Friday, December 16, 2011

Ideas Held Hostage

A friend of mine made a bold move a few days ago. I gotta say, I didn't see that coming. I applaud the guy.


I'm not writing about homosexuality, the rightness or wrongness of it, et cetera. I couldn't care less about that in the point I want to convey in this post. What I want to address is the way the fungelical crowd holds an entire segment of American ideas - from the political realm, to the social realm, to the religious realm - hostage with their exclusionist, holier-than-thou attitudes. In much the same way the religious addicts and fungelicals took over the Christian homeschooling world, pushing out any person or idea that didn't/doesn't toe the line of the straight and narrow-minded way, the fungelicals of the Religious Right have done the same to American politics, specifically in taking over, and ruining, most of the dialog within the GOP.


I've known Lucas for a few years now, going back to my days of touring. Always a stand-up guy, always sharp, astute beyond his youth. Our paths used to cross a few times a year in the course of touring. Lucas has been involved in the music industry, to varying degrees, for several years. It wasn't difficult to see him as a guy who would "go places". Determined, prepared, and involved would be good descriptions. I haven't seen Lucas since I left the road in 2008. Other than a few FB messages and a few text messages on election night in 2008, we really haven't communicated much in the last few years. I've kept up with his political comings and goings a bit on FB, not surprised at all to see his involvement at significant levels or to see him rise through the ranks.


Lucas has a heck of a lot to offer the world.


What's unfortunate is that with his public pronouncement of his sexuality (which should be among the least of ways one would measure a person), he's now at odds with the rabid, vocal fungelical minority which expects the GOP to act as its personal vehicle. He's still a limited government conservative (which would probably be a good description of me, too), but that doesn't matter to the fungelicals who hold the party hostage. He's the enemy to them. His ideas are now meaningless to them (unless they can steal and take credit for them). In the linked article, he's spot on. The "Christian hate" - not hate of Christians, but hate from Christians -  has crippled conservative politics. The handling of issues of sexuality by the Religious Right is pitiful. Thanks, Jerry Falwell and cohorts, for your useless rhetoric, your "Moral" majority, and your general dismantling of the free exchange of ideas within conservatism.


In this election cycle, the stranglehold is evident, from the constant pandering to the Tea Party idiots, to Rick Perry's recent gay-bashing and fungelical pandering, to the fact that religious idiots like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum are still even in the race.


The church's handling, as a whole, of issues of sexuality are even worse, and are the foundation of the larger problem. I've personally heard well-known pastors like John Hagee and Jesse DuPlantis preaching, from their pulpit, the idea that homosexuality is a choice, chosen only by the rebellious and sin-infested heart. Science be damned...which it usually is in fundamentalist Christendom. By promoting such ignorance, they fuel the fires of irrational fear and hate, and this nonsense spills out into the social realm, and then into the political realm. Look at Michelle Bachmann's husband, Marcus, for a prime example of the ignorance. The church should be ashamed of its treatment of the gay and lesbian community. Pathetic.


As far as I'm concerned, if you're a person suffering from 2nd Chronicles 7:14 syndrome, and abortion and gay marriage are used as litmus tests concerning candidates, you may actually be a threat to your country when you enter the voting booth. I'm not saying those aren't significant issues, or that it's wrong for those issues to be important to you. I'm saying that those issues are only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the larger picture, and the greater good of the nation shouldn't be held hostage to what are, by and large, cultural, ancillary issues in context. That's trying to rearrange shades of gray into tidy packages of black and white. This isn't a "Christian nation". Americans aren't "God's people". Use your freaking head, examine all the issues, know all the issues, and pick your candidate accordingly. Be informed. Propaganda from the fungelical community doesn't exactly qualify as "informed". Take your sacred cows and have a big BBQ. Know what you're doing, and why you're doing it, when you close the curtain next November, or do us all a favor and stay home.


