Ur Doing It Wrong

Returning for a minute to Bob Hyatt’s post, he has one further request:

[...] please stop labeling the other side of the argument as “hate speech” and bigotry. It’s not. It is a working out of deep convictions and a particular understanding of sexuality as a good gift from a good Creator, to be used within certain boundaries.

I originally responded with a riff off a previous post, because I’m not convinced that these “deep convictions” are anything more than unreflective conservatism combined with some proof texting. But I really like Ari Kohen’s response to a Glenn Loury and Ann Althouse bloggingheads talk:

Religions aren’t monolithic; if people really are involved in deep spiritual reflection on the matter of homosexuality, then they will surely be able to find an interpretation of their religious texts that allows for the kind of evolution that President Obama described. This doesn’t mean I’m not serious about practicing Judaism; it means I’m serious about finding a way to reconcile my belief in the teachings of Judaism with my belief that people should be treated equally. But, obviously, one must actually have both of these beliefs.

What do we call someone who either fails to consider the alternative teaching of his or her religion or rejects that teaching because it doesn’t lead to continued condemnation of gays and lesbians, someone — in other words — who doesn’t actually have both a religious belief and a belief in equality?

With apologies to Loury and Althouse, I think I have to call it bigotry.

I really like this response, because it recognizes that religions are variegated things that allow the individual more control than most folks acknowledge. We’re fond of treating religion as something you’re born into and stuck with barring deconversion. We don’t often talk about the streams of tradition within the religion that an individual must accept or reject.

Look around you: in our culture the chances are you’re going to see someone who is a Christian but holds to different interpretations of what Christianity means. Every sect has a tradition that explains how they’ve come to understand their religion the way they do. Every permutation has an argument as to why their tradition is legitimate. And this is fractal: every community has within it different streams of tradition that emphasis and interpret the components differently.

Perhaps you’re an evangelical who places high importance on the words of the Bible. But why do you take this passage at face value, while interpreting that passage in its historical context? Why is this verse intended only for that time and place while that verse is immortal and internal? Why do you interpret this passage in light of that passage instead of the other way around?

More ink has been spilled writing biblical commentaries than writing Bibles. Many of these interpretations are reasonable and the arguments sensible. How do you decide which is the “right” interpretation? Different members of your community have honestly looked and yet come to differing conclusions.

Kohen offers one way out of this mess: certain principles are non-negotiable. With Kohen, one of these principles is that all humans are equal. If you’re thinking leads you to the conclusion that some people have rights that others do not have, then it’s time to think again.

This is an old, old method. Rabbi Hillel is supposed to have said that the golden rule is the core of the law, and that all the rest is commentary. If your interpretation of the law leads you towards treating someone in a way that you would find hateful if the situation were reversed, then your interpretation is wrong. Supposedly his followers expanded this to say that the love of one’s neighbor is the core of the law, and any interpretation that leads you away from that love is flawed.

This should be natural for Christians, since Jesus spelled out the two most important commandments in Matthew 22:36-41, one of which was to love your neighbor as yourself. If your interpretation of the Bible leads you towards treating your neighbor as if their love, vows and relationships are less real than your own, then – as we say on the interwebs – “ur doin’ it wrong.”

And, as Kohen concluded, if your only guiding principle seems to be that gays are icky and less than equal with heterosexuals, then we have to conclude that your principles are bigoted. No matter how prayerfully and deeply you hold to a bigoted principle, it does not stop being bigoted, nor do you.

  • Dave Muscato

    I know it’s beside the point, but I can’t help but point out that the fox in the first picture is actually doing it right – that’s how foxes hunt when there’s snow on the ground (they’re predators that mostly eat rodents, squirrels, voles, gophers, etc). When they’re hunting burrowing animals, they follow the sound along the top of the snow, and then dive in to grab them before they can run away:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fox#Diet.2C_hunting_and_feeding_behaviour

    Great post though!

