I’m following along…Just don’t have anything to add at this point and am anxiously awaiting posts dealing with the NT. But, I do wonder if it will even matter. I mean, everyone is only going to see what they already believe anyway. And I wonder if this IS seeing through a glass (mirror) darkly. As in the scriptures being so much more than just telling us WHAT to believe…It shows us WHAT WE ALREADY BELIEVE.
Anyway, getting off track and feeling philosophical,
Sass
That is a very interesting observation Sass - very philosophical indeed
Yes I guess srcipture isn’t just words of text - its the interaction between us and these words. Its what we read as well as our reader response.
Bless you for good food for thought
Dick 
Hi Dick, Bret, sass, corpselight, et. al…
I’m following along and will chime in again… promise.
Dick… I think you’re spot on that this subject really does serve as a nexus of so many of the important matters you mention. And I don’t know what it’s like in Britain, but there are a great many American Christians for whom this issue and others cannot really be discussed, let alone debated as if we believers could hold differing opinions on them.
Bret… you’re in my prayers, my dear brother. It seems we share a love for Arizona’s glorious mountains in addition to our love for the Lord! (Check your PMs.)
Sass… great point about how we read scripture through our own theological lenses. But isn’t it funny how sometimes the scriptures really do speak a new thing into our hearts? The dramatic example for a lot of us is finding out that the scriptures really do speak about the restitution of all things and the salvation of all. Kind of like finding something that’s been hiding in plain sight for years and years and years. I think that’s somewhat how my own views on this subject eventually changed. Not sure I’m articulate enough to express what I mean exactly, but it’s some thing like you wake up one day, and the world has different colors and shadings that you didn’t see before. But, there they are nevertheless.
Corpselight… much enjoyed your latest, especially about the sorts of places Jesus likely would be found in today. Agree wholeheartedly. Lol… but I think I’d have to draw the line at headbanging with the Slayer crowd!
Love to all,
Andy
given that i take Jesus with me where i go, He has vicariously headbanged with me to far more offensive bands than Slayer 
i like what you’re saying about everything else though.
were you aware, living in Arizona, that you have some of the most (in my opinion at least) spectacularly beautiful wildlife in the world? particularly your tarantulas, scorpions, snakes and centipedes. i’d love to go there and see them all one day.
i totally agree with what you are saying about truths hiding in plain sight, and colours you never noticed before suddenly making themselves visible. life is beautiful!
i think sass makes an interesting point! who of us has changed JUST because of something we read in Scripture? was it not something a bit outside of Scripture helping us to read it in new lights? whether that’s other people, God, our own wishful thinking at times, or perhaps true conviction? or maybe God is growing us up. i guess the only clue to these things is the fruit.
coming back to the fruit, i have seen good things from what some might call alternative relationships, when they are good…about the same fruit as good heterosexual relationships! on the other hand, i’ve seen hate, paranoia, limiting fear, division, persecution, suicide and more coming from those that are adamantly opposed to those sorts of things.
obviously one might see bad fruit from BAD gay relationships, but if one is scientific on the subject, there is also bad fruit from bad heterosexual relationships. the common denominator here seems to be just that these examples are not healthy, loving relationships.
everyone knows an unhealthy relationship when they see one (not so often when they experience one though), and the factor that makes it good and bad seems independent of what gender everyone is.
I like this guy ^^^ 
And by that I mean James (aka corpselight), and not myself 
Hi Andy.
I think Corpeslight says it well:
Of course, we see new things in the scriptures, but in my experience, at seems like it followed some sort of “prompt”, almost as though I was looking for it already even though I wasn’t even aware of that. How many times did each of us just read over the UR scriptures without seeing it? Then one day, something prompted me to take another look and BAM! It was always there.
Yes, we see new things, but the point I am making is there is something happening already whether we are aware or not. There must have been a precursor or we’d still be seeing things the same way.
Love you brothers!
Sass
Yep… I know exactly what you and james are meaning now. Thanks for clarifying as I can be a little dense sometimes!
Love to you, too, sister Sass!
Andy
I’d say both you fellas are pretty cool, Matt.
