Why do gays come across better than their Christian critics?

Consider Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank’s account of a rally against the hate-crime bill:

Conservative Christian ministers from across the land, determined to test the bounds of a new law punishing anti-gay hate crimes, assembled outside the Justice Department on Monday to denounce the sin of homosexuality and see whether they would be charged with lawbreaking.

Anything other than sex "between a male and his wedded wife," announced the Rev. Paul Blair, "is a perversion, and the Bible says that homosexuality is in fact an abomination."

No arrest was made.

The Rev. Rick Scarborough, quoting Scripture, listed "homosexual offenders" along with thieves, drunkards, swindlers and idolators as those unwelcome in the kingdom of God. "To fail to call homosexuals to repent of their sin and come to Jesus is the highest form of cowardice and sin," he said.

No charges were filed.

"Had people listened to our plea, there would be tens of thousands of people who had not died of a dreaded disease," contributed the Rev. Jim Garlow. "This breaks our heart to see people die of AIDS."

No hands were cuffed. In fact, the few cops in attendance were paying no attention to the speakers, instead talking among themselves and checking their BlackBerrys.

The evangelical activists had been hoping to provoke arrest, because, as organizer Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission put it, "we'd have standing to challenge the law." But their prayers were not answered. Nobody was arrested, which wasn't surprising: To run afoul of the new law, you need to "plan or prepare for an act of physical violence" or "incite an imminent act of physical violence."
ad_icon

Instead of getting arrested, the ministers got something else: A couple of dozen gay activists, surrounding them with rainbow flags and signs announcing "Gaga for Gay Rights" and "I Am a Love Warrior." By the end, the gay rights activists had taken over the lectern and the sound system and were holding their own news conference denouncing the ministers.

"We're here to say, my love is legit!" announced David Valk, an organizer of the National Equality March for gay rights.

It goes on in this vein, lauding the gays who took over the podium and praising the rental company that let them use the equipment and making fun of the Christians.

Here is my question: Why do the Christian protesters come off so badly, while the gay protesters come across so well? Is it just the bias of the author? Or are the Christian conservatives just being ineffective while the gays know how to protest effectively?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • John Tape

    St. Paul tells us to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Much of the conservative criticism of homosexuality comes off as unloving, uncaring and mean spirited. Many of the homosexuals come off as (and indeed truly are) loving, caring, nice people.
    If a conservative Christian cannot respond to homosexuality in a loving, caring, way, then he should keep his mouth shut. He is doing more harm than good.

    We must speak out against homosexuality because we care for the homosexuals. We want only what is best for them. (That of course is the sexuality God intended from creation.) Get rid of the hate, the anger, and the mean spirit.

  • John Tape

    St. Paul tells us to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Much of the conservative criticism of homosexuality comes off as unloving, uncaring and mean spirited. Many of the homosexuals come off as (and indeed truly are) loving, caring, nice people.
    If a conservative Christian cannot respond to homosexuality in a loving, caring, way, then he should keep his mouth shut. He is doing more harm than good.

    We must speak out against homosexuality because we care for the homosexuals. We want only what is best for them. (That of course is the sexuality God intended from creation.) Get rid of the hate, the anger, and the mean spirit.

  • Carl Vehse

    It’s not called the “clymer media” for nothing.

    But even conservative Christian news media sometimes get weak knees, as WORLD Magazine did in their ‘report’, “Imprisoning gays”, which couldn’t find anything good to say about Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009.

  • Carl Vehse

    It’s not called the “clymer media” for nothing.

    But even conservative Christian news media sometimes get weak knees, as WORLD Magazine did in their ‘report’, “Imprisoning gays”, which couldn’t find anything good to say about Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009.

  • Richard

    The Christian protestors come off as jerks because they have little understanding that the purpose of the law is to condemn us ALL and to drive us in repentance to Christ. Maybe if we showed a proper appreciation of the place of the law and admitted that we are ALL sinners, we would receive a better hearing.

  • Richard

    The Christian protestors come off as jerks because they have little understanding that the purpose of the law is to condemn us ALL and to drive us in repentance to Christ. Maybe if we showed a proper appreciation of the place of the law and admitted that we are ALL sinners, we would receive a better hearing.

  • Jonathan

    Carl @2, given the stereotypical prison experience, maybe putting gays in prison is not really a good antedote for their particular proclivity. What good do you find in such a law?

  • Jonathan

    Carl @2, given the stereotypical prison experience, maybe putting gays in prison is not really a good antedote for their particular proclivity. What good do you find in such a law?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01763924682909630509 Orianna Laun

    Part of the reason may be that the media, and by extention the common mentality, are supportive of the gay protesters. “It’s not fair that they can’t live and love the way they want.” It garners sympathy. Not to mention that their agenda is based on subtlety. Their means are covert, quietly garnering support and making changes under the radar, only speaking up when challenged, then accusing the challengers of unfairness.
    Another part of the reason is the example stated.
    “Conservative Christian ministers from across the land, determined to test the bounds of a new law punishing anti-gay hate crimes, assembled outside the Justice Department on Monday to denounce the sin of homosexuality and see whether they would be charged with lawbreaking.”
    This gives the impression of jerk-ness. (I’m not saying it is; I’m saying it looks that way to people who are conditioned to be sympathetic to the opposition.) “Hi, there’s this new law and we’re going to try to get arrested for breaking it and then challenge it.” Probably not the best way to win friends and influence people.
    There is a way to be winsome and win people over to a cause. It involves education. It seems as though we have treated certain issues such as this as a minor hassle. Now that it is reaching crisis mass, it is harder to combat, yet we need to do so in a way that changes the tide of public opinion.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01763924682909630509 Orianna Laun

    Part of the reason may be that the media, and by extention the common mentality, are supportive of the gay protesters. “It’s not fair that they can’t live and love the way they want.” It garners sympathy. Not to mention that their agenda is based on subtlety. Their means are covert, quietly garnering support and making changes under the radar, only speaking up when challenged, then accusing the challengers of unfairness.
    Another part of the reason is the example stated.
    “Conservative Christian ministers from across the land, determined to test the bounds of a new law punishing anti-gay hate crimes, assembled outside the Justice Department on Monday to denounce the sin of homosexuality and see whether they would be charged with lawbreaking.”
    This gives the impression of jerk-ness. (I’m not saying it is; I’m saying it looks that way to people who are conditioned to be sympathetic to the opposition.) “Hi, there’s this new law and we’re going to try to get arrested for breaking it and then challenge it.” Probably not the best way to win friends and influence people.
    There is a way to be winsome and win people over to a cause. It involves education. It seems as though we have treated certain issues such as this as a minor hassle. Now that it is reaching crisis mass, it is harder to combat, yet we need to do so in a way that changes the tide of public opinion.

  • http://wipfandstock.com/store/As_Though_It_Were_Actually_True_A_Christian_Apologetics_Primer Matt C.

    The author is certainly biased to an extent, but I think that’s largely irrelevant to the situation.

    First, there was no reason to “test” the law. If people are going to be arrested for holding to Biblical truth, let it be in the course of their Godly lives rather than in an “I dare you” situation.

    Second, their message is not accomplishing anything of value (at least if this article accurately represents it). Two of the three quotes are simply “the Bible says.” Anyone who is willing to let the Bible stand in judgment over their worldview already knows what the Bible says on the subject. Anyone who isn’t willing doesn’t really care what the Bible says on contentious subjects. The third quote is about AIDS. This is closer to the mark, but most people believe AIDS is largely preventable simply by using the proper equipment. Diseases are merely problems to be solved, not divine judgment–why shouldn’t we solve them for homosexuals?

    The Christian protesters came off badly because their message was trite and they communicated it poorly.

  • http://wipfandstock.com/store/As_Though_It_Were_Actually_True_A_Christian_Apologetics_Primer Matt C.

    The author is certainly biased to an extent, but I think that’s largely irrelevant to the situation.

    First, there was no reason to “test” the law. If people are going to be arrested for holding to Biblical truth, let it be in the course of their Godly lives rather than in an “I dare you” situation.

    Second, their message is not accomplishing anything of value (at least if this article accurately represents it). Two of the three quotes are simply “the Bible says.” Anyone who is willing to let the Bible stand in judgment over their worldview already knows what the Bible says on the subject. Anyone who isn’t willing doesn’t really care what the Bible says on contentious subjects. The third quote is about AIDS. This is closer to the mark, but most people believe AIDS is largely preventable simply by using the proper equipment. Diseases are merely problems to be solved, not divine judgment–why shouldn’t we solve them for homosexuals?

    The Christian protesters came off badly because their message was trite and they communicated it poorly.

  • Richard

    How about because most Christian protestors do not have a Biblical understanding of the law–that its purpose is to condemn us ALL, not just gays, and to drive us ALL to repentance in Christ. So, we come off as self-righteous jerks instead justified sinners.

  • Richard

    How about because most Christian protestors do not have a Biblical understanding of the law–that its purpose is to condemn us ALL, not just gays, and to drive us ALL to repentance in Christ. So, we come off as self-righteous jerks instead justified sinners.

  • Carl Vehse

    “What good do you find in such a law?”

    The good in the law is that it criminalizes homosexual behavior, much like other laws criminalize murder, bank-robbery, rape, assault, etc. Typically, people convicted of crimes are sent to prison.

    Jonathan, your comment that prison is not “a good antedote for their particular proclivity” appears to be more of a comment on how some prisons may be poorly regulated or on why homosexuals might enjoy prison, rather than on the concept of putting criminals in jail.

  • Carl Vehse

    “What good do you find in such a law?”

    The good in the law is that it criminalizes homosexual behavior, much like other laws criminalize murder, bank-robbery, rape, assault, etc. Typically, people convicted of crimes are sent to prison.

    Jonathan, your comment that prison is not “a good antedote for their particular proclivity” appears to be more of a comment on how some prisons may be poorly regulated or on why homosexuals might enjoy prison, rather than on the concept of putting criminals in jail.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    The pastors are coming across as jerks because they’re more or less trying to get arrested for a situation the law doesn’t address. Federal prosecution can’t commence for just “hate,” but rather requires another precipitating crime.

    I don’t deny the media is biased in this area, and I certainly don’t deny that the law is a constitutionally suspect infringement on the 1st Amendment–not to mention the prohibition of double jeopardy.

    That said, when you have a publicity event/stunt while obviously not understanding what you’re protesting and being very loud and obnoxious about it, you will come across as a jerk. That’s life.

    We have met the enemy, and sometimes, he is us. It’s time to remember that those who preach grace ought to be, well, gracious about it.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    The pastors are coming across as jerks because they’re more or less trying to get arrested for a situation the law doesn’t address. Federal prosecution can’t commence for just “hate,” but rather requires another precipitating crime.

    I don’t deny the media is biased in this area, and I certainly don’t deny that the law is a constitutionally suspect infringement on the 1st Amendment–not to mention the prohibition of double jeopardy.

    That said, when you have a publicity event/stunt while obviously not understanding what you’re protesting and being very loud and obnoxious about it, you will come across as a jerk. That’s life.

    We have met the enemy, and sometimes, he is us. It’s time to remember that those who preach grace ought to be, well, gracious about it.

  • NQB

    Personally I think they’re biggest mistake was challenging this law. I haven’t looked into it at all, but if the article’s summary of the law is fair, shouldn’t Christians support the law? I don’t see any First Amendment issues with it, and any law that prohibits violence toward an individual for any reason seems to mesh well with good Christian practice. I think Christians should openly support such laws as godly. Plus, it could start changing the holier-than-thou perception everyone here is talking about.

  • NQB

    Personally I think they’re biggest mistake was challenging this law. I haven’t looked into it at all, but if the article’s summary of the law is fair, shouldn’t Christians support the law? I don’t see any First Amendment issues with it, and any law that prohibits violence toward an individual for any reason seems to mesh well with good Christian practice. I think Christians should openly support such laws as godly. Plus, it could start changing the holier-than-thou perception everyone here is talking about.

  • http://wipfandstock.com/store/As_Though_It_Were_Actually_True_A_Christian_Apologetics_Primer Matt C.

    Richard @ 7,

    I don’t think Christians need to pretend that pointing us to our need for redemption is the ONLY purpose of the law–especially on quasi-civil issues like this one. We don’t have laws against murder in order to condemn everyone; we do it to restrain wickedness.

    That said, a willingness of Christians to publicly see themselves as also wicked would help the perception of self-righteousness.

  • http://wipfandstock.com/store/As_Though_It_Were_Actually_True_A_Christian_Apologetics_Primer Matt C.

    Richard @ 7,

    I don’t think Christians need to pretend that pointing us to our need for redemption is the ONLY purpose of the law–especially on quasi-civil issues like this one. We don’t have laws against murder in order to condemn everyone; we do it to restrain wickedness.

    That said, a willingness of Christians to publicly see themselves as also wicked would help the perception of self-righteousness.

  • http://wipfandstock.com/store/As_Though_It_Were_Actually_True_A_Christian_Apologetics_Primer Matt C.

    NQB @ 10,

    There are several good reasons for Christians (or anyone) to oppose this law. To “‘plan or prepare for an act of physical violence’ or ‘incite an imminent act of physical violence.’” as the article puts it is already illegal. The law merely changes penalties when certain people are victims, which causes several problems.

    First, the change the law makes is a classist one. Harming certain people garners more punishment than harming others. This sets up these people as being more valuable than others. It is a violation of equality under the law.

    Second, it opens the door to the criminalization of opinions. The fact that one receives a harsher punishment for believing certain things (as opposed to others) about their victims implies that those thoughts themselves are worthy of punishment.

    Thirdly, by singling out people who engage in a particular behavior for special protection, the law has an implicit endorsement of that behavior. Christians in particular need to be wary of this aspect.

  • http://wipfandstock.com/store/As_Though_It_Were_Actually_True_A_Christian_Apologetics_Primer Matt C.

    NQB @ 10,

    There are several good reasons for Christians (or anyone) to oppose this law. To “‘plan or prepare for an act of physical violence’ or ‘incite an imminent act of physical violence.’” as the article puts it is already illegal. The law merely changes penalties when certain people are victims, which causes several problems.

    First, the change the law makes is a classist one. Harming certain people garners more punishment than harming others. This sets up these people as being more valuable than others. It is a violation of equality under the law.

    Second, it opens the door to the criminalization of opinions. The fact that one receives a harsher punishment for believing certain things (as opposed to others) about their victims implies that those thoughts themselves are worthy of punishment.

    Thirdly, by singling out people who engage in a particular behavior for special protection, the law has an implicit endorsement of that behavior. Christians in particular need to be wary of this aspect.

  • Carl Vehse

    The problem with the concept of a “hate crime” is that it is an Orwellian “thought crime.” Instead of committing a regular crime, one now commits two crimes – the original crime and the crime of hate.

    That’s like having a stupidity crime. Thus robbers who attempt to hold up a donut shop with police customers present, would be charged with the crime of attempted robbery and the crime of stupidity.

    Furthermore, if the hateful (or stupid) criminals talked with each other they can individually be charged with two more crimes – conspiracy and athe crime of hate (or stupid) conspiracy.

    If the criminals were armed with a weapon, that’s another… oops, two more charges, maybe even double-more if they were on probation and committed a crime by even having the weapon.

    And the criminals better hope that the tail lights on their getaway car are all in working order or they will likely receive double citations for those infractions.

