Friends, dear readers, fellow Cranachers, let us restore the high level of discourse and welcoming spirit this blog is famous for! We’ve got FW, longtime voice of forgiveness who has always held us to the Eighth Commandment, making some of you thinking he’s not the real FW. We’ve got two Anons confusedly arguing different sides, mixing us all up about who’s saying what (do give yourselves different names, please!). We’ve got TK alarmed at our rhetoric. Let’s pause, catch our breath, consider that politics is transient and that we have a citizenship in Heaven, and sing a round of Kum-bah-yah.
I wonder if we could discuss WHY politics in this cultural moment stirs such vitriol.
For example, I do not recall ever seeing such knee-jerk HATE, that’s the only word for it, among liberals at the introduction of Sarah Palin. Nor have I ever seen such seemingly illiberal tactics in going after her. Setting aside the legitimate questions about her qualifications and positions, why was the first and immediate response, before even getting to know her, to try to destroy not just her but her family? I’d like to hear especially from those of you who are Democrats. I don’t want to get into another argument about her; I just want to understand what it is about her that stirs such negative passions.
We Republicans are guilty of this too, of course, in our visceral reaction against, say, Hillary Clinton. Why do we get so worked up?
We’ve discussed controversial theological points and complex moral issues on this blog and stayed friendly. Why do we lose it when it comes to politics? There may be good reasons, but I’d like us to think about what they are.
150 comments ↓
I’m a registered democrat, because I flipped a coin when choosing parties. I haven’t seen much difference between presidential candidates since I was old enough to vote. I vote based on who I think will do the least amount of damage, not by party affiliation.
That said, I do like Sarah Palin. She seems the most….normal (I hate to use that word, but I can’t think of a better term) of any politician I’ve listened to.
Why the vitriol? My answer as independent with Republican tendencies: the change began in January of 1973 and the legalization of abortion. The law of God is written into the very fabric of our lives. I think this is the natural law for unnatural man. And so to defend breaking the commandments as something else, like “choice” can result in wrath. Or to defend greed, as ‘consumer choices’. Or worship of personality as a magazine choice and not sheer idolatry, etc. etc, and ad nauseum. As we pretty-up the breaking of the law, under the facade is the clear and persistant, always accusing voice of the Law saying: No. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 John) We are self-deceived people. Civil discourse is possible when at the very least the Law of God in the laws of man are acknowledged and the Law’s truth. If not anarchy and wrath can result. As you can tell I am a Lutheran and I think the crisis in the Church is not preaching the Law of God.
And as salt and light, the Church’s restorative vocation will not be first and always organizing for change in legislation, say, regarding the beginning of life and abortion (and marriage between man and woman, rampant consumerism, etc.) but it will be the witness of the Church as in the first centuries: this is the way we are commanded and given to live. So Gov. Palin is hated because she stands for a standard that is not her choosing, but His in Law and Promise. And this is by the Law’s very work, accusatory…even though she is not doing the accusing per se. So Gov. Palin’s daughter holding her newest sibling, grooming the baby’s hair will speak volumes compared to the volumes screamed at abortuaries by protesters regarding the sanctity of life in the Lord. As in the early Church, we do not expose our young, the marriage bed is sacred, we do not practice serial monogamy in divorce, remarriage, divorce, etc. And this all happens not because we keep the Law, but because of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the One Who died and rose for us sinners, forgiving us, and the Law is holy and kept. And to deny, that I could not do the very thing I decry (and have!) is also a lie and is persistent self-righteousness…and self-righteousness also exacerbates the vitriol. And so two of the most encouraging lines from Sen. McCain’s speech last night: I can not save America and I am an imperfect candidate. Truly, but by the grace of God…
Why the vitriol? My answer in a nutshell: denial of the Law and self-righteousness and they go hand-in-hand.
[…] and author Gene Veith today on his blog asks “Why the vitriol?” He asks, in part: We’ve discussed controversial theological points and complex moral issues on […]
I, too, am somewhat surprised by the extreme reactions to political questions, considering the number of divisive theological topics we’ve hashed out in grace and love. What is it about politics that stirs more deep emotions and chases away any kindness in us than scripture? I don’t have the answer, but find it fascinating…like a bad car wreck you can’t turn away from.
I am the child of long-time active Republicans and I got more than my fill of political speeches and lectures before I left the family home. My first act of disobedience? I voted for John Anderson! Oooh, my mom was so frustrated. Early in my married life, I became a Reagan Republican partly due to my involvement in the Evangelical movement. By Bush’s second term, I was done with the Republican’s…mostly due to my discovery of Confessional Lutheran practice. I was free of the legalism of Evangelicalism and free of the hypocrisy of right-wing Evangelical Republicans (preach God and country, but freely uses attack ads to tear down opponents because it is justified). Who was left to vote for? Yeah, I still vote Republican, but I console myself that I’m not one of them. I’ve been a fan of John McCain for a while. I especially like the fact that he has tolerated rejection by his own party for years. He really is an outsider and I like that. I intend to follow his advice from last night to serve my fellow man and my country. I think that we saw the new faces of the Republican Party this week in St. Paul. Oh, I almost forgot to mention that I’m married to a life-long DFLer teacher, son of a farmer/teacher. For the first time, he will be voting for a Republican. Shhh….
That is a good question Dr. Veith. It is certainly not something new (just think of the hate that came with the nomination of Clarence Thomas) but it is very distressing. I wonder if it has something to do with denying our own sins. For example, someone who is divorced or who is living with a significant other without being married is shown their sin by a candidate who talks about being married to the same man for her adult life. Someone who has had an abortion is shown her sin by a mother who shows off a baby with Downs.
Our reaction to these things is not to feel good about ourselves but to deny the sin (the baby would have been a burden or my girlfriend is afraid of commitment). If the candidate is held up as an example of goodness and all that is right with family, then the lives of those who have denied family and life are wrong.
Pr. Schroeder and Eric M make good points.
Might it have something to do with a “team” attitude? It seems, on both sides, that it can be more a matter of which “team” wins than who is president. Just listen to the way they talk, both politicians and supporters. It seems to go beyond ideology to just plain power. And when it’s about “team,” then, just as in sports, many people are willing to overlook the flaws in their captain and teammates, or at least they don’t address them honestly unless they are forced to. They defend and attack, defend and attack, sometimes in the lowest of ways. It gets frustrating for those who wish to honestly look at issues and hear real plans and how those plans will work. Maybe I’m all wet, but that’s how it looks. And as for the people on this blog - it’s a reminder that, apart from the power of the gospel, we are no different than anyone else. We need to exercise the power of baptism each day, burying the Old Adam with the law that God may resurrect the New Man by the gospel.
I’ll offer another theory. When we discuss theology, we may find vast differences, but in the end we can still go home and believe as we believe, changed or not. Our freedom to do that doesn’t disappear.
With an upcoming election, we are discussing things that may directly affect us in the near future, whether it’s gun rights or taxes or abortion. We see the potential for the changes that they have promised, and they may frighten us, depending on which new administration. It’s a much more real and tangible thing that’s on the table. Perhaps the reason the conversation gets more heated is because our fear shines through.
I have found this article from FIRST THINGS helpful in look at this question.
http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2008/09/04/why-they-hate-her/
The closing words from the article:
“Her opponents quickly intuited that the particulars of Palin’s story, on their own, stand as challenges to some of the most integral parts of their worldview, whether or not she ever makes them explicitly.
It isn’t any of Palin’s specific policies or ideological beliefs which have so antagonized the liberals (although they surely dislike her for policy reasons, too). They simply hate her for who she is.”
Arguing doctrinal issues is done within the kingdom of the right (the Church) and normally does not involve our vocations in the kingdom of the left (the State).
However, certain issues, based on doctrine, have direct impact on a Christian’s calling and duty in the kingdom of the left. In the past such major issues have include the American Revolution, slavery, wars, and others. For the past 25 years, as Rev. Schroeder stated, another issue has been added - abortion.
Christian citizens cannot simply confess their doctrine position that abortion is murder, rather than a personal decision equivalent to what socks to wear. Christians are called to act in their vocation as citizens, and this includes how to deal with (in and through the legislative, executive, and judicial branches) those who advocate, support, conduct, and fund abortions.
On abortion and similar issues, the “Can’t we all just get along?” mantra is part of the Liberal Lie - “All beliefs are to be tolerated, except those that are not to be tolerated.” While Scripture calls Christians to love our enemies, God’s Word also provides government the authority and responsibility to “bear the sword” and to “bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” In the U.S. republic, that means “we, the people,” in addition to our elected and appointed representatives.
As with recognizing that through Christ we are at the same time “sinners/saints”, Christians should recognize that our vocations in the two kingdoms are not an issue of “either/or” but “both/and.”
Eric nails it, at least as far as the anti-Palin sentiment goes.
I see my own family torn apart now, because the conservative cause has gotten a boost from Palin–from her own life story, as well as from her professed values.
The liberals in my family all say they’re sick of such values being shoved down their throats, while, in reality, they’re only being talked about. No one’s forcing anyone to do or to believe anything. But the mere mention and attention has sent them into a frenzy. Really. A frenzy.
I think liberals thought they’d pretty much marginalized conservatives, through Obama-magic and the predominance of the liberal view in the culture. McCain (after all, he *is* responsible for bringing Palin to light) and Palin are putting conservatism back into sharp focus, and it’s become a maddening surprise.
Maybe Reagan’s presidency once made conservatives think they’d won the battle; then Bill Clinton’s did the same for liberals. Now both sides realize it’s a constant battle, and, at this very moment, liberals maybe sense they’ve lost ground they hadn’t anticipated losing.
indeed. the 8th is the one I personally seem to break the most. The large catechism always nails me when it asks me who appointed me to be judge (my ability to vote does NOT qualify me here….) and if I could prove my accusations in a court of law. and when it tells me that I should be quiet and not repeat bad things about others but i should instead DEFEND them, SPEAK WELL OF THEM, and put the best construction on whatever….
