Attention: Comment moderation is in effect. Your comment will not appear right away.
——————————————————-
“Some Democrats Believe the Party Should Get Religion,” reads a headline in the New York Times. Clever Democrats are trying to come up with a plan to frame their agenda in “moral and religious language.” Don’t laugh. They’re serious. According to the Times (reg. req.):
Bested by a Republican campaign emphasizing Christian faith, some Democrats are scrambling to shake off their secular image, stepping up efforts to organize the “religious left” and debating changes to how they approach the cultural flashpoints of same-sex marriage and abortion.
I don’t know if it’s a true assessment of what Democratic leadership is planning or just the newspaper’s way of looking for a story where none exists.
To win elections in this country, Democrats have to change who they are. That’s why many seem to hate the label “liberal.” Hate it. Although it aptly describes who they are and how they think, they prefer euphemistic variations on the theme (”progressive” comes to mind). It doesn’t fool anybody. What you call yourself isn’t as important as what you do and what you stand for. For instance, how is a party that believes two men should be allowed to marry going to make “inroads” into the socially conservative (not to mention Christian) electorate? It’s senseless.
If some liberals are so convinced they can do it, does it mean they’ll put away support for skin color preferences for the sake of “diversity?” Never will they do that, ever. Too much is at stake with the “black vote”, and groups like the dinosaur NAACP would be all over them like white on…Is that a racist thing to say?
Back to the Democrat “strategy” that won’t work:
But Democrats disagree about how to establish the party’s spiritual credentials. Some play down the need for changes, saying poorly framed surveys of voters leaving polls are overstating the impact of conservative Christian voters. Others argue that Democrats need to rephrase their positions in more moral and religious language. And an emboldened group of Democratic partisans and sympathetic religious leaders warn that Mr. Bush has beaten Democrats to the middle on social issues like abortion that resonate with religious traditionalists, arguing that the party should publicly welcome opponents of abortion into its ranks and perhaps even bend in its opposition to certain abortion restrictions. [My emphasis]
It’ll never happen. As you may have guessed, Democrats have a litmus test for abortion. How many pro-life Democratic leaders can you name? Such people are shunned. (Unfortunately, Bush has “pro-choice” people on his staff). But one of their members has a suggestion:
“Our platform and the grass-roots strength of the party is pro-choice,” said Elizabeth Cavendish, interim president of Naral Pro-Choice America. The party needs more religious language, Ms. Cavendish said, but not new positions.
How can one couch a pro-child killing position in religious (they mean “Christian” but just can’t bear to say it) language? This I’ve got to see. Others say they need to convince us Christians that socialized medicine and cucumbers and condoms can reduce abortions. Is it any wonder these people keep losing elections? With that kind of tired logic…
And get this. Someone named John Green thinks that we conservative Christians lean right on issues like child-killing and homosexual “marriage” and left on all the other stuff:
Many conservative Christians who vote Republican because of their views on abortion and same-sex marriage are working class or middle class, and they often hold liberal views on economics, social welfare and the environment, said John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron who conducts polls on religion and politics.
Don’t laugh. He’s serious. I wonder what kind of people he’s polling and how he defines “liberal” to arrive at such a counterintuitive result?
Take some advice from an amateur, liberals. Leave the social conservatives and Christians alone and go after the liberal Christians, who may buy into the choice-is-a-moral-value platform. We know what the Bible says about murder and we know that abortion is wrong, period.
Democrats, who think Bush is not as intelligent as they are, suddenly attribute to him uncommon genius in winning voters with “carefully drawn positions on abortion and same-sex marriage.” This is why Democrats keep losing elections. They see nuance everywhere, never learning from their egregious mistakes. Ordinary Americans like plain, non-nuanced language. I, for one, am solid on my pro-life and anti-homosexual “marriage” positions. How liberals plan to hide their agenda with enough finesse to win over conservative Christians (like myself?) is a mystery. Truth is truth. It is absolute, not relative, and that is something liberals need to understand.
Bush has his own problems. In light of some of his less-than-conservative moves, I’ve been thinking about giving the Constitution Party a closer look. (I glanced this past summer.) If more Christians voted for those candidates, perhaps we’d see a rightward shift in the Republican Party. I don’t know what Bush has in mind for his second term, but I hope he unbinds himself from the chains of compromise and go for it. If more conservative Christians voted for the Constitution Party…
One last bit of comedy before I let you go. Liberal Congressman Jerrold Nadler, who supports skin color discrimination in hiring, is opposed to faith-based initiatives on the grounds that some discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring. “If you use federal funding, you can’t discriminate. We can’t compromise on that.”
Isn’t that like the pot calling the kettle…Is that a racist thing to say?
Update: A commenter says that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality. This is an age-old and false claim. That God destroyed the cities with brimstone and fire because the inhabitants were merely rude is truly silly. The word used to indicate how the men wanted to “know” Lot’s male guests clearly indicates what you think it does. I’ll get into this later. In the meantime, I highly recommend James White’s book, Same-Sex Controversy. This Reformed pastor, teacher and debater expertly lays out why this idea is preposterous and how homosexuality is condemned, based on the whole Bible.
Update II:
The Bible and HomosexualityThe Authority of Scripture
It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God. Of the above mentioned denominations which have accepted homosexuality or are sympathetic to it, none of them believe that we have God’s inerrant Word in the Old and New Testaments. Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all reject — or even ridicule — the church’s historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture.
Three different lines of attack on Scripture are found in the various pro-homosexual literature. The first is simply to ignore the biblical writers on the grounds that they were men who oftentimes made mistakes, and thus to reject what Scripture says as being morally authoritative. Thus John Barton states that “the Bible is not a code at all; it is a big baggy compendium of a book, full of variety and inconsistency, sometimes mistaken on matters of fact and theology alike.”And elsewhere, in John Boswell’s widely cited work, we find: “In considering the supposed influence of certain biblical passages…one must first relinquish the concept of a single book containing a uniform corpus of writings accepted as morally authoritative.”18
A second attack relates to the first — that is, the biblical writers were ignorant about homosexuality. They did not know all that we do today, it is argued, and so we must judge and interpret the Bible with our modern understanding of biology, psychology, sociology, and so forth. “With the quantum leaps that have been achieved in biology, psychology, and sociology, minds in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries must subject traditional religious arguments about nature to more thorough and critical analyses.”
It is not within the purview of this article to give a detailed defense of the inspiration and reliability of the Bible. However, the simple response to these attacks is that both Judaism and Christianity have always held to the full authority of Scripture, as did Jesus Himself. In speaking of the Old Testament, for example, our Lord succinctly declared: “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Parts of Scripture cannot be accepted while other parts are rejected. And in speaking of the guidance His apostles would receive, including guidance on their future writings (i.e., the New Testament), Jesus told them: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you” (John 14:26; cf. 2 Tim. 3:16).
It is ludicrous to believe that the Creator of the universe, in guiding the biblical authors, was ignorant concerning the things we now know about homosexuality through modern biology, psychology, sociology, and so forth. To deny scriptural statements about homosexuality on these grounds is to completely deny God’s superintendence in the authorship of Scripture.
A third type of attack is to state that it really does not matter what heterosexuals think the Bible says about homosexuality, because homosexuals must interpret Scripture in view of their own experiences. Hence, in the book Building Bridges we find the statement that “the scriptures contain some insights that can be made known to the Christian community only through the testimony of lesbian and gay people.” Thus homosexuals must “interpret the scriptures in the light of their own experiences.”