  • JHGRedekop

    The Bob Hyatt quote at the start of the post bugs me on a number of levels. People have demonize, persecuted, and enslaved people of other religions, nationalities, or populations for millennia based on deep personal religious convictions. What makes it bigotry when a Baptist preacher invokes the blood libel out of a deep personal conviction that the Jews killed Jesus, but non-bigotry when he invokes Leviticus and Romans?

  • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

    If there’s one thing I hate, it’s semantic cowardice. The likes of Hyatt refuse to accept the consequences of their own words and actions by trying to dodge and reinterpret labels that readily apply to them because of what they say and what they do. They’re changing the definition of bigot!

    “We don’t often talk about the streams of tradition within the religion that an individual must accept or reject.”
    I don’t think that’s quite true – we talk about it all the time, usually mockingly, with reference to all the other traditions and rules that religious individuals reject or are not even aware of. The shellfish thing, polycotton blends, stoning rude children to death, and so on; these are commonly pointed out and much of the basis for calling religious homophobes ‘bigots’ stems from their blatant disregard for passages that don’t suit them. Apparently hating homosexuals does suit them, ergo they are bigots.

  • http://exultet.blogspot.com Roz

    @JohnMWhite, your argument for calling people “bigots” could be equally applied to you. You are making assumptions about those who consider homosexual acts (not the individuals, but the acts) as disordered in a way consistent with the definition of:

    Bigot: noun. “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group . . . with hatred and intolerance.” [Merriam-Webster]

    @vorjack: If you believe that all or most Christians consider gay people “icky and less than equal with heterosexuals”, you’re mistaken. I must admit that the few who do believe that — or are portrayed that way — make amusing and convenient targets, but it’s really worth doing some further research if you want to be credible to people who aren’t already in your cheering section.

    • Kodie

      The old “not all Christians are like that” dodge. It’s such a few inconsequential Christians who believe that homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals, then why can’t gay people get married or have their marriage recognized in most United States, and even pass laws prohibiting it in referendum votes pertaining to such an issue? Yeah, we really had to turn every stone just to find a homophobe in this country.

    • dmantis

      Roz,
      Ur doin’ it wrong. By it I mean reading comprehension. John made no assumptions. He highlighted a particular case in which people who agree with Hyatt are hypocritical. In addition, he never said he hated those who think that way. L2read.

      As for your response to vorjack – he never said all people think that way. Again, L2read.

      Nevertheless, I’ll play along. Its obvious by your previous comment to John that you are attempting to seperate those ‘conveniant targets’ from those who consider the acts of homosexuals ‘disordered’. So, I have some questions:

      1. Who the hell are you to consider those acts disordered between two consenting adults that don’t affect anything or anyone else?
      2. Why the hell would you hate a biological act? Ferchrissakes, homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom.

      After you think long and hard about those questions, please research our closest relative the bonobo. Take special care when studying the part about why researchers believe they are so much more peaceful than our other close relative, the chimpanzee.

      • Yoav

        2. Why the hell would you hate a biological act? Ferchrissakes, homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom.

        But that’s because these animals are possesed by gay demons.

        • dmantis

          Damn…there goes my whole argument. Forgot about those gay demons!

    • Kodie

      Bigot: noun. “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group . . . with hatred and intolerance.” [Merriam-Webster]

      Are people who believe homosexuality is “disordered” particularly obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices about what constitutes “order”? Yes. Do they regard or treat members of a group with hatred and intolerance? If they vote to maintain only their prejudiced opinions about what constitutes “order,” YES!!!! Do they think they are bigots? No, because they’re magically immune from the definition being applied to them.

    • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

      Sigh. Remember what I said about semantic cowardice? You didn’t read what I said and you’re completely misrepresenting it as you scramble to justify bigotry by playing around with the meanings of words. You’re playing semantic games because you cannot stand the simple fact that those who treat homosexuals as less equal (and yes, having a considered moral opinion that they shouldn’t be treated equally is treating them as less equal) than the rest of us have no basis for their behaviour but prejudice. I call them bigots because that is what they are – they choose to adhere to the parts of their faith that allows them to treat homosexuals unequally. They don’t grudgingly stick to it because they feel the need to do everything their holy book tells them, because they blatantly do not do everything their holy book tells them. For some reason they pick the lines that say homosexuality is a sin and ignore the lines that say cheeseburgers are a sin, or not loving your neighbour is a sin.