And God wants me to do that for public figures as well? Now …
would someone tell me just HOW I am supposed to be a shrill partisan liberal Democrat and follow the 8th commandment meticulously in THOUGHT , word and DEED?
to take no glee at all but rather be very sad when I see republican elected officials attacked as to their character or mischaracterized and then to take the additional step of DEFENDING and speaking well of them???!!!
you have GOT to be kidding me…..
Dr Vieth´s site here comes about as close to civil discussion as i have ever heard from “red-meat-republicans”
I would suggest however, that we all still (including me!) have such a very long way to go!!!!!!
ANYONE disagree with me here?
I’m not exactly sure why politics make me so mad. I mean talking about these things produces a very visceral reaction in me and I doubt that I am alone. For me, I know what I believe the political answers should sound like and what sort of policy I would prefer and then there is the way things actually are (especially in the party I usually prefer). And even though I know this discrepancy exists, I am still tempted to blame it on the opponents more than look for blame in my team (as mentioned above).
Self-examination and a call for actual reform among both Republicans and Democrats seems very lacking even in this year of “change”. Perhaps if we had more bold politicians who really led in this way, it would temper our inclination to call the opponent to “repentance”, which always comes off as judgmental and rude.
Right now because of the political climate it seems much more acceptable for Republicans to recast themselves and question their positions, but that makes sense considering the history and unpopularity of the last 8 years, especially with the war on terror (This may make the Democratic party feel more self-justified).
The Democrats are pushing to win on the standard democratic stances, but despite the rhetoric seem very unwilling to self examine. Though the democratic party holds both the house and the senate, it still plays up how poor and oppressed its party is along with all women, minorities, and gays (and I know in some ways these groups are suffering - but the answers I would give to the difficulties faced are very different from the boilerplate democratic response). And I think these issues really inflame the passions of cultural conservatives.
Anyway, just some thoughts on what I think is a very good question.
I would have to agree with Susan. I see the current vitriol coming from fear. Barack Obama’s biggest strength is probably his charisma, and in that respect he had the edge over John McCain. Sarah Palin gives the Republican ticket a big boost in that department and suddenly Democrats see that they could be facing their third loss in a row. The fear isn’t unfounded–as a pro-life Democrat, I do find Governor Palin somewhat appealing, even as I dread the thought of her candidacy securing four more years of neo-conservative policies in our government. (Oh, Lord Jesus, come quickly!)
As to why the vitriol against Senator Obama, I can only guess. Perhaps the motivation is the same. Perhaps there’s a different factor involved in that.
a suggestion:
what if we all agreed to spend the rest of the election till november criticizing ONLY our own candidates and our own party for their shortcomings and agreed to only defend, speak well of, and put the best possible construction on what the opposing party says and does?
would this even be possible with our group? it would be an interesting exercise in humility and christian virtue would it not? would any thing valuable be lost in the process? would any truth be compromised? would any of us be shirking our responsibilities as christians?
just what would happen?
maybe look for and confirm only what we positively have in common with the opposition party and candidates as being americans who love our great country?
count our blessings so to speak and not focus on the negatives…..
I believe Walter Williams summed it up for me a few months back (or maybe years, his archive is available on JewishWorldReview if you want to look). He pointed out that when you have government do more and more things, you have a situation where people’s livelihoods depend on what they can get out of government. Is it any surprise that one gets fighting when so much is at stake?
Another reality is that for too many (many on the liberal side, some conservatives, too), government and politics has effectively become their religion, just as surely as when Caesar made his subjects make an oath to him as a god.
And as you can see, vitriol in politics is nothing new. It was not for no reason, for example, that the response of many to the writings of those like Henry and Paine was to pick up their gun and clean it.
“Dr Vieth´s site here comes about as close to civil discussion as i have ever heard from “red-meat-republicans”
I would suggest however, that we all still (including me!) have such a very long way to go!!!!!!
ANYONE disagree with me here?”
Nope. Nail on the head.
The Eighth Commandment is a difficult one. I just found that out again recently. I ran into yet another instance where someone was on the verge of getting very righteous against someone, only to find out that the story they were relying on was a false story. It had gotten changed a bit two or three times in the telling. And from what I could tell, nobody had deliberately distorted anything.
For a more personal example, I can’t tell you how worked up I was at one point some years back when I thought that Janet Reno had defined a cultist as someone who had a strong belief in the Bible. Then I found out it was false information: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/reno.asp
Sometimes the vitriol comes from believing false stories.
Bad suggestion, fw!
That suggestion is not congruent with the Lutheran understanding of the Eighth Commandment, nor does it fulfill a Christian’s responsibilities as a citizen.
Instead that suggestion is just a corollary of the Liberal Lie - “All beliefs are to be tolerated except those that are not tolerant.”
#19 carl
aw c´mon dear brother. I am not asking you to “tolerate” anything. I am suggesting the experiment that you train you critical guns for a time only on those you tend to side with, and then look for points of agreement with those you oppose and try your best to defend speak well of and put the best construction on everything.
I don’t think that the level of vitriol has risen to the level of the commentary in the reader’s edition of the Book of Concord
Dr. Veith, we get worked up by people like Hillary Clinton because of her intense support for the brutal murder of babies, and the use of the organs of the federal government to attack her political and cultural opponents, from IRS harassment, to the FBI files, to VAAPCON, even the Waco pogrom, for she and her husband believed them to be evangelical Christians deserving of their fate. There is a time for strong clear words. And who here has been as strong in words as the editors of the Readers Edition of the BoC, or of certain writings by prominent Lutherans in 16th century?
Why do we ‘lose it’? Because of the brutal murder of tens of millions of people being defended by those who claim the name of Christ. Because of the threat to our liberties by those espousing fascist beliefs, such as you describe in your _Modern Fascism_.
I get your point, fw, but I’m not buying it.
Criticism isn’t necessarily meant to divide or to speak ill or break any commandment. It’s how criticism is delivered that makes the difference.
The burden might just as well be placed on the offended as on the offenders: Don’t respond in kind. Turn the other cheek. In fact, don’t respond at all. Or, even, don’t give your opponent the satisfaction of your being offended.
Asking us to answer only for our own candidate’s failings is more than unrealistic; it’s basically ignoring the truth that differences exist, that elections are contests, that someone will win and someone will lose, and that it’s supposed to be about ideas and not people.
People–candidates and voters–are often the victims of bad ideas, and they need and deserve a forum for speaking out against bad ideas or dishonest claims.
Pr. Schroeder, I agree with most of what you say. However part of what you attribute to the Gospel belongs to two of the three uses of the Law. Though the BoC does say that it is legitimate to refer to Law and Gospel together as the Gospel, and perhaps you were doing that.
Romans tells us how even the lost have consciences informed by God. to have righteous wrath towards abominable sin and cruelty is only natural and right. That isn’t self-righteousness, that is agreeing with God. The fact that we, too, sin does not mean that we lesson and diminish the Law, but that we must respond in repentance to our own sins made clear to us by the Law. Look to the examples of the prophets and the apostles, and to the example of Our Lord.
Carl also puts it well.
fw, as to criticizing our own candidates: you first. But I don’t actually believe that to be wise. To be the watchman on the wall is a valid calling. As long as people are deceived into thinking that they do not imperil their immortal soul by supporting the the abortionist, homosexualist and Caesar-as-god antichrist agenda of the Democrat Party of today, I must cry the warning. To do otherwise, as Scripture teaches, is to become guilty of their blood.
Heh. ‘You first.’
I like that.
I’ll go.
McCain is too disposed towards manmade global warming, too willing to accuse anti-illegal immigrant Americans and too slow (has he ever?) to criticize the illegal actions of the immigrants or the bad policies of Mexico that drive them here.
He’s made too many compromises with Democrats on the immigration front, and on the selection of justices and federal judges. (Nevertheless, we got 2 great justices, so…)
But I don’t find him to be self-serving or blindly ambitious. Can’t tell you how I’ve reached that conclusion; but I’ve reached it nonetheless, and it was ratified by his speech last night. I’m not saying he’s obviously humble or modest, or not seeking the grandeur of the Presidency. But I don’t perceive that that’s what drives him, or what he needs to satisfy.
Oddly enough, I think he’s at the end of a parade of politicians who’ve simply answered the call of duty, and has risen due to his accomplishments, not his rhetoric or maneuverings. He’s been pretty above-board, near as I can tell, in his operating, and sometimes a little naive about how open he should’ve been.
Odder still, I think Gov. Palin is at the head of a new parade of a different generation of politicians answering the call.
The call is constantly being made, and someone has to answer. Sometimes it’s good [albeit fallen] people, and sometimes it’s sheer opportunists. I don’t see either of the current Republican place-holders as the latter.
Anger (the unrighteous kind) is often an expression of impotence.
Because people today tend to think of themselves as selves rather than members of a body, they approach and think of life in terms of control instead of communion. Like the ancient Greeks inside their city-states, they see the larger world as basically chaotic, lacking a larger purpose, and so they insulate themselves. They try to shore up whatever private levies they can against the chaotic flood: their careers, their families, their possessions, etc.
But no one can control it all. And as they discover that they become angry. They experience road rage because they cannot control traffic. And they give themselves over to blog rage because the political world seems so chaotic, so uncontrollable. In particular, they are maddened by the media, which is very powerful but unelected and hard to hold accountable.
And so they rage.
