To the Well-Meaning Christians, Please Stop

To the Well-Meaning Christians, Please Stop June 24, 2019
Courtesy of Pixabay

To the well-meaning Christians, please stop.

If a loving relationship between two adults is filled with mutual care, generosity, compassion, and respect, but those two adults are of the same gender, you call it sin. Meanwhile, as long as they are of opposite gender, you call a marriage where two people might treat each other with contempt, act abusively, or attempt to use and control one another, a holy union blessed by God.

When you call loving and life-giving committed relationships between two people of the same gender a sin, you are presenting a God that is more concerned with external genitalia than with the core of who a person is or what a relationship is like. This says something horrible about God, because any god who would have such poor judgement is a very ugly and small god. This is, in fact, the exact opposite of the God that scriptures point to, who looks not on outward appearances, but is most concerned with the heart.

Of course, you have been told that these Scriptures condemn same-sex relationships, and presumably that is the reason you are condemning them as well. And while this assertion may or may not be true, if you insist on a reading of the text that makes God look bad, you are valuing the text over God. If the Bible is more important to you than God, it is your god. This is idolatry. (Bibliolatry, precisely.) And to be clear, condemning loving and committed same-sex relationships as sin portrays a god who is shallow, self-contradictory, and small—a god who is only in favor of love if the plumbing is “traditional.” This is not doing God any favors.

Not only that, but when you condemn same sex relationships you are saying horrible things about Scripture. There are multiple ways to read almost any text, and many Biblical scholars do not, in fact, believe the few texts that mention sexual intercourse between same gendered participants are discussing what we talk about when we talk about same-sex marriage. The ancients didn’t have a concept of orientation, and in every instance (there are seven) where same-sex relationships are condemned or forbidden, it is precisely in the context of extra-marital sex: whether rape of captives, cult-prostitution, pederasty, or orgies at the bathhouse. These people aren’t gay in our sense of the word. They are in traditional marriages and having extramarital sex with people of the same gender on the side. To use scriptures condemning extra-marital and often non-consensual abusive sex to condemn exclusive and loving same sex relationships is manipulating and using Scripture for your own ends; precisely the problem with the same-sex relationships Scripture was condemning. And when you do so, you also imply that Scripture cares more about genitalia than justice, more about anatomy than compassion.

Condemning same sex relationships also cheapens marriage and sex. Saying marriage isn’t valid if the genitalia aren’t shaped the right way is an immature assertion that reduces the beauty of a loving and committed relationship to the sexual aspect. Not only that, but this assertion reduces sex to a purely anatomical act, instead of a beautiful dance of intimacy, affection, and connection that is supposed to be about offering the core of who we are to the other—not about simply gratifying or own desires. The point of both marriage and sex was to be a reflection of a God that was three but one, plural but united, and that this God invites humans into that same sort of relationship with each other and the universe.

Calling same sex relationships sin is also damaging to your credibility. You say you love people, but condemning same sex marriage means you believe 4.5% of the population should not share their lives with the people they love, because of your preferred reading of a few passages. When you call same sex relationships a sin, you are piling shame, loneliness, hopelessness, and rejection on them. You are creating barriers which make it almost impossible for them to enter into a relationship with their Creator. You are pushing God’s kids away from God.

This is flagrantly violating what Jesus said was the core of all the Law and the Prophets: to treat others as you would wish to be treated if you were in their shoes. I can imagine what it would be like to try and be a gay Christian. No one that I am aware of wants to be treated the way Christianity has treated gay people. When you condemn same-sex relationships, you are declaring that you are the kind of person who either hasn’t noticed or doesn’t care. (Neither case is super-awesome.)

As a Christian (and a human), I don’t believe there are any excuses for treating someone else in a way that we wouldn’t want to be treated. Scripture does not have your back on this one, any more than it has had the back of all the crusaders, slave owners, supremacists, nationalists, or misogynists who have come before you. They all found ample scriptural support to justify treating other humans in ways they would never wish to be treated themselves.

If you are choosing to love others in a way that causes them harm, you need to stop.

When you call same sex relationships sin, you are saying horrible things about God. You are saying horrible things about scripture. You are saying horrible things about marriage and sex. And you are doing harm in the name of love. And to all those who are not part of your shrinking tribe, you are making yourself look pretty bad as well. This behavior is one of the key reasons people are leaving Christianity. So, really, when I say this, it’s not just on behalf of gay people, it’s for you, too! (Win-win! Yay!)

Please stop.

It’s the least you can do.

xoxo

-The Rest of Us

 

*Note: This is a guest post by my good friend and United Church of Christ pastor Dan Wysong.

About
Daniel Wysong is a husband, father of four, and a pastor who loves exploring, adventure, good books, and great conversation. You can read more about the author here.
"Homosexual acts and lust are sin, the Bible is very clear on this. God bless ..."

To the Well-Meaning Christians, Please Stop
"I'm sorry but I stopped reading at the first paragraph of the article because something ..."

To the Well-Meaning Christians, Please Stop
"When you go into the voting booth and try to take away my rights---you have ..."

To the Well-Meaning Christians, Please Stop

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Well said. Oh, and *spoiler alert* they won’t stop. It would never occur to them to do so.

  • Clifford Ishii

    FYI God and the word are one in the same and homosexuality is a sin to both.

  • P J Evans

    You need to read the post again. You missed all the important parts. (Like how small and petty your deity is.)

  • Brandon Roberts

    good.

  • kevin h

    As Jesus says, If you truly love me you will obey my Father (John 14:23). Obviously if you are more concerned with your own self and self-justification you will put that before loving Jesus and obeying God.
    Jesus knew that this would happen which is why He stated that He will turn His back on those who claim to know Him but don’t do the will of his Father (Matthew 7:21). The LGBT+ community may try and claim God for themselves and disregard the Word of God but it will not lead to salvation.
    If the reason why they deny the Word of God but want acceptance by people of God is because of lack of self-esteem, guilt or other issue then that is the issue they need to address. Trying to deny the will of God or rewrite the bible to their own desires will only lead to condemnation on the day of judgement.

  • your god is so small and petty.

  • what a pathetic excuse for a god you have there

  • Exactly!

  • LOL! Yep. Just read the other comments on here 😉

  • 100% agree.

  • Your god is so petty.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    You are confusing “obeying God” with “agreeing with Kevin H about what God says”. The article is clear as to why what you think God says on the subject is wrong. It is you who are disobeying God’s commandment to love all one’s neighbours in favour of your own man-made rule about what shaped genitals go where, and slandering the love of God in the process.
    Jesus said that the only sin which will not be let pass is to wrong the Holy Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of love, as God is love. By calling love evil, and hatred of it good that is exactly what you are doing.

  • What? I was agreeing with you. With the article. Did I put my message in the wrong place?

  • Iain Lovejoy

    FYI that is idolatry. The Word of God is Jesus, not the Bible, and you are confessing to idolatry by worshipping the Bible as God.

  • kevin h

    As the Bible warns us, the enemy come in the night to divide and sow discontent. Your attempts to undermine the word of God fails the moment light is shone on it.

  • kevin h

    There’s no confusion over what the term obey God. However you’ve only got to read the article to see a sense of self-justification, pride and self-righteous coming through to see that this article was written to sow discontent and division on the House of God and the Family of Christ. Exactly what the enemy seeks to do.
    This is supported by your attempt to class my disagreement as hatred. I did not call love evil and I did not hate love. You placed that lie in your comments to try and discredit those with differing views. You may think that being popular and politically correct is the way the church should go. I believe the best path is to go understand the Word of God and to try and understand the life that God has put in place for us and revealed through the bible.
    As Paul says we all have to work out our own salvation. If you believe that anything goes sexuality is ok with Jesus then that is your interpretation of the bible and you can work out your own salvation based on that. At the end of the day the matter will be decided by God on the Day of Judgement. Jesus will turn His back on some who claim to know Him.

  • Oh my bad. It looked to me like you agreed with the person who said “homosexuality is a sin.”

  • Cool story, bro.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    For an attempt that fails you seem remarkably unable to actually address it other than by unsupported ranting about the evil of everyone who doesn’t read the Bible as you do.

  • Rudy Schellekens

    You are correct: There is no forgiveness for blaspheming the Holy Spirit. But if homosexuality IS a sin, we do have a problem, right?

    “This is flagrantly violating what Jesus said was the core of all the Law and the Prophets: to treat others as you would wish to be treated if you were in their shoes.” Is such a strange way to apply this statement.

    Allow me to illustrate –
    “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers…”
    “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me…”
    “But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. An you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades…”
    “Someone told Him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother…”

    Interesting statements, I think. And in each of them, Jesus does NOT treat others like He wants to be treated – seemingly… His “Woe messages” later in Matthew are an other example. Please, do not only pick the statements Jesus makes you agree with! He condemns sin, clearly and loudly. That, too, is part of the sayings of Jesus…

  • It’s utterly ridiculous to say homosexuality is a sin. That’s like saying red hair is a sin.

  • James

    You have missed the whole point of the Gospel of Christ. Let go of your hate and choose to love.

  • James

    The word of God is love. You undermine the word of God by clinging to your homophobia, thereby denying Christ. Let go and choose to follow Jesus of Nazareth.

  • Gennifer Miller

    AMEN!

  • the_darkknight

    Kevin h please be aware that “your attempts to undermine the word of God fails the moment light is shone on it”!

  • It’s not possible for homosexuals to love each other. Love is wanting the best for the other. God’s design of a man and woman in marriage is the best. Neither is lying to someone showing love.

    The author follows a pagan god he invented, not the God of the Bible. There are not many ways to interpret the Bible. There are only two: the honest and dishonest. The author has chosen the dishonest.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    “It’s not possible for homosexuals to love each other. ”
    How would you know?

  • Martha Anne Underwood

    Matthew, your friend, Dan Wysong, hit the nail on the head. Thank you for sharing.

  • Bday

    What about the part where God created woman to be with man and declared that to be good. Did He mess that part up? Was there a mistake somewhere in the process? Because I don’t need to know that homosexual acts are wrong to know that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman as God designed it to be.

  • Bday

    If you are defining a version of God that, essentially, makes for the best PR, you are creating your own God, your own idol.

  • He typically does

  • What about the part where you have presupposed so much? I’m sorry, but I don’t think I read the Bible like you.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Nonsense. You don’t accept the commonly accepted anthropology the world accepted for thousand of years as to what consisted of human flourishing. To stake a position as if it were the main human reality when it comprises less than 3% of human population obviously shows that you are allowing what is an outlier to speak for the rest of humanity. This number speaks volumes to what nature and God intended. This is a fact that you can’t overcome nor rationalize away.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    Actually no. There is only one God, by definition. God is the author and ground of being, the origin of creation and the one eternal source from which all the multitude of temporal, individual beings spring. He is immediately present everywhere, and there cannot be more than one “version” of him. You can simply be mistaken as to his character or will.
    And you are wrong again in talking about “PR”. None of this has anything to do with “PR”. This is about the fundamental character of God. Jesus is God incarnate, and to have seen Jesus is to see the Father. What we see in Jesus is pure, unadulterated, self-giving, self-sacrificing love. Any reading of the Bible or understanding of God’s word and will has to match his character or it is a slander against God and wrong.