    One wonders if a Ku Klux Klan member who beats up a black Jewish handicapped homosexual would be charge with four hate crimes in addition to the crime of assault.

    And a bank robber who takes hostages during the holdup, had better release everyone except white adult heterosexual Christian males if he doesn’t want to have a boatload of hate crimes tacked onto robbery and kidnapping charges.

  • Carl Vehse

    The problem with the concept of a “hate crime” is that it is an Orwellian “thought crime.” Instead of committing a regular crime, one now commits two crimes – the original crime and the crime of hate.

    That’s like having a stupidity crime. Thus robbers who attempt to hold up a donut shop with police customers present, would be charged with the crime of attempted robbery and the crime of stupidity.

    Furthermore, if the hateful (or stupid) criminals talked with each other they can individually be charged with two more crimes – conspiracy and athe crime of hate (or stupid) conspiracy.

    If the criminals were armed with a weapon, that’s another… oops, two more charges, maybe even double-more if they were on probation and committed a crime by even having the weapon.

    And the criminals better hope that the tail lights on their getaway car are all in working order or they will likely receive double citations for those infractions.

    One wonders if a Ku Klux Klan member who beats up a black Jewish handicapped homosexual would be charge with four hate crimes in addition to the crime of assault.

    And a bank robber who takes hostages during the holdup, had better release everyone except white adult heterosexual Christian males if he doesn’t want to have a boatload of hate crimes tacked onto robbery and kidnapping charges.

  • Carl Vehse

    BTW, if the Ku Klux Klan member were charged for all possible combinations of hate categories in the case, then using the combinatorial equation we learned at our mother’s knee, n!/[k!(n-k)!], summed over all possible values of k, he could be charged with fifteen hate crimes in addition to the charge of assault.

  • Carl Vehse

    BTW, if the Ku Klux Klan member were charged for all possible combinations of hate categories in the case, then using the combinatorial equation we learned at our mother’s knee, n!/[k!(n-k)!], summed over all possible values of k, he could be charged with fifteen hate crimes in addition to the charge of assault.

  • Sam

    What Richard @7 said.

    The pastors were acting like self-righteous jerks.

  • Sam

    What Richard @7 said.

    The pastors were acting like self-righteous jerks.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Well, many of the gay activists, after defeat on the issue of marriage in California and Maine, were hardly advocates for love of their opponents. In Maine a gay “rights” proponent sent an anonymous message to a prominent opponent of gay marriage that said I can tell him this. I’m a gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target.

    These ministers, however lacking in diplomacy, had the courage to test the limits of this hate crime legislation that bids fair to morph into a hate speech law that condemns principled discussion of the issue of homosexuality, much as happened on many liberal college campuses.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Well, many of the gay activists, after defeat on the issue of marriage in California and Maine, were hardly advocates for love of their opponents. In Maine a gay “rights” proponent sent an anonymous message to a prominent opponent of gay marriage that said I can tell him this. I’m a gay guy who owns guns, and he’s my next target.

    These ministers, however lacking in diplomacy, had the courage to test the limits of this hate crime legislation that bids fair to morph into a hate speech law that condemns principled discussion of the issue of homosexuality, much as happened on many liberal college campuses.

  • fws

    Comment #13
    Carl Vehse said:
    The problem with the concept of a “hate crime” is that it is an Orwellian “thought crime.”

    Amen Carl. I rarely have an opportunity to say that. Please say more things that allow me to say it more often.

    Carl: You do not know me. How can you say I am a criminal who should be put in jail just because I am honest about being gay?

    Thought policeman you are. And you don´t know my thoughts, so you are not even very good at that dear brother!

    You are violating the very concept that I just agreed with you on are you not ?

  • fws

    Comment #13
    Carl Vehse said:
    The problem with the concept of a “hate crime” is that it is an Orwellian “thought crime.”

    Amen Carl. I rarely have an opportunity to say that. Please say more things that allow me to say it more often.

    Carl: You do not know me. How can you say I am a criminal who should be put in jail just because I am honest about being gay?

    Thought policeman you are. And you don´t know my thoughts, so you are not even very good at that dear brother!

    You are violating the very concept that I just agreed with you on are you not ?

  • J

    (1) About ‘media bias’: this is a column, not a news story, so you should expect some point of view.

    (2) People have caught on that no group plays the victim card more frequently in America than right wingers, particularly, but not only, white men, who whine constantly about how persecuted they are. Here’s such a group; they so wanted to be ‘persecuted’ that they went out to get it. Feel their pain. These paragraphs of Milbank’s column are interesting:

    But there was no evidence of persecution at the corner of 10th and Pennsylvania. In fact, the cops at one point intervened to help the ministers, by ordering the gay rights activists to move away.

    The Rev. Patrick Mahoney, concerned that the gay activists would look like the victims rather than the religious conservatives, went to the microphone to assure the activists that “we did not ask law enforcement to have you moved off of there. They did that on their own. We believe in free speech.”

  • J

    (1) About ‘media bias’: this is a column, not a news story, so you should expect some point of view.

    (2) People have caught on that no group plays the victim card more frequently in America than right wingers, particularly, but not only, white men, who whine constantly about how persecuted they are. Here’s such a group; they so wanted to be ‘persecuted’ that they went out to get it. Feel their pain. These paragraphs of Milbank’s column are interesting:

    But there was no evidence of persecution at the corner of 10th and Pennsylvania. In fact, the cops at one point intervened to help the ministers, by ordering the gay rights activists to move away.

    The Rev. Patrick Mahoney, concerned that the gay activists would look like the victims rather than the religious conservatives, went to the microphone to assure the activists that “we did not ask law enforcement to have you moved off of there. They did that on their own. We believe in free speech.”

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    The culture values tolerance and inclusivity.

    To judge anything, especially sexual license and “love”, is a crime.
    (conservatism and Christianity not withstanding)

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    The culture values tolerance and inclusivity.

    To judge anything, especially sexual license and “love”, is a crime.
    (conservatism and Christianity not withstanding)

  • Tom Hering

    It’s kind of hard to convince others you’re a persecuted group of citizens when you’re condemning another group of citizens at the same time. No rocket science there.

  • Tom Hering

    It’s kind of hard to convince others you’re a persecuted group of citizens when you’re condemning another group of citizens at the same time. No rocket science there.

  • fws

    Comment #5
    Orianna Laun said:

    “…. friends and influence people.
    There is a way to be winsome and win people over to a cause. It involves education.”

    Yes Orianna Laun. It starts with education to avoid looking ignorant when speaking up. Amen sister.

    Now about what you wrote…

    “Not to mention that their agenda is based on subtlety. Their means are covert, quietly garnering support and making changes under the radar…”

    I am one of “them” by vocation. Feel free to email me with questions. I am a confessional Lutheran as well. I am a christian because God in his unreasonalbly good grace as chosen to make that so.

    One way to turn off people, even those with no “dog in the fight” who are observing you, is to lump people into a group and then characterize them. “those black people”, “those christian fundamentalists” “those jews” “those homosexuals!”

    You should know and believe that it would be far far easier to be quiet here about being gay. But. How could a christian ever be “covert” who claims to believe in One Who claims to be The Truth and The Light of the world? Does it make sense then that a gay man who is christian would be open about that not to be activist, or to be proud of sin (although being gay is not a sin…) but rather to serve in equipping the saints and to avoid in every way that thing you call “covert”?

    to the rest of yáll here:

    “you people” ONLY quote passages from the Bible that are about one man raping another or that could only describe prison sex. You say that they are what the bible says about homosexuality. really? and you want me to think you are about love, and have a winsome and reasonable view about the rest of what the bible says?

    You quote these rape passages (leviticus 18/I cor, sodom and gomorrah, and romans 1 about heterosexuals who leave their women (vs 26) for what looks like prison sex, and say these are about me and ALL other gay men and lesbians in some bizarre way. This doesn´t just LOOK bizzare. It IS bizzare. You look just like the folks this article describes to most of the world and that is the simple and obvious reason why.

    “You all” do not seem to be repulsed by sniggering comments from the likes of Carl Vehse who seems to like the idea of prison rape (Carl, is there some personal secret you want to share with the rest of us here? Is THAT why you don´t use your real name?) rather than hate that this practice of violence and violation occurs among individuals loved to death by Jesus on the cross. In africa, men will be executed or spend life in prison because they are effeminate or meet another man for coffee somewhere and maybe are spotted casting an affectionate glance. Just HOW do you think a law dictating life in prison for “being gay” would be enforced? even IF the law outlawed acts such as same gender sex (which is NOT how the law is written by the way…)? would they put cameras in every bedroom? no. The evidence would need to be circumstantial or 3rd party wouldn´t it need to be? but…. no outrage here….anglican christian bishops idolized here for “standing up to the truth” are silent on all of this. I am appalled at those bishops and at those here in the states who see these men as champíons of christian orthodoxy. This has Jesus saying “I have no problem with your picking up stones against this woman. Please continue.”

    Seriously now. I have known alot of you here for a few years now. Most disagree with alot of what I write. most show christian respect in an exemplary way. I would be far from the one to paint a single one of you as a cardboard character (except maybe Carl and only because he obviously enjoys being seen that way).

    but I hope you get a little feel for what it looks like to be included, broadstroke, in some group, in a negative and slanderous way.

  • fws

    Comment #5
    Orianna Laun said:

    “…. friends and influence people.
    There is a way to be winsome and win people over to a cause. It involves education.”

    Yes Orianna Laun. It starts with education to avoid looking ignorant when speaking up. Amen sister.

    Now about what you wrote…

    “Not to mention that their agenda is based on subtlety. Their means are covert, quietly garnering support and making changes under the radar…”

    I am one of “them” by vocation. Feel free to email me with questions. I am a confessional Lutheran as well. I am a christian because God in his unreasonalbly good grace as chosen to make that so.

    One way to turn off people, even those with no “dog in the fight” who are observing you, is to lump people into a group and then characterize them. “those black people”, “those christian fundamentalists” “those jews” “those homosexuals!”

    You should know and believe that it would be far far easier to be quiet here about being gay. But. How could a christian ever be “covert” who claims to believe in One Who claims to be The Truth and The Light of the world? Does it make sense then that a gay man who is christian would be open about that not to be activist, or to be proud of sin (although being gay is not a sin…) but rather to serve in equipping the saints and to avoid in every way that thing you call “covert”?

    to the rest of yáll here:

    “you people” ONLY quote passages from the Bible that are about one man raping another or that could only describe prison sex. You say that they are what the bible says about homosexuality. really? and you want me to think you are about love, and have a winsome and reasonable view about the rest of what the bible says?

    You quote these rape passages (leviticus 18/I cor, sodom and gomorrah, and romans 1 about heterosexuals who leave their women (vs 26) for what looks like prison sex, and say these are about me and ALL other gay men and lesbians in some bizarre way. This doesn´t just LOOK bizzare. It IS bizzare. You look just like the folks this article describes to most of the world and that is the simple and obvious reason why.

    “You all” do not seem to be repulsed by sniggering comments from the likes of Carl Vehse who seems to like the idea of prison rape (Carl, is there some personal secret you want to share with the rest of us here? Is THAT why you don´t use your real name?) rather than hate that this practice of violence and violation occurs among individuals loved to death by Jesus on the cross. In africa, men will be executed or spend life in prison because they are effeminate or meet another man for coffee somewhere and maybe are spotted casting an affectionate glance. Just HOW do you think a law dictating life in prison for “being gay” would be enforced? even IF the law outlawed acts such as same gender sex (which is NOT how the law is written by the way…)? would they put cameras in every bedroom? no. The evidence would need to be circumstantial or 3rd party wouldn´t it need to be? but…. no outrage here….anglican christian bishops idolized here for “standing up to the truth” are silent on all of this. I am appalled at those bishops and at those here in the states who see these men as champíons of christian orthodoxy. This has Jesus saying “I have no problem with your picking up stones against this woman. Please continue.”

    Seriously now. I have known alot of you here for a few years now. Most disagree with alot of what I write. most show christian respect in an exemplary way. I would be far from the one to paint a single one of you as a cardboard character (except maybe Carl and only because he obviously enjoys being seen that way).

    but I hope you get a little feel for what it looks like to be included, broadstroke, in some group, in a negative and slanderous way.

  • fws

    “Comment #19
    Steve Martin said:
    The culture values tolerance and inclusivity.

    To judge anything, especially sexual license and “love”, is a crime.
    (conservatism and Christianity not withstanding)”

    There are many chaste, pious and christian gay men and lesbians. and there are many hedonistic heterosexuals and gays and lesbians as well. And all resort to “love” as an excuse to sin:

    “we LOVE homosexuals! That is why hate what they do and their “lifestyle”!”

    And people then tell us what they hate using the Bible: they quote the sodom and gommorah story as the Biblical text that describes exactly how they would describe me and others like me. Rapists. Predators. Murderers. And they wonder why society finds them, well, sorta wierd. The but of jokes. Laughable. Sinning employing the use God´s Word. Such people show no shame or love for God.

    I don´t find this laughable. I find it incredibly sad because there are souls at stake.

    Amen Steve! Preach it!

  • fws

    “Comment #19
    Steve Martin said:
    The culture values tolerance and inclusivity.

    To judge anything, especially sexual license and “love”, is a crime.
    (conservatism and Christianity not withstanding)”

    There are many chaste, pious and christian gay men and lesbians. and there are many hedonistic heterosexuals and gays and lesbians as well. And all resort to “love” as an excuse to sin:

    “we LOVE homosexuals! That is why hate what they do and their “lifestyle”!”

    And people then tell us what they hate using the Bible: they quote the sodom and gommorah story as the Biblical text that describes exactly how they would describe me and others like me. Rapists. Predators. Murderers. And they wonder why society finds them, well, sorta wierd. The but of jokes. Laughable. Sinning employing the use God´s Word. Such people show no shame or love for God.

    I don´t find this laughable. I find it incredibly sad because there are souls at stake.

    Amen Steve! Preach it!

  • kerner

    I think what these people are worried about is that mere criticism of gay behavior may become a crime. I have heard (even though I haven’t had time to research it) that in Canada the law DOES punish criticism of homosexual behavior as a crime.

    So these pastors ramped up their condemnation to see if it would work out that way here. I really think the 1st Ammendment would prevent the enforcement of such a law, even if we were to enact one.

    On the other hand, I disapprove of the concept of “hate crimes”, because they don’t purport to punish all hate motivated crimes, only those crimes motivated by hatred of certain favored people. I feel this violates the concept of equal protection under the law.

  • kerner

    I think what these people are worried about is that mere criticism of gay behavior may become a crime. I have heard (even though I haven’t had time to research it) that in Canada the law DOES punish criticism of homosexual behavior as a crime.

    So these pastors ramped up their condemnation to see if it would work out that way here. I really think the 1st Ammendment would prevent the enforcement of such a law, even if we were to enact one.

    On the other hand, I disapprove of the concept of “hate crimes”, because they don’t purport to punish all hate motivated crimes, only those crimes motivated by hatred of certain favored people. I feel this violates the concept of equal protection under the law.

