Looking Ahead: '08 elections

[Emproph]

I wanted to suggest this as a political frame in light of liberal~Republican Rudy Giuliani’s recent flip-flop on civil unions (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1488) for gays:

In a startling departure from his previously stated position on civil unions, Mayor Giuliani came out to The New York Sun yesterday evening in opposition to the civil union law just passed by the New Hampshire state Senate.

Other GOP hopefuls like John McCain have done similarly (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1779141&page=1) to cull the conservative vote:

When McCain ran for president the last time, he denounced Falwell as one of America's "agents of intolerance." But now that McCain is gearing up to run for president as the GOP's establishment candidate, he has told Falwell that he spoke "in haste" in 2000.

And even Mitt Romney (http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/):

"In seeking the support of the Log Cabin Republican Club, Romney wrote them a letter promising that 'as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.' " [His opponent at the time was Sen. Ted Kennedy, perhaps the foremost advocate of homosexual rights in the U.S. Senate.]
- Boston Globe, 10/17/1994

Obviously this is all politics. If gay marriage, abortion (and shooting up heroin for that matter) were socially popular, they’d all be coming out in support of those things too.

Point being, they are pandering to their THEOCRATIC base. The base rarely if ever call themselves theocrats. The usual catch phrases are, ‘This is a Christian nation,’ and ‘The myth of the separation of church and state.’ And they are becoming more and more brazen about their insistence of this.

My latest Focus on the Family email is promoting a video:
America’s Godly Heritage
The separation of church and state. You hear that thrown around a lot these days, but what were the true intentions of our Founding Fathers?

My observation is this. Theocracy is the antithesis of democracy. Anti-democracy is anti-American. Thus, to pander to theocrats is anti-American.

These candidates are running on an anti-American platform. In their bid to represent and lead America, they are catering to THE most traitorous influences among us. These candidates are traitors.

Despite the shrill sound of such a statement, as I’ve said before in the Tolerance (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2444&highlight=Tolerance) thread (as far as the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality being the promotion of our genocide), there is little if any “political” spin involved: They openly pander to their theocratic base.

One doesn’t necessarily need to be divisive 'sounding' in sounding this alarm, but the treachery aspect of it needs to be understood when doing so.

My suggestions are that we get the word out to start asking these candidates, very simply, whether or not they believe in the separation of church and state, or whether or not they believe this is a “Christian nation.” If the answer is yes, then that’s a red flag for us/progressive/democrats etc., if no, then that’s a red flag for the theocrats.

Certainly they will dance around the subject, but these and similar questions need to be asked. This is a division that already exists, and it’s imperative that we expose it for what it is.

The simplicity of this understanding came to me as I was waking up last night. I got up, turned on C-SPAN, and by meaningless coincidence caught the tail-end of Nancy Pelosi speaking in ‘Reaction to White House Meeting on Spending Bill.’

I think she said it best:


For whatever our differences, we owe it to the American people to find our common ground. Of course we must stand our ground if we can’t find it, but we must strive to find that common ground.

I see this as an opportunity being handed to us on a silver platter, let’s not waste it this time.

You beckon to theocrats, you are a traitor.

[u-dog]

Honestly, Emproph, I am coming to the same conclusion. We may need to moderate our language in order to avoid seeming like conspiracy theorists, but we DO need to call em like we see em. theocrats are fascists and fascists are the enemy of democracy.

I have been thinking the same thing in the context of my own denomination. There are elements in our church who name themselves "conservative" but they are in fact "fundamentalists" and need to be named as such and their opinions and beliefs need to be labeled and condemned as such.

We need to clearly define our terms and then demand straight answers to the questions: "is this who you are? Is this what you believe? How does what you believe differ from this?"

No matter how fast or how agilely they dance we need to nail their feet to the floor til we get an answer.

[dsdrane]

Agreed!

Harrumph! :whistleblower:

[u-dog]

Agreed!

Harrumph! :whistleblower:


You mockin' me boy? :mad:


;)

[dsdrane]

Would U stop being mean to me!

I'm agreeing with you, dammit!

