“Love the Sinner”…um….Yeah, Don’t Give Me That Crap

Special Guest Blog by Ken Jansen

Image“I love the color red..but I kinda hate the reddish tint.”

Sounds stupid, doesn’t it? Not a lot of sense in that phrase. Same goes for another one, that we hear a lot. “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”

This one’s used by many somewhat fundamentalist religious people to justify their dislike of homosexuality. This was used during a recent discussion on same-sex marriage, with a christian friend of mine. After giving me all the typical arguments against Marriage Equality, it seems that to him it was the perfect ending to the conversation. Now to my friend’s credit, he did not go on about how being gay is a sin, or worse, an abomination. To him, the sin was “living the gay lifestyle.”

When asked how same sex marriage differs greatly from his marriage, he had no clear answer. Only that it was against biblical teaching, and will destroy “traditional” marriage. (We’ve all heard these arguments before.)

There are, in my opinion, a number of things wrong with this platitude. First, while it is heard mostly from Christian fundamentalists, it’s actually a paraphrase of Gandhi’s quote, “Hate the sin but not the sinner.”

Does anyone else find it ironic that Christians are using a famous Hindu’s quote as their own? Second, it’s an instant judgment. YOU have decided someone is wrong…”Love the ‘sinner’…” This flies in the face of biblical teachings. Anyone remember “Judge not…?” At the same time, by fundamentalist standards, everyone fits into the category of “sinner.” Even, or dare I say, especially, the fundamentalists. So…”Let he who is without sin…” Third, how can you “love” a person when you “hate” an integral part of who, and what they are? This goes back to the bible, too. Specifically, one verse, John 13:34. Don’t bother looking it up, here it is. “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another, as I have loved you…” from the King James Bible.

Now, think a moment. How did Jesus love? Totally, unreservedly, unconditionally. Jesus hung out with a bunch of people who, historically, were always considered “less than” if not outright hated. Fishermen, revolutionaries, and come on…a tax collector? Not to mention, a prostitute. Now, we’re not talking a high priced call girl, we’re talking a hooker! And how did he love them?

Totally, unreservedly, unconditionally.

So, if , you “love one another, as I have loved you,” should it not be the same kind of love? Total? Without reservation? Without condition? It is to me. Again, in my opinion, “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is a total cop out. A polite way of saying “I hate what you are, but I’m trying to butter it up, and make myself feel better by pretending to love you. Jesus never once said anything like “I love you, but that hair! Can’t stand it!” He simply stated “I love you.” Totally, unreservedly, unconditionally.

May I humbly suggest you try doing the same.

 

 

Please like the evoL= Facebook page here.

 Follow us on Twitter @JandJDad

 

About robw77

A single gay dad who cares. His story can be read here: http://www.imagaysingleparent.com/2013/02/02/rob/ and here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/31/rob-watson-gay-family_n_4689661.html
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

164 Responses to “Love the Sinner”…um….Yeah, Don’t Give Me That Crap

  1. Very little good comes from engaging with PSPruett, or “Pascal”, but it has led me here. I am grateful for that. Hello.

    • Ben in oakland says:

      Do you mean he’s a total bigot that papers over what’s going on with him with a thin veneer of scientific evidence? That he obsesses over anal sex, far more than any gay manwhore could possibly obsess over it? That basically, at bottom, all he has is his obsession over gay sex and his religious beliefs? That engaging in debate with him is fundamentally an act of dishonesty?

      Ya think?

      I’m glad you found your way here also. Welcome!

  2. IvanRider says:

    Anyone who will not try to lead his neighbor out of slavery to crookedism has committed the truest form of hatred of his neighbor. Anyone who so much as refuses to correct his neighbor for cohabiting with a girlfriend, is a conspirator in the neighbor’s damnation and the girlfriend’s, and will have to answer for both crimes in the court of Heaven. With damning video evidence for all to see. Nothing will be hidden.

    Telling someone that fecal matter in the bloodstream from a ruptured colon is “love” had committed a serious crime against both that someone, and against the dictionary.

    • Ben in oakland says:

      Again, the first place you sickos go is anal sex, and complete ignorance. As always, your only concern– well, obsession is for sexual sins. The real sins against your neighbors you can care less about.

      Thank god I’m an atheist.

    • “Anyone who will not try to lead his neighbor out of slavery to crookedism has committed the truest form of hatred of his neighbor. ”

      Irrelevant, since homosexuality has nothing to do with “crookedism”.

      “Anyone who so much as refuses to correct his neighbor for cohabiting with a girlfriend”

      Nor does homosexuality have anything to do with a man cohabiting with a girlfriend, since they have the option of marrying.

      Your feeble justification for slandering and oppressing hundreds of millions of people is sin, and it is the duty of followers of Christ to rebuke your sin. Please repent.

      • Michael Ejercito says:

        There is nothing sinful about condemning the act of buggery and those who engage in it.

        • Only someone with no sense of right and wrong would say that, Michael. The reality is that those who teach ‘homosexuality (or as you put it, buggery) is sin” are evil doers who promote violence, murder, torture and slander of other humans beings for their own gratification and amusement – sadists, in other words.

          To be blunt – there is blood on your hands, Michael.

          • Michael Ejercito says:

            The reality is that those who teach ‘homosexuality (or as you put it, buggery) is sin” are evil doers who promote violence, murder, torture and slander of other humans beings for their own gratification and amusement – sadists, in other words.

            So now you equate homosexuality with buggery.

            While homosexuality is a risk factor for buggery (similar as to how greed is a risk factor for theft) , buggery is not an inevitable result (unlike crashing into the singularity after crossing the event horizon of a black hole.)

            The evil doers are those who encourage this filthy, abominable crime against nature that smells of devils and death.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            Honey, it sounds like you’ve had a whole bunch of bad experiences. You might try using a douche in stead of being one.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          Shall we go with “Judge not lest ye be judged”, or something about specks and beams. In the case of those who obsess about anal sex, I’m going to go with the latter.

          You might want to consider this: about 40% of heterosexuals do your dirty little deed, according to the CDC. That means that roughly 10 times as many heterosexuals as there are gay people in toto do it. If you started denouncing THEM, you could have 10 times the thrill.

          Or, you could just get that beam out of your ass.

          • Michael Ejercito says:

            You might want to consider this: about 40% of heterosexuals do your dirty little deed, according to the CDC. That means that roughly 10 times as many heterosexuals as there are gay people in toto do it. If you started denouncing THEM, you could have 10 times the thrill.

            It is wrong for them too.

        • “So now you equate homosexuality with buggery. ”

          No, you did by using that term is a discussion about homosexuality.

          “The evil doers are those who encourage this filthy, abominable crime against nature that smells of devils and death.”

          The nastier you are, the worse you look. Remember, homosexuality and anal sex both occur in nature, but the name Michael Ejercito does not. Your very name is unnatural.

          And by using a computer and the internet, you committed a crime against nature, for both require the production and release of terrible toxins into the environment.

        • “The evil doers are those who encourage this filthy, abominable crime against nature that smells of devils and death.”

          Nope.

          You know, Michael, your posts give me the impression that you’ve never been taught about toilet paper, or soap and water. Perhaps if you bathed, you’d be less obsessed with this subject.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            I suspect ME has had far more experience with buggery than he is willing to let on, except for all of the screaming references to it, which imply a familiarity that is, well, familiar. This is what he wrote a few entries up:

            “you are the one being judgmental here. I have not condemned anyone for anything on this blog post.” Whoops, someone is not reading his own posts very much.

            and

            “Nor have I claimed that my temptations are somehow better than anyone else’s temptations.” Obviously not, honey. But your temptations about anal sex seem to imply a great deal of experience between you and Wrinkly Eye.

            Honey, you really need to stop making so many Freudian slips. People are beginning to talk.

  3. Michael Ejercito says:
    “It is also true that buggery is a sin, malum in se, and a crime against nature.”

    No, it is not. It cannot be, for ‘buggery’ as you quaintly put it, occurs in nature. However, oh hypocrite, all technology is essentially a crime against nature, and considering the poisons produced and released into nature to produce computers – by using a computer, you are committing a particularly egregious crime against nature.

    The same is true if you drive a car, ride in an airplane, use electric lights. In fact, written language is unnatural, and could be considered a crime against nature so even reading the Bible, under your argument, is wrong.

  4. Ben in oakland says:

    If you find it so offensive, you should either stop doing it, learn to do it right, or stop thinking about it as much as you appear ot.

  5. Ben in oakland says:

    Sounds like you’ve had a lot of it, and didn’t know how to do it right.

  6. pascal9591 says:

    “The point is not useless,”

    And yet, it is, because when one applies it to some other circumstance, it does not hold up.

    ” it was the cornerstone point of the original article.”

    No. It was, as you pointed out, your point “with pspruett’s main point that “homosexual” can be a separate property of a person”.

    ” I addressed some of the other stuff above …”

    No, you dodged and made false assertions.

    “One, there seems to be an elevated risk of these things anyway in the homosexual community, ”

    As the direct result of anti-gay bias, as research shows. But I get it, since people are already at risk for these things because of some oppression, let’s oppress them some more.

    “and it doesn’t seem to get much better in cultures with plenary acceptance.”

    False. While there is not a lot of data yet, since acceptance of GLBTQ people, and same-sex marriage itself, is relatively new, the data so far indicates that yes, same-sex couples experience the same benefits as heterosexuals.

    ” I know one fellow with a sexual identity issue that tried to kill himself. He hangs out in a theater community where there’s nothing *but* acceptance.”

    So, you don’t know the theater community either. And are so shallow as to believe that who one hangs out with is the only influence in one’s life. Look, you are just being lazy here.

    “Two, I think it’s circular to justify this thing by saying that people who embrace it feel “better” when they do.”

    Since that is not what I presented. So you are setting up a straw man. Why do you rely on fraud so much?

    “Ever heard of amputee-wannabees?”

    Your false comparisons really do not help you. But what an interesting choice, since you are essentially arguing that homosexuals should amputate part of their intrinsic being, their sexual nature, in order to please you, obey you, make you feel in control over their lives.

    “I could also point you to testimonies of people who have rejected homosexuality who feel a greater sense of peace with themselves, even if the attractions may still exist.”

    And I can point to thousands of testimonies from GLBTQ people about the real harm that ex-gay therapies, and reparative therapies, and the whole ‘deny your sexuality’ approach, has caused them. And then I can match your alleged, but not provided, testimonies with testimony from people who have tried that approached, suffered horrifically, and eventually rejected it as destructive and abusive. And then there’s the research from scientists, showing that such therapies and programs are destructive, not beneficial.

    And of course, I can always invoke Stockholm syndrome. Of course people who are oppressed by your and your peers find some sense of peace when they obey you, obeying you and your peers reduces the overt oppression.

  7. pascal9591 says:
    “By “lifestyle” I simply mean the typical behaviors which accompany the “orientation,” chiefly sex. However, there are many other behaviors that are found to exist at a high rate among homosexuals.”

    Your dishonest excuse doesn’t have a basis in reality. There are no sex acts that homosexuals engage in that heterosexuals does not also engage in. Nor are there any other “behaviors found to exist at a high rate among homosexuals” that are not found at the same frequency, or higher, in heterosexuals.

    “Pregnancy is a natural and necessary function to the human race (well, perhaps PETA might disagree with me here). There are certainly risks that something could go wrong, but it is a process the female body is designed to experience.”

    So your standard about risk was a sham, a fraud, a lie. You make excuses for the risk you are willing to force onto women, but then wield risk to condemn homosexuals.

    “Anal sex, on the other hand, is an ad hoc act using organs in ways not intended.”

    That is your unsubstantiated opinion, with no basis in fact, biology, reason, or logic. It is also rather hypocritical.

    After all, typing on a keyboard to communicate with people is an “ad hoc act (use of) organs in ways not intended. Humans are designed to communicate by oral speech, not by typing words into a computer. We are also designed to walk, not ride in a car, plane, train or truck. We are not designed to be awake and active after dark, since we do not have sufficient night vision for the task, nor do we emit light.

    “With this, and other behaviors characteristic of homosexuality, there are known risks and dramatic increases in occurrences of certain ailments (only some of which you name).”

    Nice load of empty rubbish. There are known risks to every thing humans do.

    “Since men cannot get pregnant by way of anal sex, then we can’t really do an apples-to-apples comparison on these things (though if we could I’m sure the risks would be similar). ”

    Again, your standard then is a sham, a fraud, a lie. And now, the risks are not similar, not even close. For most of human history, the leading cause of death for women, more than famine or war or disease, has been pregnancy and delivery.

    The reality is that risk is a shoddy, lazy and incompetent basis for prohibiting sexual orientation.

    “We should focus on the sex act itself (apart from pregnancy) and consider whether any other orifice than the vagina is as well equipped to handle the physical, biological, and chemical conditions found in the sexual experience.”

    By that standard as well, heterosexuality is no better than homosexuality. Beyond STD’s, which are just as readily transmitted in either heterosexual or homosexual penetrative sex, for heterosexual women, just having sex can lead to inflammation, yeast infections, and other issues.

    “but the rate of infection is elevated in the gay population”

    No, it is not.

    “precisely because the orifices used either transmit or absorb these things more readily than the vagina.”

    So, you don’t know human physiology. Ok.

    “It is *intrinsically* more risky. ”
    No, it is not. In fact, lesbians have the lowest rate of STD’s of any group. Yes, you are fixated on gay men, but, since you are trying to make heterosexuality appear superior, your argument must apply to all conditions. And no, you cannot just exclude the real danger and risk that goes with pregnancy.

    “Also, some of the risks are not, in fact, cause by STDs. For example, higher levels of cancers (yes, even in women), and certain physical conditions caused by abuse to the anus which it was not designed for.”

    Your claim has no basis in reality. However, the oppression of homosexuals does produce real and tangible destruction.

    “But we’re not really arguing here about the morality of just having same-sex *attractions*, but rather about affirming them and acting upon them.”
    No, you are dealing in fantasies and falsehoods, while denying the very real risks associated distinctly and specifically with heterosexuality.

    “You may call him a traitor, but I call him brave.”

    That you affirm someone who feeds your superiority complex is rather useless information.

    “Again, all things being equal, homosexual sex is intrinsically unhealthy. ”

    Repeating falsehoods like that accomplishes nothing beyond proving that you have no real evidence.

    All the while that you have dishonestly danced around claiming that gay sex is dangerous, there is a reality you are avoiding: every year, just in the U.S., thousands of people are brutally attacked, beaten, raped, murdered, as the direct expression of the belief you are defending. Orders of magnitude more GLBTQ people are harmed as the direct result of the belief you are defending, then are harmed by anything related to sex.

    And, as for sexually transmitted diseases, and the damage caused by some forms of non-vanilla sexual acts, or for that matter, anal sex – heterosexuals have the same risk. Heterosexual have anal sex, they use ‘toys’, engage in bondage, there isn’t anything that homosexuals do sexually, that heterosexuals don’t do as well. Your entire argument is an empty fraud.

    • Ben in oakland says:

      His entire argument is not merely a fraud, it is the usual conservative Christian obsession with anal sex over every thing else. It’s the very first place they go, as if there were nothing else to talk about.

  8. In reply to my post “I do think it is interesting that you avoided all of the real criticisms, to address two rather minor issues.”

    pascal9591 says:
    February 3, 2014 at 6:21 pm

    “Dude, I am pspruett. My posts stopped getting approved, and I’m trying to do what little I can through this account. ”

    Your excuse actually makes it worse for you. You pick only some minor point, and ignored the bulk of my posts.

    “and if you want to post any civil responses over there,”

    All of my posts are civil. Your failure to even attempt to address the rebuttal made to your ideas, is rude at best.

    be my guest. Just know that I have limited time for this stuff, so it may be slow going if there’s a crowd.

    “As far as debates on ethics, I’d much rather be down at that level discussing moral presuppositions and ethical grounding, which I’ve done for years with atheists.”