      What other reason could it be? You’ve failed to provide one; in fact you have not even attempted it. All you have offered is the churlish, petty tactic of projection. I’m a bigot? I’m not making assumptions, I’m following the logic of the faithful, logic I used to adhere to myself. Christians have got to grow up and stop blaming other people for pointing out their own moral failure. It’s not our fault you’re bigots, so either stop being one or accept the shoe that fits you. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot be egalitarian and make an effort to prevent them from participating in society to the same degree as yourself.

  • Kodie

    I got some new-to-me insight yesterday, reading some of the responses on another blog about anti-homosexuality, and gave me some ideas about religion overall. I may have seen these ideas before but it never quite got through my skull in such a way. Perhaps not growing up religious had something to do with noticing something maybe everyone else knows?

    I read several responses, in very persuasive, poetic, symbolic language regarding the “perfection” of a heterosexual married procreative sex union. In perspective, it does a lot to point out the obvious – homosexuality cannot meet this ideal. I’ve never approached the idea of religion from a fictional idealistic prospect. When this idealism manifests itself in reality, it’s freakin’ ugly and distorted concept of reality, and that’s the side I see, and that’s where I can’t figure out what makes this utter stupidity so attractive. But I felt like I got inside the skull of a religious person for the first time and recognized their motivations. I want to make it clear, in case it wasn’t, that I didn’t find Jesus or anything radical like that. What I guess I’m saying is that someone put in words what so many dumbasses have come through here and failed to do.

    When someone is taught in strongly poetic language and symbolism the awesome beauty of a heterosexual married procreative sex union, and one is straight, it’s easy to look in one’s own life to strive for that ideal. It’s definitely cult-like. From the outside, some of these marriages are garbage, but they know they are garbage too. They know they are less than perfection, but they are guided by a template of this perfection. Because of the poetry. I just think it’s really a lot more difficult to shatter this illusion than I thought. They become sickened by the homosexual union, and defy its legitimacy via marriage, because of the poetry. Many of them are unable to convey what’s so ideal about the heterosexual married procreative sex union, and come off like petty assholes. How does homosexuality harm your marriage? Um, durr, duh… well, it just does! It’s sick! Their fondness for this ideal fiction causes them not only to be unable to recognize the fact that they are animals mating fairly naturally, and any of the usual bullshit associated with interpersonal situations, i.e. dating, is not an act in a fairy tale, but to attempt to coerce the population to fit this ideal from their perspective. I don’t know, what would a world look like if Christians not only did think they were above it all, but didn’t try to change everyone else? Probably because it’s possible to become un-Christian eventually, and/or to be born gay with Christian small-minded parents who are obsessed with this narrow definition of what is ideal. Because of the poetry. I just found it a lot denser than I previously imagined, a complete delusion that there is a god, that he is perfect, and so that perfection allows these people to justify being monsters on earth. It’s not a simple, “they are different, and so, bad.” It’s more like, “fails to meet the minimum specifications of resembling the ideal, and so, sick.”

