Monday, July 09, 2007

Truth Wins Out's Executive Director Wayne Besen was to appear live on CNN's Paula Zahn Now. Besen would have debated the "ex-gay" former editor of YGA Magazine, Michael Glatze; and Charlene Cothran, "ex-gay" publisher of Venus Magazine

177 Comments:

This quote is a gift for Charlene Cothran and Michael Glatze:

"The best thing one can do for oneself is to have a religious experience and then get over it". ---Margaret Mead
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 10:20 AM  

Mike Glatze co-produced a documentary in 2003 called JIM IN BOLD, which focused on the suicide of a gay teenager, Jim Wheeler. Jim experienced a lot of homophobia from his peers, probably not unlike the hateful words now spewing from Mr. Glatze's mouth. I wonder how Mr. Glatze feels now that he is contributing to the hate that killed Jimmy Wheeler.

The documentary's web site is at jiminbold.com
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 10:28 AM  

Wayne,

Go get them. As you know as I do what they are doing is a pure lie and deception. The very testimony I gave for Truth Wins Out is what happens to someone who can't accept themselves for whom God created them to be.

They distort the very text that talks about the denial of God's creation which gives the very testimony of His existance. To deny who God created me to be is to deny His existance. That is why I was cast to my own desires. When I accepted myself as I was created I was placed under His grace and mercy. Now my desires are His desires.

I look forward to watching it. My prayers will be with you.

Victoria
posted by  Unknown, at 7/09/2007 1:08 PM  

Of course those lying cowards have to have 2 against 1! I hope they let you get a word in edgewise! I can't believe that, based on all the evidence of science, the media even gives these quacks the time of day. But then they still act like 'creationism' is a viable point of view. NOT! to both of them!
Red V
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 2:10 PM  

Wayne, why is it 2 on 1? Shouldn't there be other ex-ex-gays there to challenge Glatze and Chocrin? What about another gay guy who is happy and in a successful long-term relationship?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 2:23 PM  

Zahn is a right-winger anyway, it was probably her stacking the deck as usual. Her last name means 'tooth' in german. Bite me Paula!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 4:25 PM  

Wow, the media is really starting to catch on. Glatze is also going to appear on Signorile's radio talk show tomorrow on Sirius OUTQ.

Today, Glatze's former lover Benjie Nycum is going to be on GAYBC radio also. They are free internet gay radio.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 4:48 PM  

Just a couple of questions for some of the commenters.

"Anonymous," you referenced the "hateful words now spewing from Mr. Glatze's mouth." What specifically were the words of Mr. Glatze that you considered "hateful"? Also, what's your standard for "hate speech"?

Victoria, you seem to claim that God desires you to be a homosexual. How do you know that? BTW, if what you were referencing was the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter one, you may want to go back and re-exegete (or perhaps exegete for the first time) Paul's words and argument. If the conclusion you reached was based on a consistent exegesis of Romans chapter one, that is probably one the poorest examples of exegesis I've seen in a long time. On a somewhat more positive note, it's a great example of eisegesis (but then I guess that's not exactly a compliment - sorry).
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 5:18 PM  

She knows it because she was BORN that way!
The Bible like Nostradamus can be cherry picked and interpreted to mean just about anything you want; even bigotry and hate. You should know AJ--now go crack open a science book and read about all the homosexuality in nature. Oops I guess someone forgot to tell them that God gave them a choice and they made the wrong one.
Red V
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 6:09 PM  

Signorile will mop the floor up with him!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 6:11 PM  

"Anonymous," you referenced the "hateful words now spewing from Mr. Glatze's mouth." What specifically were the words of Mr. Glatze that you considered "hateful"?"

Glatze said: "Homosexuality, delivered to young minds, is by its very nature pornographic. It destroys impressionable minds and confuses their developing sexuality"
and
"homosexuality prevents us from finding our true self within. We cannot see the truth when we're blinded by homosexuality."
and
"We believe, under the influence of homosexuality, that lust is not just acceptable, but a virtue. But there is no homosexual "desire" that is apart from lust."
and
"God is regarded as an enemy by many in the grip of homosexuality or other lustful behavior, because He reminds them of who and what they truly are meant to be."

You see AJ, I am a Christian and a leader in my church and community. I am also gay. My relationship with God and Christ are tantamount to my existence, and I acknowledge my sexual orientation is acceptable to God. So I find Glatze's remarks insensitive, hateful and full of lies. He is speaking for others and should know better than to do so, especially when he speaks in generalities, lies and in hearsay. I don't see God as an enemy, yet I see many of his self-proclaimed followers as such- especially when they lie with such vehemence and hatred.
posted by  Unknown, at 7/09/2007 6:18 PM  

Religious mythology applies only to those who choose to believe in it.

You may parse and selectively interpret and "exegete" (though it's not a verb) the various translations of the Christian bible until you're dead, and they will still have no bearing on those of us who are able to live happy, productive, moral lives without the need to please a vengeful god or condemn to some kind of hell the people who don't live according to our chosen religious ideology.
posted by  Jake, at 7/09/2007 6:39 PM  

I have finally come to the conclusion the Americans are truly idiots. "Home of the free"? I don't think so. What ever happened to the separation of church and state? I am Canadian and I am prouder and freer than any American.
posted by  Unknown, at 7/09/2007 7:00 PM  

Thanks for that reply Anonymous. Concerning the claim that homosexuals are "BORN that way," the question still remains sir, how do you know that? How do you justify that alleged knowledge? It may very well be true, but simply announcing it (arbitrarily) doesn't prove it and doesn't answer the question. Now, I actually would agree its true to some extent to claim that homosexuals are "born that way" - for probably different reasons than you however. But the question of whether or not homosexuals are "born as homosexuals" often misses the larger claim of God's Word - that being that ALL humans are born with a sin nature and with sinful desires. So while it may very well be perfectly "natural" for certain people to be homosexuals, it's also perfectly "natural" for ALL of us to be tempted to do things that our Creator condemns as sin and states are immoral and wrong. So sure, sin is natural for non-Christians. But it doesn't follow that our Creator wants them to remain that way (which was essentially one of Victoria's claims). God promises He can and will set people who believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ free from their sinful nature, give them new desires, and help them withstand temptations.

You next claim Anonymous that the Bible "can be cherry picked and interpreted to mean just about anything you want." A moment of serious contemplation sir should have been enough to demonstrate the absurdity of the basic premise of this argument. Language has meaning; you would agree with that I presume. Now, a statement can be constructed so that its meaning is uncertain and/or ambiguous, and therefore it may seem to support two contradictory ideas. In such cases, the uncertainty or ambiguity of the statement would be readily apparent to anybody reading or hearing such a statement. No one would be deceived by or even pay any attention to a statement that has no clear meaning. Your claim, however, goes even beyond asserting that the Scriptures are contradictory or ambiguous. You appear to assert that ANY idea can be derived from the Bible and logically justified. If that were actually true Anonymous, then for that reason alone the Bible would be the most extraordinary book in the whole world - for no other piece of writing can be taken logically to mean anything a person chooses! Now, if you seriously still cling to this assertion, I challenge you to construct a sentence which can logically be taken to mean anything anyone wants it to mean. No word has an endless variety of meanings; much less could a sentence or paragraph of many words put together in meaningful sequence be made so as to support hundreds of conflicting ideas. Such absurd claims demonstrate to me how badly people want to be able to dismiss the claims and clear teachings of God's Word and what irrational ideas they will embrace in the process of doing so.

You also encourage me to look to "homosexuality in nature," presumably to demonstrate to me the "naturalness" and "morality" of homosexuality. That's an interesting ethical strategy - looking to the animal kingdom for our morals. I do find it hard to believe that you would let animals - who are also under the Curse due to the Fall of man into sin - guide our ethics. After all, many animals are known to murder, steal, rape, and cannibalize their own. So I guess if I were to follow your logic consistently Anonymous, it would be perfectly OK for humans to murder, steal, rape, and cannibalize their own. Or am I missing something?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 7:03 PM  

Well queertardo, you obviously disagree with Mr. Glatze, but to characterize his comments and convictions as "hateful" simply goes too far in my estimation. And I have to say I'm finding more and more that when one side in a debate has no meaningful arguments to present in its defense it will normally accuse the other side of being "hateful" or use "me-phobe" jargon (e.g., "homophobe," "Islamophobe"). While there may be a meaningful context where such language is appropriate, more often than not it's merely a fallacious strategy for those who don't wish to (or can't) engage in a reasoned debate. Also, you claim to be a Christian and a leader in your church. Few questions for you in light of this: Where does the Bible fit into your theological framework and worldview? Do you hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura? How do you approach biblical interpretation? Assume that Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience are the four major influences on your theology; if you had to, what order of importance would you put them in?

As for a homosexual's ability to live a "happy" and "productive" life, I don't recall arguing that they couldn't. Of course many people are happy and productive who most of us could agree are leading immoral lives. And as for a homosexual's ability to live a "moral" life, I would argue that this is impossible given that homosexuality is a sin (a transgression of God's Law). So it depends on what one's worldview is, what their standard of morality is, whether they can rationally justify their worldview and standard, etc.

One final point for Jake, people don't go to hell for not living according a particular religion. People will go to hell for lying, theft, murder, lust, adultery, etc. They will go to hell for their transgressing of God's Law and because they stand guilty in the Courtroom of Eternal Justice. Because they refused to heed Jesus' command to repent and believe.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 8:09 PM  

I know it from the weight of science (psychology and psychiatry) asshole and i'd rather be a queertardo any day than a fuckin nut job bible-beater self-hating CLOSET CASE like you are. BTW I didnt read all the swill you undoubtedly wrote, just a few sentences were enough. I dont give a shit about Jesus or your Bible because I'm not a christian (Thank Goddess). If Wayne werent on TV tonight he'd probably delete your tome. If you want to write a book start your own blog, his comments section isnt for you to promote your ignorant hateful stupid homophobic UNCHRISTIAN religion. If Christ were here he'd read your beads Mary for being such an intolerant bitch. Dont bother to write back douchebag, I'm finished with this thread and wont be reading anymore after this posting. Be gone before someone drops a house on you!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 8:51 PM  

AJ

Regarding some of your questions:

"Concerning the claim that homosexuals are "BORN that way," the question still remains sir, how do you know that? "

The same way that people with musical ability know that they are born that way. The same way that people know that their handedness is the way they were born. The same way that heterosexuals know that they were born that way.

"But the question of whether or not homosexuals are "born as homosexuals" often misses the larger claim of God's Word - that being that ALL humans are born with a sin nature and with sinful desires. "

The problem here is that denouncing homosexuality as sin, always misses the larger theme of God's word - that sin inflicts recognizable harm - hence Christ's definition of sin as failing to love your neighbor as yourself. The reality, AJ, is that condemning homosexuality fits Christ's definition of sin, but homosexuality does not.

"God promises He can and will set people who believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ free from their sinful nature,"

And the reality, AJ, is that there are millions of Christian GLBTQ peole, who have begged God to make them heterosexual, and He has not. There is no - I mean no, evidence that anyone has been changed from homosexual to heterosexual. But, there is a wealth of evidence of people being set free from the sinful lifestyle of prejudice and bigotry, and, ironically, all it often takes is sincere prayer. So, while prayer and faith has yet to make any homosexual into a heterosexual, it has converted many homophobes out of their sin.

Your empty dismissal of the fact that the Bible has been interpretted, often wildly, was simply dishonest. You ignore the fact that the Bible was not written in English - I presume you knew that - and that translation is not an exact concept for concept match. You also ignore history, for the Bible has been interpretted to ordain slavery, and now, to reject it. Dismissing real criticism as 'absurd' is lazy and dishonest, AJ. The ract of the matter, AJ, is that the interpretation of the handful of verses used to construct the heresy 'homosexuality is sin', relies on errors of translation, errors of interpretation, and, contradicts Christ's teachings.

Finally, you misrepresent the purpose of pointing out that homosexuality occurs in nature - exagerating it and creating a strawman argument. That is not honest, AJ. The sole purpose of pointing out the homosexuality occurs in nature - in refutation of the clearly fraudulent claim that homosexuality is unnatural.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/09/2007 9:00 PM  

AJ, why don't you just skip the lectures and admit that no matter what any gay or lesbian says, you'll have some weapon at the ready: some Scripture, some doctrine, some church teaching that you'll eagerly use to browbeat them.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 9:00 PM  

unless you are a straight person who has not had sex outside of marriage, STFU
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 9:02 PM  

So please explain how divorce is acceptable but homosexuality is not - despite the fact that Jesus was silent about same sex relationships and very loud about the sin of divorce.

Oh, and by the way, I'm a gay JEW - guess I'm headed for hell one way or the other (if I BELIEVED in such a place, which we don't).

Also, justify why you "Christians" are allowed to push your beliefs on the lives of every non-religious american, even if they are not harming other human beings. (consentual relationships do not count as being "harmful.")
posted by  Emily K, at 7/09/2007 9:06 PM  

response to 7/09/2007 9:02 PM

you forget, they have the "born again" "get out of jail free" card. these people are so caught up in their theological pretzel logic, they can't see straight. The hightest rates of abortion, out of wedlock births, teen births and divorce are in the bible belt the lowest, thats right, in the liberal state of Mass. That is a fact. nuf said
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 9:06 PM  

AJ.

You dismissed queertardo's remarks in a simplistic fashion, and that is hardly honest:
"to characterize his comments and convictions as "hateful" simply goes too far in my estimation. "

Calling our loving relationships 'naturally pornographic' is not only false, it is hateful. It is a very nasty claim made about the truly beautiful, loving, unitive expression of love same-sex couples share. And, it violates Christ's command to 'love your neighbor as yourself'. Defining our relationships as nothing more than lust, is hateful. Calling us blind about our own lives, is hateful.

Someone in the grip of hate may not be able to see that though.

Your dismissal of the accurate term 'homophobe', is malicious and dishonest, particularly given the abusive language commonly used to describe GLBTQ people - comparisons of our relationships to murder and rape, comparisons of ourselves to vermin, comparisons of our love to disease. Such comparisons are hate, though someone lost in the grip of hate may not be able to see it.

You also sinned by declaring: "And as for a homosexual's ability to live a "moral" life, I would argue that this is impossible given that homosexuality is a sin "

Since this relies on circular logic, it is intrinsically a fallacious statement. Fraud in not moral, AJ, even intellectual fraud. Declaring that millions of people are living immoral lives, without knowing anything about them, AJ, violates at least half of Christ's definition of morality, in other words, your claim itself was immoral.

You have sinned against millions of GLBTQ people, AJ, and if Christian at least, are required by that faith to repent. I hope you will make a public a spectacle of your repentance, hopefully sincere, as you have made of your sin.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/09/2007 9:10 PM  

for every passage in the bible that alludes to homosexuality their are a dozen that condemn divorce in no uncertain terms. A divorces woman is an adulteress/whore. It is right there in black and white. You see these anti gay "Christians" in reality have the personal morals of farm animals, so they desperately try to find someone, anyone who might make them look good in comparison. eom
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 9:10 PM  

So, now I'm an "asshole" and a "douchebag"? Is that "hateful" queertardo? :-) (btw, "queertardo" was the handle the commenter chose, not me; I simply use the name at the bottom of the comment)

One commenter claimed they didn't even read what I wrote in its entirety but knew I was wrong; reminds me of a sign I once saw on someone's desk: "Don't confuse me with the facts. I've already made up my mind." As to the length of SOME of my comments, I am responding to multiple people who have addressed what I wrote and want to do so fairly. If Mr. Besen has a word limit for his comments section I'm not aware of, please inform me of it and I'll gladly abide by it.

Another Anonymous claims there is no "evidence that anyone has been changed from homosexual to heterosexual." There's much I could address with reference to that claim, but what would you accept as evidence of this change, assuming for the sake of argument that it's true? BTW, that same commenter engaged in the very form of argumentation I spoke of previously by basically referring to me as a "homophobe"! Let me be as clear as possible and state that I am NOT a homophobic. By this I mean that I do NOT fear homosexuals. I have traveled the world and known homosexuals, lived and worked in four states and two foreign countries and known homosexuals, have homosexual friends, and have attended events where homosexuals were the super-majority. And no, I didn’t scour the area to find the nearest exit! :-) Yes, I do believe homosexuality is a sin and a transgression of God's Law, but I want to be clear that I have absolutely no hatred or revulsion toward any homosexual(s).

In fact, it would be much easier in my current environment (and would in fact make me "feel" better) to just say to my homosexual friends and those I interact with when preaching the Gospel, "No problem! I love you and that means I'll say however you want to live is just fine with God." The last thing I want to do is hurt or offend my friends, smart and well-intentioned men like Mr. Besen, or anyone reading this. But if I truly love God, His Word, His truth, and people in general (and I do), then I will come to people just as Jesus did - in grace AND truth. NOT truth without grace and NOT grace without truth. But with grace AND truth.

Now, I never claimed that there aren't many differences in doctrinal views and interpretation between people who claim to be "Bible-believing" Christians. Actually, this should be expected. It's to be expected that human opinions and interpretations will differ simply because we are finite beings. Unfortunately, stubbornness, pride, arrogance, and flawed presuppositions also enter the equation far too often. But again, these are normal differences that should be expected given human limitations and frailties. These differences, though, certainly do NOT require the ridiculous idea that the Bible is capable of ANY interpretation one desires to find there - which was in fact the erroneous claim I was addressing.

Now, I know there are groups and individuals who single out the sin of homosexuality while ignoring fornication and adultery and other sins, and that's wrong. I don't think heterosexual adultery is any "less sinful" than homosexual activity. But even when groups and individuals wrongly do this, it really has nothing to do with whether homosexual acts are wrong in the sight of God. And any honest and consistent examination of Scriptural teaching will clearly demonstrate homosexual acts are sinful in the sight of God. One may reject that teaching, but that of course is something different than what the teaching actually is.

Concerning "Christian" (i.e., false converts Jesus referred to on several occasions) hypocrisy, it exists and it's wrong. Certainly hypocrites may come to a building on a Sunday, but in reality there are no hypocrites in the true Church (i.e., the supernatural Body of Christ), where humility and charity ought to reign. The true Church is made up of true believers - true converts to Christ. Hypocrites are "pretenders" who sit among God's people. God knows those who love Him, and the Bible warns that He will sort out the true converts from the false converts on the Day of Judgment. All hypocrites will end up in hell. Another thing, no one is claiming that Christians don't sin. But when a Christian sins, it's against their will. One who is a true follower of the risen Messiah FALLS into sin; he doesn't dive in. And true Christians still do experience temptations and sometimes do fall into sin (even falling back into the sin of homosexuality), but they are no longer slaves to sin (cf. Romans 6:6).

Finally, I don't think I'm "pushing" my beliefs on anyone Emily. Is this an open forum? Are Christians who think homosexuality is a sin allowed to question and challenge Mr. Besen and his readers, as well as be questioned and challenged by Mr. Besen and his readers?

Now, if I didn't address anything someone thought was very important, let me know. I don't want to appear to be ducking anybody :-)
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 10:28 PM  

Something tells me AJ is a big time backsliding sinner.To quote William Shakespeare "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" whatch ya hiding sinner boy. What a bunch of legalistic theological crap. You sound like Allen Dershowitz. The apostle paul was likely gay. Yea, mister, "it is better that a man not touch a woman" paul. Mister my flesh is weak paul. Jesus could not give a flying f**k about homosexuality.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 10:51 PM  

Christians are more than welcome to post. however, I fail to see the point: Most people who read Besen's blog are either gay or gay-accepting. The Christians who DO read the blog and comment most likely are also gay or gay-accepting. So what is the point of coming in here and saying (especially to a Hebe like me) that Homosexuality is against God's way b/c Paul said this or that or because the Christian doctrine of the way sin affects life on earth says this or that... it doesn't apply, plain and simple. It's like a Muslim shouting at a Christian, "drinking alcohol is a SIN! You suffer under God's wrath for living a sinful life by drinking!" Will the Christian take notice? Of course not. Because Muslim beliefs don't apply to Christianity, just like Christian beliefs don't apply to anybody else but Christians.
posted by  Emily K, at 7/09/2007 11:03 PM  

well Emily K since you are jewish there is no hope for you. you will burn in hell according to these Christ-o-nuts. Should you want to go straight you will have to become a christian because you see homosexuality is caused by not being a christian. Don't ask them to explain rampant hetrosexuality among non christians. just pray the gay away.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 11:36 PM  

Alan Dershowitz is a brilliant man. I have read several of his books, and while I don't agree with him on everything, I'll take most any comparison to him as a compliment. And as a Christian, yes, I of course still fall into sin. Followers of Jesus Christ still experience temptations and do sometimes fall into sin. Thankfully, they have God's Holy Spirit within them to assist them in saying no to their temptations, and to convict their conscience of wrongdoing when they do sin so they can seek forgiveness based on Jesus' finished work on the cross, and confessing their sin and repenting of it.

And there is nothing "legalistic" about referencing God's Law. The Bible tells is in 1 Timothy 1:8: "Now we recognize and know that the Law is good, if any one uses it lawfully - for the purpose for which it was designed." For what purpose was God's Law "designed"? The following verse gives us a reason: "The Law was not made for a righteous man, but…or sinners." It even lists the sinners for us: the disobedient, the ungodly, murderers, fornicators, homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, etc. The Law's design is not for those who are already saved from God's judgment, but for the unsaved. The Law was given by God to act as a "schoolmaster" or "tutor" to show us our sin and bring us to the Savior, Jesus Christ.

I personally didn't realize for far too long that the Bible warns that for every idle word I have spoken, I will have to give an account on Judgment Day. I foolishly and illogically thought that as long as I "believed in God" and tried to live a "good life," I would go to heaven when I died. But I was horribly mistaken. Jesus clearly taught that if I as much as looked with heterosexual lust at a women or with homosexual lust at a man, I had committed adultery in my heart. I had broken God's holy Law, and there was nothing I could do to cancel the penalty I deserved. I knew then and I know now that if my Creator judged me by the Ten Commandments on Judgment Day, I would stand guilty before Him and justly be sent to hell. But it was then by God's grace that my eyes were opened and I understood my predicament. I began to understand more fully why it was that Jesus had to die. He came to pay the price I could never pay. He came to die in order to take the punishment for my sins and the sins of the world.

And Jesus did in fact address the issue of homosexuality, but I'll save that for another time. I want to quickly point out that Emily makes some great points in that last comment. But if you go back Emily and read where I commented it was more often than not addressed to people who claimed they were a Christian, claimed God made them a homosexual and was OK with it, claimed that the Bible doesn't classify homosexuality as a sin, etc. Or I may have authentically inquired as to how someone knew what they claimed to know, or how they defined an often used term such as "hateful" or "homophobic," etc. It seems to me that many of the "Christians" on this site and others I visit now and then, pretend the Bible says what they wish it said. Look, if there is a conflict between my way of thinking and what the Bible clearly teaches, then I need to change my beliefs to make them conform to what God says instead of trying to reinterpret the Bible to fit with my beliefs and "feelings." This is why I believe in such concepts as an eternal hell and other doctrines that once bothered me (and in some cases still do). So with this in mind I'll close Emily by saying that I think someone like an atheist homosexual is being much more honest and consistent and reasonable in relation to the Bible than some of the self-proclaiming "Christians" I interact with here and elsewhere. At least the atheist homosexual will state that the Bible clearly and consistently condemns all sex outside of marriage, including homosexual relations, but that he or she simply chooses to reject those teachings. But far too many who claim to be followers of Christ and "Bible-believers" often outright reject Scripture. They willingly twist the Word of God to fit their presuppositions and preferences. And that is sad. And that should be challenged.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/09/2007 11:37 PM  

oh AJ, my, my, my the final word on "real Christianity". Where have I heard this before? How many doors have I had to slam on those peddling the "real Christianity". I suggest you read Bart Erhman's "misquoting Jesus" and learn something ABOUT the bible rather then cut and past jobs from the bible, which was in fact not originally written in verse, and not read in verse until the 15h century. The word homosexuality was never in the bible because there was no Aramaic word for it. please stick to the KJV. As bad as it is it is much better than others out there.

Your writing is typical of first semester bible "college" students, bromide after bromide. Snippets from the length and breadth of of the scripture. I might also suggest reading Spong’s “Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes” The truth is that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality the most you can offer is inferences. But as was mentioned earlier, much is said (not by you of course) of divorce. In this I hand it to the bible. Divorce is devastating to familys in a way that homosexuality can never hope to compete, though I am sure you will try, because in the end it is the only sin you REALLY are interested in. How much time have you spend today posting on the issue of divorce.

I would guess your admiration for Allen D. is based on his recent Zionist impulses. For me I'll take Christopher Hitchens thank you.

As for giving an account for every word. Why care? You are already assured entrance into heaven. My advice is taking you scolding, you’re in. You see how ridicules your logic is. Your long theologicaly entranched posts show that you are an obsessive/compulsive in regards to religion.

One area I will agree with you on, is your admission that you fall into sin. If history, recent or distant, shows us anything it is that when the faithful fall into sin they do so in a way that would make the nonbelievers pale, i.e. Sweigart, Bakker, Haggard, the list is truly exhaustive.

Keep up the good work though. Today the church you attend has homosexuality in its sights, yesterday it was condoning slavery. History repeats itself.