Knowing the world that both Lucas and I come from, he's probably gonna get shunned by quite a few people. Lots of hypocrisy in the world of Christian music. Tons of it. It's a shame. Like I said, Lucas is a stand-up guy, and he's demonstrated some serious cajones and integrity in the very public stand he's taken, hiding nothing. The real shame is that he's the exception within our world of hear no evil, see no evil. I know of a very well-known Christian music person who is right now "vacationing" out of the country with a women not his wife. Lots of the power-brokers within the industry are known philanderers, having kept mistresses for years. I don't really care who they screw. What I care about  is the sale of their CDs and the peddling of their miscellaneous goods on the premise that they aren't doing that kind of thing, but are wonderful, godfearing men (and women). That's the tragedy in all of it. The con. The shysterism. People playing out their Tony Soprano mafioso fantasies, living the dream, speaking only the language of dead Presidents.


I wish the best for Lucas. I hope his life is lived at a happy, fulfilled pace, and that he's able to help and be a voice for people marginalized by moral injustice at the hands of those who should love them most. I hope he can be a positive force within conservative politics. God bless him.

37 comments:

  1. Oh, my goodness, this IS my pet peeve with the world of fundies - it drives me so crazy! I remember back in 2008 when Obama was elected,I was so ecstatic - I actually had voted for McCain, but I didn't mind in the least that Obama had won because I wanted to see what he had.

    I wrote something on my Facebook status conveying my excitement - sometimes I forget that half of my Facebook friends are from my previous life, when my parents voted Constitutional since Republican was far too liberal. Many of that crowd were offended, assuming that I had voted Democrat, and they laid into me for supporting abortion and gay marriage. Nothing else about the state of the nation, the problems with the economy and our international affairs, apparently mattered to them not at all. Such stupid narrow-mindedness enrages me! I used to be that way, but then I grew up and started thinking for myself...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Perhaps you all should read Romans 1st chapter

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have. Many times. Personally, where Romans is concerned, I'm kinda partial to Romans 8.

    Perhaps you should read these...

    http://thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.com/2011/06/religious-addiction.html

    http://thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.com/2011/06/bible-and-religious-addiction.html

    http://thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.com/2011/06/more-canon-fodder-so-bunker-down.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here is a question that I ponder. Let's just say that homosexual practice is a sin.

    Is sin not part of the make up of the human race, in us at birth? Don't the fundamentalists believe in original sin?

    If so, why do they always isolate homosexual behavior as the one sin that is BY CHOICE and not just part of the inherent sin nature common to man? (I think that believing that people are born gay is quite orthodox.)

    Perhaps it is because most people aren't gay and it is therefore easy to whip up public sentiment against them? I see this Christian hysteria used most often for political gain, though it is probably also used by prominent Christians as a smokescreen to distract us from their own sins and weaknesses.

    It is not a simple issue and it does not lend itself to the self righteous and shallow brand of Christianity that tries to speak for all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I hate how the conservative Christians have basically bought out conservative politics. Not that I really much agree with conservative politics, but they'd still be much better without the influence of people who create God in their own image.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is there any room for telling a person to not sin any more? If not, why?

    ReplyDelete
  7. If you think someone is sinning, have at it. Just be prepared for them not to give a flip about your opinion. I think it's horribly sinful what P/QF, and fundamentalism in general, does to people, but I'm also aware that the leaders of the movement really don't care what I have to say about it.

    The point of the post was that the evangelical community has placed certain sins on such a pedestal of abomination that even Jesus is too puny to overcome them - homosexuality, abortion, and such. Lucas hasn't denounced Jesus Christ. As far as I know, he still places his faith in Christ (he can correct me if I'm wrong). But somehow his homosexuality makes it impossible for him to be a Christian as far as evangelicals are concerned.

    Lucas, as an individual, is more important to God that Lucas' sexual orientation. The people within a belief system - good, bad, and ugly - have to be more important than the mechanics, rituals, and sacred cows within the belief system, or the belief system is unhealthy.

    When "the gospel" becomes little more than a fire insurance sales pitch to all the people who live against the grain of white, conservative, fungelical Christian culture...it's really no gospel at all, but just a bunch of religious, fear-based tripe.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lewis,

    The idea that an individual is more important than their actions is a nice idea. However, it's unworkable.

