- ‹ previous
- 4666 of 7913
- next ›
Why Christians Hate Gays, Blackwater USA is Even Creepier than You Thought, and You Shouldn't Buy Bolthouse Farms (All in One Ha
We throw around the term "religious right" so often that sometimes I wonder if it's not as much a bugaboo as the "homosexual agenda." But then I read articles like Sarah Posner's today on AlterNet. Posner profiles an organization called the Alliance Defense Fund. The ADF is a legal organization created in 1994 with support from all the other players in what is actually a small, well funded, clique. Contributing to ADF were James Dobson of Focus on the Family, D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, and Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ.
Last year, ADF received more than $21 million in charitable donations. Major donors included:
-- the Covenant Foundation (which, in turn, is financed by James Leininger, the "sugar daddy" of the Texas religious right);
-- the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, whose vice president, Erik Prince, founded the Blackwater USA military-security firm; and
-- the Bolthouse Foundation, a nonprofit arm of Bolthouse Farms, the California natural-foods company whose products are often seen at leftie natural foods stores.
The ADF is to the Christian right what the ACLU is to the left. It has trained more than 900 lawyers, who must then perform extensive pro bono legal work for Christian causes. It happily provides free legal services to the (well funded) groups that created it. Its causes? Pro-life, anti-gay, and "religious freedom." ADF has been particularly ingenious in its definition of religious freedom. The group invented the motif of Christian victimhood that fuels everything from claims of a "war on Christmas" to religious groups' "rights" to public funding.
ADF successfully argued in Rosenberger vs. The Regents of the University of Virginia that public bodies which fund non-religious groups "discriminate" against religious groups if they do not fund them. The case did serious damage to the wall of separation between church and state and, as Posner says, "elevated ADF's mythology of the victimized Christian to a legal precedent." The precedent is especially damaging because ADF is now using it to claim that preventing Christians from discriminating against gays and lesbians is actually discrimination against Christians and a violation of their religious freedom.
And there you have it: That's why Christians are on a crusade against gay people. Not because they are actually a serious threat, but because they provide a test case to see how much the religious right can get away with in the name of religious freedom.
Digg
Reddit
Twitter
Facebook
Buzz Up!
StumbleUpon
MySpace
LinkedIn
Delicious
Furl
Google
Yahoo
For the discussion about "really Christians" here are some ways:
Matthew 22:37?40:
Jesus said unto them, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Scriptures repeatedly emphasize loving our neighbor.
Galatians 5:14:
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, cf.
Then repeated in the following are commandments to love your neighbor as yourself - Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 19:19; Romans 13:9; James 2:8.
John 13:33?35:?Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
So I believe it is very easy to tell if someone is "really Christian" we have a standard to view them through. Apply that to the Relegious Right, or Paul Kay's Lutheran pastor.
Well, I figure I've now waited a decent amount of time since my post challenging those who "hate the sin but love the sinner" to state their views on gay rights using the five points mentioned in Cameron's post.
Thanks to Deb Clark for being willing to discuss this.
But, Deb, I do have some issues with your response. You said:
"? where the line keeps being drawn is where people want to push upon others in the public sector, even teach our children and our grandchildren about what their private business is in that bedroom. Does that even make sence [sic] to you?"
Yes. I don't think anyone is talking about selling gayness, as if that could be done. I think what we're talking about is having a discussion about it in a sex education class. I think it might help young homosexual and bisexual people to be comfortable with their sexuality, and thus be happier healthier people.
You also asked, "why do we have to have all of these new laws made to support what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom"?
Well, as a married individual myself, I recognize that there are benefits to the legal institution of marriage. No one is closer to me than my wife. I would certainly want it to be her making any life and death decisions for me. I would certainly want her to be allowed to visit me in the hospital, including accompanying me for certain procedures or in the emergency room. These are things we allow in society for married couples. Why should we deny these privileges to gay and lesbian couples?
So, none of this is being forced on you. It will not affect existing marriages in any way. If a gay or lesbian couple gets married, I can't imagine that my 20 year marriage will suddenly fall apart. Yet, the Christian wrong often make it sound as if this will somehow happen.
Most disturbingly though, you said, "if an entire state votes in or out of a situation - then no matter fair or unfair we must accept that the government didn't necessarily do the job unless it was tainted, and I do believe this is possible, but usually it is not tainted toward the conservative ways Clarence, at least the numerous newspaper articles I have read tend to tell me that."
I'm going to assume from this quote that you mean majority rules. Well, that is a part of democracy. However, protection of the rights of the minority is another very important part. It is one of the reasons that a parliamentary system is often a bit better. Minority viewpoints get more representation.
So, thank you Deb for actually replying to my questions. I really would hope that those of you who keep defending Christianity and claiming that it is OK to deny these rights to homosexuals but you still love them, will really do some thinking about this issue. Denying rights that heterosexuals take for granted to homosexuals does not meet any definition of love with which I am familiar.
Perhaps it meets with the definition by which God is watching every move you make waiting for some transgression by which to damn you to hell for eternity ? but he loves you.
For the discussion about "really Christians" here are some ways:
Matthew 22:37?40:
Jesus said unto them, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Scriptures repeatedly emphasize loving our neighbor.
Galatians 5:14:
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, cf.
Then repeated in the following are commandments to love your neighbor as yourself - Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 19:19; Romans 13:9; James 2:8.
John 13:33?35:?Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
So I believe it is very easy to tell if someone is "really Christian" we have a standard to view them through. Apply that to the Relegious Right, or Paul Kay's Lutheran pastor.
