News

At the women’s march, the religious left resists Trump

People gather for the Women's March on Washington near the National Mall on Jan. 21, 2017. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Shannon Stapleton

WASHINGTON (RNS) Their signs spoke of support for abortion rights, immigrants, Black Lives Matter and science — and of their disgust with newly inaugurated President Donald Trump.

Politics drew hundreds of thousands to the Women’s March on Washington Saturday (Jan. 21). But many said they were also compelled by their faith.

Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist, they rejected the notion that the conservative religious people successfully courted by Trump — out in force on the National Mall for his inauguration Friday —  represent the only voice of religious America.

Kathy Fitzsimmons of Greenville, S.C., at the National Women's March on the National Mall on Jan. 21, 2017. RNS photo by Lauren Markoe

Kathy Fitzsimmons of Greenville, S.C., at the National Women’s March on the National Mall on Jan. 21, 2017. RNS photo by Lauren Markoe

Marcher Kathy Fitzsimmons, a congregant at the progressive First Baptist Church in Greenville, S.C., chided herself for not being more active in civic matters when Barack Obama was president. Like many others at the march, she pledged to be more engaged in the future.

“I feel like I’ve put my feet up on the couch and went ‘my guy’s in the White House, I can take a vacay,’ and that’s not right.”

The sign she made for the march — “My Gay Son is a Gift from God” — needed to reference God, she said. “I wanted to be a voice for the faith community.”

Andy Miller said his Judaism brought him to Washington Saturday.

“We’re here because we have to be here, and everything in our religious texts tell us to stand up for justice, for human rights, for equality,” said Miller, past president of Chizuk Amuno Congregation, a Conservative synagogue in Baltimore.

Andy Miller of Baltimore who came to the at the Women's March on Washington on Jan. 21, 2017 with Amy Chapper, center, and Margie Simon. RNS photo by Lauren Markoe

Andy Miller of Baltimore who came to the at the Women’s March on Washington on Jan. 21, 2017 with Amy Chapper, center, and Margie Simon. RNS photo by Lauren Markoe

“Obviously this is a women’s march but it’s about a lot more than women’s rights only because it’s about communities of color, it’s about protection of populations that are at risk. It’s about protection of First Amendment rights. It’s about everything we hold dear.”

Miller’s views mesh with those of the religious left, a portion of the electorate that has long taken a back seat in politics to the religious right, which is now watching Trump fill the upper echelons of the federal government with members from its ranks.

But some of those who study religion and politics say more left-leaning people of faith, with a clear foe in the White House, may be motivated to better organize and deploy their members during the next four years, and may even hope to regain the clout of its civil rights era days.

“The church is involved,” said Kathryn Harris, of Washington, D.C., who attends services at Howard University’s Andrew Rankin Memorial Chapel and who came to the Mall after a pre-march gathering at a nearby Congregational church.

“Being a part of the political process has always been a part of the African-American tradition,” she said. “That was where Dr. Martin Luther King and so many others came from.”

Kathryn Harris of Washington, D.C. at the National Women's March on the National Mall on Jan. 21, 2017. RNS photo by Lauren Markoe

Kathryn Harris of Washington, D.C. at the National Women’s March on the National Mall on Jan. 21, 2017. Photo by Lauren Markoe

The immense turnout at the women’s march — which by some estimates rose beyond half a million people and eclipsed the crowd that showed up for Trump’s inauguration — may be one indication that the religious left is gaining strength.

Another possible sign: the recent spike in the number of congregations that have designated themselves sanctuaries for immigrants. Trump has threatened to deport millions.

The causes embraced on the Mall — on signs and in speeches — embodied more liberal points of view on issues ranging from LGBT rights to climate change. Abortion rights was part of the march’s platform, and organizers denied “partnership” status to a Texas group opposed to abortion.

Other marches on the same themes held Saturday, around the nation and around the world, attracted larger crowds than organizers had anticipated. Marchers took to the streets in, among other cities: New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Kansas City, Oakland, Paris, London, Berlin, Bangkok, Amsterdam, Cape Town, Tel Aviv, Mexico City and Sydney.

At some marches, small groups of  religious conservatives pushed back, chanting against homosexuality and equating support for abortion rights with support for murder.

At the Washington rally, a man wearing a bright red T-shirt that said “Homosexuals and homosexual supporters will go to hell,” prophesied doom through a megaphone.

Marchers chanted back: “Jesus doesn’t hate!”

Many carried a poster of a Muslim woman in an American flag hijab by the artist Shepard Fairey, who created the 2008 “Hope” poster of Barack Obama.

Humera, a Muslim-American woman from Washington, D.C. who preferred not to use her last name, said her faith brought her to the march.

“The idea that women’s rights are human rights are very much a part of Islam, so yes, we are here,” she said.

 

About the author

Lauren Markoe

Lauren Markoe has been a national reporter for RNS since 2011. Previously she covered government and politics as a daily reporter at the Charlotte Observer and The State (Columbia, S.C.)

524 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Hey! The religious left finally came out of the woodwork to make their presence known on a national scale.

    About time!

  • Clearly the religious divide even among those that identify as Christians is a problem of the 1st magnitude for the Church universal as it exists in this nation. I’m not going to criticize self-identified Christians who differ from me on certain substantive issues and the definition of justice, moral precepts within the community of faith, etc.. Believers in Jesus Christ have an obligation to purpose together to advance His teachings to the degree that we are able with God guiding. We will not always find common ground in every arena of life. On certain questions we will never agree, but if we truly trust in God, we know that He will make no errors in drawing the faithful to Him, and that will entail the changing of hearts and minds within the present community of faith.

  • Gays and women’s issues are what you guys are using to define Christianity these days?

    Yeesh! How petty and malicious.

    Think of it this way, without progressive Christianity, there is virtually nothing left of your faith worthy of respect.

  • Good to know that the entire center of Christianity is flinging theopoo at other Christians, and get the gays.
    It really bothers you that gays are so uppity, and don’t know their place, doesn’t it?

  • I thought I did feel a small disturbance in the force, but it turned out to be some poorly digested turnip.

  • John 8:47New International Version (NIV)

    47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

    1 John 2: 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,”

    1 John 1:6 – If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.

    1 John 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.

  • I love it when so-called Christians try to weaponize the Bible and hurl verses at people like throwing stars or magic charms that ward off people who don’t talk or think or act or look like them. I know it makes you feel better about yourself, which I suspect is the whole appeal of the false religion you’ve wrapped around Jesus like a straight-jacket. But really, all you are doing is showing how little you understand the book you pretend to follow by making an ass of yourself in public.

  • “The future belongs to the real Christians, not this church of harpies and homosexuals.”

    I suggest you repent of your lies and slander and idolatry before you burn in hell.

  • Before I was saved, the Word of God frightened me too, Eric – and at times yet, when I know I’m doing wrong. Is that true with you Eric?

  • Sandi, I truly think you mean well, but your interpretation of scripture is so wrong that I don’t even know where to begin. Maybe start with what Jesus himself said about homosexuality. (Cricket chirps)

  • Christ said everything written about homosexuality – beginning with they are not righteous – meaning, right with God.Why do you want homosexuals to go to Hell?

  • Do you know anything about the Bible, or are you just repeating propaganda from homosexual blogs? Because they are wrong. Christ is the Word of God.

  • You didn’t really ask a question. You attempted to insult me. However, to answer your rhetorical question, I do know something about the Bible 🙂

    Now – since you’re sure you know more than I do, please quote the New Testament, chapter and verse, where Jesus says anything about homosexuality, or gays.

  • I explained that to you already – Christ is the Word – OT and NT, Everything written about homosexuality – all negative, came through Christ. Does that help you?

  • No, it really doesn’t. You’re saying that everything anybody has ever said about homosexuality is really from Jesus? Because if so, I’m really confused as to how you’re so ignorant as to think that everything written about gays is negative.

  • I’m sorry, I don’t open links from people I don’t know. There are no homosexual relationships shown, except Sodom and Gomorrah, and Gibeah and they were not positive

  • You do not appear to even try to educate yourself on what other Christians believe. You are so quick to say gays, feminists, etc are going to hell. Leave that to the Lord. Not one of us has the authority to say anyone is going to hell. Not you. Not me. No one.
    Read books, research, learn what your ( yes, your!) non-fundamentalists brothers and sisters really believe. You might be surprised.

  • We Christians are badly divided, of course. Weak and divided. But the Bible isn’t divided, it isn’t fuzzy, absolutely it isn’t weak, and it can go places that I can’t (Heb. 4:12).

    Moreover, Jesus is the same yesterday, today, & forever, so He hasn’t lost one ounce of His invincible transformative power of 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and 10:13.

    This article is a tragedy on several levels, including the Christian level, but I’m not going to waste precious energy & time stressing on it. Instead I’m just going to continue pointing to Jesus and the Scriptures.

    Gonna continue to work to steal any members of *your* religion that I can, (and also of the “religious left” religion in general), and to encourage them to start worshipping & serving God in Christ, instead of worshipping & serving the Gay Goliath. Slaves gotta go free.

  • I have spent a fair amount of time thinking about what you said. It made me think of a couple of things. The first is how much of our own ego is invested in being right – the right beliefs/doctrine entangling us and keeping us from finding common ground. And it is particularly hard to let go of ego in a matter that is so personal and central or familiar. For many people I know, their religion is much like their ethnicity or their heritage – they believe what they believe because that is what they always believed.. The other thing is because of that invested ego, it can be easier to be respectful of other faiths but not accord that same respect to other Christians who believe differently from us/me.

  • Unfortunately, it’s been there all the time, just mainly ignored by the media, quietly doing it’s thing. For instance, how many people know about the Moral Mondays protests in North Carolina that have been on-going since 2013 outside of Charlotte/ NC residents?

    However, it appears that Trump will likely be good for progressive churches who have seen a large bump in attendance since the election. The last time the GOP was in power, an Evangelical left movement also emerged.

  • Jesus probably could have avoided crucifixion (with all of the ramifications such avoidance would have meant), if he’d been more willing to focus on “common ground” and compromising His beliefs/doctrines to some degree.

  • LOL, that’s a cop-out if I ever heard one.

    And Sodom and Gomorrah isn’t about homosexuality. It’s about lack of charity.

  • Excuses for lack of publicity are getting thin.

    I hate to say this, but in an era where a guy can run a presidential campaign using little more than a twitter feed and the vagaries of the 24 news cycle, getting national publicity is far easier now than ever.

    Outside of foreign/conflict coverage (where access is always limited by its nature), notions of a controlled media are going out the window. The sad truth is that progressive Christians are just now learning the basics of using the media. Lessons conservative Christians have a 30+ year head start with.

  • Right, you admitted in the past that Jesus was silent on the subject.

    So you rely on trying to shoehorn it into Paul, bring up nonsense references to Leviticus or claim statements that don’t actually address it fall under the nonsense of dishonestly generalized notions of sin.

    Yes we know you have nothing here.

  • So now you feel an immunity to the necessity of being honest, well meaning, or educated. God gave you a pass to be as terrible a person as possible.

  • Without those fellow Christians you attack, there is nothing worthwhile left of your faith. We can write off the entirety of Christianity as a bunch of willfully ignorant, hateful, self entitled loudmouths.

    People who spend more money enriching huckster preachers than actual charity improving the world.

  • Nobody is stopping you from saying foolish hateful things. You are just uncomfortable with the idea that you can be called out for it.

    People like to invoke religion to justify bigotry because they have the ridiculous notion that it elevates their ideas beyond criticism. Of course it doesn’t. It also diminishes any idea that your beliefs deserve respect. I find them worthless. You are entitled to them, just as I am.

  • I get my authority from what He taught in His Word. He is the authority, and I repeat what he has taught. I don’t need to believe the lies that others cling to; thank you

  • This post would indicate the writer believes himself to be a “real Christian.” That would certainly be possible if one were to define “Christian” as having nothing to do with the teachings of Christ, as his post indicates his belief system is.

  • Nobody was righteous since Noah. If what you said was true regarding hell, then everyone of good character would prefer to go there to anyplace else.

  • There were probably about the same percentage of homosexuals in Sodom as there are today in Minneapolis or less. What hatemongers confuses to be homosexuality were mere taunts of teenagers playing “The Dozens.” Considering the emotional investment they have in their hatred this is not unexpected.

  • read verse 50 along with that. Actually, readGenesis 18 and 19. You’ll see what you missed. (edited)

  • You possess no authoriteh whatsoever. You are a sad, angry, cruel, vindictive and meanspirited individual, who imagines deity is consumed with the same hatreds you are obsessed over.

  • Now if you could enlighten us on who these “leftards” are the emptiness of your assertions are apparent. The ridiculous term seems parroted from some ridiculous right-wing site, the kind where they say Obama is a Mooslem and Hillary and Huma Abedin are a couple. If you believe that any intellectually challenged individual ever so slightly to the left is obviously intellectually superior to you.

  • Yikes. This comment is troubling on so many fronts. I hope the church you are a part of doesn’t give you permission to talk this way. I’m a member of a very conservative denomination which opposes same sex marriage, but since 1973 they’ve acknowledged being gay is not a sin but an orientation people are born with, and that gay people have been more sinned against by the church than they’ve sinned against others. Whatever your beliefs about gay sex/marriage, hating on people for being gay should never be acceptable in the church. I think it’s incredibly troubling that most of the fear in Scripture is directed at us to look at ourselves and our own tendencies to hurt others to justify ourselves, and yet the church has acquired a reputation of ganging up on gay people, a small percentage of the population vulnerable to being “othered” and mistreated. Explain to me how making hate-filled jokes about good riddance to “harpies and homosexuals” is loving your neighbor, when your gay neighbor is at a much higher risk for suicide than your heterosexual neighbor because of just this kind of treatment.

  • ” I don’t need to believe the lies that others cling to . . .”

    If you don’t need to, then why do you do so?

    The Bible ranges from purely delusional thoughts to outright fraud/lies. I do think the purely delusional thoughts were from people making an honest effort to understand their world, but they had very little more than ignorance to work with. However, the fraud/lies came from the cleverest people who realized early-on that creating and exploiting the belief in a viciously vengeful god could be highly effective for gaining power, authority, and control over the gullible masses . . . along with often increasing their own wealth. And, behold, organized religion was born.

    It really is pathetic that you “cling to” the Bible as if it were a legitimate source of authority.

  • The problem with Leftists who call themselves Christians is that they don’t read or believe the Holy Bible. Don’t claim Christianity if you aren’t going to follow the Holy Bible. It is the Christian’s Owner’s Manual. Perhaps it isn’t read because they won’t find any support for some of their cherished notions, like abortion on demand.

  • Weak and divided? Please! More of the poor persecuted me stuff. You practically can’t get elected to office in this country without being a Christian. And you are always looking for ways to make sure you have dominion over the lives of others. And tax breaks, and money and property.

    So is the gay Goliath stuff. All of it designed to make you feel like you can only succeed with god on your side, because like trump likes his unedumacated, Jesus likes his perversecuted for his name sake. It makes you feel special and wonderful.

    You’re not.

    It’s taken 1900 years for gay people to get your collective fangs out of our lives and souls and bloodstreams, at least in the civilized world. I’m sure there are some weak souls who will listen to you, but you really require getting them young, before their own sense of self and self preservation has a chance to develop. Thank the god I don’t believe in, that Once the fangs have been removed, it’s very unlikely you will be able to sink them in again.

    It must be very difficult for you to see all of those gay Christians, their friends, Families, colleagues, neighbors, ministers, rabbis, churches, temples, and entire denominations rejecting the poison you sell. I rejoice in your weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth over your impotency, at least in this country.

