AlterNet / By Letha Dawson Scanzoni
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 227

The Gospel On Gay Marriage

Before dismissing the religious right, progressives may find it helpful to learn more about them -- particularly that group the media lump together as 'the evangelicals.'
June 16, 2005  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
In his book, "God's Politics," Jim Wallis wrote about how the religious right has narrowed faith-based values to a few "hot-button" issues, while ignoring the biblical vision of social justice in areas such as poverty, the environment, and questions of war and peace.

But hot-button issues like same-sex marriage can't be cast aside at a time when influential religious leaders are rallying the troops for a war against a minority group already suffering the pain of discrimination. Chuck Colson has trumpeted the battle cry by saying that the "number one cultural priority of Christians" should be "stopping the spread of same-sex marriage" and that "pastors, priests, and clergy of all denominations should be leading the charge."

Before dismissing the religious right, progressives may find it helpful to learn more about them -- particularly that group the media lump together as "the evangelicals," a term that has been hijacked from its original meaning of "good news." Because of this, many people now associate the term with wealth, political power, militarism, judgmentalism, intolerance, and an arrogance that is totally contrary to the spirit of the gospel (and contrary to those who retain the original meaning of "evangelical").

The hope of finding open-mindedness within the religious right may seem futile, especially since its prominent spokespersons claim they are being persecuted for their faith whenever their particular constellation of values is questioned. Back in 1985, when the religious right first began increasing its cultural and political influence, I wrote an article suggesting that instead of viewing the conservative Christian movement as a monolithic entity, we need to recognize at least four major categories within the movement:

  • Aggressive Combatants, who mobilize their followers to go to battle against whatever they consider to be the current threat (most recently, same-sex marriage);


  • Loyal Followers, who consider the Combatants to be their religious authorities, buying their books, tuning in to their broadcasts, accepting their interpretations of the Bible, and responding to their fundraising pleas;


  • Thoughtful Questioners, who were drawn to the movement by its emphasis on a personal relationship with God and the importance of the Bible in their lives but are not convinced that all issues are settled or that all the answers are already in;


  • Hurting Strugglers, sincere believers who earnestly practiced their faith and followed the rules they had been taught, yet were faced with some circumstance that turned their well-ordered world upside down -- a divorce, a gay child, a pregnant teenager, domestic violence, mental illness, job loss, bankruptcy, a suicide in the family.


What progressives need to recognize is that Thoughtful Questioners and Hurting Strugglers may be more receptive to new ideas than is often realized. Even some Loyal Followers may move over into one of these categories at some point. But to communicate with them, it's important to first acknowledge how much their religion matters to them and then seek out areas of common concern and mutually held values.

Second, an awareness of alternative approaches to biblical interpretation can help progressives resist the temptation to ridicule sincere people of faith as unenlightened "Bible thumpers."

In applying these principles to the same-sex marriage question, the right and left can find common ground in recognizing the human need to belong and the desire for legally conferred kinship status on chosen, committed life partners. We can affirm the message of marriage supporters in their valuing and promotion of marriage, while at the same time challenging the notion that including gays and lesbians in marriage would make heterosexual marriages weaker.

Might not opening marriage to gays instead add weight to the importance of monogamy and the idea that love, commitment and sex belong together in the legally recognized relationship called marriage?

Might not same-sex marriage therefore strengthen the institution as a whole?

Listening to the moving stories of gay and lesbian couples who have longed for the recognition, rights and responsibilities of marriage in their 10, 20, or even 50 years together could counter unfounded conspiracy theories such as James Dobson's charge in Marriage Under Fire that most gays and lesbians don't really want to be married but are actually advancing a gay marriage initiative as part of a 60-year plan to destroy the family.

The right has also framed the religious aspects of the debate by dogmatically asserting that the "Bible condemns homosexuality" -- a statement accepted unquestioningly, repeated in the media, and asserted even in political discourse. Progressives seem to have no way to respond except to toss out the Bible as irrelevant, which turns off many religious people immediately and plays into the hands of those who want discrimination built into the constitution.

It's important for people of faith to know that the Bible doesn't condemn "homosexuality." Neither the term nor the concept was known in biblical times.

Sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual, has been shown by scientists to be a natural disposition -- a normal variant like handedness. In the few Scripture verses mentioning same-sex acts, the emphasis is on gang rape, exploitation and idolatry. Nothing is said about loving, committed, same-sex relationships. Faulty translations have muddied the waters further.

People of faith on the left and on the right need to find ways to communicate about such matters. Only then can we reach out to one another with open arms rather than tensed muscles or raised fists.
  • 1
View as a single page
 
Letha Dawson Scanzoni is co-author, with David G. Myers, of "What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage," just published by HarperSanFrancisco.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email

comments COMMENTS ( 227 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

Scripture and homosexuality
[Report this comment]
Posted by: daniel1982 on Jun 16, 2005 2:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
>Scripture verses mentioning same-sex acts, the emphasis is on gang rape, exploitation and idolatry. Nothing is said about loving, committed, same-sex relationships. Faulty translations have muddied the waters further.<

Oh come on.. No matter what side of the debat you're on, I think we can all agree on the fact that the Bible is not a fan of homosexuality in ANY setting. If you believe otherwise, you're reaching for something that isn't there.

» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: needlefoot
» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: girl under glass
» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: jimsimone
» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: daniel1982
» Gay Christians Exist... Posted by: mike274
» RE: Gay Christians Exist... Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: dontboxmein

Comments are closed-

Bigoted Biblical Hype
[Report this comment]
Posted by: neilemac on Jun 16, 2005 4:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That few thousand year old bigoted text, taught to be the word of God, was written by men, powerful men. The book's condemning of homosexuality is no surprise. It also tells you to beat your kids, get an eye for an eye, both being barbaric notions. Look at the BS that's being pumped out by the present administration in the guise of patriotism. The quickly passed acts by the "good old boys" stiffle American citizens' freedom and liberties. It's all smoke and mirrors filling the populace with fear to guarantee support for their dirty war in Iraq. If something isn't done to quash the rightwing hype rampant in the White House, I fear its walls will go the way of Jericho! When it comes to love, tradional or otherwise, I believe it is no one else's business but the lovers involved. Stop treating homosexual and lesbian couples as if they came from another planet. They all began like everyone else, part of a family. Wake up America, show true family values by loving your gay kids too.

» RE: Bigoted Biblical Hype Posted by: Stonecutter
» RE: Bigoted Biblical Hype Posted by: neilemac

Comments are closed-

Consider the Metropolitain Church
[Report this comment]
Posted by: amanda615 on Jun 16, 2005 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for people who believe that evangelism is not the exclusive property of the Right. Gay and Lesbian friendly.

Comments are closed-

Misinterpretation of the Bible
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kww355 on Jun 16, 2005 5:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think all the vague references in the Bible to homosexual activity are actually another way of promoting having children. It's not easy to "be fruitful and multiply" if you're in a same sex relationship.I seriously think that's all it boils down to.As usual,the evangelicals have taken things out of context to further their narrow-minded agenda.They hate what they don't understand.The gentle,forgiving,inclusive Jesus has been forgotten in their quest for "If you're not like me and don't think like me,you're bad and going to Hell".What a shame.

Comments are closed-

Torn
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bettsoff on Jun 16, 2005 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever a suggestion like this comes up, I'm torn between agreeing with it, seeing all the genuinely faithful people in my life and acknowledging that their faith has made them better people, and disagreeing on the grounds that my personal experience with Western religion has made me very angry and suspicious of it, and to 'infiltrate' religion with progressive messages, as this article seems to suggest we do, seems no more honest to me than the indoctrination I received as a child, practiced in reverse. I think about how I feel having been treated as a pawn 'for God' by powerful authority figures in my young life. Reject religion or change it?

» RE: Torn Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Torn Posted by: apodopa
» RE: Torn Posted by: LMNOP

Comments are closed-

That dog won't hunt
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jazzyjer on Jun 16, 2005 5:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. Scanzoni simply is incorrect in trying to "PC" the Bible's take on homosexuality. For a man to lie with a man as with a woman was a capital offense for the ancient Israelites and St. Paul reiterated the condemnation. What progressives need to emphasize is how many ridiculous laws Yahweh handed down and how modern society (except Orthodox Judaism) has discarded virtually all of them -- except the one about homosexuality. And we might mention that women lying with women was not thought worthy of mention by Yahweh. The comment that this ban was reproductively based is almost certainly correct and would make a good argument. The seed corn of this argument, that progressives need to know what the other side really is thinking, is valid, even if Ms. Scanzoni dropped the ball on the details.

» exactly Posted by: poulsbo
» RE: That dog won't hunt Posted by: beata
» RE: That dog won't hunt Posted by: girl under glass

Comments are closed-

hmm...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: titotitotito on Jun 16, 2005 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well i'm no biblical scholar that's for sure, just wanted to copy the references in the bible that refer to the subject at hand... can anyone explain how these jive with what the author is saying in this post?
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination"

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

"[T]he law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane ... for fornicators, for sodomites, ... and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. ..."

» RE: hmm... Posted by: neilemac
» RE: hmm... Posted by: gopbarfbag
» RE: hmm... Posted by: revchad
» Thank you RevChad! Posted by: churchofone
» RE: hmm... Posted by: gaspass
» RE: hmm... Posted by: canuckistani
» RE: hmm... Posted by: beata
» RE: hmm... *PART 1* Posted by: Danielhh
» RE: hmm... *Part 2* Posted by: Danielhh
» RE: hmm... Posted by: ljsullivan1166@earthlink.net
» RE: hmm... Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: HUMMMBUG... Posted by: LMNOP

Comments are closed-

What I would like to see evangelicals take on is club sex!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Pepper on Jun 16, 2005 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you know there are "hetersexual sex clubs" that are attended as if they were dance clubs??? That is what moving away from God has done to our nation. The perversion as evidenced by the incredible amount of child pornography, child sexual abuse and rape is rampant in this nation like I have never seen before in my lifetime??? Why is that?

I believe its because we have moved away from true moral values and deep cultural and religious standards that kept us from becoming pure animals and made us moral, wise, thoughtful and caring people. To me, that is almost all gone and government has promoted that movement away from those very structures that helped us to retain our "humanity".