Well, I figure I've now waited a decent amount of time since my post challenging those who "hate the sin but love the sinner" to state their views on gay rights using the five points mentioned in Cameron's post.
Thanks to Deb Clark for being willing to discuss this.
But, Deb, I do have some issues with your response. You said:
"? where the line keeps being drawn is where people want to push upon others in the public sector, even teach our children and our grandchildren about what their private business is in that bedroom. Does that even make sence [sic] to you?"
Yes. I don't think anyone is talking about selling gayness, as if that could be done. I think what we're talking about is having a discussion about it in a sex education class. I think it might help young homosexual and bisexual people to be comfortable with their sexuality, and thus be happier healthier people.
You also asked, "why do we have to have all of these new laws made to support what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom"?
Well, as a married individual myself, I recognize that there are benefits to the legal institution of marriage. No one is closer to me than my wife. I would certainly want it to be her making any life and death decisions for me. I would certainly want her to be allowed to visit me in the hospital, including accompanying me for certain procedures or in the emergency room. These are things we allow in society for married couples. Why should we deny these privileges to gay and lesbian couples?
So, none of this is being forced on you. It will not affect existing marriages in any way. If a gay or lesbian couple gets married, I can't imagine that my 20 year marriage will suddenly fall apart. Yet, the Christian wrong often make it sound as if this will somehow happen.
Most disturbingly though, you said, "if an entire state votes in or out of a situation - then no matter fair or unfair we must accept that the government didn't necessarily do the job unless it was tainted, and I do believe this is possible, but usually it is not tainted toward the conservative ways Clarence, at least the numerous newspaper articles I have read tend to tell me that."
I'm going to assume from this quote that you mean majority rules. Well, that is a part of democracy. However, protection of the rights of the minority is another very important part. It is one of the reasons that a parliamentary system is often a bit better. Minority viewpoints get more representation.
So, thank you Deb for actually replying to my questions. I really would hope that those of you who keep defending Christianity and claiming that it is OK to deny these rights to homosexuals but you still love them, will really do some thinking about this issue. Denying rights that heterosexuals take for granted to homosexuals does not meet any definition of love with which I am familiar.
Perhaps it meets with the definition by which God is watching every move you make waiting for some transgression by which to damn you to hell for eternity ? but he loves you.
[begin rant]
And this is why the fanatical right will win. Quite simply because they are fanatics. They care more. They will devote every waking minute to their cause. They do this, not because they are right, but because they are Right. They have received a mandate from on high. They are almost as scary as humans can be. Religion is violent from its core. It's entire purpose is violent. The religious right in this country has the second most virulent form of a seriously dangerous dementia. This is precisely why I am an antitheist.
Religion is evil!!
[end rant]
It's ironic that the ADF,"a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the truth", would delude themselves, or simply refuse to see the truth that they don't have the right to discriminate against homosexuals. "claim that preventing Christians from discriminating against gays and lesbians is actually discrimination against Christians and a violation of their religious freedom." So, if Christians think that they can discriminate against homosexuals, then why can't Christians themselves be discriminated against? But of course, there are a lot more Christians than there are homosexuals, so I suppose that there is safety in numbers. Nevertheless, that isn't to say that all Christians are alike. There are many who do not discriminate and to only hound on Christians is discrimination. But anyways, there are many ways that religion has benefited people and the world, as well as damaged it. Okay, I'm done. ^-^
What a diabolical group! As Scott says they are fanatics and that is why they are winning at this point. However, the Truth will out eventually.... Not all organized religion is violent, though. Please don't paint all with the same broad brush.
I find the comparison between ADF and ACLU very strange. The ACLU is non-partisan and protects the right to free speech of right-wing protesters as well as leftist flag-burners. The ACLU even stands up for freedom of religious speech--as long as it isn't state sponsored or mandated. The reason the ACLU has a leftist label is simply that the rightists are unforgiving. They refuse to see the good that the ACLU does in protecting the First Amendment. The rightists see only the work that conflicts with their goals. The same willful blindness is at work in their invention of "activist judges," but that's another diatribe. Enough said for now.
peaceful peggy,
Not all believers in organized religion are violent. But, a literal reading of and real belief in any of the texts of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion (deliberately singular) will make anyone violent.
Further, all of the major branches of this religion have at various times in history been extremely violent. So, while not all individual believers are violent, the net effect throughout the history of this religion has been a huge amount of violence again and again and again.
That is why I paint with such a broad stroke. It is a recognition of the net effect. Here and there people have done wonderful things in the name of religion without outweighing the huge negative effect to any significant degree in my mind.
Who's to say that some of these folks are really Christians? Anyone can claim that. For instance, James Dobson hasn't had any formal training in Theology, he was a child shrink. The guy who created Blackwater USA (the US now has the largest (well paid) mercenary army in the world - thank you GW) has close ties to the Pentagon and high ranking Republicans and is getting rich. So is Pat Robertson the "televangelist" who has received $500 million over the past three years from GW's "faith initiative" program. How much money did Robertson actually spend on the poor, sick, eldely and homelss? Who follows up to see how Dobson and others spend this cash? No one knows. But, Robertson's African diamond mines are doing just fine. These guys are opertunists that are getting wealthy and unfortunately wield a lot of power in influencing the general public and government officials.
It doesn't make them actual Christians though, the bulk of these religious right I prefer to call "christianists". They are a very dangerous bunch, and their confuscation of issues has a deteorating effect on our society, in short they prop up the ruling class and the "corporatist*" government we now have.
