Slog
News & ArtsSunday, August 23, 2009
Religion It's Sunday Morning...
Posted by Dan Savage on Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:22 AM
...do you know where your Lutheran pastor is?
Hi there, Slog folks.I know you aren't always up on religious news, so you might have missed this. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the country's largest Lutheran body, voted at their churchwide assembly this past week to allow congregations to formally recognize same sex unions. They also voted to allow gay clergy, who they have allowed to be ordained for years but required to be celibate, to have partners/spouses (I put the slash in because one of the biggest states for the ELCA is Iowa...). The impressive thing is that three of the four ministry recommendations, inlcuding the one to allow congregations to recognize same-sex unions, passed with a 2/3 majority even though the assembly voted earlier to only require a simple majority (50%+1). The one about allowing gay clergy to have partners/spouses was the only one that didn't have a 2/3 majority (it passed with 60%).
This is a real victory for those of us who have been working for equality from within. We will probably lose some members, and even some congregations over this, but the majority of people I know (including many in the deep south - Texas and Louisiana!) believe that this ultimately is the right thing to do, and is following Christ's mandate to love one another.
I know y'all aren't big on the God thing, and I respect that. I just thought you might want to know that not all church folk are ignorant, discriminatory, exclusionary assholes. You can read more about it here.
Amazing that the Lutherans would do this—particularly after God fired a warning-shot tornado at 'em.
2
The ELCA will doubtless be improved not only by the departure of those who disagree with this, but by the flow of refugees from other, less welcoming/inclusive denominations. Heck, they might even poach a few Unitarian Universalists (who have been gay-friendly for many years)--those UU's who've been hankering for a little more Jeebus with their Sunday cup o' joe.
3
Not to mention that it makes the Pissy-palians' endless agonizing over the issue look that much stupider.
4
Hi Dan, I hope - for consistency's sake - that you told the author of this:
"There is no God—you do realize that, right? No hell below us, above us only sky, etc."
Hugs!
"There is no God—you do realize that, right? No hell below us, above us only sky, etc."
Hugs!
7
Umm, if you believe in God, with a capital "G", then you also believe God is omnipotent. As in God doesn't miss. But of course only a very bad Christian would presume that God didn't know what He was doing.
8
Seattle has a fairly forward ELCA community. There is the Church of the Beloved http://belovedschurch.org/, which is related to a community in Fremont called The Church of the Apostles - ELCA, Episcopalian, and Emerging Church - its worth checking out if you want to see a progressive ELCA church. http://www.apostleschurch.org/home.php
9
To continue on some of the point above:
Especially when you consider that tornadoes are the precision destructive weapons in the weather arsenal. If a tornado was sent as "a hit" then only the selected targets would be struck.
Unless they are implying that the omnipotent being is ashamed of its action and created collateral damage as a cover - which really makes that being "look like an ass".
Funny, having lived in Tornado Alley for most of my childhood (and in a highly fundamentalist part of the country at that), I thought that those storms were caused by hot air and cold air masses combining.
Now if you wanted to make the case that the "hot air" stirred up by the narrow-minded bigots may have caused the damage, then you might have something (and it would explain why the damage was widespread and unfocused - since those people harm not only the ones they set out to hurt but many others as well).
Especially when you consider that tornadoes are the precision destructive weapons in the weather arsenal. If a tornado was sent as "a hit" then only the selected targets would be struck.
Unless they are implying that the omnipotent being is ashamed of its action and created collateral damage as a cover - which really makes that being "look like an ass".
Funny, having lived in Tornado Alley for most of my childhood (and in a highly fundamentalist part of the country at that), I thought that those storms were caused by hot air and cold air masses combining.
Now if you wanted to make the case that the "hot air" stirred up by the narrow-minded bigots may have caused the damage, then you might have something (and it would explain why the damage was widespread and unfocused - since those people harm not only the ones they set out to hurt but many others as well).
10
Heady stuff! I am an atheist, but I respect people who come by their religion honestly and without hypocrisy. Thanks, anonymous Slog tipper- that's really quite heartening!
11
"I know y'all aren't big on the God thing..."
No problem.
Especially as this story doesn't touch on "the God thing" in the slightest.
A bunch of people got together and had a vote about what they would believe.
Perhaps some find comfort in worshiping what you made yourself.
Golden Calf.
Progressive Homo Friendly Theology.
Made by men.
No problem.
Especially as this story doesn't touch on "the God thing" in the slightest.
A bunch of people got together and had a vote about what they would believe.
Perhaps some find comfort in worshiping what you made yourself.
Golden Calf.
Progressive Homo Friendly Theology.
Made by men.
12
The Lutheran church I walk by on the way to school always had a big rainbow flag displayed. Now it's even nicer to know that they're queer-friendly nation-wide. Good stuff.
14
This is very fashionable.
And trendy!
Popular trends have always been a sure rock and and steady foundation upon which to base a religious value system.
And trendy!
Popular trends have always been a sure rock and and steady foundation upon which to base a religious value system.
15
I just thought you might want to know that not all church folk are ignorant, discriminatory, exclusionary assholes.
Good for you. But your churches tacitly permit discrimination, exclusion, and assholery to be done in your god's and churches' names. Few of you speak out against it. And it persists.
Good for you. But your churches tacitly permit discrimination, exclusion, and assholery to be done in your god's and churches' names. Few of you speak out against it. And it persists.
16
2
That cuts both ways.
Churches that reaffirmed their positions on marriage and homosexuality during the Prop 8 debate found the half-assed slackers among their 'believers' quickly heading for the exits.
That cuts both ways.
Churches that reaffirmed their positions on marriage and homosexuality during the Prop 8 debate found the half-assed slackers among their 'believers' quickly heading for the exits.
17
So the Bible these folks base their faith on hasn't changed for 500 years-
were they totally screwed up before or are they totally screwing up now?
were they totally screwed up before or are they totally screwing up now?
20
@17
What are you talking about?!
Homosexual Marriage and Gay Clergy are right there in the Bible- right after the line in the US Constitution guaranteeing Abortion.
What are you talking about?!
Homosexual Marriage and Gay Clergy are right there in the Bible- right after the line in the US Constitution guaranteeing Abortion.
21
18
It was in 1845 when the Southern Baptist held a vote like this to form their own denomination to maintain Slavery.
It was in 1845 when the Southern Baptist held a vote like this to form their own denomination to maintain Slavery.
24
Like you say, people can pick and choose what parts of religion they want. This one just decided to pick and choose for the entire denomination.
With a vote.
Go Lutherans!
With a vote.
Go Lutherans!
26
@23, Oh, that whole Mark of Cain thing again? I guess Africa's still got some hardcore sin to work out. Shouldn't have killed your brother 8,015 years ago and then lied about it to God!
And, okay, let's run with your numbers. 53% of all new AIDS cases are gay men and women. Okay. So that means 47% aren't. That's not particularly precise. That's almost a coin flip. What are those 47% getting punished for? Generally sinful western life? Participating in a society that fails to condemn homosexuality enough? Let's go to the Bible!