  • Bday

    You might want to try reading it like I do sometimes. I read it in order to seek and know God’s will through scripture, which is “God breathed.” I am not looking to justify myself or find an easy way out.

  • TimTripod

    Every line of reasoning in this article could be applied (with only sight adjustments) to incestuous relationships.

    Following God’s revealed Word isn’t idolatry. Idolatry is making a god that does things the way you like.

  • PeaceFromChurchill

    Scripture condemns same-sex relationships/marriages, however, this article above claims that we instead should just ignore this as God is peaceful, harmonious and loving. So I guess when one has thoughts to steal, we should sit back, (for consistency) ignore what scripture says of theft and allow them to do so?

    Would a loving God ignore someone who commits genocide? Would a loving God not punish someone who has committed rape? Would a loving God not have law and order? It is exactly as a result of law and order that is seen throughout the Bible that we know we have a loving God. We cannot simply chose what parts of scripture we live by because when we do this, we can live by whatever rules we wish to and justify anything we want (yes, even genocide).

    We must show those who sin the way in which God wants us to live. Not by violence or by disrespectful and totalitarian conversation, but instead with respect and sincere discussion.

    I agree that some Christians absolutely condemn same-sex attracted in disrespectful and inconsiderate way. But by not showing those who sin that they themselves are sinning, are we loving anymore? Are we neglecting their eternal souls? Is it really love to enable such behaviour?

    Of course everything I have written is inspired and written with consideration of the Bible. But I ask, without the Bible, how do we know God is a loving and peaceful God? How do we know that God loves us, even when we are gay, if it isn’t for the loving God clearly shown in the Bible? That is exactly because without the Bible, we do not know God and without the Bible, we do not live as God wants us to.

    We cannot take the part of the Bible that says God is a loving God and leave behind the law God gives to us that says He condemns same-sex attraction.

    Willing to change my mind after some debate!

    PeaceFromChurchill.

  • TimTripod

    No, it’s not at all like saying that. Homosexuality is a behavioral trait, not a physical characteristic. There have been studies showing genetic tendencies toward alcoholism, pedophilia, and angry dispositions, but being predisposed to act sinfully doesn’t make it okay, it just means you were born sinful like every other human being on earth. All that said, scientists still don’t know what causes homosexuality as an orientation.

  • Pennybird

    What do you need to know about homosexual acts if you are not participating in any? Mind your own business, already.

  • Pennybird

    All gods are invented, yours included.

  • Bday

    I will mind my own business when false teachers stop trying to lead others away from God. In the meantime, I am compelled to try to undo the damage of your lies. Do what you want with your own life – that’s between you and God, but don’t tell people it’s ok or holy or justified and so lead them into or encourage them to continue in a life of sin.

  • I wish my name was Fred

    Please quit pushing the gay agenda on everyone. It’s America, do what you want, but those of us who know the bible knows what is says. We all sin, get over it.

  • Lol

  • It’s my blog homie, and I’ll do what I want. It’s okay, holy, and justified. And it’s not sin. There, I said it. Nah nah nah boo boo.

  • According to fundamentalists, incest is cool. Who do you think Cain was banging in order to populate the world?

  • So bandwagon fallacy? Cool story.

  • Being gay isn’t a sin. Grow up.

  • Grow up.

  • No it doesn’t.

  • veritasetcaritas

    “Bandwagon is a fallacy based on the assumption that the opinion of the majority is always valid: that is, everyone believes it, so you should too. It is also called an appeal to popularity, the authority of the many, and argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”).”

    What I stated is a factual reality of the human condition. It’s not an opinion but reflective of what actual humans do. You ignore it at your own peril.

  • TimTripod

    I agree with you. “Being gay” is not a sin. It’s not a sin to have desires you didn’t ask for. Sin is an act, not an orientation.

    If you think God is here to affirm the way you want things to be, then your God is so small and petty. Toddlers often think their parents are just there to make their lives easy, and it is your comparable view of God that makes it clear that you are the one who needs to “grow up” (Heb. 5:11-14). I hope you know that I bear you no ill will — to the contrary, I would truly like for you to come to understand what the Bible actually teaches, not just what you wish it taught.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Paul is condemning same-sex relations. This is something you just don’t accept.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Yes it does.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Nonsense.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Great reasoning skills.

  • Lark62

  • swbarnes2

    I would argue that there is no such thing as a “well-meaning” person who deliberately hurts someone else. I don’t know who you think you are addressing.

    Look around. The cruelty is the point.

  • Lark62

    You must be a blast at parties.

  • If you want to be anachronistic, I guess. But that’s a logical fallacy.

  • Who said I need to reason with unreasonable fundamentalists?

  • What’s nonsense is using an archaic collection of books to condemn non straight folks.

  • I don’t follow everything the Bible teaches (it does, after all, endorse slavery). But even if I did, it’s anachronistic to suggest it condemns same-sex relations as such. All the warnings against it are in the context of force and/or coercion, not love.

  • Lark62

    The bible condemns a s-nanny-ex act performed in the context of abuse or pro-nanny-sti.tution.

    Nowhere does the bible address a loving relationship between two people who happen to have matching gen-nanny-italia.

  • Issachar

    Don’t you know PFC, there’s no such thing as sin anymore, except using the word.

  • LOL

  • TimTripod

    So you follow the parts of the Bible that affirm what you already believe. In other words, you follow yourself, not the Bible. (I’ll disregard your baiting parenthetical reference for now.)

    I realize that yours is a common view among progressives, but it is one that is demonstrably false. Leviticus 20:13 specifically says that if men lay together, both of them are guilty of the evil act and deserve the punishment — not just the “coercive” party. It should also be noted that there is no reference to pagan temple rituals in this passage, which is another common attempt by progressives to distort what the text says.

    Romans 1:26-27 condemns men who followed after their lust for “each other,” not just men who tried to force vulnerable people into certain acts. The same passage also condemns the “unnatural” acts by women with each other, and your view doesn’t fit there either because there is little-to-no historical support for a female parallel of pederasty in that time period.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 mentions both “active” and “passive” homosexuals, so this would be a great place for it to be made clear that the “coercive” or “forceful” person is really the one being called out. But in fact, both parties (arsenokoitai and malakoi) in the same-sex activity are condemned equally, without distinction.

    So where, if you could please share, are “all the warnings against it [that] are in the context of force and/or coercion”? And if you’re unable to offer any actual evidence of that view, could it possibly be that it is an eisegetical interpretation rather than an exegetical understanding?
    And if you are already fine with dismissing portions of the Bible that you disagree with, why would you even care if these passages don’t say what you want them to?

  • veritasetcaritas

    No one is condemning you. You just don’t like the fact that this behavior is an aberration to the norm. Hence, you can’t deal with this reality.

  • veritasetcaritas

    You’re the one trying to make an argument to accept a lifestyle that history notes that it does not form the basis for society much less human flourishing. This is a reality you can’t deal with hence your defensiveness and lack of reasoning skills.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Anachronistic?? I don’t think you know what it means. Actually, you’re trying to imbue your modern sensibilities to people who didn’t obviously didn’t accept this behavior in the past. Actually, you have very little basis to promote your belief other than personal experience, which anyone who evaluates any subject realizes that it is NOT the determining factor to state an objective reality. Again, you’re not reasoning at any level.

  • AntithiChrist

    Nice sentiments, but as long as you’re pointing to such ambiguous passages as bible verses to make your point, you’ve already lost the battle.

    The thing with bible verses is they can be interpreted to support whatever your pre-existing mindset or philosophy happens to be. Or whatever your preacher or faith group is insisting they be.

    That’s all nice if you represent humanist or progressive ideals. But, again, this is why you’d lose any biblical debate with, say, a pro-slavery Christian: they’ve got the specific how-to-do-slavery instructions, straight from Jehovah himself, right there in black and white. Or in red, if you care to flip ahead and site Jehovah’s son’s instructions to slaves on the topic.

    Additionally, arguing for lack of context in biblical interpretation is a tried and tested apologist’s go-to device. The old hands in the game will see right through it for what it is, a pseudo-scholarly end-run around the meaning of what we mere mortals read off the page using our eyes and comprehension.

    Far be it from me to suggest an approach to getting the hate-filled, bigoted, and overwhelmingly large subset of Christians to climb on board with humanity, as the rest of us try to advance beyond the Bronze Age.

    But one thing I would not suggest is to use a hate-filled book that, with divine authority, demonstrates and encourages all sorts of human atrocities. You’ll just be swimming upstream the whole time. It might be time to start referring to a completely different sort of book or books.

    They’re out there.

  • Pennybird

    What history has shown is that our we can evolve to accept that which was previously misunderstood and move on. Such as the fact that “flourishing” can take many shapes.

  • Pennybird

    Lefthandedness is an aberration of the norm too, and we managed to overcome its horrors. Have you ever looked up the stats of red hair & blue eyes? Wowza! Best we discriminate against that combo for the good of society.

  • Milo C

    Also a factual reality; some people have same-sex attraction. It happens in nature. It was accepted in many ancient societies as normal, if uncommon. Not a flaw, not evil, just different. The argument you seem to be reaching for is that different is bad, which is not rational.

  • I wish my name was Fred

    Deleting comments now, tsk tsk…

  • Iain Lovejoy

    “Actually, you’re trying to imbue your modern sensibilities to people who didn’t obviously didn’t accept this behavior in the past.”
    No. He’s interpreting the Bible, you know, the book you are claiming to follow. “We’ve always done it this way” is an argument from tradition, not the Bible, and you are being disingenuous to pretend that your views therefore have a “biblical” basis. An argument based on tradition is a reasonable one, but only if the tradition concerned has and does bear good fruit and promote the love of God – a harmful tradition needs to be adapted where it can be seen to be running counter to this.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    If you tell someone their behaviour is an “aberration” you are condemning them. That is what the word “condemn” means.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    If he is wrong, you need to explain why he is wrong. He won’t “accept” what you say if you can’t point to any actual basis for saying it.

  • veritasetcaritas

    You have to be joking to say that the civilizations of the past agreed with any such interpretation. You are the one misunderstanding how exegesis is done correctly. The tradition has borne good fruit. It’s just not the fruit you want.

  • veritasetcaritas

    It is an aberration of the norm. 97+ percent of humanity does not partake in this behavior.

    Actually the word condemn doesn’t mean this but you imply it does because the vast majority of humanity doesn’t participate in it. You’re the thinking condemnation when most folks just view as something they don’t do. This is a fact.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Left handedness doesn’t produce behaviors that run counter to human flourishing. This is a huge category mistake on your part.

  • veritasetcaritas

    This is what I’ve said. I’ve stated clearly that it happens in less than 3+ percent of the population. This should make you wonder why it is so few and leave you to ponder why humanity flourishes forth into the future. It is because of 97 percent and not these 3+ percent. This is the main point. As for it being not conducive to the good, I leave it to what scholarship has stated about this for thousands of years and not the musings of a few modern scholars who have tried to rationalize what has never been believed to be true.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Human flourishing has evolved because of a man and woman propagating the species. This is a fact that hasn’t changed. So whatever you’re referring to really makes no sense.

