Does God Hate Fags?

[yella_dawg]

This is a serious question.

The latest idiocy from Fred Phelps has been bouncing around the board the past few days. Someone posted a link to his website, so I clicked on it. I was amazed that the site is actually the site of a "legitimate" Baptist church. I suppose the “church” could be one of those metal shed-in-a-box things out behind the house, but the website was well done and appeared professionally designed. This all adds up to some sort of legitimacy. It's possible that someone takes this madman seriously.

The thing is, I'm a hardline, fundamentalist Pagan. Born one, will die one. Damned glad I am one. Obviously I know dick about Christianity. Well, I have tried to read their Bible a couple of times, out of curiosity. If you actually read the book linearly, straight through, instead of just taking those little snippets zealous little old ladies post in the newspaper classifieds, it's a pretty weird book. I keep getting grossed out by the detailed instructions for animal sacrifice. At that point, I give up and vow to try again later.

Anyway, I don't know a lot about the Christian mythology and stuff, but the idea that the Christian god hates gays is pretty strange. As I understand it, the Christian god created humanity, and one of his lieutenants, Lucifer, one of the higher ranking Angels, got jealous for some reason and led a revolt out in the plane of the gods. God tossed his butt out and Lucifer set himself up in business in a place called Hell. Since then, the two have contended for human souls in some kind of twisted game. Sorry to you Christians, but from the outside looking in, the whole Heaven / Hell thing is downright bizarre.

So as I understand it, god handles the creation thing one at a time, and each individual is a unique item crafted by god. From that point on, Lucifer is hustling to turn that individual to the dark side.

Are gays really immortal souls that Lucifer has turned? If so, isn't Yahweh dropping the ball here? If humans turn in such huge numbers, that smacks of a design flaw. It seems to me that all this crap Phelps is pumping is just a round-about way of calling god a screw-up.

What if people are born with their sexual preferences? I've got quite a few gay friends, and that's the way it looks to me. None of my friends are twisted sickos who revel in debauchery. They have desires and appetites, and that's pretty much that, gay or straight. I swear, I can't tell the difference as far as causes and motivations go. Let me back up. I do have one friend who is into the weird and kinky, just for the kinkiness of it. He's straight. But if people are born with inherent preferences, then Phelps is really dissing god's creation skills.

So anyway, the way I see it, all the ragging on gays that's been going on, whether it's Phelps or some Congress person, is actually blasphemy, assuming the ranters are Christian.

Actually, calling any reasonable sexual act a sin is downright questionable. It's sort of like saying god built automobiles, and you're gonna burn if you go for a Sunday afternoon drive in the country. And if you speed, you are really screwed.

My God simply doesn't care what I do in bed. As long as we're talking consenting adult stuff. I'd be willing to bet the Christian god isn't particularly interested either.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if when a Christian gets to the other side, Lucifer isn't standing there explaining that nobody cares about humans' sex lives, and all this sin crap is an hilariously cruel "gotcha".


So. Is the Christian god really all that interested in human sexuality, on an individual basis, or is all this simply an emotional disorder of an entire subculture?

[AlbizuX]

1. God hates...

fag-hating morons.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Yeah. He is not happy with haters. And I REALLY don't think he

requires "fags" to "stop being gay".

-------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[against all enemies]

93. http://www.godhatesfags.com/

[Sugarbleus]

2. No. God IS love........... n/t

[SemperEadem]

96. Fred Phelps worships satan

satan hates.

God loves.

Period.

[jpgray]

3. Seems to me there are about two lines in the entire book on "fags"

Whereas Jesus has nothing to say on the issue, but rather advocates the rich giving their goods to the poor and bringing up the unfortunate with the strength of the fortunate. Dare I say from each according to his/her ability and to each according to his/her need?

:D

[boomboom]

8. Also

Jesus was very tender and gentle with the "sexual sinners" Adulterers, prostitutes, etc. His anger was only aroused by the greedy money-lovers, as with the money changers in the Temple. I know one sin isn't better or worse than another in God's eyes. But, it seems like idolatry and pride are more offensive. But, that's just my opinion.

[jpgray]

9. Welcome to DU

And if you're going to do religious interpretation, I think in this country you're not allowed to have the phrase "but, that's just my opinion" included.

:D

[boomboom]

12. Lol. Oops. n/t

[EVDebs]

95. Dante's levels of hell puts sins of the flesh near limbo, the hubs are

reserved for traitors, or people who should know better but turn on the true message for personal gains... like Judas Iscariot.

[imenja]

5. God hates no one.

Not even these lunatics.

[RPM]

10. yep

someone gets it :-)

[noamnety]

6. It's all a big misunderstanding

Fags = cigarettes, in proper English. God hates cigarettes. Smelly, cancer causy things.

It's like the virgins - raisins misunderstanding. Could happen to anyone.

[yella_dawg]

26. Fags are cigarettes?

I thought it meant firewood.

Silly me.

[NewInNewJ.]

7. Nooooooooooooooooo

God loves us all. Plesae don't even question the love of God. You are playing in to the hands of the Christian right. They want us to believe that. God love homosexual as much as anyone. God is Love for everyone.

[InvisibleBallots]

11. God hates anyone mentioning Phelps and giving him publicity

It's in the Bible.

[yella_dawg]

13. Boy.

I guess I'm screwed, huh? :)

[InvisibleBallots]

108. yes, yella_dawg, you are screwed

You decided to post another culture war thread, thus driving a wedge between the majority of Christian Democrats and all the rest. God is pissed, may he have mercy on your soul :shrug:.

[tuvor]

14. God didn't seem to have a problem with David and Jonathan.

I just found this through Google, and I know there's a lot more out there.

http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/GayLove3.html

[CornField]

15. A few things

I'm a former protestant christian turned pagan. :)

First, the church that you saw on the web site? Yes, it really is a stone and mortar structure. It was built by the Phelps family and 90% of the congregation is the Phelps family. Even some of the most conservative folks in Kansas don't wish to associate with Phelps.

Second, I'm not sure how much of the various religions you have studied. I find it very interesting that pre-Christianity there was a duality. That is, the female played a very prominent role. In other surviving religions, females are still given a place of respect and grace. It seems, at least to me, that only in the Christian faith have women been villified and placed somehow below men.

No, that really doesn't answer your question about homosexuality, but, given that you are a pagan, I thought you might find it interesting just the same.

[yella_dawg]

19. Religious Study

I hate to make broad generalizations about paganism. Really, it's "religion meets anarchy" in some senses. But I do get the feeling that, in general, pagans tend to study religion more than Christians. Some Christians do read the Bible, but that's about it. You start talking about historical context and cultural backgrounds, biblical themes found in prior cultures / religions, and that sort of thing, and most of the Christians I've known go blank. They all think Jesus was this white, english-speaking guy. At least the in the pagan community here in Austin, the same statements among pagans will probably start a four-hour debate. If you get off that easily.

Given that level of religious study, it's safe to say that most early religions recognized female Deity. At least in day-to-day life, that allowed a gentler culture. That may well be pure romanticism, but at least in Western culture, there does seem to have been a great deal of equality between the sexes, prior to the adoption of Christianity. I do believe that the Adam / Eve / Apple thing has been a strong (negative) influence on gender relations in Christian Era gender relations.

[Lady Sonelle]

16. Speaking of Pagans... Cute story...

I heard this in an Asatru Circle I uased to belong to (Hi, Hrafnar Hold!) and thought it was a great story.

A Wiccan couple had a daughter who was around five or six years old and who had been raised as Wiccan. at one point, they were friends or relatives with a Christian woman and they let their daughter stay with her for a week or so while the couple's second child was being born... anyway, the Christian woman, with the parent's consent, took the girl to church with her.

Seeing the crucifix, the child was very interested in it as she had never seen one before. "Auntie, why is that man hanging like that?" she asked and the lady told her all about Christ's sacrifice on the cross, etc. The little girl seemed to pay very little attention and finally replied "Well, I saw him in my mon's Tarot deck... but why is he upside DOWN?"