    Jesus says that a persons actions are a product of their own heart. And if your actions disagree with what God says about the matter, then your heart is wrong, since that is where the actions originate. This doesn't just apply to homosexual activity, but also to heterosexual activity.

    If you've noticed, adultery and other sexual sins don't usually go over very well within conservative camps. It's not the chosen way to advance within those circles, being frowned upon by most.

    Ultimately, actions cannot be separated from the individual, because its our heart condition with its actions that put Christ on the cross. He changes our heart and enables us, by the Holy Spirit, to act in ways that please Him according to His commandments, not the commandments of men.

    But nowhere does He excuse or condone sin, publicly acknowledged or not.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The idea that an individual is more important than their actions is a nice idea. However, it's unworkable."

    Ahh. So at its core, salvation truly IS works-based. I see.

    "Jesus says that a persons actions are a product of their own heart."

    He actually said that their words were a product of their heart...and this isn't a principle that was meant to be applied literally on a universal scale.

    "And if your actions disagree with what God says about the matter, then your heart is wrong, since that is where the actions originate."

    What "God says" about a lot of matters isn't quite so black and white. Not all of us worship the bible.

    "If you've noticed, adultery and other sexual sins don't usually go over very well within conservative camps."

    Actually, within the world of leadership, whether the Christian community, the Christian music business, or in politics, it's the norm. Hear no evil, see no evil, and preach against the very things one partakes in upon taking the pulpit, stage, or platform.

    "Ultimately, actions cannot be separated from the individual, because its our heart condition with its actions that put Christ on the cross."

    Actually, the very purpose OF the cross was to separate us from our actions so that we can be reconciled with God.

    "But nowhere does He excuse or condone sin, publicly acknowledged or not."

    I didn't say He does. The point of what I wrote is that the church should spend less time moralizing over what is and isn't sin (and expecting ALL to live by THEIR conclusions), and more time worried about genuine right and wrong...and doing right by others.


    For instance, Lucas is a man of integrity and character, and I've never known him to be less than his word. He just happens to be homosexual. My former future in-laws weren't and aren't people of integrity, have no genuine character (they don't even know what it is), and you can generally bank on the opposite of the words that come out of their mouths.

    So there's Lucas and my former future in-laws. Of the two, the church community doesn't really have much of a problem with one of them. Guess which one.

    And there you have it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Another thing, too...

    The church needs to decide if it wants to love people, and accept them as they are (as Christ did), or preach at them. Seems to me the church has made its choice.

    I guess that's why the only people we have any record of Christ preaching at are the religious people.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lewis,

    Salvation is work based? I never said that, much less implied it.

    Jesus came to save us from our sin. What is sin? Sin is transgressing the law of God.

    What is love? Love is the fulfilling of the law. Jesus came to fulfill the law for us, something that we were incapable of doing.

    So, in one sense, we are saved by works, the works of Jesus on our behalf, when we receive Him and his work by faith.

    So, we aren't separated from our actions. They are a part of who we are. They are simply atoned for.



    As far as there being two different standards. There really isn't. Homosexuality is something that is not accepted by the majority of people, Christian or not. It's extreme nature is repulsive to many. The extreme nature of what you experienced is usually not accepted by most people, either.

    The difference is the context. Both can be tolerated if they remain virtually unknown and are practiced behind closed doors. Openly embrace them and the story takes a different turn for those involved.


    As for what Jesus said and did, he both loved and preached to people. Even among the religious, who he saved his most vehement words for, there were those who believed in Him because of his message and its authority. And among those He accepted as they were, like the woman taken in adultery, he told to "go and sin no more."

    Jesus said, For out of the heart procedes evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: "

    So, if sin (breaking the law) comes from our heart, then Love (fulfilling the law) comes from the heart only because of the work of the Holy Spirit in us.