  • veritasetcaritas

    No I don’t. It has always been understood to be this. Why the modern change? They’re making the argument that has never been accepted previously before in Church history. This is how things work. Not the way you’re claiming.

  • Pennybird

    Do you have as much disdain for people who opt not to reproduce, or who are unable to? Does humanity not flourish because of them?

  • Pennybird

    It’s a tendency different from the majority that has no bearing on their morality or worth as human beings. My analogy stands.

  • AntithiChrist

    “It’s not possible for homosexuals to love each other.”

    Look, we’ve all been burned at some point, some more than once. But try not become bitter.

    And don’t give up. Mr. Right is out there!! Keep looking!

  • veritasetcaritas

    No it doesn’t. With these other characteristics their normal everyday usage does involve moral questions. This other behavior does, and you know it. Your analogy has no value at any level.

  • veritasetcaritas

    No. I’m just stating the main and only fact that has lead to the flourishing of the human population through its existence. If this were not true, the human population would have died out long ago. This assessment is real and true. I see you have no response to it. You rather digress, distract, and comment on the worth of the person, which is what I’m not talking about. Every personal innately has worth that God has bestowed on them. What they don’t have the right to do is whatever they want. The numbers concerning this reality definitely point to the rarity in the human population of this behavior. This should make you wonder instead of trying to justify a behavior that has no teleological purpose.

  • Lindy Norris

    This is JUST an opinion and that’s all it is and you treat it as fact. They twist scripture to make homosexuality scriptural when it is not condoned at all. God is NOT pleased with abuse in marriage between husband and wife and your view is narrow. Bible idolatry isnt even a concept but made up by people who dont want to follow the bible. The bible says have no other gods before me so if im following the bible im having no other gods before him.

  • Lindy Norris

    And God loves the sinner but hates the sin. Period. No shame no condemnation. None of that is even necessary. Christians who say that God hates homosexuals will be judged for not reflecting his love.

  • Iain Lovejoy

    The fruit I want is that homosexual people aren’t loaded with heavier burdens than heterosexual people and can participate in the same joy of marriage and family life that others do. The fruit that the mistaken approach to homosexual people adopted hitherto has borne has been stigma, misery, loneliness and persecution, and denial and exclusion from church and society.
    Your attitude is pure selfishness and lack of any empathy or love, and is also wholly irrational. What homosexual people do or do not do does not affect what heterosexual people do or not do. No one is suggesting any change to what heterosexual people do, which you rightly say has proved to bear very good fruit for them and need not change. What needs to change is the way biblical teachings are followed by homosexual people, so they too may benefit from the same fruit, since the way these teachings have been thus far interpreted for them has not borne good fruit for them.
    Paul said that he wished others were as he was, “eunuchs for Christ” but recognised they were not, and that they needed to apply biblical teachings as appropriate for them and marry rather than remain celibate. Likewise homosexual people need to apply biblical teachings in a way appropriate to their nature. That they do so does not affect how you (or I) apply them to ourselves.

  • TimTripod

    Based on your previous post I think we probably agree on a lot, but I’d like to point out that the saying “God loves the sinner but hates the sin” is not biblical. There are several passages in Scripture that talk about God hating sinners (just a few verses after condemning homosexual and incestuous activity in Leviticus 20:23, Psalm 5:4-6 and other Psalms, Proverbs 6:16-19, Hosea 9:15, etc.). I’d encourage you to discontinue using the popular mantra “God loves the sinner but hates the sin” and use a more accurate description of God as both hating sinners yet loving them enough to send His Son to die for them, which gives a stronger emphasis on both the seriousness of us being sinners and the amazingness of His love.

    But you are absolutely correct that we ought to be reflecting God’s love to everyone, including homosexuals and every other sinner. I will stand right beside you in calling out the unloving treatment of LGBT folks by Westboro Baptist-type fanatics.

  • Milo C

    “Scholarship”, but not modern scholars. This makes it seem like you are cherry-picking. For “thousands of years” people thought maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat, too.
    Why would you think it matters that homosexuality happens in ~3% of the population? You seem to be attaching a value judgment to a minority trait over which people have no control. What if I told you there are other biological traits that only appear in 3% of the population? Does god hate people with red hair? (scholars have said so!) Is being able to touch your elbows behind your back sinful?
    Lastly, humanity flourishes because of all of us. Alan Turing is a great example.

  • Milo C

    It is clear you prefer established scholarly opinions, as if those opinions were made without bias and with just as complete knowledge as we have today. This is not the case. Early anthropologists and biblical scholars misinterpreted things, worked with fewer sources, or sometimes just lied to promote whatever they believed. They were also under pressure to produce the narrative the Church wanted them to find, on pain of death. And sometimes they were right, too.

  • fractal

    Idolatry is a concept which can certainly be applied to holy books and zealous doctrines, which people often use as substitutes for the experience of Grace flooding your heart, and Goddess opening your mind.

    Worshiping the Bible is telling Goddess what She is, rather than listening to Her speak in the depths of your soul.
    It is the mark of a spiritual amateur.

  • fractal

    It’s all good, sweetie.
    Don’t let your fear get in the way of other’s rights to live their lives.

    Not everyone interprets “holy writings” the way you do, and some don’t believe in your interpretation of Goddess at all.

    Are you suggesting that America isn’t really the land of the free, and that your ilk have the right to legislate bedroom politics for the rest of America?

    Seriously?

  • fractal

    Boy,

    You seem to think you KNOW IT ALL!
    Do you really spend your time chasing people around because you are COMPELLED to shove your assertion theology down their throat?

  • fractal

    You are the one who cannot construct a rational sentence.
    Try again, if you are able.

  • fractal

    One in ten people are LGBTQ.
    One in twenty five people are left-handed.
    Do you have this much contempt for the left-handed?
    Do the left-handed have “teleological purpose”?

    I think you are twisting yourself into pretzel logic, to try and justify your bigotry and ignorance.

  • fractal

    Yeah,

    Like 8 billion humans aren’t enough!
    I don’t consider our trashing the planet we depend on for life, to be “human flourishing”.

    Not every person has to reproduce; who taught you that?

    In fact, having some people that do not reproduce in a tribe or culture, could be seen as being a benefit to the culture—less fights over resources and inheritance, more adults to interact with children, more adults who spend their lives becoming artists, scientists etc…

    I get the feeling you are not very well educated.
    Did you go to University?

  • fractal

    You won’t find the Goddess in your holy books; just men justifying their actions by passing the buck upward.

  • fractal

    And Noah!

    Come on, you can’t just say “nonsense” and expect anyone to respect your nonsense…

  • fractal

    Is that REALLY the best ya got?

  • Bday

    God doesn’t have geographic boundaries. Whether or not it is allowed by the laws of the United States is not relevant to this conversation. We are talking about what God does and does not want for His people.

  • fractal

    Why can’t aberrations to the norm be good and useful?
    Who are you to say?
    Why are you so afraid of differences in others?

    If everyone were alike, we would be Borg and have a hive mentality.
    I think maybe this is secretly what you want—that way, you don’t have to think for yourself.

  • fractal

    It is certainly relevant when your ILK try to legislate the behavior of others!
    And your ILK has a habit of doing just exactly that.
    Keep you laws off of my body, or you will pull back a bloody stump.

    Perhaps we should consider legislating Christian Penises!

  • fractal

    You know,

    Your local community college offers LOGIC 202.
    I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself, and take it.

  • fractal

    What if the Bible isn’t REALLY the word of the Goddess?
    Can you even entertain that possibility?
    Or are you too brainwashed to go there?

  • Lindy Norris
  • fractal

    Please quit pushing the Abrahamic Triad agenda on everyone.
    Not everyone wants a 4000 year old goat-herder tradition as their moral compass.

  • fractal

    Lindy,

    This isn’t all about widdle ole’ you…

  • Lindy Norris

    And that’s all you can say after the gross mockery of a man who loves them.

  • fractal

    Are you seriously trying to say there were no gay relationships within the Jewish tradition?
    Heck,
    Everyone else had them!
    The Greeks, the Egyptians, Native American tribes, Mayans, Vikings—even animals.

  • Lark62

    Stealing is not wrong “because the bible says so.”

    Stealing is wrong because humans living in human societies make rules to make society possible.

    “Do not steal from members of your group” is a common rule, found in pretty much every human culture. But after that there is infinite variation on what stealing is allowed and from whom. European christians stole entire freakin continents from the people that lived there. They stole honest labor by enslaving people. And your bible never said they shouldn’t.

    Just as the bible is useless as a guide to the morality of stealing, the bible is useless as a moral guide to relationships – any relationship. The bible simply does not recognize the existence of relationships. Biblical marriage is an economic arrangement between a man and the father of a girl. Other arrangements are concubinage (AKA s-nanny-ex slaves), kidnapping war captives, etc.

    The authors of the bible simply did not and could not comprehended marriage as a loving, mutually supportive relationship between equals. There is a reason the bible never condemns domestic violence or marital ra-nanny-pe.

    And on what possible basis do you conclude the bible describes a loving god? You really need to read your book.
    Read all of it, not just the carefully chosen pretty soundbites.

    For a shortcut, read “God: The Most Unpleasant Character in all of Fiction” by Dan Barker.

  • Lark62

    The bible was fine with incest. Ever heard of Abraham?

    The god of the bible told “his people” to keep kidnapped war captives as wives or concubines.

    The bible never acknowledges consent in sexual relationships.

    It is people who have moved away from the nonsense of “biblical morality” that are standing up child molestation.

    Both the catholic church and the SBC ignore abuse unless outside secular entities force their hand. “Biblical morality” is worthless.

  • Lark62

    You have absolutely no way of knowing what any invisible deity thinks or wants.

    You project your opinions onto that blank canvas to give your opinions more weight. Kinda like a kid saying he needs a extra cookie for his imaginary friend. And he and his imaginary friend like the exact same flavors.

    No human has ever conversed with a deity. It’s all in your head.

  • AntithiChrist

    Goodness. Go easy on this guy or you’ll have him wanking till the rapture and you’ll never get an answer to these vital questions that have plagued theologians for years.

  • Lark62

    I read the bible. After 35 years as a christian, I reread it carefully. I paid attention to all of it and didn’t skip over the weird and horrific parts. That’s why I’m an atheist.

  • Doug Campbell destroys the argument that Romans 1:18-32 is Paul’s theology. It’s called prosopopoeia, a Greek rhetorical argument. Ironic that Christians still quote it as if it is the “voice” of Paul. Also, yes, you’re right, I don’t follow the Bible. I’m not a Biblican.

  • Lark62

    Paul also condemned wearing gold jewelry and women getting their hair cut.

  • Trolls don’t deserve to have their comments stick.

  • YouNoWho

    The writer says, “…if you insist on a reading of the text that makes God look bad, you are valuing the text over God.”

    Well, the entire Old Testament makes God look bad. You can’t be a God who rewards your religious terrorists with virgins and look good. And if you do that (as the Christian God did), then you don’t just look bad, you are bad. So I wonder how the writer can read the O.T. (and indeed much of the New) and manage to to imagine it makes God look good.