    But don’t worry, you can still snag an occasional person full of fear or self hatred. It’s why I have a dead brother instead of a live one. And failing that, you can console yourself with the warming and loving idea that the Jesus you claim to love, who IS love, will send them to burn in hell forever if they meet with YOUR disapproval.

    So sad to see a black man, old enough to remember segregation and its justification as God’s word, turning the same venom onto other victims, and think that it makes you special.

  • REAL Christianity will NEVER be loved by the world, so not surprised you despise it. The Holy Bible says what it says. If you can’t handle the Truth, keep believing your alternate reality.

  • I’d wis I’d added THIS to what I wrote. I forgot about how much he hates and despises Christians that aren’t just like him.

  • Sandi doesn’t mean well. But she likes people to think that she does. And when you call her on it, she’ll lol you and insist that it’s just Jesus working thru her.

  • Yet you provide nothing to prove your point about understanding the Holy Bible. Otherwise, this is just merely opinion, backed by nothing. I suspect you don’t read it or understand it as well as you pretend.

  • You want to talk about what the Holy Bible says about homosexuality? I suspect you don’t or you just want to cherry pick a verse or two out of context and ignore all those which directly oppose homosexuality. Even the design of our bodies indicates who is supposed to be with who, but that is common sense and we are well short of that here in America.

  • “So is the gay Goliath stuff. All of it designed to make you feel like you can only succeed with god on your side…” Nope. We are on God’s side.

  • So Paul’s epistles in the New Testament are off limits? Wow, you have a very small Bible. The entire Holy Bible is by the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost of the Triune Godhead. If you don’t believe that, then there’s no point in going any further.

  • Reading the Bible does not bestow any exclusive right or authority to speak for Christ. I’ve read the Bible. I accept Christ as my savior. And I totally reject your version of the Gospel as false, artificial and sinful. I have the witness of the Spirit as the only authority I need to recognize that social liberals and social liberalism are just fine with Jesus. Your rants come from the other source. You do the Devil proud.

  • The problem for her is that some people are inherently spiritual. They do not need to rely on Sunday school cough syrup versions of spiritual truths to understand them. Bible thumpers are almost always people who are spiritually tone deaf and have to substitute hate and anger for spiritual awareness. Hypocrisy is essential to her message of hate.

  • Actually, the last paragraph is is the best, because it’s stuff like that which the gay activist gang and the libbies keep an eye on.

    They don’t care about whether Trump is going to fight Obergefell, indeed Trump has already said he won’t even try. What they really fear is NON-political, non-judicial.

    They fear 1 Cor. 6:9-11 taking place on a daily basis, one town at a time, they fear ones & tens & hundreds & eventually thousands of gays becoming ex-gay in Christ. They fear losing the teens, losing the collegians, even perhaps losing a few of their own activists.

    Christians, let’s give Gay Goliath something to meditate on in 2017.

  • For twenty years I’ve been reading articles just like this one breathlessly “reporting” on the “rise of the religious left.” Every one of these articles has had the same unabashedly championing, highly partisan tone (being written by a member of religious left) and every article has suggested that the religious left is about to become a major force in US politics. So far every one of these articles has been proven wrong, and this is not going to change. Yes, the religious left has always been, and will continue to be, one small factor in American politics. But the fact is that the religious left is getting smaller and more politically insignificant with each passing year, no matter how many times its advocates claim that “now things are different.”

  • Thanks for your kind words, and I sincerely mean that. But those words apply to you and your denomination as readily as you would apply them to the holy-holy-antigay-religious bigots who are so much more obvious.

    Explain to me how much your opposition to my marriage Is loving your neighbor…

    When your message is clearly, “you’re broken. You are defective, and unless you believe as we do, you are immoral and broken and inferior. You are not entitled to what we are entitled to. Your life, your love, your family, children, faith, freedom, citizenship, participation in society, and rights are all subservient to one fact– that we don’t approve. In fact, they are not as important as ours are.”

    Explain to me how opposing my marriage at the minimum, but essentially also calling my marriage a threat to holiness, morality, heterosexuality, family, and marriage is not “othering” me. But that is what opposition to my marriage means. It doesn’t affect you, it doesn’t affect your church, your faith, your marriage, or your family. But it does affect mine. Nevertheless, you remain “opposed.”

    I know you mean to be kind, and even consider yourself to be a good Christian. I know you think you are defending me from the bullying and targeting of others. But from the point of view of this gay man, at least, there is only a difference in degree. So you won’t hit me with a baseball bat. That makes me feel better, as only a billy club could

    When you recognize my full humanity, and stop opposing my participation in society as fully myself, authentically, and as I am made, then perhaps we can have a conversation.

  • The dismal attendance at the inauguration can well be attributed to the fierce minority of social conservatives who have become Trump fans because he is finally giving them what Barry Goldwater warned real conservatives would happen to the GOP nearly half a century ago, social conservatives taking over the GOP like some sort of Zombie Apocalypse.

    The difference between fictional zombies and real social conservatives is that everyone likes the zombies better, right down putting them in insurance commercials. Can you imagine anyone buying car insurance from an old baby boomer Jesus freak?

    This article does a great job of helping people understand the underlying values that may make the social awakening that took place all across the nation on Saturday may have the spiritual moxy or gravitas necessary to develop into a sort of liberal response to the Tea Party that formed in reaction to and opposition of Obama Progressive Liberalism. Thankfully, Obama is on hand to lend his support to the new brand of liberalism he helped create while in office. And this article gives real hope that the struggle will not only continue but grow, take shape and organize to resist.

  • Actually, according to Pew, all forms of Christianity are on the decline, your version included. Unaffiliated believers are on the rise, along with non-western and non-traditional religious values. I fully accept Christ but totally reject homophobic, racially divisive forms of organized religion. I don’t have to congregate with hypocrites to be saved. I can belong to a church of one and be just fine. And the numbers of people who feel as I do are the real rise in religion and religious values, not your hate groups. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

  • Ben, I did not say Christians were weak and divided because of persecution.

    Our current sorry state in America is NOT because of external attacks. It’s our own internal fault, no joke. We hop into bed into Gay Goliath and other entities, and think we’ll come out unscathed. But we don’t.

    However, even weak & divided, Christians still reach people. Not because of ourselves, I’m too weak to do anything or persuade anybody. But Jesus is all-Powerful (not merely all Loving), and He still answers prayer & makes his Scripture promises come alive in people.

    Even your own story is not yet fully told, Ben, nor is hope all lost. For your brother is in the hands of God, and God knows you too, you’re not forgotten.
    But meanwhile, I steal people from Goliath. It’s what I do.

  • Fake Bible literalists, like “Sandi” claim that their belief in the 3-in-1 Jesus makes every homophobic comment in the Old and New Testaments all attributable to Jesus. For her, Jesus said it, especially when he didn’t. The circular “logic” of it all never gets unbroken.

  • I understand your opinion and its historical basis. I think, however, you are in error when you ignore the changing demographics of the nation. Specifically, most minorities, in a nation soon to be a minority majority, are of the religious left. Their politics largely align with the much more secular views of Millennials, who already outnumber the base of the religious right, the aging and dying Baby Boomers.

  • I’m just going by the polling data. The number of people who have both strong religious and strong progressive identification keeps shrinking, regardless of other demographic trends.

    In 2008 we were told that due to changing demographics Republicans would never hold significant power again. Yet there is a Republican president and Republican majorities in the House, Senate, governorships, and state legislatures. (Actually, Democrats are the weakest they have ever been in U.S. history, on an office-holding basis.) So far the demographics haven’t panned out.

    As far as religious voters go, black voters are largely “religious left” but not in all ways, and Trump made significant inroads with black voters in 2016. And their numbers are basically stable, not growing. Hispanics are growing but are roughly evenly divided three ways between what can be grouped as religious right, religious left, and effectively secularist. (Contrary to popular belief, Hispanics are one of the least religious demographics; a huge number maintain only a nominal religious affiliation for weddings, funerals, etc.)

  • Here’s the thing. Those people know and embrace the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. They also think those who use the Bible as an excuse for hatred, repression, denial of rights, and mistreatment of others to be as falsely labeled “Christians” as you think they are.

    They don’t care any more about your opinion of the validity of their faith than you care about their opinion of yours. I am heartened that those decent people are in the progressively growing majority in this nation. And that your kind is dwindling due to simple attrition.

  • “Not because of ourselves, I’m too weak to do anything or persuade anybody….But meanwhile, I steal people from Goliath. It’s what I do.”
    I’m sure you believe that that is what you do. But even you, especially you, haven’t a clue about what you do, as your conflicting remarks show.
    From the point of view of this big ol’ ‘mo, all you do is attempt to sink your fangs once again into what Shawnie called “the gullible, the weak, and the easily led.”

  • as I always like to say…
    God’s word is what some people use to justify what cannot be justified by any other means…
    including god’s word.

  • The women’s marches were a beautiful example of citizenship in action. They happened around the world, on every continent (Yes, Antarctica too.), on small islands, in massive crowds up to 750,000 in LA, down to a couple dozen in small rural communities, with people of every color and a wide variety of political positions (except far right zealots), women, children, men, intersexes, very old, very young. They were a beautiful picture of just how gorgeous and diverse humanity is.

    There were very few religiously explicit depictions in any of the photos I’ve seen. It appeared as though religion played a minor role and that people can be highly moral and ethical without religion as well as with.

    I have three links to the marches in the US and globally. I invite you to take a look:

    https://goo.gl/LMvBqV
    https://goo.gl/LuyhVg
    http://goo.gl/JU2i4S

  • Is Paul Jesus? Of course not. He never even met Jesus in life. To claim he was the equivalent of Jesus would be a rather heretical conflation for all sects of Christianity. Your version of Christianity seems to lack much substance from Christ.

    To be honest, Christianity would be far less prone to “Taliban”ish behavior without Paul’s late coming additions to the faith.

  • Whatever.

    You want to define your Christian belief by whom you hate, so be it. Just bear in mind doing so makes it impossible to take you guys seriously when it comes to issues of morals and values. Proof you have none beyond mere self-interest and malice.

    Your “truth” is of no use to a sane society. You have reduced the entire faith of Christianity to proof texting excuses to act badly to others. Its of no use for anyone. Go ahead. You only make it easier to dismiss the entire faith. Makes the job of anti-theists much easier.

  • “Paul spent 3 years learning from Jesus. So, Paul speaks for Jesus as he has made clear”

    Wow. You just made all that up out of whole cloth. Paul never met Jesus. There is no documentation in the Bible of that. His vision on the road to Damascus does not record a two-way conversation with Christ. We know from the epistles that Paul claims to have been taught the gospel by the “revelation of Jesus Christ,” but that’s the same claim Joseph Smith makes. Neither Paul nor Smith claim to have hung out with Jesus for the 3 years of his mortal ministry. That would be those pesky voices in your head telling you nonsense.

    The only contributor here who appears to be at war with the truth would be you. And sadly, it’s not so much that you hate the truth, you just blind yourself to it with your false understanding of the Bible.

  • You are free to write off Christianity if you want to. However, in YOUR specific case, that ain’t much of a threat, now is it?

    For the truth is that you have written off Christianity already, haven’t you? You hopped your stubborn self into bed with stinking Atheism, didn’t you? Knowing full well that God was watching you do it, yes?

    No, no disrespect, this is not even an attack on you, believe it or not. I’m just saying the plain truth, that’s all, with a slight chuckle.

    The fact is that, if you ever choose to hook-up with a personal faith relationship with Christ, it will be **in spite of me**, not because of me.

    I am a no-good, nasty-wassy example of Christianity. I love to throw Spit-Wads at the religious left, (whether they’re Christians or not), and you surely know how I feel about Gay Goliath and his slavery.

  • I guess if you play with the definitions of what “really” is the religious left, as you have, you can fix it to claim the trends support anything you want.

    What is indisputable is that 3 million more voters, most of whom identify as Christian, opposed this administration than voted for it, and it was only by gerrymandering, a weighted voting system that marginalized all of the demographics that are increasing, and a targeted vilification and propaganda campaign that the power grab was feasible. What happens when all of those duped realize they have been had? When you can no longer manipulate districts and suppress votes enough to give the outright apartheid you will need to maintain the privilege of your minority advantage?

    You also will never have the advantage of surprise you enjoyed this time. I doubt you can depend on complacency of those who oppose you next time around.

    It is indisputable is that white Baby Boomers, the core of the GOP and the religious right, are declining in numbers with no replacement in the upcoming generation. Further, what seems clear from the largest demonstrations in the history of the nation, those people whose votes were devalued feel robbed, angry and mobilized to fight back against efforts to curtail their rights.

    We will certainly see what the future holds, each of us hoping for a very different outcome. I hope for a stong backlash and permanent ouster of what I view as an illegitimate last power grab by a fading hateful and anachronisticly tribal minority.

  • Not making a threat here. Just giving you The Truth. Without Progressive Christians around to provide good PR for the faith and belief, Christianity is just made up of unpleasant people without socially redeeming features.

    “The fact is that, if you ever choose to hook-up with a personal faith
    relationship with Christ, it will be **in spite of me**, not because of
    me.”

    That would be true, if I were so inclined. If Christianity was entirely populated by people like yourself, it would hold absolutely no appeal to me, whatsoever. Eternal afterlife surrounded by insufferable, malicious, self righteous types is hardly a description of Heaven to me.

    I would be itching to switch to Buddhism or Hinduism just to get reborn/reincarnated out of there! 🙂

    “I am a no-good, nasty-wassy example of Christianity.”

    No arguments here. I am glad we can agree on something!

  • Conuly, Matthew 19:4,5, unless you suppose that homosexual activity isn’t part of “gay marriage”.

  • You’re prooftexting. That verse is about divorce, specifically, in response to “Can a man divorce his wife?”, and Jesus answered using an example that was familiar to those people. Jesus then goes on to talk about reasons people might not get married in the way that was known to people in that time and place.

  • Even the design of our bodies indicates who is supposed to be with who,
    but that is common sense and we are well short of that here in America.

    Same-sex relations have been documented in over a thousand species. What, do dogs have original sin nowadays?

  • The entire Holy Bible is by the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost of the Triune Godhead.

    Some of us know more about the history of the Bible than others, it seems. Which is good, because a document so self-contradictory would indicate a seriously troubled author, if it only had one author.

  • Gay Goliath? Sounds hot!

    But seriously, the evidence doesn’t back up your assertion. A great many places advanced LGBT rights and issues a lot faster than the US, and they’re doing just fine.

  • “Even the design of our bodies indicates who is supposed to be with who…”

    Yep. That’s why LGBT sexual relations are considered 100% natural by everyone who knows anything about human anatomy. It’s also why more heterosexual couples engage in anal sex than there are gay couples to do the same. Also, gay guys are fairly evenly split in personal preference over the three ways available to them to express physical love, further skewing the anal sex numbers in favor of heterosexual couples. But since all the necessary parts fit naturally, it’s sort of their business to decide, and not yours or any other hallelujah hypocrite’s.

  • 1 John 2: 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,”

    You have just described every hallelujah homophobe on the planet, which is why none of you haters are going to heaven.

  • “Real” Christianity is not for you to define for anyone else. Either you accept that every person has the right to find Jesus on his or her own terms (the Protestant viewpoint) or you believe in strict orthodoxy (pick Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Coptic Christians, and even the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and/or Seventh Day Adventists and their variations on modern “orthodoxy”). None of that includes you defining anything for anyone else. I think the mouse in your pocket just died.

  • The Epistle of Paul are supposed to be the writings (and opinions) of Paul. You have to extrapolate things to turn his words into quotes from Christ. That’s really pushing the whole non-biblical 3-in-1 Jesus thing.

  • “No, no disrespect, this is not even an attack on you, believe it or not. I’m just saying the plain truth, that’s all, with a slight chuckle.”