And james… I was just joking about Slayer and headbanging et. al. The world would be a lot poorer if we all liked the same kind of music.
Peace,
Andy
it’s all good, mate
and i like you lot too
Hi everybody
As James said a little while ago, there is a tremendous amount of love being shown on this thread. I think that’s absolutely wonderful, given the ‘controversial’ subject matter. I put that word in inverted commas, as I don’t think there should be anything controversial about faithful, loving sexual relationships.
But I was struck by what Sass said earlier:
As Dick says, this is a profound philosophical point. In fact, it’s almost worth a discussion thread on its own. What do you all think?
Allied to Sass’s observation about belief, I would add one of my own. Well, I say one of my own, but the observation actually comes from the greatest living American, my absolute all-time hero, Robert Allen Zimmerman, and it is this:
“People don’t do what they believe in, they just do what’s most convenient, then they repent.” (From the song Brownsville Girl, co-written with Sam Sheppard.)
Now this seems to me to be *profoundly *insightful. Any thoughts anybody? Or should we fire up a new thread …?
Peace and love
Johnny
Hi Johnny. Yes, I do think the insights we put together should have a thread of their own. I want to discuss them further, but I don’t want THIS thread to veer off topic. If you would start one, I’d join you.
Sass.
Hi All
(I’ll leave Girard for next week when Drew has more time). I think a grand resource for this discussion is the UK Accepting Evangelicals resource pages on the Bible passages traditionally interpreted as condemning gay relationships. I had a good look at it yesterday and Sass has had a peep too. Quoting from it saves a lot of trouble – because it’s clear and to the point. There is a good general article on each of the following (originally from ‘Benny’s Blog’)–
More can be said about the issues raised in each of the blog articles. But I’ll give copy them for us to view here and leave space for our further commentary. I’ll begin by copying the first two blogs together – because the first summarises much of our discussion thus far, while the second takes us to the next stage:
1 General comment on what the Bible has to say about gay relationships
acceptingevangelicals.org/20 … e-says-no/
***…Far from there being ‘plenty of Biblical admonitions’ on the subject there are only a handful of verses which talk about homosexuality, and understanding exactly what they mean or refer to is by no means straightforward. Yet the perception remains in many people’s minds that this is an open and shut case.
Even Theologians who are committed to a conservative line against same sex relationships, acknowledge that there is not much in the Bible to go on. One such theologian is R.Hays, quoted in the Church of England’s official document on the subject “Some issues in human sexuality” (2003). He talks about the “Slender evidence of the New Testament” in relation to homosexuality -and he is right. It is mentioned on only 3 occasions, and only one of these contains any attempt to portray a theological explanation for why such attraction might be wrong.
The Old Testament is no better. There are only 2 clear references, both in the same section of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) and the second is merely a reiteration of the first for the purpose of setting down a penalty for the ‘crime’. Other references in Deuteronomy are almost universally understood to be about temple prostitution whether heterosexual or (by inference) homosexual, so contribute nothing to the current debate on sex relationships.
Other passages – eg the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 – whilst having a sexual component to them, are not principally about homosexuality, but about rape, inhumanity, and breaking the laws of hospitality which were deeply ingrained in fabric and culture of the Middle East. Hence it was considered acceptable(even proper) for Lot to offer his daughters to be gang raped by the mob in order to protect his visitors!
On top of all this, Jesus appears to have been entirely silent on the issue, and if you are a lesbian, you can rejoice that there is even less to go on. Leviticus refers exclusively to men, and only one of the three references in the New Testament (Romans 1) includes sexual attraction between women.
So far from there being plenty of Biblical admonitions against homosexuality, the reality is that the Biblical evidence is both flimsy and fragmented. We need to delve deeper to see what exactly is being considered in those verses and to see to what extent it might apply today***…
Leviticus on homosexuality
See -
acceptingevangelicals.org/20 … iticus-18/
…***If we want to find out what the Bible is saying to us today, we have to see it in context. There are actually two contexts we need to be aware of. The first is an awareness of the people and cultures it was first written for. Secondly, we need to see the verses we are reading in the context of the surrounding passage and indeed Scripture as a whole.
This is especially true of controversial issues such as the verses on homosexual sex.
