ReligionDispatches.org

Regarding civil rights legislation, Dick Gregory once said something to the effect that he knew a law couldn't "legislate morality," he just wanted to know that if they killed him it would at least be illegal! Apparently that's still a lot to ask of some of our so-called "Christian" brethren.

A statement you made in this piece gives me pause, Candace, given the power of words and the necessity for clarity: "If he had [listed to the congressional debate on hate crime legislation], he would have known that those who oppose homosexuality have absolutely no problem with them being harassed, beaten, or killed."

I'm inclined to think that taken on face value, that statement is simply not true and smacks of the tactics of "right wingers" themselves (i.e., "those men who engage in homosexual behavior are pedophiles"). Same sentence structure, same logical fallacy.

I know of many Christians who in good conscience cannot "support homosexuality," who honestly believe it to be a sin, but in no way support or condone violence against those who engage in homosexual behavior - in fact, work to end it, such as Mr. Sanders - and I cannot help but believe you know some as well.

Even when preaching to the choir, we need to be clear in what we say because words have significant power.

Within the context of the sentence, David, I stand behind the words - those involved in the debate around the hate crimes legislation are, indeed, the sort who don't care if gays and lesbians are harassed, beaten and/or killed. They are fighting, in fact, for the right to continue to incite such hatred with their words under the guise of "persecution" if they are denied the right to vigorously preach against this "sin."

I am in no way painting everyone who disagrees with homosexuality with the same brush - only those who took part in the debate against the hate crimes measure. Their rhetoric was inflammatory and showed they cared not one whit about the personal safety of LGBT people.

Have to agree with what you say there is a mentality that would say, "If they don't want to be beat up or killed they shouldn't be queer." Hear it all the time.

The solution to the problem is not legislation, though legislation will have to do until we a people can accept that people can be different and have different ideas and still be human and deserving of certain inalienable rights.

I think that to be a follower of Christ one has to Love all people, even different ones. Those who spew hate in the name of God may call themselves Christian, but they do not follow the Jesus in the New Testament who said to Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and Love your neighbor as yourself.

The problem comes from the last part of that command, one has to Love oneself to Love others. Most people who hate people do so because they do not Love themselves or feel worthy of that Love.

Being a Christian is not what you say but what you do.

Now perhaps we ought to include Mr. Sanders in our prayers to the Divine. I will pray that the Creator protects him from those who would hurt and kill us and ours (LGBTQ and friends)... for he certainly put his neck out there.

Some days, having a dissenting opinion makes for interesting discussion; some days it paints you with a target. I think Mr. Sanders got painted...

do these "Christians" read? Where does Jesus not show compassion to those society saw as sinners or outcasts? When does Paul trump Jesus? (and yet when it comes to homosexuality, Paul always seems to trump Jesus. Why is that? Which one of these is the Son of God?)

thanks for the article Sistah...

There were also laws proscribing the death penalty by stoning for those who performed work on the Sabath. So would you support legislation that prohibit work on Sunday (or on Saturday, if your religion hold that day as the Sabath)?

As I recall, Jesus worked on the Sabath. And for that (and for many other "transgressions," He received the death penalty.

Where's your proof that "Jesus lived under, believed, endorsed, and dictated to Moses, Old Testament Law. God(Jesus) called for the death penalty for homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)"?

Was Jesus the Son of God or was Jesus God? Fully human or fully divine or both? How could one reconcile turning the other cheek with putting anyone to death? How could Jesus "fulfill the law" and dictate it? And contradict it at the same time? Why would Jesus need to fulfill anything that he dictated in the first place? Was he just sloppy? Oh yeah, that's right, since Jesus is supposedly God he can't be sloppy BECAUSE HE'S GOD!

Where is it? Or are you interpreting? Lemme know. It's one thing to quote passages in the Bible or some snippet of confused theology. The other is to be able to provide a theory of statements that show respect to the Biblical text as a whole.

Where is it in the text? Where are you getting your argument from? I assume you've got some deep training in Biblical exegesis, otherwise you wouldn't be asserting such things with such confidence. Your comments not only reflect a misunderstanding of scripture, but a complete and utter ignorance and unfamiliarity with the workings of the text.