:hissy:

[u-dog]

My sister (who is a wonderful person and whom I love more than life itself) accuses me of being a "HARUMPHER" and "Harumphing" when I get passionate about stuff. So I was hearing in your words an echo of an old tape.

[Zerbie]

theocrats are fascists and fascists are the enemy of democracy.

swer.

Who was it who said, just a few years ago?: "Christianity is NOT a democracy." I wanted to say Dobson, but I might be wrong and don't want to misrepresent someone, especially in public - I think it may have been one o' the other guys. Said so, publicly. It has been publicly ADMITTED that they want to replace democracy with THEIR version of the Bible.

Anyone catch who it was who said that?

[BrentRichards]

I'm very disappointed in Rudy. To be clear, he has not "technically" changed his position ... he opposed the NH bill because he sees it as equating civil unions with marriage, which he has always opposed. He, unfortunately, sees civil unions as a "separate but equal" solution. Nonetheless, I don't like the hedging this statement seems to represent. Sigh.

Has anyone in the field come out in support of full marriage rights? Not even Hillary has done that, has she?

[Emproph]

Google link:
"Christianity is NOT a democracy (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Christianity+is+NOT+a+democracy%22&btnG=Google+Search)."

Anyone catch who it was who said that?

I haven't checked them all out, but I especially liked this one (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:gOezsgwftVkJ:marciakilpatrick.blogs pot.com/2007/01/taking-on-trinity.html+%22Christianity+is+NOT+a+democracy%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us).

[Marcia]

I wrote that. How did you find it? And I can't figure out if you liked it or didn't like it. 'Cause I tried to make it clear that I have no problem with GLBT folks; I'm just trying to figure out how one can be Christian and ignore what the Bible says about it.

[sjbouza]

What I find so un-nerving is the fact that the people, like my family, cant see past what they are being told. I mean really. They regularly get stuff from FOTF and in almost every thing that they receive is a plea for money. Come on people wake up an smell the coffee cuz its burning. I see James Dobson and his like, ie the Christian Fundamentalists, as the newest version of the KKK. If they "loved" us so much then why do they feel they have to lie about us? Why cant they just start telling the truth. They just want your money so they can make the Lexus payment this month.

I emailed my aunt, after I told her I was gay, on Monday the "False Focus On The Family" form this site for her to read. I havent heard anything from her yet. As I said they are devout followers of every "Godly word" :confused: :lol: that Dobson speaks.

These people really scare me. How much influence that they have over presidential candidates is getting out of control. If you are a candidate it is getting to the point you dont want to take a stand on any "hot topic" publicly for fear of how the Christian Fundamentalists will slander you in the publics eyes.

I agree with you all. As much as some want it to be, America is not a country that was founded on Christian principles. Wasnt it in the Treaty of Tripoli that Washington stated that "America is not a Christian nation"? Forgive me if I got that wrong, but I know it was said by someone in that treaty. They just cant accept that others dont want to believe the same way that they do. If you dont then you are damned to hell. Well guess what, Christianity is a very new religion compared to most others. In fact I believe it is the youngest. So who is to say we are right and everyone else is wrong. Even within our own religion there are so many different beliefs. So who among us is right and who is wrong. Well according to the CF, if you arent with em you are wrong. How high and mighty does that sound to the rest of you?

Sorry I got off on a tangent. I have just about had it with all the crap these days. I cant seem to go a day without hearing something from FOTF or whatever about how homosexuals are destroying America. It is really pissin me off!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I digress. I do agree with you all though. We need to start standing up and calling these people out of their safe little shells to answer for what they are doing and saying. Make them commit one way or another. Be real and represent the people, and by that I mean ALL THE PEOPLE EQUALLY!!!

[Zerbie]

I wrote that. How did you find it? And I can't figure out if you liked it or didn't like it. 'Cause I tried to make it clear that I have no problem with GLBT folks; I'm just trying to figure out how one can be Christian and ignore what the Bible says about it.

Hi Marcia,

It looks like Emproph found and linked to your blog?