None of them hail from a proper Christian denomination, that I can tell. Honest Christians like the pastor at my grandma's Lutheran church, preach the gosple each Sunday and are not getting rich.
*Corporatist is a polite word for fascist.
Paul Kay,
Do you really get to decide who is and who is not a "real Christian"? If so, by what right? But, I'm always one to follow a tangent, so here goes.
If someone tells me they are Christian, I believe them. I have no reason to start questioning whether they are true Christians. What standard would I use? Which interpretation of Christian is the one true interpretation? Should we judge based on a fundamentalist literal reading of the Bible? If so, what about the part where it contradicts itself?
For your final statement, you say, "Honest Christians like the pastor at my grandma's Lutheran church, preach the gosple [sic] each Sunday and are not getting rich."
So, I guess all "honest Christians" are Lutheran? I hope that's not your claim. Perhaps you mean they are all either poor or make money by some means other than preaching?
Obviously, by your standard, the pope is clearly either not honest, not a Christian, or somehow is both, but is still not an "honest Christian".
Clearly, I have no such right to make any such statement. I'm an antitheist. I think preachers should find real work to pay their bills. But, if others are willing to do so for them because they believe they receive something of value either in church, temple, mosque, or over the airwaves, how is that different than any other entertainer.
Perhaps what should really be required is a fine print statement of "for entertainment purposes only" as is required of psychics and astrologers.
Sorry, obviously where I said "what about the part where it contradicts itself?" I meant "what about the parts where it contradicts itself?" Clearly, there are many.
When the media covers a Gay Pride parade they usually only show the participants which will cause the public to get upset. When the media covers stories like this one they use the term Christians which readers usually misconstrue to mean "all" Christians. NOT ALL Christians (or members of other religions) should be grouped into that catagory. I have been an out lesbian for close to 35 years. I have been a [practicing] Christian for close to 60 years!
Yes, there are a lot of contradictory perceptions, that's where Faith comes in. So, please, if you are not a religious person, don't group all of us in the hate mongoring classification. Some Gays are Christian. Some Christians are Gay. That doesn't mean all Christians are Gay or all Gays are Christian... I believe that I must live my life so that I am true to myself and you must live your life so that you are true to yourself. I don't condemn you, you don't condemn me.
However, those "christians" who do hate or condemn anyone, are not, in my opinion, true Christians.
The left uses this simplistic forumula; disagree + gay = hate. It works in place of listening to reasoned debate.
For the discussion about "really Christians" here are some ways:
Matthew 22:3740:
Jesus said unto them, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Scriptures repeatedly emphasize loving our neighbor.
Galatians 5:14:
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, cf.
Then repeated in the following are commandments to love your neighbor as yourself - Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 19:19; Romans 13:9; James 2:8.
John 13:3335: Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
So I believe it is very easy to tell if someone is "really Christian" we have a standard to view them through. Apply that to the Relegious Right, or Paul Kay's Lutheran pastor.
It's all well and good to quote the bible. There is some good stuff in it. There is also much that is truly horrific. And, by defining Christians so narrowly, you get to avoid considering all the death and destruction it has caused over the years. Inquisitions, Crusades, clinic bombings, doctor shootings, bombings in Ireland, etc., etc., etc.
Are these false Christians? Perhaps.
Would Jesus be upset to think that all of this happened in his name? If he ever existed, probably yes.
Does this tip the scales to Christianity having a huge negative effect on the world? In my mind yes.
So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I don't care for religion, however, I love Jesus. I don't hate homoseuxals; I love homosexuals. As a matter of fact, one of my oldest and dearest friends is gay. I don't condone homoseuxality either, but I love homosexuals. It's that simple! I choose to love people even if I don't agree with everything they do. I am sure there are many homosexuals that don't agree with everything everybody does, but if what you have is real...you will know how to love a person regardless of whether you agree with their decisions or not! It's that simple~!
If their really a follower of Christ they will not hate gays. This title is the most stupidest thing I have ever saw. It's an oxymoron! You can't be a Christian and hate.
Q: How do you Make friends with a lion?
A: Pull a thorn out of his paw, and feed him one soft boiled christian every morning.
Didn't the South use God to defend slavery? Hope we don't have to have a Civil War to defeat them on this one.
Chris Hedges is right when he states and I paraphrase: "We must remain intolerant toward intolerance".
I would personally like to apologize on behalf of the many Christians who have hurt or offended homosexuals OR the people who support homosexuality. We, as citizens of the United States, do have the right and freedom to disagree with the act of homosexuality, just as homosexuals should have the right and freedom to practice their lifestyle! However, as a Christian, the Bible does state that homoesexuality is a sin, in multiple parts. So from the standpoint of a Christian, we might disagree with the holiness of that lifestyle decision. But I sincerely apologize for the people who hated the homosexual person, rather than the act of homosexuality. And I apologize for the Christians who partook in other acts of sin to show that (i.e. judgment, hatred, anger, bitterness, unforgiveness). All of these sins are equally detestable in the sight of the Lord and separate Him from the ultimate thing which should drive the human spirit (HIS UNFAILING LOVE). So I am sorry. Truly. Please never allow the loud ranting criticisms of some Christians turn you off to God's persistent love. We are humans, after all. Christians sin, too! We mess up! We hurt people! We just know that is why we need the forgiveness of a Savior. And not all of us hate homosexuals! Just remember that intolerance of an ACT that goes directly against the Biblical set of beliefs does not mean that we hate the homosexual person! I'm sincerely sorry on behalf of all the Christians who made you feel that way!