The problem with this is that a person could justify any type of behavior by saying that Scriptures pertaining to a particular behavior can only be understood by those who engage in such behavior (e.g., incest, adultery, fornication, and even bestiality). Those who believe this should remember the words of our Lord: “Therefore take heed that the light which is in you is not darkness” (Luke 11:35).
Read the rest. Also see The Unthinkable Has Become Thinkable.
——————————————
David Limbaugh posts leftist e-mail. Compared to the missives I get, this one is mild.
Joe Carter: “Emboldened by the reelection of President Bush, many evangelicals are expecting their support to be richly rewarded over the next four years.”
Somehow, I don’t think we will be.
Update (11/18): Jeff the Baptist on the sins of Sodom.
{ 72 comments }
Democrats who mouth “values platitudes” without meaning. (For example, check out this post by LaShawn Barber about Democrats who want to talk the values talk without walk…
Reading the Democrat’s struggle to understand Christian topics is exactly like reading Screwtape’s struggle to understand the nature of Love. They seem to think that mere words are all it takes to fool the masses in flyover country, never considering that there might be some substance that gives them meaning.
You’re quick on the draw, hatless! I was still editing when you posted.
La Shawn – you must be trying to be a Scrappleface clone. I loved your light hearted tone mixed with heavy weight themes. You go, girl.
Thanks, Rick. Did you know that Scott Ott, editor of Scrappleface, is a Christian? I was pleasantly surprised to find that out.
OXYMORON ALERT! OXYMORON ALERT!
“religious left”
I’m sure they will adopt the new ten commandments written for Tikkun Magazine by Michael Lerner. Tailor made for the Hollywood kabbalah set and liberal synagogues and churches. See Tikkun dot org.
LaShawn,
If “liberals” were actually serious about understanding the Christian mind, all they’d have to do is pick up the Bible and truly study it. But, that’s not ever going to happen. They might stand the risk of conversion. As for the term “liberal Christian”, I defer to Barbara’s comment.
La Shawn,
A word of warning about the Constitution Party. On first glance it would seem to be a good version of the Republican Party, simply more to the right and more Christian. While this is probably most certainly true on certain social issues (ie affirmative action, welfare), it seems crazily to the left on trade issues. Read their platform on trade and you’ll find that they are extraordinarily protectionist on trade, essentially opposing most, if not all, trade with foreign countries.
I, like a lot of Republicans, am a free market Capitalist at heart. There is something both moral and beneficial about allowing people to do as they will with their own possessions, regardless of what country they live in.
You probably overlooked that plank…I did at first too…so I just wanted to let you know about it.
The left has religion.
Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton are proof of that.
They roll the two of them out when they need them, and then put them back in storage after.
The two of them don’t seem to even know that they are being used by the left.
Maybe they know and just don’t care.
Either way, I don’t want anything to to with thier take on the Christianworld-view, and niether do most Americans of any race.
Once again, the Dems “just don’t get it”. LaShawn, you are oh so right when you say that they will not be able to stand on a platform that has to make a stance. What you are seeing is a political party that is on the verge of irrelevance. Scrambling along to find an answer to the Republican dominating victories in recent elections.
This “religious” strategy is going to backfire right in their faces. Do you really believe that socially conservative Americans will buy the Democrats’ rantings? How about their liberal base; is NOW and ACT UP going to just sit idlely by while a Dem is gonna trash their pet issues? Pa-leez!
And some of these democrats were wanting to end the president from taking the oath of office by swearing on the bible and then they want religion? who do they think their kidding? its all a ploy to get more votes for their corrupt party.
La Shawn,
You are the best!
This post is great. Keep up the good work.
La Shawn,
As much as I despise the liberal agenda for America (and there is no word that can adequately describe my level of contempt for it), I also realize that liberals are not our real enemy, but Satan is. Let us please remember not to demonize liberals as individuals, which we sometimes have an unfortunate propensity to do among Christian circles. They are in need of the Lord just as much as we are.
On the matter of the electoral quid pro quo mentality of some evangelicals, we should not expect specific things in return for our votes just because we rightly voted for the agenda that was the more godly of the two offered. Check out Charles Colson’s latest Townhall article on this particular subject. We do what we do because it is right, not because we demand or expect something in return for it.
The literal approach to the Bible claims not to interpret the Bible but merely to take it for what it obviously says. The words of the Bible in modern translation are taken to mean what they mean to the reader today. On this basis the Bible is said to condemn homosexuality in a number of places.
But an historical-critical approach reads the Bible in its original historical and cultural context. This approach takes the Bible to mean, as best as can be determined, what its human authors intended to say in their own time and in their own way. Understand on its own terms, the Bible does not condemn gay sex as we understand it today.
The sin of Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality. Jude condemns sex with angels, not sex between two men. Not a single Bible context indisputably refers to lesbian sex. The King James Bible’s reference to “sodomites” in Deuteronomy and 1 and 2 Kings is a mistranslation. From the Bible’s positive teaching about heterosexuality, there follows no valid conclusion whatsoever about homosexuality. Biblical figures like Jonathan and David, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel may well have been involed in homogenital relationships, seen as part of God’s plan. And Jesus himself said nothing at all about homosexuality, not even when face to face with a man in a gay relationship.
Only five texts in the Bible surely express an opinion about male-male sex, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Romans 1:27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Timothy 1:10. All these texts are concerned with something other than homogenital activity itself, all these five texts boil down to only three different issues.
First, Leviticus forbids homogenitality as a violation of the ancient Jewish aversion to the “mixing of Kinds,” a confusion of the idealized roles of penetrating males and penetrating females. The concern about male-male sex is impurity, an offense against Jewish religion, not violation of the inherent nature of sex. Second, the letter of the Romans presupposes the teaching of the Jewish Law in Leviticus, and Romans mentions male-male sex as an instance of impurity. However, Romans mentions it precisely to make the point that purity issues have no importance to Christ. Finally, in the obscrue term “arsenokoitai”,if taken to refer to male same-sex acts, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy would condemn abuses associated with homogenital activity in the First Centurty: exploitation and abuse.
So the Bible takes no direct stand on the morality of homogenital acts as such nor on the morality of gay and lesbian relationships as we conceive them today. Indeed, the Bible’s longest treatment of the matter, in Romans, suggests that in themselves homogental acts have no ethical significance whatsoever. However, understood in the context of the decadent first-century Roman Empire, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy might suggest this lesson: abuse forms of male-male sex—and of male-female sex—must be avoided.
While the Bible makes no blanket statement condemnation of homogenital acts and even less of homosexuality, this does not mean that for lesbians and gay men anything goes. If they rely on the Bible for guidance and inspiration, lesbians and gay men will certainly feel bound by the core moral teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition: be prayful, reverence God, respect others, be loving and kind, be forgiving and merciful, be honest and be just. Work for harmony and peace. Stand up for truth. Give of yourself for all that is good, avoid all that you know to be evil. To do that is to follow God’s way. To do that is to love God with your whole heart and soul. To do that is to be a true disciple of Jesus.
Living by the Bible, gay and lesbian people will submit to those severe moral requirements—and those requirements apply to sex and to intimate relationships.