For those interested in true, read non legalistic, Christianity google Jay Bakker and click on his ministry. He is the future of the church.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 12:15 AM  

Want to debug AJ and his ilk in an instant? Just ask him how much time he spends on Jewish interest blogs informing Orthodox Jews of their certain eternity in hell. The Christian right has no problem standing hand on the alter with Jewish rabbis practially fellating them in a zionest frenzy, but a gay christian, can't have that. Think of it, they have no desire to ACTIVALLy attempt to convert a people who's religious belief is defined on not accepting the divinity of Christ Sometimes, as in the case of John Haggee, conjuring a "way out" through a dual covenant excuse. The AJ's are not about Jesus they are about what sin bothers them most, in this case homosexuality. Feet of clay in a word
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 12:45 AM  

"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible," said Vitter in a statement. "Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there-with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."

Deja vu anyone?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 12:51 AM  

continued from above

In 2004, Vitter campaigned with a promise of "protecting the sanctity of marriage," and was a co-author of the "Federal Marriage Act" that sought to prohibit courts from interpreting same-sex marriage laws.

"This is a real outrage. The Hollywood left is redefining the most basic institution in human history," he said then.

when the wing nuts sin they do so with a vengence. But please no gays
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 12:53 AM  

The Bible was not originally written in verse?!?! Oh no! How will Christians ever defend themselves against this "new" insight? Our faith is doomed!! LOL!!! Yes, laughter is good for the soul.

Anyway, I am fairly familiar with Bart Ehrman. What has to strike one about Ehrman are his own incredible biases. For example, in an interview many moons ago he was asked what kind of conditions would have to exist for him to believe that the Bible is God-breathed and inerrant. In other words, what would it take to prove to him that a miracle had actually taken place in the past? Ehrman acknowledged that nothing - NOTHING! - could EVER prove to him that this is true. Now, this sheds an incredible amount of light on why he claims what he claims and why he "left the faith." I could go on and on, but the simple fact is for Bart Ehrman there CANNOT - BY DEFINITION - be a divine revelation. Is this presupposition the result of some in-depth study? Of course not, or at least he's never shown that. It's based on his naturalistic, anti-supernatural worldview. And John Shelby Spong has the same presuppositions, which were pointed out and destroyed in a debate he had relatively recently with Dr. James R. White.

As for the word homosexuality supposedly never appearing in the Bible, you must not have done your homework sir. I'll be brief and stick with the Apostle Paul for this comment. In classifying homosexuality as a sin, Paul utilized two precise terms that were used in the Greek Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament centuries before Jesus was born). Paul looked to the Torah and used the Greek word "arsinos," meaning male, and "koitos," a term whereby we get the word "coitus," or sexual intercourse. Paul is referring to men "laying" with men as a man lays with a woman. He's talking about homosexuality. Taking into consideration the Old Testament background of places Paul looked to such as Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, and the use of those terms in that context and the use by the Apostle Paul, there should be no doubt concerning the meaning of the text.

Now then, full disclosure: I've never been to Bible College or Seminary and I don't plan on going any time soon. I do have a degree in history (summa cum laude) and am seeking a professional degree (in the midst of other endeavors). But who cares, let's stick with discussion and debate here, right?! :-)

I have met Jay Bakker and heard him speak at a church about a year ago. With all due respect to Mr. Bakker, it was a complete disaster. His neo-theism and revisionist views demonstrate what happens when one denies sola scriptura. I'll agree that many of his views are where much of the (false) "church" is heading, and that's unfortunate. Post-evangelicalism is many things, but authentic, historic, orthodox Christianity it surely isn't.

Let me tie up some loose ends here before I hit the rack. I actually attend a Messianic Synagogue and enjoy immensely debating Jews on the Messiah-ship of Yeshua. He fulfilled all the prophecies laid out in the Tanakh relating to Messiah's first coming, He died as a representative and substitutionary sacrifice for our sins just as Moses and the prophets promised He would, was buried, and rose from the dead just as Moses and the Prophets promised He would. And those who believe in who Yeshua was and what He did are "justified" in the sight of their Creator - NOT by any "works of righteousness" or "good things" they have done, but based on Messiah's perfect righteousness and atoning blood.

I would NEVER identify myself, nor would anyone who knows me, as part of the "Christian Right"; in fact, I am quite "apolitical" in many ways and spend a good deal of time speaking out against the unbiblical and unchristian practices of the "Christian Right." Furthermore, I am very often downright ashamed of many of the very un-Christ-like behaviors of many Christians related to "religion" and politics. Many of the activities of the "Christian Right" (and to a lesser extent the "Christian Left") are not activities I see Jesus and the early Christian Church engaging in. For example, Jesus surely wasn't known for His political posturing against groups which engaged in a particular sin. As I've written elsewhere, should followers of Christ today be known for their political posturing against homosexuals? NO! Jesus certainly was not known for calling for laws against prostitutes and tax collectors. Should today's followers of Christ be known for calling for laws against homosexuals? NO! Incredibly, sinners like prostitutes and tax collectors enjoyed hanging out with Jesus and hearing His message of sacrificial love and repentance and deliverance and freedom from sin. Yet how many homosexuals would enjoy hanging out with those on the "Christian Right"? Relatively few (for many reasons obviously, but certainly including the un-Christ-like conduct of far too many self-proclaimed Christians). Followers of Jesus are commanded by Jesus to mimic His example - which would NOT seem to include standing up in "superior righteousness" (sarcasm emphasis) and demand laws that single out and punish homosexuals. Followers of Christ should be known for their sacrificial love and devotion to Christ and preaching of the Gospel, not known for the coercive laws they try to pass.

Cheers!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 1:52 AM  

AJ, you are so wrong about Jesus fulfilling the Messiahship that I don't even know where to begin. I suggest you visit Rabbi Tovia Singer's site "Outreach Judaism" (www.outreachjudaism.org) to get the real answers on this. He has a section called "Answers to your questions" that you would find valuable. Of course, this is NOT the right forum for us to be debating Jesus' messiahship elligability - so I won't continue any argument with you regarding it.

Also, Messianic "Synagogues" are nothing more than fronts for the Evangelical Christian Fundamentalists. Most people who are members are actually not Jewish, they are gentiles who mistakenly think they will be tapping into the Jewish roots of the Bible by attending them. The jews who attend them are mostly Jews who grew up without any real formal education in Judaism and the Bible- they were lost on Judaism from the start.
posted by  Emily K, at 7/10/2007 8:33 AM  

If anyone interested in seeing why Christianity is utterly bogus from a Jewish perspective, here are some informative URLs:

http://tinyurl.com/37qc2

http://tinyurl.com/a4v89

http://tinyurl.com/ywtbgy

Yeah, sure, Yahweh's gonna go smackdown on my ass for not idolatrously worshiping a false messiah.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 8:35 AM  

AJ, I'm sick of websites or subject that concern gays becoming a sermon and amen corner.
You act like no one here has heard sermons their whole lives already and can't match you in Scripture scholarship.

Know what, go tell it on the mountain to all your gay scolding friends that your message is better served on divorce courts, gang bangers, those convicted of domestic violence and child abandonment and abuse.

Oh right...you're too much of a WUSS to confront people who might actually HIT YOU!

You and every stone thrower like you comes to where peace loving and intelligent gay people congregate to get all up in their hair.

YOU WUSS!!

We don't need preachers up in here. We need someone with solutions to domestic violence and irresponsible babymaking and the welfare state and the drug trade.

You want to help us out with THAT?
No?

Then GO AWAY!
posted by  Regan DuCasse, at 7/10/2007 10:45 AM  

Boys and girls: It really is not worth debating or challenging the christo-fascists that show up here. they are not interested. they know all they need to know, have had their revelations from Satan-disguised-as-god, and have not the slightest interest in actually learning anything other than what they already know. Though it might feel good to challenge them and debate them, and call them the assholes they are (not that I wish to malign a perfectly good orifice), it remains that THEY ARE NOT THE SLIGHTEST BIT INTEReSTED IN ANYTHING WE HAVE TO SAY, whether it be about the fallacies and inconsistencies of their thinking or the the sheer damage they do to us.

The best bet is just to ignore them. They are intellectual and emotional vampires, and they feed on this, figuring that if they can only get out one more bit of ass-holery, they will snag one more soul for Jesus, or waste our time trying to answer them when we could be writing letters to our congressmen, instead.

It is not really about religion, anyway. It is all about bigotry, as it always has been and always will be. Christians that think being gay is not important have decided this either despite or becuase of their book. KKKhristians use their book to decide what they have already determined to be true. there is no convincing them because it is NOT ABOUT RELIGION, NOT ABOUT GOD, NOT ABOUT THE BIBLE.

They say so only to justify the blackness that is already in their hearts.

so, don't waste your time, your emotional energy, or your anger. The KKKristians are not really the enemy. The CLOSET is the enemy. Put your energy into coming out to everyone you know, writing letters to your representatives etc etc etc, not engaging with the idiots inan argument you cannot win.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 11:24 AM  

AJ is another troll probably in the pay of some ex-gay ministry. Emily, I totally concur with you even though I'm an atheist. These socalled "christians" assume the air of moral superiority and consider themselves biblical experts. Its quite revealing that they choose to ignore and conveniently I might add, verses in scripture that condemn, divorce, forbid the eating of shellfish, forbid the shaving of one's beard but permits polygamy, the killing of one's wife for adultery and the killing of one's children for being disrespectful, the plucking out of one's eye if it offends or the chopping off of of one's hands, the list is endless. Yet they claim they believe in the scripture and that it must be believed because it is the "word of God". In my opinion, you either believe it all or you don't and you should NOT cherry pick verses that do or do not suit your agenda, Leviticus comes to mind. They're losing ground and organized religion is in decline, thank goodness.

Robert, NYC.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 11:25 AM  

Ben, you're so right! Its best to ignore the charlatans who hide behind religion to justify hatred and intolerance of others. Responding to them only enables them.

Robert, NYC.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 11:26 AM  

Wayne, why not ban shills like AJ from this site altogether, they contribute nothing except upset and vent intolerance and hatred in the guise of religion?

Robert, NYC.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 11:34 AM  

Dimitri, I'm with you, Canadians are indeed freer than Americans and enjoy far more democracy than we'll ever know. Way to go, Canada, ditto Holland, Belgium, Spain and South Africa!

Robert, NYC.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 11:35 AM  

god is not Great, by Christopher Hitchens. eom
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 11:47 AM  

AJ, you are not a fraction of the intellect of Spong or Erhman. You just keep spewing the same old circular logic, which basically says "the bible is true because the bible says that is is true. Paul is not Jesus and does not speak for him and never met him.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 11:51 AM  

from AJ above,

"He fulfilled all the prophecies laid out..."

yes he did. He read them and acted them out.
shhsh
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 12:04 PM  

AJ -

Your posts are full of unsubstantiated assertions, and when challenged on them, you simply repeat them - pulling the 'I said so, so there' routine.

And yet, you are wrong on each point.

The word homosexual was not used by any of the original writers of the Bible - in fact, Paul chose not to use the two greek words for the concept 'men who have sex with men' when he wrote his letter to the Corinthians.

You deny being homophobic, but that is a lie, AJ. You are denouncing our lives, indicating contempt for us as people. Repeating your lie will not make it true. Didn't work for Bush, won't work for you.

To believe that homosexuality is sin, it to hate GLBTQ people, because declaring something sin means it deserves death and eternal torment. Only hate inspires someone to tell others that the most beautiful, intimate, unitive, blessed, vulnerable moments of their relationship, deserves death and torture. You are a homophobe.

I was relieved to see you admit that you do not love the GLBTQ people in your life, because it confirms that your position is a violation of Christ's teaching.

No, AJ, the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. The interpretation that claims to, relies on taking passages of of context (from Romans 1 for example, which, in context is about idolatry http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/paulcybl.html) false translation (Paul's letter to the Corinthians), or fraud (the story of Sodom and claiming that 'yada' means sex).

"As for the word homosexuality supposedly never appearing in the Bible, you must not have done your homework sir. I'll be brief and stick with the Apostle Paul for this comment. In classifying homosexuality as a sin, Paul utilized two precise terms that were used in the Greek Septuagint "

Actually, you are the one who's homowork is lacking. Malakoi does not mean homosexual, it means effeminate, and was often applied to heterosexual men for trying too hard to please women. Arsenokoite does not mean homosexual, in fact, its meaning can only be inferred. But, there were two words in common usage when Paul wrote his letter, words that did mean men who have sex with men, and Paul used neither one.

The most likely meaning of arsenokoite, is some form of sexual injustice - possibly a reference to slavers trading in male sex slaves.

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html#Add3

And, AJ, aresenokoite even appears in texts accusing a man of doing it to his wife. http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/arsenok.htm

http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html
"It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to a chair, even if it originally did. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoités that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Furthermore, the claim that arsenokoités came from a combination of these two words and therefore means "men who have sex with men" makes the additional error of defining a word by its (assumed) etymology. The etymology of a word is its history, not its meaning."

AJ, I suggest that you learn, and quickly, that there are many, many Christians who know the Bible better than you do, and who have researched this issue far more than you have. Your empty claims are readily and easily refuted with evidence, logic and reason.

I have to ask you not to lie about the Bible or Jesus, as you did when you wrote: "And Jesus did in fact address the issue of homosexuality, but I'll save that for another time."

Not only is this a lie, AJ, you revealed it was a lie by ducking on providing a citation. Jesus never condemns homosexuality.

Frankly, your unsubstantiated accusations against Christian GLBTQ people of being dishonest, is a reprehensible sin. You are bearing false witness, AJ. That has consequences. And, by embracing anti-homosexual prejudice, a deliberate inequality, you have in reality rejected Jesus Christ. You are a worker of iniquity.

To everyone else, AJ is probably a lost cause, but, by providing information here that refutes his heresies, we arm each other and others for real-life conversations.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/10/2007 1:48 PM  

The Bible is a hoax for goodness sakes! It is filled with forgeries and interpolations! The "woman at the well" story wasn't even inserted into the gospel of John until hundred of years later for goodness sakes! The religious kooks on this board need to go to the library and study, but you won't, because you'd be laid bare as a bigot. So, fundies, why not just admit it: even if there were no Bible, you'd STILL be the exact same anti-gay bigot that you are right now.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 1:58 PM  

HOW DARE ANYONE STATE THAT BIBLE IS CONTRIDICTORY. here is proof that it is not (lol):

ON THE SABBATH DAY
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." -- Exodus 20:8

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." -- Romans 14:5




ON THE PERMANENCY OF THE EARTH
"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4

"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10




ON SEEING GOD
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18




ON HUMAN SACRIFICE
"... Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God..." -- Leviticus 18:21

[In Judges, though, the tale of Jephthah, who led the Israelites against the Ammonoites, is being told. Being fearful of defeat, this good religious man sought to guarantee victory by getting god firmly on his side. So he prayed to god] "... If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering" (Judges 11:30-31).

[The terms were acceptable to god -- remember, he is supposed to be omniscient and know the future -- so he gave victory to Jephthah, and the first whatsoever that greeted him upon his glorious return was his daughter, as god surely knew would happen, if god is god. True to his vow, the general made a human sacrifice of his only child to god!] -- Judges 11:29-34




ON THE POWER OF GOD
"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19




ON DEALING WITH PERSONAL INJURY
"...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. " -- Exodus 21:23-25

"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." -- Matthew 5:39




ON CIRCUMCISION
"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised." -- Genesis 17:10

"...if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." -- Galatians 5:2




ON INCEST
"Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother..." -- Deuteronomy 27:22

"And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter...it is a wicked thing...." -- Leviticus 20:17

[But what was god's reaction to Abraham, who married his sister -- his father's daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12

"And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife...I bless her, and give thee a son also of her..." -- Genesis 17:15-16




ON TRUSTING GOD
"A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD..." -- Proverbs 12:2

Now consider the case of Job. After commissioning Satan to ruin Job financially and to slaughter his shepherds and children to win a petty bet with Satan. God asked Satan: "Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause." -- Job 2:3




ON THE HOLY LIFE-STYLE
"Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart..." -- Ecclesiastes 9:7

"...they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not..." -- 1 Corinthians 7:30




ON PUNISHING CRIME
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5




ON TEMPTATION
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1




ON FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
"Honor thy father and thy mother..."-- Exodus 20:12

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. " -- Luke 14:26




ON RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
"...he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. " -- Job 7:9

"...the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth...." -- John 5:28-29




ON THE END OF THE WORLD
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. " -- Matthew 16:28

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. " -- Luke 21:32-33

"And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light." -- Romans 13:11-12

"Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." -- James 5:8

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." -- 1 John 2:18

"But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer." -- 1 Peter 4:7

These words were written between 1800 and 1900 years ago and were meant to warn and prepare the first Christians for the immediate end of the world. Some words are those supposedly straight out of the mouth of the "Son of God." The world did not end 1800 or 1900 years ago. All that generation passed away without any of the things foretold coming to pass. No amount of prayer brought it about; nor ever so much patience and belief and sober living. The world went on, as usual, indifferent to the spoutings of yet another batch of doomsday prophets with visions of messiahs dancing in their deluded brains. The world, by surviving, makes the above passages contradictions.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 2:04 PM  

Here is a real intelect on the subject, 'Hitch'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMaTk4
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 2:34 PM  

Think about this.

In all these wacky comments why is the OBVIOUS reality of BISEXUALITY and the sexuality choice available to bisexuals never come up.

Reason.... bisexuality if VERY common and society has to keep a lid on THAT not homosexuality. The self hating bisexuals are the ones causing so much of the negative energy directed at homosexuals. They cheat on wives, leave family groups they start, live life on the DL.

They others become Ex-Gay ... when they were just bi to begin with.

Closeted Bisexuality and it's place in this debate needs great coverage.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 2:41 PM  

excuse me, Dr James White. "DR" from the unaccredited Columbia Evangelical Seminary. This guy is a biggoted nut of the first order
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 2:46 PM  

Hitch is a real mean S.O.B., but I bought his book and it's excellent. Its the type of writing that makes your brain feel like its been working after reading it a bit. Truly good stuff.

As for the Bible, it's a great mechanism for luring people into the deadly trap of thinking that there are ways of thinking apart from logic. Once you get a person to abandon logic, you can get them to do ANYTHING, because then ANYTHING can make sense.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 2:46 PM  

I like your reasoned post Chris. Hitch is a S.O.B. but you gotta love him. I heard him speak here in Seattle, The godless (thankfully) capitol of the U.S. Also the most educated (surprise surprise) city.

Logic for Christian fundamentalists means starting with a conclusion and finding facts to back up that conclusion. This is anthetical to scientific reasoning. This is not to say that they are stupid; some are some are not. Faith is independent of reason. To make faith beholden to reason takes leaps of faith, as it were, that, taken to the extreme, can lead the mind to the realm of absurdity.

If you are interested in a reasoned approach to Christianity, may I suggest John Spong’s, recent "Jesus for the nonreligious?"
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 3:21 PM  

Good afternoon everybody! Hope everyone is having a splendid day. Figured I better offer some response before I get banned or get ignored - each in the name of free speech and free thought of course (interesting tactic there, btw; quite "fundamentalist-ish" actually). But believe it or not I'm actually very interested in what Mr. Besen and other commenters (especially those like Emily and one of the Anonymous's who offer very thoughtful responses I respect and appreciate) believe and why. And if and when I do engage in fallacious thinking and inconsistent thinking, I'll be the first to say I was wrong and publicly repent.

Now, I wouldn't characterize myself as a wuss by any means, and I'm certainly not scared of being hit. As a former-U.S. Marine I'm fairly certain I could hold my own against most would-be attackers. But now as a practitioner of a form of Christian non-violence, it would ONLY be in self-defense. As for the stone-throwing part, I'm doing no such thing. I'm simply interacting with people concerning their claims and beliefs. As you can see, I have no fear of being questioned or challenged. If someone does have a problem with that, I would have to inquire as to why. I'm also not "judging" anyone here. I am at times though simply informing people of God's judgment – that our Creator has judged the ENTIRE world (absolutely including me!) as being guilty in His Courtroom of Eternal Justice. And just as Yeshua the Messiah was able to offer the woman who was caught in the act of adultery forgiveness for her sin (because Yeshua was on His way to die on the cross for her), so to the Christian should tell people that they can be forgiven for their sin based in Yeshua's sacrificial atonement for their sin.

And if what I am sending is coming across with an "air of moral superiority," I apologize for that. That's certainly not my intention. As a Christian I am IN NO WAY "better" than any non-Christian. However, I am infinitely "better off." Consider this (probably imperfect) analogy: Two men are on a plane. The first is wearing his parachute. The second is not. Neither of these two guys is any "better" than the other. But we would have to agree that the dude with the parachute is definitely "better off" than the guy not wearing a parachute. And the difference between the two gentlemen will be demonstrated when each of them jump out of the plane.

On a similar note, Yeshua the Messiah warned that if any of us "jump" into death without trusting Him, then we would perish on the Day of Judgment. The law of gravity would be harsh on the dude who jumps out of a plane without a parachute. But I can assure you that the Law of an infinitely holy and just God will be much harsher. The Bible makes it clear that it's a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

And I don't think I have conveniently ignored anything. The reason Christians do not condemn or forbid the eating of shellfish, the shaving of one's beard, etc., is because the Christian is no longer under the Law of Moses. For the Christian, the Mosaic Law (the unit of law comprised of 613 commandments) has been invalidated. For the Christian, no commandment from the Mosaic Law has continued beyond the cross of Yeshua. The Law still is used by the Christian for one of its God-given purposes, that being a teaching tool to show our Creator's standard of righteousness and our sinfulness and need of substitutionary atonement. The Law of Moses is to be used to point one to Messiah.

But for the Christian the Law of Moses has completely ceased to function as an authority over the believer in Yeshua. Christians are under a new "law"; referred to as the "Law of Christ" in Galatians 6:2 and the "Law of the Spirit of Life" in Romans 8:2. This is a completely new law that is totally separate from the Law of Moses. The "Law of Christ" or "Law of the Spirit of Life" contains all the commandments applicable to a New Testament believer in Yeshua.

Now, make no mistake, the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ have many similar commandments (e.g., they both classify homosexuality as a sin and a transgression of God's Law). But there are many different commandments as well (e.g., the Mosaic Law did not permit one to eat pork; the Law of Christ does). So there are many similarities and differences between the two, but the New Testament makes clear they are two separate and distinct systems. But again, this doesn't necessary solve the issue between many of us, given that the New Testament clearly classifies homosexuality as a sin.

As to circular logic, I reread what I wrote and don't see that I ever made the argument that "the bible is true because the bible says that it's true." Now, Christians can certainly demonstrate and prove that the Bible is the Word of God by looking to the Scriptures. But that isn't circular at all. To say it is would be akin to saying one can't prove that the President lives in the White House by looking into the White House. Obviously, it's the looking into the White House that will provide the necessary proof to see if the claim is true. And when we look at the Scriptures and see the fulfilled prophecies and eyewitness accounts of miracles such as the resurrection of Yeshua, for example, they provide us with the evidence that the Bible is supernatural in origin.

And as for the comment that Yeshua conspired to fulfill the prophecies, I do wonder how He could have arranged to have Himself born in the line of Abraham, Judah, and David? How did He get Himself born of a virgin? How did He get Himself born in the right town, in the right time in history? How did He manage to get Himself killed in such a way that fulfilled many different prophecies? And did He pay off the soldiers who cast lots for His garments? I could go on and on to demonstrate the absurdity of such a claim, but I'll refrain and try to stay on topic.

Once again, I'm not homophobic - meaning I don't fear homosexuals. Yes, I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle and believe it to be a sin, but I do not feel any hatred or revulsion toward any homosexuals.

In fact, I love homosexuals enough to declare to them the whole counsel of God. A Christian can love the person and not the behavior. And often the most loving thing one can do is warn a person of the grave dangers of such behavior for this life and the next. It would be UNLOVING to pretend everything is OK when it's not. In fact the Gospel message - the Good News about redemption from sin through Jesus - depends on lovingly informing people the bad news that they are sinners and have transgressed the law of an infinitely holy God. There’s Good News and bad news.

For example, the Apostle Paul first sharply condemns certain sinful acts in 1 Corinthians 9–10:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Does Paul stop there? NO!

"And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

And that is the Good News that Jesus offers to homosexuals and to ALL of us sinners.

The one commenter who continues to insist that the Bible doesn't classify homosexuality as a sin is actually doing me a favor by demonstrating his ignorance (and I mean that lovingly!) of the Greek language and the Apostle Paul's usage of the Greek Septuagint. He (and his links) makes many of the same mistakes people like Mollenkott, Scanzoni, Boswell, Scroggs have made, such as never addressing the CLEAR Greek Septuagint background of the Apostle Paul's coining of the Greek term "arsenokoitai."

The meaning of that term, when the Greek Septuagint evidence is taken into account along with the Apostle Paul's utilization of it, is perfectly clear: it's referring to what men do with men in bed. The commenter simply is not well read enough in the scholarly literature nor is he well acquainted with New Testament Greek. When one actually engages the text and allows it to speak for itself, the classification of homosexuality as a sin and its condemnation by God in the Old Testament is clear. And the classification of homosexuality as a sin and its condemnation by God in the New Testament is clear as well.

Concerning Jesus' view of homosexuality, I'll try to make this as brief as I can while also trying to address the necessary points. Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah and He is God, the Creator of all. The Bible teaches quite clearly that there is one eternal being of God - indivisible and infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons - the Father, the Son (who became a Man - Jesus of Nazareth), and the Spirit. This is NOT to say that the Father IS the Son, or that the Son IS the Spirit, or that the Spirit IS the Father. Sadly, it's far too common for those who reject the Bible's teaching on the nature of God – known as the Trinity or Tri-unity – to completely misunderstand the doctrine and claim its adherents teach that Jesus is the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity does not teach this in any way!

