Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Domestic violence rate 42% higher than previously reported Previous entry: Yes on 8 files motion to invalidate all same-sex marriages

Is a Warren uninvite really impossible to contemplate?

Rachel Maddow covered the issue of Rick Warren banning “unrepentant homosexuals” from his church quite well last night. First, the passage from Saddlebacks’ web site:

Finally, a word about being judgmental. It’s not judgmental to say that what the Bible calls a sin is a sin, that’s just telling the truth. Not being willing to talk to someone caught up in sin, or not believing that they can be forgiven, or thinking that you are not just as much in need of Jesus as they are ... that’s being judgmental.

Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church.

Nice.

One of the other matters Rachel underscores in her commentary is that Team Obama has “uninvited” close friends of the president-elect when that person’s views threatened to politically damage him. In this case it was Jeremiah Wright, when the campaign learned the pastor’s inflammatory sermons were going to break loose on the internets and cause a “distraction” from Obama’s announcement of his candidacy.

So apparently Wright can be given the hook when Obama’s doing political risk assessment, but not Rick Warren. You can draw your own conclusions as to why it’s now possible, even in light of the incredible mother lode of evidence of the extreme anti-gay views of Rick Warren, that Barack Obama doesn’t feel politically inconvenienced enough to dump the Saddleback bigot.

I guess he’s not willing to risk the wrath of the religious right as opposed to the LGBTs who actually worked to get him elected. You know, the same religious right that held a Values Voter Conference that prominently featured an Obama Waffles display during the campaign.  Did I mention that the conference was put on by the Family Research Council, led by Tony Perkins, who is thrilled by the Warren invite—and the man who paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 for his mailing list?

 

Change you cannot imagine he can believe in.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 07:21 AM • (52) Comments

I didn’t vote for Barack Obama.  Yeah, he’s from my hometown and all, but the moment he tossed Jeremiah Wright under the bus he lost me forever.  It wasn’t that he had to distance himself; I understand that he needed to avoid controversy in the early stages of his campaign.  But the way he did it struck me as cowardly and opportunistic.  (I actually thought that Wright may have phrased some things a bit crudely, but I had no problem with his comments that were taken out of context and amplified by the Right Wing Noise Machine and the corporate media.  Just saying.)  In that episode Obama gave strong hints of his political character, and it stank to high heaven for this Gen X DFH.

After Obama started choosing his advisers—mostly tired Clinton retreads, many with rivers of blood on their hands, and other Beltway ‘centrist’ hacks—I was mildly surprised at the lack of alarm among the Democratic faithful.  Well, now the alarms are sounding, but it’s too late.  Get ready for another four years of a Democratic president embracing those who display every intention of disemboweling him while he kicks all but his wealthiest and most center-right supporters to the curb.  Unless he’s got a magic trick up his sleeve, Obama is already setting the table for yet another right-wing resurgence, one that is going to make the Bush years seem like a love-in.

I feel a lot better about my Green Party vote every day; y’all can’t blame it on us this time.

Comment #1: Church Secretary  on  12/20  at  07:48 AM

Rachel Maddow did a fantastic job here.
Maybe we LGBTs need to organize some national demonstrations against Warren just like we did after Prop 8 failed. Either way we need to keep talking about this and raising hell over it. Warren is absolutely unacceptable and it’s time to teach Obama not to betray his base.

Comment #2: AdamN  on  12/20  at  08:07 AM

Meh. Obama feels Warren is less of a jerk than Wright. Deal with it.

Comment #3: Bitter Scribe  on  12/20  at  08:38 AM

For me, this episode has been an opportunity to become more familiar with Warren himself and the “Purpose-Driven” movement in particular.  I’m very much hoping that this inauguration/invocation episode resonates in some fashion with the folks at Saddleback that have been suckered in.  There are people (liberals even) that say Warren is so much better than Dobson et al that Obama elevating him is ultimately a good thing.  They are wrong.

Now that I research it further, I realize that I’ve been inside Purpose-Driven Churches.  They are slick, have nice rock bands, use a LOT of corporatist lingo (seriously one would think their entire congregation is white collar), but ultimately they are either (take your pick) 1) not really Christian because they don’t focus on hell and damnation and a lifetime of good works that demonstrate the faith, or 2) not really better than Dobson et al because they still teach a literal Bible and strictly enforce the practice of treating women as a lower class of human.  Either way, they don’t really help matters.  They are meant to drive up <strike>church taxes</strike> tithes and nothing more.  Someone who seeks to be a good person will find themselves disgusted by the sexism in these churches and may move on to a mainline Protestant denomination or even into Buddhism or agnosticism/atheism;  conversely, someone who seeks Christian revelation will head further into truly fundamentalist circles.  The people who stay on inside a Purpose-Driven Church are the ones who are willing to ignore the rights of their fellow humans so long as they get an entertaining feel-good Sunday morning.  And the pastors who run the Purpose-Driven Churches have no qualms about putting their wives on stage just long enough to humiliate them (I saw this with my own eyes).  OTOH, these churches are so ethically schizophrenic that they could probably garner some Democratic votes if the pastors pushed for it.  Perhaps Obama is prepping for a 2012 strategy to directly pay the pastors to endorse him.