  • DonS

    The answer to the questions Dr. Veith poses is “Yes, and yes”. Dana Milbank is a liberal. He admits that. So, he clearly favors the gay protesters over the Christian protesters. But, also, the left is far more inclined to protesting than the right. Within the ranks of the left, there are large groups of people who are professional protesters. This goes back to the antiwar rallies of the 60′s. We were involved in so pro-Proposition 8 protests last year in California, and I can speak to the fact that Christians/conservatives are very awkward at the nuances of effective protest. This is why, quite frankly, taxpayers tend to get hosed by the government each year. The tax takers are much more schooled in the art of protest than the tax donors. And minority groups are well versed in asserting their rights in the public square.

    As for these pastors, this was a ridiculous and poorly conceived idea, which made it easy to ridicule. I don’t know these particular men, but there are fringe people in every movement, and the press is expert at finding and highlighting fringe Christians and conservatives.

  • DonS

    The answer to the questions Dr. Veith poses is “Yes, and yes”. Dana Milbank is a liberal. He admits that. So, he clearly favors the gay protesters over the Christian protesters. But, also, the left is far more inclined to protesting than the right. Within the ranks of the left, there are large groups of people who are professional protesters. This goes back to the antiwar rallies of the 60′s. We were involved in so pro-Proposition 8 protests last year in California, and I can speak to the fact that Christians/conservatives are very awkward at the nuances of effective protest. This is why, quite frankly, taxpayers tend to get hosed by the government each year. The tax takers are much more schooled in the art of protest than the tax donors. And minority groups are well versed in asserting their rights in the public square.

    As for these pastors, this was a ridiculous and poorly conceived idea, which made it easy to ridicule. I don’t know these particular men, but there are fringe people in every movement, and the press is expert at finding and highlighting fringe Christians and conservatives.

  • Carl Vehse

    “You do not know me. How can you say I am a criminal who should be put in jail just because I am honest about being gay?”

    fws, where in the world do you get such a notion? The WORLD magazine article I referenced discussed the proposed Ugandan Bill No. 18, Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, which criminalizes homosexual actions and behavior, as well as promoting homosexuality. Are you saying you have been participating in or promoting homosexual behavior in Uganda?

  • Carl Vehse

    “You do not know me. How can you say I am a criminal who should be put in jail just because I am honest about being gay?”

    fws, where in the world do you get such a notion? The WORLD magazine article I referenced discussed the proposed Ugandan Bill No. 18, Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, which criminalizes homosexual actions and behavior, as well as promoting homosexuality. Are you saying you have been participating in or promoting homosexual behavior in Uganda?

  • fws

    #25 carl vehse

    No.

    But if you and I were ever in Uganda together, and I screamed that you touched me, then just remember never to drop the soap in prison.

    but wait.

    I forgot your statement in #8 …”or on why homosexuals might enjoy prison.” Something you have to share with us Carl?

    II.2.(c)”he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality. (2) a person who commits an offense under this section shall be liable on conviction to life in prison.”

  • fws

    #25 carl vehse

    No.

    But if you and I were ever in Uganda together, and I screamed that you touched me, then just remember never to drop the soap in prison.

    but wait.

    I forgot your statement in #8 …”or on why homosexuals might enjoy prison.” Something you have to share with us Carl?

    II.2.(c)”he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality. (2) a person who commits an offense under this section shall be liable on conviction to life in prison.”

  • fws

    #26 carl vehse

    by the way,you would also be liable under this law and subject to life in prison, were you in uganda, for being an avid reader of the website from where you got the text of this law:

    http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com

    It would be easier on Nigeria. there they would simply cut off your head. purely by coiincidence, this is the same punishment as for the crime of converting from Islam to Christianity.

  • fws

    #26 carl vehse

    by the way,you would also be liable under this law and subject to life in prison, were you in uganda, for being an avid reader of the website from where you got the text of this law:

    http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com

    It would be easier on Nigeria. there they would simply cut off your head. purely by coiincidence, this is the same punishment as for the crime of converting from Islam to Christianity.

  • fws

    http://mockingbirdnyc.blogspot.com/2009/11/excerpt-from-charles-dickens-little.html

    11.18.2009
    Excerpt from Charles Dickens’ Little Dorrit

    The Mrs. Clennam character is attempting to justify a crime she has committed in the service of ‘fighting sin’, to the title character (ht PZ):

    “I have done”, said Mrs. Clennam ,”what was given to me to do. I have set myself against evil… I have been an instrument of severity against sin. Have not mere sinners like myself been commissioned to lay it low in all time?”

    “In all time?” repeated Little Dorrit. …

    “O, Mrs. Clennam, Mrs. Clennam.” said Little Dorrit, “angry feelings and unforgiving deeds are no comfort and no guide to you and me. My life has been passed in this poor prison, and my teaching has been very defective; but let me implore you to remember later and better days. Be guided, only, by the healer of the sick, the raiser of the dead, the friend of all who were afflicted and forlorn, the patient Master who shed tears of compassion for our infirmities. We cannot but be right if we put all the rest away …
    There is no vengeance and no infliction of suffering in His life, I am sure…”

    In the softened light of the window, looking from the scene of her early trials to the shining sky, she was not in stronger opposition to the black figure in the shade, than the life and doctrine on which she rested were to that figure’s history. It bent its head low again, and said not a word.

    P.S. In his working notes for Little Dorrit, called Number Plans, Dickens described this scene under the heading, ‘Set the darkness and vengeance against the New Testament’.

  • fws

    http://mockingbirdnyc.blogspot.com/2009/11/excerpt-from-charles-dickens-little.html

    11.18.2009
    Excerpt from Charles Dickens’ Little Dorrit

    The Mrs. Clennam character is attempting to justify a crime she has committed in the service of ‘fighting sin’, to the title character (ht PZ):

    “I have done”, said Mrs. Clennam ,”what was given to me to do. I have set myself against evil… I have been an instrument of severity against sin. Have not mere sinners like myself been commissioned to lay it low in all time?”

    “In all time?” repeated Little Dorrit. …

    “O, Mrs. Clennam, Mrs. Clennam.” said Little Dorrit, “angry feelings and unforgiving deeds are no comfort and no guide to you and me. My life has been passed in this poor prison, and my teaching has been very defective; but let me implore you to remember later and better days. Be guided, only, by the healer of the sick, the raiser of the dead, the friend of all who were afflicted and forlorn, the patient Master who shed tears of compassion for our infirmities. We cannot but be right if we put all the rest away …
    There is no vengeance and no infliction of suffering in His life, I am sure…”

    In the softened light of the window, looking from the scene of her early trials to the shining sky, she was not in stronger opposition to the black figure in the shade, than the life and doctrine on which she rested were to that figure’s history. It bent its head low again, and said not a word.

    P.S. In his working notes for Little Dorrit, called Number Plans, Dickens described this scene under the heading, ‘Set the darkness and vengeance against the New Testament’.

  • George A. Marquart

    For one thing, because people like Paul Blair are somewhat cavalier with the truth, when they say, “the Bible says that homosexuality is in fact an abomination.” Nowhere does the Bible say that. It does say that homosexual relations are an abomination, which is punishable by stoning, the same as adultery. What man among us has not “looked at a woman to lust after her,” maybe even during a church service, and is thus guilty of adultery? These critics are not so much concerned about homosexuality as they are about showing what God-pleasing people they are, even as the folks who brought “the woman who was taken in adultery” to our Lord. If she was “taken in adultery,” where was the man who was equally guilty and deserving of stoning? Most of these critics not concerned about “saving the lost,” but about their own self-righteousness. They fear the Gospel, because it makes them equal to the homosexual.

    Peace and Joy,
    George A. Marquart

  • George A. Marquart

    For one thing, because people like Paul Blair are somewhat cavalier with the truth, when they say, “the Bible says that homosexuality is in fact an abomination.” Nowhere does the Bible say that. It does say that homosexual relations are an abomination, which is punishable by stoning, the same as adultery. What man among us has not “looked at a woman to lust after her,” maybe even during a church service, and is thus guilty of adultery? These critics are not so much concerned about homosexuality as they are about showing what God-pleasing people they are, even as the folks who brought “the woman who was taken in adultery” to our Lord. If she was “taken in adultery,” where was the man who was equally guilty and deserving of stoning? Most of these critics not concerned about “saving the lost,” but about their own self-righteousness. They fear the Gospel, because it makes them equal to the homosexual.

    Peace and Joy,
    George A. Marquart

  • Jonathan

    “There are many chaste, pious and christian gay men and lesbians. and there are many hedonistic heterosexuals and gays and lesbians as well. And all resort to “love” as an excuse to sin[.]”

    fws, care to explain the above, esp. ‘chaste’? Does it mean ‘oriented but celebate and repentent’? Or are you convinced of the ‘committed, monogamous, lifelong’?

  • Jonathan

    “There are many chaste, pious and christian gay men and lesbians. and there are many hedonistic heterosexuals and gays and lesbians as well. And all resort to “love” as an excuse to sin[.]”

    fws, care to explain the above, esp. ‘chaste’? Does it mean ‘oriented but celebate and repentent’? Or are you convinced of the ‘committed, monogamous, lifelong’?

  • Orianna Laun

    fws @21
    When I say “their agenda”, I am referring to the political agenda of those who are vehemently pushing it in areas of politics. I have relatives who are openly homosexual, yet do not count themselves as “those people” (who are politically active); therefore, I comprehend the fact that one cannot lump them all together. (One can NEVER lump any group together.) However, it has been documented in multiple places that there is an agenda being quietly pushed through courts and such other political mechanisms. Do not assume I am being prejudiced because my semantics do not equal what the mainstream media expectation is for how we talk.
    I will go so far as to say that there are various other covert agendas being pushed through the courts and political machinery, but they do not necessarily carry the clout or emotional ties or media coverage, so they do not get as far.

  • Orianna Laun

    fws @21
    When I say “their agenda”, I am referring to the political agenda of those who are vehemently pushing it in areas of politics. I have relatives who are openly homosexual, yet do not count themselves as “those people” (who are politically active); therefore, I comprehend the fact that one cannot lump them all together. (One can NEVER lump any group together.) However, it has been documented in multiple places that there is an agenda being quietly pushed through courts and such other political mechanisms. Do not assume I am being prejudiced because my semantics do not equal what the mainstream media expectation is for how we talk.
    I will go so far as to say that there are various other covert agendas being pushed through the courts and political machinery, but they do not necessarily carry the clout or emotional ties or media coverage, so they do not get as far.

  • NQB

    I know I’m way behind in my response, but I haven’t had a chance to check back here since this morning.
    I fully appreciate the problems with ‘hate crimes’ and that such laws are less than ideal. But to say that this and similar laws will lead to criminalizing opinions seems a bit ‘slippery slope,’ doesn’t it?
    All I’m trying to say is that Christians would do well to recognize that, yes, homosexuals have historically been the victim of violence motivated by their sexual orientation. Obviously, that’s completely unacceptable.
    When the law only addresses acts and incitement to acts of violence, challenging the law will cause you to come off as a nothing more than a … I don’t see how this battle is the one to be fighting right now, especially given that historically these laws have not limited speech nor have they led to laws that criminalized opinions.

  • NQB

    I know I’m way behind in my response, but I haven’t had a chance to check back here since this morning.
    I fully appreciate the problems with ‘hate crimes’ and that such laws are less than ideal. But to say that this and similar laws will lead to criminalizing opinions seems a bit ‘slippery slope,’ doesn’t it?
    All I’m trying to say is that Christians would do well to recognize that, yes, homosexuals have historically been the victim of violence motivated by their sexual orientation. Obviously, that’s completely unacceptable.
    When the law only addresses acts and incitement to acts of violence, challenging the law will cause you to come off as a nothing more than a … I don’t see how this battle is the one to be fighting right now, especially given that historically these laws have not limited speech nor have they led to laws that criminalized opinions.

  • fws

    Comment #30
    Jonathan said:

    “fws, care to explain the above, esp. ‘chaste’? Does it mean ‘oriented but celebate and repentent’? Or are you convinced of the ‘committed, monogamous, lifelong’?”

    No. why is an explanation necessary when someone juxtaposes the word “gay” with anything that implies their lives can look the same as any other christian or pagan and with the same rules?

    The word “chaste” means the same for two grandparents shacked up without being married to preserve their social security benefits as it does for someone who divorces and is biblically forbidden from remarrying.

    It´doesn´t matter what I think or am convinced of or what I think the bible says. The bible says what it says: “Thou shalt not commit adultery”.

    There is NO passage that directly addresses homosexuality or even homosexual sex or the morality of it. but ALL humans ARE governed by the 4th commandment. It appears to be quite clear, and it is not called the “4th suggestion” for a reason.

  • fws

    Comment #30
    Jonathan said:

    “fws, care to explain the above, esp. ‘chaste’? Does it mean ‘oriented but celebate and repentent’? Or are you convinced of the ‘committed, monogamous, lifelong’?”

    No. why is an explanation necessary when someone juxtaposes the word “gay” with anything that implies their lives can look the same as any other christian or pagan and with the same rules?

    The word “chaste” means the same for two grandparents shacked up without being married to preserve their social security benefits as it does for someone who divorces and is biblically forbidden from remarrying.

    It´doesn´t matter what I think or am convinced of or what I think the bible says. The bible says what it says: “Thou shalt not commit adultery”.

    There is NO passage that directly addresses homosexuality or even homosexual sex or the morality of it. but ALL humans ARE governed by the 4th commandment. It appears to be quite clear, and it is not called the “4th suggestion” for a reason.

  • Sam

    http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink

    Very interesting take biblically on the topic.

  • Sam

    http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink

    Very interesting take biblically on the topic.

  • fws

    #33 Jonathan

    are you in the habit of walking up to fat women in church and asking them if they are “in weight watchers and repentant”? Gluttony is one of the 7 deadly sins.

    Christians, by definition, confess that they are sinners. Believing that Jesus saves us from sin has to mean this right?

    I know many christians who are “repentant” and yet have obvious sins, gossip, a sharp tongue (like me unfortunately!), gluttony, make crass comments about their wives or women. I know christians who deny the real presence in the Holy Supper. None of these people strike me as repentant. Often to the contrary. Fat christian women are often very offended at being called out on the sin of gluttony. I don´t question the faith of these people as christians. Why would I do that? Do you? as in “you KNOW these things are sins and are you repentant??!!” with the thought lurking in the background that IF they are not, then they lack ALL repentance and faith.

    no. I don´t think you go there do you Jonathan? and if you do go there… should you? Jesus instructs us about sheep and goats, wheat and tares, bruised reeds, and smouldering wicks doesn´t he?

    I know many christians who don´t believe the Bible forbids premarital sex, or gay sex , or that there is anything twisted about selling products using nearly naked women that is not about skin care products if u catch my drift here J-man.

    some of those people, not all, who believe sex in a committed gay relationship is ok are christian. some are even gay.

    All of this too-wordy response to you is to say that I sense in the background of your question , the idea that if a person is unrepentant about thinking that a gay sexual relationship with another person, that that person cannot possibly then be a christian.

    But I also sense, for some odd reason, that you would not conceptually throw into this group the 80 year old norwegian female grandmother who was an ELCA delegate who thinks this way as well.

    Why is that Jonathan? or am I totally wrong about your thinking here?

  • fws

    #33 Jonathan

    are you in the habit of walking up to fat women in church and asking them if they are “in weight watchers and repentant”? Gluttony is one of the 7 deadly sins.

    Christians, by definition, confess that they are sinners. Believing that Jesus saves us from sin has to mean this right?