So, if Jesus is God as the Bible teaches and orthodox Christians hold, then every place where God classifies homosexuality as sin in the Bible, it is JESUS classifying homosexuality as a sin.

Now, one may still insist that Jesus, when He walked the earth, never EXPLICITLY classified homosexuality as a sin (one would still of course have to answer the Trinitarian argument above). But Jesus also never explicitly classified bestiality and incest as sins either. Would a person say that's because Jesus didn't think bestiality and incest were sins (contrary to the Torah, which He claimed on many occasions was the Word of God and could not be broken), or would a person say that's because Jesus didn't need to explicitly classify homosexuality and bestiality and incest as sins because it was such an obvious given that they were sins? Perhaps another reason?

I do apologize for this getting rather long, but I have to offer meaningful responses and that isn't always easy in a few sentences :-) Look forward to your responses – Cheers!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 3:45 PM  

AJ this cut and paste arguement has been made SOOOO many times and is tiresome. You are gay you have two choices.

1. celebacy
2. pray the gay away. If this works miracle,if not, well, celebacy.

I don't think you could pick a more obscure place to post you thoughts. Not to diss Wayne, but this site does not get many hits.

Why not tell us who you are AJ. Why the need for privacy. Would love to google you name and see all the nuts you are associated with.

Your backhanded comments followed with "I say this lovingly" are patronizing at best.

As for the afterlife I am not anxious to end up in a heaven filled with scumbags who made death bed confessions.

You convince no one here. I would guess you are a friendless bore opinionated bore that no one can stand to be around.

Your mind is set in concrete. there is no debate here.

p.s. No one is trying to shut you up. Keep at it and get off the cross crybaby.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 4:09 PM  

All theology is opinion. All statements about God's relationship with the world are suspect, whether they come from a Christian or an atheist. But the only difference between a true believer of any stripe and an atheist is one religion. however, the atheist has the testimony of all the other religionists on his side. The Christian has but faith-- faith that it's not his god that is lying.

So, based upon the testimony of people who have declared they know god's mesage, i'll go with the preponderance of the evidence and conclude that it's all bs.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 4:10 PM  

now for lecture #1231 from AJ about the good news of conversion to straight by the shed blood of Jesus zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Please save youself the trouble and clip something from any number of homophobe christian sites
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 4:11 PM  

For AJ: just because you say your are not homophobic does not make that a true statement. you need to say that so that you can justify your beliefs that you are doing god's work instead of owrking on your own agenda. Honey, you are a homophopbe by definition.

When someone tells me that I can be treated differently by my government because they think i'm a sinner, that my rights are going to be compromised in favor of their religious beliefs, when my life and love and relationship are denigrated to satisfy someone's mistaken ideas about sin and sex, that i cannot have what you have, that i have to spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to accomplish what you can do in 10 minutes with a $50 marriage license, that anti-gay prejudice is somehow exempt from the rules covering all other kinds of prejudice--then i will call that person a homophobe.

I don't want you to love me and hate what you think of as my sin. I don't think you have the wisdom to tell the difference, nor do I think you have the spiritual cachet to presume to lecture me. (see what your own founder said on the subject).

And, as i said in an earlier post: 'Lest you accuse me of hating you, of being intolerant, of calling you names, as you accuse me, let me be clear. I do not hate you, or really, care anything about you. I only wish that you would mind your own business, take care of your own marriage, and stop insisting that you have the right to mind mine--because of what you call your "religious beliefs". You can believe whatever you want, and teach it to your children, and spew it in Church to your heart's delight, however uncomfortable it may be for me to hear it. It's a free country, at least for white, conservative, preferably Christian, heterosexual people. But why to you accuse me of intolerance when I tell you to keep YOUR religious beliefs out of MY life? I haven't told you you can't believe it, or that I will pass laws to make sure that you do not believe it".

Is that clear? you are a homophobe for this reason: you support people who say that i am not entitled to equal protection of the law simply because you believe that something in my life is a sin. You support people who tell the most vicious lies about me and people i love because you and they disapprove.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 4:18 PM  

AJ I give in! you are so right! now what? will all of these work for my salvation? Jehova's Witness, Catholic, Methodist, seventh day adventist, Christian science, or will all these lead to the wide path to hell? and since you are so long winded, could you provide a more comprensive list of churches that will lead to hell?

Hold on to your seats, this is going to be his longest post yet LOL
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 4:21 PM  

Real quick here: Where Ben, in any of my comments, did I ever say that homosexuals should be treated differently by the U.S. government or any state government? Where, in any of my comments, did I say that "anti-gay" prejudice should be exempt from the rules covering all other kinds of prejudice? Where, in any of my comments, did I ever insist that I have the right (or even desire) to get into your personal business through the coercive power of the state? Where, in any of my comments, did I support people who say you are not entitled to equal protection of the law? Where, in any of my comments, did I support people who tell the most vicious lies about you? In fact Ben, didn't I essentially say the exact opposite?

As for Christian fellowships to attend Anonymous, my tip would be finding one that believes and teaches (1) that humanity's greatest problem is sin, (2) that to inherit eternal life people are commanded to repent and trust in Yeshua the Messiah alone, (3) the reality of God's holiness, man's sinfulness, God's response (hell), God's love and grace and kindness (Yeshua on the cross), man's necessary response (repentance and faith), (4) that there is a proper balance needed when talking about sin, righteousness and judgment along with grace, love, and mercy, (5) that teaches through the Bible verse by verse, (6) that is committed physically and financially to feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, protecting and caring for widows and orphans, standing up for and protecting the unborn and the elderly, etc., (7) that holds to the inerrancy of Scripture and the Triune nature of God, and (8) that exercises Church discipline. I should make clear though that being a member of a particular Christian fellowship or institution does not save one from God's judgment on sin. Only Yeshua's shed blood and substitutionary death in our place can do that.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 4:57 PM  

you are a coward AJ. Just answwer the question, can someone be a devout follower of the following and inherit the kingdom of heaven. it is easy. Yes or NO. This is a test AJ make a one word post ( one for each option). Bet ya can't:

Jehova's Witness, Catholic, Methodist, seventh day adventist, Christian science, Nazarene,brethern
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 5:30 PM  

AJ please seek help for your OCD. It is causing you much misery. Set your mind free and think for yourself.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 5:37 PM  

Jehovah's Witness: No
Roman Catholic: No
Methodist: Yes
Seventh-day Adventist: Yes
Christian Science: No
[Church of the] Nazarene: Yes

"Brethren" could be in reference to several different groups. You'll have to be more specific sir.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 6:18 PM  

This is why I had to bar you from posting on my site, AJ.

Your comments are long and self indulgent and they really don't convey anything except for your smug self satisfaction.

Talking and debating religious worldviews are fine for a time, but you take it too far. No one is helped by your forays. And also nothing is accomplished, except for raising your inflated sense of self importance.
posted by  BlackTsunami, at 7/10/2007 7:37 PM  

I checked out your blog just now BlackTsunami. This AJ guy is one sick individule. He must be plaguing every anti rightwing anti gay site out there. We are dealing with a one note sally here. A good example of how one can ruin their lives obsessing on an issue to the virtual exclusion of all others. He needs attention and will living on this site ad infinitum.

There must be a real pathology here, perhaps related to the so called Jerusalem syndrome seen in Israel. Anyone out there in the position to offer a diagnoses and a path to recovery for the clinically ill AJ. I feel for him he is likely on disability and needs help. I say this in a loving way. I will pray for him
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 7:55 PM  

correction to above. remove the first anti (anti rightwing should read simply rightwing)
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 7:57 PM  

"Cry me a river...Cry me a river..." LOL! What some crybaby's. Toughen up! Especially Mr. McEwan (who now offers yet more reasons - which contradict past ones - why he censors my comments; but we both know the truth there, don't we Mr. McEwan?), who is so inconsistent and contradictory at times even his supporters must be embarrassed (as they surely would be if he allowed any credible dissent and was forced to publicly defend many of his statements).

As for length, many others have written long comments as well - normally those who wish to actually discuss topics in at least a semi-meaningful way.

Sure, a post that calls me an "asshole," a "coward," a "homophobe," a "right-winger," a "WUSS," etc., can be relatively short. And that's fine with me, I simply chose not to engage in that type of argumentation.

But as I stated previously, SOME of my comments get too long in that I'm responding to multiple people who have addressed what I wrote and I want to do so fairly. If Mr. Besen (or you Mr. McEwan) has a word limit for his comments section I'm not aware of, please inform me of it and I'll gladly abide by it.

And if you wish to skip over my comments, simply press down the scroll for two seconds, or maybe four tops! :-)

...Cry me a river...
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 8:39 PM  

getting testy huh AJ? Slowly the facade falls and we see the angry little man.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 8:48 PM  

Whatever AJ,

Your behavior on this site thus far gives a perfect indication as to why you were barred from my site. I really don't think any more explanations are necessary.

I look forward to rejecting your next comment to my blog.
posted by  BlackTsunami, at 7/10/2007 8:51 PM  

AJ, prove you are not a coward and answer

Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 5:30 PM

you won't because when all is told your list of those bound for hell amounts to approx. 90% of the population. just answer coward. give us your long list of the hell bound. One truly feels sorry for the those in the first 1500 years of Christianiy who never read a bible or had the honor of hearing your crytic path to salavation.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 8:53 PM  

As god is your witness, AJ, pray tell how men have you had sex with:)
god bless
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 9:32 PM  

for AJ:

im·po·tence Pronunciation /ˈɪmpətəns/
–noun 1. the condition or quality of being impotent; weakness.
2. chronic inability to attain or sustain an erection for the performance of a sexual act.
3. sterility, esp. in the male.
4. Obsolete. lack of self-restraint.
5. posting to an obscure web site to be heard
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 9:37 PM  

Not testy at all my friends, evidenced by the LOL's and the smiley's. I'm all about the love man (and woman)! :-)

Mr. McEwan, I'm still not at all clear as to why I'm barred? If it's because I can point out your inconsistencies, self-refuting statements, and contradictions in fairly short order, then yes, I would understand. But if I'm so off, then why bar me? One of your MANY excuses for barring me as I recall was so as to not give me a forum. Well, one would think that allowing me to expose my own stupidity and your brilliance would be something you would enjoy and your comrades would support, no?

Well, I could OBVIOUSLY go on and on addressing Mr. McEwan's excuses, inconsistencies, self-refuting statements, and contradictions, and provide documentation, but I'll show some restraint.

As for being a coward Anonymous, did I not answer just as you requested? A "Yes" or "No" for the groups you listed - save the one that was too vague? You may not like the answers, but that is something different.

"[Jesus speaking] Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matthew 7: 13 - 14).
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 9:50 PM  

Excuse me AJ you did answer. I missed it. Your answer shows your true colors, which says yours is a god who sends most everyone to hell. Yes I know they send them selves to hell. In all the posts you've made you have not conceded a thing. A classic case of I'm OK you're not (to which once again you will take exception thus proving my point). There are other questions which you have not answered by other posters, tragically so I might add. You have in reality very limited understanding of the bible. Any literalist fundamentalist understanding of the bible by its very nature is limited. The bible was written, edited and miss scribed by men. Erhman is spot on in this area and I respect him compared to your simplistic “Jebus died for my sins” metaphor.

Do you really think that people can live in eternal bliss knowing that their other loved ones are living an eternity of suffering for sins that are in no way eternal. An all powerful omnipotent god could set any requirements for salavation he wanted. He could say that a person has to hop on one foot and whistle Dixie to get in. Instead you worship an evil god that sends mother Theresa to hell, but without hesitation welcomes a mass murderer to heaven who makes a death bed confession. This is ridiculers on the face of it and no one believes it.

further more why spend so much time here when your answer to the denomination question shows that gays are put a scant, miniscule demographic of people destined for hell. Your arrogance in so readily placing check marks by the "brand" of Christianity that leads to salivation is far from humble. The truth is that you don't know the mind of god anymore then a horse knows the mind of a man. All you have is your best guess and nothing more.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 10:14 PM  

No worries Anonymous. There are a lot of posts and most of mine were quite long. It's understandable that you might miss one of my shorter comments :-)

I do find it somewhat inconsistent that I can be accused of ("tragically") not answering certain questions of some posters and on the flip side have people continually complaining that my posts are too long. I don't see how one can have it both ways.

Now, if I have happened to not address a question you find central, simply inform me. I obviously miss things as well.

No doubt the Bible was written by men. But as you know Christians hold that God superintended the Scriptures, not that He actually dictated all of the writings (although there are certain portions that God did dictate; e.g., the Ten Commandments).

Whether by super-intention or dictation, the end product turned out exactly the way He wanted it. So yes, men wrote the Bible, but God used men as His instruments to write His "letter" to humanity. When you and I write a letter, do we write the letter, or does the pen write the letter? Obviously we do; the pen is merely the instrument we use. And in the same way, again, God simply utilized men as instruments to record His message to us.

Concerning Bart Ehrman, he is unquestionably a brilliant man, but that doesn't mean he is always right, always rational, and always consistent. If fact, his inconsistent methodology and presuppositional eisegesis, as well John Shelby Spong's and John Dominic Crossan's, have been pointed out on several occasions.

If I understand you correctly you are asking how a person could be joyful in heaven with the knowledge that their unsaved loved ones are suffering in hell. John writes that in heaven "we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." Perhaps in heaven we will FINALLY be fully satisfied with the fact God is perfectly just and holy as well as perfectly merciful and loving, and that He gave EVERY individual EVERY opportunity to accept or reject the grace He provided through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Regardless of how our Sovereign Creator chooses to work it out in the end, He does promise joy to those who are in His presence.

I recognize that people often accuse God of being unjust. Often times this is because they assume that everyone will receive the same punishment in hell. God's judgment, however, will be according to righteousness, and many scriptures teach that there will be degrees of punishment in hell. I'm not surprised that your "god" would never create hell. In fact, he couldn't create hell. He doesn't exist. Your god is a figment of your imagination. He's a god you have created to suit your own pre-conceived notions. That's known as "idolatry," and it's one of the oldest sins in the Book. Idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of God. The one true God, however, could and did create hell for those who reject His love, grace, and mercy. Those who reject that will reap His just wrath.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/10/2007 11:13 PM  

AJ: From a Jewish perspective, to worship God as anything other than transcendent deity is idolatry. Christianity is nothing more than a heretical, idolatrous, paganized offshoot of Judaism. To Jews, it is as much a kooky cult as Mormonism is to mainstream Christians. These links handily deconstruct your foolish cult brainwashing:

http://tinyurl.com/37qc2

http://tinyurl.com/a4v89

http://tinyurl.com/ywtbgy
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 8:24 AM  

Anonymous, regarding your reference to bisexuality, my personal opionion is that its a copout for men who are gay at their core, but can't accept it because of the stigmatization by society and further. They marry to assume an air of heterosexuality by having children while living a double life of deceit. These are the people who would probably vote against our right to marriage equality or better yet, deny that they have a gay side to them. Its despicable and its no wonder that we are angry at them. Its like a log cabiner voting supporting a party that clearly doesn't believe in their equality.

On another topic, some of you may know that the Vatican holds under lock and key writings that were considered for inclusion in the bible one to two hundred years after the crucifixion but were rejected because they portrayed us in a positive light, among many other things, and that Jesus Christ may or may not have been married or that some of the disciples were in fact gay and were having intimate relations. Makes you wonder why they continue to keep these writings banned from publication.

Robert, NYC.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 9:08 AM  

After reading AJ's comments, I couldn't help day dreaming: "What if there were a hell? What punishment would be appropriate for AJ to endure in that supposed place of fire and brimstone?"

It came to me in a flash: an updated version of THE DAMNATION OF FAUST (insert AJ's name here) by Hector Berlioz!!! a chorus of demons reciting AJ's own pronouncements and circular arguments verbatim into his ears (LOUDLY) for the rest of his eternal life in that abode.

But, alas, I don't believe in hells or heavens, only in Jesus' example. Following the leader doesn't mean following the followers and the rest of the cretins who insist on making idiotic pronouncements in this 21st century. Only one person (notice the word person)was important in this discussion about the Bible. One can find his words highlighted in red in the New Testatment. Read the red, follow the red, the rest is at best a fairy tale. Following that kind of red would make us blue indeed.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 9:19 AM  

Anonymous, regarding your reference to bisexuality, my personal opionion is that its a copout for men who are gay at their core, but can't accept it because of the stigmatization by society and further. They marry to assume an air of heterosexuality by having children while living a double life of deceit. These are the people who would probably vote against our right to marriage equality or better yet, deny that they have a gay side to them. Its despicable and its no wonder that we are angry at them. Its like a log cabiner voting supporting a party that clearly doesn't believe in their equality.

Oh, sort of like how the radical right thinks homosexuality is a cop out for men who can't handle masculinity? Great. Has it occurred to you that the common denominator is fear of male sexual ambiguity?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 9:31 AM  

Good morning all!

Concerning the Messiah-ship of Yeshua, I appreciate the links but have to admit it's nothing I have not heard before and nothing that hasn't been addressed many times over. My comments are already long enough (!) so I obviously won't respond to the three links and the claims found there in this comment. But if you identify individual claims the articles make I would be more than willing and able to deal with the objections.

Robert makes some interesting claims that can't survive the laugh test. WOW! But my first question Robert is, if these mythical documents, which you assert are under lock and key by the Vatican (which wasn't even around two hundred years after Yeshua's crucifixion and resurrection) do exist - and you claim quite powerfully that they surely do - then please do tell, how do you know about them? What evidence do you have of their existence? What evidence does the "scholar" you will probably cite for me have for his or her claims? How do you know these books were "considered for inclusion in the Bible"?

Richard's proposals are even entertaining! So, we're not to believe in hell, but in Jesus "example" and, presumably, "his words," right Richard?

Well, as one who has actually done that many times, I'm confused Richard! You see, Jesus said more about hell that anyone. In fact, He refers to it as a literal place, even describing it in graphic terms - including raging fires and the worm that never dies.

The Messiah says that the unsaved "will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." In his description one rich man and a poor beggar named Lazarus, Jesus taught that the unsaved will suffer terribly in a fully conscious state. Jesus taught that in hell the unsaved will retain their desires, memories, and reasoning. Jesus said the unsaved will long for relief, but they cannot be comforted and cannot leave their torment. And indeed, they are without hope.

So Richard, the Jesus you wanted me read, the Jesus whose example you are calling me to follow (which is good advice in itself) talked about hell a lot and in fact could not have painted a more bleak or graphic picture of hell - which you claim doesn't exist! Things that make ya go hmmm...

I can keep going Richard. How long will hell last, according to Yeshua? "[The unrighteous] will go away to eternal punishment," Jesus said, "but the righteous to eternal life." Here, in the exact same sentence, the same word Greek word, "aionos," is used to describe the eternality of both heaven and hell.

All of this is mighty interesting in light of Richard's claims. Now, I obviously could shred the rest of Richard's ridiculous assertions to pieces in short order. But this was probably enough to demonstrate Richard's claims simply do not align with the evidence he told me to look at! And because of this they have to be rejected.

And Richards unschooled, yet amazingly confident assertions, should also remind us that it's better to keep our mouths shut and appear ignorant, than to open them and remove all doubt. Wise words for all of us.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 11:25 AM  

Boo, I don't think its about sexual ambiguity but about the majority of the bisexual's fear of being open and admitting that he or she is really gay. Its easy to stay in the closet and pretend you're straight by having a relationship with someone of the opposite sex or getting the job promotion over the single, suspect single male or female. Why do you think there are very few single leaders of any country in office? In our society, it would be difficult for a single person to run for the presidency if he or she weren't married to a member of the opposite sex. Their sexuality would be immediatelyi suspect and they'd never get elected. Its the oldest cover in the history of being gay.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 11:38 AM  

So, AJ, I apologize for accusing you of being a homophobe. Please answer the following questions:

Do you support the irght of gay people to enter into (at the very minimum) civil unions at both state and federal levels that guarantee us the same rights you have with marriage?

Do you support the elimination of don't-ask-don't-tell, seeing as it is about nothing but homophobia?

Do you oppose the re-imposition of sodomy laws?

Do you support adding hgay people to hate crimes laws?

Do you support laws which add gay people to laws protecting other groups,m such as religious people, from discirmination in employment, housing, and public services?

do you oppose laws which ban otherwise qualified gay people from adoption anfd foster parentinG?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 11:39 AM  

AJ, I learned of the Vatican's possession of such documents from the History Channel a couple of months ago, there were several programs airing on that subject, but I'm sure if you googled the History channel, you could probably track down the origin of the claims which I think were well ented. It wasn't just the Vatican either, there were others who were scriptural scholars who concurred that there were missing chapters from the bible that were later rejected by the Vatican and to this day are under lock and key. Does make you wonder why though.

Robert, NYC.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 12:49 PM  

Good afternoon Ben and Robert!

Ben, I'll simply point out that I'm not much interested AT ALL in politics. I'm not a supporter of the so-called "Religious Right" or a supporter of the so-called "Religious Left."

As a follower of Yeshua the Messiah, I recognize that I am bound to obey my government in all matters that do not explicitly conflict with the dictates of my Christian faith (and even in disobedience I have to accept the consequences, which may be prison or death).

I am also bound to pray for my government leaders, honor them (be they Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush), and pay the taxes they require (whether it's 90% or 2%).

In my "neo-Anabaptist" view in this area Ben, I don't think Christians ought to get very involved in politics at all (hence, my incredible disagreements with the words and actions and practices of the "Religious Right").

Look, the government in Jesus' day was violent, and oppressive, and wicked, and unjust. And in spite of all this, Jesus avoided at nearly every turn throwing himself into the viciously dichotomous political disagreements of his day.

So I, based on the example and commands of my LORD and King, refuse to stoop down and argue about which worldly, political "solutions" we "need" for the world's political "problems."

I'll rather offer people the radically different ALTERNATIVE, that being loving, following, serving, and obeying King Jesus and actually being His Body and His representative - the Church - here on this earth and thus loving and serving others.

This present world is not my home. I'm an ambassador of King Yeshua and a representative of His Kingdom. I belong to THIS radically different Kingdom, which has on its throne a radically different King. And He offers radically different solutions to the radical problems of our existence.

Robert, I have not seen the History Channel special. I'm not scared of it either and will research it and investigate its claims (which normally, if my past experience is any indicator - e.g., the recent "Tomb of Jesus" hysteria - will show the sensationalist claims have little or no evidence and often rely a specious assumptions).

So, I'm ready, willing, and able to do the research? But have you REALLY done that Robert? Or have you merely accepted what you watched on a short "documentary"? Have you REALLY examined the claims its making and the evidence it uses?

Your claims do seem to reveal a presupposition, and possibly those of the documentary as well, and that being that somehow the Roman Catholic Church "gave us the Bible." It's an erroneous belief that can be easily demonstrated to be false. But thanks for the recommendation Robert and I'll see if I can find it.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 2:27 PM  

There were hundreds of books, letters, etc., floating around at the time that the canon of scripture was chosen. The traditionalists fought the gnostics tooth and nail over what would be included. There was even a "Gospel of Mary" that was NOT chosen merely because it was written by a female!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 2:28 PM  

Boo, I don't think its about sexual ambiguity but about the majority of the bisexual's fear of being open and admitting that he or she is really gay. Its easy to stay in the closet and pretend you're straight by having a relationship with someone of the opposite sex or getting the job promotion over the single, suspect single male or female.

If you're talking about gay men pretending to be straight, then you're not talking about bisexuals. If someone claims to be bisexual then by definition they're not pretending to be straight. Claiming to be bisexual doesn't somehow get you only half the garbage that gay people put up with. To the radical right, bisexuals are just as much evil perverts as gays. It's not like if you're about to get gay-bashed, and you say "Wait, I'm bisexual!" then they'll only beat you up half as much or something.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 3:03 PM  

And the ridiculous claims just keeping rising up. Love the newest one. So eerily conspiratorial - LOL!

In one short comment Chris L. demonstrates his misunderstanding and/or ignorance of the nature of canonicity, the difference between recognizing a work as God-breathed and "choosing" works to include and exclude, and the standards employed by Christians for recognition of the New Testament canon (as the Jewish canon - the Tanakh - was already recognized and accepted by first-century believers in Yeshua).

It seems to me - yes, from just one short comment! - that Chris L. is almost completely uninformed on the subject and is merely repeating something he heard, perhaps even from a "scholar."

But simply throwing out the title of some book or letter and crying out something to the effect of, "Why wasn't this one included in the Christian canon mister, huh?!?!," is to me not in any way a credible form of argumentation in that it manifestly lacks even basic historical knowledge behind the canonical recognitions and exclusions and the reasons for such.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 4:55 PM  

Dimitri (upthread),

Unfortunately, it's true that gay./lesbian/bi/trans Americans are still second-class citizens in their own country (with the arguable exception of Massachusetts). We don't need to reminded of this by outsiders. We *will* have full equality someday, but it's going to take longer than in some other nations, due mainly to the well-organized, vocal, and vicious social reactionaries who make up the Religious Right.

That you choose to rub it in and hurl blanket insults at us (and our straight allies in the U.S.) rather than express solidarity says volumes about the kind of person you are.

Still, I'm glad you posted. Although many (NOT all) Americans are bigoted, stupid, chauvinistic assholes, your message demonstrates that that the same description applies to a fair number of non-Americans like yourself. Thanks for the useful reminder.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 6:36 PM  

AJ, I'm afraid you didn't answer my questions. You say you are apolitical except where it comes into conflict with your beliefs. That would lead me to conclude that your answers to my questions would be, shall we say, be on the wrong side. Please enlighten me.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 9:13 PM  

To digress for a few minutes, let us remember Ladybird Johnson who died today at the age of 94. A great lady married to an arguably great president.