It's all in how you look at it!

Lady sonelle

[Nevernose]

17. FRED PHELPS hates fags; a lot of Christians love them

I, for instance, attend an Evangelical Lutheran church, primarily because of their stances on

homosexuality (who are we to judge how two people love each other?),

the environment (we are supposed to be stewards of the earth, not rapists),

evolution (science should be taught in schools, and why can't Genesis and Darwin co-exist? Is God incapable of a metaphor?),

and abortion (why shouldn't a woman and employee with our health plan choose whether or not to have a baby? Are we not capable of drawing a distinction between a fetus and a baby? And who are we to judge someone else's sins?)

I assure you that one can fully experience God's love and even have "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" (essentially what "evangelical" means) and still be a progressive. In fact, I would argue that any alleged Christian who actually read and processed the Bible, as well as had any intention to live up to Jesus' teachings, would have no choice but to be a progressive. Jesus was a liberal, and that;s good enough for me.

[alfredo]

18. John Lennon said,

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain." I interpret that as, our projected image of God is a reflection of our mental health. Ol Fred is pretty sick.

[Bouncy Ball]

100. I've also heard people say

that the God a person believes in often reflects whatever is in that person's heart. Thus if that person hates, the God they believe in hates. I think that is close to what you said.

[alfredo]

105. I see the same thing with dogs and their owners. N/T

[OnionPatch]

20. No, that's ridiculous

God does not hate homosexuals. I don't think he hates Fred Phelps either, but Fred will have some explaining to do. I think God will probably have Fred come back as a gay in his next life. :D

[Az]

21. This is the reason the issue is so hot

It really is a dividing point over who's explanation for the world is correct. If the hardline believers are correct then this is a world of absolutes. Absolute morals that do not change over time. Absolute authority of God. Absolute Good and Evil.

In the world of the absolutist people are all the same. They are made in God's image. They are able to exhibit free will. But evil exists in the world and it can taint a person and turn them to the dark side. Evil is defined by what God decides. We are incapable of determining Evil for ourselves. We are completely dependent on God's definitions.

God would not make a person such that they were forced to be Evil. It is a failing only we can make by choice or mistake. Since no one is expected to be able to live up to the perfection of this code (then why make the code in the first place) God sent Jesus down here to absolve us of our sins. But to benefit from this we have to accept Jesus.

In accepting Jesus we have to accept the truth that he represents. And that truth includes the notion that homosexuality was not created by God. It is of Satan. It is Evil. Because God would never make an abomination as he describes it in the Bible.

But then there is the modern world and its take on morality. We have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is likely the result of a difference in the brain(relative to a statistic norm). It seems to occur in nature. It may even be an evolved survival trait to deal with population overload. Thus we have reexamined our moral rejection of the practice and now embrace it( :grouphug: ).

These two worlds are on a collision course. They cannot coexist. But neither one is simply going to surrender and walk away. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. And these play out in our society for dominance and control. And historically such struggles seldom end nicely.

[yella_dawg]

23. Interesting

In accepting Jesus we have to accept the truth that he represents. And that truth includes the notion that homosexuality was not created by God. It is of Satan. It is Evil. Because God would never make an abomination as he describes it in the Bible.

This is getting to the point of my question. By creating an individual who partakes of "abomination" does god not bear some of the responsibility here? I understand the idea behind free will, and the concept that people must make some effort to be "good". My point is, the Christians believe god to be infallible, as I understand it. We're not talking about prison inmates "doing the nasty" by some conscious decision. We're talking about a significant portion of the population who are willing to make long term commitments. My point, I guess, is that if humans were some kind of manufactured item, this level of "failure" would indicate a severe quality control problem. I still think that homophobia in Christians is a particularly nasty form of heresy.

[Az]

24. But that is the crux of the argument

According to the the authoratarians God did not make gays. He made normal human beings (normal in this case being a biased notion of not gay). They chose to be gay or were mislead into being gay. Thus the reason they absolutely cannot accept the notion that being gay is something normal and probably something you are born with.

Accepting this notion would bring their entire world view down.

[yella_dawg]

25. Not trying to be argumentative...

And I understand that you are describing the mindset of others.

But my point is, it is estimated that 11% (I think) of the US population is gay. This is not a group that "occasionally indulges in sin". Homosexuality is a fundamental part of their life. That they had such a high potential for "abomination" seems an indictment of their creator. Hence my use of the term "heresy".

Please understand that as a pagan, I automatically question my gods, my religion, and my own morality. It's just part of the package. In trying to understand Christianity, this particular topic is of great interest to me, since it has significant ramifications for the idea of "infallibility", etc.

[Az]

28. It doesn't make much sense does it

And I know you are not trying to be argumentative. If you do not have this absolutism as part of your mindset it can be pretty tough to imagine. But simply put they do not believe that homosexuality is recognition of who you are. You can show them gay penguins and they will insist they are not gay.

Note this is not the position of all Christians.

Most modern Christianity is an odd mix of religious doctrine fused with humanist ideals. About 500 years ago the age of enlightenment struck with a vengence. This was due to the increase of diversity of cultures spreading throughout Europe. No longer able to maintain a monolithic structure the rise of reason brought about an explosion.

Society embraced this new reason. New sects arose that embraced exploring the bible on their own (for most of history the bible was actually a banned book, only preists could own or read them). Interpretation and reason were applied to it.

Society began developing its own sense of right and wrong. Simply out of necessity. In the new diversity one religious view quickly finds difficulty trying to force its views on others. Thus society has to find a way to deal with morality, ethics, and laws. Thus Secular rule was developed. And in this new climate relativism and situational ethics became common place.

But the institutions that had created the dogmatic structures of control and dominance still existed. Thrown from the pedestal but still alive. Their doctrine and structures still embraced the notions of control and dominance.

As time moved on certain themes became common place. Freedoms became accepted and expected in time. Many of the ideas that came with the humanist revolution became internalised to some sects.

Thus we have modern times. Many are a fusion of ideals from different backgrounds. Free to determine their own truth about the doctrines they follow. Others reject interpretation and insist there is no room for interpretation. What was true is always true.

[antigone382]

73. Fundies believe in original sin.

In other words, they believe the passage "...for all have fallen short of the glory of God..." I'm explaining this to you as well as I can, because I was a Christian for the first twenty years of my life, and I studied the theology of my church (Baptist) as much as I could.

Anyway, "original sin" is basically the concept that all humans are born evil in the eyes of God, and God's definition of evil is vastly different and more strict than the human definition of evil. Every person in the world is as guilty of sin and as worthy of eternal damnation as Osama bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, and GWB. Some Fundies, though not all, even believe that infants who are too young to understand God's word, and whose parents are not Christians, will go to Hell if they die, and that this is just, because they are born sinners. We all *deserve* eternal separation from God and eternal suffering in Hell; if he saves us through his grace, we can only be thankful; if he does not save us, we have no right to complain, as we don't deserve it in the first place.

Also, according to the doctrine of predestination, God has in fact already ordained all the events of time, including who will be saved and who will go to Hell. However it is still our fault if we refuse to accept Christ into our hearts, or even if we never hear of him in our lifetime, and we deserve the eternal damnation that was selected for us long before we ever came into being. I don't know the logic behind this, but it doesn't really matter anyway; according to the brand of Christianity I was taught, anything that defies logic is a mystery that goes beyond human comprehension.

How does all this apply? Basically, it means that, regardless of whether homosexuality is naturally occuring (which I believe) or is a choice, it is evil in the eyes of God, and merely a symptom of original sin. By whatever logic or non-logic the fundamentalists use, God is not responsible for that sin or its consequences, even though he created the person and predetermined that person's choices and ultimate fate. It is solely the responsibility of that individual, because God is perfect and cannot make a mistake.

I know that this makes no sense. But when you can use the excuse that God is greater than humans, and he is capable of things that we cannot comprehend, logic becomes meaningless in any debate you might have.