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
(found art, not my own)
Karlee,
You don't even understand how hateful what you have said is. That's sad. I suspect, based on your post, that you are a decent human being. However, I also suspect that your morals have been truly twisted by your religion. Intolerance of an act, when it is an act based on the core of a person's being is intolerance of the person.
Were you to be intolerant of atheism, for example, you would be being intolerant of me. For, I am an atheist. It is one of many defining characteristics of my personality. I actually prefer the term antitheist, as it references a belief of mine rather than a non-belief, but the larger category is still atheism.
If you are to truly love people, you must love that which they are. Most science currently shows that homosexuality is not even a lifestyle choice, as atheism is, but is actually genetic. However, even if this turns out not to be the case, there is no stigma to a lifestyle that hurts no one. Save your intolerance for lifestyles that actually cause harm.
Christianity, and all of the flavors of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion (deliberately singular), create crimes, called sins, that have no basis in any form of morals. They are completely arbitrary and hurtful. If you must define sin, define it as unnecessarily and deliberately causing harm to others. Any definition that creates sin from nothing, that creates sin from any action where no one is hurt, is a harmful definition at its core.
And, if homosexuality is wrong, why is it so rampant in the animal kingdom? Why did your god create so much homosexuality in so many species? Our closest relatives, the chimps and bonobos perform homosexual acts quite frequently. Bonobos in particular are perfectly bisexual and have sex with members of both sexes many times every day. If this makes them evil, then why are they alone among the great apes in never having a single recorded case of intra-species lethal violence. Chimps can't say the same; Gorillas can't say the same; Orang utans can't say the same; Humans sure as hell can't say the same. Among all species of hominoidia, only bonobos, who use sex to relieve tensions and resolve issues of power, can say that they never have intra-species lethal violence.
Looking farther afield, homosexual acts have been recorded in dolphins, wolves, and, in the case of many sea birds, homosexual marriage exists. This sounds like a strong statement. However, monogamy is rare in mammals but fairly common in birds. Many sea birds breed for life. Some pairs of females have been documented mating with males purely to fertilize their eggs and then going back to their female partners to raise the chicks together. These female/female pairs bond for life, just like the more common male/female pairs of the same species.
But, back to your intolerance for the act, but not for the human, how would you feel if everyday people told you that they love you but find your heterosexual behavior disgusting and sinful? What if you were in the minority rather than the majority? Would you feel hurt by such statements? If people said such things to me on a regular basis, I know I'd either feel angry, if I had the strength of character to deal with such an assault, or I'd feel inferior, if I did not. In fact, such depression from repeated assaults of this type would likely have a long term negative affect on my health.
Of course, your attitude is far less hurtful than the wackos who take the bible literally and throw stones (or in the modern day, beer bottles from moving cars) at homosexuals. However, that does not make your attitude truly acceptable. I'd even call it amoral. What gives you the right to judge the peaceful and loving actions of others in this way?
Trippin, I suggest if one choses to obey for salvation one Old Testament Law he/she obey all of them. So good luck on following all the laws written for a group of nomads wondering around the sands of the Middle East four thousand years ago or so. Also, keep in mind the Old Testament is mostly a Hebrew document and that the Hebrews wrote and told stories metaphorically. The New Testament written mostly in Greek and with a bit more of 'western' style, begins to get much more specific into this love and forgiveness thing - love thy neighbor - pray for your enemies etc, etc. Christ and later Paul wrote clearly that "the old (law) is gone" and that the single most important law was "love your neighbor as yourelf."
Phastphil, I do believe we will find the North anti-slave movement was mostly Christian originated. They used Christ to make a call against slavery. As did the anti-salvery movement in England. So I guess both sides used his name, but only one side won. Those using his name to promote slavery failed! Interesting, on the surface seems he chose sides in that issue? In 1 Timothy you can find "slave traders" placed in the same crowd as "Liars and perjurers" as well as "those who kill their fathers or mothers, or murders."
Misanthrpic Scott, agree to disagree. Same here. Did you know that early Christians refused to fight in wars? They gave up their lives in Christ's name? As Dutch pointed out they were feed to lions. When Christ was crucified he said "Forgive them they know not what they do." Perhaps as signifiacant is the story of Stephen - the first recorded Christian martyr - saying as he was stonned to death "Lord do not hold this sin against them." While there are many stories of rape, murder, incest, etc, etc in the Old Testament. Remember mankind at that time had zero education. Zero science knowledge - as a group - so there will be alot of 'evil' things going on. As far as such things as the crusades, as we know they failed in the end. Were these folks Christian? Some for sure. Some not. Was Christ happy with them? Read what he said about such things and we can answer that.
Gay issue. For every single quote in regards to such in the bible, and for sure within Christ's teachings you will find at least ten times that many that tell us we will be judged by how we treat the poor and neglected. My favorite scripture I love to ask folks in the Right is what did James (bother of Jesus it is reported by many theologians)mean in James 2:6-7 "But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?"
best regards to all and to all goodnight and Happy Easter...
randyt,
AFAIK, the New Testament was written in Hebrew too. I believe that's why you have mistranslations about virgin birth and such. The Hebrew language at that time had no word to distinguish young woman from virgin. The word translates roughly to maiden. I also must have missed the point at which Christ and the apostles became non-nomadic. I was under the impression that, assuming Christ ever actually existed, he was of the same nomadic people that wrote the Old Testament.
I see no relation in your last paragraph to the "Gay issue". Unless, you couldn't possibly be suggesting that gays are "poor and neglected." You couldn't possibly be trying to be that insulting and narrow-minded, could you?