    I know many christians who are “repentant” and yet have obvious sins, gossip, a sharp tongue (like me unfortunately!), gluttony, make crass comments about their wives or women. I know christians who deny the real presence in the Holy Supper. None of these people strike me as repentant. Often to the contrary. Fat christian women are often very offended at being called out on the sin of gluttony. I don´t question the faith of these people as christians. Why would I do that? Do you? as in “you KNOW these things are sins and are you repentant??!!” with the thought lurking in the background that IF they are not, then they lack ALL repentance and faith.

    no. I don´t think you go there do you Jonathan? and if you do go there… should you? Jesus instructs us about sheep and goats, wheat and tares, bruised reeds, and smouldering wicks doesn´t he?

    I know many christians who don´t believe the Bible forbids premarital sex, or gay sex , or that there is anything twisted about selling products using nearly naked women that is not about skin care products if u catch my drift here J-man.

    some of those people, not all, who believe sex in a committed gay relationship is ok are christian. some are even gay.

    All of this too-wordy response to you is to say that I sense in the background of your question , the idea that if a person is unrepentant about thinking that a gay sexual relationship with another person, that that person cannot possibly then be a christian.

    But I also sense, for some odd reason, that you would not conceptually throw into this group the 80 year old norwegian female grandmother who was an ELCA delegate who thinks this way as well.

    Why is that Jonathan? or am I totally wrong about your thinking here?

  • Jonathan

    fws, got it–thanks for clearing that up for me. Now I think I see where you are coming from on homo s_x as as God-pleasing.

  • Jonathan

    fws, got it–thanks for clearing that up for me. Now I think I see where you are coming from on homo s_x as as God-pleasing.

  • fws

    #36 Jonathan

    personally, I feel the bible is clear on forbidding any sex acts outside the bonds of male/female marriage. Homosexual sex would be included here no?

    I don´t believe there is one single Bible passage that deals with same gender sex morally specifically unless you consider passages as rape doing that. I hold to what I believe because of the same passages that forbid sex outside of marriage to you J. Cool?

    I also don´t single out people who struggle with seeing this as I do as some special kind or sin that needs a special kind of repenance or treatment. That would be for sure, contrary to everything I believe.

    My question is: how did we get to this point in the church, where anglicans can deny the resurrection and divinity of Christ, but only now, with the homosexual issue, feel it is time to split the church? How did we get to the point where we need to ask intimate and embarrassing questions of anyone who seeks church membership and feels the need for honesty about being gay in a way we would never do with the more frequently obvious non-repentance of fat people?

    There is a different Law and Gospel for homosexuals isn´t there Jonathan?

  • fws

    #36 Jonathan

    personally, I feel the bible is clear on forbidding any sex acts outside the bonds of male/female marriage. Homosexual sex would be included here no?

    I don´t believe there is one single Bible passage that deals with same gender sex morally specifically unless you consider passages as rape doing that. I hold to what I believe because of the same passages that forbid sex outside of marriage to you J. Cool?

    I also don´t single out people who struggle with seeing this as I do as some special kind or sin that needs a special kind of repenance or treatment. That would be for sure, contrary to everything I believe.

    My question is: how did we get to this point in the church, where anglicans can deny the resurrection and divinity of Christ, but only now, with the homosexual issue, feel it is time to split the church? How did we get to the point where we need to ask intimate and embarrassing questions of anyone who seeks church membership and feels the need for honesty about being gay in a way we would never do with the more frequently obvious non-repentance of fat people?

    There is a different Law and Gospel for homosexuals isn´t there Jonathan?

  • fws

    #34 sam

    Interesting article. I hope the readers here do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    bathwater:

    “the Jesus love ethic”. no. The same will and law of God applies to pagan and christian alike. The difference between law-written-in-heart and revealed law is only one of clarity and certainty of authorship. I reject the idea that christians have some sort of sanctified version of the Law they are to follow.

    leviticus 18 being “definitely” about homosexual sex. It is about rape. to treat a man as a woman in the OT context means to remove sexual volition from that man. How is that NOT rape? Prohibition of rape is not about homosexuality. that would be a rather bizzare understanding wouldn´t it be?

    romans 1:26 being about “heterosexuals having homosexual sex”. I agree that the people in romans one ARE heterosexuals. the first reference to sex however is not in romans 26 but in romans v 29 with the word “fornication”. Whatever it is those guys were doing then, before vs 29, it was not fornication. So I don´t see homosexuals in Romans 1 and don´t see fornication till vs 29. so what? sex outside of marriage remains wrong. this includes homosexual sex. period. end of story.

  • fws

    #34 sam

    Interesting article. I hope the readers here do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    bathwater:

    “the Jesus love ethic”. no. The same will and law of God applies to pagan and christian alike. The difference between law-written-in-heart and revealed law is only one of clarity and certainty of authorship. I reject the idea that christians have some sort of sanctified version of the Law they are to follow.

    leviticus 18 being “definitely” about homosexual sex. It is about rape. to treat a man as a woman in the OT context means to remove sexual volition from that man. How is that NOT rape? Prohibition of rape is not about homosexuality. that would be a rather bizzare understanding wouldn´t it be?

    romans 1:26 being about “heterosexuals having homosexual sex”. I agree that the people in romans one ARE heterosexuals. the first reference to sex however is not in romans 26 but in romans v 29 with the word “fornication”. Whatever it is those guys were doing then, before vs 29, it was not fornication. So I don´t see homosexuals in Romans 1 and don´t see fornication till vs 29. so what? sex outside of marriage remains wrong. this includes homosexual sex. period. end of story.

  • fws

    Comment #29
    George A. Marquart said:

    ” What man among us has not “looked at a woman to lust after her,” maybe even during a church service, and is thus guilty of adultery?”

    And so many who do utterly lack repentence for this. They say “it is ‘natural’ for a guy to look at women like that!”

    I would not call into question their christian faith for this lack of repentance. Pastors COULD spend some time pointing out the sin in this if they could manage to take a break from talking about a sin (homosexual sex) that they probably imagine is not happening in their congretation….

  • fws

    Comment #29
    George A. Marquart said:

    ” What man among us has not “looked at a woman to lust after her,” maybe even during a church service, and is thus guilty of adultery?”

    And so many who do utterly lack repentence for this. They say “it is ‘natural’ for a guy to look at women like that!”

    I would not call into question their christian faith for this lack of repentance. Pastors COULD spend some time pointing out the sin in this if they could manage to take a break from talking about a sin (homosexual sex) that they probably imagine is not happening in their congretation….

  • George A. Marquart

    fws: Amen,amen. Studies show that the percentage of homosexual males in the population has been around 5% for as long as we know. I always shudder when I hear a pastor proclaim from the pulpit that “homosexuality” is a sin, and those who commit it should repent and change – something they can do as much as they can grow a new leg if they were only born with one. I feel for those who take this to mean that hell has to be their ultimate destination. In a congregation of 40, assuming half of them are male, there is likely to be one homosexual man.

    Nevertheless, peace and joy to those in His Kingdom.
    George A. Marquart

  • George A. Marquart

    fws: Amen,amen. Studies show that the percentage of homosexual males in the population has been around 5% for as long as we know. I always shudder when I hear a pastor proclaim from the pulpit that “homosexuality” is a sin, and those who commit it should repent and change – something they can do as much as they can grow a new leg if they were only born with one. I feel for those who take this to mean that hell has to be their ultimate destination. In a congregation of 40, assuming half of them are male, there is likely to be one homosexual man.

    Nevertheless, peace and joy to those in His Kingdom.
    George A. Marquart

  • Peter Leavitt

    The view that the Bible condemns only forcible sexual relations is mistaken. Robert Gagnon PhD, a young theologian at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary who has made a close study of the subject of Biblical treatment of homosexuality writes in an article, “What Should Faithful Lutherans in the ELCA Do?”,
    writes as follows:

    “Every text that treats the issue of homosexual practice in Scripture treats it as a high offense abhorrent to God….it makes absolutely no exceptions for same-sex intercourse. Indeed, every single text in Scripture that discusses sex, whether narrative, law, proverb, poetry, moral exhortation, or metaphor, presupposes a male-female prerequisite. There are no exceptions anywhere in Scripture.”

  • Peter Leavitt

    The view that the Bible condemns only forcible sexual relations is mistaken. Robert Gagnon PhD, a young theologian at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary who has made a close study of the subject of Biblical treatment of homosexuality writes in an article, “What Should Faithful Lutherans in the ELCA Do?”,
    writes as follows:

    “Every text that treats the issue of homosexual practice in Scripture treats it as a high offense abhorrent to God….it makes absolutely no exceptions for same-sex intercourse. Indeed, every single text in Scripture that discusses sex, whether narrative, law, proverb, poetry, moral exhortation, or metaphor, presupposes a male-female prerequisite. There are no exceptions anywhere in Scripture.”

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    I’d be curious about where Mr. Marquardt is getting his statistics. Fact of the matter is that only a few years back, most homosexual advocates were trumpeting the fatally flawed Kinsey estimate of 10% (25% of the sample was men in male-only situations like jail), and that only ended when a number of studies came in from Europe that pegged the percentage of male homosexuals as about 1-3%.

    I’m aware of no studies that suggest 5%.

    And fws, no passages about “same gender sex”? Exactly what are Leviticus 18, Leviticus 22, and Romans 1, then? When the Hebrew draws a word picture in Leviticus, it’s kind of hard to ignore.

    (I’m aware of the claims that it’s about sacral fornication, but please…..)

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    I’d be curious about where Mr. Marquardt is getting his statistics. Fact of the matter is that only a few years back, most homosexual advocates were trumpeting the fatally flawed Kinsey estimate of 10% (25% of the sample was men in male-only situations like jail), and that only ended when a number of studies came in from Europe that pegged the percentage of male homosexuals as about 1-3%.

    I’m aware of no studies that suggest 5%.

    And fws, no passages about “same gender sex”? Exactly what are Leviticus 18, Leviticus 22, and Romans 1, then? When the Hebrew draws a word picture in Leviticus, it’s kind of hard to ignore.

    (I’m aware of the claims that it’s about sacral fornication, but please…..)

  • George A. Marquart

    Bike Bubba: 5% to 7% is a number I saw in several studies years ago. Looking at the studies available today, figures of from 1% to 20% appear. It is important to consider only studies done by people who have no axe to grind in this matter. The 10% that both Kinsey and most homosexual groups claim today has been pretty well discredited as being too high.

    My point is really that, regardless of the actual percentage, pastors have a particular responsibility to deal carefully with this subject, because most people tend to believe that their pastors always speak the truth. Therefore, if they speak an untruth out of ignorance, they can do a huge amount of damage to already wounded souls.

    Peace and Joy,
    George A. Marquart

  • George A. Marquart

    Bike Bubba: 5% to 7% is a number I saw in several studies years ago. Looking at the studies available today, figures of from 1% to 20% appear. It is important to consider only studies done by people who have no axe to grind in this matter. The 10% that both Kinsey and most homosexual groups claim today has been pretty well discredited as being too high.

    My point is really that, regardless of the actual percentage, pastors have a particular responsibility to deal carefully with this subject, because most people tend to believe that their pastors always speak the truth. Therefore, if they speak an untruth out of ignorance, they can do a huge amount of damage to already wounded souls.

    Peace and Joy,
    George A. Marquart

  • Wyldeirishman

    #37, #38…

    …you have GOT to be kidding me.

    Show me one qualified scholar without an axe to grind in the name of social progresiveness that can exegete the passages in either Testament as you suggest.

    Granted, the beam in my eye is equally as big as the beam in yours, though they may be different flavors.

    But I WILL NOT work to legitimize the beam.

  • Wyldeirishman

    #37, #38…

    …you have GOT to be kidding me.

    Show me one qualified scholar without an axe to grind in the name of social progresiveness that can exegete the passages in either Testament as you suggest.

    Granted, the beam in my eye is equally as big as the beam in yours, though they may be different flavors.

    But I WILL NOT work to legitimize the beam.

  • boaz

    How did we get to the point where we need to ask intimate and embarrassing questions of anyone who seeks church membership and feels the need for honesty about being gay in a way we would never do with the more frequently obvious non-repentance of fat people?

    Of course, no repentant sinner should never be singled out because of the particular sin the sinner struggles with.

    But, when a group of sinners organized to campaign churches to ignore God’s clear condemnation of their sin, that sin becomes a focal point of discussion. The church didn’t change anything; sinners began trying to justify their sexual sins instead of repenting of them. When gossipers, drunkards, liars, and thieves start arguing that their sins are really good in God’s eyes, the church will have to be careful to reject such arguments and call such heretics to repentance, making those sins controversial as well.

  • boaz

    How did we get to the point where we need to ask intimate and embarrassing questions of anyone who seeks church membership and feels the need for honesty about being gay in a way we would never do with the more frequently obvious non-repentance of fat people?

    Of course, no repentant sinner should never be singled out because of the particular sin the sinner struggles with.

    But, when a group of sinners organized to campaign churches to ignore God’s clear condemnation of their sin, that sin becomes a focal point of discussion. The church didn’t change anything; sinners began trying to justify their sexual sins instead of repenting of them. When gossipers, drunkards, liars, and thieves start arguing that their sins are really good in God’s eyes, the church will have to be careful to reject such arguments and call such heretics to repentance, making those sins controversial as well.

  • boaz

    And fws, the Christian repents and says with the Apostle Paul that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. The Christian should not say, Christ came into the world to save sinners, especially me because my sin has been unfairly highlighted.

  • boaz

    And fws, the Christian repents and says with the Apostle Paul that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. The Christian should not say, Christ came into the world to save sinners, especially me because my sin has been unfairly highlighted.

  • fws

    Comment #45
    boaz said:

    “But, when a group of sinners organized to campaign churches to ignore God’s clear condemnation of their sin, that sin becomes a focal point of discussion.”

    In that case boaz, why not treat and regard homosexuals who, in error, see no problem with sex outside of marriage, the exact same way as calvinists who sin, defiantly so, by denying the body and blood of christ in the holy supper?

  • fws

    Comment #45
    boaz said:

    “But, when a group of sinners organized to campaign churches to ignore God’s clear condemnation of their sin, that sin becomes a focal point of discussion.”

    In that case boaz, why not treat and regard homosexuals who, in error, see no problem with sex outside of marriage, the exact same way as calvinists who sin, defiantly so, by denying the body and blood of christ in the holy supper?

  • http://barrybishop.blogspot.com/ Barry D. Bishop

    I believe the Christians came off badly b/c to the unregenerate God’s Word seems like foolishness.

    Did the Christians say anything that was unbiblical? No. But had they spoken against adultery in general, they would have been scorned as well.

    What if they spoke out against lying, stealing, coveting? They would have been seen as hopelessly out-dated religious zealots. The concept of “sin” is rapidly disappearing. I overheard my highschool students saying that they didn’t get the Scarlet Letter. “I mean everybody has sex outside of marriage, big deal!”

  • http://barrybishop.blogspot.com/ Barry D. Bishop

    I believe the Christians came off badly b/c to the unregenerate God’s Word seems like foolishness.

    Did the Christians say anything that was unbiblical? No. But had they spoken against adultery in general, they would have been scorned as well.

    What if they spoke out against lying, stealing, coveting? They would have been seen as hopelessly out-dated religious zealots. The concept of “sin” is rapidly disappearing. I overheard my highschool students saying that they didn’t get the Scarlet Letter. “I mean everybody has sex outside of marriage, big deal!”