Robert, NYC.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 10:26 PM  

Rob Lll, I sincerely commiserate with you, but Dimitri does have a point. The US, was purportedly the most progressive society on the face of the earth. But now, decades later, why is it that we've become so regressive, decades behind other western societies who now exercise far more democracy that our nation was supposed to uphold and defend? I don't put all the blame on the right wing, but on the American electorate that is so gullible, so naive, and so inept. With a 5-4 stack on the Supreme Court, I don't see how we can progress much more with three democratic contenders who are in the pockets of corporate America. Our system is broke and corrupt and the two party system is not working any longer. We need change, but its not with the democrats. First and foremost, they are not for equality, we are the last vestige of hate, nothing has changed, nothing WILL change as long as we vote for four more years of indifference. We will and always will be the lowest priority in the pecking order of political expediency. We must NOT allow them to take our votes for granted any longer, they've not yet earned mine, what say you?

Robert, NYC.

Robert, NYC.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 10:36 PM  

AJ, the History Channel has several sources for its program. I've heard anecdotal information about this from several sources long before the History Channel aired its program, its been a long time and I can't recall what those resources were. Here on the east coast via Time Warner in NYC, it appeared on Channel 17.

I was raised Catholic but have since long renounced my faith and belief in Christianity and every other belief system. I am at peace and happier for it but respect others who choose to believe in whatever it is that brings them comfort and happiness, as long as they don't impose their beliefs on my life or my rights. It just never worked for me. Can we beg to differ?

Robert, NYC.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 10:47 PM  

Ben, I recognize I probably didn't offer you the type of answer you may have been expecting.

What I meant by saying I am bound to obey my government in all matters that do not explicitly conflict with the dictates of my Christian faith is simply this (for example):

If a law was passed that said it was illegal to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I would disobey that law and suffer the consequences.

If a law was passed that said I cannot give food and shelter to a person because they're an "illegal immigrant," I would disobey that law and suffer the consequences.

If a law was passed that said I couldn't teach from the pulpit or the radio that according to God's Word homosexuality and adultery and political idolatry were sins, I would disobey that law and suffer the consequences.

Simple, but often radical, obedience to my LORD Yeshua; nothing more, nothing less.

Humbly serving and sacrificially loving people I disagree with is far more important and far more Christ-like than passing laws against them (which I have no mandate or ambition to do). Yes, I want to have an impact on the world and send echoes into eternity, but not by passing laws.

The power of the Christian is NOT in politics. The power of the Christian is the Gospel, and prayer, and sacrificial love, and godly obediance and faithfulness, etc. The power is in being the Church and serving one another and the world. This will transform people in a way that political systems and political solutions can never do.

Ladybird Johnson lived to the age of 94, huh? WOW! That's a full life indeed.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 10:49 PM  

AJ

What a shame that you lacked the integrity necessary to be direct in your criticism.

"The one commenter who continues to insist that the Bible doesn't classify homosexuality as a sin is actually doing me a favor by demonstrating his ignorance (and I mean that lovingly!)"

You have established the burden of substantiating your claims. Repeating the same tired old lies over and over again, is a waste of time.

"He (and his links) makes many of the same mistakes people like Mollenkott, Scanzoni, Boswell, Scroggs have made, such as never addressing the CLEAR Greek Septuagint background of the Apostle Paul's coining of the Greek term "arsenokoitai."

Lying doesn't help you. And let's note, AJ, that you provide no links to substantiate your claim. You have relied on 'I said so, so there' which is arrogant.

Your use of ad hominem dismissals indicates that you are unable to back up your rebuttal with evidence.

Your claims about the New Testament are false, fraud, and deliberate deception.

Repeatedly lying about the passage from Paul's letter to the Corinthians only indicates that you argue from falsehood, and suggests that every claim you make is false.

Greek had in common use two words, erestes and eranamos, for men who have sex with men. Paul used neither one. That fact will not go away. Paul chose not to use either of the two words that his readers would understand as referring to men who have sex with men.

All the empty dismissals in the world, will not change that. Your translation is fraud.

"The commenter simply is not well read enough in the scholarly literature nor is he well acquainted with New Testament Greek."

You are projecting, AJ, making a claim you cannot know and cannot prove - which is a form of lying. You are bearing false witness, AJ, and that is sin. The question remains whether or not you will repent of your sin as publically as you committed it.

The Bible contains no explicit or implied condemnation of homosexuality, and no amount of lying and empty dismissals on your part will ever change that.

And more importantly,AJ, because one of the alleged, key verses for condemning homosexuals demands the death penalty, by insisting that the Bible condemns homosexuals, you are inciting murder.

Now, Martin Luther, father of the Lutheran Church, wrote that to think a sin or to verbalize it, was as damning as committing in the flesh. Because you insist that the Bible condemns homosexuality, despite all evidence to the contrary, and because the alleged verses include a demand for death, you have committed the sin of murder in thought and word, which is, according to Luther, no different than doing it in deed as well.

But, will you repent, or make more excuses?
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/11/2007 11:33 PM  

Good evening Robert! I figured I'd quick throw one more up before I retire for the evening :-)

To answer your question, of course we can disagree amicably! That's what true tolerance is - recognizing and respecting others' beliefs and practices even without sharing them.

And we actually have some similarities. I was born and raised in the Roman Catholic Church, and even went to a Roman Catholic school. After fiddling with this and that and after many interesting circumstances, by God's grace I embraced the Good News of Jesus' identity, sacrificial death for my sins, and resurrection.

As I may have noted here once before, I had never in my life fully realized God's Word warns that the consequences of breaking His law are serious and they are eternal. I foolishly and illogically thought that as long as I "believed in God" and tried to live a "good life," I would go to heaven when I died. But I was horribly mistaken. If my Creator judged me by the Ten Commandments on Judgment Day, I would stand guilty before Him and justly be sent to hell.

But thankfully by God's grace my eyes were opened and I understood my predicament as well as why it was that Jesus had to die. He came to pay the price I could never pay. He came to die in my place to take the punishment for my judicial guilt and the sins of the world.

Concerning Roman Catholicism, I'm sure you had your reasons for leaving Robert; I will only say from my experiences, studies, and convictions that the Roman Catholic Church does NOT represent authentic, orthodox, Biblical Christianity. In other words, "Roman Catholic" is not synonymous with "Christian."

Now, I don't doubt for one second that most Roman Catholics are sincere and have a zeal for God. That zeal, however, in my view is not in accordance with God's revealed truth. The Roman Catholic "Church" is an unbiblical form of Christianity that has, tragically, deceived millions of Roman Catholics.

The more I study the Bible and the more I study what Rome officially teaches, the more I am convinced that the foundational doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church twist, alter, and distort the finished work of Jesus Christ's death for sin and Resurrection, the meaning of worshiping and glorifying our Creator, the role of Mary and how that should affect Christians today, ecclesiastical authority, Biblical authority, and much more.

In the end, it's my contention and it's my conviction that the Roman Catholic Church preaches and teaches a false gospel, or false "good news," that is powerless to save men and women from God's judgment on sin.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 11:36 PM  

By the way, AJ, it really is interesting how anyone who challenges your empty claims is 'ignorant'. Though you don't bother to cite any evidence to correct anyone, and take Scripture out of context, anyone who refutes you is 'almost completely uninformed '. It seems to me, though, that your lack of any substantiating sources, paints the opposite picture.

It appears that you are making everything up out of thin air.

Throughout, consistently, all you provide is your word, about any of this. That is not convincing, for oppressors have historically relied on their word to justify oppressing others.

To paraphrase your own remarks, simply throwing out interpretations and dismissals, as you do, is not in any way a credible form of argumentation.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/11/2007 11:39 PM  

The Pope said yesterday that authentic salvation comes through the Catholic Church only. No others can offer salvation. He should know, because he is the only man on the planet who is infallible in matters of faith. The Protestants are upset because they thought they had a valid and valuable part of the franchise. Apparently, their whole operation is now suspect, and their errors are responsible for the damnation of millions. Damnation is what you get if you don't get salvation.

Logically, either the pope is right, or the Protestants are right; neither would admit the other two possibilities, that both are right or both wrong. Or maybe this isn't the issue at all.

Perhaps we really need to question the whole concept of salvation, and whether a god who allegedly loved humanity so much that he died on the cross to save us, would then love some people so little that he would inflict the likes of Osama bin Laden or Jerry Falwell on them in this lifetime, or would send anyone who disagrees with him to hell for an eternity of punishment in the next.

And if they are wrong about this, could they possibly be wrong about the whole gay issue, just like they were about witches, earth-centric physics, and slavery-- for a start.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/11/2007 11:42 PM  

Just one more short one (I hope!).

Friend of Jonathan (from here on FJ), I'll graciously ignore the ad hominem and stick to what little substance you post. The reason I don't provide links is because (a) I don't see the merit in getting into a "link war," which are normally very unfruitful and circular and more for people who can't speak intelligently and credibly to the topic for themselves and (b) because I'm confident that my primary research can stand up to critical analysis.

If you truly desire a bunch of links to other sites who agree with me, I can surely provide them (in fact, anyone can find them for themselves in about ten seconds!). And I'm not projecting at all sir; you DEMONSTRATE for those who have researched BOTH sides of this topic your ignorance of the linguistics and the literature on the topic. Any one who reads the Greek New Testament and reads the Greek Septuagint and performs even a modicum of credible historical research knows that.

Look FJ, my beliefs and attitudes relating to homosexuality do not arise from "homophobia" or bigotry. They rise from a healthy "fear of the LORD," which is the beginning of all wisdom. And because I love God and His truth, I'll point out some of the facts once again. The laws we find in Leviticus provided a background for the Apostle Paul's teaching on homosexuality. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul used the Greek word "arsenokoites." Etymologically the term is a compound meaning to go to "bed" (coitus) with a "male" - the analogy to the Old Testament expression to "lie with a man" (Leviticus 18:22).

In English, Leviticus 18:22 reads: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

In the Greek Septuagint, which again the Apostle Paul used, Leviticus 18:22 reads (when transliterated): "kai meta ARSENOS ou koimethese KOITEN gunaikos bdelugma gar estin" (emphasis mine).

And I would love FJ to dive into Romans chapter 1 tonight which we unfortunately haven't gotten to yet, but I'll save that for tomorrow. For now, enjoy the following debate clip (btw, note what one of the debate participants doesn't have with him):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4mJZ6y_SZI

Finally FJ, although the Mosaic Law is certainly not irrelevant to Christians by any means, the Church is no longer under the Law of Moses. Christians are under a new "law"; referred to as the "Law of Christ" in Galatians 6:2 and the "Law of the Spirit of Life" in Romans 8:2. This is a new law that is separate from the Law of Moses. The "Law of Christ" or "Law of the Spirit of Life" contains all the commandments applicable to a New Testament believer in Jesus, which includes a classification as sin and a condemnation of homosexuality.

Contrary to the nation of Israel under the Law of Moses, however, there is no call for the death penalty for homosexuals under the Law of Christ. Homosexuals and other unrepentant sinners are simply to be excommunicated from Christian fellowship until they repent and seek restoration.

So your claim that I am "inciting murder" is not only erroneous, uncharitable, and based on ignorance of New Testament theology, it's downright slanderous and malicious. But, you have the right to your own opinions, regardless of how misinformed and lacking in evidence they may be.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 12:52 AM  

Robert in NYC,

I hear you. Believe me, I have a hard time keeping a lid on my anger over what's happening here, especially over the past 6 years. I'd like to see a viable third progressive third party option emerge -- although it has to be built from the ground up, starting by governing effectively at the local, then state level. I haven't seen that happening yet. It's a little too convenient to blame it on the inadequacies of the electorate -- not that there isn't some truth to that, but IMO progressives in this country have not been very adept at conveying their message to large numbers of ordinary people. That needs some serious work.

I'm more skeptical of your assertion that other western countries "exercise more democracy", and I say that as someone who has lived outside the U.S. for extended periods,traveled widely, and keeps close tabs on European politics in particular. If anything, gays in the U.S. have suffered from too much democracy -- i.e., majority rule overriding the interests and rights of minorities. The anti-gay ballot initiatives used against us by the religious right in many states are a classic example. If we had a more centralized system of government, then we might not have this situation where gays in Massachusetts and California are very close to real legal equality and gays in Alabama are virtually living in the 1950s.

And it is not true that "nothing has changed". There have been vast changes. I could give you many examples, but two recent ones that spring to mind are the anti-discrimination laws recently passed (both in 2007) in Colorado and Iowa (not coincidentally, after Democrats took over the state legislatures and governorships). This might seem like small potatoes from the vantage point of NYC or where I live in California, but these laws can make an enormous difference in the lives of people living in less tolerant areas of the country, the difference between living in fear of losing your job if you come out or being able to live openly. Things have changed, it's just that they haven't changed ENOUGH. On that, you and I can agree.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 12:59 AM  

AJ,

I'll ignore your false, unsubstantiated accusation, and the fact that you arrogantly refuse to use my non-de-plume. I'll remind you that I have not substituted or altered yours.

Your excuse making for not providing links is unconvincing. It indicates that you have no source or citation that would hold up to examination. And it leaves everyone reading in the position of believing you without good cause, or summarily rejecting you. I suspect that you hope to exploit either to your purpose.

If you can find supporting evidence in ten seconds, then make the effort. But since you have rejected that, it indicates that accurate support for your position is lacking.

Again, though you falsely accused me of ad hominem, you define my posts as ignorant. Such empty dismissals, coupled with your lack of evidence, really does indicate that your " primary research" most certainly would not stand up to critical analysis. But, you have deprived everyone here of submitting it to critical analysis, and that speaks volumes about your "research".

What was the saying - all hat and no cattle? Your posts are all claim, and not evidence. That is inept at best.

Now, this is interesting: "Any one who reads the Greek New Testament and reads the Greek Septuagint and performs even a modicum of credible historical research knows that."

And yet, you've admitted that you have no formal training, and, you dismissed out of hand the work of people who read the Greek New Testament and Septuagint. More and more, it appears that you have not performed that modicum of credible historical reseach.

The fact is, AJ, that I have been researching this particular topic for decades. You have posted multiple false claims.

"In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul used the Greek word "arsenokoites." Etymologically the term is a compound meaning to go to "bed" (coitus) with a "male" - the analogy to the Old Testament expression to "lie with a man" (Leviticus 18:22)."

Repeating the same false claim over and over again, without supporting evidence, is not going to cut it. It is a case of taking you on your word, and you are reviling millions of people. You are making horrifically ugly claims about our lives, to us directly. Of course, your word is not sufficient. You need evidence, but, refuse to provide it.

Arsenokoite is a made up word, it appears that Paul or the author of the letters attributed to Paul, created it. That author invented a word, while two perfectly good words were in place, in use, commonly understood to have the very meaning you claim 'arsenokoite' means. It is irrational or irresponsible of Paul to introduce a new word, which he does not define in the text, when two words his readers would have understood already exist. Essentially, you are insisting that Paul was trying to confuse or obfuscate the issue.

Further, as I pointed out earlier, the etymological construction of a word does not guarantee its meaning. While you blew past it, this statement remains true:
http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html
"It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to a chair, even if it originally did. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoités that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Furthermore, the claim that arsenokoités came from a combination of these two words and therefore means "men who have sex with men" makes the additional error of defining a word by its (assumed) etymology. The etymology of a word is its history, not its meaning."

Given the many examples of compound words whose meaning is not defined by their etymology, is is inept at best to make the claim you have made. Some might even call it ignorant and uninformed.

Before I go on, here is a link for people who do not categorically reject evidence: http://www.sigmalogobooks.com/SLB_bible_mistranslated_wrong.html

Since you wrote: "In English, Leviticus 18:22" you do realize that Leviticus was not written in Hebrew, right? And in Hebrew, the meaning is far more nuanced, and many Hebrew scholars categorically reject the standard translation.

The source I listed above provides the following breakdown, which matches what several Hebrew Scholars have provided to me, publically, as well:
However, the original Hebrew for Leviticus 18:22 reveals a different 3rd meaning:

"We-et-zakar lo' tishkav mishkevey 'ishshah" [Lev 18:22 Hebrew, Latinized]
("And-with a-male NOT lie-down in beds-of a-woman") [Lev 18:22 literal translation]

So here is the problem for your interpretation - the phrase 'in the beds of a woman' intrinsically changes the context from homosexuality, which would conveyed by the simple 'And with a male not lie' - to something else. Many Jewish scholars interpret as condemning a bisexual affair - a man having sex with another man in his wife's bed. What is clear, though, it that this describes a dynamic that involves a woman, and thus, it is not about homosexuals.

So you argument is false from its foundation. But you made it even weaker with this rather ridiculous claim - that the proximity of the two words 'arsenos' and 'koiten' in a later greek text, though separate by several words, defines its meaning as a compound word later.

Language doesn't work that way.

Ducking the issue of Romans 1, while then raising a strawman argument, is hardly a convincing argument. It suggests to me that you did not know your material sufficiently when you post previously, and now have to engage in catch-up justifications.

This is getting long, I'll continue in my next post, in just moments.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/12/2007 1:26 AM  

Where were we?

Ah yes, an unimpeachable citation from youtube, home of the poledancing coeds. ;)

I think your dismissal of any participant on the grounds that they do not apparently have a Bible with them at the time, is both specious, and ad hominem by implication, but I'll settle for passive-aggressive and pointless.

Claims that homosexuality is unnatural are simply false because it occurs in nature. Now, ironically for your interpretation of Romans 1, Paul indicates that the nature of God is written in the creation - and that creation includes same-sex pair bonding, particularly in highly social organisms.
Romans 1, 19:
"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

You are without excuse, AJ, because the fact that God creates homosexual animals is clearly seen in the natural world. And in that natural world, homosexual animals often contribute significantly to the survival of the species, by assisting in the raising of offspring engended by heterosexual couples.

But, you ducked on Romans 1. It will be interesting how you get around Paul's explicit description and limit of his argument to idolatry.

Let's go on to your next heresy.

"The "Law of Christ" or "Law of the Spirit of Life" contains all the commandments applicable to a New Testament believer in Jesus, which includes a classification as sin and a condemnation of homosexuality."

Actually, no. Christ's law does not include a condemnation of homosexuality. Let's look at what Christ actually said, instead of just taking your word for it.

Matthew 19: 16-19 -
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

18"Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[d] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[e]"

Take note, AJ, that there is no reference here condemning homosexuality. None. But this is not the only relevant passage:
Matthew 22: 36-40 repeats the theme:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Again, nothing against homosexuality. But before we go, let's check in with Paul as well: Romans 13:9
9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b]

We'll find the same statement here:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=5&verse=14&version=31&context=verse in Galations 5:14, and in James 2:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=66&chapter=2&verse=8&version=31&context=verse

Without a word condemning homosexuality or same-sex lovemaking. And, we should not forget, Jesus, Paul and James are simply referring back to passages from the Torah. But, there is a principle throughout which does, quite effectively, condemn the condemnation of homosexuality.

Can you guess?

"love your neighbor as yourself" does it. Unless, AJ, you want your own sexuality, and relationship, to be called sin, worthy of eternal damnation, then you violate Christ's law when you make such declarations about our lives.

Please, do not be so foolish as to try to as distort my point. Verse 39 is clear - you cannot denigrate and defame our lives if you do not wish to have your own life denigrated and defamed. And you have denigrated and defamed our lives. And, AJ, you cannot lie to me now about that, unless you want people to lie to you when they sin against you.

You have sinned against GLBTQ people here, AJ. That is clear.

The larger problem, AJ, is that you did apply Levitical passages in your case against GLBTQ people, and by doing so, you put yourself under that law, according to Jesus.

"So your claim that I am "inciting murder" is not only erroneous, uncharitable, and based on ignorance of New Testament theology, it's downright slanderous and malicious. "

No. But thanks for yet another ad hominem in place of reason.

Remember, as you accuse others of being ignorant of New Testament theology, that you have admitted to no formal training.

While you have concocted an excuse for yourself, to wiggle out of Mosaic law even as you use it to threaten GLBTQ people with murder -
Jesus didn't cut anyone that exemption:
Matthew 7
"1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "

You judged GLBTQ people by Levitical law, and in doing so, put yourself under it. I'll also remind you of Romans 2:
1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

Romans 2: 1, is the continuation of the thoughts begun in Romans 1, flowing from Paul's rebuke of fertility rituals practiced in Rome and Corinth, which some people mistakely portray as a condemnation of homosexuality.

So my statement that you are essentially inciting murder is factual and accurate. Now, we can argue over whether or not Luther was correct, and perhaps you'll pretend that you have more training and knowledge than Martin Luther did.

It won't actually accomplish much unless you make the effort to substantiate your claims.

I want to close this with one last point - the only citation you provided was to a decidely non-scholastic source -youtube.com.

Sheesh.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/12/2007 1:58 AM  

A slight correction:

In my second to last post, I have the sentenc:
"Since you wrote: "In English, Leviticus 18:22" you do realize that Leviticus was not written in Hebrew, right? "

This should read 'was not written in English'. The subsequent sentence would make that clear anyways, but I want to stop false criticism before it wags it dog.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/12/2007 2:03 AM  

Rob, Lll, thank you. Centralized government would be far more effective for sure, it worked in Canada, Holland, Spain, Belgium South Africa and to some extent the UK. We're not going to see full equality in our life time, if ever, I strongly believe that. Our 50 states behave as if they are individual countries with their own set of laws making it much harder for us to gain our equality. We are the United States in name only but we're far from united. How can we be with only one state granting marriage equality solely at the state level? With so many states banning marriage equality or any semblance of it, it will take decades maybe centuries before this country will ever give us our full civil rights. Its a harsh reality for sure.

Robert, NYC.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 8:10 AM  

I watched an ad for the program of the popular scientist on PBS (can't remember his name, sorry) in which he is bent over on a beach playing with grains of sand and remarking that space is huge and that it contains more planets and stars than all the grains of sand in the world.

The creation of this intergalactic enterprise seems so incomprehensibly huge that it challenges my mind as to why its creator may be concerned, much less preoccupied, with the appendage that hangs between our legs (or not) and what we do with it and with whom. He/She/It is clearly too busy and doesn't have time for such idiotic rules and regulations!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 8:18 AM  

Friend of Jonathan: Antoher translation for the leviticus is "sleeps thre sleep of a woman", making the mewaning even more obscure. Conservative jewish scholars, hardly big gay supporters, recently concluded (with one exception) that this is not a categorixcal condemnation of gay sex. One rabbe ocncluded it referred only to anal sex.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 10:36 AM  

For AJ: I realize you claim you are not homophobic, and that you do not care about politics. I'll accept that as a given for them oment.

Let me put this a different way that will, i hope, shine the spotlight on what your comments are really about, at least from my perspective as a gay man.

As a jew, there is not one word in the bible after the last one in the book of Malachi-- in other words, the whole of the new testament-- that i accept as having any truth or value in my life.

(on another tack, there is very little before that last word that i believe either. but then, i'm an educated man who does not require an ancient mythology to be true to validate my life. Mythologies come and go. That's why they are mythologies).

That i reject the whole of your theology, not just the parts you find interesting, probably does not bother you or anyone other than the most die-hard fundamentalist. It doesn't register on your radar, most likely. no lenthy postings on anti or pro-jewish websites, no lectures, no political campaigns to restrict my rights as a jew, no support of anti-jewish politicians, no lengthy contorted, mythology-based pronouncements on the appropriateness of my jewish beliefs, no twisting of actual facts to suit your agenda, no nothing.

Most likely, all you say is "well. Your jewish. I can respect that.' If you are being less charitable, you might even say "Oh well. He's gonna burn in hell forever. I can live with that."

Sp why does this rejection of just the tiniest part of your theology get you so excited-- excuse me, exercised? Could it be that it is really not about your religious beliefs at all?

I have no way of actually answering that question for you, but I've seen enough in my life to give me enough of an answer. It is not really about your religion. it is about a very deeply held prejudice, given a veneer of respectability by some organized religion. but it is still a prejudice.

Even if it is about your religion, how about this? I would like to have the same respect from you, the same live-and-let-live attitude that you extend to all of the other people you believe are going to hell, sent there to burn for an eternity by your just and loving god, just because they don't believe his pronouncements, or horror-of-horrors, just don't believe in him at all.

I don't want to be special for you, just because i am gay.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 11:51 AM  

Dear Ben,

Why would any of us want to go to his/their fundamentalist Xtian heaven? It will be the dumbest, most eternally boring cocktail party (minus the cocktails) since time immemorial, if it exists, that is. Don't you get it: these people have one track and they are BORINGLY INSULATED in their self righteous morality, while they cheat on their wives, divorce each other, have closeted gay sex and then talk about overcoming God's tests. Give me a f------ break! Even their precious Paul is suspected of having being a closeted homosexual. Wonder what the classical Greek for closeted homosexual is?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 12:25 PM  

Of course, richard. I approach like a christian. If i could even get one of these idiots to question one of his assumptions, then i have done my duty. I don't really have and hope that it will.