This shocking lack of judgement on Obama’s part has in a way helped me understand why I have been so uncomfortable in these seemingly-seeker-friendly churches and resolve to have no further business with them.  Sadly, that might have been the idea all along.

Comment #4: KL  on  12/20  at  10:38 AM

I just can’t believe that he’s more worried about upsetting the poor widdle wight wing bigots than his actual base, the people who actually got his ass elected.  And it’s not just the gay and lesbian base.  It’s people like me, people who are straight but believe that gays and lesbians have civil rights just like everyone else.

And I’m sorry, but that clip of Warren in the interview…yech.  And he made no point whatsoever.  Is he against gay sex or against the fact that gay people can have sex with the baby consequence?  Because that’s what it sounded like to me.

And also:  Warren, dude.  Reality check.  You might see a beautiful woman and want to bang her, but you’re a fekking slob.  So yah, pat yourself on the back for your “delayed gratification” all you want.  The fact is, you probably wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell to begin with.

Okay.  Rant over.

Comment #5: speedbudget  on  12/20  at  10:41 AM

Deal with it.

Well, okay.  We were going to seal ourselves in a cave and hibernate for 4 years, hands over ears and chanting “lalalalalalala”.  But now, we’re not.

Comment #6: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/20  at  10:41 AM

Dangit.  Without the baby consequence.  That’s what I get for ranting.

Comment #7: speedbudget  on  12/20  at  10:43 AM

The impression I’m starting to get from Obama is that, for a Dem, he’s simply not experienced with Republicans and the radical right that much. Having spent so much time in Chicago, I think he pretty much views Republicans as, pretty much, a sincere but ultimately harmless group of hobbits… sure, somewhat troublesome and mischevious but ultimately well-meaning and harmless and not powerful enough to do any serious damage.

The most important question is whether, by the end of Obama’s tenure, he has moved the Overton Window to the left, or whether, by his actions, he has made the right-wing views appear more mainstream and acceptable by rewarding and allowing right-wing bigots to have their views praised and validated. The former is success and the latter is failure. Given that Obama is the most pro-gay-rights president we’ve ever elected, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the next year or so.

Comment #8: Tyro  on  12/20  at  11:36 AM

I’m curious:  has there any notable reaction(s) within the black community to this pick?  Warren seems to me to be a sort of racist pick beyond just an anti-LGBT/anti-women pick.  Lowery is getting very little attention (beyond what Pam has posted) thanks to the Warren pick.

I’m not sure how to put it pithily, but this seems to me like, “first black president invites fantastic black preacher (yay) but then pigeon-holes his entire message to the ‘civil rights thing’ by bringing in rich white pastor to make conservative whites more comfortable”, thus reinforcing the meme that black spirituality is only about the civil rights movement (and can be conveniently ignored by whites).  I.e. this seems like Obama triangulating around blacks too.

I’m not black so I genuinely don’t know if this is anywhere close to a valid interpretation, can anyone enlighten me?

Comment #9: KL  on  12/20  at  11:56 AM

Obama:  OK, thanks for working for my campaign.  Thanks for raising tons of money for my run for the Presidency.  Thanks for walking door to door, making phone calls, holding a rally and all that.  Thanks for believing in all that “Change” stuff.  Now Buzz off.  Your usefullness is not needed anymore.


Now I have to go sell myself to them who wouldn’t vote for me if I was actually Jesus in the flesh.

Comment #10: nuQlerOstrich  on  12/20  at  12:06 PM

I so hoped the Democrats would win the election.  Surprise we just have one party in this country.  The ultra right wing Corporate Party.  We have two classes, the rich elite class and the slave class.  The rich ruling class is the top 5% we just transferred another trillion dollars of the slave class’ money to.

Meet the new boss and his radical right wing cleric.  Did you really expect him to be any different than Bush?

“Given that Obama is the most pro-gay-rights president we’ve ever elected, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the next year or so. ” Tyro

Bullshit at least Bill Clinton waited until he was in office and he wasn’t the one who invented DADT he compromised on it.  Clinton didn’t run on no same sex marriage the way Obama did.

Way back a year ago I said the only two real Democrats Kucinch and Gravel didn’t stand a chance in the one big Corporate party with the two virtually identical wings.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Time to get some people in government who represent the people instead of the corporations and the Christofascists.

Comment #11: SuzyQ  on  12/20  at  12:09 PM

Clinton didn’t run on no same sex marriage the way Obama did.

Clinton signed the DOMA and then in the 1996 recorded ads promoting his support of DOMA. In 2004, he suggested to John Kerry that a good strategy would be to come out in favor of Bush’s amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Get upset with Obama if you must (there’s good reason for it), but the fact is that we have a president who has come out more in favor of gay rights than any previous president.