    That’s the inherent with judgmental hallelujah homophobes; they have no sense of just how judgmental they are, even when not trying to be. Chuckling at someone else’s foolishness requires you to pass judgment on them and then for you to decide it’s okay to make them the butt of your “joke.” That sort of unrighteous smugness unplugs your claim to being best buds with Jesus. But it makes you friends with the other guy.

  • Good reading. Thanks for the link. It’s very much worth noting how liberal Christian scholars see important differences in the Biblical record.

  • Conuly, Can you support your claims exegetically? That is, is there anything in the grammar of this passage, that supports your claim that Jesus’s pronouncement was limited to there & then? Fair warning: you’ll have to explain away Genesis 2:24, which Jesus echoed.

  • I genuinely curious about what political voting differences there are between the ‘religious left’ and the ‘secular left’. There really doesn’t appear to be ANY difference.

    On the right, religious conservatives are significantly different than secular conservatives (most libertarians) on many of the social issues.

  • 1. Paul and Jesus were not contemporaries.

    2. Even if they were, no, Paul is not authorized to speak for Jesus.

  • Sorry, but I’m not required or even supposed to pass judgment on anybody. But I do get to publicly agree with the Bible when other folks start running around publicly disagreeing with the Bible. I do get to “judge righteous judgment,” as it were (John 7:24).

    I’m surprised that you used the phrase “Chuckling at someone else’s foolishness”, because that IS part of the approach I use to de-fuse tense situations, and show good empathy to people who might expect me to get all grim, harsh & judgmental. (And don’t forget, YOU employed the word “foolishness” there, not I. Heh!)

    My post said “a SLIGHT chuckle”, and that’s what a lotta people want to see or hear in their situations. Done with empathy, it says that we ain’t enemies, nobody trying to jump on you and put you in perdition, no smugness but understanding, and respecting your special strengths & qualities as a unique person created in God’s own Image.

    But you’ll still roast like a ham hock in Hades, if you don’t repent of all your filthy rebellion and get yourself saved with Jesus, and I’m just crazy enough to say that stuff out loud. It’s what I do.

  • And I suggest you take some time to learn a bit about the sausage-making process we call “Writing and compiling the canonical Bible”.

  • Now the obvious reply from Sandi: I disagreed with her, so I must be a poor lost soul afraid her big, bad Bible and her big, bad god. Not that is matters to her, but…no, I’m not afraid of her idol. Or even the Bible. I’m just afraid, and by turns amused, by how so-called Christians like her use the Bible to hurt others every chance they get.

  • You can suspect all day and all night, if you wish. I, however, suspect that nothing I could say or show would convince you I know the Bible at all, despite the fact I have read it more closely and know it better than you and everyone in your church. Combined.

    All that is beside the point of my comment, of course. Yet it is *your* point: to ignore or downplay the substance of what I said by harping on something you imagined I said. But do get back to me when you can engage the content of what was actually written.

  • Good point. I am aware of a few explicitly “religious left” organizations, and all of their positions are identical to those of the dominant secular left; they merely put a religious gloss on them.
    I can think of one exception: the modest number of progressive religious voters and organizations, mostly Catholic, who also oppose abortion, or state that they do. But for almost all of those people their progressive views swamp their abortion opposition, so even they can be treated the same as the secular left for voting purposes.

  • “Sorry, but I’m not required or even supposed to pass judgment on anybody. But I do get to publicly agree with the Bible when other folks start running around publicly disagreeing with the Bible. I do get to “judge righteous judgment,” as it were (John 7:24).

    Except that according to your bible, “There is none righteous. no, not one!” But of course, that wouldn’t deter you.

    “” Done with empathy, it says that we ain’t enemies, nobody trying to jump on you and put you in perdition, no smugness but understanding, and respecting your special strengths & qualities as a unique person created in God’s own Image

    .”
    You? empathy? We ain’t enemies, when you are willing to tell any lie, no matter how vicious, to pursue your vendetta against gay people?
    Apparently, there is you, and then there is your vision and version of you.

  • Neither one of us should rely on our own visions of either ourselves or each other. Let’s instead compare ourselves to what the Bible says, and go from there.

    There’s nothing in Romans 3 (that’s where you cherry-picked that one phrase) that repeals or even reduces the command given in John 7:24.
    “Christians are often accused of “judging” or intolerance when they speak out against sin. But opposing sin is not wrong.” — Gotquestions.org

    Monica Ruth Brands, (poster), wrote that in her church, “hating on people for being gay should never be acceptable in the church”, but also wrote that her church “opposes same-sex marriage.” No hate, no hubris, no holier-n-thou, just honest caring & biblical truth.

    Her post was a near-perfect example of Judging Righteous Judgment. (Neither science nor scripture supports the claim that gays are “born that way”, but otherwise it’s a true JRJ post, she did good.)

    And what did YOU reply, Ben? You threw her caring, non-judgmental words back in her face, and falsely accused her of attacking you with a metaphorical “billy club”, merely for opposing gay marriage. God loves you, but you flat wrong.

  • I endeavor to be respectful to all, but being human, I sometimes succumb to the temptation of scorn. When called on it, I typically re-assess what I posted, and am not averse to offering a retraction or apology on a case by case basis. Sometimes it’s just best to pass over a negative response from others, rarely can anyone get traction with the back and forth of verbal hand grenades. Still, as one who strives to use and find authoritative sources for my position, I am exasperated by those who are less diligent and are hampered by a bias without realizing it whatever its basis might be. Your point is well made regarding the sharper responses that arise between those who declare themselves Christians but disagree on the issues. I think sometimes it is less about ego and more about the fear of heretical ideas creeping in to the church.

  • Hurt me? Not at all. I’m talking about LGBTQ folk. And women. And…just think of about any group of people so-called Christians have slandered. On top of using the Bible to justify and sanctify your lies and hate of those people, many so-called Christians also use the Bible to justify their support for laws and policies that harm these others, or to oppose laws and policies that help them.

    Or did you cheer the Obergefell decision by exclaiming “do onto others”?

  • The only one performing exegesis is you. The plain reading and context of the passage addresses marriage as it was known at the time. You are reading into it something though omission. Claiming absence is the same as an explicit attack on something. Very poor scholarship for any kind of text. Very dishonest take on Scripture. Using religious text to justify bigotry is a very poor invocation of belief. Fairly immoral use of a religious text. What better way to act badly than to claim self righteousness

  • Of course I didn’t cheer Obergefel, Eric. I don’t want to see people go to Hell with their country’s endorsement. All you are doing is hurting homosexuals and endorsing them to their death. Some love!

  • No, let’s not use the Bible as our standard. I have better taste.

    Opposing sin is one thing, I suppose. But you don’t oppose sin, you oppose people. And lie about them. And accuse them constantly of perfidy.

    As always with you and your ilk, whenever the Bible says something inconvenient, you assume it must say something else entirely. Whatever allows you to be person you are. Because that’s how you read the Bible. And everyone reads the Bible according to the kind of person they are. The Bible doesn’t make you a bigot, it justifies what is already there. Same as with segregation in your youth.

    There was no hate either in segregation, just contempt, and a lot of “you’re not as good as me.”

    Ms. Brands is quite capable of defending herself. Has she? YOU don’t see hate. she doesn’t see hate. But neither of you are on the receiving end, are you? It may not be hate, but not all bigotry is hate, as I have said to you before. So much bigotry is the refusal to see other people as people, rather than as walking inferiority, walking sin, walking contemptibility. And lying about what the science actually does say.

    And that is all YOU.

    Whether it is she, is for her to explain. But if she said that her church opposes black equality, you’d be all over in her righteous indignation that anyone could diminish your humanity: JUST LIKE I AM WITH YOU.

    We can disagree with each other about the nature of sin all you wish, just like you disagree with the actual science of sexual orientation. (There is NO heterosexual gene, BTw). But it’s what you do with it that matters.

  • I fully concur! I’ll add that this group gets more religiously insignificant with the passing years because most smart woman keep their spirituality and their politics separate. This group gets enlarged considerably by the advocacy of the liberal media.

  • I agree that there’s little difference between the “religious left” and the “secular left.” That’s because the “religious left” in truth is a secular religion which sees spiritual matters as purely political. To these people abortion is one of their principal sacraments! The other is Socialist-Marxist government and the redistribution of incomes.

  • Since when does the religious left embrace the teachings of Jesus? You must be speaking of that one obscure passage that speaks of selling one’s worldly goods and giving everything to the poor because it hints of a Socialistic system of government. I can find NONE of Jesus’ teachings that form the basis of their hatred of conservatives and the repression of their influence in American politics.

    I certainly take issue with your statement that they are “in the progressively growing majority in this nation.” Liberal “mainstream” churches have been in decline now for more than a decade!

  • The photo collection tends to confirm what I was saying last week: pro-life marchers were not prohibited from marching as individuals, as opposed to their groups’ being granted “partnership” status. Note the photo of the man from the Catholic intentional community holding a large cross. Think he’s pro-life?

  • Random, unrelated cliches that have nothing at all to do with the conversation? Listen, if that’s the best you can do, you might want to get some help.

  • One of favorite signs from the women’s march: “Damn right I’m a snowflake, winter is coming!”

  • So you are quoting Paul to prove Paul is factually correct. That is what we call “circular logic”.

  • Still waiting for God to turn Canadian beer into goat urine for daring to vote marriage equality into place.

    [Tastes a Labatts]

    Nope. Still hasn’t happened.

  • You were clearly giving thanks to not being able to sexually assault and impregnate women at the march. Evidently you are compulsive about that sort of thing, but guilty about it.

    At least that is how I read it.

  • You did not offer help. You offered cliches and condescension. Helping people means listening to them. You have not done that. Helping people means trying to understand them. You have definitely not done that.

    To parrot your own cliche back at you, there are a great many books on the history of the compilation of the Bible. Nothing in those books will hurt you, so why don’t you read them? You might just learn something.

  • That’s the elephant in the verse that they all refuse to look at. Jesus explained that divorce is wrong because it does not line up with His original creation design — which was the gender binary made one again by God that is the entire purpose of marriage: “At the beginning the Creator made them male and female. FOR THIS REASON [emphasis mine] a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”

    And what else doesn’t line up with the original creation design? Well….

  • I offered you even better ..I offered you scripture. You want to stay in self pity, do so, but don’t blame me.

  • I don’t have any self-pity. Again – you didn’t bother to try to listen or understand me. If you want to convert people, you need to understand them. You need to make an effort.

  • You didn’t want my help. You decided not to read what I directed you to. Go back and read it.

  • Sandi, throwing Bible verses at people is not “help”. Surprisingly, I have read those verses before. I simply do not agree with your interpretation of them.

    You are the one who decided not to read the link I gave you. You also have decided not to read anything on the history of the creation of the Bible. You further have, as near as I can tell, decided not to read anything I actually say in favor of reading the words you made up in your head.

    You may be wondering why you are a failure at converting people. This is why. You are lazy, and possibly scared of seeing any other viewpoint, so you rely on a bag of quotes, thought terminating cliches, and stereotypes.

  • I’m sitting here looking at the RNS video/twitter above, the one labeled “Altercation…”, and contrasting it to what you and Linda are saying.

    Thankfully, your mutual dialog is a refreshing quantum-leap compared to the video. (Likewise the respectful exchange between RCPreader and MyTurn, below, is similarly commendable, as compared to the dueling video preachers.) Instructive and corrective.

    As for me, I gotta watch out for temptations like scorn, ego, too-sharpness, inappropriate humor, insufficient grace. Gotta love at the keyboard, listen at the keyboard, care at the keyboard.

    But even with face-to-face dialog, courteous respect & true empathy, you get people who say “common ground” (which is good), but they really mean, “Let’s find a way to get YOU to muzzle or compromise your biblical beliefs so that MY religious/sociopolitical beliefs can dominate the culture without messy biblical opposition.”

    That’s no joke. I’ve seen it, especially with Religious Left / Christian Liberals. Even the recent Women’s March had specific non-negotiable doctrinal points which excluded women pro-lifers and women opponents of gay marriage. (See Denny Burk’s blog.) That’s why I posted what I posted earlier. Just some thoughts.

  • Spuddie, You wrote, in part, “The only one performing exegesis is you.” I’ll teach you if you wish.

  • I think sometimes scripture can do things we couldn’t do, and just scripture is necessary – sometimes.
    Isaiah 55:11 – New International Version
    …so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

  • Spurious interpretation is a hallmark of proof texting for the purposes of promoting malicious behavior. I have seen enough in my day to know what it looks like. Thank you for the offer.

  • Paul is not Christ. Paul never met Christ while Christ was alive. Paul is not God either.

    One’s acceptance for Paul’s writings is dependent on whether one is expected to believe they can receive instructions from ghosts. An honest and sane person would claim under the circumstances your mileage may vary. A person looking to conflate writings of a latecomer with his own ideas about a faith with the original authors is performing an exercise in wishful thinking.

    Using Paul’s writings to prove Paul was correct is an exercise in circular logic.

  • Using Leviticus to justify a Christian theological position always smacks of hypocrisy.

    Essentially when its invoked, it amounts to “Leviticus is meant to be applied to everyone but me. Especially when it is inconvenient to my life.”

    The reasons for calling homosexuality immoral are rather circular and self serving. There is no moral calculus used in making such a determination. Saying its God’s word is essentially admitting you have no reasonable or rational explanation. It also means that you have no moral basis either and can justify immoral acts by proof texting scripture accordingly.

  • actually knowing the truth helps people, Conuly. Your interpretation doesn’t matter. What Christ taught does matter, and He said homosexuality is a sin. That is what is going to help you.
    I’m not a failure. Your choice to remain in darkness is your responsibility, not mine

  • You want your Christian belief defined by hate, that is your choice.

    Just don’t expect to be taken seriously on notions of morality or values. Don’t expect to be granted automatic respect for your hate by wrapping it up in religious rhetoric. Don’t expect your religion to be respected as a beneficial force in the world. Because your version clearly would not be.

  • They beg to differ. Your opinion is not controlling here. Fundamentalist Christians love to think that they speak for the entire faith. But nobody else takes their pronouncements seriously. Nor ever has to.

  • So was my response. I have no use for self-serving interpretations of religious language to promote malice.

    Its amazing the kind of contortions Christians of a certain stripe will go through to avoid the direct words of Jesus to “Love thy neighbor” (or the Old Testament version of “not doing that which is hateful”). I and most people can do without it. It does nothing to build up any kind of respect for the faith.

    Conuly’s response to you was the rational and sane one.

  • God really is good. He gives us all what we love the most. If we love darkness we can have it, although He’d rather we did not.

  • So Sandi is God?

    Maybe you think you are as well?

    I love the narcissism that comes with self righteous pronouncements.

  • You have in interesting and subjective interpretation of what the religious left believes. That, frankly, is why your opinion of the validity of others’ faith is no more relevant than my very negative impression that a significant proportion of the religious right are extremely unchristian in their use of the Bible as an excuse for bigotry, hatred, repression and poor treatment of others.

    You can also “take issue” all you want, and grasp for any validation you choose. It does not change the fact that all churches have been in decline for more than a decade – as much on the right as on the left, even while the vast majority identifies themselves as people of faith, and very predominantly Christian. Nor does it change the fact that 3 million more people voted left than right, and that they also identify themselves as predominantly Christian. Moreover, the demographic of the religious right is literally aging toward death in the near future, with no one to replace tj. This while the left leaning demographics of the young and minorities are steadily increasing.

  • Sandi did. She claimed the writings of Paul and the Gospels were one in the same. Except Paul never wrote anything about meeting the living Jesus. So you can’t assume he did.

    It’s amazing the level of factual and logical contortions you need to go through to avoid the plain readings of very simple words from Jesus.

