@96 acoolerclimate. I have done some research, and you are nowhere close. They prohibited many things mostly because the Jews needed to set themselves apart from the pagans at the time. They had a strong need to keep everything in its place. "Clean" fish have fins. Shellfish don't have fins, so they are not "clean" fish. "Clean" barnyard animals have cloven hooves and chew their cuds. Pigs don't chew their cuds so they are unclean. Men are to be the "active" sexual partner, and women the "passive". For a man to have penetrative sex with another man, that other man would become passive, and therefore no longer be assuming the position of the male. This totally had to do with gender expression, not sexual identity. They had no concept of gay or straight back then. It all boiled down to people behaving according to their gender norms. Women dressed and behaved like women. Men dressed and behaved like men. There was no prohibition against female same-sex relationships because A) there was no penetration, so they could not assume the male active role or take virginity away; and B) women were property, so since they could not impregnate each other, or do any "damage" who cared?

Here is the kicker. There was a definite "caste" system in place. Those who had political or economic power were higher up the ladder. They could use those men lower on the ladder sexually, as long as there was no penetration. So apprentices, servants etc, were commonly used sexually. They didn't see this as strange, because the man in power was the "active" sexual partner. The passive one was the submissive one because he didn't (yet) have any power. So as long as there WAS a power differential, a same sex relationship was acceptable if kept low key. Today, that is the very thing that is seen as abusive.

Also @ 100: Fuck Off.

"It is not slavery that is wrong but how they could have been treated. I would like you to think of something. Remember, God is love."

Okay, you should have stopped way before you got to that. Now fuck the fuck off.

Jesus died for your sins, ladies and gentlemen. I'm doing it for your mere entertainment.

-Doug Stanhope.

The thing I don't get is....
Why the hell do you have a stick up your ass about what other people stick up their ass. Ok so you believe in god and the bible and you do what god says, why does it matter if people don't follow gods rules? Shouldn't it be up to god to punish the people who are gay, pre marital sex shellfish lover.
I have never read the bible and I don't plan to because the bible is bullshit. God did not write it, no a bunch of men wrote it and it was translated from Latin. I do not doubt for a second that the people who wrote the bible and the people who translated it didn't write or change thing to fit their agenda.

Also the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is supposed to be separeted from the church, that means that NO LAWS should be written to comply with the bible. If you don't like it GTFO and go somewhere that does.

This is an excellent and reasoned piece. I wish more devout Christians could take a step back from their faith -- often learned and accepted from an early age without examination -- and recognize the obvious problems with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

You of course can take moral lessons from the Bible, be a loving Christian who understands it is a document with a historical context. But an approach of "God wrote this; IT IS TRUE" simply cannot be applied wholesale to modern life. If you accept the Bible's condemnation of homosexuals simply because it is in the Bible, then you must by necessity condemn yourself for any number of other things in there. If all of the Bible is literally true, Jesus will be awfully lonely waiting for people who qualify for heaven.

To be hypocrite, to pick and choose the parts of the Bible which you can accept and which parts can be ignored, you have to believe one of two things: (1) that you are able to speak for God and His intentions, which makes you a blasphemer, or (2) that God speaks directly to you and has told you what is true, which makes you a lunatic.

My favorite, most commonly ignored part of the Bible: Jesus never says anything about gay people, or about slavery, but he openly condemns the rich. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, so if this country's powerful Christian leaders want to get right with God on the basis of the Bible, they might want to start with a vow of poverty. Any takers? ... Anyone?

The literal interpretation of the Bible is a very new concept. It has only been in fashon the past 100 years or so. For the thousands of years before that, nobody at all thought the Bible should be taken literally. Those people who take the Bible literally are deviating badly from its original intention. How can anyone read it for more than a few minutes without realizing that it contradicts itself every which way? There are a lot of people out there building their religious beliefs on very shaky ground.

"as opposed to the good kind of slavery"

HAHAHA!

I love Jesus, but I love the gays too. Sometimes we should focus less on the hairy details and let those who have faith, have faith. And those who choose to live their lives otherwise, let them do just that. The world, and us people in it, present God and salvation through Jesus to everyone. It's up for grabs. It's your own choice if you so choose to reach out and take it. If not, that's you choice you are entitled to.

Love each other. Whether it's God's mandate or not, we should all just shut up mind our own.

Am I the only one who read the unregisterd comment #107 in a strange voice?

OK, one pet peeve:

"God giving dads the okay to sell their daughters into slavery"

This is incorrect and is the result of a mistranslation. The passage in Exodus refers to selling daughters into *marriage*. While bride prices may be repulsive to us, they were practiced in ancient world and are still practiced today. What that passage is specifically about is that a man is not allowed to mistreat his wife if she was married off so her father could pay off debts.

Interestingly, that passage in Exodus 21 also says that a man may not deny his wife food, shelter or "ointment". Most biblical scholars understand ointment to be a euphemism for sex. That is, the Old Testament says that women are entitled to sex. Maybe you should throw THAT at the fundies. You can also remind them that any time the Bible says someone put his hand under someone's thigh, it meant he taking hold of his penis to swear an oath by its generative power, a common practice in biblical times.

Your other comments are spot on. The thing that people fail to realize about the Bible is that, in the time it was written, it was a very liberal document -- much more progressive than the Hammurabic Code or anything like that. Blood feuds were ended, human sacrifice ended, a system of justice put in place (giving the death penalty requires two witness; a stronger burden of proof than, say, Texas). And there thousands of years of commentary that have continually re-interpreted that to make it ever more modern. The conservative Jewish movement -- hardly a bunch of left wingers -- has specifically rejected many of the anti-gay provisions of the Old Testament.

This is just highlighter fundamentalism.

(PS - all of the above is from conservative Jewish commentary on the Bible, specifically in Etz Chaim.)

I suspect that "goof" is a misspelling of "go off," for what it's worth.

I spent years and years reading it from cover to cover. I spent years in Bible study. Eventually they asked me to start writing Bible studies. I really loved the studying. To start reading things in Greek and Hebrew, to read the eighteen Gospels that aren't included in the Bible, all the interpolations or non-Pauline additions in the Epistles of Paul, comparing "ponies" (literal translations) with "dynamic equivalent" (analyzing a semantic unit in its source language for their meanings before translating into the target language), the Church history and the controversy that choosing which Epistle was "authentic", and all the Catholic and Orthodox liturgies for same-sex unions from. It has been a wonderful journey. I didn't find that it made contradicting passages within the sixty three (Protestant) books collectively called the Bible any clearer. It actually pointed towards multiple authors. Which is in agreement that is comprised of ancient traditions over a span of about 2100 years, written over a 1200 year period more than 2000 years ago. All that studying illuminates that it originates from a worldview that is now outmoded as those context of those social cultures are long faded. All that study of the Bible and its history, for me, puts the Bible in its proper place as a piece of literature which addresses human issues and firmly removed it from the pedestal that many seem driven to "worship". Humans read the symbols upon a page (or computer screen) and humans give those symbols meaning. Humans will find the meaning they want to find within the pages of the Bible and thus they will pick and choose to justify the answers they need. That is what I came away with.

Or I can sum it up this way. Think of your religious convictions as you do your genitals. They are private. They are lovely to explore and can honorably be shared with consensual partners. And it is always immoral to yank them out of your pants and cram them down your neighbors' throat. Have the respect and decency to allow others to find their own "truth".

Kind regards.

I am a gay man. You have done a lot for the gay community. This speech was a setback. The speech you gave came off as bullying. You have to realize you were talking to a teenage audience. I agree you should not be selective with the bible and not use it to step on other's rights. If you felt the need to go there with this audience you should have presented it very differently. You could provide slavery and other examples in the bible and then link it to the invalid reasons used to deny gay rights. You spoke to your believers and turned off many that may have opened their minds.

@Daniel_NY - I agree wholeheartedly with your comment that if we accept the Bible's condemnation of the act of homosexuality then we must also accept it's condemnation of the many sins that we have committed in our lives. Many Christians do just that. We accept that we are sinners. We acknowledge that our sin seperates us from the love of God. We also accept the path to salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that God offers. You go on to state that if we accept the Bible is the inspired word of God we are either blasphemers or lunatics. That sounds much like the accusations the Sanhedrin made against Jesus and many modern scholars have argued that Jesus' words and actions can result in only two options, either he was the Son of God or he was a lunatic. Which one do you believe is true, lunatic or God? As far as the act of blasphemy it applies to speaking sacriligously about God. Stating that God has spoken to me is not in and of itself an act of blasphemy. If I say that God spoke to me and told me that the only way to salvation is to be a good person and do good things all my life, that would be an act of blasphemy. We have all sinned but it is only through the grace and mercy of God that we can be saved. To believe that there is a living God and that he can speak to us through the written word is not an act of lunacy but rather an act of faith. Much in the same way that a handful of high school students quietly stood up and walked out in the middle of a speech that they believed to be offensive. It was faith that caused them to act against human nature and open themselves up to the derision of their fellow students and the speaker. They did not disrupt the speech or shout at the speaker whom they disagreed with. They protested in a peaceful and non-verbal way and that took faith and courage.

Dan, you are absolutely correct about the bible and xtian hypocrisy. The bible is bullshit -- and so are the koran, rig vedas, and all religions. Don't ever apologize for being correct. Calling out the hypocrites shames them, and no one deserves it more.

It's funny how people will try to find anything to belittle the bible just to keep from seeing the truth. You out there that don't want to believe the bible will eventually see the truth. Hopefully, not too late. Anything to keep from feeling trapped by faith or religion. But the truth is you are actually more free and have more joy in your life. I walk the streets of Seattle and feel sorry for all the people I see who have so much hatred in their face. You are one of those haters, Dan Savage, not the christians. I am attacked quite often for my faith. I know that I must be doing something right for people to feel the need to put me down. Stop being a hypocrite and stop treating Christians the way you don't want to be treated. I have not been attacking others and neither have my friends. I am the one being attacked.

@ 121,

I thought he could have worded it better and chosen less confrontational words to facilitate dialogue, Ken. His point deserves to be addressed. The topic was appropriate to conference's stated purpose of edginess and the use of social media.