Homosexuality is something I don't understand so I won't really comment on it. I don't know if its inherited or nurture.
What I do know is there are many more serious problems in sexual exploitation that should be addressed and are not.

If you have ever heard of the "Franklin Scandel" you would know that child sexual exploitation reached the highest levels of our government rightup to the White house back in the 80's under Bush Sr. (I still have copies of the articles in the Washington Times) and it was so bad that it made Monica Lewinski seem normal. Now there is a 2nd Bush in the White House and it appears this problem has reemerged from his fathers time.

Why aren't the fundamentalists screaming about our children?
Why aren't they cleaning out Washington DC of all the houses of prostitution that have 15 year old boys working there whose services are being used by the powerful men of Washington?
That is what I want to hear outrage over. This other issue just appears to be a distraction to cover up the real evil that pervades the White House currently. Just my Humble opinion.

Comments are closed-

Democracy or Theocracy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chitijdth on Jun 16, 2005 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both the article and the responses miss the point entirely. If this country is a secular democracy – at least, in law – the Christian Evangelicals, regardless of the category in which they fall, have the right to believe in or condemn any practices they choose. Non-believers, however, have the same rights.

It is only when either side decides it is their right or mission to impose their beliefs on the other side that democracy fails. A non-believer may feel gay marriage should be permissible, but does not try to force believers to enter such unions. A non-believer may feel that a woman has a right to choose abortion, but does not try to force believers to have abortions. It is only those in the right wing of the Christian Evangelicals that presume to foist their beliefs on everyone else. This is the true danger to a democratic society. This is precisely what fundamentalists in any of the religions – Muslim, Christian, or Jewish – are attempting to do, and it is amazing that so many only see the dangers of theocracy when it is practiced by another religion.

I don’t feel the need to have a dialogue with those who disagree with me, but I do feel the need to protect my rights as well as theirs.

» RE: Democracy or Theocracy Posted by: ZylogZ80
» RE: Democracy or Theocracy Posted by: outsidea
» RE: Democracy or Theocracy Posted by: blacksheep

Comments are closed-

Free-Lance Actor/Writer
[Report this comment]
Posted by: namewon on Jun 16, 2005 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the spirit of this article. I don't have full information to debate its specific points. However, a few years ago, as a free-lance writer living in Pat Robertson Land (Hampton Roads, VA), I did a feature story for the local newspaper Port Folio Weekly on the Regent University Law School (where Pat is training the next generation of evangelical Surpreme Court justices). Contrary to my expectations--and, I suspect, that of my editors and readers--I met an interesting, relatively open-minded group of people there who impressed me with a realization not even ACLU lawyers could convincingly argue away for me: the framework of laws of our western civilization, which of course goes a long way toward defining our culture for better and for worse, are firmly rooted in the Judeo-Christian Biblical tradition. You simply have to take it into account, no matter how many problems it makes for progressives, and believe me, I count myself as a progressive. So...any conversation about what our society has been or should be has to take account of the Bible. And while I almost hesitate to say it, liberals and progressives need to sit down and read the damn thing and start coming to terms with what is simply one of the most "fundamental" sources of our civilization's traditions. And how much of it do we--or can we--really mean to throw out or ignore? Obviously even evangelicals ignore some of it--like "Judge not..." or "Love your enemies..." or "take no thought for the 'morrow...," so blame is not all on the progressive side. But intolerance of Biblical tradition, aside from undermining community, is in my view simply intellectually dishonest--a fine point I learned when I went to evangelical law school.

D.D. Delaney
a/k/a The Thinking Dog

» RE: Free-Lance Actor/Writer Posted by: gopbarfbag
» RE: Free-Lance Actor/Writer (Wake up!) Posted by: Iamnotafruittree
» WOW! Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: Free-Lance Actor/Writer Posted by: Thinker
» RE: Free-Lance Actor/Writer Posted by: gopbarfbag
» RE: Free-Lance Actor/Writer Posted by: pappy1

Comments are closed-

The Gospel on Gay Mariage
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aida1200 on Jun 16, 2005 7:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's worth noting that the Gospel never mentions homosexuality or homosexual practices.

Comments are closed-

Talking to fundamentalists
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Robba29 on Jun 16, 2005 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the various posts show, there is no point in trying to talk to fundamentalists of any stripe--be they Taliban or Evangelical Christian (and, yes, I put them in the same category, despite what the author says). To me, it's a problem within any monotheistic religion. There can be only one god, and that god has only one way to be right. Everything else necessarily must be wrong, otherwise there is a contradiction in the belief system. What makes it worse is that you have a few nut cases in power who are doing the interpreting as to what "the right way to be is" and the good sheep (which what they are told to be, anyway) follow along. And they are justified in doing so, as there can only be one "true" right way (since there is only one "true" god).
My point is, we need to get past trying to talk to these fundamentalists and go after the future generations. Lets start teaching them tolerance and pluralism. Despite strong resistance to the Civil Rights movement, the youth of that generation were reached (mostly) and big gains were made. Most of the old timers of that generation still hold their narrow bigoted beliefs--but they're dying off. So will the fundamentalist Christians of today. Lets go for the next generation and leave them behind.

Comments are closed-

Sodom And Gomorrah, About Rape of Women and Incest
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thirdmg on Jun 16, 2005 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The several references on this page to passages about gang rape in the Bible are mainly referring to the story of Lot and his family and the destruction of Sodom And Gomorrah (see Genesis, chapter 19). Although the religious right likes to claim that the passage condemns homosexuals, most scriptural scholars, and even the Bible itself, says that the passage condemns inhospitality. But there's more.

Far more important is what the religious right never mentions about other events in the story, such as Lot's willingness to offer his daughters up for gang rape, or the acts of incest between Lot and his daughters. If this is a passage about moral condemnation of gays, as the religious right would like us all to believe, notice that God never says a word of condemnation against Lot for these other acts, which are all clearly and seriously immoral. It seems that the religious right sees only what it wants to see.

Comments are closed-

Homosexual love (vs. sex)?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 16, 2005 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men have loved other men throughout human history. How that connects to sexual behavior is something we, Americans, have only now begun to ask.

Any religion that can teach us about how to make love last will be the religion of the future. I believe that the statistic that heteros are marrying later is a promising sign, but I doubt that organized religion can take any credit.

When Freud began to treat individual disfunction as a symptom of family disfunction, he had his finger on the pulse. But who knows what love is, except that it is many different things? The power of human sexuality is incredible.

Somehow we have muddled through, but currently we are outstripping our resources and our systems of remediation. If we ever come to understand was sex is, will we also understand what love is?

» RE: Homosexual love (vs. sex)? Posted by: TagsNOLA

Comments are closed-

St. Paul Vs. Homosexuality
[Report this comment]
Posted by: blacksheep on Jun 16, 2005 10:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a liberal theologian, I accept the arguments that homosexuality as a concept did not exist at the time that St. Paul was vituperating against those who trade "natural relations for unnatural" ones. Certainly Paul had no idea that some of us are born that way (gay). He thought that homosexuals were just rebellious, disobedient or perverse heterosexuals. However, there is no doubt in my mind that Paul intended to uncatagorically denounce homosexuality, however poor his understanding of human sexuality may have been. The real problem with ALL of Paul's various rantings, however, is that they bear NO RESEMBLANCE TO THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS as recorded by those who had actually met the Galilean. Paul never met Jesus, unless you believe his story that he met a ghost, and any rational person would have to dismiss this as the convenient excuse for why the persecutor of the Jesus movement suddenly became their self-proclaimed champion, while teaching things that they would not have approved! Paul did not actually champion the teachings of Jesus, and his writings made little, if any, reference to them. Instead he taught the very Pharisaic legalistic Judaism that Jesus had died trying to reform. Paul simply used the name of Jesus to suppress the Jesus movement, as is clear from his clashes and confrontations with Jesus's brother James and Peter, as well as a comparison of his letters to the gospels! Paul was a violent theocrat, and his theocratic chaff needs to be separated from the wheat of Christianity once and for all.

» RE: St. Paul Vs. Homosexuality Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: St. Paul Vs. Homosexuality Posted by: Danielhh
» RE: St. Paul Vs. Homosexuality Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: St. Paul Vs. Homosexuality Posted by: Danielhh
» RE: St. Paul Vs. Homosexuality Posted by: neilemac
» St. Paul in the Closet Posted by: mstenger

Comments are closed-

Christian fascism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: m@r on Jun 16, 2005 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regardless of the multiple layers within the Christian right, the most vocal leadership is consistent on one point whatever the hot button of the moment: It is intent to reshape this society into one where neither tolerance nor dissent is acceptable. That, in my view, is Christian fascism.

» RE: Christian fascism Posted by: neilemac

Comments are closed-

My five pieces of silver on the matter I
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bonapartist on Jun 16, 2005 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I apologize in advance for any possible hurt feelings but this is a controversial topic and I have yet to find opinion on the controversy that will not insult anybody.

Personally I am not very religious and have moderately low opinion of Christian churches but I do recognize their social role and prominence. This looks to me as yet another ploy of progressives (read atheist/agnostic liberals) to beat the Christianity over the head with a club.

In all honesty I have nothing against gays and their rights but I have a low opinion of anyone whose primary definition of self starts with describing a sexual preference. I always felt it was kind of degrading to the individuality, after all only humans can think while the sexuality is pretty widespread among different species. I prefer to look at the individual and sexual practices are his/hers private matters and I have no right to poke into them.

Argument about the Bible being actually gay friendly because homosexuality isn’t particularly mentioned is a prime example of sophism. Bible, as any religious text for that matter, can be interpreted in different ways. However all the religions that trace their roots from the Old Testament (Jew, Christians and Muslims), and their numerous denominations, for centuries interpreted that homosexuality was an unnatural sexual practice covered under the sin of sodomy. I am not saying I agree with it but I am stating the facts.

Interestingly enough those religions and denominations and sects spawning from them were often at bloody odds but never questioned this particular element. So now, after a few thousand years, one interested group finds a fresh interpretation of the Bible. Fair enough, however non - religious persons, who usually have little knowledge of the Bible, mostly advocate this interpretation. Their main intellectual justification comes mainly from the ranks of defrocked priests and pastors who are, in essence, apostates to their faiths. There are always exceptions but for every theologian advocating gay friendly approach there will be at least ten who oppose it. Everybody is free to choose its side but the voice of majority is pretty clear on this issue.