Anent your comment, mark twain put it well: "there you have it. heaven for climate, hell for society."
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 12:50 PM  

Good afternoon all! By popular request, here's just a few links for FJ and everyone to check out (btw, it should go without saying, but doesn't, that I don't necessarily agree with all the theological positions taken by all the authors of these works.). I do wish I could link to my Greek books and commentaries, but maybe in the near future. Enjoy

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj3h.pdf

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe182.htm

http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/pat_ramsey/pt.pat_ramsey.homosexuality.html

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_print.php?462

http://home.flash.net/%7Ethinkman/articles/sue.htm

http://www.biblebb.com/files/HOMOSEX2.HTM

http://www.biblebb.com/files/HOMOSEX.HTM

Also, there's nothing at all unbiblical about defining someone and/or their views as ignorant. Please don't take that as some sort of school-yard taunt FJ. The Bible speaks of those who are fools and willing ignorant (i.e., stupid on purpose). It's describing people who are dense in the sense that they won't use the revelation and reason that God has so graciously provided them. It's someone who is rebellious and hard-hearted. So please don't take it as mere name-calling. I'm all about the love!

And on that note of love, I want to make clear FJ that I don't know your heart - but our Creator surely does. If you indeed claim you're a Christian, then for our purposes I'll take you at your word (but if that is your claim, I'm authentically interested in what your standard for whom/what is a Christian and based on what authority).

I also recognize even true Christians are NOT perfect, and that we all struggle with sin. However, simply because we may struggle against a certain sin does NOT mean we are justified in doing it. That would be akin to saying, "Well, I'm an adulterer, but I'm also a Christian, and AJ you are a mean-spirited adultererphobe for arguing against adultery."

Just because someone subscribes to a certain lifestyle (e.g., homosexuality) and then also claims to be a Christian, does NOT negate the fact that God has classified that lifestyle as sinful and condemned it and said those who practice it will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God. So says God's Word!

Whether or not you believe you are sinning FJ is not up to you. It's up to your Creator. And God makes it perfectly clear to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear that homosexuality IS a sin, just as drunkenness, greed, sexual immorality, idolatry, and stealing are sins.

"Oh, homosexuality it natural," says FJ. A couple responses to that continual claim.

In one sense, sure, ALL humans are born with a sin nature and with sinful desires (such as homosexuality). So while it may well be perfectly "natural" for certain people to be homosexuals, it's also perfectly "natural" for ALL of us to be tempted to do things that our Creator condemns as sin and states are immoral and wrong.

So sure, sin is natural for non-Christians. But it doesn't follow that our Creator wants them to remain that way. God promises He can and will set people who believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ free from their sinful nature, give them new desires, and help them withstand temptations. He did it for me (which is not to say I've arrived and am perfect). And He can do it for all those who understand their predicament, REPENT, and truly seek the only Savior.

And then there's the claim again that homosexuality is "natural" because it "occurs in nature."

Well FJ, a lot of things "occur in nature." Many animals are also known to murder, steal, rape, and cannibalize. So, if it's acceptable for humans to engage in homosexual acts because certain animals do, then logically it would have to follow that it's acceptable for humans to murder, steal, rape, and cannibalize.

So, since you justify your sin of homosexuality by claiming it's "natural" because it "occurs in nature," then I think I'll justify my taking of my friends wallet with fact that it's "natural" because stealing "occurs in nature." Certainly I'll have FJ as my advocate for this reasoning!

But people justifying their sins by claiming they are "natural," or "occur in nature," doesn't work for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that God's Word makes it clear that even the world and animals are suffering from the consequences of sin and are groining for the redemption that will one day arrive.

So a cursed world simply cannot, and should not, dictate our morality. God, the Creator of all and the Author of morality, has the sole authority to say how we should live. And God's authoritative statements about homosexuality clearly state that homosexual behavior is sinful and that trying to justify it is trying to justify sin.

And FJ, you can't be serious about the Law of Christ. Either you were joking or you really lack a solid foundation for what Christians hold is the Law of Christ. It includes not only the Gospels but the entire New Testament, which obviously includes Paul's epistles, which contain Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 and their condemnations of homosexuality.

Surely you knew that, didn't you? Biblical Theology 101? Systematic Theology 101? New Testament Theology 101? I mean, I agree we are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves. But if we are stealing from them or sleeping with their wife or engaging in other sinful behavior – such as homosexuality – with them, then we are not loving them and we surely aren’t loving God and honoring Him.

Now then, I realize this will make this comment quite long, but by FJ's request here's Romans chapter one, beginning at verse sixteen (quotes are the Biblical text, and my brief comments follow):

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."

Like the Apostle Paul, Christians should never be ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for it alone informs people how through God's power He saves from sin those who believe on His Son.

"For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, 'The righteous [or just] shall live by faith,'"

The righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It tells us that our Creator's righteous standard demands that our sins be punished. And that the penalty for our trangressions of God's holy Law is eternal death.

But then we hear that God's love provided what His righteousness demanded. God sent His Son Jesus to die as a Substitute for our sins - for us sinners! - paying the penalty we deserved in full. Now, because His righteous claims have been fully satisfied in the sacrifice of Yeshua the Messiah, God can righteously save all those who trust in the finished work of Christ.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."

This is a central verse for Christians who recognize the necessity of emphasizing humanity's depravity before a holy God and the gravity of our sin in the sight of a holy God.

That word "suppress" is interesting. It obviously assumes that one actually possesses the knowledge of the truth (which is a claim that will be reinforced), but instead of submitting to the truth, they instead suppress the truth. So people possess knowledge of God and His ways and His commands, but they do whatever they can to push that knowledge of truth down.

Our Creator has revealed His truth to ALL of us, but people seek to suppress the truth by any means they can. Despite the fact that the evidence from one's conscience, the creation, and God's revealed Word is irrefutable, people choose to reject God and oppose God's truth by holding fast to their sin.

I find Michael Glatze's recent testimony on this issue most interesting. He acknowledges that he had to train himself to ignore God's revealed truth. He had to train Himself to hate God's revealed truth. And he had to train himself to hate those who pointed out God's truth and who objected to the homosexual lifestyle and proclaimed it was sin. VERY interesting.

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them."

Our Creator has NOT left us without a revelation of Himself!

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made."

Creation demands a Creator. The Bible calls those who deny a Creator fools (i.e., stupid, dim-witted). And only a foolish, stupid, dim-witted person would say that a painting didn't have a painter, or that a building didn't have a builder, and that the creation didn't have a Creator.

But everyone knows that a design demands a Designer. And by looking up at the sun, the moon, and the stars, anyone with a brain the works knows there's a God. Sir Isaac Newton once said, "This most beautiful system of the sun, planet, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." Indeed!

"So they are without excuse."

People simply do not have an excuse for not acknowledging their Creator. God has revealed Himself to everyone in His creation, but people choose not to respond to His revelation because they love they wicked ways.

"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

Every person is conscious of their Creator's existence and His power. But they choose not to acknowledge the true and living God and worship and glorify Him. They refuse to acknowledge that every good thing they enjoy comes from God. And, as is always the case, when people reject the truth of God, that truth is then replaced by spiritual falsehood and sin and darkness.

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."

People then rationalize their rejection of God's truth and their sin by engaging in utterly foolish religiosity. You see, people are instinctively religious. They must have some object to worship what they know in their heart of hearts exists. But when people reject and refuse to worship the living God in spirit and truth, they end up making their own gods. And as their concept of deity degenerates, so do their morals as well.

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."

Three times in this section it will states that "God gave them up." This is a judicial term in the Greek, used for handing over a prisoner to his sentence. When people consistently reject God's truth and abandon Him and His Word, He will abandon them.

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

These verses - verses 26 and 27 - actually form a single sentence. And it's connected directly to the preceding verse by the phrase "for this reason." The Apostle Paul is teaching that because of the idolatry of humans, God gives them up and gives them over to "degrading passions" in NASB translation, "shameful lusts" in the NIV, "vile passions" in NKJV, and "dishonorable passions" here in the ESV.

However one decides to translate the phrase, it's clearly referring to desires and passions that are dishonorable and that are indicative of our Creator's judgment on all those who choose to indulge in selfish, lustful behavior.

Then the Apostle Paul moves on to offer an example of these "degrading passions" and "shameful lusts" and "vile passions" and "dishonorable passions." Paul mentions lesbianism - describing adult, mutual lesbian activity. Verse 27 indicates that the description of male homosexual activity is parallel to the lesbian activity described in verse 26. So the description of lesbianism as being "against nature," or "contrary to nature," in verse 26 would also apply to male homosexuality.

The meaning of "against nature," or "contrary to nature," has to be (and is) defined by the context. The word often translated sexual function is not ambiguous or questioned according to Greek scholars. The phraseology was easily understood both by Paul's original audience (evidenced at least by the fact of the early church's classification of homosexuality as a sin) and by today who aren't looking to justify their sinful behavior, their degrading passions, their shameful lusts, their vile passions, and their dishonorable passions.

The Apostle Paul is clearly referring to the way God created human beings. God created them male and female, and He created the healthy and natural sexual union that takes place between a man and a woman. This is what has been "exchanged" in the rapidly descending stairway of abominable sinfulness.

God created women with a natural sexual function. And when a person chooses to rebel against God's truth and revelation and exchanges it for a lie, then that lie will impact everything in that person's life. The natural function here is being exchanged for that which is "against nature," that which is "unnatural," and that which is "against the created order."

Verse 27 begins in the same way and ties the two verses together. Where verse 26 spoke of women, verse 27 begins with the men. Ladies first, after all.

Here, the men have abandoned and discarded the "natural" use of the woman. The Apostle Paul uses the same phraseology here that he used when addressing lesbianism. Here, the men have willfully abandoned the NATURAL SEXUAL USE of the woman. It was God's intention that the sexual union and the sexual expression of His special creation was to be only between a man and a woman, just as it was with Adam and Eve (who Jesus pointed to in order to substantiate His points).

That intention of God is, again, the natural sexual function of man and woman. BUT, these men choose to abandon this natural sexual function. They know what the natural sexual function is, but they outright reject it!

In these verses there is clarity in Paul's description of homosexuality. It's clear and unambiguous. These men burned in their desire toward one another or, as translated by the NIV, "were inflamed with lust for one another." Both terms clearly address sexual lust and desires - desires which are consuming. This points us toward the on-going lifestyle that's in view here, not simply some solitary occurrence of sexual depravity.

And, VERY important to point out here, the desires being described ARE MUTUAL!!! The desire here goes BOTH ways. It is one homosexual man desiring another homosexual man, and vice-versa. Never overlook that clear fact when interpreting these verses. The mutuality of desire described by the Apostle Paul is emphasized by the phrase "men with men," or "men committing shameless acts with men."

Paul leaves us no doubt as to what he is referencing - adult homosexuals! Men who ACTIVELY act upon their sinful desires; what Paul identifies as "shameful acts." There is no plausible way - if we allow the text to speak - of reading this term as referring to anything neutral, or unusual, or out of the norm. The Apostle Paul clearly believes and identifies homosexual activity as shameful and indecent, and therefore sinful.

This is further established in another phrase in verse 27. Paul writes, "and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." People cannot and should not imagine that they can engage in sexually deviant and sexually sinful activity without receiving the due penalty. The fact that a penalty is attached to the error of performing these shameful deeds reinforces again - as if it weren't clear enough - the understanding that these are sinful deeds being described by Paul - acts worthy of a penalty.

Paul also makes clear that the penalty is a due penalty or necessary punishment. He sees it as fitting that such shameful deeds receive a penalty. For God's justice demands that the willful confusing and twisting of HIS created order should receive a penalty.

Now, what is the penalty due to homosexuality in this context? The sexual perversion itself! This sin and these shameful acts become a cycle! Homosexuality is a sin that degrades the sinner, who then becomes trapped by his or her own lusts. And of course, there is the FINAL punishment, where they will receive the penalty due to their blatant violation of God's Law - which they know and reject.

But where sin abounds, grace abounds much more. God promises He can and will set people who believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ free from their sinful nature, give them new desires, and help them withstand temptations. He promises to do it for all those who understand their predicament, REPENT, and truly seek the only Savior.

As for Mr. Barry Lynn, he obviously had a rough time at that debate. The whole debate is actually hilarious to listen to, were it not so tragic.

And Mr. Lynn of course showed up to the FORMAL debate on the question of whether or not homosexuality was compatible with authentic, orthodox Christianity - WITHOUT a Bible! LOL!!!

If FJ finds this "pointless," that may tell us a little bit about his own standards of scholarship. For those of you who didn't see that short debate clip, take a few minutes and watch it. It's classic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4mJZ6y_SZI

Richard and Ben and any others, I'll have to respond to you later on tonight. Sorry! :-)
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 1:57 PM  

Richard, Karl Marx got it right when he said religion is the opiate of the people. To me its an addiction for very insecure, frightened people, often very sick people who impose their belief system on others and then assume the air of moral superiority by telling us that because we don't subscribe to any of it that we're all condemned to some dante-esque mythological hell, while doing the very opposite of what they preach including sexual dalliances outside their marriages, remember Haggard, Jim Bakker et al? Hypocrisy is big part of their belief system. The same people who wager same sex marriage bans.

Robert, NYC.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 1:58 PM  

AJ. All I can say is woooheeee. you do have an obsession with sin. At least with my sin. you are one silly guy. if you spent half the time actually helping people who need it, re JC's instructions, rather than getting your knickers in a twist over some idea you have about sin, especially one that is not (so you would have us believe) your personal property,we would all be so much better off.

Here's one for you. If we live in a sinful and broken world, as you claim, then how do you, and more importantly we, know that anything you say or believe is actually the truth? For all we know, you are the devil himself talking, trying to pervert god's intentions. It would certainly make sense in your frame of reference.

The real danger is that you are infecting all of us with your silliness.

honey, don't believe everything you think.

and lighten up!

And find yourself someone elses sins to denounce.

You are worse than full of it. you're getting tedious.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 2:34 PM  

Hey Ben! Yeah, that last one was too long, but I was being accused of ducking questions - I can't have that :-)

And since I had a few seconds here I figured I'd offer a brief response. And, fyi, I'm not quite as oc as people may imagine. Yes, I am obviously VERY passionate and interested in these topics, which is why I continue to REPLY (as you recall, my first post was a couple of short and simple questions to other commenters who made some interesting claims).

You're view on the Tanakh is still not clear to me. Do you accept it as God-breathed or not? And your rejection of my faith in Yeshua the Messiah and my worldview IS interesting to me. I obviously wonder how you deal with the fulfilled prophecies, I wonder how you justify knowledge, the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, how you justify your or any morality, etc. No, I'm quite interested actually.

But I fully recognize that there's nothing I can do except share with you the Good News of Yeshua's Messiah-ship, His shed blood and sacrificial death for your sins, His burial, and His resurrection. All I can do is call you to repent and believe on Yeshua. So, I can testify just as Rabbi Shaul (the Apostle Paul) declared, "I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God."

No prejudice. No hate. No bigotry. No intolerance. No "homophobia." Just simple love for God. Love for His truth. Love for His Word. Love for His creation. And love for others.

And btw Ben, what are these assumptions that I'm allegedly refusing to question?

Concerning your question about truth and knowledge, it would depend on one's worldview. After all, the difference between you and I is not just that I believe the Bible and you don't.

I am claiming that there is justification for my believing what the Bible teaches and commands. You must be saying - either explicitly or implicitly - that I don't have justification for believing the Bible's claims.

So, whose perspective between us is rationally justified? Well, answering that question will depend on several things, most importantly identifying your presuppositions (I think mine are fairly clear; but if not, simply ask).

For example, are you an atheist? Agnostic? Theist? Are you absolutely committed to philosophical naturalism? Let's answer that first and only then can we begin to demonstrate whose worldview is justifiable and whose is illogical, irrational, and arbitrary.

Hope you're having a great day!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 3:24 PM  

Robert in NYC,

Although we share the same frustration, I'm not as pessimstic as you. Yes, it'll be a long slog but we'll get there. Chin up.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 3:40 PM  

I'll examine your links in depth, in later posts, I want to address your comments first.

"Also, there's nothing at all unbiblical about defining someone and/or their views as ignorant. "

Of course there, AJ, since you make the claim without evidence, it is bearing false witness. It serves only as an ad hominem, one which you use with terrible frequency.

"Just because someone subscribes to a certain lifestyle (e.g., homosexuality) and then also claims to be a Christian, does NOT negate the fact that God has classified that lifestyle as sinful and condemned it and said those who practice it will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God. So says God's Word!"

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, so your representation of it as such, is fraud. Second, the rest of your paragraph is an example of the fallacy of circular thinking. God has not condemned homosexuality.

"And God makes it perfectly clear to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear that homosexuality IS a sin, just as drunkenness, greed, sexual immorality, idolatry, and stealing are sins."

With this comparison, AJ, you indicate to everyone that you are either unwilling to differentiate between what causes harm, and what does not, or unable. Either equally invalidates your claim.

First, it is uncharitable, actually, depraved, of you to compare my relationship to drunkeness, greed or stealing. These things cause tangible, documentable harm, my relationship harms no one.

You are comparing destructive acts with neutral states of being. That is dishonest, AJ. And a theology based on dishonesty is not a Godly one.

Remember, stealing violates 'love your neighbor as yourself', homosexuality does not. By being gay, I am not harming or taking from my neighbor in any way, I am, however, allowing him, gay, straight, bi, asexual, to follow his heart in romance and sex, up to the point that he harms someone else. I'm within 'love your neighbor as yourself' - but your position is not.

Your strawman about what is nature, I'm just going to ignore. You've offered it up as diversion, to cover up the frauds and failures in your position. I don't appreciate strawman arguments, they are usually dishonest in intent. That you used your fallacy of a strawman to create a fallacy of circular logic, doesn't help you any either.

"Well FJ, a lot of things "occur in nature." Many animals are also known to murder, steal, rape, and cannibalize. So, if it's acceptable for humans to engage in homosexual acts because certain animals do, then logically it would have to follow that it's acceptable for humans to murder, steal, rape, and cannibalize."

Once again, we raise the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature only to refute the claim that it is unnatural - no more, no less. You, and other conservatives who claim to be Christians, lie by calling it unnatural, the proof of that lie is in the hundreds of species in which homosexuality naturally occurs.

Nothing is implied or stated about morality or ethicalness in the fact that homosexuality is natural - only the rebuke of your lie that homosexuality is unnatural.

Now, here is the problem for you. You staked part of your argument on a falsehood, the idea that homosexuality is unnatural. That idea has been proven wrong, and it opens the possibility that all of your other claims are erroreous or deliberate lies as well.

Then you compounded your error, by trying to change the meaning of the evidence, rather than just admit you were wrong. That too indicates deception. Christians know who the father of lies is, AJ, and those who use too many lies, come across as servants of the father of lies.

"So, since you justify your sin of homosexuality by claiming it's "natural" because it "occurs in nature," "

Trouble is, I don't. I just refute the lie 'homosexuality is unnatural' with the fact that it occurs in nature. So again, we have a case of you being dishonest in your arguments. The more dishonesty in your arguments, the less likely your concluions are accurate.

Here we go, another insult in place or reason and evidence.
"And FJ, you can't be serious about the Law of Christ. Either you were joking or you really lack a solid foundation for what Christians hold is the Law of Christ."

I went straight to the source, AJ. Christ said, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself."

That is it. Not a word about homosexuality, homosexual lovemaking.

Your dismissal 'lack a solid foundation' is not only a case of sinning against me, it is an empty dismissal.

It is very sad for you that you have rejected Christ's teaching on the subject, and relied on empty dismissals without a shred of evidence.




It includes not only the Gospels but the entire New Testament, which obviously includes Paul's epistles, which contain Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 and their condemnations of homosexuality.



And there's the distortion, right on cue
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/12/2007 5:03 PM  

"But if we are stealing from them or sleeping with their wife or engaging in other sinful behavior – such as homosexuality – with them, then we are not loving them and we surely aren’t loving God and honoring Him."

Here, not only have you violated 'love your neighbor as yourself' by comparing my relationship with my partner to adultery and stealing - that is very low and depraved, AJ, you've employed circular logic as well, which is fallacy.

Homosexual lovemaking does not violate love your neighbor as yourself. When my partner and I make love, we do not harm each other, we do not harm you, we do not harm any other person.

Your insinuation that we do, does violate 'love your neighbor as yourself', AJ. You are, after all, insisting that the beautiful, loving, consensual, unitive, vulnerable, intimate sharing we enjoy is, in your mind, something so hideous that we deserve to be murdered and then tortured for all eternity.

That is a truly evil thing to think about someone else's lovemaking. And unless you want people to think the same of you, you have violated Christ's command.

Homosexual lovemaking simply doesn't intrinsically violate 'love your neighbor as yourself', AJ, but condemning homosexuals does. And frankly, homosexual lovemaking doesn't prevent homosexuals from loving God with their entire selves, either. For Christian GLBTQ people, it actually requires that we put all our faith in God, and His relationship with us, instead of believe wannabe deities like you and Fred Phelps, who insist that we live according to your guesses.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/12/2007 5:10 PM  

I'm going to skip around in your analysis of Romans 1. I have to give you credit for not taking verses out of context, AJ. Maybe my warning last night meant something.

I'm starting with this, knowing that you are trying to construct a condemnation of GLBTQ people.

"That word "suppress" is interesting. It obviously assumes that one actually possesses the knowledge of the truth (which is a claim that will be reinforced), but instead of submitting to the truth, they instead suppress the truth. So people possess knowledge of God and His ways and His commands, but they do whatever they can to push that knowledge of truth down."

The overwhelming majority of GLBTQ people I know, are Christians, most from birth. And their experience is that, from their earliest awareness of sexuality, they were attracted to their own gender. They did not suppress heterosexuality in themselves, and they did not suppress God, and your insinuation that they have, is reprehensible.

However, AJ, you are seeking to suppress the truth, here on this thread. The truth is that homosexuality is not intrinsically sin, it is natural, and it is the way some people are made by God.

Much of the next part is a case of you pretending to know what is occurring in the hearts and minds of other people, as yet another example of circular logic.

Let's get to the meat, and explore your sin againsg GLBTQ people later.

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."

Here, Paul delineates quite specifically that the context for his remarks is idolatry, the reference to images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and things.

Homosexuals are not engaged in idolatry, we are engaged in love.

But this statement fits you and other conservative Christians to a T:
"People then rationalize their rejection of God's truth and their sin by engaging in utterly foolish religiosity. "

Here you are, engaged in creating an imaginary vision of god, which you not only worship, but foist onto everyone else as well.

But what really matters is that Paul was quite explicit - he is talking about people who worship created things.

I don't. And, AJ, should you claim I am, since you have no information other than my testimony, you will be bearing false witness and violating Christ's command.

This is probably one of the sicker elements of your post, AJ.

"Three times in this section it will states that "God gave them up." This is a judicial term in the Greek, used for handing over a prisoner to his sentence. When people consistently reject God's truth and abandon Him and His Word, He will abandon them."

What you are doing here is stomping in the spiritual wounds of Christian GLBTQ people. Our stories are consistent. We grew up Christians, sincere, devout, many looking forward to life in the ministry. And the puberty arrived, and with it, same-sex attractions, and some malignant soul declared 'God has given you up' - or as you are insinuating 'you were not sincere'.

The damage that does is extreme, AJ. People leave church altogether over it, some simply do not survive.

What you are arguing is a construct of ugly assumptions about people you don't know, in order to avoid what is plain in the text - repeated references to idolatry. But, how uncharitable of you, you've just told millions of Christian teens that God has abandoned them.

Is that really what you intended to say?

You are accusing, without evidence, millions of people of idolatry. So let's look again at:

Matthew 7
"1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "

You judged GLBTQ people by Levitical law, and in doing so, put yourself under it. I'll also remind you of Romans 2:
1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/12/2007 5:26 PM  

Though you squirmed around it, AJ, the core of Romans 1 is a rebuke of specific fertility cults that were common in Rome and Corith. It is not about all homosexuals, and, you have to sin, greatly, by assuming hideous and depraved things about millions of people you don't know, and calling many of them liars, to even make it appear to be about our lives.

The further problem with this passion is in some words you conveniently, perhaps deceitfully left out:

"Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women "

Note the words 'exchanged' and 'abandoned'. To exchange something for something else, one must have the first thing to begin with. Homosexuals are not people who have exchanged a pre-existing heterosexual orientation for something new. Nor have we abandoned a pre-existing heterosexual orienation for something new. We are staying true to the orientation we are endowed with at least by birth.

On the ironic hand, efforts to make homosexuals into heterosexuals, does fit the process Paul condemns. Here you are, essentially arguing for us to abandon the God we know, believe you instead, and then exchange our natural orientation for one that will be pleasing to you.

"The meaning of "against nature," or "contrary to nature," has to be (and is) defined by the context. "

In the context of a homosexual innate orientation, heterosexual sex is against our nature, it is contrary to our nature. And no external context superceeds that, no matter how convoluted or obfuscative in nature.

'The Apostle Paul is clearly referring to the way God created human beings. God created them male and female, and He created the healthy and natural sexual union that takes place between a man and a woman. This is what has been "exchanged" in the rapidly descending stairway of abominable sinfulness."

No, Paul is clearly referring to fertility rituals practiced by certain cults. You are inventing out of whole cloth here, and again, based on circular thinking.

"In these verses there is clarity in Paul's description of homosexuality. It's clear and unambiguous. "

The problem is that whatever he is actually describing, and we do not know for sure the original sexual orientation of the cultic priests and priestess he is vilifying, it is solely within the context of religious fertility rituals.

Nothing more.

The fertility rituals celebrating Cybele are well documented. They describe something with no similarity at all to the consensual, intimate unitive lovemaking of same-sex couples, or GLBTQ people in general.

"Paul leaves us no doubt as to what he is referencing - adult homosexuals!"