I disagree with the claims that they were attacked and bullied. Individuals who are attacked and bullied are separated from their peers to be victimized. No-one separated these students from their peers. The students chose to march out, because they were intolerant of Dan bringing up the Bible. And they took offense.The first one was walking out before he even got to the word "bullshit". Which means leaves me inclined to think she either needed to use the ladies room or the fact that Dan said the word Bible was too offensive for her. Only she knows.

@ 124,

And it is funny how people can't accept that others come to different conclusions. Even after reading the Bible, praying, and going to church. There are even entire Christian denominations who don't agree about the literalness of the Bible. Tis strange indeed.

I'd suggest you go talk to some of your co-religionists that do attack Dan Savage. You could start with "Seattleblues" who posts here. He proclaims himself a devout Christian and frequently goes on abusively worded tirades against Mr. Savage and everyone else who disagrees with him on any subject. But, that would require you to look beyond yourself and recognize the ugly truth that some who call themselves Christians are mean and cruel.

Try counting your "sufferings" as being found worthy of sharing Jesus' suffering. Maybe that will help you find joy. And you could try allowing people to see Christ-likeness in you instead of telling people that they can't see your "truth" because they come to a different conclusion. Less evangelizing and more silent serving. Just a thought.

And, sorry you feel picked upon. It sucks. I know I don't appreciate it when your co-religionists attack me either.

Take care.

Three things:
1. God was only kidding in the Old Testament, rather like Mitt Romney was only kidding about all the things he said in the primaries. Thus, Mitt Romney is the God Candidate.
2. Peggy makes a distinction between 'homosexuals' and 'homosapiens'? Really, Peggy?
3. I'm gonna build a summer house at the Lake of Fire, because it sounds like that place rocks.

This is one they ignore as well when they say the New Testament and Jesus are all peace and love.
According to Luke 19:27 Jesus says: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Wow ajphoto... For a second there you had me believing that Jesus said that. I guess it was your statement "Jesus says" that threw me off. What Luke 19:27 actually is is a verse at the end of a parable, a story told to teach a lesson. In the parable a young noble man says, "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." It was in the context of a story and was a statement made by a character in that story, a comment that would be believable coming from a king or a noble. Many kings and rulers throughout history have called for the death of their enemies. Jesus on the other hand commanded his followers in this way, "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" Matthew 5:44. That actually is a quote from Jesus. What you stated is no more a quote of Jesus than claiming that William Shakespeare professed his love for a man named Romeo. It was Juliet, a character in a play who professed her love, not the person telling the story.

@3 there sure as shit better be lakefront property. I already took out a mortgage on mine.

I'd also point out that the story of Creation comes from the Old Testament, but that doesn't stop a bunch of Christians from claiming that evolution is false because it conflicts with the Book of Genesis.

Of course the Bible was puposely written to be open to personal interpretation. Fables were never meant to be literal truths, and some of the historical events are altered to favor the victors and maintain control over the population.

Ask Charlie Manson.

Better yet, find out why the Gnostic bibles were suppressed....

I think that in the future, Dan, you shouldn't open your speeches at Christian colleges with "the bible has a lot of bullshit in it" but your other line about "when I was a teenager, I went to seminary school to become a Catholic priest". This is a warning, that if anyone wants to argue the bible with you, you will curbstomp them with their own book unless they are good and proper experts. And even then, you will likely still curbstomp them, because there's a whole shipload of things in it they are obviously and purposely ignoring (as you had rightly gone on to point out in your recent speech).

Although I'd have to admit, there's not likely to be a lot of invites forthcoming anytime soon. :)

Given the recent study that found a direct correspondence between homophobia and being homosexual, what the anti-homosexual teachings in the bible teach us is that Paul was a raging closet case who preached abstinence because thinking about women left him limp.

If there are a lot of passages against homosexuality in the new testament it's cause he was hoping that saying it's wrong often enough would make him stop wanting to fuck his male slaves. (Note: I'm am *not* accusing Paul of having ever actually done so.)

@100: Were those slaves in the American South given the option to go free after seven years of servitude? Were they granted the Sabbath rest? Were they avenged by the law if struck down in the field?
What an ignorant Christian you are.

myloolaid58, I'm not sure what you mean by "strange voice". However, what strikes me is the fact that you choose to mock the tone of what I have written, rather than to deal with the content. Since I am not attacking anyone, or mocking anyone, or calling anyone names, but, instead, just carrying on a reasoned discussion, it seems as though you are resorting to this mockery because you really cannot respond in any other manner that would have any impact on the substance of what I said. I have been a Christian, saved by the grace of God, for over 42 years. In that time, I have done a lot of things that were wrong, as in I've sinned against God plenty of times. The only difference is that the shed blood of Jesus, and my willingness to ask God to forgive me, and my willingness and desire to mean what I've said, and my willingness to stop repeating the same sin over and over, are what make God's forgiveness a reality to and for me. As I said, I am no better or worse than anyone else, and sin is sin. So mocking me does not change these facts; neither does it change my security in who I am and in my relationship with the Lord. You may mock me all you wish; I know what I have with Him and who I am, and who I am in Him. And BTW, you have no idea who I am. Have you not considered the fact that you may be attacking someone who is a highly regarded professional, and highly educated? It is unwise to be mocking that which you apparently do not understand, either. Now, regarding Tim1584's most recent post, thank you, Tim, for a very reasoned and sound posting that answers an attack on Jesus with the truth, letting the words of Jesus speak for themselves. Seattlefaith, I encourage you to persevere, and to know that God is with you, and as long as you are doing as He would have you to do, that He will bless all that you do. Kiminportland, you are misreading what Seattlefaith is saying. He is not complaining about the persecution; he is acknowledging it as being part and parcel of what happens to one who truly chooses to serve the Lord. And his comments are made out of love. My thinking is that you are choosing to overlook the fact that when he writes of the truth, he means that Jesus died for our sins, if we do not accept the free gift of salvation and repent of our living in a consciously sinful manner that is in open defiance to God and His love for us and His word, then those of us who CHOOSE not to accept the gift of Christ's dying for our sins on the cross will go to hades, hell, be cast into the lake of fire, take your pick, they all mean the same thing, and all mean eternal separation from God. And it is we, because God has given us all free will and freedom of choice, that make the choice as to whether we will spend eternity with God, or spend eternity separated from Him. As I said early on in this post, I've been a Christian for many years, and have had a long time to learn what all of this means. So if you wish to call it a fairy tale or to mock me, or whatever your form of denial may take, be my guest. It changes nothing for me, at all. I am convinced of the truth of God's love for me and of Christ's death on the cross being a very real and necessary thing, as well as His resurrection. And nothing you or anyone else says about what I have said, or in judgment of what the Bible does or does not, or may or may not, say, or what you may say in judgment of Jesus, or God, will change this.

mykoolaid58, I'm not sure what you mean by "strange voice". However, what strikes me is the fact that you choose to mock the tone of what I have written, rather than to deal with the content. Since I am not attacking anyone, or mocking anyone, or calling anyone names, but, instead, just carrying on a reasoned discussion, it seems as though you are resorting to this mockery because you really cannot respond in any other manner that would have any impact on the substance of what I said. I have been a Christian, saved by the grace of God, for over 42 years. In that time, I have done a lot of things that were wrong, as in I've sinned against God plenty of times. The only difference is that the shed blood of Jesus, and my willingness to ask God to forgive me, and my willingness and desire to mean what I've said, and my willingness to stop repeating the same sin over and over, are what make God's forgiveness a reality to and for me. As I said, I am no better or worse than anyone else, and sin is sin. So mocking me does not change these facts; neither does it change my security in who I am and in my relationship with the Lord. You may mock me all you wish; I know what I have with Him and who I am, and who I am in Him. And BTW, you have no idea who I am. Have you not considered the fact that you may be attacking someone who is a highly regarded professional, and highly educated? It is unwise to be mocking that which you apparently do not understand, either. Now, regarding Tim1584's most recent post, thank you, Tim, for a very reasoned and sound posting that answers an attack on Jesus with the truth, letting the words of Jesus speak for themselves. Seattlefaith, I encourage you to persevere, and to know that God is with you, and as long as you are doing as He would have you to do, that He will bless all that you do. Kiminportland, you are misreading what Seattlefaith is saying. He is not complaining about the persecution; he is acknowledging it as being part and parcel of what happens to one who truly chooses to serve the Lord. And his comments are made out of love. My thinking is that you are choosing to overlook the fact that when he writes of the truth, he means that Jesus died for our sins, if we do not accept the free gift of salvation and repent of our living in a consciously sinful manner that is in open defiance to God and His love for us and His word, then those of us who CHOOSE not to accept the gift of Christ's dying for our sins on the cross will go to hades, hell, be cast into the lake of fire, take your pick, they all mean the same thing, and all mean eternal separation from God. And it is we, because God has given us all free will and freedom of choice, that make the choice as to whether we will spend eternity with God, or spend eternity separated from Him. As I said early on in this post, I've been a Christian for many years, and have had a long time to learn what all of this means. So if you wish to call it a fairy tale or to mock me, or whatever your form of denial may take, be my guest. It changes nothing for me, at all. I am convinced of the truth of God's love for me and of Christ's death on the cross being a very real and necessary thing, as well as His resurrection. And nothing you or anyone else says about what I have said, or in judgment of what the Bible does or does not, or may or may not, say, or what you may say in judgment of Jesus, or God, will change this.

Sargon Bighorn, I am not, first of all, a man. And the fact that you tell me I am not the loving person I think I am amazes me, because you do not know me and you know nothing about me. I would not judge the level of your ability to love based on your post, as I do not know you, or anything about you. The Lord wants us to love others for Him, with His love. That is what I desire to do. It is the best love there is. It is called agape love. So when you say we are under God's love, and that men show no such love, I am wondering how you can possibly know that that is true of every person. I am person who is considered to be very loving, caring, compassionate and empathetic. I go out of my way to help others, to show concern for their physical and emotional welfare, and I give of myself to them to bless them and to glorify God. Now, if you have an argument with that, then I say, once again, that since you do not know me, or anything about me, it would be very difficult for you to dispute what I am saying. But, most of all, being a Christian is not a religion, it is about a relationship, about having a relationship with God and His Son. That relationship is the most important one in my life, now and always.