  • Thomas Aquinas is credible on some aspects of his scholarship, but dated by his era on others. Regardless of the assertion that God does not change, our understanding of God, our world, and humanity certainly do change, which forces change in how we regard the Bible and its teachings. Slavery, which was political reality when the Bible was written, for example, is simply no longer acceptable, so all Biblical tolerances of the practice do not make any modern practice of it acceptable or right. Bible authors and/or scholars from the Middle Ages had no concept of LGBT or LGBT rights as we now understand them, thus we have to look at old writings with new eyes. Any acceptance to oneself of all of the advances in human rights since the Biblical era while demanding that such rights not include or be inclusive of LGBT is simply grounds to discount any claim to Christianity and any assertions of being “saved.” That sort of vulgar, egoistical hypocrisy is the hallmark of social conservatism in the 21st Century.

  • You know, the more and more I talk to people online, the more I wonder if Calvinism isn’t true – that some people just aren’t called by Christ.

  • That sort of assertion simply removes you from your claim to be “at-one” with Christ yourself. Denying others coming to Christ on their own terms, puts you up as a human arbitrator between God and Christians. No one died and made you Pope. You spit on the blood of every martyr who made your freedom of conscience possible and you crucify the Christ all over, as if you were personally choosing Barabbas to live instead. Thus, your holy roller hypocrisy has no moral compass or bounds, nor any connection to the saving blood of Jesus.

  • Your comment reminded me of this much older ‘comment’:

    For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

    2 Timothy 4:3

  • That rush to judge others in the name of Jesus just shows that you would be Pope in place of Francis and dare to judge for Jesus. That is why holy roller hypocrisy is not really a true form of Christian worship; the need to falsely judge your neighbor overrides all other Christian sensibilities.

  • The bottom line is not what you suggest it is. Liberal Christians are most often un-churched Christians. Once you accept that it’s your right to find your own path to Christ, why pay some church to mislead you with their dogma when you can come to Christ on your own?

  • Take your own advice about getting the Devil out of you. You are so tied to your dogma of hatred and intolerance that when confronted with its hypocrisy you just tightened the blinders. The blasphemy against Christ is all yours by puffing yourself up to believe that you and your hatred of others somehow serves Christ, who does not need help from hateful people like you. You keep choosing Barabbas every time you try to condemn others in Jesus’s name.

  • “So you accepted Christ’s admonition to go and sin no more?”

    You get no answers to such questions because you only ask so as to have an excuse to rant, regardless of the answer given. You are only in charge of yourself. You have no authority to demand anything and no right to expect anything. Your blanket assertions about others all amount to setting yourself up to judge in place of Jesus as a false Pope, while claiming to yourself a right to find your own path to Jesus without any Pope over you.

  • Whatever you want to tell yourself. I see your accusations to be exactly the behavior of the dying old hateful bigots on the right. Nor do I recognize your spiteful and self serving definition of “Christianity”. No real Christian would be so presumptuous, arrogant, and bigoted.

    You call me and others false Christians. I call you the false Christian. I believe that no person who is so arrogant and blasphemous to proclaim themselves fit to speak for God or to misstreat, deny the equal rights of, or repress others for violating your subjective interpretations, can ever be a real Christian. There is no room for bigots or hate in Heaven. I believe you are not a real Christian, that God can be nothing but disappointed to have people like you violate his name for your self serving and malicious behavior and lies.

    I also know that you don’t care any more about my low opinion of you than I care about your low opinion of me. Nor does either of our opinion change either the moral convictions of the other or the determination to act on them. I am just glad to see your demographic whither.

  • Your egotism, hostility and malice is duly noted.

    Thank you for pointing out the appeal of fundamentalism is that narcissistic feeling that God thinks everything you do and say is right. That everyone must take your musings seriously or they face eternal damnation.

  • Sandi equated Paul with Christ. Bearing false witness speaks badly for those who claim righteousness of their position. But sadly it is entirely necessary for it.

    Whatever excuses make you feel better about acting badly. 🙂

  • Christians especially self righteous malicious ones use the argument that whatever harsh Leviticus sections they want to invoke apply to others they want to attack. When it comes back to them, they claim Jesus excused them from having to follow Leviticus. Hypocrisy is hardwired in your faith when it comes to the OT.

    Ironically when Christians look to the OT to sound tough, inhumane and draconian (and spin “outs”for themselves), Jews look to the OT to justify charity, humane treatment and beneficent behavior.

    A Christian can’t invoke the OT for effect without looking foolish and hypocritical.

  • Wow, that’s harsh! I don’t think Jameson is putting himself in the place of ‘human arbitrator’. Isn’t that Jesus’ job?

    Also, people don’t come to Christ on ‘their own terms’, they come to Christ on HIS terms…namely, repentance and obedience. Jesus told his followers, “”Whoever wants to be my disciple MUST DENY THEMSELVES and take up their cross and follow me.” He also taught, “Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life”. And, most difficultly, Jesus said, “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me”.

    God is not interested in OUR terms (which are always in our favor). God sets HIS terms, and we either accept or reject them.

  • Oh yes. Larry-Spud is our resident clairvoyant — every left-leaning site has to have at least one.

  • Nice debate of language, but all the choices come down to each person finding their own path to God. You don’t get to define the path or set the conditions for anyone but yourself. Your efforts to assert for others the conditions that Christ might set for them boils down to the same false path of you prescribing for others what that will be. Labels and assertions based on labels are therefore meaningless. Preaching your favorite passages from the New Testament as mandatory milestones puts no limits on anyone but yourself. It’s all between God and the individual believer. Your input is not needed.

  • Nice try at bringing MLK in on your behalf so you can put yourself in charge. It really doesn’t matter who you try to city in that vain effort. Your effort to put words or false statements in my mouth just reveals what a modern Pharisee you are and still it fails to give you the power and authority to dictate that you so obviously want.

  • Thanks for another litany presented from your silly sense of self-authorization to mandate the doctrines of Christ. Sorry, no deal. You don’t get my approval to tell me how to worship Christ. I do not need your intersession on my behalf to find Christ.

  • It is amazing for you to cite MLK and then claim that the political party he belonged to is of the devil. Nice. And just hypocritical to betray your own falseness. So far, you are the only one here bearing false witness including that last diatribe.

  • Whatever rationalizations in making end runs around Jesus’s specific statements work for you I guess.

    But Paul is neither Jesus nor an equivalent of him. You admitted that much, but not really.

    There is always backtracking and equivocation when Christians are relying on proof texting to justify acting badly to others.

  • Cool. You are the expert here on what Lucifer wants. I’m sure you know exactly what pleases the Devil. Thanks again for revealing yourself in your false accusations.

  • No, he didn’t. Jesus is never recorded as having said anything on the subject of homosexuality, your twisting of scripture notwithstanding.

  • Been there, done that. It’s an interesting combination of documents by a diverse group of writers over many centuries.

  • Here we are discussing doctrine and you see fit to start accusing me of living some life of sin when you have zero information about me. That is exactly why you are unfit to represent Christ, his will or his doctrine. You are guided by your own evil imagination.

  • Did you reply to my comment… twice? Both times with snide soundbites instead of anything substantive?

  • Well, it’s not actually in the Bible. You’d know, because usually Jesus’ words are printed in red, italicized, or otherwise set off from the rest of the text.

  • Well, we both are carbon-based lifeforms. I think, though, that as a human I’m rather more similar to the other great apes than to insects.

  • Is God’s input needed? And who determines what God’s input is? I suppose a person can interpret everything the way they desire, but then, why would Jesus (or salvation) even be important? If Jesus died for sinners, but sin doesn’t really exist (or is not important), I suppose Jesus died for nothing.

    You’re argument is textbook postmodernism. May I have your permission to use it in my worldviews class?

  • Yes He did:

    Matthew 15:19 For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all sexual immorality, theft, lying, and slander.20 These are what defile you.

    Revelation 2:20 International Standard Version (ISV)
    20 But I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and who teaches and leads my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

    Revelation 22: 14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

    Revelation 21:8English Standard Version (ESV)
    8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

    You do realize that Jesus said that He didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

  • He had it coming for such a rude comment. Incivility returned in kind.

    Your input here is unnecessary.

  • You seem to have trouble with people judging you on the content of your character. So you hide behind phony righteousness to pretend your views are beyond criticism.

  • I don’t see the word “homosexual” in there anywhere. You say that homosexuality is immoral because Jesus said so, but now you’re claiming that he said so because he used the term “immorality” without carefully defining what he meant by that. This “reasoning” is circular in the extreme.

    You do realize that Jesus said that He didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

    You do realize I’m eating a bacon cheeseburger right now, right?

  • “All you are doing is hurting homosexuals and endorsing them to their death.”

    Hardly. Your false god may tell you that. And that might be the defining trait of your false god, hate for that which you don’t understand or care to understand. Or care about as actual people at all. Yet no one is going to hell for being gay or bi or anything else. It’s predictable, but still disheartening, that you twist and distort the word “love” to suit your sad, secular, and self-serving agenda.

    Maybe someday you’ll learn what the love of Christ really means. I doubt it, but maybe. Here’s a hint, though: if you can’t set aside your prejudices and fears to listen to and learn from the people you claim to love–you are doing it wrong. Dead wrong.

  • Homosexuality is a component of immorality, along with bestiality, pedophilia, adultery”
    As far as your cheeseburg, are you Jewish? Muslim? – although they are a cult.
    Do you need the entire Bible explained to you?
    Here, this should give you some interesting info to help you:
    https://www.gtycanada.org
    Learn to love Christ, rather than defy him.

  • Yes, they are going to end up in Hell unless they repent, and you seem to want to get them there. Why is that? I gave you Christ’s words.
    “God never intended His children to become intimate with evil in order to communicate the gospel to those in it’s grasp.” Robert Mounce
    (edited)

  • “I gave you Christ’s words.”

    No, Sandi, no. No you didn’t. I realize it is beyond pointless to try to discuss this with you, but you are just giving us your own interpretation (or rather, an old and tired one that you are mindlessly repeating) and denying you have any role in or responsibility for it. Worse, you are hiding your own interpretation, however old and common it may be, behind the authority of the Bible. To be blunt, all you have done is used Christ as a puppet for your own ventriloquist act.

    Like I said, you can’t see this because of the beam in your eye, but my hope is that someday you’ll have a more honest understanding of how to interpret the Bible with some integrity and faith. I doubt you will–you are so overconfident in your certainty that I suspect your are really trying to hide from your own self-doubt–but who knows?

    I have no idea why you quoted Mounce at me–is he part of your Bible?–but I have no interest in discussing him.

  • I guess your self righteous nattering is compulsive.

    You want to defend the guy’s uncivil remarks go ahead. It can’t really lower my opinion of your character any more than everything else.

  • Hardly a plain reading of the text. You are using omission to make a fictional admonishment. Looking for extra meaning which couldn’t possibly be contemplated in the passage.

    Words have meaning which change over time. Marriage never had one definition in the Bible. Can you be more dishonest here?

    Your reduction of the institution to procreation is insultingly terse. You are doing more to destroy the sanctity and purpose of marriage then any gay couple does. Your views of women are equally reductive and insulting . They are far more than just breeding machines .

    Your remarks just show how much projection and personal bigotry you are imputing to texts which do not exist. Exegesis in its most obvious form.

  • I suppose that’s a matter of opinion. Personally, I find a good dictionary to be really fascinating, all that etymology.

  • What he’s giving is not what anybody needs, and it’s presented in a way guaranteed to make sure nobody listens to him.

  • Jameson, I know I already told you that I already have. But reading the Bible uncritically, as some of you in this thread seem to have done, does not mean you actually know anything about the Bible.

  • More thought terminating cliches.

    Tell me – if these instructions are so basic, which am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to answer fools according to their folly, or not answer fools according to their folly?

  • They do not. The Bible is rife with inconsistencies – which is exactly what you expect, given that it was written and compiled by multiple people with competing aims over a long period of time.

  • The phrenologists said we’re all carbon-based lifeforms? Jameson, I’m not sure they even understood what that meant.

  • Nowhere in the Bible does it state that “Homosexuality is a component of immorality”. You are now putting your personal views into this.

    Neither Judaism, nor Islam, nor Christianity are “cults”. But you’re rather hypocritical for stating that some rules no longer apply and others randomly do.

  • I understand how you meant this but there is an irony with respect to Christ compromising His beliefs because the compromise would have been with respect to the Pharisees.

    I think there is a core, shared belief between the left and the right within the Christian community that needs to be recognized and respected by both that can be found summarized in the Nicene Creed. And the two Great Commandments as for shared doctrine.

  • The difference between my attacks on you and yours against me, is that you go straight for the gutter and get as personally insulting as you think you can. I just burned you for being wrong on your points of doctrine and pointed out that false judgment, such as yours, does not get you to heaven as you suppose. Lacking any rightful comeback, you just prove all my points against you by heading straight into the muck and the mud. You don’t even come close to offending me, you simply distance yourself even more from Christian by your unchristian name-calling. It just sucks to be you. But you could turn it all around by just abandoning the need to falsely judge and to bear false witness.

  • In your effort to prove your unrighteous judgment godly, you just make a better case against yourself. A lot less wrath and a lot more forbearance would help you get to Christ yourself. What you don’t know about being Christ-like could fill football stadiums.

  • Evangelical “Christianity” grows in the middle of ignorance and strife, but fades when people are enlightened and live without fear for their lives.

  • You have no right to quote me anywhere. You have yet to properly use quotes from the Bible, which you claim to have faith in. You would only misuse any quotes from me given your track record with sacred text.

  • I listened to a very scholarly report on large crowd estimates and scientific methods used to do so. Even with high-density, high quality digital photos, it’s really hard to get accurate numbers. Even with millions of pixels in such photos it comes down to just 40 or 50 pixels per person by which to pick out individual faces in the panoramic views.

    That’s what lets folks like you project such astronomical figures without any real data to go on. The real data crunchers are still at and reliable estimates will eventually come out, but you surely do not have them yet. No one does. We just have big photos to compare without pixelated head counts made as yet. But it won’t be 4 million. It might not even reach one million, even if that would still be a huge crowd in attendance.

    “Alternative facts” do not become us, as the Dread Pirate Wesley noted in the Princess Bride.

  • I’m not ambivalent, they are. That is to say, the current trend among millennials is to reject abortion, but whether that will be sustained is another question. Their response is odd in that it goes against the general pattern of those who typically take a left leaning stance on social issues, I applaud it, but I’m uncertain as to how deeply they hold to their present stance.

  • Well floydlee, I get it. Your reference to the “Women’s” March is a case in point. Despite substantial documentation from credible sources including the NYTimes ( that most authoritative source of the liberal left), there were still naysayers disputing the exclusion of the groups you have cited, among them Spuddie, who though I disagree with him most of the time, I would have thought intellectually honest enough to admit the case; apparently not, though of course he is not a member of the Christian left. Ever forward man; if I don’t meet you in this life, I expect to meet you in the life to come.

  • I gave you an excellent website that will help you tremendously. Homosexuality is immoral, and a sin. It kills people.

  • lol…we are to “hide behind the Bible” lol. Christ is the truth, and He did enough talking on subjects that we repeat His words.lol
    Honey, you are so lost! God bless you!

  • I gave you an excellent website that will help you tremendously. When you read the essay I provided, I will do the same.

    Homosexuality is immoral, and a sin. It kills people.

    No, it does not.

  • Well, aren’t we just full of self righteous blather.

    I’m not going to argue with such invincible ignorance, and your assumption that you know my mind, god’s mind, and the the universe’s mind.

    2/3 of the world thinks the Bible is nonsense and the Christian story is nonsense. If sexual orientation doesn’t exist, then why are therepeople who insist they are invincibly, unchangeably, throughly, and completely heterosexual?