No, the word doesn't even appear in his text. He is referencing people who "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles". And that's it.

Nice ad hominem there, coupled with a lie about my post.

There is so much deliberate deception and untruth in your post, AJ. Don't you feel any sense of shame, at all?
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/12/2007 5:41 PM  

Now, AJ, I've examined much of your heresy.

Jesus gave us a test for sound doctrine. It comes to us from Matthew 7, and while the entire passage is relevant, for the sake of non-Christians here, I'll focus on one of the core ideas:

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

You are here teaching 'homosexuality is sin'. So we are invited, urged, by Christ, to examine the fruit of that teaching.

What is the fruit of teaching 'homosexuality is sin'.

Murder, to begin with. The condemnation of homosexuals is the primary inspiration behind hate crimes targeting GLBTQ people. At a rate of about 4 a day, people express 'homosexuality is sin' by beating or killing someone else. That is a really evil fruit.

Another fruit of 'homosexuality is sin' is hate speech itself. People who believe 'homosexuality is sin' have a all too common tendency to go out and defame, revile, slander and libel GLBTQ people. You,AJ, have done so, by calling our loving relationships sin.

You have also argued for another evil fruit - excommunication, as an expression of 'homosexuality is sin'. And, as evil fruit go, you've lied about millions of people, insinuated horrific and terrible things about Christian GLBTQ people. These are sins of bearing false witness, evil fruit indeed.

There's more, of course. Another evil fruit of 'homosexuality is sin' are ex-gay ministries and other efforts to force homosexuals to be heterosexuals. Wayne's testimony here is an account of just how poisonous that fruit is. I know of many, many, many others. And in addition to all of the people injured by ex-gay ministries and reparative therapy, there are thousands more who self-tortured themselves in efforts to no longer be 'given over' by God. The flood of misery this one fruit has caused is beyond the limits of current computing to contain in detail.

And there is more evil fruit. "homosexuality is sin" has driven parents to expell their GLBTQ teens from the family home, putting these kids out on the streets with nothing. In other words, it causes parents to abandon their most primal and sacred duty - ensure the health and well-being of their children. Now that is a crime against nature.

And of course, not to miss any, there are the many laws that deliberately target GLBTQ people for discrimination, for reduced civil rights, that set them apart, for a wholly subjective reason, as intrinsically less human than everyone else.

This has a companion evil fruit. For when we as a society declare 'hey, you can discriminate against GLBTQ people' we validate the principle that not all people are protected - and in doing so, society validates every other racism and prejudice.

It is no wonder that so many homophobes also articulate other prejudices, anti-semitism or anti-catholicism, racism or misogyny.

One of the interesting parallels I've noticed recently, in my study of the Bible, is how much prejudice fits Christ's teaching about demons - the way demons seek company of their own kind, that when a person is infested with one demon, others move in as well, the way demons cite scripure while distorting its spirit.

That's only a partial list of the evil fruit of 'homosexuality is sin'.

There is no list of good fruit coming from that teaching. I've been asking for years now, and no one has provided even a single example.

The closest people get is either justifying one of the evil fruits, or employing circular logic.

Most simply deny all of the damage done to GLBTQ people, and their families and friends and society itself, out of hand. A few justify that harm, and some blame GLBTQ people themselves for the oppression that is inflicted on them. Of course, these very tactics are also evil fruit.

I'd almost bet, that you will try pretty much all of the above, but the most likely is that you'll just issue empty dismissal after empty dismissal, call people ignorant and uneducated, make claims without substantiation, and generally obfuscate and distort the whole issue.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/12/2007 6:01 PM  

slightly off subject, it has been making the rounds that Shirley Phelps-Roper has an illegitimate son. She admitted to it on a video on the internet. I am supprised that Wayne isn't all over this like a fly on shit. But who is the father?incest anyone? could be.

when it rains, it rains pennies from heaven:)
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 6:40 PM  

Good afternoon Friend of Jonathan (FJ)!

A lot of mistakes to deal with here. You're assuming that God-defined sin (i.e., transgression of His Law) is analogous to your (arbitrary) definition of what constitutes sin. Does coveting in itself fall under your category of sin? Does lust in itself fall under your category of sin? Does it cause "tangible, documentable harm"?

"[Jesus speaking] You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell" (Matthew 5: 27 - 30).

Does anger in itself fall under your category of sin? Does it cause "tangible, documentable harm"?

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire" (Matthew 5: 21 - 22).

But in the end your definition of sin doesn't align with God's. His definition of sin is transgression of the Law, not the arbitrary "things [that] cause tangible, documentable harm."

I'll have to repeat to some extent the argument FJ conveniently ignores (labeling a "straw-man" and "circular"?!?!"; someone may need to re-take elementary logic!).

FJ claims that homosexuality is "natural" because it "occurs in nature." Notice in the response to FJ's quoted assertions there is no denial that animals may indeed engage in homosexual activity. What's being questioned is the conclusion that because animals do something that somehow makes it "natural" for them and for humans. But it is God Who states what is natural and unnatural, not animal behavior.

And again, a lot of things "occur in nature." Many animals are also known to murder, steal, rape, and cannibalize.

FJ, is that "natural" as well? Yes or no, and based on what authority and what standard of "natural"?

And if it is "natural" for humans to engage in homosexual acts because certain animals do, then logically it would have to follow that it's "natural" for humans to murder, steal, rape, and cannibalize.

And FJ, if you actually believe that you have demonstrated from the Biblical text that homosexuality is "natural," then I use this as another DEMONSTRATION and as EVIDENCE of your ignorance of basic logic and foundational biblical theology. You have proven nothing of the sort and you don't even deal with the arguments made!

When you and your partner engage in homosexual sex, know that you are NOT loving each other; rather, you are aiding one another in committing a sexual sin, a degrading passion, a shameful lust, a vile passion, and a dishonorable passion. You have sinned against God and sinned against your partner.

As for Fred Phelps, he and his non-Christian cult at Westboro Baptist do not represent authentic, orthodox Christianity. They are not Christians. They are not Baptists. And they are not a "church." What they are is a blight upon the Christian faith. Their "preaching" and "demonstrations" are unbiblical and unreasonable. In fact, they are sinful. True love - Bible and Christ-centered love - is a foreign concept to Mr. Phelps and his cult.

Concerning Romans 1, you provided little exegesis, but great eisegesis. For example, where SPECIFICALLY in the text do you find a "rebuke of specific fertility cults that were common in Rome and Corith"?

And contrary to your assertions, Paul's argument is that you have rebelled against that which is natural for everyone (i.e., heterosexual relations) and willfully chosen to engage in that which is against nature - defined by God, not you.

God made humans male and female. God defines sexuality. And here and elsewhere He condemns homosexuality as sin. No question about the context. No question about the consistency of this teaching throughout Scripture. No question about how Christians have viewed this subject historically.

EVERY homosexual has rejected - and therefore distorted - their Creator's creational design for sexuality. You claim you're not doing so explicitly FJ. Perhaps. But then you've merely trained yourself to do it implicitly. Paul's condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1 - as well as 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 - is clear-cut, and you can't escape it (which is why Barry Lynn and others get embarrassed in formal debates on this subject).

Now, I know that suppressing the truth of God in your life is a difficult thing to do FJ. If you haven't completely trained yourself to ignore the fire-alarm of your conscience, I'm sure it can be difficult to wrestle constantly with it.

After all, it takes a lot of effort to convince yourself that your sin of homosexuality is good. It takes a lot of effort to convince yourself that the darkness is light and the light is darkness. And because of the state of rebellion that you're in you are particularly angered that I would dare declare God's Truth that homosexuality is unnatural. That homosexuality is directly opposed to God's creative order. That homosexuality is sinful. And that your Creator demands - DEMANDS - that you repent from it. But the truth must be declared.

And don't think I'm saying this from above. I'm just as depraved as anyone and in need of God's grace. We're all born with a condition that we cannot change on our own - it's called total depravity. And the truth is homosexuality is just like any other sin. It can be forgiven by God based on the blood of Jesus Christ alone.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 6:42 PM  

does this boy ever shut up? Can anyone send him back to the 15th century?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 6:58 PM  

Good one Ben! :-) I answered many of your questions sir; will I receive the same courtesy?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 8:10 PM  

"A lot of mistakes to deal with here. You're assuming that God-defined sin (i.e., transgression of His Law) is analogous to your (arbitrary)"

Nice mistake and ad hominem there, AJ, claiming that my definition of sin is arbitrary. Will all of your rebuttal be as dishonest?

Since my definition of sin comes from Christ, shouldn't you be a little more careful?

So, let's correct your little spin doctoring:
"Does coveting in itself fall under Christ's category of sin"

The dictionary defines covet as "to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others" - so, yes, that falls under Christ's category of sin.

Does lust in itself fall under Christ's category of sin?
The dictionary defines lust as "uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness. "

To the degree that either of these violate 'love your neighbor as yourself' - at that point, they are sin.

"But in the end your definition of sin doesn't align with God's. His definition of sin is transgression of the Law, not the arbitrary "things [that] cause tangible, documentable harm.""

Thanks for lying, AJ. But no, Jesus defined the Law as 'Love God with your entire self' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself'.

And another empty insult from AJ. Compounding your prior sins against me with more of 'em doesn't make matters better AJ. You have sinned against me, and against millions of GLBTQ people. Will you repent?

You know, I am really disappointed that you are simply repeating the same strawman argument. What a contemptuous and arrogant thing to do.

"What's being questioned is the conclusion that because animals do something that somehow makes it "natural" for them and for humans."

This is the strawman argument. The fact that homosexuality occurs in nature is provided only to refute the lie 'homosexuality is unnatural'. So face up to it, you lied to everyone here.

I never implied, argued, suggested or hinted that because something occurs in nature it is moral, nor would I be so irrational as to imply that anything that does not occur in nature, anything unnatural, is automatically immoral.

The entire line of reasoning - that homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural - is fallacious. Not only it is founded on a falsehood, but morality is not determined by whether or not something is natural.

Computers are unnatural, AJ, and you are using one. Does that make your use of a computer immoral? While what you do with it may be immoral, the fact that computers are man-made, not natural, does not determine the morality of computers.

So it would be silly of me to do as you claim, and argue that whether or not something is natural indicates its moral state.

But, thanks for lying about my position. Each lie you use indites your overall position.

Again, you go on sentence after sentence without a shred of evidence, and precious little logic or reason. Your say-so has no weight, AJ.

"When you and your partner engage in homosexual sex, know that you are NOT loving each other;"

Now this is rephensibly ugly beyond all measure. It is a statement of malice and evil.

What extraordinary egotism, AJ, leads you to think you know the truth of my relationship better than I do?

You cannot. You are making statements of fact, that you cannot know, and by presenting them as fact, you are lying.

You just bore false witness against me, AJ. I ask you in the name of Jesus Christ to repent of your sin against me, to promise never to repeat, but to show true contrition.

"rather, you are aiding one another in committing a sexual sin, a degrading passion, a shameful lust, a vile passion, and a dishonorable passion."

By posting this, AJ, you have rejected the commands of Jesus Christ. Unless you want similar filth posted to your face, so to speak, in public, you have just violated 'love your neighbor as yourself' - and, frankly, because GLBTQ people are part of God's creation, you are demonstrating that you do not 'love God with your entire self' - not enough to refrain from abusing and vilifying people He loves.

"As for Fred Phelps, he and his non-Christian cult at Westboro Baptist do not represent authentic, orthodox Christianity. They are not Christians. "

And yet, you and he say the same basic things, in slightly different ways. So whatever qualities he does not possess, you do not either.

"For example, where SPECIFICALLY in the text do you find a "rebuke of specific fertility cults that were common in Rome and Corith"?"

Romans 1 23: "images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" Archeologists have documented that the temples of the cult of cybele included images of humans, birds, animals and reptiles.

"And contrary to your assertions, Paul's argument is that you have rebelled against that which is natural for everyone (i.e., heterosexual relations) and willfully chosen to engage in that which is against nature - defined by God, not you."

That is predicated on the false assumption that heterosexuality is natural for everyone. However, the evidence from the real world indicates that heterosexuality is not normal for everyone. Not only is there the testimony of millions of gay men and lesbians over the course of human history, there are the hundreds of species in which homosexual pair bonding occurs. Additionally, creation-wise, heterosexual pair-bonding is the minority form of sexual expression. By sheer mass, the most common expression of sexuality - is asexual - bacteria for example. Next most common is hermphrodism, as found not only in animals, but in plants as well.

So, again, you are pretending to have knowledge you cannot have, pretending to be omniscient, really, by claiming to know more about my life than I do.

You are not God, AJ. Please come down from your throne, someone else needs use the restroom.

Repeating the same lies over and over again doesn't make them so. God does not condemn homosexuality, it does not fail either test of the Law that Christ gave.

"EVERY homosexual has rejected - and therefore distorted - their Creator's creational design for sexuality. "

Once again, you bear false witness against me, my partner, our friends, coworkers, millions of GLBTQ people, without a shred of evidence. I have to ask you, again, to repent of this sin.

All you've done here, AJ, is repeated your empty claims, without addressing the actual points I raised, without introducing a single shred of evidence.

You point repeatedly to 1 Corinthians 6 - but the fact remains no matter how much you run from it - Paul did not use either of the two common greeks words for men who have sex with men.

The two words that would have meant what you hunger for that passage to mean - Paul did not use them. Neither of them.

And while we must speculate to some degree about what he did mean, we know, absolutely know, that he did not use either of the two words that would have conveyed 'men who have sex with men' (homosexual men) to the people he was writing to.

"Now, I know that suppressing the truth of God in your life is a difficult thing to do FJ."

Interestingly, because I've never been in that position, so wouldn't know. What truth in your life are you suppressing, AJ?

By the way, my id is Friend of Jonathan, not FJ. Have the decency to use it as is.

And with no answer to that, you defecated a load of hateful assertions about me and millions of other people instead.

"you are particularly angered "

Please do not tell lies about my emotional state. Angered? Hardly. Disgusted by your statements - some. Ashamed that someone who calls himself a servant of Christ would post such filth, some. Bemused at watching someone who has called me ignorant and uninformed make so many mistakes, a little, but I'm trying not to enjoy it too much.


"And don't think I'm saying this from above. "

I'm glad you admit that your malicious remarks do not come from God. The source is far more human, far more prone to evil.

"But the truth must be declared."

According to Paul, the truth about God is self-evident. Now lies, those have be declared, they have no existence at all until someone like you comes along and declares them at people, whomping and bashing people upside the head with your construct of frauds and guesses, defending it all by calling everyone else ignorant.

The truth AJ, sets people free, and all you are offering people is bondage to you. I have a wonderful, intense relationship with God punctuated by miracles and visions, a deeply romantic, unitive beautiful relationship, whose impact on others is consistently beneficial.

You have provide a list of hateful and malicious claims about millions of people you do not know. Whether you do so to make yourself feel less horrible about some crime or sin, or for the sheer demonic joy of harming other people, is really irrelevant.

What matters is that you have vilified millions of people, without excuse, without evidence, without logic or reason.

The really dishonest thing in your post, AJ, is that you claim that there many mistakes in mine, and yet, you completely failed to back that up.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/12/2007 8:17 PM  

AJ

I want to make it perfectly clear - the concept you are teaching here - bears only evil fruit.

You have borne evil fruit here, by denigrating my relationship, and that of millions of other GLBTQ people.

You bore evil fruit here by lying about the emotional state of my relationship - something you cannot know, for you are not a participant.

You bore evil fruit by engaging in hate speech, AJ.

And worst of all, you have recited a list of your demands, and the attributed to 'the Creator' - essentially putting yourself up as God.

You are not. Far from it. Perhaps not as completely far from God as it is possible to be, but, quite a ways.

Evil fruit, AJ, is proof of an evil tree.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/12/2007 8:24 PM  

AJ

Something just occured to me, pieces fell into place.

It sures looks like the one person you are really trying to convince here, is yourself.

After, you jumped into a thread discussing the credibility of an 'ex-gay' - and proceeded to launch one long dissertation of religion after another.

The overall structure of your arguments are of the 'I said so' nature. You provide almost no external information or citations, everything is to be examined in light of what in in your head, what you have studied.

You are not trying to convince us, you are trying to convince yourself.

And then, there is the huge seasoning of insults - calling people ignorant, minimalizing their intelligence and training, when ever they point out an error in your arguments. Again, such tactics do little to convince anyone reading along, but, they do bolster your own sense of having the answer, if only you could convince yourself.

But it only got worse for you, didn't it. Eventually, you were issue rather hateful declarations about other Christian denominations, including some whose theology is the foundation for your own convoluted arguments. Once again, dismissing entire branches of Christianity is hardly a convincing tactic, it opens the possibility to us, that all Christian belief is suspect, especially your own. And, since the denominations you reject declare that they are legitimate, it also suggests to those of us reading along, that you are just off-base on every element. Those condemnations of other denominations serve only one purpose - to tell yourself that you are right and they are wrong.

With each post, your text is framed more as a conversation with yourself, than to anyone else. Notice that even the level of your discourse is radically out of sync with the sentence structure, vocabulary, of everyone else here - not superior, by a long shot, distant, deliberately outside. That too suggests that you are really only posting for your own benefit, arguing to yourself, rather than anyone else. You even went so far, on several occasions, to ignore people's id, or manipulate for yourself, rather than address them directly.

Clearly, you are trying to convince yourself of something. And the increasing heat in your posts indicates that even there, you are failing.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/12/2007 8:59 PM  

Friend of Jonathan,

First off, I apologize for not using "Friend of Jonathan" every time I referenced you. At the beginning of my previous posts I did indicate that I would be using the shortened version "FJ" and you hadn't said anything up until now. But Friend of Jonathan it will be. I did not mean ANY disrespect.

Quick correction also: Please go back to my first comment in this thread and then please retract your statement from your last comment. Thanks!

Now, you defined sin as "tangible, documentable harm," no? If that's not arbitrary, how do you justify it? You say that definition comes from Jesus - what chapter and verse please?

"Whosoever commits sin transgresses the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4).

BTW, I'm fascinated with the possibility of your definition of ad hominem and straw-man. Could you please provide me your definition? I want to weigh it against my logic books and also check this and past posts for consistency. Thanks!

Again, did you not define sin as "tangible, documentable harm"? Those were your words, no? How then SPECIFICALLY is your definition of coveting and lust (it seems you ignored anger; why?) "tangible" and "documentable"?

Concerning Jesus summary (note: NOT "definition") of the law - the two greatest commandments - could you please tell me where he was quoting from in the Torah?

On what basis sir do you distinguish between what "occurs in nature" that is "natural," and that which also "occurs in nature" but is unnatural?

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that since homosexuality "occurs in nature," then it's "natural." But even though murder, rape, stealing, and cannibalism also "occur in nature," somehow they're not "natural." On what basis do you make this claim and distinction?

How do you define what is and what is not moral/sinful? How do you know this? And how are "computers unnatural"? :-)

Just as I classify adulterous acts in and of themselves as sinful based on God's revealed Word, so to and with the same authority I can classify homosexual acts sinful. And absolutely God loves you Friend of Jonathan and all homosexuals and all heterosexuals. But calling homosexuality what it is - sinful - is not unloving or "unchristian."

Was Jesus unloving to adulterers when He said, "Go and sin no more"? Was the Apostle Paul unloving to thieves when he said "Such WERE some of you"? Is it unloving to obey Christ and preach the Word of God and proclaim there is such a thing as sin and that's why Jesus Christ died upon a cross?

Your quotation from Romans 1:23 doesn't align with your claim at all, especially in the context of the entire chapter. How do you not see that? Please put your claim and all of Romans 1 side by side Friend of Jonathan in isolation. You have got to see that your claim is NOT IN THE TEXT. No one's disputing the idolatry element in Romans 1. But surely there is more to the text that you haven't dealt with. Have you read on?

You make some other claims that lead me to a question - assume that Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience are the four major influences on your theology; if you had to, what order of importance would you put them in?

And we have to deal with 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 AGAIN:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice HOMOSEXUALITY [Greek, "arsenokoites"], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (emphasis mine).

Question: The word translated "homosexual" here is the Greek "arsenokoites", yes or no sir?

What's its meaning?

Strong's defines the term as "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite, a homosexual."

The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament defines "arsenokoites" as "an adult male who practices sexual intercourse with another adult male."

In their lexicon, Greek scholars W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich translate "arsenokoites" as "male homosexual."

According to the Apostle Paul, the truth of the Creator is self-evident. Your standard ignores the Bible's teaching that we are in need of special revelation. Again, such clear misstatements relating to such fundamental Christian theology Friend of Jonathan leads me to question your theological foundation.

I have to be honest and say I don't trust your ability to separate your claims about the Bible or the Christian life from your own personal, meandering experiences. You seem to have built a large portion of your life around rationalizations and justifications of the choices you have made, some of which - like homosexuality - are sinful and dishonor the LORD Jesus who you claim to serve.

Now, I feel NO "hate" for you as I say this. None whatsoever. I also don't hate the people who perform abortions. But I still believe they are sinning and dishonoring to the LORD Jesus.

In end sir, God is God and we are not. My job isn't to try to pretend the Bible says what I wish it said, but to believe what it does in fact say. And once again, on that note the atheist homosexual is being much more honest about the Bible than you are. The atheist homosexual will say that the Bible clearly and consistently condemns all sex outside of marriage, including homosexual relations - but he or she simply chooses to reject that teaching. But you are unwilling to outright reject Scripture. So, you twist the Word of God to fit your own thinking, preferences, and sin.

Finally, despite our disagreements, please know that I wish you God's very best!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 10:15 PM  

No, AJ. i don't think it would be worthwhile (after this post) to interact with you. IMHO, you are in the grip of what used to be called religious mania. You are obssessed with your religion, have delusions of grandeur about what you know and what you think, and are at least prepared to be persecuted for the grandeur of your thoughts. Sorry, I cannot buy into it.

My first posts directed to you were in the mode of trying to help out a fellow man who is seriously mistaken, perhaps deluded, but possibly sincere, in his beliefs. (Depraved? Hummankind is depraved? God's creation is depraved? Please. Maybe you. Or maybe you, Osama, and the late unlamented Jerry.) Please leave the rest of us out of your delusion.

But it is clear from
everything you say that you are lost in your world of sin, struggle, sacrifice, blood and redemption- your delusion of grandeur that god has personally conveyed to you his truth, and that you are capable of knowing and understanding it.

Gandalf put it perfectly; "Send me men who have less lore and more wisdom." I sincerely doubt you'll ever come to a true understanding of yourself, let alone god, religion, and the nature of man and reality.

You seem to be a bright (and I am assuming) young man, but you lack wisdom. Or it it may be (as I truly think) you are so lost on your personal planet that you will never willingly join the rest of us. In fact it may not be possible.

There, you are in good company. Luther, Osama, Knomeini, the Pope, Falwell, Robertson and on and on and on. People who do not share your beliefs suffer and die because of them. (By their fruits...)
But in your monomania, it's not important, because everything you do is done for the greater glory of god-- so you say and think. (God has no current comments on whether that is true.)
In this you, and others who think like you, are truly just sociopathic personalities.

Unfortunately, the rest of us have to live with your certainties.

Oh, well.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 10:58 PM  

AJ,
"degrees of punishment in hell"

You truly belong to a church of one. Yourself. there is NO mention or even a suggestion of this in the bible. This is the main reason why it can be said that it is a man written book.

The first book in the new testament is Mark,and the rest of the canonical books were written, and not by the names of the books themselves, by people with Mark before them, or more likely the Q document before them. Biblical scholarship has all but proven the Q theory in receint years.

There are numerious books, finally, on atheism. Much of what they say has been written before but the difference is that while Christians try to present themselves as a percicuted minority they are in fact a majority. And atheist themed books could not get printed. Sex, drugs and all other debauchery, yes, but aetithesm is where the line was drawn. Books by Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, and others are sure to prove a facinating read for the religious and nonreligious alike. Chech them out.

As a final note to gays out there, trust the words of the notorious Madalyn Murry O'hair, the saint who rid the schools of prayer and thus saved democracy. She said something to the affect that is makes as much sense for a homosexual to enter a church as to run into a burning house.

If you are going to take a literalist reading of the bible, so few people are going to enter heaven (seen any camels pass through a needles eye lately?) that it not even emotionally healthy to try. Take solice of your illustriouls companions in hell (or soon to be). The pope, Gandi, Kennedy, Hannity and Santorium (there is justice), and so many others.

Since all sins are equal, there is no degrees of punishment in hell (idiotic theory), nose pickers as guilty as Hitlers and Pol Pots. If you don't believe you can't force it. You can't fool god (so much for the Pascal's wager) so perhaps you will get lucky if there is a god and he will welcome an honest doubter verses an opertunist better. Seriously you'd be lucky if 5% of world population will be spared hell. Live now and let the devil have tomorrow. Odds are he will anyway:) peace out enjoy the day. Love life. You only are here once.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 11:04 PM  

"Quick correction also: Please go back to my first comment in this thread and then please retract your statement from your last comment. Thanks!"

No, I'll leave my honest and accurate appraisal as is, thank you.

I see you've chosen to dance around some more. And that you are again playing 'because I said' card. No dice.

"But calling homosexuality what it is - sinful - is not unloving or "unchristian.""

Of course it, though, it does require a sense of right and wrong, a moral compass so to speak, to see it.

Calling homosexuality sin, which is a lie by the way, intrinsically declares that the innate trait possessed by millions of people, and the loving, unitive, intimate, vulnerable, beautiful relationships and physical expression in those relationships

is something so vile, it deserves death and unending torture.