That is all that can be said about biblical teachings on homosexuality. If people would still seek to know outright if gay or lesbian sex in itself is good or evil, if homogenital acts per se are right or wrong, they will have to look somewhere else for an answer. For the fact of the matter is simple enough. The Bible never addresses that question. More than that, the Bible seems deliberately unconcerned about it.
If the left truly want to be like the right in spiritual matters….and they truly come to repentance of their sin, and accept Jesus Christ as their own personal Lord and Saviour….then they won’t be left anymore, but right…right in the Lord. If someone is truly a Christian and a democrat…..I do not understand how they can read their Bible’s and read what God has to say about many moral and ethical issues, and still be a democrat. The two are like oil and water…they don’t mix.
Gary,
I think you may be esigeting the texts for several reasons, which I’m sure some other commenter will address in greater detail. If not, I will be more than happy to chew it up with you. However, whether homogenital contact is in itself forbidden, fornication is. Explicitly.
Now personally, I have no problem separating a civil union-type arrangement from a biblically-oriented marriage for political purposes. But if you’re gonna appeal to the Text, then you gotta go by the Text. In the Bible, marriage is a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the Church (his bride). No homo-anything. As such, any homosexual activity is fornication.
holla.
Avery – Thanks for pointing out that such “relations” are considered fornication, which is clearly forbidden in the Bible. Therefore, even if there were no “proof” that God forbids such “relations”, we know that any kind of sex outside marriage falls under his judgment. There is no way the homosexual agenda can ever be justified or excused biblically. Give it up.
Since most people only respond to news bytes anymore, this cynical ploy by the Democrats–coupled with the American people’s memory span of about four months–will probably work well enough to garner the few percentage points in votes that they’ve been looking for.
The swing voters do no overanalyze positions like the hardcore conservatives and their liberal counterparts do. But it is not the hardcore crowd that decides elections and it never will be. The Dems just have to be wolves in sheep clothing long enough to convince the swing voters they are sheep. I have no doubt they will pull it off just enough to get what they need.
And for all those people out there who think that swing voters are sitting down with Bibles checking like the Bereans to see if what the Dems are saying is true, well, I’ve got a bridge I can sell you….
‘This is why Democrats keep losing elections.’
They’ve lost 2 consecutively. So did the Republicans when Clinton was in office. This didnt make the whole party obsolete. The election was far from a landside. If anything, if the Democrats change their overall ticket to a theological, pro-life, anti homosexual marriage stance – they’ll lose votes. I dont think the Democrats EXPECT to win over far right Conservative Christians. Frankly, they can win elections without appealing to this group, just like Bush can win elections without appealing to radical youth voters.
Gary, you are right, Rom 1:27 dosnt indicate lesbian sex… look higher up, Vs 26 does.
Romans 1
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
(1) After Dole lost in 1996, all the pundits were declaring the GOP dead… blah, blah, blah. So, the Democrats lost two very, very close elections in a row… you are fooling yourselves if you think the country will devolve into a one party system anytime soon.
(2) What will you social conservatives do if the GOP’s nominees are say Giuliani and Dr. Rice? Yes, both are hawks on foreign affairs, but both are pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-affirm-action… I think they could still win by wooing more independents and conservative Democrats than they would lose on the Dobsonian far right. Then who will be left out in the wilderness, politically speaking?
Jab,
The GOP is a big tent party. I have no doubt whatsoever that either Guiliani or Rice could win in both the primaries and the general election campaign. Remember, the most liberal of Republican is still better than the most conservative of Democrat in advancing the causes that evangelicals advocate.
Policy is driven by the party apparatus, not the individial, which is why Christians should vote straight ticket GOP as much as possible.
While I don’t believe the left has any corner on the market of morality, some of the tone I’m hearing from fellow conservative Christians is telling me that they don’t either.
I hope we all realize that we can get arrogant and lose our way. If anyone doesn’t understand that I think there may be an element of self-deception in the rhetoric
I’ve always understood the destruction of the twin cities to based on the immoral lifestyle of it’s citizens. I thought,that the original meaning of sodomite was anyone engaging in a hedonistic life. So i think it’s wrong to single out homosexuality as defining issue that brought about sodoms downfall.
Hello me,
Romans 1:26, at first glance, appears to condemn gay and lesbian activity. Paul criticizes sexual activity which is against a person’s nature or disposition. But in Greek society of this time, homosexuality and bisexuality was regarded as a natural activity for some people. Thus Paul might have been criticizing heterosexuals who were engaged in homosexual activites against their nature. He might not be referring to homosexuals or bisexuals at all.
The versus preceding 26 might indicate that he was referring to sexual acts associated with idol worship. The verse is too vague to be interpreted as a blanket prohibition of all same sex activities.It must be remembered also that Paul was referring to homosexual acts, not homosexuals. AND NO ONE KNOWS WHAT HOMOSEXUAL ACTS PAUL WAS TALKING ABOUT…NO ONE KNOWS THE BACKGROUND…We must ask ourselves “what type of homosexual acts was Paul talking about?” Was he talking exclusively about homosexual acts connected with idolatry? (perhaps that was the only homosexual activity he was familiar with.) Was he talking about pederasty? Was he talking about homosexual acts commited with slaves? Was he talking about people of heterosexual orientation committing homosexual acts? Just exactly what type of homosexual acts was he concerned with? Do people have the Right to just ASSUME that these verses were a blanket condemnation of homosexaul sex in every context?
In my personal opinion Paul was refering to same sex acts committed in idolatrous worship by people he regarded as heterosexual. Even the most conservative theologian can only give their opinion as to what type of same sex acts Paul was referring to. No one can state that God clearly condemns all homosexuality activity based upon these verses. It is just too vague.
As for me, based on the context of Paul’s writing in Romans chapters 1-3 I choose to believe that God’s New Covenant of grace embraces those who believe in Jesus, being a Jew doesn’t make you better than a Gentile; being a heterosexual doesn’t make you better than a homosexual. Romans chapters one through three strike at the very heart of self-righteous pride. It is amazing that some Christians continue to lord their own sense of righteousness over gays and lesbians as if their heterosexual sex acts make them somehow better, or less in need of grace. We are all in need of grace and we ALL have the grace in Jesus Christ. Amen!
So Gary, despite your torturous twisting and seeming disregard for proper biblical exegesis, you really believe that according to God, there is no condemnation for same-sex relations unless it’s being done in the name of an idol? Good grief.
Let’s me be clear what I believe: FORNICATION IS WRONG, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE. Since marriage is between a man and woman only, any such activity outside marriage by anyone – two men, two women, a man and a woman – is called fornication.
Who has to “know the background” of what Paul is talking about to know that homosexuality was frowned upon in Jewish society and just about every other society you can think of? And PLEASE read my archives before you even imply that (are you talking to me?) I think homosexuals are NOT in need of grace. Everyone needs grace but not all will receive it. But that is God’s business, not mine.
Gary, PLEASE read this article, as I don’t have time to say what I want to say right now: http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar97.htm.
A side comment on the whole men of Sodom thing: it sure is beyond homosexuality… and threatening violence against a guy because they want to =gang=rape= his guests, whether homo- or hetero-sexual rape, goes waaaaaaay beyond inhospitality (and even homosexuality). And one didn’t get the idea that this was an isolated incident in Sodom, but a simple indication of the entire degradation of that society.