    The nature universe is one song. Male and female? Obviously not, and you can tell this right here on earth. Of course, you know different, because you have been everywhere in the trillions of planets and billions of galaxies.

    Heterosexuality isn’t normal, it’s just common. And exclusive heterosexuality is far less common than you are desperate to believe. The real question is, why are YOU so filled with rage at the though that it might not be true?

    Have a nice day, dear.

  • Like you would know what that is?

    The problem with your POV is mistaking having an opinion with having a rightful say in the matter.

    BTW I love how you get so full of yourself. Like you are the voice of god on the internet. So silly and overblown.

  • As I explained to you, I don’t open links from people I don’t know.

    Revelation 21:8 ESV
    But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
    Homosexuality kills people.
    If you have nothing more than opinion to disagree with me, please pass me on. blessings.

  • Such megalomania!

    Being born again means never having to be honest, or rational, or a good human being. You are excused. Lol

  • But you expect me to open links from you?

    Wow. Hypocritical, much? Tell me, what does God think about hypocrisy?

    Revelations does not mention homosexuality. No, I’m sorry, saying “But it’s there under sexual immorality” without actually showing that this is the case is cheating and lying. You need to prove your statements. This circular reasoning demeans you.

  • So its funny when you agree with the sentiment but not in response.

    Your hypocrisy is already a given at this point.

  • You are not living under an oppressive regime. You are just a self entitled whiner with delusions of godly authority.

    You are more of the type to be the oppressor than the oppressed. I am not the one who claims god gives me permission to attack others. That is all you. Schindler showed respect and humanity for people who were not like him, you do not. Hi Mr. Goeth!

    Godwinning from you is an exercise in dramatic irony. Where one makes assertions which everyone but the speaker knows to be wildly false. Christian fundies really need to stay away from Godwin statements. It insults the neo Nazis who reside in such sects. Conservative Christians are the most enthusiastic supporters of fascism.

  • Ooooh, I missed more of your insane, fact free diatribe.

    You see me to be very threatened and angry that I could possibly claim that my life and family are every bit as important as yours. I suspect that you are even more outraged that civilized, decent people in the world are agreeing with me, and see your talibanesque temper tantrum for what it is.

    I can have a civil union? how generous of you! but thanks for demonstrating clearly what I always say: not all bigotry is hate. So. I have of it is your completely unwarranted faith in your wholly imaginary superiority as a heterosexual, a moral person, a Christian, and a human being.

    Well, one out of four is guaranteed.

  • All of that to tell me I’ve been duped by a fallacy. None of it even questions you being duped by a fallacy. As for hating other people? You seem to have remarkable insight to what I think and feel, without knowing anything about me apart from the stories you are telling yourself.

    But you did give yourself away in two words– utterly disgusting. Honey, if it bothers you so much, what other people may or may not be doing with their dangly bits…

    Perhaps you ought not to think about it so much.

  • The 4 million number is at best your estimate. Being there and having a sense of there being a lot of people is not the same as having the capacity or capability to count the exact huge number. You are okay to assert that the crowd felt as big as any other but you can’t accuracy assert that there were millions present just because you saw a whole lot of people. Millions is an amount beyond human perception and has to be measured to be meaningful.

    As for people watching it live, you would have to add me and my six classrooms of kids (about 150 students over the course of the day). Here in California, they assembled on the stand for the events during my first period class and President Trump took the oath and spoke during my second period class, and the rest of my classes saw repeats of those events during the day. I only hit mute on the TV to conduct necessary class business, such as the weekly vocab quiz.

    As a public school teacher I felt I had the obligation to have my students see living history take place. The peaceful transition of power in the U.S. is the oldest such continuing ceremony on the planet and every time it takes place, it adds to that uniquely American legacy.

    The exact numbers of people viewing is pretty much irrelevant. What matters is that it continues to happen, regardless of who the President taking power is and regardless of who the past President was. Fussing over the numbers just shows an ugly side of the new President and his equally thin-skinned, self-aggrandizing supporters. The new President was properly sworn in and he is now our President. God have mercy on us all.

  • Nope. You repeat what they taught you in your Jesus Madrasa (“Sunday School”). Being on a Jesus Jihad is not the same as being a disciple of Christ.

  • Your fictional Jesus is not the one that lived, died and rose from the dead. Your comic book, WWE Jesus looks a little foolish in Spandex.

  • They would not like what the mirror showed them. It would be like the Portrait of Dorian Grey, ugly and deformed from all the cruel, hypocritical things done in Jesus’ Name. They sort of make you want to watch repeats of Penny Dreadful and think of them as all the evil creatures the protagonists have to fight in every episode.

  • That religious left included a lot of California Mormons who voted for Clinton instead of Trump. One of my SoCal cousins posted on Facebook about how she felt that her daughter marching was in keeping with their Mormon faith, even if most Mormons voted for Trump. Even though I do not attend and make no bones about being a “Jack Mormon,” I have to applaud family members who feel they can be active Mormons and social liberals. Among my several beefs with Mormonism is the fact that I don’t buy any church claiming to have an exclusive patent on Jesus, not even the one I was raised in. I also have no patience of churches who think they can please God by torturing LGBT into pretending to be straight. That said, I have to respect people who can attend righty-tighty churches like the Mormons and still have a socially progressive heart. Good for them.

  • You self-defined marriage, dishonestly in regard to how the Bible has treated the subject.
    https://upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com/nugget/4fad667a42542a00030018ba/attachments/biblemarriage.jpg

    Essentially making a declaration and expecting it to be taken as the only one out there. You also made an interpretation based on nothing in the text itself. Again your egotism keeps you from objectively evaluating the text. You are looking for excuses for bigotry in any form you can. You have reduced your religious belief to immoral proof-texting excuses to act badly.

    You also seem to have a problem with people disagreeing with you and pointing out factual errors on your part. I guess it comes from the egotism of thinking God supports every word you say. It seems to be a common affliction to those who discuss such matters in a self-referential bubble. Where questions and reasoning is avoided in place of pronouncements by authority.

    “Marriage IS The Institution of Procreation ”

    So infertile couples have no right to marry? No marriage is not valid without children? Of course not. Procreation also happens whether marriage is present or not. You are denigrating and reducing marriage to something crass and purely physical. People like you do more to destroy the nature of marriage than any other group.

    “You hate women…[followed by a bullshit word salad]”

    Because I respect them to make choices about their lives without imposing my will upon them. Something you are not willing to do. Oh how terrible a person I am! /sarcasm

    “Interesting how the homosexual male community refer to a women’s very nature in the negative term: a breeding machine;”

    Interesting how you assumed I was gay because I called out your bigotry against them. I am not. But I am a moral person who respects the lives of others and does not look for excuses for malicious behavior. Again, you are having trouble with the concept of people who do not share your beliefs nor accept your opinions as facts. Hence ad hominem nonsense on your part.

    ” refer to a women’s very nature in the negative term: a breeding machine;”

    I was describing your position, you dishonest turd!

    “I’ve heard the homosexual community also call women cows”

    Really? It seems to come largely from the fundie community. Especially towards women who do not feel a need to subjugate themselves to arbitrary authority of men.

    “because they have no respect for creation, for human life”

    Said the person looking for religious excuses to attack people. Your version of respect for human life is something the entire world can do without. It has nothing to do with respect at all. You simply want to trespass and impose yourself on others with impunity. Being somewhat spineless about it, you look for excuses from religion to justify such bad behavior.

  • Ah the Pee Wee Herman defense, “I know you are but what am I”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGWbzUM-y8

    It is wildly inappropriate and dishonest for people who look for religious excuses to attack others to invoke the Nazis or accuse others of being like them. Churches like yours were loyal and enthusiastic supporters of genocide.They still are in some respects. Reactionary churches were calling Jews inhuman for centuries before Hitler did. He learned everything about antisemitism from Christian dogma.

    So take your Godwinning keister and park it elsewhere. Your insults are juvenile and fact free.

    “I see you have a problem with Christian fundamentalists”

    Especially when they attack civil liberties, democratic way of life, and use religion as excuses to act maliciously to others. It is unworthy of respect and has no socially redeeming value. They fail to understand invoking religion doesn’t automatically make their ideas moral or worthy of respect. Far from it. It just makes their religion more petty and venal.

  • Again, how do you know it was “millions” instead of some large but lower number. It just is not possible. I saw the camera pans and to the sense of a lot of people. I did not worry about the total number, not even when news people felt the need to compare. The numbers are not the big deal, but insisting that the numbers were “record-breaking” just goes to over-inflated ego, not reality.

  • I stand by my remarks on your remarks. The humor is in how you still fail to see the real message.

  • Nope. Impatience, yes, hatred, no. I do not suffer fools very well. It is one of my many failings.

  • “Spuddie, who though I disagree with him most of the time, I would have thought intellectually honest enough to admit the case; apparently not”

    I’ve learned from various life experiences never to trust anyone who goes around constantly calling other people liars. That sort of thing is projection at its finest.

  • As I said, you need a mirror.
    You view anyone who disagrees with your putting yourself up on a pedestal of moral superiority as being a person who is battling for a position on your pedestal–that pedestal doesn’t exist, by the way–and your indoctrinated belief is, once again, wrong.
    You feel insecure and you are unsure of what is right and what is wrong and you attack others as being all knowing or godlike or pretending to be because you cannot fathom how they have the wisdom about the nature of the world and history that you are clueless about.
    You are indoctrinated into accepting fallacies that have no basis in reality and that is the cause of your blatant insecurity–nothing you think is true, is true. You have been suckered and conned your whole life. Just start asking questions like why and reignite your curiousity. In other words–think and reason rationally and logically.

  • Well, in that case, you could spend the whole class on your egregious errors without getting to mine.

  • Yes, those things will be applied by the “experts” on the matter, but that’s still not you.

  • You have no idea whether or not MLK would or would not support the DNC. One good indicator is that John Lewis does as do all of MLK’s protegees from that past era who are still alive and active in politics.

  • Because I am not awed by the shining presence and godly force coming off the screen from your prose! 🙂

  • “So you believe Jesus is a hallelujah homophobe.”

    Nope. Not my argument at all. My argument is that you have no claim on Jesus by which to jump to such silly conclusions. You doing so without cause or provocation just illustrates what a complete fool you are. Your need to misrepresent others is only rivaled by your need to claim be able to judge for Jesus as if you had Him in your back pocket.

  • Sandi, you’re asking to be held to a different standard than other people. Either we both read each other’s links, or you don’t ask me to read yours.

  • Jameson, you already replied to this comment. Are you having trouble seeing your comments? Maybe you should clear your cache.

  • Then you’re going to need to cite that. With actual words attributed to Jesus – not Paul, not Moses, not Solomon.

  • I’m Sure you believe that.

    whoops! playing in feces. Someone is thinking about anal sex,again and again and agaiN.
    Why is it that this is what obsesses you people?since I haven’t mentioned it, and If it bothers you so much, why are you constantly thinking about it?

    I think I’m done here. Have a nice life, dear. And for your own health, stop thinking about what I must be doing with my dangly bits.

  • Jameson, don’t you think pride is a sin?

    Because from where I’m sitting, it’s rather the height of arrogance to not just believe you have the one and only true and correct interpretation of the Bible, but also that you somehow have a direct link to the deep thoughts and motivations of everybody you ever converse with.

  • Jameson, I assure you, I know who wrote that material. A great many people who run that website are Christians. You cannot defend your ignorance with wild claims.

  • How is that a reply to what I said? Please explain why you think you should be held to a different standard from other people. Then please look up the term “circular reasoning”.

  • Jameson, it’s not that I have a “hard heart”. It’s because I’m not a raging moron, and I am capable of recognizing circular reasoning when I see it, and of not falling prey to unsubstantiated assertions.

    Your continual attempts to appeal to emotion are not working. If you have facts to back up your assertions, or logic, then present them. Otherwise, again – this behavior demeans you and your religion.

  • This is so funny! It’s all you have to say when you’ve got nothing but lies and distortions, etc. It’s waaaaaay over the top fuming and impotent frustration. Enjoy yourself.

  • The progressives are dying in America as is obvious from the last election.

    You mean the election where we won the popular vote by an enormous margin? That election? The same one where our margin would’ve been larger – and we probably would’ve won the electoral as well – if several states hadn’t put a lot of effort into suppressing poor and minority votes after the VRA was dismantled? THAT election?

  • That God is like Santa, or maybe that one creepy song that they play at weddings. Every breath you take, every step you make….

  • Typical. You can’t actually rebut what he said, so you try an ad hominem. Nobody is fooled, Jameson.

  • Shawnie5, that doesn’t actually rule out the possibility of a man leaving his parents to marry another man, or vice versa. Again, Jesus was explaining why he thought divorce was wrong using terms his audience would understand.

  • The gender binary is the assumption that all humans are either 100% male or 100% female.

    This falls apart with simple biology – many people are born with two different types of cells, some of which are xx and others are xy. Others are born with xy chromosomes but an external female appearance. There’s at least one condition where children are born looking female, but then grow male genitalia at puberty. And, of course, there are many children each year born with indeterminate genitals, which don’t particularly look male OR female. Before genetic testing – that is, in Jesus’ time – those kids were just weird.

  • I defined the word marriage for you from its root meanings that existed at the time the word was used. The root meanings are contained in every word and those roots do not change or evolve over time to mean anything other than the definition contained within those root meanings.

    This is the etymological fallacy. Words do change over time, sometimes dramatically.

  • There is no moral calculus used in making such a determination. Saying
    its God’s word is essentially admitting you have no reasonable or
    rational explanation.

    Exactly. If God came down tomorrow and said that abortion was mandatory from now on, would they all do it? If God told them to tie their sons up and sacrifice them on an altar, would they do it? (Well, if it was good enough for Abraham….)

    If moral reasoning is just, it relies on more than just “Because God Said So”, aka “Might Makes Right”.

  • The Epistles of Paul aren’t supposed to be Paul’s letters? Well, why the hell do we call them Epistles of Paul, then!?

  • He also spoke of “sexual immorality” in terms his audience would understand — as inclusive of same sex behavior which was a capital crime at the time. What works for you guys in one place works against you in another. Whack those moles!

    In any case, your reading of the verse would make His reference to His creation of the male-female duality as the purpose of marriage completely meaningless. I don’t think the Word wasted any words.

  • Classic projection. One of us in this thread is scared of learning new things. That person isn’t me.

  • You wouldn’t know the truth if it jumped up and bit you on your ass. All we’ve gotten from you is a buttload of projection.

  • The male-female duality. The separation of human nature, reflecting God’s nature and image, into its male and female components, which are reunited again in heterosexual marriage.

  • B.A. Robinson. Geez, did you even read the whole thing?

    Who authored Luke? Or the Q-document from which Luke borrowed?

  • If the Bible never tolerated slavery, then why is the Bible full of admonishments on how to treat your slaves, and directions to slaves on how to obey their masters?

  • Jameson, why are you so angry all the time? You never seem to want to reply to anybody without insults and bitterness. Is this grace? Is it hope? Is it charity?

  • More projection. Every single comment you’ve made, you’ve been hateful. Where is the patience? Where is the loving kindness?

  • Right: Sodom’s sin was arrogance, pride, lack of caring for the poor and needy. These things are detestable.

  • Rape is not funny. Calling other people ugly is not funny. Stating that ugly people don’t get raped is both a lie and not funny.

  • I have no idea, because I’m pretty sure there are no palettes in the NT. You must have meant a different word.

  • You’ve spent more time in the past few days insulting people who disagree with you than you have spent trying to understand them so you can better explain your point of view.

  • He also spoke of “sexual immorality” in terms his audience would
    understand — as inclusive of same sex behavior which was a capital
    crime at the time.