    I’m guessing many of the Christians commenting here for the purpose of telling the rest of us exactly what’s in the mind of God (which they seem to know as well as their own) wonder why Christians are increasingly getting a bad name. It wouldn’t be much of a mystery if they would just look at themselves. They are the reason most people would rather live in a community of non-religious people than in a community of Christians.

    The arguing and carrying-on in these Comments makes one wonder why Christians cannot be of one accord if it is so easy to know the mind of God and so easy to view the heinous crimes committed by their God as “good.”

    But I do see degrees. There are some wonderful, loving people who are Christians and actually believe, sincerely, that a God of criminal deeds is worthy of respect and of worship, even. They are more to be desired as friends and neighbors than the mean-spirited, self-righteous ones we see in this Comments section who use a god as justification for their contempt (loving contempt, of course, LOL) for those so different from themselves that they just can’t stand it.

  • AntithiChrist

    Well stated. I pointed out to the author earlier that using a bible to argue for anything is pretty much a waste of time, as biblical interpretation is literally in the mind of the beholder. However well or maladjusted that mind may be.

    This comment section is a Petri dish illustrating that conclusion.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Nonsense. You answer this by opining what you think instead of engaging the scholarship. This just shows you’re looking to confirm what you believe in then looking at what has always been understood. There is natural law and biblical exegesis that backs up this reality. Nothing you state is relevant if you don’t engage with the subject at hand.

  • veritasetcaritas

    So? These are two different things that you fail to go beyond the superficial level of a crude observation. He condemns for very good reasons you ignore. The reality of same-sex relations is an outlier in the human population. This should make you think.

  • Lark62

    LoL

  • veritasetcaritas

    Are you that doltish? Address the issue. Logic has nothing to do with this issue. If you’re that convinced of your logical prowess, you should be able to show what is illogical about what I’m stating, something you can’t even articulate.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Mr. Logic, did I state that this was the case? I stated clearly that societies as a whole did not embrace this relationship as one where human flourishing would occur. They knew clearly that men and women were responsible for the continuation of the species. There is no comparison because they knew better. Are you that dense that you can’t make these distinctions.

  • veritasetcaritas

    You haven’t posted one rational reason that justifies anything you say. Is that all you got?

  • veritasetcaritas

    1) Why can’t aberrations to the norm be good and useful?

    The medical literature would be a good place to start. The Christian spiritual tradition is another. I could keep going but you’re ignoring everything and anything anybody has ever said about this since it doesn’t confirm what you want.

    2) Who are you to say?

    I’ve not taken this position because I’ve stated it. Look at 1) above and think again.

    3) Why are you so afraid of differences in others?

    This does not follow. I personally can’t do anything to force anybody to do anything. You can do whatever you want. Nobody is stopping you. Stop injecting “fear” where no one has stated or suggested such thing. I just don’t agree with. The numbers don’t lie.

    4) If everyone were alike, we would be Borg and have a hive mentality.
    I think maybe this is secretly what you want—that way, you don’t have to think for yourself.

    More nonsense from you. Borgs aren’t real. Is this all you got? Talking about logic, this shows how ungrounded you are and what a silly thought process you have.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Noah????

    Another non sequitur. If you want to engage intelligently, start thinking instead of spouting nonsense.

  • veritasetcaritas

    1) Like 8 billion humans aren’t enough!

    Another non sequitur. You’re showing your logical skills, not! Your statement here has nothing to do with the issue at hand. But that’s what desperation does when you can’t engage with the issue.

    2) Not every person has to reproduce; who taught you that?

    Did I state that? NO!!!!! But you can’t see how illogical your statement to claim that I stated this. I’m just stating a fact of human flourishing which you seem to have a hard time accepting.

    3) In fact, having some people that do not reproduce in a tribe or culture, could be seen as being a benefit to the culture—less fights over resources and inheritance, more adults to interact with children, more adults who spend their lives becoming artists, scientists etc…

    Again, it has nothing to do with the issue. Of course, folks contribute. But what a way to distract without addressing the moral reality of what we’re speaking about. Again, it looks like you didn’t attend university or you got taken because thinking skills are clearly lacking in your posts. If you want to distract, keep making other things the issue. The reality is that you don’t know how to engage because you assume you’re right.

  • veritasetcaritas

    So what? You spout nonsense at every turn as if the objections above actually make specific points about each of the categories you reference. Please engage or just be quiet because your comparisons are downright silly.

  • veritasetcaritas

    If you want to be an attack dog, go ahead. If you want to engage, start thinking, because you’re not doing it.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Then why are you arguing here if you don’t believe in the Bible? You’re just a troll.

  • veritasetcaritas

    This is a religious board with people who are stating that Christianity accepts or should accept this reality. This is the not true. Christianity has never accepted this reality. Until recently, secular society didn’t even accept it. Did I say it was threatening? No! I just stated that within the Christian context it doesn’t make sense for reasons I’ve clearly alluded to. I am stating what Christian anthropology has always taught and to ignore this just because 3% of human population wish to get married is not proper reasoning to establish that it is actually good. Now I’m not condemning anybody if they choose to do this. What I’m stating clearly is that the arguments in favor of its regularization by any Christian filter are nonsensical.

  • veritasetcaritas

    No, I didn’t chase you. You chased me with your attacks and inability to engage. Like I said, if you want to engage the subject, please do. If not, move on. I’ll even let you delineate what you want to talk about so you can limit your logical errors. This way I’ll just engage directly with what you object to, so that you you don’t go wandering off into other issues since you can’t engage with the issue at hand.

  • veritasetcaritas

    “participate in the same joy of marriage and family life that others do.”

    This is the issue. According to secular society, there is no law preventing you from doing this. But when you start putting a Christian twist to it, it goes against the very grain of what the Church has taught for thousands of years. This is the matter at hand and what is being disputed. You can’t equate them to each other precisely because of the numbers I’ve clearly stated and the reality of what nature has dictated. We are not in agreement and no amount of emotional appeal is going to justify this reasoning. The facts speak for themselves. It’s a hard truth and I understand why you react this way. But the Church will not ever agree to this.

  • veritasetcaritas

    “Lol”… Yeah that definitely advances the conversation. You are a really good rational thinker.

  • TimTripod

    So just to be clear, you are referencing a guy who wrote a book a few years ago explaining how Christianity has misunderstood a book of the Bible for pretty much forever because Paul was really saying the opposite of what he actually wrote? Er. . . thanks, but no thanks. I can certainly see how his writings would be appealing to those already drawn to biblical revisionism for various agendas, but I guess I prefer my Dougs more bovine.

  • Mr. Chips

    You: Please stop.
    Them: And another thing…

  • Mr. Chips

    The prohibitions in the Bible against certain “same-sex” activity have nothing to do with LGBT people as they exist today. The ancient men who wrote the Bible had no concept or understanding of loving, caring and committed LGBT couples. Using the “clobber passages” to let LGBT people know what you believe God thinks of them is destructive, hurtful and cruel.

  • I’m glad some people noticed that! Thank you

  • Mr. Chips

    An aberration to what norm?

  • Exactly

  • I agree with everything you said except your lack of an Oxford comma

  • Mr. Chips

    Are you also stoning adulterers?

  • Mr. Chips

    The Bible was written by men. You know that, right?

  • Mr. Chips

    The books that were collected and complied into what we know today as “The Bible” were written by a series of unknown authors. Men who had no idea that their works would be used in such a way. They’ve been changed many times over the centuries to make the Bible seem more cohesive and to fit certain biases and beliefs the translators had. This book was not “God-breathed.” Anyone who thinks it is hasn’t read it in its cultural and historical context.

  • Mr. Chips

    Why can’t I upvote this comment 100x?

  • Mr. Chips

    “Content not found.”

  • Mr. Chips

    My apologies.

  • musicman707

    The Bible condemns homosexual practice, period. It makes no exceptions for “loving relationships.” Homosexual desires are disordered, period. You can try and reinterpret the Bible all you want, but wishing something to be true doesn’t make it so. God knows what his purposes in creation were better than you do, and he revealed them in the Bible. You are a false teacher.

  • Thank you for your kind words. Have a lovely, glitter filled day.

  • Pennybird

    Precisely. This is why the lean so heavily on the Bible – they don’t want to do the heavy lifting that is required by individual thought. They’d rather be told what to do. It’s a strategy that the Republican Party has found really, really convenient.

  • Lindy Norris

    Link works for me. Sonething wrong with your phone or computer. Fractal was able to acess it.

  • Gigi

    What about the part where God/Jesus didn’t oppose or condemn slavery or the raping/killing of pregnant women?

  • Gigi

    Let’s bring them closer to God with scripture!

    “Ephraim’s glory shall fly away like a bird—no birth, no pregnancy, no conception! Even if they bring up children, I will bereave them till none is left. Woe to them when I depart from them! Ephraim’s sons, as I have seen, are destined for a prey; Ephraim must lead forth his sons to slaughter. Give them, O Lord—what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.” (Hosea 9:11-14)

    “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” (1 Samuel 15:3)

  • Becky Harvey

    I agree~ and just keep praying as to how such can be so construed in what God plainly has stated regarding this: *Man and a Woman* Not.. Woman and Woman or Man and Man.

  • LastManOnEarth

    I will give your opinion all due consideration.

  • LastManOnEarth

    Actually, Lark62 has been commenting for a while and based on their body of work, yes, is a really good rational thinker.

    The fact that your comment merited a simple “LOL” should give you pause.

  • So many issues with these premises:

    1. Perhaps this is true. But one could say God is ultimately the source of everything.
    2. God’s Word is the Logos, which the Bible says is Christ (cf. John’s Prologue).
    3. Eternal = aionios, which doesn’t necessarily mean “time-everlasting.”
    4. This is anachronistic, which is a logical fallacy. It is patently false.
    5. This builds on previous premises that have major flaws.
    6. Again, building off flawed premises.
    7. A conclusion that may be logical, but is patently false as it builds upon faulty premises.

  • AntithiChrist

    “Idolatry is making a god that does things the way you like.” Actually you may almost have it there,,,

    With only a slight adjustment, you’ll have it nailed:

    Religion is making a god that does things the way you like.

    But the real reason for this comment is to ask:

    Would your idolatry assertion apply to Bronze Age Middle Eastern tribal warlords who made a god who would then “command” them to commit mass genocide and wholesale, institutional-scale ra pe of vir gins of the neighboring kingdoms? (Numbers 31:7-18)

    If your mind shuts down and doesn’t permit you to visualize what the real-world results of carrying out Jehovah’s godly genocidal instructions to Moses looks like, here’s a helpful video to give you a pretty graphic idea, using actual images from more recent genocides in our history. Unfortunately the Bible wasn’t illustrated with a photographic record since Jehovah unfortunately had the exact same level of technological understanding as the folks who invented him.

    This brief, illustrative video has got some introductory text to give the viewer adequate context and scriptural references – and following that – well let’s just say I wouldn’t advise eating anything beforehand. Enjoy the godly carnage!!