    I can somewhat imagine becoming intrigued by a particular design, such that anything short of it or outside of it destroyed the illusion, and I love the illusion so much that it pains me to become aware of anything short or outside of it. I do have a perfectionist streak in me, directly inherited from my mother? I don’t know if it’s external or internal. I feel like everything I knew about Jesus before and how this knowledge is expressed by other people has some jarring incongruities. You’ll never be as perfect as god, and you don’t need to be; Jesus lets you off the hook, as long as you pertain your life to recognizing that there is an ideal. To me, this is metaphoric and not the worst attitude to have by itself. What gives people who believe this the right to control other people, I do not know. I don’t know why people feel they themselves need to be so near to the defined ideal at the cost of destroying other people’s notions about what is ideal for them? If I were gay, the ideal for me would be another woman, but not just any woman. Just like that I am straight, getting married to a man would not be adequate. It would have to be a man with a short list of certain qualities and compatibilities with myself. Anything less than that is less than ideal. To me, religious people seem to be setting aside huge parts of their human capacities in order to fit closely to a narrow definition of what is ideal. To me, their marriages can be just as cheap and meaningless only due to the idea that their goals are fixed on the template of one definition of perfection – that of an animal, to procreate, and that of a Christian, to be deluded that this is anything other or wiser or more complete than how animals behave. It may have some practicality, but that does not make it ideal for most people. If one can delude oneself that it is, I suppose, then, it is. But not for most everyone else.

    I have a side question: Do any animals besides humans think it is a good economic solution to arrange mating prospects for their children, or preserve their children’s virginities until a satisfactory mate can be arranged among the parents of each?

    • http://themikewrites.blogspot.com JohnMWhite

      Fascinating read, Kodie, and if I may offer the perspective of somebody who was raised religiously, I actually found the poetry and imagery of the perfect union pretty hard to stomach even when I was a Good Catholic Boy (TM). My own parents’ marriage was not perfect (of course, no marriage truly is), and I was acutely aware that heterosexual couples had no chance at achieving the perfection illustrated, which always led me to think that arguing from perfection was a complete waste of time. Even as I struggled to hate the sin, not the sinner (despite not giving much of a toss about either) and play my role in opposing that which my church opposed, I felt this was a losing argument for the obvious reason that complaining gays won’t have a ‘perfect’ marriage is rather pointless when nobody is ever going to have one anyway.

      This mindset probably has something to do with how I deconverted, but it seemed a very popular line that I heard from priests and read in newsletters and pamphlets and in letters to newspapers and so on. For the faithful, they really did buy it and they really did think it a crucial arrow in their quiver. I appreciate you sharing your breakthrough and demonstrating why it appears that it works so well as a defence among the like-minded.

      • Kodie

        Thanks, John. I haven’t read the bible, so most of what I learn comes through sites like this. Yes, the bible does have a few things to say about homosexuality and sometimes, it’s mixed up in other laws nobody pays attention to. I really think this passage, and the cherry-picking therein, makes more sense on the larger scheme of failing to live up to a glorification of one approved type of relationship. If one is not convinced of one perfect natural perfection, then there is a passage to confirm it. Never mind the other stuff there. Then they confirm it to themselves by being straight in the first place and finding out how good sex is after they saved themselves for marriage.

        I find there is an overall theme of “how to trick people into believing all this shit is true” in the bible. People who eat cheeseburgers are kind of nice. They aren’t always nice people, but it’s hard to categorize their level of kindness while they barbarically combine a milk product with the meat, because they don’t seem cruel. And I thought I’d try one, and they’re really good. And I don’t feel a trace of paranoia or guilt about it – therefore, ignore the heck outta that one. Well, the doctor says I shouldn’t eat so many, but who does he think he is?

        That passage is poetic too, but that poetry isn’t as convincing to a Christian. If god disapproved, really, they would be overcome with the kind of guilt and shame they would be if they were a homosexual, that’s how it works, right? That guilt and shame comes from god when you sin, and not the thousands of times you’ve heard from other people that you should be ashamed, right? And if it turns out you like it and accept yourself instead, your pleasure in that sacred sex act (with no acknowledgment of love and cooperation, etc.) confirms the devil has tricked you. And how dare you turn it around and criticize heterosexual married people and their less-than-perfect marriages, because that’s beside the point.

        Hypocrites.

    • Reasongal

      Kodie, I like the insight into the power of language, and along with the poetic ideal, this is language with the power of a deity who stirs fear of failure (hell), fear of the loss of the “specialness” of human rituals that were “given” them, and fear a loss of a given tribal identity and pastor/guide with which to commiserate in correctness. They face staying in the land of never-perfect, or doing the hard work of examining what they really believe, what they truly value, and then either leave it, or review the Bible with the overriding principle the Rabbi expressed to use it for anything but depriving others of civil rights in its name.