Prior to Palin, I think Obama & his liberal rainbow minions thought they had the election locked up and that in November they would be taking over the government in a way that hadn’t been done before - their New World Order was going to get a huge shot in the arm.
Then, out of nowhere there suddenly appeared an obscure someone from a background they like to ridicule who didn’t have to play their politically correct games because she was a woman, and whose life challenged the very core of their beliefs. Until Palin came along, McCain & the GOP was pretty much DOA. Now, all of a sudden, it may well be a horse race in November, and Palin has energized a class of American citizens who have had to sit by for decades and watch things they loved destroyed by liberal barbarians. That’s no longer the case now. Those people have a voice and energy they didn’t have before.
To see hopes of a great victory dashed so quickly and by someone whose values showed clearly the poverty of their own agenda must have been intolerable for Obama and those who he represents. Hence the anger.
Susan,
I agree with your criticisms of McCain’s views.
Criticizing a political candidate based upon their policies is one thing criticizing them based on the mistakes others around them have made is another unless of course it is their spiritual leader or the espouse their cause.
The rumor-mongering by many in the media, is a blatant disregard for the 8th commandment and is utterly sinful. The innuendo, hearsay, and suggestions are outrageous and egregious. When such rumors of Obama surfaced, the main stream media dismissed them without indulging in the false allegations and innuendo, but when it is a Conservative Christian Republican who they disagree with they consume the fodder and present the fabrications as factual.
Anon the First makes some great points in their (He or she) comment. The opposite of sinning is repentance (change of mind/heart and sorrow). The Law never makes us righteous it only shows us the need for a savior, which thanks be to God we do have one in the perfect God-Man Jesus Christ. For in Him, we have all things.
Agreed, Carl Vehse at #9 and Anon the First at #21.
Christians are directed to “resist evil”.
We realize that here we have no “continuing city”, we acknowledge the doctrine of the two kingdoms, yet we must also recognize that there *is* a Christian worldview which is valid in the political arena.
Statism and centralized power has long been hostile
the the tenets of Scripture and to the people who uphold them in a society.
When we identify an evil and resist it, wherever we find it, whether in the family circle or the public square, we are most often met with rejection, anger, vilification and hatred.
Let us bring to mind John the Baptizer addressing Herod Antipas, “that fox”, or any of the Christian martyrs who resisted Statism in old Rome or those who spoke out against Soviet persecusion in the 20th Century.
Let us not be surprised when the truth is met with anger and malice.
It was ever thus.
History is replete
Here’s a small excerpt from a much more devastating view on Zerobama from the website of former SNL actress, Victoria Jackson:
Whoever Obama’s paying to help him appear to be a Christian, to win the Evangelical vote…is doing a terrible job. He should ask me for a few pointers. First of all, “obscure reference in Romans” is a dead give away that he’s never cracked a Bible. “Evangelicals” love Romans. They have it practically memorized. -”obscure reference in Zephaniah” might have been more appropriate. And, Obama, when you say things like, “Sin is…being out of alignment with my values.” That is a blaring siren of Biblical ignorance. The Bible says, “Sin is being out of alignment with God’s values.”
I think I’ll see fw and raise: Once we’ve pointed out our own candidate’s weaknesses, we’re permitted to criticize the opposition.
Really, one thing that jazzes me about McCain is Sarah–well two things that jazz me about McCain are: Sarah Palin, and he’s said–ok, three things that jazz me about McCain are: Sarah Palin, he’s not liberal, and he’s said (not promised) something about serving only one term.
Palin in ‘12. That jazzes me.
Interesting stuff, Carl–I was going to reply and say “I knew from the get-go he wasn’t an evangelical”, but then….well…that kinda makes your (and Victoria Jackson’s) point.
What would really jazz me is an Obama victory.
If McCain wins (God forbid), Palin will be irrelevant in a McCain White House, except perhaps to attend hockey mom conventions. While McCain thinks he needs the evangelicals to win, he does not need them to govern.
Why do people get so charged up? Because deep down we still have a believe in politics as saviour, a belief that Christendom and my country are one and the same thing, and an irrational trust in the words of people who depend on votes for their livelihood. We are not sceptical enough. We refuse to be reminded of the fact that when all is said and done, when the tallies are in, when the government is better or worse, that our Kingdom is not of this world.
Dr. Veith, it’s good for you to call out the “knee-jerk HATE” that some liberals have leveled at Palin. However, your entry seems to have ignored the knee-jerk hate that some here on your own site spread about Democrats.
When people spread un-Christian rumors about Obama’s birth, when they say that Hillary Clinton used “the organs of the federal government to attack her political and cultural opponents, from IRS harassment, to the FBI files, to VAAPCON, even the Waco pogrom, for she and her husband believed them to be evangelical Christians deserving of their fate,” when they say things about Obama’s family that are, at the very best, highly misleading … and not a single Republican Christian calls them on it, just lets it slide, what sort of message do you think it sends?
If I criticize McCain for anything, I will almost certainly be joined in debate, and rightly so (unless, of course, I “criticize” him for not being enough of a Republican, an admission I don’t imagine would take much effort for most here to make). But if people spread bile attacking Democrats? Nothing. The message, to me, is clear: everyone who remains silent believes these rumors, these lies.
“I’d like to hear especially from those of you who are Democrats.” Perhaps Democrats are unwilling to respond because some here have gone to great length to declare that anyone identifying as such are at best sinners by virtue of party affiliation, and at worst unsaved, in league with Satan, etc.
I understand that there is much that is despicable being said and done out there among non-believers. I don’t think any of us should have to answer for that, although we certainly should discuss it. But when Christians remain silent on rumors and lies, the impression is very strong that such things are, in fact, what Christians believe.
Why vitriol and lack of productive conversation about politics? How about the “self-evident” nature of American politics. We are not as well versed in philosophy and our own worldviews as we should be, and when one can’t explain oneself, one attacks another, making it personal.
Fear of what may come then further drives our behavior from trust in God and charity towards one another.
I’m glad we’ll never all agree on all things political. That’d be one of the most dangerous weapons/situations/temptations of all.
Thanks, The Scylding #34, that’s something I’ve been thinking about too.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the culture war stuff could be gotten beyond? Or perhaps if the government would just stop taking these topics over and just leave them to families to sort out? Then we could actually talk about government policy. We get all wrapped up in this culture junk (which matters - definitely). But rational views and alternative views of governing get thrown out the window. It seems that hardly anybody notices, but these things are as much to blame for troubles Americans are concerned about than anything else.
However, your entry seems to have ignored the knee-jerk hate that some here on your own site spread about Democrats.
Any particular examples of what you judge as “knee-jerk hate” about Democrats, tODD?
This would, of course, not include references to their 30+ years of promoting in party platforms and elsewhere, supporting, and legislating murder-by-abortion, a massive genocidal slaughter unborn infants, for which thay can be rightfully given the descriptor of “demonrat” (no insult to rodents intended).
And to be fair, there are closet RINO ‘rats in the GOP who have promoted the same evil.
And we shouldn’t forget the MSM clymers, fellow travelers with Adam Clymer, who have earned that descriptive for their continuing distortions of news, the details of which one can peruse on Newsbusters and Media Research Center’s website.
Carl, you asked (@38) for “particular examples”. Did you read the whole comment (@35)? If you do, you’ll find examples (some quoted, some alluded to), and you’ll notice that abortion is not listed among them.
I wonder: do other people here think Carl’s continual resorting to playground taunts helps or hurts in terms of the discussion we’re having here? Is it of value for us as Christians to compare all members of a political party to demons or rats? Do the Christians here mind the use of the word “a__hole”? Do they mind thinly veiled references to it? Do they think it’s good to refer to all members of one profession with it?
tODD, since there are no links (which you could easily enter in a way that avoids the 1 or 2-URL limit) to those issues which you complain about, are you implying everyone must read every email in thread and critique it for any transgressions. That is not very reasonable, though you seem to be doing a pretty good job of making a list of a number of things you don’t like.
Those who are responding to points made in a particular post, whether they agree or not, are probably the best ones to note or question unsubstantiated negative comments.
Personally I don’t have time to read everyone’s posts, or everyone of your posts.
I think Conservatives are passionate about these issues because they sense that the institutions of society are generally adverse to their point of view and it is exceedingly frustrating. It feels as if we are fighting upstream for our views to be fairly heard. The “objective” news media, entertainment media, educational establishment, etc. seem to take every opportunity to marginalize and misrepresent conservative politicians and issues, while liberal politicians and issues are lionized and treated as mainstream. Examples: a) frequently labeling conservatives as “staunch conservatives”, “ultra conservatives”, etc., while almost never labeling liberals in supposedly straight news stories; b) refusing to acknowledge conservative minorities and women who advance to important positions in government as breakthroughs in America’s efforts to overcome racism and sexism in its past, while practically identifying anyone who votes against a liberal minority or woman candidate as racist/sexist. Obama’s convention speech is “historic”, with very little criticism of content or credibility, while Palin’s convention speech is accompanied by a drumbeat of criticism concerning her political views, family life, and whether or not someone else wrote her speech. According to the media, Palin isn’t a real feminist, because she doesn’t believe in killing unborn children, and actually likes Republicans. This environment causes frustration, which results in vitriol at times.
I believe Liberals, on the other hand, are frustrated because they believe Gore was the rightful heir to the presidency in 2000, and Bush somehow stole it from him. From day one of the Bush administration, he was portrayed as a bumbling imbecile who was in the pocket of the religious right. Of course, after 9/11, there was a short period of harmony, because the vast majority of Americans are good patriots at heart, and came together to fight a common enemy. However, it didn’t take long for the drumbeat to start up again, and Kerry was fully expected to resume the Democratic hold on the presidency in 2004 (due to faulty polling, in my opinion). When that didn’t happen, they felt denied again, and comity has taken a further hit ever since. Obama was crowned the next president last year by the establishment, as 2008 was pronounced a Democratic year, with all political races declared decided in favor of the Democrats. Now that this assumption appears to be slipping away, to some extent because of the nomination of Palin, desperation is showing on the liberal side.