[Swamp Rat]

22. LOL! ... "hilariously cruel "gotcha!""

That's why I am a fornicating heathen-pinko-commie-librul-sex fiend... "I am an anti-christ!" HAHA! :evilgrin:

[pauliedangerously]

33. Another fine piece of work!!

You know, I worked on that SOB's son's mansion in Virginia Beach back in '94. Painted 666 all over the eaves of his garage...smoked a lot of weed behind it too, but that was just for kicks.

Fornication is the best...my relationship with my wife got way better after we separated and got divorced; all the pleasure without all the hassle. Her family motto is "Pleasure never fails." :evilgrin:

[Swamp Rat]

37. HAHAHA!

I would've done the same. :D

Life begins again after divorce... especially if you go to Brasil and meet a sex goddess. Oba! ;)

Jerry and Pat need to smoke some weed: :smoke:

[Kat45]

27. No. God doesn't hate anybody. God is love. n/t

[arwalden]

40. Heh heh... Love... Yeah Right. "WORSHIP ME OR BURN!!" Love indeed!

Sounds just a tad bit insecure and spiteful.

[youngred]

42. that was helpful to the debate

:eyes:

What "God" is is defined differently by different people. Catholics and many liberal Christians don't necessary believe one has to be "saved" to go to heaven. Thus negating your incendiary and unecessary post.

[arwalden]

43. Youngred...

>> "that was helpful to the debate" <<

What debate would that be? I didn't know that being "helpful" was a requirement, Youngred.

Oh dear... that really put me back in my place. I deserve to be stoned!

How DARE I do anything that would cross the line of propriety by disrespecting deities, and in doing so, offend the delicate sensibilities of their believers. :eyes:

Here's the deal... I have to cope with the fact that God hates me. So god-lovers will just have to cope with the fact that I hate their "god" right back.

>> What "God" is is defined differently by different people. <<

So what you're saying is that because someone else's definition and perception of "god" is DIFFERENT than yours, then it is less valid that yours. -- Oh I see.

Therefore, because THEIR definition is inferior to the "true" definition (your definition), then MY REACTION and response is somehow invalid? -- Wow!

That's astounding!

>> Catholics and many liberal Christians don't necessary believe one has to be "saved" to go to heaven. <<

So what? See above.

>> Thus negating your incendiary and unecessary post. <<

No-o-o! Really? It "negates" it? Can you really afford to be so dismissive? :eyes:

"Incendiary"? Gee... thanks! --- I think your overwrought response is directed at the wrong target. Reload and aim again.

"Unnecessary"? Oh brother! --- Would it please you if I were to get your permission and approval before posting such "incendiary" comments? How about if I just let you form my opinion for me? :eyes:

[Misunderestimator]

45. As a devil's advocate *ahem* being nearly atheist myself...

To defend Christians on DU, most of the ones I have seen here worship a god that DOES love us. I'm all in support of your anger at the ones that worship the hateful god. Assuming that they are the same god is the mistake.

[arwalden]

46. If "assuming that they are the same god is the mistake"...

then *whose* mistake is it? Theirs or mine?

Are there other Christians gods I should be aware of? -- If memory serves, according to both sides, there is only "one" god and that's the "god" that I hate.

>> To defend Christians on DU, <<

What's to defend? I didn't attack Christians on DU, did I? If I did, then I will offer my sincere apologies. But I won't apologize for imagined attacks by folks who feel "personally attacked" by any unflattering word that's spoken about their deity or their religion.

>> most of the ones I have seen here worship a god that DOES love us. <<

Good for them! I certainly don't begrudge them their right to believe in and adore and love their deity... and by the same token, why should anyone begrudge me my right to scorn and hate a deity?

My feelings on the existence of deities is well known. However, for the sake of argument, we'll assume that a deity exists. For those who do believe... upon whose authority can they accurately claim that their deity is the "love" deity? Maybe they are wrong. Maybe the ones who believe in the vengeful-spiteful deity are correct. Maybe god really DOES hate fags.

Other than keeping totally silent, there is little that I can say that will please all sides. There's just no winning. Even the assumption that they are "different" gods is likely to be an affront to the ones who are convinced that there is only "one true" god (never mind whether it's the god-of-love or the god-of-hate).

But honestly now... does anyone expect me to remain silent on this? After all... if GOD HATES FAGS! How can I NOT say anything about that?

[Misunderestimator]

49. Absolutely you can react to Phelps' hatred. Absolutely.

As I do.

I do doubt that the majority of Christians consider the god they worship to be the same god that Phelps does. Therefore, though they wouldn't consider there to be two gods, since that goes against the whole idea of their god being the only god, they would consider Phelps' god to be fiction.

I'm with you on the existence of deities... It's all whooey to me. But I respect Christians who really do seem to espouse the qualities that are good in Christianity and reject outdated and hateful interpretations of what is right and good. Just as I respect Muslims who do the same... as I respect atheists who do the same. And I save my anger for those who use their Christianity as a weapon against me.

I have no idea about the intentions of the poster who said "God is Love..." but it seemed to me that either the poster was being sarcastic (therefore NOT saying God is love), or he is someone who believes that his/her god loves everyone. How is that a bad thing?

[arwalden]

53. Well...

>> I do doubt that the majority of Christians consider the god they worship to be the same god that Phelps does. <<

Unfortunately I'm not as optimistic about that as you are. I believe that most of them do (to a large extent) worship the same god that Phelps does. We need only look as far as the results of all the anti-gay initiatives that passed. Does anyone here actually believe that their hatred of Queers isn't motivated by their Christianity?

Perhaps they are not as vitriolic and vicious about their feelings. They disguise their hatred with a mantra of "love the sinner, hate the sin". -- Oh Yeah... lots of love there! :eyes: -- These are the ones that smile to your face but will stab you in the back. The talk a good talk, but in the privacy of the voting booth, they are accountable to no social pressures and the REAL hatred comes out.

Can you feel the love tonight?

>> Therefore, though they wouldn't consider there to be two gods, since that goes against the whole idea of their god being the only god, they would consider Phelps' god to be fiction. <<

So then, if this is true, they ought not be offended that I hate the "other god"... a fictional character that doesn't exist.

>> And I save my anger for those who use their Christianity as a weapon against me. <<

Some of mine goes there too... despite their hollow cries that *they* are being persecuted when the true victims start to speak out and fight back. Doesn't that just make your skin crawl?

>> or he is someone who believes that his/her god loves everyone. How is that a bad thing? <<

I suppose that platitudes like "God-Is-Love" have their place. I guess there are times when denial isn't *really* a bad thing. That's how some folks cope.

I've seen folks like that all over the place. You know the ones. They are more interested in being offended that I'M offended than they are at acknowledging WHY I'm offended. --- They are more interested in defending the honor of their deity, than they are in silencing and fighting against those who spew such venom in the name of their deity.

[Misunderestimator]

54. I agree with you on everything you wrote. Everything.

I just think that the level of your expression of anger may have been misapplied here. But then I am not qualified to judge what you do or why you do it. I might have just asked the poster what was meant by the post before making an assumption about it. Maybe it was sarcasm.

[Bouncy Ball]

102. I'm not offended that you hate the fictional hating God

I hate the fictional hating God that these false "Christians" have created, too.

[Kat45]

62. I was not being sarcastic when I said God is love.

I do believe that God is love; we are all his children and he loves us unconditionally. He knows we are imperfect beings and he loves us anyway. He does not "hate fags."

In my church, we did a Bible study on homosexuality. We read all the passages that mention it at all (not many) and we concluded that God does not hate fags. There is no mention of loving homosexual relationships anywhere in the Bible. (although some folks take David/Jonathan to be one). When homosexuality is mentioned, it is the sex act itself, and that's it. But guess what? The same kinds of admonishments against that activity are also given in regard to heterosexual sexual acts outside of marriage (fornication, adultery). We didn't see homosexuality being condemned any more than these other acts; it was not singled out and emphasized for condemnation.