The pertinent section of the Pentateuch that forbids homosexuality is Leviticus 18, which includes a whole laundry list of forbidden sexual relationships that are all to be punished in the same way. Specifically, the KJV says:
(I've used the KJV here because it's the most fire-and-brimstone. The same passage in the NIV reads: Everyone who does any of these detestable things – such persons must be cut off from their people. –Lev 18:29, NIV, which makes it rather more obviously about social exile.)
But what's on that list of sexual misdeeds?
1. Don't sleep with your close relatives.
2. Don't sleep with your mother.
3. Don't sleep with your stepmother.
4. Don't sleep with your sister, regardless of where she was born.
5. Don't sleep with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter.
6. Don't sleep with your half-sister, she totally counts as your sister.
7. Don't sleep with your paternal aunt.
8. Don't sleep with your maternal aunt.
9. Don't sleep with your paternal uncle, nor his wife (this one is really more about not sleeping with his wife and how in-law relationships are as forbidden as blood relations).
10. Don't sleep with your daughter-in-law.
11. Don't sleep with your brother's wife.
12. Don't sleep with both a woman and her daughter, nor any of her female grandchildren.
13. Don't marry your wife's sister and sleep with her while your wife is still living. Wait until she's dead.
14. Don't sleep with a woman who is ritually unclean -- most often, this means menstruating.
15. Don't sleep with your neighbor's wife.
16. Don't make any of your kids pass through the fires of Molech, that isn't Jewish.
17. Don't sleep with men the way you sleep with women.
18. Don't sleep with animals.
(I'm assuming, by the way, #23, that we're accepting that every reading of the Bible necessarily involves a certain amount of interpretation. I'm assuming you aren't a strict literalist, otherwise I'd point out that what is forbidden in 15 out of 18 of these is "uncovering the nakedness" of the forbidden individual. So, helping your wife take her clothes off when she's menstruating? As forbidden as hot man-on-man buttsex. But I'm assuming you're willing to flex on that issue and agree that a strictly literal interpretation of an English bible is completely impossible, not even getting into how ridiculous it is to insist on a literal interpretation of a translation.)
So we've noticed that this entire section is completely about male sexuality. There's nothing in here about women not sleeping with their fathers, women not sleeping with women the way they sleep with men, etc. This whole section is completely about dudes and their boners. Now, remember that breaking any of these rules results in the exact same punishment. Sleeping with your wife -- or with any woman! -- while she's on the rag? Cut off from the community! Sleeping with your neighbor's wife? Cut off from the community! Sleeping with a mom and daughter? Cut off from the community! Bang a dog? Cut off from the community! Bang a dude? Cut off from the community!
I'd also point out at this point that Lev. 12 extends the period of uncleanness to 40 days following the birth of a son and 80 days following the birth of a daughter. So if you have a daughter and you sleep with your wife any time in the three months following the birth, Leviticus regards you as absolutely as filthy and depraved as the queerest queer that ever queered his way through Queertown.
Also pregnant women have to sacrifice a year-old lamb and a pigeon or a dove following the birth of their child, or, if she can't afford a lamb, then two doves or two pigeons will do. These are all weighted exactly as heavily as the strictures forbidding homosexual activity -- and note that the verse forbids activity, not attraction, for all the feeble good that'll do -- and should be as heavily enforced.
Did your mother sacrifice anything when you were born? Mine sure didn't. Are you married? Do you have any children? Did you or your wife sacrifice a dove and a lamb for your children? Did you have sex anytime in the month following the birth (if it was a son), or the three months following (if it was a daughter)? Have you two had sex during the seven days of your period or your wife's period? Have you or your husband touched anything the wife lies or sits on? All equally forbidden, all equally as unclean as homosexuality.
More...
And, okay, let's run with your numbers. 53% of all new AIDS cases are gay men and women. Okay. So that means 47% aren't. That's not particularly precise. That's almost a coin flip. What are those 47% getting punished for? Generally sinful western life? Participating in a society that fails to condemn homosexuality enough? Let's go to the Bible!
The pertinent section of the Pentateuch that forbids homosexuality is Leviticus 18, which includes a whole laundry list of forbidden sexual relationships that are all to be punished in the same way. Specifically, the KJV says:
Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I case out before you: and the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomit out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (for all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) that the land spew not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.–Lev 18:24-30, KJV
(I've used the KJV here because it's the most fire-and-brimstone. The same passage in the NIV reads: Everyone who does any of these detestable things – such persons must be cut off from their people. –Lev 18:29, NIV, which makes it rather more obviously about social exile.)
But what's on that list of sexual misdeeds?
1. Don't sleep with your close relatives.
2. Don't sleep with your mother.
3. Don't sleep with your stepmother.
4. Don't sleep with your sister, regardless of where she was born.
5. Don't sleep with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter.
6. Don't sleep with your half-sister, she totally counts as your sister.
7. Don't sleep with your paternal aunt.
8. Don't sleep with your maternal aunt.
9. Don't sleep with your paternal uncle, nor his wife (this one is really more about not sleeping with his wife and how in-law relationships are as forbidden as blood relations).
10. Don't sleep with your daughter-in-law.
11. Don't sleep with your brother's wife.
12. Don't sleep with both a woman and her daughter, nor any of her female grandchildren.
13. Don't marry your wife's sister and sleep with her while your wife is still living. Wait until she's dead.
14. Don't sleep with a woman who is ritually unclean -- most often, this means menstruating.
15. Don't sleep with your neighbor's wife.
16. Don't make any of your kids pass through the fires of Molech, that isn't Jewish.
17. Don't sleep with men the way you sleep with women.
18. Don't sleep with animals.
(I'm assuming, by the way, #23, that we're accepting that every reading of the Bible necessarily involves a certain amount of interpretation. I'm assuming you aren't a strict literalist, otherwise I'd point out that what is forbidden in 15 out of 18 of these is "uncovering the nakedness" of the forbidden individual. So, helping your wife take her clothes off when she's menstruating? As forbidden as hot man-on-man buttsex. But I'm assuming you're willing to flex on that issue and agree that a strictly literal interpretation of an English bible is completely impossible, not even getting into how ridiculous it is to insist on a literal interpretation of a translation.)
So we've noticed that this entire section is completely about male sexuality. There's nothing in here about women not sleeping with their fathers, women not sleeping with women the way they sleep with men, etc. This whole section is completely about dudes and their boners. Now, remember that breaking any of these rules results in the exact same punishment. Sleeping with your wife -- or with any woman! -- while she's on the rag? Cut off from the community! Sleeping with your neighbor's wife? Cut off from the community! Sleeping with a mom and daughter? Cut off from the community! Bang a dog? Cut off from the community! Bang a dude? Cut off from the community!