This is obviously the view of a conservative, so there is a substantial amount of subjectivity in the above analysis. But, I do believe it fairly reflects the respective reasons for vitriol on each side of the political debate.
Jonathan,
That you (appear to) think that the mothers of this country are irrelevant is telling. Sarah Palin will also be a tie-casting vote in the Senate which does such things as approve judicial appointments.
Scylding, while it does seem that many of the followers of Obama are looking for a political messiah, I see no evidence of that among the Bible believers and Constitution supporters here.
tODD, is it not an unchristian rumor-mongering of you to claim I’m rumor-mongering and being unchristian for citing well-lknown facts?
I’m tired of your antics, your tactics and your making it your over-all practice here to attack me and divert my attention from more important matters.
The reason for strong statements by the Bible-believing Christians here is that we see wolves in amongst the sheep. When that happens the guard dogs bark. Protecting the least of these and protecting the brethren motivates us.
Bryan, Luther wrote that if we don’t fight where the battle of the day is, we are not confessing Christ, no matter how loudly we might be professing Christ. We must continue to fight against the culture war launched against us in the late 1960s. We must continue to fight for our Biblical teachings and the cultural outflowing of that, for the lives of the least of these, and for the souls and minds of children forced to drink down anti-Christian propaganda in the government schools. It is not an option if we actually want to follow Christ. At least, Luther didn’t think it was an option.
AtF, tODD has been a regular and respected commenter here for years and years. While I’m in general agreement with your political positions, you’re being a jerk, to put it bluntly. I like a broad range of views in a discussion, but please tone it down a bit.
(yeah, yeah - you’re just “passionate” or something)
Carl (@40), the prescription you infer (a) doesn’t follow from there being no links — besides, one was a quote from the comments on this page; I trust you will not need a link to find it! — and (b) is unnecessarily complicated. Thankfully, it is also not what I meant. I am not asking everyone to read every comment ever.
But given that my comments rarely fail to find readers and their replies, I cannot help but wonder why the same does not happen to those who spread rumors and lies with a Republican bent to them. Is it possible I’m the only one reading them? If not, what is our responsibility as Christians when we see someone else wrongly attacking or defaming others? Is it to “pass by on the other side”?
“Personally I don’t have time to read … everyone of your posts.” Hmm. Not sure the evidence is in your favor on that one.
Also, I was wrong to say (@35) that “not a single Republican Christian” has called anyone on spreading rumors or lies against Democratic candidates. I remembered one counterexample.
In the comments to “Chinese gymnasts and the tooth fairy”, Carl had said, “There are even doubts about the authenticity of the birth certification posted for one of our presidential candidates.” (I suppose phrasing it like that was meant to avoid charges of slander — if you merely insinuate who you’re talking about …).
Anyhow, in the comments to “The Saddleback confessions”, Carl defended that remark (as such) by saying “For evidence of the doubts, check out” some blog (never mind that he was sidestepping the issue of his rumormongering by pointing out that others were also spreading that rumor).
In the comment after that, WebMonk, who hadn’t heard of that Obama rumor, looked into it and called it “a red herring on a dozen different levels”.
That is precisely the sort of behavior I was asking for, so it is incumbent on me to point it out, as I now have. Thank you, WebMonk. And thanks for the compliment (@43). Maybe it would suffice to say I’ve been a regular commenter here for years?
I’ve only been here since late 2006, I think.
Why the vitriol? Because every question has been federalized. There’s a lot more money at stake at that level than at those of state, city, or county. More money, more fevered rhetoric.
As Anon the First @ 42 said: “We must continue to fight against the culture war launched against us in the late 1960s.” This is one reason for some vitriol, I believe. Some people are sick of others living in a pluralist society, taking advantage of the freedom this type of society affords them, and then saying there’s a culture war against them. There’s no culture war AGAINST Christianity. The war is against people who feel it’s okay to say they should be treated as “more equal” than others.
Just banging my radical drum again!
Michael (@47), I’m pretty sure I know where you’re coming from — I live in Portland, the liberal nerve center of the most unchurched state (I’ve heard), and most of my friends are atheists or otherwise unbelievers — and I can see how one would come to feel how you do, but I’m also guessing you aren’t seeing things the way most of us Christians here do (if, in fact, those of us here can be said to have a common worldview). In large part, this all comes down to the culture one belongs to, and the filters that come with that culture.
It’s true that much of what Republicans perceive as “culture war” is not being waged against Christians per se, but rather against societal morality that Christians once thought they held sway over. Many Christians see their influence waning, and perceive it as an attack, but I can see how you’d say it is not. As a Lutheran, I am of two minds about this decay. Not that I endorse it — I do not, and it’s sad to see people and society afflicted by sin, given the consequences, spiritual and otherwise. But then, neither do I endorse the attitudes of some Christians who think that government must be made to mirror the Bible, since many of them believe in a Christianity that is centered on good works, and I reject this. I would prefer that people live lives free from sin, but I do not see this as the end of Christianity (rather, it is the result of a proper understanding of Jesus’s forgiveness of sins, but more on that another time).
That said, I can tell you as a Christian that, if not I myself, then my beliefs are frequently under attack, or at least outright mockery. Not that this is surprising to me — it has been going on for millenia, not merely since the 60s — but it is silly to deny such prejudice, if not hatred, exists. I just finished watching a scene from The Office in which the Christian character, Angela, was held up for ridicule for her judgmentalism. (Of course, I’d say rightly so, because she has a horrible attitude, but most people I think see her as an example of Christianity, not a deviation.) Would you like to compare the number of movies that portray Christians as loving or Christianity as a good thing versus those that portray Christians as stupid, evil, judgmental, etc? Are there other “famous” blogs you comment on that aren’t Christian-focused? If we trolled through them, would we find any vehemence towards Christians and Christianity?
Still, those who maintain there is a culture war are talking about just that — culture — and not Christianity. Jesus himself said that the world would hate Christians (after all, it hated him) — it was true several thousand years ago, and it’s true now. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that for almost as long (1600 years or so), there have been people in power here and there who, though nominally Christian, would not be claimed by either you or I. Many of them would be, to me, an example of the corruption of the world and its power, while you might see them as examples of Christians ruining the world. This makes communication difficult.
Anyhow, that’s how I see things. You see that, as a drummer, I can bang my drum for even longer! Pa-rum-pa-pum-pum.
Yes, you are definitely banging your radical drum, Michael. The statement “There’s no culture war AGAINST Christianity. The war is against people who feel it’s okay to say they should be treated as “more equal” than others” is inaccurate. Those who believe they are being treated unequally (let’s use homosexuals as an example) have determined that the tenets of traditional Biblical Christianity, when adhered to literally, cause society to discriminate against them. Therefore, they are indeed at war against traditional Christianity. To put it another way, they are fine with Christianity, as long as it is re-interpreted to validate their lifestyles and choices. They also want government, through the public schools, to instruct children that the Christian view of homosexuality, as taught from the Bible, is wrong. Finally, they want the institution of marriage, which has always, in history, been a union of a man and a woman, for the purpose of procreation, to apply equally to any random pairing of two people, whatever feels good and right to them.
Is it so unreasonable that those of us who think there is value in the traditions of thousands of years, and in the tenets of a faith which has been the primary influence in the world for millenia, to fight back against these attacks on society and order, as we know it? Are you really so blind to the history of mankind that you can’t see why this is so, or understand it, at least, even if you don’t agree with it?
No one is saying that homosexuals are not equal to other people. What we are saying is that traditions have value, and promoting certain values over others, as a society, is legitimate. Every person is treated equally, in that they are entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex. Some choose to do so, and some don’t. Those who choose to couple with another of the same sex is free to do that. They just can’t call their relationship marriage. Or at least that’s still true in most states.
#50 don
“They also want government, through the public schools, to instruct children that the Christian view of homosexuality, as taught from the Bible, is wrong.”
The bible says nothing at all about homosexuality per se, as it is defined by the ama, apa, aba, etc…. (1) what is your definition of homosexuality don, and (2) where do you see that called “wrong” in the bible?
We can make this personal if you like. I am a homosexual. In what way do you feel that I am “wrong”?
” Finally, they want the institution of marriage, which has always, in history, been a union of a man and a woman, for the purpose of procreation, to apply equally to any random pairing of two people, whatever feels good and right to them.”
So you are saying that people who marry and find they cannot procreate, their marriage is nul? Women who have passed through menopause may not get married? Only people who can procreate should be allowed to obtain a marriage license and then should be legal required to procreate?
“these attacks on society and order, as we know it? ”
will allowing two homos or lesbians to marry affect in ANY way at all the marriage traditions or practices of heterosexuals? How will it? if it will not, how is it an attack? where is your indignation on divorce. Is this not a MUCH greater attack on marriage?
“promoting certain values over others, as a society, is legitimate.”
ok. so what keeps you from promoting your values over others if any two persons are allowed to obtain a marriage license?
“Every person is treated equally, in that they are entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex. Some choose to do so, and some don’t. Those who choose to couple with another of the same sex is free to do that. They just can’t call their relationship marriage.”
so Don. You would support marriage license issued to anyone if the government, for the sake of fairness, changed the name to “domestic partnership license” and EVERYONE , heteros, gays etc would receive that same license? Then each individual could go to the church of their choice and define their union according to their particular religious and cultural beliefs?