One person in our Bible study class even had his attitude toward homosexuality changed; he had assumed the Bible condemned it because that's what he had always heard. But when he participated in the study, he realized that wasn't the case. As a matter of fact, my denomination (UCC) is the one with those commercials that networks wouldn't run because they thought it too "controversial" as gay couples were shown as accepted.

[youngred]

107. Well I didn't feel personally attacked

so there's another thing you've misattributed to me.

What I said was that your post did the debate no good to the discussion. When by in large everyone is saying that, no, god doesn't hate gay people and that all are welcome you come in and make an attack on people's beliefs. No one is insulting you. no one is calling you a fag. No one is saying anything about your atheism. So what good does it do to piss off and piss on the beliefs of people who are your friends in the broader battle?

[Bouncy Ball]

101. arwalden

You said:

"Here's the deal... I have to cope with the fact that God hates me. So god-lovers will just have to cope with the fact that I hate their "god" right back."

:-(

I don't think God hates you. I think God loves everyone. People who think God hates you are horrible, vile people.

Everyone is free to feel how they want about religion (or they SHOULD be), so I won't address the second sentence, but it saddens me to hear you say God hates you. I know, I should just deal with it, but I hate to think of you thinking anyone hates you. :hug:

[youngred]

106. aw get off the high horse

I know you have no love for the Catholic Church or religion and know you're an atheist, but what I don't understand is your desire to piss in other's pools when they don't wish to do it to you. Are you really that burned by people that you would spit at those who agree with you and are not the demons that have hurt you? I don't think that God hates you, I think God hates the assholes who hate you. By in large the people here agree and you coming in and insulting everyone helps no one.

So what you're saying is that because someone else's definition and perception of "god" is DIFFERENT than yours, then it is less valid that yours. -- Oh I see.

Therefore, because THEIR definition is inferior to the "true" definition (your definition), then MY REACTION and response is somehow invalid? -- Wow!
Nope, that's actually the exact opposite of what I was saying, but thanks for attributing a non-existant bias there!

You can form your opinion, but your nasty broadside served no good purpose other than insulitng people and you do your viewpoint no service by being spiteful to others.

[Telly Savalas]

66. True that.

I don't really buy into the notion of the divine as being a sentient being with a personality that loves and hates. Rather it's something that transcends all that.

However, if one were to posit the existence of a Hebrew Bible style grumpy old guy in the sky God, then I'm sure He would be truly pissed off about the foolishness of cigarette smoking.

[chefgirl]

29. Absolutely not

'God hates' is a contradiction in terms.

God is LOVE.

-chef-

[NightTrain]

30. Want to see a website created, owned and run by TRUE Christians?

http://www.godlovesfags.com/

[0rganism]

31. If examining human history has shown me anything, it's that...

...God, or Gods, if he/she/they exist, just doesn't give a shit.

Not about any one person or group of people or species of animals or system of planets or local cluster of galaxies, anyway.

I don't rant about this often, but tonight I feel one coming on.

Some people act like God is their personal weight trainer and mafia hit squad rolled into one, simultaneously aiding the righteous and smiting whatever seems iniquitous to them at the moment: "Thunder on my right? Oh, Zeus must be pleased with our efforts! Tidal waves smiting coastal cities? Guess they didn't sacrifice enough horses to Poseidon, etcetera."

Fine. If they want to believe that crap, they can go right ahead as far as I'm concerned, and I'll appreciate it if they keep it to themselves. Unfortunately, those who are the most vocal about their faith in the almighty tend to be those who, in my opinion, most need to shut their pieholes. And I'm not singling out the Christians here, it's everyone with the "agenda god complex": Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, neo-Pagans, whatever.

"God helped me win the lottery!" Great, good for you, and in His infinite wisdom He had thousands of people lose the lottery, too.

"God saved my life!" Fantastic, if only He could do the same for everyone... oh wait, He could and chooses not to. How special!

"God destroys the sodomites with AIDS disease!" Really? Last I heard, it was heterosexuals with the higher infection rate.

"We are God's chosen people!" Yeah, you keep telling yourself that all the way to the concentration camps, okay?

And so on, and so on, and so on. People with the agenda god complex are fully capable of believing that God made millions of starving impoverished Indians, heck, the entire Hindu caste system, just so Mother Teresa and her nuns can come in and help them.

I wish all those nuts who go around thinking "God is on my side, not yours, just mine", I wish they'd just make it their own little secret, because even thinking about that shit makes me nauseous.

/rant

[elshiva]

32. God DATES FAGS

is more like it because God tenderly loves all his children. He IS A LOVER GOD! God is interested in sexuality because he wants mutuality and love in relationships not rape and exploitation. God attracts women to men, men to men, women to women, to find relationships.
Alot of Christians believe that homosexuals are our neighbors. My uncle is an Episcopalian priest in Vermont who did civil union ceremonies to two lesbian couples. Remember, Dr. Dean is a Christian (was Episcopalian, but now Congregationalist) who feels that God makes homosexuals, therefore they should have the same civil rights. Remember, Sen. Kerry expressed this view very eloquently in the third debate. (Obama, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Kucinich all religious Christians and pro-gay) Thankfully, not all Christian politicians are anti-gay, but unfortunately the majority of them are (the repub majority!)

[IndyPriest]

34. yella_dawg: AZ's got it about right.

Christianity has always had an absolutist, fundamentalist streak. In some eras, that streak has gotten pretty wide. In other eras, it shrinks. That streak has had a variety of targets, not just gays. When it gets cranking, almost anything "other" would do.

[Sparkly]

35. God hates FIGS!

http://www.godhatesfigs.com/

[Lexingtonian]

36. and now for a slightly serious answer....

First of all, most of what you need to know about Fred Phelps is that his 'church' has been looked at fairly closely and its membership is pretty close to a list of his family and some relatives. Secondly, the 'Christian Right' contingents that are most vociferous about gay people...well, it seems as if their leaders in the course of time are just about all discovered to have been caught soliciting sex from men, fondling adolescent boys, taped on Man Date phone sex lines, and the like. The larger 'Christian Right' crowd largely treats gay people as a group that can be 'morally' objected to and treated as lower class than themselves- as class/status politics, really. A small subset sees gay people as a 'religious' problem and sees a sanction in 'tradition' for the suppression and abuse- violence, even killing- of gay people.

The Bible as such doesn't say much about gay people. There's basically an attitude of contempt and scorn of a sort, not too different from social disapproval given prostitutes and abusive promiscuity, in my opinion, in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. The real source of 'Christian Right' dogmatic problems with homosexuality lies in the 'Christian Right' actually being a highly syncretic belief system- the 'Christian Right' is a set of older religions mashed together with large chunks of their beliefs systems intact, substantially harmonized with the Bible where it's possible. A lot of the CR religious dogma and 'certainty' derives not from a sense that what they believe is learned/originated in the Bible- they rely very strongly on 'tradition', on what other people have told them the religion is. So there's a great internal reliance in the individual groups that (paradoxically) propose to be 'fundamentalist' on a kind of oral history and line of priests passing down the "right" way to (mis)understand the words of the Bible. You can suspect- and it's pretty clearly so in the religious apologia from the European Middle Ages- that there's a line of this in every (sub)denomination originally defined by its regionality and ethnicity in Europe extending back to the days of (forcible) conversion to Christianity, In fact, you would be able to guess that conversion to Christianity did not absolutely interrupt the chain of religious viewpoint and dogma handed down, and that in the early days of conversion the missionaries would be significantly accommodating to the Old Religion's point of view on a lot of subjects as long as it all didn't grossly deviate from The Good News etc.