That is deeply malicious claim, AJ. As was your claim that my partner and I are not expressing love - that, AJ, was evil on an almost demonic scale.

"Was Jesus unloving to adulterers "

Can you grasp that adultery intrinsically requires the breaking of a vow, and therefore, harms the spouse being cheated on?

Committing adultery is an unloving act, a violation of 'love your neighbor as yourself' - unless, as is very rare indeed, the adulterer wants to be cheated on in return.

It is a nice red herring argument, but it doesn't advance your case, and it doesn't make your sins against GLBTQ people go away.

You have repeatedly slandered us, borne false witness against us, and you have a burden of repentance.

Repent, AJ. Repent of your many, many sins against GLBTQ people.

"Your quotation from Romans 1:23 doesn't align with your claim at all, especially in the context of the entire chapter."

Of course it does. My position is that Paul is only talking about idolatry, and 1:23 describes idoltry "images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles"

"How do you not see that?"

I'm not prone to sick fantasies. Perhaps that is what saves me from your theology.

"You have got to see that your claim is NOT IN THE TEXT."

AJ, my claim is the text. Let me repeat it for you yet again: "images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles"

I'll even repeat Paul's repeat:"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator"

Worshipped and served created things instead of the Creator. That is a pretty explicit definition of idolatry:
1. the religious worship of idols.
2. excessive or blind adoration, reverence, devotion, etc.

You are going to have to do better than empty insults, AJ. Paul is clear, he is writing about idolatry, not homosexuals. Vague innuendos, insulting inferences about my reading, are just cheap shots.

"And we have to deal with 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 AGAIN:"

Because you keep repeating the same lie, AJ. And you keep completely ducking my argument, which is despicable and lazy, AJ.

The two commonly used greek words in Paul's time and place for 'men who have sex with men' are erestes and eranamos. Paul used neither one.

Face it. Paul did not use either of the two words that actual mean what you want his passage to mean.

He used two other words. One he invented on the spot, did not define, and its usage is confined to sin lists that largely regurgitate Paul's passage - they do not define or explain the term. It's translation has changed over time, as well.

As has been pointed out, your process of determining meaning from its components is naive at best, linguistically invalid as others put it.
http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html
"The only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible. The word "means" according to its function, according to how particular people use the word in different situations. Unfortunately, we have very few uses of arsenokoités and most of those occur in simple lists of sins, mostly in quotations of the biblical lists, thus pro- viding no explanation of the term, no independent usage, and few clues from the context about the term's meaning. But having analyzed these different occurrences of arsenokoités, especially cases where it occurs in vice lists that do not merely quote 1 Cor. 6:9 or 1 Tim. 1:10, I am convinced that we can make some guarded statements.

As others have noted, vice lists are sometimes organized into groups of "sins," with sins put together that have something to do with one another.9 First are listed, say, vices of sex, then those of violence, then others related to economics or injustice. Analyzing the occurrence of arsenokoités in different vice lists, I noticed that it often occurs not where we would expect to find reference to homosexual intercourse — that is, along with adultery (moicheia) and prostitution or illicit sex (porneia) — but among vices related to economic injustice or exploitation. Though this provides little to go on, I suggest that a careful analysis of the actual context of the use of arsenokoités, free from linguistically specious arguments from etymology or the word's separate parts, indicates that arsenokoités had a more specific meaning in Greco-Roman culture than homosexual penetration in general, a meaning that is now lost to us. It seems to have referred to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex, perhaps but not necessarily homosexual sex.

One of the earliest appearances of the word (here the verb) occurs in Sibylline Oracle 2.70-77.10 Although the date of this section of the oracle — indeed, of the finished oracle itself — is uncertain, there is no reason to take the text as dependent on Paul or the New Testament. The oracle probably provides an independent use of the word. It occurs in a section listing acts of economic injustice and exploitation;"
(much more there of use to anyone interested in the truth)

This is useful too, and includes cases where a man is accused of committing malakoi against his wife:
http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/arsenok.htm "All known references to arsenokoit*
The following research represents all 73 references to arsenokoit* found in TLG E (released Feb 2000), as well as two references found in the Penitentials. "

The reality, even if though you quote mainstream publishing houses associated with denominations that profit from oppressing GLBTQ people, is that we cannot be sure what Paul meant by arsenokoite - but, we know he did not use either of the two greek words for men who have sex with men.

Now, here you are, looking at the word arsenokoite, and now aware that Paul did not use either of the two greeks words that actually meant 'men who have sex with men'.

You have a decision to make. Do you assume something ugly, hateful and malicious about millions of people who have never wronged you, and conclude that arsenokoite, against all evidence, means 'homosexual' -

or, do you treat GLBTQ people the way you would want to be treated, give them the benefit of any doubt, thick or thin, and conclude that Paul chose not to use the words erestes and eranamos, the words for men who have sex with men, because that was not the concept he was expressing?

You, AJ, have chosen to assume the worst about millions of people, despite all the evidence. That ultimately is about you, rather than us.

"I have to be honest and say I don't trust your ability to separate your claims about the Bible or the Christian life from your own personal, meandering experiences."

Ah, ad hominem again. Now, as you did to others, my arguments are simply wrong because I am gay. Of course, my experiences have not been meandering, so you are sinning against me again. Please repent, here, as publically as you have sinned.

"And once again, on that note the atheist homosexual is being much more honest about the Bible than you are."

And more sin from AJ, for you have not even begun to prove that I am dishonest about the Bible. Repent, AJ, you have sinned against me yet again.

While I have caught you, several times, misrepresenting the contents of the Bible, I have not been dishonest.

"The atheist homosexual will say that the Bible clearly and consistently condemns all sex outside of marriage, including homosexual relations"

Some do, without having studied the subject, just like you, you who have admitted to no formal training. Of course, atheists also insist that there is no God, so, if you are recommending that I believe them on the interpretation of a few verses, shouldn't I also believe their core belief - that there is no God?

That is just plain silly. For all their many strengths, atheists usually are not credible experts about the subject of God.

Accusations of twisting are easy, AJ, and stereotypical. When ever someone cannot disprove a point I've made, they dismiss it as 'twisting' - it is a lazy lie.


At this point, it is worth noting that while I have addressed much of the highpoints of your various heresies, you are strangely silent on the topic of evil trees bearing evil fruit.

So it bears repeating - the specific religious belief you are spreading here is directly linked to hate crimes against GLBTQ people. Folks who now agitate for a ban on same-sex marriage, which harms GLBTQ couples, cite the same religious belief 'homosexuality is sin'. You, AJ, have supplied a constant flow of attacks on my intelligence, education, integrity and relationship. All of this is evil fruit, and all of it comes from the tree 'homosexuality is sin'.

Evil fruit is proof of an evil tree, AJ. You are nurturing that evil tree. When the tree is cut down, what do you suppose will happen to its gardeners, such as yourself?
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/12/2007 11:04 PM  

Well, I would like to think I'm still young, but... :-)

I'm truly sorry to hear that Ben! You had raised some good questions related to epistemology, truth, justification, etc., and I was looking forward to examining those topics.

As I said to Friend of Jonathan, so I say to you with sincerity: Despite our disagreements, please know that I wish you God's very best!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 11:05 PM  

"Finally, despite our disagreements, please know that I wish you God's very best! "

I would really like to believe that, AJ, but given the hideous things you've said about my relationship, I think it is yet another passive aggressive lie.

Evil fruit, AJ, evil trees. What you have been teaching only bears evil fruit.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/12/2007 11:06 PM  

Mothers assure your children an eternity in heven, abort them. Stay with me here. What do all the hundreds of millions of fetus' heav in common? Thats right, they are all in heaven. Why give your baby a few decades of fun on earth when s/he can have hundreds of trillions of years in heaven. Sure you might end up in hell, but you likely will any and in todays world your kids will most likely end up in hell. VERY FEW get the great reward. Do you really want to experience the earthly hell of perhaps witnessing your rebelious druggie/sinning teenager ending up in hell should they not survive their youth. Abort your babies all of them, you might get luckly and have the time to make a deathbed confession at that.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 11:20 PM  

please note the above post was satire.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 11:20 PM  

A little something to share:

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/12/2007 11:30 PM  

Anonymous,

Concerning degrees of punishment in hell please see Luke 12, Mathew 11 and 23, and James 3.

You certainly don't offer any reasons for one to accept Q, and it's a HUGE stretch (though a quite humorous one) to claim that "Biblical scholarship has all but proven the Q theory in recent years." What "biblical scholarship"? What specific "scholars"? What have they "proven" about Q in "recent years"? What's the new stuff you're claiming here?

Concerning the new "Clowns of Reason" (Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins), Hitchens is the only one that deserves any real intellectual respect.

If you're an atheist, you ought to be downright embarrassed of Sam Harris and plead with him not to do another formal debate and/or interviews where people can call in and actually ask him questions. If he has the bully pulpit though he's OK (not nearly as sharp as Hitchens though).

As for Mr. Dawkins, he is going downhill fast, and it's sad to see. Author and philosophy professor Alvin Plantinga perhaps said it best:

"Now despite the fact that [The God Delusion] is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class."

LOL!!!

But I have to admit that I do enjoy Mr. Hitchens immensely (though we obviously disagree on the subject). God is Not Great is FAR from great, however, and if Hitch's performance in the debate with Douglas Wilson is any indication of his intellectual acumen in this area, I'm not at all worried.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/12/2007 11:54 PM  

Friend of Jonathan,

Just a few points sir in that I believe the people who read my last post and your response(s) to it can see where you are ducking points.

Now again, you had defined sin as "tangible, documentable harm," no? If that's not arbitrary, then how sir do you justify it?

You claim that definition comes from Jesus - what chapter and verse please? And how do you deal with the following verse?

"Whosoever commits sin transgresses the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4).

I'll ask again: Could you please provide me with your definitions of ad hominem, straw-man, and now red herring? I want to weigh your definitions against my logic books and also check your past posts for consistency related to that definition. Thanks!

And again, did you not define sin as "tangible, documentable harm"? Those were your words, no? How then SPECIFICALLY is your definition of coveting and lust (you ignored anger; why?) "tangible" and "documentable"?

Concerning Jesus' summary (note: NOT "definition") of the law - the two greatest commandments - could you please tell me where he was quoting from in the Torah?

On what basis sir do you distinguish between what "occurs in nature" that is "natural," and that which also "occurs in nature" but is unnatural?

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that since homosexuality "occurs in nature," then it's "natural." But even though murder, rape, stealing, and cannibalism also "occur in nature," somehow they're not "natural." On what basis do you make this claim and distinction?

How do you define what is and what is not moral/sinful? How do you know this?

In Romans 1:24, after describing the idolatry - which was not denied; reread the last post - Paul writes, "Therefore God gave them over..." Could you explain sir your position of how this distinct phrase connects to what came before and what follows?

And in Romans 1:26 Paul writes "For this reason..."; again here, could you explain your position of how this distinct phrase connects to what came before and what follows?

And is it your claim that Strong's, the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, and scholars such as W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich are NOT reliable sources? On what evidence do you base this simply astounding claim on?

And finally, to my knowledge you have yet to interact with the evidence that has been provided related to the Septuagint within this debate on 1 Corinthians 6. Why?

Cheers!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/13/2007 12:08 AM  

Since you used the word jejune I guess you win. You are a pseudo intellect of the first degree. Punctuating your remarks with the juvenile "lol" shows this.

Why mention anyone advanced in theology that gives credit to Q, you will just call them clowns or some other ad hominem attack.

It is a simple fact that when you try to find truth in reason you always come off better then someone, like yourself, who searches for it in crystals, chicken entrails or some other, any other, mysticism. I am afraid the ball is in your court and so far you have hit nothing but fouls. May I suggest reading Ayn rand if you have not already. Oh, I forget she is a dumb dumb, a clown, a stupid… I’ll leave the childish adjectives to you.


Your little passion plays of blood atonement which are nothing other then a extenuation of primitive thinking dating to the beginning of time on the bloody alters of many a tyrant are childish at best.

Dawkins, PhD, Oxford University

harris, working on PhD Neuroscience, University of California at Los Angeles

Oddly, though he may be the brightest, he is the least educated of the bunch.

The only degrees of value that you have are in your mind. If you have written a ground breaking magnum opus in the area of theology, please give me the link to amazon.com. I'll read it. Something tells me this string on Besen's is about the extent of your lettered works.

Oops I forgot, LOL. In fact I will make this my last post. I in fact do have a life and off to summer on the Cape. But to make sure I win I will beat your lol with a rotflmfao. No wait I'll up the ante, rotflmfaowtrdmc. you've been served you pathetic little fool.

P.s. answer me this, how many guys have you had sex with. Don't lie now. God will get ya
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/13/2007 12:26 AM  

"where you are ducking points."

Uh, that would be you, AJ.

And no, I'm not going to refute your strawman arguments yet again. I'm still waiting for you to repent of bearing false witness against me and my partner.

You do remember that, right, your hideously evil statement that our relationship was not love.

Repent, AJ.

"If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that since homosexuality "occurs in nature," then it's "natural." But even though murder, rape, stealing, and cannibalism also "occur in nature," somehow they're not "natural."

Strawman again, AJ. This is another example of evil fruit from your evil tree. I'm not playing.

I'm sorry, but your posts are getting a bit, well, disjointed and irrational.

"In Romans 1:24, after describing the idolatry - which was not denied; reread the last post - Paul writes, "Therefore God gave them over..." Could you explain sir your position of how this distinct phrase connects to what came before and what follows?"
Do you understand that the word 'therefore' or as other transations put it 'for this reason' functions as connective statement?

According to Paul, as a response to idolatry, God gives people over to sexual behaviors they would not engage in otherwise.

This does not fit the lives of GLBTQ people, Christian of not. And no amount of lying on your part will change that.

In the case of myself, and the Christian GLBTQ people I know, they were devout, sincere people of faith, from early childhood, and without worshipping idols, without serving created things, over the course of puberty they realized that they were attracted only to people of their own gender.

I realize that you are trying to imply that because the 'punishment' is sexual, the crime must be as well. However, that is not rational. We put people in prison cells, but it doesn't mean that every person there is a kidnapper. You are trying to apply circular logic - having decided for yourself that homosexuality is punishment for sin, homosexuals must have sinned, so therefore, homosexuality is punishment for sin.

That is very lazy thinking.

In both cases, Paul described idolatry, and then his opinion of God's punishment. It is dishonest, at best, for you to read anything more into it.

"And finally, to my knowledge you have yet to interact with the evidence that has been provided related to the Septuagint within this debate on 1 Corinthians 6. Why?"

Because you are not paying attention. I have repudiated your assumption repeatedly, you are simply lying.

However, though you have again drawn attention to Paul's letter to the Corinthians, you have yet to explain why Paul did not use either of the two words known to his readers to indicate 'men who have sex with men'.

What you are teaching here, AJ, is something that destroys lives, that destroys faith, that inspires murder and oppression, persecution and injustice. These, not homosexuality, are all repeatedly condemned by God.

Which means two things. First, you are insisting that God is ordering horrific evils that God also rejects and condemns. That is not rational.

Second, because what you are teaching causes so much harm, nothing but harm, it falls under Christ's teaching regarding false prophets.

" 15`Take care. There are prophets who are not true. They come to you dressed like sheep, but inside they are like wolves, bad animals that kill sheep.

16You will know them by the things they do. People do not pick fruit like grapes from thistles. They do not pick fruit like figs from thorn trees.

17In the same way, every good tree has good fruit. But a bad tree has bad fruit.

18A good tree cannot have bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot have good fruit.

19Every tree that does not have good fruit is cut down and thrown into a fire.

20So you will know them by the things they do, good or bad fruit.'

21`Some people say to me, "Lord, Lord". But not all who say that will go into the kingdom of heaven. Only those who do what my Father in heaven wants, will go in.

22Many people will say to me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not speak in your name? Did we not drive bad spirits out of people in your name? Did we not do big works in your name?"

23Then I will say to them, "I never knew you. Go away from me! What you do is very wrong!" '

AJ, shall we look at the very wolfish things you have said here?

Evil tree, AJ, evil fruit.

I'm still waiting for you to repent of your sin of bearing false witness against so many times. I know that I am expected to give you, essentially, an infinite number of opportunities to repent, so, I do my best to ask you to repent of your sin, as close to an infinite number of times as I can manage.

You have sinned against me, AJ, please repent.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/13/2007 12:35 AM  

Anonymous,

Actually the quote was from philosopher Alvin Plantinga, but you do know what jejune means, right?

So no defense of Q, huh? That's OK, I figured you were probably just repeating something you heard on The Discovery Channel.

BTW, LOVE Ayn Rand! I simply disagree with her on some major points. Read "WE the Living" not long ago and it was marvelous.

I'm sorry you're apparently not mature enough in your worldview to have dropped the old canard that faith is for morons and reason is for intellectuals. I merely point out that faith isn't something that stands against reason, or above reason, or contrary to reason. In fact, the very act of reasoning itself depends on the presupposition of faith and will collapse arbitrary without it.

As for degrees, I have them too, but that proves nothing in itself which is why I don't wear them on my sleave. And degrees are quickly becoming worthless, demonstrated in at least one way by the following:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=467347&in_page_id=1770

I probably learned more in the Marine Corps than I did in the colleges I attended.

And I'm not published (yet), and don't think I'll write anything until I'm forty. But my oh my is that closing in fast...
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/13/2007 1:06 AM  

Friend of Jonathan,

So, where are those definitions of ad hominem, straw-man, and red herring? Do you smell the inconsistency in application that I do?

I mean, how is the following a "straw-man"?!?!

You had defined sin as "tangible, documentable harm." If that's not arbitrary, then how do you justify it? You claimed that definition comes from Jesus - OK, what chapter and verse please? And how do you deal with the following verse?

"Whosoever commits sin transgresses the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4).

And how is the following a "straw-man"?!?!

On what basis do you distinguish between what "occurs in nature" that is "natural," and that which also "occurs in nature" but is unnatural?

You seem to be saying that since homosexuality "occurs in nature," then it's "natural." But even though murder, rape, stealing, and cannibalism also "occur in nature," somehow they're not "natural." On what basis do you make this claim and distinction?

How do you define what is and what is not moral/sinful? How do you know this?

You claim that "[a]ccording to Paul, as a response to idolatry, God gives people over to sexual behaviors they would not engage in otherwise."

Where specifically does it say in the text of Romans 1 that "they would not engage in otherwise"? What specific phrase from the text led you to that comment/conclusion?

And to be clear, is it your claim that Strong's, the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, and scholars such as W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich are NOT reliable sources? On what evidence do you base this simply astounding claim on?

When and where have you dealt specifically with the Septuagint? I've reread your past posts and I haven't seen where you've even dealt with the Septuagint.

And sir, I can only speak according to God's Word. Homosexuality is a sin. It is a transgression of God's holy law. Sex that is not between a man and a woman in marriage is sin.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/13/2007 1:29 AM  

AJ

You have sinned against me, by bearing false witness against me, and against my partner.

Where is your repentence, AJ? Please repent of your sin.

Additionally, you have sinned against all GLBTQ people, including me, where is your repentence?

And you are still bearing false witness against me. Please repent of your sins against me, and please quit sinning against me.

Remember, AJ, that you are spreading a doctrine that destroys other people, one that only bears evil fruit, which makes you a false teacher.

I also have to ask you to stop lying about God and the Bible. Homosexuality is not a sin, it does not violate God's law as Christ stated it, and no amount of obfuscation or red herrings and strawman will change that.

You have sinned against me, AJ, will you please repent?
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/13/2007 1:49 AM  

Friend of Jonathan,

So, where are those definitions of ad hominem, straw-man, and red herring? Do you smell the inconsistency in application that I do?

I mean, how is the following a "straw-man"?!?!

You had defined sin as "tangible, documentable harm." If that's not arbitrary, then how do you justify it? You claimed that definition comes from Jesus - OK, what chapter and verse please? And how do you deal with the following verse?

"Whosoever commits sin transgresses the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4).

And how is the following a "straw-man"?!?!

On what basis do you distinguish between what "occurs in nature" that is "natural," and that which also "occurs in nature" but is unnatural?

You seem to be saying that since homosexuality "occurs in nature," then it's "natural." But even though murder, rape, stealing, and cannibalism also "occur in nature," somehow they're not "natural." On what basis do you make this claim and distinction?

How do you define what is and what is not moral/sinful? How do you know this?

You claim that "[a]ccording to Paul, as a response to idolatry, God gives people over to sexual behaviors they would not engage in otherwise."

Where specifically does it say in the text of Romans 1 that "they would not engage in otherwise"? What specific phrase from the text led you to that comment/conclusion?

And to be clear, is it your claim that Strong's, the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, and scholars such as W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich are NOT reliable sources? On what evidence do you base this simply astounding claim on?

When and where have you dealt specifically with the Septuagint? I've reread your past posts and I haven't seen where you've even dealt with the Septuagint.

And sir, I can only speak according to God's Word. Homosexuality is a sin. It is a transgression of God's holy law. Sex that is not between a man and a woman in marriage is sin.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/13/2007 1:52 AM  

AJ

Where is your repentence? Until you repent of your sins against me, particularly that vile claim about my relationship, I simply cannot answer any of your questions.

Where is your repentence, AJ?

Remember, you are the one reviling millions of people, you have the burden of proof, you have the sin to repent of, you do not call the shots.

You bore false witness against me, AJ, please repent.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/13/2007 2:15 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/13/2007 2:15 AM  

Friend of Jonathan,

Duck, Duck - GOOSE! Well, you seem to appreciate the fact that inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. I'd duck too if I were you.

Look sir, I follow the Biblical model of repentance. When I sin - which is often - I go before my Heavenly Father and seek His mercy and forgiveness in light of Messiah's sacrificial death for my sins.

But in this case, I have spoken God's truth to you. God has commanded you and your partner to repent of your homosexual sins and seek His mercy. Until then, it is you who are in rebellion against your Creator and His Law.

And while that may seem "hateful," it's the most loving thing I could say to you.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/13/2007 2:26 AM  

AJ

You have sinned against me, and until you repent, I really can't, in good conscience, take anything else you say seriously enough to formulate a response. It would dishonor myself, my relationship, and my partner.

Once you repent of your sins against me, I'll be happy to answer anything that is not a distortion or strawman.

Accusing me of ducking, when I am simply holding you accountable for your sin against me, is yet another case of bearing false witness, for which you must repent.

I will not, however, require that you repent of each one individually, except for the evil claims about my relationship. You can repent of all of the other lies together, but that one you really owe it to me, and everyone, to abjectly repent of on its own.

You have not spoken God's truth, you have spoken your guesses, and since you are not God, blaming Him for your depraved and evil remarks, might qualified as a sin against the Holy Spirit, the one some faiths call 'the unforgiveable sin'.

But, you cannot excuse your sin by blaming God - God, unlike you, is sinless, and you have sinned against me.

Once again, I ask you to repent with all sincerity, of your sins against me, so we can continue to explore the many errors in your theology.

Until you do so, I cannot, in good conscience, do much more than repeat my request. But as soon as you do repent of you many, many sins against me, I will happy to return to pointing out all of the many, many errors in your theology.

But, not until you repent of your sins against me.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/13/2007 2:44 AM  

AJ

In case I was not clear enough the first few times, I am genuinely sickened and disgusted by your sins against me, particularly the depraved and malicious, demonic remarks about my relationship.

Before any more dialogue with you can occur, you have to repent, as publically as you sinned, of your many sins against me.

Please do not add to your burden of sin with any more nasty speculation and ad hominem remarks.

Repent, and then we can discuss.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/13/2007 2:52 AM  

Last night when you all were having your discussion, we went to see the new Harry Potter movie. The best yet! They give you 3d glasses for the last 20 minutes. Awesome as the kids say! After the movie, we (2 straight couples, 2 straight males, and my partner and I - all from South Africa except for me, the Cuban/American) went to Bonefish Grill. It was refreshing to be with a group of people who are mannerly, loving, intelligent, world-wise, intellectual, comfortable, friendly, lovely - - - I could go on for days. Not one of them would ever dream of bringing up religion or conversation akin to love the sinner, hate the sin. I hate to admit this but I must agree with Robert in NYC, we are far from the most enlightened or advanced nation in the world. Even Barry Goldwater despised the fundamentalists back in the 60's. When people invest this kind of time trying to defend their positions against gay people on the basis of scripture, something is very wrong. AJ you need to find a different hobby and/or a good sexual encounter. You are simply one boring long winded mother fucker! Anyone seen Sicko?
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/13/2007 9:15 AM  

Well again, inconsistency is the sure sign of a failed argument. Friend of Jonathan must now finally see that he is being inconsistent and arbitrary on several points, and if and when he actually begins to answer the questions, more questions are going to arise, his answers will be compared to his past statements and, well, it won't be pretty. He'll sound a bit like Barry Lynn, only perhaps with a Bible on hand :-)

This has been fun and enlightening all. Have a great day!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/13/2007 10:52 AM  

Where is your repentance, AJ?

I see that you are still sinning against me, but where is your repentance?

Surely you do not believe that you are above having to repent of your sins.

Adding to your already lengthy list of sins with more insults does not make things better. Remember, you have been teaching something that only bears evil fruit, and even false teachers are not exempt from the requirement of repentence.

You sinned against me, AJ, please repent.


For everyone else, it occured to me that AJ has sinned against many other people here, and everyone he has sinned against can certainly ask him to repent.