  • Jonathan

    “personally, I feel the bible is clear on forbidding any sex acts outside the bonds of male/female marriage. Homosexual sex would be included here no?”

    Well, fws, maybe I didn’t read you right on chastity s_xual ethics. Yes I agree with you 100% on your statement above. That is also our Lord’s sexual ethic that He expressed–one man and woman in marriage for life. Any behavior outside that is out of bounds, certainly including a lustful eye.

    So, no, there is no different law/Gospel for gay or straight. For all have sinned and fall short. The wages of sin is death, whether it is homo s_x or the lustful eye, what have you. The only unforgiveable sin is denial of the HS, i.e., rejection/refusal of His call to repentence. Repentence for having a homosexual ‘orientation’? Um, not sure. But, repentence for homo erotic behavior? Absolutely.

  • Jonathan

    “personally, I feel the bible is clear on forbidding any sex acts outside the bonds of male/female marriage. Homosexual sex would be included here no?”

    Well, fws, maybe I didn’t read you right on chastity s_xual ethics. Yes I agree with you 100% on your statement above. That is also our Lord’s sexual ethic that He expressed–one man and woman in marriage for life. Any behavior outside that is out of bounds, certainly including a lustful eye.

    So, no, there is no different law/Gospel for gay or straight. For all have sinned and fall short. The wages of sin is death, whether it is homo s_x or the lustful eye, what have you. The only unforgiveable sin is denial of the HS, i.e., rejection/refusal of His call to repentence. Repentence for having a homosexual ‘orientation’? Um, not sure. But, repentence for homo erotic behavior? Absolutely.

  • fws

    Comment #44
    Wyldeirishman said:
    #37, #38…

    So you need scholars to explain everything you read now? but first you need to vet them to see if they are grinding the same axe you are? or are you saying the bible is really unclear. to you.?

    so…you dispute that the sodom and gomorrah story is about rape? or is it lev 18 you say is not about rape? unvolitional sex is not rape since when?

    or is it that you are thinking gay=rapist?

    and you think people view you as a rational person when you express these views outside of your (apparently) narrow social circle?

  • fws

    Comment #44
    Wyldeirishman said:
    #37, #38…

    So you need scholars to explain everything you read now? but first you need to vet them to see if they are grinding the same axe you are? or are you saying the bible is really unclear. to you.?

    so…you dispute that the sodom and gomorrah story is about rape? or is it lev 18 you say is not about rape? unvolitional sex is not rape since when?

    or is it that you are thinking gay=rapist?

    and you think people view you as a rational person when you express these views outside of your (apparently) narrow social circle?

  • fws

    #49 Jonathan

    “The only unforgiveable sin is denial of the HS, i.e., rejection/refusal of His call to repentence. Repentence for having a homosexual ‘orientation’? Um, not sure. But, repentence for homo erotic behavior? Absolutely.”

    Ok Jonathan, so are you equally absolutely sure that unforgiven includes unrepentant calvinists and baptists? fat people (gluttony is one of the 7 deadly sins), etc etc etc?

    On a more important personal, non abstract note: what about sins that YOU commit, but you have yet to repent of them? are you forgiven for them? what if you die before you repent?

  • fws

    #49 Jonathan

    “The only unforgiveable sin is denial of the HS, i.e., rejection/refusal of His call to repentence. Repentence for having a homosexual ‘orientation’? Um, not sure. But, repentence for homo erotic behavior? Absolutely.”

    Ok Jonathan, so are you equally absolutely sure that unforgiven includes unrepentant calvinists and baptists? fat people (gluttony is one of the 7 deadly sins), etc etc etc?

    On a more important personal, non abstract note: what about sins that YOU commit, but you have yet to repent of them? are you forgiven for them? what if you die before you repent?

  • fws

    Comment #48
    Barry D. Bishop said:
    “I believe the Christians came off badly b/c to the unregenerate God’s Word seems like foolishness.”

    What if a pastor in a black baptist church confronted the overweight women there on their sin of gluttony? what would be the reaction?

    would that reaction be for the reasons you gave.

    Might I suggest that when people rail against OTHER peoples sins, there might sometimes be a rather unchristian motive at play?

  • fws

    Comment #48
    Barry D. Bishop said:
    “I believe the Christians came off badly b/c to the unregenerate God’s Word seems like foolishness.”

    What if a pastor in a black baptist church confronted the overweight women there on their sin of gluttony? what would be the reaction?

    would that reaction be for the reasons you gave.

    Might I suggest that when people rail against OTHER peoples sins, there might sometimes be a rather unchristian motive at play?

  • fws

    Comment #49
    Jonathan said:

    Well, fws, maybe I didn’t read you right on chastity s_xual ethics.

    reread what I wrote. I was not unclear. MAYBE you did not read me right? so why did you misread me? please do reflect on this.

  • fws

    Comment #49
    Jonathan said:

    Well, fws, maybe I didn’t read you right on chastity s_xual ethics.

    reread what I wrote. I was not unclear. MAYBE you did not read me right? so why did you misread me? please do reflect on this.

  • fws

    Comment #41
    Peter Leavitt said:
    The view that the Bible condemns only forcible sexual relations is mistaken. Robert Gagnon PhD,…..writes as follows:

    “Every text that treats the issue of homosexual practice in Scripture treats it as a high offense abhorrent to God

    since when does rape=homosexual practice.

    You need to get out more!

    Peter give me ONE passage of scripture that explicitly mentions male on male sex that is NOT about an act of rape. Just one.

  • fws

    Comment #41
    Peter Leavitt said:
    The view that the Bible condemns only forcible sexual relations is mistaken. Robert Gagnon PhD,…..writes as follows:

    “Every text that treats the issue of homosexual practice in Scripture treats it as a high offense abhorrent to God

    since when does rape=homosexual practice.

    You need to get out more!

    Peter give me ONE passage of scripture that explicitly mentions male on male sex that is NOT about an act of rape. Just one.

  • Jonathan

    fws – homo erotic behavior is sin that needs repentence in order to receive forgiveness. An unregenerate sinner grieves the HS. Thus, Luther’s approach is best that our confession ought to plead guilty to all sins, the known and the unknown. But to call a behavior “good” that God has expressly called “not good” and thus condone or continue in unrepentent in a sinful practice grieving the HS is dangerous act as St Paul enumerates some particular examples but also says, “and such WERE some of you.”

  • Jonathan

    fws – homo erotic behavior is sin that needs repentence in order to receive forgiveness. An unregenerate sinner grieves the HS. Thus, Luther’s approach is best that our confession ought to plead guilty to all sins, the known and the unknown. But to call a behavior “good” that God has expressly called “not good” and thus condone or continue in unrepentent in a sinful practice grieving the HS is dangerous act as St Paul enumerates some particular examples but also says, “and such WERE some of you.”

  • fws

    Comment #42
    Bike Bubba said:
    And fws, no passages about “same gender sex”? Exactly what are Leviticus 18, Leviticus 22, and Romans 1, then? When the Hebrew draws a word picture in Leviticus, it’s kind of hard to ignore.

    leviticus 18 is about rape. forced sex. unvolitional sex is rape as far as I know. what am I missing? this IS wrong. I am gay. Let me assure you that NO one would treat me like a woman in bed unless it was with a gun to my head… rape… and even then…. so put yourself into that word picture Bike. are you saying someone could do that to YOU without it being rape?

    so then let me get you right: You say homosexual=rapist. or is it prison sex=homosexuality? you wonder why people outside your narrow circle find you odd and maybe sexually a little um, twisted, when you express this view?

    Leviticus chapter 22… how is that about homosexuality? not seein that…

    Romans 1. vs 26 makes it clear that THIS chapter is about hetersexuality right? “26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even THEIR women did change the natural use…” besides, there is NO clear mention here of sex until verse “29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, FORNICATION” and there we are talking about what kind of sex? heterosexual sex.

    I see myself and you called out as a sinner in exactly the same way in romans 1 based on what romans 2:1 says about the contents of romans 1. disagree?

    bike can we stick to plain scripture and nothing but here? the concept of homosexuality simply did not exist in biblical times. that MIGHT explain why the bible has nothing to say directly about it or airplanes, or birth control pills or any number of things eh?

  • fws

    Comment #42
    Bike Bubba said:
    And fws, no passages about “same gender sex”? Exactly what are Leviticus 18, Leviticus 22, and Romans 1, then? When the Hebrew draws a word picture in Leviticus, it’s kind of hard to ignore.

    leviticus 18 is about rape. forced sex. unvolitional sex is rape as far as I know. what am I missing? this IS wrong. I am gay. Let me assure you that NO one would treat me like a woman in bed unless it was with a gun to my head… rape… and even then…. so put yourself into that word picture Bike. are you saying someone could do that to YOU without it being rape?

    so then let me get you right: You say homosexual=rapist. or is it prison sex=homosexuality? you wonder why people outside your narrow circle find you odd and maybe sexually a little um, twisted, when you express this view?

    Leviticus chapter 22… how is that about homosexuality? not seein that…

    Romans 1. vs 26 makes it clear that THIS chapter is about hetersexuality right? “26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even THEIR women did change the natural use…” besides, there is NO clear mention here of sex until verse “29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, FORNICATION” and there we are talking about what kind of sex? heterosexual sex.

    I see myself and you called out as a sinner in exactly the same way in romans 1 based on what romans 2:1 says about the contents of romans 1. disagree?

    bike can we stick to plain scripture and nothing but here? the concept of homosexuality simply did not exist in biblical times. that MIGHT explain why the bible has nothing to say directly about it or airplanes, or birth control pills or any number of things eh?

  • fws

    Comment #46
    boaz said:
    And fws, the Christian repents and says with the Apostle Paul that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. The Christian should not say, Christ came into the world to save sinners, especially me because my sin has been unfairly highlighted.

    I have NO problem confessing my sins. they are many and I am not at all proud of them. Calling my sin sin or me a sinner is not calling me out in any way at all that is unfair.

    To call homosexuality a sin is ignorance, pure and simple. There as a christian, I need to show love and patience for the sin of others don´t I? Pray that I do this!

  • fws

    Comment #46
    boaz said:
    And fws, the Christian repents and says with the Apostle Paul that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. The Christian should not say, Christ came into the world to save sinners, especially me because my sin has been unfairly highlighted.

    I have NO problem confessing my sins. they are many and I am not at all proud of them. Calling my sin sin or me a sinner is not calling me out in any way at all that is unfair.

    To call homosexuality a sin is ignorance, pure and simple. There as a christian, I need to show love and patience for the sin of others don´t I? Pray that I do this!

  • fws

    Comment #42
    Bike Bubba said:
    I’d be curious about where Mr. Marquardt is getting his statistics.

    pastor emeritus marquart makes a point about caring for souls and you chose to home in on his statistics… jeez bike!

  • fws

    Comment #42
    Bike Bubba said:
    I’d be curious about where Mr. Marquardt is getting his statistics.

    pastor emeritus marquart makes a point about caring for souls and you chose to home in on his statistics… jeez bike!

  • http://barrybishop.blogspot.com/ Barry D. Bishop

    comment #52

    fws, all I am saying is that if the Bible speaks against something the unregenerate tend to scorn it or disregard it. What does it matter if the topic is gluttony or homosexuality?

    Yes, how a person reacts to God’s Word reveals their heart–whether they are overweight church ladies (your example) or not. Will they harden their hearts or melt?

    God’s Word convicts me all the time of areas of sin in my life. But I don’t throw it out. I go to the One who has already saved me through Christ and ask “that he who began a good work in [me] will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” Php 1:6

  • http://barrybishop.blogspot.com/ Barry D. Bishop

    comment #52

    fws, all I am saying is that if the Bible speaks against something the unregenerate tend to scorn it or disregard it. What does it matter if the topic is gluttony or homosexuality?

    Yes, how a person reacts to God’s Word reveals their heart–whether they are overweight church ladies (your example) or not. Will they harden their hearts or melt?

    God’s Word convicts me all the time of areas of sin in my life. But I don’t throw it out. I go to the One who has already saved me through Christ and ask “that he who began a good work in [me] will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” Php 1:6

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl said (@2), “It’s not called the ‘clymer media’ for nothing.” Actually, it’s not called the “clymer media” at all, except by Carl.

    No, seriously, Google it*. Of the lamentably few results that do pop up (just over 50), most on the first page have to do with media jobs and listings in towns called Clymer. The rest, and I am not joking, are all instances of one so-called “Carl Vehse” spewing his queer rhetoric.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

    *You know, Google, the same search engine recommended by Carl for you to look up the clever substitutions he uses for curse words and phrases he’s too timid to actually spell out.

    [1] geneveith.com/why-do-gays-come-across-better-than-their-christian-critics/_3875/
    [2] geneveith.com/willing-to-back-down/_1381/
    [3] watersblogged.blogspot.com/2006/03/tough-road-ahead-for-john-mccain.html
    [4] talkingdonkey.wordpress.com/2006/01/23/hemmed-and-hawed/
    [5] talkingdonkey.wordpress.com/2004/04/30/the-price-is-right/
    [6] geneveith.com/pirate-tale/_2000/
    [7] preachrblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/neighborhood-violence-and-prayer.html
    [8] gottesblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/hallowed-ground-of-scientists.html

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Carl said (@2), “It’s not called the ‘clymer media’ for nothing.” Actually, it’s not called the “clymer media” at all, except by Carl.

    No, seriously, Google it*. Of the lamentably few results that do pop up (just over 50), most on the first page have to do with media jobs and listings in towns called Clymer. The rest, and I am not joking, are all instances of one so-called “Carl Vehse” spewing his queer rhetoric.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

    *You know, Google, the same search engine recommended by Carl for you to look up the clever substitutions he uses for curse words and phrases he’s too timid to actually spell out.

    [1] geneveith.com/why-do-gays-come-across-better-than-their-christian-critics/_3875/
    [2] geneveith.com/willing-to-back-down/_1381/
    [3] watersblogged.blogspot.com/2006/03/tough-road-ahead-for-john-mccain.html
    [4] talkingdonkey.wordpress.com/2006/01/23/hemmed-and-hawed/
    [5] talkingdonkey.wordpress.com/2004/04/30/the-price-is-right/
    [6] geneveith.com/pirate-tale/_2000/
    [7] preachrblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/neighborhood-violence-and-prayer.html
    [8] gottesblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/hallowed-ground-of-scientists.html

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Ah, biffed my own link (@60). Well done. Should read “No, seriously, Google it“.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Ah, biffed my own link (@60). Well done. Should read “No, seriously, Google it“.

  • http://barrybishop.blogspot.com/ Barry D. Bishop

    fws,

    sticking to Scripture, is 1 Tim. 1:10 (and surrounding context) clear enough that the Bible is against homosexuality?

    8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, [2] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound [3] doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

  • http://barrybishop.blogspot.com/ Barry D. Bishop

    fws,

    sticking to Scripture, is 1 Tim. 1:10 (and surrounding context) clear enough that the Bible is against homosexuality?

    8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, [2] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound [3] doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

  • http://barrybishop.blogspot.com/ Barry D. Bishop

    fws,

    I remembered another Scripture passage. Jesus weighs in on the issue as well. Consider if the following is just about divorce or does it talk about God’s purpose for marriage between a man and a woman “from the beginning.”