I'm a little stuck with you terming yourself a Pagan. Because to talk about where the Law Of Nature dogmatism and demonology comes from that the 'Christian Right' reflects means to go back to the pre-Christian religions, particularly of Europe north of the Alps or so. Contemporary paganism is a very much more civilization-bound matter than the often highly brutal pre-Christian religions of the heathen. And I know of what I speak, because I grew up among rural northern Germans, people whose ancestors tossed adulterers and homosexuals and other offenders against the Fertility Deity (associated with water) into the local bogs. Northern European heathen 'morality' was a very intricate, highly detailed set of rules defining offenses against the many, rarely humane, gods- one of missionary Christianity's great allurements was that its system of explaining and arranging the world and society was so much simpler, so much more concerned with human beings and their nature than Nature. (In rural societies, as all of them were at the time, Nature is an absolute concern and can easily be made into a dictatorial force.) Of course the leaders used the Nature Gods to keep their unruly peoples submissive, that's a part of the story. But much of it was very literal superstition and orthopraxis- the fear that if things are not done right in form, the Nature Gods will find offense. And the worse the floods and famines were, the greater the social pressure to 'conform' in a pretty literal sense- and over time all of these peoples became, to our Modern measures, horrifyingly conformist and dogma-driven and inseparable from their Tradition. They didn't have the abilities necessary to critique the ever-tightening rules effectively (they didn't have Science), nor to question the basis of it all well. In a sense, the conformism and 'Christianity' and conservatism of the (white) American Midwest and South is the great survivor of this pre-Enlightenment Europe.

The root belief set violated by homosexuality is the Order of Nature. In the heathen social and religious point of view and experience, whenever the Order of Nature is significantly violated the offense to the Nature Gods must be destroyed or atoned for by men. People in psychoses and other mental conditions were killed, i.e. for their 'evil eye' or some other imputed spreading of evil and 'cursedness'. 'Unnatural' sexual acts- homosexual or sodomy of animals- amounted to death sentences unless the person could stop 'offending' and atone for what was done. Infants with 'monstrous' birth defects were killed. In some groups, one member of a pair of twins born was killed. Strangers were treated with hostility- xenophobia- unless they proved themselves to be harmless and peaceful. Every violation of the Original Condition- the way Creation was evidently intended to be- was considered suspicious. Succeeding at things considered too difficult for ordinary people to do was reason for suspicion- you might be succeeding due to witchcraft, after all.

The 'Christian Right' represents the survival of pre-Christian religions under the banner of Christianity. Its sense of identity lies in its non-Christian parts, its survival depends on pretending to Christianity. Its adherents cling to its anti-spirituality, its magic materialism (or just plain old materialism), its categories of blessed and cursed, its Nature ideologies, its extra-Biblical persuasivenesses, its black and white occultisms and occultic priesthoods (aka televangelists), its fertility cultism (anti-abortion politics and human breeding incentivizing), its arrogant pretense to superiority to reality and Other People. It embraces the old symbols- the Four Directions of the swastika and are now embodied in the Cross, the triad of Indoeuropean Rain Gods and their fire-associated antagonist (completing a foursome) are now the Trinity and the Devil. The theological schizophrenia involving Judaism is incredible- they can't explain to you what the Law of Love is, or the New Covenant, and the contortions around the idea of Covenant itself (they want to have all the benefits of one, but it would mean they'd have to be committed to the humane and individually valid revelation) are torturous beyond any ridicule or description.

The Christian Right is something pretty incredible. In many senses of the word 'incredible'.

[yella_dawg]

39. Good Answer

First of all, most of what you need to know about Fred Phelps is that his 'church' has been looked at fairly closely and its membership is pretty close to a list of his family and some relatives.

That's one thing I've been wondering about. Specifically, who the heck is supporting this madman. My larger question is: Where does he get his financing? As active as he is in his hate-spewing, he probably doesn't have a day job.

Secondly, the 'Christian Right' contingents that are most vociferous about gay people...well, it seems as if their leaders in the course of time are just about all discovered to have been caught soliciting sex from men, fondling adolescent boys, taped on Man Date phone sex lines, and the like.

This fits in with my broader observation that homophobes tend to be those who's sexuality is, shall we say, "flexible", but who react against their own confusion by lashing out at others. Funny thing, human nature.

As for class distinctions, or a broader suppression, Christianity, and I assume most other religions, have been used to justify suppression and hostility against others throughout history. It's sad that people look to spirituality to justify a lack of spiritual maturity.

The Bible as such doesn't say much about gay people.

Which is where my question originated. I just don't remember the bible-thumpers worrying about homosexuality until fairly recently. Since I never paid much attention to Christian theology, I thought I might have missed something.

If this really is that big a problem, you'd think they'd crack down on masturbation at the same time. (I do remember masturbation being mentioned in a religious context a few times when I was a kid. Maybe it was more important to the religious leaders of the day, or maybe the Christians in my peer group were just more concerned with the subject at that age.)

the 'Christian Right' is a set of older religions mashed together with large chunks of their beliefs systems intact, substantially harmonized with the Bible where it's possible.

I find this assertion fascinating. A friend of mine has put quite a bit of effort into the study of Christianity from the viewpoint of "contamination" from indigenous cultures. He can competently argue that the collapse of the Roman Church during the dark ages set the stage for a significant corruption of the liturgy and dogma when the Church was "resurrected" later. His theories apply primarily to the Roman Church, and only secondarily to the Protestant faiths. But you seem to be claiming that the contamination has survived, in some form, through oral tradition. I would argue that any similarities between present day "fundamentalists" and pre-christian pagans is due to human nature acting on an isolated and basically ignorant population. Is your assertion that it is an actual oral tradition an assumption, or does it have a basis in research? I find this idea really fascinating. There are many claims in the pagan community of pagan oral traditions surviving from the dark ages. That the same pagan traditions could have survived in the Protestant church is amazing.

Has history gotten Martin Luther all wrong? :)


I'm a little stuck with you terming yourself a Pagan.

The modern pagan movement is, for the most part, an attempt to find a more personal and more meaningful spiritual path. Even the so-called reconstructionists admit that much of the body of religious belief from pre-christian times would be utterly useless if it were dragged intact into the 21^st century. The average neo-pagan (there are exceptions to this, believe me) has no need nor desire to smear himself with mud and dance around a bonfire in hopes of increasing the lamb crop this year. The movement is an attempt to find (create) a spirituality that fits better with the world we perceive than Christianity does. It is an evolutionary process, even though the terminology and nomenclature make it appear to be a regressive movement. It is a process much like the enlightenment era Christian movement you described.

Actually, I find the idea of tossing obnoxious people in bogs to have some merit. Fred Phelps in a perfect example of how this can be a valid solution to a problem. The problem, of course, is who gets to decide who goes into the bog. I trust my judgment, but I'm not so sure I trust yours.

In a sense, the conformism and 'Christianity' and conservatism of the (white) American Midwest and South is the great survivor of this pre-Enlightenment Europe.

Oh. The irony of this is incredible. Neo-pagans and fundamentalist Christian hysterics working the same history from different ends. Excuse me while I hide in a corner and laugh my butt off for a while.


Excellent post! Thanks.

[jdonaldball]

38. No, Phelps misheard. God hates FOX!

[proud2BlibKansan]

76. LOL

:)

[youngred]

41. The effect of Rome

and by that I don't mean the Vatican. Though the Catholic CHurch says that it's not a sin to be gay (just to engage in homosexual acts) many Christians (and Catholics) both take the extreme view that all Gays are bound for hell. Having had a semi-openly gay priest in my parish for a long time and liberal priests who accept and welcome gay people at mass I had not found this until I looked outside my home parish. I don't believe that God hates gay people, I believe she made them just as she made straights and there is no reason to discriminate. But back to the power of Rome. Roman sexual values (which were actually quite conservative despite the reputation of orgies etc) were laid over top of Christian values as another means of control in the early years of the church. There was very little discussion in the eary early church years and by Jesus of sexual values, and then it was a very liberal approach. It was the later abusers and control freaks who added such bullshit to doctrine

[IndyPriest]

50. Good; but can we define "Catholic church says" more carefully?

I understand its usefulness as a handy short-cut for saying "the pope and his cabinet officers of the Catholic church." But, really, the phrase functions a lot like "the U.S. says" when the meaning is "officers of the executive branch of the U.S. government."

