we are sinners. Sometimes the things we really want are sinful. I(a man) was born with a desire to have sex with just about every good looking woman I see. To my benefit I was taught that kind of behavior is not good. If I were born with a desire to steal it still would not be OK to steal. A man born with sexual desires for other men does not remove the sin from homosexual behavior.
Without a literal resurrection there is no Christianity! (1 Cor 15:17)
Without a literal Adam and a literal Fall to bring about literal death there is no need for a literal Savior to overcome death and give us eternal life! (1 Cor 15:22)
I am not saying that people who are confused about these points cannot be Christian. All that is required is faith in Jesus Christ. However, without these points your Christianity will not make sense.
#39: Remember we are sinners.
Go ahead and call yourself a sinner if you want. At least it gives you a reason for discriminating against people because of text written by Bronze Age men. I wonder if some were still wearing untreated animal skins?
Me, I want to think of myself as a good person. That means I want to appreciate people for the content of their character and their good heart, not because of they way they were born, whether it’s blue eyes, brown skin or because they are gay.
In the meantime, I see the good the very few numbers of gays have done for this country and I see the deep division brought on by the evangelicals including the attacks on science and the constitution. Their constant attacks on the few gays, relatively speaking, that exist underscore their viciousness and meanness. I totally understand why the Christians call themselves sinners. I just don’t understand why they revel in it?
I’ve read Chad Thompson’s Loving Homosexual as Jesus Would. It’s an incredibly convicting book for someone who previously hadn’t thought through the issue much. Thompson’s right in this issue, and we need to accept that we have not loved folks as Jesus would have us. If we knew a person was living in sin with a girl/boyfriend, I think we would likely treat said person better than if we knew said person was gay. This should shame us, not because we’re being lenient of sin, but because prior to our conversion, WE were just as bad, sinful, and unrepentant!
Fairclough is correct in his initial reaction, per se, but has forgotten the price paid for his own sinfulness. His self-righteousness is pretty disgusting, as is his hypocrisy. Apparently, he has no problem being a religious jerk to people who need to see Christians practicing love and forgiveness.
Me, I want to think of myself as a good person.
Well, then you have a false view of yourself. The point is that we are all dirty rotten scoundrels like the following verses explain. Realizing this makes God’s Grace all that much more Amazing. It should also cause us to sympathize with others and not be so quick to condemn. If my own sin is ever before me, I won’t be so interested in yours.
The problem is that we Christians have a tendency to fool ourselves into thinking we’re pretty good. We may clean up a few outward peccadillos but our old hearts are no less wicked than before. That is why God requires we obtain a new heart, one which is not our own. It is taking on the mind of Christ. Christ humbled himself and became a servant of sinners. That is the mind of Christ.
Joe Fairclough was not a servant of sinners, he was their judge and jury. He elevated himself by condemning others.
“There is none righteous, no not one.” (Rom 3:10)
“No one is good, except God along” (Mark 10:18)
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it.” (Jer 17:9)
“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” (Isaiah 64:6)
Amen, Xion!
Do you think Jesus might say something like, “your sins are forgiven,go and sin no more”.
No anger, no judgement, just a simple command, “stop that, it is a sin against nature and God who created it.”
Come on, anyone can do Bible quotes, but it’s not thinking. Here:
James 5:14-15 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him.
Never go to a doctor.
Deuteronomy 23:3 No child of an incestuous union may be admitted into the community of the Lord, nor any descendent of his even to the tenth generation.
10 generations, hmmm.
Deuteronomy 23:2 No one whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off may be admitted into the community of the Lord.
Owww.
Leviticus 21:16-23 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Tell Aaron that in all future generations, his descendants who have physical defects will not qualify to offer food to their God. No one who has a defect may come near to me, whether he is blind or lame, stunted or deformed, or has a broken foot or hand, or has a humped back or is a dwarf, or has a defective eye, or has oozing sores or scabs on his skin, or has damaged testicles. Even though he is a descendant of Aaron, his physical defects disqualify him from presenting offerings to the LORD by fire. Since he has a blemish, he may not offer food to his God. However, he may eat from the food offered to God, including the holy offerings and the most holy offerings. Yet because of his physical defect, he must never go behind the inner curtain or come near the altar, for this would desecrate my holy places. I am the LORD who makes them holy.”