» Conclusion I Posted by: bonapartist
» Conclusion II Posted by: bonapartist
» Conclusion III Posted by: bonapartist
» RE: Conclusion III Posted by: thirdmg

Comments are closed-

You've hit the nail on the head
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bmikkelsen on Jun 16, 2005 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a progressive, a liberal, and a Christian (no, they are not necessarily antithetical), I truly appreciated your article. We cannot fight these people if we do not understand them and acknowledge the depth of their beliefs. In my association with my mainstream Christian church, I've been very uneasy about the increasingly right-wing evangelical leanings of some of the members. As I've gotten to know them, however, I've come to see that they are not horrible people, nor even particularly ignorant ones. They are just people looking for ways to put their relationship with God into practice in the center of their lives. Who have they had to listen to other than right-wing fanatics with either a profit motive or a God complex? The rest of us have dismissed their need for something to ground their lives as hogwash. You're right, if we dismiss the Bible as a basis for social action - they are going to dismiss anything else we say.

What the leaders of this movement have cashed in on is peoples' longing for easy, clear-cut, black and white answers. They do this with a talent at 'cutting and pasting' whatever they can find in the Bible to support their point of view, often taken out of context. The truth is there is nothing easy, clear-cut or black and white about the Bible, but by dismissing it out of hand as religious crap, we are feeding millions of well-meaning people to the right-wing religious wolves.

» RE: You've hit the nail on the head Posted by: Rod in 83706
» RE: You've hit the nail on the head Posted by: Samantha Vimes

Comments are closed-

re: torn
[Report this comment]
Posted by: canuckistani on Jun 16, 2005 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Torn, reject it! Having had the "bejesus" scared out of me by evangelical youth involvement and fear tacticts of being shown revelation end-days movies at a young age I think I can somewhat relate. I now follow no religion and seek to understand the world and fellow humans through my own eyes and through thoughtful discussions with others.

Any group that claims to have a monopoly on truth and fact are liars. Rejecting does not mean that you become a god-less evildoer. Quite the contrary, it allows you to be open to any idea, accept many versions of the same story and live a rather peaceful life actually. As well, it's uncommonly refreshing to do acts of altruism for the sake of the acts, rather than for the sake of doctrine. This does not mean that you are 'alone' in this world. It does not preclude the existence of God. But if God exists, surely you are made to find him/her/it on your own, not through inherited text and borrowed ideology?

I wish you peace and good luck on your decision
Jason

Comments are closed-

Leap of Faith
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tubeguru on Jun 16, 2005 1:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nowhere in the Gospels does it condemn homosexuality. There are a few passages in the Old Testement which are not favorable towards homosexuality. But those passages deal with it from the point of view of lust, not love. I think the big problem with the detractors of gay marriage is that they can't concieve of a gay relationship being loving. Though there is nothing in the Bible about loving gay relationships there is nothing saying that gay relationships are purely lustful either... to deduce that they are purely lustful based on what is written in the Bible requires a leap of faith.
There are however many passages about loving relationships and loving one's fellow human beings. Perhaps they should focus on those...
TG

Comments are closed-

BEFORE DISMISSING THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 16, 2005 3:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Before dismissing the religious right, progressives may find it helpful to learn more about them -- particularly that group the media lump together as 'the evangelicals."

OK, now that I've learned more about them, can I dismiss them? Look how weak their religion is that it allows the overwhelming majority of them to be selfish, antidemocratic, antiegalitarian, intolerant, hateful, murderous hypocrites while thinking that they are moral. Certainly, if the Universe has one or several creators that still exist, have great power, are aware of and interested in our lives and have a sense of morality with which we can identify, then they could not have written a book as powerless to guide lives as the book that Christians claim comes from such a source.

If the book was anything more than an outdated, ancient mythology, if there was a creature anything like the one their book describes, one who would drown most of the human race for missing the mark, then he would have surely scorched America by now if not the whole world.

And wouldn't an infinitely intelligent entity write a book that was undeniably the work of a divinity. The bible reads EXACTLY like what you would expect primitive people to write. Be good and you'll get infinity goodness for infinity and a million of time. Be a bad boy and get infinity squared badness for an infinity of infinities of time. Grow up!

And how about those 'prophecies'? When the lamb of a thousand feet of clay meets the golden eagle with the lion's head then fire will consume the nation of iniquity for a thousand thousand moons and earthquakes will tremble...or something just as meaningless. Puh-leeze! When an entity with knowledge of the future wants to make a convincing prediction, it'll be at least as good as the one made in the movie "Frequency" when Dennis Quaid's son 'prophecies' the outcome of game five of the as yet unfinished 1969 World Series from 1998:

"Well, game five was the big one. It turned in the bottom of the 6th. We were down 3-0. Cleon Jones gets hit on the foot - left a scuffmark on the ball. Clendenon comes up. The count goes to 2 and 2. High fastball. He nailed it. Weis slammed a solo shot in the 7th to tie. Jones and Swoboda scored in the 8th. We won, Pop."

That's convincing. Nah, I'm gonna dismiss them anyway.

Comments are closed-

God heard you
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Michiganman on Jun 16, 2005 4:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
God is love unconditional. If some folks want to punish themselves for being "sinful" they should at least have the courtesy to leave other folks out of their misery. What person on this earth dares to speak for God? Only a fool would interpret God for anyone but HIMSELF....what a buncha sheeple.

» RE: God heard you Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: God heard you Posted by: Michiganman
» Unconditional Love is god... Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Unconditional Love is god... Posted by: Michiganman

Comments are closed-

Re: St. Paul vs. Homosexuality
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ljsullivan1166@earthlink.net on Jun 17, 2005 1:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree. For that very reason, I stopped reading Paul decades ago and focused entirely on the Gospels, wanting to get the life and teachings of Jesus so engrained, so firmly embedded in my consciousness, that I could begin to see how New Testament scholars have been able to pick through and sort out what were most likely the authentic teachings of Jesus, what were probably redactions, and what most assuredly were redactions (the work of later editors).

Biblical scholars who operate with intellectual freedom have known for at least a century that the Bible is the work of humans, not God. With that knowledge, based on sound reasoning and evidence, our Scriptures can be put into the context of a type of literature that is really universal. Far from taking anything away from it, the true riches of the Bible can be uncovered.

Essentially the two main ways of reading this work is 1) literally, the old way; and 2) metaphorically/historically, which makes much more sense of it. Learning that allowed me to focus and to recognize the many contradictions and discrepancies that allow all kinds of conflicting ideas to co-exist in the uncritical mind.

Jesus is the one I chose to follow, as best I can, because he boiled down all the laws and rules to this: "Love the Lord your God with your whole heart and mind and soul and strength, and your neighbor as yourself." He also gave us the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Over and over and over again, he taught that all those other rules were unnecessary; in fact, he was cited many times by the 'purity cops' for breaking their rules -- like 'no work on the Sabbath'. To that he replied, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." The principle behind this statement is: "The Law was made for man, and not man for the Law." In other words, the Law was a general guideline. If you have to break one or the other, break the law rather than the man.

To those who brought him a woman 'caught in adultery' and who challenged him to see if he would enforce 'the Law of Moses' and order her stoned to death, he replied: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." They all melted into the woodwork. Then he gently sent the woman on her way -- "Go, and sin no more." Yes, adultery was, and is, a sin; but it is readily forgiven.

That is the difference between Jesus and Paul.

» RE: e: St. Paul vs. Homosexuality Posted by: Michiganman

Comments are closed-

Defining sexual abominations
[Report this comment]
Posted by: pappy1 on Jun 17, 2005 2:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
True enough. Just what does "a man lying with another man really mean?" If it means anal sex, why does the rightwing say that anal sex is sin when the above appears to say that it's OK if it's male/female? Oral sex is in the same category: if male/male is wrong then male/female or female/male must be OK, yet rightwingers eschew oral sex as an abomination.

It seems that it's high-time that we wrench the right's collective nose out of our collective crotch and turn our attention to really important matters.

» RE: Defining sexual abominations Posted by: Samantha Vimes

Comments are closed-

a few final thoughts and places to go
[Report this comment]
Posted by: revchad on Jun 17, 2005 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have appreciated each of your comments on my postings. Here are just a few last thoughts and I will also leave you my email in case you want to discuss it at more length.

I concur that being gay is more fluid than we think and the idea of choice or inborn is limiting. If we have learned anything from bisexuals and transgender folks it is that our sexuality is heavily complex. Isn't this what the Kinsey Institute is all about also. But, my point is that if any of us were to talk about sexuality with someone from the religious right and not talk about sexuality as God's gift, then I think we lose an upper hand because they are much more articulate than most of us. Regardless of whether or not there is a great deal of choice to being gay, my belief is that God creates each of us uniquely. However, as someone who is heterosexual, I have power and privilege because I don't even have to think twice about my sexuality. I am attracted to women...period. For others, this is more complex, but they lose power and civil rights in this country if they explore that because this does not fit with the framework of the those in heterosexist power. I agree sexuality is more complex and beautiful than any of us can imagine, but to frame it as God's gift is to allow the debate to have a human face. Otherwise, the religious right make it into an "issue," and create an "other" out of our sisters and brothers in the gay community. I would rather affirm God's gift to them and give them the support they need....this is all from a theological and biblical perspective in countering the religious right.
Now, for those of you who want resources. I would turn to four or five different people. The first place I would go is to read Mel White's autobiography "Stranger at the Gate." He was a ghostwriter for Falwell and Dobson and others. He came out as a gay man and they betrayed him. It is his story, but there is also some stuff on scripture in there. In other cases, turn to John Boswell's work, Walter Wink, Peter Gomes' "The Good Book", or the book "We were baptized too." I would also suggest the website www.soulforce.org, which is an interfaith group seeking to counter the hate of the right. I have protested with them at the Southern Baptist convention before (my wife is a recovering Southern Baptist.) Keep up your hard work and fight for peace and justice in this world. Contact me anytime at revchad1@earthlink.net

Comments are closed-

Bible Bigotry
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mstenger on Jun 17, 2005 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Today's world looks very different from the biblical world. One thing that looks the same is the hatred people have for those who are different from them. We MUST stop using the christian bible as a way to justify peoples' bigotry. Those of us who believe in the "sanctity" of the separation of church and state and understand its necessity to the future of this country must be vocal about it! Everyone is being disrespected and dismissed by the right-wing freakos who have hijacked our government.