As for some interpreting the bible one way and others another way, so will it be for as long as anyone continues to pay any attention to that book. There are simply far too many contradictions in it for anyone to get a clear idea of correct behavior.
As for your statement that "the old (law) is gone", then why do Christians still refer to the Ten Commandments? Why does anyone still believe any of the stories of the OT? Have Genesis and Exodus been removed from your copy of the NT? Is there a section that specifically outlines which sections of the OT have been retired by the NT? Or, is it open for continual reinterpretation? Will people fight still more wars over the correct interpretation?
You state that the early Christians refused to go to war. Good for them. However, I suspect that your definition of "true Christian" or "real Christian" or whatever, will leave only a very small percentage of Christians as Christians and will allow very few to get into heaven. Unless, do you have your own interpretation of who gets into heaven too? I'm just curious, since I do not believe in any form of life after death.
In fact, I'd bet that by your definition of Christian, the percentage of people on the planet that are Christians is roughly the same as it was when there were only 13, thus making it a rather useless definition.
Hate the sin, love the sinner. Otherwise you're not a Christian. Christian merely means Christ-like. And Christ loved everyone, regardless of their sin.
Pretty good post randyt. But like azmensan, I too want to comment on your comments by way of questions. You say . . .
"Remember mankind at that time had zero education. Zero science knowledge - as a group - so there will be alot of 'evil' things going on."
My questions: Had the Pyramids been built by then? What were the Asians doing? Which mankind are you referring too? What about the African tribes that could make out stars in the sky with their naked eyes and had amazing knowledge of astronomy? Had embalming been invented yet? Are you referring to 2000 years ago, 3000 years ago, 10,000 years ago?
I suspect you are speaking of only a collective group of a specific set of mankind . . .
Sorry about that . . . I am referring to Misanthropic Scott's comments to randyt . . . instead of azmensan
the title of your article is like the story, 'why husbands beat their wives', implying that all husbands beat their wives.
Also, your reference to Christians included what groups?
Obviously, some folks who call themselves christians, hold cermonies to marry gay couples. You can't call them christians.
How about Christian Scientists? Are they Scientists? Are they Christians?
As some wise person pointed out, it's like the cereal, Grape Nuts, they aren't grapes and they aren't nuts.
So you have an argument that doesn't relate to a specific person, place or thing and you don't even have an action that relates to a specific person, place or thing.
So, what's the point?
You my friend are a raising a red herring, a false premise with a false conclusion.
If you have a problem with the Bible, I suggest you read it.
You might find out (very specifically) that the God who created you, redeemed you.
Quick reminder: Most people today have little or no science knowledge either. Most can't explain what the scientific method is or why it's important. Huge numbers are ignorant (in the literal sense of the word, not the insulting one) of the true meanings and implications of Evolution and Darwinian Natural Selection. Even fewer grasp Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Fewer still understand the implications of Quantum Theory and its complete denial of the familiar tenets of cause and effect.
This is why so few people can tell the difference between a scientific theory and Intelligent Design, which fails to even be a theory. It barely qualifies as an hypothesis due to its own obvious infinite recursion.
Oops, I forgot to get to my actual point in my prior post. So, back to the comment, "Remember mankind at that time had zero education. Zero science knowledge - as a group - so there will be alot of 'evil' things going on."
So, with so little scientific knowledge today, is that why we have so much evil in the world?
If you would like a walking tour of how the authoritarian midset works, go to
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Bob Altemeyer has researched the Authoritarian personality for decades. John Dean relied heavily on his work for his book Conservatives without Conscience. The above link leads to a witty and readable summary of Bob's research. It also answers the question: Why do 30-odd% of Americans
still support George W Bush?
Please pass this along. It is vital information for anyone who is serious about confronting and changing our behavior patterns into a more sustainable mode. (As in, here's
what we're up against.)
I think Paul Kay hit it on the head. I am not going to get sidetracked by the debate over what is and is not a "real Christian", and instead focus on what I think the real concern is: what if these people have nothing at all to do with religion and are just using it as a cover?
When I lived in Texas, there were many businesses that would put a Christian fish symbol next to their business name in the phone book and on their signs. And I knew people who chose those businesses over their competitors simply because of the company's self-identification as Christian, without knowing whether or not the company would do a good job or charge them a fair price. In many parts of the country, labeling oneself a Christian is a shrewd marketing move.
I do NOT mean that these businesses aren't really Christian-owned. Some are, but I am also sure that some aren't. And sometimes I just have to wonder about the ones that are proclaiming it really loudly - sometimes it seems like they're trying a little too hard to convince me, and I have to ask myself what they might be trying to achieve by doing so.
Elizabeth (and others),
You're right; I should have said the Christian right. This post demonstrates that that actually is a specific group of people. As for what I mean when I say they "hate" gay people, how about opposing gay marriage, opposing bills to recognize domestic partnerships, opposing laws making it illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in the workplace or in the housing market, opposing the rights of students to form gay straight alliance groups, opposing the inclusion of any factual (non-judgmental) reference to homosexuality in sex education curricula...should I go on?
Cameron,
Thank you for clearing that up.
Now I would like to ask all of the people that claim via whatever specific wording to hate the sin but love the sinner, how many of you support the list in Cameron's latest post? How many of you truly support all of the following?
1) gay marriage
2) bills to recognize domestic partnerships
3) laws making it illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in the workplace or in the housing market
4) rights of students to form gay straight alliance groups
5) inclusion of factual (non-judgmental) reference to homosexuality in sex education curricula
If you support all of the following, then you do indeed love the sinner. Any less, perhaps you need to do a bit of soul searching. You don't have to reply to me. But, if you do not support any of the items on that list, you really should reexamine your own beliefs.