I must admit, where Lot offers his two virgin daughters to the crowd was quite a respose to the gang of rapists… wasn’t Lot supposed to be a just man? But I guess Lot considered the size of his own household, and knew he couldn’t take the whole group on. Weird stuff, though.
(And it was Lot’s daughters who got him drunk and had sex with him so they could get pregnant, right? That was one strange family.)
Anyway, that’s just a huge digression. Lots of weird stuff in Genesis, I must say. One can chew on that stuff for a lifetime.
Tom B.:
You’re missing the point… I’m not talking about Republicans like you. I KNOW there are obviously many Republicans who would enthusiastically support
a Giuliani/Rice ticket… I honestly think they would beat any Democrat out there currently on the horizon (though that can change).
But there is a significant subset of the GOP who would revolt… I’m referring to the Dosbon-types… those who under NO circumstances would vote for a pro-choice/pro-gay-rights candidate… I may be mistaken, but I bet the majority of the regular visitors to LaShawn’s site fall into that camp… just listen to their rhetoric.
If the constitutional ban on non-native citizens is lifted, I expect Schwarzeneggar to be another liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay-rights Republican who could EASILY win.
But that certainly would alienate the Dobsonians…
Gary M. Volin:
I’d say a pretty definitive response to the question of “Was Sodom destroyed for inhospitality?” can be found in the commentary “What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?” by Gregory Koukl on the Stand To Reason site. (Respecting La Shawn’s policy, I won’t post the link, but it shouldn’t be hard to find with Google.)
A couple of things from the article: it’s odd to think that the “strange flesh” referred to by Jude is about angels when the men of Sodom didn’t know they were angels; it seems more rasonable to think it refers to “homosexual flesh”, as it puts it. He also knocks down the “impurity” issue by recognizing that the admonition against homosexuality was in the same list as adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality; to attempt to save homosexuality on these grounds knocks down moral injunctions against these other activities as well. Koukl also refers to 2 Peter 2:7-10 which talks about the daily sin Lot saw; indeed, the conversation Lot has with God indicates that the sin in those towns was a continuous thing. The instance of inhospitality explanation just doesn’t account for these aspects. The inhospitality reading just strains and convolutes the evidence, and the fact that it’s the leading theory in certain Biblical interpretation circles says more about those circles than it does the Bible.
As for your reading of Romans, I think you’re just way, way off base. You’ve got to start reading at verse 18 to recognize what’s going on. God has expressed Himself through His creation, yet men turned away and worshiped the creation rather than the Creator. In essence, they perverted the natural order of things by placing high what was low and low what was high. It is in this context that Paul refers to both gay and lesbian activity as symptoms of that rejection of God’s order. This is the strongest condemnation of homosexuality there is, it seems to me, in that it ties the physical act of homosexual sex to the spiritual act of rejecting God’s law for man’s own.
You’re not going to get around this by trying to separate orientation and actions, either; such a distinction wasn’t made until relatively recently in history. (Besides, I wouldn’t put too much credence in Greek views of sexuality if I were you; it had largely to do with extraordinary chauvinism.)
All of this, by the way, does not claim that heterosexuals do not need grace nor that homosexuals may not receive it; indeed, I see nothing in the Bible to condemn one for being a chaste homosexual. But I also see nothing in the Bible to receive homosexual sex from the category of sexual sins, and the Bible is very explicit about how important those are.
(hope this doesn’t double-post…)
Tom B.
You miss my point. I’m not referring to Republicans such as yourself. Obviously, I KNOW there are many Republicans who would ENTHUSIASTICALLY endorse a Giuliani/Rice ticket.
They would be able to woo many independents and Democrats as well… I mean, Giuliani consistently won in one of the most Democratic cities in the country.
Tom, but you cannot deny that there is a significant subset of the GOP who would under absolutely NO circumstances ever vote for a pro-choice/pro-gay-rights ticket just because it was GOP. I would bet that Ms. Barber and a significant amount of her regular visitors fall into that camp… just look at their rhetoric.
Gary,
I think your argument was flatly refused and found wanting of merit. To say that Sodom was destroyed for being inhospitable is beyond belief.
What gay relationship did Christ confront? My knowledge of Scripture is fairly good (GREAT) yet there are no implied homosexual relationships in the NEW TESTAMENT. One astute comment has already delved into the passage in Romans. If we take the point even further Paul is pointing out that the type of behavior mentioned, is one of the “indictments” of Man in “God’s Court of Law”.
Of course God didn’t destory the cities with brimstone and fire because the inhabitants were “merely rude” as if they just called someone a jerk.(even I would find that to be silly) So what was the sin of Sodom? Abuse and offense against strangers. Insult to the traveler. Inhospitality to the needy. That is the point of the story understood in its own historical context.
When male-male rape becomes part of the story, the additional offense is sexual abuse—gross insult and humiliation in Lot’s time and in our own. The whole story and its culture make clear that the author is not concerned about sex in itself, and it was irrelevant whether the sex was hetero- or homosexual. In place of his male guests, without a second thought Lot offered his daughters. The point of the story is not sexual ethics. The story of Sodom is no more about sex than it is about pounding on someone’s front door. In the story of Sodom, both the sex and the pounding are incidental to the main point of the story. The point is abuse and assualt, in whatever form they take. To use this text to condemn homosexuality is to misuse this text.
Gary, until I see a biblical exegesis of your assertion, I hold firm to the belief that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Correct if I’m wrong, but you seen not to be reading the comments or the updates to my post. Please read and address those instead of repeating the same speculations.
Jesus no doubt knew about the teachings of the Torah on the subject of homosexuality, but he never mentioned it once. Yes, not once. Don’t you find that interesting? He never condemned gays and lesbians, and extended salvation to every sinner. Homosexuality just wasn’t on his Top Ten list of sins, but number on one on his list, however, are judgmental religious people who look for sin in the lives of others without dealing with the sin in their own lives. (Matt 23)
Although Jesus was silent on this matter, he did specifically condemn remarriage of divorced people unless adultery was the cause of the divorce. And ironically, most evangelical Christians accept remarriage of divorced persons regardless of the bases of their divorces, and the church today is filled with such people who are not condemned in the same way as homosexuals. Somehow they get a pass in our churches, as if this is a “lesser” sin, but gays are cast aside like lepers.
Now somewhere in this kind of discussion I see the same display of hyopcracy that the Pharisee’s showed by thinking that THEY knew all the truth in the Torah, or that they could speak on behalf of God, or that they had the market to decide what is right and wrong, what is moral and immoral. Jesus turned that kind of thinking on it’s head, telling us it’s best to leave the judging up to God. He clearly told us that HIS SPIRIT will convict the world of sin, it’s not our job, and we are not invited to the process. Our world would be best served teaching people to work out their OWN salvation, as opposed to being religious busy-bodies in the lives of others.
I truly hope the “lepers” and “busy-bodies in the lives of others” remarks are not addressed to me. While we are all sinners, I deeply resent someone offending me with their disregard for my beliefs. I treat all people with courtesy, as I was taught, regardless of their sexual preferences. As for the “busy-body” remark, I could say the same for your comment and judgment about the opinions on this blog.
Gary,
PLEASE!! STOP IT!!