Also, for those of you who just don't get it when it comes to gay people, here are some facts:
1)Gay people are a part of the "birds and bees"
2)It isn't just about sex, stupid.
3)We don't fall in love by choice any more than straight people do.
4)The one choice we do make is supposed to be guaranteed by our country and that is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
5)We pay the same or more taxes than straights and get fewer benefits
6)Those of you who hate me and refuse to learn about me and see me for the human being with dignity that I am make my life FREAKING MISERABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GAWD!!!!!!!!!! I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE DAY WHEN YOU FREAKING IDIOTS FINALLY DO GET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh yeah...A good website out there for a new perspective on things is religioustolerance.org and also hrc.org.

» RE: Bible Bigotry Posted by: nakis

Comments are closed-

Good reasoning
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bobmacdonald on Jun 17, 2005 1:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A related view of how to treat texts like Leviticus 18 in relationship to non-exploitive homosexual behaviour is in Rabbi Greenberg's 'Wrestling with God and Men'. See review at http://bmd.gx.ca/bob.htm - click link entitled wrestling.

Comments are closed-

Author's Response to the Comments
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Letha Dawson Scanzoni on Jun 17, 2005 3:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I’ve appreciated the lively discussion following my article. Many responses underscored again for me the tremendous pain too often inflicted in the name of religion. A lot of the lashing out in some comments no doubt springs from that pain. People have been wounded by those who use the Bible to put people down rather than lifting them up.

Someone once said that if you’re going to use the Bible to hit somebody over the head, you’ve got to keep it closed. Some people keep both Bibles and minds closed. Without really studying the Bible, they may either use verses as weapons based only on what they’ve been told the Bible says, or they may dismiss the Bible as irrelevant without even knowing what they are dismissing.

It’s important that we respect each other enough to engage in dialogue. That was what David G. Myers (a social psychologist) and I hoped to encourage when we wrote our new book, “What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage (HarperSanFrancisco). We want people to consider the topic of gay marriage calmly, thoughtfully, and in a spirit of love and humility. We addressed the biblical and theological issues about homosexuality, the scientific evidence about sexual orientation, and psychological information about the “longing for belonging” and how that human need relates to the gay marriage question. We especially tried to find areas of common concern about marriage and family upon which religious conservatives and progressives might agree, hoping to reach out to those in the “muddled middle”-- and then go on from there.

Few people mentioned my article’s point that people won't be open to progressive causes if they feel ridiculed for what they value most highly -- their religious faith. Bible-bashing will just push the Hurting Strugglers and Thoughtful Questioners back into the hands of the right’s most extreme leaders, who warn them that a war is being waged against Christianity and they must take action to protect the schools, the airwaves, the judiciary, marriage, and indeed the nation. Last Sunday’s Washington Post quoted pollster Cornell Belcher as saying that “faith voters” worry about their economic situation and about their children. “They’re not the crazy, right-winger extremist voters. They’re the moms and pops." They could help bring about positive change if we're willing to respect the importance of their faith.

» RE: Author's Response to the Comments Posted by: Letha Dawson Scanzoni

Comments are closed-

Oh, for the love of God....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JesseBC on Jun 17, 2005 7:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The patronizing tone of this is unbelievable! Christians are not some foreign species who require secular liberals to reinterpret them for their own good.

These four categories are positively insulting -- both to Christians and to the reader's intelligence. The reductionist explanation of Biblical treatment of homosexuality is redundant and oversimplified given that Biblical literalism is a very young movement in the church anyway (less than a century old).

Anybody who tried this at home with their Christian friends is likely to get whacked upside the head with a Bible and rightly so. It has no consideration for the Christian perspective whatsoever (which is not to justify homophobia among Christians nor in any way bolster their position on gay marriage, which is diametrically opposed to my own).

But, c'mon....do you really want a religious conservative to read a few Molly Ivins articles and now decide they know you better than you know yourself?

If you want to understand what Christians think, why don't you try talking to them? They put on their pants one leg at a time just like the rest of us. If you run across a rude or unpleasant Christian (an "aggressive combatant" *eye roll*), then I suggest you just move on and find some nicer friends.

All garbage like this does is confirm Christian suspicions that the left doesn't and never will understand them and justify their fears of the "liberal media".

» RE: Oh, for the love of God.... Posted by: bonapartist
» RE: Oh, for the love of God.... Posted by: kittynboi

Comments are closed-

Gay Marriage should be a crime!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: apodapa on Jun 18, 2005 4:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When will all of you librals understand that marriage is between a man and a woman and God will never recognize anything else. I won't use biblical examples to help you to understand, you will all have to face God one day and when he sees what you've done he will not want you. A man has rights only to marry a wife and she serves him accroding to the laws of Christianity, which will soon be the laws of our Judea-Christian nation and they will be enforced! Liberas, leftists, Progressives, whatever you try to disguise yourself as, well, if you don't accept Jesus as your savior and Lord soon, you will al go to hell for eternal damnation. You should go and find your own country to start so you can impose your will over each other and leave America in the hands of people who value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the Bible teaches us. Gays are Godless sinners who should be imprisoned, not married.

» RE: Christain Hatred Posted by: LMNOP
» let's step this back a bit Posted by: gaspass
» RE: a follow up... Posted by: apodopa
» RE: crime should be a crime Posted by: thx1138

Comments are closed-

Maybe We're Not Reading The Same Book
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jun 19, 2005 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some points in the original article seem to reflect either selective reading of the Bible or lack of knowledge of it. The Bible claims to be inerrant and God-inspired. It also claims that God is perfect, omniscient and omnipotent. That would preclude the modern revisionist movement.

Acceptance of or belief in the God of the Bible is a binary decision. It is emphasized that there is ONE way, ONE truth, ONE provision-- all other paths lead away from God's intended path for humankind. Either Jesus Christ was and is exactly who He said He was/is or was a fraud/madman. That's not my take, that's EXACTLY what the Bible claims.

The Bible makes God's view of homosexuality very clear-- it is a sin. That said, it is also clear that it is forgivable. Having homosexual tendencies is not a sin-- acting on them is. Doing so in the full knowledge of God's word is sin both in commission and knowing rejection of God's disapproval.

The Bible teaches that the Christ-follower is to extend grace, mercy and peace to ALL people. The Church (the collective body of Christ-followers) and each Christian is charged with being a living reflection of Jesus Christ. That precludes hate-mongering or advocating the same against homosexuals.

The Church is instructed to discipline anyone who persists in sin. As repentance from known sin is a necessary component of salvation, continued homosexual practice would preclude membership in any local fellowship. Otherwise, practicing homosexuals are welcome to worship and fellowship but cannot join a local church until they have disavowed and turned from this practice. The same would be true of any other persistent lifestyle sin such as adultery.

In conclusion it comes down to this:
1- The Bible teaches that homosexual practice is a sin.
2- Homosexuals are to be welcomed into the fellowship of believers (the Church) but clearly instructed that such conduct is a sin.
3- Continuing unrepentant homosexual practice precludes formal membership, as continued practice of a sin is a sin unto itself.
4- Homosexual practice by a church member should result in church discipline that could result in withdrawal of membership in the local body.
5- Homosexual people, within and outside the church, are to be loved and extended grace, mercy and peace as are all people.

That's what the Bible says. Take it as you will.

» RE: Why Do You Never Learn? Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Why Do You Never Learn? Posted by: thx1138
» RE: Why Do You Never Learn? Posted by: thx1138

Comments are closed-

WHY SO MANY OF THEM ARE POSTING HERE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 19, 2005 11:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found out why we are reading so much from conservative evangelicals on this site. It is because this article is cited on www.christianitytoday.com

Although they don't seem to be as hateful as some of these kinds of sites, they have invited their readers to visit AlterNet with a web link, and some of those people have felt free to inject their often inflammatory opinions into our conversation.

They, too, allow for readers to register and post on their site. I'm certain that they won't mind our contributions there since they haven't minded sending their readers here.

And, oh yeah, let them know that you'll be chanting and meditating for them just as they have informed us that we will be in their prayers. It should be received in just about the same way. One good turn deserves another.

Comments are closed-

SO MANY?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bonapartist on Jun 19, 2005 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As far as I can say there is barely half dozen dissenters posting on this thread, counting in myself. And the only one who can fully be termed "conservative evangelical" is apodopa, with whom btw I don’t agree. Just for the record, I have nothing with any form of evangelical Christianity or with any proper conservative political platform.

Not to mention that the present majority far too often resorted to name-calling and direct insults. Including invoking such charming images as the Third Reich and KKK. Now, in Europe you can get imprisoned for calling someone a Nazi. Then again, as Euro social democrat, I have problems understanding some finer points of American liberalism. Thank you for showing it to me, it was truly enlightening.

In case the present company missed it, most of the dissenting comments were polemical and made for what was taken as a discussion ground. Congratulations on being able to gang upon any dissenter, this kind of language will definitely entice moderates to join your cause and see your points on the issue. I know, I know, the fault is in me, I expected a civilized conversation.

I strongly support all interested parties to visit www.christianitytoday.com and similar sites.

Please do tear each other apart - you truly deserve each other.

» RE: SO MANY? Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: SO MANY? Posted by: kittynboi

Comments are closed-

Phillipians 1:11
[Report this comment]
Posted by: apodopa on Jun 19, 2005 5:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now faith is the substacne of things hoped for, the evidence of thing unseen.

Faith.
It what makes the bible worth reading, even if it's for amusement.