I have no need to prove that Jesus "is not God" as that is not in dispute. In dispute is your interpretation of what it means for Jesus to be God. It is not on me to disprove your bad theology. It is on you to convince others that it isn't. You haven't made a case for Jesus being God meaning that homosexuals should be executed. Your faulty logic about Jesus writing Leviticus makes no logical sense because Jesus himself contradicts this. Not only that, but Jesus contradicts violence outright by offering himself to the cross as an alternative to bloodshed. Just like many of your compatriots, you refuse to take Jesus Christ seriously and instead you rely on the conventional wisdom of a psychopathic, sinful idolatry of cut-and-pasted text. You don't take the Bible seriously enough to read it as a whole text.

By the way, any attempt by the powers and principalities of violence to justify themselves through their misguided enablers by pretending that God endorses them is disgusting and shameful. And so, of course, are your assertions.

I told you it's not the point. The point is not whether Jesus was God or not. I am not disputing this.

You're avoiding the issue. Jesus says to turn the other cheek. You claim Jesus says to inflict violence on homosexuals.

"It is risky to "turn the other cheek" when dealing with sodomites."

Oh, I'm so slow, you were making a homophobic joke. And here I didn't think you had a sense of humor.

The Bible may assert that Jesus is God, but assertions do not equal proof.

Again, whodat? you have an uncanny ability to prove my points right. Someone's going to think you're on my payroll!

Since the notion that Jesus was literally God has been brought up, we should probably deal with it.

Jesus said he had no divine will.
Jesus begged God for mercy.
God created pain and death, and yet, Jesus feared them.

Jesus clearly did not view himself as being equal to God, so why should anyone else?

In original Hebrew, "son of God" literally means "SERVANT OF GOD." Does God serve himself?

Christ said of himself, that “of myself, I can do nothing without the Father.” Clearly, Jesus presents himself as a servant who has no power other than that which is given him by his Father who is greater.

And let's not forget that God cannot die. Christ died. He prayed to his Father, “Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; yet not my will, but thine be done.” Can people seriously contend that God was such a fool as to pray to himself and ask himself for mercy?

Jesus said: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren, and say to them, ‘I ascend to my Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” Do people really think God was so foolish to make such a statement?

When Jesus said his “Father is greater than I,” to whom did he refer?

Quote: Matthew 1:22,23: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Apparently some infer that God appeared in diapers. One must first learn the language of the Bible. It includes literal language, allegory, metaphor, and poetry. Immanuel is, in fact, a typical name for “son.” When my son is here, figuratively, his father, who is part of him, is here too.

Quote: John 14:9: "Jesus saith unto him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;"

Once again, when one sees their son, they are seeing the father who begat him, especially if it is his father’s will that he delivers and his father's work that he does. It does not make them one and the same individual. Remember that while he stood right before the disciples, Jesus said, “no one has ever seen God.” This passage actually proves that according to Jesus himself, he was not God.

Quote: John 10:30 (Jesus said) "I and my Father are one." Now, that should settle it for anyone who has an open mind.

I think one can have their brains fall out if they open them that far. Removing one sentence from its context is poor exegesis. In this passage Jesus asserts his authority. He says that in doing his works, he is doing the works of his father. He continues, “My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch [his sheep] out of the Father’s hand.” I’m sorry, but this in no way asserts that Jesus IS God. In fact at every turn, Jesus humbles himself as not being God.

Either way, it doesn't make any difference in how we live our lives, does it?

I would not quibble with what you've said, either. "Jesus was God" is a theological assertion, not a factual scientific one--for me, anyway. Yet, it is a true one, nonetheless. You want to see what God looks like? Check out that self-giving, non-violent cross. Check out the bread for the multitudes. Watch him give new life in resurrection. If Jesus is God (once again, the theological assertion) then that's what we should be concerned with--the character of our God, not a caricature of it.

Whodat's premise is that there is a divine brain out there who thinks like we do and has the same concerns that we do--especially about two men having sex. Then that brain popped into a body and starting saying things that it wanted. Sounds self-centred, selfish, arrogant and self-gratifying to me.

"My primary goal is to prove that God condemns homosexuals."



"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death."
Romans 8:1

No need to prove that God and Jesus were the not the same, I am willing accept that Jesus and God are in fact the same.