AJ has said terrible, evil things about GLBTQ people, so if you are GLBTQ - he owes you repentance, and apology, and a promise to do his best not to sin against you again, as well.

AJ also made terrible claims about a number of denominations and faiths, and if you are from one of those denominations, you too can ask him to repent.

And, we must not give up on AJ. We can ask him an infinite number of times to repent, if that is what it takes. We can ask him here, on other blogs if we are sure it is the same person, anywhere, for as long as it takes to inspire him to repent.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/13/2007 3:05 PM  

Or, FOJ, you can just forget about him. she's not a well woman. healthier for you and for others- and probably for AJ
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/13/2007 3:17 PM  

Ben

There's some truth in what you say, but is it fair to just give up on another human being, even one who has posted so much hate as AJ has?

AJ has written some insulting things to you - call him on it, every time he posts. Let's remind him that his words have consequences.

Why, if everyone he sins against lets him off without criticism, he'll never learn, but if everyone he is sinning against raises the issue, he might just get the message.


Conservative pseudo-christians just love to come tell us that our loving relationships are sin, so they should welcome hearing about their own sin in return. Let's give AJ the chance to model 'love your neighbor as yourself' by showing that he welcomes being told that he is sinning, the way he has been accusing us of sin.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/13/2007 6:15 PM  

Friend of Jonathan,

Kudos for an excellent refudiation of biblical inaccuracies procliamed by too many in the religious community. Off topic, I am working on a screen play of the greatest love story every told; the story of David and Jonathan. i would welcome your insight.

AJ, Friend of Jonathan has many times refudiated your inaccuracies regarding biblical scripture. He is obviously more schooled on the bible than you, yet you refuse to see. You act as though you did not see what was written, or that you dont understand why there is a difference, which is a common malady amoung bible worshipers.

Open your mind and your eyes. God is still talking.

Darren
posted by  jekelhyde, at 7/13/2007 6:15 PM  

It's not about fairness. It is about where your time could best be spent, and how much his shit-for=brains draws you into his terrifying little world. I would no more spend my time on him than I would on Jerry Falwell. until he is ready to hear, he won't.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/13/2007 6:30 PM  

Yes, but Ben, he's the very part of the people who are running our lives. He's the emobodyment(sp) of the people who run this country and are keeping my partner of 10 years and our 3 kids from being recognized as a family. We cannot ignore this. And a man, such as friend of Jonathan, who can tell him that he is wrong and convince, not necessarily him, but others who have an open will, that he is wrong...I say fight the good fight. I only wish I was more adept
posted by  jekelhyde, at 7/13/2007 6:36 PM  

Darren,

If Friend of Jonathan is SO schooled and I am SO ignorant of the Scriptures, then do tell, why not enlighten me by simply answering the following questions so the discussion can proceed:

I have asked him for his definitions of ad hominem, straw-man, and red herring so I can compare them to logic books and evaluate his consistency in usage.

I have merely pointed out that he defined sin as "tangible, documentable harm." He claims that is not an arbitrary definition; I would like to know how he justifies it? He claimed that definition comes from Jesus. I have asked for the chapter and verse.

Additionally, I have asked Friend of Jonathan on what basis he distinguishes between what "occurs in nature" that is "natural," and that which also "occurs in nature" but is unnatural?

He appears to be saying that since homosexuality "occurs in nature," then it's "natural." But murder, rape, stealing, cannibalism, etc., also "occur in nature," but Friend of Jonathan seems to say that these are somehow not "natural." On what basis does he make this claim and distinction?

I also requested to know how he defines what is and what is not moral/sinful, and how do he knows this?

Friend of Jonathan made the claim that "[a]ccording to Paul, as a response to idolatry, God gives people over to sexual behaviors they would not engage in otherwise."

I inquired where specifically does it say in the text of Romans 1 that "they would not engage in otherwise"? What specific phrase from the text led him to that comment/conclusion?

I also wanted to make certain I understand his claim relating to scholarship. Was it his claim that Strong's, the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, and scholars such as W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich are NOT reliable sources? If that is the assertion, then on what evidence does he base this simply ASTOUNDING claim on?

And when and where has he dealt specifically with the Septuagint? I've reread the past posts and I haven't seen where he's even dealt with the Septuagint.

And Friend of Jonathan knows there will be no repentance for declaring God's truth - that homosexuality is a sin and a transgression of God's holy law and he is commanded to repent and seeks God's grace through Jesus Christ. Now, he obviously disagrees with that claim, and that of course is what we are supposed to be discussing.

If Friend of Jonathan doesn't wish to proceed with this debate (and to perfectly clear, there will be NO repentance sought for declaring homosexuality a sin and a transgression of God's holy law), that's fine. Just say so and I'll leave it at that.

But he hasn't proven anything - except of course his inconsistent reasoning and standards, eisegesis, and unwillingness to seek repentance for his ungodly rebellion.

One more thing, I know it may make some you feel better to place me in the "conservative" political camp. Just know it's not true.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/13/2007 8:09 PM  

AJ

You have sinned against me, among many, and I am asking you yet again, in the name of Christ, to repent.

Oh, but wait:
"there will be NO repentance sought for declaring homosexuality a sin and a transgression of God's holy law"

You refuse then, explicitly, to repent of your sin of bearing false witness, hiding by misrepresenting what sin you have committed.

You have sinned against me, and others, by bearing false witness - misrepresenting our position, lying about our lives, lying about our relationships, lying about our faith.

Please, before it is too late for you, repent of your sins against me, and others.

It will not help your argument for any of us to conclude that you believe you are above God's law. It will not help you to continue to pile up additional false accusations, additional sin.

Repent, AJ, you have sinned against me.

Even false prophets can be redeemed, AJ, if they repent.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/13/2007 8:48 PM  

AJ,

Friend of Jonathan already addressed all of your concerns many times. Many of his answers you either didn't see or ignored all together. I know there were a lot of posts but you need to go back and read carefully. I've read all of your posts and his. Read and open your mind
posted by  jekelhyde, at 7/13/2007 9:14 PM  

Well sir, I must be missing it then. Please give me the date and time of the post where Friend of Jonathan -

1) Gave his definitions of ad hominem, straw-man, and red herring.

2) Justified his definition of sin as "tangible, documentable harm."

3) Explained the basis on which he distinguished between what "occurs in nature" that is "natural," and that which also "occurs in nature" but is unnatural?

4) Clarified how he defines what is and what is not moral/sinful?

5) Explained where specifically in the text of Romans 1 he finds "they would not engage in otherwise" and what in the text led him to that comment/conclusion?

6) Made a clear declaration that he believes Strong's, the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, and scholars such as W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich are NOT reliable sources, and on what evidence he bases this simply astounding claim.

7) Dealt specifically with the Septuagint.

I have looked and looked sir, and if I'm missing it, please just give me the date and time so we can proceed. Thanks!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/13/2007 9:39 PM  

Give me a few days to go through the 150 some odd comments that you ignored or skimmed over because you could not answer them or refused to answer them.
posted by  jekelhyde, at 7/13/2007 9:53 PM  

Great, I'll look forward to seeing what you find.

But...I'll wager you won't find what you're looking for.

Happy Hunting!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/13/2007 10:11 PM  

Perhaps if you had paid better attention in the first place...In other words, listen with your ears, or in this case, your eyes instead of vomitting the same misguided information
posted by  jekelhyde, at 7/13/2007 10:31 PM  

AJ

You have sinned against me many times here. Please repent.

For everyone else, there is an important object lesson going on here.

AJ shows up, insists without evidence that our loving relationships are sin, essentially insisting that we repent - which they are not, and in the process, bears false witness against us, uses horrific, hate-laced language and imagery, and yet, refuses to repent himself.

So, there's an explicit double-standard, just the sort of thing Jesus was teaching us to reject when He said, "love your neighbor as yourself".

But it gets worse for AJ. See, if by some perverse insanity, homosexuality actually was sin, and it is not, for God is not insane or unjust, it would be a sin not against AJ, but against God. And Christ makes it clear that that sort of thing, is God's business, not AJ's. We humans are allowed to point out sins committed against us personally, but are to leave any other judgement to God.

So, we have multiple layers of disobediance in AJ's posts. His posts set him up in God's place, by holding us accountable for something that, if it were sin and it is not, would to up to God to judge. Second, in his posts, AJ has repeatedly borne false witness against us, his neighbors, but refuses to repentence, declaring of himself "there will be NO repentance".

Until he repents of what his demonstrable sins of bearing false witness against us as individuals, as GLBTQ people, as members of particularly denominations, there is little that can be accomplished except to remind him that he has borne false witness against his neighbors, and that is forbidden.

Conservative self-labeled Christians like AJ, claim to be duty-called to point out what they assume, wrongly, is sin in our lives, pointing at something that has no bearing on their own lives. By their standard then, are we not duty-bound to point out their sin of bearing false witness?

Of course, we could just settle for reminding AJ of something else Jesus said, in one of all the times Jesus did not condemn homosexuality:

Matthew 7
Judging Others
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

And AJ, again,
after you repent of your sin of bearing false witness against me, would you please be so kind as to focus your attention on whatever plank is in your own eye, and stop imagining that you see a spot in mine?
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/13/2007 11:20 PM  

Dear Jekylhyde and FOJ: thank you for your comment. Arguing with AJ is like arguing with a post. I also don't think that too many people are going to be swayed by biblical exegesis-- they either understand what this is about or they don't. It is a matter of prejudice unswayed by experience, not reason. All of the energy that goes to a religious maniac like AJ would be better spent writing to and meeting with your legislators, your congressmen, your governor. As i have said many times before, the enemy is not the religious right or social conservatives. the enemy is the closet. For the most part, not always, people do not vote against people they know and love. Your family should be right out there,m visible, so that the people who are undecided can say they have had some experience. as long as your family is invisible, bigots and hypocrites win. Good luck.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/14/2007 1:09 PM  

And of course jekelhyde your conclusion has NOTHING to do with your admitted in-adeptness, presuppositions, and commitment to justifying your own sinful rebellion and degraded passions. Oh no! You're a completely neutral arbiter on this subject. Behold, jekelhyde the Greek scholar, Biblical theologian, logician, and completely impartial debate judge! LOL!!

Friend of Jonathan has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, twisted like a pretzel in his own contradictory argumentation, inconsistent standards, irrationality, and of course rebellion against His Creator - evidenced most clearly by the fact that he' apparently stopped debating. That's fine. Just know that when our eyes meet on Judgment Day I'm innocent of your blood.

And Ben sadly has to bring it all back to politics - the paradigm through which he apparently views everything related to his very existence. It's likely that someone like Ben will not stop until he can use the coercive power of state - just as conservatives wrongly and immorally do on many issues - to force people to either vocally approve of his sexual deviancy or remain silent concerning it (but even that probably won't be enough).

Were sinful homosexual relationships ever recognized as "marriage" by the state, I could pretty much care less (after all, the state recognizes divorces that are in God's sight sinful relationships). In the sight of our holy Creator homosexual relationships (despite what the state ever says or doesn't say) will always be seen as sin, wickedness, and rebellion.

For my closing statement I'll merely point out once again that homosexuality has been against the will of God since the very beginning of Creation when He created humans male and female. Romans 1:26-27 and other New Testament verses from the God-breathed Scripture deal specifically with homosexuality, and they unmistakably condemn it as a practice that is wrong in every culture, during every time period. There never will be a day when the text of Romans 1:26-27 and the other key verses discussed can accurately and legitimately be twisted to permit and justify any type of homosexual behavior.

Nor will there ever be a day when a practicing homosexual who refuses to repent will be saved from God's judgment on their sins. God wants all men and women everywhere to be saved from His judgment, and He graciously and mercifully sent Jesus to pay the price we humans could never pay. Through Jesus, God can be just and punish sin as well as merciful and forgive based on the sinners debt being paid on the cross of Christ.

But God DEMANDS and COMMANDS that ALL sinners (myself more than anyone!) - yes, that includes homosexuals - repent of and turn away from their rebellion, "because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness."

You gentleman and/or ladies can have the last word - unless of course you continue debating. Other than that, adios for now!
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/14/2007 2:18 PM  

AJ

Once again, you have sinned against me with false statements. Please repent.

As you yourself wrote:
"But God DEMANDS and COMMANDS that ALL sinners (myself more than anyone!) - yes, that includes homosexuals - repent of and turn away from their rebellion,"

You have sinned against me, personally, and in my opinion, sinned against everyone else here. I can only rightfully ask you to repent of your sins directly against me, of course, but that does include all of the foul lies you have told about GLBTQ people.

Your scriptural premises have been dissected and proven to be false, your attempts to employ red herrings to escape the sound rebuke of your theology, rightfully set aside until you repent of your sin of bearing false witness.

And your answer to that request is to leave. So be it.

But please, no grandstanding, no empty gestures. You said you are leaving, so keep your word,

unless it is to repent and ask us to forgive you.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/14/2007 3:41 PM  

Am I missing something or did not the socalled Jesus Christ say..."judge not and ye shall not be judged"? Seems to be a conflict I think and most who believe in all this don't really follow what their leader preached. My interpretation is that JC didn't judge others, so why would he/she or it judge on the "final" day? Makes no sense.

Robert, NYC.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/15/2007 8:04 AM  

Wow...that was quite a thunderous "shock and awe" closing there, AJ!

AJ has to keep quoting from the big book up made-up goobledygook because, really, that's all he has. That's all any of them have. A recent survey showed that 73% of people in the military - traditionally drawn from the more conservative, rural elements of American society - are comfortable around gay and lesbian people. Maybe not approving, maybe not "happy" about it, but not clenched by some twisted, irrational, sickening fear. Ok...so, how does the right-wing machine have to react to that? Stir up some fear! "We got ya quotes from Romans right here, 2 bucks and it includes a nice warm bag of peanuts!" Yes, people, this is a circus, and the clowns running it are very afraid. Because without that irrational, palpable fear, the obsession with the Biblical edicts against homosexuality starts to reveal itself for the silly paper tiger it really is. The Bible also says women shouldn't speak in church, and I actually once found an ultra-fundamentalist church on the web that followed that and proudly explained why they did, and said that mainstream Baptists were going to Hell for not following it. The mainstream fundies pick and choose what helps sell the religion, and homophobia was always a good seller.

Glatze is obviously a mentally ill person who got sucked into blaming his homosexuality for his problems. So many people actually DO this in the real world, but fortunately most of them are not high profile like he is. So the right wing nuts will crow about it for a while, but, as others have noted, he will be written off by some for following the wrong batch of mumbo-jumbo.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/15/2007 8:17 PM  

Repentance is hypocritical, because all have sinned, all are sinning, and all will sin in the future. If Christians really believed the bible NONE would have extramarital sex, for example, for fear of eternal damnation. No one would jump from a plane without a parachute, because they believe that death is a certainty, in contrast most every "born againer" will have extramarital sex, because they don't believe the tenants of their own faith and take comfort in their "get out of jail free" card through repentance (premeditated sin followed by prescheduled repentance). The truth is most ALL Christians do. I assure you that if AJ is married, he took his bride to be for a test drive. If he is not married, he WILL take his future bride for a test run. Why? Because he is a siner? No, it is because he rationalizes his own “sin”. This isn’t about sin. It is about their discomfort with homosexuality.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/16/2007 4:53 PM  

The following excerpt is from a letter to Sylvia Austin dated July 9, 1946, in Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 287:

There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul).

All emphasis was in the original. All punctuation and spelling is from the original.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/16/2007 5:11 PM  

"This is John Galt speaking" from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"

"The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

"A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man's sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

"Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a 'tendency' to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.

"What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil-he became a mortal being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness; joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.

"Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

"They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain—and they point at the torture rack to which they've tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body.

"They have cut man in two, setting one half against the other. They have taught him that his body and his consciousness are two enemies engaged in deadly conflict, two antagonists of opposite natures, contradictory claims, incompatible needs, that to benefit one is to injure the other, that his soul belongs to a supernatural realm, but his body is an evil prison holding it in bondage to this earth—and that the good is to defeat his body, to undermine it by years of patient struggle, digging his way to that gorgeous jail-break which leads into the freedom of the grave.

"They have taught man that he is a hopeless misfit made of two elements, both symbols of death. A body without a soul is a corpse, a soul without a body is a ghost—yet such is their image of man's nature: the battleground of a struggle between a corpse and a ghost, a corpse endowed with some evil volition of its own and a ghost endowed with the knowledge that everything known to man is nonexistent, that only the unknowable exists.
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/16/2007 5:33 PM  

Interviewer: "This questioner says she read somewhere that you consider all forms of homosexuality immoral. If this is so, why?"

Ayn Rand: "Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral. But I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it. It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it. That's his legal right, provided he is not forcing it on anyone. And therefore the idea that it's proper among consenting adults is the proper formulation legally. Morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting."

- Ayn Rand, "The Moratorium on Brains - Q&A," lecture session taped at the Ford Hall Forum, 1971
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/16/2007 8:29 PM  

So much for Ayn Rand then.
posted by  Friend of Jonathan, at 7/16/2007 9:17 PM  

I don't want to be an apologist for Ayn Rand on the gay issue. She was flawed in some areas but brilliant in many others. She had a close relationship with her brother in law who she highly suspected of being gay. I think his name was Nick O'conner,a man that was severly disabled from being gased in WWII. At any rate this is about the best one can do to giver her any pardon. It should be a lesson that words mean things and can live on after you.

http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/27018.html
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/17/2007 12:32 AM  

and this for what it is worth:

http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/27085.html

remember, she said this in 1971
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/17/2007 12:38 AM  

And finally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism%2C_Ayn_Rand%2C_and_homosexuality

For those who don't know, Ayn Rand had an affair with her best friend with the consent of his wife, also a friend and with the consent, begrudgenly, her husband. It was scheduled for one day a week. She can not be considered an athority on issues of sexual morality. Not from a tradional perspective anyway:)
posted by  Anonymous, at 7/17/2007 12:51 AM  

There is a cool range of nike air force 1 available including the latest Classic Cardy Style in Black, mens prada shoes, Oatmeal or Cream. These ugg store are almost impossible to get anywhere in the UK and sold out on the cheap Tiffany website within weeks. They are incredibly popular ugg store and its easy to see why. ugg discount is a really versatile boot UGG Bailey Button boots. The three chunky wooden ugg boots Boots Salep the side mean that you can wear them either buttoned up or down and they look great with buy ugg boots.he ultimate in luxury designer clothing has to still be the online shopping Australia boots. These timeless classics are available in nike shoes, Black and Sand these converse shoes really are the last word in comfort footwear. These ugg discount are made entirely from sheepskin with a light Eva sole there is nothing quite Tiffany earring like the feeling of slipping your feet into a brand new pair of ugg boots! But not only do they feel great cheap ugg they look great ugg discount too and can be worn tall or ugg down to expose the sheepskin fur.If you're looking for wholesale supplier for a special lady,discount af1 shoes sale recommend UGG Suburb Crochet from the prada shoesCollection-they have the qualities of great fashion ugg boots online and practicality combined-along with exquisite comfort. If you want to purchase the Tiffany jewelry, please visit ugg classic our online buy ugg boots shop. Welcome to select and buy ugg store!was shocked. But here was a statement ugg shoes that could be checked against future events retail supplies.
posted by  Unknown, at 12/28/2009 1:42 PM  

Louis Vuitton Replica Epi Leather Lockit Black M42292
Louis Vuitton Replica Epi Leather Lockit Ivory M4229J
Louis Vuitton Replica Epi Leather Madeleine GM Bag Purple M59342
Louis Vuitton Replica Epi Leather Montaigne Bag Orange Sunset M59302
Louis Vuitton Replica Epi Leather Montaigne Bag Purple M59312
Louis Vuitton Replica Epi Leather Montaigne Black M59302
Louis Vuitton Replica EPI Leather Montaigne Clutch Cassis M5929K
Louis Vuitton Replica EPI Leather Montaigne Clutch Ivory M5929J
Louis Vuitton Replica Epi Leather Montaigne Clutch Orange Sunset M59292
Louis Vuitton Replica Epi Leather Montaigne Clutch Rubis Red M5929M
Louis Vuitton Replica Epi Leather Montaigne Ivory M59327
Louis Vuitton Replica Epi Leather Passy Bag GM Orange Sunset M59252
Louis Vuitton Replica Epi Leather Passy Bag PM Orange Sunset M59262
posted by  Anonymous, at 1/06/2010 9:26 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

January 16, 2005   January 23, 2005   January 30, 2005   February 06, 2005   February 13, 2005   February 20, 2005   February 27, 2005   March 06, 2005   March 13, 2005   March 20, 2005   March 27, 2005   April 03, 2005   April 10, 2005   April 17, 2005   April 24, 2005   May 01, 2005   May 08, 2005   May 15, 2005   May 22, 2005   May 29, 2005   June 05, 2005   June 12, 2005   June 19, 2005   June 26, 2005   July 03, 2005   July 10, 2005   July 17, 2005   July 24, 2005   July 31, 2005   August 07, 2005   August 14, 2005   August 21, 2005   August 28, 2005   September 04, 2005   September 11, 2005   September 18, 2005   September 25, 2005   October 02, 2005   October 09, 2005   October 16, 2005   October 23, 2005   October 30, 2005   November 06, 2005   November 13, 2005   November 20, 2005   November 27, 2005   December 04, 2005   December 11, 2005   December 18, 2005   December 25, 2005   January 01, 2006   January 08, 2006   January 15, 2006   January 22, 2006   January 29, 2006   February 05, 2006   February 12, 2006   February 19, 2006   February 26, 2006   March 05, 2006   March 12, 2006   March 19, 2006   March 26, 2006   April 02, 2006   April 09, 2006   April 16, 2006   April 23, 2006   April 30, 2006   May 07, 2006   May 14, 2006   May 21, 2006   May 28, 2006   June 04, 2006   June 11, 2006   June 18, 2006   June 25, 2006   July 02, 2006   July 09, 2006   July 16, 2006   July 23, 2006   July 30, 2006   August 06, 2006   August 13, 2006   August 20, 2006   August 27, 2006   September 03, 2006   September 10, 2006   September 17, 2006   September 24, 2006   October 01, 2006   October 08, 2006   October 15, 2006   October 22, 2006   October 29, 2006   November 05, 2006   November 12, 2006   November 19, 2006   November 26, 2006   December 03, 2006   December 10, 2006   December 17, 2006   December 31, 2006   January 07, 2007   January 14, 2007   January 21, 2007   January 28, 2007   February 04, 2007   February 11, 2007   February 18, 2007   February 25, 2007   March 04, 2007   March 11, 2007   March 18, 2007   March 25, 2007   April 01, 2007   April 08, 2007   April 15, 2007   April 22, 2007   April 29, 2007   May 06, 2007   May 13, 2007   May 20, 2007   May 27, 2007   June 03, 2007   June 10, 2007   June 17, 2007   June 24, 2007   July 01, 2007   July 08, 2007   July 15, 2007   July 22, 2007   July 29, 2007   August 05, 2007   August 12, 2007   August 19, 2007   August 26, 2007   September 02, 2007   September 09, 2007   September 16, 2007   September 23, 2007   September 30, 2007   October 07, 2007   October 14, 2007   October 21, 2007   October 28, 2007   November 04, 2007   November 11, 2007   November 18, 2007   November 25, 2007   December 02, 2007   December 09, 2007   December 16, 2007   December 23, 2007   December 30, 2007   January 06, 2008   January 13, 2008   January 20, 2008   January 27, 2008   February 03, 2008   February 10, 2008   February 17, 2008   February 24, 2008   March 02, 2008   March 09, 2008   March 16, 2008   March 23, 2008   March 30, 2008   April 06, 2008   April 13, 2008   April 20, 2008   April 27, 2008   May 04, 2008   May 11, 2008   May 18, 2008   May 25, 2008   June 01, 2008   June 08, 2008   June 15, 2008   June 22, 2008   June 29, 2008   July 06, 2008   July 13, 2008   July 20, 2008   July 27, 2008   August 03, 2008   August 10, 2008   August 17, 2008   August 24, 2008   August 31, 2008   September 07, 2008   September 14, 2008   September 21, 2008   September 28, 2008   October 05, 2008   October 12, 2008   October 19, 2008   October 26, 2008   November 02, 2008   November 09, 2008   November 16, 2008   November 23, 2008   November 30, 2008   December 07, 2008   December 14, 2008   December 21, 2008   December 28, 2008   January 04, 2009   January 11, 2009   January 18, 2009   January 25, 2009   February 01, 2009   February 08, 2009   February 15, 2009   February 22, 2009   March 01, 2009   March 08, 2009   March 15, 2009   March 22, 2009   March 29, 2009   April 05, 2009   April 12, 2009   April 19, 2009   April 26, 2009   May 03, 2009   May 10, 2009   May 17, 2009   May 24, 2009   May 31, 2009   June 07, 2009   June 14, 2009   June 21, 2009   June 28, 2009   July 12, 2009   July 19, 2009   July 26, 2009   August 02, 2009   August 09, 2009   August 16, 2009   August 23, 2009   August 30, 2009   September 06, 2009   September 13, 2009   September 20, 2009   September 27, 2009   October 04, 2009   October 11, 2009   October 18, 2009   November 01, 2009   November 08, 2009   November 15, 2009   November 22, 2009   December 06, 2009   December 13, 2009   December 20, 2009   December 27, 2009   January 17, 2010   January 24, 2010   January 31, 2010   February 07, 2010   February 14, 2010   February 21, 2010   March 21, 2010   April 18, 2010   June 06, 2010   July 18, 2010   July 25, 2010   October 31, 2010   December 19, 2010   April 10, 2011