I'd also point out at this point that Lev. 12 extends the period of uncleanness to 40 days following the birth of a son and 80 days following the birth of a daughter. So if you have a daughter and you sleep with your wife any time in the three months following the birth, Leviticus regards you as absolutely as filthy and depraved as the queerest queer that ever queered his way through Queertown.
Also pregnant women have to sacrifice a year-old lamb and a pigeon or a dove following the birth of their child, or, if she can't afford a lamb, then two doves or two pigeons will do. These are all weighted exactly as heavily as the strictures forbidding homosexual activity -- and note that the verse forbids activity, not attraction, for all the feeble good that'll do -- and should be as heavily enforced.
Did your mother sacrifice anything when you were born? Mine sure didn't. Are you married? Do you have any children? Did you or your wife sacrifice a dove and a lamb for your children? Did you have sex anytime in the month following the birth (if it was a son), or the three months following (if it was a daughter)? Have you two had sex during the seven days of your period or your wife's period? Have you or your husband touched anything the wife lies or sits on? All equally forbidden, all equally as unclean as homosexuality.
28
Why do I get the feeling that all the people concerned that gay marriage being legal with infringe on religious freedom won't be so concerned with the religious freedom of the Lutheran church?
29
#28, I give up, why do you get that feeling? I'm pro-gay rights (across the board), straight (if that makes a difference to anyone), and very much an atheist. But I do love that first amendment of ours, and I'd be upset if anyone's rights to believe anything they want were infringed upon. I get the feeling most pro-gay rights people would feel the same. I'm not saying I wouldn't love to see more atheists and less "believers', but I sure don't think it's the government's place to make that happen.
30
All of you people condemning the Lutherans for seeking a consensus on doctrine had better be Catholic, because otherwise, you're really making asses of yourselves.
32
The majority of Lutherans are of Scandinavian descent; they are merely following the lead of Norway and Sweden on same-sex marriage. Same-sex civil partnership laws also exist in Denmark--the first country to have this law--Finland, and Iceland.
The Scandinavian countries all have some of the world's lowest HIV/AIDS rates, incidentally. Norway isn't even in a recession and probably won't go into one. Highest standard of living in the world.
So, given that evidence, O "Christians," isn't it obvious that God wants us to be like Norway? God wants us to have universal health care, free preschool and college, generous asylum laws, universal retirement pensions, multiyear parental leave, high taxes on the rich, a diverse economy open to business innovation and technological progress, same-sex marriage, full legal and social equality of the sexes, no stigma on nudity or sexuality, and government-subsidized literature, television, and arts.
God has given you all the signs you need to know what God favors, and Norway is it. Get on board.
The Scandinavian countries all have some of the world's lowest HIV/AIDS rates, incidentally. Norway isn't even in a recession and probably won't go into one. Highest standard of living in the world.
So, given that evidence, O "Christians," isn't it obvious that God wants us to be like Norway? God wants us to have universal health care, free preschool and college, generous asylum laws, universal retirement pensions, multiyear parental leave, high taxes on the rich, a diverse economy open to business innovation and technological progress, same-sex marriage, full legal and social equality of the sexes, no stigma on nudity or sexuality, and government-subsidized literature, television, and arts.
God has given you all the signs you need to know what God favors, and Norway is it. Get on board.
33
Hooray for all of the organizations and governments (including the state of Iowa!?!) that make my home state of California look like a bunch of ignorant hicks!
Resistance to freedom is futile!
Go Lutherans!
Go Lutherans!
I do hope that straight pastors are also required to be either celibate or married though...
Resistance to freedom is futile!
Go Lutherans!
Go Lutherans!
I do hope that straight pastors are also required to be either celibate or married though...
35
The miracle of the storm last week wasn't that it sent a message that sex-having gays and lesbians shouldn't be preachers -- it's that no one was hurt. No one. I live in Minneapolis, I was downtown when the tornado struck, and let me tell you it is amazing that there weren't fatalities. So maybe the message God was sending was this -- you can storm all you want, but what you're about to do isn't going to hurt ANYONE.
37
@32 Norway is the new Mecca. *grabs a compass and attempts to figure out which way to pray*
@35 Considering the tornado was just, like, a tornado and anyone searching for deeper signs are just going to interpret it whichever way they want, we'll go with yours.
@35 Considering the tornado was just, like, a tornado and anyone searching for deeper signs are just going to interpret it whichever way they want, we'll go with yours.
38
@36, Oh, pardon me, I assumed that #23 (fnord!) was the same person as, oh, 16, 17, 19 and 20. Who did mention the Bible.
But if I have erred, then I have erred, and I apologize. What religion was he, she, xie or it espousing? Islam? Zorastrianism? Ba'hai?
But if I have erred, then I have erred, and I apologize. What religion was he, she, xie or it espousing? Islam? Zorastrianism? Ba'hai?
39
I just thought you might want to know that not all church folk are ignorant, discriminatory, exclusionary assholes. Some are clueless, arrogant, smug, self-congratulatory assholes.
40
@26 Great post. Also worth noting: for those who do follow the Leviticus strictures on ritual impurity in terms of menstruation (i.e. Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jews), not only are the seven days of the period off-limits, but so are the seven days afterward. Then the woman has to enter a mikvah, a ritual bath, to be cleansed and become ritually pure again. That means that HALF of every month is a no-sex zone. Not only that, it's a no-touching zone. No form of physical intimacy whatsoever, no kissing, no backrubs, no nothing.
And yes, not following niddah (the Leviticus laws of ritual impurity with regards to menstruation) is equally as much an abomination as gay buttsex. But funny how you don't hear an outcry about it.
FYI, fun fact, men who do follow niddah won't touch any woman ever besides their wife. Because they can never be sure whether or not she is menstruating. Isn't that charmingly misogynist?
And yes, not following niddah (the Leviticus laws of ritual impurity with regards to menstruation) is equally as much an abomination as gay buttsex. But funny how you don't hear an outcry about it.
FYI, fun fact, men who do follow niddah won't touch any woman ever besides their wife. Because they can never be sure whether or not she is menstruating. Isn't that charmingly misogynist?
41
". I just thought you might want to know that not all church folk are ignorant, discriminatory, exclusionary assholes."
I don't think anyone minds hearing about this, apart from the aforementioned ignorant, discriminatory, exclusionary assholes.
I don't think anyone minds hearing about this, apart from the aforementioned ignorant, discriminatory, exclusionary assholes.
44
Ok, but really guys, no intelligent (see what I did there) christian pays attention to 90% of the laws spelled out in Leviticus. It's old law, completely irrelevant once Jesus died and freed us from having to pay attention to old law.
45
@42, man, you have totally got me. Congratulations! Your deconstruction of "dialogue" and "communication" has completely exposed my underlying assumptions regarding religion, literacy and the foundations of faith, especially as it manifests itself here in the US. Good work!