From your debate, I am assuming that you are either gay or pro-gay rights. In my thirteen years of Christiandom, I have learned that there is a segment of the human population that would take the Word of God and standards of His Word and “sugar coat” it. Its more palatable to think that God destroyed Sodom for a “minor” infraction. In all of Scripture, God is most condemning against actions, activities or situations which pervert the image of His holiness. Example, Book of Acts, man lies to Peter about giving all he had to the Church; bam! drops dead on the spot, same with wifey. Why? The blossoming Church can’t tolerate lying to the Holy Ghost.
Have to get back to you shortly, interrupted by actual work duties.
hmm I see the problem…
“In my personal opinion”
Opinion has nothing to do with God’s laws. That is when humanity gets into trouble, trying to impose our opinions on God’s words will never work. The argument is not with me, or La Shawn or any one else. Homosexuality is among the listed abominations. To say otherwise is to argue with God, a feat that will not end well.
Jude, rigorously debating the Scriptures and defending them against an interpretation that largely relies on illogic and wishful thinking is hardly hypocrisy. Moreover, we don’t do so based on our own holiness but rather on what the text says. The point of Matthew 23 is not for us to twiddle our thumbs and admit we’ve both got something in our eye; it’s for us both to clean up our acts so that we can see clearly. However, I can’t see interpreting it so that only the perfect can correct those in error; rather, it’s a question of humility. Your admonition is less a call to repetance and humility than it is a demand for surrender in this discussion.
Further, Christ’s silence on homosexuality as such doesn’t tell us much at all. Indeed, why should he bring up a topic which was already settled Jewish belief that he did not want to strengthen? Keep in mind that His points about divorce and adultery and the like were to bring people back to the original purpose of marriage and purity without the exceptions that Moses had made. Given His emphasis on what properly constituted marriage and sexual fidelity, on what grounds would you think He would approve of homosexual behavior?
Now, it makes sense that the issue is discussed in the Epistles since the Jews were interacting with the wider world of the Gentiles who did not share the traditional Jewish viewpoint on homosexuality. It became a point of contrast and departure and thus was useful for its pedagogical value (in addition to clearly identifying it as a dangerous sexual sin.)
POLL QUESTION:
Would you vote for a pro-choice Republican for president in the general election?
Of course I would. A pro-life candidate is ideal, but given the choice, a liberal Republican is better than a Democrat any day.
Better candidates exist, but not perfect ones.
Jude and Gary,
If I am understanding you correctly, you’re saying that homosexuality is not condemned in Scripture neither by God’s Word nor by the teachings of Christ? Along with this, you are telling me that homosexual relationships are condone in Scripture as long as its in what context? To affirm any relevance to your argument through the lifestyle of the Greeks ignores instances in the New Testament when cultures of Christianity versus World clash. Example, Corinthians. Here you have a body of believers living among a New York or San Fransico type societies. Paul says we are to present ourselves as holy to God. Where is the glorifying of God in a same sex relationship? Does this not change what God’s original intent was for Man?
Back to the previous post. God shows His greatest wrath against situations which change what Man will view His holiness as. I wish it were as simple as how you suggest in your debates, but any person of average understanding and right heart(towards God) could see what God’s intentions really are for Man.
“Opinion has nothing to do with God’s laws.”
The whole law, all of it was entered into between God and Israel only. Furthermore, Jesus said if you want break one, then you have broken ALL. The point of the sermon on the mount was not to lay down a new law. It starts of really well, but digress from there, showing us the futility of TRYING to keep the law. The law is not to be kept, but to be broken. The law is what entices us to sin. Having said that, clearly God has demands, but the new covenant is about discovering God’s desire for your life through personal relationship, and by allowing His Spirit to convict you of what he deems sin. The letter cannot give life, only the Spirit can.
If you read the “gospels” without constantly reminding yourself WHO IT WAS that Jesus was either speaking TO or ABOUT or IN FRONT OF then you end up trying to “apply” these words in red print as if He was really suggesting that THIS was the new set of rules for a new dispensation. Jesus came at the “fullness of time”. Part of this had to do with the development of the religious establishment consisting of Pharisees and lawyers and scribes. It’s not that they were worse people than the rest, but that they were the full grown fruit of legalism. They represented the epitome of mankind’s attempts at righteousness. How they reacted was how any fully-developed self-righteous man would react. That’s why MOST of what Jesus had to say was either directly to them or referring to them. The religious men of that day were the “perfect” contrast to what the Law was really about. And what Jesus said was to every other religious mind as well. We read the “sermon on the Mount” and LOVE the beginning “nice” parts, but then ignore the steady downhill trend of the message. The moral of the story is that with all their talk these men were simply hypocrites – those who claimed to have the “real thing” but did not have it at all. Jesus ended by contrasting two men: the man who heard His words and DID them (something totally foreign to them in reality) and the man who heard and did NOT do it (of which the religious leaders were the prime examples). Jesus came to bring wholeness to man by putting God in that empty place in him … and changing EVERYTHING.
jude law – I don’t know who you really are with the obviously fake name (which reminds me of a resident troll who goes by the name of a black actor), but as long as you’re civil…
On the one hand, you speak truth (about keeping the law); on the other hand, you speak confusion (whole law between God and Israel only). While it’s true that the law was given first to the Hebrews first, they are commands for EVERYONE.
The comment about which cities were destroyed by fire and brimstone after the cross is a red herring. I hope no one gets caught up in responding to that, but if they feel they must…
And grace and mercy is nothing without true repentence.
” Indeed, why should he bring up a topic which was already settled Jewish belief that he did not want to strengthen? ”
See my previous comment. Jesus’ “strengthening” of the law was to drive the legalists over the edge, showing them that it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep the law. He came to FULFILL the law, to make it obsolete as the writer of Hebrews states it, because life is not to be found in the LAW, but understanding the LIFE of Christ within. The law, and it’s dispensation was done away with, once and for all. As I stated before, the LAW was entered into with ONLY Israel. Isn’t it also interesting that Jesus spoke about adultry for instance, which comes from the same Torah as the subject of homosexuality? Why would he talk about one and not the other? As I said before, Jesus addressed legalists more often than sinners. Legalism is the sin of moralizing, defining right and wrong for others, and is the same as eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That tree is the root of the human condition trying to define right and wrong for others. The purpose of the new convenant is that God would come and live us, that his Spirit will show us right from wrong, and convict us of that which needs changing in our lives.
To the Sodom and Gomorrah question. Can anyone point me to any city that was destroyed like this after the Cross? Do we have any writing or word from God that he destroyed a city for whatever reason after the Cross? Was the whole point of the Cross not forgiveness of sin – past, present and future? By that I am not implying that grace is a liscense to sin, but that the Cross is either grace or it’s not. Why do we keep on insisting on bring down God’s wrath, when he made peace with his creation through the one act of his Son?
“on the other hand, you speak confusion (whole law between God and Israel only). While it’s true that the law was given first to the Hebrews, they are command for EVERYONE. ”
Actually, show me one Scripture that shows the law was entered into with everyone? But here are some Scriptures to show you that it related to ONLY Israel. And there are about 50 more Scriptures that states this:
The Law, including the Ten Commandments was only entered into with ISRAEL. Here are a few examples:
Deut 4:1,44,45 – Ten Commandments given to the children of ISRAEL after they came out of Egypt. I see no Gentiles in this picture.
Deut 5:1,6 – Moses addressed Israel – no Gentile in sight.
Exodus 34:27,28 – The covenant is made with Israel only.