Please don't feel obligated to answer publicly. Just think about it.
to me, as a follwer of christ, it is very simple.
love one another.
do not judge.
accept one another for who they are.
not because you think you can change them.
but because god created them, gay or straight, black or white.
and he loves them all. the same. NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
it sickens me that we even have to be having this discussion.
christianity has been hijacked by people with agendas. for themselves. for money. for whatever. but not for christ.
i would never deny that terrible things have been done in the name of christianity. because they have.
i am although, very upset that mother jones would have not distinguished right-wing christians.
i believe that true followers of christ need to speak out against this hatred done in our saviors name. its not right. and it is downright sickening.
in the end, it boils down to this:
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 BY THEIR FRUIT YOU WILL RECOGNIZE THEM. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
(matthew 7: 15-23)
peace.
the religious right is neither.
Which is the greatest sin...to be a homosexual or have an abortion? To commit adultry or steal? If I remember right, Jesus Christ said that ALL MEN were sinners and had fallen short of the glory of God. What two consenting adults does in the privacy of their own home should not be of anybodys concern execpt themselves. I would hate to think that I had to live my life according to what my neighbor thought or his/her standards... whatever beliefs they held. The day that my government makes that decision for me...that is the day that (for my part) the government can go to "hell".
As a militant, angry Gay, I feel the same outrage, disgust and contempt when I see Gays and Lesbians clinging to the religion that has burned us at the stake for 1500 of the last 2000 years as a Black person would feel on seeing another Black saluting the Confederate Flag. A Gay Christian is like a Jewish Nazi and also like a Black Klansman!
Robert Halfhill
Not necessarily. There are many inclusive church organizations out there, and also a lot of Christians with outlooks like Michaela's, above.
In response to Clarence Smarts comment about the fact that what ever two consenting people do in the privacy of their own home or bedroom is their own business; Clarence, I definitely agree with you wholeheartedly, but where the line keeps being drawn is where people want to push upon others in the public sector, even teach our children and our grandchildren about what their private business is in that bedroom. Does that even make sence to you? I believe it should remain totally private for married or unmarried- why do we have to have all of these new laws made to support what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom, why must we cause groups to be made within colleges for this support; I mean, if this is a good thing between you, then you will have support across the board hands down no matter what--you won't need extra support; there will always be hate and sin out there within this world, we must carry on with our lives and not interfere with other people's lives, and what two of the same sex do in their privacy is still private too, and it is their business as well, it should remain private, but it should not interfere with an ancient tradition created by God himself "where a man will leave his mother and father and cling to his Wife" and in the hebrew or greek, wife and woman were for the meanings of females; but this does not mean that anybody should hate one another because of this tradition, it simply means that a new tradition should be created that is just for you and call it something else, why not? it wouldn't hurt to try it that way, why all of a sudden after thousands of years should an ancient tradition be altered to meet someone else's standards of living? is this fair to all of those who have lived out this tradition and still marry under this same tradition all of this time? I just don't see that, even though I do not oppose what you do in private and would oppose a government interfering with what you do as well; it has been many people of the same sex that have pushed so hard in the wrong ways towards getting the government involved because nobody knows what to do with a lifestyle that is suppose to be private as other lifestyles remain private - who do you see out there pushing marriage on people based on how "they do it" because really that is the only difference when you are in privacy and do not oppose who it is that is "doing it". But as you can see, there are no groups that have ever been made for the support of a heterosexual union of any kind other than those marriage weekends which would be a possibility for you too, why not do some type of thing like that instead? But do you see the difference too in this marriage weekend stuff? it is a private weekend, it is not taught at schools to children or anyone not concenting unless signed up for the weekend, and it is offered on and off during the year so that you always have the opportunity to improve your relationship skills together. I truly believe groups like this could work for whatever the sex or relationship is like, friends or lovers.
So my point Clarence is for a government to not get involved, we must not continue to put any of our private needs out to the public so hard that someone gets upset and takes it to a government official, you know what I mean. I am sure there are many states that vote upon issue like this; and that is what this country was founded upon: the freedom of the people to decide and vote: WE THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, you know what I mean - so if an entire state votes in or out of a situation - then no matter fair or unfair we must accept that the government didn't necessarily do the job unless it was tainted, and I do believe this is possible, but usually it is not tainted toward the conservative ways Clarence, at least the numerous newspaper articles I have read tend to tell me that. Well, I hope my letter made some kind of sence to somebody.
Genuine Christians do not hate gays and never have. We will admit to hating the sin of homosexuality but real Christians love their neighbor regardless of their race, their views on any matter or their sinful practice.
I see the move against the true church of Jesus Christ and I am grieved because when the church is destroyed - America will be destroyed with it.
When something has been considered immoral for over 4,000 years in our world, how is it that we think we can change what God has said along with tradition.
Hate has nothing to do with it. Love for God and love for America has everything to do with it.
Personally, I feel sorry for those who consider themselves gay. When a nation loses its values - we all lose and the end will not be pleasant for anyone.
George S. Stiekes
Apparently, Mother Jones has never heard of the "Thirteen Commandments". They were written down in stone before the Family Clueless crowd began to bash gays on a national media tyrannical level. Guess Moses will now have to return to the mountain and bring down the Fourteen Commandments...