@136

That's an interesting thought. I guess then that since most posters here are raging Biblephobes, then you must all be closet Christians.

You comment about Paul really is total FAIL on so many levels. It is a logical fallacy of attacking the person or ad hominem. You don't like what someone has to say so you insult instead of addressing the issue.

Also, if it were true then your claim is that homosexuals are the ones insulting and attacking homosexuals. If that's the case, why are you ragging on straight Christians?

You guys are something else. Arrogant, demeaning, intolerant, just to mention a few of the common attitudes posted here by the locals. I would like to ask a few questions, but I doubt I will get anything back except for bullshit answers, but I'll try anyway.

1). How can you be so arrogant to think that you have found the true meaning of all of the Bible when you approach it with a bias and with such an axe to grind? After all the insults and derogatory remarks you have made about the Bible, you have already demonstrated your prejudice. You know as well as I do that with the bias and hate you have for the Bible and for Christians, you cannot and do not approach the scriptures with an open mind. Can a preacher who says "God hates Fags" be open minded? Of course not.

That doesn't mean that no one can disagree with the Bible, but if you want to find the truth, you have to actually be looking. If you have already found the truth (or think you did) then you can't honestly be looking for it. You want others to be open minded about your lifestyle choices, but you attack determine to prove what you already believe, not trying to find new truths. You can't pour knowledge into a glass that's already full. Have any of you ever heard of the uncarved block in Taoism? The uncarved block can be anything but once you define it, it has lost it's ability to change. That is what our minds are like.

2) you also have a lot at stake since most of you are admitted gays and recognize that several parts of the Bible does not speak favorably of gays. Considering what is at risk for your choice of lifestyle (I realize that some of you believe it is not a choice) can you honestly claim you approach the Bible and Christian beliefs with an open mind? Is there any evidence or any situation where you would accept that said you were doing something wrong?

3) How can you possibly be posting all of the insults you post and generalizing about ALL Christians without being guilty of the same claim you make agaist them? You call Christians hypocrites and only rarely include that it is only "some" Christians. Yes we can all see that you guys aren't hypocrites. You tell the Christians to love others in such a loving way. There's definitely no hate here and Dan was so tolerant of others in his rant against what he sees as intolerance. Did every Christian in the world offend you guys just by claiming Christ as their savior.? Yet, poster after poster continue to pretend that they are so superior, while at the same time insulting all republicans, all conservatives and all Christians. I don't hear any of you showing outrage when the liberal posters here attack others who believe different. Why aren't you fighting against intolerance?

4) more on the issue of intolerance: why is it that I can go to any blog online and the Christian bashing comments far outnumber the LGBT bashing comments - even on foxnews.com. That is very odd considering the percentage of Christians in the US is quite higher than the percentage of LGBT people. So (this is not a scientific study but only my observations) when you look at percentages of bashers, there is an exceedingly higher percentage of LGBT bashing Christians than there are of Christians bashing LGBT. Aren't you really being unfair to attack all Bible believing Christians, when your group bashes at such a higher percentage. BTW, those pansy ass kids probably never bashed anyone. Your claims and/or implications that all Christians are biggots is simply false.

5) Finally - I realize that the posters here consider themselves to be Biblical Scholars and make claims to know the Bible, but you are making a lot of assumptions and missing a lot. This is probably because of the bias you have. When you bring up Leviticus and start talking about the comments of Jesus regarding the Law, you ignore several important points. While you can claim that Jesus words did hold importance for Gentiles, the old testament law was written to the Jews just as circumcision was for the Jews - NOT for Gentiles who became Christians. Paul made that clear in his writings regarding circumcision and went even tpfurther when he told Jewish Christians they were no longer under the law. (Acts 13:39, Gal 5:18, Rom 6:14-15, I Cor 9:20-21, and others). As far as Jesus goes, Him being here to fulfill the law and the prophets does not mean he was here to enforce the law, but to fulfill the Old Covenant as in the prophesies from the Old covenant - prophecies about himself.

If his words concerning the law were as many of you state here, then why didn't he stone the adulterer? Why did he hang out with sinners? Why did he say you could pull your donkey out of a ditch on the sabath? The law of the old testament was written for the Jews. Jesus as a Jew respected those laws but recognized that it was the intent behind the laws that mattered. That's why he said man was not made for the sabbath but the sabbath for man. (Mark 2:27)

You guys here being so legalistic about the law in the old testament is exactly what the Pharisees did. What is in the heart was always more important to God than the legalisms. That's why in Mat 5 Jesus would present a "you have heard" scenario from the old testament and then follow it up with a "but I say" statement, which would show the intent behind the actions that were condemned in the law. You have heard don't murder, but I say don't even hate. Also, much of what you are complaining about from the old testament was simply not directed at Christians. Show me where Christians are instructed to take all yeast products and bread out of their homes for the Passover. There actually are large portions of the old testament that were laws specifically for the Country of Israel at the time of Mosses and after. Specific commands to not take wives from a certain country or to take a certain city captive, were nation building policies and were used to create the country for the Children of Israel. That's why the Israelites didn't continue to wage war and attempt to take over the world. So if someone claims that Christians are supposed to attack pegan nations then I call BULLSHIT.

The old covenant or the Law, which is not the same as the Old Testament, was to show us what sin was and to demonstrate that we can not be saved under the law, only condemned. That's because the old covenant show that no one could be perfect and righteous. All have sinned...so all are condemned under the Law.

While we certainly need to recognize many of the principles in the old testament, we are not under the old covenant but under the new convenant of grace and we don't have to stone people based on the laws for the country of Israel.

If you actually want to have an honest discussion about the Bible, I'm all for it. But when you start out closed minded with a bug up your butt and an attitude that all Christians are hypocrites and that all Christians don't understand the Bible, and that you know all there is to know about the Bible, then we are all wasting our time. In that case your not looking for honest dialog, but for people to just agree with you.

I think that http://reasondecrystallized.blogspot.com… that post might answer some of your questions regarding interpretation: there is no right one, but many of those out there support virulent homophobia. considering the sheer amount of prejudice and bigotry enshrined in the law and societal action against gays, defended by reference to christian dogma, then surely you understand the pushback? gays constantly hear from christians how they are abominations who don't deserve civil rights. so when they say that christians are being assholes to them, that's true--and if you wish to make much of the distinction between 'asshole christians' and some other kind, then the proper place to do so is in the faces of the assholes, and not dan savage's blog.

@ 100: "In the bible people did own slaves They could have been captives from a battle. Here we have a people who would have been killed put in servitude. Was that wrong? They were fed, even protected. In many cases they became members of one's household. It is not slavery that is wrong but how they could have been treated."

Was that WRONG? You say this like there were only two choices on the menu: 1) Kill 'em. 2) Enslave 'em.

Seriously, dude, you've become morally degraded to the point where you're parsing which kinds of slavery you feel are more defensible than others.

If I were going to start running around endlessly preaching to people about things that-- if there is a truly righteous God-- should make them forever fear for the rest of their lives about their immortal soul being cast into the worst, lowest, flaming pits of Hell, the behavior of rationalizing practices of human slavery would probably be a really good place to start.

"The people who use the Bible to justify the oppression of LGBT people today are just as wrong as the people who used the Bible to justify the institution of slavery then."

That's all you had to write, Dan.

I think Dan can really mitigate the damage from this whole incident if he does more to get his apology for “pansy-assed” and less-regrettably-phrased defense of “bullshit” out there. I think he should put it in a video. Yeah, he apologized and clarified on the blog, but how many people are going to read that while the anti-gays completely ignore it and keep running with this story? They LOVE being able to say “look everyone, the ‘anti-bullying’ guy is a bully!" So show them what anti-bullying advocates do when they make a mistake (even if it would probably be an overstatement to call that mistake "bullying"). Make it a teachable moment. The It Gets Better Project started with a video and continued with videos, and the conference clip is on video, too. Dan should make a video explaining that the world isn’t divided into the bullies and the bullied, and sometimes well-meaning people mess up and say things that are unkind, and the right thing to do in that situation is to take responsibility and apologize. Then say what he said on the blog: calling the walkout pansy-assed was wrong, but attacking hypocrisy isn’t the same as attacking Christianity, etc. I think a video, particularly if approached from his role as an anti-bullying advocate, would probably be a more effective way to remedy this than the blog.

#144

I'm not going to read your whole screed because it's incredibly wrong, but please stop with the whole "LGBT people bash Christians way more than Christians bash LGBT people" nonsense. The only reason we LGBT folks have much at all to say about Christianity is because of hypocritical Christians who are using their personal beliefs to deny us equal rights, and doing it under the guise of being morally superior to us. We just want the same rights and protections as everyone else. We are not trying to persecute Christians or to codify discrimination against them into law.

Frankzzzz, although I'm not sure that the use of profanity was a necessity in getting your point across, you do, in fact, make very many excellent points. I am taking a philosophy course in college right now, and much of what you say is exactly what I have been thinking, and for the same reasons. That is why, in all of my posts, I have avoided the exact thing that you point out is appearing so much in these posts--the hate and the bigotry and the attitude of superiority. There seems to be a general overall attitude that Christians are all to be lumped into one group of haters and nut-cases. I really appreciate the content of your post. It is unfortunate that dialogue such as you speak of is difficult to attain, let alone maintain, but,as you point out, there is much attacking that goes on without too much truly thoughtful debate. I have read the New Testament several times, and just recently completed a study of the entire Bible. I know well the character of Jesus, as illustrated in the Word, and so when attacks are made against Him, or God, or the Word, I can definitely see that the attackers really are attacking out of ignorance and are making assumptions, and, as you said, they are parsing out verses of the Bible to suit their points of view/purposes. And your explanation of why Christians are no under Old Testament law, as well as why the law was written in the first place, as well as the fact that there are things in the Bible that were written specifically for the Nation of Israel, are excellent and make quite clear why the problem with using OT law to attack NT Christians is problematic. And the point you bring up about legalism, and the fact that that is the wrong way to approach this topic, is an excellent one, too. I may not entirely agree with every single thing you've said, but, overall, you've done an excellent job of fairly presenting the Christian, Biblical, perspective, as well as fairly dealing with the hypocrisy of many of the posters. Thank you!