Not being a gay christian, I can't really address your question about how someone can be gay and "ignore" what the Bible says except to say: I haven't met anyone yet who is both christian and gay who IGNORED the Bible AT ALL!!
Quite the opposite! A lot of study, contemplation, prayer, meditation, internal and external searching for answers and understanding went into reconciling their sexual orientations with their faith. What I see is, they understand the Bible to be saying something OTHER than what you have probably interpreted it as saying.

I'll go away now and let the christian folks here speak for themselves.

[simpleman]

I'd be interested to hear about this. Don't take this as snide, but I am really curious as to how this can be reconciled.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. "
1 Corinthians 6

"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Romans 1:27

[u-dog]

I AM a gay Christian. I have been reading the Bible seriously for over thirty years. I am aware of all of the passages that some Christians use to condemn me and people like me. I have studied very closely in many translations, I have consulted people with working knowlege of the original languages, I have read countless books written about those passages. and...

I don't believe that the Bible addresses my sexuality at all. I don't believe that the Bible condemns committed , covenanted, faithful same-sex relationships AT ALL.

The thing that I don't understand is WHY SOME CHRISTIANS THINK THAT IT DOES.

Actually, I do understand why. Its because ... they want to.

But why do they want to? What is it that non-gay Christians are afraid of that makes them want the Bible to condemn gay people. Do you have a theory about that Marcia?

Dave :love:

[andrewlittle]

I'd be interested to hear about this. Don't take this as snide, but I am really curious as to how this can be reconciled.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. "
1 Corinthians 6

"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Romans 1:27

It doesn't really fit the subject of this one, does it? Maybe if you start a thread of its own, you would get more responses and not run the risk of derailing this one.

Just a thought. It's up to you, of course.

[Dash]

Oh! Oh! Oh!!! Folks! Folks! Remember what we practiced (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2872&page=3)! Here's your chance! Nonviolent!

And.....
....

GO!!!

Do me proud!!

[oh, aren't they so cute when you send 'em out on their own into the world!]:lol: :lol:

[u-dog]

How'd I do Dad? Did I do good? huh?

[Dash]

How'd I do Dad? Did I do good? huh?

Good dog! You get a treat!:cookie:

[simpleman]

I AM a gay Christian. I have been reading the Bible seriously for over thirty years. I am aware of all of the passages that some Christians use to condemn me and people like me. I have studied very closely in many translations, I have consulted people with working knowlege of the original languages, I have read countless books written about those passages. and...

I don't believe that the Bible addresses my sexuality at all. I don't believe that the Bible condemns committed , covenanted, faithful same-sex relationships AT ALL.

The thing that I don't understand is WHY SOME CHRISTIANS THINK THAT IT DOES.

Actually, I do understand why. Its because ... they want to.

But why do they want to? What is it that non-gay Christians are afraid of that makes them want the Bible to condemn gay people. Do you have a theory about that Marcia?

Dave :love:

Take it easy now, I just wanted to know. I don't have enough knowledge of translations, and languages, and so on and so forth to even argue with you, and I doubt Marcia does either (if she does, she should jump right in).

But it is this very reason, my friend, that Christians want to believe that homosexuality is wrong. Your run-of-the-mill Christian hasn't gone through hours and hours of exhaustive study of ancient languages and the nuances thereof. They just read the Bible in the hotel room, and it has those verses that I quoted in it. They want to believe it, because they want to believe what the Bible says, because it is supposed to be the infallible word of God and so on and so forth, so that's why they want to believe it.

[dsdrane]

Wait just one cotton-pickin' minute!

Lookee cheer:

K -- you've had your little joke, now show us your stuff!! ;)

How'd I do Dad? Did I do good? huh?

MmmmHMMM! Y'all see what I'm talkin' about??

U got a lotta nerve!

Some of us are tryin' to talk about politics, and you gotta bust in with your new dog thing and gettin' treats and such.

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, Honey, 'cause it f@ckin' tolls for thee!

[andrewlittle]

Take it easy now, I just wanted to know. I don't have enough knowledge of translations, and languages, and so on and so forth to even argue with you, and I doubt Marcia does either (if she does, she should jump right in).