    Matthew 19:4-6 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

    Any deviation from this would be a perversion of God’s design. Are two men (or two women) to become one flesh? Or how about a man and more than one woman? How about a man and an animal? It doesn’t matter how I feel on the issue God’s Word seems pretty clear.

  • http://barrybishop.blogspot.com/ Barry D. Bishop

    fws,

    I remembered another Scripture passage. Jesus weighs in on the issue as well. Consider if the following is just about divorce or does it talk about God’s purpose for marriage between a man and a woman “from the beginning.”

    Matthew 19:4-6 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

    Any deviation from this would be a perversion of God’s design. Are two men (or two women) to become one flesh? Or how about a man and more than one woman? How about a man and an animal? It doesn’t matter how I feel on the issue God’s Word seems pretty clear.

  • http://barrybishop.blogspot.com/ Barry D. Bishop

    since I am on a roll, I will just keep posting.
    Why is gluttony a sin? Or more specifically, why is gluttony a sin in MY life? It is a sin because when I seek food for pleasure and comfort beyond the nourishment I need then I turn to it to solve my problems rather than to God. This is idolatry.

    Fill in the blank: “When I turn to X for X rather than turn to/trust God then I commit idolatry.” This would include making a god to suit myself. Many religious people (who call themselves Christians) unknowingly create a god who they are comfortable with by cutting out the Scriptures they don’t particularly like. Then they say, “my God would never condemn that.” But what has God already said in His Word?

    I may err but God’s Word does not. Be honest with yourself when you read the Bible and let it change you rather than you change it.

  • http://barrybishop.blogspot.com/ Barry D. Bishop

    since I am on a roll, I will just keep posting.
    Why is gluttony a sin? Or more specifically, why is gluttony a sin in MY life? It is a sin because when I seek food for pleasure and comfort beyond the nourishment I need then I turn to it to solve my problems rather than to God. This is idolatry.

    Fill in the blank: “When I turn to X for X rather than turn to/trust God then I commit idolatry.” This would include making a god to suit myself. Many religious people (who call themselves Christians) unknowingly create a god who they are comfortable with by cutting out the Scriptures they don’t particularly like. Then they say, “my God would never condemn that.” But what has God already said in His Word?

    I may err but God’s Word does not. Be honest with yourself when you read the Bible and let it change you rather than you change it.

  • George A. Marquart

    fws: thanks for the help, but I am neither pastor, nor emeritus, but I am Marquart.

  • George A. Marquart

    fws: thanks for the help, but I am neither pastor, nor emeritus, but I am Marquart.

  • http://onroughseas.wordpress.com BW

    FWS,

    I agree with much of what you have to say. However, I do see a problem when, say the ELCA begins to redefine their policies and definitions and say that sexual relations between persons of the same sex are no longer sinful. I think that is where the repentance issue comes into play. ELCA ought to know better and you can’t call people to repentance then that struggle with that sin if you act as though it isn’t.

  • http://onroughseas.wordpress.com BW

    FWS,

    I agree with much of what you have to say. However, I do see a problem when, say the ELCA begins to redefine their policies and definitions and say that sexual relations between persons of the same sex are no longer sinful. I think that is where the repentance issue comes into play. ELCA ought to know better and you can’t call people to repentance then that struggle with that sin if you act as though it isn’t.

  • http://katiesbeer.piperblogs.org/ Theresa K.

    “Gay” should be used as an adjective and not a noun. To call someone a gay rather than a gay protestor rejects his or her value as a person.

    We live in times where scripture means little or nothing to a growing number of people. Those who do know scripture often twist words or meaning. So, what is our response to them? Anger, insults, humiliation? The gay protestors were handed as opportunity to appear as the more respectful people.

    I wholeheartedly agree with the very first response from John (#1):
    St. Paul tells us to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Much of the conservative criticism of homosexuality comes off as unloving, uncaring and mean spirited. Many of the homosexuals come off as (and indeed truly are) loving, caring, nice people.
    If a conservative Christian cannot respond to homosexuality in a loving, caring, way, then he should keep his mouth shut. He is doing more harm than good.

    We must speak out against homosexuality because we care for the homosexuals. We want only what is best for them. (That of course is the sexuality God intended from creation.) Get rid of the hate, the anger, and the mean spirit.

  • http://katiesbeer.piperblogs.org/ Theresa K.

    “Gay” should be used as an adjective and not a noun. To call someone a gay rather than a gay protestor rejects his or her value as a person.

    We live in times where scripture means little or nothing to a growing number of people. Those who do know scripture often twist words or meaning. So, what is our response to them? Anger, insults, humiliation? The gay protestors were handed as opportunity to appear as the more respectful people.

    I wholeheartedly agree with the very first response from John (#1):
    St. Paul tells us to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Much of the conservative criticism of homosexuality comes off as unloving, uncaring and mean spirited. Many of the homosexuals come off as (and indeed truly are) loving, caring, nice people.
    If a conservative Christian cannot respond to homosexuality in a loving, caring, way, then he should keep his mouth shut. He is doing more harm than good.

    We must speak out against homosexuality because we care for the homosexuals. We want only what is best for them. (That of course is the sexuality God intended from creation.) Get rid of the hate, the anger, and the mean spirit.

  • fws

    Comment #59
    Barry D. Bishop said:
    comment #52

    “God’s Word convicts me all the time of areas of sin in my life.”

    not always. I would bet serious money on that being the fact. You deserve to burn in hell for this, for your lack of repentence, your failure to trust God, your failure to see your sin clearly.

    But i would never judge your faith here, or if I did, seeing you as a smoldering wick, or bruised reed, I would reassure you of God´s grace.

    Thank God you and I are not saved by the sincerity, quality or quantity of our repentence, faith or anything else WITHIN us, even if it is God working that something WITHIN us. Christ ALONE outside of us and for us is certain and sure.

  • fws

    Comment #59
    Barry D. Bishop said:
    comment #52

    “God’s Word convicts me all the time of areas of sin in my life.”

    not always. I would bet serious money on that being the fact. You deserve to burn in hell for this, for your lack of repentence, your failure to trust God, your failure to see your sin clearly.

    But i would never judge your faith here, or if I did, seeing you as a smoldering wick, or bruised reed, I would reassure you of God´s grace.

    Thank God you and I are not saved by the sincerity, quality or quantity of our repentence, faith or anything else WITHIN us, even if it is God working that something WITHIN us. Christ ALONE outside of us and for us is certain and sure.

  • Joe

    Frank – your textual analysis of Leviticus 18:22 is simply wrong. The phrase as one does with women does not mean non-volitional sex. The only way to get there is to imply that all heterosexual sex is rape. Further, no other act in that chapter speaks to rape – the entire chapter is about forbidden consensual sex acts. Just because you as a gay man would not want to be in the traditionally female role during a sex does not mean that other gay men feel the same. Aren’t you the one always warning the rest of us not to lump all gay folks together? And it certainly does not form a basis for proper textual analysis.

  • Joe

    Frank – your textual analysis of Leviticus 18:22 is simply wrong. The phrase as one does with women does not mean non-volitional sex. The only way to get there is to imply that all heterosexual sex is rape. Further, no other act in that chapter speaks to rape – the entire chapter is about forbidden consensual sex acts. Just because you as a gay man would not want to be in the traditionally female role during a sex does not mean that other gay men feel the same. Aren’t you the one always warning the rest of us not to lump all gay folks together? And it certainly does not form a basis for proper textual analysis.

  • fws

    Comment #62
    Barry D. Bishop said:
    fws,

    sticking to Scripture, is 1 Tim. 1:10 (and surrounding context) clear enough that the Bible is against homosexuality?

    8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality,

    Look up the word “anachronism”. This translation uses the term “homosexuality” that way. It is a bad, wrong translation from the greek. “homosexuality”, like clinical depression, and bipolarism, were not categories in biblical times. The idea of using a medical term for something that was not thought to even exist prior to 1900 in a translation is simply wrong. so the biblical commandment “be joyful always” would be translated “never be clinically depressed”….. hmmmm

    But there IS a bigger issue here that you are missing by your “straining at gnats”. Sin IS sin. It IS serious and deadly. just how many homosexuals do you know on a personally intimate basis? you don´t have enough on your own hands dealing with sins that affect your life or those around you? is homosexual urge worse than a man oogling the breasts of a female? his wife even? Lust even for one´s wife is UNnatural. it is not love. it is not christ-like. I would not question the faith of someone who sins in this way. you apparently would!

  • fws

    Comment #62
    Barry D. Bishop said:
    fws,

    sticking to Scripture, is 1 Tim. 1:10 (and surrounding context) clear enough that the Bible is against homosexuality?

    8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality,

    Look up the word “anachronism”. This translation uses the term “homosexuality” that way. It is a bad, wrong translation from the greek. “homosexuality”, like clinical depression, and bipolarism, were not categories in biblical times. The idea of using a medical term for something that was not thought to even exist prior to 1900 in a translation is simply wrong. so the biblical commandment “be joyful always” would be translated “never be clinically depressed”….. hmmmm

    But there IS a bigger issue here that you are missing by your “straining at gnats”. Sin IS sin. It IS serious and deadly. just how many homosexuals do you know on a personally intimate basis? you don´t have enough on your own hands dealing with sins that affect your life or those around you? is homosexual urge worse than a man oogling the breasts of a female? his wife even? Lust even for one´s wife is UNnatural. it is not love. it is not christ-like. I would not question the faith of someone who sins in this way. you apparently would!

  • fws

    Comment #63
    Barry D. Bishop said:
    fws,

    Consider if the following is just about divorce or does it talk about God’s purpose for marriage between a man and a woman “from the beginning.”

    Any deviation from this would be a perversion of God’s design.

    ok. I believe this. all of it. a design does not logically equal a law or moral rule. designs exist for a reason and purpose. the design never trumps the purpose. pitchers are designed to transport water. using something other than a pitcher to accomplish the same thing is not necessarily wrong, although it could be. it depends.

    You are arguing with logic and not from God´s Word here.

  • fws

    Comment #63
    Barry D. Bishop said:
    fws,

    Consider if the following is just about divorce or does it talk about God’s purpose for marriage between a man and a woman “from the beginning.”

    Any deviation from this would be a perversion of God’s design.

    ok. I believe this. all of it. a design does not logically equal a law or moral rule. designs exist for a reason and purpose. the design never trumps the purpose. pitchers are designed to transport water. using something other than a pitcher to accomplish the same thing is not necessarily wrong, although it could be. it depends.

    You are arguing with logic and not from God´s Word here.

  • fws

    Comment #64
    Barry D. Bishop said:

    Fill in the blank: “When I turn to X for X rather than turn to/trust God then I commit idolatry.”

    when you read the Bible and let it change you rather than you change it.

    amen. Idolatry IS the real sin behind every other sin. man, with his free will, can keep EVERY commandment except the first 2. the first two commandments : fear,love and trust in God above everything else, and call on his name in every trouble and don´t misuse it.

    the problem is that you seem to say that I am responsible to judge persons who do not seem, visibly to be living in God´s Will as to whether they are christians or not and whether they have faith or not.

    My proposition is simple:

    Christians, sadly, but tipically have sins that they do not consider sin and perhaps even pridefully defend as non sin. to draw the conclusion from this that they are not christian is not for us to do. I would NEVER conclude that a non-repentant calvinist or baptist is therefore no christian for example. what is more damaging spiritually? false doctrine defended as truth or being defensive and wrong about the sin of gluttony or extramerital sexual thoughts, impulses or acts? for example…

  • fws

    Comment #64
    Barry D. Bishop said:

    Fill in the blank: “When I turn to X for X rather than turn to/trust God then I commit idolatry.”

    when you read the Bible and let it change you rather than you change it.

    amen. Idolatry IS the real sin behind every other sin. man, with his free will, can keep EVERY commandment except the first 2. the first two commandments : fear,love and trust in God above everything else, and call on his name in every trouble and don´t misuse it.

    the problem is that you seem to say that I am responsible to judge persons who do not seem, visibly to be living in God´s Will as to whether they are christians or not and whether they have faith or not.

    My proposition is simple:

    Christians, sadly, but tipically have sins that they do not consider sin and perhaps even pridefully defend as non sin. to draw the conclusion from this that they are not christian is not for us to do. I would NEVER conclude that a non-repentant calvinist or baptist is therefore no christian for example. what is more damaging spiritually? false doctrine defended as truth or being defensive and wrong about the sin of gluttony or extramerital sexual thoughts, impulses or acts? for example…

  • fws

    Comment #66
    BW said:
    FWS,

    I agree with much of what you have to say. you can’t call people to repentance then that struggle with that sin if you act as though it isn’t.

    If the goal is to call people to repentence this would be true. The goal is to call people to christ.

    I am NOT saying by this that the ELCA is right to call sin non-sin. to say that extramarital sex is ok IS sin and an error.

    How can the LCMS call the ELCA to repentance when they have gay pastors and teachers, and force this to be a big ol secret that is not dealt with in a christian way: in the open? shoe on other foot! Maybe we should focus on our own sins before pridefully dealing with those of others? just a thought!

  • fws

    Comment #66
    BW said:
    FWS,

    I agree with much of what you have to say. you can’t call people to repentance then that struggle with that sin if you act as though it isn’t.

    If the goal is to call people to repentence this would be true. The goal is to call people to christ.

    I am NOT saying by this that the ELCA is right to call sin non-sin. to say that extramarital sex is ok IS sin and an error.

    How can the LCMS call the ELCA to repentance when they have gay pastors and teachers, and force this to be a big ol secret that is not dealt with in a christian way: in the open? shoe on other foot! Maybe we should focus on our own sins before pridefully dealing with those of others? just a thought!

  • fws

    #67 teresa K

    “We must speak out against HOMOSEXUALITY because we care for the homosexuals. We want only what is best for them. (That of course is the sexuality God intended from creation.)

    Gay men and lesbians would be committing a grave and ugly sin to marry. I do not believe that this would be God´s Will in ANY way Teresa.

    If you define homosexuality as rape, which is what you must do if you quote the sodom and gomorrah story, lev 18 and 1 cor and romans as describing or defining the word “homosexual” then you are right.

    The unfortunate thing though with this approach dear sister, is that for even the most libertine hedonistic gay person on the planet, the sexual practices in those passages look utterly repugnant and distasteful.

    so we have a problem: How can you say the bible talks about homosexuality, when there are no homosexuals on the planet who would a) find what is described in those passages as anything less than nauseating? and b) as a consequence cannot understand in what sense they should embrace those passages as describing their particular sin list?

    Where is the “love” in insisting to do this?

    try this on as an equivalent:

    teresa, Lot´s daughters got their dad drunk and then raped him. This is heterosexuality and the picture of what it looks like and the definition of what the sex acts look like.

    Teresa! you need to repent of heterosexuality! you need to stop being a heterosexual! it´s all right there in the scripture? what you don´t accept that what is described there is sin? you are saying that this is not about heterosexuality? why.. teresa… lot and his daughers ARE heterosexuals are they not? so is that not about heterosexual sex? are you denying the historic understanding of this passage?

    if you do not repent of this and acknowledge your sin of heterosexuality as the bible clearly defines it, then I can consider you no christian. unrepentant sinners are no christians teresa!

    please feel free to point out to me the several places this looks absurd.