Now, of course you can point out, and rightly so, that none of any of these posts mention the United States anywhere. Nor Earth. So there's no justification for imagining that anything I've responded to was constructed by a human being (which would be another assumption not based on the available record) -- in fact, all we know about this entity is that he, she, it or xie has posted here. Any and all other assumptions -- that this thing speaks English, that it reads Slog, that it has a point to make or that it is singular, plural, male, female or even alive -- are completely subjective and not based on the evidence at hand! So, yes, I'm sorry. My assumptions were tremendously overreaching and I'll do my best to avoid them in future.
(And I don't know who you are, but you are completely my hero now. Want to get together and make out sometime?)
@44: What are the 10% that you're supposed to follow? The ones supported by later apostolic or Paulian texts?
Now, of course you can point out, and rightly so, that none of any of these posts mention the United States anywhere. Nor Earth. So there's no justification for imagining that anything I've responded to was constructed by a human being (which would be another assumption not based on the available record) -- in fact, all we know about this entity is that he, she, it or xie has posted here. Any and all other assumptions -- that this thing speaks English, that it reads Slog, that it has a point to make or that it is singular, plural, male, female or even alive -- are completely subjective and not based on the evidence at hand! So, yes, I'm sorry. My assumptions were tremendously overreaching and I'll do my best to avoid them in future.
(And I don't know who you are, but you are completely my hero now. Want to get together and make out sometime?)
@44: What are the 10% that you're supposed to follow? The ones supported by later apostolic or Paulian texts?
47
45
now, now...
don't get all snarky-
the point is that Slog assumes that any person, place or thing that disagrees with the Liberal Homo Orthodoxy must be a drooling knuckle-dragging Bible thumper.
A great deal of Slog is wasted setting up then knocking down that straw man and congratulating ourselves on our clever intellectual superiority.
It gets boring.
now, now...
don't get all snarky-
the point is that Slog assumes that any person, place or thing that disagrees with the Liberal Homo Orthodoxy must be a drooling knuckle-dragging Bible thumper.
A great deal of Slog is wasted setting up then knocking down that straw man and congratulating ourselves on our clever intellectual superiority.
It gets boring.
48
@47, I agree completely, but when you cite the "Weapon of Divine Retribution" or that "churches that reaffirmed their positions on marriage and homosexuality during the Prop 8 debate found the half-assed slackers among their 'believers' quickly heading for the exits." and then claim that, whoopsie, none of that actually mentions the Bible, so a Bible-based counter-argument is attacking the person and not the argument, you're quibbling in the most specious way possible. If Christian churches and the belief in a Weapon of Divine Retribution aren't based on an understanding of the Bible -- no matter how much I might disagree with that particular understanding -- what are they based on? An inner revelation from Adonai? There's no arguing with that sort of a thesis. The only appropriate counter-response to an appeal to a personal revelation is either to (a) completely dismiss the revelation as insanity or (b) ignore it completely.
And if you're not falling back on revealed wisdom -- if you're not citing back to the Bible to justify a religious hatred for [the act if not the orientation of] homosexuality -- what are you basing your opposition to homosexuality on? Personal preference? Societal norms? Sheer ick factor? A gut feeling? These aren't foundations for any kind of debate, these are exactly the sort of strawman tactics that you're complaining about.
Bible-thumpers, if they are really thumping an actual Bible, aren't knuckle draggers. They're literate, canny and thoughtful. You can argue interpretation and translation with an honest Bible-thumper, and I for one would relish the chance to get into a pure Rabbinical debate over homosexuality in the Bible. It's when you drop off the Bible -- when you claim that Divine Retribution (and a 47% error rate as "precise") operates independently of any rigorous source except "it happened" -- you have fallen off of religion and into the most debased form of scientific superstition imaginable.
The offer to make out with the brilliant postmodern troll who started all of this still stands. If that's you, you give me a time and a place and I'll show up with my bushy beard and a can of Binaca and we'll do this thing.
More...
And if you're not falling back on revealed wisdom -- if you're not citing back to the Bible to justify a religious hatred for [the act if not the orientation of] homosexuality -- what are you basing your opposition to homosexuality on? Personal preference? Societal norms? Sheer ick factor? A gut feeling? These aren't foundations for any kind of debate, these are exactly the sort of strawman tactics that you're complaining about.
Bible-thumpers, if they are really thumping an actual Bible, aren't knuckle draggers. They're literate, canny and thoughtful. You can argue interpretation and translation with an honest Bible-thumper, and I for one would relish the chance to get into a pure Rabbinical debate over homosexuality in the Bible. It's when you drop off the Bible -- when you claim that Divine Retribution (and a 47% error rate as "precise") operates independently of any rigorous source except "it happened" -- you have fallen off of religion and into the most debased form of scientific superstition imaginable.
The offer to make out with the brilliant postmodern troll who started all of this still stands. If that's you, you give me a time and a place and I'll show up with my bushy beard and a can of Binaca and we'll do this thing.
49
I was there and saw the tornado. It struck at the beginning of the debate. When the social statement on sexuality was adopted, the sun came out. But Lutherans view the weather as just weather. Some minor corrections. The underlying social statement was adopted by 2/3 (as required). The recognition of gay relationships was adopted 60%-40%. The vote rescinding the celibacy requirement for gay clergy was adopted 55%-45%.
Eric from NYC
Eric from NYC
50
Typical straight guy in favor of Andrew Cole.
Shit, I'll make out with you just to get closer to your brain.
Shit, I'll make out with you just to get closer to your brain.
51
@4
Silly, of course he didn't say such a thing *this* time. Why? Because the Lutherans now *agree with* Dan on some stuff. See, the way that it works is, if you agree with Dan, you get respect and when you don't, you get none and you're treated like an asshole.
Silly, of course he didn't say such a thing *this* time. Why? Because the Lutherans now *agree with* Dan on some stuff. See, the way that it works is, if you agree with Dan, you get respect and when you don't, you get none and you're treated like an asshole.
53
Awesome. Amazing. Wonderful. Contributing to the separation of church and state. AMAZING! Us Roman Catholics are next, I swear it!
55
Yes, yes, Mr./Ms. Non-registered. It's totally wrong to reconsider the rules of religious organizations. Better to base those rules on a book written by MEN and then lost/found/damaged/destroyed over the years and then translated numerous times by MEN and then whittled down to what certain MEN thought was appropriate. Yeah, how dare these HUMANS decide what the practices of their organization will be! The bible is totally "god's" word. And religions all followed that bible back in the day! Damn those meddling people!
56
Just wondering, Andrew Cole, if you have ever found an honest Bible-thumper with whom to engage in exegetical arguments. Literalists seem to shut off the conversation when confronted with factual contradictions among the canonical gospels. Even my non-literalist systematic theologian of an uncle refuses to entertain the notion of sexual diversity as a life-enhancing aspect of creation, clinging to ancient biology the way the Vatican clung to geocentric cosmology. And when Lutherans or other Christians try to interpret scriptural specifics in the light of the Biblical story as a whole, they are accused of consorting with Satan.