Comment #12: Tyro  on  12/20  at  12:17 PM

Well, tyro, you aren’t quite right on that. Clinton came in with the intention of liberalizing the army and got hugely slapped back by the military. It was only after that fast motion coup and the rightward frenzy that it created that he went back on what were originally pretty progressive attitudes.  What’s the diff here, with Obama? as others have pointed out reaching out (I think we used to call it triangulating) with the right wing nuts over the bodies and interests of our own base—whether it be african americans or gays or just progressives—is exactly why we came to hate Clinton. Its all really old, not really new.

aimai

Comment #13: aimai  on  12/20  at  12:40 PM

Many moons ago, James Carville said something like:

Fighting the election is about screwing your enemies.
Winning the election is about screwing your friends.

Other applicable old saws:

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
I’d rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.

Comment #14: Fellow Traveller  on  12/20  at  01:16 PM

The next thing Rev. Warren should (metaphorically) see:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahsj/1153075533/

Pastor Warren’s POV: “I love gays—as long as they never act upon their filthy, disgusting urges.”

Comment #15: Hector B.  on  12/20  at  02:10 PM

Tyro,

Because Obama is a sliver of an iota off of pure evil wrt gays is not some reason to rejoice.  “He killed fewer people than Pol Pot” is not a epitaph one generally seeks.  Obama is supposed to represent a nation built on the ideals of Freedom, Equality, and Justice.  That he is effectively attacking gays (after the firestorm over Prop H8, even the densest of the dense would realize you don’t antagonize gays by making a homo-bigot your preacherman on the one day that is supposed to be about national unity; either Obama is so dumb he requires an iPod to repeat “Inhale, Exhale” 24/7, or he decided it was fun and cool to bitch-slap part of the citizenry) shows that he is opposed to good, liberal, American ideals.  You’re falling into the soft bigotry of no expectations.  Don’t be happy gays are being forced to the back of the bus, instead of being dragged behind it - make the bastards give gays full rights to sit where they damn well please.  This doesn’t mean the Republicans aren’t worse or that people should oppose all things Obama, but don’t lionize your employee (and as a servant of the people, he is the employee and we are the employer) because he is a slightly less corrupt replacement for the guy before.  He is not called to be better than the worst, but to beter than the best - if he won’t be the President we deserve by choice, hold his feet to the fire and force him to be it by neccessity.  The letters and protests should continue until Obama realizes the path of righteousness or gives way to a leader who can.  If Moses needs a burning bush to get his ass in motion, we need to give him one.

Comment #16: Phalamir  on  12/20  at  02:30 PM

Phalamir, that was awesome.

Comment #17: Ellen the Eclectic  on  12/20  at  03:18 PM

Phalamir said what I would have wanted to say, only much more eloquently.  Thank you.  I knew I was going to be dissapointed with Obama sooner rather than later, but I didn’t think it would be with the matter of bigotry.  I figured it would have been with Health Care or Iraq and was prepared to make peace with that knowing the necessity of compromise, yada, yada.  But this?  Oh, and loved Rachael’s pun, “pastor present.”

Comment #18: Steve in CO  on  12/20  at  03:51 PM

Nice handle, phalamir.

Comment #19: Em  on  12/20  at  03:53 PM

Obama feels Warren is less of a jerk than Wright. Deal with it

No, the American public feels he’s less of a jerk.  Wright freaks out easily scared white people, Warren gives them warm fuzzies.

Comment #20: keshmeshi  on  12/20  at  04:00 PM

I think that Obama should dump Warren from the inauguration, particularly in light of Prop H8.  I think it starts his presidency off on the wrong footing and does not bode well for advancing protections of individual rights.

It’s hard to imagine Obama miscalculating so badly, I keep hoping there was some agenda I just didn’t understand. Sadly, I think it was just a blunder caused by too much effort to appear inclusive and thinking that Warren was not as bad as the Dobson set.  I wonder how much they vetted Warren before the invite was sent?

I do, though, kind of understand why Obama would be more afraid to piss off the fundies than to piss off the LGBT community and their allies now that the controversy has exploded.  It occurred to me as I watched the Maddow clip: I’d much rather encounter a crowd of protesting liberals than a crowd of protesting conservatives; in the latter I’d actually fear for my safety and life.  And from which group do you think plans to assassinate Obama are likely to come from? As betrayed as the LGBT community and other progressives feel (justifiably), I would be shocked if it turned to violence.  With the fundies and wingnuts…hmmm…not so much.

Comment #21: history_mom  on  12/20  at  04:20 PM

If your precious Muslamofascist Obama thinks that I’ll accept his caliphate because he gets Rick Warren’s blessing for it, he’s got another thing coming.  We here in The Heartland will never accept a DEMONcrap as our president, so we’ll probably succeed from your so-called nation and create our own USA of America, with Pat Robertson as our leader (as he’s clean shaven, unlike that beatnik bearded traitor, Rick Warren).

Comment #22: RUGGED IN MONTANA  on  12/20  at  04:45 PM

Jimminy Christmas Phalamir,

Obama asked a guy you don’t like to say a prayer.