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TgOAx_N0f1I

  • Mr. Chips
  • AntithiChrist
  • musicman707

    The article says: “if you insist on a reading of the text that makes God look bad, you are valuing the text over God. If the Bible is more important to you than God, it is your god. This is idolatry. (Bibliolatry, precisely.)” No, actually, if you insist on a reading of the Bible that makes God conform to your desires and expectations, you’re placing your own opinions, feelings, and desires above the revealed Word of God, and THAT is idolatry–you’re remaking God in the image you prefer, rather than in the way He has actually revealed himself in his Word. You’re making yourself Lord over God. God must live up to your expectations and desires. God must be what you want Him to be, or you won’t accept Him. THAT is the most egregious form of idolatry.

  • musicman707

    When you meet God as your creator one day, you will have a different point of view about this. You will realize you have absolutely no grounds on which to criticize your creator. Your fate will be entirely in His hands one day. But you will also realize that your thoughts about God had no more validity than the thoughts an ant has about you.

  • musicman707

    That’s not entirely true. There are people who accept the Bible’s statements at face value, and there are people (like the writer of this article) who do ridiculous gymnastics trying to make the Bible say things it doesn’t say.

  • The Stentman

    So your world view is restricted by the Bible, is it?
    Why?
    There are c.4,000 denominations of Christianity
    There have been over 40,000 religions over the history of human history.
    Why do you imagine that YOUR beliefs are true and everyone else (99.9%) don’t? Is it because you grew up listening to your parents? Is it because you would have been ostracized if you doubted the ‘Word of God’ in one of the hundreds of versions of the Bible? Is it because you refuse to examine your beliefs in the light of current scientifically established FACTS?

  • veritasetcaritas

    No, LOL shows clearly the maturity by which he engages people. He may be a good thinker but he surely hasn’t demonstrated it in my exchanges with him. His analogy is totally off base. Anybody with a simple understanding of culture would note this.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Homosexuality’s genesis is not completely understood. If you read the science, you would know this and not make the ignorant comment about having no control. In fact, the best we can say is that we see some possible causes linked to some epigenetic reality, though this is not confirmed. Secondly, community and social factors may play a larger role. We need more studies simply in order to understand this. It’s 3% of the population so it is understandable why these studies have not been done. The rest of your commentary is just plain silly. Nobody has stated that humanity doesn’t receive contributions from every member of society. What we know and it is a fact, the human species propagates forward because of the complementarity of the sexes and relations that occur between a man and a woman.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Then if you’re not worried your reaction is overblown.

  • fractal

    Relevance?

  • fractal

    If you REALLY believed that “we all have to work out our own salvation”, your ilk wouldn’t be trying to legislate what people do with their genitals.

    All this “sow discontent and division in the house of God…” is just you whining because your propaganda is being exposed for what it is—politics using religion to oppress others.

    Interesting that you consider LGBT people “the enemy”, because they choose to take pride in their existence, instead of wallowing in the self-hate your ilk feeds them. I would think that since y’all attempt to legislate their lives and sexuality, that it would be within their right to call Fundys the enemy!

    If you want to worship a old book written by men in a dead language 2000 years ago, instead of worshiping the LIVING Goddess, go ahead.

    But don’t expect anyone to bat their eyes, roll over and play dead for you, while you try to turn their existence into a crime.
    Nasty.

  • LastManOnEarth

    I disagree. Your lame dodge was indeed LOL-worthy.

  • veritasetcaritas

    LOL is a great response. Another joke of response by people who laugh because they can’t respond. Listen to your echo chamber and believe what you want instead of what is true.

  • fractal

    Please support and site research for your wacko allegation that atheistic society would be the same as an anarchist society.

    I think perhaps you have your labels mixed up.
    They are two totally different ideologies.

  • fractal

    And plenty of other Christian Churches are egalitarian—heck, we have two LGBT-centric Christian Churches in my city.
    And lets not forget the Church of Unity and the Unitarian/Universalists.
    They are a powerful force for good.

  • fractal

    Human flourishing?
    What an outdated concept!

    8 Billion people on the planet, and the eco-system is collapsing.
    Enough said.

  • fractal

    Is the Golden Rule, sowing discontent and dividing people?

  • fractal

    “This is the Golden Rule for you.
    Be unto others, kind and true.
    Do to them the things that you
    Would like them to do to you.”

    Now, Fundys—
    Do you want us to do to you, the things you are doing to the LGBT community?
    Think Carefully.

  • fractal

    Apologist argument—Bleh.
    You can take your “love the sinner” bull, and shove it.
    What matters is what you do in the voting booth—who are you oppressing, and whose rights are you taking away?
    The rest is decoration.

    I think you are all hung up on dualism—all this good vs evil stuff is a cheap and easy way to dodge the difficult ethical questions.
    To say that humans cannot discern ethics is just nutty.
    Having the self-reflective consciousness allowing us to do just that, is one of the few things that separates us from animals.

    Without it, we are no better than monkeys.
    Without it, you cannot say we even have a “soul”.
    And what is a conscience for, if not to discern and promote healthy ethics?

    It is true that some humans appear to have more EQ than others, just like IQ.
    Now, I think it is indeed possible that Fundys have less EQ; that would explain why y’all keep saying that you must worship a book of absurd regulations from bronze age goat herders.
    Perhaps some medication to soothe that flaming amygdala would help your ilk.

    Blaming the imaginary archetype of Satan (!!!OOGA BOOGA!!!) for the missteps of humanity, is simply projecting your own icky stuff outside of yourself—a very primitive defense mechanism.
    And claiming you know the will of the Goddess for everyone else, is just plain arrogant.
    Stick to improving your own soul, and stop shoving your crusty, stale, decrepit morality onto everyone else—the rest of us are evolving up the hierarchy of needs, and don’t care about your assertions concerning what the Goddess wants and thinks.

  • fractal

    One thru six of your assertions are simply wrong.

  • veritasetcaritas

    It’s not outdated. It’s how future human generations are created. This is a fact you can’t overcome with all your protests and distractions. Sure there are 8 billion alive today. The ones that live in the future will be because of this flourishing and not anything you’re trying to claim as an equal right, since they are inherently different. Only heterosexual couples can repopulate the world and keep humans going.

  • Al Cruise

    The Bible is the Facebook of ancient times.

  • LastManOnEarth

    Happy Pride!

  • veritasetcaritas

    Showing your maturity has always been your hallmark.

  • veritasetcaritas
  • majeff

    girl, bye.

  • LastManOnEarth

    Enjoy your own little cesspool of hate, then.

    The rest of us will celebrate life.

  • Jon Xavier

    How about “love” between brother and sister? Father and daughter? Or, between a man and an animal. Or between an unrelated adult and a child? Certainly, there are many of these cases. So, I guess if it’s called love, anything goes. Is homosexuality any more natural than these? Considering human anatomy, maybe less so. Or, is it simply politically correct? Which has NOTHING to do with objectivity or truth. Even psychologists have to admit that much of what they determine to be right or wrong are value judgements rather than strict science.

    Surely, polygamy has a greater claim to being natural? All the above cases exist, and can argue along the same lines of as homosexual marriage. So, if fairness is what you are after….

    In any case, civil law and moral law or spiritual law are not necessarily the same thing. And ANY kind of unnatural use of the body, including all the aforementioned relationships, or even gluttony, are problematic spiritually, even if not culturally. You may not like it, but it really doesn’t matter.

    Finally, we are not just talking about Christians. We are talking about the majority position of all major religions and all cultures throughout time. Why? Because, obviously, how the vast majority of people have viewed this issue over time and around the globe is as something obviously unnatural.

  • Jon Xavier

    Truth quite often hurts. Never had kids….or a life?

  • David Joseph Weir

    To the “Christians Please Stop Essay,” you make a very interesting and telling point when you say that the bible is more important than your belief in God. So, in effect, what you are stating is that your god is not the God of the bible. And actually, that would be consistent with your conclusions. Your conclusion appears to be that the bible is not the inspired word of God to be interpreted and applied by the Church which He established. Please advise me if i misundersand your position.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Enjoy the 3+% deviation that you embrace. It is an outlier that you have a choice to embrace which is within your right. Don’t expect people to agree with you. And yes celebrate your life. Nobody is stopping you.

  • Lindy Norris

    You dont know your bible

  • Lindy Norris
  • Lindy Norris

    I dont appreciate being censored.

  • Lindy Norris
  • John Purssey

    That is not what the article says IMHO. It asked Christians to reflect on whether their belief in the Bible is more important than their belief in God. The Bible can be understood to be a sacred witness to the imperfect human understanding of the Judaeo-Christian experience and revelation of god which for Christians centres on the life, death, and teachings of Jesus.
    I think it is important to remember that the witness states that Jesus said to his disciples that as they believed in God they should believe in Him (Jesus); and that He told them that when he left them He would send the comforter to be with them. He did not say they would be left with the scriptures.
    I expect there is a difference in how the article writer and you understand what “inspired by God” means. The article writer is part of the Church in interpreting and applying the scriptures. Perhaps you think that the authority to interpret and apply scriptures is limited to only some in the Church.

  • John Purssey

    This may be your autobiography.

  • John Purssey

    You came here of your own volition. You are pushing this on yourself. Get over it.

  • John Purssey

    Don’t forget that the story has god trying out animals as partners first before deciding that none would do. Well, we know that dogs are a human’s best friend, but humans mostly do better with human relationships. That is what the story is about. There is nothing about marriage in that symbolic narrative.

  • John Purssey

    The post’s privacy settings more likely. I had the same response.

  • John Purssey

    It’s about time you understood that Jesus is God’s Word. At least, according to the writer of John’s Gospel.

  • Breannen Shim

    Fun Fact! Your 3% statistic is bogus (the latest Gallup poll said 4.5% and it’s higher than that when the poll is more anonymous), but even if it weren’t, 3% is not a statistical outlier, nor is it a small amount of people! Assuming 3% of the world population is accurate, that’s 230 million people, more than the entire population of Brazil, the fifth most populous country! https://media0.giphy.com/media/11sN0GF4aRRrji/giphy.gif

  • veritasetcaritas

    It’s an outlier. Take a stats course. It’s totally obvious this number falls outside of the fence of the set’s inner fences and most likely lies outside the outer fences. Look up what interquartile range is and you’ll see although not an insignificant number, the total number of these folks is hardly reflective of the unanimous majority of humans on this planet. I stated 3+% because I knew somebody would bring some silly figure like you did. Note the “+”. Nothing from what you state takes away from the reality of what I’ve stated. Something you completely ignored since it’s just something you have a hard time accepting.

  • TimTripod

    It is very clear from the Bible that the Word of God refers to both Jesus Himself and also to the written Word which is ultimately pointing us to Him. Since you emphasize John, I’ll do the same here: In John 5:39, Jesus tells the Jewish leaders that the Scriptures testify about Himself, in John 10:35-36, Jesus equates the Word of God with the (written) Scriptures, and during Jesus’ prayer in John 17:17 He asks His Father to sanctify His followers by God’s Word, with no indication that He is referring specifically to Himself — one would have to read that idea into the text. The reality that the Word of God can refer to both Jesus and Scripture is abundantly clear especially when one looks at all four Gospels, and progressive Christian ideology’s focus on Jesus as the Word of God is quite obviously used in order to de-emphasize that the Word also refers to a written set of books that has claims that they disagree with.