  • fws

    #67 teresa K

    “We must speak out against HOMOSEXUALITY because we care for the homosexuals. We want only what is best for them. (That of course is the sexuality God intended from creation.)

    Gay men and lesbians would be committing a grave and ugly sin to marry. I do not believe that this would be God´s Will in ANY way Teresa.

    If you define homosexuality as rape, which is what you must do if you quote the sodom and gomorrah story, lev 18 and 1 cor and romans as describing or defining the word “homosexual” then you are right.

    The unfortunate thing though with this approach dear sister, is that for even the most libertine hedonistic gay person on the planet, the sexual practices in those passages look utterly repugnant and distasteful.

    so we have a problem: How can you say the bible talks about homosexuality, when there are no homosexuals on the planet who would a) find what is described in those passages as anything less than nauseating? and b) as a consequence cannot understand in what sense they should embrace those passages as describing their particular sin list?

    Where is the “love” in insisting to do this?

    try this on as an equivalent:

    teresa, Lot´s daughters got their dad drunk and then raped him. This is heterosexuality and the picture of what it looks like and the definition of what the sex acts look like.

    Teresa! you need to repent of heterosexuality! you need to stop being a heterosexual! it´s all right there in the scripture? what you don´t accept that what is described there is sin? you are saying that this is not about heterosexuality? why.. teresa… lot and his daughers ARE heterosexuals are they not? so is that not about heterosexual sex? are you denying the historic understanding of this passage?

    if you do not repent of this and acknowledge your sin of heterosexuality as the bible clearly defines it, then I can consider you no christian. unrepentant sinners are no christians teresa!

    please feel free to point out to me the several places this looks absurd.

  • fws

    Comment #69
    Joe said:
    Frank – your textual analysis of Leviticus 18:22 is simply wrong.

    Joe. textual analysis is flawed if it ignores contexts as you are doing.

    Define “rape” as it was understood the OT for us please. Did women have sexual volition in the OT? What would be the implications then of a man treating another man as a woman.

    You are inserting an anachronism into the text. NO typical gay man on the planet would see this as anything other than a rape. Prison sex. Prison sex is NOT gay sex. as in “I am gonna turn you into my b**tch.

    Joe. make this personal. ok this passage prohibits you from having sex with me. If I tried to have sex with you, treating you like a woman in bed, would this be possible without raping you? the same answer would be true for the typical gay man. I say typical ONLY to allow for the possibility that someone might be a sick person into sado masichism… that exception would prove no rule would it?

  • fws

    Comment #69
    Joe said:
    Frank – your textual analysis of Leviticus 18:22 is simply wrong.

    Joe. textual analysis is flawed if it ignores contexts as you are doing.

    Define “rape” as it was understood the OT for us please. Did women have sexual volition in the OT? What would be the implications then of a man treating another man as a woman.

    You are inserting an anachronism into the text. NO typical gay man on the planet would see this as anything other than a rape. Prison sex. Prison sex is NOT gay sex. as in “I am gonna turn you into my b**tch.

    Joe. make this personal. ok this passage prohibits you from having sex with me. If I tried to have sex with you, treating you like a woman in bed, would this be possible without raping you? the same answer would be true for the typical gay man. I say typical ONLY to allow for the possibility that someone might be a sick person into sado masichism… that exception would prove no rule would it?

  • fws

    #69 Joe: will historic christianity colapse if I am right?

    Extramarital sex in thought word and deed is always wrong right? Would the argument for that proposition be in ANY way weakened if this passage did not pertain to “homosexual sex” as any mental health or medical professional would clinically define it today?

    I am inserting “clinically define” because idiot christians are insisting on this. It is they who are insisting on the absurd anachronism of using a 20th century term from a medical diagnostic book to translate or label something that was not a category or anything in biblical times. I am waiting for the translation that translates “He was a man of sorrow and acquainted with clinical depression.”

    really now Joe! we can do better than this can´t we? Souls are at stake. that is the only reason any of this matters to me. ok?

    Why am i sensing that you NEED this to be about homosexuality?

  • fws

    #69 Joe: will historic christianity colapse if I am right?

    Extramarital sex in thought word and deed is always wrong right? Would the argument for that proposition be in ANY way weakened if this passage did not pertain to “homosexual sex” as any mental health or medical professional would clinically define it today?

    I am inserting “clinically define” because idiot christians are insisting on this. It is they who are insisting on the absurd anachronism of using a 20th century term from a medical diagnostic book to translate or label something that was not a category or anything in biblical times. I am waiting for the translation that translates “He was a man of sorrow and acquainted with clinical depression.”

    really now Joe! we can do better than this can´t we? Souls are at stake. that is the only reason any of this matters to me. ok?

    Why am i sensing that you NEED this to be about homosexuality?

  • fws

    Comment #65
    George A. Marquart said:
    fws: thanks for the help, but I am neither pastor, nor emeritus, but I am Marquart.

    you are welcome . you do have alot to say. My working theory right now is that the SAME law and gospel should be preached in the SAME way to those in the church and outside of it.

    You are challenging some of those views. it would be great to be able to go back and forth a bit on this offline.

    The Lord´s Peace be with you dear brother!

  • fws

    Comment #65
    George A. Marquart said:
    fws: thanks for the help, but I am neither pastor, nor emeritus, but I am Marquart.

    you are welcome . you do have alot to say. My working theory right now is that the SAME law and gospel should be preached in the SAME way to those in the church and outside of it.

    You are challenging some of those views. it would be great to be able to go back and forth a bit on this offline.

    The Lord´s Peace be with you dear brother!

  • http://katiesbeer.piperblogs.org/ Theresa K.

    Frank,

    I had intended to emphasize, in my re-quote, John’s initial point of caring for every fellow human as an equal. I never read any other comments before making my own. I wasn’t jumping into any debate.

    I was also responding to Veith’s ending question,

    “Why do the Christian protesters come off so badly, while the gay protesters come across so well? Is it just the bias of the author? Or are the Christian conservatives just being ineffective while the gays know how to protest effectively?”

    I think the difference is knowing who I am in the eyes of God. After reading the account, I am left wondering if any of the protesters, on either side, truly knows the extent of their sinful nature. We are all equal in God’s eyes. Sinners without justification, except through the blood of Jesus Christ. Correspondingly, we pray forgiveness for our know and unknown sins. It’s not possible to know all my sins; that’s why Christ died for all sins.

    We are on the same page with regard to the rest of your points. No need to debate.

  • http://katiesbeer.piperblogs.org/ Theresa K.

    Frank,

    I had intended to emphasize, in my re-quote, John’s initial point of caring for every fellow human as an equal. I never read any other comments before making my own. I wasn’t jumping into any debate.

    I was also responding to Veith’s ending question,

    “Why do the Christian protesters come off so badly, while the gay protesters come across so well? Is it just the bias of the author? Or are the Christian conservatives just being ineffective while the gays know how to protest effectively?”

    I think the difference is knowing who I am in the eyes of God. After reading the account, I am left wondering if any of the protesters, on either side, truly knows the extent of their sinful nature. We are all equal in God’s eyes. Sinners without justification, except through the blood of Jesus Christ. Correspondingly, we pray forgiveness for our know and unknown sins. It’s not possible to know all my sins; that’s why Christ died for all sins.

    We are on the same page with regard to the rest of your points. No need to debate.

  • fws

    #69 Jeo

    Maybe the text is not the problem?

    are you saying that “homosexual sex EQUALS any sex between two men?” or are you saying that “homosexuality EQUALS any sex between two men?”

    Does prison rape EQUAL “homosexuality/homosexual sex” in your mind? are transvestites or transgenders (ie men or women who want to be the other sex) “homosexuals”?

    If so, the problem is not in the text Joe.

    Do you feel that what we are talking about has anything at all to do with defense of “the faith once handed down to the saints”?

  • fws

    #69 Jeo

    Maybe the text is not the problem?

    are you saying that “homosexual sex EQUALS any sex between two men?” or are you saying that “homosexuality EQUALS any sex between two men?”

    Does prison rape EQUAL “homosexuality/homosexual sex” in your mind? are transvestites or transgenders (ie men or women who want to be the other sex) “homosexuals”?

    If so, the problem is not in the text Joe.

    Do you feel that what we are talking about has anything at all to do with defense of “the faith once handed down to the saints”?

  • fws

    Comment #78
    Theresa K. said:

    Observing the sins of others is always an opportunity to recognize, reflect on and see the profound extent and deceiptful nature of our own old adam. and repent.

    I would suggest we use only words that do not describe the sins of any sinner or group of sinners as “them” or “they” or “those” meaning we can safely and surely assume they are not christian or worse that their being blind to a particular sin as being truly sin and wrong means that they MUST have sinned against the Holy Spirit and cannot be christian.

    If that were the case, the Gospel would mean nothing.

    Much as I love CFW Wather, I get itchy when he says things like TRUE faith or TRUE repentance. there is only faith and repentance or the absence of these things.

    The insertion of “true” as a modifier betrays a lack of trust in the gospel.

  • fws

    Comment #78
    Theresa K. said:

    Observing the sins of others is always an opportunity to recognize, reflect on and see the profound extent and deceiptful nature of our own old adam. and repent.

    I would suggest we use only words that do not describe the sins of any sinner or group of sinners as “them” or “they” or “those” meaning we can safely and surely assume they are not christian or worse that their being blind to a particular sin as being truly sin and wrong means that they MUST have sinned against the Holy Spirit and cannot be christian.

    If that were the case, the Gospel would mean nothing.

    Much as I love CFW Wather, I get itchy when he says things like TRUE faith or TRUE repentance. there is only faith and repentance or the absence of these things.

    The insertion of “true” as a modifier betrays a lack of trust in the gospel.

  • fws

    #80 teresa

    long story short: I know gay men and women who are in sexual relationships with other men and women and who tell me that they are christian and sincerely cannot see where the scripture says this is wrong.

    I do not believe that Christ give me either the duty or authority to try to convince them that if they do not recognize a particular sin as sin, then they are going to hell.

    I actually believe I could commit no graver sin than this one!

    cf what Jesus says about bruised reeds, smoldering wicks, sheep/goats, wheat/tares etc etc etc.

    I KNOW you are right there with me on this point dear sister and you also know that if this were not true, you and I would be in a terrible position spiritually. as in lost.

  • fws

    #80 teresa

    long story short: I know gay men and women who are in sexual relationships with other men and women and who tell me that they are christian and sincerely cannot see where the scripture says this is wrong.

    I do not believe that Christ give me either the duty or authority to try to convince them that if they do not recognize a particular sin as sin, then they are going to hell.

    I actually believe I could commit no graver sin than this one!

    cf what Jesus says about bruised reeds, smoldering wicks, sheep/goats, wheat/tares etc etc etc.

    I KNOW you are right there with me on this point dear sister and you also know that if this were not true, you and I would be in a terrible position spiritually. as in lost.

  • fws

    #78 TERESA

    btw, please do forgive me dear sister if I got your words twisted. please.

  • fws

    #78 TERESA

    btw, please do forgive me dear sister if I got your words twisted. please.

  • fws

    #69 Joe

    your approach to extramarital sex would be to point to rape passages in the bible and then say “see: the extramarital sex you are having is wrong. The bible says so right there!”

    Doesn´t this approach strike you are less than winsome and maybe more than a little odd? yet that is the posture you present yourself to homosexuals with.

    “See, the bible describes sexual practices that naseate and repulse you and i am required by Holy scripture to insist to you that your sexual practice look exactly like those even if you disagree with me, DON`T disagree with scripture! repent of being that way!”

  • fws

    #69 Joe

    your approach to extramarital sex would be to point to rape passages in the bible and then say “see: the extramarital sex you are having is wrong. The bible says so right there!”

    Doesn´t this approach strike you are less than winsome and maybe more than a little odd? yet that is the posture you present yourself to homosexuals with.

    “See, the bible describes sexual practices that naseate and repulse you and i am required by Holy scripture to insist to you that your sexual practice look exactly like those even if you disagree with me, DON`T disagree with scripture! repent of being that way!”

  • Joe

    Frank – First of all your posts are getting jumbled. But I will try to answer what I think you are saying. Sadly some of it is ground you and I have already gone over.

    1. I agree with you that having homosexual desires is not the sin – at least it is no more a sin then the lustful urge a man may have toward a women who is not his wife.

    2. I have no idea why you are asking me about prision sex. I didn’t bring it up and it really doesn have anything to do with my comment. Since you asked, if some one was raped in prision the person who was raped has not committed the sin of engaging in homosexual or extramarital sex. The person would did the raping has committed all kinds of sins by that act.

    3. I did not take issue with anything you said about Biblical passages except the Leviticus passage and I stand by what I said. Here is what I fail to follow in your thinking – why does the phrase as you do with a women automatically mean rape? Why doesn’t it mean consensual sex. What do you think the typical husband does to his wife? I think you are conflating “as one lies with a women” into something more than it says. I don’t agree that it means that one male has to treat the other male as a women. I think that it is a description of what you are not supossed to do – have intercourse with another man (i.e. lie with him as you do a women).

    4. Not sure what your point in asking is, but you and I are forbidden from having sex. Period. For a couple of reasons.

    5. My response to extramarital sex is that it is wrong and I don’t have to (nor have I)point to passages about rape to demonstrate it.

    6. ignoring the sin of same -geneder sexual relations is no more or less dangerous to the faith than ignoring the sin of drunkeness. It just happens to be an issue our society is dealing with at the moment.

    7. The church has an obligation to love all sinners and to preach to them both law and gospel and to support them in their struggles.

  • Joe

    Frank – First of all your posts are getting jumbled. But I will try to answer what I think you are saying. Sadly some of it is ground you and I have already gone over.

    1. I agree with you that having homosexual desires is not the sin – at least it is no more a sin then the lustful urge a man may have toward a women who is not his wife.

    2. I have no idea why you are asking me about prision sex. I didn’t bring it up and it really doesn have anything to do with my comment. Since you asked, if some one was raped in prision the person who was raped has not committed the sin of engaging in homosexual or extramarital sex. The person would did the raping has committed all kinds of sins by that act.

    3. I did not take issue with anything you said about Biblical passages except the Leviticus passage and I stand by what I said. Here is what I fail to follow in your thinking – why does the phrase as you do with a women automatically mean rape? Why doesn’t it mean consensual sex. What do you think the typical husband does to his wife? I think you are conflating “as one lies with a women” into something more than it says. I don’t agree that it means that one male has to treat the other male as a women. I think that it is a description of what you are not supossed to do – have intercourse with another man (i.e. lie with him as you do a women).

    4. Not sure what your point in asking is, but you and I are forbidden from having sex. Period. For a couple of reasons.

    5. My response to extramarital sex is that it is wrong and I don’t have to (nor have I)point to passages about rape to demonstrate it.

    6. ignoring the sin of same -geneder sexual relations is no more or less dangerous to the faith than ignoring the sin of drunkeness. It just happens to be an issue our society is dealing with at the moment.

    7. The church has an obligation to love all sinners and to preach to them both law and gospel and to support them in their struggles.

  • fws

    #84 joe . great chattin with ya

    1. we sin in thought word and deed. to have a desire for extramarital sex is sin and a result of the fall. Interesting we disagree here of all places isn´t it?

    Joe. what sort of incentive would it take for you to seek out voluntarily to be treated like a woman in bed? you are saying you can envision doing this personally without forcable rape and enjoying it? reall?