      Additionally, when they examine the examples in the Bible of “disordered” relationships, they can then only focus on the carnal side of it, mesmerized by something that is no more their business than their neighbor’s sex life is.

  • Ken

    I have always been fascinated by some people’s need to redefine a simple biologic imperative into something grand and holy. It’s an obsession that ignores so many examples in nature , and rewrites history as recent as the early 20th century, as to seem willfully blind and deliberately ignorant. IF, I repeat IF, God created mankind, then he created us all to be sexually active around the age of 13 — end of discussion. Everything that seeks to thwart His intentions that we start procreating as young teens is de facto heresy. So before attacking any gay issues, we need to sort out why God-fearing believers all over the planet think they know better than God when to start having sex. The we can get into the issue of why God created us to have sex so pleasurably, rather than going into periodic rutting seasons. Apparently God wants us to have sex all the time, not just for procreation like most other creatures (excluding primates). Address these issues, then come back to me about the rest of your agenda. And no, the argument that we are so sexually programmed as a means to learn discipline and self control won’t wash unless the same argument can be applied to over zealousness and all the evils the church has committed. Apparently self control doesn’t work for devout believers or their leaders, so why should it be expected to work with something as hard-wired into the biological scheme as sex.

  • Julie42

    I have a hard time automatically labeling these people bigots, though I could easily be wrong about this.
    It’s just that I have experience being raised to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that this (like Kodie mentioned) is the perfect, holy ideal. I think that if a straight person grows up with this mentality, and especially if they don’t know many openly gay people, it’s very difficult to see what’s wrong with their thinking. For me, I live in a liberal area and have known plenty of people that have come out as gay, some from my church. It helps a lot to see that struggle and to know that this is not a person who’s just choosing to be that way.

    It just seems a little bit unfair to call someone bigoted for just not knowing any better. And I guess that’s the deciding factor; if someone has experienced enough and has had plenty of chances to educate themselves on the topic, but still sticks firmly to their prejudices, they are bigoted. But some people grow up very sheltered and never really think about things being different than they were originally taught to them.
    I realize by that definition that that includes most of the people who are against gay marriage and definitely the movement as a whole. Maybe my issue with this is that I’m still pretty young. I was against gay marriage in high school, but I don’t think it would have been fair to call me bigoted because I really just didn’t know better. But most people have learned enough so that they really should know better, but choose not to.

    • Kodie

      You don’t have to know you’re wrong to still be wrong. If your starting place is wrong, then you are going to mostly be heading the wrong way. Once you felt like there was something wrong with gay people marrying, and what would you say to that? When you’re corrected, you used to be wrong. Once faced with the logic and experience to update their opinions, many people continue to stay wrong.

      You could live in a bubble and hate people you read about in a book, without knowing a single one of them, decide that the right thing to do is consider them to be less equal than yourself. As far as x is concerned, this being is a mythical creature with mythical qualities. A lot of people would not like to realize that these beings are more similar to themselves than any of those mythical qualities, and continue to perceive them as having mythical qualities than actually get to know them and find out.

      Fear=prejudice=that’s what a bigot is. You read it in a book, you heard about it at church=fiction/rumor. You have real life homosexuals that you can know=a better source of information. Some people resist the better source of information, simply because the book comes from a rumored higher source than that, and considers the book and that being inerrant. To come away from that book or that being with an interpretation of hate for anyone, then you are starting from an error and continuing to justify that error.