But it is this very reason, my friend, that Christians want to believe that homosexuality is wrong. Your run-of-the-mill Christian hasn't gone through hours and hours of exhaustive study of ancient languages and the nuances thereof. They just read the Bible in the hotel room, and it has those verses that I quoted in it. They want to believe it, because they want to believe what the Bible says, because it is supposed to be the infallible word of God and so on and so forth, so that's why they want to believe it.

Hey, again, Simpleman. I guess, since others stayed here with this topic, this thread will do just nicely.

I think, before I get to the actual Bible verses you quoted, I'd like to pick up with some of your thoughts in the post I quoted. I don't know if you meant them tongue-in-cheek, so I'm going to assume you didn't. You bring up good points, either way.

You are exactly right when you say that the average Christian hasn't and can't really get into an exhaustive study of scripture. And that applies whether the person is conservative, liberal, evangelical, progressive or whatever other flavor that Christians come in. The reality is that most people know what they have been taught about the Bible, and most learn it from others who learned the same way.

If I can, I'll use an analogy from my previous life. I trained opticians - you know those people whos sell glasses. Most opticians learn on-the-job from people who learned on-the-job who learned from people who learned on-the-j... I used to train opticians to design the lenses they fit, and then select a frame that would work best with the lenses they designed. Unfortunately, most opticians learn how to sell frames and tell people they look good on them - the biggest asset was being able to choke a gag reflex. They're frame salespeople who let a lab, a few hundred miles away and who have never seen the patient, design the lenses. In the way they learn, there is generally a diminishing return on the repetitive training investment - the opticians got weaker and weaker because their trainers were weaker and weaker.

Every now and then, however, one of those opticians would decide they were just geeky enough to want to know more than their trainer, and they would immerse themselves in the study of technical optics and anatomy/physiology. These people would end up raising the bar for many opticians, becasue when they taught, they taught well and trained very good opticians.

It is similar for Bible readers. Literal interpreting, many times, is easier - it requires less study and less training. It ignores the nuances of scripture, and glosses over the tough parts that seem to contradict or stand in contrast to other passages. Soundbyte theology sometimes results. Occasionally, someone is either taught by another who has great exegetical and language skills, or decides to really delve into the Bible and learn the original lnaguages and such, and they become very good Bible scholars. These people can run the gamut of theologies - conservative, liberal, etc.

Mostly, however, people have learned from ministers who didn't really take the study of scripture as seriously as the memorization of scripture. Or they had Bible studies with people who learned the Bible from what someone else told them. This can have just as much of a diminishing return as my example above. It is my belief that good Bible study and good theological reflection don't happen much anymore. And those who do it well, whether lay or ordained, teach people how to really delve into the scriptures for meaning and context.

A young, but very adept, Bible study teacher who I knew (he happened to be very conservative and very good) used a process he called "The Preview, the View, and the Me View" and stressed the importance of the order. Preview = context and what had come before. View = what it meant to those hearing it in the time it originated. Me View = only after the two other steps, find its meaning for you riht here and right now.

While I'm not one personally for dealing with scripture as infallable, I can set aside my bias on that notion and deal with the notion of infallable reading of scripture. No matter how perfect the scriptures may or may not be in reference to God's intent, scripture is understood in the human brain - that apparatus of God's magnificent design that resides in the human body.

Generally, the more conservative a Christian is, the more weight is placed on original human sin and the need for God's redeeming action through Christ. Humans are far from perfect - in this world, at least - and theitr sinful and fallen nature make their judgments fallable, especially when they rely on their own understanding. How, then, (I ask myself) can fallable humans read infallable scripture and understand the message and will of God infallably. Add to that a tendency to read and quote scripture in broken snippets, and it seems highly unlikely to me that an infallable reading of scripture is possible.

Literalists, however, seem to assume that their understanding of scripture is the one right way to grasp it, and anything else is tampering with God's intention. It strikes me that this assumption is proof positive of human idolatry - to elevate to the status of God's will a human reading of the Bible.

[Marcia]

Since he said all that, I'm not going to.

As far as this:

But why do they want to? What is it that non-gay Christians are afraid of that makes them want the Bible to condemn gay people. Do you have a theory about that Marcia?

I would never dream of speaking for what those folks are thinking. There's a whole alternate Christian universe going on there.