    Citation needed. (And if your citation is Leviticus, you are going to have to explain why that rule is important but the one about bacon cheeseburgers isn’t.)

    In any case, your reading of the verse would make His reference to His
    creation of the male-female duality as the purpose of marriage
    completely meaningless.

    Not really. Jesus is saying that people need other people, and that’s why God made men and women, because most people are heterosexual.

  • Jameson, judging by your words, you would think that it is your actions that have no consequences. Certainly you don’t seem to care about the consequences of what you say to other people.

  • Your every assertion toward me comes from a place of prejudice. Your every assertion about religion is equally wrong. You can’t even talk about the important parts of the inauguration. You have to focus on trivial stuff like crowd size, as if you have defend Trump’s silly assertions on that.

  • Cool. I don’t claim to be an expert, but I have always scored well above average on all three myself. As the son of a builder, I was expected to be able to sight estimate spacial dimensions regularly. But I also understand that most people can’t do that.

  • I am not sure what “sin” you think you are talking about. I have not enumerated any sinful behaviors on my part, unless talking to the likes of you counts as “sinful.” That sort of presumption on your part just goes to how much of a judgmental fool you come across as.

  • ‘Jesus is saying that people need other people”. No He isn’t He is saying that He had a specific purpose in creating male and female to be joined together once again by Him. If “from the beginning it was not so,” then it’s a repudiation of His plan springing from hardness of heart. Divorce is one such. SSM is another. Polygamy was yet another. And the list goes on.

    Matt 15, Jesus spoke of sexual immorality as one of the things which defiles us. Every one of His listeners understood what all was meant by that. Dietary laws were never given to Gentiles — no one ever cared how much bacon Gentiles ate. However, Leviticus tells us very distinctly that God judged and rejected Gentile nations for sexual immorality before there ever was a Torah. That is why the Jerusalem Council decided as it did. Why don’t you know all this?

  • Well, here’s the problem. You are imagining all sorts of sins I might be committing, based on your lurid imagination. People do not go to hell based on the vain imaginings of other people. Actually, engaging in vain imaging of the sins of others is exactly the sort of sin that gets you a ticket.

  • Sorry I missed the typo. It obviously upsets you no end. But then, your imaginings about my sex life also upset you no end. Go figure.

    I guess I need to respond one more time, just to be clear. Not for you, of course, but just in case there is someone else not so poisoned with despite as you are.

    I was raised Jewish. It was clear to me even as a little boy growing up in the fifties that Christianity and hatred, in their unholy marriage for 1900 years, was behind the anti-Semitism I grew up with.

    I was a young man, I very nearly became a Christian. It was ironic that John 3:16, the central message of Christianity, was what convinced me that it was bunk. “For God so loved the world”… and yet, if you failed to get that message, there you were, burning in hell forever. I have probably forgotten more about Christianity– well, not YOUR brand of it– then you will ever know. And I am grateful that I have. Not that I care what you or your ilk think, not that I can prove it. But every time I see one of these hate-and-despite-filled screeds that one of your class of Christian produces, I think once again what a scourge upon progress and humanity fundamentalism is.

    There are TWO things I for sure learned, growing up as a Jew, growing up knowing I was gay from the age of three or so and growing into a happy gay man with a great life, and growing into life as an atheist in a world corrupted by people who think that they are god…

    1) For those who are like you, contempt for those whose existence offends you so deeply drips off of you like sweat off a porn actor on a hot set. And that metaphor is deliberate.

    2) This is the conclusion I reached long ago: we are NEVER going to reach those who are irretrievably poisoned by hate, fear, ignorance, stupidity, toxic religious belief, megalomania, their own covert issues and obsessions, mental illness, bad parenting, prejudice, a traumatizing event, lust for power and money at the expense of other people, self hatred, paranoia, or extreme left-wing or right-wing ideology.

    Have a nice life, dear.

  • Floydlee, you wouldn’t want Planned Parenthood marching in a “Women’s March” that was funded by anti-abortion groups, would you? This march wasn’t just “Women Exist Yay!” but specifically “Women’s rights to abortion are important”.

  • You have repeatedly called people on this thread “morons”, “stupid”, “tattletales”, “ignoramuses”, “insane”, “fools”, “mentally disturbed”, “sophomoric”… well, the list goes on. And all for no bigger crime than simply disagreeing with you.

    This is not patience, and this isn’t going to get people to listen to you. Have you never heard that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar? Nobody is going to listen to you if the very first thing you do is jump in and say that they’re morons.

    You have also provided no facts to back up your assertions, nor any reasons.

  • LOL! What am I “making up?” The Jerusalem Council? Acts 15. God’s rejection of the Canaanites for immoral sexual practices? Leviticus 20. If you don’t know where these things are found, why are you wasting everyone’s time trying to talk Bible?

  • 1. You repeatedly resort to circular logic along the lines of “The Bible is true because the Bible is the Word of God, and we know the Bible is the Word of God because that’s what it says in the Bible”.

    2. When backed into a corner, you resort to ad hominems, calling people “fools” or “morons” or “insecure” rather than addressing the points they make, then claiming that you have addressed the points.

    3. You prooftext, taking quotes out of context to prove your dubious points.

    4. You are constantly projecting this behavior onto others.

    Now, time for the question: Which of these four options are you going to pick to respond to this comment?

  • He made the assertion, he’s got the burden of proof. I’m not skimming through all of Leviticus over this.

  • Acts 15 does not mention homosexuality specifically. Once again, I will point out that the term “sexual immorality” does not mean “gay!” just on your say-so.

    Leviticus is rules for Jews (and says nothing about lesbianism, btw, or the Canaanites.) Please explain, again, why you think that rule is binding while other rules in Leviticus are not. Actually cite your reasoning instead of expecting me to sit down and look it up. You have the burden of proof here.

  • No one can be born looking female and then grow male genitalia at puberty.

    As I said, it’s rare, but it does happen. Google “guevedoces”.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/22/the-mysterious-village-where-girls-turn-into-boys/

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34290981

    Children are born that are called hermaphrodites and now they are not
    mutilated by doctors at birth, but doctors wait until the child
    naturally exhibits what sex he or she naturally is.

    No, they are not called “hermaphrodites”. That term is considered offensive. And while the APA officially recommends that we do not do surgery until adulthood, if the patient wants, many parents and doctors do not follow this recommendation.

  • If there is a Hell like you imagine, then Hell is entirely the fault of the one who made it. God could just as easily have made all people good, or decided to have two very nice afterlives, one of which is slightly better than the other for the good folks.

  • You are the one who argued for “what His audience understood” perspective on Matt 19. And we know exactly what behaviors were understood to be classified as sexual immorality. Any Greek lexicon will list them for you. All ancient Jewish writings from the period (such as Josephus, Philo, the Midrash and the Babylonian Talmud) agree on the subject.

    And I already explained to you why sexual prohibitions are binding on non Jewish Christians while dietary rules are not. In the first place, the Torah- observant Jewish Christians of the Jerusalem Church so decided. In the second, Leviticus says God judged the Gentiles for sexual immorality. At the end of the list of sexual prohibitions we find this: “Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.” Lev 20:22-23. No indication is given that God judged those nations for diet, or intended them to follow particular diet rules.

    What part of this do you not get?

  • Yes, they are called hermaphrodites in medical literature

    No, they’re not. A hermaphrodite is a being with both male and female sex organs. Babies born with indeterminate genitalia do not generally have both male and female sex organs. They are not, therefore, hermaphrodites, and people with this condition generally consider that term offensive.

    I notice, by the way, that you did not acknowledge you were wrong about guevedoces.

  • Saying “This is what they decided” is not an explanation of why unless you explain why they decided that way. How do you know they decided correctly if you don’t know why they made that decision?

    The passage you cite does not seem to me to say that God judged the Gentiles for sexual immorality, but not on diet. I think you are putting your own interpretation on text that might not have been the original intent.

    As for Talmud – that says nothing about lesbians. Just gay men. Are you arguing that some homosexuality is okay?

  • 1.) That’s not circular logic. The Bible is the Word of God.

    LOL. It’s classic circular logic. The fact that you think it isn’t is really pathetic. I cannot believe you think you can criticize other people on their grasp of reason or logic when you don’t recognize obvious fallacies when you see them.

    Even if it is true that The Bible is The Word Of God, that doesn’t mean that the argument as presented isn’t fallacious. Arguments do not magically become sound just because you agree with the conclusion.

    3.) What quotes did I take out of whose context?

    You take quotes from the Bible out of their own context all the time.

    4.) I’m not projecting. I’m merely observing your behavior and telling
    you what you are doing in order to help you learn how to think.

    Jameson, you continually call people stupid, but your points are vapid, shallow, and illogical. That’s projection. You accuse other people of being “sad” or “angry” – but look at the comments! An objective observer, if called upon to determine which of us was the least happy, would not pick me. Happy people do not need to spend their time calling other people stupid. Happy people do not need to take random, off-topic jabs at anything that annoys them. Happy people do not act like this.

  • All the ethnic minorities in this country are Christians.

    There are 2.23 million Hindus in America, nearly all of whom are Indian. There are .5 million Sikhs in America, which, again, are nearly all Indian. There are 3.3 million Muslims in America, most of whom are black, Asian, or Arab.

    I’m getting a little lazy of googling, so suffice to say that there are also non-zero numbers of non-white Buddhists, Jews, and atheists in the US, as well as practitioners of traditional folk religions.

  • For what? You asked a question, and instead of getting an answer you got a random screed on the subject of sociology.

  • Jameson, you’re wrong. Stating your wrong opinion again is not going to make it less wrong. I posted two different articles on guevadoces, who are born looking female due to a disruption in hormone production and then grow male genitalia at puberty when they get a surge of testosterone.

    You’re also wrong on the subject of intersex. They are not called hermaphrodites in medical literature. If you think they are, you’re going to have to cite that.

    And you’re also wrong about treatment. While it is recommended that surgery wait, many parents and doctors do not follow that recommendation.

    Literally everything you said is wrong. Saying it a second, or a third, or a fourth time is not going to make it correct.

  • 3. A church which has defined itself by whom it hates. As evidenced by all those posts and the one which started the discussion

    4. Well that is some Grade A revisionism in the David Irving sense of the word. A sure sign you are full of crap here is that the Catholic Church didn’t drop its anti-semitic dogma until 1965. Also you want to ignore the ongoing centuries of pogroms and church inspired attacks on Jews for the 600-700 years prior to the 20th Century. Whatever makes you sleep better at night.
    http://www.historytoday.com/robert-carr/nazism-and-christian-heritage

    4. “This is a Judeo Christian nation” A nonsense phrase if ever one existed. There is no such thing as a Judeo Christian culture. There are too many fundamental differences between Judaism and Christianity to lump them together and too many differences within Christianity. Your point is also a complete fiction as well. You say we are a Judeo-Christian nation to indicate that somehow such religious believers should have an exulted place in the country, rights at the expense of all other beliefs, or want to have your posterior kissed for your choice of faith. None of which has any basis in facts.

    There is nothing inherent in either Judaism or Christianity which supports democracy or civil liberties. They exist based on the excesses of state sponsored Christianity. To get away from religious notions of government and the law. You are trying to put the tramp stamp of your sectarian faith on our nation, laws and culture.

    There is nothing to indicate you or religious believers like yourself have a concept of moral authority. Following arbitrary directives of religion or using religious text to justify malicious, dishonest and harmful behavior is hardly an example of moral thinking.

  • Conuly, … for taking the time and effort to type it in. (You and I have both had the experience of having a post ignored.)

  • “Saying “This is what they decided” is not an explanation of why unless you explain why they decided that way. How do you know they decided correctly if you don’t know why they made that decision?” I ALREADY explained why they decided that way.

    The bigger that elephant gets, the harder it is to see. 😀

    “The passage you cite does not seem to me to say that God judged the Gentiles for sexual immorality, but not on diet. I think you are putting your own interpretation on text that might not have been the original intent.” It appears immediately after a long list of sexual prohibitions, same sex intercourse being among them. And then it says that “for all THESE practices” God abhorred them and the land vomited them out. So we know He judged them for sexual immorality, at least. Now, show me a passage where He judged and rejected them for diet, and we’ll examine it.

    Or if you don’t wish to go to the trouble (for I get the feeling you’ve never read this chapter at all — which makes it pretty hard to divine the original intent, I’ll bet), I can tell you there isn’t one. If there had been, the Jewish Christians of the Jerusalem Church would have been all over it and church history would have been very different. The truth is, there is only one dietary command that was given to ALL people, long before the Torah — not to eat the flesh from a living animal. So the Jerusalem Church kept that one, of course. They also added the admonition to avoid known pagan sacrificial meat; not because there was anything wrong with the meat itself but to avoid the appearance of participation in idol worship.

    As far as lesbianism in the Torah goes…the sexual prohibitions are generally framed in a way that places primary sexual agency upon men. It doesn’t tell women not to lie with their sons or sons-in-law, for example, but it tells men not to lie with their mothers or mothers-in-law. In the same way it doesn’t admonish women from being prostitutes but their fathers for hiring them out as prostitutes. A function of the time and place, no doubt. But the overall intent is fairly clear, as we can see from all ancient Jewish commentary on the subject, which regarded lesbian activities as wrong, as a practice of the pagan nations which God rejected, but to a lesser degree because male sexual agency is not involved.

    In any case, you are bent on the same goal as many other posters around here: not to search out the perfect will of God and get as close to it as possible, but to see how far technicalities will allow us to move away from it. Jesus told us what His creation plan for marriage is. That should be enough for all of us.

  • Yep. You appear to be an expert on how to go to Hell. You just fail to show your “expertise” on how to get to Heaven. You have some areas for growth there.

  • Jesus told us what His creation plan for marriage is. That should be enough for all of us.

    Every one of us is endowed with the ability to reason. Why would any deity give us that ability and then tell us not to use it? Morality, if it is just, must be able to be reasoned out.

  • The entire UNI-VERSE–One Song–is composed of masculine and feminine
    forces that keep it all in one continuous act of creation–harmony and
    love.

    If you’re going to use the inane etymological fallacy, you need to at least get your etymology correct. This is the actual etymology of “universe”:

    universe (n.) 1580s, “the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things,” from Old French univers (12c.), from Latin universum “all things, everybody, all people, the whole world,” noun use of neuter of adjective universus “all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all,” literally “turned into one,” from unus “one” (see one) + versus, past participle of vertere “to turn, turn back, be turned; convert, transform, translate; be changed” (see versus).

    It has nothing to do with “verse” meaning “song”.

  • Jameson, you don’t know what the word rational means, and your comments prove you don’t know what a fallacy is either.

  • Morality can not be “reasoned out” without reference to a transcendent source. Without one, it’s all simply a matter of preference.

  • I noticed you upvoted me over at LJF. We’re really a diverse group – and well moderated. You might enjoy commenting over there 🙂

  • Some Jews had no problem with abortion — a function of the degree of Hellenization present. But this is by no means true of all Jews:

    “The law; moreover enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing humankind.” — Josephus, “Against Apion”

    “But if the child which was conceived had assumed a distinct shape in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, he shall die; for such a creature as that is a man, whom he has slain while still in the workshop of nature, who had not thought it as yet a proper time to produce him to the light, but had kept him like a statue lying in a sculptor’s workshop, requiring nothing more than to be released and sent out into the world.” Philo, “Special Laws”

  • Shawnie, you have that backwards. The majority opinion among Jews has always been that abortion is not an immoral act. However, some Greeks thought it was.

  • Neither is your assertion to which I replied.

    We are limited to a mere three dimensions. A deity would operate in ten at the very least. It is as ridiculous to suppose that we are capable of reasoning out every purpose of a deity as it is to suppose that my children could understand and appreciate the reasoning behind the rules imposed by their father and me.