1 Kings 8:9,21 – There it is again, the Ten Commandments was for Israel.
Why are those who insist on keeping some aspects of the law very particular on which parts they want to keep? Why aren’t the same people stoning prostitutes. There is a clear double standard here, wouldn’t you say?
“If I am understanding you correctly, you’re saying that homosexuality is not condemned in Scripture neither by God’s Word nor by the teachings of Christ?”
No, not saying that at all. I am saying let everyone work out their own salvation before God. The Pharisee’s had a kind of mentality of defining the law for everyone, making it people twice as much children of hell, all in an attempt to obscure the fact that they were utterly useless in keeping God’s original set of instructions. It’s their hypocracy that Jesus went after, showing mercy and grace to sinners, while having harsh words for those who hid their own sins by defining what laws others should keep.
It’s not that there is not right and wrong, but take for instance the whole issue of divorce that I discussed. The “red” states are so zealous about “moral” issues, and yet, the divorce rate is much higher in many of those red states. I concede it could be that it’s non-christians that makes up that figure, but Christian polsters have the divorce rates among Christians almost as high as non Christians. Thus my point was, Jesus spoke about divorce, but never once mentioned homosexuality. All I am saying is, let’s clean up our own house before telling a non believing society what they should believe or how they should behave. God is quite capable of doing that.
jude: I sent you an e-mail. Please respond before you post again.
Hello Dominic,
Nowhere in Scripture is homosexuality mentioned, and even more importantly there is no commandment given by God the Father or by Jesus Christ that forbids same-sex couples from geniune loving relationships. Close attention to the Bible enables us to develop a deeper and more intimate relationship and understanding of God and all who study its words. Those who choose to follow Christ’s commandments to love God and their neighbours, and pray for this love that is a gift of the Holy Spirit, will indeed reap blessing upon blessing, more than they can ever imagine.
Unfortunately the words of God, contained in Scripture, have been surrounded by rules and regulations, and there are some people who choose to obey these regulation rather than obeying God. Jesus spoke of the people of this time who were held in chains by the law rather than knowing the liberty that the Holy Spirit offers. When he preached in the synagogue in Nazareth he reminded his listeners that prophets are not liked in their own country, and it was for this reason that God had, on occasions, bypassed the Jewish people and blessed people of other nations instead.Remember the widow whose cruse of oil and container of flour were constantly replenished by God during the drought that lasted three and a half years. God could have brought food and water to the entire nation of Israel, but instead singled out just one woman, a person despised by the Jewish people. Why was this?
We continue to hear the words of people who choose to live by the laws made by humankind, words which do not issue from the mouth of God our Parent, Jesus our Redeemer or the Holy Spirit our Sanctifier. And we know, because of the way God has drawn us close, and the blessings we have known, that once again God has reached outside those who are bound by the letter of the law and ministered to those whom the self-righteous have called outcasts. We are truly made in God’s image, and their eternal soul bears witness to this. As we commune deeply with God, the voices of those who would condemn us become irrelevant, for we know peace and joy, gifts given freely to all who follow Jesus the Christ. Gay men and lesbians are not bitter, rather they grieve that many have not understood Christ’s commandment to love, or his warning not to usurp God’s role by judging others.
‘Somehow, I don’t think we will be. [evangelicals being rewarded]‘
The entire alliance of the culture war and business right would fall apart if were. The threat of the other side of the culture war winning is the thing that keeps people constantly voting for the business right. If ever change is delivered, they’ll quit electing the business right.
COMMENT MODERATION IN EFFECT. Your comment will not appear until I approve it.
“The comment about which cities were destroyed by fire and brimstone after the cross is a red herring. I hope no one gets caught up in responding to that, but if they feel they must…”
I am actually trying to draw the contrast of before and after the Cross. Let’s assume God did destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for the reasons typically stated – homosexuality, then why do we have no example of God’s dealing with destroying whole cities on behalf of Israel because of their immorality since after the Cross? The point I am making is that if we assert this, then we what is the point of the Cross? Didn’t Jesus say that he did not come to condemn the world, but to save it? Why is it so hard for us to see a loving Father who made peace with his creation through the only one he ever deemed holy and righteouss enough – his Son? Doing this negates the Cross and mixes a little bit of Judiasm with a little bit of Christs message, spurning a whole new religion which neither Christ, nor Paul ever preached. Don’t you think if It’s not a red herring as you say, but God clearly instructed the prophets of old that he is going to destroy the city, but we have no such examples after the Cross? It’s a valid question.
Jude, I really don’t understand where you’re going with all this. If it’s to make clear that no human other than Christ could fulfill all tenets of the Law, then I don’t think you’ll get a lot of argument on that point, but how is that relevant here?
Is it to claim that since Christ fulfilled the law, there are no moral rules to follow other than “understanding the LIFE of Christ within”? That seems to be where you’re going–accusing the rest of us of making up rules for sexual behavior. But we’re not making them up; we’re defending them as we find them in Scripture, resting not on our own righteousness but the text itself. Rather, it is those who would say that homosexual behavior is permissible because Christ himself did not specifically condemn it who are making up rules for sexual behavior.
The “city destroyed after the Cross” is a non sequitur. But we do know of one city that WAS destroyed (though not for the same reasons.) Jerusalem.
As for a Scripture that indicate the universality of the Law, try Romans 2:12-16: “All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.”
It was nice talking to many of you today. Most of you have some interesting view points, even if I may not agree. I think it is nice that people can come together and express themselves with differing perspectives and realities. Take care and God bless you all. I hope to talk to you all soon. Please try to be kind and remember to love each other…
Love is the very nature of God. And since His love is spread abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit we should also have the same love nature of God in us to love others. When we submit to God he gives us the grace we need to allow his love to flow out to others.
We can boldly say that as he is so am I in this world. Why? Because God is love, therefore, I am love, As he is so am I.
Was there anything more preposterous and at the same time revolting than John Kerry posing as a practicing Catholic to try to appeal to religious voters? These guys really don’t get it. Religious people saw thru him like his daughter’s dress. The only effect that having these phonies pose as pious is going to have is to further alienate churchgoers.
slarrow:
“That seems to be where you’re going–accusing the rest of us of making up rules for sexual behavior. But we’re not making them up; we’re defending them as we find them in Scripture, resting not on our own righteousness but the text itself.”
The point exactly. The Pharisee’s did the same thing. They knew the law, inside out, backwards and forward. They were schooled in the law, understood every jot an tittle of it, but their attitude of imposing this on others, while at the same time not facing the fact that they themselves were unable to keep the law (all of it) was what Jesus addressed in all of his conversations with him. The got so hung up about the law and the keeping of it, that they forgot that God delights more in mercy than sacrafice.
Your assertion about Romans is slightly incorrect. The passage uses the word law four times. Twice to speak about the law of the covenant and twice about another law, that law being the law of human nature, as it was infected by the tree knowledge of good and evil (right and wrong, moral and immoral). By nature (law) we know what is more or less right and wrong, at least most people know, and that’s what Paul was saying. Those who had the law(Moses’ law) will be judged by that law, and those who was not given that law, but live by that natural law of human kind will be judged by that law. Thus, Paul confirms my point, in effect speaking of humans under two different kinds of law. Now when you demand someone keep the law, to whom it’s never given, you are placing them under the law of Israel, and no-one is justfied by either law Paul tells us, but only by Christ.
Here is how Jesus addressed them:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.