    Anything to avoid the issues raise, eh? Here they are again.

    Can heterosexual be a separate property of a person? Your point is useless.

    “If the homosexual lifestyle involved elevated health risks, would that qualify as “harm” in your thinking?”

    Since there is no such thing as a homosexual lifestyle, your point is fraudulent. Now, heterosexual sex does involved elevated health risks for women. Do you care about the very real elevated health risks that heterosexual sex imposes on women?

    Also, medical science has shown that having a committed, socially recognized and accepted long-term intimate relationship significantly reduces one’s risk of several kinds of cancer, depression, mental illness, high blood pressure – serious health issues. The bias against homosexual relationships, then actively imposed significantly increased health risks, in these few areas, on homosexuals. Then there are the documented health risks that arise from the expression of anti-gay bias, from the stigmatization of homosexuality, the persecution of homosexuals – health risks that include suicide, violence at the hands of individuals or societies, hypertension and stress-related illnesses, and higher risk of addictions as a result of being ostracized and abused.

    So – by your own argument, your opposition to homosexuality, because it inflicts real harm on other people, is abusive and destructive.

    Do you get that, pspruett/pascal? You are defending a belief that produces real and tangible harm. Under the id pspruett, you lied repeatedly, and the arguments you presented there do not hold up under scrutiny.

    • pascal9591 says:

      Darr, let me try to explain why I find this dialog frustrating.

      First, I came into this thread with the intention of being thorough, and posted a detailed reply to the original article. I then attempted to post a detailed reply to Ben’s detailed reply to me, which has still not been released from moderation (though it can be found by clicking through the pspruett user link to my WordPress blog). I then came back and couldn’t get a comment through moderation to even make reference to this. Kind of running out of steam at this point, but didn’t give up quite yet. So, I created a new account and came back in with some modest, short posts (without links), just hoping that I didn’t suffer the same fate — your post being yet another one that would otherwise call for a long (risky) reply. In any case, I pick a couple items which I think are interesting & meaningful.

      And your response? No concession that I’m wrestling with logistics here. No concern or surprise that I’m being blocked. No, somehow my “excuse actually makes it worse for [me]. [I] pick only some minor point, and ignored the bulk of [your] posts.” It is ironic to me that the first sentence of my reply to Ben (who complained about my length) was this: “Sorry about the length, perhaps I should have stuck with Jansen’s cornerstone point at the beginning of the article, but in my experience, some perceive victory so long as any small point is left unaddressed.”

      And of the dialog we *have* managed to conduct, I constantly get accusations like the following, which hardly encourages further dialog: “Your dishonest excuse,” “a sham, a fraud, a lie,” “you lied repeatedly,” “Nice load of empty rubbish,” etc. A civil debate presumes that your opponent actually believes the things he is saying, even if they might be proven wrong. You’ll just have to take my word for it that I have looked into these things (from sources as unbiased as I can find), and have come to the conclusions that I express here.

      But to disprove something we must ourselves offer counter-proof, or ask the other to offer their own proofs. I see neither in this dialog. In most dialogs, when I make a claim that someone rejects, then I’m usually asked for some justification, which I generally anticipate and am prepared for. In this dialog, however, we go straight to, “That is your unsubstantiated opinion, with no basis in fact, biology, reason, or logic.” I’m quite willing to offer evidences when asked, but if I filled my comments in advance of that with links, quotes, and footnotes for every statement I made (some of which seem rather uncontroversial), then this would get slow and lengthy, and I’d probably get blocked like I did in previous replies that contained many links. I notice, though, that you seem to be satisfied on your own part with the bald, unannotated assertions of what you find to be false and true.

      And when I am accused of being ignorant of ethical foundations, or unwilling to take the conversation to that next level, I share that I’d rather enjoy going there. Your response: “Anything to avoid the issues raise, eh?” You’re kind of hard to satisfy.

      As to whether or not I’m picking minor points, I already shared why I find Jansen’s color distinction meaningful (he certainly thought it important, else he wouldn’t have led with it), but you made dishonest excuses, useless points, and relied on fraud. See, I can do it too. I chose the “harm” point because is seemed to be the chief justification that both you and Ben used (and every other gay advocate I’ve dialoged with) to disqualify homosexuality from all the other things against which it is compared. For this reason, I think it is worthy of discussion, and seldom am I able to get to this point in debates.

      This is all a shame, because you raise some interesting things that would be worth exploring further, but I’m not sure I could get past your grievances to take the debate to a deeper level. Speaking of which, it should be noted that the issue of whether homosexuality is immoral (or pathology) is a separate issue from whether it ought to be tolerated in society and how we should treat (or not treat) homosexuals. I see you often conflating the two.

      So, where to go from here? I’m inclined to end it, because I’m both unconvinced that we can have a productive dialog and that posts containing objective scientific references (by me) will survive here. But if you want to assume this means you have bested another no-fact hatin’ hater who can’t answer your stellar logic, then I’ll go against my better judgment (like Marty McFly) and offer to continue, so long as you also think it might be worthwhile and we can keep the invectives to a minimum. My only other condition is that we do it on my WordPress site so I can insure that I’m not wasting my time on content-rich posts, and because the comments here are a disorganized mess (having a hard to figuring out what & who I’ve replied to). To that end, I again invite you to post there whatever it is you think most pressing for me to answer (perhaps your reply to my first reply?).

      The sad thing is, you will probably perceive this whole reply as a further attempt to dodge your arguments. If that is the case, then we clearly have nothing further to discuss.

      • Ben in oakland says:

        poor baby. Once again, a Christian is a victim, just trying to proclaim the truth in love:

        by being dishonest, by cherry picking, by distorting, by trying to justify his already existing prejudice as sincere religious belief, by being refuted both scientifically and religiously, by making unsubstantiated claims and pretending that the cherry picked ‘science’ is actually supportive of those claims, by ignoring the harms visited on gay people for 2000 years, by playing the victim, by blaming the actual victims, by refusing to mind your own goddam and goddamning business, by crying crocodile tears for all the damage you and your kind have been visiting on innocent gay people for 2000 years.

        just once- ONCE– I wish you people would admit that it is all about your prejudices, and has nothing to do with your faith, let alone nay concern for the souls or the bodies or the lives of gay people.

        that’s the one thing I can say about people like Fred Phelps or bryan fisher– at least their honest in their hatred and their despite.

        • Please don’t call him a Christian, there’s really no evidence to support that. He may say he is, but he’s made so many false claims, there is no reason to believe that one either.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            Can we agree on my favorite phrase “a certain class of so-called Christian”? That allows him or her to be the kind of Christian that he is, without our denying something for which we have no actual proof, merely a great deal of circumstantial evidence.

      • “Darr, let me try to explain why I find this dialog frustrating.”
        Your diversionary tactic is not relevant, frankly. You are denigrating hundreds of millions of people, with no regard for their feelings at all. Your frustration has no bearing on anything.

        “First, I came into this thread with the intention of being thorough, and posted a detailed reply to the original article.”

        Which was loaded with false assertions and unsubstantiated accusations, slurs, and vicious attacks on GLBTQ people.

        ” then came back and couldn’t get a comment through moderation ”

        Given the nastiness of the first post, I am not surprised. You probably shouldn’t even be drawing attention to the fact that some of your posts were blocked, it makes me wonder what horrible things must have been in those posts.

        ” In any case, I pick a couple items which I think are interesting & meaningful. ”

        You avoided the meat and nibbled slightly on a leaf on the garnish.

        “You’ll just have to take my word for it that I have looked into these things (from sources as unbiased as I can find), and have come to the conclusions that I express here.”

        No. Your word is not good enough, you are reviling and judging other people, and you must provide more than just your word. Your word is meaningless, frankly, you’ve made explicitly false statements.

        ” No concession that I’m wrestling with logistics here. ”

        Everyone is dealing with the same software here. If you are not competent to communicate accurately in this situation, you probably should reconsider whether you are participating at all.

        ” I’m quite willing to offer evidences when asked,”

        Yet, once again, instead of providing evidence for any of your claims, and so many have been challenged, you are playing “poor me”.

        “See, I can do it too. I chose the “harm” point because is seemed to be the chief justification that both you and Ben used”

        And yet that is false. And it didn’t work for you anyways, and you relied on false parameters to try and finagle some way for your ‘harm’ point to work when you want it to and not when you don’t.

        Frankly, I think the real source of your frustration is you. You aren’t capable of rebutting the material presented, you are frustrated with yourself. Not the software, not the filter or mod, yourself.

        “but I’m not sure I could get past your grievances to take the debate to a deeper level. ”

        Please refrain from trying to shift the blame for your failure onto me. If you are unable to take the debate to a deeper level, that is your failing, not mine.

        ” I see you often conflating the two.”

        Your fantasies are irrelevant.

      • “So, where to go from here?”

        Well, an honest person would be begin by addressing all of the challenges made to your material so far, and backing up your accusations about GLBTQ people with concrete evidence.

        ” I’m inclined to end it,”
        Well, that is certainly easier than making a real effort to address the rebuttal presented to you, or to substantiated your considerable number of false accusations.

        “because I’m both unconvinced that we can have a productive dialog and that posts containing objective scientific references (by me) will survive here. ”

        There is no evidence that accurate, objective scientific references are deleted here. So, either the material you presented was not objective and scientific, much less accurate, or you are blowing smoke to hide your incompetence.

        As for productive, well, I’ve found this quite productive. I, and Ben, have exposed a long list of flaws, errors, frauds and falsehoods in your posts, which is beneficial for anyone reading along who may encounter the same false material elsewhere.

        “we can keep the invectives to a minimum.”

        Since you are the one who equated homosexuality with raping children among other things, the onus is on you.

        ‘My only other condition is that we do it on my WordPress site”

        In other words, you demand the ability to censor any post that refutes you, while allowing yourself to post any vicious and degrading slur or lie about homosexuals you want. You do understand, that you are the wolf demanding the keys to the sheep fold, don’t you?

        The clear message is that you cannot make your case with integrity, facts and logic, or civility, and need to stack the deck to suit yourself.

        And yes, this entire post of yours, all 936 words of is, is a pity party to avoid attempting to address even one challenge I made. But, how convenient, you given yourself a way to play the victim even more and walk away pretending you were right.

        • pascal9591 says:

          I have my answer in your implication that being filtered is my own fault and I’m trying to lure you away where I can manipulate your replies. Only one last point to make. In the comments on my blog anyone interested can see what I attempted to post here, and whether it was offensive enough to deserve exclusion.

          • “I have my answer in your implication that being filtered is my own fault and I’m trying to lure you away where I can manipulate your replies. ”

            The answer you provided, so you can pretend to be a victim.

            ” In the comments on my blog anyone interested can see what I attempted to post here, and whether it was offensive enough to deserve exclusion.”

            With no way of knowing that what you posted there is what wasn’t allowed here.

            From someone who has repeatedly made false assertions about a wide variety of subjects.

            Yes, you’ve create a lovely cover of smoke under which to run away.

          • Oh, and Pascal, by taking the path you have, you affirmed that you would have used your blog to dishonestly control the conversation. A person of integrity, whose motives were honest, would continue the dialogue here.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            honey, it wasn’t so much offensive– though it was certainly that– as it was lacking in actual evidence, logic, facts, and experience.

            You start with your antigay bigotry, justify it by claiming you’re speaking for god, support it with cherry picked “evidence” so that you at least appear to the religiously and scientifically uninformed that your not just another irrational bigot without a case to make, and then whine that no one understands you.

            We understand you very well. I’ve been listening to this kind of crap for over 40 years. The reason you and your kind are losing this battle– slowly, surely, and inexorably– is that people with intellect and compassion see you exactly for what you are. Your problem is that you find it impossible to believe that other people can do that, and no longer unthinkingly support your prejudice.

            I’m going to clue you in on something. You make all of these claims, devoid of facts, logic, and experience. Gay people who are the least bit aware can of course see the nonsense for what it is. But more importantly, because we have now been living our lives out of the shadows of your bigotry for 40 years and more, our friends, neighbors, colleagues, churches, and families, can see our lives clearly.

            For example, I have coupled friends who have been together for 38 years, while their 5 heterosexual siblings now have 13 marriages among them. They essentially raised the children on one of those siblings. At 63, they are still running six minute miles, while their obese, chain-smoking siblings have trouble getting out of bed. All 11 of their nieces and nephews can clearly see who are the actual healthy people in their families.

            multiply that by millions, and this is why you are losing. Are there unhealthy gay people with bad relationships, addictions, craziness and bad lives? absolutely. But people not irretrievably poisoned by fear, hate, stupidity, or bigoted religious belief can see clearly that it rarely has a thing to do with their homosexuality, any more than my friends’ siblings’ problems have something to do with their heterosexuality. They have their problems because they are people and they are not perfect. Other people with brains and hearts can also see this with their own eyes, brains and hearts, and they no longer buy YOUR explanation for it.

            Because gay people– those also not poisoned by toxic religious belief, as you are– refuse to aid and abet their own oppression by staying in the closet to make homobigots like you happy and comfortable in your wholly imaginary superiority as moral people, so-called Christians, and human beings– your lies and toxicity are obvious for what they are. To heterosexuals.

            You, like Mr. Ejercito and people like bryan Fischer, give your whole game away with your obsession over anal sex. You just can’t help yourselves. you obviously think more about it than we do. You use it to define gay men, as if one sexual act defines an entire human being, as if there were no other kind of gay person. Of course you ignore lesbians and their lack of venereal diseases– women aren’t important in any case for you and your ilk, and it doesn’t fit your narrative about homosexuality, or more accurately, anal sex. That’s what tells people what you’re really about. Since you’re so biblically literate, I suggest you read the story of Susannah and the elders VERY carefully.

            Maybe someday, dear, you will possess yourself of a heart and a mind, and stop insisting that gay people meet your definition of perfection, a definition which you and all human kind fail to meet. Jesus had a great deal to say about logs and beams, about barring the gates of heaven, about whited sepulchers, about bleating in public, about scribes and Pharisees and their fellow travelers.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          Darr, you can be even meaner– I mean, more devastatingly accurate– than I can. I like that.

      • Now, for all of your pity party whining, there is a key fact on the table that you wrote nearly a thousand words to avoid:

        You are defending a belief that produces real and tangible harm.

  9. Republic
    “There’s that hundreds and millions statistic again.”

    And there’s the depraved indifference and laziness again. To be completely blunt about it, it wouldn’t matter if you were only reviling one person. But you are reviling hundreds of millions.

    “Nasty and dismissive reply? Wow, kind of negative aren’t you?”

    Your unwillingness to even attempt to address the issues raised refutes your educational claims. You lied to us about your education, as you have lied about so many other things as well.

    “The difference is, repentance actually involves repenting from something that God condemns instead of approves.”
    Which is why you, who have slandered hundreds of millions of human beings need to repent.

    “Thus, no need for repentance on my part”

    That fantasy will not save you. It simply indicates that you truly have no moral, or spiritual sense.

    “I pray you’ll come to the realization of what true repentance is and then you will be free from this deception.”

    Your prayer, arising out of malice and pride, is likely to backfire for you.

    Once again, you avoided nearly every point I made, choosing instead to engage in derogatory, sinful assumptions about me, and throw up diversions and smokescreens. It should shame you, really, that you cannot even honestly address the points that I, a mere homosexual Christian, have presented to you. As superior as you clearly think you are, you should be able to cite dozens of unimpeachable sources to prove the meaning of every single Greek word in the relevant letters by Paul, but no, you rely on smoke and insults.

  10. Republic

    You ignored the vast majority of my prior post, choosing instead to issue empty dismissals.

    See, neither Paul, nor Jesus, actually taught ‘homosexuality is sin’. But if either did, then yes, they would be slanders – therefore – you and your peers who claim falsely that homosexuality is sin, must be wrong. You cannot be right.