    Keep in mind that the pre-Christian world, which thought itself very just and virtuous, was unable to “reason out” the idea of the inherent worth of the individual irrespective of familial, tribal, or national ties, and would laugh at our insistence on the same. This fundamental belief underlying western civilization, which has been with us so long that we take it entirely for granted, was the legacy of first Judaism and then Christianity and its transcendent Deity, nothing else.

  • 1. Your first paragraph is 50% off-topic and 50% nonsense. Functioning in ten dimensions – something you just made up – does not mean you are more or less capable of reasoning. (And for the record, my children, once they learned to talk, actually can understand the reasoning behind every rule I make. If they can’t understand the reasoning, it is a bad rule.)

    2. Keep in mind that the pre-Christian world, which thought itself very
    just and virtuous, was unable to “reason out” the idea of the inherent
    worth of the individual irrespective of familial, tribal, or national
    ties, and would laugh at our insistence on the same. This fundamental
    belief underlying western civilization, which has been with us so long
    that we take it entirely for granted, was the legacy of first Judaism
    and then Christianity and its transcendent Deity, nothing else.

    Citation needed. (And trust me, it’s going to have to be a hell of a citation to explain away the fact that every half-assed thinker in the world before Jesus came up with the same “do unto others” idea as the basic of all morality.)

    3. But seriously, let’s talk about rats. Rats, like humans, are intelligent, social animals.

    So let’s imagine you have several rats in a cage with no food. The cage can easily be opened by a rat – but only from the outside.

    Now, you take one rat and put it down outside the cage, and next to the rat you put a lot of really yummy food. What will that rat do?

    Answer: The rat will open the cage and free its friends before eating.

    What if you only put down a little food?

    Answer: The rat will open the cage and free its friends before eating. They will share the food.

    Why is this? Is this because a little ratty Jesus came down and told them all how to behave? Amusing though that idea is, the answer is “not likely”. And they didn’t have a rat Buddha or a rat Mohammed or a rat Gurat either.

    The truth is that for social animals, sharing makes good sense. If we share what we have today, tomorrow our friends will share with us. It’s like banking good behavior against future need.

    This same principle can be applied to many thorny situations. Should I gossip about others? Well, on the one hand, gossip can build social ties… but on the other hand, it will eventually tear apart our entire community, and as a social being I need a community in order to survive. So gossip is probably bad. Should I steal from my neighbor? If our society says it’s okay to just flat-out steal, then somebody might steal from me… and I can’t defend myself against every possible threat! I’d go nuts! So no, theft is wrong. Should I help my ailing neighbor? Well, one day I’ll be old, and at that point I’ll like others to help me. So yes!

    But, as we just established, it doesn’t cover everything, despite what Maimonides said. (“All else is just commentary”.)

    So what’s left?

    Well, one possibility can be found when we examine moral foundations theory.

    According to this, all human societies tend to devise morality around six basic axes – Care, Fairness, Liberty, Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. We put different weights on different aspects.

    Pretty obviously, “ew, gays” comes under Purity – which is right where we find it in Leviticus, by the way. But you don’t need to look to the Bible to prove the point, look at Jameson, who seems incapable of talking about gays without bringing poop into it.

    Now, back in the Bronze Age, purity was not such a bad axis to have in your rules of behavior. “Don’t place the outhouse by the well” might not have been the eleventh commandment, but it’s still really good advice if you don’t want to get sick, as is”Ew, gross, don’t eat things that died of diseases” and “Listen, wash your hands after you poop and before you eat, and, uh, say this 30-second long prayer while you do it”. (It doesn’t really have to be a prayer. Singing the ABCs twice through will ensure you wash your hands long enough!)

    So how does gay sex come into it? Well, sex is personal and sex is messy and sex has all those bodily fluids, and we know that they were concerned about the purity aspects of sex – all that about washing in a mikveh and not doing this and that while menstruating. And homosexuality is unusual. For many people, what is unusual is therefore wrong – consider all the prejudice through the ages against disabled people! (Do you realize, Martin Luther literally believed that some disabled children were “changelings” and had no souls!?)

    When you add “they’re different” to “omg sex” and “they do something that the outgroup we don’t like does, or at least that is broadly similar to that outgroup”, then what you get is… “ew, gross, gays are bad”.

    But there is no rational basis for it.

    As we’ve grown to be better people, we’ve thrown away many of the old ideas we clung to. We threw out slavery on the basis of “fairness” and “care” and “liberty”, even though there are definitely passages in the Bible defending the practice. We threw out spousal rape, even though that, too, was defended with the Bible. We threw out in-group loyalty in favor, as you say, to a broader compassion for all people. In-group loyalty is all over the OT.

    Now it’s time to throw out outdated purity concepts that only harm people.

  • Well don’t you have some special meanings of a number of words to go along with your special, if alternative, facts.

  • Sure he is. It’s what Christians of his type do constantly– put themselves in the Place of god.

    They presume to know the relationship of god with any other person on the planet, as they gleefully tell us who is going to hell, who isn’t a true Christian, who has a god sized hole in his heart.

  • Again, you need a mirror. really.just go down to your local dollar store and get one. I’d even send you a buck.

  • Hippocrates spoke against it in his famous oath. Meanwhile, we know the Jewish position on abortion. We also – since you’re so fond of the Bible – have ample evidence that a fetus was not considered a human being, including an actual recipe for an abortificant in the Bible and the fact that if you harm a woman so she miscarries, this isn’t punished like a murder would be.

  • It’s just a place where we make fun of people who do things like use the etymological fallacy, especially when they do it with a wrong etymology.

  • “Functioning in ten dimensions – something you just made up – does not mean you are more or less capable of reasoning”

    Conuly, this is the second time you have accused me of “making up” information that is new to you. You are exposing yourself in a most embarrassing manner. Evidently you are unfamiliar with string theory — not that I am well-versed in it by any means but have had to listen to my father-in-law, an engineer and dyed-in-the-wool science geek, discuss it at length over many family dinners. Do some research once in a while. And as for kids, no, a 4 or 5 year old likely does NOT fully understand why he can’t have candy or cookies for breakfast when they taste just fine to him, or why he has to go to bed when he is not sleepy and wants to play. He only knows mom and dad won’t allow it. Yet the rules are certainly not bad. And a 5 year old is far closer to understanding a parent than a 3 dimensional mortal being is to understanding a multi-dimensional deity.

    “every half-assed thinker in the world before Jesus came up with the same “do unto others” idea as the basic of all morality.” “Do unto others” has jack all to do with what I was talking about. The question is not whether a duty to others exists but TO WHOM the duty is owed. Even Jesus recognized that pagans generally were nice to their peers and “equals.” But it is the natural human tendency to try to limit the members of that group. Even the Jews were not immune (“And who is my neighbor?”). It was the idea that there were no limits to the group which was revolutionary. THAT was how we “grew to be better people.” “We” have simply forgotten where it all came from.

    And you might have spared yourself the treatise on rats. Rats might well cooperate with each other. Put a mouse in with them and they’ll eat it. Nuff said. The “other” is part of nature. We are called to higher than that.

    “And homosexuality is unusual. For many people, what is unusual is therefore wrong” Except that homosexuality was never sufficiently “unusual” to have been considered wrong in any other pre-Judeo-Christian culture. Repudiation of same sex behavior was a Jewish original, taken to the world by Christianity. There is no more reason for throwing it out now than there was then.

    The conversation seems to be drifting, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to debate the existence of God with you. The gospels tell us that this is something that is up to the Holy Spirit, and if God has not revealed Himself to you yet then there is nothing I can do about it. The original point remains that same sex behavior can not be squared with scripture. I always hope for a new and original angle from the “affirmers” but always get the same warmed over nonsense about bacon and such like. A word to the wise: Read the scriptures before you try to argue them. Relying on atheist websites and such drivel to tell you what it says and means will fail you every time.

  • Exactly. I saw the comparative photos of the same venues on the differing occasions. The Trump crowds were smaller. Part of the reason Obama had record size crowds, however, is the simple fact that African Americans are the majority population in downtown D.C., which is also why local public transportation hit record usage for Obama’s inauguration and hit historic lows for Trump’s. Trump’s crowds were mostly white, and mostly well off.

  • OMG, I am really sorry! for some reason, I could have sworn I was reading Jameson’s comment and responded. One beer too many, I guess.

    Feel free to shake your finger at me in a violent and disapproving manner, and afterwards, to give me a severe tongue-lashing.

    comment is deleted.

  • I think you make a very sound argument, and that is why I despair of the so called educational establishment in this country; it’s not about acquiring knowledge-useful knowledge to be put in service to society-nor is it about critical thinking skills in order to properly assess that knowledge. It is, as you rightly note, about funneling everyone through a process in order to have them conform to what I believe is a radicalized mind set.

  • I said, cite an ancient Greek law punishing abortion. There is none. The Hippocratic Oath frowns on the use of pessaries for abortion but the Hippocratic Corpus certainly prescribes a number of abortive methods. Probably the oath was more concerned with the considerable danger that abortion posed to the mother than with any scruple about ending human life — the overriding theme of it was avoidance of harm. In any case, it represents nothing that would be actionable against anyone. That the Torah imposes any penalty at all on causing a miscarriage is a huge step up from that.

  • Trump supporters are the rich cats. Everyone else who voted for him are his dupes, the rubes being sold patent medicine by the Dr. Trump Traveling Medicine Show.

  • Bullshit. Who are the ones who say, “those guys aren’t Christian because they support gay rights, abortion rights, and women’s issues”. Not secularists and atheists. Those words come from reactionary Christians. As an attack to note progressive minded Christians. You define your very christian belief by whom you hate.

    As for Muslims, when their fundamentalists are capable of wielding political power to impose on the rest of us here as Christians do, then I will address them as well. If I were living in Turkey, Bosnia, Albania, Malaysia, Indonesia or Bangledesh, I would be doing so as a matter of course.

  • Who is the one who is looking through scripture for excuses to treat gays and nonbelievers badly? That is all you and Christians like you. It is hate. You don’t want to admit to it, but it is. Under any objective standard it is.

    4. You didn’t read the link. Your ignorance or dishonesty about the history of your faith and it’s interaction with other faiths is duly noted. Maybe try reading actual historical sources instead of relying on nonsense apologia. Antisemism is still fairly common among conservative Christians. They tend to be tone deaf to it most times.

  • More bullshit. We wouldn’t have nationwide marriage equality if not for malicious christian types going out of their way to ban it. Attacking a right or action requires a rational and secular purpose under the law. None existed.

    Making it an issue for the courts. Had they held their bigotry in check, voter apathy would have prevented it nationwide for at least another decade and DOMA would be intact. Your special rights argument was a fiction from the get-go. It denotes a level of ignorance as to what happened.

    Abortion is not infanticide because infants are born. At no point is a fetus an equivalent of an infant, due to being physically attached to its mother and inseparable. Abortion rights exist because women are not property of the state incapable of making decisions concerning their autonomous existence.

    What else are women looking for?

    Equal pay for their work, honest and proper healthcare options….

  • Hi Ben! Thanks for the comment, friend. I disagree, as usual, but no time to discuss today. Only to say I don’t know of any true Christian who is ‘gleeful’ about anybody going to hell. But, I know you don’t believe in hell…so perhaps that’s a moot point. I hope you’re having a fine day!

  • Taliban, Talibaptists. Fundamentalist fanatics are all cut from the same evil cloth. You may point the finger at radical Islam but only because it opposes your Jesus Jihad. They want to bring on their “end of the world” scenario, just like you folks do with yours. Picking between your evil and theirs is just a lose-lose position.

  • So rather than form a whole argument, you want to rehash what was said before. How lazy.

    No, its what you have imputed to it. Ignoring that marriage within the Bible has taken on many different forms or meanings. You have a veracity problem which colors discussions here.

    Marriage is the legal joining of two families. From there there is a wealth of definition and variation.

    You are trying to argue by stipulation. Making declarations without bothering to support them and expecting such statements to be accepted automatically as fact.

    Since procreation happens without marriage and marriage happens without procreation, you are being quite reductive for both. A marriage does not fail to exist if there are no children produced or capable of being produced anymore by it. Parents still owe responsibilities to their children whether married or not. Your argument doesn’t even meet the most remote level of rational thought here.

    You may believe marriage is for the purposes of procreation and purely heterosexual (and assumed to be monogamous), but that does not mean it is true for everyone or has to be. Marriage in any real sense is a civil institution. Whatever you think your religion says on the subject is only of importance within your religion/sect. Simply put, nobody has to take your religious views about marriage as facts.

    Marriages have never been valid without some approval/recording by those in control. It is only when religion and the state were one in the same that such things blended together.

    “More so in recent years than in the past as fathers protected their
    daughters from cads–and today many fathers are not present .”

    Oh dear (facepalm) One of the most pernicious tropes within reactionary religious communities is the commodification of female virginity. Reducing a woman’s worth solely to being ignorant of sexual relations and essentially controlled by men. It is this commodification which enables sexual abuse so easily in such communities. The shame of loss of their sole acknowledged asset as a woman enables further abuse and obstructs notions of reporting abuse.

  • Same to you, Ed.
    Just because someone says they are sorry you are going to hell, doesn’t mean they are not also happy to see their opinions vindicated, even if only by themselves.

  • Proof texting is a rather dishonest way to avoid context of scripture. Much like quotemining is used to misrepresent the words of famous people.

    Rather than look for and following the meaning of scripture as a whole or in a conceptual way, you simply look for passages and phrases which would somehow justify your position.

    Its how you so readily find end runs around rather simple directions (but inconvenient) involving how to treat one’s contemporaries, about avoiding draconian pronouncements, and demonstrating humility. Things which are considered duties in both books of the Bible.

    “You asren’t sufficiently educated to understand what the references mean because you don’t understand the book itself.”

    Well that may make you feel better. After all egotism and self-righteous preening appears to be a selling point for fundamentalist religious belief. It makes one feel more holy and knowledgeable. But all you are demonstrating is how one can selectively use text to justify what would be morally unjustifiable.

    “The Bible is God’s word. You obviously have a problem with that.”

    Except you weren’t quoting the Bible. You were imputing meaning to it which was not there in the plain text. This whole spiel was because you read into the text a ban on something which is not stated or even implied in the entirety of the passage. You came up with your own meaning.

    And now the spinelessness of your discussion comes forward. Rather than accept being judged on the content of your character and the honesty and rationality of your interpretation, you want to claim its just God’s word and therefore above criticism. Well that doesn’t wash. Because obviously there are plenty of people who take the same words and come up with an entirely different and far more socially redeemable take than you. You may not consider them as holy and godly as you, but nobody has to care about such opinions.

    Now its not God’s word which is the problem. Its how you are using it.

    As for your last question, the thing I love about it is that it tells more of the person asking the question than it does when responded to.
    If you have to be instructed that harming people maliciously is bad, then you have no connection to humanity whatsoever. No concept of reciprocity, empathy or basic decency. Its what a sociopath would ask. If you did not have religion holding you by a divine leash, would you run amok and start harming others? I will tell you that the number of people I would maliciously harm is the same whether there is a god or not, zero.

  • So now you are Christ? Jesus didn’t have an entire extra book of the Bible to work off of to explain his beliefs. You do.

    Its telling that Christians invoke the OT when they want to sound tough, invoke sectarian animosity, make draconian pronouncements and be judgmental. Jews use the same book and find a duty to be charitable, look for justice as opposed to merely following rules, and try to get along with those outside their group.

    Christians are hypocrites when it comes to the OT. Its hardwired into your faith. Leviticus and whatnot is to be enforced against others but not one’s self. The excuses come in thick on this subject.