“Every person is treated equally, in that they are entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex.”
try this…. “every person is treated equally, in that they are all entitled to marry someone of the same race.” This was stated legal doctrine in the usa till 1970. Would this be equality in your mind? if not, what is your reasoning don?
until around 1880 blacks could not marry each other. Asians could not marry whites. Until 1970 black could not marry white. These social norms extended back hundreds of years. Slavery was legally considered consistent with our constitution so a “strict constructionist” (one who interprets the constitution as intended by the authors) would still support all these things about marriage. Do you Don? The bible seems to condone polygamy. What is your objection to that practice?
#50 don
by the way don. I am a traditional christian.
I do NOT feel that christianity descriminates or wars against me or my being a homosexual in any way whatsoever. My God in fact is a great source of strength in my daily life.
sometimes my fellow christians simply can´t distinguish between cultural norms and their christian faith. or… they, like you Don, are simply confused. Like you they consider “homosexuality” a sin, but don´t really have the faintest clue as to what homosexuality is. They rail against a straw man. They assume that “of course , everyone knows what we are talking about when we say homosexual.”
not true.
simple and profound ignorance and prejudice is what this is. with all due respect.
This is the utter opposite of truth. Truth is what Jesus Christ, our Lord, calls us to seek.
#52 don and all others here…
I have challenged our group many times to provide me a simple definition of homosexuality.
It is most telling to me that NO one has yet been able or willing to provide that.
Just HOW can a topic be discussed so passionately and negatively by someone who cannot even dispassionately define the topic they are so virulently and obsessively fixated on?
If the definition of the word “homosexual” and “homosexual lifestyle” are so painfully obvious, why is this so hard?
Romans one does NOT define homosexuals or homosexuality. By the way. I did not trade my natural desires. So far as I can tell I have never lusted after anyone in my entire life. male or female. I am full of idolatry, but I would challenge someone to tell me that I am more idolatrous than they are as christians.
#5o
you are the one who is radical Don in that you do not stand on Holy Scriptures for what you believe.
fw -
Well, instead of trying to provide a definition of homosexuality, I will tell you that I don’t know. Over time, I have read many of your posts on this site and have become very intrigued by what you have to say about homosexuality. I have heard many Christians speak to homosexuality by saying that gay people live unrepentant lifestyles, and therefore, can’t possibly be “saved”. I’ve always wondered about that - particularly when Jesus called us to love God and love our neighbor - how does a bold, judgemental statement like that fit into Jesus’ great command? Many Christians confuse me - they make sweeping generalities that blast groups of people without ever really getting to know one of the individuals within the group they have just stereotyped and judged so boldly.
I realize that I haven’t answered your question, but I would like to keep this discussion going in some way.
#55 bkw
If you feel a great sense of sadness from me, you have successfully perceived what it is…
Most christians, including those here, do not seem to truly be able to imagine gays to be included in the great commission.
there is a separate law and gospel just for them.
i also know little except that I know for certain, that God is reconciled to me fully in what Jesus did for me and the whole world with his life, death and resurrection.
That is my starting and end point. Apart from Jesus Christ there is no truth. There is no way. There is no life.
This is simply because Jesus IS THE Truth.
fw -
Yes, I do sense sadness from you in some of your posts. I believe you are right in saying that *most* Christians can’t imagine gays being included in the Great Commission. That has been my experience when the subject arises. How many of us have truly researched homosexuality? Not many, I’m sure. And you are also right in saying that even though folks don’t have a good understanding of what being gay truly means, they will quickly and passionately rail against it.
FW, I’ve done a bit of my work among homosexuals (not a major emphasis or anything, but there’s some experience and friendships there) and I think you are being a bit judgmental of many people who comment on this blog. I really don’t remember anyone ever saying (though perhaps I’m wrong) that homosexual sin is any worse (or better) a sin than heterosexual sin or asexual sin or whatever sin we, in out fallen creativity, can come up with on our own or together with strangers or loved ones. I’m just so glad that your and my sins are all completely forgiven in Christ.
By the way, is there something wrong with the dictionary definition of homosexuality? I don’t know why defining it would have to be any more difficult than that.
#58 Bryan Lindemood
thanks for the polite post. depends on the dictionary bryan.
you haven´t been on this blog long if you haven´t seen people here rail against “homosexuality” as some “super sin”.
I am saying that homosexuality is not a sin actually. it simply is. Like blue eyes or albinoism.
Many here refer to homosexuality as a sin as though to even question that assumption (that is nowhere in scripture by the way) is to deny the authority of scripture.
I freely admit that homosexuals commit sins, including sexual ones. They do it daily in thought word and deed, and even if they did nothing, they would still be condemned apart from christ because they are sinners. the law applies to homos exactly as it applies to heterosexuals. The even better news is that the good news of Christ´s work applies also and fully to us homosexuals exactly as it applies to heterosexuals.
there are not two kinds of humans… (or 3 if you are a racist as well…)
AtF,
I don’t think I meant to imply that Christians retreat from the culture war. What I would love would be government retreating from the culture war and leave those issues to hashed out between families. Do we really need a bunch of new federal laws about marriage and sexuality (for example). And wasn’t it our federal government that got us into the mess of abortion rights in 1973 when it felt the need to confiscate more local governmental rights in this very important arena.
Now that I type that, I guess I just have a problem with the Federal Government overextending its hand into all of our lives - we have let it do too much in shaping our culture and locally, Christians have done too little. In my opinion.
Having thought a little more about your response to Don S, fw, I know that many Christians treat homosexual sins as one of those MONSTER SINS but it is not any more monstrous than any other sin that we commit from one moment to another.
Perhaps what most Christians are really railing against is the almost relentless pursuit of homosexual activists to redefine homosexual sin as not sin. (though usually they are very imprecise in their language - and maybe I am not being as precise as I could be, but I’m in a hurry right now, sorry). I really despise the MONSTER SIN impulse though which often does trump the outrage we should have at many other things that are destroying families and most importantly, trust in Christ. Anyway, gotta go…
#58 Bryan Lindemood
you raise a valid point about a dictionary definition.
I guess for the same reason that the dictionary definition of “heterosexual” does not come even close to describing in any detail what it would look like or feel like to be heterosexual versus an alternative existence.
If one really wanted to understand a homosexual and what his day to day existence looked like, I am pretty sure that the dictionary definition would not be quite enough.
I think it is safe to say that there is a rather strong intensity surrounding this topic. the church of england for example was not split when her bishops have denied the divinity of Jesus for the past few hundred years,but the topic of homosexuality is now ripping her apart. Just why is that? this should interest non homosexuals as well. something is akilter. very akilter.
any attempt by someone like me to get beyond the cultural static is called “revisionism” or worse.
it is is a taboo subject. the standard line is “homosexuality is a sin. the bible is clear on this. end of discussion.” there is no discussion possible outside of this loop. unfortunately expecially in our beloved Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.
The first sentence in this loop is where the primary error is. homosexuality is never clearly defined in a way that a homosexual would see himself in the mirror.
now, if I described you bryan in a way that was unrecognizable to you, especially in areas that were intensely an intimate part of your life, and did so in a way that highly offended you as well, and insisted on your accepting MY definition of YOU, what value would that serve?
#61
might I suggest that there is not homosexual sin, heterosexual sin,black sin.american sin.
there is simply sin.
better there is the good news of Jesus that convers the sins of everyone regardless of the label we place on them beyond the simple label of “lost sinner” that applies to all of us apart from christ.
the sin list is the same for everyone. it is really that simple.
there is no such think as homosexual sin. and homosexuality is not a sin. this is biblical. nothing else is.
#61 bryan
I do not consider myself to be a “homosexual activist.” I am not really sure what that is.
I am a christian who sees that homos are not really reached out to with the good news of Jesus Christ as they deserve to be.
it seems a natural vocation for me to be rather relentless about this. I am gay and I am christian and there are few who claim to take the bible inerrantly and seriously who speak up. So I guess that means I have something to do eh?
The gospel of Jesus christ is that important to me, as are the lost souls that are his that happen to be homosexual, along with those who are members of a Lutheran or christian church who cannot reach out for the comfort and spiritual support they often desperately need. They must remain invisible in their churches along with their families and those others who are affected.
whoa. is there ANY other site on the internet where topics like this can be discussed freely and politely?
I wasn’t meaning to call you a “homosexual activist”, and your other point kindof was the point I was trying to get across, that all sins are the same (in relation; or non-relation to God, rather) regardless of how we may want to label them or overemphasize some of them while ignoring others. Usually overemphasizing the sins of others, while trying to brush under the rug the consequences of our own sick sins.
I particularly like this paragraph, but get the feeling that many Christians struggling with homosexuality think one has to be homosexual themselves to authentically care. This paragraph:
“The gospel of Jesus christ is that important to me, as are the lost souls that are his that happen to be homosexual, along with those who are members of a Lutheran or christian church who cannot reach out for the comfort and spiritual support they often desperately need. They must remain invisible in their churches along with their families and those others who are affected.”
I don’t really feel like arguing with you about what the Bible does or does not say about homosexuality and whether or not it is (was) God’s original design for anyone or for you, though you should know that I believe God is very clear in His Word about His will for sexual relationships. That being said (and as you pointed out above) Christians today often read into the text their (and their cultures) own preferences about sexuality.
Anyhoo, I also very much resonate with this point you made above:
“the church of england for example was not split when her bishops have denied the divinity of Jesus for the past few hundred years,but the topic of homosexuality is now ripping her apart.”
For some local former ELCA congregations, their church’s recent struggles with homosexuality, sent them over the edge to the point of breaking their fellowship with the ELCA. This is not my main reason for not joining the largest Lutheran fellowship in America.