    You, no matter how you want to be, cannot be right on this matter. The belief you are proclaiming destroys human lives, people are dead, murdered, tortured, raped, starved, burned alive, shot, beaten, violated in every way humans can, as the direct manifestation of ‘homosexuality is sin’.

    Do you understand that? The belief you teach is evil, it bears only evil fruit.

    There is no homosexual lifestyle. When you use that degrading and dismissive term, you malign the lives of real human beings, for no purpose other than to tell yourself how holy you are. But you are not holy, you are teaching evil, and people are dead as the direct result of the evil belief you are teaching.

    Now, since you either do not care, or cannot see that destruction, whether you see anything else is rather irrelevant.

  11. Darr Says>>>No. That would only be true if you were infallible, and you are not. See, neither Paul, nor Jesus, actually taught ‘homosexuality is sin’. But if either did, then yes, they would be slanders – therefore – you and your peers who claim falsely that homosexuality is sin, must be wrong. You cannot be right.<So now you want me to lie. That is further sin on your part. There is not homosexual lifestyle, homosexuality is not sin, and frankly, being a homosexual does not separate me from God. But the vicious belief you assert, ‘homosexuality is sin’, does drive many millions of people away from God.So you and your peers should stop, for you, not homosexuals, are engaged in a sinful lifestyle, and trying to use God to make your sins against hundreds of millions of people seem acceptable.<Your false accusation is sin, of course, and it shows that you are not a ‘good friend’. Please repent.<<<

    Republic1776 wrote: "I don't see it as false"

    That simply demonstrates further moral failing on your part. The accusation you are making is false, and you are accountable for that sin. So all you have done here is prove that you don't even believe the Bible you use as a weapon to brutalize other people.

    "and actually I believe I'm acting in the most loving way possible."

    Again, that only indicts you. There is nothing loving in your posts, only hate and malice. But sadly, you are saying that to you, slandering and reviling people is the best you can do.

    Equating homosexuality with driving blind simply displays utter emotional depravity on your part. It tells me that you are completely beyond any moral or spiritual insight, and are simply sadistically defaming people for your amusement.

    "Likewise, to accept the sin of homosexuality is the most hateful thing I could do."

    Talk about calling good evil and evil good. Since homosexuality is not a sin, your entire premise is malevolent and evil slander. But how terrible for you, to think that accepting us as God made us, is worse that raping someone, or killing someone – which are truly hateful things. And here's the irony, in the name of the belief you claim is love, 'homosexuality is sin', people are raped and murdered.

    So we see what your idea of love is – rape and murder, torture, suicide, slander, systemic oppression of every kind, as long as it is inflicted on someone other than yourself.

    "Especially, since I can see that it does not lead to eternal life."

    Then you are spiritually blind.

  12. Republic1776 says:

    Ben says: ‘You don’t “know” it’s a sin by god’s standard.” The only thing you know is that you believe you understand something that was written in a book 2000 years ago in a language you don’t speak by people who are a universe away from us in culture and knowledge, that you also have convinced yourself has something to do with homosexuality, as understood in their time or in ours. you also believe, without a shred of evidence, that you are privy to the relationship of god with any soul on the planet other than your own.’

    It’s not difficult to look up meanings of the words using Greek lexicons and I actually have studied the Greek language. So, it’s not something I just pull out of the air. There are also ways to research a culture (in which I have) to understand the thought process behind the text in question along with Biblical Hermeneutics to guide the understanding. I don’t have to convince myself of anything. I just research the text, the opposing arguments, and I have come up to these conclusion. If the Biblical text actually said God approves of Homosexuality instead of condemning it, then I would of course fall in line. Whether Greek, Hebrew, or English, in all cases the Bible is clear that Homosexuality is a sin. To that end, I rest my case.

    Ben says: ‘that is spiritual arrogance of the worst sort. It’s your “truth”, not my truth.It’s not love, it’s narcissism.’

    The problem is my truth is not my truth, but the truth found in God’s word. I’m sorry you don’t see it as love, but in the end I believe you will and in the end I would have wished I could have said or did something more to bring you to this understanding. However, God brings the Harvest, not me.

    • Republic1776 says:

      To be clear, I’ve told those who have divorced on grounds not biblical, have had sex before marriage, and those who commit adultery, the same things I’m saying here. All are sin and will be condemned just the same unless those involved in these immoralities will turn from these sinful lifestyles and put their faith in trust in Jesus Christ as scripture states.

      • “All are sin and will be condemned just the same unless those involved in these immoralities will turn from these sinful lifestyles”

        And you will be judged by this very standard, and if you do not repent, condemned for it. The immorality here is yours, as you revile and slander hundreds of millions of people to feed your ego.

        • Michael Ejercito says:

          And you will be judged by this very standard, and if you do not repent, condemned for it. The immorality here is yours, as you revile and slander hundreds of millions of people to feed your ego.

          Whom, exactly, is he slandering?

          • GLBTQ people, and probably, the millions of heterosexuals who reject ‘homosexuality is sin’.

          • Michael Ejercito says:

            What were these slanderous statements?

          • Michael Ejercito says:
            February 4, 2014 at 6:38 pm

            What were these slanderous statements?

            In his posts, of course. Where else would they be?

            Oh, and you are “Republic1776 “? It is interesting that you’ve taken to these empty little snarks, after Republic’s incompetence has been so thoroughly explored. One person has already admitted to using multiple ids, after all.

      • Ben in oakland says:

        You may mention it to them, but you are too morally lazy to make a real effort. I sincerely doubt you spend much time on the people who reject the totality of your religious beliefs, not just the antigay part. Sexual “sin”, finger wagging, being a moralizing busybody is what gets you going.

        jesus had a great deal to say about people like you and your “whited sepulchers”. When you have a log in your eye, it’s pretty difficult to see anything but the log.

      • Ben in oakland says:

        Have you told those people that have divorced for reasons other than adultery that they must get remarried to their original spouse? Have you told those who have divorced for reasons other than adultery and have remarried that they must divorce their present spouse and remarry their previous spouse, or suffer from eternal damnation?

        No?

        I didn’t think so.

    • “It’s not difficult to look up meanings of the words using Greek lexicons and I actually have studied the Greek language. ”

      Don’t lie to us. After all, the actual greek of Paul’s text does not support your claims.
      Greek had seventeen different words for homosexual, none of them appear in Paul’s letters. And if you knew Greek, you’d have known that malakoi does not mean male prostitute. Your lies won’t fly here.

      ‘ If the Biblical text actually said God approves of Homosexuality instead of condemning it,”

      The Bible does not condemn homosexuality, and, it also does not state that anything not affirmed is condemned. You are trying to bullsh*t your way to winning this argument, but you cannot win.

      You cannot be right.

      ‘Whether Greek, Hebrew, or English, in all cases the Bible is clear that Homosexuality is a sin. To that end, I rest my case. ”

      You have no case, for in neither Greek nor Hebrew, or in accurate English translations, is homosexuality a sin. It cannot be.

      “The problem is my truth is not my truth, ”

      And yet, it is only your words, not even truth at all. Look at your own post, you claim knowledge of greek, but provide nothing at all to back up your claims.

      You are a fraud, a lawbreaker, and a worker of iniquity. Please repent.

    • Ben in oakland says:

      As I said, you now pursue gay people with the same moral certainty with which you used to pursue witches. You are willing to cite your bible verses with the same authority with which the segregationists justified racism when I was a boy. There is no difference.

      When you go after all of the other sins and sinners in the world with the same enthusiasm and energy with which you now pursue gay people, you might have some credibility. Anybody with half a brain and half a heart can see you for who you are, which is why you are losing the battle.

      There is simply no reaching people who are irretrievably poisoned by hate and bigotry, and who are willing to use their bibles to justify both. My hope for you is that someday, you will see yourself for what and who you are and be ashamed.

      But it’s not bloody likely,. have a nice life.

  13. Thank you, everyone, for your comments. Having grown up as a christian, in a christian family, I was exposed to more than my share of the attitudes that a lot of christians have toward homosexuality, specifically, and sexuality in general. This is just one of the things that lead me to Humanism. (read, atheism) This change in religious attitude was not sudden, and did not come without extensive study. The fact that christianity, and in fact ALL mainstream religions, can so blatantly show hatred and bigotry toward people THEY don’t feel fit in was a deciding factor in my conversion. In the blog, I used the term “In my opinion.”
    The use of, and my particular translation of the bible verses was, yes, MY translation of those verses, as some of the replies are based on YOUR translations. Again, these translations are based on my study of the bible, and biblical history. Having said that, I will freely admit to not being an expert on these subjects, but like you a man with an opinion. Unlike a lot of religious people, my opinion comes from an open mind, and the need to learn more about subjects. And while it may not jibe with your opinions, it has clearly done what I set it out to do. It has raised debate.
    I personally stand by what I wrote, and feel that it represents my feelings on this subject.
    Again I want to thank you, all, for your thoughts, and for sharing them, and would like to share a piece that was quoted at the wedding of two of my closest friends. Two amazing men who married on the 25th anniversary of their first date. It’s a piece quoted at every christian wedding:
    1 Corinthians 13:4-8
    New International Version (NIV)
    4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

    8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
    To me…THIS is what love is about.
    Thanks again
    Ken

    • Ken

      Your essay is fine. “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is a lie, frankly. The proof of it is the way homophobes consistently react when their sin, their wrongful behavior is pointed out. When they are rebuked for anything, they take it personally and respond with abuse and anger.

      Predominantly, those who use ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ to excuse their condemnation of homosexuals, react to any criticism of that ‘homosexuality is sin’, with accusations of hate. So they proclaim ‘homosexuals are a threat to children’ and someone says, “no, we are not’ and the homophobe proclaims “you are a hater’.

      • Thank you, Darr. This is exactly the point I was trying to make. (Probably could have made the point in two paragraphs, like you just did. LOL) You are right, at this point, because I choose to defend the homosexual community, I just lined myself up as a “fallacious and arrogant” hater! But, such is life.

  14. Republic1776 says:

    The problem with this article is it makes a lot of fallacious and arrogant assertions about Jesus and what they think Christians should do or not do. However, conveniently things are left out that would actually be detrimental to the message of this blog. For instance, you see the posting as usual “he who has no sin, cast the first stone”, but they leave out where Jesus said to the woman being condemned to go and SIN NO MORE. Which shows Jesus never accepted her sinful actions, but only exposed the hypocritical actions of those wishing to condemn her. However, they were acting contrary to their faith by those actions (conspiring to trap and condemn Jesus in the process because they hated Him which Jesus said was murder of the heart).

    The commandment Jesus gave to the disciples was to love one another, but the blog leaves out the understanding of what love is according to the same source (the Bible) that they are getting their proof text from. The Bible is clear that love does not delight in evil (sin),but rejoices in the TRUTH! The truth is all sexual encounters outside of marriage (even lust of the heart) was condemned by Jesus as outside of God’s plan for the one man and one woman union in holy matrimony. Leaving all those who live such lifestyles in disobedience to God’s plan weighed, tried, and found wanting. Jesus hung out with sinners, but it wasn’t to accept their sin. Jesus wanted them to know they could come to Him as they were, but they were to leave changed as only an encounter with the King of Kings would do. He who can accept it, will accept it. Change can happen for anyone who truly puts their faith and trust in Jesus. As stated below:

    Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.- Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

    • Ben in oakland says:

      As always, you are happy to leave out the line of Corinthians about who else will not inherit the kingdom of god. you know, the revilers and slanderers? when you take to task people like ted haggard, bryan Fischer, tony Perkins, Linda harvey, gordon klingeschmitt, Pope benedict, Cardinal George, Archbishop Paprocki, Paul Cameron, Dave Agema, and the host of people in the anti gay industry who make their livings reviling and slandering gay people with the lying, demonizing crap that pull out of the darkest places of their hearts…

      do let me know.

      Otherwise, all you’re doing is proving what we already know. Hypocrisy is the stock in trade of a certain class of so called Christian.

      • Republic1776 says:

        You do realize what revilers and slanderers are, don’t you? I posted the whole verse and if you did, you would see they weren’t left out of the verse. Sin is sin and one way or another, the Bible is clear on what it is and what should be done to be set free from it by the power of God through Jesus Christ. I don’t care for all of those individuals either because they are hypocritical in many ways and most preach false doctrine. Hypocrisy is found in many places and those practicing hypocrisy while claiming to be a Christ follower will be in the same boat as the unbeliever. Without hope of eternal life and will not enter heaven.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          You preferred abusive. I don’t prefer abusive, because it lets a lot of people off the hook. In any case, I’m just glad I’m not a Christian. I hoe you have a very nice time in this heaven you believe in.

          • Republic1776 says:

            It was the version of Bible (New Living Translation) which uses language that may be easier to understand.by using words that are not as complex of a description. I’m actually sorrowful, but mostly glad you are not a Christian as I am not one either (in today’s understanding of what a Christian is). The majority of Christians in the United States do not follow Jesus Christ’s teachings, but instead set up their own religion based on foundations that are not of Him. I am a Christ-follower or follower of the Way. Someone who many Christians would actually be contentious with just the same because to follow Christ and His teachings is even more radical for many cultural Christians today.

            I pray that you will seek out Jesus Christ and just read about Him and seek after Him. Then you will find the true message of what Jesus taught that is many times contrary to what you hear today from many Christians as well as the world. I’m not saying the teachings are everything you or even I would like to hear (because it challenges our own way of thinking and living).

            However, when and if you search Him out, you’ll find that He has words of life and freedom for all those who will hear and believe. Hope you have a blessed week and I pray I see you there at the heaven you speak of. Many want to go to heaven, but many do not want God to be there when they get there. Jesus is the door to heaven and eternal life, peace, and everlasting love is waiting for those who pass through. Blessings.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          Thank you for your good wishes. I do appreciate them, even though I don’t accept the truth that you are so certain lies behind them.

          I tried Christianity a long time ago, and found it less than compelling. The more I explored it after having left it, the less compelling I found it to be. And the more I experience what passes for Christianity among a certain class of so-called Christian– judgmentalism, hate disguised as love, hate not even bothering to disguise itself as love, naked prejudice given a thin veneer of “respectability” by calling it sincere religious belief, moralizing busybodies, pharisaical legalisms, hypocrisy, and staggering cluelessness– the more I am glad I was freed from it before it took over my life.

          My own belief is that if there is a god who requires anything from us, that requirement is to be as good, kind, and compassionate as possible, to harm no one. I don’t think there is such a god, but if there were, that’s what it would want from us. And that’s how I live my life.

          Your posting does point out something though. Christianity is whatever the people who call themselves Christians say it is. You’ve got one view, my UCC friends have another, the falwells and the robertsons have quite another. Throughout it all, God himself remains silent/.

          • Republic1776 says:

            The view I always espouse is going back to the foundations or source of what Christianity is suppose to be about..Jesus Christ…Perspectives, opinions, and even interpretations in and of themselves do not make something true as it pertains to Jesus and His teachings found in the Bible. Truth is found in the words of Jesus and His teachings apart from one’s own viewpoint. What’s Ironic is Jesus taught what you have said in some ways. He talked about doing good to others, but set the bar even higher and said for His followers to do good to those who despise them, to pray for those who despitefully use them, and to love their enemies. How can anyone turn from someone who teaches like that? Yet, many do even calling in many ways these teachings of Jesus hateful. Really?

            Jesus also said I am the way, THE TRUTH, and the live, no one can come to the father accept through Him. Bold statement indeed. Jesus is either a Liar, Lunatic, or He is who He said He was. Being a good and moral teacher doesn’t cut it for who He was and Who He claimed to be.