You have not been effectively attacked, forced to the back of the bus, bitch slapped, or subjected to the terror of the fucking Khmer Rouge.  Rather, you have taken offense to list of speakers at a public ceremony for a politician who largely (but not completely) supports your agenda.  The Cambodians, by contrast, were tortured and shot in the head.  Have a little perspective.

Comment #23: southpaw  on  12/20  at  05:33 PM

Yeah, it’s not like gay people are ever tortured to death or killed in this country.  I mean, Jeebus.

Comment #24: Punditus Maximus  on  12/20  at  05:53 PM

‘beatnik bearded traitor’. Heh. I like.

Yes,  Obama secretly plans to discredit preachers like Warren in the eyes of their followers by having them share a platform with him.

Comment #25: Fellow Traveller  on  12/20  at  08:21 PM

Shorter “A Purpose-Driven Life”:

1. You’re not just a completely random and structureless collection of molecules, God created you with a Purpose in mind.

2. The Purpose that God has in mind for you, is that you should fulfill the Purpose that God has in mind for you.

Clears everything right up, doesn’t it?

Comment #27: Dipole Moment  on  12/20  at  10:07 PM

Phalamir, if and when Obama screws over the gays in a tangible way, I’ll be upset. And yes, I have low expectations. Impressively, Obama is just about better than anyone else. Saying Obama is poor on gay issues is like saying Al Gore would have poor environmental policies—as presidents, they were the best available ad better than any that have or would have come before them.

Our last Democratic president ran for re-election highlighting his support for DOMA. He tried to convince one of his democratic successors to get re-elected by supporting an anti-gay marriage amendment.

I’m all for holding politicians’ feet to the fire as much as possible and rewarding the righteous and punishing the sinful (something, I might note, Obama is singularly unwilling or unable to do). But Obama is a president who actually cares about gay rights, something that few other national politicians are willing to do. We’ve come a long way since Clinton.

Comment #28: Tyro  on  12/21  at  12:06 AM

I do not have a problem with Obama’s decision to have Pastor Warren give the invocation at his upcoming inauguration in January. Furthermore, why is Pastor Warren wrong or discriminating with his positions regarding gays and gay marriage?

The job description of a Christian Pastor is this - conduct religious worship and perform other spiritual functions associated with beliefs and practices of religious faith or denomination. Also, to provide spiritual and moral guidance and assistance to members.

As a Christian, he believes that the Bible is both incapable of error (infallible) and free from error (inerrant). Thus, when it says and or teaches that homosexuality is wrong, immoral behavior and sinful, then he is rightfully preaching the Christian position.

In other words, from the Bible - The Lord teaches us through His Word that homosexuality is a sinful distortion of His desire that one man and one woman live together in marriage as husband and wife.
God categorically prohibits homosexuality.

What is the Church’s message to the gay? The church’s message to homosexual persons is the same message it proclaims to all people: Repent and believe the Gospel! All human beings are born with a sinful nature that results in sinful thoughts, words and actions. Homosexuality is but one of many sinful situations human beings encounter in this life. From the moment we are born, all human beings stand under God’s perfect judgement. All of us, by nature, are lost and condemned sinners. We all need God’s mercy in Christ for our salvation.

Comment #29: crystal.clear  on  12/21  at  01:26 AM

God categorically prohibits homosexuality.

As far as I can find out, this is one of the Old Testament prohibitions that Jesus tossed out, like the prohibition on eating cheeseburgers.

What did Jesus have to say about same sex marriage? I remember reading about John, the Apostle Jesus loved, but that would seem to be pro-homosexuality if anything.

Comment #30: Hector B.  on  12/21  at  01:53 AM

The job description of a Christian Pastor is this - conduct religious worship and perform other spiritual functions associated with beliefs and practices of religious faith or denomination. Also, to provide spiritual and moral guidance and assistance to members.

I don’t see “campaigning to remove civil rights” or “trying to impose religious law on non-believers” on that list. Maybe you left it out?

Moreover, I continue to be unimpressed with the semantics game called I-believe-gays-are-filthy-sinners-but-I’m-not-a-bigot. Weak.

Comment #31: jericho  on  12/21  at  03:39 AM

What does the Bible say about homosexuality? There are those who like to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.  Various verses are cited (out of context) and the verses that people use to show that homosexuality is wrong are explained away.  The world wants to change God’s words and meanings into something more suitable to its sinful desires.  Nevertheless, the truth stands:  The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let’s look at what it says.

Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

Lev. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them”

1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible.  It goes against the created order of God.  He created Adam and then made a woman.  This is what God has ordained and it is what is right.  Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18ff). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.

What should be the Christian’s Response to the Homosexual? Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again.

As a Christian, one should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same one would any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God—even though he is in grave sin.  They should be shown dignity and respect. However, this does not mean that one should approve of their sin.

Comment #32: crystal.clear  on  12/21  at  10:21 AM

Furthermore, why is Pastor Warren wrong or discriminating with his positions regarding gays and gay marriage?