So, fw, a question for you. My opinion is that there is fault to be shared for why homosexual Christians do not seek the truth of the Word of God and the extraordinary measure of comfort we are (in my opinion) so well poised to give to these folks. Of course Christians can be faulted for their “trying to remove the speck from the brother’s eye” while having that telephone pole swinging around all over the place sticking out of their face, but dontcha think that “the homosexual community” also in some ways is attacking our witness of the Gospel, making homosexuals feel that there is no way that those conservative Christians over there could possibly understand their struggles?
Frank:
I do not believe that homosexuality is an unforgivable sin, a “monster sin”, or anything else other than a regular old sin. All sins are monster sins, in that they separate us, if unforgiven, from our God. I do not believe that the Great Commission is not for homosexuals. The Great Commission (the Gospel) is for all men (and women, and children), who are all sinners, in need of a savior. Christ died for all.
I don’t understand your request for a definition of “homosexuality”. There are a number of passages, both Old and New Testaments, as you know, that directly address homosexual behavior as a sin. They are quite clear, and definitive. I believe these passages refer to behavior, not feelings or weaknesses. By that, I mean that we all have areas in our lives where we are weak, and subject to temptation to sin. Heterosexuals who succumb to temptation to have sexual relations with a woman or man not their spouse have sinned. Heterosexuals or homosexuals succumbing to a temptation to view pornography have sinned. One who is attracted to others of the same sex, who does not act out on those attractions by engaging in sexual relations, has not sinned. Because this is a fallen world, we all have to deal with temptations which attack weaknesses in each of our makeups. Some have a tendency to addictions. Others have a tendency to dishonesty. Still others have a tendency to adultery or fornication. Yet others have a tendency to be attracted to those of the same sexual orientation. You apparently fall into this latter category. In the strength of the Holy Spirit, we are told in the Scriptures to flee these temptations, and the Holy Spirit promises to free us of them if we do so. Our pursuit is toward holiness in this life, in the strength of the Holy Spirit. We are all valuable in His sight, and Christ has died for all of us.
Marriage is an institution given to us for the purpose of procreation. This is clear from Genesis, and from all of the Scriptures. Of course, this does not mean that all couples will be able to procreate, and thus to continue mankind from generation to generation. Some will not, but have other purposes, from God, for being together. Marriages are referenced throughout Scripture, including those of childless heterosexual couples, but never is a homosexual marriage referenced, nor is homosexuality ever discussed in a positive light.
Frank, even if you were correct that homosexuality was perfectly OK, the actions of modern militant homosexual advocates, to overturn thousands of years of societal tradition, would be wrenching and radical. In your heart, you must know this, and must understand why those of us who are traditional Christians, and have a literal and traditional understanding of Biblical truth, must oppose these actions with every fiber of our beings. We must stand for the literal truth of the Bible, the absolute standard of morality for mankind.
I respect you on this site, and the things you post. They are generally thoughtful, and reflect a deep understanding of the things of God. I do not, and cannot, condemn you, just as you cannot condemn me. Our status with respect to eternity is solely between each of us, as individuals, and our Lord.
God bless you.
Shocking revelations have been uncovered about the extremist views and statements of Gov. Sarah Palin’s pastor at Wasilla Bible Church. According to a Scrappleface article:
In the days following Gov. Sarah Palin’s appointment as John McCain’s running mate, Americans have grown increasingly concerned about her brand of radical Christianity. A new recording released to the media today by Barack Obama’s campaign, gives definitive proof that Gov. Palin’s pastor, in an emotional tirade, once called on God to “bless” America…
Democrat insiders wondered how Mrs. Palin could have sat under the so-called “Biblical” teaching of this man for years without challenging his pleas for divine favor upon the nation which most intellectuals agree is the world’s leading source of oppression and greenhouse gases.
#66bryan
“So, fw, a question for you. My opinion is that there is fault to be shared for why homosexual Christians do not seek the truth of the Word of God and the extraordinary measure of comfort we are (in my opinion) so well poised to give to these folks. “but dontcha think that “the homosexual community….also in some ways is attacking our witness of the Gospel, making homosexuals feel that there is no way that those conservative Christians over there could possibly understand their struggles?”
“homosexual community”. “heterosexual community”. not sure those terms mean alot…I would say that 90% of gays and lesbians lead very quite lives. alot are very vocal republicans. it is advantageous for most of us to remain hidden from society. as in the church “community”, those who shout loudest claim to represent more than they do. Dr Dobson in NO way represents what I believe for example….
you ask very good questions bryan that beg for some good thought. and your responses are very mild and christian. I do very much appreciate that. we agree on most things it seems.
Now to answer your question:
there are books and seminars galore published by concordia and others as to how to go about winning the souls of mormons and JW´s and muslims and others.
The message I hear from the church, and I AM a christian, is that the sodom and gomorrah story and romans chapter one describe what the “homosexual lifestyle” looks like. This is so WILDLY far from reality, that most homos, especially those raised in the church are AFRAID to look into their bibles. This is unfortunate because Jesus can be found ONLY there.
If someone insists on defining and describing you and the most intimate particulars of your life in a way that makes you cringe and feel uncomfortable and offended and in no way reflects your reality, and then tells you that if you insist that they are not right, that you are “a revisionist” “activist” that you are “unrepentant” that you are insisting on calling sin non-sin…. this does not sound very welcoming to me bryan. and someone who is non christian and well educated would mis-perceive christians as simply being very willfully ignorant and hateful. sad all of this.
it could be so very easily fixed with just a little dialog and patience.
#67 don s
I respected your previous contributions here. I now have a much deeper respect for you as a fellow christian and as a descent human being. thanks for your comments Don. Let me see if I can be even half as polite and helpful in my response. yours is a hard act to follow dear brother!
“I don’t understand your request for a definition of “homosexuality”. There are a number of passages, both Old and New Testaments, as you know, that directly address homosexual behavior as a sin.”
dear brother Don. I am a christian. I am also a homosexual. You are telling me that you know something about my “homosexual behavior” that that it is wrong? maybe email me directly and get to know me and you might be surprised. just where are these passages of the bible you assume that I know?
the standard ones uses are usually the (1) the passage in leviticus about a man treating a man like a woman in bed (2) the sodom and gomorrah story (3) romans chapter 1 (3) a passage in corinthians that has nothing to do with homosexuality (4) a passage in timothy that also has nothing at all to do with homosexuality…. so no. I do not “know” that the bible says ANYTHING at all about the subject of homosexuality. I think the bible actually says NOTHING at all about homosexuals. Leviticus and romans one seem indeed to describe *heterosexual* behaviors. It would make NO sense to any homosexual to treat another man like a woman in bed, and I don´t know of any gay men or lesbians who feel that they “traded their natural desires” for the desires they have. As a christian, I really can´t relate to the men and women described in romans one in any way. I don´t see myself in the mirror there, except to confess, along with you, that I DO worship the creation rather than the creator. this idolatry is one of the roots of my sinfulness. My sins of coveting are really all about placing my faith in trust in something other than God. This is idolatry. I also have to note that Lusting after someone else physically doesn´t loom large on my personal sin list. Maybe it does for you and others here. and you are heterosexuals. interesting that. Besides, Leviticus needs to be handled with extreme care. It was , as Luther said, written for the Jews and Not for us. to say that one part applies to us as christians, well where is the clear principle that would allow us to dismiss the rest as NOT applying to us but only to the jews….It would probably be safer, biblically to simply say that sex outside of marriage is forbidden and turn to passages that support that idea. This would include everyone then, and not just homosexuals. It would also probably mean that divorced people should not remarry…..
sodom and gomorrah seems to be about gang rape. I do HOPE you do not picture me or those like me as protagonists in that story. now THAT would be EXTREMELY offensive to me. corinthians and timothy…. the words arsenokoitia and malakoi… no one can translate those words with any certainty in context. so we can set those passages asside. Am i missing a passage?
Ok. if there is NO reference to homosexuality in the bible, I remain perplexed as to why *some* seem to make such a huge deal out of homosexuality.
that all being said , dear brother, I very much appreciate the tone and brotherliness of your posting. If ALL christians were at least as mild and patient as you, our church would be so very much better off. I agree in fact with most of what you said. believe it or not.
The one area where i disagree is a common misunderstanding. Most christians reduce homosexuality to a sex act or at least something amiss in thought word and deed. or as some sort of urge, like a desire to use drugs or drink. homosexuality is far far more indelible and goes far far deeper than that.
your identity as a heterosexual (I assume that you are that…) is such a deep part of who you are. It affects everything. even if you became celebate, it would still affect you profoundly. it is about alot more than the sex drive.
I think the best way to ask you to ponder this is to consider your development as a heterosexual BEFORE you went through puberty. this would separate the sex from your heterosexuality.
Young gay men and women go through EXACTLY the same process of discovering their sexuality (prepuberty remember… puppy love.. all that….). The difference is that when young 4 year old gays discover all this, they are much more confused that other adolescents (it is a confusing time for all adolescents I think…) and soon discover they must dissimilate and hide their emotions. Gays learn what a metaphor is very, very early. they hear comments about boy and girl and say to themselves “ok I can relate to that completely with one small change….”.
i believe that I am saying that it is not sinful for a 6 year old boy to have a crush on his male gradeschool teacher or another little boy. where would the bible tell me that is wrong? where is the passage you would turn me to to tell me that is wrong? Don´t confuse your discomfort with the idea as a moral impulse. it is not.
there is a film called “my life in pink” “ma vie em rose”. it is a french film about a 7 year old transgender boy and his family and community. (be clear that gay men and lesbians have NO desire to change their gender. another misconception held by many). I would highly recommend this film. I am not transgender, but the film was excellent and I could relate to large parts of it. it makes NO one out to be wrong or bad. ask yourself , if you rent the film, ask yourself just what would YOU do if you were the boy´s parent and why? where would you turn to in the bible to decide what was right or wrong, sin or non sin?