The first prohibition is found in Leviticus 18:22. Among a number of sexual sins, it says,
‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.’ (NIV)
This might seem clear enough, but there are 2 issues which make it far from an ‘open and shut case’. The first comes as we look at what else is described as “detestable” in Leviticus.
Leviticus 11:12 is a good example:
“Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.”
So apparently, prawns, shrimps and crab are detestable and although my wife may agree with that (she hates any shell fish!) that doesn’t make it an eternal law.
There are also other things which are forbidden in Leviticus which, if they applied today, would mean that many of us are living in sin Eg. Leviticus 19 commands, “Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard” (vs 27). This is set alongside another command that prohibits eating steak cooked ‘rare’ (vs 26). And yet these commands, which are hard to understand today, are set alongside others which we would endorse wholeheartedly like “Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute” (vs 29)
There is more to reading this part of the Bible than simply extracting single verses, if we are to understand which rules apply today and which do not – and indeed what the rules do, and do not, prohibit. They were written in a very different culture with its own taboos and concerns, and some of the commands in Leviticus reflect that culture, while others reflect the eternal will of God. The challenge is to discern which are which.
The second issue with Leviticus 18 is the word which the NIV Bible translates as ‘detestable’. We sometimes forget that the Bible was not written in English! What we have is a translation, and the constant challenge in any work of translation is discerning how to best convey the fullest meaning of the words we translate.This is not an easy task – as evidenced by the large number of translations out there.
The Hebrew word in this case is תעב - ‘to-ebah’. The King James version translates it as ‘abomination’. In the list of sexual prohibitions in Leviticus 18, ‘lying with a man as with a woman’ is singled out in the list as ‘to-ebah’. So what does this word mean? And what picture would it have evoked in the Hebrews who first heard it?
The word ‘to-ebah’ occurs many times in the Old Testament, and is primarily associated with the worship of idols.
In Deuteronomy, there are 15 verses which use the word, and 12 of them refer to idolatry. One example is Dt 27:15
Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place.
Another (Dt 23:18) links ‘to-ebah’ to money which came from male and female temple prostitutes.
In the books of Kings and Chronicles, ‘to-ebah’ is used 10 times, almost all of them referring specifically to the worship of idols and again there is a link in 1 Kings 14:24 with male temple prostitutes.
For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree. There were also male temple prostitutes in the land. They committed all the abominations of the nations that the LORD drove out before the people of Israel.
So in the Pentateuch, and History books of the Bible there is a clear and specific link in the minds of the people of Israel between ‘to-ebah’ and idolatry, and between homosexual sex and religious male prostitution.
The link between ‘to-ebah’ and idolatry is also present in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The only book of the Bible where this does not apply is the book of Proverbs which uses the word ‘to-ebah’ in a bewildering variety of contexts. But then the book of Proverbs is poetry, written in a different style with different aims. The Old Testament scholar, RN Whybray, in his commentary on Proverbs says “It cannot be too strongly emphasised that Proverbs is an entirely different kind of book from the other OT books; indeed it is unique. It served an entirely different purpose … Proverbs has one unifying characteristic: it is written entirely in poetry … Suffice to say that in general poetry makes up in allusiveness what it lacks in precision.”
If we set aside this poetic use of the word in Proverbs, we find that 80% of the times where ‘to-ebah’ is used, the evidence points to false worship or the worship of idols, and in some of those references there is a clear link made with male temple prostitution. In the remaining 20%, the meaning is often unclear or non-specific.
So why do we assume that it applies to same-sex relationships? Looking at the evidence, it is much more likely that when Leviticus condemns ‘men lying with men as with a woman’, it has in mind the homosexual activities observed in idolatry and temple prostitution, which is a world away from a self-giving loving committed relationship between 2 people of the same sex today…***
(Do have a look at the original blog articles if you have time)
Blessings
Dick
Stop press –
In the UK Independent Newspaper on Sunday this weekend I read that Desmond Swayne - the Conservative MP for New Forest West – who has obviously voiced approval of gay partnerships - has had many letters from constituents moaning at him using the prohibition against homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 (and I can’t think these letters have all come from Orthodox Jews). In his standard letter of reply he points out that by the same logic you can have slaves so long as you buy them in a foreign market (Leviticus 25: 44), but you can have no contact with a woman whatsoever during her period (Leviticus 15: 19-24), and you may not approach God’s altar if you have a sight impediment (Leviticus 21: 20). For good measure, he adds that it is lawful to sell your daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7), but people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death (Exodus 35:2). He asks whether the abomination of eating shellfish is as abominable as the abomination of homosexuality. And is the punishment for wearing clothes with mixed threads the same as the punishment or planting different crops in the same field (Leviticus 19;19)?