A lot of us wince at phrases like "the U.S. says" because WHAT is said is often really abhorent to what many of us believe. The C. Church is a HUGE group of people, and to ask about what "it" says, you also have to ask what part of it you're talking about, otherwise you get weird recults. Example: besides gays, look at the birth control issue. The hierarchy condemns it while more than 80% of Catholics use it. So when we say, "The Catholic church condemns the use of birth control," it's truly misleading.

This can seem like a weasling technical point, except when you get into discussions like these. People have been truly hurt by actions of some Catholics who use their positions of leadership and supposed sanctity to do real violence to others. When Catholic leaders use their positions to say "the Catholic church says (or does)", they can give the distinct impression that most if not all Catholics agree with them. So it becomes REALLY important for the rest of the church to say: You're not talking for us! Because then it becomes MUCH easier to figure out how power works, who's speaking for whom, who's on what side of what issue, whom you can count on and form alliances with, and whom you have to watch out for.

[youngred]

71. you are correct

and I apologize for being so hasty, it was written quickly. Catholic Dogma says that being gay is alright but that homosexual sex is a sin.

[Misunderestimator]

44. Lovely post. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[terrya]

47. The problem with this question is that one assumes there is a "god".

If one has a problem accepting the existance of god in the first place, then referencing some hateful, deranged mentally ill homophobe and his like minded family is really ridiculous, on the face of it.

[MsConduct]

48. Fag is such an ugly word. God doesn't hate homosexuals....

sexually disoriented (not sure of their own preference) people do.

[supernova]

51. What you are describing is fundamentalist Christianity

with all the god hate fags spew and heaven vs hell dicotomy.

I am a christian, but I don't subscribe to that brand of christainity. I don't believe God hates gays and I don't believe Lucifer is always after my soul. I don't believe in Hell at all.

Like you I believe God is not really that concerned with the sex lives of consenting adults. I think s/he is concerned about us on a daily basis, but more of the loving variety and wanting our happiness, however we are made to define it.

[EVDebs]

52. Book of Philemon used during Civil War to justify slavery...

but we know from Moses that slavery is not a good thing, duh. The mysteries of this world and the next aren't up to us to make the calls on, just to love our neighbors as ourselves and keep on moving forward. The fact that there are gays and lesbians out there doesn't make my duty to 'love oneanother' any more difficult than with any other sinner out there. We've all messed up one way or another...just got to persevere dispite it all.

[Harry S Truman]

55. This just in

Earth to people: There is no god.
The hating is done by people. The loving is done by people. The mess is made by .... well, ask the bears.

[arwalden]

56. Brace Yourself...

... for onslaught the blistering messages that heap scorn on you for "attacking" Christians.

[IndyPriest]

57. Don't worry about flames, HST: we've got our back. n/t

[jonnyblitz]

59. NO SHIT!!!

does santa hate fags? how about the easter bunny? does bart simpson? who the fuck cares ...how about getting out of the realm of fiction for chrissake!!

someone had to say it! :crazy:

[Taxloss]

65. Seconded.

No offence intended to anyone.

[TheEconomist]

58. No. Only hateful people do...

I think the Bible is clear that God loves everyone, he only hates sin. Its only hateful people that hate anyone, gay or otherwise.

[HEyHEY]

60. God hates everyone

[TheEconomist]

61. Especially Canadians, eh?

Just kidding! :-)

[Siyahamba]

98. Yes!

Canada in its wickedness has allowed same-sex marriage and God has punished it with more crime, more violence, more poverty than the United States - umm, wait a minute...

[spanone]

63. God hates Fred Phelps

[greyfox]

64. What is seen to be....

homosexual acts (sodomy, fellatio etc) is seen as gross sin (is there a non-gross sin?) and therefore frowned on by every church I know of except of course the Metropolitan group... but it is the SIN of them, not the PERSON that God abhors... or so I believe... and we Christians better learn that fast... and show some compassion and love toward the gay community... we can share with them the Word and our witness without brow-beating or Bible-shipping them for pete's sake..

[Misunderestimator]

67. Uh.... OR without calling what I do a sin, thank you very much.

Not that I give a flying ****, but don't be comparing me to unfaithful, non-monogamous straight people.

[greyfox]

69. Sorry, tweren't me....

twas God!

[IndyPriest]

70. No, 'twas you

You have to take responsibility for what YOU say God says. And if YOU repeat what YOU say God says, YOU'RE saying it, too. To hide behind "hey, I didn't kill you, God did," is seriously dishonest.

[Misunderestimator]

84. Thanks... took the words out of my mouth...

[greyfox]

85. Okay...

I said it then.

[Behind the Aegis]

75. honest questions for you

Why would my relationship with another man, which is based in love, be a sin?! Why would G-d care what we do or don't do in bed?! I love my partner with all of my being. I would rather be tortured than see him in pain and that makes me a sinner because we are both men? That seems pretty odd to me. I do not need "witness" from anyone. I am comfortable that G-d would not consign me to Hell (if I believed in it) despite all the good I have done, simply because I love another man.

As a pagan, I feel that all sex is natural, when consensual! IF you want to have sex with 16 people and everyone is cool with it, then "no harm, no foul." Our sexuality is a gift and it is meant to be shared, revered, and enjoyed...not repressed, and treated with disdain.

[buddysmellgood]

68. Not more than shellfish

[OneBlueSky]

72. the God that I know is incapable of hate . . .

did not his human embodiment, Jesus, go out of his way to be with the "little ones," the "sinners," the dregs of society? . . . he didn't even hate those who crucified him ("Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do") . . . the case could therefore be made that God is even MORE fond of gays and lesbians, since they are among the "little ones" who society despises . . .

yup, God's on OUR side! . . .

[Hippo_Tron]

74. God loves all of his children

n/t

[Peter Frank]

77. God Hates Hate Itself...

...God being Love.

Allot of people laugh at those who liken God to love. ...Well it's in Christian scripture. We Christians are admonished to love our enemies.

There's so much we don't understand. The safest thing to do is to default to love (not hate) when we're confused.

I honestly feel sorry for the haters in this world. They will reap what they sew, but maybe they've never known better.

Is it wimpy to promote love/God? No! God = love = family value.

Philosophers debate the existence of love/God, but extortionists use love to make people do things to save their family members.

I know that a truly devout preacher would lay down his life for a gay son; while shoe polish preachers condemn the son.

Where is Christian courage? It used to be that America's spiritual leaders were unconcerned with funding or being acknowledged by political figures.

Where is the God family love & values in this equation?

[WillieWoohah]

78. The Christian God disapproves of homosexuality

Leviticus 18, verses 22, 23
22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20, verse 13
13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Case Closed. Seems pretty black and white to me.

I'm all for "figurative" interpretations of the Bible concerning miracles and prophecies etc, but there's a certain point beyond which you can't stretch it.

This is one of the reasons I'm not a Christian. If a particular religion is unambiguously anti-gay (like Christianity), and your belief system is tolerant of gays, why not just leave the religion?

[rhino47]

80. Those quotes are from the New Living BIble

the nlb is one of the least accurate bibles known.It is also formatted for the fundies.
In the bible there are also three references to same sex couples without censure.
1 Samuel 18:20-21
"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law"

1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

Samuel 18:2
"From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house."

1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)

"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul

2 Samuel 1:26
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."


Here is the leviticus verse you quoted and why I disagree with the new living bible.
"And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

These are not a great deal of help. Bible publishers are under strong economic pressures to turn a profit. If a translation of Leviticus 18:22 were included that did not generally condemn at least male homosexual behavior, their sales would drop precipitously. They are unlikely to deviate from traditional interpretations, unless they were preparing a translation specifically for Christian and Jewish liberals.

Some translations are:

ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act." 1
NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination .

The LB and NLT translations use the term "homosexuality" That is unusually deceptive for three reasons:

The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts. By using the word "homosexuality," the English translation appears to condemn lesbian activity as well. The latter behavior is definitely not mentioned in the original Hebrew text of this passage. In fact, lesbian behavior is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The term "homosexuality" has two distinct meanings in English. Sometimes it refers to sexual behavior (what some people do). Sometimes it relates to sexual orientation (what some people are). One reader might conclude from an English translation that homosexual orientation is criticized in the Bible; others might assume that homosexual behavior is criticized.
The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.


This passage does not refer to gay sex generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice
At the beginning of the chapter that includes this passage, Leviticus 18:3 states: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." Here, God is saying that the Hebrews are not to follow the practices of the Egyptians or of the Canaanites. Homosexual ritual sex in temples of both countries was common. Thus, one might assume that Leviticus 18:22 relates to temple same-sex rituals -- something that was ritually impure.


Jewish writer, Rabbi Gershon Caudill, is: "not convinced that the biblical passages (here in Leviticus 18: 22 and also in Leviticus 20: 13) refer to homosexual activity that is within a monogamous, stable, and loving relationship." He suggests that the passages refer to sexual promiscuity, not to homosexual activity within a committed relationship

[Cheswick2.0]

89. You're wrong

Funny you think you can speak for Christians. First you say "the Christian God" and them you quote from the OT? LOL
Then you say that Christianity is unabiguously gay. Nope, not true.

[jdonaldball]

79. God Hates Veggies!

[scarletlib]

81. NO!

God or the Spirit that 'created' us created us all as we are. Each one of us is a part of the larger universe and a part of "GOD". If he created a person as a gay person how can he hate that person? He made them.

My feelings about the whole God thing are rather complex since I don't think there is an actual spirit up there who made us. Whatever God is, he is within us all. If he made us all then he meant for their to be a variety of us all.

The spirit cannot hate what it created deliberately.

GOD IS LOVE! LOVE CANNOT HATE!

[warrior1]

82. There is no god

sorry. They'll have to come up with another reason to validate their hatred.

[Sgent]

83. Reform Jewish point of view on god (90% of US Jews)

The following is taken (with permission) is a Q&A session between two Jewish Rabbi's, as well as additional clarifications to follow: Please note that this IS NOT A REPRINT

For a more complete Q&A and discussion, visit the following link:

http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?pageID=1&discussionID=380669&messages_per_page=16



QUESTION - Rabbi Caudill, you claim that "homosexuality," as we know it in
today's world, is not explicitly mentioned in the Hebrew Bible at all. Many
other rabbis and ministers, especially those who follow a more literal
interpretation of the scriptures, would disagree with you. What is the
difference in the way you look at the texts that the others use to declare
homosexuality a major sin?

ANSWER - First off, the major difference in the way that I, a heterosexual
rabbi, interprete the so-called "anti-homosexuality" texts is that my
interpretation comes from the Talmudic place of rachamim, compassion. I base
my decisions on the premise that because God "created humanity (adam) in
It's image, in the image of God created It it, male and female created It
them," (Genesis 1: 27) and "God saw that ALL that It had made was found to
be VERY GOOD," (Genesis 1: 31) the basic instinct of humanity is to do good,
and that this basic instinct was created by God in the beginning. It is
obvious to me, in reading the so-called "anti-homosexual" texts that the
religious fundamentalists put forth as God prohibiting homosexual
relationships as an "abomination," that these religious fundamentalists are
already convinced that homosexuality is sinful behaviour. They are
projecting onto God their own distaste and lack of understanding of the
depth and sanctity of the love that homosexuals have for their partners.

QUESTION - What about the story in the Bible (Genesis 19) of the destruction
of the cities of Sodom and Gemorrah? Was that not where we get the term
"sodomy" for anal intercourse, homosexual sex?

ANSWER - Your question shows the depth of the misunderstanding of the
original story and its teaching due to the preconceived bias of those who
use it this way. The short answer to your question is YES, that is where we
got the term "sodomy" to refer to anal sex. However, and most importantly,
the truth is that the story of Sodom has nothing to do with homosexual sex.
Read it for yourself and you will see that the story has to do with the
desire of the entire townspeople to do an act of violenent RAPE upon certain
STRANGERS, due to the perception that these strangers were DIFFERENT from
the townspeople. This is more in accord with a group of White townspeople
seeing a couple of Black strangers go into a White home in a White township
and their desire to rid the town of unwanted Blacks, even up to the point of
raping them to show their hatred of them as strangers and OTHER.

According to the biblical prophet, Ezekiel, the story in Genesis has
absolutely NOTHING to do with homosexual sex. In Ezekiel 16 : 49 (the entire
chapter should be read to get the complete understanding), the ONLY sin of
Sodom (and Gemorrah, and by inference, Jerusalem) is that of ARROGANCE! Read
it for yourself and see that I tell you the truth. Arrogance is not a moral
nor sexual behaviour, it is, rather, an attitude of superiority that is
manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims (Webster's
Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary). In fact, using this dictionary
description, the attitude of evangelical Christianity that all other
religions are in error and thus in need of becoming Christians to be in line
with God's Will, is sheer ARROGANCE and thus the SIN OF SODOM, i.e.
supersessionism; the act of seeing your people or group as superior to other
people or groups.

QUESTION - What about the desire of the "men of Sodom," in Genesis 19: 4-5,
to be INTIMATE with the "men," the strangers who were really angels, that
were in Lot's house, was that not a desire to perform an act of homosexual
sex on them?

ANSWER - As I mentioned already, the intention of the men of Sodom was not
to engage in loving, consentual, sexual relations with the "angels" but to
engage in an act of violence and hatred; to show contempt towards these
"strangers." This is not the act of a homosexual person seeking a
relationship with another homosexual person. What the Torah is addressing
here in this chapter is how we are not to treat the OTHER in our society. We
are not to act violently or arrogantly towards the stranger in our midst.
This is a constant theme throughout the Torah. It is seen as the ultimate
act of desecration; to desecrate the image of the Cosmic Divinity Itself.

QUESTION - What about the passages in Leviticus, especially in chapter 18,
verse 22 and chapter 20, verse 13? Does not these verses specifically
prohibit male to male sexual acts?

ANSWER - First, let's take a look at the passages you are referring to;
Leviticus 18: 22; which states: "V-et zachar lo tishkav mishkevey eeshah
TOEYVAH hee." (Do not lie (sexually) with a male as you would with a woman,
since this is an abomination (TOEYVAH).

And, Leviticus 20: 13, which states: "V-eesh asher yishkav et-zakhar
mishkevey eeshah TOEYVAH. Asu shenayhem mot yumatu dameyhem bam." (If a man
has sexual intercourse with a male person, in the same manner as with a
woman, they have both committed a TOEYVAH (an idolatrous abhorence). They
shall die by their blood being upon them).

These two verses are found in the book originally written as a handbook for
the Priesthood of the Tribe of Levi, thus the name Leviticus. It was not
meant, when written, as a rule book for all Israelites until after the time
of Ezra (5th century BCE). That said, to use it as ammunition against a
loving, caring, homosexual relationship is to take it out of context.

Leviticus 18: 1-4, which is the beginning of this particular message,
states: "Vaydaber YHVH el-Mosheh leymor: Daber el-Bnai Yisrael veamarta
aleyhem" (verses 2-3) "Anee YHVH Elohaykhem!" (I Am is ADONAI your Creator
God!) "Kema'aseh eretz-Mitzrayim asher yishavtem-bah; lo ta'asu" (You shall
not imitate the cultic sexual practices of the land of Egypt where you
previously dwelt) "ukhma'aseh eretz-Canaan asher Anee meyvee etkhem shamah;
lo ta'asu uv'chukoteyhem, lo telekhu!" (or of the land of Canaan to which I
Am is guiding you; you shall not follow after their laws.) "Et-mishpatai
ta'asu veet-chukotai tishmiru lelekhet bahem. Anee YHVH Elohaykhem!" (My
laws alone shall you observe, faithfulling doing them. I Am is ADONAI your
Creator God!)