58
@56, not as often as I'd like. It's *hard* to have a conversation about this stuff -- everyone expects things to descend to either chants of "USA! USA!" or the sort of dismissive "you must be a moron to even have these ideas leaving aside the centuries of brilliant and closely-reasoned theology that went into considering these questions" and when you've got that kind of expectation on either side it's hard to get people to argue with what you're actually saying and not what they think you're saying.
I find beer helps. Like, I've had some really really great drunken Biblical debates, but that was mostly after we'd gotten past dealing with each other as caricatures. This is the sort of thing that seems like a perfect fit for Slog Happy. Loser pays for the winner's bar tab, points deducted if the argument can't be cited back to the Bible. Game on! I'd pay to see that.
I find beer helps. Like, I've had some really really great drunken Biblical debates, but that was mostly after we'd gotten past dealing with each other as caricatures. This is the sort of thing that seems like a perfect fit for Slog Happy. Loser pays for the winner's bar tab, points deducted if the argument can't be cited back to the Bible. Game on! I'd pay to see that.
59
I have a friend who was at the ELCA churchwide assembly who told me the reason she believed the more conservative group weren't crying God's tornado throwing was that it was the place they were meeting to that actually was damaged. Maybe it changed some of their votes?! Or maybe like me, they thought it was a coincidence. It made me laugh right out loud though, I have to admit!
61
As a regular attendee at the Church of Liberal Homo Orthodoxy, I found this to be refreshing news. Whether resisting or inciting social change, churches have always been institutions enmeshed in larger cultural patterns. It's nice to see another example of heterosexism's long, slow decline.
62
Hooray for those lovely, loving, Lutherans! I now officially declare today "Hug a Lutheran Day". I'm going to go and hug a Lutheran now...
63
Why is everyone continually surprised when Midwesterners affirm their commitments to human rights? People were shocked, *shocked*, SHOCKED when Iowa legalized gay marriage and now people seem to be equally shocked that ELCA Lutherans (a largely Midwestern denomination, as noted several times above) have changed the church's rules regarding gay clergy and have affirmed same-sex partnerships.
I'm biased because I'm a Midwestern ELCA-ite, but these decisions have not really shocked me that much. I'm not speaking for everyone in the ELCA, but generally we tend to be very concerned with community (after all, the body of Christ trope is a favorite), and so finding ways to include the various people that make up that community and to make room for people who are different from us is something we try to do as much as possible. Also, Lutherans are very grace-heavy and aren't obsessed so much with sin and perfection and those issues that the pietists get their panties in a bunch about, and so we're much less likely to go around pointing at people and calling them sinful just to make ourselves feel better. (NB: I am NOT suggesting that being gay is a sin, I'm suggesting that people who are big on homosexuality being a sin are that way in part because they need people to point their fingers at.) Furthermore, the ELCA firmly supports historical criticism of the Bible, which means that we don't believe it's literally true and that everything in the Bible needs to be understood *in context*, which means that we read Leviticus not as specific rules for us to live by today (hooray for mixed fabrics!) but as describing a set of laws and taboos that guided an ancient people (duh).
Just a few more thoughts from someone on the inside, as it were.
I'm biased because I'm a Midwestern ELCA-ite, but these decisions have not really shocked me that much. I'm not speaking for everyone in the ELCA, but generally we tend to be very concerned with community (after all, the body of Christ trope is a favorite), and so finding ways to include the various people that make up that community and to make room for people who are different from us is something we try to do as much as possible. Also, Lutherans are very grace-heavy and aren't obsessed so much with sin and perfection and those issues that the pietists get their panties in a bunch about, and so we're much less likely to go around pointing at people and calling them sinful just to make ourselves feel better. (NB: I am NOT suggesting that being gay is a sin, I'm suggesting that people who are big on homosexuality being a sin are that way in part because they need people to point their fingers at.) Furthermore, the ELCA firmly supports historical criticism of the Bible, which means that we don't believe it's literally true and that everything in the Bible needs to be understood *in context*, which means that we read Leviticus not as specific rules for us to live by today (hooray for mixed fabrics!) but as describing a set of laws and taboos that guided an ancient people (duh).
Just a few more thoughts from someone on the inside, as it were.
64
As if churches throughout history haven't changed their rules to stay with the times. You noticed women aren't required to remain silent anymore? You see them wearing gold, and braiding their hair, against Biblical teachings. It's no longer thought correct that slaves should be subservient to their masters, and just accept their bondage. It wasn't until 1978 that the Mormon church let people of color become ordained. Until then, it was taught that people had black skin because they were cursed. All religion is man-made and subject to human prejudices. It's the 21st century, it's way past time to leave behind the superstitions and mythology.
66
I simply love seeing someone like Andrew Cole intellectually bitch-slap a homo-hating Slog Troll.
Cheers to you, Andrew!
Cheers to you, Andrew!
67
Every denomination has the right to govern itself as they see fit, no matter how much they deviate from the Bible. And even tho the Lutheran church has decided to partially trade true Bible teachings to add to its pulpit those who have embraced contemporary culture with this action, even they have not gone to the extreme of recognizing gay marriages, keeping from allowing for liturgical rites for gay unions and have reserved the use of the word marriage for its true purpose, the unions between men and women. As has been done in countries with a state Lutheran church like Denmark or in the land of its founder (Germany), where they have stopped short of registered partnerships for gay pairings, they have embraced those who are struggling while keeping from diluting the true intent and meaning of marriage. In such context they're to be commended cause they'll be able through the marriages (one man and one woman) they perform and through the reading of the scriptures to provide to those who are struggling a clear example of the joy and happiness that's brought about when one follows God's true purpose for the family.
68
67. Loveschild, sweetheart, our favorite crazy high school drop-out, you don't follow the Bible. You just take cherry picked scripture selections and use them to attack others.
69
It's hard not to wonder if Loveschild goes through a ritual cleansing bath every month or if she deviates from true Biblical teachings as well.
70
66
Frau-
We're crushed :(
The Trolls do not hate the homos,
we love the Gentle People!
Really!!
However, the Trolls think religions that claim to believe in God and the Bible then suddenly discover that homosexuality is peachy-keen are embarrassingly ridiculous frauds.
The Trolls find Divine Retribution a quaint notion but have to respect vicious little nasties like the AIDS virus that emphatically define irresponsible behavior much more effectively than 4000 year old moral codes.
The Trolls see no place for anyone's religious beliefs or interpretations of the Bible to play a role in public policy but find no reason to change public policy to sanction and subsidize behavior that is biologically deviant and sociologically unwise and counterproductive.
Homo-hating?!
gasp!
The Trolls have nothing but Love in their hearts...
Frau-
We're crushed :(
The Trolls do not hate the homos,
we love the Gentle People!
Really!!
However, the Trolls think religions that claim to believe in God and the Bible then suddenly discover that homosexuality is peachy-keen are embarrassingly ridiculous frauds.