He ends with a flourish. ‘Is it really necessary to turn out the whole village to stone the offenders (Leviticus 24 10-16)? Wouldn’t it be simpler just to burn them in the same way as we do anyone who has sex with their in-laws 9Leviticus 20: 14)? I really hope you can help. There are still plenty more questions where these came from.”
Well Mr Swayne MP is being rather sarcastic – but I can see his point. Why single out one prohibition and ignore the others? Both Christianity and Judaism – even in its most Orthodox forms, no longer follows Torah prescriptions to the letter – so it’s a piece for special pleading to focus on one prohibition without context just to bolster prejudice.
I would add that given the wholesale condemnation on usury – lending money at interest which is a fundamental to capitalism – in the Torah, I sometimes fancy picketing banks with the appropriate verses on a banner emblazoned with ‘Fry in Hell’. However I realise that we live in a very different world to the one the Torah was written for. Although I am left wing in my views it seems to me that some measure of capitalism is needed to ensure individual freedoms (although too much of it leads to oppression). So I may be angry at bankers but even lefty Sobornost is not going to roar at them by citing the Torah .
Blessings
Dick
Here’s a quick story for you.
Human beings have one huge problem when trying to live together in settled communities; namely the way we ‘operate’ means that we often desire things that others have – whether this be physical goods/property, social status, personal qualities, friends, wives, husbands etc. And if we desire something that someone else cannot or will not share with us we can become envious – we can hate another person because they have what we want; and if we fear that someone envies what we have we can become jealous – we can hate anther person because we fear that they may take from us what is ours. This is what the tenth commandment terms ‘covetousness’. The problem with covetousness is that if it is not kept in check it leads to murder and then to an escalation of cycles of retribution that can tear society apart (for example, Lamech in Genesis requires seven deaths in recompense for every single death he and his clan suffer). This is the reason, for example, for the widespread fear of ‘the evil eye’ in archaic and nomadic societies. If you tell a Bedouin that you like/admire his camel he is liable to give it to you to forestall further problems – so be careful that you want the camel before you open your mouth.
In archaic societies, before proper institutions of law have developed, religion and religious ritual serve the function of preventing/dealing with escalation of violence born of covetousness. The theory goes that order in early archaic cities/settled communities is first established by a ‘founding murder’ – a human sacrifice that takes place so that a community can discharge all of their suspicious wrath born of covetousness on the victim and feel united in the frenzy of this lynching – and then peace descends and order emerges. This is why the skeleton of a sacrificial victim is often found in the foundations of ancient city, and it is reflected in founding myths, often featuring twin brothers who are rivals… For example, in Roman myth Romulus kills Remus before the founding of Rome – and Romulus is counted the hero for doing so. Likewise in the Bible Cain kills able before the founding of the first city – but in this case, in contrast to the myths of the world, the blood of Abel cries out to heaven and it is Abel who is vindicated by God –not Cain. The wonder of the Bible is that it questions the whole mechanism of using victims to cement our peace on which archaic religion is centred; the God of the Bible is truly transcendent of human culture and is the judge of ore history and culture.