  • Lindy Norris

    I agree we all sin. But when we stop calling that which is sin sin and start calling it right we are in serious trouble

  • Lindy Norris
  • Lindy Norris

    Thank you

  • Lindy Norris

    No neither did Jesus

  • TimTripod

    I’ve appreciated the opportunity to articulate my views on this issue for the folks on this article’s comment forum and I have also appreciated the thoughtful responses I’ve received from opposing perspectives. I can’t realistically keep coming back here to engage with all the responses I’ve been receiving to my comments, though, so I going to wish you all well. While I can’t say my mind was changed on anything (since I still believe based on my view of Scripture that God wants us to repent of our many natural sinful desires including homosexuality and follow after Jesus), I did learn a few things and I’m glad for that. Thanks, Matthew & Daniel.

  • veritasetcaritas

    We can play definition games all you want. Do you even understand what you’re measuring when you say it is not an outlier? What is the question you are trying to answer? This simple fact and the fact that 7,800,000,000 >>>> 200,000,000 by an order of magnitude of 30 clearly shows you don’t what your talking about. It’s like saying your three to five dollars buys what 100 dollars buys.

  • I wish my name was Fred

    In the end times, right will be considered wrong and visa versa…

  • I wish my name was Fred

    You sound like a big purssey.

  • Shannon

    I find it sad that the article title calls traditional Christians “well meaning” and then proceeds to tell us why were are all horrible jerks for holding beliefs that have been foundational to society until very recently. I’m sorry, but I’m going to need much better arguments to convince me that something is good when it is contrary to natural law and revelation (both in the bible and in church tradition).

  • David Joseph Weir

    Thank you for your post, John. You make some very good points and those points have caused me to ponder exactly how to respond to your thoughtful comments. Give me some time and I shall
    Thanks
    David
    Virus-free.
    http://www.avast.com

  • Martha Anne Underwood

    If the Bible is the last and final word on the Christian faith, then what about the Holy Spirit? The God, the Holy Spirit works through humans today to help them understand what God, the Parent wants for us.

  • Statistics Palin

    “There are people who accept the Bible’s statements at face value,”

    But what about the non-psychopaths?

  • Truth and Faith

    I know of no scripture that condemns “same-sex relationships/marriages”. If you are saying that scripture condemns same-sex activity (ie, the clobber passages), then we can have a healthy theological debate about that. But please don’t say that scripture condemns something without a reference.

  • Mr. Chips

    Duh!

  • Mr. Chips

    He didn’t call you ALL horrible jerks. He was calling out the ones who ARE horrible jerks. If this is you, stop.

  • Mr. Chips

    Go away, crybaby.

  • veritasetcaritas

    I never said they were negligible. They are not an insignificant portion of the population. They’re there. I stated clearly they’re an outlier with respect to the total portion of humanity that doesn’t identify as such. This is a fact of life and a reality of human existence.

  • veritasetcaritas

    The Church takes a position that consistently upholds a human anthropology that doesn’t line up with what you’re assuming that the Church must consider. Instead of tacking this issue you assume by mere existence that certain things should be allowed because it is. That is not thinking clearly and not looking at why the Church considers this not tenable nor in conformance with divine revelation nor what has always been intellectually known.

  • Fearless Feline

    One aspect the author missed is the outsized emphasis among some Christians on condemning homosexuality, a behavior that doesn’t harm others, over and above the sins that do harm others that are rampant in their own lives. For example, the divorce rate among Christians is about the same as the rest of US society yet that’s accepted even though it’s somwthing Jesus addresses (unlike homosexuality on which he was mute).
    And the lack of love towards LGBTQA+ is shameful and the greatest sin and clearly a violation of Jesus’ greatest emphasis. The “love the sinner but hate the sin” is BS. Not only does their hyper focus on homosexuality belie that trope, in the case of homosexuality, it doesn’t convey love but amounts to condemnation and rejection of the person and this is very damaging, as they would learn if they took the time to listen in love to an LGBTQA+ person who is made in a loving God’s image.
    Kudos to the author and the UCC for putting Love above literalism, which, BTW, no one follows completely—ever see a Christian missing a hand or eye? How many women cover their heads in prayer? Which Christians believe the bread and wine of communion actually become the body and blood of Christ?

  • andrewlohr

    And this article just oozes divine love?

  • Sean J Bauman

    The charge that a theological disagreement with same-sex romantic relationships is harmful is absurd. How one acts upon those beliefs may be harmful (as with any belief), but the belief itself doesn’t cause harm. The most is can do is irritate you. But so what? I don’t agree with the ironically, intolerant opinion expressed in the article either. But is Dan to demand that others change their beliefs to comply with a distorted view of “do unto others”? Does love require agreement? If so, those who agree with this article are just as unloving as those they accuse.

  • Breannen Shim

    That’s…not what the word outlier means though. Look, If we can’t agree that words have meanings I think I’m done with this conversation. I’m not here to play Calvinball with the English language. Have a good one.

  • skaughtey

    “I don’t want LGBT people to have awful, eternal consequences.”

    Don’t worry. We won’t. Byeee.

  • veritasetcaritas

    outlier means:
    – a person(s) or group or thing situated away or detached from the main body or system.
    – a person(s) or group or thing differing from all other members of a particular group or set.

    I know words have meaning and here’s the definition. You obviously are having a problem understanding how rare this situation is. It’s not common and represents a small portion of the human experience. Now that I’ve shown you this it’s about time you understand what you’re saying.

  • Sean J Bauman

    I agree with Shannon. That is exactly how Dan’s article struck me. He conflated the theological justification for that view with those who abuse others because of it, making no such distinction.

  • fractal

    How many humans on this planet are enough for you?
    How many other large mammals number 8 billion?
    How are we to support and feed 8 billion, when our eco-system is collapsing, because of what humans do to it?

    Do you even understand the concept of the circle of life?
    When the clean water is all gone, are you going to try and drink your money?
    When most of the trees are gone, how are you going to manufacture oxygen for the planet?

    Do you think heteros will stop reproducing because there are LGBT people sharing the planet with you?

    I think you are a fruitcake.

  • fractal

    Really,

    WHO CARES what the “church” thinks?
    Not anyone who is rational…

  • Ivan T. Errible

    But why is church so boring? And shrinking?

  • Ivan T. Errible

    There is no god, so being judged is impossible.

  • veritasetcaritas

    It’s clear you don’t. You do what you want.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Nice way to keep distracting from the issue here. You’re an expert at it.

  • fractal

    Just remember the Golden Rule.
    Because Karma can be hard-hitting.

  • fractal

    Not contrary to natural law.
    Variation in species which occurs naturally, due to hormones in utero.
    But that just doesn’t jive with your meme, does it…

  • fractal

    I have never met a Fundamentalist, who wasn’t also

    1. Racist
    2. Misogynistic
    3. Homophobic

    These traits all go together, like PB&J.

  • fractal

    Because many people evolve spiritually, whereas most churches are stuck in the mire, due to their insistence on worshiping the words of a book concerning the morality of 4000BC goat-herders.
    People with higher IQ need a lot more than Christianity has to offer.

    Wanna find the lost worshipers?
    Go to an American Sufi gathering, a meditation class, a Pagan celebration, or a Humanist convention.
    Go to a bookstore and watch who buys Rumi and Hafiz.
    Go to a Unitarian/Universalist meeting.
    Next time the Buddhist monks come to your area to do their sand-painting, see who is in attendance.

  • veritasetcaritas

    I don’t believe in Karma. But I agree with the Golden Rule and by disagreeing with someone doesn’t mean I don’t treat people with respect. This is just a dialogue that nobody should be taking personally but should be discussed on the merits of the ideas and arguments.

  • fractal

    Of Course you vote to oppress people!

    Tell me, are you voting for pro-choice candidates?
    Are you voting for candidates that support LGBT rights?
    Are you voting for candidates that support the ERA?

    If not, you are voting to oppress people.

  • fractal

    Voting to take away right from people is Not in alignment with the Golden Rule or Karma.
    When you vote to take away my rights, I DO TAKE IT PERSONALLY.

    Now stop acting all wide-eyed and innocent, while you stab me in the back with your vote.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Voting??? This is about Christian thought. You have the right to live as you do for the secular society has permitted it. Stop being a drama queen. It just shows you’ve not understood what the discussion has been about. Like I’ve stated repeatedly, you can live as you want in this country and nobody is going to bat an eye.

    Again, your reasoning skills are highly lacking.

  • George Sto

    This is (yet another…) article that jumbles everything together – relationship and mutual care, sexuality/sexual desire/intercourse, marriage and partnership, and more. “Genitalia which are the wrong shape”? That’s a completely different topic, sir. Neither biblical references nor natural law can be reasonably applied and argued in absence of clear terms. This already starts with “well-meaning”.

  • Sean J Bauman

    Ignoring the broad-brush with which you paint, Fundamentalists are in the minority among Christians who hold traditional values.

  • Sean J Bauman

    You are equivocating (perhaps unintentionally) with respect to the phrase “natural law.” First line describing nature in Wikipedia states,

    “Nature has two inter-related meanings in philosophy. On the one hand, it means the set of all things which are natural, or subject to the normal working of the laws of nature. On the other hand, it means the essential properties and causes of individual things.”

    When Christians refer to natural law, they aren’t (unless they are making the same mistake) referring to biology.

    But I am curious in your proposal. Do you have a scientific paper to that effect?

  • Triggerman1976

    Why “two”? Why not 3, or 4, or ten?
    Why does it have to be “mutual”?

    There seems to be a lot of arbitrary conditions being applied.

  • Sean J Bauman

    Without “good vs. evil”, an ethical system is reducible to preferred social conduct; an abhorrent ethical system to that which is merely not preferred. With your rejection of good and evil, at least you are being consistent with your Atheism.

  • BryanThomas90210

    I object to “well meaning” also. The proper term for people like you is “vermin” or “pervert”.

  • To the straight Christians who say that the problem is solved if homosexuals simply stay celibate, I’d like them to walk the walk. Show us that this is a fulfilling lifestyle by being celibate yourselves. That way you can avoid the accusation that you’re demanding of someone else something you wouldn’t do yourself.

    I predict very few Christians to accept my challenge.

  • Statistics Palin

    As in Jesus Christ, how can this woman be so poorly educated? Jesus and Christ are transliterated from Greek as they appear in the original text of the Bible.

  • Statistics Palin

    She’s not exactly Alan Turing is she?

  • Robert Volk

    And yet, court room judges do it every day.

  • Souris

    Are you suggesting that you believe courtroom judges to be God?

  • John Purssey

    Poor Alan. The religious authorities served him badly and thereby also mistreated the body and head of the Church.

  • No, but they elected one as president!

  • Statistics Palin

    Turing was an atheist.

  • Statistics Palin

    The problem is that you are presuming a particular kind of sin on my part to deprive me of equal protection
    under the law. Most “Biblical Christians” do this. It’s the reason I can be denied service, housing, and employment in most states. You have federal protection due to your religion. Yet you deny it to me even thought i am abstinent.

    This is why I find your religion abhorrent. You make how someone was born a sin
    and a crime no matter how that man plays the hand he was dealt.