            Even the most hardened skeptic realizes when they seek Him out that nothing parallels to Him, His teachings, and His life. Trying Christianity is one thing, but seeking after truth found in Jesus and having a relationship with Him is another. God is not silent either, but can easily be found in His 66 love letters and is not far from each one of us. You are right about doing good to others. Jesus himself taught his followers to love their enemies, do good to those who despitefully use them, and to pray for those persecute them. Why would anyone want to hate or be contentious toward a Christ follower who follows those teachings? It’s because the message of Christ is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God. Christianity should be nothing, but about Christ. Anything else is an anathema. Those who truly want to follow Him have a choice to make. The world’s values and Jesus’s teachings innately clash and Jesus said they will be hated like He was hated. The truth will set you free. You are not far from the kingdom. There’s still time!! Thanks for your time!

            The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,

            (Acts 17:24-27)

        • “You do realize what revilers and slanderers are, don’t you?”

          It includes everyone who teaches ‘homosexuality is sin’.

          “Sin is sin ”
          Yes, and though homosexuality is not a sin, the persecution and slander of homosexuals, such as what you presented, is sin.

          The question is: will you repent?

          • Republic1776 says:

            Sure I know what revilers and slanderers are, but your premise is unfortunate. For you would have to exclude the author Paul the Apostle who wrote 2/3 of the New Testament as well as Jesus Himself. Sexual immorality in all it’s forms is as described including Homosexuality. Immoral. Doesn’t matter what form it takes, but God is clear on what He condones and what is Sin. Twisting it like you have only does a disservice to your cause. Just be honest and say you accept the homosexual lifestyle apart from God and leave it at that. I admire those who at least come to that realization. Trying to drag God into it as though he approves of the lifestyle only makes you look dishonest and deceptive. That my good friend is the true definition of a slanderer. Toward God nonetheless!

            What sorrow for those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter.- Isaiah 5:20

          • Michael Ejercito says:

            Yes, and though homosexuality is not a sin, the persecution and slander of homosexuals, such as what you presented, is sin.

            This is true.

            It is also true that buggery is a sin, malum in se, and a crime against nature.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            Mother nature has yet to appear in court to file the complaint. As with the people who claim to speak for god, they speak only for themselves.

        • “The view I always espouse is going back to the foundations or source of what Christianity is suppose to be about..Jesus Christ…”

          Not on this subject. Frankly, Christ’s words in Matthew 7:15-23, make it clear that those who teach ‘homosexuality is sin’ are false teachers. And, be honest, you did not quote Christ here to defend your condemnation of hundreds of millions of people. You quoted a poor translation of Paul.

          “He talked about doing good to others, but set the bar even higher and said for His followers to do good to those who despise them, to pray for those who despitefully use them, and to love their enemies. ”

          And instead, you came here and reviled and slandered hundreds of millions of people. Not only did you not love us as you love yourself, you did not ‘do good’ for those who rebuked anti-gay theology. You did not live up to any of the standard Christ set.

          “Those who truly want to follow Him have a choice to make.”

          Unfortunately, you choose to revile and slander hundreds of millions of people, you choose to defend a belief that destroys human lives, instead of choosing to obey Christ.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            I will have to add to what Darr said, republic.

            There are plenty of gay Christians. They have no problem with being gay or Christian, and why? Because they feel the presence of Jesus in their lives. (Not something that I share or want, but that’s not my point).

            Who are you to say that Jesus is not in their lives? You’re not god, you don’t represent god, you don’t speak for god, and I sincerely doubt that god confides in the likes of YOU his relationship with any other soul on the planet.

            As I have said repeatedly, that is spiritual arrogance of the worst sort.

          • Republic1776 says:

            Darr>>And instead, you came here and reviled and slandered hundreds of millions of people. Not only did you not love us as you love yourself, you did not ‘do good’ for those who rebuked anti-gay theology. You did not live up to any of the standard Christ set.<<<

            Hundreds of millions of people, eh? I'd like to see the statistics on that one. However, the definition of love as described in the Bible has a portion where it says, "love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth". That is what I am doing loving people by rejoicing in the truth and loving people enough to not condone something I know is sin by God's standards that will lead them into eternal destruction. Would I treat someone with respect (respect doesn't mean approval) as a fellow human being, give to those who are in need, and even protect someone who was a practicing homosexual from physical violence? I sure would! You trying to demonize and marginalize me just because I don't agree with you only solidifies the true agenda of the homosexual movement which isn't about equality and tolerance.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            “That is what I am doing loving people by rejoicing in the truth and loving people enough to not condone something I know is sin by God’s standards that will lead them into eternal destruction.”

            You don’t “know” it’s a sin by god’s standard.” The only thing you know is that you believe you understand something that was written in a book 2000 years ago in a language you don’t speak by people who are a universe away from us in culture and knowledge, that you also have convinced yourself has something to do with homosexuality, as understood in their time or in ours. you also believe, without a shred of evidence, that you are privy to the relationship of god with any soul on the planet other than your own.

            that is spiritual arrogance of the worst sort.

            It’s your “truth”, not my truth.

            It’s not love, it’s narcissism.

        • “Sure I know what revilers and slanderers are, but your premise is unfortunate. For you would have to exclude the author Paul the Apostle who wrote 2/3 of the New Testament as well as Jesus Himself. ”

          No. That would only be true if you were infallible, and you are not. See, neither Paul, nor Jesus, actually taught ‘homosexuality is sin’. But if either did, then yes, they would be slanders – therefore – you and your peers who claim falsely that homosexuality is sin, must be wrong. You cannot be right.

          “Sexual immorality in all it’s forms is as described including Homosexuality.”

          Your assertion is false and is slander, again. You’ve barred yourself from Heaven with that simply sentence. Remember, all of the acts that are really called sexual immorality in the Bible, are committable, committed, by heterosexuals. So while, say, prostitution by a homosexual would be sexual immorality, as would prostitution by a heterosexual, that does not make either heterosexuality or homosexuality intrinsically sexual immorality.

          “Doesn’t matter what form it takes, but God is clear on what He condones and what is Sin.”

          And God is clear – you are sinning by slandering hundreds of millions of people, for the sake of your pride.

          “Twisting it like you have only does a disservice to your cause.”

          Your false accusation is not only sin against me, for which I ask you to repent here as publicly as you sinned, it also indicates that you cannot actually refute what I have presented.

          “Just be honest and say you accept the homosexual lifestyle apart from God and leave it at that.”

          So now you want me to lie. That is further sin on your part. There is not homosexual lifestyle, homosexuality is not sin, and frankly, being a homosexual does not separate me from God. But the vicious belief you assert, ‘homosexuality is sin’, does drive many millions of people away from God.

          Frankly, not only are you encouraging people to abandon God if they won’t accept you as their expert on God, your argument indicates a lack of understanding of Christian theology. After all, as Paul wrote:
          38 And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[b] neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love. 39 No power in the sky above or in the earth below—indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8.

          “I admire those who at least come to that realization.”

          Of course you, it feeds your ego, and enables you to usurp God’s role in their lives.

          “Trying to drag God into it as though he approves of the lifestyle only makes you look dishonest and deceptive.”

          So you and your peers should stop, for you, not homosexuals, are engaged in a sinful lifestyle, and trying to use God to make your sins against hundreds of millions of people seem acceptable.

          “That my good friend is the true definition of a slanderer. Toward God nonetheless!”

          Your false accusation is sin, of course, and it shows that you are not a ‘good friend’. Please repent.

          “What sorrow for those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter.- Isaiah 5:20”

          What a shame you that you wield this to abuse others, instead of daring to apply it to your own life, for you call your evil of slandering us good, and call our loving and beautiful, God-given relationships ‘evil’.

        • “Hundreds of millions of people, eh? I’d like to see the statistics on that one.”
          I’m sure you’d like any excuse to dodge the issue. But with the strong evidence that ten percent, at least, is homosexual or bisexual, 10% of 7 billion means you are reviling 700 million people.

          “However, the definition of love as described in the Bible has a portion where it says, “love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth”.”

          But you are delighting in evil so your attempt to minimize your abusive of real human beings really doesn’t work.

          “That is what I am doing loving people”

          No, you are calling the innate capacity for love that God has given hundreds of millions of people alive today, not to mention the hundreds of millions in the prior generation, and the millions more in the generation before, and the generation before, etc – you care calling their capacity for love evil, you are comparing it to addiction and stealing, and through the I Tim version of the list, murder.

          Nor are you loving us when you trivialize our lives with the term lifestyle.

          “by rejoicing in the truth and loving people enough to not condone something I know is sin by God’s standards”

          No, not God’s standards, your standards. You are not God.

          “that will lead them into eternal destruction.”

          You are the one in danger of destruction. Neither heterosexuality nor heterosexual sex are required by Christ for salvation.

          “Would I treat someone with respect (respect doesn’t mean approval) as a fellow human being, give to those who are in need, and even protect someone who was a practicing homosexual from physical violence? I sure would!”

          Please don’t lie. You won’t even stop slandering us in public. Of course you would not protect GLBTQ people from physical violence, you are promoting it.

          “You trying to demonize and marginalize me just because I don’t agree with you ”

          Your lie about me is further sin on your part.

          “only solidifies the true agenda of the homosexual movement which isn’t about equality and tolerance.”

          Your lies are sin. Please repent. Remember, you are the one slandering hundreds of millions of people, teaching a belief that is consistently manifested in physical violence and slaughter, and you personally have attempt to damn us to eternal destruction.

    • robw77 says:

      Hi Republic1776,
      (I will ask our guest blogger Ken to weigh in, as this was his piece but I wanted to make a few comments). You might want to be a little cautious before your throw around the “revilers and slanderers” accusation. Your post above was not actually very honest itself. YOU conveniently left out the middle statement that Jesus said to the woman threatened to be stoned which was “Neither DO I JUDGE YE”. Obviously, that would not have underscored your desired interpretation that He did judge her and commanded her not to sin. You also have integrated in a context that is not in the Bible regarding “Jesus as outside of God’s plan for the one man and one woman union in holy matrimony”. Jesus was not asked about matrimony and certainly not “holy matrimony” as there was no such thing. He was asked about DIVORCE, and answered in that context. Just so you know the Church did not get involved in marriages for many centuries later and at that time decided to make it a sacrament.
      It is fine that you have your own interpretation of the Bible, albeit, in my opinion misguided. Please share your thoughts respectfully however. Thanks again for sharing.

      • Republic1776 says:

        ROBW77>>(I will ask our guest blogger Ken to weigh in, as this was his piece but I wanted to make a few comments). You might want to be a little cautious before your throw around the “revilers and slanderers” accusation. Your post above was not actually very honest itself. YOU conveniently left out the middle statement that Jesus said to the woman threatened to be stoned which was “Neither DO I JUDGE YE”. Obviously, that would not have underscored your desired interpretation that He did judge her and commanded her not to sin.<<<

        I appreciate your post. However, I'm trying to figure out what translation you used where Jesus said, "neither do I judge ye"? Jesus in John 8:10-11 used the Greek word katakrinō which means "to condemn". The word judge or judgment you replaced it with in Greek is Krisis which means "opinion or decision concerning anything" which that is what judgment means.

        As you can see, Jesus wasn't saying to her that he wasn't judging her (otherwise he wouldn't have told her to go and sin no more which shows he was judging her and the sin she committed), but that his judgment of her did not lead to a final condemnation as what happened with those who were going to throw stones at her. Stoning her to death would be a condemnation of their judgment upon her as His judgement could have led her to as well. Yet in His judgement He showed her mercy at that moment and told her to repent of her sin instead of condemning her. There's a difference between the two and it unfortunate that you were seemingly unaware or dishonest in that regard. It's good to be more cautious when you are attempting to correct someone of something you yourself were in error on.

        As far as the marriage is concerned, Nearly every culture in the history of humanity has had some kind of formal wedding ceremony. In every culture there is an event, action, covenant, or proclamation that is recognized as declaring a man and woman to be married. Similar to the way, in many cultures, a father gives away his daughter at the wedding, some interpreters understand God’s bringing Eve to Adam (Genesis 2:22) as God’s overseeing the first wedding “ceremony. Thus, it doesn't matter when the official church got involved, what God constitutes a marriage which means in Greek "to bind or unite" and it something observed since the beginning of time by God as Jesus affirms in general and not just in the context of talking about Divorce.

        And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. – Mark 10:5-9

        • I’m still curious, Republic, what happened to Mark 2-3? Are you ashamed of that part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? You know, the part where the Pharisees asked Jesus, explicitly, about heterosexual divorce?

    • First off, you are using a fraudulent translation of I Cor 6:9,10. But by equating homosexuals with idolaters, thieves, drunkards, not only are you abusive, but you are a slanderer, and though your fraudulent translation leaves it out, slanderers like you are barred from the Kingdom of Heaven.

      The two words Paul used, malakoi and arsenokoite – do not mean “male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,”. The greek word for male prostitute is pornoi, and though greek had seventeen words for homosexuality, none of them are ‘arsenokoite’.

      But you should have known better any way, if you had any moral sense, you’d know that homosexuality is not comparable to stealing, or addiction. You damned yourself, unless you repent.

      By the way, malakoi, conceptually, includes cowardice, such as your use of a pseudonym here.

      “The truth is all sexual encounters outside of marriage (even lust of the heart) was condemned by Jesus as outside of God’s plan for the one man and one woman union in holy matrimony. ”

      Your assertion is false. And because you attempt to restrict marriage to heterosexuals, you are a lawbreaker, for you show favoritism to heterosexuals and against homosexuals.

      “The problem with this article is it makes a lot of fallacious and arrogant assertions about Jesus and what they think Christians should do or not do.”

      Your false accusation is sin. Please repent.

      • Ben in oakland says:

        Glad you found this blog, Darr.

      • pascal9591 says:

        Darr, I think Republic1776 should have quoted Romans 1:26-27, which is far more direct. In it Paul talks about men and women rejecting “natural relations” or the “function” of the opposite sex and instead being inflames with lust for each other. Sounds pretty unequivocal.

        But I think Republic1776 made a bigger mistake in quoting scripture at all given that almost no one here finds it to be any sort of authority in moral matters. Perhaps no one would be doing so if the original post didn’t bring the Bible into the discussion. I wonder, though, what each of you do appeal to when determining what should be considered “good” and “normal” within society, and why anyone else should be expected to agree with it.

        • “Darr, I think Republic1776 should have quoted Romans 1:26-27, which is far more direct.”

          And that would be fraudulent as well. First, for taking the verses out of context, even though verse 26 begins with the concept ‘for this reason’ – pointing back to the explicit description of idolatry in the preceeding verses.

          Additionally, Paul used the word ‘physikos’ when describing the ‘natural sexual use of’ the opposite sex. Physikos means innate, instinctive, inborn nature. Homosexuals do not have a physikos, innate, instinctive, inborn sexual use of the opposite gender. They cannot abandon or exchange, as Paul describes, something they do not have.

          And that abandonment is crucial to Paul’s overall point, for he begins by describing the way people abandon their innate knowledge of God.

          ‘ In it Paul talks about men and women rejecting “natural relations” or the “function” of the opposite sex and instead being inflames with lust for each other. Sounds pretty unequivocal. ”

          Only to dishonest people who fail to employ critical thinking. Since homosexuals have no natural attraction to the opposite sex, they cannot abandon what they do not have.

          Further, all people use cherry-pick Romans 1:26-27 to judge homosexuals, damn themselves, for Paul’s actual point comes a bit later:

          You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

          5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism. Romans 2.

          God does not show favoritism, not even to heterosexuals.

          • pascal9591 says:

            What you call “critical thinking” I would call reading one’s biases into the text. I know you think we’re doing this ourselves, but there’s no reason to imagine that gay advocates are immune to this.

            This particular verse seems pretty straightforward. It’s not us torturing scripture to try to introduce something into it that’s not explicitly there. In fact, there are many non-believers that hate the Bible precisely because they read passages like this and hate what they see in it. I’m not sure why you are trying so hard to salvage the text, since I’m guessing that you reject the whole project of classical Christianity, e.g., hell, bodily resurrection, the unique deity of Christ, etc. But let’s play anyway.

            You said: “Since homosexuals have no natural attraction to the opposite sex, they cannot abandon what they do not have.”

