God, Gays & Evangelicals

by alice.in.wonderland 82 Replies latest social relationships

  • PSacramento

    The view of the OT was that homosexuality was unnatural and as such wrong and a sin, they people that they were xposed to that were "OK" with homosexuality were not "good people", case of sodom and gomorah as an example, and perhaps that cemented the view that Gay = not good.

    We really don't know the complete story of it, but we do know that the hebrews were against it and it was an abomination, but it was NOT one of the 10 commadments but an "add-on" later so perhaps that means soemthing, perhaps not, I don't know.

    Many things are called abominations so we need to take that for what it is.

    I think many rules were made to keep the hebrews "pure" AND "distinct" from their neighbours.

    Personally, I don't care what a person does and I will not judge them, it's not my place and I am not qualified.

    I've probably done worse in God's eyes then simply smoking man-sausage, so I will rely on God's grace and forgiveness.

    I do know this, homosexuality is not walk in the picnic and if a gay person could choose NOT to be, they probably would.

  • chickpea

    homosexuality was initially considered an
    abomination by OT desert-dwelling semi-nomadic
    monotheistic outcasts (in ancient times) who needed
    their tribal members in high capacity reproductive mode
    in order to become populous enough to maintain an
    army in order to take possession of other people's
    lands and hold on to it.... being gay did not fit the

    abominations in OT times were practices unacceptable
    to the israelites (much like what JWs do today), purposely
    making themselves different from "others who are not
    like us"... come on, people! seafood? really? a moral
    failing, even with a squeeze of lemon and a dollop
    of tartar sauce? going to a birthday party, or saluting
    a flag? abominations? really?

    wish i could remember who said it, in the documentary
    titled "For the Bible Tells Me So" but the line was this:

    It is okay to have a 5th grade understanding of the bible....
    as long as you are in the 5th grade

    homosexuality is not unnatural, just uncommon, like left handed people...
    i mean seriously, what are the odds of being a left-handed queer? how gauche!

  • PSacramento
    i mean seriously, what are the odds of being a left-handed queer? how gauche!

    LMAO !! too awesome !

  • GromitSK

    I am a left-handed queer. Am I special ? :)

  • exjdub
    Good question. Knowing his history, I would have asked the same thing. (I may have put it in a general sense rather than a direct sense, mind you)

    Yeah, I know Tammy, I could have been less blunt, lol. In my defense, though, I knew my neighbor before he found the Lord and when he started becoming a bit militant in his belief he told me that I was going to hell and I took that well, so I figured it was fair game. He took it pretty well and we are still friends. We have been neighbors for 7 years and we trust one another, so all in all it went pretty well all things considered.


  • PSacramento


    First, thanks for the kind words earlier, the mean quite a bit to me :)

    In regards to your "militant born again" neighbour, Many people comment on the issue they have with born agains, how closed minded they are, how intolerant, how hypocritical, judgemental, in short how UNLIKE Jesus they have become since they have become Christians.

    I have seen it myself, but the thing is, there problem is not TOO MUCH Christianity, it is NOT ENOUGH Christ.

    Christianity calls to itslef the retched, the mean, the twisted, the ill (spiritually) and promises to fix them, in time, if they allow what is broken to be mended by Jesus, to give up control to Jesus, but very few of Us can and those signes I noted above are the very signs of those that have NOT yet given control to Jesus, so they don't have enough Christ in them, yet.

    I have posted this before and it was said by a far more intelligent many than I:

    Christianity is a church for the sick, not a museum for Saints.

  • streets76

    Many things are called abominations so we need to take that for what it is.

    Personally, I think it's an abomination that folks in the 21st century are taking moral instruction from the OT. (And the NT ain't much better.)

  • VoidEater

    Christianity is a church for the sick, not a museum for Saints.

    It seems I should have come across something like this before, but it strikes me as new. I like that very much.

    To quell the rumor mill - I can only love PS in the Agape sense - I am after all finally married!

  • PSacramento

    As am I, LOL !

  • garyneal

    He, did anyone ever have to vote on any marriage amendment in their state, provice, country, etc.?

    We had one in the state of Virginia a few years back. While looking for the letter to the editor from my old philosophy professor, I found one I wrote concerning that amendment.

    November 21, 2006

    Dear Editor,

    It’s been over two weeks since the majority of Virginians voted for the “Marriage Amendment” and yet I am still reading opinions both for and against it in the Daily Press. Well, I may as well add my two cents to the pot. Personally, I did not vote for the amendment, but not because I am pro-gay marriage or anti-straight marriage. It is because I saw very little about it that actually helps marriage. Everyday before the election, as I was coming home from work I would pass by this house where the front lawn was littered with signs that say, “Vote YES for Marriage.” But, really, what does this amendment actually do for marriage? It’s kind of comical to see gays and lesbians getting all worked up over wanting to legalize their unions while at the same time it seems that more and more straight people are doing everything they can to do the exact opposite. I can just point to the article entitled, “Report says record number of U.S. births were out of wedlock in ‘05”, appearing on the front page of the Daily Press on November 22, 2006, to illustrate that point. I am not sure exactly how voting yes for this amendment was a “vote for marriage” in this context.

    I believe that if we really want to help marriage then we should really look to create policies that actually help married people while at the same time abolish those that work against them. Say what you will about George W. Bush, but the one thing he did get right was his attempt to repeal the marriage penalty on our taxes. It would also help if our welfare system did more to help married people who are down on their luck. Instead they won’t help you unless you’re a single mom “struggling” to support your kids without a father. I don’t mean to pick on the single moms, many of them do indeed struggle and try to make ends meet by themselves. However, when social workers advise married women to divorce their husbands and take the kids with them so that they may qualify for all kinds of government help, something is royally wrong with our system. I’ve heard of two such actual cases, both of them involving married women who tried to apply for food stamps when their husbands got laid off from their jobs. They did not qualify because they were in a two-parent household, talk about an attack on marriage.

    I again reflect on that newspaper article that I mention earlier and find myself thinking of some people that I know who are in the very situation that the article speaks of. Women who have children out of wedlock where the fathers are still around and very actively involved in their children’s lives. It’s as if they are actually married, except without the marriage certificate. These people have no real plans to get married, because it’s not economical for them to get married. Why should they get married and be forced to pay full price for day care and be required to get insurance for their children on their own the way married couples are required to do? Why should they, when they can pretend to be married without the legal contract and have the government provide free day care services through programs like Head Start and get their insurance coverage through Medicaid or Famis, all at the expense of the taxpayer? Again, how did voting for the “marriage amendment” help that?

    I can go on but I believe I made my point, if this amendment was about saving marriage then it should’ve contained something designed to actually help it. Instead, this amendment was little more than the latest “flavor of the day” hot button issue designed to rile up the conservative base. It seems pretty hypocritical to put forward this amendment as an attempt “save marriage” when we’ve done so little before to actually save it. Let’s first talk about ways to actually save marriage and work on making policy changes that are actually pro-marriage and do away with policies that work against it. Then we can talk about whether or not marriage should be limited to just one man and one woman.

Share this