The Trolls find Divine Retribution a quaint notion but have to respect vicious little nasties like the AIDS virus that emphatically define irresponsible behavior much more effectively than 4000 year old moral codes.
The Trolls see no place for anyone's religious beliefs or interpretations of the Bible to play a role in public policy but find no reason to change public policy to sanction and subsidize behavior that is biologically deviant and sociologically unwise and counterproductive.
Homo-hating?!
gasp!
The Trolls have nothing but Love in their hearts...
71
Hate to even respond to a troll, but I really think you need to google "homosexual behavior in animals" before you make a claim of biological deviance.
72
However, the Trolls think religions that claim to believe in God and the Bible then suddenly discover that eating shell fish is peachy-keen are embarrassingly ridiculous frauds.
The Trolls find Divine Retribution a quaint notion but have to respect vicious little nasties like the anaphylactic shock that emphatically define irresponsible behavior much more effectively than 4000 year old moral codes.
The Trolls see no place for anyone's religious beliefs or interpretations of the Bible to play a role in public policy but find no reason to change public policy to sanction and subsidize behavior that is biologically deviant and sociologically unwise and counterproductive.
The Trolls find Divine Retribution a quaint notion but have to respect vicious little nasties like the anaphylactic shock that emphatically define irresponsible behavior much more effectively than 4000 year old moral codes.
The Trolls see no place for anyone's religious beliefs or interpretations of the Bible to play a role in public policy but find no reason to change public policy to sanction and subsidize behavior that is biologically deviant and sociologically unwise and counterproductive.
74
71
Hey Sport,
how's about you goggle pictures of
'anal warts on the end of your pecker'
and then we'll talk.
Hey Sport,
how's about you goggle pictures of
'anal warts on the end of your pecker'
and then we'll talk.
75
74
I'm sorry-
it was inconsiderate to bring up 'talking';
those genital warts on the tounge can make that painful...
I'm sorry-
it was inconsiderate to bring up 'talking';
those genital warts on the tounge can make that painful...
76
I would urge everyone to listen to the words of the ELCA Presiding Bishop, Mark Hanson, who in a heartfelt "Pastoral Letter" the the church spoke of his hopes of how not just Lutherans but all Christians can move forward in Unity even with our disagreements. You can see the video here
http://funnyoddthing.blogspot.com/2009/0…
http://funnyoddthing.blogspot.com/2009/0…
78
"Why is everyone continually surprised when Midwesterners affirm their commitments to human rights? People were shocked, *shocked*, SHOCKED when Iowa legalized gay marriage and now people seem to be equally shocked that ELCA Lutherans (a largely Midwestern denomination, as noted several times above) have changed the church's rules regarding gay clergy and have affirmed same-sex partnerships."
Because conservatives and the media that love them create and perpetuate the myth that only the elitist coasts approve of "deviant lifestyles".
Because conservatives and the media that love them create and perpetuate the myth that only the elitist coasts approve of "deviant lifestyles".
79
Look, troll, you keep making the same stupid assertion in thread after thread. Infectious-disease agents do not plan, plot, or click their heels and do God's will. They simply continue and proliferate if conditions favor it. The increased transmission rate of respiratory infections during winter is not God's judgment on our choice to live in colder climes or our tendency to gather indoors in close proximity. HIV transmission is favored when infected people and their partners do not take appropriate precautions, whether they're male or female, gay or straight. Their frequent failure to take such precautions is due to many things: intoxicants, self-delusion, yes, but mainly to the absence of comprehensive sex education, thanks to people like you. If they do take such precautions, their infection rate is vanishingly low. Uninfected exclusive couples, gay or straight, can indulge in all the cocksucking and buttfucking they want without disease transmission. Where is God's judgment there? And the observation still holds: if you postulate the incidence of STD's in a given population as God's judgment and look at the broad groups of straight males, straight females, gay males, and gay females, you must inevitably conclude that lesbians are God's real chosen people.
So stop it. It's tiresome and lacks any semblance of logic.
So stop it. It's tiresome and lacks any semblance of logic.
80
Thanks for posting this, Dan. My parents were founding members (over 50 years ago!) of the Lutheran church they still attend in Tennessee. Dad called me to tell me about this and sounded quite proud that the ELCA did the right thing. He said that it will be up to individual churches whether or not to accept homosexual clergy in committed relationships, and he is not sure what their church will do. At least things are headed in the right direction.
81
79
bob?
Who are you talking to?
No one said anything about God.
Some behaviors are inherently unhealthy. Latex slightly mitigates the damage but does not alter the fact.
You got one part right:
"Uninfected exclusive couples...can indulge...all...they want without disease transmission."
Another name for it is abstinence until marriage and monogamy after marriage.
It isn't religion (unless Moses was an epidemiologist...), it is cold hard unblinking science.
Dan doesn't believe in it.
Sad.
And ignorant.
Or willfully malicious.
Homosexual men are 1% of the population but 53% of new AIDS cases.
Why do you think that is?
I don't blame God.
You can blame me if it makes you feel better but I don't think science will support your hysterical conclusion.
Are you tired yet?
bob?
Who are you talking to?
No one said anything about God.
Some behaviors are inherently unhealthy. Latex slightly mitigates the damage but does not alter the fact.
You got one part right:
"Uninfected exclusive couples...can indulge...all...they want without disease transmission."
Another name for it is abstinence until marriage and monogamy after marriage.
It isn't religion (unless Moses was an epidemiologist...), it is cold hard unblinking science.
Dan doesn't believe in it.
Sad.
And ignorant.
Or willfully malicious.
Homosexual men are 1% of the population but 53% of new AIDS cases.
Why do you think that is?
I don't blame God.
You can blame me if it makes you feel better but I don't think science will support your hysterical conclusion.
Are you tired yet?
82
Boy, 81, if you want to throw around terms like "cold hard unblinking science", you might want to learn to back up your “facts” with some documentation that proves it. “Homosexual men are 1% of the population”. You sure about that? You have some reference material to prove it?
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-per…)
“Some behaviors are inherently unhealthy.” So, what is your proof to back up the implied statement that homosexual sex is unhealthy? Is it the doctoral studies that show that when gay men hit 40 (or 500 partners, whichever comes first, your mileage may vary), they suddenly become incontinent, unable to control bowel function, and drool spontaneously? Oh, wait, they don’t exist because it doesn’t happen. And how about the disproportionate rates of STD’s in African-Americans versus whites?
(http://www.cdc.gov/std/health-disparitie…)
According to what you seem to be saying; having sex while black is an ‘inherently unhealthy behavior’.
Yeah, I know the truth sucks sometimes, but it’s pretty obvious from your posts that you don’t believe in it.
Sad.
And ignorant.
AND willfully malicious.