    As far as the integrity and character you contrast, true character as a Christian would acknowledge the reality of what God says about their actions, not their thoughts or the thoughts of someone else. That is Love and there's no law against it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think the GOP is dead and gone. They should just rename it the Christian Dominionist Party to distinguish itself from the Republican Party it has replaced. There's nothing grand at all about it these days.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Benjamin Bush, I think the problem that a lot of us see, is that the church is more interested in telling nonbelievers that they're sinners than in bringing them the Good News so they can be confronted about their sins by Christ, in a church setting. If someone has not yet accepted Christ, they have no reason to care if they're sinning. Yet the church continues to act as if homosexuals who aren't believers should be attacked for their behavior (though they have no Christ-centered reason to believe it's wrong).

    When I look at some of Paul's teachings, it seems that the way sin gets dealt with is within a body of believers, after someone is already a Christ-follower. For non-believers, the concern seems to be; First Christ. Sin second, since it has to be dealt with through Christ's strength anyway. Does that mean you lie to someone before they become a Christian about what being a Christian will require of them? No. But it means that you are not in charge of convicting their heart. That's Jesus' job.

    Personally, I don't believe that Christians should have to pretend that homosexuality is okay if they don't believe that. However, when it comes to homosexuality, Christians in this country have NOT approached it with an attitude of "tell the truth in love," and that has gotten us in huge trouble. We've gotten to the point where hate towards homosexuals has become acceptable, and people have forgotten that individuals need Jesus BEFORE they can adequately deal with any sin in their life.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "So, we aren't separated from our actions."

    As far as the east is from the west, it would seem to me. I do think I'll give an account for the things done here - if for no other reason than educational and awakening purposes/a reckoning of sorts - but my personal judgment regarding my salvation was finished with the cross. If it wasn't, then salvation is works-based.

    "And among those He accepted as they were, like the woman taken in adultery, he told to "go and sin no more.""

    No one has said otherwise.

    "As far as there being two different standards. There really isn't. Homosexuality is something that is not accepted by the majority of people, Christian or not."

    Not really true. There are a lot of people who are extremely ignorant about the subject - because the church or culture has told them that homosexuality is a choice, a choice made by rebellious deviants, and something so heinous and shameful that only a depraved heart and mind would get involved with it. Science has definitively proven that sexuality ISN'T a choice (brain and pheromone studies), but science be damned, and by the church it usually is. (That's not to say that a few people don't "experiment" for perhaps deviant reasons, but generally speaking, if your brain isn't wired to be aroused by the same sex, it just ain't gonna happen. For example, as a heterosexual man, I can't imagine ANY scenario where I'd be aroused by another man.) Sure, the mechanics of the actual sex may be more than a little gross to me or to you - but we're heterosexual (which the majority of people are).

    When science has proven that people ARE born that way, with different brain activity and chemical make-up than heterosexuals (and with some wired to be attracted to BOTH sexes), it's more than a little ignorant for the church to maintain such a hardline, black and white stance on it - all based on writing from 2000+ years ago, by men who had NO access to the scientific information we do today. If you say that Paul was "inspired by God in what he wrote", you're relying on the determinations of other men. Paul was writing letters (some personal, some corporate), not "the bible". I don't think he wrote it with the intention of people 2000 years down the line treating it as sacred or as hardcore instruction for life.

    Yes, in the Torah, it's called "an abomination" for "man to lie with man" - as were many other things which, under the New Covenant, not so much.

    The bottom line - if you're gonna measure everything by a collection of books written thousands of years ago (a great deal of which is debatable as to its "inspiration by God"), you're at a minimum letting other people (those who "determined" the biblical canon - that which was and that which wasn't inspired) do your thinking for you, and worst case, you're actually worshiping the bible itself.

    The bottom line...Is Jesus enough? Or does it have to be Jesus AND heterosexuality? If Jesus isn't enough, that would be more than implying that salvation is indeed works-based.

    This post wasn't written to discuss the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a sin. It was written to discuss the attitude of evangelical Christianity toward its pet issues and sins, and the destruction of an entire political party by blatant hypocrites. If the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a sin is all this post brings to someone's mind, I'd recommend reading the posts about religious addiction once again.