As I said in another post in this thread, God can not contradict Himself. If Moses heard Him say one thing, and Jesus says another, then the probability is that Moses got it wrong. Jesus is God's last word on the subject and that is that. If you want to go back to Mosaic Law, fine, but if you do you are not following Jesus and hence not a Christian. That is not saying that you do not have a relationship with God, just that you are not a Christian.

All that is moot however because fortunately we live under Civil Law rather than any Theological Law. Murder and Assault are against the Law and if you commit those Laws, you are Judged by Man. When you go before God you can Him about the seeming conflict between Moses and Jesus.

You are free to believe any version of Faith you wish, but no one has the right to deprive anyone rights. As far as Leviticus, I guess that God must have changed His mind or maybe Moses got it wrong. Makes no difference to me, I personally believe that God is unchanging, and it we who misunderstand.

When Jesus told the people who were about to stone a woman accused of adultery, to let the person without sin cast the first stone, it was the same God that you believe said that adulterers should be killed.

If you hold to Mosaic Law then you should be consistent and hold to them all, not just the ones that satisfy what appears to be your bigotry. God did not say it was a menu for you to pick and choose.

Jesus (God) said that we are to Love our neighbor as ourselves. Also I remember something about Judgment is Mine says the Lord.

There is no safe harbor for hatred of other people anywhere in the teachings of Jesus, there is forgiveness when we repent, but hatred is just as bad a sin as any other.

Ryan and Roy, Gentleman, please don't worry about the bigoted fundamentalists. After all, they are God's children as well, just as much as we are.
We should follow the Living Christ's first commandment, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Forgive them for their self-rightousness, and their pride in presuming to know the mind of almighty God.
These people believe in the Bible more than they believe in Christ.
"They shall be known by their deeds."

Whodat-- You haven't responded to Roy's reference to the adultery story, in which Jesus explicitly opposes the laws of Leviticus; nor have you explained why Jesus worked on the Sabbath, also in contravention of Mosaic law.

Since your main assertion is that Jesus fully adhered to Mosaic law, it seems those are the items you need to explain.

Saying my reading is wrong doesn't explain how your reading is right, and thus doesn't do any good for anybody.

Whodat's only defense is to tell others they are wrong, simply because he says they are. No proof needed but his say so.

Candace, Touche, my dear. Your observation in right on the money. Such is the case with the myopic fundamental literalists, that they can't fully appreciate the infinite magnificence of God.

Whodat, what I stated is, "They Believe in the Bible MORE than they believe in God."...quite the difference. In order to believe in the Risen Christ, one must accept and believe in the Gospels.

Contemplate my statement once again, please.

I find that the fundamentalists spend far too much time focusing on this little quote, or that little quote, without so much as a word, as to the eternal love of our Lord Jesus the Christ. I once witnessed a Baptist minister expound for 30 min on Isaiah 15:1. The resulting theme of his sermon was pretty much,'much ado about nothing'.
It is saddening that literalists exploit/use/abuse the Bible as some grand grimoire. They take such delicious pride in whipping out this quote and that in order to damn or excoriate another human being, who are nothing more than God's children.
Now, I ask you....How does this exemplify a true Christian? Are these the messages that that Christ was teaching?
Furthermore, if you are indeed so learned, then recall these simple words of God made man,"Remove the mote(rod, stick) from thy own eye before you complain about the speck of dust in another's."

on occasion he tells his opponent:
"You are an idiot!" Ahh, the great way to prove your point..Nothing is more effective.:))

Whodat?, I have a concern with your comment about belief in Christ and the Bible. First of all, will you please let me know which Bible you a referring to? Are you talking about the Hebrew Bible (some call this the Old Testament), Catholic Bible, Greek Othrodox Bible, King James Bible, or one of our many Protestant-translated, agenda-saturated Bibles? Yes, there's a bit of sarcasm here, but I'm also very seriuos. Even if we can decide on which Bible we're talking about, we must then deal with the issue that, at best, most of the earliest Christians (think Timothy or the many folks Paul encountered) only had access to the Hebrew Bible (maybe only parts of it) and oral traditions (stories) that preceded what we now call the gospels. Even among conservative scholars, I believe there is general consensus that a gap exists between Jesus' death and when the writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually recorded the stories about Jesus' life. Certainly some of the New Testament texts were floating around in various forms during the first century, but again, not everyone had access to them. There certainly weren't Gideons putting them in people's bedside tables. So if most people in the early centuries did not have access to the Bible as we now know it, then how did people believe in Christ?