I don’t believe he is, when it comes to the execution of his pastoral duties. Plenty of churches, for example, will refuse to perform a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian. And that is ok. Churches have beliefs, and that’s the way it goes.

But when someone uses his prominent religious position as a means of making it illegal for two consenting gay adults to get married, even when they have no affiliation with the pastor’s church, I find that inappropriate. And I don’t think that politicians should reward that sort of behavior.

It’s all well and good for someone to defend the reasoning of his religious beliefs about marriage. It steps over the line when you insist that the legal system accomodate your views for the specific purpose of preventing other people, who have nothing to do with your religious views, from getting married.

Pastor Warren’s same allies are now filing injunctions in court to invalidate the previously-legally-performed gay marriages that proposition 8 made illegal. What’s the biblical basis for doing that?

Comment #33: Tyro  on  12/21  at  11:26 AM

As an atheist, I think Obama’s choices of pastors and religious speakers speaks volumes about the insanity of religion much more than anything about any of his political views or their solidity.  Franklin Graham, Stephen Baldwin, Jimmy Swaggart, Jesse Jackson, or anyone else would have led to just as much absurd speculation as Rich Warren’s pick has.

Am I happy with the Warren pick?  No.  But I have to confess that I’d be unhappy with any pick.  I want this to be about Obama and what he wants to do to fix this country.  And that should come from him.

And I hate the poetry, too.  Songs are generally bearable, but the kind of poems recited at these events almost universally suck.

Comment #34: jon  on  12/21  at  12:50 PM

Keshmeshi wrote:

Obama feels Warren is less of a jerk than Wright. Deal with it—Bitter Scribe

No, the American public feels he’s less of a jerk.  Wright freaks out easily scared white people, Warren gives them warm fuzzies.

This seems to me to be a huge projection here; you are assuming that Barack Obama believes in same-sex marriage, and was just lying about it throughout the campaign, in order to win more conservative votes.

Then, when he makes a pick that is fairly consistent with his stated position on same-sex marriage, you get all upset, as though he somehow deceived you by telling the truth about his position!

The 2008 campaign just proved that Mr Obama is an incredibly skilled politician.  He came from nowhere and beat w well-financed presumptive nominee, and then came through in the general election, and stomped John McCain.  THis isn’t the kind of thing someone with a tone-deaf political ear does.

Look at the numbers: in liberal California, Mr Obama beat Mr McCain 61% to 38%, a landslide stomping, by 23%.  In that same election, Proposition 8 won by 52% to 48%, a 15-point “gap” between Mr Obama’s votes and the “no on 8” vote.  Don’t think that he can’t count!

Mr Obama told you the truth, and you didn’t believe him.  Then when it turned out that what he was saying really was the truth about his beliefs, you feel betrayed.  What you were betrayed by was your own assumptions, and not what Mr Obama said.

Comment #35: Dana  on  12/21  at  12:51 PM

crystal clear:

1. Paul was not Jesus
2. Paul did not show up on the scene till after Jesus went back to His Father.
3. Paul was not a normal man, having no interest in women. He either was a self-loathing closet case or asexual.
4. The term you translate as “homosexual” in Corinthians, actually means an adult male who indulged in homosexual practices with boy prostitutes. Thus the reason for the condemnation is more likely to be the exploitation of youth or the paying for sex than the male-male aspect.
5. Even if the passage in Corinthians referred to same sex marriages between adults, it likewise condemns fornicators, adulterers, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, and robbers. Thus, banning same sex marriage without also banning divorce would be unjust, because the sin—having sex with another woman while one’s wife is still alive—is equally grave.  In fact, Jesus—not some more-Catholic-than-the-Pope Johnny-come-lately like Paul —specifically condemned divorce for that reason (Matthew 19:8)
6. Finally, thou hypocrite, consider what Jesus said in Matthew 7:3, “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?”

Comment #36: Hector B.  on  12/21  at  01:00 PM

3. Paul was not a normal man, having no interest in women. He either was a self-loathing closet case or asexual.
Hector B.  on 12/21 at 08:00 AM

I heard an interesting explanation of Paul’s “asexuality” once—that he was a child of a mixed marriage himself, and thus forbidden by Jewish law as interpreted by the rabbis of his day from marrying a proper Jewish woman—and as a Jew effectively also prohibited from marrying a Gentile woman. Condemned to celibacy, he made a huge virtue of his necessity.

As the “Apostle to the Gentiles” (and no, he wasn’t a disciple of Jesus, but IIRC the Catholic Church at least holds he was an Apostle and not just a mere Church Father) who interpreted the message of Christ to mean that the old Jewish Law was not fully binding on former Gentile converts, perhaps he should have availed himself of this new-found freedom to get married. Perhaps he judged that these freedoms didn’t apply to himself, as a former Jew. Perhaps he really was asexual after all, or whatever.