If I had to guess, though, I would think it exactly as andrewlittle described it--too much literalism, not enough scholarship. These people truly believe they're right.

Dash, you funny. If that was directed to me, I'm no one's fragile flower.

I can't speak for simpleman, though.

[u-dog]

Wait just one cotton-pickin' minute!

Lookee cheer:

MmmmHMMM! Y'all see what I'm talkin' about??

U got a lotta nerve!

Some of us are tryin' to talk about politics, and you gotta bust in with your new dog thing and gettin' treats and such.

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls, Honey, 'cause it f@ckin' tolls for thee!

David, You are SOOOO sexy when you are in a fit of Pique! :love:

When you're serious you make me think -- when you're being silly you make me laugh ! .... but I'm still waiting to see whatca got ;)

[u-dog]

Take it easy now, I just wanted to know. .

Simp, if I was taking it any easier, I'd be comatose.

I don't have enough knowledge of translations, and languages, and so on and so forth to even argue with you, and I doubt Marcia does either (if she does, she should jump right in).

There are LOTS of secondary sources, both pro and con that are accessible to a lay person that deal with these issues and texts. there is some really excellent work right here on these forums done by Andrewlittle and others. We are understandably motivated to understand these texts since it is around OUR FEET that the Zealots are piling the brush and the faggots. (interesting derivation huh? faggot=bundle of dry sticks for burning... wonder how that got transfered to an epithet for gay people? hmmmm....)



But it is this very reason, my friend, that Christians want to believe that homosexuality is wrong. Your run-of-the-mill Christian hasn't gone through hours and hours of exhaustive study of ancient languages and the nuances thereof. They just read the Bible in the hotel room, and it has those verses that I quoted in it. They want to believe it, because they want to believe what the Bible says, because it is supposed to be the infallible word of God and so on and so forth, so that's why they want to believe it.

Too busy to do the study and reflection but NOT too busy to call their representatives and Senators to make sure that denying us employment, relationship status, and civil rights remains safe and legal.

I sorry, but even in translation those few biblical passages are TOO TISSUE PAPER THIN to account for the intensity of the passion around this issue. People don't HATE divorced and remarried people intensely enough to go out and picket and the Bible is even clearer about that being sinful.

So I ask again, and ask that you think about it a little more deeply-- because your insight might actually be helpful --- why do some Christians WANT it to be against God's will to be gay?

[dsdrane]

David, You are SOOOO sexy when you are in a fit of Pique! :love:

When you're serious you make me think -- when you're being silly you make me laugh ! .... but I'm still waiting to see whatca got ;)


Oy veh...the pressure!

Nevertheless, :love: :cookie: :love: :cookie:.

You may proceed.

[dsdrane]

So I ask again, and ask that you think about it a little more deeply-- because your insight might actually be helpful --- why do some Christians WANT it to be against God's will to be gay?


Insecurity.

Keeping up with the Joneses.

Uniformity.

If GAY is OK, then what are they supposed to do with their own aberrations?

This reminds me of 9/11, to which I had front-row seats, living four blocks away as I then did. That morning and afternoon were horrific not just because of the nightmare unfolding in Lower Manhattan; it was also horrific because many, if not all, Americans saw baldly the wafer-thin glue that holds our society together and keeps out of complete anarchy. They saw this glue poised at the moment before failure. And, for some very, very uncomfortable moments, they felt the fear that accompanies panic.

Oh my God, what is going on?? Is today the day I die? Is the world ending?

Heavy pizza, right?

If GAY is OK...if airliners can take down two iconic skyscrapers...well, then what's to say nothing makes sense anymore? Who's to say there's even a God?

The fear this causes some is intolerable to them.

There always has to be a scapegoat.

I wonder who it'll be once GAY is OK....

[u-dog]

I know many of the myriad reasons why 9/11 was a horror, but I'm wondering if there was a special horror to that day as AN ARCHITECT? The WTC was iconic not just for New Yorkers, but for people in your profession particularly. Was there a particular helplessness or violation that you experienced that would have been added to what all New Yorkers and all human beings felt?