    Standard line is “Christians follow the ENTIRE LAW…except when applied to ourselves then Jesus said we don’t have to follow those anymore. His crucifixion absolved us of the responsibility.”

  • [slowly backs away, makes sure there are no firearms or sharp implements within your reach]

    The ultra-conservative should really avoid humor. Not enough understanding of self deprecation in comedy, and it usually comes off a bit psychopathic.

  • At least they are grabbing their own. As for the rest of your comment– well, slandering and reviling are a good Christian’s stock in trade. Congrats, you good Christian you.

  • I guess God needed a continuity editor. Perhaps even a comment section and footnotes* 🙂

    *See The Midrash

  • There is no such thing as a “leftwing Christian.”

    These are polar opposites, and they cannot be merged.

  • Cool. Now you are an “expert” in psychology. Sorry, being a lot nuts does not qualify that way. Just because you run up the tab with your shrink does not give you license to counsel me.

  • The folks in the rust belt and middle America are the rubes, the dupes, the patsies who got conned by Trump. They are also his victims, not his co-conspirators.

  • Labels, labels and more labels. Judging others based on your own prejudices is your only shtick, isn’t it?

  • Dude, I don’t want to think about anal sex that much. To be honest, I think all sex is a little squicky – all those bodily fluids – so I avoid thinking about it in any detail.

  • I didn’t say multiple dimensions don’t exist. I said that you flat out made up that God exists in multiple dimensions. I assure you, string theory does not say that, and if you were told it did, somebody lied to you.

  • LOL! THAT’S your argument? If the universe exists in multiple dimensions then so must its Creator.

    It’s better to simply acknowledge when you’ve blundered than to try to backpedal. It always makes one look worse than one did in the first place.

  • LOL! THAT’S your argument? If the universe exists in multiple dimensions then so must its Creator.

    Not really. Surely an omnipotent being could, in fact, create a universe with more or less dimensions than it itself exists in. That’s sort of the definition of “omnipotent”.

    Nothing about dimensions past the third is in the Bible anyway. This is not supported in any way, shape, or form by science or scripture.

  • Well now we have a new synonym for cretin, “deplorable”. Plus this site has been infested by a higher percentage of neo Nazis than expected. (Not referring to you. Relax)

  • The Higgs Boson went unobserved and unproven for fifty years after it was theorized. Today it is an observable reality pointing to new possibilities wrt the nature of dark matter and solutions to the mysteries of gravity and possible new dimensions which make sense mathematically but which we will never be able to fully grasp with our limited minds.

    For the rest, you appear to be merely playing with words for the sake of argument and I have better things to do with my time than that. Good night.

  • To these people abortion is one of their principal sacraments!

    Actually, no. We’d all be happier if most people had access to the most effective contraceptions, so there were few if any unwanted pregnancies. And we’d all be thrilled if most people had access to free health care and free preschool and financial support for children (a publicly funded food and clothing budget, perhaps, and a budget for extracurriculars, and free school break camps) so they could financially support children.

    These two things have been proven to reduce the number of abortions, and also save our society lots of money in the long run.

  • it was only by gerrymandering, a weighted voting system that
    marginalized all of the demographics that are increasing, and a targeted
    vilification and propaganda campaign that the power grab was feasible.

    Don’t forget the outright and unforgiveable voter suppression tactics.

  • Gee, along with free contraceptives, why not new cars for everybody–Mercedes and Cadalacs, not Hunddis! Why not new homes for everyone? Why not free food, cooked and delivered to everyone’s doors every day? And free wardrobes–both personal and professional? (Strike the professional one! no one needs ever to work!) Why not free nannies to take care of and rear those children? Summers need not be those long, stay-at-home boring stretches–why not provide everyone their choice of a free Mediterranian cruise or an African safari? Gee, you’ve got me going on this “free everything–the government will pay for it!”-fantasy I can’t stop!

  • As I said, we actually would spend less money providing IUDs for all women than we currently do on WIC, on medicare, on foster care, on homeless shelters, on free school lunch, on Head Start, and on prison. The most common reason people don’t want a child, or another child? Lack of funds.

  • Obviously you are surprised by a great many things . And you have LONG since forgotten what the argument was — that scriptural truth does not in any way condone or allow for SSM, and that this prohibition does not appeal to you does not in any way alter that fact.

    The point of my remark about the Higgs Boson is not, of course, that it leads directly to the Bible but that reality consists of far, far more than what we can experience within the meager limits of our five senses or reason out with our finite minds. That you can not get your mind around the purposes of an infinite deity is hardly an indication that the deity does not exist or has imparted no truth to His creation.

  • Your argument is still not logical. “God is infinite, and we know because we cannot figure him out”. That’s not only not logical, that’s absolutely nonsensical. Again, I’m surprised at you.

    And you have LONG since forgotten what the argument was — that
    scriptural truth does not in any way condone or allow for SSM, and that
    this prohibition does not appeal to you does not in any way alter that
    fact.

    Again, that is your point of view. There are a great many Christians and Jews who disagree. You are not the final word in what is and is not the correct interpretation of your holy book.

  • That would be a surprise to a lot of black Muslims.

    As you get more and more enraged, what little sense you make is rapidly engulfed by an overwhelming tide of trumpistic silliness.

    But don’t stop now. Just wipe a little of that spittle off your lips. It destroys your credibility.

  • Honey, YOU were the one that brought it up. Several times. Now, what were you saying about projection?

    Oh, yes. I understand it’s what fundelibangelists do.

  • Of course you did. But you could have stopped after three words and saved yourself a lot of electrons.

  • So, you are now asserting to be black and a Christian. Exactly how have you indicated being part of the African American community at any point in our discussions? And how exactly have any of my remarks disrespected the Black Community in any way? Disagreeing with you, based solely on the contents of your arguments and their merits, would be exactly what MLK asked of all of us, judging others on the contents of their hearts and not the color of their skin.

    And, actually, if you are Black, my reaction to that bit of news marks me even more as a liberal. That factoid would actually soften my reaction to some of your remarks for the simple reason that African Americans so often get judged unfairly that there is always a little anger there over that ongoing unfairness. It would make some of your anger make more sense to me and give me pause in reacting to it.

  • That’s not anything which anyone else is required to obey. All you are doing is trying to enforce political correctness as you see it. It will never work.

  • Maybe garbage like “The Rapture” and other ideologies created in the 19th Century to fool the gullible.

  • Conuly, what you have stated as my argument is NOT my argument. I have already stated, and I guess you missed it, that knowledge of God comes through the working of the Spirit. You’ll never arrive at it through the finite mind. Jesus told us exactly that. But neither can you disprove His existence simply because He doesn’t fit in the little box defined by your five senses. Reality is a lot bigger than that.

    “There are a great many Christians and Jews who disagree.”

    Yeah yeah, that’s a frequently-heard refrain around here. But somehow VERY few want to step up and volunteer their scriptural case for their ‘disagreement “. Yours didn’t even hold up till the water got hot, and neither has anyone else’s. Because it doesn’t really exist. Any “scriptural” argument for affirming ssm in the church inevitably boils down to selectively throwing out scripture, and can be picked apart as easily as a dead dandelion. It’s almost touching (but mainly piteous) how the scriptural illiterates, mainly atheist but not all, have such faith that this elusive “case” exists if only someone would come along and clue them in on it.

  • Shawnie, the Bible is amazingly inconsistent. Well, that’s not that amazing – this is what we expect from a collection of documents written and compiled by a variety of people, no two of whom had the same agenda. Everybody has to pick and choose some parts to keep and some to throw out.

    Most Christians and most Jews are honest with themselves about this reality. Some are not.

  • That isn’t what Christ said. Why bother to try to “interpret” His words about divorce (which is what you were originally doing here) and ignore His words about living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God?

    It seems to me you guys would do better to simply repudiate the scriptures outright, rather than come around here telling us how we should “interpret” scripture that you haven’t read much of yourself.

  • Shawnie, you keep asserting, on the basis of no evidence, that I have no “read much of” the Bible. I assure you, I have. The fact that I disagree with your interpretation is not proof that your understanding is correct and I haven’t read it.

    Also, if Jesus said the Bible is amazingly consistent, well, then, Jesus lied. Because the only way to make the Bible work as a consistent document is to selectively ignore some verses. Everybody does it, including you. (Tell me – am I supposed to answer a fool according to his folly, or not answer a fool according to his folly? Am I supposed to hate my brother or love my brother?)

  • People claim to “kniw the Bible” around here all the time but the truth of the matter always shows one way or another. You knew nothing of the passages from Leviticus regarding God’s judgment on Gentiles for sexual immorality, and complained that you didn’t want to go look them up. You claimed Leviticus had nothing to do with the Canaanites. You knew nothing about the Jerusalem Council. Citation-please-citation-please… if you knew what you were talking about you would need no citation. I never ask for a citation except to demonstrate that my interlocutor has none, which of course I already know before I ask.

    Jesus said nothing about the consistency of scripture. What He said was that we are to live by it.

  • I didn’t “complain I didn’t want to go look them up”. I pointed out that as the person presenting the claim, you have the burden of proof.

    You always need a citation, whether everybody agrees or not. That’s a basic rule of rational conversation and debate.

    Jesus said nothing about the consistency of scripture. What He said was that we are to live by it.

    When it is inconsistent? Tell me – are you supposed to answer a fool according to his folly or not? Are you supposed to love your brother or hate him?

  • “You always need a citation, whether everybody agrees or not. That’s a basic rule of rational conversation and debate.”

    When writing a research paper or defending a thesis, yes. When discussing a specific matter on an internet forum, where everybody is claiming to know the subject matter, and has limited time to fool around with minutia and re-invent the wheel with every poster because we have lives, after all, then demanding cites is mostly a diversionary device which actually exposes a lack of expertise.

    Either know your stuff going in and discuss accordingly, or don’t claim tbe knowledge and we’ll reference it for you accordingly.

    As to Jesus and inconsistency, do you have a specific inconsistency in mind?

  • Shawnie, we don’t all have access to the same exact information – and we certainly don’t all have the Bible memorized. It is trivially easy for you to simply say “This exact verse”, and if you did it from the start, then we wouldn’t have to discuss the matter.

    As to Jesus and inconsistency, do you have a specific inconsistency in mind?

    I already pointed to two of them – are you supposed to hate your family or not, are you supposed to answer fools according to their folly or not?

    And since you apparently do have the Bible memorized – good job! – I’ll leave you to dig up the verses.

  • Have you read the other verses that speak of “hating” one and loving the other? Such as, “Israel I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Or “No one can serve two masters, for he will hate one and love the other.” Does that word and context actually amount to loathing? No, it expresses preference. And indeed if it comes down to a choice between Jesus and any other earthly tie, such as family, we are to prefer Him, familial love notwithstanding.

    As for answering a fool, what is the inconsistency? Simply answer everyone with truth. Truth will expose the folly of a fool every time.

  • Well, in one verse of Proverbs we are told to answer a fool according to his folly. In the next, we are told not to do this. Clearly, we cannot do both. Which is it?

    But it goes on.

    And, really, you’re stretching to say that “hate” doesn’t mean “hate”.

    Either hating your brother is as good as murdering him and everybody who claims to love Jesus but hates their brother is lying… or you can’t go to Jesus without hating your entire family.

  • “And, really, you’re stretching to say that “hate” doesn’t mean “hate”.

    I don’t see why; what I said fits perfectly within the definition of the operative word in Strong’s Greek lexicon:

    Miséō – properly, to detest (on a comparative basis); hence, denounce; to love someone or something less than someone (something) else, i.e. to renounce one choice in favor of another.

    “Well, in one verse of Proverbs we are told to answer a fool according to his folly. In the next, we are told not to do this. Clearly, we cannot do both. Which is it?”

    I do both all the time. I avoid “becoming like them” in stooping to the kind of tactics they use right here every day, such as name-calling, vulgarity, and insults. Yet I do answer their arguments with scriptural truth and honesty. That passage is a direction to contend for the faith but not by lowering one’s self. It’s actually quite brilliant.

  • And thank the god I don’t believe in for that. I don’t condone killing people because they don’t share my beliefs. Sandi and Jesus apparently do. I guess you do as well.

    You’re all so…charming.

  • Well, if all else fails, pull out the race card. And project your own sins onto others.

    I don’t bring up the subject of anal sex. You do, continually, and your active imagination is just full of your imaginations about my sex life.

    But you are right. My use of the word honey is intended as a put down. But I don’t use the word o’ god to put people down. I’ll leave that to Christians, like the ones who declared that black people were white people’s inferiors, and had the word o’ god to prove it.

  • And you bring up the subject of your race, of which I had no idea, in order to accuse other people of racism.

    You have some really issues, lady.

  • “You are continually hateful toward the Bible; toward anyone on this site that tries to show you plainly, through scripture, what Christ clearly states as his teachings on truth and love–written so plainly that the common man can understand it–and you continually crucify both the messenger and Christ himself.”
    Nice try at playing Grand Inquisitor for the long dead King of Spain. Your false accusations are not evidence of your equally false conclusions. You only reveal yourself to be an unreasoning bigot who has his blinders on too tight. The light of Christ is not in you.

  • Actually, you just made no sense whatsoever unless you believe in the Inquisition and have proclaimed yourself Grand Inquisitor. You sin in falsely accusing others of sin.

  • You mention your presumption of sin in the words and actions of others as if you had some holy mandate to judge for Jesus. Trying to turn yourself into some sort of Grand Inquisitor from the Spanish Inquisition by using their wrongheaded methods just shows how out of touch with reality and true faith you really are.

  • “All human being are inherently spiritual”
    Wow! Something we can both agree on. But the rest of your statements veer straight off the path of religious truth into the manure pile again. But for one second, you were spot on. Who knows, perhaps in a couple thousand more words you might stubble onto one or two more actual religious truths.

  • Amazing how much absolute crap you can make up about people whom you don’t know and know nothing about.
    Amazing how many Jews or Christians not are as obsessed with homosexuality as you seem to be. And if they are not, how quick are you to bash them for being apostate, for not being the right type of Christian.
    Amazing how I bashed Christians as if they were all white. When you are your type of Christian lie and slander gay people, it’s just your religious opinion. We disagree, and we’re bashing you. And yet when bash opther Christians, you’re just being kind a loving.
    Amazing how your posting is a text book example of projecting all of your faults and viciousness onto other people. When a homosexual-hating Christian such as yourself weaponizes your bible, it’s proof that gay people are evil. When Christians do it to black people, and cite their bibles to prove it, then they are racists. Yes they are: Christian, bible citing racists.
    I think you are a very sick, very angry, very self-righteous, and very frightened person.
    May you have the joy of it.

  • Actually, one of the first gay men I ever met or ever talked with was the director of the community theater production of Godspell in my hometown in 1975. He was a self-described “Black Gay Christian Pastor” from San Francisco and he was one of three paid guest directors for our community Summer Theater Festival. He was talking about all the of same progressive interpretations of the Old and New Testament 40+ years ago that form the basis for LGBT-affirming churches to open their congregations and clergy to LGBT now.

    He started every rehearsal with prayer and scripture reading, and no one in the community dared tell him that he could not pray or talk about Jesus in the public square, so to speak. Considering that I grew up Mormon (but socially liberal) and Mormons then practiced horrendous racism against blacks, I was mesmerized by the charisma of that very flamboyant black Christian preacher. I have forever since accepted the fact that a person could be both LGBT and a Christian.

    Thus, your effort to assert that all black people feel as you do is just plain not so. It’s true that young Black LGBT get less emotional support in the Black community than LGBT youth in other minority groups, but that is not a thing to boast about. It’s a problem that needs to be fixed by helping African American Christians to see past forms of bigotry that still harm them and their loved ones.

ADVERTISEMENTs