You ARE tired…
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-per…)
“Some behaviors are inherently unhealthy.” So, what is your proof to back up the implied statement that homosexual sex is unhealthy? Is it the doctoral studies that show that when gay men hit 40 (or 500 partners, whichever comes first, your mileage may vary), they suddenly become incontinent, unable to control bowel function, and drool spontaneously? Oh, wait, they don’t exist because it doesn’t happen. And how about the disproportionate rates of STD’s in African-Americans versus whites?
(http://www.cdc.gov/std/health-disparitie…)
According to what you seem to be saying; having sex while black is an ‘inherently unhealthy behavior’.
Yeah, I know the truth sucks sometimes, but it’s pretty obvious from your posts that you don’t believe in it.
Sad.
And ignorant.
AND willfully malicious.
You ARE tired…
83
67, you should note that Sweden has now adopted full marriage equality and my husband and I were married by a Lutheran pastor in California last August. The standard is one of an unconditional lifelong monogamous commitment, which translates in civil terms to the strongest relationship permitted by law. That means marriage in Iowa, civil union in New Jersey, and domestic partnership in New York. So rather than holding back, many Lutheran pastors have already been urging committed couples to express their commitment in marriage where it is possible to do so.
84
@5 (and I can't believe no one has said this), what the fuck is an "ethnic" Lutheran? Can I be the only person recognizing that that makes no sense?
85
If i may venture a guess that means he was born into a family of Lutherans, and thus considered Lutheran by the virtue of birth. Then grew up and gave that church a finger.
I liked the idea of a Hug a Lutheran day :) All lutherans i know are over 60 years old though..hmm wonder where can i find a cute one and bit younger ?
I liked the idea of a Hug a Lutheran day :) All lutherans i know are over 60 years old though..hmm wonder where can i find a cute one and bit younger ?
86
@85 - Good luck. I'm one of a handful of "young" adults in my congregation, and I'm close to 40.
There were a few young, cute youth ministers at the youth gathering in New Orleans this summer, though - all of whom should have completed, annually updated criminal background checks and should be following "safe haven" guidelines.
The youth gathering is a bit more good news from the ELCA Lutherans, by the way. Over 36,000 teeagers and their adult chaperones (all of whom had background checks - I feel the need to emphasize that at the home of "Youth Pastor Watch") did over 250,000 hours of community service over the course of three days in south Louisiana. It was a fantastic experience.
By the way, in case you are wondering, most dialog from folks on both sides of the ordination issue has been mostly civil. That respecting the bound conscience of the other is working pretty well so far. I anticipate more animosity down the line, though.
There were a few young, cute youth ministers at the youth gathering in New Orleans this summer, though - all of whom should have completed, annually updated criminal background checks and should be following "safe haven" guidelines.
The youth gathering is a bit more good news from the ELCA Lutherans, by the way. Over 36,000 teeagers and their adult chaperones (all of whom had background checks - I feel the need to emphasize that at the home of "Youth Pastor Watch") did over 250,000 hours of community service over the course of three days in south Louisiana. It was a fantastic experience.
By the way, in case you are wondering, most dialog from folks on both sides of the ordination issue has been mostly civil. That respecting the bound conscience of the other is working pretty well so far. I anticipate more animosity down the line, though.
87
Sheryl,
Well, accept my virtual hug and congratulations.
You might actually see the spiked interest in your denomination from young people because Lutheran church send such an amazingly strong message of true Christian love and acceptance of all brethren.
Care to briefly elaborate why do you expect more strife? Do you think that the conservative or what's the right word,part of Lutheran church would attempt to separate?
Well, accept my virtual hug and congratulations.
You might actually see the spiked interest in your denomination from young people because Lutheran church send such an amazingly strong message of true Christian love and acceptance of all brethren.
Care to briefly elaborate why do you expect more strife? Do you think that the conservative or what's the right word,part of Lutheran church would attempt to separate?
88
Alinka,
I don't think there will be a true schism, however, there are already congregations that have threatened to hold benevolance (contributions) to their synods and the ELCA as a body. That benevolance funds things like hunger and homelessness outreach, assistance to third-world countries, educational programs, and a variety of other social justice activities, in addition to things like seminary scholarships and churchy things. Because the ELCA is not a hierarchical church (like the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches, for instance), there is nothing they as a church body can do if a congregation withholds benevolance.
Lutheran CORE, a theologically and socially conservative movement within the ELCA is meeting in September to decide what further action to take. They claim to have the support of over 400 congregations, but their website lists only about 50. Even combined with Word Alone, another conservative movement in the ELCA, there are only about 75 congregations listed.
In individual congregations, some people will leave. I have a friend who is the pastor of a mission church in suburban Atlanta, and his largest donor has left already. Losing those funds puts the whole mission in jeopardy.
But you know, I think the vast majority of people are committed to finding a way to work within the new guidelines and stay united. Before all this started (well, the most recent round of voting, anyway - this conversation has been going on for more than seven years), in my own congregation, we had one of our oldest members stand up during a meeting with our bishop when we began the process to call a new pastor and say that we should be open to calling anyone who is a good, spiritual person and a good fit for our congregation, regardless of their marital status, sexual orientation, or anything else. He told the story of the congregation deciding not to call a particular pastor in the 70s because he was divorced. He believed that it was a huge mistake, and one we can't afford to repeat. And when you looked around the room, which was good cross-sectional representation of our whole congregation (in the deep, deep south), you saw nodding heads and general assent from just about everyone.
The road won't be easy, but we will muddle through and be stronger for it in the end.
More...
I don't think there will be a true schism, however, there are already congregations that have threatened to hold benevolance (contributions) to their synods and the ELCA as a body. That benevolance funds things like hunger and homelessness outreach, assistance to third-world countries, educational programs, and a variety of other social justice activities, in addition to things like seminary scholarships and churchy things. Because the ELCA is not a hierarchical church (like the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches, for instance), there is nothing they as a church body can do if a congregation withholds benevolance.
Lutheran CORE, a theologically and socially conservative movement within the ELCA is meeting in September to decide what further action to take. They claim to have the support of over 400 congregations, but their website lists only about 50. Even combined with Word Alone, another conservative movement in the ELCA, there are only about 75 congregations listed.
In individual congregations, some people will leave. I have a friend who is the pastor of a mission church in suburban Atlanta, and his largest donor has left already. Losing those funds puts the whole mission in jeopardy.
But you know, I think the vast majority of people are committed to finding a way to work within the new guidelines and stay united. Before all this started (well, the most recent round of voting, anyway - this conversation has been going on for more than seven years), in my own congregation, we had one of our oldest members stand up during a meeting with our bishop when we began the process to call a new pastor and say that we should be open to calling anyone who is a good, spiritual person and a good fit for our congregation, regardless of their marital status, sexual orientation, or anything else. He told the story of the congregation deciding not to call a particular pastor in the 70s because he was divorced. He believed that it was a huge mistake, and one we can't afford to repeat. And when you looked around the room, which was good cross-sectional representation of our whole congregation (in the deep, deep south), you saw nodding heads and general assent from just about everyone.