Have you reflected on that at all? and could you share about That particular sliver of the horror of 9/11?

Just curious.

Dave

[BrentRichards]

I'd be interested to hear about this. Don't take this as snide, but I am really curious as to how this can be reconciled.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. "
1 Corinthians 6

"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Romans 1:27

Here's one brief thought to mull ... you bold the word "homosexuals" in your quotation of 1 Corinthians 6 ... but that word didn't even exist in ENGLISH (let alone in Koine Greek) until perhaps the late 1800s. It was first included in the translation of that text in 1958. Hmmm... So, did homosexuality BECOME biblically prohibited in 1958? Not an argument by itself, but food for thought. Mull. Ruminate. React.

[BrentRichards]

The major question to ask here is one we (evangelicals ... I am one, and I'm assuming you are too, Simpleman ... am I right about that?) must always be very clear on ... what, EXACTLY, is Scripture against in this matter ... we use this principle all the time, but for some reason, the evangelical community has been unwilling to apply the same standard to the Bible's comments on same-sex sexual behavior as it applies to many other issues.

Just one example. In Galatians 5:2-3, Paul says: "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law."

Paul's words are "plain" and "clear." But, in the US, almost all infant males are circumcized as a matter of routine. Christian parents routinely allow their male children to undergo circumcision, and adult males (presumably some of them Christian) are sometimes circumcised for medical reasons. Have they thereby repudiated their faith? Is Christ of no value to them? Have we, in fact, ignored the PLAIN sense of these verses? We as evangelicals say of course not! We recognize that the meaning of circumcision in the first century church and in our day is distinctly different. Therefore, Paul's prohibition against being circumcized (as a religious practice) is presumed not to apply to our practice of circumcision (as a medical/hygenic practice).

So, we MUST ask (to be true to Scripture), when Paul spoke negatively of men having sex with men (which he certainly did), what exactly did he have in mind? Almost certainly, he had in mind the homosexual practices that were going on in his immediate environment. I'll give you only the very brief version here (there are extended studies of this available ... I'll point you at some if you like): The Greco-Roman model of homosexuality that Paul would have been making reference to was almost exclusively PEDERASTY. The idea of two adult men in a mutual committed relationship simply would not have been in his mind, because he'd never seen it. What he would have seen (and therefore condemned) was the habit of older men using younger youth (and even boys) for sexual gratification. The relationships were, not surprisingly, notoriously non-mutual, as the youth involved had little to no say over whose partner they might be ... they might have been slave or free, but they were certainly not "partners" in any meaningful sense. Pederastic prostitution (involving youth prostitutes who often dressed as women) was also quite prominent. So, when Paul speaks of "homosexuality" (he didn't use that word, it didn't exist), it is VERY likely this is what he had in mind.

Does a prohibition against pederasty and prostitution logically extend to any and all homosexual relationships? Certainly not. I believe, that by extending the prohibition beyond what Paul was most likely referring to is ADDING TO SCRIPTURE ... which is a dangerous practice indeed!

Helpful at all?

[simpleman]

All excellent answers.

I think that a lot of Christians' hatred for homosexuals comes out of fear of it as a social stigma, not out of fear of it because the Bible says it's wrong. I won't go quite as far as to say that these people often use the Bible to rationalize their social fears, but I'll get close to it. This is something that you all know all too well, but it's true: many people are simply scared of homosexuals. Why? Who knows. Maybe because they are different, maybe because they see the parades and the rainbows, maybe because they've never met a gay person and they think that there's something wrong with them. People have millions of conscious and subconscious reasons for their fears of gay people. And, of course, in the face of being pressed on the issue, i.e. someone says "why do you think being gay is so bad?" the best answer seems to be: because the Bible says so! So maybe the more pertinent question isn't why do Christians want to think that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but rather why are people scared of homosexuals?