How touching. Talk about caring.
Timothy 2:11-15 Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. And it was the woman, not Adam, who was deceived by Satan, and sin was the result. But women will be saved through childbearing and by continuing to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.
Written by a man. Figures.
The fun thing about trading Bible quotes, the good ones equal the bad ones.
I was merely pointing out that God disagrees with your self-assessment and your hermeneutics.
Solon - 21 ____________The passage “Go and sin no more.” is paramount to turning from a past life of sin, and embracing life EVERLASTING with our LORD and Savior -
I’m glad to see you posting again, we have missed you -
Although I have neither the time nor interest to immerse myself in in Biblical studies as deeply as many here do, the more I look at studies about His time, the less likely it seems to me (and I started very close to zero) that Jesus was born of a virgin, was the Son of God, or rose from the Dead. (For that matter, I doubt that he was born with a Capital Name; however, being a polite person some of the time, I conform to the Custom of this Time.)
People at wmb say over and over without absolute values I have no basis for morality and therefore I am likely (as an atheist) to see no reason not to do any bad thing that it pleases me to do.
One such bad thing, right from the start, is that I prefer the word “unethical” rather than “immoral” to describe bad things that people do.
In my inferior and insecure morality or ethics I consider activities such as murder, torture, theft, abuse of children, and destruction of the human race–which as I often say is quite likely by 2099 though the year 2012 as many cult figures argue is most likely is certainly in the realm of possibility–in any case, I consider such activities as immoral/unethical.
I don’t consider two adult homosexuals loving each other and otherwise avoiding the kinds of bad behaviors I just provided as examples of really bad behavior.
Then it seems the argument against homosexuality come down to two arguments (which are too many because the irrationally spelled words “to/two/too’ are a trinity):
It’s bad because our absolute moral rules say it’s bad. I don’t believe there are absolute moral laws, as I’ve said (leaving me to depending on common sense for my morality which is good enough for qwerty, and what’s good enough for qwerty is sort of good enough for me though not as good as it is for qwerty)
It’s bad because of various mundane (non-religious) arguments such as “homosexuals are crazy” (an argument I consider crazy, as I’ve argued before) or because gay marriage will destroy our society, which I consider very low on the long list of activities and practices which are quite likely to destroy out society. For example, Britney Spears’ family values is much higher on the “hit parade” of activities which will destroy our society. For that matter, George Bush’s good judgment and practical prowess on military and economic matters are a whole lot more likely to destroy our society that homosexual love.
For that matter, it is quite likely that global cooling will destroy our society, though it’s doubtful that human activity has much to do with it happening (as is often pointed out on worldmagblog).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
So, chill about homosexuality. Those of you who are tempted to engage in homosexual behavior, make up your mind and take a stand:
Either you are an evangelical Christian or you are a homosexual pervert.
You can’t be two kinds of pervert at the same time. Two kinds of perversion can’t occupy one person at the same time, known as the Third Law of Secular Nonsense, as is shown in the Book of Radical Agnosticism, which is true because it is 2000 years old and I am still writing it, burying it very close to where Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard dug up THEIR ancient books, making it look really old, inventing the ancient language of Tibtoudi to write it in, and then setting up teams of scholars, all named “James King,” to translate it into the authoritative James King version of the book of Radical Agnosticism.
By the way, the First Law of Secular Nonsense is that two types of nonsense can’t occupy one mind at the same time, so make up your mind. Your brand of nonsense (which is increasingly boring) or my brand of nonsense, which is fresher, though your mileage may vary, which is the Fourth Law of Secular Nonsense.
Thompson said when Christians discriminate against homosexuals, “It just adds to their shame, the preexisting litany of voices in their head telling them they’re not good enough.” Christians should not refuse help from a homosexual employee, and they should not refuse to hire, rent to, or serve homosexuals, Thompson said. He gave the example of a North Carolina ski resort that fired an employee because she was lesbian: “I don’t believe Jesus would have done that.”