The founding murder is then remembered in ritual re-enactment to sustain the order of the community and make ‘fertility’ possible by providing social stability. In this ritual the community returns to the chaos before the foundation of the world/city. All social distinctions are dissolved as the community turns from a group of individuals into a crowd and then into an ecstatic mob. Distinctions of rank are forgotten and , and with the help of the scared prostitutes all sexual and gender distinctions are forgotten in an orgy as people become intoxicated and forget all individuality. Then the mob – by now in ecstatic rage – focuses their rivalry of envy and jealousy on to a scapegoat. A scapegoat is a person chosen randomly because of a slight difference in them – perhaps they have a disability, perhaps they are an outsider. The ecstatic mob tear the scapegoat apart while loud music blocks out the scapegoat’s screams and thick incense obscures the sight of the murder. Then the mob comes to its senses – almost unaware of what has happened. They feel they have been visited by a god of wrath – but the death of the scapegoat has saved them from a contagion of violence rivalry because they now feel peace together – having discharged their violence -and social order can be reborn from the chaos. This is reflected in myths of creation in which the god enters into combat with the chaos monster to create the world, and often the monster when dead turns in to a human giant and society is formed from the giant being cut apart by the god. And one of the remarkable things about the creation story in Genesis is how different it is from these myths.
The story I have just told you tells you part of what the French thinker Rene Girard sees as being behind the fertility myths/cults of Canaan and of other fertility myths/cults from different times and places across the world – like the Roman mystery rites that Paul sees as an abomination in the epistle to the Romans. Girard’s reading of archaic religion is not random – it comes from a broad knowledge of ancient myths, anthropology, literature, psychology etc. and a wide ranging dialogue with people from different disciplines. I’ll come back to it at the end of next week (when only the truly committed are still reading). I raise it here to suggest that the homosexual temple prostitution in Canaanite religion that is counted ‘abomination’ in Leviticus- and obviously has nothing to do with loving and committed gay relationships today – is something we need to be cautious of equating with anything we know today.
Blessings
Dick
Well I said I’d park Girard for now – but I should just add that his theories of human desire, the origins of human civilisation and of the function of the scapegoating mechanism in human culture (and using these as a way of understanding the Bible) are proving very popular with many Christians especially with the Peace Churches but also across the entire ecumenical community. The gay Catholic theologian James Alison is a close collaborator with Girard – and has enjoyed Girard ‘s fell support even though Girard tends to be conservative in his ethics Also the universalist theologian Jurgen Moltmann has been enthused by Girard’s thinking which Girard calls ‘Evangelical Anthropology’. Whereas a lot of current Christian thinking centres on the character of God and how God saves us, Girard gives us the other side – he tells us interesting thing about human nature and of what we need to be saved from (this ‘Christian humanism’ also plays a part in the Early Church Fathers who Girard is indebted to – they also wanted to teach us how to overcome rivalries and cultivate virtues, with God’s grace, that enable us to become fully human). We need both theology and anthropology for a fully incarnational view of life.
The thing about the scapegoating rite is that although it is no longer a sacred ritual in modern cultures, it still goes on in many ways in a secular form ; all types of bullying and vendetta and prejudicial propaganda serve this function – even if the orgiastic rites no longer celebrated (apart from in extreme circumstances like the aftermath of battle); and of course gay people can easily be chosen as scapegoats around which the community can unite in solidarity to discharge their rivalrous rage upon.
Those of you who have become curious (if any) - think about The Gospel – how does Jesus save us from rivalries of desire and from scapegoating? We can return to his topic (if anyone tells me it’s interesting!!!).
Next post – some final thoughts on the Old Testament and the Jewish view of homosexuality - then it’s on to the New Testament.
Blessings
Dick
Hey Professor,
Just a thought after your last two posts on mob frenzy, scapegoats, etc. This has happened right here in the good ol’ USofA. After the Twin Towers fell, it was the gays fault, just ask all the TV evangelists, and then of course, its was “our” fault for hurricane Katrina, oh yeah, and lets not forget the huge earthquakes in CA. Get their congregations all worked up on who to blame, and frenzy is a mild word. Its’ “our” fault for the decline of God’s presense here in America. He has withdrawn His love and compassion because of “our sins.” So, guess I’m saying that in modern times, what you described above is still prevelant. We HAVE to blame someone don’t we??? It couldn’t be that global warming, or sick terrorists, or the fact that all of CA sits on a fault line for earthquakes or that New Orleans was NOT ready with their levies for that magnitutude of a hurricane. You speak truth my friend… there was a time where I was afraid to go out in public after the TV guys (preaching the gospel) had blamed “us” for ALL the evils in the world. No, I’m not a victim. I’m only pointing out what you have already said AND it works. For the religous AND for our politics. The scare tactics of whose fault it is and look out, we are to blame for ALL the problems of the world. Maybe across the pond you all weren’t hearing this stuff, but I’m accutely aware of what was being said and WHY they were saying it. Just proving YOUR point is all Prof.