And to my earlier harsh remarks about making gay marriage a crime, to those offended, I sincerley apologize. I also have my reactionary knee-jerk opinions and I am far from perfect. As you know. I've tried to tone down my rhetoric since that first and second insensitive posted comments. I meant no serious harm, yet I do feel bad about huritng anyones feelings. I am not a bigot, just different than you. I wish no harm to anyone. May you all have peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »]

» RE: Phillips 66 Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Phillips 66 Posted by: apodopa
» RE: Phillips 66 Posted by: thx1138
» RE: Phillipians 1:11 Posted by: apodopa
» RE: Phillips 66 Posted by: LMNOP

Comments are closed-

The best argument for gay marriage
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Geni on Jun 19, 2005 8:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If gay people who want a family aren't allowed to marry a same-sex partner, they may marry an unsuspecting heterosexual. The results are tragic for all concerned. By the time the truth comes out, there are often children and joint property to consider.

Don't straight people considering marriage - particularly ones in fundamentalist faiths that don't believe in divorce - deserve some assurance that their intended is also straight? Until gay people are free to marry one another, many of them will continue to marry straight people.

Meanwhile, running a Google search for "Was Jesus Gay?" will give you a glimpse of the theological debate now raging.

Comments are closed-

Jesus and Gay Lovers in the Bible
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Scottishroses on Jun 19, 2005 11:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Luke, chapter 7 there is a story of a centurerian ( an officer in the Roman army) who sends Jewish representitives to Jesus to heal his servent. The origional text in Greek I understand ( as I am not a Greek Scolar) says that he was the centurian's "whore", and that he loved him. This would seem to imply that the servant was a gay lover. Jesus said that he would come to the centurian's house and heal him, however the centurian said that he was not worthy and just a word from Jesus would heal his "servant." Jesus commended the centurian for his faith and healed his lover, not condemming their relationship. This to me makes it clear that Jesus did not judge the relationship between the centurian and his lover - a male. Bet not many evangelicals have read this in the ancient Greek, or taken it to heart. I read this from Bishop Spong.
Scottishroses

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Scripture and homosexuality
[Report this comment]
Posted by: daniel1982 on Jun 16, 2005 2:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
>Scripture verses mentioning same-sex acts, the emphasis is on gang rape, exploitation and idolatry. Nothing is said about loving, committed, same-sex relationships. Faulty translations have muddied the waters further.<

Oh come on.. No matter what side of the debat you're on, I think we can all agree on the fact that the Bible is not a fan of homosexuality in ANY setting. If you believe otherwise, you're reaching for something that isn't there.

» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: needlefoot
» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: girl under glass
» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: jimsimone
» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: daniel1982
» Gay Christians Exist... Posted by: mike274
» RE: Gay Christians Exist... Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Scripture and homosexuality Posted by: dontboxmein

Comments are closed-

Bigoted Biblical Hype
[Report this comment]
Posted by: neilemac on Jun 16, 2005 4:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That few thousand year old bigoted text, taught to be the word of God, was written by men, powerful men. The book's condemning of homosexuality is no surprise. It also tells you to beat your kids, get an eye for an eye, both being barbaric notions. Look at the BS that's being pumped out by the present administration in the guise of patriotism. The quickly passed acts by the "good old boys" stiffle American citizens' freedom and liberties. It's all smoke and mirrors filling the populace with fear to guarantee support for their dirty war in Iraq. If something isn't done to quash the rightwing hype rampant in the White House, I fear its walls will go the way of Jericho! When it comes to love, tradional or otherwise, I believe it is no one else's business but the lovers involved. Stop treating homosexual and lesbian couples as if they came from another planet. They all began like everyone else, part of a family. Wake up America, show true family values by loving your gay kids too.

» RE: Bigoted Biblical Hype Posted by: Stonecutter
» RE: Bigoted Biblical Hype Posted by: neilemac

Comments are closed-

Consider the Metropolitain Church
[Report this comment]
Posted by: amanda615 on Jun 16, 2005 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for people who believe that evangelism is not the exclusive property of the Right. Gay and Lesbian friendly.

Comments are closed-

Misinterpretation of the Bible
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kww355 on Jun 16, 2005 5:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think all the vague references in the Bible to homosexual activity are actually another way of promoting having children. It's not easy to "be fruitful and multiply" if you're in a same sex relationship.I seriously think that's all it boils down to.As usual,the evangelicals have taken things out of context to further their narrow-minded agenda.They hate what they don't understand.The gentle,forgiving,inclusive Jesus has been forgotten in their quest for "If you're not like me and don't think like me,you're bad and going to Hell".What a shame.

Comments are closed-

Torn
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bettsoff on Jun 16, 2005 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever a suggestion like this comes up, I'm torn between agreeing with it, seeing all the genuinely faithful people in my life and acknowledging that their faith has made them better people, and disagreeing on the grounds that my personal experience with Western religion has made me very angry and suspicious of it, and to 'infiltrate' religion with progressive messages, as this article seems to suggest we do, seems no more honest to me than the indoctrination I received as a child, practiced in reverse. I think about how I feel having been treated as a pawn 'for God' by powerful authority figures in my young life. Reject religion or change it?

» RE: Torn Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Torn Posted by: apodopa
» RE: Torn Posted by: LMNOP

Comments are closed-

That dog won't hunt
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jazzyjer on Jun 16, 2005 5:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. Scanzoni simply is incorrect in trying to "PC" the Bible's take on homosexuality. For a man to lie with a man as with a woman was a capital offense for the ancient Israelites and St. Paul reiterated the condemnation. What progressives need to emphasize is how many ridiculous laws Yahweh handed down and how modern society (except Orthodox Judaism) has discarded virtually all of them -- except the one about homosexuality. And we might mention that women lying with women was not thought worthy of mention by Yahweh. The comment that this ban was reproductively based is almost certainly correct and would make a good argument. The seed corn of this argument, that progressives need to know what the other side really is thinking, is valid, even if Ms. Scanzoni dropped the ball on the details.

» exactly Posted by: poulsbo
» RE: That dog won't hunt Posted by: beata
» RE: That dog won't hunt Posted by: girl under glass

Comments are closed-

hmm...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: titotitotito on Jun 16, 2005 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well i'm no biblical scholar that's for sure, just wanted to copy the references in the bible that refer to the subject at hand... can anyone explain how these jive with what the author is saying in this post?
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination"

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

"[T]he law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane ... for fornicators, for sodomites, ... and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. ..."

» RE: hmm... Posted by: neilemac
» RE: hmm... Posted by: gopbarfbag
» RE: hmm... Posted by: revchad
» Thank you RevChad! Posted by: churchofone
» RE: hmm... Posted by: gaspass
» RE: hmm... Posted by: canuckistani
» RE: hmm... Posted by: beata
» RE: hmm... *PART 1* Posted by: Danielhh
» RE: hmm... *Part 2* Posted by: Danielhh
» RE: hmm... Posted by: ljsullivan1166@earthlink.net
» RE: hmm... Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: HUMMMBUG... Posted by: LMNOP

Comments are closed-

What I would like to see evangelicals take on is club sex!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Pepper on Jun 16, 2005 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you know there are "hetersexual sex clubs" that are attended as if they were dance clubs??? That is what moving away from God has done to our nation. The perversion as evidenced by the incredible amount of child pornography, child sexual abuse and rape is rampant in this nation like I have never seen before in my lifetime??? Why is that?

I believe its because we have moved away from true moral values and deep cultural and religious standards that kept us from becoming pure animals and made us moral, wise, thoughtful and caring people. To me, that is almost all gone and government has promoted that movement away from those very structures that helped us to retain our "humanity".

Homosexuality is something I don't understand so I won't really comment on it. I don't know if its inherited or nurture.
What I do know is there are many more serious problems in sexual exploitation that should be addressed and are not.

If you have ever heard of the "Franklin Scandel" you would know that child sexual exploitation reached the highest levels of our government rightup to the White house back in the 80's under Bush Sr. (I still have copies of the articles in the Washington Times) and it was so bad that it made Monica Lewinski seem normal. Now there is a 2nd Bush in the White House and it appears this problem has reemerged from his fathers time.

Why aren't the fundamentalists screaming about our children?
Why aren't they cleaning out Washington DC of all the houses of prostitution that have 15 year old boys working there whose services are being used by the powerful men of Washington?
That is what I want to hear outrage over. This other issue just appears to be a distraction to cover up the real evil that pervades the White House currently. Just my Humble opinion.

Comments are closed-

Democracy or Theocracy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chitijdth on Jun 16, 2005 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both the article and the responses miss the point entirely. If this country is a secular democracy – at least, in law – the Christian Evangelicals, regardless of the category in which they fall, have the right to believe in or condemn any practices they choose. Non-believers, however, have the same rights.

It is only when either side decides it is their right or mission to impose their beliefs on the other side that democracy fails. A non-believer may feel gay marriage should be permissible, but does not try to force believers to enter such unions. A non-believer may feel that a woman has a right to choose abortion, but does not try to force believers to have abortions. It is only those in the right wing of the Christian Evangelicals that presume to foist their beliefs on everyone else. This is the true danger to a democratic society. This is precisely what fundamentalists in any of the religions – Muslim, Christian, or Jewish – are attempting to do, and it is amazing that so many only see the dangers of theocracy when it is practiced by another religion.

I don’t feel the need to have a dialogue with those who disagree with me, but I do feel the need to protect my rights as well as theirs.

» RE: Democracy or Theocracy Posted by: ZylogZ80
» RE: Democracy or Theocracy Posted by: outsidea
» RE: Democracy or Theocracy Posted by: blacksheep

Comments are closed-

Free-Lance Actor/Writer
[Report this comment]
Posted by: namewon on Jun 16, 2005 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the spirit of this article. I don't have full information to debate its specific points. However, a few years ago, as a free-lance writer living in Pat Robertson Land (Hampton Roads, VA), I did a feature story for the local newspaper Port Folio Weekly on the Regent University Law School (where Pat is training the next generation of evangelical Surpreme Court justices). Contrary to my expectations--and, I suspect, that of my editors and readers--I met an interesting, relatively open-minded group of people there who impressed me with a realization not even ACLU lawyers could convincingly argue away for me: the framework of laws of our western civilization, which of course goes a long way toward defining our culture for better and for worse, are firmly rooted in the Judeo-Christian Biblical tradition. You simply have to take it into account, no matter how many problems it makes for progressives, and believe me, I count myself as a progressive. So...any conversation about what our society has been or should be has to take account of the Bible. And while I almost hesitate to say it, liberals and progressives need to sit down and read the damn thing and start coming to terms with what is simply one of the most "fundamental" sources of our civilization's traditions. And how much of it do we--or can we--really mean to throw out or ignore? Obviously even evangelicals ignore some of it--like "Judge not..." or "Love your enemies..." or "take no thought for the 'morrow...," so blame is not all on the progressive side. But intolerance of Biblical tradition, aside from undermining community, is in my view simply intellectually dishonest--a fine point I learned when I went to evangelical law school.