Eclecticeel, Calling Paul a homosexual? Really? Upon what do you base your evidence? There is nothing he writes, or does with his life, that would suggest this was true. He was a person who went around persecuting Christians until he had an encounter with the Lord on the road to Damascus, at which point he went on to become one of the most ardent supporters of Christians and Christianity that has ever lived, so much so that a large portion of the New Testament consists of letters he wrote to different churches in different cities that were getting established in that part of the world. That is the Paul of the New Testament. He also did some extensive traveling, once again in service to the Lord, visiting areas and sharing the good news (gospel). He served the Lord for the rest of His life, and, in fact, died a martyr. If he were a homosexual, why would he have so ardently served the Lord? Why did he not rebel and decide to do what he wished? He was never forced into his life of service; he chose it. So I do not think you are basing what you have said about him on very sound judgment, neither do I think you have thought through all of the implications such a statement would have for the life of service he chose, as well as for his very public, and, once again, chosen ministry. Paul was a servant of the Lord who sought to spread the Word and to encourage the newly established churches,as well as those he sent out into the mission field, as it would be called today. It might behoove you to learn more about him before you make such statements about him.

143. An ad hominem attack would mean that I thought that Paul's argument was invalidated exclusively by what I said about him. I don't. The possibility that Paul may have been acting in self-hatred does not change that he felt homosexuality was something to be deeply ashamed of.

Tim1584, Seattlefaith and the other Christians that write in here, I have a question for you. Do you vote for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage? Or do you support the rights of GLBT people?

If you support full equality for gays and lesbians despite the "sin" of homosexuality, then the hypocrisy argument is not directed at you. If, on the other hand, you vote to deny extending the marriage benefits to gays and lesbians, on what basis to you vote that way? Because it is a sin? And if that is true, would you also support a state and federal ban on divorced people re-marrying due to that being a clear sin in the eyes of Jesus? If you support legal sanction against gays, but not divorced people, then you are a hypocrite.

The truth is, Gays and Lesbians don't need your blessing. They need you to stop passing laws, based on the bible, discriminating against them. While it would sure be nice for you to stop passing judgment on whom they choose to love, the real battle is for you to stop passing laws that interfere with their health and safety. If you are the types of Christians who support full equal rights, this isn’t directed at you. If you support constitutional bans on gay marriage, I would love to hear your justification in doing so.

OK, so the Ten Commandments were all Old Testament, right? That must mean that it is OK to:
Have another God before Him
Kill
Covet thy neighbor's wife
Covet thy neighbor's ass
Cover thy neighbor's wife's ass
Commit adultry
Disobey and dishonor thine parents
Worship idols

I'm always weirded out by any conservative Christian who defends New Testament support for the Roman form of slavery by claiming it was supposedly less evil than the more modern version, given the contradiction between conservative Christian attitudes about homosexuality and what Seneca the Elder had to say about impudicitia (the willingness to be penetrated by another male, among other sexual characteristics).

In Rome, Seneca noted impudicitia was "...a crime for the freeborn, a necessity in a slave, a duty for the freedman." This "less evil" form of slavery included legally sanctioned homosexual availability among its duties even after the male slave involved was freed, which you'd think would be something of a stumbling block for its would-be conservative apologists. And I don't think I have to highlight for non-conservatives the coexisting, and genuinely morally vile, "who cares about your sexual preferences if I outrank you" attitude built into this "less evil" slavery.

The more these purists try to make a case for a modern morality based only on unedited Biblical sources, the more ignorant and/or awful they sound. I really am forced to agree "bullshit" is the proper term to use here.

Rather than saying the Bible justifies slavery, I would say that the Bible regards slavery as a given and then attempts to some extent to inject some humanity into the system (e.g. in the Old Testament an owner has certain obligations towards his female sex slaves, or Paul's insistence that there are no slaves in God's eyes and exhortations to masters to treat slaves as brothers in the Lord).

And yeah, slavery in the ancient world varied from patronistic to brutal, mostly brutal. Since it wasn't race-based, there was more opportunity for educated slaves to be manumitted and/or reach positions of high responsibility. But most slaves lived short brutal lives in the mines or fields. Some even got the privilege of battling each other to the death as live-show entertainment. Yes, things were so much better in the good old days.

I think the logic of your argument may be lost on someone who thinks that the opposite of homosexual is homosapien...

Here is my problem with the Christian mindset. I hear it all the time and I see it here in these comments.

Christians mistake not yelling for not hating. They mistake judging themselves negatively for not judging others. They mistakenly think that in all cases you can separate the "sin" from the sinner.

Many Christian think it makes them humble if, after judging others, they add in that although homosexuals are sinners if they act on their natures, we are all sinners equally. They think that this makes them non-judgmental. But they are wrong.

If you want to judge yourselves and call yourselves sinners that is your business. But just because you call yourself sinners doesn't make it alright to call others sinners. To do so IS to judge others. When you direct that way of thinking at yourself that is your business. When you direct it at others you should expect people to become upset and angry with you.

But even worse is that underneath that is a lie. The lie is that if you say "we are all sinners, so I don't think I am better than you" that this makes that true. It doesn't. I can't speak for all Christians, but most Christians I have known I have no doubt they do, indeed, think they are better. Because even if they really believe that we are all sinners equally, they believe that they have found the answer to that, and so that makes them better than us. If you want to know if a Christian really feels superior to someone who is not a Christian all you need to do is look and see if they try or agree with imposing their beliefs on others through pressure or laws.

A Christian who doesn't think they are better than others does not try to force others to their way of being. To do that is a sure sign that the person thinks they are better than others.

And the "hate the sin, not the sinner" nonsense makes it all even worse. You can claim to hate the sin of homosexuality but not homosexuals all you want, but there is no way to act against homosexuality without acting against homosexual people. You can't work against equality for gay people, protection from discrimination for gay people, and the safety of gay people and claim that you don't hate gay people.

A tree is know by its fruits. The act of working against the well being of people is the fruit of the tree of hatred. It makes no difference if you do it with a smile on your face, or if you offer the people you are hurting a glass of lemonade and a cookie while you do it. You don't have to foam at the mouth and scream at the top of your lungs at people to act in a hateful way towards them.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it's a duck. If it feels like hate it is hate.

If Christians don't want non-Christians to attack the Bible then they need to stop using the Bible as a weapon. When you attack others your weapons become fair targets for retaliation. In war we bomb the enemy's weapons manufacturing and weapons depot facilities. In the culture war we attack the cultural weapons used against us.

The Bible is a target only because Christians turn it into a target by using it as a weapon against others.

As for the idea that fighting back is bashing Christians, again, most of us wouldn't give a damn what Christians did or thought if they weren't using Christianity as an excuse to harm us. The only way that gay people can avoid the charge of Christian bashing is to let the Christians bash us without fighting back. And that would be crazy.

But answer me this. If you think you can love the sinner even if you hate the sin then why is it impossible for you to accept that others can hate Christianity and the Bible but not hate Christians? If you can't see a criticism of your religion without feeling personally attacked then perhaps you should rethink the notion that you can hate the fundamental nature of a person, and their most important relationships in life, but they shouldn't take that personally and see it as hate against them.

@3 There's a belief in certain Christian sects that during the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth, sinners who believed in Christ, but sinned anyway, will have their sins purged in hell. After the 1000 years, they will be able to join Christ in the celestial city. Meanwhile, Satan and "the unrighteous dead" (Dan and the atheist, unrepentant gay hordes) will wage war on Christ's city, but ultimately be defeated.

144: You're like the 50th person to argue that (in a nutshell) the Old Testament laws do not count anymore because Jesus amended Biblical law.

You're also the 50th person who has failed to argue why Old Testament laws on homosexuality, specifically, remain magically valid, and it's all those OTHER laws (the ones that would affect you, conveniently) that were made obsolete.

You're the 50th person who has failed to answer why the OT is fair game when digging for justification to bully gay children, but suddenly off limits and irrelevant when looking at hypocrisies in Christian interpretations of the Bible.

Care to answer these points, or will you be the 50th person to conveniently ignore everyone who points out this inconsistency in your argument?

I'm more than happy to ignore the Old Testament. The trouble is, Christians (not gays) keep bringing it up. Maybe you should yell at THEM.

Fortunate @159: yup, that's about the size of it.

And for all of you very polite christians who have joined us here to moralize, condescend, and let us know how much you hope we see the light before it is too late: FUCK OFF.

[I say that with deepest love and hope that you will fuck off.]

I think the thing that makes my heart hurt the most is that too many proclaimed Christians that have commented over the last few days cannot or will not acknowledge that some of their co-religionist use the Bible to justify murder, beatings, send hateful e-mails, deny civil equality, et cetera. No, no, they tell actual victims of abuse that they can't criticize those who abuse them. And all criticism is abusing Christians. No, Dan and Terry and others who have been physically abused are the actual bullies. And groups and individuals call themselves Christians like Westboro Baptist, pastor Jeff Owens from Shenandoah Bible Baptist Church who promoted physically hurting gays in a sermon and pastor Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church (Fayettesville, NC )with his YouTube videos advocating beating little boys for acting effeminate. Harris actually said "Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch." And, those students from St Charles North High School in the Chicago area walking around with "If a man lay with a male as those who lay with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and shall surely be put to DEATH," are true victims? They don't deserve criticism for saying they are Christians and advocating violence and death? Their example of Christ-likeness shouldn't be criticized or called hypocritical? Their use of scripture to justify their actions cannot be examined? No. Apparently Dan and all the other victims are supposed to remember that "God is love" and that Christ died for them so his self-proclaimed followers could serve Him by calling for their death, calling for children to be beaten, to comment on a blog defending themselves as victims because criticizing the use of the Bible to justify abuse is truly abuse.