Great. So now Christians HAVE to vote for Larry Craig?
No, they don’t.
But you can if you really want to.
RN: How do you actually determine what is unethical?
RN,
I think you transposed two letters in your invented ancient language!
But what happens when “common sense” isn’t common anymore? For example, if I’m being disturbed by noise outside at night, common sense might say to investigate the source (using due care). Once I decide the source is no real threat to me, am I free to remove the source? If it’s a raccoon (or a bunny eating my garden), am I free to shoot it? What if it’s a small child?
You and I both know that hurting another is wrong. But why is it common sense? Doesn’t it make sense to remove career rivals for personal advancement?
You and I are both happily married, but for those that aren’t it might make sense to hurt someone interfering in a relationship. As a matter of fact, we see it all the time. A “crime of passion”, they call it.
Not sure that makes a difference, though.
Oh, for crying out loud–the above is mine. I started the post, transferred the laundry to the line, and came back. TJ must’ve swooped in during the interim.
#49: Either you are an evangelical Christian or you are a homosexual pervert.
You can’t be two kinds of pervert at the same time.
Tell that to Ted Haggard.
I have to leave in three minutes to go with my wife to the farmer’s market, so I won’t be able to type a very good reply. It will be a not very good short reply instead of a not very good long reply.
The not very good short reply is that is why I said common sense ethics is not as good for me as it is for qwerty.
I don’t think there is anything that inherently prevents humans from being evil.
I consider myself a moderately good person, though not an outstandingly good person. Although I didn’t get along very well with my parents, and didn’t like them very much, their values were fairly decent, and I was influenced by their words to become a fairly decent person, and some forces in my environment encourage me to act so, and some don’t and if I don’t leave write now I will be in trouble.
People should treat others decently in public. Period.
*****Agreed. And, I would add, in private too.
I didn’t read the rest of the thread (yet?), but stopped at Anlir’s comment since it stated the proper response in a nutshell.
And, as most of you know, I do think homosexuality is a sin. But, in spite of what some gay activists claim is impossible, I also have friends and acquaintances who are gay.
And, Spinoza, your comments about Jesus really are disgusting, and don’t lend themselves to any sort of reasonable debate. (And, I’m just as disgusted by the whole other crowd, who claims He was married and had children.) :-p
I consider myself a moderately good person…
It is usually not a good idea to be a judge of your own case. What matters ultimately is God’s judgment; we shall all in varying degrees be found wanting.
Erik Erikson, the brilliant psychiatrist, remarked that most people are both better and worse than they imagine. This sounds about right.
One thing for sure from ample evidence is that we are all fallen human beings, notwithstanding the pieties of modern humanism.
I agree with Llama. I have never really understood what the problem is with gay people in the military. At least, I don’t understand the logic if we’re also going to continue to let women in.
But, I don’t come from a military family, so maybe I’m not getting something about it.
And, I also don’t understand the need to broadcast one’s sexuality. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” would seem to work unless you somehow *need* to flaunt your private matters.
I suppose I wear a wedding ring, but I rarely even kiss my husband in public. One’s sexuality is supposed to be private and in one’s bedroom. So, why do so many homosexuals seem to want to flaunt it in front of the world?
Oh, for crying out loud–the above is mine. I started the post, transferred the laundry to the line, and came back. TJ must’ve swooped in during the interim.
******Cameron,
A long time ago, my husband and I realized that our marriage would only survive by having separate computers!
The fun thing about trading Bible quotes, the good ones equal the bad ones.
******Which is why people unarmed with having read and studied the WHOLE thing, should not engage in the Biblical quotation war. You, sir, are unarmed.
#57: I also have friends and acquaintances who are gay.
But you think they are sinful? You clain to be “friends”? Sorry, acquaintances maybe, but not friends. Sinners are people who steal, murder, or pretend to be friends with someone all the while judging them as sinners behind their back. To me, that false witness. False witness is lying. Lying is a sin. Who is the sinner here?
#60: And, I also don’t understand the need to broadcast one’s sexuality.
Neither do I. But how much is broadcasting and how much is prying. I think if you ask those kicked out, the great majority weren’t broadcasting. That’s the assumption of the uninformed.