    No more preaching comments, please. I've asked before, and you obviously don't understand the way you're coming across.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mr. Bush, maybe you should leave your circle of like-minded brethren and see the world before you speak for the rest of us. Most of us are not quite so squeamish as you are about homosexuality, since over 80% of Americans think gay marriage should be legal - including me (boy, I am going to hell...) AND this means that plenty of these supporters claim to be Christians. See, we think that gay people are individuals just like any others and deserve the same rights - they ARE people, remember...

    It may be true that you and your sort may not be as radical as families in the Quiverfull/Patriarchal movement -the kind I grew up in, where my stepfather spoke contemptuously of "sodomites" and folks at our church talked of taking them down with chainsaws. But conservative Christians don't get a bad rap for nothing - don't be so set on not ever changing your mind, on always being right. I am often afraid to tell folks I'm a Christian, and it's not because I'm ashamed of Jesus - it's because of the reputation Christians have...

    ReplyDelete
  16. First up, Lewis I love that you are not afraid to tackle the sacred cows. :)Secondly, to quote Gandhi, "I love your Christ. I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ".

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://www.throughmyeyesdvd.com/


    This DVD is what finally gave me the insight needed to embrace homosexual people as they are, as Jesus loves them, no exceptions (you can be saved IF you're celibate..sad to say I once thought THAT was a compassionate stance!).

    Jesus was all about PEOPLE. Proverbs says that if we decide a matter before hearing both sides, it is shame and folly. I was doing that for years, never asking my brothers and sisters in Christ who were gay to tell me their story. In fact, while I was coming of age in the church, those ex-gay ministries were just getting started and I thought they represented healing and kindness.

    (You don't have to research very far to find out they are just as abusive and wicked as Hezpibah House. Unlike Jesus, the people who are focused on wiping out "rebellious" or "abominable" behavior crush hearts with cruel abandon, as they don't care about the heart of a person. Like Lewis pointed out, behavior is all they are interested in, and they will stop at nothing to demonize other people's behavior while excusing their own.)

    And you'll never guess what opened my eyes to get me to start listening to the "other side". I logically pointed out (on Karen Campbell's old blog) that when people proof-text 2 Cor 6:14, they are almost always making it say something other than what Paul was talking about. Paul was not talking about becoming a business partner, or marrying and certainly not dating! He was talking about mixing other religions with Christianity. The companion text, 1 Cor 6, is very plainly saying "Stop visiting temple prostitutes."

    There is nothing in there about dating, because dating did not yet exist. There is no instruction to women in 1 Cor 7 about marrying anyone because women had no choice in the matter yet. The whole chapter is written to the men who controlled women's lives, with the exception of instruction to the widow. She may marry whom she chooses, only "in the Lord" which could mean "by the will of God" as easily as it could mean "to a believer".

    All true and harmless enough to point out, as it is still a rough go of it to marry someone of another faith, and you don't need to make a command out of thin air about it to point that out. Still, for declaring that there is no command "Thou shalt only date/marry Christians", I was branded a liberal.

    A liberal? 0.0 Moi? Reaganite fundamentalist moi, a liberal?

    At first I was just insulted, then I thought well, if I am being accused of being a liberal for standing up for truth and not adding to the word of God, maybe liberals aren't so bad. I should listen what they have to say in their own words, and stop relying on other people to tell me what they think and want. Hmmmm.

    So, I fasted from all conservative radio, emails, junk mail, magazines and television. I started researching contentious positions like abortion and homosexuality with an open mind. I was really surprised by what I found.

    The absolute best information out there for teens who find themselves in an unwanted pregnancy is from a PRO CHOICE organization! It was so detailed, encouraging her to really think about all her options, her feelings, listing places she could get help for keeping, adopting out and finding an abortion doctor. Guilt free, personally compassionate and very well done. Why did that shock me?

    Because I had been taught so many lies about "liberals" as the spawn of Satan. Well, I did the same with the gay issue, and economic issues and well, Karen was right.