And of course, this saddens me as I have no control of what happens “out there,” I can barely handle my own life and the little idiosincrosies in it. If I sound angry, I’m not. Just stating facts. They can say what they want, first ammendment guarantees that, but I cannot let it affect me and who I am and the way I behave. I answer to a much Higher Power.
Only my two cents Prof… love and blessings,
Bret
Hi Bret –
Thanks for a really lucid and helpful post – which cuts to the chase/is completely focussed ‘on’ topic.
I think you have been a victim of psychological violence from the rabble rousers – if not from actual physical attack. This much is clear, which means in my book you have the dignity of the victim – and it is any Christian’s duty straight or gay - to listen to you and learn from you because Jesus too was a victim of a mob. However, you are just not coming across as a wounded child and resentful victim – or you wouldn’t still be posting here; no way. You are extremely resilient actually– I won’t embarrass you by making you into a paper hero, but you do have my admiration and, obviously, the admiration of others on this thread.
Regarding the TV evangelists seeing all manner of disasters – natural and manmade – as the fault of gay people; I have heard all about this. Yes there is a take on this from the perspective of Girard and of Christian’s influenced by him – the TV evangelists are indeed stirring up the mob (and most probably do not know what they are doing).
I’m busy today but will try to post some thoughts n this tonight.
Bless you my friend
Dick
There’s a lot I can say about your post Brett – but just to kick off the discussion for you and anyone else who wants to chip in I’d like to cite a passage from Luke and give James Alison’s meditation on this taken from his ‘On Being Liked’ pages 8-9
***There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”***(Luke 13: 1-5)
There is something apparently callous about this. We react to bad news as to a form of emotional blackmail, obliging us to “feel” for the victims, and be outraged by someone who doesn’t appear to feel. But not Jesus. His attention is entirely concentrated on his interlocutors. It is not the events themselves which concern him, but their reaction to the events, and what that reaction says about whose power they are in. We can imagine the excitement of those telling him, wanting a pronouncement of appropriately apocalyptic tenor: the Galileans were not sacrificing at Jerusalem, probably at Gerizim. Maybe this was their punishment from God. But they are disappointed. Jesus completely de-sacralizes the event, removing any link between God and what has happened. Any link between morality and what has happened. If we are caught up in thinking like that, then we too are likely to act in ways moved by the apocalyptic other, the god of blood and sacrifice and murder, of morality linked to worldly outcome, and we will perish like them. To ram home his point, he chooses an example where there was no obvious moral agency, no wicked Pilate, no sacrifices of dubious validity: the collapse of a tower – maybe an architectural flaw, maybe a small earth tremor, the shifting of an underground stream, who knows. Once again, Jesus completely de-sacralizes the incident. It has nothing to do with God. But if we are caught up in the world of giving sacred meanings, then we will be caught up in the world of reciprocal violence, of good and bad measured over against other people, and scapegoating, and we will likewise perish. Once again I stress: Jesus will not be drawn into adding to meaning. He merely asks those who come to him themselves to move out of the world of sacred-seeming meaning. What does it mean for us to learn to look at the world through those eyes? (pp. 8-9)
(I have some other resources to post around your comments too)
Blessings friend
Dick the ’Prof’ (note the inverted commas! )
Hi ‘Prof,’
Real quick like, I may agree with everything you write and say… in fact I do!! But, I’m even skeptical to have said what I already did about the TV evangelists. It does come across as bitter, like I am a victim (which I’m NOT), and once again, like I’m putting blame on someone else rather than taking the responsibilty for MY own life. Like Sass so eloquently pointed out, when one reads the Bible, depending on what they are looking for, they will surely find it. The only comment you made that I’m having a hard time with is that these TV guys “don’t realize what they are doing.” Hog wash!! It’s political, and they know exactly what they are doing… stirring up the sheeple (who will follow in mad hysteria) to act, behave, etc. in a very unChrist like manner. They control the masses. Had a friend who once