Would it have really hurt all you distressed Christians on these threads to acknowledge that you have co-religionists who misuse the Bible? You obviously don't think they misuse it or you would say something, right? You would calling them out, right? Would it really have hurt you to apologize for the abusive actions of your fellow Christians? Apparently so. Sadly the majority of you created a registered commenter account to complain about your own perceived mistreatment and to proclaim yourselves as the true victims.

Now I'm sufficiently depressed. And am going to use my breath to cool my tea. I know a brick wall when I see one here. I'm not going to stop criticizing those who turn a blind eye to the sufferings of their fellow humans or refuse to criticize those Christians who use scripture as justification for abuse and bigotry. I'm going to attempt to eliminate injustice and show compassion with my time.

Take care.

Dan's arguments are brilliant, and should have closed the book on the whole issue. The bottom line is that Christianity bullies gays, sometimes to death. No Christian, in the western world in the last several hundred years anyway, has killed themselves or been murdered because they were bullied for their beliefs. The opposite is true of homosexuals. That there are Christians on this board boo-hooing over Dan calling their religion bullshit, is pathetic. Grow a pair.

@163
"I think the thing that makes my heart hurt the most is that too many proclaimed Christians that have commented over the last few days cannot or will not acknowledge that some of their co-religionist use the Bible to justify murder, beatings, send hateful e-mails, deny civil equality, et cetera."

And claiming that the abuse is not happening (or is no worse than the abuse that they are suffering from Dan's mean words) is also a form of bullying.

"No, no, they tell actual victims of abuse that they can't criticize those who abuse them."

It's the victimization play.
Sure some gays may have been beaten.
But you cannot "bash" Christian dogma because that is insensitive and mean.
And people who are insensitive and mean and "bash" others are ... bullies.

"I know a brick wall when I see one here."

Exactly.
It isn't that they do not understand.
It is that they have a personal vested interest in being the victims in this discussion.
Because once they lose that victim status they have to acknowledge that their theology really is the basis for the abuse.

@144

First, the OT is not addressed to Christians because there were no fucking Christians yet.

Also, If the OT is all obsolete and shit, then why do people keep on with the gay bashing? If none of this applies to anyone but Jews, shouldn't Jews be the only rampant homophobes claiming scripture as their authority? Your argument has a few holes.

Quoted for truth:

But answer me this. If you think you can love the sinner even if you hate the sin then why is it impossible for you to accept that others can hate Christianity and the Bible but not hate Christians? If you can't see a criticism of your religion without feeling personally attacked then perhaps you should rethink the notion that you can hate the fundamental nature of a person, and their most important relationships in life, but they shouldn't take that personally and see it as hate against them.

Thank you Fortunate. That is beautifully put,

CasingdatheChristian HAHAHA! your funny I did not respond to what you said because you are insane. You say "I do not disapprove of your life, but of your behavior" Well Dan IS gay and he lives his life as a gay man in a gay relationship. I would say that being gay is a part of his life so if you disapprove of his "behavior" then you disapprove of his life. Also being gay is not a "behavior" its not something that you can just stop doing.
Also if you are so highly educated you would know that their are gay animals and its natural. If you were so smart and educated you would know that the earth is billions of years old not only a couple thousand, you would know that there is a thing called evolution and dinosaurs. You cannot believe in evolution, dinosaurs and the earth is billions of years old and believe the bible. I am pretty sure god DID NOT say you can pick and choose what to believe in.

I think that was Dan's point the bible is bullshit and you cant pick and choose what you believe in.
BTW thanks for giving the push I needed to go from lutheran to atheist.

I appreciate the support of liberal Christians, I really do. But my god, at what point do you say "I cannot identify with these people any more?"

Maybe it's living in the American south, maybe it's having grown up Catholic but I am so sick of having to deal with other people's religions. Just leave my family alone. Leave my kid alone. He's not hurting anyone but the line of people that want to hurt him is a mile long and while not all religious people are hurtful, everyone in that line is holding a holy book of some kind to justify their desired actions.

Mshawn:
You did not read my entire post because it was totally wrong? How do you know it was totally wrong if you didn't read it? You didn't approach it with preconceived notions at all.

Chicagogirl
I never said the OT was obsolete. You still seem to be blaming all Christians for the attitudes and actions of some. BTW: I have spoken on many occasions against gay bashing and against cherry picking sins in my church and at work. I can't stop Christians behaving badly no more than I can stop non-Christians from behaving badly.

Mitten:
You're totally wrong about the persecution thing. Just because you haven't witnessed something doesn't meaan it doesn't exist. I have seen it from professors on a regular basis when they harass students in class for believing in God. I also know of other professors insulting gay students, but they all get away with it because they have tenure.

Fortunate
Yes people can love the sinner and hate the sin. Do you honestly believe I hate my children if I hate something they do? Duh? However, your own comments repeatedly say "Christians". Unless we are using a language other than English, when you use a term that refers to a group, you are actually referring to that group. But you are right - Christians shouldn't use the Bible to bash anyone. I have never defended that.

CasingdatheChristian
Thanks for your words and yes I shouldn't use profanity but I tend to get excited and some words sound pretty good when used for emphasis. Sorry!

Bonefish:
I did not say that Old Testament laws do not count anymore. I said that Christians were not under the law. The law was intended to show us what sin is and to show us we can't save ourselves, so I think that the the Law and the Old Testament certainly have a place in Christianity. This is not an easy concept to understand and that is why many Christians think they can work their way to heaven and why they try to use the Old Testament as a weapon - and also use the New Testament as a weapon. The only time Jesus used the Law as a weapon was against the hypocrite Pharasees when they were ignoring God's intentions. When Christians use the Law to bash gays or anyone else, and when they don't understand that all have sinned, then they are placing themselves under the law and according to the New Testament they will be judged by the law. That's not good for them.

I did not argue that OT laws about homosexuality remain "magically valid" because I don't think that those laws remain magically valid. Like I said, we're not under the law. And I don't think that using the Old Testament to bully anyone is okay. I don't think that the OT is off limits when looking at hypocrites, because they sort of asked for it. But I don't accept the opinion that ALL Christians are hypocrites - at least not in the way that this discussion has implied. In reality we are all hypocrites because it is much easier to see fault in others than in ourselves. However, if we think it is okay to bash hypocrites with the Bible then we are still doing the same thing they are.

I'm not. saying that homosexuality is okay - and you may notice that I actually said nothing about my opinion of homosexuality. What I believe about homosexuality is not what I'm discussing here. Am I whimping out? Yes Definitely - because I don't have an unlimited amount of time to discuss things right now. I have to grade about 50 assignments and figure out if 3 computer science students get to graduate on Saturday. And Bonefish, I still don't think you pointed out inconsistencies in my argument, but you mentioned things I didn't address. I'm sure there are lots of things I didn't address. This isn't a simple topic and using catch phrases or simple explainations do not do the topic justice.
Gotta go. Peace!

@Frankzzz: "Yes people can love the sinner and hate the sin. Do you honestly believe I hate my children if I hate something they do?"

I have no idea what you think of your kids.

But tell me, how can someone say they hate homosexuality, but don't hate someone for whom homosexuality is an inherent part of their makeup? It's like saying someone doesn't hate black people, they just hate people being black.

I'm gay. Being gay is one of the fundamental aspects of who I am. You can't say that being who I am is a sin, and that you hate this fundamental aspect of who I am, and expect me to not see this as hatred against me personally.

And if you are claiming you can, then why can't we say we hate Christianity without you all taking it personally? You act like we shouldn't get upset just because many Christians think it is a sin and disapprove, even though that means that you think we are fundamentally sinful, and that our very relationships are rooted in evil. Yet when we say we don't like Christianity we get jumped on for bashing Christians.

If criticizing Christianity and expressing disdain for it is bashing Christians, then calling homosexuality a sin and expressing negative attitudes towards homosexuality is equally gay bashing.

And yes, when I refer to Christians I am referring to a group. Unless I say "some Christians" in which case I am talking about a sub group. But I don't get what point you were trying to make with the lesson on semantics.

But don't try to keep me from being able to be married, keep me from being free from discrimination, keep me from having protections against being bullied, keep me from having full equality, and then tell me that you (the generalized, plural 'you') don't hate me. It's like the parent who beats his or her child black and blue while telling them that it hurts them more than the child. They are meaningless and empty denials.

If someone says that homosexuality is wrong and rooted in evil and a sin they are saying that my relationship with my spouse is wrong, and rooted in evil, and a sin. And as with most people who are in long term relationships my relationships are a major part of my life and even my identity. You can't attack homosexuality without attacking my relationship. And you can't attack my relationship without attacking me. And if you attack me you are inviting retaliatory, self-defensive counter strikes.

So don't try to tell me you hate my most important relationship, my fundamental sexual nature, and say it is sinful, and then claim to love me. Doing that is... what was that word again?... Oh yea, Bullshit!!!!!

Fortunate
I do understand what you are saying - but I simply disagree. You just blew off my comment about my children but this is very relevant to what you are claiming. Are you telling me you have no one close to you that you love, who does things that you hate? If you make that claim then you are not really close to someone.

The same way I can hate something one of my kids does without hating them, I can also hate the actions of others without hating them. If you think that being gay is the only thing that defines you, then I think you are selling yourself short and ignoring a lot of yourself. We are all complicated beings and although I take pride in being a father, I am also a lot more than that. I do realize that we decide how we "want" to be define, but we are still much more than that.

And it's not semantics when you say e word "Christians" and attack the whole group of Christians. I've never even posted what I actually think of gays, but I am a Christian and when you insult all Christians, you insult me.

I do think you could say you hated the actions of Christians but don't hate the people, but that has not actually been stated that way here. Instead it is Chriistians this and Christians that. You don't even bother to say "some Christians". I have known several gays that were criminals. If I simply said that gays were criminals, are you telling me I wouldn't catch a bunch of crap?

You want all the benefit of the doubt while you give none. And if you simp,y address the first point I said about my children then you will have your answer about me. Instead you bailed with a lame comment that you have " no idea of what I think of my kids." You want an honest discussion of do you want to play games?

@ Frankzzz

Please pardon my rudeness for interrupting. But I, perhaps wrongly, see a parallel conversation happening between you and our Fortunate.