#67 don
I think most gays are just human beings who want to be left alone to live their lives.
but those men and women do live in a society. They want to be sure their significant other can visit them at a hospital, that the wishes of their significant other can take precidence over the wishes of parents and other family in the event of illness or death. all the things you would want for your children or wife.
what if the government simply got out of the “marriage ” business? pastors could no longer be quasi officials of the government. ALL people would get a license that would be called a “civil union license” that would be the same for every taxpayer.
THEN any individual could go to their church or synogogue or mosque and have a non-legaly-binding ceremony that would define their union according to their religious and moral beliefs. simple? what would be your objection to this?
any two persons could get this license. it would entitle them all to the SAME benefits. and responsibilities. say you have a sick older brother. you could get that license with him in order for you to care for him. he would get your social security survivors benefits, be entitled to your medical coverage as a dependent…. you would be responsible for his debts…..that license would become a legally binding social contract between the two of you.
I can´t see any biblical or traditional principle that would be violated here.
can you?
There ARE ways to work through these social issues without having to decide that civilization as we know it will end if we accomodate others in their differences….
why do we need to have culture wars? it is a way for politicians to divide and conquer. this is not necessary.
“homosexual community” - somehow I knew you were going to say that, fw, which is why I tried to put this in quotes, but failed. So, please enlighten me: who does put together those GLBT shows that are on late at night on PBS?
And just for the record, it really peeves me that sexuality is made to be such a huge identifier these days. People are people, no? Does everything in life really need to revolve around ones sexual orientation? These are the questions I have had when I have found myself up late watching such PBS shows. Those shows, to me at least, seem to illustrate such large opportunities for the comfort of the theology of the cross. Maybe there are some faithful Christians there, but they certainly don’t get any screen time.
The regulation of marriage by the State of who may marry whom is an intrusion into the rightful duties of the Family. Since we live in an imperfect world, I think the only justifiable intrusion would be regarding the number of people who may be married to each other - that would be two.
allen:
“I think the only justifiable intrusion would be regarding the number of people who may be married to each other - that would be two.”
What distinguishes this intrusion from others? And do you think that the state ought to be able to intrude and prohibit siblings or 1st cousins or 14 year olds from marrying? What makes one intrusion acceptable and others not?
FW,
Many here believe the Bible to be true, and therefore homosexuality is a sin, one chosen by those whom God has removed the protection from, because of their hardening of their hearts in refusing to acknowledge God or give thanks to Him, and their insistence upon worshiping the creation instead of the Creator. We get that from the Bible, such as the first chapter of Romans, as well as a passage later on which says that homosexuals do not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Since we are Lutherans, and thus believe that Christ died for all (and that all really does mean all) that confirms the clear teaching of the Bible that it is a sinful choice rather than a genetic characteristic brought about by evolution or by God.
I’m not sure how you can claim that the Bible doesn’t say that homosexuality is a sin. Perhaps you have not read the Bible, or recall what it says about the topic? That is the most charitable explanation.
What sort of sin is it? It is one that people are only able to commit if they so reject God that He removes His protection from them in that area. I would imagine that is so as to wake them up that they might repent and be saved. It is one that is a blasphemy of the relationship between Christ and the Church. It is one that is intrinsically evil, rather than extrinsically evil. Heterosexual sin, for instance, is extrinsically evil. There are cases where heterosexual sex is not sin. It is an abomination to God, and it is one of the sins that God commanded the civil authorities of Israel to execute people for committing. It is against nature, natural law (I agree that natural philosophy while the best human philosophy that exists, is not as authoritative as the Bible), and it is against the moral codes of most societies throughout recorded history.
Let God be true, and all others be shown liars, if need be.
There is no such thing as a homosexual who is a Christian. That is uncontrovertible for those who believe the Bible. There are many who do not believe God and yet claim the authority to redefine the term “Christian”. They lack this authority, and it is intellectual dishonesty for them to claim it, bu then, some of them at least have “cast off all restraint” so that shouldn’t surprise us.
Frank,
Thank you for your gracious posts. I understand the point you are making about the Romans 1 passage (that you did not exchange your desires for a woman for those of a man, because you never had desire for a woman), though I don’t agree with that interpretation of the passage. I also don’t agree that I Cor. 6: 9-10 and I Tim. 1: 9-10 can be summarily dismissed as having nothing at all to do with homosexuality. The Leviticus passage explicitly cites homosexuality as being an abomination, and worthy of death. I don’t think you can simply put it in the category of a dietary or ceremonial regulation, superseded by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. The law presented in the Old Testament (eg the ten commandments) is still in force, and condemns us to hell save for the atonement available to us by God’s grace through Christ. If you argue that Levitticus 18:22 doesn’t apply to Christians, would you also say that the very next verse (23) referring to mating with animals, also doesn’t apply? Since homosexuality is also referenced in the N.T., as I mentioned earlier, you bear a strong burden, in my opinion, to prove that homosexual acts are not a sin. But, again, these issues are things we all wrestle with, in various categories of sins and potential sins, and ultimately are between us and our Lord, individually.
As for homosexual activism, in present day America, what are your thoughts concerning the methodology, i.e., outrageous displays of lasciviousness at so-called Gay Pride parades, etc? Why do you think the activist community chooses that “in your face” approach, and do you think it helps or hurts the advancement of the cause (presumably equality, whatever that means) that they support?
tODD @ 49,
Been outta the loop all weekend! I don’t have much to say in response to what you said, as I see your point. But I would like to offer my “outsider” perspective…
The example from The Office you give is a good one. I would suggest that, even though it comes off as anger or hatred toward Christianity, it is only toward the character’s judgemental attitude that the negativity is directed. Personally, I don’t notice many other religions proselytizing as much as Christianity. Jews and Muslims will accept converts, but do not actively seek them. Most other religions don’t have a need to be judgemental to people’s faces (although I assume all of them are behind the scenes, only because we ALL seem to be, regardless of worldview). In fact, the two other religions that preach to nonbelievers as much as Christianity came from it: Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
It could be that some people are just sick of being judged by others for basically no definable reason, other than their opinions differ. Christians have been the majority in this country for so long that they believe they have the right to say whatever they want. Part of the negativity comes from the rest of us being in the minority for so long. That does not justify it, I agree. I’m not trying to defend the practice, just explain why it may be going on. I think it’s a little like reverse racism. And it DOES get in the way of people having a “live and let live” attitude. Although, the Christians who speak out do not come across as though they want to “live and let live.” So, as I said before, part of the negativity could come from the perception that we aren’t given the same consideration when we let Christians “live.”
The only other blogs I’ve felt comfortable commenting on are Jim Pierce’s Law and Gospel blog (and there’s no Christian bashing going on there), and the blog for the Xbox live game Braid (quick plug: BEST GAME EVER!!!). The only “famous” blog I read is Pharyngula - though I’ve NEVER commented - and I will of course acknowledge there is no end of Christian bashing on that site. I read it for the science and the perspective. I do not participate in BASHING, as I like to dialog and do not consider that practice conducive to a discussion.
We could go back and forth talking about movies that bash Christians. How about movies that bash atheists? They’re out there. I would suggest Hollywood is not the best example to give when talking about the “average” person. The average person in the US is a Christian, anyway. Most PEOPLE in the US do not bash Christians.
I don’t see people like the Angela character as representative of Christians, but they do represent that TYPE of Christian. The judgemental people who think everyone should share their exact view of morality. I would be unable to say whether those types are the majority within your religion. I tend to think they are the most vocal, whether they represent what the average Christian believes or not.
I don’t think of the “Christians” in power, though, as you suggest. “Many of them would be, to me, an example of the corruption of the world and its power, while you might see them as examples of Christians ruining the world.” I just see them as people ruining the world. I don’t let their religious views color my understanding that it is their greed and corruption causing them to do these things. In fact, many of them may think they are doing the “right” thing.
Communication is difficult, though. I agree.
Pa-rum-pa-pum-pum right back atcha!
#76 don
“As for homosexual activism, in present day America, what are your thoughts concerning the methodology, i.e., outrageous displays of lasciviousness at so-called Gay Pride parades, etc? Why do you think the activist community chooses that “in your face” approach, and do you think it helps or hurts the advancement of the cause (presumably equality, whatever that means) that they support?”
I would not be sure what “the cause” is either. Neither would any gay or lesbian that I know. Interesting huh? What would be the “heterosexual ” cause? That doesn´t make sense does it? Maybe you look at things through a framework that has been needlessly radicallized and polarized? Gays are no more or less unified in their wishes pursuits and ideas than the population at large.
hmmm. madonna, britney spears, lord byron, ben franklin, sex in the city, strip joints, whore houses (here aren´t any gay ones of those as far as i know…) , sex clubs, makita power tool and beer ads and calendars that make women into mere sexual objects, hugh hefner, playboy, larry flynt and hustler magazine…. the “dating” section of “craigs list” in any small town here in america is sorta shocking…
gay pride parades actually seem to be becoming more toned down over time in my perception…..
I hope you get my point. You seem to suggest that there is some organized movement out there trying to gain social acceptance for gays and lesbians. some sort of “gay agenda” out there…. this probably looks about the same as the “hetersexual/hedonist” agenda. I would assume that it would be wrong to say that you and larry flynt and hugh hefner have the same agenda since you are all heterosexuals.
to class people in a group and then assume that they are all the same is the fundamental hallmark of prejudice. As in “those black folks are all (fill in the blank)…” I am as different from another gay man or lesbian as you are from another heterosexual. even how I express my sexuality is very unique and different. just as it is for you and your wife and children.