This kind of scriptural misrepresentation has led to hatred, fear, and murder. It is heresy to twist the scriptures to agree with your personally prejudices. Don't forget that God despises those who spread strife among brothers.

God never called for the death penalty for homosexuals, but made proscriptions against only those among the redeemed who performed certain acts inappropriate for them (the same word is used for the admonition against eating shellfish). The Bible writers claimed that disobedient children should be stoned to death, adulterers stoned to death, and witches stoned to death. Do you actively promote those scriptures?

Homosexuality is no more a sin than heterosexuality is a sin if one commits adultery. You are a sinner, not the sin.

Casey, Bravo, my friend, please enjoy the comments I posted seconds ago.

I couldn't agree with you more. It is indeed blaphemous how these "wolves in sheeps clothing", will sit there and pontificate and prognosticate God's divine purpose. They have their noses so stuck in the pages of the Old Testament, that they can't even hear the message of Christ.

PS. We are all sinners!!!

Its quite clear from the Gospels that Jesus modified portions of the "Old Testament Law" which Jesus found offensive.

Jesus' opposition to the death penalty as a punishment for sins can be summed up as "he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

Jesus' opposition to violence against gays and lesbians can be summed up as "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword" and "love your neighbor as yourself."

Jesus' desire that human beings leave the judgement of human beings up to God can be summed up as "judge not lest ye be judged".

The Gospel Message is a "New Covenant", not a "Re-Hash Of The Old Covenant."

They are actually Paulists or Paulians. Whatever the tormented and troubled Paul says DOES trump Jesus. (And some of what Paul reputedly said is even debatable, since scholars are dubious.)

I've heard the justification for taking Paul above Jesus as "Jesus is speaking through Paul", which cannot be summarily dismissed as untrue.

I think they mis-read Paul pretty severely, too. Romans is probably the most complicated text in the NT, particularly when it comes to questions of sin and salvation. If you really come away from it with nothing more than concern about "giving reprobates legitamacy," you've missed something.

I do not accept that Paul ever intended to say that Homosexuals were not Loved by God. Everything that Paul says about Man sleeping with Man is in the context of lust and Paul includes lustful Straight sex in the same light.

It is not who you are having sex with but how you are having sex.

Accuse Paul of being a prude, I do not, but not a hater of persons.

The simple truth is that all people use the Bible to confirm what they believe already. That is not yielding to God.

God though the person of Jesus was pretty clear, Love trumps hate at all turns. There is no safe harbor for hatred of persons in God or In Jesus. God is Love and God, from where I stand, trumps everything.

I do not mean to intrude or ask the following with any disrespect, especially since I am Buddhist, but isn't there kind of a double standard when it comes to addressing the issue of homosexuality by fundamental Christians?

The reason I ask is because Lot is described as one of God's chosen, where not only two cases of incest are cited, but one of which was with a minor child, simply to comfort the man.

This is probably difficult for a Buddhist to understand, but other religions have no problem with double standards. They only have difficulty with others who interpret double standards different from themselves. On the one hand, it is great to hear a question from a Buddhist. On the other hand, isn't there a risk that we will mess you up if you get too deeply involved in these conversations?

Jim, thank you for your concern, but I'm a former Anglican, so I doubt it will mess me up (LOL). You are very correct about other religions having double standards, including Buddhism, though my question was more dialectical in nature, how one focuses on the proscription against homosexuality and yet ignore the instance of incest.

Anything can be ignored. You have to balance it against the stress that might come from facing it.

This is well done, Candace. Thank you. Your insight into this area is prodigious to say nothing of unique. I wonder if you might consider writing a piece about the disparity in ethics regarding the biblical prohibition against homosexuality, i.e. the fact that no ethical consideration is given to such things as consent, coercion or the power imbalance that is inherent in adult child relations. Levitical and Pauline doctrine both tell us, "Everyone committed the same sin; everyone is guilty of the same thing; everyone gets the same punishment" so to speak. I'd like to see what you could do with this subject. It would be juicy, I'm sure.