            You seem to be implying that this passage only pertains to people that have an attraction to the opposite sex who abandon that. So, tell me, how do they “burn with lust” for the same-sex when their natural attractions are for the opposite sex? What kind of strange people is Paul talking about here? Besides being a really weird state of affairs, it misses what the text does explicitly say.

            As you rightly say, they abandon the “natural sexual use of” the opposite sex and went after the same sex, for which they find an attraction. Paul isn’t saying anything about the state of their desire or relationship with the opposite sex before they abandon it. He’s simply saying that they abandon/reject/don’t-avail-themselves-of the natural function of the opposite sex. It doesn’t matter whether or not they’re attracted to a woman, they still reject their natural function and go after what they ARE attracted to. By implication, they would then be performing “unnatural functions,” which he explicit calls “indecent acts.” If I had to write this passage myself, I’m not sure how I could have stated it any clearer.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          Actually, it’s fairly equivocal. People prefer to ignore the importance of the word WHEREFORE, which clearly indicates that god is punishing people for idolatry. It doesn’t speak to natural homosexuals, it speaks to heterosexuals acting homosexually.

        • “What you call “critical thinking” I would call reading one’s biases into the text.”

          But that would a dismissive false accusation on your part. And yes, you are doing it – reading an excuse for persecuting hundreds of millions of people into a text that does not support it.

          “but there’s no reason to imagine that gay advocates are immune to this.”

          Which is why it is useful to compare the results of the two positions. Your belief produces murder and slander and persecution of hundreds of millions of people, creates the illusion of an unjust and capricious, vicious God, and feeds the pride of heterosexuals by telling them that they are superior. Mine does none of those things.

          And your position is based on fraud, which you are ignoring.

          “This particular verse seems pretty straightforward.”

          You’ve raped it out of context, to begin with.

          “It’s not us torturing scripture to try to introduce something into it that’s not explicitly there.”

          Instead, you are deceitfully ignoring what is there – idolatry, an explicit description of heterosexuals, not homosexuals, and the historical and social context of Paul’s letter.

          “In fact, there are many non-believers that hate the Bible precisely because they read passages like this and hate what they see in it.”

          Your irrelevant diversionary tactic indicates that you cannot address the challenges presented to you.

          “I’m not sure why you are trying so hard to salvage the text,”

          Your false characterization is sin, and shows that you cannot address the issues honestly.

          “since I’m guessing that you reject the whole project of classical Christianity, e.g., hell, bodily resurrection, the unique deity of Christ, etc.”

          Your guesses are false, and indicate that you cannot address the issues honestly.

          “You said: “Since homosexuals have no natural attraction to the opposite sex, they cannot abandon what they do not have.”

          You seem to be implying that this passage only pertains to people that have an attraction to the opposite sex who abandon that.”

          This passage explicitly describes only such people.

          “So, tell me, how do they “burn with lust” for the same-sex when their natural attractions are for the opposite sex?”

          Well, for one thing, as Paul points out, as a result of their idolatry. Yes, you deceitfully skipped those verses, but your deception doesn’t change what Paul wrote. The history of sex as a worship practice in fertility religions is well-documented, so you have no excuse. But here are modern examples as well – heterosexual men in prison engaging in homosexual sex to ‘get off’, or to demonstrate power. We know from archeological evidence, as well as the Bible, that fertility religions existed, in which people had sex with priests and priestesses of the religions, to earn the favor of their god or goddess. One such religion, in Rome, worshipped Cybele/the Great Mother. Priests castrated themselves to be like Cybele’s consort Attis, and priests and priesteses dressed as Cybele and had sex with worshipers, of both genders, to bring the goddess’ blessings.

          “What kind of strange people is Paul talking about here? Besides being a really weird state of affairs, it misses what the text does explicitly say.”

          Idolatry and temple prostitution is weird by today’s standards, but it is you who are missing what the text explicitly states. After all, you fraudulently skipped the description of idolatry.

          “As you rightly say, they abandon the “natural sexual use of” the opposite sex”

          The abandon their innate sexual use of the opposite sex. Don’t lie about what I wrote.

          “and went after the same sex, for which they find an attraction.”

          No, that is not what the text communicates. Your dishonesty on this is sin. Please repent.

          “Paul isn’t saying anything about the state of their desire or relationship with the opposite sex before they abandon it.”

          False. One must first have sexual desire for the opposite sex to abandon it at all. You cannot abandon feathers on the top of your head, pascal, if you don’t already have them.

          “He’s simply saying that they abandon/reject/don’t-avail-themselves-of the natural function of the opposite sex.”

          No. Bear in mind, your notion is predicated on the false assumption that heterosexual is the natural state for all human beings. It is not. Homosexuality is natural for many, bisexuality is natural for many.

          “It doesn’t matter whether or not they’re attracted to a woman, they still reject their natural function and go after what they ARE attracted to.”

          False. Homosexuality is not unnatural, it occurs in nature. Heterosexuality is only natural for heterosexuals, the sexual use of the opposite sex is only natural for heterosexuals. Sex with someone of the opposite sex is intrinsically unnatural for homosexuals.

          Do you understand? For a homosexual, what you and your peers demand of us – sex with someone of the opposite sex – is unnatural, a violation of the innate nature God gave us.

          “If I had to write this passage myself, I’m not sure how I could have stated it any clearer.”

          And yet you’d still be wrong, still a worker of iniquity showing favoritism to heterosexuals, and thus, a lawbreaker.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            By their fruits shall you know them. someone said that. Matthew 7:16.

            rotten theology produces rotten fruit. “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.’ How many hundreds of thousands of women were tortured and killed because of that little bit of rotten theology? And for a crime we now know cannot be committed because it doesn’t exist?

            The same is true for antigay theology. How many kids have committed suicide because of antigay theology? Google bobby Griffiths. How many gay lives have been wrecked or destroyed because of antigay theology? Two boys were judicially murdered in iran a few years ago for their horrible crime. TWO BOYS! How many African children could have been fed for the40 million squandered by catholics and Mormons in the prop. 8 fight?

            Rotten theology produces rotten fruit.

        • The reality here, pascal, is that you and your peers are the ones sinning in this equation. You attempt to badger homosexuals into abandoning their physikos chresis – their innate sexual attraction – and act out sexually against their nature, in order to please your false god.

          And so it is important to return to Paul’s actual point:
          You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
          Romans 2.

          Pascal, the interpretation of Paul’s text that you make is frankly irrational. Paul begins by asserting that the existence of God is written into nature itself, but people abandon this pre-existing, innate knowledge of God and make idols to suit themselves. Paul’s use of fertility religion sex practices only makes sense in relationship to that point about idolatry, when applied to heterosexuals going against what is natural to them. It cannot be about homosexuals, for when they have sex with someone of their own gender, they are doing what is natural for them – and natural in nature, in more than a thousand species known to science so far.

          Please stop raping these texts to brutalize other human beings.

      • Republic1776 says:

        Darr>>First off, you are using a fraudulent translation of I Cor 6:9,10. But by equating homosexuals with idolaters, thieves, drunkards, not only are you abusive, but you are a slanderer, and though your fraudulent translation leaves it out, slanderers like you are barred from the Kingdom of Heaven.<<>The two words Paul used, malakoi and arsenokoite – do not mean “male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,”. The greek word for male prostitute is pornoi, and though greek had seventeen words for homosexuality, none of them are ‘arsenokoite’.<<>But you should have known better any way, if you had any moral sense, you’d know that homosexuality is not comparable to stealing, or addiction. You damned yourself, unless you repent.<<>By the way, malakoi, conceptually, includes cowardice, such as your use of a pseudonym here<>Your assertion is false. And because you attempt to restrict marriage to heterosexuals, you are a lawbreaker, for you show favoritism to heterosexuals and against homosexuals.<<

        Marriage has always been for those of the opposite sex and supporting that timeless observance doesn't show favoritism as you believe, but merely condones what is. Jesus himself restricted marriage to heterosexuals, why would I as a Christ-follower do anything less?

        And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.- Jesus Christ (Mark 10:5-9)

        If others outside want to be together and have their own ceremony and call it something else, so be it. If it's about benefits or whatever, then be honest about it. As long as they quit forcing a definition into something that never was and then condemning others for not going along with it who only support what has always been. I surmise there would probably be a different outcome in "acceptance" or at least tolerance that they so crave if that were to happen. Although, accepting sin can never be something a Christ follower should do or will do if they are true followers of Jesus.

        Also, trying to include God in on it as the major sponsor of something He clearly condemns in His word only brings more contention to the debate. Just recognize it as a godless and secular institution that it is instead of being an interloper on timeless and moral principles and you would probably serve the agenda better.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          “If others outside want to be together and have their own ceremony and call it something else, so be it.” I can call it marriage. I have a legal license form my state. If you don’t weant to, you don’t have to. I would not invite you to my wedding nor would I expect a gift.

          “If it’s about benefits or whatever, then be honest about it.” No, its about protecting my family, children. faith, and assets with the same legal contract known as marriage easily available to for fornicating, adulterous former republican congressman as often and badly as he wishes– three times so far. How about you get the special thing you crave? Call if it holy matrimony. call it applesauce. But don’t tell me that my life is not as valuable as yours.

          “As long as they quit forcing a definition into something that never was and then condemning others for not going along with it who only support what has always been.” I, too support traditional marriage. You don’t have to accept a thing. keep your religion out of my life, you won’t hear a thing from me. Condemn that fornicating, adulterous former republican congressman, and oyu might have some credibility.

          “I surmise there would probably be a different outcome in “acceptance” or at least tolerance that they so crave if that were to happen.” No, because the people who fight against marriage equality have also fought against the end of sodomy laws, domestic partnerships, or civil unions. We’re never going to reach the people who are irretrievably poisoned by hate, stupidity, fear, ignorance, or their unwavering and unwarranted belief in their otherwise wholly imaginary superiority. But that tide is turning in any case. It seems highly likely that you have lost the war, though you may win a few battles yet.

          “Although, accepting sin can never be something a Christ follower should do or will do if they are true followers of Jesus.” nonsense. You accept the sin of not believing that Jesus died for your sins. you have no problem– no political campaigns, no crusades, no posting on obscure blogs– accepting people who reject the totality of your religious beliefs, not just the antigay parts. you accept divorce. you accept the slanders and abuse– well, lies– heaped upon gay people every day by a certain class of so called Christian and professionally Christian gay haters. you have no problem judging others, denying the kingdom of heaven to people you despise, or ignoring the log in your own eye in favor of the speck in mine.

          none of that bothers you. The only thing that really gets a certain class of so-called Christian going is other people’s alleged sexual sins, the one that you have no intention– or in some cases, every intention– of committing.

          And that sin is no sin, but it sure bothers you a lot.

        • “Marriage has always been for those of the opposite sex ”

          No, it has not. But I see that though you quoted much of my post, you choose to ignore, or else accept as accurate, my rebuke of the translation you used.

          Same-sex marriage has occurred in many cultures, around the world. There is strong archaeological evidence of a same-sex marriage in Egypt that predates Moses.

          ‘ and supporting that timeless observance doesn’t show favoritism as you believe,”

          Actually, it does. The length of time is irrelevant. If you allow something for heterosexuals, and disallow it for homosexuals, that is favoritism. You are lawbreaker.

          “Jesus himself restricted marriage to heterosexuals,”

          No. You are wrong, or lying. Which is it?

          “(Mark 10:5-9)”

          Ah, lying then, through fraud. You see, you conveniently left out important information, to create a false impression:
          2 Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: “Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife?”
          3 Jesus answered them with a question: “What did Moses say in the law about divorce?”
          4 “Well, he permitted it,” they replied. “He said a man can give his wife a written notice of divorce and send her away.”[a]
          5 But Jesus responded, . . .” Mark 10:2-4

          Jesus is asked about heterosexual divorce, and His answer does not limit marriage to heterosexuals. Now, let’s dig into your line of argument a bit. You are claiming that marriage requires both genders (made them male and female). But the passage has another quality invoked as well “a man shall leave his father and mother”. By your reasoning then, any man whose parents are dead, either one or both, cannot marry, because he cannot ‘leave his father and mother’. So, please, show that you are not a fraud, and provide 3 links to posts you have made where you argue that orphan men cannot marry.

          “If others outside want to be together and have their own ceremony and call it something else, so be it.”

          So you wish to assert control over the very words people can use. That is absolutely the sin of pride on your part.

          “As long as they quit forcing a definition into something that never was and then condemning others for not going along with it who only support what has always been. ”

          Again your falsehoods only reflect your sin. After all, it is you who is forcing your standards on others, and condemning them for disobeying you. You really should stop trying to play God.

          “Although, accepting sin can never be something a Christ follower should do or will do if they are true followers of Jesus. ”

          Then, by your own standard, you are not a true follower of Christ. After all, you are trying to get me, and millions of other people, to accept your sin of slander and injustice and favoritism.

          “Also, trying to include God in on it as the major sponsor of something He clearly condemns in His word only brings more contention to the debate. Just recognize it as a godless and secular institution that it is instead of being an interloper on timeless and moral principles and you would probably serve the agenda better.”

          And again, your nasty and dismissive reply is the real evil in this. You are sinning against hundreds of millions of people, and accountable to us, and to God, for that sin. Please repent.

          • Republic1776 says:

            Darr Says>>>No. That would only be true if you were infallible, and you are not. See, neither Paul, nor Jesus, actually taught ‘homosexuality is sin’. But if either did, then yes, they would be slanders – therefore – you and your peers who claim falsely that homosexuality is sin, must be wrong. You cannot be right.<<>So now you want me to lie. That is further sin on your part. There is not homosexual lifestyle, homosexuality is not sin, and frankly, being a homosexual does not separate me from God. But the vicious belief you assert, ‘homosexuality is sin’, does drive many millions of people away from God.<>So you and your peers should stop, for you, not homosexuals, are engaged in a sinful lifestyle, and trying to use God to make your sins against hundreds of millions of people seem acceptable.<<>Your false accusation is sin, of course, and it shows that you are not a ‘good friend’. Please repent.<<<

            I don't see it as false and actually I believe I'm acting in the most loving way possible. To love is to not always approve. Just like any friend would. If I was going to drive somewhere and was blind (thinking I could do it) and my friend just handed me the keys and said good luck waiving me on thinking just because they accepted my decision, I would think they hated me. Likewise, to accept the sin of homosexuality is the most hateful thing I could do. Especially, since I can see that it does not lead to eternal life.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            No dear. It’s not love. it’s narcissism. And spiritual arrogance of the peculiarly Christian variety.

            You don’t love me. In fact, you don’t know anything about me, or my life, or whatever you imagine my sex life to be, but which you call sodomy. All you know is something you believe you understand about something that may possibly be about homosexuality in a book written by goatherders 2000 years, a couple of continents, and a world-view away. What you love is the image you have of yourselves as savers of benighted souls, as God’s especially chosen messengers to those unwashed heathens. Your whole statement of “love” just reeks of it. Unfortunately, your spiritual nose is stuffed with antigay nonsense, and you just can’t smell a thing.

            Again: its not love, its narcissism. And you are too spiritually arrogant– the very essence of narcissism– to get it.

            Like your buddy, pruett, you want to believe homoseuxality is a dangerous practice.” Well, you’re wrong about that. Funny, I’ve been a practicing sodomite for 40 years. I have no diseases, I have a happy successful life, am well thought of by family and community and at 63 years old, I weight 15 pounds more than I did in college, and I can outrun and outlast most men 20 years younger.

            So what’s the danger? Probably only to your wholly unwarranted belief in your wholly imaginary Christian and heterosexual superiority. And to the continued oppression of those pour souls who have given into the belief that because they are gay, they are on god’s special shitlist. (It’s just yours, but it sounds better if you slander god with it). Just how many kids have to kill themselves, or be killed by carefully taught little thugs, like Lawrence King or Matthew Shepard, or lead the life of some gobsmacked Ted haggard, before you finally give up on your insistence that you can do whatever you like to us because God is on your side. Much the same was said about the hundreds and thousands of women who were judicially murdered for being witches,. You now pursue gay people with the same “moral” certainty that your kind previously exhibited towards the perpetrators of a crime that didn’t exist.