Now, ask the question, how many only said they were gay to get out of going to Iraq? Didn’t think of that huh? How many are hiding behind the gays and using them to cut and run?
Wake up people. Dozens of Arabic translaters kicked out for being gay? What are the odds that there was even a dozen gay Arabic translater IN the Army? We’ve been played. Christians predjudice has been used against us.
Once more they cut off their nose to spite their face.
In the meantime, we send sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters while kicking out doctors, nurses, engineers, translaters and over 800 in critical positions, 10,000 over all. Nuts.
#62: should not engage in the Biblical quotation war.
Why not? A lot of Bible quotations are hysterical and bizarre. They were written by Bronze Age men. What can you expect?
Wisdom 3:13 Yes, blessed is she who, childless and undefiled, knew not transgression of the marriage bed; she shall bear fruit at the visitation of souls. So also the eunuch whose hand wrought no misdeed, who held no wicked thoughts against the LORD- For he shall be given fidelity’s choice reward and a more gratifying heritage in the LORD’S temple.
Gee, doesn’t sound too much like an endorsement of marriage.
Matthew 5:28 But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart. So if your eye – even if it is your good eye – causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your hand – even if it is your stronger hand – causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
Hey, watch that wondering hand while you are laying in bed trying to sleep. Careful how much and how hard you scratch.
Um…Wisdom what? That’s not in my Bible.
As for Matthew…ever heard of hyperbole? Do you understand how that was used in the culture of the time? Do you know how this verse has historically been interpreted? (By the vast number of people…obviously there have been a few like you who don’t “get it.”) Do you see any conservative, Bible-believing Christians missing body parts due to this verse?
Do you understand that when you freely quote without understanding the context, the history, the culture, the language, and the historical scholarly interpretation that most Christians just think you’re…well…less than well-educated? (The nicest way to put it.)
And, RDEAN, you are on a list with a lot of Christians who take their Bible pretty seriously. So, quoting willy-nilly as you do doesn’t make any logical sense either. If you were truly searching, then we are more than willing to help you understand the verses you quote.
But, if you’re quoting because you think you’re somehow “revealing” something to us that we didn’t know, then you are truly barking up the wrong tree. Most of us have probably read that Matthew verse a hundred times or more, and heard it preached on at church as well, not to mention various Bible studies. So, you’re great “revelation” falls flat, and “reveals” nothing to anybody.
About the only other two reasons I could see for doing it beyond this false “shock value” that you think you’re getting, is 1) to sway the undecided or the very baby Christian, or 2) to get applause from your own “choir” (i.e. those who already believe the way you do.) Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense. For the vast majority of posters here, it just makes you look silly.
Whoops! YOUR great “revelation”
The concern I have with the religious is the way they want to spread the occult and mysticism into the lives of those that simply aren’t interested. They believe they have a mission to spread the fantasic to those that aren’t credulous. They are somehow convinced that forcing “supernatural” onto the rest of the country is somehow “saving” the country.
They are dangerous. It can’t be any more clear.
#65: Do you understand how that was used in the culture of the time?
The entire Bible is from the culture of the time. Why try to force America to follow it in this time?
RDEAN The entire Bible is from the culture of the time. Why try to force America to follow it in this time?
The Bible speaks eternal truth, though admittedly through the words of fallen and to some extent time bound men. Also, Christians from the time of Augustine have accepted that biblical truth does not supersede rational truth. When it comes to the issue of homosexuality, both the Bible and reason regard it as a disorder of the law of nature and nature’s God, protestations of the militant homosexual political movement notwithstanding.
Just now if any group is trying to force its views it would be the tiresome secularist liberals who suffer the illusion that they are superior to Christians and other religious views.
A lot of Bible quotations are hysterical and bizarre. They were written by Bronze Age men. What can you expect?
Good point, but you are ignoring the big picture. Of course, I think you already know this. Those verses were specifically written that way so that skeptics and cynics will miss the message. (1 Cor 3:19; Matt 11:25). It takes humility to realize that the foolishness of God is wiser than men. Man builds a refrigerator and calls it Fantastic! God creates a solar system and calls it good.