  • Mr. Chips

    They’re also VERY LOUD!

  • Lindy Norris

    I think its a crime to deny those things a citizen of this country. A human being is valuable no matter what sin he or she is struggling with. I, as a christian, would even go as far as to make a wedding cake which has been denied homosexuals by christians. I dont agree with all christians. But in my veiw my sin of hetesexual lust and your homosexuality is same -sin. I dont see my self better than you. Actually i have struggled with homosexuality before but knew what God’s word said about it and repented quickly. Jesus can set us free from things that are So a part of us that its seems like born with it. Italians have anger issues like me. Im itailian but instead of me excusing my sin of explosive anger because i was born itailian, i let jesus set me free.

  • John Purssey

    That makes no difference.

  • John Purssey

    The witness to the Word of God is different from the Word of God.
    That Jesus says that he fulfils The Law and The Prophets means that they contain the expectation of The Word, not that they are The Word.

  • Just Me

    It is shameful that a pastor holds these beliefs and will be held accountable to God for teaching such heresy.

  • Just Me

    2 Tim 3:16 states that all scripture is theópneustos, or God breathed. The scripture is the only revelation that we have and is actually God’s word. It is his revelation to us and is necessary for salvation. This article minimizes the importance of scripture. The author seems to hold a very low view of scripture.

  • Just Me

    The LGBT community needs to know that the need to repent of their sins and believe.

  • Just Me

    Actually some sins are more heinous than others — they are not all equal. This has been Christian orthodoxy for many, many centuries and is what is taught in scripture. See the Westminster Larger Catechism 151 for a detailed explanation.

  • Just Me

    Everyone is at enmity with God short of salvation.

  • Just Me

    Try Romans 1 for a start.

  • Just Me

    The OT was written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. Latin has no bearing on anything.

  • soter phile

    “conservatives, here’s a shallow caricature of your position, demonstrating i either don’t understand or just don’t actually care what you think. so… don’t you see why you should give up your views and accept mine instead?”

    if you actually want to engage the text & scholarship, check out Robert Gagnon’s work on this topic.

  • soter phile

    So… like Jesus? or Paul? or, more recently, John Stott?

    And 1 Cor.7:8-9 put particular parameters on your “challenge.”

  • soter phile

    This says more about how anecdotal your comments are than about the entire group you wish to dismiss out-of-hand.

  • Jesus was a god. I’m unimpressed if he’s able to live a good life. Paul thought the end was around the corner. I’m familiar with John Stott’s Basic Christianity but don’t know what he’s done that’s relevant.

    How is 1 Cor.7:8-9 relevant? Yes, I realize that Paul thought the end was around the corner. What I’m talking about is a 25yo (say) Christian man who is happy to burden someone else with celibacy when he has no such burden.

  • fractal

    Do those “traditional values” include homophobia and sexism?

    I bet they do—you just repackage it as “complementarism”, evangelicalism, faith-based, doctrinal, New Christian Right, Roman Catholic, Moral Majority,
    Dominionist, Amish, Return of Kings, Opus Dei—-but it is the same old story again.
    All those labels and the compulsive dicing and slicing of beliefs for religious purity, don’t really matter to those of us who are watching y’all and shaking our heads in disbelief at your willful ignorance.

    And while almost no one in America will Admit they are racist, people who are sexist and homophobic are natural racists. That would include ALL religious right folks, regardless of their specific religion or splintered shades of gray.

  • fractal

    You are the one who keeps slinging around the term “Human Flourishing”, as if that is some sort of problem on this planet.
    Just the opposite is true—way too many humans are on this planet, and pretty quick we are all going to start feeling the pinch.

    Now lets try this again—exactly HOW MANY HUMANS are enough for you and your Jesus?

  • fractal

    Why are you here, if you think LGBT people are icky-poo?
    This is an article about the LGBT and Christian intolerance.
    So,
    You, as an intolerant Christian, think you must tell us all how it really is, in the eyes of Jesus?

    Perhaps you are the troll…

  • fractal

    Irrelevant to the issue of Christian intolerance toward the LGBT community.

  • fractal

    I notice you never answer the question about your education.
    Are you ashamed of your education or lack of it?
    Really, you do sound home-schooled.
    You sure don’t sound like you ever went to a secular University—perhaps a Christian College?

  • fractal

    “Christian Anthropology”!!!???!!!

    Well,

    Now I am beginning to see the problem.
    Have you EVER gone to a secular school?

    And please define “regularization”.
    It sounds German and Fascist…

  • fractal

    “^^^^^^Logic has nothing to do with this^^^^^^^”
    Your words.

    So why are you talking about “rational reason” now?
    Do you understand the terms “logic” and “rational”?

  • fractal

    All useful changes in a species begin as “aberrations”.
    Haven’t you ever taken Biology?

    Medical literature does NOT say all aberrations are harmful—some are quite helpful!
    “The Christian Spiritual Tradition” is hardly a rational argument of ANYTHING.

    Are you really so uneducated, that you cannot understand the Borg as a metaphor and a useful analogy, simply because it is a story?
    Are you somewhere on the autism spectrum, perchance?

  • fractal

    Sweetie,

    I don’t want you anywhere near my soul, and no—you don’t have my permission to SHOW me anything about your strange brew of a religion.

  • fractal

    AMEN!

  • fractal

    Why do you think that they should pay any attention to your opinion, and why do you feel the need to shove it down their throat?

    Why are Christians so pushy and arrogant?

    As if the LGBT haven’t been hearing that old song and dance their whole lives…
    What if the LGBT community decided it is required by Goddess to show you the bliss of the same-sex lifestyle?

    I suggest you shut up and leave well enough alone, before they decide to push back, and start legislating your bedroom activities.

  • soter phile

    What every addict says during an intervention…

  • soter phile

    Funny… since Jesus calls the OT “the Word of God” (Mk.7:10-13) – even while acknowledging human authors (like Moses).

    Are you claiming Jesus was being idolatrous?

  • Iain Lovejoy

    As I have said before, you need to learn how grown up writing and language works before tackling the Bible.
    I have explained to you what “context” means, but you clearly didn’t understand. Sometimes what a word or combination of words refers to has to be understood by looking at the surrounding words. This is “context”. The expression “Word of God” is used at the beginning of the Gospel of John, for example, to mean the divine Word, but is also used more prosaically to refer to something as having been said by God. (I may be wrong, but I don’t think the phrase is ever in fact used in the Bible to refer to the OT as a collective work.) Which is meant depends on the “context” (I.e. surrounding words) in which this phrase appears. In the passage you quote Jesus can only be using “the word of God” to mean simply “what God said” for it to make any sense.
    Clifford, on the other hand, SAS “the Word of God” is the same as God, so us using the phrase in the theological sense of the divine Word, but then using it to refer to the books of the Bible canon, rather than Jesus, and so idolatrously worshipping the book, rather than the living God.

  • Gigi

    Your entire argument is that we can refuse to “accept a lifestyle” that we don’t understand, approve of or condone. Christian missionaries who forced “savages” to convert to Christianity, or be killed, used similar reasoning skills. They didn’t want the human flourishing that indigenous “savages” would provide.

  • Greebo

    Jesus most likely didn’t stay celibate.

  • Harvey James Johnson

    First, what does God-breathed” really mean? What does inspired mean? Bach’s St Matthew’s Passion is inspired. Jethro Tull’s Passion Play is inspired. Does one believe the Holy Spirit placed each of the authors of the Bible in a trance and then moved their hands like a Ouiji Board game? And when 2 Timothy was written, the New Testament of the Bible did not yet exist. None of the books that now comprise the New Testament were considered to be Holy Scripture at the time. Does that mean that only the Hebrew Bible is God-breathed? Full disclosure – I have a very high view of scripture, but scripture is not the word of God. I will not idolize scripture. Jesus is the Word of God.

  • Harvey James Johnson

    There is no such thing as “Natural Law” as the philosophers have envisioned it. When cultures were isolated, the Greek philosophers (and others) thought that the things they assumed as universal laws were universal everywhere. Under Natural Law, for example, men are whole beings and women are deficient. Not every culture viewed cannibalism as bad. Not every culture viewed killing as against Natural Law or Vikings would not want to die with their sword in hand. Polygamy, slavery, pederasty, misogyny, all these reveal the error in thinking (the church’s thinking, for example) that there is any such thing as a universal natural law. (Because if there really was such a thing as Natural Law, it would have to be universal to all cultures, all races in all times and all locations.)

  • Just Me

    without the word of god (the bible) you would not know about christ. if you actually believe that the bible is not the word of god then the truth is not in you. you are then not saved.

  • Al Cruise

    Share with us what you would do with the LGBTQ community if you were in charge in a society where conservative Christianity was the rule of Law, not secular Law . What would you use? Execution ? Imprisonment ? Conversion therapy? Determent camps similar to whats being endorsed by conservative Christians with the immigrants on the border today? Reserves, like what was done with native Americans? My guess is this is what would happen . Severe public policies that would keep them marginalized physically and mentally so they remain on the fringes of society as permanent outcasts . You would justify it all by saying you’re following God’s word.

  • Just Me

    no one, literally no one, is saying that biblical law should be secular law. you are the king of the straw man argument. in case you missed it, the discussion is about what happens in the church and that is very, very different from secular society. please try to keep up.

  • Al Cruise

    Your comment is a wolf in sheep clothing. You fool no one . This is how you are saying and making Biblical Law , secular Law . The recent Supreme court nominees say it all. And there will be more to come. You’re not done speaking yet.

  • soter phile

    What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
    (1 Cor.5:12)

    Paul never expected Caesar to legislate Christianity. But – like this blog entry – he was speaking directly to the community of faith. He told them to cast out the s3xually immoral leader. Notably, in 2 Corinthians – after they have enacted this discipline and the man has repented – he has to tell the Corinthian church not to be jerks but welcome him back since he is repenting.

    At no point did any of this involve concentration camps or conversion therapy.

  • soter phile

    Your logic does not follow. Are you not guilty of the very thing you are castigating? Or do you really mean to say the Supreme Court (likewise) should not have legalized g@y marriage?

    Beliefs inform our societal legislation. They always have. Philosophically, religiously…
    You simply want your beliefs privileged over others.
    You can’t then claim others shouldn’t want or pursue the very same goal – just because they do not share your beliefs. It’s self-refuting.

  • Just Me

    i think you have a reading comprehension problem

  • Al Cruise

    Not at all . You have a problem, here is how your leaders are talking.//www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/fox-business-lou-dobbs-mueller-report-donald-trump_n_5cb97c5fe4b032e7ceb6fac8

  • Just Me

    i think you’re about as smart as slow joe. that article has zero to do with the church forcing anything on society.

  • Al Cruise

    ://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47066659 . The deal you have with Trump is , you give him unbridled support , he gives you the Supreme court nominees of your choosing . You get your version of Biblical Law. Your a sly old wolf Just Me.

  • Al Cruise

    “smart as slow joe” You are definitely smart as a serpent.

  • Just Me

    i do not want scotus to enforce biblical law but constitutional law. i want originalists that will interpret the constitution as the framers would and not legislate from the bench. scotus should never make up new law out of whole cloth, which they do way too frequently.