    I am a liberal, because Jesus would also be called a liberal today. I like the company I am in.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Benjamin, did you notice what Jesus did BEFORE he told the woman to sin no more?

    He told the people who were busy pointing out her sin to shut up and go home, because they weren't doing any better. Maybe the point of the parable is that it's GOD'S job to convict people of their sin, not ours.

    Funny how that little tidbit always gets missed.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Also Benjamin, to be "caught in adultery" meant that the woman/man had to be caught in the act by two or more witnesses. Do you really believe the woman wasn't set up?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Final anonymous, that's exactly what I was trying to get at in my earlier post :) Thank you for making the analogy from scripture for us.

    The church has gotten in the habit of thinking it can convict the heart. It can't. It can talk honestly about sin, and advise about sin (being hostile towards sinners accomplished neither of these things). But God convicts the heart.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well, I agree with anonymous here. I think we can go too far in thinking we have to erase any concept of sin in order to be loving to others. But, our contemplation of sin and our flawed understanding of it starts with our own weaknesses.But we need to address this honestly. Jesus did not make everyone say that the woman wasn't sinning-or that they misunderstood God's word- only that they should not throw stones at her until they had examined themselves and found their hearts blameless (impossible). That's how I look at this issue. I think that Christians have to recognize that we all have sin in our lives and that only Christ can change the heart.I can't feel completely comfortable with either side of this debate!

    ReplyDelete
  22. The bigger issue here is hypocrisy. Certain sins being "worse" than others. Fungelicals might say that such isn't true, that all sin is sin...but they aren't being honest, and they've conditioned the larger Christian culture (and political climate) to see certain sins as worse than others.

    Think about it this way...

    I've written about a LOT of unsavory things - spiritual and emotional abuses and their crippling, destructive impact on people - but until this piece, nothing about homosexuality (which this post isn't even really about). Yet, in this comment string alone there's probably more discussion of "sin" than on the rest of my blog, and its 200 someodd posts, combined.

    We've been conditioned to be triggered by even the mention of it. What this does (although I don't think it necessarily applies to most of you) is thoroughly stops a lot of people from truly examining and thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  23. So....Lewis. You're saying you're gay?

    Figures...

    Remember that in Romans, where peeps claim that gay people are evil and should not be given any rights or hold public office, lumped with them in that same list are those that are...wait for it....disobedient to their parents.

    Evil bastards.

    Try marching under the banner of THAT one.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Lewis,

    It would be interesting for you to cite the particular scientific studies for all to refer to. Maybe that could be the subject of a separate post.

    Nevertheless, I find it interesting that you have applauded the public acknowledgement of a particular behavior and that you have determined, based upon scientific studies, of course, that this man can't help it.

    I wonder if you would be willing to give the Patriarchal/Fundamentalists/Evangelicals/Home Schoolers/Home Birthers/Authoritarians/Headship/Submission crowd the same latitude? Or is the Homosexual granted some special dispensation because they've received a raw deal?

    After all, your ex future father-in-law couldn't help it! I'm sure that if scientific enquiries were conducted, they would find that Patriarchal types just can't help it. They have different brain activity exclusive to their malady. I'm sure the physiological markers are present, but haven't received the same effort to discover them that the Homosexuals have. We just don't understand the Patriarchal types and give them the positive reinforcement they deserve. Maybe we just don't understand their unique situation and the subtilties of being Patriarchal.

    And this blog surely doesn't help their plight. I wonder if your ex future father-in-law were to "out" himself to the public at large and boast of his Patriarchalness, would he receive the same acceptance and applause on this blog as your friend has?


    BTW, Jesus couldn't condemn the woman taken in adultery because doing so would have broken the law, the same law He said He came to fulfill. And his response to her accusers made the same point. They would have been guilty in convicting her because of the absence of the other party to the adultery.

    Lewis, you are right. The issue is Hypocrisy!

    ReplyDelete
  25. And a little further on, in the first part of Romans chapter 2, we are declared all guilty of all of it and forbidden to judge others based on the list in Romans 1. Funny how everybody misses that part...=D

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Benjamin (aka Politics of Heaven)...