As for the Democrats: Christians are smart enough to judge the tree by its fruit. We also know that faith without works is nothing. These are biblical principles. The idea that rephrasing rhetoric will cut it is baseless.
As for homosexuality: The idea that Sodom was destroyed just for being gay is as much of a stretch as the hospitality remark. The truth is that Sodom (and Jebesh Gibeah in Judges 20) were destroyed for unrepentant wickness, immorality, and depravity of many types. Ezekial 16 says: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.”
The overall tone in the scripture is that homosexuality while a sin, is also a sign and portent of the moral and spiritual decline of a people. This was the case in Sodom and Gibeah and is also the point of Romans. “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator… Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.”
One a completely different note, I wrote a longer reply to both the political thread and the gay tangent on my blog. Trackback doesn’t seem to want to go through though. Is this a spam control measure or? Would be nice if I could link up.
We know what the Bible says about murder and we know that abortion is wrong, period.
Nah. The ‘Christian’ opposition to abortion is built on the flimsiest of Biblical support, and presupposes that one already buy into the pro-life agenda in order to interpret the often-cited verses as somehow pro-life.
Democrats, who think Bush is not as intelligent as they are, suddenly attribute to him uncommon genius in winning voters with “carefully drawn positions on abortion and same-sex marriage.”
Not so much. The strategy is actually attributed to his brain. Y’know, Rove, who’s been all over the media trumpeting his winning strategy of courting culturally backward conservatives.
They just kill me with their idea that you can put economic and social issues (such as povery and healthcare) in the same class as destruction of the family. They just don’t get it that when the family goes, and that means the husband, wife, child family… all of civilization goes with it. No amount of healthcare, money, or fed people on the face of the earth will fix it.
The other thing that irks me is the use of statements like “there are many pro-choice or gays or adulterers” who have faith. They forget, Gods laws are absolute and pretty clear in what they say. You don’t pick and choose the ones you like and act like the ones you don’t like are not there. It is a struggle for every Christian, every day to obey the laws, even man made laws. I guess one of the differences is, when a Christian sins (and we do sin), break the law,etc., it is not status quo to run to court and try to get it changed to make you feel better and to rationalize that it is not a sin anymore. You know you did wrong, you ask for forgiveness and pray you learned your lesson and don’t do it again.
Geesh… you would think it was rocket science.
The other thing that comes to mind…
All this opposition to laws in the scripture…
Amazing how practicing them, in all reality, does not harm us…
Amazing how when we do eveything it says not to, we have grief and suffering…
Go figure???
Gary V said, “words which do not issue from the mouth of God our Parent, Jesus our Redeemer or the Holy Spirit our Sanctifier.”
God the Parent, eh? Tells me all I need to know about your sweet-as-honey words about God-Love = Man-Love.
I’m sorry, Gary, but you’re stretching where the Scripture is “thin” and dismisive where otherwise plain as day. But I can understand why cHillary and sKerry can swallow your interpretation, as you provide them the basis to be relativist vis a vis having religion.
La Shawn-
Sorry it took so long. I went to work and then started reading the commentaries last night and this morning. It seems that there is some confusion by jude and Gary about grace and forgiveness, which no one else seems to have commented on.
The fact that people commit adultery who are Christians and the fact that some practicing homosexuals are Christians misses the basic point that BOTH behaviors are condemned in the same passage (along with gluttony, but let’s don’t go there). Wrong is wrong, even if it is forgiven. True biblical forgiveness as practiced by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not to say “Oh, that’s all right. Your behavior is just fine.” It is rather to say “Your behavior is offensive and very wrong, deserving of death. However, Jesus’ death will cover for you.” Please note that forgiving does not grant “allowed” status to the behavior. Forgiving means that although the offense is great, the sacrifice of Jesus is greater.
Axe murderers are forgiven on the same basis, but I don’t hear anyone campaigning for an Axe Murderer Pride month (yet).
Hello Rick,
Thank you for the love and concern you seem to have shown for those of us who are gay and lesbian Christians. Although, I have to admit you seem to have a very simplistic view of the world. As a matter of fact, there are Christian child molestors, bank robbers, and muderders. Christians have been known to do all these sins and more. Their sexuality had little to do with any of those acts. Please don’t confuse the topic of sexuality with murder. By the way, I don’t attend gay pride. However, I do belong to a Christian gay bowling league. (all the money that we raise from the league goes to aids.) I suppose you “condemn” and think our bowling league is “wrong” as well? oh well..
The relationship I have with God is not a matter of debate; it is between myself and God, as is every person’s relationship with our creator. The fact of my salvation is not for any person to weigh up or judge, and Jesus did warn his hearers against judging others(see Matthew 7: 1-5). Nowhere in scripture does Jesus condemn loving relationships between people of the same sex.
I believe that all God has made is good, does not scripture assure us of this fact? That we are different of each other demonstrates the diversity of God’s creation. In the past there was a tendency to twist scripture to justify slavery and apartheid. Nowadays most Christians deny the validity of such arguements. I believe God loves all that has been created, and that includes you and me. I believe we have the capacity to discover the fullness of God’s love, forgiveness and grace.I believe we could start the process of mutual understanding by regularly praying for each other, asking that we hear each other’s voice clearly and that we may be reconciled in Jesus.
Rick, may God continue to bless you!
Thank you, Gary. I should have referred to an “Adultery Pride” month instead, to keep it sexual. As I said, there are many behaviors of which God disapproves. It is true that the grace of God is greater than all our sins. And it is equally true that none of us can judge the true nature of another. “Man looks on the outward appearance and God looks on the heart.” As you probably know from some of my earlier posts, I believe that you are free to choose any lifestyle that you want during your journey on earth. God is very pro choice (Deut 30:15-16), but there is a consequence if we are unrepentant (Deut 30:17-18). Time does not permit me to list all the scriptures, but look up 1 Cor 6:9-11 for a partial catalogue of proscribed behaviors and note the past tense in verse 11. Have I sinned? Absolutely. Can I cast a stone at another sinner? Absolutely not (”Let him who is without sin…”).
Can even those who have sinned be gorgiven? That is the point of the cross.
Sorry, but I have to leave now.
Commenter Keith wrote:
“The left has religion.
Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton are proof of that.
They roll the two of them out when they need them, and then put them back in storage after.”
I write: Like Christmas, and Easter.
But I thought John Kerry “had religion.” Oh, but he can’t “take what is an article of faith for [him] and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith.” Yes, we know that about you John; and we call it – spineless. You’ve got to stand up for what you believe! President Bush could have very well lost this election for being so straightforward. Maybe the Dem’s were learn something from this – You can’t please all the people all the time, but if you take a stand, you may pick up the 270 electoral votes it takes to win.
This entire conversation is missing the big picture!
All Democrats have to do is sway a few unconvinced voters with a “look how religious we are” ploy in order to make it work. And they will successfully do that.
Anyone arguing that self-proclaimed “Christians” are smart enough to see through that forgets that 100% of self-proclaimed Christians did NOT vote for Bush–some percentage voted for the other guy. In fact, many self-proclaimed Christians voted for the other guy since the voting pattern for Christians in this election was nearly identical to the voting pattern in 2000.
What changed in this election is that the undecided voters decided to vote in larger numbers for Bush than for Kerry. Every analysis of the 2004 election has proven this point.