            Your “love and concern” are just dripping with condescension and contempt.
            And for what reason? So that you can tell me that you, I mean, god was right and I was an unrepentant sinner. That very same god that tells YOU “Judge Not!” Of course, you know for a certainty that it is not you doing the judging, but god. Your hands are clean. If you expect me to buy that, I have a Pontius Pilate for sale cheap.

            And this makes YOU a moral person? For your version of god, of course! Did he not harden the heart of Pharaoh as he send 10 progressively horrible plagues upon the innocents of Egypt? He could have just told the Egyptians about the Emancipation Proclamation, but he needed to punish. You can just ignore everything the God you claim to follow told you about minding your own business and focus on whatever it is you think about when you are minding mine. You can do my life any amount of damage you please and rest comfortably in the your womb of self-righteousness, knowing that god agrees with you.

            You, too need to punish, no matter what you believe to be true about your goodness. your god tells you that you are no better than me and you should not be judging me, but you don’t listen to him about that any more than you do about loving people. Love for you is a platitude that makes you feel better about yourselves.

            It has nothing to do with our lives.

          • Republic1776 says:

            Darr Says>>No, it has not. But I see that though you quoted much of my post, you choose to ignore, or else accept as accurate, my rebuke of the translation you used<<>Same-sex marriage has occurred in many cultures, around the world. There is strong archaeological evidence of a same-sex marriage in Egypt that predates Moses.<<>Actually, it does. The length of time is irrelevant. If you allow something for heterosexuals, and disallow it for homosexuals, that is favoritism. You are lawbreaker.<>Again your falsehoods only reflect your sin. After all, it is you who is forcing your standards on others, and condemning them for disobeying you. You really should stop trying to play God.<>Then, by your own standard, you are not a true follower of Christ. After all, you are trying to get me, and millions of other people, to accept your sin of slander and injustice and favoritism.<<>And again, your nasty and dismissive reply is the real evil in this. You are sinning against hundreds of millions of people, and accountable to us, and to God, for that sin. Please repent<<

            There's that hundreds and millions statistic again. Nasty and dismissive reply? Wow, kind of negative aren't you? Where do you come up with these things? You have your own accountability to God for that sin as we all do for sin. The difference is, repentance actually involves repenting from something that God condemns instead of approves. Thus, no need for repentance on my part. I pray you'll come to the realization of what true repentance is and then you will be free from this deception.

  15. Pingback: Responding to a critic of “Love the sinner, hate the sin” | Pensees

  16. pspruett says:

    I appreciate that this phrase is seen as an annoying cliche (though any suggestion that homosexuality is not to be celebrated turns out to be a source of annoyance), but it actually does express something rational and meaningful to those who use it.

    Your illustration of the color red fails to capture something very important to this discussion. Red is not a thing that has properties; red *is* a property. So, if you hate red, then that’s it, there’s nothing else about it to love. A somewhat better analogy would be a red shirt. One might say they love the shirt (its fabric, pattern, quality, etc.) but hate its red color — they like the thing, but dislike something about it.

    Now, I say a “somewhat” better analogy, because it fails in yet another important way. Color is a tangible, self-evident, constant, measurable property of the shirt, whereas homosexuality is only manifest by virtue of certain behaviors, which may or may not be exercised (and believe it or not, some choose not to). Homosexuality is, at best, a property of a person. Those who use this cliche believe that we are, first and foremost, precious human beings, which have intrinsic value endowed by our creator (as quaint as that idea may seem these days). But humans can have bad desires and engage in bad behaviors. We can be alcoholics, smokers, over-eaters, prostitutes, and pedophiles, but we are still human beings who have rights and value on that account. So, we may say things like, “I hate alcoholism, but I love my uncle Richard, who suffers from it.”

    Many homosexuals insist that their core identity is their homosexuality. This leaves the category of humanness to be a mere property, as though they could just as easily be a poodle and still be themselves because it is their gayness that really defines them. But why should we accept such identity politics? Why not have skin color be our identity (which some indeed do), or our careers, or hobbies, or IQs? It seems reasonable that it be our humanity that is preeminent, and which is the only thing that offers us hope of unity, since it is the only thing we share in common and upon which we might ground any kind of “equal” rights. It is that humanity which may be loved above and apart from any sin in which humans engage.

    Regarding the use of a “Hindu” quote: first, long before Gandhi came St. Augustine, who wrote: “Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum,” which translates roughly to “With love for mankind and hatred of sins.” Second, it is no more ironic to use pearls of wisdom expressed by non-Christians (who are also made in the image of God and invested with the same moral intuition) than it is for non-Christians to quote from the Bible, which they do regularly. And that leads to the next point.

    “Judge not” has become the favorite memory verse of this age. The ironic thing, though, is that it’s usually trotted out by people in order to scold someone for judging some particular thing, and who themselves can usually be found judging various other things. Are we to presume that this author finds nothing wrong in the behaviors and beliefs of the people in his world, or at least keeps his mouth shut about it (given that he elsewhere describes himself as an “advocate,” I think not)? Must we really forfeit our rights to call things like rape, theft, and child abuse wrong, too, simply because we ought not judge? Certainly not!

    I think the real issue here is not so much that judgment is happening, but that homosexuality is being considered as worthy of judgment, since nobody ever says “judge not” when we’re talking about murder, terrorism, or any liberal grievances. It seems to me that the very appeal to “judge not” as a defense smacks of a concession that there is actually something to judge. When I hear this phrase I get a sense of a defeatist subtext. It’s like they are saying “so, okay, homosexuality is problem, but leave it alone, because you’re not supposed to be judging anyway.” It sounds like a boxer who gets a pacifist streak after a sound thrashing.

    Here’s another thing: how do we know that Jesus said “judge not?” Don’t we first have to appeal to the Bible and presume its accuracy and authority in this matter? But this same book says very many other things that tend to reflect poorly on the beliefs and behaviors of those whose favorite verse (segment) is “judge not.” I’ll not go down that unflattering road, but I will point out that Jesus told us to do other things, like fight injustice. Mustn’t we first judge something as wrong (unjust) in order to seek to address it? It would seem that we are at something of a stalemate.

    It is noteworthy that Jesus went on in His sermonizing about judgment to say that we may indeed be involved in removing the “speck” from our brother’s eye, assuming we first remove any “planks” that may be in our own. The problem is that there are some who never admit or address their own problems, but are content to find problems in others. Sure we have sin, and always will have some, but this doesn’t mean we are forever prohibited from being salt and light in the world. As an analogy, should we have stayed out of WWII because our own country still had flaws?

    Now, making a stink over all the sins of fellow Christians and unbelievers isn’t (supposed to be) standard operating procedure, since the point is to make believers out of people (or make them more mature believers), and the rest begins to work itself out on its own. Many have, understandably, wondered why homosexuality gets special attention by Christians. The problem with this particular sin is that it’s different than most. You see, people are generally agreed that things like alcoholism, adultery, and bad parenting are not good things, so no one really has to argue against them. We may need to look toward prevention, or call someone out who’s engaged in them, but we seldom need to make the case that they are bad in general. There’s a reason you’ve never seen an Adultery Pride march.

    The difference with homosexuality is that the behavior/lifestyle is being promoted as normative. Indeed, it is being celebrated and taught to our children as a good and acceptable thing, and perhaps they may even like to try it out for themselves to see if they are one. Imagine for a moment a representative from the “It’s All Good Association” coming to your child’s school to teach them that sex is wonderful, natural, and boundless. He then encourages them to go home and try it out with their friends, sibling, pets, and parents – whatever turns you on. Perhaps this may offer a sense of why some would choose to pay particular attention to the issue of homosexuality, which is seeing advocacy in every layer of our culture.

    As Inigo Montoya, from Princess Bride, might say, “you keep using that word “unconditional” (love). I do not think it means what you think it means.” Loving unconditionally does not mean that we see or care about no fault in a person. A good parent certainly loves their child unconditionally, but they still guide, correct, and discipline; and if the child grows up to be a little monster, they may have to take severe measures. The unconditional part means that through it all they still care about their fate, hope for the best, do all that they are able, forgive them every time they seek it, and visit the little monsters in prison if it comes to that.

    Jesus likewise does not overlook the sins of his companions. It’s true that he hung out with sinners, but the rest of the story is being overlooked here. The tax collector didn’t just go back to cheating the citizens after his visit from Jesus, and the adulteress was told to “go and sin no more.” Jesus loved them in spite of their sin, but He also wanted them free from it. While He loves the people, He clearly thinks that sin is a big problem. In fact, He often claims that people are a “slave” to sin or “dead” in sin, and He regularly ups the ante on what sin actually is. For instance, He takes the commandment against adultery and adds lust into the mix.

    But another thing. How do we love “unconditionally” unless there are actual “conditions” to be suffered? No one has to love a perfect person “unconditionally”; you simply bask in their glory (assuming one such can be found, apart from Jesus). Saying “we’re supposed to love unconditionally” is similar to the “judge not” defense, in that it seems to imply a surrender in the debate over homosexuality and merely appeals to the injunction that we should love them anyway. Why not just stick with arguing that homosexuality is a morally good (or at least neutral) thing, which isn’t a condition that must be loved, or an issue that must be tolerated, or a fault for which we should suspend judgment? Doing otherwise simply looks like a diversion from the real discussion. But in my experience, having that real and pointed discussion is a hard thing to achieve.

    • Ben in oakland says:

      What a long, long load of nonsense.

      ” it actually does express something rational and meaningful to those who use it.” Of course it does. It allows them to point their sin drenched fingers at other people and pretend they can see those specks in the eyes of others with no concern for the logs in their own.

      “whereas homosexuality is only manifest by virtue of certain behaviors, which may or may not be exercised (and believe it or not, some choose not to). Homosexuality is, at best, a property of a person.” Which is it? A property or a behavior? you can’t have it both ways. But of course, you obviously don’t know a thing about the subject when you say it’s manifest in a behavior. It is an orientation towards someone of the same sex. One need NEVER actually have homosex by be a homosexual. It is an inherent property. Of course, the testimonies of millions of gay people, the failure to turn anyone heterosexual, and the evidence accrued by nearly every professional organization in the west that has anything at all to do with the subject don’t really count. It is only the spiritual arrogance of the self-proclaimed and self-righteous Christians that has any relevance.

      For the record, I knew I was gay long before I knew what it was, or even what sex was. I just didn’t know what to call it.

      “We can be alcoholics, smokers, over-eaters, prostitutes, and pedophiles,” you give the game away here. Each of those things are destructive to the self or others. There is NOTHING inherently destructive in homosexuality. There is a great deal that is destructive in homohatred, at least for the objects of its disaffections, whether disguised as sincere religious belief or admitted for what it so clearly is.

      ” But why should we accept such identity politics?” because it is the homohaters that turned this into a political issue? It wasn’t us who have labeled us as defective, mentally ill, sick, criminals, and the destroyers of civilization. That’s all your, buddy.

      “Must we really forfeit our rights to call things like rape, theft, and child abuse wrong, too, simply because we ought not judge? Certainly not!” HARM, dear. HARM. We harm no one. homohatred harms us, and the harm that you have inflicted on us for centuries just doesn’t seem to merit your concern.

      “The problem with this particular sin is that it’s different than most.” Yes, it’s a made up one, one that a certain class of so called Christian has elevated to the only sin that really matters. Nothing else will get a political campaign started and the donations flowing. Money and power.

      “The difference with homosexuality is that the behavior/lifestyle is being promoted as normative. Indeed, it is being celebrated and taught to our children as a good and acceptable thing, and perhaps they may even like to try it out for themselves to see if they are one.” As always, moralizing busybodies turn the problem on its head. IT IS NORMAL– for gay people. No one is promoting it– that’s your fantasy. We’re telling you to stop destroying lives because of your hatred– excuse me, your Christian love. “Stop clubbing us with a baseball bat” is not the same thing as saying “Please pass the homosexuality.”

      ” He then encourages them to go home and try it out with their friends, sibling, pets, and parents – whatever turns you on.” Oh, yes, that’s what we’re doing. We’re just too blind to see the reality of your fantasies. Why is it that you ALWAYS go to SEX: dog sex, child sex, incest sex, toaster sex?

      The money shot. “. A good parent certainly loves their child unconditionally, but they still guide, correct, and discipline.” You will always go there; you’re doing it out of love– your own definition serving your own ends. I’M NOT A CHILD. and I know far more about this subject that you could ever hope to.

      And frankly, from what I’ve seen of a certain class of so-called Christian, the ones who simultaneously demonstrate the sort of ignorance and the smarmy self-righteousness that your posting is dripping with, I find your idea of love completely indistinguishable from hate.

      Just because you choose to wrap your baseball bat in a pretty little bow does not make it any the less a baseball bat when you send it smashing into our lives.

      Stay the hell out of our lives, focus on your own damn family, keep your Christian “love” to yourself. We’ll all be happier.

      • Michael Ejercito says:

        It is an orientation towards someone of the same sex. One need NEVER actually have homosex by be a homosexual.

        That is correct.

        There is NOTHING inherently destructive in homosexuality.

        It can lead to buggery, which spreads disease more easily than copulation.

        We harm no one. homohatred harms us, and the harm that you have inflicted on us for centuries just doesn’t seem to merit your concern.

        Homohatred only causes harm when it leads to concrete behavior.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          You’re completely blind.

          Buggery– what a quaint term– does not lead to venereal disease. Diseases are caused by bacteria, not sex. Monogamous people simply don’t have to worry about it. not to mention, heterosexuals commit buggery at around a 40% rate. And of course, lesbians have an incidence of venereal disease far lower than heterosexuals. By your “logic”, they must be god’s chosen people.

          homohatred is a concrete behavior. When pastors and politicians and homobigots condemn gay people as sick, evil, and going to hell, when they deliberately tell lies about us, when they take action harm us and our families, that causes young people especially to internalize that hatred.

          Sorry, you’re just going to have to come up with something better. Unfortunately, all you have is “I don’t like it” or “My god doesn’t like it.”

        • Ben in oakland says:

          Malum in se, huh? Evil in itself. Thank you for proving what I had to say. This isn’t about religion or god’s word. It’s all about how much the subject of homosexuality obsesses some people, how that obsession is really an ancient and durable prejudice, and how that obsession is given a cover of “sincere religious belief” to make it seem that it’s all about god and not about the people who are so obsessive about what I do with my dangly bits.

          God’s word is merely what you use to justify what cannot be justified by any other means, including god’s word.

          Here’s a suggestion for you. Learn something about the nature of evil, and save the hysteria for something that really is evil.

          • Michael Ejercito says:

            Buggery is an abominable and detestable crime against nature. The problem with homosexuality is that it can lead to buggery, just as greed can lead to lying, cheating, and stealing, lust can lead to adultery, rage can lead to murder.

            I do not suggest that persons who experience homosexual temptations are worse because of the nature of the temptations they endure. In fact, the oldest temptation arose from the love of God.

            God is Lord of Lords and King of Kings, He does as He pleases, He answers to no one, His might makes right. He can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants, however He wants, and not face any possibility of retribution.

            That incites us to love Him with all our hearts, minds, and souls. After all, how awesome is untrammeled, absolute power?

            And yet,. it also tempts us to covet His power and station, to want to be like God. And that was the original sin.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          The untrammeled adoration of sheer power, the abdication of any moral responsibility or thought in order to please that power, and the ignorance and stupidity of the very phrase “crime against nature” in your obsessive fascination with anal sex.

          You’ve hit the trifecta. Thank GAWD I’m an atheist.

          Have a nice life.