I think that what you are running up against in society is this: nobody can come up with any rational reason that homosexuality is wrong, or that it is wrong for gays to marry, or that it is wrong for gays to adopt and raise children, they just don't like it. They can point to the Bible, but people go back through and rip through their "paper thin" truth. They don't try to work through translations, and counter point, they just block it out. Essentially they are saying this: I'm really sorry, and I don't know nearly as much as most people, but: go away, gay people, go away. It's not right, it's not fair, it doesn't really even make sense, but I think that's what you are seeing. And then the politicians want to appease this group, because that's how politics work. Politics work like the open market. Whoever will buy you (vote for you) you sell yourself to.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not about arguing with you on these things, I just thought I'd bring some insight into what society you are working against. Even though you probably already know, I just thought that would answer some questions.

[Simon]

All excellent answers.

I think that a lot of Christians' hatred for homosexuals comes out of fear of it as a social stigma, not out of fear of it because the Bible says it's wrong. I won't go quite as far as to say that these people often use the Bible to rationalize their social fears, but I'll get close to it. This is something that you all know all too well, but it's true: many people are simply scared of homosexuals. Why? Who knows. Maybe because they are different, maybe because they see the parades and the rainbows, maybe because they've never met a gay person and they think that there's something wrong with them. People have millions of conscious and subconscious reasons for their fears of gay people. And, of course, in the face of being pressed on the issue, i.e. someone says "why do you think being gay is so bad?" the best answer seems to be: because the Bible says so! So maybe the more pertinent question isn't why do Christians want to think that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but rather why are people scared of homosexuals?

I think that what you are running up against in society is this: nobody can come up with any rational reason that homosexuality is wrong, or that it is wrong for gays to marry, or that it is wrong for gays to adopt and raise children, they just don't like it. They can point to the Bible, but people go back through and rip through their "paper thin" truth. They don't try to work through translations, and counter point, they just block it out. Essentially they are saying this: I'm really sorry, and I don't know nearly as much as most people, but: go away, gay people, go away. It's not right, it's not fair, it doesn't really even make sense, but I think that's what you are seeing. And then the politicians want to appease this group, because that's how politics work. Politics work like the open market. Whoever will buy you (vote for you) you sell yourself to.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not about arguing with you on these things, I just thought I'd bring some insight into what society you are working against. Even though you probably already know, I just thought that would answer some questions.

Simpleman,

I was wondering that just like there are people who are scared of homosexuals, there could also be people who are scared of Christians? Like, there is a saying that homosexuals have agenda to do away with freedom of speech, there is also a saying that Christians have an agenda to take over the world and create theocracy. Don't you see a similarity between the two saying, by having a fear of people?

[simpleman]

Simpleman,

I was wondering that just like there are people who are scared of homosexuals, there could also be people who are scared of Christians? Like, there is a saying that homosexuals have agenda to do away with freedom of speech, there is also a saying that Christians have an agenda to take over the world and create theocracy. Don't you see a similarity between the two saying, by having a fear of people?

Sure. There are plenty of people who fear Christians, but they don't fear them for their faiths as Christians. They fear them for various agendas of which you speak. People fear homosexuals for just being homosexual. Which doesn't make much sense, but it happens. In addition, there are probably people out there who don't fear homosexuals themselves but fear the homosexual agenda. Yes, there is absolutely a similarity between the fears of agendas, but I think fearing someone who is homosexual is much more prevalent than fearing a person based on their chosen faith.

Just as a clarification, when I say "fear" I don't mean like "Oh we're afraid of the angry gay people who might hurt us" I mean it as they don't want to talk about it or think about it and would rather it just go away.

[BrentRichards]

Simpleman (have you told us your first name ... I don't like calling people by screen names)

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I feel heard, and valued. You are exactly right in this. It was the conclusion I ultimately came to as a gay man who is serious about his Christian faith: That the CHURCH has had far more to say about (against) homosexuality than God and the Bible ever did!

As to the "why" ... it's anybody's guess. I'd put it down to a number of causes: mistrust of the unfamiliar, resistance to change in general, personal insecurities or discomfort with any topic related to sex ... at a deeper level, I think it's about a deep human need to have a person or group to scapegoat our anger, fear, and despair onto when we see our world falling apart. That's why I can say without hesitation that I believe homophobia is sin, because I think it's rooted in that desire to evade responsibility, like the pharisee in Jesus' parable: "'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector." (Luke 18:11)

For those who might not know that story:

9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

[dsdrane]

I know many of the myriad reasons why 9/11 was a horror, but I'm wondering if there was a special horror to that day as AN ARCHITECT? The WTC was iconic not just for New Yorkers, but for people in your profession particularly. Was there a particular helplessness or violation that you experienced that would have been added to what all New Yorkers and all human beings felt?