THE THIRTEEN COMMANDMENTS
from The Calvary Chapel
Authorized Version Annotated Bible
Translated from seas of dead scrolls, scribes and Pharisees
( better dead than red letter, canonized King James edition )
Footnotes by: B.J. Scoffield; PhD, DD, NRA, CIA, DDT & Total BS
COMMANDMENT ONE
Thou shalt have no other gods before our god, the Bible. And positively, thou shalt not ever read the New King James Bible, which was compiled by godless satanic occultist communists and eliminates all of the threatening "thees" and "thous", which our god clearly placed in there for a good reason.
COMMANDMENT TWO
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. Notwithstanding, it was perfectly okay for the Christian Coalition to super-impose a huge picture of Junior Bushwhacker on a gigantic screen behind their conservative warmongering bully pulpit at a recent national conservative pharisaical convention of proud-to-be-a-flag-waving-American hypocrites.
COMMANDMENT THREE
Thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy god the Bible in vain. Nor shalt thou use any naughty language whatsoever when expressing thy utter disdain and intense anger against thy warmongering, environment polluting and people's health ignoring goddamn government of corporate congressional appeasing shitheads, or our god will most surely damn thy soul all to hell, goddamn it !
COMMANDMENT FOUR
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. However, thou may ignore the Sabbath day entirely, preferring instead to sing "The Battle Hymn Of The Republic" at the fundamental church on Sunday before going shopping for Christmas and other pagan holiday gifts at Wal-Mart in the afternoon. We assure thee this is the godly and self-righteous Christian thing to do.
COMMANDMENT FIVE
Honor thy father and thy mother. That is, as long as thy father and mother are good conservative Christians who vote the Republican Party line. If they deviate toward the liberal left even slightly, then take out thy NRA approved M-16 modified super-sniper rifle and blow them to kingdom come, which is thy god-given Constitutional and Christian charitable duty.
COMMANDMENT SIX
Thou shalt not kill. That is, thou shalt not kill stalwart believers in our truth, justice and the Christian genocidal free enterprise Manifest Destiny way. Of course, thou may freely kill the godless infidels who reside in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, the former Soviet Union, the entire godless nation of China, Cuba and the rest of Central and South America, on the reservation in the United States or anyone residing near or within the Sodomitic zip code of 90210.
COMMANDMENT SEVEN
Thou shalt not commit adultery. However, if thou art a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant television evangelist, thou surely will not die or lose thy profession as a preacher of old-time sham religion as long as thou publicly repent. What thou continue to do in private, of course, is thine own damn godly business.
COMMANDMENT EIGHT
Thou shalt not steal. That is, thou shalt not steal except from poor people, widows and orphans in order to support the lavish lifestyles of Christian ministers of our god, the Bible and the great and godly international cause of sham television evangelism for profit.
COMMANDMENT NINE
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. That is, as long as thy neighbor continues along the 'straight and narrow' and votes the Republican Party line. If thy neighbor should step ever so slightly outside the boundaries of our immoral minority whitewashed tombstone straight and narrow pathway, then thou shalt report they neighbor to John AssCrap and the Department of Homeland Insecurity, where thou may freely perjure thyself profusely in order to ruin thy backsliding neighbor's career and otherwise, have thy neighbor incarcerated and executed accordingly. . . O give thanks for Senator Joe McCarthy and bless his holy and patriotic name forever. Amen.
COMMANDMENT TEN
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. . . nor thy neighbor's ass, especially if thy neighbor is of the same gender as thou art.
COMMANDMENT ELEVEN
Thou shalt not commit abortion ever, in any way for any reason. Even though Jesus and the entire New Testament never mentions abortion and even though the entire Old Testament never mentions the subject except possibly in one esoteric place in Exodus, which true meaning thereof is entirely obscure, we assure thee this is the self-righteous and Christian thing to do. Do not allow thyself to fall into that liberal pinko commie trap of trying to aid the sick and poor who are already born rather than protecting the rights of the unborn and thou shalt not ever give a damn about the Human Rights or environmental future of the already born, which would be setting a bad example of unchristian and unpatriotic liberal communistic extremism.
COMMANDMENT TWELVE
Thou shalt not drink wine or strong drink, nor shalt thou associate thyself with sinners down on whiskey row. Even though Jesus did this all the time, we assure thee he was most severely in error and thou shalt not imbibe nor befriend or associate with sinners, Democrats, hippies or other unpatriotic liberal pinko godless Communists and anarchistic atheists.
COMMANDMENT THIRTEEN
Thou shalt not add or subtract one jot or tittle from our god, the Bible. Even though we add and subtract, ignore or otherwise entirely invent, whatever we want concerning the Bible frequently, we can assure thee that we have attended Dallas Theological Cemetery and the Liberty Baptist Academy Of Onward Christian Soldiers Marching Off To War Against The Godless Infidels Of Iraq and are therefore, qualified to make up new commandments whenever we feel like it---but thou most certainly, are not. We are our god the Bible's personal representatives and we know exactly how our god should be correctly interpreted. . . How great thou the Bible, art !
COMMANDMENT FOURTEEN
(still a work in progress--Moses has not yet returned from the mountain--it seems that God has taken to swearing up and down all day long profusely, reprenting that he ever conceived the idea of people)
COMMANDMENT FOURTEEN (rough draft)
Thou shalt not condemn they neighbor, as long as thy neighbor is a male chauvinist racist white anglo Saxon Protestant son of an outer Lithuanian pig-fucker (Moses claims that God threw in the last part for emphasis and he apologizes to Mother Jones for such godless language).