I think senses are dulled all around to societies depravity.
to be completely honest:
men tend to be very visual. They see something and are aroused sexually. Men like porno therefore. porno usually doesn´t interest women much. Men tend to objectify the object of their sexual interest. Women have been objectified, increasingly so, in this way for a very long time now.
What is jarring, at a somewhat unconscious level, for heterosexual males, and is somewhat threatening, is to see males objectify other males in exactly the same way females are objectified. It is just that most of us are pretty numbed out due to the utter pervasiveness of women being objectified. Might be good to consider your gut reaction to seeing gay men objectify each other and reflect on just how that is different in moral character from the way women are objectified. You should probably be rather saddened at both sides of things. I assume in fact that you are.
next time you men find yourself appreciatively oogling one of those makita power tool calendars, imagine it is your mother or daughter there….
all of God´s children deserve much better. call me a prude….
#76 don
wow you are so polite. thanks!
“the Romans 1 passage … though I don’t agree with that interpretation of the passage.”
Ok. I see romans one as where st paul talks about the idolatry of the pagans leading them to actually make idols of each other. idolatry squared. this is a setup for chapter two. Paul lays a trap. He has the jewish readers going “tell it Paul!” Paul describes crass idolatry in a way that a Jew would never ever be guilty of. Just like heterosexuals can really go to town over homosexuality because they know it is a sin they would not ever come close to committing…. then… Paul tells them that they are even worse in chapter two…. how would you disagree with that?
“I also don’t agree that I Cor. 6: 9-10 and I Tim. 1: 9-10 can be summarily dismissed as having nothing at all to do with homosexuality.”
the word “arsenokoitia” appears in only one place in all of contemporary greek literature of the time. there in I cor. etymology is risky (eg use etymology to parse the phrase “lady killer”,,,) the context is not helpful in that it is a list. in timothy the word “malakoi” can mean spiritually weak or lazy, or efeminate. there are alot of homos that are NOT efeminite, and alot of heteros who ARE efeminite. not sure if I would want to call a lisp or limp wrist , or a strong ability to accessorize sins.
If THIS is the strongest passages you have to condemn homosexuality…. hmmm…
” The Leviticus passage explicitly cites homosexuality as being an abomination, and worthy of death.”
First. this is not about homosexuality. It is about a heterosexual man turning another heterosexual man into a woman in sex. This does not look actually in any way like what a homosexual would want to do or have done to him. yuck. My reaction is yuck.
the word abomination certainly sorta points to the idea of a super sin here. it would be interesting to do a word study of the underlying hebrew word for abomination throught the old testament. what you will find might surprise you…
disobedient children are also worthy of death in the old testament, those who trespass on sacred ground, women who have sex with animals (both woman AND unwilling(?) animal are to be killed. Nothing about lesbian sex… adulterous women (men definitionally could not commit adultery in the OT). Generally Leviticus seems to prescribe temple sex practices of the tribes around them…
I would be really really interested in your sure fire test of what would classify as civil , ceremonial or moral law in leviticus and the old testament. can you share with me please?
Luther´s opinion is that leviticus was written for the jews.
You did not mention the sodom and gomorrah story. this is “traditionally” (the last couple hundred years) as being about homosexuality. What is your take on that? would you say (along with most “conservative christians” ) that the sodom and gomorrah story describes me and my lifestyle and character?
” I don’t think you can simply put it in the category of a dietary or ceremonial regulation, superseded by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.”
Ok. why is that? and again what are the rules for how to determine what is moral and what is ceremonial or civil law?
” The law presented in the Old Testament (eg the ten commandments) is still in force, and condemns us to hell save for the atonement available to us by God’s grace through Christ.”
No. the 10 commandments were written for the Jews. We actually need to tweak the 3rd commandment about the sabbath to make it work for us christians. but it works as a neat summary of the moral law that is all repeated in the new testament.
“If you argue that Levitticus 18:22 doesn’t apply to Christians, would you also say that the very next verse (23) referring to mating with animals, also doesn’t apply?”
Yuck. sex with animals. Yuck. to answer your question, I would need to come up with some rule or guideline to let me know for sure what is civil vs ceremonial vs moral law. I am not sure that I would support your right to stone your disobedient children either. I hope you know that this does not mean I am a “sex-with-animal advocate. I just want to take the task of interpreting scripture with all seriousness….
“Since homosexuality is also referenced in the N.T.”
Where is that Don?
“as I mentioned earlier, you bear a strong burden, in my opinion, to prove that homosexual acts are not a sin. ”
fortunately my own opinion and yours are not all that important. the scriptures, alone, are what matter.
in any court of law, the burden rests on the accuser, not on the accused. I feel no burden here. The Holy scriptures are on my side here.
by the way, there is nothing alot worse as a sin than to call something a sin when it is not. great care must be exercised so as not to fall into the trap of the galatians. Offending one of the little ones who believe in Jesus and causing them to stumble or stop attending church by declaring sin where there is none is a serious matter. nothing could be more serious.
I say your evidence would hold up in NO court of law.
This does not mean that there is no moral law for me sexually. It means that the SAME laws and morals about sex applie to heterosexual and homosexual alike. There is no separate law and gospel for homos. You yourself pointed this out.
there is not homosexual sin.
there is simply sin. it is deadly. all of it.
just for arguments sake, let´s say there is actually NOTHING in the bible that addresses homosexuality per se.
where would that leave us? would it change anything?
no.
would it leave us in lawlessness?
no.
the SAME moral laws that apply to you as a heterosexual, no as a sinner and human being, would apply equally to me. Just as it does now.
Would anything at all be lost?
no.
would the world be less moral?
no.
would the church´s moral stand be in ANY way compromised or weakened?
no.
so why is this a cause that makes people so very very agitated? why?
Dear brother don. I hope I have succeded in being as polite and mild as you have been in your post. where I have failed I would beg your patience and forgiveness in advance. and I know you will grant me that. thanks!
#75 anon the first.
first I want to say, I really like alot of your poetry.
“FW,
Many here believe the Bible to be true, and therefore homosexuality is a sin,”
I believe the bible to not only be true but also spirit breathed and without error in the original text. therefore, and BECAUSE of that… I do not believe the Holy Scriptures say anything at all about homosexuality per se.
I know that at the last day, I will need to give an account for how I have confessed the apostolic faith. I tremble knowing that I will not get it exactly right. But I do fear God too much to not be very very ernest about using scriptures for their sole intended purpose. which is to lead people to Jesus Christ. The entire and only purpose of any and all parts of the bible is to be a testimony to Jesus Christ.
if you do not agree fully with this last statement, you are no Lutheran. so I assume that you do agree fully. And that we both agree that ONLY scriptures are to be considered an infallible guide to faith and what we are to believe as true.
“There is no such thing as a homosexual who is a Christian. That is uncontrovertible for those who believe the Bible.”
I am a homosexual. I am a christian. I have been baptised! I believe that Jesus has paid for my sins on the cross. I believe that I sin daily in thought, word and deed, but that I am fully forgiven for my daily sins and that , with God´s help, I will be useful to my neighbor and my love for God will increase. I receive Jesus actually body and blood weekly as a sure and certain evidence that my sins are personally forgiven by God for Jesus sake.
You are telling me brother, that I am no christian.
IF this is what you are telling me, (and I in christian charity must assume that I am totally misunderstanding you and that you are NOT saying this to me), then Satan is most certainly talking through you.
I know that is strong language, but God is not the author of words that intend to cause any repentant sinner to doubt his salvation. Period. THIS is incontrovertable. Sealed with Jesus blood in fact.
What do you mean by incontrovertible? that we can have no meaningful argument or discussion of this assertion of yours, based soley on Holy Scripture. Just what is your basis for this assertion “anon the first”?
I take your post as being very sincere. I find nothing where you have stated your views in an offensive way. I do appreciate that.
I just, with all do respect, do not believe that the Holy Scriptures agree with hardly anything you are saying and asserting to be “incontrovertible”.
it would be great to have us respond to each other on the basis of “sola scriptura”. maybe you can respond to the posts where I have specifically addressed all the passages (there are 5) that have been said to deal with the topic of homosexuality.
and ln peace let us pray to the Lord that our exchanges will be mild, humble and reflect sincere love and utmost respect for one other. Feel free to correct me where I stumble here in that!
#72 bryan
ghettos exist for those parts of society that for whatever reason arent able to integrate with the rest of society. jewish and italian and greek ghettos have mostly disappeared. gay ghettos are disappearing very fast… most “gay” districts, even in san francisco are becoming homogenized (no pun intended).
alot of the gay pbs stuff looks sorta like nostalgia to me nowadays… “queer eye for the straight guy” is gimmiky. the hosts are oh-so-”gay”. most gay men are more hopeless than most straight men at decorating or dressing themselves or accessorizing actually. but I like those programs because they make people less afraid of homos. even if they do advance some (rather hilarious and false) stereotypes.
I live in brasil now. I am not really sure why sexual identity is such a big deal now in the usa. it is not in the rest of the world.
i suspect that it is because what is unique to americans is that americans love to have everything standardized. windows, doors, containers, … you name it.
we also assume we can do exactly the same with people… even though the fact is…God didnt make ANY two living organizms alike. not even “identical twins.”
What this also means is that we have a compulsion or mania to label everything. we are not comfortable with things that do not fit neatly into a category. “liberal” “conservative” etc…..
then we conveniently assume that the label IS the thing that is labeled.
reality is usually alot messier and more challenging and complex….
but many, if not most, find labeling and classifying and categorizing and stereotyping comforting at a profound level. it makes their world seem comprehendable and safer.
it is ok not to know or understand something or be able to classify it in neat terms.
this does not make one a relativist o