D.D. Delaney
a/k/a The Thinking Dog

» RE: Free-Lance Actor/Writer Posted by: gopbarfbag
» RE: Free-Lance Actor/Writer (Wake up!) Posted by: Iamnotafruittree
» WOW! Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: Free-Lance Actor/Writer Posted by: Thinker
» RE: Free-Lance Actor/Writer Posted by: gopbarfbag
» RE: Free-Lance Actor/Writer Posted by: pappy1

Comments are closed-

The Gospel on Gay Mariage
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aida1200 on Jun 16, 2005 7:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's worth noting that the Gospel never mentions homosexuality or homosexual practices.

Comments are closed-

Talking to fundamentalists
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Robba29 on Jun 16, 2005 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the various posts show, there is no point in trying to talk to fundamentalists of any stripe--be they Taliban or Evangelical Christian (and, yes, I put them in the same category, despite what the author says). To me, it's a problem within any monotheistic religion. There can be only one god, and that god has only one way to be right. Everything else necessarily must be wrong, otherwise there is a contradiction in the belief system. What makes it worse is that you have a few nut cases in power who are doing the interpreting as to what "the right way to be is" and the good sheep (which what they are told to be, anyway) follow along. And they are justified in doing so, as there can only be one "true" right way (since there is only one "true" god).
My point is, we need to get past trying to talk to these fundamentalists and go after the future generations. Lets start teaching them tolerance and pluralism. Despite strong resistance to the Civil Rights movement, the youth of that generation were reached (mostly) and big gains were made. Most of the old timers of that generation still hold their narrow bigoted beliefs--but they're dying off. So will the fundamentalist Christians of today. Lets go for the next generation and leave them behind.

Comments are closed-

Sodom And Gomorrah, About Rape of Women and Incest
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thirdmg on Jun 16, 2005 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The several references on this page to passages about gang rape in the Bible are mainly referring to the story of Lot and his family and the destruction of Sodom And Gomorrah (see Genesis, chapter 19). Although the religious right likes to claim that the passage condemns homosexuals, most scriptural scholars, and even the Bible itself, says that the passage condemns inhospitality. But there's more.

Far more important is what the religious right never mentions about other events in the story, such as Lot's willingness to offer his daughters up for gang rape, or the acts of incest between Lot and his daughters. If this is a passage about moral condemnation of gays, as the religious right would like us all to believe, notice that God never says a word of condemnation against Lot for these other acts, which are all clearly and seriously immoral. It seems that the religious right sees only what it wants to see.

Comments are closed-

Homosexual love (vs. sex)?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 16, 2005 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men have loved other men throughout human history. How that connects to sexual behavior is something we, Americans, have only now begun to ask.

Any religion that can teach us about how to make love last will be the religion of the future. I believe that the statistic that heteros are marrying later is a promising sign, but I doubt that organized religion can take any credit.

When Freud began to treat individual disfunction as a symptom of family disfunction, he had his finger on the pulse. But who knows what love is, except that it is many different things? The power of human sexuality is incredible.

Somehow we have muddled through, but currently we are outstripping our resources and our systems of remediation. If we ever come to understand was sex is, will we also understand what love is?

» RE: Homosexual love (vs. sex)? Posted by: TagsNOLA

Comments are closed-

St. Paul Vs. Homosexuality
[Report this comment]
Posted by: blacksheep on Jun 16, 2005 10:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a liberal theologian, I accept the arguments that homosexuality as a concept did not exist at the time that St. Paul was vituperating against those who trade "natural relations for unnatural" ones. Certainly Paul had no idea that some of us are born that way (gay). He thought that homosexuals were just rebellious, disobedient or perverse heterosexuals. However, there is no doubt in my mind that Paul intended to uncatagorically denounce homosexuality, however poor his understanding of human sexuality may have been. The real problem with ALL of Paul's various rantings, however, is that they bear NO RESEMBLANCE TO THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS as recorded by those who had actually met the Galilean. Paul never met Jesus, unless you believe his story that he met a ghost, and any rational person would have to dismiss this as the convenient excuse for why the persecutor of the Jesus movement suddenly became their self-proclaimed champion, while teaching things that they would not have approved! Paul did not actually champion the teachings of Jesus, and his writings made little, if any, reference to them. Instead he taught the very Pharisaic legalistic Judaism that Jesus had died trying to reform. Paul simply used the name of Jesus to suppress the Jesus movement, as is clear from his clashes and confrontations with Jesus's brother James and Peter, as well as a comparison of his letters to the gospels! Paul was a violent theocrat, and his theocratic chaff needs to be separated from the wheat of Christianity once and for all.

» RE: St. Paul Vs. Homosexuality Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: St. Paul Vs. Homosexuality Posted by: Danielhh
» RE: St. Paul Vs. Homosexuality Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: St. Paul Vs. Homosexuality Posted by: Danielhh
» RE: St. Paul Vs. Homosexuality Posted by: neilemac
» St. Paul in the Closet Posted by: mstenger

Comments are closed-

Christian fascism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: m@r on Jun 16, 2005 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regardless of the multiple layers within the Christian right, the most vocal leadership is consistent on one point whatever the hot button of the moment: It is intent to reshape this society into one where neither tolerance nor dissent is acceptable. That, in my view, is Christian fascism.

» RE: Christian fascism Posted by: neilemac

Comments are closed-

My five pieces of silver on the matter I
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bonapartist on Jun 16, 2005 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I apologize in advance for any possible hurt feelings but this is a controversial topic and I have yet to find opinion on the controversy that will not insult anybody.

Personally I am not very religious and have moderately low opinion of Christian churches but I do recognize their social role and prominence. This looks to me as yet another ploy of progressives (read atheist/agnostic liberals) to beat the Christianity over the head with a club.

In all honesty I have nothing against gays and their rights but I have a low opinion of anyone whose primary definition of self starts with describing a sexual preference. I always felt it was kind of degrading to the individuality, after all only humans can think while the sexuality is pretty widespread among different species. I prefer to look at the individual and sexual practices are his/hers private matters and I have no right to poke into them.

Argument about the Bible being actually gay friendly because homosexuality isn’t particularly mentioned is a prime example of sophism. Bible, as any religious text for that matter, can be interpreted in different ways. However all the religions that trace their roots from the Old Testament (Jew, Christians and Muslims), and their numerous denominations, for centuries interpreted that homosexuality was an unnatural sexual practice covered under the sin of sodomy. I am not saying I agree with it but I am stating the facts.

Interestingly enough those religions and denominations and sects spawning from them were often at bloody odds but never questioned this particular element. So now, after a few thousand years, one interested group finds a fresh interpretation of the Bible. Fair enough, however non - religious persons, who usually have little knowledge of the Bible, mostly advocate this interpretation. Their main intellectual justification comes mainly from the ranks of defrocked priests and pastors who are, in essence, apostates to their faiths. There are always exceptions but for every theologian advocating gay friendly approach there will be at least ten who oppose it. Everybody is free to choose its side but the voice of majority is pretty clear on this issue.

» Conclusion I Posted by: bonapartist
» Conclusion II Posted by: bonapartist
» Conclusion III Posted by: bonapartist
» RE: Conclusion III Posted by: thirdmg

Comments are closed-

You've hit the nail on the head
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bmikkelsen on Jun 16, 2005 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a progressive, a liberal, and a Christian (no, they are not necessarily antithetical), I truly appreciated your article. We cannot fight these people if we do not understand them and acknowledge the depth of their beliefs. In my association with my mainstream Christian church, I've been very uneasy about the increasingly right-wing evangelical leanings of some of the members. As I've gotten to know them, however, I've come to see that they are not horrible people, nor even particularly ignorant ones. They are just people looking for ways to put their relationship with God into practice in the center of their lives. Who have they had to listen to other than right-wing fanatics with either a profit motive or a God complex? The rest of us have dismissed their need for something to ground their lives as hogwash. You're right, if we dismiss the Bible as a basis for social action - they are going to dismiss anything else we say.

What the leaders of this movement have cashed in on is peoples' longing for easy, clear-cut, black and white answers. They do this with a talent at 'cutting and pasting' whatever they can find in the Bible to support their point of view, often taken out of context. The truth is there is nothing easy, clear-cut or black and white about the Bible, but by dismissing it out of hand as religious crap, we are feeding millions of well-meaning people to the right-wing religious wolves.

» RE: You've hit the nail on the head Posted by: Rod in 83706
» RE: You've hit the nail on the head Posted by: Samantha Vimes

Comments are closed-

re: torn
[Report this comment]
Posted by: canuckistani on Jun 16, 2005 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Torn, reject it! Having had the "bejesus" scared out of me by evangelical youth involvement and fear tacticts of being shown revelation end-days movies at a young age I think I can somewhat relate. I now follow no religion and seek to understand the world and fellow humans through my own eyes and through thoughtful discussions with others.

Any group that claims to have a monopoly on truth and fact are liars. Rejecting does not mean that you become a god-less evildoer. Quite the contrary, it allows you to be open to any idea, accept many versions of the same story and live a rather peaceful life actually. As well, it's uncommonly refreshing to do acts of altruism for the sake of the acts, rather than for the sake of doctrine. This does not mean that you are 'alone' in this world. It does not preclude the existence of God. But if God exists, surely you are made to find him/her/it on your own, not through inherited text and borrowed ideology?

I wish you peace and good luck on your decision
Jason

Comments are closed-

Leap of Faith
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tubeguru on Jun 16, 2005 1:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nowhere in the Gospels does it condemn homosexuality. There are a few passages in the Old Testement which are not favorable towards homosexuality. But those passages deal with it from the point of view of lust, not love. I think the big problem with the detractors of gay marriage is that they can't concieve of a gay relationship being loving. Though there is nothing in the Bible about loving gay relationships there is nothing saying that gay relationships are purely lustful either... to deduce that they are purely lustful based on what is written in the Bible requires a leap of faith.
There are however many passages about loving relationships and loving one's fellow human beings. Perhaps they should focus on those...
TG

Comments are closed-

BEFORE DISMISSING THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 16, 2005 3:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Before dismissing the religious right, progressives may find it helpful to learn more about them -- particularly that group the media lump together as 'the evangelicals."