You are saying that your love for your children is greater than their choice to steal a pack of gum. Yes? Your love for them does not disappear if on out of frustration hits the other. Yes? In my lame examples your children made a choice in their behavior. Yes? And the choice they made and their actions are what you hate. Yes?

Fortunate is saying that he is gay. Being gay is like being 6'6" tall like my husband. Being gay is like having blue eyes. Being gay is like being hearing impaired like my daughter. Being gay is like bring straight. Things like height, eye color, hearing impairments, and who we find ourselves romantically and sexually attracted to are not choices we get to make. They are intrinsic parts of who we are.

So your point that I can love my daughter and hate that she pinched a pack of gum works. I can be highly disappointed and deeply saddened by her choice to steal. I can say that I love her and I hate stealing. Yes? But, I would be a cruel mother to tell her that I love her, but I hate hearing impairment. Yes? She cannot choose to become hearing impaired. She cannot choose to not be hearing impaired. Being hearing impaired is part of who she is. Fortunate is telling you that he did not choose to be gay. Thus he cannot choose not to be gay.

We humans have many choices in life, but how we are made is not one of them.

Many Christians choose to believe that Fortunate could choose who he finds himself romantically and sexually attracted to. Just like he could choose to swip a pack of gum or not. And, unfortunately many Christians refuse to acknowledge that same-sex attractions are found in other animal species, they choose to ignore the input of science of how being gay is something that develops in utero, and most importantly they choose to ignore the testimonies of those who are gay. Too many Christians choose to think that every person is just like them and because they don't find themselves romantically or sexually attracted to someone of the same gender than it is impossible for it to be anything but a choice to be gay. Granted there are also some Christians who recognize that being romantically and sexually attracted to someone of the same gender is not a choice, but engaging in a relationship is choice and the only option for gays is to be celibate and alone. To me that is exceedingly cruel. Of course, I'd be remiss to not acknowledge individuals like myself who do not believe that either being gay or that love between LGBT people, in and of iitself, is necessarily any less moral than is heterosexual love. The argument that homosexual love is a sin is a subjective opinion and not an objective truth. Some Christians agree, myself included, believe through scholarship that the Bible does not, in fact, obligate Christians to believe that being gay is a sin or any less moral than being straight is. Therefore the present use of the Bible as justification to condemn and legally restrict LGBT members of society and their families is a misuse of it, just like the Bible was once used by some Christians to justify slavery and to imply that women were second-class citizens to weak and simple-minded to be given the right to vote. To claim the Bible is justification is again a subjective opinion and a choice. A choice that us deserving of criticism, in my opinion. And condemnation of LGBT people is a choice, an ignorant choice, and is also deserving of criticism, in my opinion.

Again, I'm sorry for stepping into your conversation with Fortunate. And, I'm sorry if I have misrepresented either your or Fortunate's views. I shall quietly step out.

Good luck on your dialogue.

Kind regards.

And, please pardon my numerous typos. I am visually impaired, legally blind, and sometimes my best efforts are not sufficient. I was born this way and surgical correction is not an option. And if someone was to say to me that they love me but hate visually impaired people. I'm afraid that I would believe they hated me despite all their proclamations that they loved me. I cannot choose to not be visually impaired or repent of it. I am visually impaired.

Christianity has always been an insidious and opportunistic religion, telling people what they want to hear, playing fast and loose with the Law, and co-opting indigenous and pagan traditions, all for the sake of the ultimate goal: popularity.

And where these tactics failed, its followers turned to insufferable evangelic threats, missionaries and inquisitions.

Nice way to win a popularity contest.

This is why I love Kim. She is endlessly patient. Seriously, remembering her and Venomlash and CbytheSea, etc is what's keeping my head from exploding. This whole kerfuffle has to have been particularly hard on them. They are devout people, and to have it coming at them from both sides must be shredding. That Kim and other Sloggers of faith haven't once said to the rest of us "Ouch" while we have been fighting the loons is a testament to what their faith gives them and should make these invading ass hats ashamed of themselves.

Frankzzz:"You just blew off my comment about my children but this is very relevant to what you are claiming."

No, I'm not blowing it off. My reply was serious and honest. You are trying to suggest that a parent will not hate their child when the child does something they don't like. But I know more gay people than I can count who have been kicked out of their families, some even physically abused by their parents, and told never to speak to them again, just for being gay.

So no, I don't know how you feel about your children. I don't assume that a parent always loves their child no matter what because I have see evidence that some parents can hate their children who do things that they don't like.

But Kim pretty much nails it. Being gay isn't like stealing, or lying, or any other insulting comparison. Being gay is part of who you are.

I never said I defined myself only through being gay, so I don't know where you got that idea from. But being gay is one of the fundamental aspects of who I am. ONE of them, but fundamental still.

Our sexuality is a filter through which we interact with the world and other people. Being gay is not all there is to me, but it does influence many other aspects of me. It can't be ignored, boxed away, or excised. A person's sexuality influences much of their life, just as other aspects of them do. But these things can't be segregated out or isolated, although that is how many anti gay people like to refer to it. As if it is some insignificant part of us that we should just ignore.

So Kim is right. When you equate being gay with stealing you are suggesting that it is something that we should just chose not to be. And if you try to redefine being gay to behaviors what you are saying is that gay people should just give up on love and happiness.

That is not something that can be so flippantly equated with not stealing or some other similar lame comparison.

So when someone says they hate my being gay they are not just talking about some single action I engage in. They are saying they hate the fact that I am in a long term, loving relationship with another man. They are saying that they want me be to be single, lonely and unhappy. They are saying they hate something fundamental about me, because while being gay isn't the only aspect to my being, like all the other aspects they work together to make me who I am, and you couldn't excise the "gay" from me without fundamentally changing the person who is "me".

You can't white wash that away.

You said: " You don't even bother to say "some Christians"."

This is either a lie or you simply didn't read what I wrote with care. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't trying to intentionally misrepresent what I wrote.

I wrote:

"Many Christian think it makes them humble if, after judging others, they add in that although homosexuals are sinners if they act on their natures, we are all sinners equally. They think that this makes them non-judgmental. But they are wrong."

Note the "many", not "all"?

I wrote:

" I can't speak for all Christians, but most Christians I have known I have no doubt they do, indeed, think they are better."

See the "most Christians I know", and not "all" being used there?

I wrote:

"A Christian who doesn't think they are better than others does not try to force others to their way of being."

See how this doesn't say that all Christians do this, but rather this is how you can tell if the Christian you are dealing with is one of the Christians who does?

So I still don't get your point. I clearly peppered my comments with these specifically to acknowledge that I wasn't talking about all Christians. Somehow you seem to have missed that. I am willing to accept that you made an honest mistake if you stop claiming I didn't put these qualifiers in what I wrote, which there for all to see for themselves if they wish.

@Frankzzz: As a parent, I think I understand what you are trying to convey WRT children and their actions. However, to me, 'hate' is far too strongly negative a word to describe how I feel towards my children's actions, and honestly, I cannot understand how a person *can* 'hate' the actions of a person they truly love - unless those actions have caused serious suffering to someone else.

Of course I do have negative feelings when my children do things which I regard to be wrong. Those feelings include embarrassment, frustration, irritation, anger and concern for their future. But I would never categorize them as 'hate'. Perhaps if my child was an active paedophile, a torturer or a murderer, then I would 'hate' their actions. But honestly, I think it would take that much.

When you say that Fortunate is selling themself short, I think perhaps you may not understand how much the society we live in *forces* LGBT people to live as though their relationships and orientation are, in fact, the most significant part of them, and certainly the part that they have to think about the most, on a daily basis.

I'm assuming here (perhaps wrongly) that you have never had to fight for the freedom to express your heterosexuality; have never deeply loved a partner you did not have the legal right to marry; have never been refused marriage rites by your minister, simply because your relationship is heterosexual; have never been taunted or told you are evil just because of who you love; have never had a parent beat you, throw you out of your home penniless or refuse to speak to you for years, simply because of who you love; have never been rejected by long-term friends when they found out you were heterosexual.

I'm assuming that you feel free to hold your wife's hand when you walk down the street, or to kiss her goodbye in public, secure in the knowledge that this simple act is highly unlikely to end with both of you being beaten to a pulp or murdered.

I'm assuming you don't have to worry about how to meet your spouse's hospital bills, since she is on your insurance; don't have to panic about whether she will be OK financially after you die, since she is automatically your heir and there are no family members who would argue that she has no right to inherit your property; and that when she is in hospital, nobody will try to stop you visiting her, or speak to you disrespectfully when they realise that your spouse is the opposite sex to yourself. I'm assuming that you don't have to worry, when you leave that hospital, whether your spouse may be treated less well by the nurses now that they know she is heterosexual. I'm assuming that you are secure in the knowledge that, should your spouse die, you will, of course, continue to have custody of the children of your heart, whom you have raised for years.

I'm assuming you have never met someone who is easy to get along with, who you think could be a real friend, and then suddenly realised that you have to 'come out' to them, and they may not like you when you do, regardless of how well you got along together before.

I'm guessing you don't face personal rejection on a daily basis, not for anything you have done to those who reject you, or for any injury you have done to anybody else, but just for being who you are.

I'm guessing you don't have to think carefully before deciding whether to wear your favourite clothes, because those clothes could get you killed.

I hope you can come to truly understand how the orientation of an LGBT person comes to dominate their life, because of the many, daily, obstacles they face, and how completely unavoidable that is, when everything around you reinforces the idea that you do not belong, you are alien, because of this one, simple thing about you.

In an equal world, in a world *without* 'hate' either for people or for actions, it would be possible for an LGBT person to say, along with you, that their orientation is just a part of them, and not the most important part at that. But in the world we live in, where LGBT people know that to hold hands with the people they love in public is to take a personal, and perhaps terminal, risk, that is simply not possible.