    I am a gay man and I cannot begin to imagine doing that. neither can the typical gay male I know…. for someone to even HINT at the idea that a gay man is wanting to be a female, treated as one sexually or is effeminate in any way would be fighting words for most gay men I know.

    I am saying: I, as a gay man, can not visualize placing myself in a lev 18 situation. I would be disgusted to do so. Yet I am gay. and I hear you saying that you, as a heterosexual male, CAN imagine yourself doing this and enjoying it? how is any of this NOT pertinent to the text if you claim it to be about “homosexuality”?

    so you are saying what here?

  • fws

    #84 joe . great chattin with ya

    1. we sin in thought word and deed. to have a desire for extramarital sex is sin and a result of the fall. Interesting we disagree here of all places isn´t it?

    Joe. what sort of incentive would it take for you to seek out voluntarily to be treated like a woman in bed? you are saying you can envision doing this personally without forcable rape and enjoying it? reall?

    I am a gay man and I cannot begin to imagine doing that. neither can the typical gay male I know…. for someone to even HINT at the idea that a gay man is wanting to be a female, treated as one sexually or is effeminate in any way would be fighting words for most gay men I know.

    I am saying: I, as a gay man, can not visualize placing myself in a lev 18 situation. I would be disgusted to do so. Yet I am gay. and I hear you saying that you, as a heterosexual male, CAN imagine yourself doing this and enjoying it? how is any of this NOT pertinent to the text if you claim it to be about “homosexuality”?

    so you are saying what here?

  • fws

    #84 Joe

    “I don’t agree that it means that one male has to treat the other male as a women.”

    why do you think that? then the text would read: “a man should not lie with another man. (period).

    How am I reading into the text in view of the fact that the sacred text, in fact, does not end the way you say it does?

    How, in your humble opinion, does the addition of the words “as with a woman” alter the meaning~? what do those words mean? nothing?

    or are you saying that, by definition, if one man has sex with another man, that then it goes without saying, that one of the two men is going to be treated like a female sexually?

    I am hearing you say that your opinions here can not be influenced in ANY way whether homosexuals would agree with your thinking as being reflective of their thinking or not.

    This all has a direct effect on how one views this text doesn´t it? aren´t these honest thoughts I am sharing? why do you dismiss them so readily?

    You are not being clear to me? why is that? if I am gay and this text describes my sexual inclinations , then why do I find what it describes as distasteful and disgusting? how am I wrong to think that this is therefore NOT about homosexuality or homosexual sex?

  • fws

    #84 Joe

    “I don’t agree that it means that one male has to treat the other male as a women.”

    why do you think that? then the text would read: “a man should not lie with another man. (period).

    How am I reading into the text in view of the fact that the sacred text, in fact, does not end the way you say it does?

    How, in your humble opinion, does the addition of the words “as with a woman” alter the meaning~? what do those words mean? nothing?

    or are you saying that, by definition, if one man has sex with another man, that then it goes without saying, that one of the two men is going to be treated like a female sexually?

    I am hearing you say that your opinions here can not be influenced in ANY way whether homosexuals would agree with your thinking as being reflective of their thinking or not.

    This all has a direct effect on how one views this text doesn´t it? aren´t these honest thoughts I am sharing? why do you dismiss them so readily?

    You are not being clear to me? why is that? if I am gay and this text describes my sexual inclinations , then why do I find what it describes as distasteful and disgusting? how am I wrong to think that this is therefore NOT about homosexuality or homosexual sex?

  • fws

    #84 Joe

    let me try to rephrase as a single succinct question to you:

    If I know that gays like me would typically be repulsed at the idea of having sex with another guy as if a woman, and that forceable rape would be required to make this go down? how am I forcing or doing violence to this text to think that this is not really about me or those like me?

    Ok. so you don´t agree. fine. But can you really say that my view of the text is not a reasonable alternative view?

    if not, then on what grounds? Your knowledge of what homosexuality is and looks like? The plain words of the text would contradict my understanding? what?

    And IF my alternative understanding is reasonable, have we lost a single ounce of biblical truth or erroded the idea in any way that sex outside of marriage is always wrong?

    Why are you so hot on this Joe?

  • fws

    #84 Joe

    let me try to rephrase as a single succinct question to you:

    If I know that gays like me would typically be repulsed at the idea of having sex with another guy as if a woman, and that forceable rape would be required to make this go down? how am I forcing or doing violence to this text to think that this is not really about me or those like me?

    Ok. so you don´t agree. fine. But can you really say that my view of the text is not a reasonable alternative view?

    if not, then on what grounds? Your knowledge of what homosexuality is and looks like? The plain words of the text would contradict my understanding? what?

    And IF my alternative understanding is reasonable, have we lost a single ounce of biblical truth or erroded the idea in any way that sex outside of marriage is always wrong?

    Why are you so hot on this Joe?

  • Wyldeirishman

    #50)

    “So you need scholars to explain everything you read now? but first you need to vet them to see if they are grinding the same axe you are? or are you saying the bible is really unclear. to you.?”

    I said no such thing, but merely intended to suggest that the bulk of Biblical scholarship, as it pertains to textual studies, mitigates wholeheartedly against what you are valiantly attempting to argue here. The Scriptures are perfectly clear, and there exists no place to hide from that which divides joint and marrow, soul and spirit. This applies to whether the discussion is pertaining to rape as well as consenting relationships.

    “so…you dispute that the sodom and gomorrah story is about rape? or is it lev 18 you say is not about rape? unvolitional sex is not rape since when?”

    Again, this is covered in my initial response above, and has since been well-documented by others posting here.

    “or is it that you are thinking gay=rapist?”

    “and you think people view you as a rational person when you express these views outside of your (apparently) narrow social circle?”

    Sir, how dare you? First, to force me to equivocate something that I’ve never once advocated is asking a bit much of the conversation, don’t you think?

    But, being a big kid, I can let that go; I’ve got pretty thick skin (to say nothing of my skull, evidently), but your further insinuations are nothing but pure coppertwaddle of the lowest order.

    You know absolutely nothing of me, nor my social circle and who that would include, but your pointed words are indicative that this is knowledge that you have somehow come by. You may be terribly surprised to know that my friends with whom I have deep and abiding disagreements are among some of the strongest relationships that I have had the privilege to be a part of.

    Not content with that, however, you swing wildly for the fences in your demonstrable, impotent rage against your “fundamentalist” straw-man “enemies,” sparing no one the collateral damage all while struggling to make a point that Scripture will not allow you to make.

    Further, it is almost as if you are equally guilty of baiting the conversation, much like the pastors themselves at the podium, by peppering your posts with virtual dares to disagree with you. That, along with phrases like “don’t drop the soap” and but of jokes,” leads me to conclude that this is a correct assumption.

    Far from adhering to the false gospel of social moralism, my argument remains with Scripture itself, and I rest my defense on nothing more, nor anything less.

    Grow up.

  • Wyldeirishman

    #50)

    “So you need scholars to explain everything you read now? but first you need to vet them to see if they are grinding the same axe you are? or are you saying the bible is really unclear. to you.?”

    I said no such thing, but merely intended to suggest that the bulk of Biblical scholarship, as it pertains to textual studies, mitigates wholeheartedly against what you are valiantly attempting to argue here. The Scriptures are perfectly clear, and there exists no place to hide from that which divides joint and marrow, soul and spirit. This applies to whether the discussion is pertaining to rape as well as consenting relationships.

    “so…you dispute that the sodom and gomorrah story is about rape? or is it lev 18 you say is not about rape? unvolitional sex is not rape since when?”

    Again, this is covered in my initial response above, and has since been well-documented by others posting here.

    “or is it that you are thinking gay=rapist?”

    “and you think people view you as a rational person when you express these views outside of your (apparently) narrow social circle?”

    Sir, how dare you? First, to force me to equivocate something that I’ve never once advocated is asking a bit much of the conversation, don’t you think?

    But, being a big kid, I can let that go; I’ve got pretty thick skin (to say nothing of my skull, evidently), but your further insinuations are nothing but pure coppertwaddle of the lowest order.

    You know absolutely nothing of me, nor my social circle and who that would include, but your pointed words are indicative that this is knowledge that you have somehow come by. You may be terribly surprised to know that my friends with whom I have deep and abiding disagreements are among some of the strongest relationships that I have had the privilege to be a part of.

    Not content with that, however, you swing wildly for the fences in your demonstrable, impotent rage against your “fundamentalist” straw-man “enemies,” sparing no one the collateral damage all while struggling to make a point that Scripture will not allow you to make.

    Further, it is almost as if you are equally guilty of baiting the conversation, much like the pastors themselves at the podium, by peppering your posts with virtual dares to disagree with you. That, along with phrases like “don’t drop the soap” and but of jokes,” leads me to conclude that this is a correct assumption.

    Far from adhering to the false gospel of social moralism, my argument remains with Scripture itself, and I rest my defense on nothing more, nor anything less.

    Grow up.

  • boaz.ralston

    “why not treat and regard homosexuals who, in error, see no problem with sex outside of marriage, the exact same way as calvinists who sin, defiantly so, by denying the body and blood of christ in the holy supper?”

    I believe LCMS does that. LCMS denies communion to any unrepentant sinner and its position is clear, so I don’t see that you are proposing any change.

    In fact, I think in most LCMS churches, you are more likely to hear criticism of those who deny the body and blood of Christ than you do of those who engage in homosexual sex. Its pretty rare to hear LCMS pastors single out homosexual sex at all. In fact, I’ve never heard it. That’s probably because preaching against sexual immorality generally (lust, porn, premarital sex, and adultery) ensures that most in the congregation will hear some law specific to their sins.

    We should all pray that those unrepentant sinners who seek to justify their sins are forgiven of their ignorance and see their errors, and I would include in that you and your bizarre reinterpretations of Scripture’s prohibitions of gay sex, the Calvinists that deny Christ’s physical body and blood, and my own dangerous reliance on human reason.

  • boaz.ralston

    “why not treat and regard homosexuals who, in error, see no problem with sex outside of marriage, the exact same way as calvinists who sin, defiantly so, by denying the body and blood of christ in the holy supper?”

    I believe LCMS does that. LCMS denies communion to any unrepentant sinner and its position is clear, so I don’t see that you are proposing any change.

    In fact, I think in most LCMS churches, you are more likely to hear criticism of those who deny the body and blood of Christ than you do of those who engage in homosexual sex. Its pretty rare to hear LCMS pastors single out homosexual sex at all. In fact, I’ve never heard it. That’s probably because preaching against sexual immorality generally (lust, porn, premarital sex, and adultery) ensures that most in the congregation will hear some law specific to their sins.

    We should all pray that those unrepentant sinners who seek to justify their sins are forgiven of their ignorance and see their errors, and I would include in that you and your bizarre reinterpretations of Scripture’s prohibitions of gay sex, the Calvinists that deny Christ’s physical body and blood, and my own dangerous reliance on human reason.

  • fws

    #89 boaz.ralston

    “…and I would include in that you and your bizarre reinterpretations of Scripture’s prohibitions of gay sex,”

    aw. I can say to someone like you, truly “forgiven of their ignorance ” that I DO believe all extramarital sex is sin, which includes sex between homosexuals again and again and again. AND again and again and again and again and again , till I am blue in the face.

    And you and others like you will insist in your forgiven ignorance to overlook that I said that won´t you?

    Why is that? It is called original sin. it is in me and you and everyone isn´t it?

  • fws

    #89 boaz.ralston

    “…and I would include in that you and your bizarre reinterpretations of Scripture’s prohibitions of gay sex,”

    aw. I can say to someone like you, truly “forgiven of their ignorance ” that I DO believe all extramarital sex is sin, which includes sex between homosexuals again and again and again. AND again and again and again and again and again , till I am blue in the face.

    And you and others like you will insist in your forgiven ignorance to overlook that I said that won´t you?

    Why is that? It is called original sin. it is in me and you and everyone isn´t it?

  • fws

    Comment #89
    boaz.ralston said:
    “why not treat and regard homosexuals who, in error, see no problem with sex outside of marriage, the exact same way as calvinists who sin, defiantly so, by denying the body and blood of christ in the holy supper?”

    I believe LCMS does that.

    do you go the additional step and muse that the unrepentance of those who are not Lutherans MUST mean that they are therefore not christian and that it would be oxymoronic to put christian and calvinist in the same sentence as many assume to be true about the phrase “gay christian”?

    you strain at gnats and so, sadly, miss my Law/Gospel point and it´s application.

  • fws

    Comment #89
    boaz.ralston said:
    “why not treat and regard homosexuals who, in error, see no problem with sex outside of marriage, the exact same way as calvinists who sin, defiantly so, by denying the body and blood of christ in the holy supper?”

    I believe LCMS does that.

    do you go the additional step and muse that the unrepentance of those who are not Lutherans MUST mean that they are therefore not christian and that it would be oxymoronic to put christian and calvinist in the same sentence as many assume to be true about the phrase “gay christian”?

    you strain at gnats and so, sadly, miss my Law/Gospel point and it´s application.

  • fws

    Comment #88
    Wyldeirishman said:
    #50)

    My “don´t drop the soap” comment was meant for Carl vehse and him only. he and I have a special relationship here. ;)

  • fws

    Comment #88
    Wyldeirishman said:
    #50)

    My “don´t drop the soap” comment was meant for Carl vehse and him only. he and I have a special relationship here. ;)

  • fws

    Comment #92
    fws said:
    Comment #88
    Wyldeirishman said:
    #50)

    relax. you could drop the soap and it could even be liquid soap requiring more time to scoop up, and I am SURE no one would notice or pay any attention at all.

    no need to feel to push that “indignant button or get wylde here……

    feel better now?

  • fws

    Comment #92
    fws said:
    Comment #88
    Wyldeirishman said:
    #50)

    relax. you could drop the soap and it could even be liquid soap requiring more time to scoop up, and I am SURE no one would notice or pay any attention at all.

    no need to feel to push that “indignant button or get wylde here……

    feel better now?

  • fws

    #93 wylde irish.

    dang. I responded in kind to the nastiness of your post and now i need to appologize to you. dang! I hate when that happens…..

  • fws

    #93 wylde irish.

    dang. I responded in kind to the nastiness of your post and now i need to appologize to you. dang! I hate when that happens…..

  • Wyldeirishman

    My post was neither nasty nor sarcastic, and you are simply straining to get a gnat-sized apology from me in order that you may boast about my flesh.

    With due respect, sir, keep your apology.

  • Wyldeirishman

    My post was neither nasty nor sarcastic, and you are simply straining to get a gnat-sized apology from me in order that you may boast about my flesh.

    With due respect, sir, keep your apology.

  • Joe

    This entire chain of posts underscores the sanity of traditional scripture interpretations. Even in the OT where polygamy existed and things were looser, homosex was regarded as a serious, no, gross sin. Trumptet gayness if you want, but at least have the dignity to disown the relevant texts, not explain them away. As exegesis, it is not only lame, it is, in a word, ‘gay’.

  • Joe

    This entire chain of posts underscores the sanity of traditional scripture interpretations. Even in the OT where polygamy existed and things were looser, homosex was regarded as a serious, no, gross sin. Trumptet gayness if you want, but at least have the dignity to disown the relevant texts, not explain them away. As exegesis, it is not only lame, it is, in a word, ‘gay’.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X