OK, now that I've learned more about them, can I dismiss them? Look how weak their religion is that it allows the overwhelming majority of them to be selfish, antidemocratic, antiegalitarian, intolerant, hateful, murderous hypocrites while thinking that they are moral. Certainly, if the Universe has one or several creators that still exist, have great power, are aware of and interested in our lives and have a sense of morality with which we can identify, then they could not have written a book as powerless to guide lives as the book that Christians claim comes from such a source.

If the book was anything more than an outdated, ancient mythology, if there was a creature anything like the one their book describes, one who would drown most of the human race for missing the mark, then he would have surely scorched America by now if not the whole world.

And wouldn't an infinitely intelligent entity write a book that was undeniably the work of a divinity. The bible reads EXACTLY like what you would expect primitive people to write. Be good and you'll get infinity goodness for infinity and a million of time. Be a bad boy and get infinity squared badness for an infinity of infinities of time. Grow up!

And how about those 'prophecies'? When the lamb of a thousand feet of clay meets the golden eagle with the lion's head then fire will consume the nation of iniquity for a thousand thousand moons and earthquakes will tremble...or something just as meaningless. Puh-leeze! When an entity with knowledge of the future wants to make a convincing prediction, it'll be at least as good as the one made in the movie "Frequency" when Dennis Quaid's son 'prophecies' the outcome of game five of the as yet unfinished 1969 World Series from 1998:

"Well, game five was the big one. It turned in the bottom of the 6th. We were down 3-0. Cleon Jones gets hit on the foot - left a scuffmark on the ball. Clendenon comes up. The count goes to 2 and 2. High fastball. He nailed it. Weis slammed a solo shot in the 7th to tie. Jones and Swoboda scored in the 8th. We won, Pop."

That's convincing. Nah, I'm gonna dismiss them anyway.

Comments are closed-

God heard you
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Michiganman on Jun 16, 2005 4:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
God is love unconditional. If some folks want to punish themselves for being "sinful" they should at least have the courtesy to leave other folks out of their misery. What person on this earth dares to speak for God? Only a fool would interpret God for anyone but HIMSELF....what a buncha sheeple.

» RE: God heard you Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: God heard you Posted by: Michiganman
» Unconditional Love is god... Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Unconditional Love is god... Posted by: Michiganman

Comments are closed-

Re: St. Paul vs. Homosexuality
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ljsullivan1166@earthlink.net on Jun 17, 2005 1:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree. For that very reason, I stopped reading Paul decades ago and focused entirely on the Gospels, wanting to get the life and teachings of Jesus so engrained, so firmly embedded in my consciousness, that I could begin to see how New Testament scholars have been able to pick through and sort out what were most likely the authentic teachings of Jesus, what were probably redactions, and what most assuredly were redactions (the work of later editors).

Biblical scholars who operate with intellectual freedom have known for at least a century that the Bible is the work of humans, not God. With that knowledge, based on sound reasoning and evidence, our Scriptures can be put into the context of a type of literature that is really universal. Far from taking anything away from it, the true riches of the Bible can be uncovered.

Essentially the two main ways of reading this work is 1) literally, the old way; and 2) metaphorically/historically, which makes much more sense of it. Learning that allowed me to focus and to recognize the many contradictions and discrepancies that allow all kinds of conflicting ideas to co-exist in the uncritical mind.

Jesus is the one I chose to follow, as best I can, because he boiled down all the laws and rules to this: "Love the Lord your God with your whole heart and mind and soul and strength, and your neighbor as yourself." He also gave us the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Over and over and over again, he taught that all those other rules were unnecessary; in fact, he was cited many times by the 'purity cops' for breaking their rules -- like 'no work on the Sabbath'. To that he replied, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." The principle behind this statement is: "The Law was made for man, and not man for the Law." In other words, the Law was a general guideline. If you have to break one or the other, break the law rather than the man.

To those who brought him a woman 'caught in adultery' and who challenged him to see if he would enforce 'the Law of Moses' and order her stoned to death, he replied: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." They all melted into the woodwork. Then he gently sent the woman on her way -- "Go, and sin no more." Yes, adultery was, and is, a sin; but it is readily forgiven.

That is the difference between Jesus and Paul.

» RE: e: St. Paul vs. Homosexuality Posted by: Michiganman

Comments are closed-

Defining sexual abominations
[Report this comment]
Posted by: pappy1 on Jun 17, 2005 2:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
True enough. Just what does "a man lying with another man really mean?" If it means anal sex, why does the rightwing say that anal sex is sin when the above appears to say that it's OK if it's male/female? Oral sex is in the same category: if male/male is wrong then male/female or female/male must be OK, yet rightwingers eschew oral sex as an abomination.

It seems that it's high-time that we wrench the right's collective nose out of our collective crotch and turn our attention to really important matters.

» RE: Defining sexual abominations Posted by: Samantha Vimes

Comments are closed-

a few final thoughts and places to go
[Report this comment]
Posted by: revchad on Jun 17, 2005 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have appreciated each of your comments on my postings. Here are just a few last thoughts and I will also leave you my email in case you want to discuss it at more length.

I concur that being gay is more fluid than we think and the idea of choice or inborn is limiting. If we have learned anything from bisexuals and transgender folks it is that our sexuality is heavily complex. Isn't this what the Kinsey Institute is all about also. But, my point is that if any of us were to talk about sexuality with someone from the religious right and not talk about sexuality as God's gift, then I think we lose an upper hand because they are much more articulate than most of us. Regardless of whether or not there is a great deal of choice to being gay, my belief is that God creates each of us uniquely. However, as someone who is heterosexual, I have power and privilege because I don't even have to think twice about my sexuality. I am attracted to women...period. For others, this is more complex, but they lose power and civil rights in this country if they explore that because this does not fit with the framework of the those in heterosexist power. I agree sexuality is more complex and beautiful than any of us can imagine, but to frame it as God's gift is to allow the debate to have a human face. Otherwise, the religious right make it into an "issue," and create an "other" out of our sisters and brothers in the gay community. I would rather affirm God's gift to them and give them the support they need....this is all from a theological and biblical perspective in countering the religious right.
Now, for those of you who want resources. I would turn to four or five different people. The first place I would go is to read Mel White's autobiography "Stranger at the Gate." He was a ghostwriter for Falwell and Dobson and others. He came out as a gay man and they betrayed him. It is his story, but there is also some stuff on scripture in there. In other cases, turn to John Boswell's work, Walter Wink, Peter Gomes' "The Good Book", or the book "We were baptized too." I would also suggest the website www.soulforce.org, which is an interfaith group seeking to counter the hate of the right. I have protested with them at the Southern Baptist convention before (my wife is a recovering Southern Baptist.) Keep up your hard work and fight for peace and justice in this world. Contact me anytime at revchad1@earthlink.net

Comments are closed-

Bible Bigotry
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mstenger on Jun 17, 2005 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Today's world looks very different from the biblical world. One thing that looks the same is the hatred people have for those who are different from them. We MUST stop using the christian bible as a way to justify peoples' bigotry. Those of us who believe in the "sanctity" of the separation of church and state and understand its necessity to the future of this country must be vocal about it! Everyone is being disrespected and dismissed by the right-wing freakos who have hijacked our government.

Also, for those of you who just don't get it when it comes to gay people, here are some facts:
1)Gay people are a part of the "birds and bees"
2)It isn't just about sex, stupid.
3)We don't fall in love by choice any more than straight people do.
4)The one choice we do make is supposed to be guaranteed by our country and that is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
5)We pay the same or more taxes than straights and get fewer benefits
6)Those of you who hate me and refuse to learn about me and see me for the human being with dignity that I am make my life FREAKING MISERABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GAWD!!!!!!!!!! I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE DAY WHEN YOU FREAKING IDIOTS FINALLY DO GET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh yeah...A good website out there for a new perspective on things is religioustolerance.org and also hrc.org.

» RE: Bible Bigotry Posted by: nakis

Comments are closed-

Good reasoning
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bobmacdonald on Jun 17, 2005 1:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A related view of how to treat texts like Leviticus 18 in relationship to non-exploitive homosexual behaviour is in Rabbi Greenberg's 'Wrestling with God and Men'. See review at http://bmd.gx.ca/bob.htm - click link entitled wrestling.

Comments are closed-

Author's Response to the Comments
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Letha Dawson Scanzoni on Jun 17, 2005 3:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I’ve appreciated the lively discussion following my article. Many responses underscored again for me the tremendous pain too often inflicted in the name of religion. A lot of the lashing out in some comments no doubt springs from that pain. People have been wounded by those who use the Bible to put people down rather than lifting them up.

Someone once said that if you’re going to use the Bible to hit somebody over the head, you’ve got to keep it closed. Some people keep both Bibles and minds closed. Without really studying the Bible, they may either use verses as weapons based only on what they’ve been told the Bible says, or they may dismiss the Bible as irrelevant without even knowing what they are dismissing.

It’s important that we respect each other enough to engage in dialogue. That was what David G. Myers (a social psychologist) and I hoped to encourage when we wrote our new book, “What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage (HarperSanFrancisco). We want people to consider the topic of gay marriage calmly, thoughtfully, and in a spirit of love and humility. We addressed the biblical and theological issues about homosexuality, the scientific evidence about sexual orientation, and psychological information about the “longing for belonging” and how that human need relates to the gay marriage question. We especially tried to find areas of common concern about marriage and family upon which religious conservatives and progressives might agree, hoping to reach out to those in the “muddled middle”-- and then go on from there.

Few people mentioned my article’s point that people won't be open to progressive causes if they feel ridiculed for what they value most highly -- their religious faith. Bible-bashing will just push the Hurting Strugglers and Thoughtful Questioners back into the hands of the right’s most extreme leaders, who warn them that a war is being waged against Christianity and they must take action to protect the schools, the airwaves, the judiciary, marriage, and indeed the nation. Last Sunday’s Washington Post quoted pollster Cornell Belcher as saying that “faith voters” worry about their economic situation and about their children. “They’re not the crazy, right-winger extremist voters. They’re the moms and pops." They could help bring about positive change if we're willing to respect the importance of their faith.