Note: I provide verses, not to get in a quotation war but to provide biblical authority for what I am saying. You aren’t quibbling with me but God’s word.
The fact remains that the Bible is the world’s foremost piece of literature. No other book comes close. Make fun of it just makes you look stupid. Go to an English professor and mock the Illiad or Shakespeare and you will simply look like an idiot.
If you had a belief system that was written down I could be snarky and mocking too. I could poke fun at your belief that pond scum spontaneously generates cab drivers, but what is the point?
There are reasonable answers for all of your questions. When you decide to be reasonable let us know.
TRS,
We have separate computers, but one wireless home network–we swap between them all the time.
All my friends are sinners who engage in sinful behavior. Indeed I am a sinner too. It is the fool that tries to pretend he is not a sinner. No one but Jesus has kept the 6th Commandment perfectly. It is dangerous to pretend that man is not sinful and it is damnable to pretend that sin is OK. I would like to rephrase the question, “How did Jesus love the money changers in the temple.” Some might say what is wrong with money changers, they are not primary spreader of AIDS, the do not undermine the support of the nuclear family, …
RDean, you need to do some homework or no one will take you seriously. I wouldn’t argue with a Marxist if I haven’t read Marx’s Communist Manifesto.
“Its foolish to Listen to someone who won’t listen to you.” So when what we say goes over your head, why bother?
There is a certain style of writing and arguing on worldmagblog I find especially tiresome and condescending.
I call it the magisterial style.
From some definitions and examples I found on line, I bolded the examples that most seem to apply to my point:
Of, relating to, or characteristic of a master or teacher; authoritative: a magisterial account of the history of the English language.
Sedately dignified in appearance or manner
Dogmatic; overbearing.
Of or relating to a magistrate or a magistrate’s official functions.
offensively self-assured or given to exercising usually unwarranted power; “an autocratic person”; “autocratic behavior”; “a bossy way of ordering others around”; “a rather aggressive and dominating character”; “managed the employees in an aloof magisterial way”; “a swaggering peremptory manner”
autocratic, bossy, high-and-mighty, peremptory, dominating
domineering - tending to domineer
used of a person’s appearance or behavior; befitting an eminent person; distinguished, imposing, grand
dignified - having or expressing dignity; especially formality or stateliness in bearing or appearance
I’ve seen such discourse from a variety of people, but the two screen names I most associate with this type of discourse are Joel Mark and Solon.
They seldom if ever speak for themselves personally, but always speak as if they are channeling the voice of God.
Any concession or attempt to speak with modesty or restraint by a person presenting a point of view that differs from them is taken as a sign of weakness, and they immediately zero in with a slam as if they are pounding a ping pong ball for a killer point. Kim has spoken of being driven away from early churches by a rigid fundamentalism. As I was not raised in a Christian fundamentalist family, I’m not as responsive to it, but the pompous, dogmatic, magisterial, condescending tone such as the following does raise the hair on the back of my neck:
It is usually not a good idea to be a judge of your own case. What matters ultimately is God’s judgment; we shall all in varying degrees be found wanting.
Erik Erikson, the brilliant psychiatrist, remarked that most people are both better and worse than they imagine. This sounds about right.
One thing for sure from ample evidence is that we are all fallen human beings, notwithstanding the pieties of modern humanism.
This could have been presented in a conversational and questioning tone that I would have considered making a reasonable point. However, I don’t take it that way, and the last time around with Solon he was presenting an argument that I found absurd, nasty: and dangerous: that homosexual people are mentally ill. This really has nothing to do with his religious beliefs; similar to his arguments that “Darwinism” (a label that has little to do with arguments against the “theory of evolution” but is used to add an extra little fillip of insult and condescension) to make his argument sound better.
It is interesting that the other person who presented a similar argument was Dr. Dave, but Dr. Dave and I were able to reach a point of reasonable and respectful conversation, though we still differ to a great degree.
Joel Mark and I differ to an extreme degree, but I don’t detect the rigid attempt to domineer that comes across in almost every message from Solon.
Of the various people I have interacted with at worldmagblog, Solon is the one that I find least conducive to conversation and communication.