But one reason I have long ago dropped all pretense at believing in Christianity as a specially true religion is that Paul, alas, was hardly alone in his misogyny and homophobia. The Jewish tradition was one strand of the syncretic Christian worldview and it certainly was steeped in gender paranoia. The other strand was Classical Greco-Roman philosophy—and however one might interpret the pagan traditions this grew out of, by the time of the Roman Empire these philosophers were also overwhelmingly hostile to sexuality across the board. They saw it as weakness, as something attached to the lower, muddy aspects of human nature and opposed to the higher, more “noble” heights they aspired to.

From my point of view, they sublimated and refined the basic dominator paradigm that is at the root of all these sexual restrictions, which exist in order to put everyone—but women especially—in the “wrong,” as a kind of psychological “boot camp” to break down natural human self-confidence and lay the groundwork for a hierarchial, militarized society. Thus to the Hellenistic philosophers, the “highest” good, the Unmoved Mover, or what have you was inherently “masculine” as they conceived it. Thus Plato was willing to countenance women among his followers—as long as they aspired to renounce being feminine in any way.

Orthodox Christianity succeeded in capturing the flag of “ultimate Hellenistic philosophy” and developed a consistent doctrine of asceticism and rejection of the world as corrupt, with a powerful metaphorical/mythic grammar that clearly subordinated female to male. Human beings being what they are, Christian societies tended to develop counter-myths such as the cult of Mary that subverted these norms—but also were bent into their service (or grew that way in first place).

Being the sort of materialist I am, I blame vicious and perverse doctrines, such as the Christian gender polarization, on the needs of the sorts of societies they emerge from, rather than the quirks of individual evil geniuses. Whatever Paul’s reasons, whether from the refined bigotry of Hellas or the pragmatic bigotry of a bunch of rabbis, he would not have been regarded as a great teacher if his teachings did not resonate with the needs of Roman Imperial society, and if other Christians took a more laid-back message from the stories of Jesus, they were predictably ignored if not condemned for heresy by the legions of other “Church Fathers” who eventually won Constantine and his successors’ approval as serviceable minions.

Comment #37: Mark Foxwell  on  12/21  at  02:03 PM

I don’t why some will spend all there time trying to discredit the Bible and it’s story? And, I have never seen nor researched anything that stated that Paul was asexual which says that he was gay or practicing gay activities.

But, more importantly, why so many of the heroes of the Bible had serious flaws. My answer was simple. That’s all God has to work with. All the perfect people are in heaven. The only ones on earth are the folks with serious weaknesses. The talent pool has always been pretty thin when it comes to moral perfection. So God works with sinners because that’s all he has to work with. In heaven we will all be vastly improved–perfected by God’s grace. But until then, he uses some pretty ornery people who fall short in many ways–and he does some amazing things through them.

Consider the roll call of God’s imperfect heroes:

Noah who got drunk.
    Abraham who lied about his wife.
    Jacob who was a deceiver.
    Moses who murdered an Egyptian.
    Rahab who was a harlot.
    Samson who had serious problems with lust and anger.
    David who was an adulterer.
    Paul who persecuted the church.
    Peter who denied Christ.

If God chose only well-rounded people with no character flaws, some of the credit would inevitably go to the people and not to the Lord. By choosing flawed people with a bad past, a shaky present, and an uncertain future, God alone gets the glory when they accomplish amazing things by his power.

In case we don’t understand this, 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 makes it abundantly clear. If you want the message of this passage in one sentence, here it is: God won’t tolerate human pride, so he chooses people who have nothing to brag about.

Comment #38: crystal.clear  on  12/21  at  03:09 PM

crystal.clear -

I don’t care about your God. Just leave us alone.  If you want to cling onto to you religious belief to justify your bigotry, fine.  I just want to be left alone, so I can be true to myself.  When you are ready to confront your bigotry, you are more than welcome to examine your assumptions about so-called homosexuals.  For now, just please go away. 

Thank you.

Comment #39: melaka  on  12/21  at  04:17 PM

I don’t why some will spend all there time trying to discredit the Bible and it’s story? And, I have never seen nor researched anything that stated that Paul was asexual which says that he was gay or practicing gay activities.

But, more importantly, why so many of the heroes of the Bible had serious flaws. My answer was simple. That’s all God has to work with. All the perfect people are in heaven.
....
If God chose only well-rounded people with no character flaws, some of the credit would inevitably go to the people and not to the Lord. By choosing flawed people with a bad past, a shaky present, and an uncertain future, God alone gets the glory when they accomplish amazing things by his power.

....

f you want the message of this passage in one sentence, here it is: God won’t tolerate human pride, so he chooses people who have nothing to brag about.
crystal.clear on 12/21 at 10:09 AM

And that very neatly summarizes the Dominator Paradigm. I might say you’ve made it “crystal clear.”

One conceptual advantage the pre-Christian Hellenic philosophers had in their own version of an idealized Dominator Paradigm is, they didn’t presuppose that their notion of the Ultimate Being was particularly kind or loving. The philosopher could advance up the chain of being, climbing toward Olympus, without worrying about why the world was so full of pain and suffering. It just sucked to be a lower being, and that was that.