So in the end, it doesn’t matter what the Christian voters do since they will laregly vote in the same numbers and same patterns as they have for the last ten years. The election is decided by the undecided/swing voters. And the Democrats will be able to convince more of them next election that they are just as religious a party as the GOP.
Should the Democrats lose in 2008, it will not be because of the “religious” issue, but for some other reason of their own making.
DLE – Somewhere in this thread I said basically the same thing – Bush needed more than the “Christian” vote and moderates (or undecideds) came out in big numbers for Bush.
I noticed that the responders on here seem to believe they speak for all religious folks. It should be noted that among non-Christian religions, including Judaism over 70% of folks voted for Kerry. 47% of Catholics voted for Kerry and around 40% of mainline Protestants did likewise. We really do exist.
I’m not sure what would life be like in a congregation dominated by folks who have such disdain for us, though. Maybe similiar to my experiences working for the Clinton campaign in 92 and working on leadership of Inter-Varsity. Though this election was far more polarizing then the 92 one was.
My problem with values language is that it never gets around to talking about the vast majority of what we say and do in our lives. Which is to say that whether it’s economics, foreign affairs, whether you give the ok for torture, whether poverty is alive and well…none of these are treated as moral concerns. If moral values related to the whole of life, then it could have something of importance to say to our country.
Renee
The disagreement is this: Those economic issues, etc. do have bearing on the strength of the family. When dad is jobless, when parents are living pay check to pay check, when a medical costs criple a family’s possibilities…these relate to whether one supports families or not.
Dwight said, “Those economic issues, etc. do have bearing on the strength of the family.”
Since when is the gubmint responsible for jobs? Better yet, how can a gubmint create jobs? Granted, there are plenty of tweaks that should be made to make conditions conducive to creating jobs, but not to the extent that liberals think can be done.
1) If I as an employer decide I’m not going to grow, but will maintain or even cut back, NO One can tell nor make me do otherwise. See France & germany where the gubmint & unions DO interfere with the hiring/firing process and look at the resultant double digit unemployment. Our current rate is as good or better than Clinton’s best years. What of the proverb that it’s better to be dirt poor and intact, than to be rich and broken?
2) If the gubmint decides that it is in the jobs business and nationalizes (steals) my property under eminent domain, then the jobs arena becomes a corrupt and politicized environment. Take the former USSR or any number of desptic African or South American country where you have people pretending to work while the “employer” pretends to pay. Or worse, your “right” to work is predicated by your loyalty to the party, regardless of your credentials. Again, look at the USSR for prime examples.
Bottom line moral values are about how you live your life and how you do with what you have or don’t have. Governments are by nature incapable of establishing values in of themselves, they can only reflect the values of the rulers.
I’m curious as to why you worked on Slick’s campaign and knowing what you do now, would you do so again. I’m guessing that Intervarsity Christian Fellowship isn’t what it used to be.
I also notice you take issue with the “Fakers” label in La Shawn’s “Faking God” thread. As I responded there and touch upon it again here, if one is overly sensitive about their belief being questioned, it’s a purty good sign that one’s foundation isn’t all that stable.
Remember, Scriptural truths are compared to a sword, which is an no less than offensive combat weapon. To defend your faith, you need to put on the whole armor of God — Shields up! and duke it out.
Be hot or be cold. Lukewarm, touchy-feely, equivocating Christians only leave a bad taste in God’s mouth.
Andy
-I side with the vast majority of the western religious and ethical tradition which believes that distributive justice matters, helps us to determine whether we live in a good society or not. That means the very things you took out of the moral realm (say how a business operates) belong within it.
=There is the question of what policies will further that. And I suspect we’d disagree on what those would be. And we could debate it of course. But my only point is that these things, and a whole number of other issues ought to be considered in the moral realm.
-While I have confidence in my religious faith and the beliefs I hold, what I worry about is whether there will be room within the church for Christians who are on the liberal end of things. While my faith is my own, the ability to live that out in community is affected by others in that community.
-Would I work on Clinton’s campaign? Hard to say. I think he missed an opportunity to do much good, only seemed skilled at self preservation, not building the momentum behind important issues (health care for example). IVCF was pretty conservative (which seems to be the case today as well) and so my political work was a bit of a problem who called my faith into question.
Sorry Dwight, what is the foundation of the vast majority of the western religious and ethical tradition which believes that distributive justice matters that you mention? I’d sincerely like to debate you on the Biblical merits of your worldview.
Who gets to decide what is distributed? Charity without personal love is nada, to wit our welfare system.
Also I fail to see any mention of personal responsibility. How does your sense of responsibility interact with ‘justice’?
Have you ever thot about how socially disruptive the miracles that healed were? I mean, here these blind, deaf, crippled and otherwise handicapped folks were ekeing out a living from begging.
Along comes Jesus and/or the Apostles and just flat out took that option away from them and then sent them on their ‘merry’ way, with nary a penny for their alms. Surely most of them have been this way since birth and never had the chance to learn a trade, usually the family business. Now as unskilled newly unemployed, they have to go find a job or means of supporting themselves, since they can no longer beg. How fair is that?
If by distributive justice, you mean the government, on what, and whose, authority does any government have to do such? The communist also believed in distributive justice and we all know how evil that type of goverance was.
To take my God-given blessings from me and redistrubute to the sloth, sluggard, and any other un-PC Biblical term of scornment for these wicked people I can think, is nothing short of thuggish governance.
I certainly didn’t take how a business operates out of the moral realm, I took the girly-man crapola about distributive justice out of the moral realm. I alone am personally accountable to God, not government, for how I use my wealth to support or not support the needy. Please refer to the parable of Lazarus & the rich man.
I also refer you to multiple parables that illustrate how arbitrary the master can be — the talents, the virgins w/ & w/o lamp oil, the field workers who all were paid the same regardless of how long they worked that day. If you will notice, the ones that protested or otherwise wimped out were the ones that were cursed.
Jesus used parables to illustrate how he’s going to deal with you, me and everyone else. So before you get knee deep in “justice” or fairness, you better make sure that your definition of justice is in alignment with Jesus’ definition.
So far, you haven’t used any Scripture whatsoever, that I have seen, to support whimsical notions of distributive justics and things that you have defined as morally bankrupt.
Can you cite any Scripture that refutes the notion that one who refuses to work, doesn’t deserve to eat. Please note, the needy are not in the same class as the sloth/sluggard.
No wonder you caught grief with IVCF, and here I thot they were losing their edge.
Furthermore, I wouldn’t concern myself with marginalizing Christians on the liberal end of things. If they stand on the truth, then there is nothing to cry/pout about.
Warriors can disagree on philosophical things, weaponry and still retain the esprit d’corps, but certainly not why they fight. On the other hand, if they’re wimps, then they’re gonna get thumped or bumped.
This is the same for Believers, because we wrestle against the pricipalities of darkness. Satan is in this game for keeps and the stakes are nothing less than our souls, not our social well-being.
I also question your reference to your religious faith and beliefs. I can find no reference to the men and women of the Bible being described as religious. Righteous, devout, walking with God yes, religious no.
‘Since when is the gubmint responsible for jobs? Better yet, how can a gubmint create jobs? ‘
By hiring people, or spending money.
Actus, Smith, Haydek, Friedman, Drucker, Schrumpeter et al would beg to differ.
From all of your past comments, it’s readily apparent that your economics is nothing but a bunch of liberal talking points and fanciful but discredited wishful thinking posing as theory.
Comments on this entry are closed.