Trying to talk to him is like trying to talk to a video game where the opponent’s voice is rather like the voice of computer in the movie 2001: A Space Oddysey.
Frankly, I think Solon has been using this tone of argument for so long that he cannot present a point of view in a straightforward manner.
Solon, if you can every address me in a normal tone of voice, and try using a conversational style of discourse, I will be glad to try and have a conversation. For the nonce, try talking to qwerty or Luke or one of the other tolerant, patient atheists.
Message #73 is the type of message I consider the disingenuous evangelical argument about homosexuality. Safe sexual conduct is a large problem in our society. Lots of heterosexual and homosexual people engage in careless sex. Lots of homosexual and heterosexual people engage in careful, promiscuous sex and minimize the risk of spreading disease and creating unwanted pregnancies.
Safe sex (through use of condoms) is better than unsafe, unprotected sex. One can advocate sex limited to married heterosexual partners for a variety of reasons.
However, even if some homosexuals practice in one form or another fidelity or safe sex, it doesn’t matter, because it’s against God’s will anyway. So message #73 and a variety of similar messages are not serious argumentation; they are just religious moralizing with frosting.
In a way, I prefer Victoria’s bold Bible quotes; she spends less effort in trying to dress up her messages as anything other than fanatical Bible-thumping street-corner preaching.
#76 Random, I agree with you that the utilitarian approach to this issue comes up short. If sin had weight, it would be possible to show that some homosexuals do better on the scales of morality than some Christians. For example, Paul and Moses were involved in murder. Peter hacked off a guy’s ear. etc.
For this reason, I have always argued that what makes homosexuality sin is “because God says so”. Marriage is holy “because God says so”. Of course, marriage and sexual also teach us something about God, since he made us this way for a reason. It is a picture of the intimate personal relationship he desires with mankind.
But one cannot take such an argument to the statehouse. I hate when Christians feel compelled to preach a gospel of works to unbelievers. The gospel is about Christ’s work, not our own. I am also grieved when the false prophets say that hurricanes etc. are God’s judgment for homosexuality. Homosexuality between two people is a lesser sin than false prophecy, which misrepresents God to thousands.
RN …Solon he was presenting an argument that I found absurd, nasty: and dangerous: that homosexual people are mentally ill.
I’ve never remarked that homosexual people are mentally ill. I regard homosexual behavior as disordered and sinful, though decidedly not a mental illness.
Some homosexual people seek therapy for their disordered behavior and have had some success. Should you be seriously interested in this subject, you might visit the home page of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a respected professional organization.
One, also, finds your moral lectures on the tone of World Blog comments rather jejune and tiresome.
Thank you for your reply.
Perhaps we are a couple of people who deserve each other.
“Bible thumper” ……………… I would rather thump the Bible on my way to Heaven, than …….. thump sin day after day, on purpose, ignoring God, ignoring His Word, and then ending up in an Eternity without Christ - everyone knows the rest of the story, but maybe they will have to see and experience it for themselves one day -
Thank you for your comment Victoria. I believe you mean well, so I try not to think ill of you. I appreciate that you are concerned that homosexuals (as well as Jews, of course) are persecuted in Iran.
Although homosexuals are not “persecuted” in the United States in the same way they are in locations such as Iran, I don’t agree with the attitudes demonstrated by many of the evangelical Christians here at wmb, and I don’t think they are especially helpful to solving many of the problems we face.
The intensity of the way you express you beliefs about religion don’t persuade me.
#78: I’ve never remarked that homosexual people are mentally ill. I regard homosexual behavior as disordered
dis·or·der [ diss áwrdər ]
noun (plural dis·or·ders)
Definition:
1. illness: a medical condition involving a disturbance to the usual functioning of the mind or body
4. criminal law unruly behavior: a public disturbance or breach of peace
Is English your second language?
#78: Some homosexual people seek therapy for their disordered behavior and have had some success.
I haven’t read a lot about it, but everything I have read says ZERO success. You can get a gay male to sleep with a woman, but if he is attracted to men, he will ALWAYS be attracted to men. Doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. Actually, to not know that might indicate a mental “disorder”.