154 - Mr. Horton, you asked, "Do you vote for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage? Or do you support the rights of GLBT people?" I think a key to this argument is how do you define "rights"? Mirriam Webster defines it as "legally or morally exactable". Legally exactable in a representative republic such as the U.S. simply depends on the will of the people. If we look at it as "morally exactable" then is it moral? And then what defines moral and immoral? If you say that I am not for LGBT "rights" by allowing gay marriage then you are denying my the ability to define what I view as moral and immoral. But in America we are free to decide for ourselves what is moral and what is immoral are we not? What I find interesting among liberal arguments is how they can tell everybody to stay out of their lives but are constantly demanding to delve into what their opponents have decided is moral or immoral. Is not the creation of a system of morality a deeply personal held viewpoint? But the gay community that claims to be so open-minded and loving cannot comprehend that a thinking, intelligent person may actually follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and make decisions of morality on that basis. That seems very close-minded and bigoted to me. But marriage is not a "right". I have the right to fall in love but I don't have the right to marry the person I fall in love with. Marriage requires the consent of two people and therefore can not be by definition an individual right. If the person I love does not love me back are they denying me my "right" to marry them? Of course not. I have the right to speak my mind. I have the right to believe whatever it is I want to believe. I do not have the "right" to get married.

As far as marriage is concerned I struggle to understand why the gay community would want to be married? Do you want to be subjected to the marriage penalty in the tax code? I've known plenty of heterosexuals who made a mess of their lives because they entered into a legal contract of marriage and regret doing so. I've had this discussion with my sister, who disagrees with me, multiple times and she's made arguments such as, "Gay people cannot visit their partners in hospitals or make medical decisions for them the way that a married couple can." I'm not a lawyer but I would imagine that there are legal recourses around that such as a simple POA with defined limits. Regardless the argument is not with the legal definition of marriage but with hospital policies. Introduce a law forcing hospitals to give gay partners the same powers that married couples have and I'll be all for it. Changing the definition of a societally accepted institution that's been around for thousands of years is a slippery slope. Furthermore do you deny Mormons or Muslims the "right" to marry as many women as they want or do you see a potential problem with that? What about children? Do you deny them the "right" to get married? Should we have 6 years old pledging to love and honor till death do us part? Do you deny a 30 year old man the "right" to marry a 10 year old girl or boy? What if my neighbor demands the "right" to marry his dog? In the end I would imagine that you would place limits on who has the "right" to marry and I would not consider you a hypocrite for doing so even if your own argument and statements would.

Finally, it is not the Christian Conservatives that are "passing laws". The law defining marriage has been in place since the founding of this country and it is those on the left that are passing legislation to change that, not my side. You stated, "While it would sure be nice for you to stop passing judgment on whom they choose to love, the real battle is for you to stop passing laws that interfere with their health and safety." I do not pass judgement on who you can love. You are free to love whomever you want. I am curious to find out why you feel the need for a legal document in order to love someone though? You even said previously in your post that you don't need my blessing so I'm conflicted, do you need it or not? Furthermore the whole "don't judge me" argument is ridiculous. If by saying I disagree with you means that I am judging you then we need to have a discussion on rhetoric and not gay marriage. And if you still feel that way then don't judge me for excercising the right to believe what I want to believe. Neither is the law "interfering with [your] health and safety". If marriage is a requirement for health and safety there are a lot of sick and unsafe single people out there.

Megaera,
Again, I never said my orientation is the most important part of me.

Sexual orientation, anyone's be they straight, gay, bi or what ever, is a fundamental part of who they are and it informs all the parts of them. Sexual orientation isn't something that sits in a little box in your brain separated from all the other parts of you. There are many parts of you that, if changed, would change the fundamental nature of who you are, and sexual orientation is just one, but no less important.

You are right in that straight people often don't have to think about it because they have the luxury of not thinking about. But it isn't that gay people are forced to consider sexual orientation the most significant part of us.

I think most of us recognize the place it plays in our lives better than many straight people might, but in the end our sexual orientation is no more and no less important a part of our lives than a heterosexuals. I just think that most gay people recognize that it isn't insignificant or incidental to who we are the way that many heterosexuals seem to, because they never had to truly experience denying that part of themselves and seen the effect of doing that has on their lives.

I found your comments about kids interesting. Not having kids myself I found it an easy to understand distinction between feeling negative and hating something. That said, plenty of parent do hate their kids. It is sad but true.

The difficulty is in trying to put this all on the other foot so people can see what it is like to be on the receiving end of all this.

I guess the best I can do is to suggest that straight people who claim to hate homosexuality but not homosexuals try to imagine how it would feel if someone actively and convincingly told them that they hated their marriage, and the fact that they were married to their spouse, and had children with them. That they didn't hate them as people, but that all the most important and significant things in their lives (and I think most people would count their spouse and children as at least among the most important things in their lives) were detestable to them, if they would really accept the idea that these people loved them.

Because here is the thing. Intention is irrelevant. Hate and love both have little to do with intention and everything to do with effect. We like to couch them in terms of being feelings, but they are more importantly actions. Love and hate are as much, if not more so, about how we treat each other and what effect our actions have on another. And people can pat themselves on the back all they want for not feeling hate, but when they act in ways that cause others harm unnecessarily, and that make people feel like crap, that is hate regardless of what is going on in that person's head and feelings.

That's what the Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner line of thinking has on gay people. You can't say you love me if you are harming me. I don't care what is going on in your head. And that is what Frankzzz doesn't seem to get. You can't insult my relationships and expect me not to take it personally. You can't interfere in my life in a negative way without me viewing you in a negative way. Anyone who can't see that has drunk the koolaid.

Exodus 23:9 for those Christians in Arizona - "Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."

@Fortunate
Thanks for your reply. I'm afraid I didn't actually see your last-but-one post before I posted mine: I had written most of it when my mum phoned for a lengthy chat about her memoir, and I completed and posted it later. (My (Christian) mum is still talking to me, but she won't talk to, or about, my partner of 3 years, which makes our conversations rather one-sided...)

At any rate, I only read your post after I had posted mine, and of course it made my post redundant (especially since you made a much more salient point than mine!). So, my apologies. I can see how it seemed that I was speaking for you, when you are clearly more than capable of speaking for yourself. Mostly, I guess, I was speaking from my own pain, and the pain I have seen in the LGBT community online, particularly in the States.

I keep hoping to find a way to reach the depths of empathy that I hope most phobic Christians - in common with most other humans - have within them. There must *be* a way to get people to look outside of themselves and understand the experiences of others, mustn't there? But clearly, I need to work on that in myself, too. :P Please forgive the intrusion.

It's interesting how many posts discuss slavery two thousand years ago with the tone that they are experts on the subject. Regardless, the concept that the Bible does not ever specifically call slavery bad means that it must accept it as being legitimate. Fair enough. How many posts here have spoken up against the kidnapping of young girls and boys in Asia who are sold as sex slaves today not two thousand years ago? How many people in this thread have even read about the slavery that is going on today and written a letter to the editor, posted on facebook or commented on the situation anywhere online or in public? Are you all then in favor of the sex slave trade that is going on now? How many of you have put bumber stickers on your car next to the rainbow flags and the Tibet stickers to speak out about the current sex slave trade? Anyone... anyone? Now then, would I be justified to assume that you all support this current attrocity? No, I wouldn't. However there are multiple Christian organizations with committed Christians out there that are risking their lives to stop this horrid attrocity. And they're not doing it because they hate gays but because they love Jesus. What are you doing? Whining about why you can't get married to your life partner. Nice...

No need to apologize. I found your thoughts interesting.

I think the only thing that really reaches people is to put a face on the issues. It is easy for people to do things like call us sinners, or deny us rights, when we are some abstract concept to them.

It is when we force them to recognize the harm they are doing to real people that it kicks in people's empathy. People can be cold and calculating when they are dealing with a political question. When that political question starts to negatively impact the lives of people they know and can see then that can change everything.

I love people who try to claim Biblical inerrancy and then talk about how you're going to a Hell that was created by a 15th-century Italian poet.

"Now then, would I be justified to assume that you all support this current attrocity?"

No. But then, unlike the Bible, we are not actively telling slaves to submit to their masters, giving instructions on how to sell people, or giving people directions on how to properly beat their slaves.

The Bible doesn't condone slavery just because it doesn't clearly condemn it. It condones it because it actively condones it. It tells you how to treat slaves and it tells slaves, blatantly, that they should be content with their lot.

"And they're not doing it because they hate gays but because they love Jesus. What are you doing? Whining about why you can't get married to your life partner."

You have no idea what others are doing.

First, what a crock that just because there are great atrocities in the world people shouldn't fight for their rights? Black people in the US were fighting for their lives while people starved in Africa. Would you have suggested they should have stayed in the back of the bus until world hunger was solved? Of course not.

The fight for marriage equality has nothing to do with the salve trade. But your assumption that the people you don't like do nothing else for anyone is biased. You also neglect that many gay people are members of churches, going out and helping people.

Your holier than thou attitude very much supports the things I have been saying, so thanks. The judgment is just dripping off your post.

It's great that there are churches out there fighting the slave trade. But if they are also hating on gay people that doesn't give them a pass. They get a thumbs up for fighting slavery and a thumbs down for oppressing gay people. You don't get a free pass on the bad you do just because you did other good.

If you want to be considered good then be good to everyone.

Would you like a gold star, Tim1584?

Considered yourself awarded one.

And. Yes. One can support and advocate for multiple causes at the same time.

You wouldn't wish to stop making assumptions, would you? You come across a tad judgmental and sanctimonious. And, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you really intended to emphasize how important this issue is to you. It is an important issue and worthy of your support. I hope you continue.

Dear Tim1584,

I would respectfully suggest that you stop with hyperbole. And stop with blanket statements of what people think about on anything but your own opinion on a subject. I'd also respectfully suggest that you learn to accept that everyone does not reach the same conclusion, nor are they morally obligated to accept your opinion as truth on any subject including the Bible. I'd also suggest you take the chip off your shoulder that comes across in your writing, but, alas, I think you enjoy it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt
and you, by your writing style, appear to be determined to show me that you're an assumptive, judgmental, and prideful person.

I would also respectfully suggest that you pay close attention to the words "in the" within Dan's statements about the Bible, because he didn't call the Bible bullshit. Others did. Try and remember that opinions are like hearts and everyone has their own.

I disagree that being gay, in and of itself, is anymore sinful than being straight. And, I do not agree that the Bible obligates me to believe so.