    You've been nothing but a religious asshole, trying to play a game of "gotcha!", since you got here. You've been given extreme amounts of leeway and several warnings.

    You're no longer welcome here.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dad Blammit Lewis! Now he gets to go to his friends, high five them, and claim a martyr's victory.

    Oh well. At least he feels better.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Politics of Heaven, if you happen to still be reading, do you reject the studies which show that a tendency towards alcoholism can be partially hereditary (genetic?)

    There is no reason to believe that just because something is genetic, that means everyone should participate in that behavior and/or celebrate it. People with a tendency towards alcoholism don't necessarily say "Oh, well then, I'd better go out and start drinking!"

    You do not have to defend Christianity against science. Your Christ must be very small indeed if he needs you to shut your eyes against reality to keep him intact.

    I have heard of Christians who had gay feelings and got so desperate trying to get rid of the feelings that they wanted to kill themselves. So you tell me, were those people choosing those feelings? Seems to me they were trying to stay away from the homosexual lifestyle, if they were willing to end their lives to stop the feelings.

    You need to search your heart and spend some serious time with Jesus. NO ONE in this comment section is telling you that you have to accept homosexuality as OK, they are saying that you have to love homosexuals and stop delighting in judging them. If that is too much to handle then you SERIOUSLY need to re-examine your relationship with God.

    ReplyDelete
  29. By the way, I think Lewis has demonstrated on several occasions that he knows who particular commentators are, and that you can't simply change the name that you log in under and masquerade as a different person. I'd advise everyone who reads this blog to take note :)

    Just a friendly reminder.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Science has definitively proven that sexuality ISN'T a choice (brain and pheromone studies)..."

    Does this include the sexuality of pedophiles? Serious question.

    ReplyDelete
  31. To my knowledge, pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation. Pedophiles are either gay, straight, or bi.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Okay, I wasn't looking to start a big discussion or anything but I think science gives a much more complicated and nuanced answer.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I'm sure it does. I was admittedly shooting very much from the hip. Not a subject I've researched.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anon 10:52...He still reads here, and still submits comments which go into the spam folder.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I respect your view points, but I am still convinced that the bible claims homosexuality as a sin. But, I guess you are right in saying that just because someone sins one of those so called big sins that they should not be considered as some kind of freakish outcast. I'll go on my own and give this some more thought.

    ReplyDelete
  36. http://www.gaychristian.net/

    If it's a sin, why are these committed Christian teens from evangelical families "tempted"? If it's demonic, why didn't Jesus deliver them when they called out, night after night, to be set free? I don't see how it can be a sin either, since it is not a chosen response or acquired taste. It just came up out of nowhere and wouldn't go away.

    A person who a) loves the Lord with all their heart b) attends church their whole life c)would never look at porn or watch racy television or movies d) reads the Bible daily e) prays and worships individually and corporately as a matter of daily living who out of nowhere experiences same-sex attraction is not sinning nor demonized. Impossible! If it was a one-time event, one could call it temptation. But if the Lord allows it in the first place, and doesn't remove it after years of heartfelt prayer, then it can't be a sin and it sure can't be demonic.

    Violet, I challenge you to love your brother as yourself. Our gay brothers and sisters in Christ deserve for us to at least *listen* to their experience of life before condemning them. Agape love demands no less.

    Then, if you still believe in throwing stones, cast away. But you should at least listen first...

    ReplyDelete
  37. (a bit late to the party, but i just found this blog toady...)

    "The church needs to decide if it wants to love people, and accept them as they are (as Christ did), or preach at them. Seems to me the church has made its choice."
    Lewis - can i quote you here? make a big giant billboard, and stick it in front of my house? Maybe a teeshirt and bumper sticker?

    Please give Lucas our regards, we wish him and any love he finds a happy, fulfilled and safe life. We pray with all our hearts that God blesses him and his endevours.

    And that those who truly love Christ will throw down this yoke called christianity and follow Him.

    ReplyDelete