The rules that then follow are the rules that the Israelite Priesthood was
not to follow in their cultic practices. According to Rabbi Jacob Milgrom,
the translator and commentator of the prestigious Anchor Bible Series
Translation of the Book of Leviticus, and the Jewish Publication Society
Commentary on the Book of Numbers, these texts are referring to
non-Israelite religious sexual and sexual abuse practices that Israelites
were not to imitate when they came into the Land of Israel. It has nothing
whatsoever to do with what we today term as being homosexuality.

If we examine these texts according to the Talmudic methods of hermeneutics,
we find that on the basis of the Baraitha d'Rabbi Ishmael in the Sifra, on
Leviticus, written in the mid-second century of the Common Era, and recited
EVERYDAY in our Daily and Shabbat Morning Prayers, Rabbi Ishmael says: "The
Torah is interpreted by means of thirteen rules. (Rule Four is...) When a
generalization is followed by a specification, only what specifies applies
(Miklal u'frat)." The generalization is the text; A man shall not lay with a
man.... The specification is the text; ...as you would with a woman.

Based upon this earliest method of Jewish Torah interpretation, the biblical
passages in Leviticus 18: 22 and also in Leviticus 20: 13, do not refer to
homosexual activity at all as one of the males is heterosexual or perhaps
bisexual, and is SUBSTITUTING the other male body for that of a woman in
this cultic fertility ceremony. It is not the normal homosexual practice for
one man to lie with another man thinking that his partner is a woman; as
though he were laying with a woman. In fact, if a man was thinking of his
sexual partner as though he were a woman, and not a man, it would not be a
homosexual relationship, as one of the parties involved is PRETENDING that
the person he is laying with is a woman. It is actually a permissive sexual
situation in which the first man is USING the body of the sexual partner as
a SUBSTITUTE for a PREFERRED female body. If we read the Torah this way, as
it clearly is to be read, it is warning this kind of person that certain
types of substitutional sexual behavior are not permitted, especially in a
religious context.

QUESTION - Do you feel that allowing homosexuals the right to a legal civil
marriage is detrimental to heterosexual marriages?

ANSWER - Not at all! First, you must explain to me how the marriage of ANY
two people who love and care for each other will affect my own heterosexual
marriage in any way. I think that if I am committed to staying in my
marriage, no amount of outside influence would affect it. That said, I think
that it is a great sin to not allow homosexuals the same civil rights as
anyone else, including the rights and obligations around marriage and
divorce.

QUESTION - A SIN? How so? That sounds like you believe that denying
homosexuals the right to marry is against the Will of God.

ANSWER - That is correct. I think that denying homosexuals the right to
marry and form families denies the Torah mandate to "peru urvu umil'u
et-ha'aretz" (bear fruit, multiply and fill the earth) which was the first
command that God gave to the androgenous Adam, before God took the female
Adam from the side of the male Adam (Genesis 1: 28).

Previously, before modern medicine made it possible for in-vitro
fertilization, sperm donor programs, and surrogate implantation, etc., it
was almost impossible for two males or two females to be in a loving, long
term monogamous relationship that could traditionally be defined as a
marriage, IF you define a marriage as two people coming together to create a
family with children. However, with many childless heterosexual marriages,
and with many marriages ending in divorce, I question this defination of
marriage.

By Torah standards, any marriage that did not allow for the propagation of
the species, i.e. homosexuality or celibacy or barrenness, could be disolved
by a divorce, but did not have to be. The fact that God is reputed to have
said: "Lo-tov hayot haadam levado, e'ehseh-lo ezer kenigdo (It is not a good
thing for a human-being to be alone; I will make a fitting helper for it),
informs me that God's idea of marriage is that of companionship. Witness the
physical barrenness of the major women in the Hebrew Bible whose child
producing abilities were through intervention from Heaven. Today,
homosexuals are producing children by the "miracles" of modern medicine,
plus they are adopting previously unwanted children and giving them loving
families to grow up in. I think the sin is that those who pretend to support
the Will of God are doing everything they can to thwart that Will.

Watch for other of Rabbi Caudill's responses in the upcoming US News and
World Report October issue on the "Old Testament."

[mtnester]

86. Kill 'em all

Sick people out there. Hardly Christian as I was raised to believe.

<snip>
In fact, the Bible teaches us that Jesus and His daddy (Poppa God) are so darn picky that they are going to send anyone who isn't a Truly Saved® Christian, straight to Hell. That includes every single Buddhist, Muslim, Murderer, Jew, Fornicator, Mary Worshipper, Child Molester, Hindu, Effeminate Person, Wiccan, and Idolater. To God, it doesn't matter how much blood you get on you when you reject His Word; if you don't flatter Him, your flesh is going to burn, my friend. You know, we have an expression we use here in Iowa to describe unsaved and foreign folks. We call them "trash that will not burn." Well, while I find myself using that colorful expression often, usually in sermons, it is not really accurate. Because those people who reject the Word are trash that WILL burn – burn in Hell! And the lake of fire will probably have more of those buck-toothed Chinese people in it than anyone else, since there are more of them on the planet, and most of them can't put down their rice bowls long enough to even stop to hear about the Lord Jesus.

<snip>

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/halloween.html

I get more disgusted by the hour, I tell you. No wonder people go out in the wilderness, put up barbed wire, and arm themselves to the teeth. I never understood that before, now I do.

[Stepup2]

87. This Hate is their projection

Who was it that once said you get the god you ultimately deserve?

Hate has been used in the name of one god or another throughout known history, usually to advance a political agenda.

What I don't get is that these folks take the new testament so literally, but they skip over the more frequent references for "correct" behavior that might apply to them in their haste to point the finger at someone else.

[Cheswick2.0]

88. God hates Fibs

actually God doesn't hate anything. God loves

[mr blur]

90. Maybe God needs to listen to more Dolly Parton,

Interviewed in today's (London) Observer:

"Parton was raised by strict Baptists (her grandfather was a hellfire preacher). How does she square this with her liberal attitude to gay sexuality? 'Everybody has their own idea of God and God is just there for all of us. I think so many people live their whole life in fear and doubt and shame. I just feel that God is my friend, my co-producer, my partner.'"

[TWiley]

91. "Christians" hate fags is more accurate.

Most create gawd in their own image in order to explain their own prejudices and to justify their socially-unacceptable violent behaviors.

The origin of some of these radical beliefs can be found here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/identit...

Their philosophy has wiggled its way into the mainstream american christian religions. The "National Alliance" is part of their ilk, and they are the strongest opponents to evolution. Sister ship "armies of gawd" focus on the abortion issue.

They have indeed infiltrated american religion, and it could be safe to say that their views are dominating the pulpits across america.

Anti-gay legislation was passed by the mainstream religious folk in every state where it appeared on the ballot.

I met phelps once, he is a skinny, ugly little man with a big mouth. I told him that he was an ordinary bigot who was full of shit, and he tried to hit me with his sign.

Now that is a display of genuine love!

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[against all enemies]

94. http://www.godhatesfags.com/

[achtung_circus]

97. No, but he hates faqs

it's the repetition.

[Bouncy Ball]

99. The God I believe in

would never hate any of us, because he created us and loves all of us unconditionally. Even the bigots.

In fact, I think the love God has for us is so great, we can't even conceive of it.

And there are no exceptions to it. None. God even loves Charles Manson. He's probably not happy with him, but he loves him.

[Ladyhawk]

103. When you no longer believe in god, the question becomes moot.

Instead I ask myself, "Does this action deprive anyone else of their rights?"

On homosexuality, answer: no.

"Does it hurt anybody else and if so, to what degree?"

On homosexuality: It really doesn't hurt anybody but those who choose to stick their noses into business that isn't theirs.

"Does it matter what consenting adults do in private?"

Not to me. It shouldn't matter to the government, either.

The point is moot...gee, aren't those fundamentalists crazy?

[baby_mouse]

104. To find out what God really hates, watch "Time Bandits"

It's MESS.

"What an apalling *mess*. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's *mess*."