Have you reflected on that at all? and could you share about That particular sliver of the horror of 9/11?

Just curious.

Dave


It's a really interesting question. (I promise to keep this short so as not to interrupt the thread flow.)

To be honest, I really only put my architect hat on once the discussion got around to the collapse. I knew that the towers basically had an exoskeleton of closely placed columns around a central, concrete shaft. This design allowed for maximum salable square footage and a column-free floor plate for maximum flexibility for the interiors. The Achillies Heel was the connection of these floor systems to the exterior columns, and that's why the floors "pancaked" the way they did.

That day...and for the days after...all my thoughts were those of a New Yorker, an American, a human being. I also had worked in the towers years ago. My first job after college was on the 59th floor of Tower One. I worked there for about a year and a half...and we did evacuate once because of some substation fire. So on 9/11, it took little imagination for me to put myself in those stairwells.

My boyfriend and I (and dog) were out of our apartment for 8 days, and the fire at the site smoldered until Thanksgiving. There's nothing like coming back from the gym, after work, and walking by the charred remains of your neighborhood slowly being brought down by wrecking balls and carted away 'round-the-clock, or walking around during the day cursing the huge amount of extra sunlight into a neighborhood no longer blocked by the huge sundial.

And, ironically perhaps for an architect, I couldn't bring myself to care about the flurry of interest around the various replacement proposals. The void, to me, was sacred. But, then, that's not how our society works, is it?

[Montanna]

I've been away from Soulforce for a while. It's great to read all of the dialogue going on here. I wanted to comment on the discussion of why we (GLBT folks) are feared.
Isolation and separation create fear. Talking about a group (i.e. homosexuals, the mentally ill, cultural groups, etc.) divorces the conversation from the human being. In such cirumstances, lack of knowledge leads people to use their imaginations. Now the stereotypes pop up. As gross and misleading as they are, they become the discussion. The human being from that group stands off to the side wondering why their humanity is being questioned. It seems so surreal.

When someone who only knows only what they hear from the sterotypes is confronted with the human being it makes them nervous. The stereotypes aren't usable. This definitely causes one to consider the possibility that all of your assumptions may be wrong. If that's the case, then what? The fear is mounting! Back to aguing for "the known", or take a step and ask a question, or be quiet and listen. The responses are as varied as human beings are.

Participants in the Equality Ride put their human selves out there to say we are the reality, we won't harm you, we want to talk.

As far as groups go, GLBT folks are unique in that they also belong to every ethnic, religious, cultural, and professional group that can be named.

I'm grateful for Soulforce. We can all be our human selves here. Montanna

[Emproph]

Google link:
I haven't checked them all out, but I especially liked this one (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:gOezsgwftVkJ:marciakilpatrick.blogs pot.com/2007/01/taking-on-trinity.html+%22Christianity+is+NOT+a+democracy%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us).I wrote that. How did you find it? And I can't figure out if you liked it or didn't like it. 'Cause I tried to make it clear that I have no problem with GLBT folks; I'm just trying to figure out how one can be Christian and ignore what the Bible says about it.

Everyone should read that. Fair, balanced, sincere, short, easy to read, AND entertaining. I'll agree to disagree with someone like you anyday Marcie :love:.

To answer your question, imagine that you were born and grew up as a boy -- yet were the same person inside -- the Marcie you think of yourself as today.

Same goes for you Simpleman. You imagine you were born and grew up as a girl. You'd be a lesbian.

How would you then answer the question:
how one can be Christian and ignore what the Bible says about it

If you don't believe this is possible to happen, despite our certitude of it, then the question becomes, "why are we so confused?"

And my answer to that would be, What evidence do you have that I am confused?

What if I do know something that's not explained in the Bible?

[Marcia]

to here (http://dorothyparker.squarespace.com/journal/). Come on over if you'd like to comment.