» RE: Author's Response to the Comments Posted by: Letha Dawson Scanzoni

Comments are closed-

Oh, for the love of God....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JesseBC on Jun 17, 2005 7:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The patronizing tone of this is unbelievable! Christians are not some foreign species who require secular liberals to reinterpret them for their own good.

These four categories are positively insulting -- both to Christians and to the reader's intelligence. The reductionist explanation of Biblical treatment of homosexuality is redundant and oversimplified given that Biblical literalism is a very young movement in the church anyway (less than a century old).

Anybody who tried this at home with their Christian friends is likely to get whacked upside the head with a Bible and rightly so. It has no consideration for the Christian perspective whatsoever (which is not to justify homophobia among Christians nor in any way bolster their position on gay marriage, which is diametrically opposed to my own).

But, c'mon....do you really want a religious conservative to read a few Molly Ivins articles and now decide they know you better than you know yourself?

If you want to understand what Christians think, why don't you try talking to them? They put on their pants one leg at a time just like the rest of us. If you run across a rude or unpleasant Christian (an "aggressive combatant" *eye roll*), then I suggest you just move on and find some nicer friends.

All garbage like this does is confirm Christian suspicions that the left doesn't and never will understand them and justify their fears of the "liberal media".

» RE: Oh, for the love of God.... Posted by: bonapartist
» RE: Oh, for the love of God.... Posted by: kittynboi

Comments are closed-

Gay Marriage should be a crime!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: apodapa on Jun 18, 2005 4:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When will all of you librals understand that marriage is between a man and a woman and God will never recognize anything else. I won't use biblical examples to help you to understand, you will all have to face God one day and when he sees what you've done he will not want you. A man has rights only to marry a wife and she serves him accroding to the laws of Christianity, which will soon be the laws of our Judea-Christian nation and they will be enforced! Liberas, leftists, Progressives, whatever you try to disguise yourself as, well, if you don't accept Jesus as your savior and Lord soon, you will al go to hell for eternal damnation. You should go and find your own country to start so you can impose your will over each other and leave America in the hands of people who value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the Bible teaches us. Gays are Godless sinners who should be imprisoned, not married.

» RE: Christain Hatred Posted by: LMNOP
» let's step this back a bit Posted by: gaspass
» RE: a follow up... Posted by: apodopa
» RE: crime should be a crime Posted by: thx1138

Comments are closed-

Maybe We're Not Reading The Same Book
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jun 19, 2005 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some points in the original article seem to reflect either selective reading of the Bible or lack of knowledge of it. The Bible claims to be inerrant and God-inspired. It also claims that God is perfect, omniscient and omnipotent. That would preclude the modern revisionist movement.

Acceptance of or belief in the God of the Bible is a binary decision. It is emphasized that there is ONE way, ONE truth, ONE provision-- all other paths lead away from God's intended path for humankind. Either Jesus Christ was and is exactly who He said He was/is or was a fraud/madman. That's not my take, that's EXACTLY what the Bible claims.

The Bible makes God's view of homosexuality very clear-- it is a sin. That said, it is also clear that it is forgivable. Having homosexual tendencies is not a sin-- acting on them is. Doing so in the full knowledge of God's word is sin both in commission and knowing rejection of God's disapproval.

The Bible teaches that the Christ-follower is to extend grace, mercy and peace to ALL people. The Church (the collective body of Christ-followers) and each Christian is charged with being a living reflection of Jesus Christ. That precludes hate-mongering or advocating the same against homosexuals.

The Church is instructed to discipline anyone who persists in sin. As repentance from known sin is a necessary component of salvation, continued homosexual practice would preclude membership in any local fellowship. Otherwise, practicing homosexuals are welcome to worship and fellowship but cannot join a local church until they have disavowed and turned from this practice. The same would be true of any other persistent lifestyle sin such as adultery.

In conclusion it comes down to this:
1- The Bible teaches that homosexual practice is a sin.
2- Homosexuals are to be welcomed into the fellowship of believers (the Church) but clearly instructed that such conduct is a sin.
3- Continuing unrepentant homosexual practice precludes formal membership, as continued practice of a sin is a sin unto itself.
4- Homosexual practice by a church member should result in church discipline that could result in withdrawal of membership in the local body.
5- Homosexual people, within and outside the church, are to be loved and extended grace, mercy and peace as are all people.

That's what the Bible says. Take it as you will.

» RE: Why Do You Never Learn? Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Why Do You Never Learn? Posted by: thx1138
» RE: Why Do You Never Learn? Posted by: thx1138

Comments are closed-

WHY SO MANY OF THEM ARE POSTING HERE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 19, 2005 11:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found out why we are reading so much from conservative evangelicals on this site. It is because this article is cited on www.christianitytoday.com

Although they don't seem to be as hateful as some of these kinds of sites, they have invited their readers to visit AlterNet with a web link, and some of those people have felt free to inject their often inflammatory opinions into our conversation.

They, too, allow for readers to register and post on their site. I'm certain that they won't mind our contributions there since they haven't minded sending their readers here.

And, oh yeah, let them know that you'll be chanting and meditating for them just as they have informed us that we will be in their prayers. It should be received in just about the same way. One good turn deserves another.

Comments are closed-

SO MANY?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bonapartist on Jun 19, 2005 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As far as I can say there is barely half dozen dissenters posting on this thread, counting in myself. And the only one who can fully be termed "conservative evangelical" is apodopa, with whom btw I don’t agree. Just for the record, I have nothing with any form of evangelical Christianity or with any proper conservative political platform.

Not to mention that the present majority far too often resorted to name-calling and direct insults. Including invoking such charming images as the Third Reich and KKK. Now, in Europe you can get imprisoned for calling someone a Nazi. Then again, as Euro social democrat, I have problems understanding some finer points of American liberalism. Thank you for showing it to me, it was truly enlightening.

In case the present company missed it, most of the dissenting comments were polemical and made for what was taken as a discussion ground. Congratulations on being able to gang upon any dissenter, this kind of language will definitely entice moderates to join your cause and see your points on the issue. I know, I know, the fault is in me, I expected a civilized conversation.

I strongly support all interested parties to visit www.christianitytoday.com and similar sites.

Please do tear each other apart - you truly deserve each other.

» RE: SO MANY? Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: SO MANY? Posted by: kittynboi

Comments are closed-

Phillipians 1:11
[Report this comment]
Posted by: apodopa on Jun 19, 2005 5:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now faith is the substacne of things hoped for, the evidence of thing unseen.

Faith.
It what makes the bible worth reading, even if it's for amusement.

And to my earlier harsh remarks about making gay marriage a crime, to those offended, I sincerley apologize. I also have my reactionary knee-jerk opinions and I am far from perfect. As you know. I've tried to tone down my rhetoric since that first and second insensitive posted comments. I meant no serious harm, yet I do feel bad about huritng anyones feelings. I am not a bigot, just different than you. I wish no harm to anyone. May you all have peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »]

» RE: Phillips 66 Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Phillips 66 Posted by: apodopa
» RE: Phillips 66 Posted by: thx1138
» RE: Phillipians 1:11 Posted by: apodopa
» RE: Phillips 66 Posted by: LMNOP

Comments are closed-

The best argument for gay marriage
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Geni on Jun 19, 2005 8:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If gay people who want a family aren't allowed to marry a same-sex partner, they may marry an unsuspecting heterosexual. The results are tragic for all concerned. By the time the truth comes out, there are often children and joint property to consider.

Don't straight people considering marriage - particularly ones in fundamentalist faiths that don't believe in divorce - deserve some assurance that their intended is also straight? Until gay people are free to marry one another, many of them will continue to marry straight people.

Meanwhile, running a Google search for "Was Jesus Gay?" will give you a glimpse of the theological debate now raging.

Comments are closed-

Jesus and Gay Lovers in the Bible
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Scottishroses on Jun 19, 2005 11:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Luke, chapter 7 there is a story of a centurerian ( an officer in the Roman army) who sends Jewish representitives to Jesus to heal his servent. The origional text in Greek I understand ( as I am not a Greek Scolar) says that he was the centurian's "whore", and that he loved him. This would seem to imply that the servant was a gay lover. Jesus said that he would come to the centurian's house and heal him, however the centurian said that he was not worthy and just a word from Jesus would heal his "servant." Jesus commended the centurian for his faith and healed his lover, not condemming their relationship. This to me makes it clear that Jesus did not judge the relationship between the centurian and his lover - a male. Bet not many evangelicals have read this in the ancient Greek, or taken it to heart. I read this from Bishop Spong.
Scottishroses

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
Clownish Far-Right Lawmaker Calls for Another Administration Official to Resign
 
How Fair Are the Criticisms of Rahm Emanuel?
 
The Hollywood Double Standard: Tiger gets cooked, Charlie Sheen gets another free pass
 
Is Greece the New AIG?
 
Confused About Nutrition? Eat Food!
 
Insurer Denies Life-Prolonging Treatment To Five-Year-Old Boy With Cancer
 
Budget Paranoia
 
Why Does the U.S. Assassinate Americans?
 
Jon Stewart: Why Does Sarah Palin Need a Cheat Sheet?
 
We Must Lift the Veil on US Troops in Pakistan
 
MORE 
ALL BLOGS 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
  1. Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Are Upending Our Democracy
  2. New Poll Results Are Proof That Republicans Don't Think
  3. White "Savior-Afflicted" Christians, Black Haitian Babies: This Won't End Well
  4. Why I Had to Stop Making Hardcore Porn
  5. Sarah Palin Aims to Bust Up the Republican Party -- And the Tea Party Movement
  6. One Company Thinks They've Created Fast Food With a Conscience -- Are They Right?
  7. The Newest Diet Trend: What Would Jesus Eat?
  8. Could Your Cell Phone End Up Killing You?
  9. Half-Naked Hot Chicks and Beer: The Sexist Guyland of the Super Bowl Beer Commercial
  10. Top 10 Problems with America Killing Its Own Citizens
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
ABOUT DIGG