  • Al Cruise

    Like i said, your sly old Wolf.

  • Just Me

    so for a liberal adhering to the rule of law is “sly”? why do you hate the constitution?

  • Al Cruise

    Not sure what you’re trying say . Conservative Christians today do not follow this teaching. They still use conversion therapy, and support concentration camps. Read this by a World leading Christian Theologian on the Patheos evangelical channel. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2019/07/where-is-america-going/

  • Al Cruise

    Let me explain what your plan is. Get the Supreme court with a strong majority of conservative right wing Judges , fill the lower courts with the same. Start appealing cases to the Supreme Court , and start overturning the rights that LGBT people have.

  • Just Me

    wrong. absolutely wrong. i want originalist jurists that will interpret the constitution as the framers would and not legislate from the bench. this view is neither right nor left and anyone who cares about the rule of law would agree.

  • Guestie

    I hate the faith but love the faithful.

  • Guestie

    He had a lot of groupies. And some may have been women.

  • veritasetcaritas

    This type of existence you’re advocating for regarding same-sex coupling doesn’t produce human life. This is a fact. Human history has never sided with this. This is also a historical fact. The example you use is nonsensical. Civilizations come and go like ours will too.

  • veritasetcaritas

    “Medical literature does NOT say all aberrations are harmful—some are quite helpful!”

    Which one are? You make an assertion without referencing what? Who hasn’t taken biology? It looks like you. The aberration you’re defending doesn’t lead to the common good.

    “”The Christian Spiritual Tradition” is hardly a rational argument of ANYTHING.”

    The Christian spiritual tradition is based on some concrete anthropology that you can’t even articulate. You spew nonsense.

    “Are you really so uneducated, that you cannot understand the Borg as a metaphor and a useful analogy, simply because it is a story?”

    Why would you use a metaphor when you could use a fact to back your position? That you use this shows your weak position.

    “Are you somewhere on the autism spectrum, perchance?”

    Your insult is an ad hominem, reflecting a poor strategy on your part. You can’t state anything useful so you resort to this.

  • veritasetcaritas

    You need to establish a common reality to justify this. You can’t. Hence you can’t use any logic to establish your reasoning for this reality. I thought you could think?

  • veritasetcaritas

    Yes. In fact, universities were founded by the Church. Something you completely ignore. Again, if you want to say something intelligent, deal with the issue at hand instead of attacking the person. Your thinking skills are showing.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Deal with the issue at hand. You only attack because you have no substance in your argument other than I feel this way.

  • veritasetcaritas

    They’re justifying what Christianity can never justify. This is the only reason for being here since they’re misrepresenting Christian thought.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Again, your point doesn’t address the reality of the sterility concerning the relationships you tout. This is a fact. In Christianity, this has always been known.

  • Statistics Palin

    Judge yourself on your own sins.

  • Gigi

    Lots of people can’t, or don’t want to, produce human life. This is a fact. Same-sex unions have existed throughout human history. Many cultures accepted them. THIS is a historical fact. Educate yourself.

  • Gigi

    Lots of people can’t, or don’t want to, produce human life. This is a fact. Same-sex unions have existed throughout human history. Many cultures accepted them. THIS is a historical fact. Educate yourself.

  • Harvey James Johnson

    Sure I would (know about Jesus). I was told about Jesus by my parents and grandparents, who were told by theirs, and by theirs, all the way back to St Paul. The Christian church existed long before the Bible became the Bible. I say again, Jesus is the Word of God.

  • Just Me

    you sound catholic. problem is that what you say contradicts scripture.

  • veritasetcaritas

    This does not dispute from the fact that only through a man and a woman is life perpetuated. This is a fact. 3% are accepted for what they are, an anomaly and not critical for a civilization to perpetuate itself.

    “Many cultures accepted them.”

    This is laughable because the acceptance was never done as if they were critical to human survival nor equal to other relationship that perpetuated human existence. This is just you kidding yourself wanting to create a reality that isn’t.

    “THIS is a historical fact. Educate yourself.”

    Educate yourself that you make up 3% of the human population. This is a fact that should tell you something, but you ignore it. This is the reality. Nobody is arguing to take away here any secular right you’ve obtained. Just don’t confuse it with what Christianity has always understood. This whole essay is a complete lie regarding the Christian understanding of the purpose of human life.

  • fractal

    Yeah,

    One of those “pray myself straight” nutters…

  • fractal

    You cannot imagine which aberrations are helpful—are you that dense?
    Every step in our evolution from chimps was began as an “aberration”.
    Take your pick.

    A metaphor is a great way to concisely make a point—everyone on this thread knows who the Borg are, and why we don’t want to be them.
    I bet if I quoted a poem to you, you would sneer too—unless it was from your bibble.

    The anthropology of the Christian Spiritual tradition has zero to do with its logic or the rationality of its teachings.

    Now, will you please tell us whether you were home-schooled and whether you attended a secular University?
    Or are you ashamed of your educational background?

    PS. I have a post-graduate, professional degree in the health science area.
    I am positive I have at least 4x the amount of education in the area of human biology, than you do.

  • fractal

    So,

    You are ashamed of your educational background?

  • fractal

    I got it.
    You are that uncle at Thanksgiving dinner that always disrupts the peace with his non-stop propaganda and proselytizing.

    Anyone who feels “Compelled” to shove their religion down the throats of others, is a pain in the arse.
    Don’t you see all those people rolling their eyes at you and smirking?

    There is a reason people laugh at Fundamentalists, ya know…
    If we didn’t, we would have to punch them in the face.

  • fractal

    Blather.

    Did you learn that pretzel logic from one of those Fundamentalist Preacher types?

  • fractal

    Dear “All Set Free,

    Will you please release all my “on hold” comments?
    There is nothing there that is worthy of censorship.

  • veritasetcaritas

    No, I just told you why your points will never be validated by the 97% of humanity and you ignored it.

  • veritasetcaritas

    No, I’m confident enough to not to have to use it. I deal with the issue at hand and don’t attack any interlocutor because I feel smarter than them. You should deal with the issue that you seemingly ignore at every turn.

  • veritasetcaritas

    “A metaphor is a great way to concisely make a point—everyone on this thread knows who the Borg are, and why we don’t want to be them.”

    Borgs aren’t real and if you can’t see this, I can’t help you. Your metaphor fails; otherwise I’d be parroting your fabricated ideas.

    The Catholic Church invented the University. Deal with it.

    You are ignorant if you think your education gives you the right to spout off nonsense. I come from a family of medical doctors who know quite a deal much more than you and are educated multiple times over in research and practice over you. I know when I’m talking to a quack. And you’re it.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Nope, a person who clearly describes the sad reality of this existence.

  • Ivan T. Errible

    Unitarians are about as “diverse” as cream cheese: middle-class, middle aged, middle brow.

  • fractal

    Another Dodge.

  • soter phile

    you said: That would include ALL religious right folks, regardless of their specific religion or splintered shades of gray.

    look up the actual definition of bigot – and then think about what you’re claiming here.

  • soter phile

    This is how anecdotal & myopic your remarks are:
    I’m a conservative Christian. I’m saying otherwise. I’m the one pointing you at that verse.

  • veritasetcaritas

    Again you don’t address the issue at hand. I have a BS, two MS, and a PhD. Now move on and address the issue so that you we can see your thinking skills.

  • Al Cruise

    My remarks are the truth and your comment shows you have no defense.

  • fractal

    why would you think I am an atheist?
    Because I don’t belong to your club?

  • soter phile

    you: conservative Xns don’t follow 1 Cor.5:12 today. still doing conversion therapy & camps
    me: nope. I am one. I am against those. I gave you that verse. you’re being anecdotal.
    you: no! i have to be right – so your comment must mean you have no defense.
    me: you don’t seem to know what anecdotal or myopic means.

  • Al Cruise

    ” I am against those.” I disagree. I have read enough of your comments to know where your attitudes and beliefs are.

  • Al Cruise

    You are asking what myopic means. In the manner that you are asking , it means you have the attitude of a Pharisee.

  • Ivan T. Errible

    So you don’t want the government to give any religion tax breaks or housing allowances?

  • Some Guy

    I think that w.r.t. these kind of topics, one needs to sincerely try and understand the other’s perspective. When some Christians are opposed to sodomy, it is not because they cannot tolerate anything different, but it might be because they believe it goes against the ideals of Genesis 1 & 2. And objecting morally to something that someone does, doesn’t necessarily mean you should treat them any differently. How you interact with someone should be based on the teachings of Jesus, but you still have the right to disagree with what they call moral behavior.

    So if someone truly believes that sodomy goes against the ideals in Gen 1 & 2, would it not make sense when that person should advocate that the Church not lose sight of those ideals?

  • Sorry, I haven’t been home. I don’t know why Disqus is now censoring folks. I’ll try to deal with it if I can find time.

  • fractal

    Thank You!

  • fractal

    Not so!

    I have seen online many commenters who want America to be Theocratic, and there are websites dedicated to this principle—google it.

  • fractal

    The framers lived 250 years ago, and didn’t let my kind vote or have any real rights.
    The framers never dealt with gerrymandering, voter suppression, internet harassment, the population movement to big cities, or the rights of anyone except White men.

    I think your argument stinks.

  • fractal

    Big Huge Dodge.

  • Ivan T. Errible

    OK…….

  • othelzer@yahoo.com

    Can I ask what version of the Bible you have?
    Do you have the book of Romans or Hebrews?
    Did The God of your Bible create me. And some ?
    Genisis chapter 18 what happened in your Bible?

  • Tammy spears

    (Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by All Set Free.) So the system tells me and shows my comments still “pending”- about 20 hours ago and then 10 when I tried to post again.

    3rd attempt- I am going to break up and section off my original response that will not post. I will section it off in reply to this post as a test to see what is being regarded as pending approval, before I ask someone to host my response outside of Patheos. I cannot be sure at this point if Patheos algorithns are at issue in pending me or “All Set Free” is letting me remain pending or hasn’t yet been able to read pending comments for his approval. All Set Free???

    If the Patheos system, maybe it is pending my sizable response beyond any word or phrase. Hence, the attempted break up in the Reply to this post.

  • Truth and Faith

    Romans 1 condemns lots of things that were happening in Rome at the time. Nowhere does it talk about same-sex marriages. Go read Romans 2.

  • Just Me

    the condemnation is not directed solely at rome. a sin is a sin. if it was a sin 2000 year ago it certainly is today.

  • fractal

    When you go into the voting booth and try to take away my rights—you have lost the moral high ground.
    NASTY.

  • Some Guy

    And what right would that be?

  • AGD

    I’m sorry but I stopped reading at the first paragraph of the article because something is written which is not true. If this falsehood, which I will copy and paste here, was written and published then the article is not worth reading and not to be trusted, and neither is the website which published it. This is totally false: “Meanwhile, as long as they are of opposite gender, you call a marriage where two people might treat each other with contempt, act abusively, or attempt to use and control one another, a holy union blessed by God.”

  • lurid

    Homosexual acts and lust are sin, the Bible is very clear on this. God bless you Floyd, I was once in the life that you are.. I pray you find the Truth before it’s too late brother – it’s hard to kick against the goads.