Christians have to explain why, if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, and Perfect Love, He bothered to create a Creation so full of fail in the first place. If the goal is for all human beings to be “perfect,” whatever that may mean, in Heaven, why not just start there and be done with it?

Your notion of perfection sums up the Dominator Paradigm because the head trip there is to set up standards of behavior that people would be sure to fall short of, or even in effect commanded to violate by the same authorities that profess to value such perfection, and then, with everyone’s will and pride properly broken by their failure, use the standards (which include obedience to proper authority) to reshape “wayward” humans into suitable instruments of the social order. Arriving at peace and harmony on Dominator terms would not only be difficult, even Utopian, it would also be counterproductive, because then people would not be neurotic wrecks groveling in guilt, shame, and cynical hypocrisy, which is the foundation of the system.

I go back and forth on the faith/agnosticism/atheism spectrum myself, lately tending toward the skeptical end. I can respect people of faith, but the ones I respect are the ones (like for instance Obama’s former pastor Rev. Wright) who understand that if the Bible in any way speaks truth, it is a truth that is not transparent and is more of a struggle than a cathechism.

Clearly, however clear and straightforward the testimony of the Scriptures are against homosexuality for instance, that’s just wrong. There aren’t any rational reasons for people to be up in arms over who freely chooses to sleep with whom—except of course your “God says don’t do it!” If that is we suppose this God exists and really means that. But the contradiction between the stark prohibition and the daily observation of perfectly good people whom we might love, or know, or at any rate know of in modern life, who “violate” this rule suggests either that we misunderstand God or the whole God thing is a myth and nothing more.

Comment #40: Mark Foxwell  on  12/21  at  04:37 PM

Melaka,

I have been conducting this debate in a spirit of mutual respect and civility without naming calling. but, you have not for you have called me a bigot. And, I along with many other decent folks base my view, position and belief on sincere religious convictions. What is my belief - Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible.  It goes against the created order of God. That is does not make me nor anyone else that believes this a bigot.

Again, What does the Bible say about homosexuality? There are those who like to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.  Various verses are cited (out of context) and the verses that people use to show that homosexuality is wrong are explained away.  The world wants to change God’s words and meanings into something more suitable to its sinful desires.  Nevertheless, the truth stands:  The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin.

And, again, What should be the Christian’s Response to the Homosexual? Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again.

As a Christian, one should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same one would any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God—even though he is in grave sin.  They should be shown dignity and respect. However, this does not mean that one should approve of their sin.

Finally, it sure would be a lot easier if gay marriage advocates such as yourself would stop pretending that only fear, hatred or bigotry is at the root of these disagreements!!!!!

Comment #41: crystal.clear  on  12/21  at  04:40 PM

As a Christian, one should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same one would any other person in sin

I’ll pray for you, but all you shellfish eaters are going straigh to hell!!!!!!

Comment #43: Rugged in Montana  on  12/21  at  05:39 PM

crystal.clear,

go fuck yourself.

Comment #44: MAJeff, God of Biscuits  on  12/21  at  05:45 PM

crystal.clear - just go away. I don’t want to debate this, I don’t want to enable you with this self-masturbatory talk about how you are a really good Christian and all that.  You’re not convincing anybody here. You’re just wasting our time. Go away.

I’m not even reading your entries anymore, the time you spent on it was a complete waste of your time and is not appreciated by nobody here.  Just GO AWAY.

Comment #45: melaka  on  12/21  at  05:51 PM

I have been conducting this debate in a spirit of mutual respect and civility without naming calling. but, you have not for you have called me a bigot.

A spade is a spade. Failing to call a bigot a bigot would be disrespectful and uncivil to everyone who the bigot hurts.

And, I along with many other decent folks base my view, position and belief on sincere religious convictions. What is my belief - Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible.  It goes against the created order of God. That is does not make me nor anyone else that believes this a bigot.

Yes, it does make you a bigot.

Why do cowardly whiners like you always try to avoid taking responsibility for your beliefs and actions? “Oh, it’s not me who hates gay people, it’s God who hates gay people and I’d really love you if I was allowed to.” What crap.

You hate gay people and you’re afraid to admit it because you don’t want your neighbors to know how hateful you are, so instead you try to blame your hatred on God’s orders.

Comment #46: caught in the act  on  12/21  at  05:58 PM

Nevertheless, the truth stands:  The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin.

And for that, and many other bizarre and counterfactual claims, we reasonably conclude the Bible is therefore wrong.

And so we wonder, why do you not see this stark, stringent, painful, and apparently to us, quite unnecessary demand of the Bible as a sign that eith the Bible is just wrong, or at any rate that you must have misunderstood it?

It only makes sense if you have reasons, other than the mere authority of the Bible, to believe it makes sense that God would regard homosexuality as a sin. If the Bible is true and good, than presumably its commandments make human life better somehow, and you ought to be able to lead us wayward sinners to the light by some path other than just pounding on the Bible and jumping up and down saying “Bible! Bible! Bible!” over and over again.