If you want to continue to expend both your emotional and intellectual energy playing apologetics over slavery in the Bible. Please continue, but you will be addressing yourself. It is obvious, to me, that it is important that you believe that the Bible does not condone slavery and it just provided guidelines on how to treat slaves in a fallen world. You clearly need to believe that. I don't. I've read the Bible myself, numerous times, and co-wrote studies for a Protestant evangelical ministry.

As to your fondness for shellfish. I don't care either way. I have no desire to call you names over it. Allowing a piece of text tell you what you can or cannot do is your business. If you are not at peace about it than I'll offer you my sympathies. I hope you can reconcile it if it troubles you.

Good luck with your efforts to bring an end to the sex trade. We can both work to make real changes without agreeing on other subjects. To fight against injustice is honorable, in my opinion.

Kind regards. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Fortunate

My appologies. No, I'm afraid I didn't notice that you qualified you statement son Chrisitans seval times. This wasn't intentional or careless. I currently use my iPad when I am at home, and I have to scroll back and forth when looking at comments and posting my own. Also your original response to me did say "If Christians don't want non-Christians to...they should.." and other statements that weren't qualified. I wasn't trying to be selective in what I was responding to - those comments probably drew my attention more quickly.

One thing that this makes me realize though, is how utterly difficult it is to discuss some things - especially on line. I try to be very careful when I make statements so I don't inadvertently attribute actions to all of some group. You likewise, shouldn't have to walk on eggshells to have a conversation. Unfortunately, our society has got to the point where it is easy for people to really misunderstand someone's intention - and this is probably due to the actions of haters that are constantly on the loose.

It's also due to this technology which is both a blessing and a curse. I pretty much hate computers even though I am an academic advisor in a computer science department and teach computer science course. I'm just a peon - not a faculty member.

Anyway I do appreciate you effort to explain things to me. And I do understand what you mean when you say that being gay is who you are. (not sure if that was your exact words). I don't know if I can clarify my thoughts, but I'll try. As far as hating the sin and loving the sinner : People who say they hate your actions, but not you are not looking at you actions as being part of you, even if you define yourself in this manner. That being the case, can you then understand that they can in fact hate your actions and still love you, because they are making a distinction that you aren't? If they agreed that your actions were an intricate part of you, then they wouldn't be able to say that.

@186- off topic and blatantly fallacious. No one here is endorsing slavery of any kind, and our words about ancient slavery are in response to blatantly inaccurate statements from an email quoted in the original post. Also, no one here is bashing Christians who are out there helping the poor and oppressed. We're bashing those Christians who use their faith as a lame excuse to bash gays. If you stopped gay bashing and used your time and energy helping the poor and oppressed, we wouldn't have a problem with you.

Kim
Sorry about your eyes. My eyesight sucks pretty bad but isn't as bad as yours. After years of doctors telling me that it was just allergies, they finally discovered that I have an irregular astigmatism that can't be corrected by glasses because of something to do with the distance between the lens and my eyes. Contacts fix me right up, but I have a lot of irritation with my eyes, which are allergies and I can't stand to wear contacts sometimes. I do a lot of typos and people usually make fun of me. Then I reply and ask them how is that English degree working out - which usually results in more insults - from English teachers.

Anyway, thanks for your comments.
You guys are helping me look at thongs differently. No not thongs - things. Damn eyes!

I would like to respond to your comments about choices, but if I tried right now, I would not be able to explain myself well - because that is a completely different discussion that would take me a whike t get into.

The biggest issue that I have about any of what you guys have said is that if I say "I don't believe being gay is a choice", no matter what my actions actually are, I beleive the response would be that I am a closed minded Christian and a horrible person because of my beliefs. In that respect, I think my right to my own beliefs is being disregarded. I think that is very much like me saying gays have no right to believe certain things. I may disagree, but I would never claim gays had no right to believe what they want to, I think this may be what Tim is trying to say, but I'm not sure. I am going on about 1/3 of the sleep I need for the last 3 days and your West Coast time doesn't help. The first time I posted a comment here - a few days ago - I thought it was about 2:00 am because of the timestamp on the comment, then I looked at the time and couldn't figure out how I lost 3 hours. It took me two days to figure it out, Duh!

As far as what Megaera said about hate being too strong a word for reefing to actions:
I guess I can see that when people deal with real haters a lot. While I'm not claiming to have gone through what people here have experienced, I can tell you that I do have to worry about what I say. Even though I work at a university in the South, it really is a very liberal place and I do worry about how some of my coworkers view me and get offendEd just by me being a Christian. I honestly don't shove it in anyone's face, but that doesn't really matter to some people. I am inherently evil because I am a Christian. It's not a big deal what they think about meas a person, but I worry more what they think of Christians.

Even though there are different aspects about the intensity of the word hate, I really do "hate" some of the actions of my oldest son and in this case, it is a pretty strong hate. I hate (with a passion) that he is wasting his abilities and hate even more that my wife and I are largely responsible. Too much to explain well, but it's not one of those cases where I'm an unreasonable dad who wants my 21 year old son to be perfect. He is extremely smart, but extremely lazy, and always has an excuse. It's usually the professors fault. Those damn professors always give him bad instructions, badly word exams and quizzes, expect too much, or have an accent that he can't understand. I don't care if he is a mechanic, a farmer, an artist, or a doctor. But I really hate to see him waste opportunities to succeed at whatever he wants, and I worry that unless and until he stops blaimng everyone else, he will succeed at nothing. He has a lot of wonderful traits, but his tendency to blame everyone else dominates his life. My health is not good and I worry what will happen to him if I die soon.

I also have an 18 year old son who had/has learning disabilities (tourette's and dislexia) hates school and has a 3.7 GPA in high school. By the way, he is also very doubtful about Christianity, "hates" the concept of hell, but has the best work ethic of anyone I know. He is iin excellent phisical condition because of his self-discipline. Him, I'm not too worried about, because I believe that anyone who honestly searches for truth will find it. Just told you about this one to show you I'm not an unreasonable republican (not any kind of republican) who expects my oldest son to do things just to suit me. I also have a 16 year old son and a 9 year old daughter. Just told you that because it's part of who I am - and I'm very proud of all my kids, even the slack one.

Maybe this is TMI. I don't know if this illustrates what I mean when I use the word "hate" in refering to actions, but still loving the person.

I do enjoy discussing things with you all. I think if people thoughtfully discuss issues, it helps them to reexamine and refine their beliefs.

Dan, maybe you were a bit hard on those kids; after all you are the grown up. I'm sure you've given that lots of thought by now. However, you are dead right that the book suggests a checklist that (almost) no modern person would adhere to. Christians are picking and choosing what to follow, which makes the choice to hate just that: a choice. You're right on, if occasionally in-eloquent, and the thinkers out here know it.

"The biggest issue that I have about any of what you guys have said is that if I say "I don't believe being gay is a choice", no matter what my actions actually are, I beleive the response would be that I am a closed minded Christian and a horrible person because of my beliefs."

I think you meant "I do believe being gay is a choice". If you didn't believe being gay is a choice that would be in line with what we are saying.

Here is the real problem. Claiming someone being gay is a choice isn't just a matter of opinion. It is either true or it isn't. Now who knows better if it is a choice, you are a gay person?

Because if you say being gay is a choice to a gay person who says that they didn't choose it then you are saying you know them better than they know themselves, and that their experiences aren't valid.

You don't get to decide that other people's experiences aren't true.

Do I get to say that you don't really believe in Christianity because no one really does, and that it is just a compensation method for dealing with trauma? Would you not take umbrage at that?

Sorry, but you don't get to have the right to be unchallenged about your beliefs when those beliefs attempt to completely negate the personal experiences of the people you are talking about.

Futunate:
You didn't say exactly what I predicted, but not too far off. Kinda ironic - maybe I have more sense than you give me credit for.

You are doing exactly what you claim I am doing - negating my personal experiences I have had through Christianity. You can't just let me believe what I have chosen to believe, because my choice offends you.

Even if I don't directly insult you or attack you in any way. How is that different from gay bashers who want to force you to abide by their beliefs?

I have already seen it posted here many times, that Christians shouldn't be allowed to believe what they chose (I'm paraphrasing). Christianity should come to an end, etc. That is called hypocrisy, no matter how you word it. You believe that you have the right to your own set of morals, but are intolerant of mine,

You claim that gays know best about gays. But that gays also know best about Christians. If you can't see the attitude of superiority, prejudice and intolerance in that, then I don't know what to say, I truly believe that intolerance only leads tp more intolerance. There are certainly intolerant (so-called) Christians that bring out anger in others. I believe that intolerance towards Christians also brings out anger in response. If you expect Christians to just say, "yes you are so much more
superior than me" and to abandon their faith, then your expectations are unrealistic. What happens in five years when Christians don't change their beliefs to suit you. More insults? More attacks? What do you think the results will be? When will it stop? Is this what everyone wants?

Ean

You are partially right. The Bible suggests a checklist (you word not mine), the Law, which No person COULD adhere to. That was the whole purpose of the Old Covenant - to show us that we cannot have salvation through our own actions. The New Covenant shows us we can have salvation through the grace of Christ Jesus.

@200: No person can adhere perfectly to Mosaic Law. (Disregarding, of course, that many of the 613 commandments require the existence of the Temple.) This is because humans are imperfect.
We Jews believe that our sins will be weighted against our own merits and mitzvot, not against the sacrifice of someone else. And I personally consider this to be the biggest theological issue with Christianity: that someone else can atone for an individual's sins. It removes individual responsibility and opens the door to careless transgression. According to Maimonides, a sin committed with the expectation that God will forgive it will not be forgiven.

Where does the scriptures say your sins are weighted against your merits?

Venomlash
If someone believes that they only need to do more good stuff than bad stuff:
1) how could anyone have any idea what their standing is?
2) this could lead to careless transgressions based on the belief you can later make amends by working the soup kitchen an extra day.

I am not mocking your belief. The new testament also speak against "continuing in sin" or sinning with the belief that it's no big deal because you will be forgiven.

Hebrews 10:26-27
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice of sins is left But only a fearful expectation of judgement And of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.