        • “It can lead to buggery, which spreads disease more easily than copulation. ”

          Your false assertion contradicts reality.

        • “Buggery is an abominable and detestable crime against nature.”

          Buggery occurs in nature. Computers, however, do not, and the high environmental cost of all such technology is a real “abominable and detestable crime against nature”.

          Further, your vicious denunciation of other people’s act of intimacy, is itself an “abominable and detestable crime against nature”.

          “The problem with homosexuality is that it can lead to buggery,”

          Heterosexuality also can lead to buggery. In fact, in many Catholic countries, anal sex, buggery, is the preferred method of birth control. By your irrational argumentation, heterosexuality is also wrong.

        • “Homohatred only causes harm when it leads to concrete behavior.”

          You are not being clever by coining ‘homohatred’ in place of homophobia. And the reality is that homophobia always leads to concrete, destructive behavior, for even the simple, verbal expression ‘homosexuality is sin’ is a concrete, harmful behavior.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            Actually, darr, that’s me. I think homophobia, as a term, has long since lost its value. I prefer homohatred or homobigotry, preferring ot define homophobia thusly: “Homophobia is not the fear of homosexuals. It is the fear that you, yourself, are homosexual.” It’s why I frequently use the term homo-hating-homo. It’s not a compliment.

        • “And yet,. it also tempts us to covet His power and station, to want to be like God. And that was the original sin.”

          That is precisely what all people who teach ‘homosexuality is sin’ are doing. You, and your peers, are attempting to covet God’s power and station, by asserting that the innate capacity for love and intimacy that God has given to hundreds of millions of people, is intrinsically inferior to your own innate capacity for love and intimacy.

          You, and your peers, are engaged in the original sin of pride, for the false belief ‘homosexuality is sin’ is a direct and purposeful expression of pride, a way of saying ‘God loves us heterosexuals more than He loves you people’. It is just a sick way of exalting yourselves at the expense of others. And it is worse than that, spiritually.

          You and your peers, by reviling homosexuals to exalt yourself, are making your identity, your worth, depending on being superior to us. But as Christians, as children of God, your worth, your identity, should be based on one thing, and only one thing:

          God loves you. “God loves you, those people are evil”, or “God loves heterosexuals more than homosexuals”. But you, and your peers, reject God to revile us as your means of feeling that you have worth.

          • Michael Ejercito says:

            You and your peers, by reviling homosexuals to exalt yourself

            that is where you are wrong. I never reviled any homosexual. I never called them queers or shirtlifters, nor did I denigrate their feelings.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            malum in se. Dirty, smelly, evil. Learn to read your own comments.

          • Michael Ejercito says:
            February 4, 2014 at 7:46 am

            “that is where you are wrong. I never reviled any homosexual. I never called them queers or shirtlifters, nor did I denigrate their feelings.”

            Yes, you did. Lying about it only indicates that you lack the moral foundation necessary to credibly accuse anyone of ‘malum in se’.

            It is clear, you are simply a sadist using this forum to revile people to feed your ego. And that behavior is sin.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            Darr, it might be sin, but mostly, it’s just assholism.

            with an unhealthy obsession over anal sex. Why, why, why do they always go there? I’ve figured out most everything else, but that one eludes me.

      • pascal9591 says:

        Ben, it looks as though your main argument against pspruett is that homosexuality doesn’t involve intrinsic harm. If the homosexual lifestyle involved elevated health risks, would that qualify as “harm” in your thinking?

        • “If the homosexual lifestyle involved elevated health risks, would that qualify as “harm” in your thinking?”

          There is no homosexual lifestyle, to begin with. However, there is homosexual sex. There is heterosexual sex. And here’s the irony: the leading cause of death for human women, for most of recorded human history, has been pregnancy, delivery and complications arising from either. Women still die giving birth, women still get crippling physical disabilities as the direct result of pregnancy or delivery. Heterosexual sex produces real harm for many women, and has for as long as humans have been leaving records. By your argument, heterosexuality is wrong, bad, sin, harmful, because heterosexuality involved intrinsic harm.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            Thank you Darr. You beat me to it on the perils of heterosex. I will address the other issue.

        • Now, pascal, the homophobic lifestyle, and yes, it a chosen set of behaviors, beliefs and attitudes, does involve elevated health risks – though most of which are inflicted on others. But there is strong evidence that being a homophobe also brings elevated health risks for homophobes – as Larry Craig demonstrated so toe-tappingly well.

          So, while there is no homosexual lifestyle, and no evidence that homosexuality the orientation, or sexual acts engaged in by homosexuals, have greater health risks than heterosexuality, or heterosexual sex,

          homophobia kills.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            I was going to say that too, but I forgot.

            The perils of homosexuality don’t stem from homosexuality, but from homohatred.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          No, that isn’t my main argument, though it happens to be true. I was addressing one point of an antigay diatribe that relies a great deal of lies, distortions, half truths, and basic prejudice without a shred of moral or intellectual integrity to it.

          But I will address your issues

          The homosexual lifestyle does not exist. It is a life, not a lifestyle. A lifestyle is dressing up like Captain Kirk and pretending you speak Klingon. A lifestyle is chosen and can be changed. Christianity is a lifestyle. Being gay is an innate orientation towards people of the same sex for love, sex, romance, and family. People who use the term lifestyle usually use the term in ignorance at best, or as a denigration and an infantilization of us at worst.

          Homosexuality involves no elevated health risks. That’s a myth– more accurately, an outright lie, used to denigrate us and to justify the harm perpetrated upon us. For 2000 years, antigay bigots, Christian, otherwise religious, or not, have done everything in their power to discourage normal, healthy, and happy lives for gay people, normal, healthy, and happy relationships, and most importantly, normal and healthy attitudes and relationships to sex and sexuality. (The latter is also true for heterosexuals, but I’m not concerned about that here). Then, if we don’t have them– another lie, because many, if not most of us do, despite their best efforts to discourage it– they then point their fingers at us and scream, “See! You people are sick and disgusting and have horrible relationships and you die young and get horrible diseases.”

          The truest, most vicious and hypocritical display of this is, on the one hand, talking about all of the benefits to health, happiness, wealth, and society that marriage offers, and then working full time to deny the benefits of marriage to us. Do you not see the irony of this, if not the hypocritical viciousness of it?

          Let me repeat. Homosexuality involves no elevated health risks. Lesbian rates of STD’s are practically ZERO, far less that heterosexuals. Yes, gay men AS A GROUP have worse health statistics than heterosexuals in this country: syphilis, Hepatitis C, and HIV being among the worst of those diseases. But diseases aren’t caused by being gay, they are caused by microorganisms. they are caused by having unprotected sex with people whose health history and status is unknown. The problem is promiscuity, not homosex. I don’t have any venereal diseases, but then, I’m in a monogamous marriage. The same is true of the vast majority of people I know. We’re all as gay as gay can be, all sexually active. Whatever health issues we have are caused by being old, or eating improperly, or parts wearing out, not by being gay.

          As two points of contrast, 1) I’m in better shape and health at 63 then most men 20 years younger, but then, I take good care of myself; and 2) black people have far worse statistics than white people on just about every measure of health. A black man is far more likely to end up in jail than in college, a black woman more likely to have children out of wedlock than white. But nobody blames it on their being black. And certainly, no one claims– at least not publicly anymore– that black people are not deserving of full participation in society and equality before the law because of these facts.

          I hope this answers your question.

          • pascal9591 says:

            By “lifestyle” I simply mean the typical behaviors which accompany the “orientation,” chiefly sex. However, there are many other behaviors that are found to exist at a high rate among homosexuals.

            Pregnancy is a natural and necessary function to the human race (well, perhaps PETA might disagree with me here). There are certainly risks that something could go wrong, but it is a process the female body is designed to experience. Anal sex, on the other hand, is an ad hoc act using organs in ways not intended. With this, and other behaviors characteristic of homosexuality, there are known risks and dramatic increases in occurrences of certain ailments (only some of which you name).

            Since men cannot get pregnant by way of anal sex, then we can’t really do an apples-to-apples comparison on these things (though if we could I’m sure the risks would be similar). For that reason, we should stick to what they can do and are proposing to be equivalent to heterosexual relations. We should focus on the sex act itself (apart from pregnancy) and consider whether any other orifice than the vagina is as well equipped to handle the physical, biological, and chemical conditions found in the sexual experience.

            Sure some of those ailments are caused by bacteria and viruses that we all may suffer from, but the rate of infection is elevated in the gay population precisely because the orifices used either transmit or absorb these things more readily than the vagina. It is *intrinsically* more risky. You can’t play Russian Roulette and just blame the bullet. Also, some of the risks are not, in fact, cause by STDs. For example, higher levels of cancers (yes, even in women), and certain physical conditions caused by abuse to the anus which it was not designed for.

            You said: “Homosexuality involves no elevated health risks. That’s a myth”

            If you are merely considering being homosexual apart from any behaviors that happen to (and almost always do) result, then sure. If a gay man just went off into a monastery, then he’d be immune to a whole host of risk, I’m sure, including car accidents. But we’re not really arguing here about the morality of just having same-sex *attractions*, but rather about affirming them and acting upon them. Believe it or not, there are many who do not choose to affirm and act. In fact, there is one such young man who encourages me have such debates as these. You may call him a traitor, but I call him brave.

            And as to your health and the health of black men. Again, all things being equal, homosexual sex is intrinsically unhealthy. A black man does not end up in jail, or leave his wife, or have higher health risks merely by virtue of being black. These things are due to certain risky behaviors or cultural issues, but these are things I would equally want to discourage.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            “Anal sex, on the other hand, is an ad hoc act using organs in ways not intended.” With this, and other behaviors characteristic of homosexuality, there are known risks and dramatic increases in occurrences of certain ailments (only some of which you name).

            This is simply not true. Not intended? By whom? You cite no statistics and sources, and simply make bald assertions. I can assure you from my own life, and the lives of virtually every gay man i have ever know, it simply is not true. Moreover, not all gay men have anal sex. And even more to the point, anal sex among heterosexuals stands at around 40%, according to the CDC. You’d think that all of these alleged problems would be rampant among heterosexuals, but they aren’t.

            “Sure some of those ailments are caused by bacteria and viruses that we all may suffer from, but the rate of infection is elevated in the gay population precisely because the orifices used either transmit or absorb these things more readily than the vagina.” Oral sex is virtually universal among heterosexuals in this country, so right there, you’re wrong. but again, returning to anal sex, the issue is not that type of sex, but promiscuity and exposure to bacteria. In Africa and asia,, AIDS is primarily a heterosexual disease, caused by unprotected vaginal intercourse.

            ” A black man does not end up in jail, or leave his wife, or have higher health risks merely by virtue of being black.” not because he is black, but because black people have been the subjects of systematic oppression for centuries, as have gay men. I notice you ignored that particular part of my post, as you ignored the part about gay women having far few venereal diseases than heterosexuals, because that doesn’t fit in with the antigay narrative, which ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS goes right to anal sex.

            There is a lot more to gay men and gay sex than anal sex. But one can never convince a homobigot of that, especially when he goes out fishing to find “facts” that support the bigotry, rather than the reality of our lives.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          If I didn’t comment on this before. I’ll do it right now.

          Your the same person, but here you are pretending you’re not. Basic, basic dishonesty. And you expect to be taken seriously as a moral person?

    • ” (though any suggestion that homosexuality is not to be celebrated turns out to be a source of annoyance), ”

      Beginning with a lie is not a good idea.

      “Red is not a thing that has properties; ”
      Actually, red is a thing that has properties, the distinction you are making is false.

      “So, if you hate red, then that’s it, there’s nothing else about it to love.”

      And that is the point being made, if someone hates homosexuality, then that is it.

      “Color is a tangible, self-evident, constant, measurable property of the shirt, ”

      No. Color is not tangible, it is an illusion created by the interaction of light with the receptors in human eyes. We do not even have receptors for most wavelengths, or colors, of light. And many people cannot see red properly, nor is the color a shirt constant.

      “We can be alcoholics, smokers, over-eaters, prostitutes, and pedophiles, but we are still human beings who have rights and value on that account. So, we may say things like, “I hate alcoholism, but I love my uncle Richard, who suffers from it.””

      Those, like you, who equate homosexuality with such thing, demonstrate that they have no moral sense at all. You see, additions, obesity, prostitution, sexual abuse – all of these things inflict harm, and in one way or another, violate consent. Homosexuality does not. When you make this comparison, you show that either you do not understand the concepts of consent and harm, which are the foundation of morality, or, you dismiss them as irrelevant when it suits. Either way, the net effect is the same: you have no moral sense, and your opinions about morality are worthless.

      “Many homosexuals insist that their core identity is their homosexuality. ”
      Your false characterization demonstrates not only a lack of morals on your part, but an inability to address what GLBTQ do say.

      “came St. Augustine, who wrote: “Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum,” which translates roughly to “With love for mankind and hatred of sins.””

      Since it is impossible to hate someone’s innate capacity for love and intimacy, and love the person, your reliance of Augustine does not help you. Let’s turn to Jesus, who was wiser than Augustine. Jesus said that false teachers are revealed by their fruit, and the fruit of ‘homosexuality is sin’, is death and destruction. All who teach ‘homosexuality is sin’, are, by Christ’s own words, revealed to be false teachers, workers of iniquity who will be rejected by Christ.

      ““Judge not” has become the favorite memory verse of this age.”

      Nice fantasy. But it has no basis in fact.

      “I think the real issue here is not so much that judgment is happening, ”

      Actually, the issue here is that those who judge homosexuals ignore what Christ taught – by the standard you judge others, you will be judged, so don’t judge anyone. Homophobes use Levitical law, falsely, to judge homosexuals, yet break that law every day. Republic1776 used I Cor 6:9-10 to falsely judge homosexuals, yet under that judgement is condemned as a slanderer, an abuser. Michael Ejercito, and many others, judge homosexuality as unnatural, yet used unnatural technology to articulate that judgement, and is thus condemned for it.

      ” When I hear this phrase I get a sense of a defeatist subtext. It’s like they are saying “so, okay, homosexuality is problem, but leave it alone, because you’re not supposed to be judging anyway.” ”

      That is called projection. You are interpreting it terms of how you would use it, not as it is actually used.

      “It is noteworthy that Jesus went on in His sermonizing about judgment to say that we may indeed be involved in removing the “speck” from our brother’s eye, assuming we first remove any “planks” that may be in our own.”

      That is a very gross distortion of the text, actually. Jesus went on to point out that false teachers bear evil fruit, and the fruit of ‘homosexuality is sin’ is destruction and death.

      • pascal9591 says:

        Darr, do you not agree with pspruett’s main point that “homosexual” can be a separate property of a person, like red can be a property of a shirt? The author’s original point was that there was nothing to separate and thus nothing apart from the “sin” to love.

        Also, same reply I left for Ben: It looks as though your main argument against pspruett is that homosexuality doesn’t involve intrinsic harm. If the homosexual lifestyle involved elevated health risks, would that qualify as “harm” in your thinking?

        • “Darr, do you not agree with pspruett’s main point that “homosexual” can be a separate property of a person,”

          Can heterosexual be a separate property of a person? Pspruett’s point is useless.

          ‘Also, same reply I left for Ben: It looks as though your main argument against pspruett is that homosexuality doesn’t involve intrinsic harm.”

          I addressed this.

          “If the homosexual lifestyle involved elevated health risks, would that qualify as “harm” in your thinking?”

          Since there is no such thing as a homosexual lifestyle, your point is fraudulent. Now, heterosexual sex does involved elevated health risks for women. Do you care about the very real elevated health risks that heterosexual sex imposes on women?

          Also, medical science has shown that having a committed, socially recognized and accepted long-term intimate relationship significantly reduces one’s risk of several kinds of cancer, depression, mental illness, high blood pressure – serious health issues. The bias against homosexual relationships, then actively imposed significantly increased health risks, in these few areas, on homosexuals. Then there are the documented health risks that arise from the expression of anti-gay bias, from the stigmatization of homosexuality, the persecution of homosexuals – health risks that include suicide, violence at the hands of individuals or societies, hypertension and stress-related illnesses, and higher risk of addictions as a result of being ostracized and abused.