said (and I know this is not his original thought) that religion is the opiate of the masses. They don’t have to think for themselves, just follow what the priest, pastor, minister, whomever and they will be ok. And that is in spite of them being educated, they still follow along. It’s just soooo much easier to blame our lot in life on someone else rather than take responsibility of ourselves and thinking for ourselves. Clearly, I am not presenting a new concept here. This has been true throuhout the ages. This is not just applicable to the topic at hand, look at slavery in our country… I’m totally embarassed and ashamed that we had African-Americans (part of God’s enormous family!!!) at 3/5’s of a human being as far as voting. And it was well into the 60’s that something really started being done. Even now, racism is wide spread so it’s not just gays that suffer from the mob frenzy or the scapegoating as you say. When people live in fear and ARE taught fear from the pulpit, they tend to believe it, whether that said fear is founded or not. Look at how many of us hung on to the concept of ECT or annihilation out of fear… what else were we to belive??? We became very uncomfortable over time and HAD to search for something better for ourselves AND our loved ones. That is what we were taught (ECT and annihilation) and until some of us could not jive with a loving, magnificient, caring God that WILL save ALL eventually, we hung tight to said old beliefs. And yet, some of us were able to step out with courage and challenge what all the other sheeple were doing and saying. Same goes for this topic… until folks like you, Sass, Rev, Tim, Andy, Matt, et. al., start having THIS conversation, it’s almost pointless. Especially for me, as I am seen as defending a “sin.” So somehow since it is “I” who is being addressed here, my take and view point can be rationalized away… he IS gay so of course he WANTS it to be ok to be in a loving, long term relationship. My voice is more of a hinderance than help I’m afraid. And, I TRULY understand why and I’m NOT complaining, just grateful y’all ARE discussing this. More out of YOU Miss Sass!!! What YOU have to say is way more valid, because you are coming from a place of loving those of us who are different. You have watched with your own eyes the pain and suffering your gay friends have gone through, so I really think your voice AND Johnny’s is super important here!!! And Prof, you are special too, along with Andy, Matt, Nimblewill, Tim, I can’t remember you all, so just know that you all are special!!!
Back to my point that I DO believe the TV guys and all the rest KNOW exactly what they are doing because out of fear comes a huge following… they (TV guys, etc) have the answer… “be afraid, very afraid of those NOT like you, whoever that might be.” Thus they can control votes, thinking, and actions. My church of origin still has separate churches (I believe by choice) for African-Americans… I love going to one of their churches as they REALLY know how to praise the Lord!!! To hear them sing “His Eye is On the Sparrow,” WOW, love that gospel music. Off topic, but I think you see what I’m referring to. So mob frenzy can be created over any issue, any body that is different, or ANY thought that does NOT fit in with the “group.” Lonely place for some of us. And I’d be willing to bet after what I’ve read here about folks having to “come out” with their beliefs about UR, that they now understand how difficult it can be for one of us gays to “come out,” the fear of rejection and NOT belonging. Each of us WANTS to belong and to be loved. None of us wants to be different, on the outside looking Prof… seems to me that is just human nature. So the best we can do as folks who DO believe in UR, is LIVE it…it’s all relational and folks SHOULD see US acting, speaking, thinking differently… with love, compassion, and no blame to our fellows. And I will put myself at the TOP of that list of looking at people as they ARE apart of God’s HUGE family. I have to remember that I will probably be sitting right next to these very folks in the kingdom at His banquet table, so I better learn to love them NOW, differences an all. Enough out of me, I still fear writing on this topic and when I hit the submit key, my heart still flutters. Fact is though, everyone on this board and in this world IS entitled to his/her opinion… I’d just like to think that because we have something in common (UR), that we here would speak with love and compassion. And so far, I AM amazed at how thoughtful, loving, and kind everyone has been on this topic. I am truly humbled by you people. Thank you for blessing ME in such a wonderful way!!
Blessings and love to you good people!!
Bret