And here’s the thing—I can think of ways that gayness has come to be treated as a sin, without it actually being a sin, and my theories seem to me to fit the facts a lot better than your claim that you are just a kind, reasonable person trying to knock the scales from our eyes. It could be that that you don’t see yourself as consumed with hatred for gays and on the contrary are full of love and compassion for them, but still, in acting on your agenda are in fact acting on behalf of an order that is indeed based on fear, hatred, and bigotry—and that these evil motives are in fact founded on greed and violence. Maybe not your greed and violence, but that is the purpose for which you have allowed yourself to be shaped as a vessel—not, I think, by the hands of God, but of a corrupt social order.

So yes I suppose it would be easier for you if people just rolled over and submitted themselves to the authority that you’ve made yourself an apostle of, but it would be a bad thing if we did, because if any human beings have been granted the word of God, those words aren’t among them. And the more you point at them in the Bible, the more suspect the Bible becomes.

Comment #47: Mark Foxwell  on  12/21  at  05:58 PM

Homosexuality is a sin…

And, I along with many other decent folks base my view, position and belief on sincere religious convictions. What is my belief - Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible.  It goes against the created order of God. That is does not make me nor anyone else that believes this a bigot.

“Decent folks?”  crystal.clear, dear.  You are not decent folks.  What is decent about commenting on a website that has a large LBGT readership and calling them sinners? 

They should be shown dignity and respect. However, this does not mean that one should approve of their sin.

You then proceed to babble nonsense about not approving of their “sin,” but they should be shown dignity and respect.  Nobody is asking you to approve of their imagined sin, but they are simply asking that you leave them the fuck alone to live their lives at the same level, with the same basic human rights, as the rest of us.

Quit your boo-hooing about being called a bigot.  When you ask an entire group of people to lay their behavior at the foot of the cross (what an absurd suggestion) and never do it again, you are asking that they deny a very core part of themselves.  Would you ask someone to lay their skin color at the foot of the bloody damn cross and pray for forgiveness for not being born white?  Gay people have as much control over their sexuality as people have over their skin color.  If you think they are an abomination, you’d better take that up with your god as he made them that way. 

Bigot?  Yes, you are.  And one of the uglier versions of that sort….a hypocritical bigot.  Go away and quit insulting the decent folks here.

Comment #48: kac90b  on  12/21  at  07:22 PM

Crystal clear, adding multiple exclamation points doesn’t make your bigotry less bigoted. The Bible is not a historical reference. Unless you’re going to swear off pork and shellfish, piss off. And take Rich Warren with you.

Comment #49: ginmar  on  12/21  at  07:49 PM

Perhaps we should ignore the thread jacking crystal?

Comment #50: Chaz  on  12/22  at  12:25 PM

The reason Bible-supported bigotry is still bigotry:

There are many mainstream Christian groups which work from the same source material, as well as Jewish and Muslim groups which share some of it. They all have different interpretations of what Biblical truth is. But you are SO SURE that your group’s interpretation is the correct one that you’re willing to:
a) Refer to yourself as “Christian”, implying that the hundreds of millions of people who have a different interpretation - whilst recognizing the divinity of Christ - aren’t “real” Christians.
b) Legislate in ways that harm other people’s lives based on it.

It’s the sheer arrogance of insisting that YOUR sect’s interpretation of the Bible is correct and the billion-plus Christians who disagree with you are flat out wrong that removes the chance that you’re “only telling us what God wants”. Claiming that you know what God wants takes so much hubris that the only response can be the one MaJeff gave you - go fuck yourself.

Comment #51: Dolbia  on  12/22  at  02:41 PM

The reason there are different denominations within Christianity is because the Bible allows for us to have differences of opinions. Within Christianity there are very few essential doctrines that define what it means to be a Christian. These essential doctrines are,

Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).
Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14).
Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4).
The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).
There is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8).
God exists as a Trinity of persons:  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (See Trinity).
Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary (nature of incarnation)

As long as a church believes in these essential doctrines, then it is Christian. However, there are many things in the scriptures that have been interpreted in different ways. For example, what day of the week should be worship on, Saturday or Sunday? Should we baptize by sprinkling or baptize by immersion? Do we take communion every Sunday, once a month, or once a year? The answers to these questions do not affect whether or not someone is a Christian. It is in these issues, and others like them, that denominations are formed. It does not mean that one denomination contradicts another. It means that though they agree in the essentials, they differ in some nonessentials. This is permitted in Scripture: “Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind,” (Rom. 14:1-5).

Sadly, there is another reason for denominational differences and that is the failure of Christians to live according to the will of God. The truth is that we are all sinners and we do not see things eye to eye. It is an unfortunate truth that denominational differences are due to our shortsightedness and lack of love. But, the good thing is that God loves us so much that He puts up with our failures. There waits for us, in spite of our differences, a great reward in heaven. Neither salvation nor damnation is dependent upon our differences.  Our salvation is based on our relationship with Christ.

Comment #52: tired of christians being misunderstood  on  12/23  at  12:11 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.