The road won't be easy, but we will muddle through and be stronger for it in the end.
90
""The road won't be easy, but we will muddle through and be stronger for it in the end.""
Amen. May God be with you always and He will surely provide.
thanks for the explanation.
Amen. May God be with you always and He will surely provide.
thanks for the explanation.
91
84 - I think it's somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but if you're raised Lutheran, especially in a place like Minnesota, you recognize that it's a culture and not just a religion. You can leave the religion behind, but you'll still be a Lutheran. I'm a practicing shamanic Pagan, but I'm still a Lutheran. This is the phenomenon that Garrison Keilor's whole act is based on.
92
Any douchebag who thinks that AIDS is divine retribution has obviously either 1) never been to Africa, heard about Africa, or Read about Africa or 2) has serious mental defects w.r.t. the value of African human life. HIV has infected over 30% of people in some areas. Lev 12:3-7: "And God sent SIV to hound the apes, such that when Africans with limited protein food resources turned to bushmeat, they might acquire HIV from them, and that when urbanization fueled the explosion of HIV infection rates, this be timed to coincide with a time of rampant male male sex in America, such that the be smitten by His wrath." Actually, though, I wouldn't put it past Him. He's always blowing up cities and drowning worlds and asking for blood sacrifice, so why not kill a few million Africans to assist a few Jesse Helms reelections...
93
I have a good friend who I've been praying for because she's addicted to meth and currently missing. I don't agree with her life style of doing drugs but I don't hate her either. In fact, I love her as well as her family who is very worried about her. She has insisted that it's her life and she's do with it as she wants.
You see, a person can believe something is wrong or that someone is acting in a way that is not what you'd wish for them, but not hate them, in fact, love them and be concerned for them. All I've read here, whether by atheists or those who claim to believe, is hate. The exact thing you are saying that Christians are doing, you are doing yourself, right here. I don't name call anyone and yes, I am a Christian. I guess what I don't understand is how you can lump us all together, say that we're the haters, and then call us names and speak of us as if it's YOU who hate US?! Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? There very well may be those that call themselves Christian who name call and would do harm to others but that's not how God told us to be, and I'm not talking about the Old Testament because Christ fulfilled that on the cross.
Where change really needs to happen isn't whether Christians are for or against being gay or that gays are for or against being Christian, but that people should begin to 'show' God's love to each other by treating each other in a decent and moral way, not with name calling and making jokes out of hate and hate out of jokes. Neither is uplifting to anyone regardless of our freedoms or lack there of. As far as the weather goes, 'tornadoes', it rains and shines on everyone, no matter who, believer, unbeliever, those who rob banks, those who murder, those who take food to the needy, everyone. Yes I believe God created weather, but I also believe He allows weather to do as it's going to do and in turn, we either grow in strength and faith because of our trials, even if weather related, or we shrink back and do not believe. It's a part of life and all parts of life a a dividing sword, they cut between those who belong to God and those who chose to go the opposite direction. We could argue the Bible and who wrote it and on and on all day long and it's not going to get anyone, anywhere. People either believe or they don't, it's that simple. Believers are to love everyone if they are truly following what Christ taught. That doesn't mean condone and that doesn't mean give in to anything the Bible considers sin, but at the same time, even believers are sinners. They only way they are considered righteous is because they believe in Jesus and His blood on the cross now causes them to appear clean to God, hence, Christ has made us clean, we have no room to boast because we did nothing to make that happen. We are only to love everyone and tell everyone about that freedom in Christ, that, we are commanded to do in the N.T. by Jesus Himself. Not to be 'Bible thumpers, but because we know there is gold hidden in everyone's yard but few are believing it and seeking to dig to find it. Now, that is loving others instead of keeping it to ourselves that we know what fortune awaits people who do seek. We are not understood even when we love others. Instead, those that 'call' themselves Christians but do harm to others are the ones we are all thought of as being. Harm is NOT what God intended His to do to others so please, those of you who lump us all together, realize that we are not all the same, do not think all the same, do not believe all the same. And please, if you want to appear as the 'good guys' who are finally getting their way against those bad Bible people, don't name call because as an old saying goes, 'Why lower yourselves to be just like them'? You don't accomplish anything except to reverse the rolls of who's doing the hating.
More...
You see, a person can believe something is wrong or that someone is acting in a way that is not what you'd wish for them, but not hate them, in fact, love them and be concerned for them. All I've read here, whether by atheists or those who claim to believe, is hate. The exact thing you are saying that Christians are doing, you are doing yourself, right here. I don't name call anyone and yes, I am a Christian. I guess what I don't understand is how you can lump us all together, say that we're the haters, and then call us names and speak of us as if it's YOU who hate US?! Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? There very well may be those that call themselves Christian who name call and would do harm to others but that's not how God told us to be, and I'm not talking about the Old Testament because Christ fulfilled that on the cross.
Where change really needs to happen isn't whether Christians are for or against being gay or that gays are for or against being Christian, but that people should begin to 'show' God's love to each other by treating each other in a decent and moral way, not with name calling and making jokes out of hate and hate out of jokes. Neither is uplifting to anyone regardless of our freedoms or lack there of. As far as the weather goes, 'tornadoes', it rains and shines on everyone, no matter who, believer, unbeliever, those who rob banks, those who murder, those who take food to the needy, everyone. Yes I believe God created weather, but I also believe He allows weather to do as it's going to do and in turn, we either grow in strength and faith because of our trials, even if weather related, or we shrink back and do not believe. It's a part of life and all parts of life a a dividing sword, they cut between those who belong to God and those who chose to go the opposite direction. We could argue the Bible and who wrote it and on and on all day long and it's not going to get anyone, anywhere. People either believe or they don't, it's that simple. Believers are to love everyone if they are truly following what Christ taught. That doesn't mean condone and that doesn't mean give in to anything the Bible considers sin, but at the same time, even believers are sinners. They only way they are considered righteous is because they believe in Jesus and His blood on the cross now causes them to appear clean to God, hence, Christ has made us clean, we have no room to boast because we did nothing to make that happen. We are only to love everyone and tell everyone about that freedom in Christ, that, we are commanded to do in the N.T. by Jesus Himself. Not to be 'Bible thumpers, but because we know there is gold hidden in everyone's yard but few are believing it and seeking to dig to find it. Now, that is loving others instead of keeping it to ourselves that we know what fortune awaits people who do seek. We are not understood even when we love others. Instead, those that 'call' themselves Christians but do harm to others are the ones we are all thought of as being. Harm is NOT what God intended His to do to others so please, those of you who lump us all together, realize that we are not all the same, do not think all the same, do not believe all the same. And please, if you want to appear as the 'good guys' who are finally getting their way against those bad Bible people, don't name call because as an old saying goes, 'Why lower yourselves to be just like them'? You don't accomplish anything except to reverse the rolls of who's doing the hating.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (93) RSS