          So – by your own argument, your opposition to homosexuality, because it inflicts real harm on other people, is abusive and destructive.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            Thanks for fleshing out a little bit what I said at length. We make a good team.

          • pascal9591 says:

            The point is not useless, it was the cornerstone point of the original article. The author was trying to make the point that there is no separate thing to love apart from the “sin” of homosexuality. If you’re fine with casting that aside as meaningful, then so am I, but it still seems an invalid point.

            … I addressed some of the other stuff above …

            You said: “Also, medical science has shown that having a committed, socially recognized and accepted long-term intimate relationship significantly reduces one’s risk of several kinds of cancer, depression, mental illness, high blood pressure – serious health issues. …..”

            Two points:
            One, there seems to be an elevated risk of these things anyway in the homosexual community, and it doesn’t seem to get much better in cultures with plenary acceptance. I know one fellow with a sexual identity issue that tried to kill himself. He hangs out in a theater community where there’s nothing *but* acceptance.

            Two, I think it’s circular to justify this thing by saying that people who embrace it feel “better” when they do. Ever heard of amputee-wannabees? They have similar stories after they manage to cut off whichever limb they claim to feel “unnatural.” I could also point you to testimonies of people who have rejected homosexuality who feel a greater sense of peace with themselves, even if the attractions may still exist. Heck, Christianity could be justified as true by this tactic alone, but I don’t think happiness defines either the true or the moral.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            “One, there seems to be an elevated risk of these things anyway in the homosexual community, and it doesn’t seem to get much better in cultures with plenary acceptance. I know one fellow with a sexual identity issue that tried to kill himself. He hangs out in a theater community where there’s nothing *but* acceptance.”

            Whether he is accepted or not in his theater group has nothing to do with his self hatred, depression, or whatever other psychological issues he has, any more than it does for heterosexuals. It sounds like you’re trying to blame the victim, instead of pervasive homohatred, if indeed his sexuality has anything to do at all with his suicide attempt.

            “I could also point you to testimonies of people who have rejected homosexuality who feel a greater sense of peace with themselves, even if the attractions may still exist. Heck, Christianity could be justified as true by this tactic alone, but I don’t think happiness defines either the true or the moral.” They’re still homosexual, and they’ve merely agreed with you. It’s one way to relieve themselves of the cognitive dissonance. They may be at peace, but whether they are happy and fulfilled is another issue.

            Most of the people I’ve known in my life– thousands and gay men and lesbians– long aqo discarded the self-hatred that your brand of Christianity tried to instill in them, and live happy, productive, healthy lives, despite the efforts of homohating Christianity to make their lives otherwise.

        • I do think it is interesting that you avoided all of the real criticisms, to address two rather minor issues.

          Do you think that ignorance or dismissal of the foundation of morality/ethics, is forms an acceptable foundation for discussing issues of morality and ethics?

          • pascal9591 says:

            Dude, I am pspruett. My posts stopped getting approved, and I’m trying to do what little I can through this account. Over on the WordPress blog I answered Ben’s reply, and if you want to post any civil responses over there, be my guest. Just know that I have limited time for this stuff, so it may be slow going if there’s a crowd.

            As far as debates on ethics, I’d much rather be down at that level discussing moral presuppositions and ethical grounding, which I’ve done for years with atheists.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            I thought you were the same person. The same dishonest arguments. I’m not surprised. It’s good to know, because I was considering answering your diatribe there. I think I’ve done so, so I can now use my time for something better.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          One more little thing for you to consider.

          Smid Former Love In Action Director John Smid: Homosexuality Is Not a Choice and Cant Be Changed.

          Grace Rivers pastor and former director of the “ex-gay” live-in ministry Love in Action has an excellent new article. Here are some excerpts:

          The ExGay message of God’s deliverance from the homosexual orientation has been destructive! It has created a dangling carrot of change without any real outcome of freedom from homosexuality. The damage has occurred in the subsequent loss of one’s soul, or the destruction stemming from serial fleshly encounters that only leave one void and searching for the next one.

          I believe much of my grief today is also from how I played a role in furthering the message of deliverance from homosexuality. I used to teach that hope for their eternity would come when they found freedom. I conveyed a message that God would be more pleased with people who were not gay. I spent a tremendous amount of energy attempting to help men and women find a life of freedom of their natural homosexual desires.

          Today I realize that it is far better to help men and women accept their homosexuality is innate, and an authentic reality. Regardless of where it came from, it is what it is. There is freedom in Christ for someone to hope for intimate connection with anther compatible human being if they so choose to pursue it. For those who are satisfied with a life of singleness, there’s a place for them to accept being gay and feel accepted and loved within that life experience. But neither choice can be made until they accept their homosexuality without shame.

          THIS IS FROM A MAN WHO USED TO EARN HIS LIVING PRACTICING THE POISON THAT YOU PREACH.

          • Michael Ejercito says:

            Buggery, however, is a choice.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            And a lovely choice it is. Again, your focus on my butthole is just amazing. The obsession of you so-called religious types on anal sex is beginning to sound, well, OBSESSIVE.

          • Michael Ejercito says:

            This is because the Scriptures condemn the act.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            Still waiting forthat citation. Otherwise, I will have to continue with the idea that you are, ahem, pulling it out of your ass.

      • Michael Ejercito says:

        That is a very gross distortion of the text, actually. Jesus went on to point out that false teachers bear evil fruit, and the fruit of ‘homosexuality is sin’ is destruction and death.

        No, destruction and death are the fruit of those who engage in filthy buggery.

        God no more excuses buggery than he does idolatry.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          Honey, I’ve been buggering for more than 40 years, and I could probably still run rings around you. It’s just your fanatasy (misspelling intentional0. If it bothers you so much, I would suggest you stop thinking about it as much as you appear to.

        • “No, destruction and death are the fruit of those who engage in filthy buggery. ”

          No, but your sadistic attempt to revile people with slanders about their acts of intimacy, are sin.

          “God no more excuses buggery than he does idolatry.”

          God does not condemn ‘buggery’, you do. You are not God. You should stop trying to usurp God’s authority.

    • things like alcoholism, adultery, and bad parenting . . Adultery . . . The difference with homosexuality is that the behavior/lifestyle is being promoted as normative.”

      Again, you demonstrate your lack of moral sense. The difference is that alcoholism, adultery, and yes, even bad parenting, produce harm, inflicting demonstrable damage. Homosexuality does not.

      Homosexuality is neither a behavior, or a lifestyle, just as heterosexuality is neither a behavior, nor a lifestyle. Homosexuality is a normal trait for homosexuals, and the sexual expression of that innate, normal trait is normal for homosexuals, but, heterosexuals sex is abnormal, unnatural, and all too often, destructive for homosexuals.

      Heterosexuality is normal for heterosexuals, bisexuality is normal for bisexuals, and homosexuality is normal for homosexuals.

      ” Indeed, it is being celebrated and taught to our children as a good and acceptable thing, ”

      As is heterosexuality. In fact, the celebration of heterosexuality, the teaching of it to children as good and acceptable, far exceeds it proportionate normal expression in the human species. Your fantasies ” He then encourages them to go home and try it out with their friends, sibling, pets, and parents – whatever turns you on.” only reflect your character, and not what any mainstream educator is doing.

      “homosexuality, which is seeing advocacy in every layer of our culture.”

      As heterosexuality has for generations. By your argument, the criticism you level against homosexuality, applies even more to heterosexuality.

      “As Inigo Montoya, from Princess Bride, might say, “you keep using that word “unconditional” (love). I do not think it means what you think it means.” ”

      Yes, yes, people with no real argument to present quote this movie, showing that they took more film appreciation classes than classes on critical thinking. It does not make you look clever, relevant, or accurate, just snarky and immature.

      “Loving unconditionally does not mean that we see or care about no fault in a person.”
      Your argument is irrelevant, and frankly, pointless from you, for you have already established that you either do not understand the foundation of morality and ethics (harm and consent) or dismiss them as irrelevant.

      Homosexuality is not a fault or flaw, any more than heterosexuality is.

      “But in my experience, having that real and pointed discussion is a hard thing to achieve.”

      I can see from your posts why you would experience that. But your experiences do not define or limit the experiences of anyone else.

      • Michael Ejercito says:

        Homosexuality is a normal trait for homosexuals, and the sexual expression of that innate, normal trait is normal for homosexuals

        the sexual expression of that love is what is sin.

        A man may love his widowed stepmother, but if they express that love sexually, it is sin.

        Similarly, if two homosexuals of the same sex express their love sexually, it is a sin.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          Are you sinless, or merely senseless? Let he among you….

          nah, that’s just to jesus-y.

        • “the sexual expression of that love is what is sin.”

          No. That would make God evil and unjust, rather like you actually.

          “Similarly, if two homosexuals of the same sex express their love sexually, it is a sin.”

          No. The Bible asserts that God does not show favoritism, so God cannot allow heterosexuals to express their love sexually, and deny such expression to homosexuals.

          But you really shouldn’t be worrying about the sin you perceive in others, when you slander people so freely simply to make yourself feel good.

          • Michael Ejercito says:

            No. The Bible asserts that God does not show favoritism, so God cannot allow heterosexuals to express their love sexually, and deny such expression to homosexuals.

            How is that favoritism?

          • Michael quotes me:
            “No. The Bible asserts that God does not show favoritism, so God cannot allow heterosexuals to express their love sexually, and deny such expression to homosexuals.”

            And then facetiously asked:

            “How is that favoritism?”

            Favoritism: “the practice of giving special treatment to a person or group ”

            To moral, rational people, Michael, providing something to one group of people, and denying it to others, is favoritism, particularly when the thing involved is beneficial and good, like sexual intimacy.

            Now, I understand, you don’t really have any argument to present. But your ego is hurt by the very idea of that a class of people is not inferior to you, so you drool these facetious little snotteries, feigning ignorance as if your pretense of being uneducated about these basic matters somehow discredits the people you are responding to.

            But the truth of the matter is that your little game make you look despicable and uneducated, an F student trying to be clever to cover his incompetence.

          • Michael Ejercito says:

            To moral, rational people, Michael, providing something to one group of people, and denying it to others, is favoritism, particularly when the thing involved is beneficial and good, like sexual intimacy.

            How so?

            Buggery is forbidden to both homosexual and heterosexual; there is no favoritism.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            Really? can you cite a passage? Or are you just pulling this out of your ass, so to speak.

  17. Ben in oakland says:

    Of course you haven’t. your type of so-called Christian wouldn’t say JUDGMENT if you had a mouthful of it.

    And you usually do.

  18. kzottarelli says:

    Great piece! I don’t know why I am still always amazed at how hypocritical and bigoted some Christians are, but I am. Thanks for saying some of the same things I’ve had to say.

  19. Chandra says:

    Another way I explained this once was that it’s like saying “Love the flower bud but hate the rose” – you can’t simultaneously love the essence of who someone is, but hate the natural, inevitable expression of that essence.

    • Michael Ejercito says:

      So what is the natural ” natural, inevitable expression” of homosexuality?

      • Chandra says:

        The natural, inevitable expression of any sexuality, as I’m sure you don’t actually need me to explain, is to fall in love with a person of the sex you happen to be attracted to.

        • Michael Ejercito says:

          God never tells anyone it is wrong to love.

          But He does place restrictions on how to express that love.

          • Chandra says:

            Well, my magical pixie goddess tells me she places restrictions on how to express bigotry, so I guess it’s her word against His.

            Save your breath. I will NEVER believe in any God cruel enough to create human beings filled with a very human need for affection, love and intimacy, and then tell them they are forbidden to ever experience the full reciprocation and expression of those feelings.

          • Michael Ejercito says:

            Chandra,

            God never said two gay dudes could not express their love by cuddling on the couch while watching sports and eating pizza and wings and drinking beer.

          • Since God does not, according to the Bible, show favoritism, God does not favor heterosexual intimacy over homosexual intimacy.

          • Michael Ejercito says:

            He is no respecter for persons; He is certainly a respecter for behaviors.

          • “God never said two gay dudes could not express their love by cuddling on the couch while watching sports and eating pizza and wings and drinking beer.”

            How do you know? Bear in mind, the Bible does not record any statement from God saying that it is ok to be named Michael, or that it is permissible to use computers, telephone lines, or the internet.

            The argument you are using, ‘absence of affirmation = condemantion’ to judge homosexuals, is one you are now under as well. For you, and anyone else who pulls this fallacious stunt, all things that are not affirmed in the Bible are sin. When you post here, you sin. When you ride in a car, use the telephone, watch TV, use any technology not affirmed in the Bible, eat any food not affirmed explicitly, do anything that is not explicitly affirmed through “And God said “it is good to do …”, you sin.

          • Michael Ejercito says:
            “He is no respecter for persons; He is certainly a respecter for behaviors.”

            And your behavior is sinful. Your distinction is irrelevant in this situation.

            Allowing heterosexuals to express their sexuality, while forbidding homosexuals to express theirs, is favoritism. God does not show favoritism, God is just.

            The god you follow, who favors heterosexuals over homosexuals, is an idol, a false god, created in your image to justify your prejudice and malice.

  20. Ben in oakland says:

    “Only that it was against biblical teaching, and will destroy “traditional” marriage. ”

    And you allowed your “friend” to be THAT dishonest, without pointing out that the first clause is entirely hypocritical, and the second clause just doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense, and is just the kind of thing a bigot WOULD say?

  21. Pax says:

    The hate the sin…. line and ‘they are just doing their job’ or any versions of either both irk the hell out of me and for the same reason. So many truly awful things are said and done because of both of them so the second I hear either used my hackles raise up with enthusiasm and I find the person saying them, shall we say, suspect, at the very least.

    P.S. Mary Magdalene was neither a prostitute or a hooker, bad translations, religious politics and customs of her time all mixed together to title her one but she was a woman without a male relative to escort her.

    • Michael Ejercito says:

      It is unknown what Mary Magdalene was. But like us, she was a sinner.

      http://www.jesusisprecious.org/fundamentals/we_have_sinned.htm

      • Ben in oakland says:

        Don’t you have a few of your own sins to repent for? :Logs and beams, brother. Logs and beams.

        • Michael Ejercito says:

          Maybe you should have clicked the link I provided.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            And maybe you should do what Jesus bade you and stop obsessing about the sins of others until you have achieved moral and spiritual perfection yourself. But you won’t, because you would rather wallow in your sins of homophobia and judgment and pretend that you’re just being righteous. The only good thing you accomplish is that you alert people who are less morally, intellectually, and compassionately lazy than yourself that you would rather not be the kind of Christian who does what Jesus said to do, and thus drive more people away from your brand of Christianity.

            Thank God I’m an atheist.

          • Michael Ejercito says:

            Ben,

            you are the one being judgmental here. I have not condemned anyone for anything on this blog post. Nor have I claimed that my temptations are somehow better than anyone else’s temptations.

            That written, we must not condone evil. If we are, for example, invited to a wedding that involves burning incense to an idol, we would be duty bound not to attend, regardless of how we might feel about the couple or their families.

          • “you are the one being judgmental here. ”

            Your false accusation is sin. Please, repent.

            “I have not condemned anyone for anything on this blog post. ”

            And yet, you have. Now you are lying about it. That is more sin.

            ‘That written, we must not condone evil. ”

            And now you are trying to call our innate capacity for love and intimacy “evil”. But you do so to try to convince everyone else to condone your evil – you abuse and slander of hundreds of millions of human beings.

            “If we are, for example, invited to a wedding that involves burning incense to an idol, we would be duty bound not to attend, regardless of how we might feel about the couple or their families.”

            Not according to the Bible.

  22. “but that hair!” Nicely said.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s