      • Julie42

        I never said that it wasn’t wrong; just that it’s not necessarily bigoted.
        It’s not like I sat down, read that God hated gays and decided to hate gays because I read it in a book. Christianity was being taught to me from the time I was born. I grew up with all of this and had no reason not to believe it because I didn’t have any reason to not to trust my parents. Questioning their belief in God might as well have been like questioning whether other countries exist. I’d never seen either, but I trusted my parents that both were real. So when my parents told me that being gay was a sin, I believed them and I had no reason not to.
        There was never any hate involved. I was never told that God hates gay people or that I should hate gay people. All I was taught was that having sex with someone of the same gender was a sin. But I was also taught that having sex before marriage was a sin. Did that make me a bigot too?
        I was always taught to love the sinner and hate the sin. Some of my friends turned out gay, some had sex before marriage, some did drugs, etc. I didn’t agree with what they did, but I didn’t hate any of them, and I didn’t treat them any differently.

        I’m not saying that growing up in a hateful environment somehow excuses the hate. I’m just trying to explain that for many people, there was no hate involved. If you still think that qualifies people as being bigoted, that’s fine. I personally just think of a bigot as someone who is filled with hatred towards another group of people.

    • FO

      People are bigots, usually out of ignorance.
      Some of them have the chances and the attitude to learn and outgrow it.
      Some never have the opportunity.
      Some others avoid it.
      But both share the mindset described by the “bigot” word, and are therefore labelled as such.

      In short: you have been a bigot.
      You outgrow it, and it’s not easy.
      We all start with some poor thinking, it’s ok.

  • trj

    I think many Christians genuinely don’t understand why we call them bigots when they advocate discrimination against homosexuals, and I think it has to do with the implicit (or maybe explicit) perception that gays are led astray.

    Treating others like you want them to treat you – that is all well and good, but that principle can’t be applied uncritically. As a crude analogy, we discriminate against criminals. Surely it makes sense that criminals can’t enjoy the same rights as non-criminals? There must be consequences to their actions.

    In the same way, it makes sense – to many Christians – to discriminate against gays, not because they consider gays to be criminal, but because they see them as transgressing against God’s laws, or disrupting the natural order of things, or whatever they like to call it. You simply can’t treat gays as equals when they won’t follow the rules. And the rules are not to be questioned. Only whether people follow the rules can be questioned. So it’s really just common sense, and not at all bigoted, to deny gays the same rights as straights.

    • FO

      This is why many Christians state that being gay is a choice (just like being a criminal) and that homosexuality is a threat to society (just like crime).

      Indeed the ideal place for many Christians seems to be Iran.
      Must be why the US want to invade it.

    • Jessica Weaver

      Nicely said. I think a lot of Christians, and others who believe gays are criminals based on their religious beliefs, find it baffling that it isn’t obvious why they believe the way they do. They believe God’s law is really right in line with some kind of natural order of things, and that deep down, you know you’re violating the natural order when you choose to be gay, even if you aren’t a christian/word of god believer. It is not just “choosing” to defy god’s law, it is also “choosing” to defy the natural way of things. If they were to admit that it is possible for homosexuality to be part of the natural way of things, then they have to admit that God’s law departs from the natural way of things, which has unpleasant implications. BUT–I write this recognizing that there is a duality here. Believers will tell you that God’s way is the way nature was intended to be, so that for something to be natural it would be God-honoring, but that also argue that some “natural tendencies” need to be controlled, like lust/sex drive in general. I think that is conflicting, but maybe it’s just me.

  • http://triangulations.wordpress.com Sabio Lantz

    Nicely said. A sort pushing for Christians to understand the primacy of Thomas’ Natural Law

  • BabyRaptor

    “please stop labeling the other side of the argument as “hate speech” and bigotry. It’s not. It is a working out of deep convictions and a particular understanding of sexuality as a good gift from a good Creator, to be used within certain boundaries.”

    Nope. When you act like a bigot, I’m going to call you a bigot whether your actions are inspired by “deep convictions” or the wind blowing wrong. If it hurts your feelings, maybe that’s a sign that you’re wrong?

    Seriously. How does this guy get off asking this after the way they treat gays/lesbians?

  • Adam

    I’m in full support of homosexual rights, Vorjack, but I think you ironically have misunderstood Rabbi Hillel (wasn’t it Akiva? Hell, may have been attributed to both) when he wrote “The rest is commentary” (to which he added: “Go and learn it!”).