--from Uncommon Sense by Richard Aberdeen
www.AberdeenFoundation.org
I find it very bizarre that so many people are in defense of the gay lifestyle when they do not even know what it is that they are defending. If gay people advertised what they really did behind closed doors, most of the gay defenders would probably have a change of heart. What they do not tell you in most of the television sitcoms is what these people really do. They do not mention eating each other's feces, drinking each other's urine, or attending gay bath houses where people blindly have sex with one another in a totally dark room. There are many other activities that are popular among them but we don't hear Rosie O'Donnel or other gay spokes people talk about. If they are so proud of what they do then why don't they let everyone know what they are doing so that we can all whole heartedly be supportive of what they really like to do. Or should we all be ignorant and uninformed and blindly follow what the media wants us to accept?
Matt, what a fascinating observation. Can you ellaborate on how you've come into this secret knowledge of which the rest of us [even I, a gay man]have not been aware? It seems that based on your comments, you would have to be one of these shit-eating, pee-drinking gays yourself to know about it. But that would make since, the way you're cruising the blogs, your eyes kindling with curiosity when you see even the word 'gay' written on the title of a post.
Matt,
Since no one is talking about these things (so you could not have heard about them anywhere), and you obviously disapprove of them, I'd recommend that you stop doing them.
I still have to go back to my original statement though, if no one is hurt, there is no sin. I highly doubt the things of which you speak happen with any great degree of frequency in either heterosexual or homosexual contexts.
Funny Paul, I came to the same conclusion before having read your post.
Hm, Matt, I find it even more "funny" that you're prosecuting something that you don't know about, either.
I'm a gay man, and I have never wittingly drunk anyone's urine or ate anyone's feces (though my guy friends - straight and gay- are so fond of playing jokes when one member is passed out... so I have no idea what has happened to me in the past! ;-)
But no, more seriously. What you just described really does not happen with any gay relationship that I have ever first-hand experienced, nor has it been described/talked about with any of my friends who are gay, lesbian, or bi. I'm not sure where you got your information, but it seems to be wrong, at least for a majority of gay couples.
I would posit that feces-eating and urine-drinking amount to (very strange) fetishes that occur with the same frequency in heterosexual and homosexual relations.
Oh, and to the poster who wrote they felt sorry for gays... don't bother. It's a waste of sorrow. Gay people're happy! Why do you think we have all the rainbows???
Well, I figure I've now waited a decent amount of time since my post challenging those who "hate the sin but love the sinner" to state their views on gay rights using the five points mentioned in Cameron's post.
Thanks to Deb Clark for being willing to discuss this.
But, Deb, I do have some issues with your response. You said:
" where the line keeps being drawn is where people want to push upon others in the public sector, even teach our children and our grandchildren about what their private business is in that bedroom. Does that even make sence [sic] to you?"
Yes. I don't think anyone is talking about selling gayness, as if that could be done. I think what we're talking about is having a discussion about it in a sex education class. I think it might help young homosexual and bisexual people to be comfortable with their sexuality, and thus be happier healthier people.
You also asked, "why do we have to have all of these new laws made to support what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom"?
Well, as a married individual myself, I recognize that there are benefits to the legal institution of marriage. No one is closer to me than my wife. I would certainly want it to be her making any life and death decisions for me. I would certainly want her to be allowed to visit me in the hospital, including accompanying me for certain procedures or in the emergency room. These are things we allow in society for married couples. Why should we deny these privileges to gay and lesbian couples?
So, none of this is being forced on you. It will not affect existing marriages in any way. If a gay or lesbian couple gets married, I can't imagine that my 20 year marriage will suddenly fall apart. Yet, the Christian wrong often make it sound as if this will somehow happen.
Most disturbingly though, you said, "if an entire state votes in or out of a situation - then no matter fair or unfair we must accept that the government didn't necessarily do the job unless it was tainted, and I do believe this is possible, but usually it is not tainted toward the conservative ways Clarence, at least the numerous newspaper articles I have read tend to tell me that."
I'm going to assume from this quote that you mean majority rules. Well, that is a part of democracy. However, protection of the rights of the minority is another very important part. It is one of the reasons that a parliamentary system is often a bit better. Minority viewpoints get more representation.
So, thank you Deb for actually replying to my questions. I really would hope that those of you who keep defending Christianity and claiming that it is OK to deny these rights to homosexuals but you still love them, will really do some thinking about this issue. Denying rights that heterosexuals take for granted to homosexuals does not meet any definition of love with which I am familiar.
Perhaps it meets with the definition by which God is watching every move you make waiting for some transgression by which to damn you to hell for eternity but he loves you.
Just a bit more about Erik Prince. Maybe the connections will get clearer...
"Erik Prince is a billionaire right-wing fundamentalist Christian from a powerful Michigan Republican family. A major Republican campaign contributor, he interned in the White House of President George H.W. Bush and campaigned for Pat Buchanan in 1992, finding time to intern for arch-conservative congressman Dana Rohrabacher as well.
His sister Betsy DeVos is a powerful conservative in her own right. Married to the son of Richard DeVos (Republican bankroller and co-founder of Amway), she served as chair of Michigan Republican Party in the 1990s.
He founded the mercenary firm Blackwater USA in 1997 with Gary Jackson, another former Navy SEAL.
Father: Edgar Prince (d. 1995, billionaire, started Family Research Council with Gary Bauer)
Mother: Elsa Prince
Sister: Betsy DeVos (former chair, Michigan Republican Party, m. Dick DeVos, Amway scion)"
Source: http://www.nndb.com/people/926/000117575/