    “The rest is commentary” was/is not to be taken in the dismissive sense you’ve made of it. Commentary in the Jewish tradition is important because it defines what is MEANT in passages of Holy Scripture which may be ambiguous or become so to modern readers as time passes. The commentary essentially defines the scripture.

    That being the case, “Love God / Love others” is not a litmus test by which to judge the rest of the Law. On the contrary, it’s the other way around, and that’s why the rabbi in the story tells his questioner to hit the books rather than just go on his merry way with a radically simplified religion.

    Much more likely than not, this is how Jesus meant it as well, if he did indeed say those words attributed to him in the NT (“This is the greatest commandment…”), since this is how his forbears and contemporaries understood it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ronald.reiman.1 Ronald Reiman

    Job suffered and you say that it was a cruel and vicious god that made a bet with Satan and therefore you conclude that god can be evil. A lot of the comments come from the Huffington Post, and we all know their stance. This particular site is by and for the gay lobby and here you are taking pot shots at god. You talk about interpretations and what this should mean in that community or race and then you spread it around until there is too much to absorb and you will expect a response from me expecting me to be shell shocked. I was not taught my beliefs by my parents or any church or pastor, I found that the pastors were as bigoted and selfish as the next man and when you go to a church and discover that the door is locked then the intention is clear . The protestant movement can not make up its mind as they move from one large denomination to another and now we have the ridiculous situation of having 40,000 denominations and now they allow gays to be priests and bishops and allow women to teach the word of god. It almost gets to the point that so many people have decided that the bible means or has a million different meanings and this is not possible. Scholars may spend a lifetime until they come to their conclusions but that doesn’t make it right. So many of you have arrived at conclusions about the written word simply on the structure of the words and the question what can this possibly mean. The bible was written for man to understand and is not the sole preserve of the scholar. Any man that could read it would read it and pay attention to what it actually said and not to the question of I wonder what god meant by that or that on that particular occasion that the laws were suspended because god wanted to torment Job or the people of Israel and that is why they were carried off into Babylon. And now, today in Africa the children in parts of Africa are skeletal and very near unto death but I don’t see any pages calling for action to be taken and Africa is no different to any other part of the world, Africa has some very wealthy citizens but they don’t give a bugger either. The politicians in Kenya are the highest paid in Africa yet they want more so in a country where the average wage for most of the poverty stricken people is just a few dollars per day the politician s say they cannot live on $6,000 per month. And if Africa had been the centre of the industrial revolution rather than Europe then it would be no different today except for the skin colour of the miserable wretches. Try to understand that god intended a man to be able to read the bible and to obey the commandments as he understood them and not as scholars understand them and certainly not as men who spent their entire lives pouring over the book would expect you to. God is god. If you say that he is a vicious kid with a magnifying glass who fries ants with it that is your opinion and whether you are right or wrong what are you going to do about it. Noah did not have any learned scholars telling him about god’s word and neither did Abraham who lived in the wilderness with his flocks and servants. God gave man a brain, he also gave man some moral laws to live by and he did not expect man to develop scholars so that gods intentions could be understood.Man was expected to read to study and to learn from his own experiences and that coupled with the word of god lead man to make decisions. All by himself, for himself and how to react with the people whom he came into contact with. He may be right, he may be wrong and god may be an evil monster and he may not be an evil monster and I do not see how there is another choice. Thats it.

    http://youtu.be/MqK9LkqAgw0
    They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created
    things rather than the Creator– who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this,
    God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural
    relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural
    relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed
    indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for
    their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27) http://youtu.be/qovxuW_AiZE Jesus speaks 1 *

    http://youtu.be/uQGA-n4JyOY Lesbian shows how she planned infiltration. Charlene Cothran, Founder of Venus magazine.

    I READ WHAT YOU POSTED AND FOUND IT TO BE ONE SIDED, NOW WILL YOU READ THIS AND OBSERVE THE VIDEO’S?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X